Work begins on city's third General Plan

Work is now in the initial stages for a new General Plan--the third in Yorba Linda’s 45-year history, following guiding documents previously adopted in 1971 and 1993.

A General Plan is “the Constitution for land-use decisions at the local level,” noted a League of California Cities publication, and such plans address seven state-required elements: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety.

Yorba Linda’s first General Plan was adopted by City Council in 1971 and approved by voters in a heated 1972 election (2,317 to 1,902) that also resulted in two more low-density supporters joining the three who defeated incumbents in the 1970 campaign.

The 1971 plan established a low-density city by setting the overall density goal of 2.8 residential units per acre, including streets, easements and open space directly serving residents of the base acre, reversing a less-restrictive 1962 county-prepared plan.

Several aspects of the current 1993 plan are now moot, since considerable development has occurred in intervening years, on occasion under exceptions to the plan’s guidelines. Council unanimously adopted the document, for which no ballot was required.

The 1993 plan provides density definitions, including the following for residential: up to 1.0 unit-per-acre for low density, up to 1.8 for medium low density, up to 3.0 for medium density, up to 4.0 for medium high density and up to 10.0 for high density.

But the current plan also allows exceptions for 141 acres in Town Center, with bonus densities of up to 15 units-per-acre permitted for developers under specific guidelines.

Completion of the new plan is expected September 2013, according to a timeline by Irvine-based RBF Consulting, awarded a $549,402 contract by council last month to update both the General Plan and the city’s 1982 Master Plan of Parks and Recreation.

One of three subcontractors working with RBF will be Yorba Linda-based Natelson Dale Group, which will analyze retail, hotel/motel, office and industrial land-use categories to, among other purposes, “project market demand for future development.”

Fortunately, an early component of the process will involve a “community visioning” phase, providing an opportunity for input from residents, including those who seek to preserve--as much as is still possible--the remnants of this city’s semi-rural heritage.

Among proposed “visioning activities” is a “visioning festival” to include community workshops, stakeholder meetings, city walks and a “vision charette,” which will permit participants “to work in groups on topics that interest them,” along with other activities.

A second process will focus on updating the parks and recreation plan, consisting of a needs assessment, outreach to cultural and equestrian groups and a sport group survey.

Many of these activities are expected to take place now through July, with a “draft vision and action plan” prepared in August. Keep an eye on the Yorba Linda Star for notices of upcoming public meetings.

A public vote on a new General Plan is required under Measure B, a voter-approved 2006 law governing changes in land-use documents.

Eminent domain, redevelopment debt are topics

Two topics—eminent domain and the city’s inherited debt obligations as the successor agency to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency—merit a bit of printer’s ink this week.

First, let’s look at eminent domain, the government’s authority to seize private property. Eminent domain for economic purposes, such as taking land to resell to developers with the city collecting higher property and/or sales taxes, is illegal in Yorba Linda.

This limitation on the use of eminent domain was added to the city’s ordinances through Measure BB on the November 2008 ballot, which was supported by 79 percent of voters.

However, eminent domain for public purposes, such as taking land for street widening or other improvements benefitting the citizenry, remains legal, although the law hasn’t been used locally since the brouhaha over a failed 2004-05 Old Town redevelopment plan.

Now, City Council has authorized using eminent domain to seize a narrow strip of property, 130 feet long by 10 feet deep, fronting 4352 Lakeview Ave as part of the Lakeview Avenue widening and improvement project.

The city also seeks a 3,627-square-foot “temporary construction easement” to facilitate work on the portion of the project approaching the intersection with Bastanchury Road.

For both title to the 1,300 square feet of frontage and the easement, the city offered the property owner $100,860, which the city stated was based on an independent appraisal, but owner Newport Equity Capital Corporation asked $440,000.

The land the city wants contains concrete paving and block walls, lawn area, mailbox and landscaping. Nancy Rikel, who opposes the widening project due to lower property values, noise and traffic and changing the city’s appearance, cast the lone “no” vote.

Of course, eminent domain still can be used in Town Center to acquire property for new streets, public buildings or other improvements. The city owns 49 parcels (with 682,148 square feet) purchased 1975-2007, but at least as many remain privately owned.

Second, the council has assumed $614 million in outstanding debts or obligations from the disbanded Redevelopment Agency, with $16 million due February through June, as the agency’s successor body.

Presumably, agency assets and income from project-area property taxes will cover debts, with details determined by a seven-member oversight board to represent the city, county, Placentia-Yorba Linda schools, county schools, community colleges, agency employees and the general public, all to be named by a May 1 deadline.

According to a council-adopted “enforceable obligation payment schedule,” $163 million of the outstanding debt is for Town Center infrastructure and other bonds, personnel and overhead cost, fees, loans, Savi Ranch signage, affordable housing, mortgage assistance, contract services and maintenance and operations.

Pass-through payments due 14 agencies that would have collected some of the increased property taxes from project areas are $451 million, with close to $9 million due by June 30. The largest obligation is $297 million for the Placentia-Yorba Linda school district, with about $2.3 million payable this month and again in June.

Christian high school dream in jeapordy

Sadly, a long-held dream of many Yorba Lindans in this historically church-oriented city--a Christian high school--is in jeopardy, unless major hurdles that involve financing and lease terms can be overcome in time to meet a deadline less than two months away.

Friends Christian High School, with plans for a 1,200-student campus on a 32-arce parcel of city-owned land on Bastanchury Road, west of Eureka Avenue, is close to default after missing a quarterly $210,656 lease payment to the city due Jan. 1.

Unless terms in the lease signed in 2003 by the city and Yorba Linda Friends Church are changed, further funds to build the private high school are not likely to become available, according to statements by school officials at a recent City Council meeting.

The lease has been amended four times, once each year 2003-06, and a joint-use pact for the city to use the campus’s recreational and athletic facilities was signed in 2005.

Ideally, school officials want to purchase the land or set up a lease-purchase option, proposals denied by the council last year. Also rejected by city officials is a change in the lease that would subordinate the city’s interest to a lender.

Council granted the school a 90-day reprieve on the missed payment, but unless two payments are made by an April deadline, a default from lease terms will be declared.

Dan Duffy, the school’s managing director, is expected to return to council before the April 1 cut-off with proposed new lease terms after working with the school’s “lender base, legal counsel and donors,” he said at a Jan. 17 meeting.

In a Dec. 29 email to city officials, Duffy stated, “Basically, without the ability to build the school (under the current lease terms) and with no confirmed ability to ultimately generate revenue from a completed facility, FCHS cannot sustain the lease payments.”

If the rent remains unpaid or the city terminates the lease, the city could lose more than $800,000 in revenue in 2012, “which will result in a significant decrease in revenues to the city’s general fund,” City Attorney Todd Litfin noted in a report to council members.

“The city…could potentially attempt to recover certain amounts owed under the lease as a remedy for Friend’s Church breach of the lease” or “lease the property to a third party” or “to Friends under a new lease” to “establish a new rental stream of income,” he added.

In a September letter to the city, Duffy outlined several financial problems resulting from the lease terms, including the rising cost of lease payments that he stated could reach $6.2 million annually by the 99th year, in 2102, totaling more than $253 million in payments.

Significantly, Duffy noted, “Some lenders…avoid any financing on leased land, while others … take a worst-case scenario perspective and simply will not fund this project.” He added that financing has been turned down by more than 12 financial institutions.

More than $14 million has been invested in the project so far, according to Duffy, including more than $3 million in lease payments and more than $9 million for “entitlements and soft and hard costs for tenant improvements on the 32 acres.”

Council puts housing issue on June ballot

Sorry to sound a wee bit cynical, but I wasn’t surprised City Council chose a primary election over a general election with wider voter participation, when setting a date for residents to vote on measures detailing possible locations for affordable housing.

Council’s decision places two measures calling for “yes” or “no” votes on allowing 11 properties to be rezoned for up to 30 units per acre and serve as potential sites for low-income, multi-family housing on the June 5 primary election ballot.

Putting the measures on the June ballot will cost a bit more than waiting until the Nov. 6 general election, and voter turnout for the June primary might be about 30 percent less than for a November ballot, based on numbers from the 2008 and 2010 election cycles.

A perceived difference in primary and general election voting populations appeared to be one reason for choosing a June over a November date, with Mayor Mark Schwing noting a primary voter “is probably a more informed voter and understands the issues.”

In 2010, the June primary drew 37.5 percent of city voters and the November election, absent a presidential contest, 65.3 percent. In 2008, the November presidential election drew 81.6 percent, the June primary 23.3 percent and the February presidential primary 56.4 percent.

Council should have put the measures on the November ballot to allow participation by a larger portion of the electorate primed for the presidential contest. In fact, the city had asked the state to extend a deadline to permit a November 2012 vote.

Originally, state officials conditioned certification of the city’s current Housing Element on a June 2012 election, but a delay to November was granted due to the higher costs for a June versus a November vote.

Costs for a November ballot for three council seats and two measures would range from $70,000 to $85,000, while a June ballot on just the measures would range from $85,000 to $104,000.

Of course, a June ballot neatly separates the issue from November’s council contest, in which Schwing will seek a fifth term and Nancy Rikel a second. Jim Winder is termed-out after 12 years.

To reserve the June ballot date, council must adopt a resolution by Feb. 13. The pro and con arguments to be mailed with sample ballots are due March 9 and rebuttals March 19. The city attorney will write an “impartial analysis.”

Based on council comments and last year’s 3-2 vote identifying 14 properties for possible low-income housing units, John Anderson, Tom Lindsey and Winder might pen the “pro” arguments. Rikel and Schwing opposed the identifications but aren’t expected to fight the measures.

Eleven of the 14 properties will be on the ballot, since three increasing density to only 10 units per acre meet current rules. Of the 11, nine on the westside will be bundled into one measure, while two Savi Ranch parcels will be grouped for a second measure.

As noted in past columns, defeat of one or both measures could put the city’s housing plan “out of compliance” with state law, resulting in such consequences as the loss of local land-use authority, court sanctions and litigation by low-cost housing advocates.