Council and developers are ducking the real issue

The current coalition of developers and City Council members is avoiding important questions regarding the new zoning ordinances and the Town Center project. Perhaps council members should sign a new developer-paid mailing and explain the following:

--Why was the late Ron Cano’s widely praised plan for Old Town replaced by Michael Dieden’s more controversial residential and commercial development proposals?

Cano’s ideas focused on Main Street rehabilitation and would have provided the new restaurants and unique shopping experiences supported by most Yorba Linda residents.

In fact, Cano’s impressive plan generated much of the early support for Old Town revitalization that the council and developers now associate with the Dieden project.

--Why didn’t the recent developer-paid City Council and Chamber of Commerce letters address the two new zoning ordinances that the referendum petitions seek to overturn?

Neither mailing mentioned the 501 housing units nor the 560,000 square feet of commercial space permitted by the new, rushed-to-completion zoning regulations.

Instead, the developers and their council/chamber allies showed drawings of one portion of the newly zoned area and listed projects that could be built under less-dense zoning.

--Why were the new zoning ordinances extended to the Yorba Station shopping center at the last-minute without consulting the center owners or merchants?

Obviously, the council’s longtime promise of an open process gave way to a desire to force any petition challenge to be conducted during the Christmas-New Year’s holidays.

The new zoning allows 72 residential units on the Yorba Station property. But that amount could increase by whatever units aren’t built on other Town Center sites.

--Why do the developers and council members oppose a public vote on any aspect of the Town Center plan, and why do council members marginalize so many city residents?

I’ve always thought an advisory vote would give solid support to an Old Town revitalization plan. I also think the “right-to-vote” initiative and potential zoning referendum face long odds of succeeding on the June 6 ballot.

Petition supporters won’t be able to match the campaign funds raised by the developers to get their project approved. If developers have the deep pockets to pay for mailer after mailer at this early stage, they clearly won’t be hurting for cash come June.

But the developers paid for an extensive citywide telephone survey, so they might have good reason to fear a public vote.

Council members should remember that many of the citizens they call misinformed “naysayers” have supported several worthwhile projects over the years, including the Community Center, Travis Ranch Activity Center, Black Gold Golf Course and Imperial Highway improvements.

A Final Note--Some longtime Chamber of Commerce members are grumbling that they didn’t have a voice or a vote in the chamber board’s decision to oppose the Town Center zoning referendum petitions and mail a misleading, developer-paid brochure to residents.

But the board’s action was anticipated, partly due to the annual payments the chamber receives under its contract with the city. Less expected, however, was the strong Orange County Register editorial-page support for the referendum.

Interestingly, nearly all Yorba Station merchants, who were blind-sided by the center’s last-minute addition to the new Old Town area zoning ordinances, posted the Register’s powerful Dec. 26 “Yorba Linda, take back your town” editorial in their front windows.