Number of meters affects each park's green areas

Of the dozens of drought-related documents emanating from Yorba Linda's governmental bodies, one of the most interesting is a six-page report from a city-hired consultant analyzing the impacts of the new water-use restrictions on the city's extensive, heavily used park lands.

The report sees several negatives from the 36 percent water cut, including “sports field users … playing on bare dirt fields for some significant period of time” and “very significant costs” to replace park landscapes when drought conditions allow “more normal” water management.

The consultant, Santa Ana-based Richard Fisher Associates, also notes that spotty areas of surviving turf thatch “will create uneven playing surfaces for both the players and rolling balls” and warns of “the risk of sports injuries” from playing on bare dirt.

And the cost to renovate park landscapes once drought restrictions are lifted “will be well in excess of $2 million,” based on a $216,000 projection to return Eastside Community Park – about 10 percent of the city's total park acreage – to normal conditions.

Interestingly, consultant Fisher notes all city-owned parks have weather-based controllers, so they're exempt from the water district's Stage 3 rules that limit watering to 15 minutes per station and two times weekly (April 1-Oct. 31), then just once per week (Nov. 1-March 31).

However, Fisher reports the exemption “does not remove the issue of the city being levied fines” for using more than 115 billing units of water per meter per month in parks. Fines for residential water use begin after 18 billing units. Each billing unit is 748 gallons.

For example, since Eastside Community Park has five meters, the park can consume 575 billing units per month, which Fisher states would be 1.09 inches of applied water monthly.

But Fisher cites “a built-in inequity in the fines criteria” because Box Canyon Park has one meter compared to Eastside's five. So, according to Fisher, the water district's 115 billing unit limit allows 33.8 units of water per acre at Eastside and 25.5 per acre at Box Canyon monthly.

“The demand for water per acre for the two parks should be considered identical as the land-scape materials are virtually the same,” Fisher notes, adding that the water district's limitation does not take “the number of meters serving a given site into consideration.”

Based on data gained from experimental turf plots studied by two University of California Co-operative Extension experts in turf management, Fisher has assisted the city in developing a plan for a 36 percent water-use cut in parks.

The plan reduces watering in passive park areas – shrubbery and ground cover area – by 50 percent and active turf areas – athletic fields – by 20 percent to achieve an overall 36 percent reduction.

The report's data and projections are based on “typical high summer temperatures and no supplemental water from summer rainfall.”

Issues emerge in water district, council contests

While the signup period to run for positions representing Yorba Linda in city government and on water and school district boards is 11 months away, key issues are emerging in two of the contests that are certain to draw credible challengers to the 2016 electoral arena.

For the past couple weeks, social media has been filled with widespread opposition to a substantial water and sewer rate increase scheduled to be imposed by the five directors of the Yorba Linda Water District at a Sept. 17 meeting.

A new group, the Yorba Linda Taxpayers Association, describing itself as a “grassroots citizens forum,” launched a Facebook page last month with posts opposing the increase and requesting residents to send the district written protests to derail the new charges.

Among the group's leaders are past City Council candidates and participants in the Yorba Linda Residents for Responsible Representation political action committee and the North Orange County Conservative Coalition, some who supported last year's failed council recall.

If a majority of the district's property owners in Yorba Linda and parts of Anaheim, Brea, Placentia and county territory submit protests in writing, the proposed new rates can't be adopted.

One criticism leveled against the district is that raises were granted employees this year and the next two years without other significant budget cuts, while the district told ratepayers in a recent mailing, “There is simply nowhere to cut.”

Whatever the outcome, next year's ballot for two director positions is expected to be more spirited than the past two elections, when nobody filed to run against the incumbents, the seventh and eighth time that's occurred in the district's 56-year history as a public agency.

In 2012, Mike Beverage, a director since 1992, and Ric Collett, a director since 2004, were not opposed, and in 2014, Phil Hawkins, Bob Kiley and Gary Melton, elected in 2010, drew no opponents.

Just four incumbents have been defeated since the 1959 conversion to a public body: two in 2010 after 2008 Freeway Complex fire issues and one each in 1998 and 2002.

The newly formed taxpayers group also criticizes actions of four of the five council members, mostly due to density and development decisions made by Gene Hernandez, Peggy Huang, Tom Lindsey and Craig Young that are often opposed by 20-year Councilman Mark Schwing.

Seats now held by Hernandez, Schwing and Young will be on the next ballot, with Schwing not expected to run again. Voters have dumped 12 incumbents in the city's 48-year history.

Common Core might be an issue in school trustee races, but only a few residents have opposed the standards at board meetings. Seats held by Judi Carmona, Carol Downey and Eric Padget, all unopposed in 2012, will be on the 2016 ballot.

Incumbents are rarely defeated due to the cost of campaigning and the support most receive from the teachers union. 

'Obtrusive' cell tower request riles residents

It'll be back to the drawing board – again – if Verizon Wireless continues the quest to locate a cell tower adjacent a major thoroughfare in one of Yorba Linda's prestigious residential areas.

So far, the company's attempts to solve “gaps” in coverage in an East Lake Village area have run afoul of a longtime city policy requiring cell towers to employ “stealth design” principles, in which wireless facilities are camouflaged to look like something other than what they are.

Verizon's design for a three-panel antenna was deemed “visually obtrusive,” “obvious to the casual observer” and “easily seen from dozens of surrounding...homes, public horse/recreation trails [and] public sidewalks,” according to a report from senior planner Greg Rehmer.

A number of residents in the neighborhood of Paseo De Las Palomas, just east of Paseo Del Prado, also opposed the design, which consisted of a five-foot-six-inch-tall, two-foot-wide cylinder, called a “radome,” placed on top of a 29-foot-high street light pole.

In fact, resident Michael Green carried a real-size cardboard mock-up of the cylinder Verizon proposed to mask the antennas to the City Council meeting that included the governing body unanimously upholding a 4-0 Planning Commission denial of a needed conditional use permit.

Council's action was “without prejudice,” meaning Verizon can reapply for the permit for substantially the same use before a one-year time period expires. Previously, city staff who handled the application requested Verizon consider a different location or design.

But, stated Rehmer's report, “the applicant never met with staff nor made any attempt to relocate/redesign the project as directed.” He also noted no state law prohibits local governments from “taking into account aesthetic considerations” for cell tower permits.

Verizon's letter appealing the Planning Commission denial complained of “inaccuracies” in a staff report that were relied on in decision-making and said the city overstepped its authority in “the scrutiny applied to this project,” arguments Rehmer's report strongly rejected.

Also criticized was Verizon's plan to install four new equipment cabinets, three between a sidewalk and horse trail and one beneath a 10-foot-wide multipurpose trail.

The council resolution upholding the Planning Commission denial noted: “There are reasonable design or location alternatives to the requested use that would have less adverse effects on the surrounding property or be less detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.”

Six years ago, Verizon presented a similar proposal to the Planning Commission that involved installing the “radome” cylinder to camouflage the antennas on a tennis court light standard in a park less than a block away from the latest proposed site.

Commissioners denied that plan due to the same design concerns the city and residents expressed regarding this year's application.   

Council finally addresses watering, maintenance of landscape areas with 'little' and 'no' public benefit

Significant steps are finally underway to solve a knotty problem that was presented to the City Council five years ago regarding taxpayer-funded maintenance of at least 46 landscape areas that provide little, if any, benefit to the public.

The properties, as noted in a 68-page July 2010 report from then-Public Works Director Mark Stowell, include some for which the city does not have an easement to legally allow maintenance by the city and some with an easement but for which upkeep provides no public benefit.

Generally, Stowell's recommendation at the time was to stop watering and maintaining areas for which no easement existed and vacate areas for which easements existed and return the maintenance responsibility to the underlying property owners, among other solutions.

Stowell noted higher water costs and lack of probable landowner approval to boost funding for the Landscape Maintenance Assessment District – a recent vote had overwhelmingly opposed a small fee increase for arterial zones – were among reasons for curtailing water and upkeep.

Now, with water costs even higher and budgets for some landscape zones deeper in the red, council appears ready to take action on many of the properties, with 17 of 46 currently under consideration identified at a July 21 meeting as candidates for maintenance changes.

And action on the remaining 29 properties is expected to follow quickly under a schedule outlined by city officials, although city timelines often vary as meeting agendas fill up with dozens of other items.

The council approved a two-step process, with notices of intent to vacate easements mailed to property owners this week, and a public hearing placed on a Sept. 15 agenda for property owner and other public input before final council votes are taken.

The notice of intent advises property owners of a “potential change to the landscape maintenance of your property by the city's Landscape Maintenance Assessment District” due to “budget shortfalls and water use restrictions” and notes the public hearing date.

The letter, as presented at the July 21 meeting, also states: “Depending on the action taken by the City Council, specific fire prevention/protection measures may be required by the property owner going forward.”

Of the 46 identified areas, 38 are in landscape district zones and eight in non-district areas. Yearly savings could total $243,591, if the original recommendations are adopted, with one-time implementation costs estimated at $90,000.

A seven-page spreadsheet listing all 46 identified areas can be viewed on the city website by finding the agenda for the July 21 council meeting and scrolling to the fourth page of item 22.

Although the current matter is limited to the 46 areas originally identified in 2010 and reviewed this year by a council-appointed Citizens Advisory Committee, council members asked staff to seek out other areas for possible future council action.