Rehabilitation of Older Homes in Yorba Linda

by Jan Horton on November 2, 2009

This Tuesday night’s Council Meeting we will discuss the cost to rehab the old homes on Lakeview, School and Valencia. Estimates range from $24,836.70 to $71,054.00 without landscaping, re-plumbing and I cannot see in the bid whether the electrical is updated. Some of these homes were built in 1917 and will probably need more work than you can actually see upon inspection. That means change orders. The water and gas have not been hooked up for years so this will need to be inspected and additional costs may be incurred. Although this was an idea I brought up at a Council meeting soon after my election as providing a short term solution to affordable housing, this cost appears to be too great and will take funds and attention from the town center development plan. At one point, I contacted an agency that does provide funds to rehab homes for rental use, even if the need was temporary. This agency felt the cost:return ratio was too great. Total cost to rehabilitate all of them as some members of the Council want to do will cost at least : $537,242.50!!! This can only go higher! More information from staff will hopefully clarify the possible options available to us. I believe one or two of the homes are significant enough to preserve at some level, preferably by a private owner. I am not currently in favor of saving all of the homes, especially since we do not have consensus on the vision for the town center.

Tagged as: , , , , , , , , ,

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

J Thomas November 2, 2009 at 9:23 pm

My wife and I just returned from the UK. I was amazed at the history that has been preserved by restoring the old structures. With that said, from my experience, the cost to restore those homes will most likely far exceed the estimates. I would like to see these homes preserved, but how will these homes be used? Will they generate any revenue for the city? Will the city be responsible for future maintenance? I am not in agreement with those who say this recession is over and save these funds for other needs of the community.

R Paquette November 2, 2009 at 9:32 pm

This sounds like a very large cost with not much low cost housing benefit to the community; not much additional housing. I imagine that the families that would live in the homes may also see higher than normal maintenance costs; high heating costs, etc. Plus, our culture has changed; tiny closets, materials that do not wear or clean as well as new materials, multiple parking spots needed, etc may be issues.

r wiltsie November 2, 2009 at 9:51 pm

I do not support the rehabilitation of the older homes. It would be FAR more cost effective to bulldoze them and put the land to bid for prefabricated home development.

A LINDMAN November 2, 2009 at 10:17 pm

I don’t think at any cost the city would wish to keep those homes in place….One think I believe is that this city should not be in the rental housing business.

Ed R thought some could be turned in to affordable housing……that again I believe would be a short term vision of the area.

Jan….maybe some time in the future the council might change it mind on that town center plan and let the free market develop the area……Clean up the area for that idea.

Personally I believe this council or any council has no business in the community development business.

F Stefano November 3, 2009 at 5:54 am

Jan – I do not believe the City should be in the rental business and I too believe the whole Town Center development should be left to the free market. While some of these homes might have a small degree of historical value, the cost to make them rental-ready would be prohibative at best.

I understand the City is mandated to achieve a certain level of low income housing but I ‘d much rather see them (City) act as facilitators to private developers than be in the business of rental housing managers themselves. Knock down the homes and clean up the area!

Frank

R Reiter November 3, 2009 at 7:26 am

Jan…….I have inspected the interiors and exteriors of some of the properties in question and I firmly believe the estimates to restore these dwellings is very, very low and will only grow higher as the change orders come in. I do not believe electrical, plumbing, gas and water restoration could be accomplished for the estimated costs, let alone general structure rehibiliation for safety, roofing and interior work. Bathroom fixtures, kitchen appliances and minimal landscaping will drive the costs out of sight.

Raze these city eyesores.

Some of the property could be used in the downtown improvement effort and while other areas could be used to satisify the state mandates for high and medium density housing. Restoration of these properties puts the city in the rental and property management business taking care of the properties for the residents, two areas requiring constant attention. As a career Ari Force officer I lived in base housing for many years so believe me, civil engineering and property management is not something the city wants to be involved with. It is a constant nagging headache and even if contracted out would be very, very expensive.

VR

Tom

The Corderos November 3, 2009 at 9:22 am

Let’s leave housing development and the cost of “town center revitalization” to the private sector and philanthropic donors.

After paying ever-increasing state and federal taxes and fees, folks are struggling now to stretch what is left of their income to pay for their families’ needs. We expect those in power to limit spending what they receive of our tax dollars to what is NEEDED rather than for what would be NICE to have.

Our city officials traditionally have been fiscally responsible, and we expect, in consideration of the uncertain economic years ahead, that spending will be even more tightly controlled and limited.

D Bernstein November 3, 2009 at 11:15 am

Agreed. Without an accepted Town Center plan, this makes no sense. Additionally, the placement of the homes (widely spaced and close to Lakeview, but lower than grade) is problematic. The homes don’t appear to have much historical significance and certainly don’t seem ideal as rentals.
However, could the homes be repurposed as historical examples? In McKinney, TX (as in many older communities) some old homes have been moved and sited closely together to create a courtyard historical museum. Could this replace the proposed performing arts center as a historical/event venue? Could they be moved to Bryant Ranch House and Musuem? Perhaps to the site of the new park at Lakeview/Bastanchury? Maybe to the Friends Hi School site? Or maybe sold cheaply or given to individuals who will pay to move them to their properties? Just ideas. But DO NOT rehab on site for affordable housing, bad idea.

A Johnson November 3, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Jan…… We don’t need to be spending money to fix these homes since the only reason I can see to do this is for their historical significance. There are already several homes in the downtown area which are fine examples of the architecture and building style of this period. Even if the city were awash with money, I am sure there are other, more appropriate and useful projects, with greater return for our citizens, which could use the money.

Susie November 3, 2009 at 8:34 pm

Rehabilitating old homes should not be a top priority when there is still no concrete plan for the town center. Furthermore if these homes are rehabilitated, what would they be used for? Renters or historical buildings. If used for renting that would cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars to make these homes up to code. If used for historical purpose, There would be the cost of a caretaker and up keep on the property with no incoming revenues.
I believe either way it will cost the city too much money. Lets put all of our eggs in building a beautiful town square for everyone to enjoy.
Thanks
Susie B

Jane November 4, 2009 at 7:53 am

The home near the postoffice is far past its restoring stage and is now an eyesore, unhealthy, infested structure falling down hazardous to all of Yorba Linda, especially the surrounding neighborhood. Mildew and animal infestation is very dangerous. The current owner needs to be sensitive to their environment impact and plan respectively to remove the structure.

David November 4, 2009 at 11:03 am

Perhaps an option would be to make them available for sale at a very low cost and require them to be relocated. Include an historic renovation incentive of $10K or so to the buyer to offset the relocation cost. If no takers in a resonable timeframe, zone the land for a developer to come in with a competitive low cost housing project.

Rod November 5, 2009 at 8:18 am

I tend to agree that the city should not be in the real estate business. I do not want to see the homes destroyed either. I think there is some history to held close by keeping these homes in place.
What if, the city were to sell the homes to individuals to be used for residence or business and find a way to provide loss interest restoration loans to those people? Just like Anaheim did with the old home down town.

R

R Reiter November 10, 2009 at 10:27 am

Jan,

I see no value added to Yorba Linda to preserve the vacant properties as historical sites. What a waste that would be. The boyhood home of President Nixon is a restored home in Yorba Linda and that is enough. The city council does not need to waste tax dollars “saving” eyesores.

VR

Tom

Leave a Comment