Developers face a council shift
For the first time in nearly 20 years a majority of Yorba Linda’s City Council members were elected to their current terms without using campaign cash supplied by developers and other building-related interests from outside the city.
As a result, developers who profit from residential and other projects will ignore a new council philosophy at their own peril, as Newport Beach-based Etco Homes discovered recently.
Etco wanted to put eight single-family homes and two other lots on close to five acres on the east side of Lakeview Avenue between Mariposa Avenue and Orchard Drive, a much-traveled gateway entrance and exit on the city’s south side.
Planning Commissioners approved the Etco project, which incorporates four active oil wells to the south, on a 3-0 vote in October, a decision appealed by Councilman Hank Wedaa in November.
But through arrogance or adopting a misguided business-as-usual approach, Etco made two major mistakes in dealing with newer council members less friendly to developers.
First, Etco requested a two-week postponement of a Dec. 4 public hearing on Wedaa’s appeal without explanation and didn’t bother to show up to see whether or not council was willing to reschedule the hearing.
That prompted Councilman John Anderson and Wedaa to oppose rescheduling the hearing, because residents were present to comment on the project; but Mayor Jim Winder and council members Allen Castellano and Jan Horton approved a new date.
Second, in the hours preceding the Dec. 18 hearing, Etco installed a sign on the site advertising eight custom homes for sale. The sign was removed, but Anderson and Wedaa wondered why the billboard appeared before council action on the project.
Etco Southern California division president and Building Industry Association director Roger Hatch apologized for advertising the homes before earning council approval.
The offending sign likely will remain under wraps because council voted 5-0 to send the project back to a Planning Commission with three new members who weren’t among the commissioners who voted with the developer last year.
Anderson, Horton and Wedaa led the opposition to the development, citing traffic, landscaping, equestrian use and future oil well abatement issues. They labeled the project “minimal” and inadequate for one of the city’s gateway locations.
More instructive for future in-fill developers, however, is the higher standard adopted for these admittedly difficult projects by the three council members who have pledged to not accept contributions from individuals or businesses associated with the building industry.
A FINAL NOTE
Councilman John Anderson says he’ll ask council next month to place a ballot initiative forbidding future councils from using eminent domain authority for private development.
The past council rescinded eminent domain use in redevelopment areas, but it could be reinstated, even though a newer state definition of “blight” makes it unlikely.
If such a measure appears on the same November ballot as council candidates, current and past supporters of the late, unpopular eminent domain ordinance certainly would suffer consequences.
As a result, developers who profit from residential and other projects will ignore a new council philosophy at their own peril, as Newport Beach-based Etco Homes discovered recently.
Etco wanted to put eight single-family homes and two other lots on close to five acres on the east side of Lakeview Avenue between Mariposa Avenue and Orchard Drive, a much-traveled gateway entrance and exit on the city’s south side.
Planning Commissioners approved the Etco project, which incorporates four active oil wells to the south, on a 3-0 vote in October, a decision appealed by Councilman Hank Wedaa in November.
But through arrogance or adopting a misguided business-as-usual approach, Etco made two major mistakes in dealing with newer council members less friendly to developers.
First, Etco requested a two-week postponement of a Dec. 4 public hearing on Wedaa’s appeal without explanation and didn’t bother to show up to see whether or not council was willing to reschedule the hearing.
That prompted Councilman John Anderson and Wedaa to oppose rescheduling the hearing, because residents were present to comment on the project; but Mayor Jim Winder and council members Allen Castellano and Jan Horton approved a new date.
Second, in the hours preceding the Dec. 18 hearing, Etco installed a sign on the site advertising eight custom homes for sale. The sign was removed, but Anderson and Wedaa wondered why the billboard appeared before council action on the project.
Etco Southern California division president and Building Industry Association director Roger Hatch apologized for advertising the homes before earning council approval.
The offending sign likely will remain under wraps because council voted 5-0 to send the project back to a Planning Commission with three new members who weren’t among the commissioners who voted with the developer last year.
Anderson, Horton and Wedaa led the opposition to the development, citing traffic, landscaping, equestrian use and future oil well abatement issues. They labeled the project “minimal” and inadequate for one of the city’s gateway locations.
More instructive for future in-fill developers, however, is the higher standard adopted for these admittedly difficult projects by the three council members who have pledged to not accept contributions from individuals or businesses associated with the building industry.
A FINAL NOTE
Councilman John Anderson says he’ll ask council next month to place a ballot initiative forbidding future councils from using eminent domain authority for private development.
The past council rescinded eminent domain use in redevelopment areas, but it could be reinstated, even though a newer state definition of “blight” makes it unlikely.
If such a measure appears on the same November ballot as council candidates, current and past supporters of the late, unpopular eminent domain ordinance certainly would suffer consequences.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 PM
<< Home