City, water agency discuss mutual problems

Few of the governmental committees and advisory groups created in city history have had as promising a start as a joint City Council-Yorba Linda Water District body formed to brainstorm difficult problems facing both public agencies.

A first meeting involving two council members and two water board directors focused on the financially troubled Landscape Maintenance Assessment District and two proposed housing developments on 550 acres of county territory north of the city limits.

The new advisory committee includes two long-serving veterans at each agency – 21-year water director Mike Beverage and 7-year council member John Anderson – and two of the newest members – water director Bob Kiley and council member Gene Hernandez.

Other participants were City Manager Steve Rudometkin, water district Acting General Manager Steve Conklin, Community Development Director Steve Harris, Public Works Director Mark Stowell and two of the five spectators in a slim audience.

The group first tackled the city's landscape district, with water and maintenance funded by fees added to annual property tax bills. Fees don't cover all costs, so some $800,000 each year is appropriated from the city's general fund to meet expenses.

Among sensible partial solutions discussed: using “gray” or non-drinkable water in new areas, since retro-fits could be cost-prohibitive; testing areas with artificial turf, in partnership with the water district; and seeking grant money from regional agencies to fund conservation efforts.

Also, the water district will have a liaison attend sessions of council's new citizens' committee that will investigate landscape matters to answer water-related questions. The city buys more water from the district than any other customer.

Two controversial 452-home residential developments, Cielo Vista and Esperanza Hills, which one city official branded as “insensitive to the hillsides” in grading, traffic flow and fire hazards, also were scrutinized, along with other possible development of the larger “Murdock property.”

Water directors said they have “no leeway” in approvals if suitable infrastructure is in place, but they promised cooperation in supporting water requirements to meet fire-fighting issues.

Interestingly, officials noted the two developers don't appear to be cooperating on all matters requiring county approval. The city is upset developers are using a more lax county process, rather than following city standards.

The same issue is largely responsible for this city's incorporation in 1967, after several years of complaining to the county regarding housing and commercial development standards. The new city quickly appointed a planning commission to handle such matters.

Sale of the old water district headquarters on Plumosa Avenue also was discussed, and owners of the adjacent city-financed affordable apartment units have expressed interest.

The previous council nixed the joint committee 3-2, but a new lineup after the 2012 election adopted it 3-2, reversing past years of contentious relations that once included talk of a city takeover of the water district.