Clean-up activity on contaminated sites

State and county officials responsible for overseeing remediation of Yorba Linda's underground contamination sites are ready to close another case, leaving just eight properties with a clean-up status labeled as “open.”

All of the sites are associated with current and former gasoline stations, and some are a legacy from pre-cityhood days, when the county Board of Supervisors loaded up Yorba Linda Boulevard with so many oil company outlets that the thoroughfare was called “gasoline alley.”

The latest--following 22 cases closed the past couple decades--involves the Yorba Linda Car Wash on Imperial Highway, just north of Los Angeles Street. The remediated site was designated as “eligible for closure” last year, and final reviews and public comment will end May 5.

Five other contaminated sites, mostly due to leaks from underground gasoline storage tanks, were labeled “eligible for closure” in 2013, but inspections and paperwork aren't yet complete.

Of course, the city's most contaminated site, the fenced-off former Ultramar station property at the southeast corner of the Imperial Highway-Lemon Drive intersection, just west of the library, has a long way to go until a “projected closure” in 2019.

Remediation on the city-owned property is ongoing, with a projected completion in 2015. Confirmation borings are anticipated by 2016, with post-remedial monitoring completed in 2018.

The latest report from the state indicates an underground “plume length exceeds water quality objectives” and ranges from 250 to 1,000 feet. The clean-up involves 17 monitoring wells.

The five “eligible for closure” sites earn the designation because “corrective action...has been determined to be completed and any remaining petroleum constituents...are considered to be low threat to human health, safety and the environment,” according to the state's criteria.

These sites include the former Union station property at Main Street and Imperial Highway, now a city-owned parking lot and home to the Farmers' Market, where a case was opened in 1987 and remediation started in 1992. A review checklist was completed March 14.

The others are the Mobile station at Yorba Linda Boulevard and Richfield Road; the Chevron station on Imperial Highway, just north of Lemon Drive; the Union station at Esperanza Road and Fairlynn Boulevard; and the Mobile station on Yorba Linda Boulevard, just south of New River Drive.

Considered on a “path to closure” are the Yorba Country Car Wash on Yorba Linda Boulevard, east of Valley View Avenue (closure projection for 2015), and the former Shell station at Yorba Linda Boulevard and Lakeview Avenue, now home to the Coffee Bean and other shops (closure projection 2016).

Should state and county officials indicate the Ultramar site is remediated by the current projection dates, the land could become part of the Town Center development, with the level of remediation determining how the site can be used.

A total 101 wells monitored clean-up activity on the nine properties. 

Measures H and I: Unintended consequences

Much of Yorba Linda's current political ruckus can be traced back to decisions the City Council made in late 2011 and early 2012 regarding two measures placed on the June 2012 primary election ballot—decisions that resulted in a fateful number of unintended consequences.

And the present campaign-style rhetoric surrounding those two-year-old council choices obscures central facts bearing on the city's high-density and affordable housing debates.

This and future columns will present pertinent information on events that led to the current conflict and demonstrate how an effort to satisfy a state mandate created so much turmoil.

The state's mandate, of course, is that cities provide opportunities for the construction of affordable housing through amenable zoning rules, which usually means allowing higher densities on available vacant land.

In this city, a public vote on major zoning changes is required under Measure B, adopted in 2006. So, Measures H and I were readied for a vote, with council choosing a June 2012 election over a November ballot, though the latter would have met state requirements.

Measure H would rezone two Savi Ranch parcels totaling six acres to allow up to 180 units, and Measure I would rezone nine westside properties totaling some 40 acres to allow up to 770 units.

The nine westside properties were packaged into a single measure due to ballot costs and a fear among council members that residents facing separate votes on so many parcels—ranging from a third of an acre to nearly seven acres—would vote no on all of them.

And council discussion at the time indicated members thought the smaller number of June primary voters would be “more informed” than a larger number of November voters, so the measures stood a better chance of passing in June—thus gaining state certification for the city's housing plan—when aided by a city-funded $45,000 “educational” campaign.

Indeed, only 14,547 Yorba Lindans cast ballots in the 2012 June primary, while 35,164 voted in November, a historically consistent ratio. Measure H passed 8,477 to 5,474, and Measure I won 7,400 to 6,464, an endorsement coming from just 17 percent of registered voters.

Council members signing ballot arguments for Measure H were John Anderson, Tom Lindsey, Nancy Rikel and Jim Winder, while Anderson, Lindsey and Winder signed the arguments for Measure I. Nobody submitted statements against either measure, though Measure I is now under widespread attack.

The state-assigned housing numbers for Yorba Linda identify needs at all income levels, not just for low-income households as often stated. Thus, the 669-unit allotment for the 2014-21 planning period includes 80 for the extremely low-income category, 80 very low income, 113 low income, 126 moderate income and 270 above-moderate income.

The 2,039-unit number for the prior 2008-13 period was similarly apportioned to include all income levels: 230 extremely low, 230 very low, 371 low, 412 moderate and 796 above moderate.

City costs for Obamacare, tree trimming

This city's costs associated with two disparate topics – the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, and trimming some 11,000 municipally owned trees – merit attention this week.

Undergoing “analysis” and “refinement” by the city's management staff are potential extra expenses due to provisions of the 2010 Obamacare legislation and subsequent delays of some of the law's mandates, according to oral and written reports presented to the City Council.

Current concern surrounds the health benefits provided the city's eight permanent part-time employees working 30 hours per week, who are labeled full-time by the Affordable Care Act.

The law's “employer mandate” requiring the city to “extend an offer of coverage to employees working 30 hours or more per week” was to begin Jan. 1 this year but has been delayed to Jan. 1, 2015, noted a city staff report.

Based on the employer mandate, “the city must provide a health contribution which is 60 per cent of the lowest single health premium offered in the city's...plan,” the report stated.

Since the city's lowest health premium is now $457.17 per month, the required city contribution would be $274.30, according to city figures. The city's present payment for the part-timers is $150 per month toward the cost of a health plan.

A city staff recommendation to implement the law's employer mandate ahead of next year's Jan. 1 deadline was pulled from a Feb. 4 council agenda by City Manager Mark Pulone “for future analysis and refinement of the fiscal impact to the city.”

The withdrawn plan would have raised the city's payment for permanent part-time employees $125 monthly to reach the $275 level required by Obamacare, which would have assisted the part-timers in meeting the individual insurance mandate deadline of March 31 this year.

If implemented, the amount provided each part-timer would be reduced to the actual prem-ium cost if coverage is less than $275 per month. The total annual cost would be $26,400.

Fortunately, the annual expense to trim the city's approximately 11,000 trees on a three-year cycle is holding steady, with the coming year's task scheduled to be completed by an outside contractor without even an allowable consumer price index increase from previous years.

Anaheim-based West Coast Arborists won the city's tree trimming contract in 2011 with a bid 25 percent lower than the prior pact and is maintaining that year's cost for a third of four possible one-year extensions.

The rate is $46.50 per tree or $140 per tree for service requests outside the normal three-year sequence, for a potential expenditure of $512,953. About 10,000 trees are trimmed through Landscape Maintenance Assessment District funding ($465,053 from 30 benefit zone accounts, ranging from $400 to $80,000) and about 1,000 in parks through Parks and Recreation Department funds ($47,900).

Negative campaigning affects candidate pool

Given the noxious nature of Yorba Linda's political environment – for too many years beset by personal grudges and petty political in-fighting – I'm surprised anybody outside those involved in these activities would want to serve on the City Council.

In fact, many of the city's most prominent and active citizens won't seek council positions because the feuding factions active in local politics have access to funds from special interests they use to demonize opponents in negative – and very expensive – campaigning.

One offensive symbol of the sad state of electioneering in the city is putting an opponent's picture in a circle with a diagonal line through it, often in red, a particularly tawdry practice.

Today's campaign tactics are in stark contrast to the upbeat atmosphere of the first council election in 1967, when an impressive roster of 27 of the community's outstanding citizens appeared on the ballot and ran positive campaigns on issues that would shape a new city's identity.

Despite differences on the value of incorporation, nobody's picture appeared in a red circle with a line through it, and committees promoted endorsed candidates' attributes without denigrating other contenders.

Naturally, long ago elections with 3,600 registered voters are different from present ballots with 45,000 potential voters, so collecting contributions to reach many more residents with mailers and advertisements becomes the key to electability.

At best, in hotly contested council elections with several viable candidates, fewer than 300 residents will contribute, in total, to the campaign treasuries of the candidates they support.

So too often, candidates rely on special interests, such as builders and public employee unions, seeking to influence the city's future course by direct donations to candidates or cash spent through “independent expenditure” committees.

And negative campaigning works when thousands of voters don't know candidates on a personal level, as opposed to the city's early years, when “everybody knew everybody.”

Some potential candidates shy away from the ballot when they learn they must file a “statement of economic interests” revealing, in broad categories, the value of their properties and investments, sensitive details many wouldn't want in the public record.

Add that some winners have complained the time they spend on city issues detracts from their occupations and businesses, resulting in financial sacrifices, and the pool of possible candidates becomes smaller.

Of course, a council position can help some lines of work, and a couple past members have told me that increased visibility, especially when they served as mayor, attracted new clients.

Perks include $500 monthly salary ($525 after November ballot); $1,095 monthly currently added to members' tax-deferred retirement accounts; lifetime retirement pay based on salary, if eligible; monthly $100 car allowance; vision and dental care; and maximum $1,167 monthly lifetime health plan payments for retired members and dependents, as eligible.