HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUNCAL COMPANIES-HAMPTON VILLAGE01 SunCal Companies
October 2, 2007
VL4 HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: Anneal of Planning Commission Denials for Hampton Village
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing on behalf of SunCal-Browning LLC ("SunCal"), the applicant with
respect to the Hampton Village project (the "Project") located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue
and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue in the City of Tustin (the "Project Site"). This letter
shall serve to appeal the recent actions of the City of Tustin Planning Commission with
respect to the Project applications for ConditionalUse Permit 06-024 (the "CUP'),
Design Review 06-020, Tentative Tract Map No. 17096 (the "TTM"), and Zone Change
06-002 (collectively, the "Project Applications'). The grounds in support of SunCal's
appeal are discussed below.
The Project Site is currently developed with 60 units of antiquated multifamily
housing known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. SunCal has proposed to replace this
aging apartment complex with 77 attached town home units of multifamily "for sale"
housing, which results in an additional 17 units over the current housing on the site.
Current zoning with respect to the Property is R-4 (Suburban Residential), allowing a by -
right utilization of the site for up to 60 units. SunCal has filed the Project Applications in
order to increase the unit count from that currently permitted to 77 units, an increase of
only 17 units, in order to assure the economic feasibility of the proposed project. SunCal
is committed to developing a project that will enhance the community and provide
additional high-quality home ownership opportunities in the City.
The Project was endorsed by City staff upon application because of the
revitalization nature of the Project, particularly, the replacement of aging and dated
multifamily apartment project with new "for sale" home ownership opportunities. City
staff issued its staff report recommending approval at the August 2e and
September II"' Planning Commission meetings.
On September 25, 2007, the Planning Commission for the City denied the Project
Applications, adopting resolutions denying the CUP and Design Review, and
recommending denial of the TTM and Zone Change. The Planning Commission also
found that the Project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") based on its denials.
SunCal believes the Planning Commission's actions to be inconsistent with the
City's General Plan and applicable laws. SunCal believes the Planning Commission did
not properly take into account the General Plan of the City, the extensive environmental
review given to the Project, the existing use of the property and the existing zoning which
expressly allows multifamily residential housing adjacent to the existing single family
residential housing, and the City Council's desire to revitalize aging and dated buildings
with high quality "for sale" housing projects.
SunCal is appealing the Commission's actions
denial adopted by the Planning Commission focus on
areas; namely (1) General Plan consistency; (2)
surrounding uses; and (4) traffic circulation and parking
L General Plan Consistency
as a whole. The resolutions of
alleged conflicts in four specific
density; (3) compatibility with
SunCal believes the Project is entirely consistent with the City's General Plan.
For instance, the Project achieves consistency with the City's Land Use Element goals
and policies by:
• Providing for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing
and future needs for housing;
• Preserving the low density quality of the City's existing single-family
neighborhoods, while permitting compatible multi -family development to
meet regional housing needs;
• Revitalizing older residential uses and properties;
• Improving urban design to ensure development that is both architecturally
and functionally compatible and to create unique identifiable
neighborhoods; and
• Encouraging high quality design and physical appearance in development
projects in the City.
In addition, the Project achieves consistency with the City's Housing Element
goals and policies by:
• Providing an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of
housing types and diverse socio-economic needs;
• Promoting cluster housing development consistent with the City's high
density residential land use designation for the site;
• Increasing the percentage of ownership housing;
• Encouraging new housing construction for home ownership in a mixture
of price ranges;
• Ensuring that new housing is sensitive to the existing environment; and
• Locating new housing in proximity to services and employment centers
and thereby enabling walking or bicycling to places of employment.
In summary, the City's General Plan calls for a well balanced land use pattern and
a variety of housing types. The Commission's belief that the Project must be "consistent
with existing single story ranch style architecture characteristics of the area" is
inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The facts show that
this Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and would help to achieve the
goals and policies contained within the City's Land Use and Housing Elements.
II. Dens'
The Project Applications propose densities which, are consistent with the land use
designation for the Project site under the City's existing General Plan. The City's current
land use designation for the site is High Density Residential, which allows for a density
of 15-25 dwelling units per acre ("du/acre") or a maximum of 100 units. The requested
zone change seeks to re -zone the site from R-4 (Suburban Residential, which also allows
for multi -family) to R-3 (Multi -family Residential), which would be consistent with the
City's General Plan.
If approved, the proposed zone change would allow for a maximum density of 25
du/acre, which is within the current land use designation parameters. Therefore, the
proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed density for the
Project is 18.7 du/acre, which is below the maximum density allowed for under the
existing land use designation. The existing zoning at the Project site allows for a
maximum density of 14.5 du/acre, which is less than the minimum density allowed for
under the City's current General Plan. Therefore, requested zone change would bring the
zoning for the Project site into compliance with the General Plan.
Further, the Planning Commission's concern that the proposed zone change could
lead to a higher density project in the future is not warranted. By granting the CUP
concurrently with the zone change and imposing a condition on the CUP that limits
development at the site to 77 units (the Project's proposed density), the City Council can
limit the proposed Project, as well as any future development at the site, to 77 units.
Since a CUP runs with the land and is binding on future property owners, the unit cap
would remain valid even if this Project is not implemented.
We also note that several projects have recently been approved in the City with
similar densities and characteristics to the Project. Those projects include, but are not
limited to, the Arbor Walk project on Newport Avenue (infill project with approved
density of 19.3 du/acre and 35 -foot building heights), The Cottages on El Camino Real
(infill project with approved density of 18.64 du/acre and 35 -foot building heights), and
Red Hill Townhomes on Red Hill Avenue (infill project with an approved gross density
of 19.8 du/acre and a maximum density of 25 du/acre and 35 -foot building heights).
Based on the foregoing, the Project's proposed density is in fact consistent with
the General Plan.
III. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses
The proposed Project is compatible with surrounding uses based on the City's
General Plan, zoning, and existing surrounding uses. The Project would help to achieve a
balanced community and ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs
at the site, consistent with the City's Land Use Element goals and policies.
The Project site shares its northerly boundary area with a condominium project
and a duplex project. As mentioned previously, the land use designation for the Project
site is High Density Residential. Although the Planning Commission resolutions infer
that the Project is an island in a sea of single-family residential homes, this is simply not
the case.
Although the Commission found that the site is not suitable for a three-story
development, the Project has been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring
residences. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been
designed at two stories. SunCal has additionally offered to eliminate all lofts in those
units adjacent to existing single family dwellings and to increase the northwesterly side
yard setback to 15 feet. This will result in reducing the height of those units from 32 feet
6 inches, to 26 feet 5 inches. Significant landscape screening in the form of trees is
proposed on the westerly and southerly boundaries.
In addition, no balconies will be located within these areas and window openings
are smaller in size and/or are opaque, and are carefully placed to minimize intrusion of
privacy on the adjacent properties. Since similar building height is available to the
adjacent single family homeowners for future additions, the proposed height should be
considered compatible with neighboring developments. Additionally, two-story homes
are located directly across the street to the north from the Project site.
II : Traffic Circulation and Parking
The Commission found the Project to be exempt from CEQA based on its denials
of the Project Applications. Nevertheless, the resolutions denying the Project
Applications allege deficiencies in the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the
4
Project which we believe to be improper. (See, for instance, the 6'h bullet point in section
D of Resolution No. 4066). The Commission's findings in support of its actions are not
supported by facts or evidence, and the MND as drafted by City staff is entirely
appropriate for the Project. As noted by City staff, who prepared the MND for the
Project; the MND fully satisfies the requirements under CEQA, and is supported by
extensive technical studies and thorough investigations which are discussed within, and
are attached to, the MND.
In addition, two supplemental memoranda were prepared by the Project's Traffic
Engineer to specifically address public comments on circulation and parking. Those
memoranda, dated August 24, 2007, and September 11, 2007, are attached hereto. They
concluded that the Project results in no significant impacts to circulation, parking, or the
elementary school. It is also important to note that the Project circulation has been
approved by the Orange County Fire Authority.
The Initial Study (the "IS") for the Project determined that the Project would
cause no impacts relating to (1) levels of service; (2) changes in air traffic patterns; (3)
design features or incompatible uses; (4) emergency access; and (5) existing policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The IS determined that there
could be a `less than significant impact" to parking capacity, and a `less than significant
impact with mitigation incorporation" with regard to vehicle trips.
a. Traffic /circulation
Based on the existing apartment buildings and conditions at the site, the proposed
Project would result in only 17 additional units. A traffic study was performed and
concluded that the Project would generate approximately 334 additional daily vehicle
trips. The study concluded that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the Project
under short-term (2008) and long-term (2025) conditions.
The traffic study included, among other things, peak hour projections, internal
circulation, and proximity to the elementary school. It was determined that the Project
does not create a significant impact under the City's performance criteria. Moreover, the
study and supplemental memoranda concluded that the Project -generated traffic volume
will not create a significant increase in traffic congestion at the school entrance. The
MND further incorporated mitigation measures, including required roadway
improvements on Browning Avenue, implementation of a traffic signage and striping
plan, and a Construction Management Plan which regulates construction access to the
Project site during children's arrival and departure times from the elementary school.
With mitigation, the study determined that traffic impacts would be reduced to a level
less than significant.
No facts or evidence have been provided to support the Commission's finding that
the traffic study is somehow incorrect or inadequate with respect to traffic and circulation
based on the Project's density, site access, or proximity to the elementary school.
b. Parking
The proposed Project exceeds the City's minimum code requirement of 174
spaces by providing a total of 179 spaces (or 2.32 parking spaces per dwelling unit). The
proposed Project includes more onsite parking than the existing apartment complex.
There are currently 111 parking stalls at the site (or 1.85 spaces per unit). The Project
would increase onsite parking from 1.85 spaces per unit to 2.32 spaces per unit.
In addition, all units include a two -car garage and 25 additional guest parking
spaces are included in the Project. The CC&Rs for the Project will only allow for vehicle
storage in the garage spaces. Also, a Waste Management Plan has been incorporated to
minimize parking impacts associated with trash disposal.
The traffic study and supplemental memoranda determined that impacts
associated with parking will be less than significant. No facts or evidence have been
provided to support the Commission's finding that the traffic study is somehow incorrect
or inadequate with respect to parking based on the Project's density, site access, or
proximity to the elementary school.
V. The Tentative Tract Man and Conditional Use Permit
a The Tentative Tract Map
State law provides certain statutory grounds for the denial of a tentative map. For
instance, the City can deny a tentative map if it finds that the map conflicts with the
City's General Plan. In light of all the points discussed above, this is not the case here.
The City can also deny a tentative map if it finds that the site is not physically
suitable for the proposed density of the development. As outlined above in Sections II
("Density") and III ("Compatible Uses'), the proposed density for the Project is
consistent with the land use designation for the site, the requested zone change would
bring the zoning for the Project site into compliance with the General Plan, and the site
borders other multi -family sites and is therefore compatible with surrounding uses.
Other statutory grounds for which the City can deny a TTM include substantial
environmental damage, serious health concerns to the public, conflicts with public and/or
conservation easements, conflicts with agricultural preserves, and water quality
violations. None of these grounds exist, or have been alleged to exist under the proposed
Project.
b. The Conditional Use Permit
The Commission was required to approve the CUP for the Project unless it found
that the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and
general welfare of the neighborhood, or that it will be injurious or detrimental to property
and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. (See Tustin
Municipal Code § 9291(c).)
The Commission supported its denial of the CUP by finding the following: (1) As
proposed, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and three-story
development; (2) Even though the proposed Project is limited to 77 units, rezoning the
property to R-3 would provide for a future development opportunity of up to 100 units if
the Project is not implemented; (3) Approval of a high density project that is not
compatible with the existing community would set a "negative precedent'; (4) The
proposed height, size, and scale of the Project are too large for the site in physical
relationship to the adjacent structures; and (5) The circulation and parking impacts with
respect to density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school
could have a negative impact on the neighborhood.
The above Planning Commission findings are not supported by facts to show that
the Project would be detrimental to the health and safety of the neighborhood, or
injurious to the City. With regard to Finding #1, the Project design and density is
consistent with the existing land use designation, as well as the goals and policies of the
Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The Project is also compatible
with surrounding uses, as it across the street from duplex and multi -family uses. Finding
#2 is easily remedied by imposing a unit cap on the CUP, as discussed in Section II
above. Finding #3 is also not supported by facts in that the existing zoning provides for a
maximum density which is below the minimum allowed under the General Plan, and the
proposed zone change would bring the site into conformance -with the General Plan.
With regard to Finding #4, the Project would help to achieve a balanced
community and ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs at the
site, consistent with the City's Land Use Element goals and policies. Also, the Project
has been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring residences. Units proposed
along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories. As
mentioned previously, SunCal has offered to eliminate lofts from those units which are
adjacent to existing single family dwellings and to increase the northwesterly side yard
setback to 15 feet. Significant landscape screening in the form of trees is proposed on the
westerly and southerly boundaries. In addition, no balconies will be located within these
areas and window openings are smaller in size and/or are opaque, and are carefully
placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent properties. Since similar building
height is available to the adjacent single family homeowners for future additions, the
proposed height should be considered compatible with neighboring development
standards.
As to Finding #5, no evidence has been provided to show that the traffic study is
incorrect. With mitigation, the traffic study and supplemental memoranda concluded that
there would be no significant impacts to traffic circulation or parking as the result of the
Project. It must be emphasized that the proposed Project results in only 17 additional
units to the existing conditions.
In addition to the above findings, the Planning Commission provided additional
facts in support of its belief that the Project is somehow injurious or detrimental to the
community. For instance, in support of its denial, the Planning Commission found that
lofts are included in the Project units which are adjacent to the single family residential
neighborhood. However, SunCal has offered to remove those lofts. The Planning
Commission also found that the Project is "within" a single family neighborhood, which
is also incorrect since the Project is across the street from multi -family uses such as
condominiums and duplexes.
With regard to privacy concerns, the Project is carefully designed to be sensitive
to the existing community and provides for landscape screening, smaller and/or opaque
windows, and no balconies are included on the units adjacent to single family dwellings.
Finally, with regard to setbacks and stepped height design, the Project is designed to
include a wider than required rear setback of 10 feet from the neighboring westerly
properties and 16 feet from the southerly properties. SunCal has additionally offered to
increase the northwesterly side yard setback to 15 feet and to further enhance landscaping
at the westerly and southerly borders. The proposed height of the Project is compatible
with the maximum allowed height for single family residential (R-1), which is 30 feet.
To summarize, the Project design and density is consistent with the General Plan,
the land use designation for the site, and the surrounding uses. The Project furthers the
goals and policies contained in the City's Land Use and Housing Elements, and replaces
an aging apartment building with new upscale multi -family dwellings. No evidence has
been provided to show that the Project will be injurious or detrimental to the
neighborhood or the City. On the contrary, the Project seeks to revitalize the area and
provide new home ownership opportunities in the City.
VI. Conclusions
Based on the Project's consistency with the General Plan and compatibility with
the community, as well as the concessions SunCal has offered with regard to heights,
setbacks, and landscaping, SunCal respectfully requests that the City Council approve the
MND, TTM, and Zone Change, and overturn the Commission's denials of the CUP and
Design Review, and allow for this Project to move forward.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: William Huston, City Manager
Doug Holland, City Attorney
Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director
Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner
0
4VrWAUST/N-FOUST A3SOC/ATES, INC.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANN/NO
TO: Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer of Public Works/Engineering
City of Tustin
FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E.
DATE: August 24, 2007
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO TOBY B. MOORE E-MAIL, DATED AUGUST 22, 2007
The proposed project with its 77 town home unitscompared_with the.existing 60..apartments will
be an additional 27 vehicles per hour (vph) (I8 out and nine in) in the AM peak hour. Presently, there is
864 vph traveling on Browning Avenue at the intersection of Pinebrook Drive in the AM peak hour. This
increase constitutes only a three percent change in the existing traffic in the critical AM peak period when
students are arriving at the Nelson Elementary School. A three percent change is virtually imperceptible
since daily traffic fluctuations of up to 10 percent are routine.
Peak hour traffic counts were specifically obtained on Browning Avenue at Sandfield Place and
at Walnut Avenue. In addition, peak hour volumes were estimated at the Nelson Elementary School
driveway even though this location is below the City's threshold for analysis. Pinebrook Drive, whose
intersection with Browning Avenue is opposite the Nelson Elementary School driveway and its volume
was estimated since this cul-de-sac street serves only 19 residential units with its estimated AM peak
volume of 13 vph (19 DU x 0.67 AM trips/DU).
The proposed project will only add through traffic to this intersection with none expected to tum
into or out of Pinebrook Drive. The school congestion conditions referred to are existing conditions,
which this project's traffic is not expected to change or impact in any significant way, although a worst
case distribution of project trips was assumed with nearly all being assigned to Browning Avenue to/from
Walnut Avenue. In reality, project traffic, particularly during the period of school arrivals, can avoid the
school congestion altogether by using Browning Avenue to the north to Mitchell Avenue rather than
Walnut Avenue. In this case, there will be virtually no impact on the school congestion or Pinebrook
Drive. As a result, the traffic study did not examine Pinebrook Drive since it is a cul-de-sac, which
project traffic will not use, and its traffic volume is quite limited with only 19 homes. Any existing traffic
conditions, as noted by Mr. Moore, will not be significantly effected by the project's minimal (three
1o67o01mm2.dm
2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 • Santa Ana, California 92701-3161
Tel: (714) 667-0496 Fax: (714) 667-7952
www.austinfoust.com
Mr. Terry Lutz, City of Tustin
August 24, 2007
Page 2
percent) increase in through traffic. The study does indicate that "the school driveways are not being
analyzed...," but that is in reference to any existing congestion and/or potential improvements to the
existing school drop-off operation. The impact of the project upon this congestion was evaluated and
concluded to be insignificant with the addition of only seven or eight additional vehicles during the
critical 7:40 AM — 8:00 AM period.
The traffic study did, at the City's request, perform a detailed analysis of the existing school
related congestion in the AM and PM peak hour when children arrive and depart. The results of this
analysis are documented in the report under a section titled "School Impacts." In summary, that analysis
finds this project will add a total of 17 additional vehicles to southbound Browning Avenue during the
entire AM hour. Less than half of these will occur during the critical 20 -minute period (7:40 AM — 8:00
AM) when school congestion is the most serious. The addition of seven or eight more cars to Browning
Avenue in the critical 20 -minute school arrival period is not expected to create any significant increase in
delays.
With respect to parking, the project is exceeding the City's Code of 174 spaces by providing a
total of 179 spaces. The elimination of some existing on -street parking is a safety measure to ensure that
adequate visibility is available to motorists exiting the project's entrance. Further, the on -street parking to
be removed is on the west side of Browning Avenue adjacent to the project entrance and as such is not
expected to have any impact on Pinebrook Drive.
1067001=2.doc
r w�
® WAUST/N-FOUST ASSOC/ATES, INC.
rRAFF/C ENG/NEER/NG AND rRANSPORrAr/ON PLANNING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer of Public Works/Engineering
City of Tustin
FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E.
DATE: September 11, 2007
SUBJECT: BROWNING AND MITCHELL TOWNHOME PROJECT —
SCHOOL TRAFFIC IMPACT SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS
Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) conducted an initial traffic study of the proposed rezone of a
site with 60 apartments on Browning Avenue to 77 townhomes. During the public review of this project,
considerable controversy has arisen over the impact of the increased traffic on existing traffic congestion
created by the public elementary school located directly across from Pinebrook Drive. As a result, AFA
has conducted additional study of that congestion and the potential impact this project will have on it.
It was previously reported the increase in residential units from 60 to 77 will add only 27 cars and
in the critical AM peak hour to Browning Avenue. Further, the critical school arrival period lasts about
20 minutes and this project will add only eight or nine vehicles to Browning Avenue during the morning
arrival. Such an increase (an addition of 27 vehicles per hour (vph) compared with over the 600 vph that
already exist) is not considered to constitute a significant impact. However, to fully quantify the effect,
actual traffic counts and measurements of existing delay during the school arrival at Pinebrook Drive and
Browning Avenue were conducted.
The actual data is attached hereto. Review of this information indicates a total of 56 vehicles
make left turns and another 11 make right turns into Pinebrook Drive from Browning Avenue in the 30
minutes between 7:45 and 8:15 AM. Likewise, 65 vehicles exit Pinebrook Drive during the same period
with virtually all turning right to proceed south on Browning Avenue. The average delay encountered by
the motorists existing Pinebrook Drive is nine seconds whereas the absolute worst case delay is 50
seconds and this worst case only occurred once.
1067001=0.dw
2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 • Santa Ana, California 92701-3161
Tel: (714) 667-0496 Fax: (714) 667-7952
www.austinfoust.com
Mr. Terry Lutz, City of Tustin
September 11, 2007
Page 2
CONCLUSION
These supplemental observations and traffic counts confirm that in fact there is congestion on
Browning Avenue associated with school arrivals and departures. However, the extent of that congestion
last about 30 minutes and the delay in exiting Pinebrook Drive averages nine seconds per vehicle. The
addition of another eight or nine vehicles on Browning Avenue during this critical period will not have
any significant impact.
Lastly, field observation reveals children who live in the surrounding residential area walk to
school escorted by their parents. Many of the children in this new development are expected to do the
same.
Cc: Karen Sully, The Sully Group
1067001mms.dm
APPENDIX
1067001 mm3.dx
A-1
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC.
DELAY SURVEY
LOCATION: PINEBROOK DR
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
STI\�tT�10,
FILENAME: 09702DIA
DAY: MONDAY
DATE: 09/10/07
SUB -TOTAL 1 = 00:10:69
COMMENTS:
461 mc 17Y
A-2
TIME PERIOD;
0730-0830
ARRIVAL
DEPARTURE
DELAY
ARRIVAL
DEPARTURE
DELAY
TIME
TIME
TIME
TIME
TIME
TIME
7:31:43
7:31:46
001.00:03
7:53:20
7:603
00:00:03
7:33:50
7:33:62
00:00:02
7:53:30
7:63:45
00:00:15
7:34:01
7:34:12
00:00:11
7:63:56
7:53:59
00:00:04
7:35:55
7:36:07
00:00:12
7:53:56
7:54:00
00:00:04.
7:37:30
7:37:34
00:00:04
7:54:19
7:54:22
00:00:03
7:37:53
7:38:05
00:00:12
7:54:20
7:64:23
00:00:03
7:38:27
7:38:35
00:00:08
7:54:31
7:54:36
00:00:05
7:38:40
7:38:48
00:00:08
7:54:52
7:54:58
00:00:08
7:39:05
7:39:08
00:00:03
7:65:09
7:65:21
00:00:12
7:39:15
7:39:15
00:00:00
7:55:10
7:65:22
0.0:00:12
7:39:50
7:39:57
00:00:07
7:55:36
7:55:39
00:00:04
7:40:00
7:40:08
00:00:08
7:55:36
7:66:40
00:00:04
7:41:40
7:41:45
00:00:05
7:56:04
7:56:11
00:00:07
7:41:53
7:42:01
00:00:08
7:56:05
7:56:12
00:00:D7
7:42:18
7:42:23
00:00:05
7:66:06
7:66:13
00:00:07
7:42:45
7:42:49
00:00;04
7:56:50
7:56:58
00:00:08
- -7:43:16
7:43:59
00;00 fq*
7:56:51
7:58;59
00:00:08
7:43:18
7:44:00
00:00:44
7:57:19
7:57:23
00:00:04
7:44:69
7:45:02
00:00:03
7:57:20
7:57:24
0.0:00:04
7:45:20
7:45:23
00:00:03
7:57:35
7:57:41
00:00:06
7:45:30
7:45:40
00:00:10
7:57:56
7:58:03
00:00:07
7:48:53
7:46:58
00:00:05
7:59:18
7:59:21
00:00:03
7:47:47
7:47:53
00,00:06
7:59:49
7:59.53
00:00:04
7:47:55
7:48:00
00:00:05
8:00:02
8:00:12
00.00:10
7:48:20
7:48:27
00:00:07
8:0021
8:00:26
00:00:05
7:49:20
7:49:25
00:00:05
8:00:45
8:00:47
00:00:02
7:49:45
7:49:51
00:00:08
8:01:12
8:01:15
00:00:03
7:49:53
7:49:58
00:00:05
8:01:23
8:01:28
00:00:06
7:49:59
7:50:03
00:00:04
1102:10
8:02:16
00:00:05
7:60:05
7:50:66
Nam
8:02:39
&02:44
00:00:05
7:50:06
7:50:56
00:00:50
8:0310
8:03:14
00:00:04
7:51:03
7:51:03.
00:00:00
8:03:31
8:03:44
00:00:13
7:51:09
7:51:13
00:00:04
8:03:32
8:03:45
00:00:13
7:51:10
7:51:14
00:00:04
8:03:33
8:03:46
00:0013
7:52:10
7:52:15
00:00:05
8:06:06
8:05:23
00:00:18
7:52:20
7:52:25
00:00:05
8:05:06
8:0624
00:00:18
SUB -TOTAL 1 = 00:10:69
COMMENTS:
461 mc 17Y
A-2
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC.
DELAY SURVEY
LOCATION: PINEBROOKI DR
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
CITY: TUSTIN
FILENAME: 09702DIB
DAY: MONDAY
DATE: 09/10/07
00:01:11 00:00:00
SU&TOTAL 1= 00:01:11
COMMENTS:
A-3
TIME PERIOD: 0730 - 0830
ARRIVAL
DEPARTURE
DELAY ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY
TIME
TIME
TIME TIME TIME TIME
8:05:08
8:0520
00:00:18
8:05:09
8:05:27
00:00:18
8:05:40
8:05:45
00:00:05
8:05:41
8:05:48
00:00:05
8:08:10
8:06:15
00:00:06
8:05:11
8:08:16
00:00:05
8:06:18
8:00:22
00:00:06
8:09:27
8:09:31
00:00:04
8:28:40
828:45
00:00:05
00:01:11 00:00:00
SU&TOTAL 1= 00:01:11
COMMENTS:
A-3
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC.
DELAY SURVEY
LOCATION: PINEBROOK DR
DIRECTION: EASTBOUND
CITY; TUSTIN
FILENAME: 09702D1P
DAY. FRIDAY
DATE: 09/07/07
TIME PERIOD: 13:30-15-.00
ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY
13:33:09
13:33:11
00:00:02
14:42:35
14:42:41
00:00:06
13:36:02
13:35:05
00:00:03
14:43:26
14:43:27
00:00:01
13:37:10
13:37:12
00:00:02
14.43:40
14:43:42
00:00:02
14:0515
14:05:35
00:00:20
14.43:42
14:43:45
00:06:03
14;17:49
14:17:51
00:00:02
14:44:40
14:44:43
00:00:03
14:98:37
14:18:39
00:00:02
14:44:59
14:45:03
00:00:04
14:19AO
14:19:42
D0:00:02
14:45:15
14:45:21
00:00:06
14:20:00
14:20:05
00:00:06
14:45:46
14:45:47
00:00:02
14:20:01
14:20:06
00:00:05
14:48:03
14:46:29
00:00:26
14:20:28
14:20:30
00:00:02
14:46:04
14:46:30
00:00:26
14:20:29
14:20:31
00:00:02
14:46:45
14:46:49
00:00:04
14:20:50
14:20:52
00:00:02
14.46:51
14:47:10
00:00:19
14:20:51
14:20:53
001.00:02
14:47:12
14:47:51
00:00:39
14:20:55
14:20:59
00:00:04
14:47:13
14:47:52
60:00:39
14;20:56
14:21:00
00:00:04
14:48:30
14:48:45
00:0015
14:20:57
14:21:01
00:00:04
1448:68
14:49;06
00:00:08
14;21:48
14:21:62
00:Q0:04
14:50:13
14:50:35
00:00:22
14:22:30
14:22:32
00:00:02
14:50:30
14:54:36
00:04:05
14:22:35
14:22:36
00:00:01
14:54:18
14:54:23
00:00:05
14:22:36
14:22:37
00:00:01
14:65:68
14:56:03
011.00:05
14:22:38
14:23:03
00:00:25
14:58:42
14:58:56
00:0014
14:22:39
14:23:04
00:0025
14;23:54
14:23:56
00:00:02
14:25.21
14:25:26
00:00:05
14:25:68.
14:26:22
00:0024
14:26:48
1426:64
00:00:06
14:28:15
14:28:17
00:00:02
1426:27
14:28:30
00:00:03
14:28:47
14:28:50
00:00:03
14.29:05
1429:10
00:00:05
14:29:30
14:2932
00:00:02
14:31:14
14:31:16
00:00:02
14:33:11
14:3314
00:00:03
14:35:58
14:36:00
00:00:02
14:37:02
14:37:10
00:00:08
14:3926
14:39:28
00:00:02
00:03:12
00:08:32
SUB -TOTAL 1 =
00:11:44
COMMENTS:
A4
G
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC
SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
NIS ST:
BROWNINGAVE
FILENAME:
0970201A
EAN ST:
PINEBROOK DR/SCHOOL DRIVEWAY
DATE:
9!05/07
CITY:
TUSTIN
DAY:
THURSDAY
PERIOD
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
BEGM
NL NT NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
T018I
LANES:
1 1 0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
7:00 AM
16 AM
30 AM
22 65 0
0
73
9
0
0
17
1
0
1
188
45 AM
46 81 0
0
85
8
2
0
41
1
0
1
265
8:00 AM
10 28 0
0
49
3
1
0
24
2
0
0
117
15 AM
2 23 0
0
37
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
65
30 AM
45 AM
PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT:
730 AM
VOLUMES - 80 197
COMMENTS:
PHF: 0.6
0 0 244 21 3 0 83 5 0 2 635
A-5
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC
SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
NIS ST: BROWNINGAVE FILENAME: 0970201M
EAN ST: PINEBROOK DR/SCHOOL DRIVEWAY DATE: QW7
CITY: TUSTIN DAY: THURSDAY
PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
BEGINS NL NT NR SL 8T SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total
LANES: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
1:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
2:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
46 PM
3:00 PM
16 PM
30 PM
45 PM
-4:00 PM
16 PM
30 PM
45 PM
5:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
6:00 PM
15 PM
30 PM
45 PM
0
17
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
4
38
0
3
21
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
70
17
38
0
0
32
11
1
0
9
0'
0
5
113
13
47
0
0
26
1
5
0
18
9
0
5
122
11
51
0
0
36
3
1
0
12
3
0
4
121
17
45
0
0
40
3
2
0
23
3
0
5
138
PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT.
1400 PM
VOLUMES= 56 181
COMMENTS:
0 0 134 18
A-6
PHF: 0.89
9 0 60 15 0 19 494
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC
SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
WS ST:
BROWNINGAVE
FILENAME: 09702D1A
ENV ST:
DMVEWAYS182
DATE: 8/8/1007
CITY:
TUSTIN
DAY: THURSDAY
DRIVEWAYSI
(lyyg7y�
DRIVEWAY*2
PERIOD
BEGINS
NR SL
WL
WR U-TURN
NR
SL
VVL
VVR U-TURN
Total
8:00 AM
:15 AM
:30 AM
:45 AM
700 AM
:15 AM
:30 AM
3 2
0
0
1 42
12
2
35 0
97
A5 AM
0 4
0
0
1 30
21
1
45 0
102
8:00 AM.
2 0
0
0
2 3
5
2
22 0
36
:15 AM
0 0
0
0
0 4
2
0
1 0
7
30 AM
:45 AM
_900 AM
:16 AM
30 AM
:45 AM
10:00 AM
:15 AM
:30 AM
:46 AM
PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT:
730 AM
VOLUMES 6 6 0 0 4 79 40 5 103 0 242
COMMENTS: SEE PHOTO.
A•7
TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC
SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS
NIS ST:
BROWNING: AVE
FILENAME
09702D1M
ENV ST:
DRIVEWAYS 1 & 2
DATE:
9/8/2007
CITY:
TUSTIN
DAY:
THURSDAY
DRIVEWAYS 1
DRIVEWAY 1112
PERIOD
BEGINS
NR SL
WL
WR U-TURN
NR
SL
WL
WR U-TURN
Total
10:00 AM
:15 AM
:30 AM
:45 AM
11:00 AM
:15 AM
:30 AM
:45 AM
12:00 PM
:15 PM
:30 PM
:45 PM
1:00 PM
:15 PM
:30 PM
1 0
0
0
1
2
1
0
1 0
8
:45 PM
1 0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0 0
7
2:00 PM
5 8
0
1
1
14
10
0
10 0
47
:15 PM
2 8
1
0
1
18
7
1
25 0
82
:30 PM
1 4
0
0
0
1S
1
1
27 0
50
:45 PM
3 1
0
0
1
9
5
0
18 0
37
PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT:
1400 PM
VOLUMES 11 19 1 1 3 55 23 2 81 0 198
COMMENTS: SEE PHOTO
A•8
1
F', �' �' {A f•9i 11 �"L � , t'�
b +
tit
i i I t
l3` i3 :�1 F l i C • 1,
.1F .,7i,ei L
la.
1 ] , Ir -e kL ,`i
1z Ile tax +��F]tid ��y � ' ��1 ,,+•
1
?5 rlf - k4bb. ..
Lw
,'
msµ'
F ` !/f at K'-�`t + 1 r F.L S'h�l'1, .. ,Ifs f 11tJcl y uv.i��i,
1 Q1`4
Ar
lot
of
Y►
4.'
ALM
�0/2-10-7
IJ-
✓
3
Sukal Browning, LLC
z '} h'r ck Number 001084
sCheck e Oat00t Of
Checking
-N
.
2392 Morse Ave
Irvine CA 92614Arw
f
Pay Exactly., ' .
-V
If
ft
SIX THOUSAND AND OW100""'("""NOIN�M1i1t��YNiI���NN
To City of Tustin .
THE '$0Centennial Way
.'.
.ORDER Tustin CA 92780.
OF
�0/2-10-7
z
IJ-
✓
3
7 N'
z '} h'r ck Number 001084
sCheck e Oat00t Of
..A F
-N
.
z
IJ-
✓
3 Y�
7 N'
�Y�
1100000 1084ii' 1: 12 200 3 3961: 3090 29496 iii'
SunCal Companies
CORPORATE OFFICE
2392 MORSE AVENUE
IRVINE, CA 92614
MAIN 949 777 4000
FAX 949 777 4050
W W W. SU NCAL.COM
November 1, 2007
Mr. Lou Bone, Councilman
Mr. Jerry Amante, Councilman
Mr. Doug Davert, Councilman
Mr. Tony Kawashima, Councilman
Mr. Jim Palmer, Councilman
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
RE: Hampton Village
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
For the last several months, members of SunCal/ Browning LLC ("SunCal") have met
with representatives of the Summerfield neighborhood that adjoin the proposed Hampton
Village. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the local residents concerns pertaining
to the proposed town home development at the existing Rancho Sierra Vista apartment
complex. The topics raised during the meetings pertained to the proximity of proposed
townhomes and the height of the proposed structures to the rear property line of the
Cloverbrook residences. Additional concerns were also raised regarding a commitment to
the proposed number of dwelling units for Hampton Village and traffic patterns and parking
in the vicinity.
SunCal has offered to modify the development and incorporate specific limitations on
the development into the development application in response to the local residents'
concerns. This letter identifies the modifications and expresses a commitment by SunCal to
work with the City of Tustin and local residents to validate and document these
concessions.
Enumerated below are the proposed modifications to the Project:
Lofts located in the town homes abutting the rear property lines of the residents
along Cloverbrook will be completely eliminated.
In conjunction with the elimination of the lofts, the Project's roof heights will be
lowered along the rear property line of the Cloverbrook residences. The height
at the eave will be 20 feet or less and the height of the roof immediately above
this dwelling unit will be 23 feet or less from the finished grade of the project
site.
3. The setback from the property line of the town homes will be increased to
twenty (20) feet from the property line as a result of relocating an internal
walkway and minor building articulation.
4. Landscape plant material will be installed along the common property line to the
Cloverbrook neighbors in order to minimize the building impression.
Opaque glass will be installed and opening of the second floor windows of the
dwelling units will be limited along the rear property lines of the Cloverbrook
residences.
The above modifications are depicted on the attached graphic section identified as Exhibit
A.
6. In addition to the modifications of the Project mentioned above, SunCal will
enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin in a form acceptable to the City
of Tustin to accept a limitation to restrict the number of dwelling units to not
more than 77.
SunCal will endorse the installation of a stop sign at the intersection of
Browning and Mitchell Avenue to prevent unabated through traffic.
8. SunCal will install signage at the exit/entry driveway restricting right turn
movements on to Browning Avenue during the morning arrival hour and
afternoon departure hour of the Nelson Elementary School.
9. SunCal will mitigate the effects of debris and dust during construction in the
rear yards of the adjoining homeowners.
This letter and attachments shall become part of the official City record of the Project in
exchange for the removal of the resident's objections to the proposal. The commitments
made herein by SunCal would be applicable to the Project. In addition, SunCal would
agree to a condition which makes all of these commitments binding on future
owners/developers of the property subject only to the rights of the City of Tustin to modify
the commitments.
The undersigned supports the plan revisions mentioned above and withdraw their
opposition to the Project:
Date/Address
Data/Address
Date/Address
Date/Address
Date/Address
Attachments
Date/Address
Date/Address
Date/Address
Date/Address
Date/Address
Very truly yours,
Jim
, Suncal Browning, LLC.
cc: John Neilson, Chairman, Planning Commission
Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director
Bill Houston, City Manager
Douglas Holland, City Attorney
Laura Woodbury
1972 Blueberry Way
Tustin, CA, 92780
November 6, 2007 VIA EMAIL: LBone@tustinca.org
Mayor Lou Bone
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
RE: Proposed Hampton Village Project
Dear Mayor Bone:
I have been a resident and homeowner in the City of Tustin for over eight years. Four at
my current residence, which is right near Browning. I also own a business in Tustin of
which you were kind enough to do my ribbon cutting in April of this last year.
I was so excited to learn of the possible redevelopment of this property at the corner of
Browning and Mitchell. As a homeowner, it is especially disturbing to go grocery
shopping at the Stater Brothers near my home. Are you aware they have a security
officer patrolling the area in the evenings? I bought my home for the safety and security
I feel by living in this well balanced city. Over the years this area has become more
transient and redevelopment would be a welcomed addition.
Additionally, new homes would bring new tax dollars to our local schools which is
something of which I would be in favor. I am a single mother with two high school aged
sons. I sacrifice many luxuries to send them to private school as I feel that Tustin High
School, the school we are zoned for, is not an attractive alternative for them as a direct
result of the immediately surrounding area. .
I have seen the proposed development. It is substantially nicer than the current aged
apartments. 1 would really encourage you and the city council to approve this project. It
will bring a safer feeling to the neighborhood and possible improvement to our local
schools.
Since .
aura Woodbury U
Tustin Homeowner
CC: Jerry Amante, Mayor Pro Tem, via email, Jamante@tustinca.org
Doug Davert, Councilmember, via email, DDavert@tustinca.org
Tony Kawashima, Councilmember, via email, TKawashima@tustinca.org
Jim Palmer, Councilmember, via email, JPalmer@tustinca.org
Design Review 06-020, Conditional Use Permit 06-024
NAME
ADDRESS
t_.0 LD L..77> ID L�-<M rzz
r -T-c
4
5 I
i
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(��ho lCs
� % � Lisa Daley Curlee
fin{ uY+�d% 1881 Mitchell Ave. #31
— L �� o i Tustin, C/A 92780
Trbel�November 4, 2007 Q1,5d t d0
Tustin City Council t LO -0 wzc
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Sv OO D`
Re: Tentative Tract Map 17096, Zone Change 06-002, Appeal of Planning Commission's
Denial of Design Review 06-202 and Conditional Use Permit 06-024
Dear City Council members,
I have faith in our elected representatives to do the right thing by their residents in keeping
neighborhoods as safe as possible. As a result, I am sure that you are always looking for
ways to improve community safety. With this in mind, I know you will decide not to allow
additional traffic to cause a danger for hundreds of children by increasing density of traffic via a
more populous building. To knowingly do so, would be just crazy.
While we all appreciate improving our City, we must keep safety in the highest regard. Close
behind safety, we consider property value and aesthetics. Surely no one with a single level
home is going to welcome a multi -story, multi-level, multi -vehicle, building into his or her
backyard. The net effect of increased traffic, impacted parking, safety concerns and uncertain
property value influence combine for a very negative project.
I would ask each of our council members if they would approve this proposed building in 300'
proximity to their home. The majority answer being no, makes the decision easy. Treat others
the way you want to be treated.
If you decide to do otherwise, I would question your motives. Increased financial revenue for
the City can be positive, however, not when the price is too high to pay in dissatisfied
residents. I am sure that you know for every one who speaks up, they represent at least ten
others.
This project has served to make friends of neighbors. United in a cause to keep our
neighborhood free from needless increased traffic, parking problems and potential land value
decline. We continue to rally and will keep gathering voices of opposition for this proposed
project.
Thank you for what you.do to make Tustina be utiful place to live.
)vC iU 5C%vr5 7
Sincerely,
Lisa Curlee
CITY COUNCIL TALKING POINTS
11/6/2007 - Agenda Item 1 — Public Hearing
David Levy & Olive Levy
Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments Residents
14331 Browning Avenue, #24
Tustin, CA 92780
I urge the council to affirm the well -reasoned decision of the Planning Commission
to deny this project. They listened to concerns from affected residents that
included, but were not limited to, its inappropriate scale, its impact on traffic, its
potential to exacerbate already overburdened street parking; its impact on housing
opportunities for lower-income renters; the prospect of establishing a poor
precedent for development standards elsewhere in the city; and its questionable
overall benefit to Tustin. My previously voiced concerns are part of the written
public record that was included with the materials provided to you in your agenda
packet. As you have no doubt read, I am concerned about issues of housing
affordability, the permanent displacement of households from the city, the loss of
units accessible to persons with mobility impairments, and parking and traffic
impacts, to name a few.
Tonight, I wish to focus on an aspect of the applicant's appeal letter that seems
intended to imply that you have to approve their request to change the zoning on
this parcel from R-4 to R-3. In the letter, on page 3, in the second paragraph under
Density, the applicants states that the current R-4 zoning does not allow the
minimum density allowed for under the High Density Residential (HDR) designation
of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. In fact that HDR designation in the
element only sets a maximum and identifies a desired or anticipated (but not
Page 1
mandated) range. The HDR designation does not set a minimum. It is conceivable,
although perhaps not likely, that a property owner could choose to place two single-
family homes on this 4.1 -acre parcel. That development proposal would be duly
processed just as the one for this overblown proposal has been.
In my mind the current zoning, which allows for 14.5 units to the acre, is close
enough to the anticipated low-end of the High Density Residential range, that it is a
stretch to claim it is somehow inconsistent with the General Plan. Only if the
developer brings forward a meritorious project that requires up -zoning and that also
makes sense for the community as a whole does the argument of supposed
inconsistency hold any sway.
I think more credible arguments regarding the project's inconsistency, rather than its
consistency, with the General Plan, can be made. For instance, since this project
has been described as an "infill" project, it seems contrary to Policy 1.2 of the
Housing Element that calls for providing expanded affordable housing opportunities
on infill sites. The units proposed are far from affordable to lower-income, or even
moderate -income, households. And what about Policy 1.3 that calls for preserving
"affordable housing units, where possible. It is imminently possible here; just leave
the affordable apartments of Ranch Sierra Vista alone.
I would also refer you to Policy 1.10 regarding special needs populations, Policy
1.13 regarding accessibility, Policy 2.5 regarding displacement, Goal 4, overall,
regarding preserving the supply of affordable housing in the city, and Policy 4.4 in
particular, and Goal 5, overall, which talks of preserving the City's sound housing
stock. The proposed project seems contrary to these stated Housing Element
Goals and Policies.
Page 2
I would now like to turn attention to the aspect of the approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND), regarding the project's impacts. The Planning
Commission has made findings regarding the project that state that the project
would have significant negative impacts. They found that the proposed project
would "be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the
persons residing or working in the neighborhood." This was the commission's
basis, in part, for their denial of the project.
I, and others, previously questioned the adequacy of the MND. There appears to be
substantial evidence that the project might have a significant effect environmentally;
said evidence resulting from the Planning Commission's public hearing process and
its subsequent findings. Should the council adopt the MND, given this evidence,
they may be found to have abused their discretion. That certainly was the finding of
the California Court of Appeal, First District, in the matter of Friends of `8' Street et
al v. City of Hayward et al, 106 Cal App.3d, 998 (1980). For the sake of prudence,
the council should not adopt the MND, but rather should require a reopening of the
environmental analysis, and determination of possible needed mitigations, in light of
the Planning Commission's findings.
In conclusion, I pose the question what about this project is so beneficial to the area
and the City that it justifies granting the requested deviation from established
development standards? What do the neighborhood and the City as a whole gain
that is worth the apparent price in terms of quality of life? The applicant freely
admits, in the second paragraph of the appeal letter, that the up -zoning is needed
for the economic feasibility of the project. Should they be allowed to shoehorn this
inappropriate project into this site, causing other community stakeholders to lose, in
Page 3
order that they might reap what will presumably be a substantial profit? I say no, I
say put the current people of Tustin before profit, deny this project.
Page 4
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Re: Hampton Village
As a resident of the Summerfield Homes neighborhood I oppose the proposed rezoning
change for the Hampton Village development from R4 (suburban residential) to R3
(multiple family residential).
Although the proposed modifications offered by SunCal are worthwhile, there is still the
issue of three story townhomes within the project. This is not compatible within a
neighborhood of RI single family, single story homes. Also #3 of the proposal does not
specifically state that the 20 foot setback would be from the property lines of the
Cloverbrook residences.
The City of Tustin councilmen should be concerned with the effect this zone change
would have not only now but also in the future for other developments. The Hampton
Village development does nothing to enhance our quality of life, and traffic and safety
concerns will continue to be an issue. This zone change also sets a precedent for future
developments in older sections of Tustin. Higher density housing devalues our quality of
life by increasing traffic congestion, already taxed parking problems and safety of the
children attending local schools.
What is the purpose of the City of Tustin's General Plan if it fails to consider the impact
development has on the current quality of life in this area and preservation of the small
town feel and agricultural past within the City of Tustin. The scope of this project with
proposed three story townhomes and higher density housing does not belong in this area
of single family, one-story homes.
Please consider all of the above and do not approve the zone change and do not overtum
the Planning Commission's denials for the project as currently proposed as well as the
appeal by SunCal-Browning LLC.
Eileen Campbell
14322 Cloverbrook Dr
Tustin CA 92780
30 -DAY PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
Fiscal Year 2008-2009 FUNDING ALLOCATION
POLICY AND PROCESS
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
For the distribution of Federal and Local Funding
For:
Public Facilities & Improvements
Housing Rehabilitation
Public Services
Prepared by Housing and Community Services Department
Paula Burrier-Lund, Director
Housing & Community
Services Department
No
j C O U N T Y O P ORANGE
Public Comment Period August 4, 2007 - September 4, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Topic Page
Introduction.........................................................................................................3
I. Funding Allocation Policy..............................................................................4
Urban County Unincorporated Areas and Participating Jurisdictions
A.
Urban County Program.....................................................................4
Fiscal Years 2005-2010 Funding Allocations
B.
Types of Funding Available................................................................4
Estimated Funding Allocations proposed for FY 2008-2009
C.
Use of Funds...................................................................................5
Five -Year Housing Needs and Priorities -Urban County
D.
Percentage of Allocation...................................................................5
Five -Year Community Development Needs and Priorities -Urban County
E.
Urban County Priorities.....................................................................6
Summary of Five -Year Objectives for Special Needs Populations -Urban County
II. Funding
Allocation Process..........................................................................13
FY 2005-2010 Federal Funds Allocation for High Priority Needs
A.
Competitive Funding Process............................................................13
B.
Application Review Committee (ARC)..........................................................
13
C.
Rental Housing Development and Homeownership...............................13
D.
Multi -Year Funding........................................................................................
13
E.
Single Year Funding.........................................................................14
F.
Proposal Review Process and Key Policies...........................................14
G.
Substantial and Non -Substantial Amendments to Projects ....................16
H.
Performance Measurements......................................................................
17
I.
Program Income..............................................................................20
III. Citizen Participation Plan...........................................................................21
A.
Neighborhood Committee and Community Meetings .............................22
B.
City Council or Other Public Meetings.................................................22
C.
Meetings for the Development of the Annual Action Plan.......................23
D.
Public Hearings on the Annual Action Plan..........................................23
E.
Strategic Plan Development..............................................................23
F.
Information/Document Accessibility...................................................24
G.
Citizen Comments and Concerns.................................................................
24
H.
Final Annual Action Plan and Funding Allocations.................................25
I.
Amendments/Changes to Annual Action Plan.......................................25
J.
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report .......................25
K.
Environmental Review and Certification......................................................
26
L.
Policies and Procedures for Displacement of Individual
orFamilies......................................................................................................
26
M.
Lead Safe Housing Regulation....................................................................
27
N.
Signage at Project Construction Site..........................................................
27
O.
Americans with Disability Act......................................................................
27
P.
Additional Questions or Comment...............................................................
27
FAPP& CPP Schedule
..........................................................................................28
Tables
Table 1
Urban County Unincorporated Areas and Participating Jurisdictions
4
Table 2
Fiscal Years 2005-2010 Funding Allocations
5
Table 3
Estimated Funding Allocations proposed for FY 2008-2009
6
Table 4
Five -Year Housing Needs and Priorities -Urban County
9
Table 5
Five -Year Community Development Needs and Priorities -Urban County
10
Table 6
Summary of Five -Year Objectives for Special Needs Populations -Urban County
11
Table 7
FY 2005-2010 Federal Funds Allocation for High Priority Needs
12
2
Introduction
Under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended the
County of Orange meets the qualifications of an Urban County. Under federal regulations,
Urban Counties are eligible to receive and allocate Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG),
and American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) funds. In addition, the Housing &
Community Services Department acts as the lead agency for administrating each program,
under the direction of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The FY 2008-2009 Funding Allocation Policy and Process and Citizen Participation Plan (FAPP
& CPP) is a planning document consisting of three sections: Funding Allocation Policy,
Funding Allocation Process, and a Citizen Participation Plan. The primary purpose of the
FAPP & CPP is to utilize the priorities listed in the FY 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan)
to address local housing and community development needs with federal and local
resources. Specifically, the FAPP & CPP includes estimated funding goals for eligible housing,
community development, and/or economic development activities; the process for
distributing funding; funding priorities; funding exceptions; and overall requirements to be
met when using federal and local funds.
In order to qualify for funding under the CDBG or HOME program HUD uses 80% of the
area's median income (AMI) to determine eligibility. Therefore, projects and activities must
ensure that 51% or more of the persons being served have incomes at or below 80 percent
of the area's median income.
In compliance with HUD regulations (CFR 91.105), HCS provides a 30 -day public review and
comment period for the following documents: the FAPP & CPP, Annual Action Plan (AAP),
and any substantial amendments to the plan.
3
L Funding Allocation Policy
A. Urban County Program
The Urban County program receives yearly allocations from HUD based on the need of its
unincorporated areas and participating cities. Table 1 (below) identifies all unincorporated
areas and the 13 participating cities that currently make up the Urban County program.
Additionally, the Urban County program is extended to the Metropolitan City of Yorba Linda.
Since the City of Yorba Linda has a population that exceeds 50,000 it qualifies as an
independent Entitlement City (Metropolitan City). Metropolitan Cities can apply for funding
directly to HUD, however, in the case of Yorba Linda, the City has elected to continue
participating in the Urban County program.
Source: Orange County Housing and Community Services Department
* Unincorporated areas located within the NDAPP areas.
B. Types of Funding Available
The Urban County program annually receives federal and local funds to allocate to projects
and activities that meet identified needs as stated in the Fiscal Year 2005-2010
Consolidated Plan. The following types of funding are anticipated to be available during FY
2008-2009:
Federal Funds
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Home
Investment Partnership Program (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)
and program income generated from repayments or other funding accrued and collected
from previously funded CDBG and Home projects.
Local Funds
Orange County Development Agency (OCDA) and Orange County Housing Authority
Operating Reserves/Housing Support Services (HSS) Program, if available.
In 1988, the OCDA formed the Neighborhood Development and Preservation Project
(NDAPP), a redevelopment project area that supplies funds for projects through the use of
property tax increment financing including the sale of Bonds. NDAPP funds may be allocated
to projects, which may compete in this competitive review process, providing the project is
TABLE 1
Urban County
Unincorporated Areas and Participating
Cities
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
Anaheim Island
Mac Island
Sherwood Forest
Anaheim "Colonia"
Midway City
Southwest Anaheim
Independencia
Northeast EI Modena
West Anaheim
EI Modena
Olive Island
West Garden Grove*
Inter -Canyons
Rustic Lane
Cypress Island*
PARTICIPATING SMALL CITIES
Aliso Viejo
Laguna Beach
Seal Beach
Brea
Laguna Hills
Stanton
Cypress
Laguna Woods
Villa Park
Dana Point
Los Alamitos
La Palma
Placentia
PARTICIPATING METROPOLITAN "METRO" CITY
Yorba Linda
Source: Orange County Housing and Community Services Department
* Unincorporated areas located within the NDAPP areas.
B. Types of Funding Available
The Urban County program annually receives federal and local funds to allocate to projects
and activities that meet identified needs as stated in the Fiscal Year 2005-2010
Consolidated Plan. The following types of funding are anticipated to be available during FY
2008-2009:
Federal Funds
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), Home
Investment Partnership Program (HOME), American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI)
and program income generated from repayments or other funding accrued and collected
from previously funded CDBG and Home projects.
Local Funds
Orange County Development Agency (OCDA) and Orange County Housing Authority
Operating Reserves/Housing Support Services (HSS) Program, if available.
In 1988, the OCDA formed the Neighborhood Development and Preservation Project
(NDAPP), a redevelopment project area that supplies funds for projects through the use of
property tax increment financing including the sale of Bonds. NDAPP funds may be allocated
to projects, which may compete in this competitive review process, providing the project is
located in the NDAPP area boundaries. However, allocation of these local funds is made
through OCDA's budget process.
C. Use of Funds
The Urban County program allocates federal and local funds to a variety of projects and
activities including the development of housing (both permanent and rental), improvements
to public facilities, acquisition of land, and public services. Table 2 (below) identifies those
federal and local funds allocated in the first 3 Years of the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan.
TABLE 2
Fiscal Years 2005-2010 Funding Allocations
Federal Funds
FY 2005-2006
Year 1
FY 2006-2007
Year 2
FY 2007-2008
Year 3
FY 2008-2009
Year 4
FY 2009-2010
Year 5
Funding
Totals
CDBG*
927
4206,264
$4,180,642
$13,540,133
__,_51-12
CDBG PI
550 000
400 800
$280,596
11,231,396
Home
A1,748,165
1.1,644,844
$1,636,933
$5,029,942
DDI
$60,789
$29,919
$29,826
120,534
Home PI
$479,230
$138,000
$163,013
$780,243
ESG
$169,412
$168,864
$169,309
$507,585
Subtotal Federal Funds
$8,160,523
6,588,691
6 460 319
$21,209,833
Reprogrammed Federal Funds
DBG
$1.112.500
$777,110**
$1,151,028
$3,040,638
ESG
$3,286
787
0
$4,073
Subtotal Reprogrammed
Funds
$1,115,786
1$777,897
$151,028
3 044 711
Local Funds
NDAPP
$19,552,000
$6,583,015
$7,230,000
33,365,015
HSS
$480,000
$500,000
$550,000
$1,530,000
Reprogrammed General Funds
0
79,531
0
$79,531
Subtotal Local Funds
$20,032,0001
$7,162,S46
$7,780,000
$34,974,546
Total Federal,
Reprogrammed, and Local
Funds
29 308,309
14 529,1341$15,391,34
1
$59,229,090
Source: Orange County Housing and Community Services Department
* Includes the Metro City of Yorba Linda.
** Includes Reprogrammed Federal Funds from prior years Housing Development, and Projects Funded in prior years.
D. Percentage of Allocation
Based on the identified need in the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan, the County of Orange is
estimating the percentage of funds to allocate toward each proposed activity for the Fiscal
Year 2007-2008 Annual Action Plan. The percentages identified in Table 3 (below) were
derived from the 5 -year Needs Assessment identified in the Consolidated Plan in Table 2.1 -
"The Five Year Housing Needs and Priorities," Table 2.2 -"Five -Year Community Development
Needs and Priorities," and Table 2.3 -"Summary of Five -Year Objectives for Special Needs
Populations for the Urban County".
TABLE 3
Estimated Funding Allocations proposed for FY 2008-2009
Percentage
Range
Affordable Housing
(Assumes all Home funds including 15% Home CHDO mandate and
22% - 29%
funding for both affordable rental and homeownership)
Housing Rehabilitation
15% - 23%
CDBG
Public Facilities and Improvement
22% - 26%
CDBG
Public Services
18% - 22%
Includes Maximum CDBG limit of 15% plus ESG and local HSS funding)
Economic Development **
0%
(Only technical assistance is considered a highpriority)
Percentage of Total Funding
100%
Source: Orange County Housing and Community Services Department
* Affordable Housing funding is distributed through a separate Notice of Funding of Availability
** The high priority identified In the ConPlan for Economic Development is Technical Assistance, which is a Public Service
Because the FAPP & CPP is a forward planning document, the allocation percentages listed
in Table 3 may differ from actual dollars expended based on the number of applications
received. If demand for one activity is under subscribed and funds are available to allocate
to another eligible activity, which is oversubscribed, then HCS with the concurrence of the
Application Review Committee (ARC) may recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
funding percentages change to meet local needs.
Due to reduced funding, not all projects that scored the minimum 70 points required for
consideration will be recommended for preliminary funding. Those projects placed on the
Wait List will be considered for possible funding in the future should additional recaptured or
reprogrammed dollars become available. However, due to limited resources HCS has
adopted an internal policy to fund projects that received a decreased in funding, prior to
funding any projects on the Wait List.
E. Urban County Priorities
Priorities for the Urban County program were established during the development of the
Fiscal Year 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan identifies, within a five-year
reporting period, the County's overall community development needs (i.e. Affordable
Housing, Special Population Needs, etc.) for extremely low, low and moderate -income
persons and households. Additionally, a major component of the Consolidated Plan is the
Strategic Plan that outlines the County's long term goals and prioritizes its housing and non-
housing needs. The Strategic Plan also presents a comprehensive approach to addressing
homelessness through a Continuum of Care System.
To better understand local needs a comprehensive Housing and Community Needs Survey
was distributed to residents living in participating jurisdictions in the Urban County Program
by the following means:
Made available and collected at community centers and public counters;
• Mailed to social service providers, unincorporated areas and city residents;
• Distributed at community meetings for input;
• Made available on the World Wide Web for general public input
In addition to resident surveys, interviews were also conducted with City and County staff
as well as non-profit Service providers to further understand local needs.
Priority Ranking:
Based on the comprehensive Housing and Community Needs Survey, priority ranking was
assigned to each category of need as follows:
• High Priority: Activities to address this need are expected to be funded with
Community Planning and Development (CPD) funds during the five-year period.
• Medium Priority: If CPD funds are available, activities to address this need may
be funded during the five-year period.
• Low Priority: The Urban County will not directly fund activities using CPD funds
to address this need during the five-year period. However, the Urban County and
participating cities may support applications for public assistance by other entities
if such assistance is found to be consistent with this Plan.
For the purposes of allocating federal and local resources overall priority will be given to
projects that meet a "High" priority need.
Additional Priorities:
The following are examples of project and activity types that will be considered for funding
although they did not appear on the Housing and Community Needs Assessment.
• Public Services projects filling the gap in the Homeless Continuum of Care which
were not filled by SuperNOFA Homeless Assistance funding;
• Public Facilities & Improvement projects which have been previously funded for
design.
Projects considered Non -Priority projects:
The following is a list of project and activity types that will not be given consideration for
funding, as they are not a priority need.
• Projects that contain eligible activities not identified on the priority charts;
• Projects seeking funding for planning costs;
• Projects seeking funds for lead-based paint activity costs. These costs may be
paid either through available rehabilitation funds or through funds received from
other funding sources such as the Healthy -Homes, Lead -Based Paint Hazard
Control Program.
• Improvements to streets/alleyways located outside of income -qualified census
tracts.
• Projects involving the construction and installation of street signs.
• Improvements to buildings or portions thereof, which are used for the general
conduct of government.
Exemptions from the Funding Allocation Process:
In addition to priority and non-priority ranked projects, the County will also under take
certain activities that are exempt from the competitive process:
• Administration - The County and the Metropolitan City of Yorba Linda utilize a
percentage of their allocations to administer the CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HSS
funded programs
%I
• County's obligations to specific community centers within unincorporated areas
• County of Orange Cold Weather Shelter Program
• Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity related activities mandated by HUD
• Funding associated with unincorporated areas which are anticipated to annex
within the program year
Priority Activities
To better illustrate the County's Community Development needs, portions of the FY 2005-
2010 Consolidated Plan have been included in this document. Listed below are brief
descriptions of and copies of the applicable tables as stated in the County's Consolidated
Plan.
Table 4 (Five Year Housing Needs and Priorities - Urban County) identifies the five-year
housing needs and priorities for renters and owners within the Urban County.
Table 5 ("Five -Year Community Development Needs and Priority) provides a summary of the
Urban County's five-year community development needs and priorities for the following
types of activities: Public Facilities and Improvements, Infrastructure, Public Services,
Economic Development, and Planning and Administration.
Table 6 (Summary of Five -Year Obiectives for Special Needs Population for the Urban
Count summarizes the Five -Year objectives for the Special Needs Population in the Urban
County.
TABLE 4
Five -Year Housing Needs and Priorities — Urban County
Priority Housing Needs
Income
Priority
Need Level
Unmet Need
(1)
Goals (4)
Small Related (2)
0-30%
High
2,308
25
31-50% High 2,966
40
51-80% High 3,801
15
Large Related (3)
0-30%
High
1,381
25
31-50% High 1,516
40
51-80% High 1,859
15
Renter
Elderly/ Disabled
0-30%
High
2,192
25
31-50% High 1,702
40
51-80% High 1,149
15
All Other
0-30%
Medium
1,657
20
31-50% Medium 1,906
15
51-80% Medium 2,749
---
Small Related
0-30%
High
1,453
30
31-50% High 1,948
47
51-80% High 4,015
78
Large Related
0-30%
High
473
30
31-50% High 608
47
51-80% High 1,860
78
Owner
Elderly/ Disabled
0-30%
High
3,361
30
31-50% High 4,148
30
51-80% High 2,064
60
All Other
0-30%
Medium
824
30
31-50% Medium 709
30
51-80% Medium 1,539
58
Special Populations (7)
0-80%
High
N/A
Total Goals
823
Section 215 Renter Goals (5)
275
Section 215 Owner Goals (6)
548
Source: County of Orange 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan
Notes:
1. Unmet needs are based on 2003 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on
2000 Census for households with housing problems by household income and type.
2. A small related household is defined by HUD as a household of 2 to 4 persons, which includes at least one
person related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
3. A large related household is a household of 5 or more persons, which includes at least one person, related to
the householder by blood, marriage or adoption.
4. Housing goals include anticipated accomplishments under the following programs: homeownership assistance
programs; housing rehabilitation programs; and rental housing development.
5. Section 215 Goals are affordable housing that fulfill the criteria of Section 215 of the National Affordable
Housing Act. (For rental housing, a Section 215 unit is one that is occupied by a low income household and bears
a rent that is less than the Fair Market Rent or 30 percent of the adjusted gross income of a household whose
income does not exceed 65 percent of the AMI.)
6. For section 215 owner goals an owner unit assisted with homebuyer assistance, the purchase value cannot
exceed HUD limit. For an ownership unit assisted with rehabilitation, the mortgage amount cannot exceed HUD
limit.
7. Housing goals for special needs groups are included under elderly and other households.
TABLE 5
Five -Year Community Develo ment Needs and Priorities — Urban Count
Priority Community Development Priority
Needs Needs Level
Goals
Estimated CPD
Dollars to Address
Public Facility Needs
ADA/Architectural Barrier Removal High
Pursue an
estimated 90
public facility
and
infrastructure
improvement projects
$8,640,000
Senior Centers Medium
Handicapped Centers Medium
Homeless Facilities High
Youth Centers High
Child Care Centers Medium
Health Facilities Medium
Neighborhood Facilities/Libraries Medium
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities High
Parking Facilities Medium
Non -Residential Historic Preservation Low
Other Public Facility Needs Medium
Infrastructure Needs
Water/Sewer Improvements High
Street Improvements High
Sidewalks High
Solid Waste Disposals Improvements Medium
Flood Drain Improvements High
Other Infrastructure Needs Medium
Public Service Needs
Senior Services High
Assist 1,000
victims of
domestic
violence, 1,000
seniors, 1,200
persons with
disabilities, and
1,200 persons
with substance
abuse
problems
$4,198,500
Handicapped Services High
Youth Services High
Child Care Services Medium
Transportation Services Medium
Substance Abuse Services High
Employment Training High
Health Services Medium
Lead -Hazard Screening High
Crime Awareness Medium
Other Public Service Needs Medium
Economic Development
ED Assistance to For Profit Medium
Goals for
Technical
Assistance and
Employment Funding included
Training under the Public
included under Services category
the Public
Services
category
ED Technical Assistance High
Micro -Enterprise Assistance Medium
Rehab; Public/Private - Medium
Commercial Industrial
Cl Infrastructure Development Medium
Other Commercial/Industrial Medium
Improvements
Planning and AdministrationHigh
N/A $3,973,000
Program DeliveryHi h
N/A $983,000
Soun,e: County of Orange 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan
10
TABLE 6
Summary of 5 -Year Ob-ectives for Special Needs Po ulations—Urban Count
Special Needs
Unmet
Estimated
Five -Year Quantified
Category
Priority
Need'
Dollars
Objectives
Assist 1,000 elderly and frail
Elderly/Frail
High
27,270
elderly
$500,000
elderly persons through a
Elderly
variety of senior programs and
households
services
Assist 1,200 persons with
disabilities
Physically Disabled
High
(The Regional Center of
Orange County is the primary
agency for providing
66,595
$600,000
assistance to persons with
Severe Mental
High
persons
disabilities. Physically disabled
Illness
persons also receive assistance
from the California Department
of Rehabilitation through
Developmentally
High
various housing programs.)
Disabled
Assist 1,200 persons with
Persons with
44,000
substance abuse problems
Alcohol/ Other
Alcohol/
High
persons
$600,000
through various supportive
9 Addictions'
services and programs
Assist 1,000 victims of
$500,000
domestic violence
Homeless/At-Risk
35,000
$760,000
Assist 1,520 persons with
Homeless
High
persons
emer enc services
Assist 2,800 persons with
countywide
$1,400,000
transitional, preventive, and
supportive services
Persons
3,100
Addressed as part of the Countywide HOPWA
w/HIV/AIDS
High
persons
countywide
Strategy to be coordinated by the City of Santa Ana
Source: County of Orange 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan
Notes:
1. Unmet needs based on Census and other estimates of the special needs populations.
2. Elderly persons with special needs based on CHAS estimates of lower and moderate -income elderly households.
3. National estimates indicate 14-16 percent of adult males and 6 percent adult females have drug and alcohol problems.
11
Unmet Needs
At the conclusion of each fiscal year, the Urban County moves closer to addressing its
Community Development Needs. Table 7 (below) provides a status on the Urban County's
financial allocations used to address those needs. Included in Table 7 are the funds needed
(5 Year Plan), funds expended (Years 1 - 5), and funds still needed to address the Urban
County's Community Development Needs as stated in the Fiscal Year 2005-2010
Consolidated Plan.
The estimated figures in the "5 Year Plan" column are based on data obtain in 2004, and
have not been adjusted to reflect current building or service costs. Additionally, during
Fiscal Years 1-3, the Urban County reprogrammed an additional $6,241,533 from previous
fiscal years in addition to new dollars allocated by HUD during the same fiscal years. The
additional funds received by the Urban County program include program income generated
from previously funded CDBG and HOME projects and recaptured dollars from previously
funded CDBG and ESG projects. Unanticipated reprogrammed and recaptured funding were
not included in the estimate of funds available to allocate towards the high priority needs
listed in the FY 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan.
Table 7 figures also represented dollars allocated to the Urban County on behalf of its
participating Metropolitan Cities Yorba Linda and San Clemente*.
Table 7
FY 2005-2010 Federal Funds Allocation for Hi' h Priority Needs
Activities
Needs and Priorities
5 Year Plan
FY 2005-2006
FY 2006-2007
FY 2007-2008 FY 2008-2009
FY 2009-2010
FY 2005-2010
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3 Year 4
Year 5
Funds Needed
HOUSING
Rental/Owner
$12,974,039
$4,337,735
$3,498,140
$3,348,187
$1,789,977
Infrastructure
$8,639,864
$2,939,463
$1,887,102
$2,311,225
$1,502,074
Public Services
$4,198,454
$1,413,594
$1,368,047
$1,278,540
$138,273
Total
$25,812,357
$8,690,792
$6,753,289
$ 6,937,952
$3,430,324
$wrw:ccunry.10.1. RM 2010 Loneol'JeleE Plan
• 1ne Melrep Nan c,ryd sen Clement IaM1 IM1e V'.e C-, Prcgrem m Jury 1, 2M,
12
II. Funding Allocation Process
A. Competitive Funding Process
The Urban County program utilizes a competitive Request for Proposal Process (RFP) to
distribute both federal and local funds. The following activities are funded through this
competitive process:
• Public Services
• Public Facilities and Improvement
• Housing Rehabilitation
B. Application Review Committee (ARC)
The Application Review Committee (ARC) is the evaluating body for all applications
submitted in response to the Urban County's competitive RFP funding process. The ARC is
comprised of two separate evaluation committees (one for Public Services and one for Public
Facilities and Improvements and Housing Rehabilitation). Each Committee is comprised of
H&CD Housing Commission members, community representatives, and other individuals
knowledgeable about community development, community services, and housing activities.
C. Rental Housing Development and Homeownership
New housing construction/acquisition project proposals will be accepted in response to a
separate Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process. The Project Advisory Committee
(PAC), a subcommittee of the H&CD Commission, analyzes the main points of this program
before recommended action is presented to the Board of Supervisors.
Continuing in fiscal year 2007-2008 the County in partnership with participating
jurisdictions, currently operating eligible first time homebuyer programs, will look to further
explore the use of American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) funding.
D. Multi -Year Funding
On September 20, 2005, the County Board of Supervisors adopted the Fiscal Year 2006-
2007 FAPP & CPP that included a policy to fund Public Services and Housing Rehabilitation
projects on a 3 -year basis. Projects that competed and were awarded funding in Year 1
(2006-2007) may receive funds in Year 2 (2007-2008) and/or Year 3 (2008-2009),
provided the organization successfully meets the following criteria:
Project remains in compliance with contractual milestones:
o All Public Services projects must expend 50% of their contractual funds
and complete 50% of their proposed accomplishments by December 31,
2007; 70% by January 31, 2008; and 80% by March 31, 2008.
o Housing Rehabilitation projects must expend 50% of their contractual
funds and complete 50% of their proposed accomplishments by December
31, 2007.
o Exceptions to these requirements include: contracts that spend their
funding later in the fiscal year (i.e. cold weather shelters),
recommendation of ARC, exemption from HCS's Director, and delays due
to HUD or HCS administration of contracts.
Project continues to meet the priority status for which it was funded in Year 1
Project continues to leverage funds with other sources
13
All project accomplishments must be correctly reported on the Grantee
Performance Reports (GPRs) and/or other documentation as described in current
year contract
Project must receive a successful assessment of performance and progress from
HCS staff. Successful assessment from HCS staff includes, but is not limited to,
successful completion of the Self -Evaluation Survey.
Project performance will be reviewed and evaluated by the ARC using the above
criteria.
Projects meeting the December 31, 2007, milestone will be included in the current year
draft Annual Action Plan; however, projects that fail to meet this deadline may be removed
from the draft Annual Action Plan prior to its presentation to the County Board of
Supervisors at the second public hearing.
E. Single Year Funding
Public Facilities and Improvements (PF&I) activities will require the submission of
applications on an annual basis. The ARC will evaluate applications for PF&I based on the
following criteria:
Project must meet priority status;
Project application must pass the initial threshold review and technical eligibility
as determined by HCS staff;
Project must undergo a quality review and evaluation conducted by ARC.
ARC will score all applications exclusively on the written application(s) submitted.
F. Proposal Review Process and Key Policies
In order to ensure integrity and reliability, the proposal review process is applied to each
application on a consistent basis. In addition, maximum flexibility has been built into the
proposal review process in order to ensure that federal and local resources are available to
assist the County in meeting its Community Development needs. Although HCS staff are
not participants in ARC's proposal review process, staff are available to provide any needed
technical support.
1. Proposal Review Process
The proposal review process involves the following six (6) steps:
• HCS Staff conducts an initial threshold review of all proposals submitted based on
eligibility requirements established by HUD.
• Applications not passing the initial threshold review are eliminated without the
opportunity to appeal. Proposals that successfully pass the initial threshold review
are forwarded to ARC for review, scoring, and ranking.
• Applicants deemed as unsuccessful by ARC are afforded the opportunity to
appeal.
• After addressing any appeals ARC provides a list of proposals recommended for
funding.
• Projects recommended for funding are compiled and presented to the public for
comment in the draft Annual Action Plan and later to the Board of Supervisors for
approval.
• Projects are preliminarily awarded until final approval from HUD.
14
2. Key Policies
Renewal Applicants- Those applicants having been under contract with HCS within the
past 3 years.
• HCS staff will review project performance for the previous 3 years.
• Renewal proposal evaluation will focus on, but is not limited to, subrecipient
compliance with contractual obligations and meeting scheduled accomplishments
as reported on the current year's Grantee Performance Reports (GPR's).
• Applicants that previously received funds for design will receive priority.
New Applicants- Those applicants having not been under contract with HCS within the
past 3 years.
• Applicants must pass a site visit conducted by HCS staff.
• Applicants must provide copies of any performance reports required by other
funding organizations as a condition of funding.
• Applicant must have been in operation and been performing the activity proposed
in their proposal for a minimum of one year.
• Applicants that have not received funding from the Urban County Program in the
previous 3 years may receive priority over all applicants.
Activity Specific Policies- The following requirements apply to all Public Services and
Public Facilities and Improvements projects and activities.
Public Services
o All projects and activities providing services to homeless individuals and/or
families are required to be an active participant in the Homeless Management
Information System (HMIs).
Public Facilities and Improvements (PF&I)
o Applicants cannot request funds in an amount that exceeds 50% of HCS's
total funding available for PF&I activities.
o Applicants have a one-year limit to expend funding for a single project that
exceeds 35% of HCS' total PF&I funds available.
During the 30 -day public comment period the above referenced policies will be under review
and may change prior to the publication of the final FY 2008-2009 FAPP & CPP.
Minimum Application Requirements
• A minimum grant amount will be established at $15,000 per year for all projects.
• Only one application from any Public Service organization serving the same
population with the same service, or providing the same program or product, will
be accepted.
• If funded with CDBG funds, the project must meet a national objective as
identified by HUD Regulations (24 CFR 570.208).
• Depending on funding source, the proposed activity must be eligible as defined by
HUD Regulations.
• The population to be served or to benefit from the project must principally be low
to moderate -income as defined by HUD.
• If the applicant is a current or past recipient of assistance under a HUD McKinney
Act program (i.e. SuperNOFA) or the HUD Single Family Property Disposition
Program, there must be no project or construction delay, HUD finding, outstanding
Annual Progress Report (APR), or outstanding audit that HUD deems serious
15
regarding the administration of HUD McKinney Act programs or the HUD Single
Family Property Disposition Program.
The applicant must be in compliance with applicable civil rights laws and Executive
Orders. There must be no pending civil rights suits, outstanding findings of
noncompliance with civil rights statues, Executive Orders, or regulations,
unresolved Secretary (Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development) charge of discrimination issued under the Fair Housing Act, no
adjudications of civil rights violations on a civil action or deferral of processing of
applications from the applicant imposed by HUD.
Applicant must submit a copy of the organization's most recent audit (within the
last two years) by a independent certified CPA and a description of corrective
action taken for any findings identified by the auditor, both of which will be
reviewed by the HCS Accounting Manager or designated staff.
G. Substantial and Non -Substantial Amendments to Projects
1. Substantial Amendment
The County will consider a change a "substantial amendment" under the following
circumstances:
• County or applicant decides not to carry out an activity previously described in the
Annual Action Plan;
• County or applicant carries out an activity not previously described in the Annual
Action Plan;
• County or applicant changes the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of an
activity;
• County or applicant changes the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to
another;
• County or applicant changes 25% or more in one program activity.
Citizens will be informed of any proposed substantial amendment through a public notice in
a local newspaper of general circulation. The public will be given 30 days to review and
comment on the proposed amendment. Such comments must be received in writing prior
to the deadline date as specified in the Public Notice. All comments will be presented to a
review committee for further consideration and will be presented to the County Board of
Supervisors at the Public Hearing. A summary of the comments or views shall be included
in the consolidated plan or consolidated plan updates.
2. Non -Substantial Amendments
The County will consider a change as a "non -substantial amendment" under the following
circumstances:
• Applicant makes a minor change in project location as long as the purpose, scope,
and intended beneficiaries remain essentially the same.
• Applicant chooses to transfer funds within a project from one approved budget
line item to another approved budget line item.
• Funds are reprogrammed that may become available to projects approved in an
Annual Action Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
• The allocation of unanticipated or additional Program Income funds up to
$100,000 generated by a subrecipient to support projects/programs approved by
the Board of Supervisors to be carried out by that subrecipient.
16
• Provided that all projects involved have been approved by Board Action, the
transfer and/or reprogramming of additional funds up to $100,000 for a
subrecipient from one project/activity to the same project/activity administered by
the same subrecipient.
These actions will continue to allow HCS to execute contracts in a timely manner and to
continue its efforts to expedite and simplify housing projects and services while meeting
annual federal expenditure requirements.
Should a proposed amendment be "substantial" in nature as set forth herein, HCS will
present such amendments to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
H. Performance Measurements
Consistent with Federal Guidelines as referenced in Federal Register Notice, Vol. 70, No.
111, dated June 10, 2005 HCS developed a performance measurement system that
identifies standardized objectives and outcomes, for proposed activities, that can be
reported at a national level.
The following chart provides a brief outline of HCS' performance measurement system as
recommended by HUD.
17
PERFORMANCE OUTCOME MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
Step 1: Assess Needs and Select Goals
Step 2: Select Objectives with Outcomes
Availability/Accessibility Affordability Sustainability
Enhance Suitable Living
Environment Through
New/Improved Accessibility
Create Decent Housing with
New/Improved Availability
Promote Economic
Opportunity
Through New/Improved
Sustainability
Enhance Suitable Living
Environment Through
New/Improved Affordability
Create Decent Housing with
New/Improved Affordability
Promote Economic
Opportunity
Through New/Improved
Affordability
Enhance Suitable Living
Environment Through
New/Improved Sustainability
Create Decent Housing with
New/Improved Sustainability
Promote Economic Opportunity
Through New/Improved
Sustainability
Step 3: Design Programs and Choose Activities
Housing Rehabilitation
Rental Housing Production
Community Facilities
Public Safety
Infrastructure
Lead-based Paint Activities
HIV/AIDS
Tenant -based Rental
Assistance
Economic Development
Housing for Homeless
Special Needs Housing
Homeownership Assistance
Housing Counseling
Public Services
Code Enforcement
Water/Sewer
Utilities
Transportation
Step 4: Complete the Consolidated Plan/Action Plan
Step 5: Develop the Outcome Statement
Output (quantified) + Outcome + Activity (description) + Objective
Number of households assisted
Number of new businesses assisted
Number of jobs created/ retained
Number of units made 504 -accessible
Number of years of affordability guaranteed
Number of jobs with health care benefits
Number of units meeting Energy Star
standards
Number of persons stabilized
Acres of brownfields remediated
Amount of money leveraged
Number of affordable units
Number of housing units for HIV/AIDS
Number of units for chronically homeless
Number of units made lead safe
Step 6: Report (IDIS, CAPER, PER)
For all projects report program requirements plus:
Income levels of persons, or households (30%, 50%, 60%, or 800/o of area median income)
Leverage Number of persons, households, units
Number of communities/neighborhoods assisted Current racial/ethnic and disability
categories 18
70, No.
11:37
Performance Objectives
No. 1 -Suitable Living Environment: In general, this objective relates to activities that are
designed to benefit communities, families, or individuals by addressing issues in their living
environment.
No. 2 -Decent Affordable Housing: The activities that typically would be found under this
objective are designed to cover the wide range of housing possible under Home, CDBG,
HOPWA or ESG. This objective focuses on housing programs where the purpose for the
project is to meet the individual family or community needs and not programs where the
housing is an element of a larger effort.
No. 3 -Creating Economic Opportunities: This objective applies to the types of activities
related to economic development, commercial revitalization, or job creation.
Performance Outcomes
No. 1-Availability/Accessibility: This outcome category applies to activities that make
services, infrastructure, housing, or shelter available or accessible to low and moderate -
income people, including persons with disabilities. In this category, accessibility does not
refer only to physical barriers, but also to making the affordable basics of daily living
available and accessible to low- and moderate -income people.
No. 2 -Affordability: This outcome category applies to activities that provide affordability in
a variety of ways in the lives of low -and moderate -income people. It can include the
creation or maintenance of affordable housing, basic infrastructure hook-ups, or services
such as transportation or day care.
No. 3 -Sustainability (Promoting Livable or Viable Communities): This outcome applies to
projects where the activity or activities are aimed at improving communities or
neighborhoods, helping to make them livable or viable by providing benefit to persons of
low- and moderate -income or by removing or eliminating slums or blighted areas through
multiple activities or services that sustain communities or neighborhoods.
The outcomes and performance monitoring process will be carried out in a transparent way,
so that those whom monitor performance outcomes can make informed judgments.
As stated above, applicants are required to identify their planned performance in their
budget documentation and to report on their actual performance in their Grantee
Performance Report (GPR's). Guidance on performance and outcome accountability
documents is available by contacting:
County of Orange Housing and Community Services Department
Orlando Calleros, Section Chief
1770 North Broadway
Santa Ana, CA 92706-2680
Telephone No. (714) 480-2731
E-MAIL: orlando.calleros@hcs.ocgov.com
19
I. Program Income
Beginning July 1, 2007 HCS will implement a new policy regarding the reporting and
submittal of Program Income funds. Please note that this change in policy is in response to
federal regulations that require grantees (i.e. County of Orange) to monitor and track all
Program Income funds. Per federal regulations (24 CFR 570.500 (a)) program income is
defined as gross income received by the recipient or subrecipient directly generated from
the use of CDBG, Home, ADDI, and ESG funds.
Reporting of program income will comply with rules as set forth in the Federal Regulations
(24 CFR 570.504), as well as any applicable State or County regulations concerning
reporting and payment procedures for program income.
Projects and activities that generate Program Income through the repayment of home
improvement loans or the leasing of community center facilities improved with federal funds
will now be required to process Program Income information and funds on a quarterly basis.
This change is in response to federal regulations requiring grantees to monitor and track all
Program Income accrued by the program. The following schedule will be used during to
report all Program Income related information:
• 1s` Quarter (July 1, 2007 - September 30, 2007) Due October 15, 2007
• 2nd Quarter (October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007) Due January 15, 2008
• 3rd Quarter (January 1, 2008 - March 31, 2008) Due April 15, 2008
• 4`" Quarter (April 1, 2008 - June 30, 2008) Due July 15, 2008
When reporting Program Income information to HCS, subrecipients will be required to
complete and submit two separate reporting forms. The first form will require Program
Income information generated from Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) funded
projects and activities. The second form will require information on Program Income
generated from Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funds. Subrecipients are required to
complete both reporting forms regardless if Program Income was generated or not.
In addition, beginning July 1, 2007, should a subrecipient have a public service project that
is designated to be funded with Program Income dollars, 15% of the total Program Income
amount submitted to HCS will be deducted. Furthermore, consistent with federal program
regulations, the County will be deducting a 20% administrative set-aside from the total
Program Income submitted.
20
III. Citizen Participation Plan
Consistent with Title 24, Section 91.105, the County of Orange Housing and Community
Services Department will continue to encourage the involvement of persons affected by the
implementation of locally and federally funded programs administered under the Urban
County Program. Community involvement will continue to be encouraged from the initial
assessment of priority needs as described in the Consolidated Plan and subsequent Action
Plans that identify strategy development and funding allocation, and ultimately through
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER) that describes progress and
accomplishments.
The County will continue its citizen participation efforts to encourage involvement of persons
whose income is 80 percent or below area median income and lower-income individuals
residing within designated unincorporated areas (particular effort will be made for residents
of predominately lower-income neighborhoods including homeless, minorities, non-English
speaking persons, the elderly, and the disabled). Appropriate bilingual staff will be available
at community meetings anticipating attendance of primarily non-English speaking residents.
Newsletters and notices will be printed in appropriate languages and bilingual staff will be
available at the public hearings.
Meetings/hearings will be held at times and locations reasonably convenient to actual or
potential beneficiaries. In addition, all location sites for meetings and hearings will be
accessible to persons with disabilities. In an effort to ensure that extremely low, very low,
and lower-income households are informed, notices of meetings and hearings will be
provided through one or more of the following methods: local publications, Flyers,
established resident mailing lists, civic group gatherings, and unincorporated area
community development committees.
The County shall, at least 30 days in advance of a Public Hearing, publish a notice in easily
readable format in one or more newspapers of general circulation. These notices will
provide the date, time, location, and format of hearings and topics to be discussed which
will be translated upon request. To encourage public participation, affected residents shall
be notified of other related meetings through the various means described above.
The participation of community residents is encouraged through the Citizen Participation
Plan. Residents are encouraged to communicate with County staff through various
mediums. Residents are provided many opportunities to communicate, offer opinions, and
submit their views throughout the year. Methods for increasing public access for comment
are continually explored. Typically, community residents can participate through the
following forums:
• HCS Neighborhood Committee meetings.
• Development of the Consolidated Plan.
• Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan.
• Reporting of Accomplishments.
• Newsletters sent to unincorporated areas.
• Access to HCS community liaison staff via phone, e-mail, and in person.
• Community Center meetings.
• Local area non-profit meetings.
• Public meetings for cities, organizations, and interested persons at application
workshops.
• City Council meetings.
• County Board of Supervisors draft Action Plan
• County Board of Supervisors final Action Plan
• Via the Internet at http://www.ochousing.org.
21
Hearing (Public Hearing).
Hearing (Public Hearing).
A. Neighborhood Committee and Community Meetings
Informal meetings may be held in both participating cities and in the unincorporated areas
to obtain community input on the use of funds for the respective jurisdiction, disseminate
information regarding on-going or proposed projects and discuss items of concern by
residents. These meetings may be publicized through several methods, including
community -wide mailers, postcards, flyers, and postings at community centers, Internet
postings, and community newspapers, among other means. Informational mailings may be
sent out to each community up to four times a year, but no less than two times, detailing
project information, HUD news about local programs, uses of funds, and dates of
community meetings.
In the unincorporated communities, each community may form a Neighborhood Committee
and elect officers on an annual basis. Officers shall be residents of the unincorporated
areas, elected by their peers, and shall represent their respective community. The
Neighborhood Committee Officers will take the lead in interacting with County officials by
discussing the needs of the community and will serve as conduits for information regarding
on-going activities. The Neighborhood Committees should meet at least once a year for
elections, once for assessing community needs, and are otherwise encouraged to meet on a
quarterly basis. If the chair of a Neighborhood Committee does not schedule a quarterly
meeting, HCS staff may instead send information to each household through the use of a
mailer on issues affecting the residents.
The purpose of these meetings will be to present the CDBG, ESG, Home, ADDI, OCDA, and
HSS programs and regulations to these communities; discuss community needs; solicit
ideas and receive citizen proposals for projects; discuss implementation of previously
funded projects; comment on overall program performance; and distribute information on
County and other programs of benefit. Neighborhood Committee meetings may be held in
each of the unincorporated areas or at a reasonably located facility.
B. City Council or Other Public Meetings
Each City and Metropolitan City participating in the Urban County Program shall hold
meetings to discuss the aforementioned issues as well as information pertinent to the city's
programs and projects.
Participating cities shall be responsible for conducting public meetings within their
respective jurisdictions to receive citizen input on community needs and project priorities for
submittal of project proposals to the County of Orange HCS. Every participating city will
hold at least one public hearing to provide their respective communities with general grant
funding information and allow for citizen input for establishment of proposed city program
activities for the upcoming program year. Cities are also encouraged to communicate with
residents on project information through the Internet and regular city communications.
Public notices shall be published 15 days prior to all public meetings in which action will be
taken with regard to submitting project proposals to the County of Orange HCS. Public
notices must be in easily readable type in newspapers of general circulation announcing the
date, time, place, and procedures for the meeting and topics to be considered. Each city
shall make reasonable efforts to provide notices in neighborhood newspapers or flyers
serving extremely low, very low, and lower-income neighborhoods and non-English
speaking residents.
Participating cities will also be responsible for maintaining records of public meetings,
hearings, and notices or any survey information conducted to determine eligibility and
needs of a potential or newly established service area. Survey methodology and forms are
22
available from HCS and HUD. Files and records maintained by a city must be made
available to HCS and HUD upon request.
C. Meetings for the Development of the Annual Action Plan
HCS will conduct public meetings to provide information and consider citizen input on the
development of the Annual Action Plan. These meetings also function as workshop sessions
providing technical assistance to cities, non-profit organizations, and other agencies in
applying for funding under the Urban County Program.
D. Public Hearings on the Annual Action Plan
Two Board of Supervisors' hearings shall be conducted regarding the Urban County's Annual
Action Plan for consideration of related funding allocations and proposals. This allows an
opportunity to obtain citizen views concerning Housing and Community Services (HCS)
needs and the proposed allocation of funding from CDBG, ESG, ADDI, Home, OCDA, and
HSS programs.
Notices will be sent to all persons, organizations, and applicants participating in the
application process to inform them of the hearings. In addition, a community -wide notice in
one or more local newspapers of general circulation shall announce these public hearings at
least 30 days before the hearings.
Notices shall be published announcing the purpose, date, time, and location of the hearings
as well as a telephone number to contact with any inquiries. Board agendas are posted in
public places and are easily accessible to the public at least 72 hours before the public
hearings. Efforts will also be made to post meeting information on the HCS website
www.ochousino.ora.
The Board shall consider all comments received at public hearings on the Annual Action
Plan, and funding proposals contained in the plan may be amended. Anyone may address
comments concerning other aspects of this document during these public hearings. Once
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, the approved Annual Action Plan shall be
submitted to HUD for consideration. Additional opportunities for public comment on the
needs and use of funding will be available as needed.
E. Strategic Plan Development
Public meetings and hearings sponsored by HCS for development of the Consolidated Plan
shall be held with representatives of participating cities, agencies and organizations, as well
as interested public citizens. During the preparation of the Annual Action Plan, meetings are
held to consider the Urban County Program's regional strategy for the use of these federal
and local funds. These meetings shall confirm the development planning process and will be
held to obtain citizen views and proposals on needs and priorities for a consistent HCS
strategy.
After the preparation of a draft strategy, the following program information is provided to
the public in the draft Annual Action Plan:
• The estimated amount of funds available to the Urban County Program, if available,
for community development and housing activities (including planning and
administrative activities);
• The eligible program activities that may be undertaken with these funds;
• The unincorporated areas and locations proposed for utilizing the available funding;
23
• The proposed allocation of federal funds to participating non-profit organizations,
Cities, and unincorporated areas, and basic eligible program categories and proposed
funding allocations for local funding programs.
F. Information/ Document Accessibility
The following documents shall be made accessible for public review and comment
throughout the preparation process to provide open and on-going communication for
interested persons:
• Consolidated and Annual Action Plan (draft, final, and amended versions);
• Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER);
• Funding Allocation Policy and Process and Citizen Participation Plan (FAPP & CPP)
• Records of public hearings;
• Regulations and eligibility requirements governing programs;
• Contracting procedures, environmental policies, Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity
requirements;
• Letters of approval, grant agreements, monitoring/evaluation reports, and other
reports required by HUD;
• Mailings or other notices to community groups/organizations.
Copies of the first three documents listed, the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and
the FAPP & CPP will be available at HCS, all participating cities, County libraries, and specific
unincorporated area community centers. Additional copies will be made available to any
interested party upon request. Copies of the remaining documents listed will be available to
the public at HCS offices and via the Internet. Comments, questions, or suggested
amendments should be directed to contact person in public notices or to the Director of
HCS.
G. Citizen Comments and Concerns
The public is encouraged to submit comments, concerns, complaints, or suggestions either
in person or in writing at any time during the year. Such communications can be submitted
to HCS staff designated as a contact person in public notices or to the Director of HCS.
Opportunities to express comments and concerns will be at scheduled unincorporated
area/neighborhood community meetings, city council meetings, and Board of Supervisors
Public Hearings. Additionally, a 30 -day review period before approval of the FAPP & CPP,
Consolidated Plan, and any substantial amendments will allow the public an opportunity to
submit comments. All written comments regarding the FAPP & CPP, Consolidated Plan, and
any substantial amendments shall be reviewed by staff and responded to in writing. Staff
will respond in writing within 15 working days of receipt of such communications.
Send general comments to:
County of Orange Housing and Community Services Department
Paula Burrier-Lund, Director
1770 North Broadway,
Santa Ana, CA 92706-2680
24
H. Final Annual Action Plan and Funding Allocations
Following the 30 -day review and comment period, a final version of the Annual Action Plan
will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval and authorization for submittal to
HUD. All modifications and changes resulting from public comments or hearings will be
reflected in this final Annual Action Plan. Upon approval by the Board, the Annual Action
Plan shall be transmitted to HUD along with the approved funding applications and
certifications. The final version of the plan will be posted on the HCS website
http://www.ochousing.orci and copies will be distributed to participating cities and
community centers. Copies of the plan will also be made available to any interested party
within 15 days of request.
I. Amendments/Changes to Annual Action Plan
During each program year, the County will monitor the progress and viability of activities
funded in order to optimize resources for the community. The County may amend its
approved Annual Action Plan for the following reasons:
1. Lack of scheduled accomplishments.
2. A substantial change in grant allocation.
3. An action results in the creation of a new activity.
4. A new project is created or an existing project is deleted.
In the event that additional funding becomes available, HCS may pursue various options to
reallocate funds including augmenting the funding awards of higher ranked proposals or
awarding funds to alternate ranked projects that were not previously awarded funds. If
funding issues arise, efforts will be made to utilize the ARC members who participated in the
selection of proposals for the Annual Action Plan to provide continuity. Annual Action Plan
amendments will be submitted periodically to the Board of Supervisors as needed (See
Section III part G "Substantial and Non -Substantial Amendments). Amendments to the
Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD once approved.
J. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
HCS shall prepare a Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) as
prescribed by HUD. The information compiled in this document is necessary to assess the
progress on funding received by the County, participating cities, non -profits, and other
agencies or organizations. Data gathered in the compilation of the annual report will be
used to supply information to HUD and the public on the accomplishments and services
provided. The information will include the number of people served, ethnicity, income
category, and type of service received, as well as current status on housing, public facilities
and improvements, and other projects. The information also will be used to determine
future funding considerations.
Information contained in the CAPER will be made available to the public. A 15 -day public
notice will be published in one or more newspapers of general circulation and the public will
be advised of the opportunity to review the document and present comments. Copies of the
document will be available at participating cities, County libraries, and at HCS. Additionally,
a narrative copy of the CAPER may be located on the County website at www.ochousing.org.
The report shall be submitted to HUD within ninety days (90) after the end of the program
year and before September 30 of each year. Copies of reporting documents will also be
made available to any interested party within 15 days of request.
25
K. Environmental Review and Certification
As the lead agency responsible for the disbursement and monitoring of federal U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development funds, HCS shall ensure compliance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For both CEQA and NEPA, HCS shall be responsible for
conducting and/or coordinating environmental reviews and maintaining environmental
records.
CEQA: HCS will recommend a CEQA finding for all HCS funded projects. Said finding shall
be produced either by HCS staff analysis of the project or by concurrence with a previous
CEQA finding of another public agency (i.e. non -county lead). HCS will consult with PDSD
Environment Planning Division as needed for CEQA analysis and review, and will refer
projects with potential significant impacts to the Orange County Resources and
Development Management Department (RDMD) for further analysis.
NEPA: HCS is the responsible entity for NEPA review of HUD federally funded HCS projects
as set forth in 24 CFR Part 58. HCS staff will perform a NEPA analysis, submit NEPA
determinations to the HCS Director or designee as Certifying Officer, complete all publishing
requirements, and request Release of Funds from HUD based on that determination,
regardless of any previous environmental review by another public agency.
Occasionally, HCS will participate in the initial CEQA review process by receiving a report on
a proposed project and having the option of commenting to the lead agency, or the County
of Orange Resources and Development Management Department (RDMD), before any initial
CEQA determinations are made. As a non -county lead, a city or other agency would
forward project information directly to RDMD. The preliminary analysis may be routed to
HCS as part of the non -county project review process. Designated HCS staff may then be
responsible for routing the information for comment within HCS as appropriate and for
compiling HCS comments for submittal to the reviewing agency.
Applications for HCS project funding from potential subrecipients, whether through the
annual Application Review Committee or in response to an HCS/Housing Development
NOFA, shall require submittal of an Environmental Information Form (EIF). Cities are
required to submit the EIF along with a copy of the complete CEQA documentation as part
of the Request For Proposal (RFP) process.
At the time the RFP is submitted, All projects must demonstrate compliance with CEQA by
providing certified CEQA documentation. Certification demonstrating NEPA compliance is
required only for those actions funded in part with federal funds.
L. Policies and Procedures for Displacement of Individuals or Families
It is the policy of the County of Orange that all individuals, families, and businesses
displaced from their homes or locations as a result of HCS acquisition or rehabilitation
activities for public purposes will receive fair, uniform, and equitable treatment. Displaced
individuals or families shall not suffer disproportionate consequences as a result of projects
designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.
In the event that displacement or relocation is anticipated, a relocation plan consistent with
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (49 CFR Part
24) must be submitted to the County for review and approval prior to any action to relocate
or displace.
26
M. Lead Safe Housing Regulation
The County of Orange is addressing the problem of Lead -Based Paint through its
implementation of the Lead -Safe Housing Regulation, which is to target housing constructed
before 1978, and where children under six are most at risk of being affected by the hazards
of lead-based paint. The County has recently adopted a new set of agreements and
guidelines that provide grant funding for lead hazard control to property owners
participating in HCS housing rehabilitation programs. The Lead -Safe Housing Regulation
was published in the Federal Register on September 15, 1999 and became effective in
Orange County after a series of extensions on January 10, 2002. All questions or additional
information regarding the County of Orange Lead -Based / Lead -Safe Housing Regulation
program should be addressed to the contact identified below.
County of Orange Housing and Community Services Department
Larry Stansifer, Interim Manager, Community Development Services
1770 North Broadway
Santa Ana, CA 92706-2680
Telephone No. (714) 480-2727
E-MAIL: mailto:Larry. Stansifer(alhcs.ocgov.com
N. Signage at Project Construction Site
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Planning and
Development (HUD -CPD) has requested that the County ensure that the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is identified on all project signage. Erect signage at
construction sites for projects funded in whole or in part with HUD -CPD funds.
O. Americans with Disabilities Act
HCS's funding allocation policy provides for priority funding opportunities to be extended
towards projects dedicated to helping the disabled. HCS is also committed to meeting the
rules and regulations required in the Federal Regulations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). HCS will continue to participate in the countywide program to correct
deficiencies at all County facilities used by the public. To request this document for hearing
impaired contact (714) 480-2926 or obtain this document via HCS website at
www.ochousing.org.
P. Additional Questions or Comments
All questions or additional information regarding the Funding Allocation Policy & Process and
Citizen Participation Plan should be addressed to the contact identified below.
County of Orange Housing and Community Services Department
Orlando Calleros, Section Chief, Grant Management
1770 North Broadway
Santa Ana, CA 92706-2680
Telephone No. (714) 480-2731
E-MAIL: orlando.calleros@hcs.ocgov.com
27
PROPOSED FY 2008-2009
FUNDING ALLOCATION POLICY PROCESS (FAPP)
AND
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN (CPP)SCHEDULE
August 4, 2007 - Public Notice for 30 -Day Public Review Period of FAPP & CPP
September 4, 2007
September 18, 2007 OC Board of Supervisors Public Hearing for FAPP & CPP
October 3, 2007 Release Public Facilities & Improvements (PF&I) RFP
October 10, 2007 PF&I Technical Assistance Workshop and application distribution to
applicants (AM)
October 24, 2007 PF&I FY 2008-2009 Applications due
January 16-23, 200 Appeal Process
February 20, 2008 - 30 -day Public Review and Comment Period of Draft Annual Action
April 29, 2008 Plan (AAP) for 1st and 2nd Public Hearing
April 15, 2008 OC Board of Supervisors First Public Hearing to receive public
comment(s) on the draft AAP
April 29, 2008 OC Board of Supervisors Second Public Hearing for Adoption of
Final AAP
May 16, 2008 Submit Annual Action Plan for FY 2008-2009 to HUD
Dates are subject to change.
F11