Housing Element follow-up
January 13, 2008 Council held a special study session regarding the Yorba Linda Housing Element. This is a state-mandated report, we need to submit, to identify how we will be able to accommodate the Regional Housing Element (RHNA) numbers assigned to our City. ( See previous post) This is an assault on our ability to control local land-use.
To reiterate, we need to make sites available for this housing to be built but we are not required to build it. But we would not be able to legally stand in the way of a project that met the states housing development criteria.
Staff presented to Council an overview of the housing requirements along with an explanation of the consequences of not complying with this mandate.
Key points:
- · We need to increase our housing stock of low income housing by 768 units and moderate income by 327. We have an abundance of above moderate housing projects identified.
- · The state does not accept projects under the densities of 30 units per acre as viable low income housing and moderate income under 10 units per acre.
- · We can reduce the densities per site if we identify enough sites to cover the housing numbers we need to produce. Yorba Linda does not have enough acreage to build the number of homes required.
- · We can reduce the densities if we subsidize building costs to allow contractors to build the units at a fair cost. We do not have enough money to cover enough builder subsidies allowing for the number of homes required.
Consequences of Non- Compliance of the RHNA #’s:
- · Possible moratorium on buiding permits
- · Suspension of discretionary Land Use Authority
- · Legal fees
- · State Mandated Rezoning without ANY local control
- · RHNA is cumulative
- · Ineligibility for State Housing Funds and related infrastructure funds.
Sites identified with recommended densities:
Properties at 30 units per acre:
- Lakeview Strawberry Field (4.7 acres-141 units)
- Lakeview/ Altrudy Lane Property (2.39 acres-71 units)
- Prospect Avenue (Greenhouses) (4.11 acres-123 units)
- Wabash/ Rose Drive (1.68 acres- 60 units)
- St Joseph Medical Offices Prospect/ YLB (4.08 acres- 122 units)
- Lakeview & Mariposa Property ( Council asked this be removed from consideration)
- Bastanchury/ Lakeview Nursery site (8.5 acres- 255 units)
Properties at 20 units per acre:
- Bastanchury/Lakeview –Rocking T site (4.11 acres- 82 units)
- Richfield Road Property (3.23 acres- 59 units)
Properties at 10 units per acre:
- Nixon archive site ( 7.01 acres- 70 units)
- South west corner of Lakeview and Bastanchury (4.34 acres- 43 units)
Additional site options:
- Archstone Riverbend Apartments- possible RDA assistance for rebuilding two-8 unit buildings adding affordability covenants
- Copper Canyon Condominiums- Possible RDA assistance in rebuilding 8 units lost in fire adding affordability convenants
- Savi Ranch- 4 acre property for sale in industrial park
Council directed staff to :
- Reduce housing densities on the West end of town since this area is disproportionately high in developing high density projects.
- Evaluate the Savi Ranch Industrial Park area for the possibility of a mixed use design to allow housing without interfering with the limited tax base of our community
- Eliminate for now the Mariposa Property
- Evaluate the Arroyo property area
- Once new draft of Housing Element completed, to submit to the Planning commission for review and further refinement before coming back to Council.
What happens next?
After the housing element is complete and sent to the State, we await approval.
With Measure B in place, any project with densities above the 10 units per acre allowed in our general plan will require a vote of the community to allow the project to be built.
With Measure B in place, any project that requires a zone change from commercial to residential will require a vote of the community to allow the project to be built.
With Measure B in place, any project that exceeds 35 feet in height (above two stories) will require a vote of the community to allow the project to be built.
If the community does not approve projects allowing for the required housing to be built, we will most likely be challenged in court as to the legality of Measure B.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Jan:
I have seen the “updated” Housing Element and there is still an incredibly disproportiate burden of developing high density projects placed on the West end of town! Why are there no sites in the central or northern portions of the city? How did the City Council allow all of those new (pricey) homes to go in on the north side of the City without an incrementally fair share of affordable/low income housing required? Guessing it was intentional – (but never too late to rectify this oversight…I like the idea of some low income housing in the middle of Black Gold!)
In the 13 years I have been a resident I have watched the Friends Church buy up houses to the east of my home and turn then into a parking lot, the packing house turned into incredibly high density housing, the Nixon Library parking lot destroyed (guess where everyone parks now when there is an event at the Library? …on our “private street” (private simply means that the few residents on our street pay for paving, street sweeeping, etc.!) And right now 3 “houses” are being jammed on a Habitat for Humanity lot that looks like there would barely be room for 1!
Now you and the Council want to put more high density housing across from the Nixon Library, (directly to the east of my house) and (from the crude map provided) dirctly to the west on Yorba Linda Blvd. & Richfield. In all there are at least half a dozen low income properties in my immediate area that are prposed by the City Council. There isn’t enough parking in our area as it is – particulalry after the Nixon Library built on their parking lot! We moved here for the lower density “space” provided by the 1/2-acre minimums in our area. That character of the neighborhood ahs been significantly eroded during the time my family has lived here.
Jan, you have always been a reliable voice of reason on these issues. Any rationale person would take one look at the proposed low income housing map and see that the Council has crammed it all to the west – centered on Lakeview! Yorba Linda needs to address this issue in a fair and equitable manner (as intended by law) – not simply stash it in the far west corner of the City out of sight and (for the newer neighborhoods) out of mind! This unfair distribution of low income housing reeks of special interest and developer influence!
Thanks,
Rob Johnson
I’m also concerned about the amount of high density housing that will end up in west Yorba Linda. We already have a lot of apartments & condos (and the parking problems that always come with high density housing) on the west side of the city.
The city as a whole, but particularly the west side, has experienced an increase of graffiti. Rose & Yorba Linda even has a panhandler who has been showing up (on the Placentia area of the intersection) since Christmas. B & B Pharmacy has been broken into not one, not two, but THREE times since December. My husband has lived here since 1981 and the area has definitely experienced negative changes. I’ve lived here since 2004 and the area has changed for the worse even in this relatively short amount of time.
What is the plan to help protect the citizens of Yorba Linda, the legitimate citizens who worked hard and saved for years to afford living here, from the criminal element that is likely to come with low-income housing? Is there a plan? Or should we simply hope that Brea PD is available to help when needed? Mark my words, crime will increase when we bring in people who can not legitimately afford to live here. And, lest anyone think I’m unfair for painting low-income individuals as criminals, try looking at west Anaheim, most of Santa Ana, and west Fullerton (near Buena Park) for an example of a low-income area.
Is it possible to mandate that the affordable housing is senior ( 55 and over) living? I don’t think anyone would have a problem with inviting more seniors in the community, particularly since seniors aren’t likely to cause an in increase in crime and won’t impact traffic as severely as families. Additionally, senior living wouldn’t negatively impact our local schools.
If mandating senior living isn’t allowable, why can’t all of the lower-income affordable housing (throw moderate there too if you’d like) be put in one spot, rather than spread around the city? Think of it this way, make one ghetto instead of several all over our beautiful city. I’m thinking somewhere undesirable to live: Savi Ranch, near the train tracks, near the YL/Corona border.
The Housing Issue is one of the most difficult situations our community is facing. We are literally being forced by the state to change the character of our community. If we do not re-zone properties in our community to allow for lower income housing, we become vulnerable to lawsuits from housing advocates. Representatives from these groups have been monitoring our Council meetings to make sure we are complying with the law. The consequence of being found in non-compliance with these housing laws is the loss of our local land use control, loss of our ability to issue permits for any construction in the redevelopment agency or the entire community until we are in compliance, loss of state revenues, …. Other communities have tried to ignore this law and have suffered these consequences. No matter what, ultimately we will be forced to allow the housing to be built.
When the housing element was first presented to Council, all of the density was in the west end of town, particularly around the town center. I suggested Savi Ranch, the area behind the Presidential Walk project near the Post Office and a few others to spread the density out. We did not want this in the heart of our community. Staff has had multiple revisions and there may be additional changes as we go through this process. At the last Council meeting, we were informed that one of the identified sites in Savi was interested in developing a project that called for more density than we proposed. This would allow us to reduce densities in town. An additional site suggested at the last Council meeting was near the industrial area in the east. We will continue to explore all of these options to keep the impact of this law to a minimum in our community. Senior housing would have the least impact but the state has stated we cannot use any additional senior housing to offset our housing numbers.
I can assure you this is frustrating for me as your Council representative. Prior to my election, I worked for two years against high density development and helped with the passage of Measure B, our voter initiative. I have been a strong advocate for maintaining our quality of life and have protected the integrity of Measure B with proposed development in our community. The Murdock/ Sage project is the most recent example, Now that I am on Council, I find myself in a position of being forced, by law, to allow the very thing I fought against in order to protect our community from fruitless lawsuits and ultimately losing our ability to control our land use. If we have to provide high density housing, I want to decide where to put the units. I do not want groups coming into our community, who are not residents, and forcing us to place most, if not all, of the density in our town center.
I will continue to look for solutions in the way of alternative sites. I have recently been named as a sub-regional representative to SCAG. This is the group responsible for the implementation of the housing state law. SCAG has formed a sub committee to look at revising the process for housing allocation. I will represent communities, like Yorba Linda, that face challenges in complying with this law. I will offer alternative points of view and look for possible solutions to state mandates. I am excited to be named to the committee and look forward to being part of the solution. It will not help us this go-around, but hopefully with the next allocation of housing units due in 2012.
I thank everyone who writes in with ideas and possible solutions. This is a difficult situation, at best. It will take our creative, united power to comply with the law but on our terms.
Jan
I have been a Yorba Linda resident for 19 years. The question i have is how ?
Do they actually have any idea the impact decisions make on the day to day living of our community ? How about the huge Heritage Oak School on the corner of Prospect and Imperial Hwy. Has anyone else noticed cars stopped to enter the school on a 55mph highway Imperial ????? Yeah! lets put some lower income housing on prospect too. Lets change the zoning so that i believe there is over 5,000 cars a day on prospect alone and let’s put another 131 units of housing on prospect. So they will rezone it for residential and that will bring 5,000 cars to a residential street ???
Yeah ! that makes so much sense? Seriously, this is unbelievable !
Thanks for your comments. I have posted them on the web site. There are some at the state level who do not care about the same things we care about. They have a different goal and are trying to figure out how to achieve it. I understand their objective but the one size fits all concept does not work most of the time.
To alleviate your concerns for now:
*There is no project pending on the Prospect site.
*Even if rezoned- we cannot force the owner to build high density housing.
*If the owner did decide to so this- there would be a Measure B vote if the density exceeded 10 units per acre.
*There are water issues now and I think it will get very expensive quickly to access water sources. That alone will impede the building of new projects, particularly multi-family.
*None of this will happen quickly, if at all.
I have asked for, and received support from the Council, to have staff start looking at building standards for higher density projects. I am asking that set backs be addressed, how does the project interface with existing neighborhoods, what amenities will be allowed on the site if it is a 3 acre, 5 acre, 10 acre site, etc As a City we need to determine our destiny as much as we can under the law.