HomeMy WebLinkAboutKENNEDY COMMISSION (ITEM 8) ,w-Kennedy a .
• M M I S S 1 •
17701 Cowan Ave., Irvine, CA 92614
Tel.(949)250-0909-www.kennedycommission.org
October 5, 2021
Mayor Clark and City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
RE: Item 8 - Comments to City of Tustin Housing Element Draft dated October 2021
Mayor Clark and City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the City of Tustin's 2021-2029 Housing
Element Draft. We have reviewed the draft and are submitting this letter to provide public
comments,
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community
organizations that advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than
$27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001, the Commission has been successful in
partnering and working with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use
policies that have led to the construction of homes affordable to lower-income working families.
Public Engagement
Public engagement is a necessary component of the Housing Element process. As California
Housing Element law states: "The local government shall make a diligent effort to achieve public
participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing
element..."' Broad participation and true engagement of the public increase the likelihood that the
community members involved in the discussion and planning processes will support new housing
strategies and housing developments. Public engagement should include participation from
residents of diverse communities,housing consumers, service providers, and advocates.
The city conducted three community workshops thus far, and one survey available at two different
times, but did not provide alternative, diverse options for residents to participate in the Housing
Element process or specific outreach for lower income residents. The three workshops,with one
additional remaining workshop to be held on October 5, 2021,were study sessions and public
hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. This does not constitute adequate
community engagements. The city should have hosted additional meetings intended to exclusively
engage residents. Moreover, the city did not provide information on how many of those participants
were residents of Tustin, and, specifically,low-income residents. Furthermore, the City's survey
was only available to residents for a little over a month at a time, from January 21, 2021,to
February 28, 2021, and June 30, 2021, through July 30, 2021. That is not enough time for residents
to participate, especially low-income and special needs residents who generally face more digital
Gov.Code,§ 65583,subd.(c)(9)
1
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
connectivity issues.Not surprisingly, the survey only had 192 respondents,not all of which were
residents,which is not sufficient evidence of resident engagement. Moreover,the city does not
provide a description of the respondents, so it is unclear how many residents were from lower
income communities. The City needs to properly engage community stakeholders and residents in
the evaluation and creation of policies, goals,programs and sites for affordable housing
development, especially low income and special needs residents who are the most vulnerable to the
housing crisis and document these efforts.
In addition, the availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior
to submission to HCD is essential to the public process. However, the City did not provide
sufficient opportunity for the public to review the Housing Element draft. The draft was released to
the public on June 30,2021, and it was also submitted to HCD for review on that same day. The
city should proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters,
prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including
making revisions to the document where appropriate.
Community Needs
According to SCAG's pre-certified housing data,there are a total of 13,595 renter households in
Tustin,with 3,670 or 27% of those households' spending thirty percent or more of gross income on
housing costs. Additionally, 3,360 or 25%renter households are extremely rent burdened and are
paying fifty percent or more of gross income on housing costs. Furthermore, 25% of renter
households live in overcrowded conditions.3
Employment:
The City's analysis on the employment available in Tustin was not thorough enough. For example,
unlike other Orange County jurisdictions who provided information on the median income of the
primary employment of residents in their jurisdictions, Tustin failed to provide this information.
Analyzing the wage ranges, major employers and employment sectors are important to adequately
serve the needs of the employees earning those wages. One takeaway from the limited information
provided and that is found in Table H-4, is that the majority of jobs in the city fall into the lower-
income categories. For example, the service sector is the largest employment sector in the city
providing 41.1% of jobs. Furthermore, according to Table H-6, the City has a jobs to housing ratio
of 1.78 indicating that while Tustin may be a job-rich city but does not have sufficient housing for
its residents. The City of Tustin should take into account its local economy and offer healthy and
affordable housing options that the current market-rate housing development is not offering. The
Housing Element must also describe employment trends by industry and how changes either recent
or anticipated can affect the housing market and discuss opportunities for improving work-housing
balance, such as mixed-use to facilitate housing that is located near jobs.
Housing Stock Conditions:
The Housing Element must"include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics,
including level of payment compared to ability to pay,housing characteristics, including
overcrowding, and housing stock condition."4 While the element includes some information on
2 SCAG Pre-Certified Housing Data for the City of Tustin,Housing Element Draft,p. 11-9,June 2021
3 Page 11
4 Gov.Code,§65583,subd.(a)(2)
2of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
housing stock conditions from American Community Survey (ACS) data, it is not thorough enough.
For example,the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling,
estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable
builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.
5th Cycle Housing Element RHNA Performance
During the current 5th cycle planning period the city had a total Regional Housing Needs
Assessment(RHNA) of 1,227, 283 at very low-income, 195 at low-income, 224 at moderate and
525 at above moderate. To date,the city has approved 114 units at moderate and 1,240 at above
moderate.5 At very-low income the city has approved 94 units and 74 at low-income. The city has
exceeded 5th Cycle Housing Element(5th cycle)targets for moderate and above moderate, creating
an unbalanced production housing units. The number of moderate and above moderate units
approved in the last seven years was 7 times more than those at low and very low income. This
imbalance in housing production and lower income housing deficit in the City indicates that the
City's affordable housing policies have not been effective in incentivizing and producing affordable
housing for lower income households.
5th Cycle Identified Opportunity Sites:
In the 5th Cycle, the city identified housing opportunity sites for very low- and low-income housing
primarily in Neighborhood D and Neighborhood G of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (TLSP). Out
of 1,351 units approved in the TLSP, only 262 units are affordable. 161 of these units were
provided by the Anton Legacy project which was completed in 2015. No other housing at the very
low- and low-income levels has been approved on the TLSP since the approval of the Anton legacy
project. In fact, the City has not issued building permits for any other affordable units during the 5th
Cycle other than 7 ADUs.
The lack of affordable housing production shows the need for a strong affordable housing policy
such as an affordable housing policy that requires that at least a 20% affordable housing
requirement is set aside for very low and low-income households in all projects proposed on the
city owned sites in the TLSP Neighborhood D and Neighborhood G. Currently there is no analysis
of what commitment or housing policy will be implemented on these sites to prioritize affordable
housing in the lower income households in the TLSP. This is a particularly important strategy for
the TLSP sites given that they are owned by the city. Without strong affordability requirements, the
TLSP zoning circumvents the efforts of the State density bonus law to include affordable housing in
exchange for development incentives and increases in density because these sites provide market-
rate developers the densities they need by-right.
Housing Policies to Increase Affordable Housing
Past Performance:
The City must"review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and
progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element."6 While the
element includes a program-by-program review of implementation in the prior planning period, the
review of past programs should also analyze the cumulative effectiveness of programs on addressing
5 Tustin 2020 Housing Element Annual Progress Report,Table B
6 Gov.Code§65588(a)and(b)
3of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
special housing needs over the previous planning period. As the 5th Cycle progress indicates,the
City's housing policies have developed housing in an unbalanced way and prioritized market-rate
housing over housing for low-income families. For the upcoming 6th Cycle,we recommend that the
City include policies with stronger affordability requirements instead of continuing to hope that the
market will deliver affordable housing by identifying higher density sites for lower-income RHNA
needs. Examples of policies the City can implement are in the section below titled
"Recommendations."
Incentivizing Affordable Housing in the 6th Cycle Housing Element:
To ensure that affordable housing is created in the sites identified for the 6th Cycle, the
Commission recommends the following revisions to the programs proposed by the city for the 6th
Cycle:
e Program 1.1 Residential Development—Available Sites: The City proposes to facilitate
housing production, including lower income housing,by implementing the appropriate
zoning and densities in the TLSP, the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP),
and the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP), Tustin Market Place and The Enderle
Center. However, as proven by the little amount of affordable housing production that has
occurred in these areas over the 5th Cycle and the overproduction of above moderate
housing, the city needs to implement strong regulatory incentives on these sites to ensure
lower income housing is produced on these sites. We recommend these suggestions be
implemented by 2022 given low-income residents' urgent need for affordable housing.
o TLSP: Of 1,351 units approved on the TLSP, only 262 are affordable. Given that the
TLSP currently lacks an inclusionary requirement,the Commission recommends that
the city require that at least a 20% of units in all residential projects in the TLSP for
very low and low-income households. The City's revision of the policy to allow by-
right development for projects that include 20% affordable housing units is
commendable, but not strong enough to ensure these units will be built given the land
use and development incentives given to market rate development in the TLSP.
o DCCSP and RHASP: Only a total of 6 very low-income units have been approved on
the DCCSP and RHASP since the adoption of these specific plans in 2018. However,
171 above-moderate income units have been approved in these two areas. While
projects approved on the DCCSP and the RHASP are subject to the City's 2018
Workforce Housing Ordinance, it is clear in the unbalanced production in the area to-
date that this ordinance is not strong enough to produce the affordable housing needed.
The Commission recommends that the city strengthen the Ordinance to require that at
least 15% of the units in all projects approved in these two specific plans be set aside
for very low- and low-income housing.
Program 1.3 Density Bonus Program: While densities bonuses are an important strategy to
produce affordable housing,they are not effective unless accompanied by strong affordable
housing requirements, such as inclusionary policy. The areas the City has identified for
affordable housing,the TLSP,the DCCSP, and the RHASP, either have no density
restrictions or a minimum of at least 25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with the ability to
increase that density as long as the total number of units allowed in the specific plan are not
surpassed. This circumvents the efforts of the State density bonus law to include affordable
housing in exchange for increases in density or incentives because these sites already provide
market-rate developers with the densities and land use concessions that they need.
4of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
• Program 1.4 Voluntary Workforce Housing: The City proposes to conduct a study of the
2018 Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance from 2022 to 2023. We recommend that the
city commits to implementing any steps that will strengthen the Ordinance by no later than
2025. Furthermore, given that not enough affordable housing has been incentivized on the
DCCSP and RHASP, which are both subject to the Ordinance,the Commission recommends
that the city amend the Ordinance so that it requires that projects set aside at least 15% of the
units for very low- and low-income housing.
• Program 1.5 Zoning Code Streamlining Program: In addition to conducting a study to
identify industrial and commercial areas that can accommodate housing, the City should
implement inclusionary policies on the sites that are identified. Thus far, the City has not had
a problem producing market-rate housing,but it has failed to produce sufficient lower
income housing. Furthermore, the city needs to commit to conducting a thorough
environmental analysis of the sites identified, especially industrial sites,to ensure appropriate
environmental remediation of the land occurs.
• Program 1.6 Mobile Home Programs: Mobile homes often provide affordable housing
options to low-income residents. However, low-income residents are increasingly vulnerable
to rent increases and conversions of parks to residential developments that are not affordable
to them. This is especially true for senior mobile home residents, as they are also at-risk of
their mobile homes losing their senior-status and becoming family parks which typically
have higher rents. Many mobile home residents have the additional burden of having
invested in the mobile home that sits on the land they rent and that is logistically and
financially difficult to move. As such,the Commission recommends that the city include
stronger protections against rent increases on mobile home land and conversions of parks.
Furthermore,the City should provide effective relocation assistance to residents who are
displaced due to rent increases and conversions.
• Program 1.8 Accessory Dwelling Units Programs: The City needs to include stronger
programs that will ensure ADUs will be affordable to lower income households.
• Program 1.14 Adaptive Reuse of Historic Resources to Facilitate Affordable Housing
Production: The City needs to provide more details and how this program will be
implemented and include requirements that ensure that this program will primarily produce
units at the very low and low-income housing.
• Program 2.5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: To address the clear patterns of
segregation and lack of affordable housing available to low-income communities in Tustin,
the city needs to move beyond providing educational materials to residents. It must also
implement policies that will produce lower income housing throughout the City and identify
ways to increase investment in low resource communities. The city should consider the
suggestions the Commission has provided in the section below titled"Recommendations".
• Program 3.1 Condominium Conversions: Condominiums are generally inaccessible to
lower income residents. As such,the city must ensure that there is a 1:1 unit replacement for
low-income residents displaced by a condominium conversion so that this resident has access
to an affordable unit in the city. Furthermore, the City needs to ensure sufficient relocation
assistance is provided to impacted residents. Additionally,the City needs to specifically state
what types of incentives and assistance will be given to low-income families to help them
purchase any approved condominiums and ensure that they are sufficient to ensure some of
these condominiums will be accessible to lower income households. We also suggest these
incentives and assistance be extended to very low-income families.
5of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
• Program 3.7 Preservation of Assisted Housing: The City should work with community
groups to create a community land trust that can ensure that current and future affordable
units at-risk of becoming market-rate, can remain affordable in perpetuity. Another strategy
the City could pursue is a Right-of First-Refusal Policy that would give tenants the ability to
buy properties that are losing their affordability in order to keep these properties affordable.
• Program 3.8 Membership of the California Community Housing Agency(CalCHA):
The City should explore creating a similar program for extremely low and very low-income
families who seem to currently be excluded from Ca1CHA. Moreover, there may be low-
income residents in market-rate housing who might not be able to verify their incomes as
required by Ca1CHA for a variety of reasons like immigration status or their type of
employment. The city should ensure these residents are not displaced and it should find
alternatives that will allow them to benefit from a program like CaICHA.
In addition, the Kennedy Commission provides a list of recommendations on housing policies and
programs in the recommendations section below.
Housing Element Opportunity Sites Inventory
Identified Low Income Sites:
As part of the analysis of adequate sites,the city has reviewed potential housing sites citywide and
has identified opportunity sites for lower-income households in the TLSP,the DCCSP, and the
RHASP, Tustin Market Place and Enderle Center. The sites are predominantly identified based on
zoning and default densities for lower income units. No other housing policy has been incorporated
that will effectively incentivize affordable housing on these sites. The lack of progress developing
affordable housing on these specific plans in the 5th Cycle shows the need to accompany zoning
and default densities with regulatory tools that will effectively produce housing at the lower income
levels like an inclusionary policy. Furthermore, affordable housing projects ideally need a minimum
density of 30 du/ac. Yet, this density is only allowed in the TLSP, DCCSP, and RHASP if the total
number of units permitted in each of these areas has not been exceeded. If the City continues to
prioritize market-rate housing in these areas, the densities ideal for affordable housing will not be
possible on the TLSP, DCCSP, and RHASP.
Suitability ofNon-vacant Sites:
The Housing Element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for redevelopment of
non-vacant sites. To address this requirement, the Housing Element should describe and support the
potential for additional development in the 6th Cycle and consider additional factors such as the age
of structure,presence of expiring leases, condition of the structure, and expressed interest in
development. The city does not provide adequate evidence of the likelihood of the non-vacant sites
being developed into affordable housing in their Housing Element draft. For example, it is unclear
if the owners have expressed explicit interest in developing their properties and, if so,by when they
would transition their properties.
The following are non-vacant sites for which the likelihood of development seems low based on the
information provided by the city:
e Site #5: This site is currently a Denny's restaurant. Did the owner state interest in
developing this property as residential and, if so, by when?
6of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
• Site #6: This site includes a Stater Bros grocery store and other commercial businesses that
are used by the community. The site also has three different owners. Did the owners
explicitly state interest in developing the property and, if so,by when?
• Site #7: This site is the frontage of another apartment complex. Did the owner state interest
in developing this property and, if so,by when?
• Site #8: This site is the Bel-Air Motor Hotel. Did the owner state interest in developing this
property as residential and, if so,by when? Furthermore, if this site is converted from a
motel to a residential development, the city would need to conduct a study to assess if there
are any long-term, low-income residents living at this motel and ensure that there is
relocation assistance and 1:1 replacement of units for these residents.
• Site #10: This site is Larwin Square, and it includes multiple commercial businesses that are
frequently used by the community including a Bank of America,US Bank, Rite Aid, Pollo
Loco, FedEx, and Gold Coastal Dental. Did the owner of this property state interest in
developing this property as residential and, if so,by when?
• Site #11 and #12: This site has been reused twice, first used in the 4th Cycle and then again
in the 5th Cycle. The city needs to provide more evidence of how the city plans to increase
the probability these sites will be developed into affordable housing in the 6th Cycle.
• Site #17 and #18: The Market Place and Enderle Center sites are both high performing
and highly active shopping centers. The draft does not provide any analysis or information
as to the feasibility or potential for development of housing. These two commercial centers
have institutional and community anchor retail that is highly used and profitable. Have the
owners explicitly stated any interest in developing these properties for a different use?
Would these be used for mixed use of housing and commercial (reducing residential
capacity)? Has there been an initial feasibility study and environmental review? What is the
timing of these initial studies and inquiries? Would these complexities allow for these sites
to be available in the planning period? How will affordable housing be incentivized or
required in these sites? These sites require greater analysis on the feasibility of redeveloping
existing highly performing and performing commercial shopping centers.
Vacant Sites:
The city selected Site#1 and #2 in the TLSP as the sites that will accommodate the most lower
income housing units for the upcoming 6th Cycle. These city owned sites are being reused from the
5th Cycle. The city has failed to provide evidence of the actions they are taking to increase the
probability these sites will be developed. We recommend the City implement an inclusionary policy
in the TLSP that requires that at least 20% of units in all residential projects be set aside for
extremely low,very-low, low-income housing on these city owned sites.
No Net Loss:
The city will also have to consider No Net Loss when it identifies opportunity sites. It is crucial that
affordable housing moves along with market-rate housing given the limited sites that are available.
Considering the state's, No Net Loss requirements, if the sites identified for affordable housing are
developed for market-rate housing,the city will have to rezone new sites for the appropriate
density.7
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
7 Government Code §65863
7of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
The sites identified for lower income housing are highly concentrated in TLSP, RHASP and
DCCSP zoning which are in areas that are considered low resource areas meaning that they lack
amenities and investment. The city does not provide a reason for why sites cannot be relocated to
higher affluence areas of the city beyond the fact that 65% of survey respondents identified it as a
good location for housing. As a reminder,there were only 192 survey respondents and, thus, not
sufficient justification for continuing patterns of segregation. The City also does not provide anti-
displacement policies that will ensure low-income residents in low resource areas are not displaced
due to the increase in market-rate development in these areas which is particularly important given
that the City seeks to accommodate the majority of its RHNA allocation at all income levels in low
resource areas.
Credit Towards 6th Cycle RHNA
The city also claims certain credits towards their 6th Cycle RHNA that the city claims decrease the
number of sites the city must identify to meet their RHNA. In Table B-2 of the Housing Element
draft, the city counts 132 units of transitional housing towards their extremely low and very low-
income RHNA requirement. Transitional housing is temporary and not permanent and, thus, it will
not provide long-term stable housing options extremely low and very low-income residents need.
It is important that the city address the concerns we raised with the 6th Cycle Housing Element site
inventory and further evaluate constraints to and the likelihood of the development of affordable
housing on these sites. Moreover,the City needs to identify affordable housing policies and
programs that will equitably facilitate and incorporate affordable housing at the extremely low, very
low and low-income categories on these sites.
ADUs
The Commission questions the affordability of the 35 ADU units the city anticipates for the 6th
Cycle. The city is assuming that 22 ADU units will be at the very low- and low-income level.
However, the City does not provide strong enough policies that will ensure these ADU units will be
affordable at the lower income levels. The city needs to propose a better plan to ensure the
affordability of ADUs.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
The Housing Element has some basic information on demographics and overall scores for access to
opportunity. However, the element generally does not address AFFH. The Housing Element needs
to include outreach, an assessment of fair housing, identification, and prioritization of contributing
factors to fair housing issues and goals and actions sufficient to overcome patterns of segregation
and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. The City has
failed to provide a thorough analysis of risk of displacement, gentrification, and exclusivity in the
City or policies that address these issues. The City has also not provided adequate recommendations
on how the City will address contributing factors to fair housing issues in the City.
Based on the City's AFFH analysis, there are clear segregation patterns in the city. Most of the low
resource areas, lower median income areas, and areas with higher levels of poverty coincide with
areas that are primarily inhabited by minority groups, specifically Hispanics, Blacks, and Asian
communities. These areas are to the South and Southwest of the City, closer to the border with the
City of Santa Ana. In contrast,the highest resource areas and the higher median income areas
8of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
coincide with areas that are primarily inhabited by White residents. Furthermore,the AFFH
analysis states that the groups facing higher numbers of housing issues are Hispanics and Blacks
and that census tracts that have higher levels of overcrowding are primarily inhabited by Hispanics
and Blacks. When considering overcrowding levels, it is important to also look at the availability of
housing that can accommodate large families. Tustin is lacking housing options for large families,
of whom 75.23% stated they face housing problems.
Not only is this the existing income,resource, and ethnic and racial distribution of the city, but this
pattern of segregation will also continue in the 6th Cycle given that all the lower income housing
sites identified for the 6th Cycle are in areas the AFFH analysis identified as low resource and as
having lower median incomes in the south and southeast of the city. No lower income housing sites
were identified in the northeast which is a primarily high resource area with higher median
incomes. The zoning in this area primarily allows single family homes and lower density residential
projects and this will continue to be the case in the 6th Cycle.
The following are AFFH requirements the city has failed to properly address:
• An assessment of Fair Housing in Tustin including a summary of issues and analysis of
patterns, and trends
• The preparation, adoption, and implementation of a housing element requires a diligent effort
to include all economic segments of the community.
• Identification and prioritization of fair housing contributing factors
• Investment in low resource areas that will improve quality of living in those areas
• Programs with a schedule of actions with timelines and specific commitment to have a
"beneficial impact" within the planning period to achieve the goals and objectives of
addressing contributing factors to Fair housing issues.8
We ask that the city prioritize the housing needs of low,very low and extremely low-income
residents and minorities,who encounter a disproportionate level of difficulties in finding decent,
affordable housing.
Recommendations
As the City moves forward with the Housing Element update,the Commission urges the city to
support the development of affordable homes. The City needs to ensure opportunity sites are not
simply up zoned or rezoned without including affordable housing policies that will capture the
financial and land use incentives being given to property owners and market rate developers. This
approach did not create affordable housing in the 5th Cycle and nor will it have a different outcome
in the 6th Cycle. The Commission is providing the city the following recommendations:
I. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that sets a 15%requirement of housing production
at extremely low and very low-income categories on all residential projects. The city currently
has the 2018 Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance, but it does not have strong enough
affordability requirements. It also only applies to the DCCSP and the RHASP and not the
TLSP which is where the city identified the majority of lower income housing sites.
2. Identify City-owned sites and prioritize these sites for the development of housing exclusively
at the extremely low and very low-income level. This is particularly important in the TLSP
8 Gov.Code,§ 65583,subd.(c)(10)(A)
9of10
Kennedy Commission Comments
Tustin Draft Housing Element
October 5, 2021
given that the majority of lower income housing sites were identified in this area. Arguably,
this is the site over which the city has more regulatory control given that it is owned by the
city. Thus, at the minimum, the TLSP should have an inclusionary policy that sets a 20%
requirement of housing production at extremely low and very low-income categories on all
residential projects.
3. The city needs to prioritize and expand affordable housing in opportunity sites identified in
the site inventory,where density and incentives will only promote market rate housing.
4. Prioritize affordable housing funding and programs to increase affordable housing options for
families of lower incomes, especially at extremely low and very low-income.
5. If the sites at the Tustin Market Place and Enderle Center are demonstrated to be viable sites,
what policies or programs will be integrated into the planning opportunity areas to ensure that
affordable housing for low,very low and extremely low-income households is incorporated
into housing development. We recommend that an affordable housing overlay be created on
these sites to ensure that a minimum of 15% of the housing development being incentivized
be affordable to low,very low and extremely low households.
6. Ensure that development sites being identified and discussed in the Housing Element draft are
realistic and available during the planning period.
7. The city should provide an adequate analysis and recommendations on how the city will
address AFFH. For example, how will the city ensure that affordable housing is developed in
high opportunity areas of the city? What housing policy will be implemented to ensure that
affordable housing is built along with market rate housing in all identified potential sites and
areas of the city? In addition, the City should include anti-displacement policies that protect
low-income residents from rising rents, commit to reinvesting in low resource areas to
improve the quality of living of residents in those areas, and identify lower income housing
sites in higher affluence areas.
The Commission looks forward to partnering with the City of Tustin to create opportunities to
increase affordable homes for lower income households in the city. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at(949)250-0909 or cesarc@kennedycommission.org.
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
cc
Ms.Erica H.Demkowicz,ACIP,Senior Planner City of Tustin
Mr.Colin Cross,Land Use and Planning Analyst CA Housing and Community Development
Mr.Paul McDougal,Manager,Housing Policy,CA Housing and Community Development
10 of 10
,w-Kennedy
•
September 14, 2021 www.kennedycommission.org
17701 Cowan Ave.,suite 200
Irvine,CA 92614
949 250 0909
Chair Amy Mason and Commissioners
City of Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
RE: Item 92 City of Tustin—General Plan Amendment GPA 2021-002 (Housing Element
Update)—Negative Declaration
Chair Mason and Commissioners,
The Kennedy Commission (the Commission), a broad-based coalition of residents and
community organizations, advocates for the production of homes affordable for families earning
less than $27,000 annually in Orange County. Formed in 2001,the Commission has successfully
partnered and worked with Orange County jurisdictions to create effective housing and land-use
policies that have led to the new construction of homes affordable to lower-income working
families and increasing investment in our communities.
The Kennedy Commission has provided formal comments to the proposed Tustin's General Plan
Housing Element Update ("the Update") and its accompanying Environmental Negative
Declaration ("the ND") and they are part of the record. A more detailed letter will be will be
submitted with more detailed analysis to include recent changes to second amended draft. These
are preliminary comments.
The Update will guide development of Tustin for many years, and the Housing Element and
California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.,
requires that the city thoroughly assess the Update and its environmental impacts.
In developing its Housing Element Sites Inventory the city must demonstrate in its Housing
Element the ability to meet the assigned housing needs, through the provision of sites suitable for
residential development. To meet the assigned housing needs, the Housing Element identifies
sites (Table 2)that may be suitable for residential development in the following areas:
- Ten (10) Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan (DCCSP) mixed-use sites;
-Four(4)Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP)mixed-use sites;
-Four (4)Tustin Legacy Specific Plan (TLSP)mixed-use urban residential sites;
-The Market Place; and
-The Ederle Center
In order to accommodate the additional units to meet RHNA,the City proposes zoning
amendments and the creation of overlay zones for The Market Place and Ederle Center will need
to be accomplished within the first three (3) years following adoption of the Housing Element, as
required by State law.
1
However,the Update continues to be deficient in the analysis of the sites allocated to lower
income, especially in regard to the non-vacant sites at Market Place and Elder Center sites. The
proposal continues to be ambiguous, and it does not fully explain how these thriving community
retail anchors will be incentivized to transition to housing and ensure that affordable housing
opportunities will be created to meet lower income targets. In addition,the city does not explain
sites viability or how the inconsistencies caused by proposed overlays or zoning changes will be
analyzed or mitigated. The proposed update is creating inconsistencies and uncertainties with
contrary requirements in Land Use,Zoning Code, Housing Element and affordable housing
policies. The General Plan serves as a"constitution" for the regulation of future development in
the City. The City's land use regulations must be consistent with the General Plan. We request
that the City provide specific site by site identification, analysis, studies and data to support that
these sites are feasible to meet the housing needs of lower income families. The identified lower
income sites need to incorporate affordable housing policies that will help create affordable
housing and not just incentivize only market rate housing.
We urge the City to (1)provide for more feasibility analysis and information on sites identified
for meeting the lower income affordable housing RHNA. (2)Ensure that identified lower income
also include an affordable housing policy that results in the creation of affordable housing on
these sites. (3)Analyze the potential planning and environmental impacts and environmental
justice on new areas proposed for housing development, especially those identified for lower
income RHNA.
We respectfully request that the City revise the Update to address these issues.
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
2