107
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Table B: Candidate Sites Identified to be Rezoned to Accommodate Shortfall Housing Need, Table Starts in Cell A2 Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
LowIncome
LowIncome
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of
Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Notes
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Year
Built
Project
Site ID
YORBA LINDA 3516 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-01 11 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.58539 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 17 Non-Vacant
2,800 square
foot singlefamily home 0.41 1956 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3616 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-08 11 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.497075213 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 17 Non-Vacant
1,800 square
foot singlefamily home 0.37 1948 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3614 MERIENDA LN 92886 322-061-10 15 Shortfall of Sites 0.4699823 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 15 Non-Vacant
1,600 square
foot singlefamily home
1.73 (not reassessed
for 30+
years) 1958 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3524 MERIENDA LN 92886 322-061-12 12 8 Shortfall of Sites 0.563485351 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 20 Non-Vacant
1,400 square
foot singlefamily home
1.27 (not reassessed
for 30+
years) 1960 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3514 MERIENDA LN 92886 322-061-13 12 8 Shortfall of Sites 0.593508009 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 20 Non-Vacant
1,500 square
foot singlefamily home 0.12 1960 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3542 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-14 9 Shortfall of Sites 0.292718017 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 9 Non-Vacant
1,300 square
foot singlefamily home 0.30 1957 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3552 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-15 9 Shortfall of Sites 0.292714718 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 9 Non-Vacant
1,900 square
foot singlefamily home 0.11 1920 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3562 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-16 12 Shortfall of Sites 0.425019378 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 12 Non-Vacant
1,500 square
foot singlefamily home 0.17 1954 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3620 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-17 12 Shortfall of Sites 0.425022151 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 12 Non-Vacant
1,700 square
foot singlefamily home
1.83 (not reassessed
for 30+
years) 1939 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3618 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-18 11 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.510028494 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 17 Non-Vacant
1,700 square
foot singlefamily home
1.83 (not reassessed
for 30+
years) 1955 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3512 ROSE DR 92886 322-061-19 15 9 Shortfall of Sites 0.714545616 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 24 Non-Vacant
1,700 square
foot singlefamily home
1.37 (not reassessed
for 30+
years) 1956 S1-200
YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 322-061-20 1 Shortfall of Sites 0.056684633 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 1 Non-Vacant Road 0.00 0 S1-200
YORBA LINDA 3602 MERIENDA LN 92886 322-061-21 11 5 Shortfall of Sites 0.491563407 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 16 Non-Vacant
3,400 square
foot singlefamily home 0.85 1998 S1-200
YORBA LINDA ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE 92886 322-121-07 26 27 Shortfall of Sites 2.00 C - General CG CG Mixed Use
Overlay 20 35 53 Vacant Vacant
Property has
never been
developed even
though it has
been zoned
commercial for
decades. There
was a previous
entitlement
approved
approximately 15
years ago that
never got
constructed. S1-021
1 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements
108
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
LowIncome
LowIncomeModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of
Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Notes
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Year
Built
Project
Site ID
YORBA LINDA
17151
BASTANCHURY RD 92886 322-173-04 30 30 Shortfall of Sites 4.92 R - Medium Low RE R-ML Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 60 Non-Vacant
Friendship
Baptist Church
Church has
approximately 2.5
acres of vacant
land and parking
area that could
be developed.
Church is
interested in
partnering with a
housing
developer to help
complete a large
accessory
building on-site. 9.38 0 S2-008
YORBA LINDA 17151 BASTANCHURY RD 92886 322-173-07 12 8 Shortfall of Sites 4.92 R - Medium Low RE R-ML Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 20 Non-Vacant
Friendship
Baptist Church
Church has
approximately 2.5
acres of vacant
land and parking
area that could
be developed.
Church is
interested in
partnering with a
housing
developer to help
complete a large
accessory
building on-site. 0.00 0 S2-008
YORBA LINDA 4861 LIVERPOOL ST 92886 334-292-18 24 16 Shortfall of Sites 6.2 R - Medium Low RE R-ML Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 40 Non-Vacant
Messiah
Lutheran
Church
Church has
approximately 1.5
acres of
underutilized
land and parking
area to be
utilized for 11.49 1971 S2-013
YORBA LINDA 5320 RICHFIELD RD 92886 343-591-01 22 13 Shortfall of Sites 5.609871952 R - Medium Low RS R-M Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 30 Non-Vacant
Richfield
Community
Church
Church has
approximately 3
acres of
underutilized
land and parking
area to be
utilized for 12.90 0 S3-012
YORBA LINDA 5300 RICHFIELD RD 92886 343-591-02 13 7 Shortfall of Sites 3.00234385 R - Medium Low RS R-M Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 20 Non-Vacant
Richfield
Community
Church
Church has
approximately 3
acres of
underutilized
land and parking
area to be
utilized for 0.05 1959 S3-012
YORBA LINDA 5312 RICHFIELD RD 92886 343-591-03 3 2 Shortfall of Sites 0.864497992 R - Medium Low RS R-M Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 5 Non-Vacant
Richfield
Community
Church
Church has
approximately 3
acres of
underutilized
land and parking
area to be
utilized for 0.81 1956 S3-012
YORBA LINDA 5005 MOUNTAIN VIEW AV92886 343-582-12 36 22 Shortfall of Sites 1.84 Area Plan RE Area Plan Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 50 Non-Vacant
Overflow
parking lot for
Friends Church
Church has
approximately
1.84 acres of
overflow parking
area to be
utilized for 0.00 0 S3-103
YORBA LINDA 4341 EUREKA AV 92886 323-071-03 8 14 Shortfall of Sites 2.2 R - Medium RS R-H RM 0 10 22 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.64 1912 S3-034
2 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements
109
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
LowIncome
LowIncome
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of
Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Notes
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Year
Built
Project
Site ID
YORBA LINDA 18132 YORBA LINDA BL 92886 343-582-01 8 Shortfall of Sites 0.23 Area Plan RE Area Plan RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 8 Non-Vacant
Yorba Linda
Preschool.
2,000 square
foot, single
story building
Property owner is
also business
owner and is
interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for housing
purposes.
Business owners
are discussing
retirement
planning and see
rezoning as a
viable option. 0.06 1952 S3-074
YORBA LINDA 18132 YORBA LINDA BL 92886 343-582-02 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.19 Area Plan RE Area Plan RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 6 Non-Vacant
Parking area
for Yorba
Linda
Preschool
Property owner is
also business
owner and is
interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for housing
purposes.
Business owners
are discussing
retirement
planning and see
rezoning as a
viable option. 0.00 1967 S3-074
YORBA LINDA 4811 EUREKA AV 92886 334-101-39 11 7 Shortfall of Sites 0.51 Area Plan CG Area Plan RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 18 Non-Vacant
Yorba Linda
Equipment
Rentals
Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.50 1959 S3-082
YORBA LINDA 4791 EUREKA AV 92886 334-101-40 27 16 Shortfall of Sites 1.24 Area Plan CG Area Plan RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 43 Non-Vacant
Flooring store
with other
ancillary heavy
commercial
uses in a large
yard area.
Property has
several vacancies
and property
owner is very
interested in
having the
property rezoned
for higher density
housing
purposes. 0.12 1967 S3-082
YORBA LINDA 18141 BASTANCHURY RD 92886 323-181-04 8 31 Shortfall of Sites 3.873155303 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 39 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 2.05 1971 S3-203
YORBA LINDA 18103 BASTANCHURY RD 92886 323-181-05 4 8 Shortfall of Sites 1.274648383 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 12 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 178.85 1985 S3-203
YORBA LINDA 18101 BASTANCHURY RD 92886 323-181-06 36 59 Shortfall of Sites 9.483963123 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 95 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 0.47 0 S3-203
YORBA LINDA 18231 BASTANCHURY RD92886 323-181-07 19 31 Shortfall of Sites 4.956231479 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 50 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 0.00 0 S3-203
YORBA LINDA 18245 BASTANCHURY RD 92886 323-191-06 7 13 Shortfall of Sites 2.000684359 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 20 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 0.21 1912 S3-203
YORBA LINDA 18251 BASTANCHURY RD 92886 323-191-07 1 3 Shortfall of Sites 0.416950669 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 4 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 0.14 1950 S3-203
YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 323-191-39 1 Shortfall of Sites 0.096807922 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 1 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 0.00 0 S3-203
YORBA LINDA 18241 BASTANCHURY RD 92886 323-191-46 1 1 Shortfall of Sites 0.20661477 Area Plan PD Area Plan PD 0 10 2 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 1.29 2015 S3-203
YORBA LINDA 5225 HIGHLAND AV 92886 343-561-08 19 32 Shortfall of Sites 5.08 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 51 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
Property had a
TTM approved in
the previous
housing cycle for
a 12-lot
subdivision;
however, the
map expired. The
property owner is
very interested in
having the
property rezoned
to allow for
higher density
and is eager to
move forward
with 0.05 1975 S3-205A
3 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements
110
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
LowIncome
LowIncome
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of
Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Notes
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Year
Built
Project
Site ID
YORBA LINDA 5227 HIGHLAND AV 92886 343-561-09 8 12 Shortfall of Sites 2 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 20 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
Property had a
TTM approved in
the previous
housing cycle for
a 12-lot
subdivision;
however, the
map expired. The
property owner is
very interested in
having the
property rezoned
to allow for
higher density
and is eager to
move forward
with 0.04 1944 S3-205A
YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92866 343-591-05 4 3 Shortfall of Sites 0.273761954 R - Medium RS R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 7 Non-Vacant Agricultural 0.00 0 S3-207
YORBA LINDA 5322 RICHFIELD RD 92886 343-591-06 23 14 Shortfall of Sites 1.490596728 R - Medium RS R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 37 Non-Vacant Agricultural
These four
parcels are all
under the same
ownership.
Property owner is
very interested in
having the
property rezoned
to allow for
higher density
housing. 0.00 1916 S3-207
YORBA LINDA 5392 RICHFIELD RD 92886 343-591-07 92 56 Shortfall of Sites 6.07253585 R - Medium RS R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 148 Non-Vacant Agricultural
These four
parcels are all
under the same
ownership.
Property owner is
very interested in
having the
property rezoned
to allow for
higher density 0.02 1919 S3-207 These four
YORBA LINDA 5332 RICHFIELD RD 92886 343-591-25 15 9 Shortfall of Sites 0.994839067 R - Medium RS R-H RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 24 Non-Vacant
Single-family
home 0.42 1964 S3-207
YORBA LINDA 18111 BASTANCHURY RD YORBA LINDA 92886 323-171-07 20 20 Shortfall of Sites 3.53 Area Plan PD Area Plan Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 40 Non-Vacant Shinyo-En USA
Property owner
has expressed
interest in having
their property
rezoned to allow
for the
congregational
lands overlay
opportunity. S3-210
4 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements
111
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
LowIncome
LowIncome
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of
Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Notes
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Year
Built
Project
Site ID
YORBA LINDA 18071 BASTANCHURY RD YORBA LINDA 92886 323-171-08 8 7 Shortfall of Sites 1.01 Area Plan PD Area Plan Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 15 Non-Vacant Shinyo-En USA
Property owner
has expressed
interest in having
their property
rezoned to allow
for the
congregational
lands overlay
opportunity. S3-210
YORBA LINDA 18021 BASTANCHURY RD YORBA LINDA 92886 323-171-09 25 25 Shortfall of Sites 4.69 Area Plan PD Area Plan Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 50 Non-Vacant Shinyo-En USA
Property owner
has expressed
interest in having
their property
rezoned to allow
for the
congregational
lands overlay
opportunity. S3-210
YORBA LINDA 17651 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY 92886 323-051-26 5 9 Shortfall of Sites 1.36 R - Medium RS R-H RM 0 10 14 Non-Vacant Vinjon's Kennel Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.96 1949 S3-211
YORBA LINDA 17651 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY 92886 323-051-27 3 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.96 R - Medium RS R-H RM 0 10 9 Non-Vacant Vinjon's Kennel Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.00 0 S3-211
YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 348-262-01 4 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.98 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 10 Vacant Vacant Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.00 0 S4-053
YORBA LINDA 5541 S OHIO ST 92886 348-351-08 4 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.96 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 10 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.79 1976 S4-060
YORBA LINDA 4742 PLUMOSA DR 92886 323-311-03 35 21 Shortfall of Sites 1.624675328 Area Plan CG Area Plan RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 56 Non-Vacant
Single-family
home
Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.05 1912 S4-075
YORBA LINDA 18597 ALTRUDY LN 92886 323-231-18 12 8 Shortfall of Sites 0.998681696 Area Plan CG Area Plan RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 20 Non-Vacant
Single-family
home
City-owned
property with
purchase and sale
agreeement with
C&C
Development to
extend the
afffordable
housing project 0.42 1964 S4-200
YORBA LINDA 18602 ALTRUDY LN 92886 323-231-19 12 8 Shortfall of Sites 1.002963128 Area Plan CG Area Plan RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 20 Non-Vacant
Single-family
home
City-owned
property with
purchase and sale
agreeement with
C&C
Development to
extend the
afffordable
housing project 0.32 1959 S4-200
YORBA LINDA ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE 92886 348-351-10 1 3 Shortfall of Sites 0.433159182 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 4 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
These three
parcels are all
owned by the
same property
owner, who is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.00 0 S4-201
5 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements
112
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
LowIncome
LowIncome
ModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of
Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Notes
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Year
Built
Project
Site ID
YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 348-351-11 1 3 Shortfall of Sites 0.405605231 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 4 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
These three
parcels are all
owned by the
same property
owner, who is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.00 0 S4-201
YORBA LINDA 5531 S OHIO ST 92886 348-351-12 4 6 Shortfall of Sites 0.984019674 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 10 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
These three
parcels are all
owned by the
same property
owner, who is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.28 1950 S4-201
YORBA LINDA 19045 YORBA LINDA BL92886 323-081-34 11 6 Shortfall of Sites 1.851586814 R - Medium Low RE R-ML Congregatio
nal Housing
Overlay 20 35 17 Non-Vacant
Congregation
Beth Meir
HaCohen
Chabad
Church is very
interested in
providing
parsonage units
on the property. 0.91 0 S4-204A
YORBA LINDA 19081 YORBA LINDA BL92886 323-081-35 21 34 Shortfall of Sites 2.74233082 R - Medium Low RE R-ML RM-20 0 20 55 Non-Vacant Single-family
home
Property is under
contract with
housing
developer. 0.97 0 S4-204B
YORBA LINDA 19111 YORBA LINDA BL92886 323-081-36 9 14 Shortfall of Sites 1.158724952 R - Medium Low RE R-ML RM-20 0 20 23 Non-Vacant Single-family
home 1.67 1952 S4-204B
YORBA LINDA NO ADDRESS 92886 326-081-01 88 142 Shortfall of Sites 23.01 R - Medium Low RE R-H RM 0 10 230 Vacant Vacant Property has
been listed for
sale. Numerous
inquiries from
prospective
buyers and
developers. 0.00 0 S5-008
YORBA LINDA 22722 OLD CANAL RD 92885 352-115-08 55 34 Shortfall of Sites 2.56 I-Manufacturing PD I-Manufacturing RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 89 Non-Vacant
John Force
Racing
Business
operations have
been relocated to
Indianapolis.
Building is
currently listed
for lease. 1.14 0 S6-015
YORBA LINDA 22699 OAKCREST CI 92885 352-117-09 22 14 Shortfall of Sites 3.110992873 I-Manufacturing PD I-Manufacturing RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 36 Non-Vacant
Extended Stay
USA
Potential
Conversion 0.56 0 S6-020
YORBA LINDA 22744 EASTPARK DR 92885 352-117-11 22 14 Shortfall of Sites 3.199969948 I-Manufacturing PD I-Manufacturing RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 36 Non-Vacant
Extended Stay
USA
Potential
Conversion 1.39 0 S6-020
YORBA LINDA 22711 OAKCREST CI 92885 352-117-12 28 17 Shortfall of Sites 4.03576581 I-Manufacturing PD I-Manufacturing RM-20 with
Affordable
Housing
Overlay 20 35 45 Non-Vacant
Extended Stay
USA
Potential
Conversion 1.37 0 S6-020
YORBA LINDA 23611 LA PALMA AV 92885 353-091-04 Shortfall of Sites 0.669640685 C - General CG CG Mixed Use
Overlay 20 35 0 Non-Vacant
Bryant Ranch
Shopping
Center 0.58 0 S7-001
YORBA LINDA 23761 LA PALMA AV 92885 353-091-05 Shortfall of Sites 0.256389064 C - General CG CG Mixed Use
Overlay 20 35 0 Non-Vacant
Bryant Ranch
Shopping
Center 0.49 0 S7-001
YORBA LINDA 23661 LA PALMA AV 92885 353-091-06 76 114 Shortfall of Sites 9.148607966 C - General CG CG Mixed Use
Overlay 20 35 190 Non-Vacant
Bryant Ranch
Shopping
Center
Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. Center is
struggling to
maintain tenants
at this time;
therefore,
property owner is
considering other
alternatives. 0.60 0 S7-001
6 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements
113
Meeting 1: Residential Sites Inventory
Jurisdiction
Name
Site Address/
Intersection
5 Digit
ZIP
Code
Assessor
Parcel
Number
Very
LowIncome
LowIncomeModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Type of
Shortfall Parcel Size
(Acres)
Current
General Plan
Designation
Current
Zoning
Proposed
General Plan
Designation
Proposed
Zoning
Minimum
Density
Allowed
Maximum
Density
Allowed
Total
Capacity
Vacant/
Nonvacant
Description
of Existing
Uses
Notes
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Year
Built
Project
Site ID
YORBA LINDA 23801 LA PALMA AV 92885 353-131-12 32 50 Shortfall of Sites 3.641958983 C - General CG CG Mixed Use
Overlay 20 35 82 Non-Vacant
Bryant Ranch
Shopping
Center 1.31 0 S7-001
YORBA LINDA ADDRESS NOT AVAILABLE 92885 329-081-06 4 6 Shortfall of Sites 3.06344421 R - Medium High RU R-H RM 0 10 10 Vacant Vacant Property owner is
very interested in
having property
rezoned to allow
for higher density
housing. 0.00 0 S7-005
7 YORBA LINDA �3�� ������ ��� 9288� 3�3�0���13 �0 10 Shortfall of Sites 3��� R - Medium R� R-H RM �0 3� 30 ����Vacant ������� ������ 0.00 0 S3-033 Tables displayed here comply with HCD formatting requirements
114
Meeting 1: Program Environmental Impact Report
View the Environmental Impact Report on the
city website or scan the QR Code
https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/341/Environmental-Documents
115
Meeting 1: General Plan Map
Meeting 1: City’s Zoning Map
2016 General Plan
´ Land Use Map
Yorba Linda General Plan
Exhibit LU-3
City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Area Plans
Area Plan
Commercial
C-Commercial
C-Neighborhood
C-Office
Residential
R-Low
R-Medium Low
R-Medium
R-Medium High
R-High
Open Space
OS-General
Water/Lake
Industrial
I-Manufacturing
K:\ORA_PLAN\094799001 - Yorba Linda General Plan\001_GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT\Maps\MXD Maps\2_Land Use
TEDFORD
ALLONBY
VILLA BERGAMO
MARK
MOLLIE
BRIDLE
SUNNYVIEW
VIA AUGUSTO
VISTA LAGUNA
PLATTE
VIA LENARDO
MAJORCA
VISTA LOMA
GRANDVIEW
SUMAC RIDGE
CRYSTAL
AVENIDA DE MARCIA
CLOVER HILL
LA KENICE
MCKINLEY
LOGANVIEW
DIAMOND HILL
CALLE ENTRADA
ELIZABETH
VILLAGE CENTER
VIA DEL BUEY
LORCA
FREDRICKCAMELA
LAKEVIEW
ROCKROSE
INDEPENDENCE
BRIGHTWOOD
PRIVATE
VIA ALVARADO
VIA DEL PALMAR
SCOTCH PINE RIDGE
GOLDBARK
VIA SAMUEL
LUPINE
MICKEL
PALERMO
IMPERIAL
WATERBURY
VIA DE LA PLAZA
YALE
BROOKLYN
SOMERSET
SANTA CLARA
PINGREE
CHANNING
D BAGLIO
VIA ARRIBA LINDA
MEADOW LAND
MT TRIUMPH
BLUE RIDGE
MEADOWVIEW
FEATHER
OLIVE TREE
BURKE
DEBI
2ND
CARSON
LIBRA
LYNRIDGE
EAST PARK
ESPERANZA
STONE CANYON
LYNN
WOODEN
ODESSA
OHIO
ROSEWOOD
RIDGEWOOD
LONGVIEW
RIDGEDALE
BIG HORN MOUNTAIN
PASEO GILBERTO
VIA SANTANA
SHADOW OAK
MT SHASTA
PEACHTREE
CAMILLE
VISTA
PEBBLE BEACH
CIRCULO VISTA
SAVI RANCH
FALLEN LEAF
BAYBERRY
MERIENDA
PALAMINO
EASTHILL
FERNGLEN
ZAHARIAS RIDGE
BURKWOOD
GREEN TAVERN
BEECH
DORINDA
ANDREA
NICOSIA
GREEN HILL
HIDDEN HILLS
LIVE OAK
SAN PABLO
VIA SUSANNAH
TRAILSIDE
SLEEPING OAK
CORK
SAN REMO
TRAIL SIDE
PLYMOUTH
MALAGA
AVOCADO
ORANGE BLOSSOM
CASA LOMA
CASA ORO
OAK BURL
ST FRANCIS
AVEN DI A LOS SUENOS
EUREKA
COPPERLEAF
FAIRMONT
MOUNTAINVIEW
VIA PAMPLONA
HOOSIER LAWN
MARIPOSA
MAJESTIC CYPRESS
CORIANDER
EL CAJON
KELLOGG
CHERRY GATE
VIA MARIPOSA
CYPRESS
VILLA
PALAZZO
VIA MARWAH
AVENIDA DEL ESTE
STILL POND
ASPENGLOW
SEQUOIA
SADDLE TREE
SANDY HILL
VIA SEVILLA
VIA TORRALBA
LIVORNO
SYCAMORE
BEN LOMOND
GLEN
MORGAN
CAM NI O CERMENON
LONGBAY
V AI DEL JUBALI
VIA ESCOBA
VIA NAVARRA
RIVER BANK
PINE MEADOW
EARLY STAR
CITRUS GROVE
SCENIC VIEW
MANOR VIEW
PASEO DE TORONTO
TUSCANY
BOEING
RICHFIELD
LAPAZ
ROSE
LERENE
HEADSTALL
OAK HILL
LAKE GROVE
VIA HABANA
CALLE SONORA
VIEW PARK
BURGUNDY
WOODCLIFF
BUENA VISTA
GRANADA
HIGHLAND
RANCH
DAISY
VIA CANON
VIA DEL GLAVEL
STONEHAVEN
COLONIAL
IRONBARK
LINCOLN
DEERFOOT
GOLDEN GATE
WESTWIND
VOLTERRA
AVOCADO
PROVENCE
ACACIA H LI L
WESTVALE
KENTWATER
FERNWOOD
CASIANO
RICH HILL
VIA ESTANCIA
MONTEANO
WILLOW
SHOOK
LOGANLINDA
VIA CERVANTES
VIA JARDIN
YORBA RANCH
ELMHURST
DUNROBIN
LAKEVIEW
JOANNE
KENNON
SUSANNA BRYANT
MIMOSA
IMPERIAL
BROKEN HILL
WOODLAND
VIA EL MOLINO
PARKSIDE
VILLAGER
SKYVIEW KNOLL
LA CASITA
SANDOLO
DEVONPORT
LAUREL VIEW
CRESCENT
VIA DE CAMPO
AZELA
ORO VERDE
CHESTNUT
LATHROP
CASTELANA
HIDDEN HILLS
PLUM TREE
LORI
HARLAN
OYSTER BAY
VIA VARADERO
VIA BREVE
ESPERANZA
SHAW
PROSPECT
EUCALYPTUS HILL
VIA ALMERIA
VIA DEL PUMA
WHITE PINE
TORRY PINE
MERRYWEATHER
HEIDE BIG OAK
LYNNBROOK PLAZA
LANDING
TRAIL RIDGE
ASTER
AVENIDA DEL REY
GARNER
JEFFERSON
LAKEHAVEN
VISTA MONTANA
VIA LOURDES
RICH HILL
PAGE
WEBB
LA CONCETTA
GLENKNOLL
CALLE CORTEZ
CAPE COD
QUARTER HORSE
YORBA LINDA
ORANGE
LEMON
FAIRLYNN
VIA RAMON
HIDDEN OAKS
MT RAINER
RHONE
FRANCISCA
PAR
BLUEGRASS
CASA ORO
REDFIELD
CORALWOOD
CAMINO AYALA
RUMSON
VIA MARIA
CIRCULO DEL SOL
PASEO DEL PRADO
OAKCREST
RAVENSWOOD
SCHOOL
HERITAGE
SHADY GLEN
VIA NUEVA
VIA DE LAS MONTANAS
GRANADA
BASTANCHURY
ROLLING HILLS
CLOVERDALE
RUTLAND
VIA LA VIEJA
VIA CASTELLON
CAM NI OPONIENTE
DORTHEA
OLDENBURG
YORBA LINDA
MOUNTAIN VIEW
VISTA DEL MAR
FELIPA
YORBA LINDA
ARIES
VIA ENCANTO
SUNNYSIDE
TURFWAY PARK
CALGARY
SUMMERWOOD
GARDENIA
VIA SEPULVEDA
FLOWER CREEK
VIA DEL AGUA
CASA LOMA
MELODY
BLUE SPRUCE
CUMBERLAND
KELLOGG
CIRCULO DURANGO
FALLEN OAK
VIA CANTADA
HARTFORD
APPALOOSA
SEMINOLE
REGULUS
BRAMBLE
SHAMROCK
HERBSHEY
STARWOOD
VILLA DONA BELLA
ALAMO LN
VIA CADIZ
VIA LINARES
NOB HILL
PEPPER HILL
VIA DEL B SI ONTE
VIA DEL COYOTE
DELACROIX
SHARON
GOLDEN WILLOW
VIA DANIEL
VIA DIANZA
CHABOT
CLEARWATER
HOLLOW TREE
WELSH PONY
SUTHERLAND
CARLTON
SILVER DOLLAR
VIA NIETOS
SUMMIT
BLUE MOUNTAIN
JAY
BABBL NI G BROOK
DURHAM
BLUEFIELD
BANYON RIM
LA TIERRA
NEFF RANCH
BUENA VISTA
BLAIR
VISTA MENDOZA
VIA MANRESA
LA PALMA
NEWPORT
MARINO
CANDLEBERRY
MONSON
CORTONA
AVEN DI A DE LOS REYES
VIA DEL VALLE
EMERALD DOWNS
CLEVELAND BAY
RICHFIELD
LEAFY MEADOW
PRIMROSE
NORCRIS
JACARANDA
NEW HAVEN
VIA FRANCISCO
V AI MIGUEL
VIA BUENA VIDA
CARAWAY
MAHOGANY CIR
SOUTHERN POINTE
TOWN CENTER
RED PINE
LAKE TREE
VIA DULCINEA
CALLE DELGADO
VIA LOMAS DE YORBA WEST
CAMINO DE LOS CANTOS
KIMBERLY
WEST HILL
PASEO RICO
SPECTACULAR BID
CUMBERLAND
KERA
WILD GINGER
VIA PORTOLA
IVY
POPLAR BLUFF
HIDEAWAY
TROTTER
LAKE PLEASANT
ROYAL OAK
KENTUCKY DOWNS
BRIARHILL
LAKE RIDGE
VIA DELVAQUERO
LA CRESCENTA
ELMHURST
JOEL BRATTAIN
LANCER
OLD RANCH
VIA DE LA ARDILLA
HIDDEN HILLS
VILLA MIRASOL
PARK
MOUNTAIN VIEW
CALLE BELLA
LOS MONTEROS
CLUBHOUSE
BRETON
HEATHERIDGE
GREEN HOLLOW
OAKHURST
VIA VIGO
PASEO LUIS
VIA ALEGRE
FALABELLA
GREEN PINE
RANCHO
CHAMPAGNE
CHERRYLEE
CAROT
BRUSH CANYON
TRAIL CREST
CHALON
V AI ROMERO
STONEPINE
V AI VALLARTA
GENOA
VIA LA MANCHA
FOLEY
SHORT
LAURA
VIA MANZANILLO
CAMINO DORADO
VIA LA GRANJA
DOUGLAS
BURLEIGH
PASEO DE LA RAMBLA
CAMINO VERDE
PATRICIA
WALNUT
TUCANA
SUMMER
HOLLY
HILLCOCK VIEW
RAPALLO
BROWN
BRISBANE
SUN HILL
CASA GRANDE
VIA ARNAZ
COTTAGE HILL
FALCONRIDGE
BASTANCHURY
VIA TOLEDO
OHIO
JOHN BIXBY
ROCKWOOD
LA HOMA
VILLA TORINO
CANNES
LA MACINDA DELANCY
LARO
GRANDVIEW
CEDAR GROVE
APPLECROSS
VIA MARIANO
GLARAMARA
SUN VIEW
JEAN
PROSPECT
SUNBURY
CLUB TERRACE
SUGAR PINE
MT HOOD
LOS ANGELES
GREENWICH
LAKE KNOLL
AVENIDA DE AMOR
VIA INFANTA
BRYANT RANCH
PINE
RYAN
VALLEY VIEW
PABLO
SUNRISE
DANZA PLAZA
PRIMA BUCA
SILVER MAPLE
ALAMO LN
PASEO DEL RETIRO
FAIRWAY VIEW
EVERGREEN
NORFOLK
LAKE WOOD
BROOKMONT
SAN ANTONIO
DARTMOUTH
ZELLA
RICHFIELD
MINDEN
KILLYMOON
CEDARBEND
WOODBURN
VIA LA NARANJA
VIA DEL OBISPO
ELM HILL
BEVERLY
VIA DON JUAN
CASCADES
ASHBURY
BRITTANY
VIA VIENTO
SADDLE RIDGE
ARC
LAKE CREST
VIA BUENA SUERTE
SANCTUARY
V SI TAVIZCAINO
HOGAN
TOYON
WOODGATE
THICKET
JAY
TRIX
TRENTON
VIA CASCO
SILVER SPURS
SHETLAND
JAMESTOWN
KINGSPORT
V AI NI GRE S SO
AVEN DI A DE LAS ESTRELLAS
RANCH
SOUTHERN HILLS
PASATIEMPO
PASEO SERRA
VIA TENORIO
CASTLE ROCK
ALTRUDY
PUTTING GREEN
DIEMER
CHESTNUT
VIA FONTE
TULIP
WOODSTOCK
ROCKVILLE
VILLAGE CENTER
ASPEN
VIA NORIEGA
RAINTREE
CALLE VISTA LINDA
PEPPER
DORTHEA
GREEN MEADOW
DENVER
BYCROFT
LANCEWOOD
VIA TARRAGONA
AMBERWOOD
CAMINO DE BRYANT
G EORGETOW N
BATES
COUNTRY CLUB
CASSIA
ORIENTE
SARATOGA
TORIDA
GLORY
HUGGINS
ELK MOUNTAIN
CARRERA
ALMARA
AVOLINDA
MARSHBURN
CALLE MIRADOR
SUNMIST
FUTURA
VIA COTA
NANTUCKET
NAPLES
BLUEBROOK
ROOSEVELT
TAHITIAN
VIA CARRETAS
VIA AZUL
CAMELA
AUBURN
KENNON
LAKEVIEW
ACORN
TRADITIONS
MOUNTAIN VIEW
COUNTRY V EI W
VIA PRESIDIO
AVENIDA GRANADA
POTOMAC
BLACK FOREST
CHAMPIONSHIP
BRIARHILL
MINDEN
GOLDEN POPPY
LINDA VERDE
V AI PERLA
TODD
DE ANDA
AVIEMORE
STIRLINGBRIDGE
LA COLLETTE
FIRCREST
VIA SERENO
ESPERANZA
VIA DEL PRADO
ARBOR GATE
TYTRIS
LINDAFAIR
AVEN DI A DE LOS ARBOLES
AVOLINDA QUIET MEADOW
GROWERS
LA ENTRADA
CRESTA BELLA
AVENIDA DE LA LUZ
MONTEANO
BELGIAN
CASA ORO
RA NI BOW
RIM
MARIAH
WALNUT CREEK
VIA MURCIA
PASEO DE LAS PALOMAS
FAIRMONT
CHIANTI
ABBEY
BRIARDALE
SAGA
GLENHAVEN
VIA SANTANDER
VIA CORONADO
FEATHER GRASS
WOODCREST
SNAPDRAGON
CONNEMARA
VIA MADERA
HUTCHINGS
WESTMORELAND
NEW RIVER
AVE ADOBE
MAGEE
BEN NEVIS
ROYAL OAK
LA PRADERA
SKYLINE
LAWNDALE
SUNWEST
DUNMURRY
RANCHO
WINCHESTER
BERKELEY
VIA DEL CAZADOR
ANNA MARIE
WINDEMERE
KONA KOVE
CHANDLER
KLINE
TWILIGHT
CANYON
CITRUS RANCH
VIA DEL PUENTE
JENNIFER
VIA CALDERON
VIA DEL HALCON
VIA TOMAS
LOGANA
HIGHLAND
SUNNY
PACIFIC
V AI FRONDOSA
AVENIDA DEL REY
NOGAL
SANTA ANITA
DUNSMUIR
TRINO
VIA DEL CONEJO
LAVENDER
RIM CREST
BENICIA
DELANCY
BASTANCHURY
GARDENIA
MOUNTAIN VIEW
VIA MORENA
ASH
SAN RUFINO
JENNIFER
STRADELLA
VIA MAGDALENA
VIA ALISA
DOMINGUEZ RANCH
ROANOKE
AVOLINDA
FAIRWAY VIEW
WEST KNOLL
SWEET WATER
V AI LA PRIMAVERA
BRIDE
KAYE
SANTA CRUZ
PIAZZASAN CARLO
LAKE WOOD
SOUTHVIEW
PASEO PANORAMA
AVEN DI A DE DESPACIO
SOMERVILLE
VIA VIRGINIA
TIFFANY
AVOLINDA
BLACKBERRY
PARK
VIA ANDALUSIA
LAMP POST
LA PALMA
VISTA DEL SOL
GREEN OAKS
SANTA FE
STONECREST
AVENIDA DEL TREN
VIA JUANA
CASSON
MAIDENHAIR
STABLES
BRAMBLE
MEADOWVIEW
WEYBURN
CIRCULO LOMA
RIVERVIEW
AVENIDA DEKRISTINE
VALLECITO
IRIS
VIA MONITA
WILLOW WICK
OLD POMEGRANATE
CHURCHILL DOWNS
MESITA
COUPLES
AVENIDA FLORENC AI
VIA DON QUIXOTE
BIRCHIT
RIO DE ORO
RANCHO SANTA ANA
GOLDEN MAPLE
ORANGEWOOD
LINDA
ORANGE
MARY ELLEN
AVENIDADE LAPAZ
VIA VERANO
SARAZEN
CASA LOMA
ELSIE
NOVA
VIA CASTILE
AVENIDA DE LOS ARBOLES
SHADY KNL
KIND
DRAKE
PARK VIEW
VIA OPORTO
CIRCULO BAJO
WINFIELD
VIA CORONA
SHADOW RI D GE
VIA DEL CERRO
FAIRLYNN
PORTSMOUTH
CAMINO GALVEZ
LIBERTY
NICOLE
DEL CABALLO
CAMINO CABRILLO
LA COLLETTE
WHITEWATER
BOX CANYON
BLACK PINE
LONCREST
VERNA
REGENTS
PARTRIDGE
PALM
SONOMA
CHICAGO
VIA DEL VENADO
VIA BRAVO
CAJON CANAL
EAGLES NEST
VIA CABEZA
WAGON WHEEL
MORNING DEW
GARDEN
LOS ANGELES
LE MANS
VIA GERALDINA
ZANJERO
SEABISCUIT RUN
CASA HERM OSA
C ARRIAGE
VIA BADALONA
VIA DEL CUERVO
VIA OESTE
SHAKARI
DORAL
HALEY
ORANGE
CHARTER OAK
ROBIN
ARROYO
OAK LEAF
SPYGLASS HILL
VIA TALAVERA
COLUMBIA
BRIDGEPORT
VIA VENTOSA
CABALLO
FRONT NINE
FORBES
THAGARD
CALLECUERVO
CAMINO DE BESAR
JUSTIN
ORIENTE
CERRO VISTA
WISTERIA
VIA ESTE
CALLE DE LA LADERA
FERN CREEK
FAIRMONT
FOXHOLLOW
HIBISCUS
OLANA
AVOCADO GROVE
KING
VIA DEL RIO
ABBEY GLEN
ROCKHAMPTON
MALTA
AVOLINDA
SCHOOL
VIA NIETOS
DEVERON
COPPER CANYON
SALEM
VIA LOMAS DE YORBA EAST
SIENNA
BALANTREE
VIA EL TAJO
VIA ALCANTARA
VIA DEL AGUILA
VIA LUGO
DUKE
PIN HIGH
KODIAK MOUNTAIN
PEPPER TREE
VIA SANTA MARIA
CALLE TRANQUILLO
LOMBARDY
CLYDESDALE
VALLEY VIEW
CITRUS
DEE
AMBERDALE
YORBA LINDA
LOS ESTADOS
VERMONT
AVENIDA RIO DEL ORO
MARSALA
TRAILVIEW
HOMESTEAD
VIA MIRAMAR
WAVERLY GLEN
CRANBERRY
ALEUTIA
VIA TRINIDAD
V AI DELACIELO
MANDARIN
LESA
VIA ONTIVEROS
PINECREST
VILLA TERRACE
SANLO
PARKLAND
LAS PATRANAS
LEXINGTON
CANYON TERRACE
V AI CONTENTO
GREEN CREST
MEADOWVIEW
WOODHAVEN
PASEO ARNALDO
VIA ZOPAPO
MAIDEN MOOR
DOGWOOD
VIA DIEGO
HUMBOLDT
RIVER BEND
IVY HILL
HACIENDA
VINWOOD
LAKE TERRACE
OAKVALE
CHANNEL
LOS ADORNOS
VIA RIVERA
LOS ALTOS
VIA LAS VILLAS
VIA ANGELINA
VIA DEL GAVILAN
AVENIDA ADOBE
FOXTAIL
SEGOVIA
PIPER
SUMMER OAK
V SI TA D EL LAGO
PONDEROSA
VIA NATALIE
CANNERY
AVEN DI A DE LAS FLORES
CEDAR
OHIO
MERIENDA
ACACIA
PASEO CALIENTE
VIA DEL POTRERO
WILLOWBROOK
BRUSH CANYON
JOSHUA
VIA BILBOA
VIA GUADALUPE
OLD CANAL
DORY
CAMAROSA
PUTTING GREEN
PASO FINO
ROXDALE
VIA SANTANA
GYPSUM CANYON
VIA AMANTE
COBBLESTONE
HEATHER
BUENA VISTA
RUTH
WATERFORD
COVENTRY
CORSICA CROSS CREEK
BROOKWAY
BLUE RIDGE
HICKORY TREE
RICHFIELD
LIVERPOOL
GREENLEAF
VIA NIETOS
VIA DEL JINETE
AVENIDA DE MICHELE
BLUE GUM
SCHOOL
LAKE SHORE
HOLLOW RIDGE
SILVER TIP
TRUMAN
CANYON CORAL
LAKESIDE
OAK MEADOW
PEPPER
CLEAR HAVEN
VIA SONRISA
VIA ESPANA
MERIDA
DEVILLE
NUTMEG
VAN BUREN
VIA DEL LOBO
VIA AMARILLA
BLACK WALNUT
HILLCREST
TANGLEWOOD
HIGHLAND
JAMESTOWN
HILLWOOD
LANDMARK
VILLAGE CENTER
VIA ESTER
VIA RENE
TWIN CREEK
CASSON
CLUB VIEW
VIA VICENTE
CALLE PERA
IMPERIAL
REDCASTLE
IMPERIAL
V AI CARTAGENA
VIA DE LA ESCUELA
BERNARDO YORBA
FAIRMONT
BALMORAL
VILLA MEDICI
BERRYHILL
RIDGE
COUNTRY CLUB
COACHWOOD
GREENBRIAR
VIA MARCOS
KELLOGG
GREEN MOUNT
CASTLE BEND
VIA SANTIAGO
VIA DEL FIERRO
VIA VENTANA
HANNAH
PALM VISTA
AVOCADO
PINERIDGE
HEIDE
FAIRWOOD
CALGARY
MULBERRY
BIDWELL
FAIRGREEN
VIA SARA
PICASSO OLD VILLAGE
TORIDA
MEADOWVIEW
BIG SPRINGS
VIA VICENTE
VIA BERNARDO
VIA BURGOS
NEW GATE
TRUCKEE
MARYNELL
VIA ROSA
VIA LUCIA
CAPRICE
IRIS
VIA BRUMOSA
CAM NI O CLARO
NORTHERN DANCER
RICHFIELD
CANDLELIGHT
WINTERHAVEN
PASEO DE LA CUMBRE
VIA LAS BRISAS
CAMDEN
PIPER
EVENING BREEZE
SHADY CREEK
JEFFREY
ESPERANZA
AVENIDA DEL NORTE
PALOMA
VIA DEL CABALLO
PRINCETON
LAKE FOREST
CRESTKNOLL
ORCHARD
CALLE ALCAZAR
AVEN DI A DE LOS ARBOLES
YORKSHIRE
ERNEST JOHNSON
SUNMIST WHITE OAK
VIA PRIMARIA
SHADY LAWN
FIR
J AND J
ANDERSON GROVE
PEPPERGROVE
GLENDALE
KINGSBR AI R
VIA AZAFRAN
FERN
PARK RIDGE
YORBA VISTA
SUNBEAM
TIMBERLANE
TRIESTA
WEST TERRACE
GEM
LOOKOUT
SAN ANTONIO
CITATION
REBECCA
TERRA LINDA
VIA RANCHERO
BENTWOOD
VIA ASTURIAS
GRANBY
BROOKLYN
SWEET BAY
OHIO
VIA TROVADOR
YORBA LINDA
ADAMS
CAM NI O V SI TA
ORLANDO
FAIRMONT
ALIANO
KRUEGER
HENRY
WRIGHTWOOD
LARKRIDGE
VIA CANARIAS
CALLE VISTA ALEGRE
JUNIPER
VAN BUREN
GALWAY BAY
VIA BELARMINO
CARI
GRANDVIEW
CORBIT
LOGANBERRY
ARIES
VIA SONORA
CAMBRIDGE
SHANE
CONDIE
COMPASS WILDWOOD
LUPINE
HICKORY
CALLE BON TI A
LOS PALOMINOS
MAMMOTH
TOULAN
EUREKA
TRAVIS
CAM CALUROSO
SMOKETREE
STEEPLECHASE
SKY RIDGE
LANTANA
LIVERPOOL
MAPLE GROVE
VISTA LAMPARA
DEODAR
EASY
LIVERPOOL
RUSTIC
PIAZZA NAVONA
PRENTISS
SUNSET
MONTECITO
VISTA DEL NORTE
DORINDA
VIA DE LA ESPUELA
CARMONITA
JUTLAND
SAGE R DI GE
EDGECLIFF
VIA MARGARITA
CIMARRON PL
VILLA BELLINI
CARDIFF
SALERNO
PIPER
KERN
VIA DEL PARQUE
CAMINO DE BRYANT
VIA TAPASTE
STAFFORD
YORBA LINDA
LARKFIELD
SPRING OAK
OAK TREE
PACIFIC
MERIENDA
MOSELLE
MILLSTONE
VIA LOMAS DE YORBA EAST
COUNTRYWOOD
RED ROAN
WALNUT
LAKEVIEW
MORNING GLORY
PAISLEY
CRESTKNOLL
VIA MARIA
PASEO TORTUGA
VIA DEL ACERO
PARKWOOD CT
VERONA
HUMMINGBIRD
REGULUS
RIO DE PLATA
EDGEWOOD
VIA CELESTINA
VIA PIEDRA
VIA NOPALES
CAMPHOR
NEWBURY
ANZIO
IMPERIAL
CASA LOMA
VALLEY VIEW
JASMINE
STONEHURST
SUNNY SLOPE
BOX CAN Y ON
VIA GLORIA
VIA DEL GRANADERO
CLUBHOUSE
JEANEAN
CLEARWATER
LITTLE CANYON
VIA DE LA LUNA
OAKLAWN
MENTON
LINDFORD
VIA CAMPANAS
TWIN OAK
MONETTE
LAUREL VIEW
CHRISTOPHER
4TH
SHEEHAN
ESPERANZA
VIA LERIDA
VIA TEODOCIO
AVENIDA DE LAS ESTRELLAS
VIA ROJA
HOLLYBERRY
PALOMINO
VIA DE LAZORRA
DOVER
MELBOURNE
VIA MIANI
REDWOOD
WABASH
BLUEBERRY
TAMARISK
GORDON
BROOKHILL
CLEAR RIVER
PINEVILLE
CARDENA
BUCKSKIN
VIA PEPITA
FAIRMONT
VILLA VALENTE
LOMITA
AVENIDA ANTIGUA
VIA LOMA LINDA
BAYLOR
STONEWOOD
COLLINS
BRIDLE
AVENIDA DEL REY
DANITA
R CI HF EI LD
VALENCIA
VALENCIA
HONEYSUCKLE
MCCARTHY
WENDOVER
MIRAGE
SUNCREST
SUFFOLK
VIA CORZO
NIANTIC
CERRO VERDE
CHRISTIE
NICKLAUS
PASEO JOAQUIN
BAYWOOD
PRENTISS
VIA VALLARTA
TEMHUST
RED ROAN
DOS CASAS
BASTANCHURY
CANTERBURY
STONEHEDGE
FAIRMONT
RIDGECREST
T PI PERARY
BRYAN
FOXBOROUGH
CARLOS
GLOXIN AI
FLOWER GATE
CITRIODORA
LOIE
COTTONWOOD
VAN GOGH
GUM
VIA DONALDO
VIA ISABELLA
VIA DE LOS ROBLES
LA COLLETTE
VIA APOLINA
MILANO
HOLLY
COLINARICARDO
FOXFIELD
VIA ROBLE
YORBA LINDA
SAN SIMEON
VIA ADELA
SHADY GATE
QUAIL
PENN
YORBA LINDA VICTORY
LINDSEY
OLIVE BRANCH
LOS RIOS
FOREST GLEN
VISTA GLEN
DOVE
HIDDEN GLEN
SIRODAY
CADDY
VIA CERESA
GLASGOW
PORTAGE
TAMARA
PEPPERD NI E
VENECIA
LAMPLIGHT LN
SUN KNOLL
MIRKWOOD RUN
CORNELL
STONEHAVEN
VIA ARBOLEDA
VALENCIA
LA CUESTA
BLAZING STAR
HILLTOP
ROCKY GROVE
LA PALMA
HEATHERWOOD
HARVEST
APPLE ORCHARD
ALAMO
VIA CRISTAL
RIDGE MANOR
WESTWOOD
V AI LA QUINTA
VIA MADRID
ORANGEGATE
LADERA
EL CAJON
VIA CORILLO
BEGONIA
CEDAR CREEK
CHARMAINE
EUREKA
WEATHERLY
VISTA MORAGA
AVENIDA EL CID
LAGRANDE
CALLE MANZANA
VIA RICARDO
ELDERBERRY
EUREKA
PLACERVILLE
GALLAL
IRONSTONE
MANZANITA
POPPY
GREY STONE
EUCALYPTUS HILL
TRENTINO
SERRENTE
DRY CREEK
CASINO RIDGE
SAND ROCK
VIA INEZ
LOTUS
VIA DE LA ROCA
YELLOWSTONE
EISENHOWER
MISTY
LAKE PARK
VIA PASA
TIMBER RIDGE
ALFORD
WHITE SPRING
ARROYO CAJON
FOREST
VILLA GRANDE
LA KENICE
SANDRA
CIMARRON
V AI D EL CORRAL
CAM VERDE
RICH HILL
ORANGE
ALICIA
MARDA
CIRCULO NUEVO
AVENIDA PUESTA DEL SOL HEATHERIDGE
SOUTHWIND
OSMOND
TIBURON
VIA ALAMEDA
FLORA
MAIN
PACIFIC
GRANDVIEW
LOS ALTOS
SANDSPOINT
MARQUET
CAM NI O FAMOSA
V AI DEL RANCHO
RAVENNA
HIGH TREE
TIKI TORCH
CANYON
APPLE CREEK
WESTFIELD
POMEGRANATE
ADAM
SIESTA
PASEO ALTO
MISSION HILLS
WINNERS
FLORENCE
PUNTO DE VISTA
V AI DE LA MULA
CORDOBA
PELHAM
OLINDA
MALCOLM
OHIO
WILLOW TREE
BOLD RULER
PIMLICO
THISTLEDOWN
SHANNON
MONTEREY
BLACK GOLD
FURNACE CREEK
MAPLE
VIA DELTECOLOTE
CAM NI O TECATE
WINDSONG
HIGHLAND
VIA RAMON
SHERWOOD
VIA PIZARRO
SECRETARIAT
DAPPLE GRAY
NIGHTINGALE
KAMEHA
PALMA
LORAINE
LIPIZZAN
RUNNING SPRING
VISTA RANCH
LAKE GLEN
MACKENZIE
SHADY MEADOW
SANTA FE
CASA ORO
JAMESTOWN
PLUMOSA
SAN RAFAEL
PASEO LORENZO
VIA BELLEZA
MT WHITNEY
LAVELL
LEAFWOOD
VIA SONADOR
SUNDOWN
KENNEDY
PIAZZABELLA
STARLIGHT
CONDOR RIDGE
RANCHO CIRCLE
HAWKEYE RIDGE
LA CADENA
SINGINGWOOD
CHAPARRAL RIDGE
HAVEN
ASCOT
PARKHURST
ANNA
VILLA PASADO
VIA MARISA
LORCA
YORBA
GRACE HAVEN
RAMONA
HILLSIDE
HORSESHOE
CREST
RIDGE PARK
CHAMPIONSHIP
HEATHERIDGE
SMOKEY MOUNTAIN
HILLWOOD PL
VIA ROMA
FAIRMONT
BRENTWOOD
ALDER
MAPLE LEAF
3RD
CONGRESSIONAL
ESCALONA
SHAY DEL
BRISTLE CONE
GARDENIA
SHADOW HILL
AVENIDA BARCELONA
SILVER CANYON
VIA DE LEON
GREENHAVEN
ALPI NE
VIA SANLUCAR
VIA RINCON
RAINWOOD
CHATEAU
TRAIL VIEW
WATSON
WINDY KNOLL
VIAVERONICA
VIA MELINDA
GYPSUM CANYON
PIAZZA CASTELLO
ROSEBUD
TERRACE
VIA ZARAGOZA
VISTA CANTORA
MEADOW LAKE
CATALINA
VIA DE LA REATA
MAGNOLIA
BRUIN
LINDEN
VIA ANGELINA
LA FIESTA
BEDFORD
BIRCH
SUN KNOLL
LAKE GLEN
GRANDVIEW
ECHO H LI L
WINDY
CALLE FELIZ
VALLECITO
HILLWOOD
WORKING
VISTA REAL
VIA TARARA
V SI TA DEL AM GI O
UMBRIA
VIA BELLA VIS
FELICIA
ARAGON
LA SERENA
PS
RE
MHP
PS
PS
RA
RE
PD
OSR
PD
PS
OS
PD
PD PS
PD
OS
PD
RU
PD
UNC
UNC
RE
RS
RS
RS
PD
PS
PS
RM-30
PS
PD
PD
M-1
RS PD
PS
PD
RS
PD
PD
RS
RU
PD
PD
RU
PD
PD
RU
RU
UNC
UNC
CG
RE
RU
RS
RE
UNC
RM
RS
PD
CG
RE
RU
RA
RE
RE
OS
PS
OSR
TCSP
RE
RLD
CO
RM
RU
PS
PS
CO
RU
PS
OSR
RM
CG
PD
CG
PD
OSR
UNC
CO
RE
PD
RS
RM
PD
CO
PD
RS
RE
RU
RE
RE
RS
RM
PS
RE
RS
PD
RE
RE
RE
RE
PD
OS
RU
PD
RM
CN
PD
RU
RU
PS
PD
RM
RU
PD
RE
OS
RS
RE
M-1
CG
RU
CG
RM-30
PD
RE
RS
CO
RU
PD
RA
RE
RU
M-1
UNC
RM-30
RS
RE
M-1
RU
CG
RU
RU
RU
PD
RS
RU
RE
UNC
PS
RS
RS
OS
UNC
CG
PD
PD
RE
PS
OSR
PD
RU
RS
RS
PD
PD
PD
CG
PD
PD
RLD
OSR
RE
OS
RA
RM
OS
RE
RS
UNC
PL
RU
RE
RE
CG
PD
OSR
PD
RE
CO
PD
RA
CG
RU
RE
RS
RE
PS
CG
CG
PD
PD
SH
I
O
SH
O
SH
SH
SH
SH
O
O
SH
PD-04 PD-30
PD-06
PD-06
PD-05
PD-28
PD-03
PD-01
PD-02
PD-26
PD-27
PD-07
PD-09
PD-08
PD-10
PD-29
PD-11
PD-12
PD-13
PD-15
PD-14
PD-17
PD-16
PD-18
PD-25 PD-24 PD-20
PD-21
PD-23
PD-23
PD-19
PD-22
PD-31
z{25 z{13
z{30
z{32
z{2
z{2
z{21
z{15
z{11
z{16
z{27
z{18
z{23
z{23
z{26
z{1
z{29
z{14
z{33
z{5
z{4
z{3
z{10
z{8
z{7
z{12
z{20
z{19
z{22
z{28
z{6
z{17
z{31
z{9
z{24
STB
STI
STA
STC
STJ
STD
STF
STG
STK
STH
STE
Riverside County
Riverside County
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County
This map is a public resource of general information. The feature data provided on this map represents the most accurate zoning and parcel information available at the most recent date of revision. In the event of a conflict between zoning information on this map and an adopted City Resolution or Ordinance, the City Resolution or Ordinance shall govern.
The City of Yorba Linda makes no warranty, representation, or guaranty as to the content, accuracy, of completeness of any information provided herein. The City of Yorba Linda shall assume no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracy in the information provided and is not responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of this map.
This map is a public resource of general information. The feature data provided on this map represents the most accurate zoning and parcel information available at the most recent date of revision. In the event of a conflict between zoning information on this map and an adopted City Resolution or Ordinance, the City Resolution or Ordinance shall govern.
The City of Yorba Linda makes no warranty, representation, or guaranty as to the content, accuracy, of completeness of any information provided herein. The City of Yorba Linda shall assume no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracy in the information provided and is not responsible for any claims, losses or damages resulting from the use of this map.
DISCLAIMER
Revision "E"
SMD
Residential
RA Residential Agriculture
RLD Residential Low Density
RE Residential Estate
RS Residential Suburban
RU Residential Urban
RM Residential Multiple
RM-30 Residential Multiple-Family 30
Commercial
CO Commercial Office
CN Commercial Neighborhood
CG Commercial General
Industrial
M-1 Light Manufacturing
Special Purpose
MHP Mobile Home Park
PD Planned Development
PS Public and Semi-Public
PL Presidential Library
OS Open Space
OSR Open Space Ranchette
Specific Plans
TCSP Town Center Specific Plan
Combining Zones
I Imperial Highway
O Oil Production
SH Special Housing
O:\Departments\Com Dev\Planning\
Layout: Official Zoning
Source: City of Yorba Linda, 2019
City's Web Site
yorbalindaca.gov
City's GIS Portal
webgis.yorbalindaca.gov
Street names in "Black" are public streets
Street names in "Blue" are private streets
PD-01 Moning Development
PD-02 Lyon
PD-03 Yorba Ridge
PD-04 Cerro Verde
PD-05 Sand Dollar
PD-06 Terra Linda
PD-07 Parkside Estates
PD-08 Farmont Hills
PD-09 Lusk
PD-10 East Lake Village
PD-11 Yorba Linda Hills
PD-12 Dominguez Hills
PD-13 Travis Ranch
PD-14 Green Hills
PD-15 Green Hills Manufactured
PD-16 Box Canyon
PD-17 Savi Ranch
PD-18 The Villages
PD-19 AW Associates
PD-20 Vista Del Oro
PD-21 Riverbend Apartments
PD-22 Coal Canyon
PD-23 La Terrazza
PD-24 Historic Bryant Ranch
PD-25 Legacy at Bryant Ranch
PD-26 West Bastanchury
PD-27 Vista del Verde
PD-28 Presidential Way
PD-29 North Yorba Linda Estates
PD-30 HQT Homes
PD-31 Provence
PD Name PD Name
1 Arroyo Park
2 Black Gold Golf Club
3 Box Canyon Park
4 Brush Canyon Park
5 Bryant Ranch Park
6 Bryant Ranch Sports Fields
7 Casino Ridge Staging Area
8 Checkers Dog Park
9 Dominguez Trail
10 Eastside Community Park
11 Fairmont Knolls Park
12 Gun Club Road Linear Park
13 Hurless Barton Park
14 Jean Woodard Park
15 Jessamyn West Park
16 Kingsbriar Park
17 Las Brisas Park
18 Las Palomas Park
19 Lucia Kust Park
20 Mustang Fields
21 Phillip S. Paxton Equestrian Center
22 Quarter Horse Staging Area
23 Rio Del Oro Park
24 Roland E. Bigonger Park
25 Rose Drive Tennis Courts
26 San Antonio Park
27 Shapell Park
28 Susanna Bixby Bryant Museum
29 Travis Ranch Youth Park
30 Veterans Sports Park
31 Vista Del Verde II Park
32 Vista Del Verde Park
33 Vista Lampara Park
# Park Name # Park Name
A Bernardo Yorba Middle School
B Bryant Ranch Elementary School
C Fairmont Elementary School
D Glenknoll Elementary School
E Lakeview Elementary School
F Linda Vista Elementary School
G Mabel Paine Elementary School
H Rose Drive Elementary School
I Travis Ranch Elementary School
J Yorba Linda High School
K Yorba Linda Middle School
# School Name
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
CERTIFIED BY:________________________ DATE: 2/12/2019
Anaheim
Anaheim
Placentia
Placentia
Brea
Brea
OC County Chino Hills
State Park
z{# ST#
Planned Development Boundaries
City Boundary
Sphere Boundary
County Boundary
County Parcels
BNSF Railroad
116
POST-MEETING 2 WRAP UP
Dear Housing Policy Resident Working Group,
Thank you for joining us for our second meeting of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group (HPRWG).
It was nice to have so many arrive early to connect with each other and build some relationships among the Working Group!
We have covered a lot of territory in our first two meetings to provide a background on Yorba Linda land use, context to the HCD rules, legal viewpoints on lawsuits, a legislative update on the current realities in Sacramento, and direct contact with our CEQA consultants on the Housing Element. As we wrapped up the meeting last night, we started to leverage all that context to talk about the future and develop principles of planning that should guide the zoning plans for a modified Housing Element.
In follow-up to our meeting last night, I am providing additional documents:
• A link to the slide deck that guided our meeting last night: https://www.dropbox.com/ s/279cpy1up05vhvc/ResidentHousingWorkingGroup-Meeting2.pdf?dl=0 • A photo of the initial planning principles that were documented on our whiteboard. (See below) • Our Yorba Linda multi-family design guidelines: https://www.yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/ View/208/Multi-Family-Residential-Design-Guidelines-PDF If we have missed another follow-up request regarding additional information that you seek as a member of the Working Group, please let us know. We will try to quickly get that to you.
At our next meeting, we are going to cover these general areas:
1. Planning principles discussion, continued
2. Site-specific discussions and Q&A
3. A conversation about what is next for the Working Group Prior to the next meeting, I urge you to assemble some ideas on planning principles and email them to me.
That way, we can bring a roster of ideas to the table for the next meeting, expedite our conversation and put as many ideas as possible in front of the group. The more ideas, the better! Thank you again for your time and passion for our community and the future of Yorba Linda. We are all working on very real civic engagement on this issue — something we need more of in general in society.
As a reminder, our next meeting is back in the same location and time: the Public Library Community Room on Monday, June 5th at 6 PM. Dinner will again be served.
Regards,
-David
117
Meeting 2: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Establish Facts Review Homework
Answer Questions
Review Rezoning
Options
Tonight’s Goals
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29) • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims
• November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highlylikely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
Fact Review
• What is the legislative environment like in Sacramento this year? • What kind of housing legislation are we seeing? Anything that actually affects the housing allocation for Yorba Linda?
• What are the League’s priorities for initiatives in the coming two years? • What kind of policy efforts do we anticipate the League to take on regarding housing the coming years?
• What do you view as the viability of the citizen initiatives to potentially restore local control efforts?
Legislative Update
• Firm background
• Person background
• PEIR previously prepared
• What does Program-level analysis mean?
• What special studies were prepared (e.g., Traffic)
• What additional CEQA analysis will be required for housing plan revisions (i.e., high, medium and low level of changes)
• What are the timeframes for each of these?
CEQA Consultant Q&A
• Who prepared the traffic analysis for the PEIR?
• How was traffic analysis completed for PEIR?
• Did analysis assume “worst-case” in terms of housing units? • What is Level of Service (LOS)?
• How do various LOS levels translate to driving experience? • What were results within key intersections in the City? • What about Bryant Ranch?
Traffic Study Data and Background
118
Meeting 2: PowerPoint
Traffic Ratings
Explained
• Working Group is a foundational element to outreach plan • City will conduct a series of community workshops to discuss potential housing element changes
• City will use social media and video tools to convey information broadly and seek public participation
• A dedicated webpage or website will be created to keep the public informed
• Mailers are likely to be implemented
• All City communication channels will be deployed
• Public hearings will take place
Upcoming Rezoning Outreach Summary
• How many units can we put in there?
• What kind of units and income level tied to those units can go there? • What are trade offs with sales tax?
• What have we heard from developers?
• What statutory regulations do we face siting a lot of low income housing there?
• How will regulations for inclusion of housing sites in the housing element by viewed by regulators?
SaviRanch Possibilities
Rezoning Changes
Current Housing Inventory
Income Levels Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod Total
2021-2029 RHNA Targets 765 451 457 742 2,415
Existing Zoning
Entitled Projects (post 6/30/2021 occupancy) 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 12 12
Accessory Dwelling Units 100 172 120 8 400
Existing Site Capacity 272 163 189 624
RHNA Shortfall (944) (294) (553) (1,791)
Rezone Sites
Planned Development 64 130 194
RM 111 179 290
RM-20 40 26 40 106
Affordable Housing Overlay 710 72 782
Mixed Use Housing Overlay 26 136 163 325
Congregational Land Overlay 355 355
Total Site Capacity (Existing + Rezone Sites) 1,403 518 803 2,676 RHNA Buffer +187 +61 +61 +309
What principles can we
plan around?
119
Meeting 2: PowerPoint
What comes next for us?
Next Meeting Dates
YL Public Library
Community Room
Monday, June 5th 6:00 PM
YL Cultural Arts
Center –Arts Studio
Monday, June 12th
6:00 PM
Homework
Think About Tradeoffs and
Options on Housing
Talk to Neighbors and
About This Working
Group
Please hand in your name tags.
What benefits can come with adding new housing?
120
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Approved by City Council
Resoluti on No. 2011-5084
October 4, 2011
121
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
122
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
i
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Yorba Linda City Council
Nancy Rikel, Mayor
Mark Schwing, Mayor Pro Tem
John Anderson
Tom Lindsey
Jim Winder
Yorba Linda Planning Commission
James R. Pickel, Chairman
Dennis Equitz, Chair Pro Tem
Robert B. Lyons
James Wohlt
James Nebel
Multi -Family Residenti al Design Guidelines Team
City Staff
Steve Rudometkin, City Manager
Steve Harris, AICP, Director of Community Development
Catherine Lin, AICP, Assistant Planner, Project Manager Consultant
RRM Design Group
123
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
i
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - Introducti on
1.1 Purpose 1
1.2 Goals and Objecti ves 2
1.3 Intent 2
1.4 Applicability 3
1.5 General Plan Consistency 3
1.6 Use of the Design Guidelines in the Review Process 4
1.7 Other Applicable Regulati ons 4
1.8 Document Organizati on 5
Chapter 2 - Community Character and Design Guidelines
2.1 Introducti on 7
2.2 Appropriate Architectural Styles 7
2.3 Lot Layout and Site Planning 17
2.4 Buff ers and Transiti ons 18
2.5 Privacy 19
2.6 Building Form 20
2.7 Massing 22
2.8 Scale 23
2.9 Roof Form 24
2.10 Windows and Doors 25
2.11 Materials and Colors 26
2.12 Outdoor Lighti ng 27
2.13 Uti litarian Aspects 28
2.14 Landscaping and Open Space 29
2.15 Garages and Accessory Structures 30
2.16 Parking 31
2.17 Ameniti es 33
2.18 Safety and Security 35
Chapter 3 - Sustainability
3.1 Introducti on 39
3.2 Smart Locati on and Linkage 40
3.3 Neighborhood Patt ern and Design 40
3.4 Green Constructi on and Technology 41
3.5 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 41
3.6 Sustainable Site Planning and Design Guidelines 42
3.7 Sustainable Building and Streetscape/Landscape Design 43
124
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
INTRODUCTION 1
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of the Multi -Family Residenti al Design Guidelines is to ensure new multi -family residenti al development is consistent with Yorba Linda community values and character and to provide a clear set of design policies to project sponsors, such as developers, property owners, architects and designers. These are the primary design issues that City staff , the Planning Commission and City Council will use to evaluate project proposals. An important aim is to expedite the planning review process by clearly stati ng the community’s expectati ons for quality design of multi -family residenti al development. Consistency with community character, compati bility with surrounding neighborhoods and uses, livability, and long-term viability will guide the evaluati on of multi -family residenti al development proposals.
125
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
2 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Guidelines are intended to address the following goals and objecti ves:
a. Maintain a high quality of craft smanship in development through the use of building styles, design elements and materials;
b. Design for surrounding context and scale of urban form and land uses;
c. Establish multi -family residenti al developments that are integrated and compati ble with surrounding land
uses and neighborhoods – both existi ng and future;
d. Promote design excellence for in ll and redevelopment sites;
e. Respect and enhance the site’s natural form, view
sheds, and environmental att ributes;
f. Provide for safe and secure neighborhoods;
g. Further energy conservati on and sustainability;
h. Enhance and maintain the City’s aestheti c beauty and visual character.
1.3 INTENT
The Guidelines are to be used to assist developers, project applicants and City staff in producing high-quality multi - family development. City staff will use the Guidelines as a framework for evaluati ng development proposals and
for developing recommendati ons regarding the design
aspects of proposed projects.
The Guidelines are general and may be interpreted with
some exibility in their applicati on to speci c projects.
Variati ons may be considered for projects with special design characteristi cs in order to encourage the highest level of design quality, while at the same ti me providing opportunity for creati vity on the part of project designers.
The design criteria will be used to evaluate development proposals. However, deviati ons from these criteria will be evaluated in terms of the goals and objecti ves described above. The Guidelines are intended to ensure that new
development is compati ble with existi ng neighborhoods.
126
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
INTRODUCTION 3
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.4 APPLICABILITY
The Guidelines are intended to apply to all multi -family residenti al development proposals of more than four
(4) units per acre. The way in which the Guidelines are applied, however, will vary from project to project, depending on the context associated with the proposed development site and surrounding neighborhood, and the
parti cular components and details of any given project design. Potenti al multi -family sites range from smaller in ll sites to larger former commercial sites, with many adjacent to existi ng single-family residenti al neighborhoods.
1.5 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The values expressed in the 1993 Yorba Linda General Plan call for a high level of architectural and site design performance. Goals and policies within the Yorba Linda General Plan are furthered through establishment of the Guidelines. Relevant policies from the Land Use and Housing Element include:
• LU Policy 1.9: Permit and encourage the development
of aff ordable housing opportuniti es pursuant to State Guidelines in locati ons adjacent to supporti ng services and public transportati on provided they are compati ble with, and will not adversely impact, the integrity and
conti nuity of adjacent uses.
• LU Policy 3.4: Provide land use compati bility through appropriate community design and development
policies.
• LU Policy 4.2: Ensure high quality community design
image through the City design review process.
• LU Policy 4.5: Emphasize att racti ve and functi onal urban design in new development.
• LU Policy 5.5: Promote the development of aff ordable residenti al uses which convey a quality design and are compati ble with adjacent uses in the community.
• H Policy 1.1: Preserve the character, scale and quality of established residenti al neighborhoods.
• H Policy 3.4: Encourage use of sustainable and green
building design in new and existi ng housing.
127
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
INTRODUCTION 5
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
1.8 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document is a compilati on of design guidelines and recommendati ons that provide directi on for new multi - family residenti al development. Chapter 1 provides an
introducti on to the intent and purpose of the guidelines.
Chapter 2 provides a discussion of community character, design context, and overarching design guidelines. Chapter 3 includes a discussion and design recommendati ons for sustainable development.
No single architectural theme is dictated, but rather the emphasis is to promote variety. With excepti on of the
styles provided in Chapter 2, many of the styles and patterns shown in the following pictures and graphic illustrati ons represent a concept of recommended building elements and details as opposed to themati c images. Cauti on should be exercised when considering architectural styles that have recently become popular (i.e. “trendy”) but have not yet stood the test of ti me. In additi on, historic styles that cannot be faithfully replicated should be avoided.
This document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 - Introducti on
Contains the purpose and goals of this document.
Chapter 2 - Community Character and Design Guidelines
Provides an overview of the desired architectural styles and establishes comprehensive design guidelines.
Chapter 3 - Sustainability
Includes strategies and guidelines for incorporati on of sustainable design.
4 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
1.6 USE OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE REVIEW PROCESS
The purpose of multi -family residenti al development pro- posal review is to consider building design, site planning, landscaping, parking, signs and other features that aff ect multi -family residenti al development functi on and appear- ance. In examining these project features, the review pro- cess allows for evaluati on of the proposed development’s relati onship to the project site, the surrounding neighbor- hood, and the community as a whole. It is the intent that future designers of multi -family residenti al projects use this document so that the ulti mate project design re ects the desires and aestheti c tastes of the community. These guidelines are viewed to be informati onal, not prescripti ve. Every project proposal is unique and requires review on a case-by-case basis. This process depends upon the exercise of discreti on. The review process is intended to help achieve development that strikes a balance be- tween the someti mes-competi ng interests of the project applicant and the City. The City generally does not dictate parti cular styles of design, instead preferring to encour- age creati vity and variety while advocati ng compati bility in scale and “ avor” with the surrounding neighborhoods. The intent is that new residenti al developments evoke an image that is uniquely “Yorba Linda.” Although the illustrati ons and photographs contained the Guidelines will help the user bett er understand the writt en policies, the graphic images are not intended to dictate a parti cular style or design feature. Designers are encour- aged to develop their own design soluti ons that respond to the community’s values as expressed in the Guidelines. 1.7 OTHER APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The Guidelines primarily address building design and site design elements. Other codes and regulati ons will apply. Examples include the City’s Zoning Code (Municipal Code, Title 18), standard speci cati ons and conditi ons, appli- cable building codes, California Environmental Quality Act, and the Yorba Linda General Plan.
128
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 7
CHAPTER 2- COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the appropriate architectural styles for multi -family development and provides overarching design guidelines that apply to all multi -family residenti al projects.
2.2 APPROPRIATE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES
American Farmhouse/Ranch
This design was developed in the 1930s and became one of the most popular architectural styles in the 1950s and 1960s. The stable economy and prosperity of the decade allowed for families to move into the suburbs and purchase larger lots. This prosperity permitt ed the constructi on of a more rambling style of architecture as well as the integrati on of garages.
Three basic concepts of the ranch style are livability, exibility, and an unpretenti ous character. Climate is used as an element of design, outdoor living areas extend beyond the house, and interior spaces merge with the exterior. Other typical characteristi cs include a linear arrangement of rooms, elevati ons composed asymmetrically, and low wings spreading out from the rectangular core of the plan. Ranch style was easily adapted for almost every building use.
129
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
8 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
American Farmhouse/Ranch Character Elements
• Open feeling
• Subtle/simple
• Ordered/formal
• Straight lines
• Repetiti on and rhythm
• De ned edges
• Materials (metal, wood, rock)
• Porches
American Farmhouse/Ranch Architectural
Elements to Encourage
• Wide, horizontal forms (referring to roof forms and
wall planes – roof forms and wall planes should
conti nue to be arti culated and varied)
• Wood panel facades
• Gabled roofs
• Gabled dormer
• Shutt ers
• Large front porches with wood railing and wood
columns
• Revealed tower (square tower, 1 max.)
• Rich colors and white
• Brick/stone exterior chimneys
• Repetiti on of like windows
• Multi ple roof planes
• Exposed roof beams
• Triangular knee brace
• Exposed raft er rails
• Square or rectangle shaped windows
• Weathervane
• Two or three rail split-rail fences should be used at gateways and along trail corridors to reinforce the
farmhouse theme.
130
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 9
• The farmhouse theme should be reinforced by
incorporati ng elements such as a water tower
or windmill at key focal points within each
neighborhood.
• The gateway planti ng theme should re ect a
traditi onal farm/ranch by incorporati ng ordered,
formal planti ngs re ecti ve of an orchard.
• Materials such as metal, wood, and rock should be
used in gateways.
• Equestrian ameniti es may be incorporated into the
project.
• Homes of this style are re ecti ve of the architecture historically found within Yorba Linda and new
constructi on should respect this heritage.
• Compati ble with the following architectural
styles: Farmhouse, prairie style, barn in uenced,
craft sman, ranch, and contemporary ranch.
American Farmhouse/Ranch Architectural
Elements to Avoid
• Rotundas (round towers)
• Red-ti le roofs
• Arches (including arched windows)
• Stucco-only front and side facades
• Hip roofs
• Keystones
• Stucco/foam embellishments
• Beige, tan, grey (subtle earth tones)
• Ornate details
• Palm trees
American Farmhouse/Ranch Landscaping Ideas
• Orchard style planti ngs at gateways and entryways
• Fruit trees (non-fruit bearing where possible)
• Nati ve grasses and owers
• Deep green hedges/shrubs
131
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
10 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
California Craft sman/Bungalow
In uenced by the Arts and Craft s movement, craft sman and bungalow architecture emphasizes a horizontal link
between the house and the land around it. The use of
natural, local materials and colors also reinforce this home-earth relati onship.
Craft sman/Bungalow Elements
• Meandering elements such as sidewalks and trails
• Canopy (trees; shade)
• Grasses
• Wildlife
• Organic/natural
• Blended edges
• Wood Siding
• Porch
Craft sman/Bungalow Architectural Elements to
Encourage
• Wide, horizontal forms (referring to roof forms and
wall planes – roof forms and wall planes should
conti nue to be arti culated and varied)
• Piled cobble stone or piled river rock
• Stone facades
• Wood panel facades
• Split wood shingles ( re proof)
• Hip roofs, porch, dormers
• Low pitched roof
• Horizontal chimney
• Projecti ng eaves
• Exposed raft ers and beams
• Brick and quarry stone
• Picture window
132
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 11
• Grouped casements (ribbon windows)
• Dwarf pier (porch columns)
• Squared bays (square bay window)
• Deep porch
• Clapboards (thin horizontal wood siding)
• Tapered or square columns supporti ng roof or
porch
• The California craft sman theme should be reinforced
by incorporati ng elements such as a wood trellis’,
stacked stone, and themati c lighti ng at key focal
points within each neighborhood and throughout
the Plan Area.
• Compati ble with the following architectural styles:
Craft sman, bungalow, and prairie.
Craft sman/Bungalow Architectural Elements to
Avoid
• Rotundas
• Shutt ers
• Red-ti le roofs
• Arches (including arched windows)
• Stucco-only front and side facades
• Gabled roofs
Craft sman/Bungalow Landscaping Ideas
• Pedestal urns
• Canopy street trees
133
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
12 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Mediterranean Revival
The Mediterranean Revival was an eclecti c design style movement that was rst introduced in the United States around the turn of the nineteenth century, and came into prominence in the 1920s and 1930s. The style evolved
from rekindled interest in the Italian Renaissance architecture of palaces and seaside villas dati ng from the sixteenth century, and can be found predominantly in California due to the popular associati on of these coastal regions with Mediterranean resorts.
Mediterranean Character Elements
• An array of rural European styles – from Southern
Spain to Italy
• Elegant architecture and landscaping
• Old world style with a California twist
• Placed & ordered elements (stacked rock)
• Rock, wood, iron
• Subordinate garages
• Ornamental and deluxe details
Mediterranean Architectural Elements to
Encourage
• Red-ti le roofs (regular or irregularly laid)
• Masonry arches
• Trellis treatments
• Courtyards
• Metal embellishments
• Round or square towers
• Dark wood embellishments (doors, shutt ers,
exposed beams)
• Verandas
• Deep eaves
• Well scaled masses - broken-up walls to reduce
massing
134
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 13
• Rough stone exterior
• Blurred boundaries between informal and formal
spaces (outdoor living areas vs. indoor living
areas)
• Bold earthen tones
• Awnings
• Smooth stucco
• Exposed wood
• Stacked stone
• Recessed entryway
• Recessed garage
• Arcaded wing wall
• Decorati ve vents
• Decorati ve ti les
• Multi -level roofs
• Pati os
• Porti cos
• Cozy sheltered spaces
• Asymmetrical shed and gable roofs
• Tall and/or narrow windows
• Loggia
• Parabolic windows
• Oversized pots for planters
• Rusti c Pavers
• Use ‘enhanced’ elevati ons to support the richness
associated with the Mediterranean theme.
• Compati ble with the following architectural styles:
Italian Countryside, French Countryside, Spanish
Countryside, Spanish Villa, Moorish, Mission,
Monterey, Early California, California Tuscan,
Andalusian, Hacienda, Santa Barbara.
135
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
14 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Mediterranean Architectural Elements to Avoid
• Wood shingles
• Brick
• Wood siding
• Metal
• Foam and stucco embellishments
Mediterranean Landscaping Ideas
• Cypress tress (residenti al and gateways)
• Olive trees (residenti al and gateways)
• Oversized pots for fountains and planters
• Palm trees
• Yorba Linda multi -family residenti al developments
will re ect an upscale community through the use
of enhanced gateways and superior landscaping
• The Mediterranean theme should be carried
throughout the development by including formal
planti ngs at gateways, landscaped corridors, and at
focal points.
136
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 15
Colonial Revival
The Colonial Revival style became popular in the late
nineteenth century. It draws its inspirati on from Georgian Colonial architecture. Buildings of this type have strictly symmetrical facades and are usually rectangular in plan with no or minimum projecti ons. Eaves have classical
detailing. Windows are usually double-hung sash except
when Palladian windows are used for accent.
Colonial Revival Character Elements
• Symmetrical facade
• Elaborate front doors with crown pediments and
overhead fanlights and sidelights
• Simple, classical detailing
• Multi ple columned porches and doors
• Side porches or sunrooms
• Rectangular
• Center entry-hall oor plan
• Fireplaces
Colonial Revival Architectural Elements to
Encourage
• Brick or wood siding
• Gable roof
• Dormers
• Symmetrically located windows on either side of
the front entrance
• Pillars and columns
• Multi -pane, double hung windows with shutt ers
• Elevated front entry
137
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
16 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Colonial Revival Architectural Elements to
Avoid
• Stucco siding
• Second story protrusions
• Awnings
Colonial Revival Landscaping Ideas
• Formal/groomed planti ngs
• Canopy trees
• Flower beds
138
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 17
2.3 LOT LAYOUT AND SITE
PLANNING
A multi -family residenti al development should unify the styles and character of the surrounding community. The
locati on of these areas should be in walking distance to parks, commercial centers, and public faciliti es.
a. Residenti al developments should provide a variety of architectural styles complementary to each other to
provide a diverse neighborhood atmosphere.
b. A variety of one, two, and three bedroom dwelling
units should be provided to encourage a variety of
product types. Units should be mixed throughout the
development.
c. Units should front streets and common areas to
increase visual surveillance of public streets, parks, and open spaces within the neighborhood.
d. For att ached products, the principal vehicular access into a project should be through an entry drive rather
than a parking drive. Colored, textured, and permeable
paving treatment at entry drives is encouraged.
e. Each residenti al community should provide open space with at least 400 square feet per unit, which may be
used in a shared open space area.
f. The site area adjacent to the street should not
be dominated with parking. Parking should be
concentrated in areas behind buildings, and away from
the street when possible.
g. Pedestrian linkages to nearby neighborhoods, schools, parks, commercial projects, and parking areas should
be provided. Linkages should be ADA compati ble.
h. All residences shall be located to minimize the distance between parking areas and residenti al units.
i. The design of multi -family developments should
consider compati bility with the surrounding
neighborhood by mimicking existi ng architectural
styles, colors, and rhythm.
j. Dwellings should incorporate porches, trellises,
landscaping, and other features to extend the living
area toward the street and soft en the transiti on
between the street and the dwelling. When placed
correctly, these elements can also provide shading.
139
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
18 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
k. Natural ameniti es such as views, mature trees, creeks, riparian corridors, and similar features unique to the site should be preserved.
l. Where possible, uti lize courtyards or other methods to break up the building mass and provide natural
venti lati on.
m. Building placement should not limit solar access by
shading adjacent rooft ops.
n. Orient buildings on an east/west axis to maximize the use of natural daylighti ng and solar panels.
o. Narrow oor plan depths should be used to maximize
daylight, exterior views, and natural venti lati on. Use a courtyard atria to bring light and air into interior spaces. p. In consultati on with OCTA, determine if a bus stop/turnout is necessary adjacent to new multi -family development. q. Accousti cal and noise att enuati on issues should be considered during the design process.
2.4 BUFFERS AND TRANSITIONS
Most land uses can be compati ble when adjacent uses are taken into considerati on during the design process. The use of visual buff ers, such as setbacks, landscaping, walls, berms or a combinati on thereof, assist in creati ng a transiti on between land uses. a. Where multi -family residenti al uses are adjacent to singlefamily residenti al development, the placement of buff ers, buildings, and parking should be carefully examined.
b. Buff ers should be incorporated between development
and sensiti ve environmental areas, signi cant habitats, and important riparian corridors.
c. Structures with greater height should include additi onal setbacks and steps within the massing to create a
transiti on in heights from adjacent properti es and to avoid dominati ng the character of the neighborhood.
d. Elevati ons of proposed pad areas shall match the
elevati ons of existi ng adjacent residenti al pads surrounding the site to the extent feasible. The goal is to achieve a smooth transiti on in grade from existi ng projects to new developments and to be sensiti ve to surrounding land
uses, view sheds, and privacy issues.
140
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 19
e. When adjacent to single-story residenti al zone, the enti re building shall be setback an additi onal ve (5) feet for two story structures and ten (10) feet for three or more story structures.
2.5 PRIVACY
The plotti ng of homes should avoid the placement of
two, two-story elements directly adjacent to one another.
Wherever possible, two-story elements should be adjacent to single story homes or single story elements. If this cannot be achieved in a given situati on, additi onal side yard separati on and/or additi onal front setbacks shall be required to alleviate a row-house eff ect, and provide greater privacy
a. Dwellings built on lots without direct frontage on the public street should be situated to respect the privacy of abutti ng homes and to create usable yard space for
the dwelling(s).
b. Landscaping of a size and type consistent with
the development will be provided to enhance the
streetscape and enhance privacy for dwellings.
c. Windows on walls adjacent to a neighbor’s home
should be off set to prevent direct views into neighbor’s windows, with speci c att enti on to new second oor
windows that look into windows, pools, spas, etc. on
adjacent properti es.
d. Balconies and decks should avoid direct sight lines to neighbor’s windows or livable outdoor areas.
e. Use clerestory windows or translucent glass to interrupt direct sight lines to neighbor’s windows and livable
outdoor spaces.
f. Use landscaping or garden features, where appropriate, to provide a buff er or screening between properti es.
g. Recess or enclose second-story balconies and decks on three sides.
h. Use solid or translucent materials or walls for balcony or deck railings.
i. The use of large blank walls as a result of trying to address privacy concerns is not acceptable.
141
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
20 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
2.6 BUILDING FORM
The design of residenti al neighborhoods should minimize large block housing and encourage porches, arti culated entries, and recessed garages to decrease visual dominance along the street. a. Multi -family units shall be designed and detailed to correlate with the neighboring single-family detached
and/or att ached homes, and commercial centers. The
architecture should incorporate the best features of
the neighboring units.
b. A variety of architectural styles and types can create a vibrant streetscape, allowing for deviati on in building heights, massing, setbacks, and architectural elevati ons and oor plans.
c. Building facades should provide various setbacks
uti lizing diff erent materials to minimize singular planes on all sides of the building. Varying setbacks should be between two (2) feet and three (3) feet.
d. Architectural features such as porches, balconies,
chimneys, door placement, window proporti ons,
dormers, wood detailing, fencing, siding, and color
scheme shall be used to compliment the overall
building design, site and neighborhood context.
e. A variety of architectural details, elevati ons, and setbacks create visual interest to homes, and one
design should not be repeated more frequently than
every fourth house.
f. A variety of horizontal and verti cal changes in the architectural treatment help reduce monotony of
dwelling units.
g. A variety of architectural styles found within the City of Yorba Linda should be provided to re ect the overall character of the community.
h. Orient design to incorporate a relati onship between indoor and outdoor spaces.
i. Att ached units can uniquely provide varying
architectural style and details as to appear as separate units while sti ll remaining part of the whole building.
Architectural features such as balconies, wood
detailing, and color scheme should be used to
complement the building design.
Att ached units can uniquely provide varying
architectural style and details as to appear as
separate units while sti ll remaining part of the whole building.
Corner elements such as towers call att enti on to the
buildings entrance and provides visual interest.
142
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 21
j. Simple, clean, bold projecti ons of stairways should be used to complement the architectural massing and
form of multi -family structures. Stairways should be
constructed of smooth stucco, plaster, or wood with
accent trim of complimentary colors. Thin looking,
open metal, prefabricated stairs are discouraged.
k. To the extent possible, each unit should be individually recognizable. Methods to break up massing could
include:
• Vary front setbacks within same structure.
• Stagger and jog unit planes.
• Design a maximum of two adjacent units with
identi cal wall and roof lines.
• Vary building orientati ons to avoid the monotony
and long garage door corridors.
l. When adjacent to public streets, all foundati ons should be raised with a minimum of two feet (2’0”) crawl space.
Raised houses with parking underneath should uti lize
stucco or brick masonry veneers with appropriate
detailing on foundati on wall surfaces below the main
oor of the house. Slab on grade foundati ons will
generally not be permitt ed except for garages, pati os, and unheated rear porches and pati os.
Foundati ons and/or front entries should be elevated.
Wallplanes should vary.
Building projecti ons and recessions are encouraged.
Image by Weber Thompson
143
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
22 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
2.7 MASSING
Mass is de ned as a three-dimensional form, such as a
cube, box, cylinder, pyramid, or cone. The way the forms are sized directly relates to the way building elements are emphasized or de-emphasized. Voids or open spaces in
the forms can change the form’s appearance and make
the building more interesti ng and less imposing.
a. Large projects should be broken up into groups of
structures of various heights.
b. Several smaller, compact building footprints, rather than one large building, should be used to provide
an inti mate scale and a more effi cient envelope for
opti mizing daylighti ng and passive solar heati ng and cooling functi ons.
c. Buildings designs should include a combinati on of the following techniques:
• Variati on in the wall plane (projecti ng and recessed elements).
• Variati on in wall height.
• Roofs located at diff erent levels.
d. Combinati ons of one, one and one half, and two story units should be used to create visual interest and
variati on in the massing and building height.
e. Where appropriate, the upper stories of new multi -
family buildings should be stepped back to reduce the
scale of facades that face the street, courtyards, or
open space areas.
f. Structures with greater height should include
additi onal setbacks and steps within the massing
to create a transiti on in heights from adjacent
properti es and to avoid dominati ng the character of
the neighborhood.
g. Verti cal elements such as towers may be used to accent horizontal massing and provide visual interest.
A variety of architectural styles and varying roof
forms make these units appear as if separate and
unique.
Massing should be broken up by varying wall planes.
A combinati on of two and three story units were
used to create visual interest and variati on to the
building massing.
144
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 23
2.8 SCALE
Scale is the proporti on of one object to another. “Human” or “inti mate” scale incorporates building and landscape elements that are modest in size. “Monumental” scale
incorporates large or grand building elements. The individual components of the building also have relati onships to each other and to the building as a whole, which contributes to the overall scale of a building. • Building scale should be reduced through the
proper use of window patt erns, structural bays,
roof overhangs, wall materials, awnings, moldings,
xtures, and other details.
• Architectural details and materials on lower walls
that relate to human scale such as arches, trellises,
or awnings should be uti lized.
• Window distributi on and shape can be a signi cant
building scale determinant.
The uti lizati on of dormers on the third story helps to improve the street level scale of the building.
145
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
24 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
2.9 ROOF FORM
Roofs should re ect a residenti al appearance through roof pitch and material selecti on.
a. A variety of roof planes and accent details increases the visual quality and character of a building.
b. Varied roof pitches, porches, and overhangs provide
visual interest and increase the architectural character of the dwelling unit, while reducing the bulk and size of the structure.
c. A variety of roof ti les and colors consistent with the architectural style of the home help enhance the
diversity and character of the community.
d. Upper stories should be set back with a variety of roof lines and pitches throughout the project, including sidegabled, cross-gabled, combined hipped-and-gabled or hipped roofs.
e. Roofs covering the enti re building such as hips and gables are preferred over mansard roofs. Segmented
pitched roofs should be applied at the building edge.
f. Roo ng colors shall be soft earth tones to minimize re ecti ve glare and visual impacts.
Multi -family residenti al projects should use varied
roof forms to prevent a box-like appearance.
Roof forms help to de ne individual units.
Varied roof pitches increases the visual quality of the building.
146
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 25
2.10 WINDOWS AND DOORS
Windows and doors help to de ne the architectural style of a building while providing daylight to interior spaces and visual interest to building facades. These features may be accented through the use of awnings.
a. Entries should be enhanced by the architectural style and details of the building.
b. Windows should be arti culated with accent trim, sills, kickers, shutt ers, window ower boxes, balconies,
awnings, or trellises authenti c to the architectural style of the building.
c. Shutt ers should be proporti onal to the window and
complement the architectural style of the building.
d. Awnings and overhangs may be appropriate for some
building styles.
e. Entries and porches should be inviti ng and architecturally arti culated at a pedestrian scale.
f. Garage, windows, doors, and porches should
complement the architectural style of the building.
g. Covered porches, porti cos, and other signi cant entry features compati ble with the architectural style of
the dwelling are encouraged in Yorba Linda to create
an elegant arrival sequence and perspecti ve from the
public street. Columns, handrails, exterior trim, cornices, window detailing, exterior lighti ng xtures, front door and surround, and other architectural elements must
be compati ble with the style of the dwelling. Columns
on front porches should be a minimum of 10 inches
in width/diameter with appropriate base and cap
detailing.
Front entrances should be enhanced by stoops or
porches.
Windows should be framed with trim and shutt ers
where architecturally compati ble.
147
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
26 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
2.11 MATERIALS AND COLORS
The selecti on and placement of building materials should provide visual interest at the pedestrian level. Heavier materials should be used to form the building base and as accents on upper stories and walls. Materials and colors should be used to enhance buildings and adjacent pedestrian spaces by adding color, shadows, and interesti ng forms.
a. A variety of materials and colors help create a
consistent style and character for a neighborhood,
while accentuati ng details and key features.
b. A variety of building materials - such as stone, brick, wood siding, and stucco - should be uti lized to enhance the building’s architectural character.
c. Heavier and darker materials should be used at the
base of the building, allowing lighter materials to
remain on top.
d. Material changes should occur at intersecti ng planes, preferably at inside corners of changing wall planes
or where architectural elements intersect such as a
chimney, pilaster, projecti on, or fence line.
e. Colors used on exterior facades should be harmonious.
Contrasti ng colors are encouraged to accentuate details such as trim, windows, doors, and key architectural
elements.
f. Color schemes involving a maximum of four (4) colors are recommended.
g. Materials and arti culati on used on the front façade will be incorporated into the sides and rear facades where
visible from a street or paseo.
h. Exterior wall materials, trim and architectural details shall be provided on all elevati ons. All elevati ons
exposed to public right-of-way shall be architecturally enhanced.
i. Coordinate color and nishes on exteriors of all
elevati ons to provide a total conti nuity of design. Colors should re ect the community character and theme.
j. Re ecti ve materials shall be avoided on elevati ons that face existi ng single-family homes.
k. Color and material schemes that complement the
existi ng neighborhood should be uti lized.
Heavier and darker colors should be used at the base
of the building.
Elements such as stone and wood that are
architecturally compati ble should be used.
Exterior facade colors should be harmonious.
Image by Weber Thompson
148
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 27
2.12 OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Eff ecti ve lighti ng provides safety and directi on for vehicles and pedestrians while enhancing architectural building and landscape details. These guidelines apply to on-site lighti ng for parking areas and lights associated with the building in private development projects. Light types may include pole lights, spotlighti ng, wall-mounted sconces, parking lighti ng, and landscape lighti ng.
a. Light xtures should be designed or selected to be
architecturally compati ble with the main structure or
theme of the development.
b. The intensity of light, level of light as measured in footcandles, and the type of bulb or source should be
carefully addressed. Lighti ng levels should not be so
intense as to draw att enti on or become a nuisance.
c. Spotlighti ng or glare from any site lighti ng should be shielded from adjacent properti es and directed at a
speci c object or target area.
d. Exterior lighti ng such as decorati ve wall sconces, eve mounted spotlights, landscape lighti ng, etc are acceptable if positi oned so as not to create glare or spill over onto an adjacent lot. Lot owners are encouraged to signi cantly reduce exterior lighti ng levels aft er 12:00 a.m.
e. Exposed bulbs should not be used. Cut-off lighti ng is preferred.
f. Uplighti ng of building elements and trees should use the lowest watt age possible to minimize impacts to the night sky. Light sources for wall washing and tree lighti ng should be hidden.
g. Where landscaping is lit, low-voltage lighti ng should be used whenever possible to conserve energy. Energy
effi cient lamps and ballasts, controlled by photoelectric methods or ti mers, should be incorporated.
h. The height of a light pole should be appropriate in scale for the building or the complex and the surrounding area.
i. Accent lighti ng should be used to illuminate walkways, entries, seati ng areas, and/or specimen plants and trees. j. Walkways and paseos should be lit to an average of one and one half to two footcandles in intensity to ensure safe nightti me conditi ons.
k. Use renewable energy sources for lighti ng, such as solar microturbine.
l. Recreati onal ameniti es and courtyards should be well lit to enhance the pedestrian experience and create a safe
environment.
m. Light poles should be designed with downward facing
xtures to eliminate light spill.
Light xtures should be selected to be architecturally compati ble with the main structure.
Downward shining lighti ng is encouraged.
149
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
28 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
2.13 UTILITARIAN ASPECTS
All uti litarian equipment and features should be integrated into the site plan and should either be aestheti cally screened from view or designed to complement the architectural style of the project. Uti lity service areas should be part of the early site design process, rather than an aft erthought at the constructi on document phase.
a. Landscaping, screens, or aestheti c walls should minimize impact of trash cans and mechanical enclosures.
b. Any equipment, whether on the side of structure, or
ground, should be screened. The method of screening
should be architecturally compati ble in terms of
materials, color, shape, and size. The screening design should blend with the building design, which may
include a conti nuous screen.
c. Trash enclosure areas should incorporate a trellis or other screening feature and shall be enclosed by 6-foot high walls constructed of materials consistent with the architectural style of the units. Trash enclosures shall be screened from upper level unit views.
d. Trash enclosures should include separate access for
pedestrians.
e. All uti lity and mechanical equipment shall be screened from view. Roof mounted air conditi oners, coolers or
antennas are prohibited.
f. Common mailbox enclosures should be similarly
designed in form, materials, and color to the
surrounding buildings.
g. Air conditi oning and heati ng equipment must be located in the side yard or rear yard of a lot and be visually
screened from view from the public street. Screening
should extend from existi ng grade to the top of the
equipment. Acceptable screening materials include
brick masonry, painted wood latti ce, or evergreen plant materials.
Common mailbox enclosures should be similarly
designed in form, materials, and color to the
surrounding buildings.
Mailbox design and placement should be considered
during project layout and development.
Trash enclosure areas should incorporate a trellis
or other screening feature and shall be enclosed by
6-foot high walls constructed of materials consistent
with the architectural style of the units.
150
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 29
2.14 LANDSCAPING AND OPEN
SPACE
Plants should be used to de ne building entrances, parking lots, and the edges of various land uses. Plants should also be used to buff er and screen neighboring properti es.
Consider safety, environmental impacts, and accent elements when selecti ng and locati ng landscaping features.
Landscaping and Open Space Design
It is envisioned that streets within the Community will provide ample shade for residents to enjoy walking to local parks and commercial centers.
a. Each rst oor dwelling unit shall provide a minimum of 100 square feet of private outdoor space where
possible.
b. Each upper oor dwelling unit shall provide a minimum of 50 square feet of private outdoor space.
c. Within the right of way of local streets, a landscaped parkway and street trees shall provide a separati on
between vehicle and pedestrian circulati on patt erns.
d. Buildings and lots shall be oriented to increase
accessibility to trails and open space.
e. Private open space should be enclosed with walls,
landscaping, fences, trellises, etc., but must be
complementary to the architectural style of the
building.
f. Street trees shall be provided along the street edge and along driveways to reduce heat and provide shade for
pedestrian thoroughfare. Refer to City approved Tree
List for appropriate species.
g. Each att ached home builder parcel shall include
common recreati on faciliti es such as pools, spas, club houses, management offi ces, barbecues, and others
faciliti es appropriate to the area.
h. All community elements must complement the style
and character of the neighborhood.
i. Public spaces which require visibility shall use
transparent or permeable screens.
Common open space
Landscape/Irrigati on equipment should be screened
or covered. Fake boulder shown.
Landscaped common space
151
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
30 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
j. Within all required landscaped areas, an automati c
water effi cient irrigati on system shall be installed
upon initi al constructi on of any building or substanti al alterati on to any building or site.
k. Low-water use planti ngs shall be uti lized to the extent possible.
l. Environmental factors, such as noise, may aff ect the design and placement of outdoor ameniti es.
2.15 GARAGES AND ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES
a. Garages, carports, and other accessory structures should be designed as integral parts of the development.
b. Garages and parking areas should be located to have
the least amount of visual impact on the street.
c. When viewed from the street, garages should be
subordinate to the main living area. Where possible,
the garage should be recessed behind the dwelling unit
and not located between the main living area and the
street.
d. Garage doors should be recessed into, rather than ush with, the exterior wall.
e. Detached garages and accessory structures should be
designed as an integral part of the architecture of the project and should be similar in materials, color, and
detail to the principal structures of a development.
f. Detached garages, carports, and accessory structures should incorporate roof slopes and materials similar to the principal structures of a development. Flat roofs
are prohibited.
g. Carport columns shall include architectural features and be a minimum of 24 inches wide at the base. The
architectural treatment shall extend verti cally for a
minimum of 36 inches.
Detached garages and carports should be
architecturally consistent with the main structure.
Rear/alley loaded garages.
Parking court style garages.
152
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 31
2.16 PARKING
Site plans should balance the need to provide adequate
vehicular access with the need to eliminate unnecessary driveway entrances and should provide access points that are coordinated with other properti es.
Parking Design
a. Parking shall be provided and located behind residenti al units to maintain the visual appearance of the street
character. Appropriate screening shall be provided if
parking is in view of the street.
b. Parking shall be landscaped and screened from
adjoining uses and public streets.
c. Where feasible, parking should be conveniently located in smaller parking areas or parking courts dispersed
throughout the site.
d. Large parking areas should be avoided to decrease
their dominance on the landscape.
e. Parking should be distributed and in close proximity to individual residenti al units.
f. Guest and unassigned parking shall be provided.
g. Where feasible, provide “tuck-under” parking.
h. The end of parking rows shall be capped with landscaped medians, except where space is restricted because of
existi ng site conditi ons.
i. Parking areas and entry drives are encouraged
to incorporate permeable materials to allow for
groundwater recharge.
j. Provide adequate parking on-site to minimize off -site impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and streets.
Parking Lot Area Screening
a. Screening should be provided at the edge of all parking areas.
b. A landscaping buff er should be provided between
parking areas and public rights-of-way. The landscaped
buff er area should not be included when calculati ng the minimum ve percent landscaping within the parking
lot interior. This buff er should be designed to provide stormwater retenti on through swales, sumps, etc.
Parking area located behind the building away from
the street.
Tuck-under parking.
Cluster homes with parking court.
153
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
32 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
c. A 36-inch to 42-inch high berm, headlight hedge, or masonry wall should be used to screen any parking at the street periphery.
Breaks should be provided to allow pedestrian circulati on. A combinati on of walls, berms, and landscape material is highly recommended.
d. Where topography allows, parking lots could also be located above or below the adjacent street grade to eff ecti vely screen parking without the additi on of substanti al screen walls or landscaping. e. Parking lots graded at least 48-inches below the adjacent street grade will eff ecti vely be screened without the additi on of a 36- inch to 42-inch high wall or landscaping, but the hillside should sti ll be landscaped.
f. Both sides of all perimeter walls or fences should be architecturally treated. Walls should be nished and designed to complement the surrounding development. Long expanses of fence or wall surfaces should be off set and architecturally designed to prevent monotony. Landscape pockets should be provided.
Entry Drives
a. Easily identi able and aestheti cally pleasing entrances designed to complement the style of the project should be provided. b. The principal vehicular access into a multi -family housing project should be through an entry drive rather than a parking drive.
Colored, textured, and/or permeable paving treatments at entry drives are encouraged.
c. A combinati on of the following accent features shall be incorporated into the project entry:
• Ornamental landscaping.
• Landscaped medians (minimum seven feet measured from
outside of curb face to outside of curb face).
• Water features.
• Architectural monuments.
• Decorati ve walls.
• Enhanced paving (colored, textured, and/or permeable). d. Project entry features should re ect the overall architectural identi ty or character of the development.
e. Driveway entries should align with existi ng or planned median openings and adjacent driveways.
f. The number of site access points should be minimized.
Entry drive with landscaping.
Plan view entry drive with landscaping and median.
154
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 33
2.17 AMENITIES
In conjuncti on with the open space requirements, all
multi -family projects shall provide two or more ameniti es for the residents as listed below. The extent of ameniti es provided on-site should be proporti onate in scale and
number with the proposed project. Ameniti es shall be
centrally located for a majority of residents. Outdoor play ameniti es should be for a range of ages (for example, a tot lot would not be suffi cient if the project would have many teenagers and no park is nearby).
Compliance with this guideline will be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis as part of City project review process with the intent of establishing a selecti on or combinati on of ameniti es that will contribute to the residenti al quality of life for each project.
• Tot lot/play structure
• Community garden
• Picnic tables and BBQ areas (preferably with shade
structures)
• Swimming pool
• Indoor recreati on/athleti c facility
• Sports court (e.g., tennis, basketball, volleyball)
• Natural open space area with benches/viewing areas
and/or trails
• Media room (equipped with big screen TV, etc. for
group acti viti es)
• Community room with warming kitchen
• Common library (probably suitable for senior project
only)
• Craft /hobby room
• Bicycle storage room and/or bike racks
• Resident storage lockers/cages (this also avoids
unsightly storage on pati os and balconies)
• Recycling room (separate from trash dumpsters)
• Other passive and/or acti ve recreati on area that meets the intent of this guideline
Tot-lot/playground
Clubhouse/rec center/mail room
Swimming pool and clubhouse
155
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
34 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
As previously stated, the number, type and size of ameniti es should be proporti onal to the anti cipated number of residents and representati ve of the anti cipated needs of future residents. For example, a senior housing complex may not bene t from development of a tot lot and an
apartment project located in close proximity to a community park may not bene t from a duplicati on of park ameniti es.
Common faciliti es such as laundries, mailboxes, and
management offi ces should be centrally and conveniently located for accessibility and proximity to the majority of the residents.
Opportuniti es for resident support and bett erment should be integrated as a project amenity, including uses such as:
• On-site computer lab/learning center
• Child care
• Adult day care
• Social service provider offi ce space/counseling rooms • On-site health clinic/services
Outdoor seati ng and BBQ area
Tennis courts
Homeowner garden plot
156
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 35
2.18 SAFETY AND SECURITY
Crime Preventi on Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies rely upon the ability to in uence offender decisions that precede criminal acts. The four most common built environment strategies are natural surveillance, natural access control, natural territorial reinforcement, and maintenance.
Natural surveillance and access control strategies limit the opportunity for crime. Territorial reinforcement promotes social control through a variety of measures.
Natural Surveillance
Natural surveillance increases the threat of apprehension by taking steps to increase the percepti on that people can be seen. Natural surveillance occurs by designing the placement of physical features, acti viti es and people in such a way as to maximize visibility and foster positi ve social interacti on among legiti mate users of private and public space. Potenti al off enders feel increased scruti ny and limitati ons on their escape routes.
• Place windows overlooking sidewalks and parking lots. • Leave window shades open.
• Use passing vehicular traffi c as a surveillance asset. • Create landscape designs that provide surveillance, especially in proximity to designated points of entry and opportunisti c points of entry.
• Use the shortest, least sight-limiti ng fence appropriate for the situati on. • Use transparent weather vesti bules at building entrances.
Image by Weber Thompson
157
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
36 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
• When creati ng lighti ng design, avoid poorly placed lights that create blind-spots for potenti al observers and miss criti cal areas. Ensure potenti al problem areas are well-lit:
pathways, stairs, entrances/exits, parking areas, ATMs, phone kiosks, mailboxes, bus stops, children’s play areas, recreati on areas, pools, laundry rooms, storage areas, dumpster and recycling areas, etc.
• Avoid too-bright security lighti ng that creates blinding glare and/or deep shadows, hindering the view for
potenti al observers. Eyes adapt to night lighti ng and have trouble adjusti ng to severe lighti ng dispariti es. Using lower intensity lights oft en requires more xtures.
• Use shielded or cut-off luminaires to control glare.
• Place lighti ng along pathways and other pedestrianuse areas at proper heights for lighti ng the faces of the people in the space (and to identi fy the faces of potenti al att ackers).
Natural Access Control
Natural access control limits the opportunity for crime by taking steps to clearly diff erenti ate between public space and private space. By selecti vely placing entrances and exits, fencing, lighti ng and landscape to limit access or control ow, natural access control occurs.
• Use a single, clearly identi able, point of entry.
• Use structures to divert persons to recepti on areas. • Use low, thorny bushes beneath ground level windows.
• Eliminate design features that provide access to roofs or upper levels.
• In the front yard, use waist-level, picket-type fencing along residenti al property lines to control access, encourage surveillance.
• Use a locking gate between front and backyards.
• Use shoulder-level, open-type fencing along lateral
residenti al property lines between side yards and
extending to between back yards. They should be
suffi ciently unencumbered with landscaping to promote
social interacti on between neighbors.
• Use substanti al, high, closed fencing (for example,
masonry) between a backyard and a public alley.
Windows and porches oriented towards common
spaces
Night lighti ng
158
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES 37
Natural Territorial Reinforcement
Territorial reinforcement promotes social control through increased de niti on of space and improved proprietary concern.
An environment designed to clearly delineate private space does two things. First, it creates a sense of ownership. Owners have a vested interest and are more likely to challenge intruders or report them to the police. Second, the sense of owned space creates an environment where “strangers” or “intruders” stand out and are more easily identi ed. By using buildings, fences, pavement, signs, lighti ng and landscape to express ownership and de ne public, semi-public and private space, natural territorial reinforcement occurs. Additi onally, these objecti ves can be achieved by assignment of space to designated users in previously unassigned locati ons.
• Maintained premises and landscaping such that it
communicates an alert and acti ve presence occupying the space.
• Provide trees in residenti al areas. Research results indicate that, contrary to traditi onal views within the law enforcement community, outdoor residenti al spaces with more trees are seen as signi cantly more att racti ve, more safe, and more likely to be used than similar spaces without trees.
• Restrict private acti viti es to de ned private areas. • Display security system signage at access points.
• Cyclone fencing and razor-wire fence topping are prohibited, as it communicates the absence of a physical presence and a reduced risk of being detected.
• Placing ameniti es such as seati ng or refreshments in common areas in a commercial or insti tuti onal setti ng helps to att ract larger numbers of desired users.
• Scheduling acti viti es in common areas increases proper use, att racts more people and increases the percepti on that these areas are controlled.
Security signage
159
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
38 COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
Maintenance
Maintenance is an expression of ownership of property.
Deteriorati on indicates less control by the intended users of a site and indicate a greater tolerance of disorder. The Broken Windows Theory is a valuable tool in understanding the importance of maintenance in deterring crime.
Broken Windows theory proponents support a zero tolerance approach to property maintenance, observing that the presence of a broken window will enti ce vandals to break more windows in the vicinity. The sooner broken
windows are xed, the less likely it is that such vandalism will occur in the future.
160
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
40 SUSTAINABILITY
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
3.2 SMART LOCATION AND
LINKAGE
a. Encourage development within and near existi ng
neighborhoods or public transportati on infrastructure
to reduce vehicle trips and induce pedestrian acti vity. b. Promote neighborhoods that are physically connected
to each other to foster community and connectedness
beyond one individual project.
c. Minimize erosion to protect habitat and reduce stress on natural water systems.
d. Design parking to increase the pedestrian orientati on of projects and minimize the adverse environmental
eff ects of parking lots (locate parking lots at the side or rear of buildings leaving building frontages and
streetscapes free of parking lots).
3.3 NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN
AND DESIGN
a. Incorporate high levels of internal connecti vity and connecti ons to surrounding development to promote
a variety of travel opti ons.
b. Provide direct and safe connecti ons for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers to key components of a project, local desti nati ons, and neighborhood centers.
c. Encourage the design and constructi on of buildings to uti lize green building practi ces.
d. Encourage the design and constructi on of energy
effi cient buildings to reduce air, water, and land
polluti on and environmental impacts from energy
producti on and consumpti on.
e. Preserve existi ng tree canopy, nati ve vegetati on, and pervious surfaces.
Walkable neighborhood
SUSTAINABILITY 39
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
CHAPTER 3- SUSTAINABILITY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Sustainable design refers to design and constructi on practi ces that signi cantly reduce or eliminate the nega- ti ve impacts of development on the environment and its inhabitants. A sustainable design approach can be de ned by a variety of green building practi ces and the availability of pedestrian-oriented ameniti es. The essenti al components that make up a successful sustainable development have been identi ed by the US Green Building Council through the emergence of their latest neighborhood program. LEED-ND (Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design for Neighborhood Development) has been developed as a tool to gauge the eff ecti veness of neighborhood design principles. The program recognizes that the layout and design of the built environment in uences the way residents and visitors experience a neighborhood, and it can im- pact their quality of life and sense of community. The following sustainable principles are derived from the LEED ND criteria developed by the USGBC, and were customized to t Yorba Linda. The guidelines in the following secti ons include more speci c objecti ves aimed at meeti ng the following criteria.
Image by Weber Thompson
161
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
SUSTAINABILITY 41
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
3.4 GREEN CONSTRUCTION AND
TECHNOLOGY
a. Reduce the impact of heat islands by providing shade structures and trees that can produce large canopies
to provide shade. In additi on, choose roof and paving
materials that possess a high level of solar re ecti vity.
Refer to City approved Tree List for appropriate
species.
b. Achieve enhanced energy effi ciency by creati ng the opti mum conditi ons for the use of passive and acti ve solar strategies.
c. Use recycled building materials whenever possible.
d. Minimize light trespass from site, reduce sky-glow to increase night sky access, improve nightti me visibility through glare reducti on, and reduce development
impact on nocturnal environment.
e. As new energy technology emerges, residenti al
projects should incorporate installati on hook-ups that are architecturally integrated with the main structure.
3.5 LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN
(LEED)
LEED is a voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven green building rati ng system and evaluates environmental performance from a “whole building” perspecti ve. LEED is a self-certi fying system and contains prerequisites and credits in ve categories. There are four rati ng levels: Certi ed, Silver, Gold, and Plati num. The intent of a LEED certi ed building is to create a great built environment, providing the highest level possible of operati onal effi ciency, as well as comfort and support for building tenants and visitors.
LEED Project Recommendati ons:
a. Multi -family developments should strive to achieve
LEED certi cati on. Projects are subject to local green building programs upon adopti on.
b. Multi -family developments should integrate building materials and methods that promote environmental
quality, economic vitality, and social bene t through the constructi on and operati on of the built environment.
Rain barrel
Solar panel
162
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
42 SUSTAINABILITY
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
c. Sustainability should be incorporated into the earliest design discussions with a sustainable design charett e
to kick-off the project to insure that all design
and constructi on team members are familiar with
sustainability concepts and basic sustainable building
practi ces. The result should be uti lized to develop a scheme describing the speci c approach and method
to accomplish achieving LEED certi cati on.
3.6 SUSTAINABLE SITE PLANNING
AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
An integral rst step in the planning process for a project should include a site survey and constraints analysis to determine the existi ng conditi ons of the site. Proximity between the site and surrounding uses, existi ng drainage patt erns, visual corridors, and other speci c constraints and opportuniti es should be identi ed. To result in a low impact development, building footprints, locati on, and orientati on should be designed effi ciently.
Potenti al project environmental impacts related to site planning include:
• Site Disturbance
• Impact to Surrounding Uses
• Storm Water Drainage
Sustainable Site Planning Guidelines
a. Reduce polluti on from constructi on acti viti es by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentati on and
airborne dust generati on.
b. Minimize the impact of light polluti on through the use and placement of appropriate lighti ng technology.
c. Building placement should be sensiti ve to site
topography and should be integrated seamlessly with
minimal impact.
d. Through site and building design, consider the use
of building roofs, parking lots, and other horizontal
surfaces to convey water to either distribute it into the ground or collect it for reuse.
e. Vegetated roofs should be designed to blend into
the existi ng character of the neighborhood. In some
instances the roof may need to be screened from
public view.
Vegetated wall
Permeable paving
163
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
SUSTAINABILITY 43
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
f. Site drainage should be designed integrati ng a
decentralized system that distributes storm water
across a project site to replenish groundwater supplies.
In additi on, various devices that lter water and
in ltrate water into the ground should be considered.
g. The project site should be designed to maintain natural storm water ows by promoti ng in ltrati on. Techniques and materials such as vegetated roofs, pervious paving, and other measures to minimize impervious surfaces
are encouraged. Storm water should be reused for
non-potable uses such as landscape irrigati on.
h. Impervious paving should be minimized, increasing onsite in ltrati on, and reducing or eliminati ng polluti on from storm water runoff and contaminants.
i. Constructed surfaces on the site should be shaded
with landscape features and uti lize high-re ectance
materials and other materials to reduce the heat
absorpti on of hardscape.
j. Limit the use of lawn areas to conserve water and
reduce energy consumpti on.
3.7 SUSTAINABLE BUILDING AND
STREETSCAPE/LANDSCAPE
DESIGN
A soil analysis should be performed to determine the
appropriate plant material. The landscape should be
designed with nati ve or adapted plants to reduce or eliminate irrigati on requirements. Stormwater and/or greywater should be used for irrigati on.
Potenti al Project Impact Related to Building Design
• Material and Energy Consumpti on
• Impact on the City’s Water System
• Light Polluti on
The design of multi -family projects can directly impact sustainability in the following areas:
• Materials consumpti on
• Energy and water consumpti on
• Light polluti on
• Heat build-up and spillover
Permeable pavers and bio-swale
Permeable pavers at parking spaces
Bio-swale
164
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
44 SUSTAINABILITY
CITY OF YORBA LINDA
Sustainable Building and Streetscape/Landscape
Guidelines
a. Identi fy opportuniti es to incorporate salvaged materials into building design and research potenti al material
suppliers. Consider salvaged materials such as beams
and posts, ooring, paneling, doors and frames, brick
and decorati ve items.
b. Consider using rapidly renewable materials such as
bamboo, wool, cott on insulati on, agri ber, linoleum, wheatboard, strawboard and cork.
c. Design buildings to maximize interior daylighti ng and provide for a connecti on between indoor spaces and
the outdoors. Strategies to consider include building
orientati on, exterior and interior permanent shading
devices, and high performance glazing.
d. Limit the use of potable water, or other natural surface or subsurface water resources available on or near the
project site, for landscape irrigati on.
e. California friendly landscaping is encouraged.
Plant selecti on should be based on the climate and
environment of the area as well as site characteristi cs such as exposure, light intensity, soil analysis, site
drainage, and irrigati on. Proper plant selecti on based on site characteristi cs should enhance the plants’
likelihood of becoming established in the site and
reduce potenti al incidences of low vigor, excessive
maintenance, disease, or death. Nati ve species are
preferred for natural landscapes.
f. “Green” and “cool” roofs should be promoted as an
effi cient method to reducing glare and heat build up
on roof tops. In additi on beyond the obvious aestheti c bene ts of Green roofs are also valuable for their ability to absorb rain water and reduce runoff .
g. A subsurface irrigati on system should be employed at community common areas to help irrigate that area
and reduce water demand. The system will also help
capture storm water and reduce runoff while irrigati ng the landscaping.
h. “Urban bio-swales” should be used along the roads
that travel through the community where soil type
supports recharging. The bio-swales will help capture
stormwater and irrigate landscaping in the planti ng
strips.
Bio-swale
Drip irrigati on
165
Meeting 2: Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines
SUSTAINABILITY 45
MULTI-FAMILY DESIGN GUIDELINES
i. To reduce the heat island eff ect, the project area
should be adequately landscaped to provide
shade and protect surfaces including sidewalks,
driveways, parking lots, and exterior walls.
Where appropriate, plant deciduous trees on
the south and west sides of buildings to provide
protecti on from the summer sun. In the winter
months, these trees lose their leaves and allow
sunlight to provide passive heati ng and light;
j. In an eff ort to control energy consumpti on, it is
recommended that solar panels be integrated on
roof tops.
k. Low water demand xtures are encouraged for
use throughout the community. Dual ush toilets
and waterless urinals are viable alternati ves to
promote water effi ciency.
l. Use energy effi cient lighti ng wherever possible.
Tree-lined streets provide shade to cool pedestrians
and homes
Community Housing Works, a non-pro t developer,
have constructed the rst apartment complex in
California that is fully powered by the sun. Nati onally awarded as a pioneering sustainable community, the
California Energy Commission recognizes this as the
rst Zero Energy New Home.
The project takes advantage of the inland sunny climate with buildings sited for maximum solar exposure. The architecture recalls Poway’s rural roots and early California heritage with the use of traditi onal
and contemporary forms. The design includes public art, interacti ve recreati onal acti viti es, low-water landscaping and a community center that provides
learning opportuniti es for residents to reinforce the
ideas of cost savings through recycling, solar energy
awareness and use of existi ng environmental technologies.
CASE STUDY - SOLARA APARTMENTS POWAY, CA
166
POST-MEETING 3 WRAP UP
Dear Housing Policy Resident Working Group,
Thank you for joining us for our third meeting of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group (HPRWG). As you experienced, we are transitioning into the space for you to voice your ideas and to get answers to your questions. The meeting was full of excellent questions and answers.
Last night, we dove deep into Savi Ranch, heard from all attendees on your ideas for planning principles, identified additional key concerns for why some people voted “no” on Measure Z, and started to talk about the outcome and future of the Working Group.
In follow-up to our meeting last night, I am providing additional documents:
• A link to the slide deck that guided our meeting last night: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ ka7xd4on4fmenpy/ResidentHousingWorkingGroup-Meeting3-v1.pdf?dl=0 • A photo of the planning principles that were documented on our whiteboard. (See below) • The 2015 Savi Ranch Visioning document that was referenced in the meeting: https://www. yorbalindaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/525/Savi-Ranch-Land-Use-and-Mobility-Vision-PlanConsolidated-Report-PDF • A link to examples from Washington State of Dwelling Units per Acre or density examples that can help you and others understand what density might look like. https://www.theurbanist. org/2017/05/04/visualizing-compatible-density/
• A link to the CalMatters article regarding the Builder’s Remedy projects in Santa Monica. https://calmatters.org/housing/2023/06/california-builders-remedy/ Let us know if we missed something else.
At our next meeting, we are going to cover these general areas:
1. Site-specific discussions and Q&A
2. Further refine what is next for the Working Group
I urge you to offer additional thoughts, if you have not done so already, around three key areas:
1. What are some key planning principles we can consider when revising the existing housing element. The feedback on height and privacy mitigation is a perfect example.
2. What specific sites do you see as too dense, not dense enough or not being considered for rezoning that should be discussed?
3. How can we take this functioning group of engaged residents and help the community achieve the best outcome for land use planning? As of last night, there was support for some kind of report on our recommended housing element plans to share with the City Council.
167
You have all sunk real time and energy into the complex world of California Housing Policy. It was fantastic to hear you discussing these issues with neighbors and expanding the pool of people we are pulling into the conversation. That work both informs the public and informs the Working Group.
As a reminder: our next meeting is back where we had our first meeting in the Yorba Linda Cultural Arts building (right next to the Library) on Monday, June 12th at 6 PM. Dinner will again be served. Hopefully, the cookies make it back! Based on how much conversation we cover this coming Monday, we may opt for a fifth meeting on Monday, June 19 at 6 PM – please hold the date open on your calendar, if you can.
Best regards,
-David
168
Meeting 3: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Discuss Rezoning
Principles
Discuss Sites Plan the Next
Meeting(s)
Tonight’s Goals
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29) • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims
• November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highlylikely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
Fact Review Current Housing Inventory
Income Levels Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod Total
2021-2029 RHNA Targets 765 451 457 742 2,415
Existing Zoning
Entitled Projects (post 6/30/2021 occupancy) 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 12 12
Accessory Dwelling Units 100 172 120 8 400
Existing Site Capacity 272 163 189 624
RHNA Shortfall (944) (294) (553) (1,791)
Rezone Sites
Planned Development 64 130 194
RM 111 179 290
RM-20 40 26 40 106
Affordable Housing Overlay 710 72 782
Mixed Use Housing Overlay 26 136 163 325
Congregational Land Overlay 355 355
Total Site Capacity (Existing + Rezone Sites) 1,403 518 803 2,676 RHNA Buffer +187 +61 +61 +309
• Currently slated at about 200 units. How many more can we put down there?
• Update on tax trade offs
• Traffic studies and capacity update – awaiting a memo from consultants.
• Prior City 2015 Savi Ranch Vision Plan noting 1,800 units in Savi Ranch. What does that mean in today’s context?
SaviRanch Possibilities
What principles can we
plan around?
169
Meeting 3: PowerPoint
• Preserve the Yorba Linda "look and feel":
• High-quality architecture • Infill is better than greenfield (keep open spaces & greenery intact, if possible)
• Enforce existing design guidelines
• Integrate greenery elements ("landscape architecture") • Height restrictions:
• (HCD requirement) 3-story allowance on certain sites • Restrict height around single-family homes, with greater setbacks for taller portions/stories
• Consider a "step function" as you get further out from single-family homes • Maximize ADU credit
• Build and plan with public safety in mind
Potential Planning Principles
Site Specific Feedback
What comes next for us?
• Develop a high-level report on facts, conclusions, and principles for planning
• Support and engage on community outreach process for the Housing Element hearings
• Identify three Housing Element options with a preferred plan for Staff to review with HCD
Possible Working Group Output
Next Meeting Dates
YL Cultural Arts
Center –Arts Studio
Monday, June 12th
6:00 PM
Homework
Think About Tradeoffs and
Options on Housing
Please attach name tags to your name placard.
170
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
171
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
172
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
173
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
174
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
175
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
176
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
177
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
178
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
179
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
180
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
181
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
182
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
183
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
184
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
185
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
186
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
187
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
188
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
189
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
190
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
191
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
192
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
193
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
194
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
195
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
196
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
197
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
198
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
199
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
200
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
201
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
202
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
203
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
204
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
205
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
206
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
207
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
208
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
209
Meeting 3: Savi Ranch Visioning Document
210
POST-MEETING 4 WRAP UP
Dear Housing Policy Resident Working Group,
Thank you for joining us for our fourth meeting of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group (HPRWG). It was productive and we hit some major milestones that we have been building toward with our prior meetings, but last night was the breakthrough for progress.
You made some fundamental priority decisions last night that have set our team on a direction. Those key elements are:
• Prioritize placement of units in Savi Ranch with a goal of 800 units total - up from 200 in the current housing element plan.
• Increase density in Savi Ranch with a special overlay unique to that area allowing density of up to 50 units per acre on 4 to 6 acres
• Leverage this density on three sites in Savi Ranch to create the unit counts that we need. • On three other key site (Fairmont, Christmas Tree and Bryant Ranch) we reduced the density by over half to 10 dwelling units per acre
• Maintained all the congregational housing overlay units This approach is being modeled by our staff, and we have already reached out to the State of California Housing and Community Development Department for some informal feedback on this approach. Our hope is to report back next week with any feedback if we have it. In our attachments we are including a new RHNA housing allocation model.
In follow-up to our meeting last night, I am providing additional documents:
• A link to the RHNA unit count model using this new framework: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ ovh5a9qjsgh4868/Sites%20Inventory%20Calculator%20-%20Working%20Group%20 Model%201.pdf?dl=0
• A link to the examples of “low income” developments in Yorba Linda and related numbers on what qualifies as low income in Yorba Linda: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lulpcat2xyvhxmm/ Examples%20of%20Affordable%20Housing%20in%20Yorba%20Linda.pdf?dl=0 • A link to the examples of various density development visuals to help provide a sense of what density may look like for a certain zoning. (the multi-page hand out that was provided last night): https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/_files/ugd/ b90adb_96e3a0ce3a9c417a8d8f0edf9025b1a1.pdf
• A link to the PPT PDF from last night (note the list of “findings” for the report outline slide were updated for grammar and clarity, but remain the same as noted last night): https://www.dropbox. com/s/50zh6w69ja21wix/ResidentHousingWorkingGroup-Meeting4.pdf?dl=0 • A link to the site map tool we were using last night to pull up different sites that were included in the current Housing Element: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index. html?appid=2d1f91d71fa94f058fbd1f686d149e85
211
Let us know if we missed something.
At our next meeting, we are going to cover these general areas:
• HCD feedback on our modified Housing Element approach to leveraging Savi Ranch • Review and feedback on the draft Report
I urge you to offer additional thoughts, if you have not done so already.
Thank you again for your energy and collaboration. The spirit of civic good and fairness exhibited by the group last night was exemplary and a healthy sign for our community of Yorba Linda.
As a reminder: our next meeting is back to the Library Community Room on Monday, June 19th at 6 PM. Dinner will again be served. The Bristol Farms cookies were a big hit, so fingers crossed for those again.
If something comes up you want to share or communicate, please email or call me.
Regards,
David
212
Meeting 4: RHNA Unit Count Model
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
Entitled Projects (post
6/30/2021) 181 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 (Postal Annex Site) 12 12
ADUs 400 272 8
Single Family
Residential Lots 77 77 77
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 701 272 163 266
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S6-015 Prior John Force Racing
22722 Old Canal Road 2.56 PD
PD
RM-50
standards
50 128 109 54 27 27
S6-020 Extended Stay America
22711 Oak Crest Circle 10.35 PD
PD
RM-50
standards
50 518 440 220 110 110
New
Site Savi Ranch TBD 6 PD
PD
RM-50
standards
50 300 255 128 64 64
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 804 402 201 201
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S1-200 SEC Rose Dr./Blake Rd 5.94 RE RM-20
with AHO 35 208 177 177
S3-074 Yorba Linda Preschool
18132 Yorba Linda Blvd 0.42 CG RM-20 with AHO 35 15 12 12 S3-082 4791 and 4811 Eureka Ave 1.75 CG RM-20
with AHO 35 61 52 52
S4-075 4742 Plumosa Drive 1.62 CG RM-20
with AHO 35 57 48 48
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 289 289 0 0
RM-50 – between 20 to 50 units/acre
Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre
213
Meeting 4: RHNA Unit Count Model
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S2-008 Friendship Baptist Church
17151 Bastanchury Rd
4.92 (2.01
develo
pable)
RE
RE with CLO
35 60 60 60
S3-012 Richfield Community
Church
5320 Richfield Rd
9.489.
48 (3.7
develo
pable)
RU
RE with CLO
35 55 55 55
S2-013
Messiah Lutheran Church
4861 Liverpool St
6.2 (2.03
develo
pable)
RU
RE with CLO
35 40 40 40
S3-024
Friends Church Overflow
Parking
17.45 (1.61
develo
pable)
RE
RE with CLO
35 48 48 48
S4-204A
Chabad Center
19045 Yorba Linda Blvd
1.85 (0.93
develo
pable)
RE
RE with CLO
35 17 17 17
S3-033 Islamic Center of Yorba
Linda
4382 Eureka Ave
3.88 (1.58
develo
pable)
RS
RS with CLO
35 30 30 30
S3-210 Shinnyo-En USA
18021-18111 Bastanchury
Rd
9.23 (4.09
develo
pable)
PD-26
PD-26
with CLO 35 105 105 105
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 355 355 0 0
Congregational Land Overlay (CLO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) Sites – up to 35 units/acre
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S1-021 Vacant Parcel (W of 16951
Imperial Hwy)
APN 322-121-07
1.76 CG-(I)
CG-(I) with
MUO 35 62 52 26 26
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 52 26 26 0
214
Meeting 4: RHNA Unit Count Model
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S4-200 18597-18602 Altrudy Lane 2 RS RM-20 20 40 40 40
S3-074 Yorba Linda Preschool
18132 Yorba Linda Blvd 3.9 RE RM-20 20 78 66 25 41
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 106 40 25 41
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S3-034 4341 Eureka Avenue 2.19 RS RM 10 22 19 7 12
S3-205A 5225-5227 Highland Ave 7.08 CGRM
10 71 60 23 37
S3-211
17651 Imperial Highway 2.32 CG
RM
10 23 20 7 12
S3-207 5300-5392 Richfield Rd 8.83 CG RM 10 88 75 30 45 S5-008 Fairmont Blvd 3 RM 10 30 26 10 16
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 289 289 0 0
RM – up to 10 units/acre
RM-20 – up to 20 units/acre
Site Details Unit Potential
ID Description Acres
Current
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning Action Density
Total
Net Realistic
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
S3-203 18101-19251 Bastanchury 22.83 PD PD 10 228 194 74 120 S7-001 Bryant Ranch
Shopping Center
23611-23801 La Palma Ave
9.15 CG
PD
10 92 78 23 54
Realistic Unit Potential on AHO Sites: 272 0 97 175
PD
215
Meeting 4: RHNA Unit Count Model
TOTAL
Poten&al on all Opportunity Sites:
Total RHNA Targets:
Total RHNA Buffer:
RHNA Buffer Minimum (10%):
TOTAL
Very Low
Low
• • • •
Mod
• • • •
Above
Mod
• • • •
2,779 1384 589 805
2415 1216 457 742
364 168 132 63
167 122 46 0
RHNA Buffer Shortfall: 196 47 87 63
216
Meeting 4: Low Income Developments in Yorba Linda
The Housing Element addresses a variety of housing needs and provides programs to support a range of housing types and affordability. Housing affordability categories include Moderate Income, Lower Income, Very Low Income, and Extremely Low Income. These are based on surveys of local area median income (AMI). For example, for Orange County, Lower Income for a family of four is currently defined as $127,800 per year. “Affordable housing cost” for lower-income households is defined in State law as not more than 30 percent of gross household income with varia�ons (Health and Safety Code Sec�on 50052.5). “Housing cost” commonly includes rent or mortgage payments, u�li�es (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling, green waste), and property taxes and insurance on owner-occupied housing. Examples of exis�ng affordable housing developments in Yorba Linda:
217
Meeting 4: Low Income Developments in Yorba Linda
218
Meeting 4: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Discuss Sites Discuss Report Plan the Next
Meeting(s)
Tonight’s Goals
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29) • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims
• November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highlylikely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
Fact Review Current Housing Inventory
Income Levels Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod Total
2021-2029 RHNA Targets 765 451 457 742 2,415
Existing Zoning
Entitled Projects (post 6/30/2021 occupancy) 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 12 12
Accessory Dwelling Units 100 172 120 8 400
Existing Site Capacity 272 163 189 624
RHNA Shortfall (944) (294) (553) (1,791)
Rezone Sites
Planned Development 64 130 194
RM 111 179 290
RM-20 40 26 40 106
Affordable Housing Overlay 710 72 782
Mixed Use Housing Overlay 26 136 163 325
Congregational Land Overlay 355 355
Total Site Capacity (Existing + Rezone Sites) 1,403 518 803 2,676 RHNA Buffer +187 +61 +61 +309
• Currently slated at about 200 units. How many more can we put down there?
• What tension exists with putting big chunks of housing into Savi Ranch for east v west city residents?
SaviRanch Possibilities
Site Specific Feedback
219
Meeting 4: PowerPoint
What comes next for us?
• Develop a high-level report on facts, conclusions, and principles for planning
• Support and engage on community outreach process for the Housing Element hearings
• Identify three Housing Element options with a preferred plan for Staff to review with HCD
Proposed Working Group Output
• Cover page and Art
• Table of Contents
• Summary of Working Group Purpose
• Working Group Members
• Agreed Upon Facts
• Priorities Shared by Working Group
• Timeline of Recent Events
• Potential Future Timeline
• Planning Principles
• General Findings • Retaining local control with a November 2024 ballot vote is important • A November 2024 ballot measure to adopt zoning changes should be pursued and residents should seriously weigh the consequences if that ballot measure fails
• The City should deploy more tools to connect with residents on the need for adopting a Housing Element and perform education necessary to ensure the public is informed on this complex subject • A resident survey on housing issues could better inform the City’s engagement efforts • City should leverage Savi Ranch to a reasonable extent to create a new downtown like space for Yorba Linda • Exhibit A: Housing 101 and RHNA
• Exhibit B: Common Questions and Misconceptions
Report Outline Next Meeting Dates
Yorba Linda Library
Monday, June 19th
6:00 PM
Review and Adopt Report
Discuss HCD Feedback
Black Gold Golf Course
Date TBD
6:00 PM
Review Progress and
Celebrate Report /
Talk About Future /
Beverages
Homework
Prepare to Read and
Comment on Draft Report
Please attach name tags to your name placard.
220
POST-MEETING 5 WRAP UP
Dear Housing Policy Resident Working Group,
Thank you for joining us for a fifth meeting of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group (HPRWG).
First, please plan to join us next Monday, June 26 at 6 PM in the Library Community Room. We will meet again to go through the final report.
Second, this email is going to be long as we attempt to address numerous discussions that came up in the meeting on Monday night and try to keep moving the ball on the Report so we can wrap up with our one extra meeting next Monday.
The devil is in the details and the drafting of a report on our work has certainly brought some of those details into focus and shown a light on some disagreements and issues. It is my hope that, because you all have been working together for several meetings, that we can also work through those disagreements effectively to get to consensus. That said, we entered this effort with the Working Group with no defined goal in mind, just a need to surface the challenges and issues the City faces both in creating a Housing Element and with a potential ballot measure on our minds once a second version of the Housing Element Plan is developed. Developing a Report was an idea the Working Group agreed was a reasonable approach to convey the results of their work to the City Council. It remains our plan to support the Working Group in getting there.
We lost some of our general momentum this meeting, and I wanted to reshare Ryder’s Fact Statements that the Working Group had unanimous agreement on during prior meetings:
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29). • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims. • November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification.
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highly-likely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
The City must develop a plan to hit 2,415 units. The City did appeal that number before and the repeal was rejected. A link below shares the video referenced during Monday’s meeting that was a core part of the City’s appeal. While I appreciate the expressed civic engagement to board a plane and visit Sacramento, we are past appealing or changing that number.
A couple other key points to note in follow up to the evening’s discussion. • Many Working Group members have requested a breakdown by precinct of the vote on Measure Z. We are still confirming some details on that data, but the high-level response is that the vote was nearly uniform across the City - only a 2 or 3% variance. That also means it was not more or less popular due to East v. West, or with a Bryant Ranch neighborhood declaring “heck no” any more than any other area.
• There were concerns expressed about renderings and showing a plan for the Savi Ranch area especially. That message is received, but the work we are doing now will not address that. It will be a part of any outreach campaign. However, to be clear: the zoning work we are doing is
221
not the kind of deep overlay planning that often might be associated with implementing the far bigger vision for Savi Ranch. That would be a year-long (or more) process that is not going to happen concurrently with the Housing Element Plan adoption process the City is focused on right now. That said, we are 100% on board with offering visuals and renderings to explain what 50 or 60 units per acre means from a development viewpoint. • Having discovered an error in our unit calculator for Savi Ranch, the Working Group placed a higher priority on increasing acreage to achieve 800 units than shifting to 60 units per acre density. City Staff noted a concern that finding that additional acreage would take time, and that it might obligate more land to this immediate need while constraining a bigger master plan vision for Savi Ranch area. The Working Group still placed a priority on more land over a density shift. • The Bryant Ranch shift was to leave 20 units on Bryant Ranch shopping spot and shift about 60 units to the Mercado (car wash) location. We only heard one voice express concern about that. • In the East v. West chat, there were strong viewpoints expressed about why the West side of YL has taken on so many units. At the next meeting, we are going to address some of that with data and charts to bring clarity to the unit allocation across the City and to explain some simple realities of developable land that prompt more viable development on the West side. We also plan to surface a couple options to drop a couple sites off the West side while still hitting the RHNA number.
• The Working Group remains locked on 800 units in Savi Ranch with only person voicing concern that so many units were placed down there. As such, we will remain focused on a plan to have 800 units in Savi Ranch.
• The Fairmont site has 3 acres of developable land that is now zoned at 10 units per acre. That was built into the revised model that we presented at the last two meetings and remains the current plan. The discussion on Monday brought clarity on why that unit count has been applied there. We heard no pushback from the Working Group on the logic for why only 3 acres are available to develop.
As usual, here are some key links to resources and other documents that we want you to have to empower you with information and access to resources:
• The City’s RHNA Appeal video: https://vimeo.com/471771367/93d97ea9e1 • Documents on the City’s RHNA Housing Appeal: https://www.ylhousingelementupdate.com/ copy-of-rhna-docs
• Another really handy tool to “see” what density looks like: https://jhparch.com/density • The PowerPoint deck in PDF format from Monday night: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ beue6li3ehpved8/ResidentHousingWorkingGroup-Meeting5.pdf?dl=0
222
Finally, we come to the Report status and next steps. As Ryder noted at the conclusion of the meeting, he is going to aggressively reconcile or address the comments in the Report in the next couple days. The hope is that we start the next meeting with nearly everything resolved so we can achieve agreement from the Working Group on the Report’s content. To be clear: where specific statements are identified, I will add language that reflects that consensus was supportive of a statement, and that will accurately reflect that some Working Group members may disagree or object with a certain aspect of the Report. As Ryder has noted to me, it is important that you have your imprint on this Report, but also respect that it does not mean you agree with everything in the report itself. If we do get there, fantastic!
Thanks for your patience with this long email as we race to the finish line on a Report out of our work.
I look forward to seeing you Monday night.
Regards,
David
223
Meeting 5: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Discuss HCD Update Discuss Report
Comments and Edits
Plan the Next
Meeting(s)
Tonight’s Goals
• No formal endorsement can happen via a phone call.
• City will need to proceed as usual and through normal policy process. • Saying the approach sounds doable is not approving.
HCD Chat
• There was an error in the spreadsheet from last week
• 804 to 581 – dropping 223 units.
• We reduced the unit count by 223 in Savi Ranch due
to an overstatement on developable land.
• Option 1: Increase Density while maintaining the 5-story limit
• Option 2: Add more land for the rezone
SaviRanch Recalc/Correction
The Hard Questions
Are we still good on an 800
push for Savi Ranch?
224
Meeting 5: PowerPoint
Do we need to hash it out over
East v. West YL on unit
allocation?
Should we pull all units out of
Bryant Ranch and move them
elsewhere?
• Process Steps and Notes
• Generally accepting grammar and other suggestions.
• Generally either commenting on or noting more substantial change requests.
• Ryder is trying to balance between various viewpoints and my perceived set of facts based on what I have heard this group say, or what Ryder knows about the bigger statewide picture.
• What does endorsement mean?
• Affirming the actions and facts of the Working Groups efforts.
Finalizing Report & Summary Next Meeting Dates
Black Gold Golf Course
Date TBD
6:00 PM
Review Progress and
Celebrate Report /
Talk About Future /
Beverages
Homework
Keep Talking to Neighbors
Come to a Council Meeting
When the Report is on the
Agenda to Receive and File
Please attach name tags to your name placard.
225
POST-MEETING 6 WRAP UP
Dear Housing Policy Resident Working Group,
Thank you for joining us for the sixth meeting of the Housing Policy Resident Working Group (HPRWG) and for your patience with the delay in this email getting out. As a result of the robust conversation last Monday, we believe we now have a solid Housign Element option to present to Council on July 18! We recognize that you spent a lot of your free time with us over the past couple months, and we thank you for your commitment.
To recap, especially for those who could not attend:
• We worked through some lingering questions from prior meetings, such as: the potential traffic impact on Savi Ranch developments and the recommended maximum number of units to place in Savi Ranch; precinct-specific voting results on Measure Z; and visual examples of actual developments with varying unit-per-acre densities.
• The Working Group reviewed some Citywide maps that illustrated the locations of sites throughout Yorba Linda, as well as the number of proposed units on those sites. (The Group noted a few inaccuracies, but rest assured: the final Working Group Report will include the updated, accurate GIS maps.)
• This led into the bulk of the meeting’s conversation around an updated Housing Element option that Nate devised based on synthesizing the feedback he was getting from several Working Group members. This updated model reflected a combination of increasing the unit density to 60 du/ac at Savi Ranch, shifting a few sites to RM-10, and dropping a few sites entirely for rezoning (while retaining existing zoning on those sites to claim some housing unit credit). • Following the explanation of the updated model, we encouraged the Group to raise any final concerns about site locations and densities. As a result of that conversation, we made two significant changes to the model:
• Removing the Shinnyo-En USA site on Bastanchury Rd.
• Reducing the RHNA buffer from 15% to 10%.
• The Group agreed to these two changes and concurred on a few different options to re-include dropped sites to meet the RHNA goal plus the 10% buffer, if needed.
With this plan in mind, we had a brief meeting with an HCD representative on June 29th. We laid out the end result of the latest Working Group meeting, namely that the Working Group came to a consensus on a Plan.
The HCD staff was encouraged to hear this and praised the Working Group as “a smart move” on the City’s part. Importantly, this is not a formal communication from HCD, but it was a sufficient enough conversation to make us comfortable that the plan devised by the Working Group is viable..
As a reminder, we are currently working on finalizing the Working Group Report, which we will present to Council on July 18 at the regular Council meeting. We welcome your attendance at that meeting when Ryder and myself will present the result of the Working Group’s efforts. If you wish to share your firsthand accounts of the process you have all been through to get to a Plan that has the Group’s majority consensus, I am sure the City Council will be interested in your thoughts.
226
Your last bit of homework as a Working Group is to review the current draft at. Given our time constraints to finish approving the Working Group Report and place it into the Council Agenda packet by July 11, we ask you to provide your input before noon on Friday, July 7. Specifically, we are looking for feedback on the summary of the plan changes and direction. Our apologies for the speedy turnaround, but we thank you for your understanding. We needed to hear some positivity from HCD before we could finalize this Group Report.
We will be in touch to let you know when we’ll have our Working Group celebration at the Black Gold Golf Club.
It will likely be soon after the July 18 Council meeting. It is our way (especially Ryder’s way) of expressing our gratitude for your resilience, your patience, your passion and your dedication to civil discourse. Stay tuned.
Regards,
David
227
EXHIBIT B
WORKING GROUP PROVIDED IDEAS AND
FEEDBACK EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE
228
The following Submissions are emails that were sent by Working Group members or residents who discussed the work of the Working Group and shared some ideas and feedback to City Staff. The formatting has been altered for consistency and some minor grammatical corrections made, but otherwise these represent the original content provided by residents. Attribution of the comments has been removed as these submissions were not part of a formal public hearing process.
SUBMISSION 1
Suggestions for revising the Measure Z site list Rev 5
(After , even more, additional resident discussions)
(Please see adjusted site list attachments )
We know that Measure Z was not widely accepted .
• We Strongly oppose the state Mandates
• however ; Those Mandates have not been overturned so we support preventing Builders Remedy • Already an over abundance of high density sites targeted for west Yorba Linda (west of YL Country Club)
• sites 23 West ; 5 East
• DUs 1741 West ; 669 East
• 3 proposed sites with major objections. ~ 880 DUs proposed • Fairmont: 230
• Bryant Ranch: 320
• Christmas Tree Farm: 340
• Not many open spaces available that meet HCD guidelines • Need:
• a willing property owner
• Space to accommodate 600-1850 DUs
• Minimize significant loss of tax revenue
• a redevelopment plan
• Propose
• 800- 1000 DUs in Savi Ranch
• 2-3 developments
• Bak Tran ~22 acres , Kohls?, others
• Same income level of affordability dispersal as the rest of Yorba Linda • A mixed use development
• Entertainment
• Restaurants
• Small, retail
• Residential , possibly over retail
• Reduce 3 “deferred sites “ to 13% of previously proposed • Fairmont: 230 to 30
• Bryant Ranch: 320 to 42
• Christmas Tree Farm: 340 to 44
890 to 116
229
• Uses 774 of 1000 . Leaves 226 to reduce other sites . • Accomplishes:
• Reduces the 3 most objectionable site densities
• Helps balance the E vs W DU dispersal
• allows some additional reduction in other site DU’s placement flexibility • More likely to gain voter approval
Supporting rationale
• The Taxpayer Funded and City Council Accepted 2015 YL Land Use & Mobility Vision Plan says that Savi Ranch could accommodate 1850 Dwelling Units (Appts)(Pg 30) with the addition of a “way-finding signage “ program.
• Plus Yorba Linda has already agreed to the current entrance area widening • Updated traffic study appears to support some significant added traffic • Savi Ranch property Owner , Bak Tran , has said he wants to redevelop some of his property into residential or mixed use and has several development outline proposals • Retail Tax revenue dropping due to current business’s struggles • No data to support significant loss of tax revenue
• Per 5/17/23 YL Finance Review
• Property Tax = 53% of Gen Fund Revenue vs 19.3% for Sales Tax ( ie property is tax is a Greater contributor)
• Per Roy Stevenson SR generates 65% of the YL sales tax revenue , so the business decline needs to be reversed with revitalized business or replaced with added property tax.
• Many retail malls (Orange, Westminster, Laguna Niguel, Brea) are redeveloping into mixed use. • There are redevelopment plans out there that mix retail, dining and entertainment with residential • HCD has already agreed to similar clustering of 529 DUs in 5 High Density sites located on only .75 Sq Mile ( Richfield, YL Blvd, Lakeview, Buena Vista) • Yorba Linda has the opportunity to utilize the very skilled Communication company , TripepiSmith, to shape a persuasive “sales pitch” for Yorba Linda’s revised HE.
Yorba Linda Should Embrace reimagining the declining areas within Savi Ranch into a vibrant , productive mixed use community that would include cross income level housing mixed with dining , shopping and entertainment.
• This would be a bold statement that Yorba Linda intended to provide inclusive housing while reinvigorating a deteriorating tax base. Yorba Linda voters would be more likely to support significant change than asking voters to support a warmed over measure that had been soundly rejected.
Next Steps:
• Output summary of the Residents Committee should be reviewed at a subsequent City Council Mtg along with regular Housing Element revision status reports . • I am open to additional Residents Committee sessions to assure we all are able to concur on a proposal and report for the City Counsel
• I would like to be part of periodic review of the revised HE as it progress’s through the process
230
• Invite representatives from state wide groups that are opposing housing mandates as an agenda item, so residents and council can hear their position and progress directly. • Our Neighborhood Voices, https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/ • Catalyst, https://catalystsca.org/
• Livable California, https://www.livablecalifornia.org/ THANK YOU FOR EXTENDING YOUR HAND TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY INPUT! SUBMISSION 2
My points to help the community achieve the best outcome for land use planning as outlined by State law required Housing Elements.
1. We need to get an honest factual report to the voters to clearly explain the two options, and that it is not a straight-forward, a city or even a state sponsored a simple yes or no about zoning. It is more complex.
2. A clear showing of the city, and committee approved locations, to implement The State ordered Housing Elements of 2415 homes, divided over different Categories of income levels. Serious complaints about any selected specific location, will be taken in consideration for review by the City Counsel or/and the Housing Committee.
3. Add also an explanation why most locations selected are in West YL., when it appears avoiding mostly East YL. The explanation of the hilly nature, cost , or some lack of flat terrain, is mostly a true explanation but for some it is weak or unacceptable. Can we maybe point to Bryan Ranch and others?
4. Some requested to know which location is designated for very low income, low, moderate etc.
For some that is very important, if it is at possible to determine that in our report before the vote.
5. Explain the State ordered Housing Elements which is signed into law, and up to this point, laws suits by various cities, have failed, and the outlook for new successful lawsuits or further negotiations, presently are slim to most unlikely to produce positive results.
6. Point out the modest, but still important options the City can exercise when we vote yes and approve the final city 2415 new homes location plan.
7. But also important to explain and report, by displaying the examples in Santa Monica and Washington, what likely can happen if we vote NO and the State then exercises, what they cal the “Builders Remedy” option, which means that the State permits the builders to build the 2415 homes where they see fit, in height, setback, traffic, etc., and without any involvement of our City.
8. The Housing committee from mostly West YL Yorba Linda, spended Countless hours of their own time, to listen to the various experts, asked 100’s of questions, received all the answers, and most came to the conclusion, that a YES Vote presently was best for the overall city and its residents.
9. If after receiving the Housing Committees report, there are still more questions from our residents, regarding the Housing Elements, the Housing Committee can reconvene to address the issues brought forward, at which time the resident can appear before the Committeet o explain the issue and request an explanation.
231
SUBMISSION 3
Why California’s Suburb Could Disappear in a Couple of Decades | Michael Gates Not sure if you saw this interview
Siyamak sits down with Michael Gates, the city attorney of Huntington Beach.
He will discuss how the housing Mandates can Change California’s beach towns and what he is doing to protect his city.
I found it informative
Thought you would like to see this also
I ran across this as I was doing some research
An interesting 35 min interview taken approximately 3 weeks ago I better understand HB gameplan against the State.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRpxWoWFReU&ab_channel=CaliforniaInsider Also thank you for letting be part of conversation yesterday I apprecaite the meeting and felt there was good comunication and thoughts flowing I know it probably makes your job harder meetig with us , but the goal is to to get majority exceptance in a direction that works for our beautiful city
For the record, I agree with most of what Michael Gates had to say And wish that this lawsuit would start tomorrow and have a resolve in month, so you would not have deal with this and we can have a differnt conversation about our city SUBMISSION 4
Dave,
Regarding principles for planning:
1. Height requirements
2. Site requirements and placement of major structures
3. Accessibility to utilities, gas, water ,electric, cable or fiber optic, etc.
4. Public review of CEQA for project and neighborhood input
5. When plans are approved, only minor alterations without neighborhood notice and input
6. Some type of final review by neighborhood before final permit issue Hope this may stimulate some discussions..
Thanks for your help and understanding……
232
SUBMISSION 5
Planning Principles for Affordable Housing
• Scale projects to respect the neighborhood. In some neighborhoods, the rehabbing of existing units may be an appropriate scale. Other areas may support large multifamily structures. The proper scale will promote a healthy connection between the development and its surrounding neighborhood.
• Look at properties that are already in a commercial area that will not impact adjacent residential. • Address issues of parking and auto circulation. Is there enough parking? Insufficient parking causes stress to residents and neighbors. Parking should be located appropriately. • Create curb appeal. Does this look like a place in which you would like to live? Attractive housing fosters resident pride.
• Look at all current business centers that need rehab and utilize this space for new housing. • Contact local school districts and see if any of their land may be used for housing. • Development should fit the character of the neighborhoods. • Continued high standards of architecture.
• Multi-unit housing should front the interior of the property with a central park/meeting area.
SUBMISSION 6
Dear David,
Thank you for your email and the additional information regarding guiding principles and design guidelines.
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend today’s meeting however, I wanted to put out some thoughts regarding Monday’s agenda which will include Planning principles, site-specific discussions and what’s next.
1. I think the planning principles that were discussed at the last meeting are all very good. From my experience talking with many people, one of the most important issues was putting multi-story buildings next to 1 and 2 story homes. The guiding principles link that you sent mentions this in sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5 – consistency with community character, compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods – compatible with adjacent uses – preserve the character, scale and quality of established residential neighborhoods. I couldn’t agree more. We should have a maximum of new two story houses in areas of one and two story existing homes in keeping with measure B.
2. Site specific. We have an opportunity to add high density housing and revitalize an area of Yorba Linda into a beautiful, active, tax producing area with Savi Ranch. We should employ the 2015 Vision Plan for Savi Ranch which could include up to 1800 apartments with use of all existing alternative entry/exit points. Numbers can be adjusted to add up to 5300 SF or more of retail use. This area could turn into the crowning glory of Yorba Linda. Attached is a vision of what it could be. This 2015 Vision Plan was made for the future of Yorba Linda. That future is now.
3. Design. Just a personal preference, I would suggest to stay away Colonial Revival Architecture especially in multi-story. It’s big and boxy and just kind of ugly. I think it’s more of an east coast thing.
233
A final note – I think Russ Heine made a great suggestion of mixing the different layers of affordable housing on the sites. I would imagine it would be an easier “sell” to HCD as it would allow for integration of all new dwelling units into all areas of the city and make healthier neighborhoods What’s next? We need numbers on Savi ranch and/or other available properties to spread the numbers out.
Thank you so much for all of your efforts.
SUBMISSION 7
Yorba Linda is still under the state mandate to rezone the city to accommodate an additional 2415 dwelling units. The initial plan the city put forth was soundly rejected in last November’s election. It is not clear to YL residents what level of changes will be contained in the revised Housing Element. The following 4 suggestions proposes a path forward to facilitate a better understanding of the revised HE change and communication process to enhance city and resident understanding.
First, several initiatives are on-going to challenge the state mandate directing each city on how many units need to be built and where in the city these units need to be built. The biggest concern is that the voters will have to decide on approving a rezoning plan in November 2024 without knowing if any of the initiatives have a chance to make an impact to the state mandate. Worst case scenario is the votes approve the city plan only to find out later the mandate no longer applies. The rezoning will already have happened and won’t be able to be redone. The voters are owed no less than accurate information on how likely these initiatives could pass when making their decisions on voting for or against the plan. The city council should set up regular briefings from “people in the know” on these initiatives where both the city council and the voters could hear the information and question the presenters to get accurate information on the chances of success. ie: invite representatives to speak at city council meetings as an agenda item from several of the statewide groups challenging the state housing mandates. The city attorney could also provide regular status reports regarding legal actions that may affect the YL housing mandates. The city would be under no obligation to fund or support the initiative, it would be an information only presentation.
Second, the best use of land in Savi Ranch is open to debate. The Measure Z plan shows putting 89 units at the Prior John Force Racing space and 143 units at the Extended Stay America space for a total of 232 dwelling units. The Eastern side of Savi Ranch seems to be in economic trouble as the Bed, Bath and Beyond store is preparing to close its store and other stores don’t appear to have much business. After you get by the Costco store, the main things you see are for sale or for lease signs. A Savi Ranch property owner made a plea to the city council last August to help him develop the area as he has unused property. The City should follow the leads of Brea, Orange and other cities as they have similar situations with unused real estate and request proposals from developers on establishing a live-work / entertainment concept in Savi Ranch. This document would be non-binding. Information from the 2015 study and the recent transportation study would be used to determine how best to utilize Savi Ranch. The developers could be provided with Yorba Linda’s state mandated housing numbers and be asked to propose how many units could be located there. I believe outside viewpoints on development is the only true way to unlock the full potential of Savi ranch.
Thirdly, after receiving the information from developers, spread out the remaining requirement throughout all 27 parcels initially identified on a percentage basis. Some parcels were removed for various reasons causing other parcels to accept more of the burden. No one area of the city is better than any other, all
234
areas will have problems accepting unneeded housing, therefore, everyone in the city should feel some pain with the state mandate. This would eliminate the perceived problem of pitting each side of the city against each other.
Lastly, it is just wrong that people pay the incredible housing prices to live in Yorba Linda only to find out a parcel of land right across the street is going to be rezoned for high density housing. If additional units are located in Savi Ranch and this reduces the required densities of the other 27 parcels, (in other words, a parcel that is planned for 35 units per acre is able to be reduced to 10 units per acre), those parcels should be exempt from rezoning on the next 2 cycles of housing development. This way people will know their community/ neighborhood is exempt for the next 25 years of having a massive apartment structure being located right across the street.
SUBMISSION 8
David, Nate and Ryder ,
Thanks for bringing the group together and facilitating thought sharing .
A couple comments and then my input regarding Things That Caused Measure Z to Fail • A nice cross section of perspectives
• Great to have you all and our city attorney to help with legal viewpoint • ( I don’t always agree , but my law degree must be tied up in the mail somewhere) • It might be helpful to me to see some preview of what the high level agenda is for the 4 meetings , so I am thinking on the same page as you
• My failing, but I tend to get process oriented. What is our group objective for the meeting . ? I realize there are many steps in the overall process but it is my thinking that a pivotal part before other players can go to work is to try and have our group agree/concur on a basic concept direction that we believe all our neighborhoods would support
Are we intending to :
• come away with a revised/new site list that we all concur to ? • make a recommendation for the city council on a site list ? • just brainstorm lot’s of thoughts ?
• I’m currently not sure when we could declare success , that we have done our part ….. • a small meeting process point . Some organizers suggest a round robin process to assure that all parties are being brought into the discussion. I understand different styles can have different meeting objectives.
235
Input Regarding Measure Z Failure
Data summary from a residents survey poll
Top 5 Summary highlights of a residents survey poll
1. No Support for single family housing within 50’ of high density
2. Very High support for No Change to residential building heights
3. High support for 4-5 stories in Savi Ranch
4. Very high support that the city should resist the state , even if legal action required
5. Very many would support the city joining those legal actions Top 5 Added Write-in Comments Summary
1. No High Density in single family-17
2. Affecting neighborhood Character - 15
3. State Overreach -10
4. Traffic - 9
5. Safety/crime - 8
236
EXHIBIT C
PLANNING PRINCIPLES INVENTORY
The following planning principles were shared over a couple meetings. This list is not necessarily inclusive of any principles noted in email correspondence sent to City Staff and Exhibit B.
237
Exhibit C: Planning Principles
238
EXHIBIT D
WORKING GROUP PRESENTATION DECKS
For transparency and documentation purposes, the following slides are being shared in this document to provide context on the work and information given to the Working Group.
239
Meeting 1: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s MingleandBe
Friendly
ThankYou!
Meet Your Neighbors Ask Questions Ponder the Future
Tonight’sGoals Howdidwegethere?
• Measure Z Fails
• 7,221 – Yes 25%
• 21,937 – No 75%
• City Continued Working with
Housing and Community
Development
• City Determined Residents
Need to Get Involved Directly
• You Were Invited to Committee
WhyYou?
• Diverse Viewpoints
• Diverse Geography
• Diverse Experiences
• A reputation for being
thoughtful, open-minded and
collaborative
YourNeighborhoods
240
Meeting 1: PowerPoint
Family Man, Ladera
Ranch Resident
Ryder’s Day Job Communications and City Consulting
WhoisthisRyderguy?
Transparency of Intent BuildingTrust
• 1969 – State mandates that all jurisdictions must plan for its housing needs • This process is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) • This is a planning requirement and not a construction requirement • Currently in the 6th Housing Cycle of RHNA (2021-2029) • HCD establishes a “regional determination” for each region • OC is part of SCAG along with Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Imperial and Ventura • SCAG was assigned 1.34 million units for the 6th cycle • SCAG determines how to equitably distribute the regional determination throughout the region
• Focus for the 6th cycle was on proximity to regional transit and jobs instead of availability of land which shifted a significant portion of the RHNA to Los Angeles and Orange Counties • Yorba Linda was assigned 2,415 units (669 units assigned in the 5th cycle) • Jurisdictions must determine how to accommodate their RHNA through rezoning HousingElement101
• Sep 2017 – Governor Brown signs major housing reform package of 15 bills to increase housing supply and affordability • Oct 2018 – 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment discussions begin at SCAG • Oct 2019 – HCD establishes RHNA of 1.34 million for SCAG region • Nov 2019 – SCAG approves RHNA methodology
• Oct 2020 – City appeals its draft RHNA allocation to SCAG but appeal is rejected • Mar 2021 – SCAG approves final RHNA allocation for SCAG region • Aug 2021 – City submits 1st draft Housing Element to HCD in attempts to meet Oct 2021 deadline • Oct 2021 – State law deadline to submit Housing Element to HCD which allows 120 day grace period • Dec 2021 – City submits 2nd draft Housing Element to HCD in attempts to meet “grace period” deadline • Feb 2022 – City Council adopts Housing Element and submits 3rd draft to HCD in attempts to meet “grace period” deadline • Apr 2022 – HCD conditionally certifies City’s Housing Element but City misses the deadline and must rezone by Oct 2022 per State law • Jun 2022 – SB 197 passes extending the rezoning deadline for certified cities but City’s Housing Element has committed to a Nov 2022 vote • Nov 2022 – Measure Z fails
CriticalRecentTimeline
• Dec 2023 – Submit revised Housing Element to HCD for review • Apr 2024 – HCD recertification of revised Housing Element • Apr 2024 – Begin revised environmental review of Housing Element for CEQA • Apr 2024 – Traffic Commission review of revised Housing Element • May 2024 – Planning Commission public hearing on revised Housing Element • Jul 2024 – City Council to consider adopting revised Housing Element and call for election
• Nov 2024 – Potential new rezoning ballot measure vote AFutureTimeline?
• Loss of state funding
• Housing and Community Development has a big new enforcement arm • Opens up a city to significant legal action by pro-housing groups • “Loss of Local Control”
• State takeover the permitting authority for the City
ConsequencesofNoCertifiedHousing
Element
241
Meeting 1: PowerPoint
• What legal actions has the City taken on these State mandates? • What is the status of the Huntington Beach lawsuit?
• What about lobbying efforts by the City to address State policy? • What is the state of affairs with Builder’s Remedy claims? LegalUpdate
Why Informal Matters
AnInformalResidentHousingWorking Group
WhyDidMeasureZ Fail?
NextMeetingDates
YorbaLindaPublicLibrary CommunityRoom
Wednesday,May31st
6:00PM
YLPublicLibrary CommunityRoom
Monday,June5th
6:00PM
YLCulturalArts
Center–ArtsStudio
Monday,June12th
6:00PM
Homework
ReadUponPrior
HousingPlanElements
TalktoNeighbors
andAboutThis
WorkingGroup
242
Meeting 2: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Establish Facts Review Homework
Answer Questions
Review Rezoning
Options
Tonight’s Goals
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29) • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims
• November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highlylikely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
Fact Review
• What is the legislative environment like in Sacramento this year? • What kind of housing legislation are we seeing? Anything that actually affects the housing allocation for Yorba Linda?
• What are the League’s priorities for initiatives in the coming two years? • What kind of policy efforts do we anticipate the League to take on regarding housing the coming years?
• What do you view as the viability of the citizen initiatives to potentially restore local control efforts?
Legislative Update
• Firm background
• Person background
• PEIR previously prepared
• What does Program-level analysis mean?
• What special studies were prepared (e.g., Traffic)
• What additional CEQA analysis will be required for housing plan revisions (i.e., high, medium and low level of changes)
• What are the timeframes for each of these?
CEQA Consultant Q&A
• Who prepared the traffic analysis for the PEIR?
• How was traffic analysis completed for PEIR?
• Did analysis assume “worst-case” in terms of housing units? • What is Level of Service (LOS)?
• How do various LOS levels translate to driving experience? • What were results within key intersections in the City? • What about Bryant Ranch?
Traffic Study Data and Background
243
Meeting 2: PowerPoint
Traffic Ratings
Explained
• Working Group is a foundational element to outreach plan • City will conduct a series of community workshops to discuss potential housing element changes
• City will use social media and video tools to convey information broadly and seek public participation
• A dedicated webpage or website will be created to keep the public informed
• Mailers are likely to be implemented
• All City communication channels will be deployed
• Public hearings will take place
Upcoming Rezoning Outreach Summary
• How many units can we put in there?
• What kind of units and income level tied to those units can go there? • What are trade offs with sales tax?
• What have we heard from developers?
• What statutory regulations do we face siting a lot of low income housing there?
• How will regulations for inclusion of housing sites in the housing element by viewed by regulators?
SaviRanch Possibilities
Rezoning Changes
Current Housing Inventory
Income Levels Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod Total
2021-2029 RHNA Targets 765 451 457 742 2,415
Existing Zoning
Entitled Projects (post 6/30/2021 occupancy) 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 12 12
Accessory Dwelling Units 100 172 120 8 400
Existing Site Capacity 272 163 189 624
RHNA Shortfall (944) (294) (553) (1,791)
Rezone Sites
Planned Development 64 130 194
RM 111 179 290
RM-20 40 26 40 106
Affordable Housing Overlay 710 72 782
Mixed Use Housing Overlay 26 136 163 325
Congregational Land Overlay 355 355
Total Site Capacity (Existing + Rezone Sites) 1,403 518 803 2,676 RHNA Buffer +187 +61 +61 +309
What principles can we
plan around?
244
Meeting 2: PowerPoint
What comes next for us?
Next Meeting Dates
YL Public Library
Community Room
Monday, June 5th 6:00 PM
YL Cultural Arts
Center –Arts Studio
Monday, June 12th
6:00 PM
Homework
Think About Tradeoffs and
Options on Housing
Talk to Neighbors and
About This Working
Group
Please hand in your name tags.
What benefits can come with adding new housing?
245
Meeting 3: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Discuss Rezoning
Principles
Discuss Sites Plan the Next
Meeting(s)
Tonight’s Goals
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29) • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims
• November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highlylikely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
Fact Review Current Housing Inventory
Income Levels Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod Total
2021-2029 RHNA Targets 765 451 457 742 2,415
Existing Zoning
Entitled Projects (post 6/30/2021 occupancy) 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 12 12
Accessory Dwelling Units 100 172 120 8 400
Existing Site Capacity 272 163 189 624
RHNA Shortfall (944) (294) (553) (1,791)
Rezone Sites
Planned Development 64 130 194
RM 111 179 290
RM-20 40 26 40 106
Affordable Housing Overlay 710 72 782
Mixed Use Housing Overlay 26 136 163 325
Congregational Land Overlay 355 355
Total Site Capacity (Existing + Rezone Sites) 1,403 518 803 2,676 RHNA Buffer +187 +61 +61 +309
• Currently slated at about 200 units. How many more can we put down there?
• Update on tax trade offs
• Traffic studies and capacity update – awaiting a memo from consultants.
• Prior City 2015 Savi Ranch Vision Plan noting 1,800 units in Savi Ranch. What does that mean in today’s context?
SaviRanch Possibilities
What principles can we
plan around?
246
Meeting 3: PowerPoint
• Preserve the Yorba Linda "look and feel":
• High-quality architecture • Infill is better than greenfield (keep open spaces & greenery intact, if possible)
• Enforce existing design guidelines
• Integrate greenery elements ("landscape architecture") • Height restrictions:
• (HCD requirement) 3-story allowance on certain sites • Restrict height around single-family homes, with greater setbacks for taller portions/stories
• Consider a "step function" as you get further out from single-family homes • Maximize ADU credit
• Build and plan with public safety in mind
Potential Planning Principles
Site Specific Feedback
What comes next for us?
• Develop a high-level report on facts, conclusions, and principles for planning
• Support and engage on community outreach process for the Housing Element hearings
• Identify three Housing Element options with a preferred plan for Staff to review with HCD
Possible Working Group Output
Next Meeting Dates
YL Cultural Arts
Center –Arts Studio
Monday, June 12th
6:00 PM
Homework
Think About Tradeoffs and
Options on Housing
Please attach name tags to your name placard.
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Discuss Sites Discuss Report Plan the Next
Meeting(s)
Tonight’s Goals
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29) • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims
• November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highlylikely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
Fact Review Current Housing Inventory
Income Levels Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod Total
2021-2029 RHNA Targets 765 451 457 742 2,415
Existing Zoning
Entitled Projects (post 6/30/2021 occupancy) 181 181
Town Center Specific Plan 31 31
RM-30 12 12
Accessory Dwelling Units 100 172 120 8 400
Existing Site Capacity 272 163 189 624
RHNA Shortfall (944) (294) (553) (1,791)
Rezone Sites
Planned Development 64 130 194
RM 111 179 290
RM-20 40 26 40 106
Affordable Housing Overlay 710 72 782
Mixed Use Housing Overlay 26 136 163 325
Congregational Land Overlay 355 355
Total Site Capacity (Existing + Rezone Sites) 1,403 518 803 2,676 RHNA Buffer +187 +61 +61 +309
• Currently slated at about 200 units. How many more can we put down there?
• What tension exists with putting big chunks of housing into Savi Ranch for east v west city residents?
SaviRanch Possibilities
Site Specific Feedback
247
Meeting 4: PowerPoint
What comes next for us?
• Develop a high-level report on facts, conclusions, and principles for planning
• Support and engage on community outreach process for the Housing Element hearings
• Identify three Housing Element options with a preferred plan for Staff to review with HCD
Proposed Working Group Output
• Cover page and Art
• Table of Contents
• Summary of Working Group Purpose
• Working Group Members
• Agreed Upon Facts
• Priorities Shared by Working Group
• Timeline of Recent Events
• Potential Future Timeline
• Planning Principles
• General Findings • Retaining local control with a November 2024 ballot vote is important • A November 2024 ballot measure to adopt zoning changes should be pursued and residents should seriously weigh the consequences if that ballot measure fails
• The City should deploy more tools to connect with residents on the need for adopting a Housing Element and perform education necessary to ensure the public is informed on this complex subject • A resident survey on housing issues could better inform the City’s engagement efforts • City should leverage Savi Ranch to a reasonable extent to create a new downtown like space for Yorba Linda • Exhibit A: Housing 101 and RHNA
• Exhibit B: Common Questions and Misconceptions
Report Outline Next Meeting Dates
Yorba Linda Library
Monday, June 19th
6:00 PM
Review and Adopt Report
Discuss HCD Feedback
Black Gold Golf Course
Date TBD
6:00 PM
Review Progress and
Celebrate Report /
Talk About Future /
Beverages
Homework
Prepare to Read and
Comment on Draft Report
Please attach name tags to your name placard.
248
Meeting 5: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Discuss HCD Update Discuss Report
Comments and Edits
Plan the Next
Meeting(s)
Tonight’s Goals
• No formal endorsement can happen via a phone call.
• City will need to proceed as usual and through normal policy process. • Saying the approach sounds doable is not approving.
HCD Chat
• There was an error in the spreadsheet from last week
• 804 to 581 – dropping 223 units.
• We reduced the unit count by 223 in Savi Ranch due
to an overstatement on developable land.
• Option 1: Increase Density while maintaining the 5-story limit
• Option 2: Add more land for the rezone
SaviRanch Recalc/Correction
The Hard Questions
Are we still good on an 800
push for Savi Ranch?
249
Meeting 5: PowerPoint
Do we need to hash it out over
East v. West YL on unit
allocation?
Should we pull all units out of
Bryant Ranch and move them
elsewhere?
• Process Steps and Notes
• Generally accepting grammar and other suggestions.
• Generally either commenting on or noting more substantial change requests.
• Ryder is trying to balance between various viewpoints and my perceived set of facts based on what I have heard this group say, or what Ryder knows about the bigger statewide picture.
• What does endorsement mean?
• Affirming the actions and facts of the Working Groups efforts.
Finalizing Report & Summary Next Meeting Dates
Black Gold Golf Course
Date TBD
6:00 PM
Review Progress and
Celebrate Report /
Talk About Future /
Beverages
Homework
Keep Talking to Neighbors
Come to a Council Meeting
When the Report is on the
Agenda to Receive and File
Please attach name tags to your name placard.
250
Meeting 6: PowerPoint
Welcome
Let’s Mingle and Be
Friendly Discuss Alternates
from Group
New Nate Model Agree on the Findings
and Recommendations
Tonight’s Goals
• The RHNA Housing Allocation is 2,415 units for the 6th Cycle (2021-29) • Cities who do not have a ”Certified” Housing Element face big negative impacts including loss of state grant funding, loss of local control and risk with Builder’s Remedy claims
• November 2024 is the final bite at the ballot apple before City will lose its Conditional Certification
• Legal pathways to battle against housing law and RHNA allocation are highlylikely to fail. • Citizen efforts for a statewide ballot measure to restore local control are currently longshots and - even if successful - will not overturn the 2,415 unit allocation or the current cycle RHNA housing allocation process.
Fact Review
LSA Draft Memo on Traffic
and Savi Ranch
Precinct Data on Measure Z
Failure
251
Meeting 6: PowerPoint
Density Examples
Granite Court,
Irvine
• Builder – Jamboree
Housing
• 71 units on 1.23 acres = 58
du/ac
• Family units – 100%
affordable @ 30%-55% AMI
• 20 One-bedroom units, 20
Two-bedroom units and 31
Three-bedroom units
Park Landing,
Buena Park
• Builder – Jamboree
Housing
• 70 units on 2.02 acres = 35
du/ac
• Family units – 100%
affordable @ 30%-60% AMI
• 6 One-bedroom units, 41
Two-bedroom units and 23
Three-bedroom units
Juniper Senior
Village,
Escondido
• Builder – National CORE
• 60 units on 1.00 acres = 60 du/ac
• Senior units – 100% affordable @ 50% AMI
• 60 One-bedroom units
The Depot,
Santa Ana
• Builder – C & C Development
• 70 units on 1.25 acres = 56 du/ac
• Family units – 100% affordable @
30-60% AMI
• 15 One-bedroom units, 24 Twobedroom units, 31 Three-bedroom units
252
Meeting 6: PowerPoint
Savi Ranch Allocation
Update
• There was an error in the spreadsheet from last week
• 804 to 581 – dropping 223 units.
• City Staff were asked to find more units through adding land to get back to 800
• There is not enough land / to hit 800 so we need to go to 60 units to the acre
• Savi Ranch will need to remain a relief valve if we are going to reduce other areas.
SaviRanch Recalc/Correction
• East v. West
• Fairness of Allocating Site Geographically
• Fairness of reducing Bryant Ranch and Fairmont so
Heavily
• Committing to Savi Ranch at 800
• Why “no more” language appeared in draft language.
Ripping Off the Band Aid
• 800 Units into Savi Ranch
• 50 to 60 dwelling units per acre density
• Fairmont to RM-10 and 3 Developable Acres
• Christmas Tree to RM-10
• Others have asked for less.
• Bryant Ranch to RM-10
• Then capped at 20 with a potential shift of units to Mercado • Then others feeling Bryant Ranch needs to do more.
• Congregational Overlay Remains Intact
• Then feedback to reduce some of these sites
Working Group Suggestions to Date
To The Maps Your Plans
253
Meeting 6: PowerPoint
Housing Nerd Alert
Late Night Innovations from Nate
Finding Units and
Balancing YL
Distribution
• Move Savi Ranch to 60 du/a
• Mercado is Off Table, Back to RM-10 on
Bryant Ranch
• Christmas Tree at RM-10, Fairmont RM-10
• Drop Site S3-034 Eureka Property northwest of Islamic Center • Drop Site S3-205A Highland Property
• Drop Site S3-074 Yorba Linda Preschool
• Drop Site S3-204A Chabad Center
• Drop Site S3-033 Islamic Center
• Retain current zoning on dropped sites – no Measure B Applicability • Add in any existing zoning capacity from sites
that were previously not being counted toward
RHNA (estimated at approximately 100 units)
Nate has developed some ideas to both
help find units and to balance out the
East versus West allocation in the City.
Table of East v. Central v. West Allocations Site Description Density West Central East Site S6-015 John Force 60 131
Site S6-020 Extended Stay 60 206
New Site in Savi Ranch 60 453
Site S1-200 Rose Drive 35 177
Site S3-082 Eureka (South of City Yard) 35 52
Site S4-075 Plumosa (Town Center) 35 48
Site S2-008 Friendship Baptist 35 60
Site S3-012 Richfield Church 35 55
Site S2-013 Messiah Lutheran 35 40
Site S3-024 Friends Church 35 48
Site S3-210 Shinyo-En 35 105
Site S1-021 Vacant Parcel (LA Fitness) 35 52
Site S4-200 Altrudy II 20 40
Site S4-204B West of Jesamyn Park 20 66
Site S3-211 Vinjon’s Kennel 10 23
Site S3-207 Richfield Xmas Tree Farm 10 75
Site S5-008 Fairmont Vacant Parcel 10 30
Site S7-001 Bryant Ranch Center 10 78
Site S3-203 Bastanchury Site 10 194
TOTALS 881 136 868
How is this settling with
people?
To the Model
• What does endorsement mean?
• Affirming the actions and facts of the Working Groups efforts. • Process Steps and Notes
• Accepted grammar and other suggestions.
• Commenting on or noting more substantial change requests. • Ryder is trying to balance between various viewpoints and my perceived set of facts based on what I have heard this group say, or what Ryder knows about the bigger statewide picture.
Finalizing Report & Summary
254
Meeting 6: PowerPoint
Next Meeting Dates
Black Gold Golf Course
Date TBD
6:00 PM
Review Progress and
Celebrate Report /
Talk About Future /
Beverages
Homework
TBD
Please attach name tags to your name placard.
255
EXHIBIT E
DENSITY EXAMPLES
256
Density Examples
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
10 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
Brandywine Homes
Yorba Linda, CA
51 units @ 10 du/acre
Marsh Street Brownstones
San Luis Obispo, CA
7 units @ 10.5 du/acre
Melia Homes
Yorba Linda, CA
40 units @ 10 du/acre
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
10 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
Park Ave. Affordable Housing
Pismo, CA
14 units @ 8 du/acre
Trillium on Grand
Arroyo Grande, CA
36 units @ 11.5 du/acre
Halcyon Transitional Housing
Arroyo Grande, CA
20 units @ 13.4 du/acre
257
Density Examples
Cypress Court Senior Housing
Lompoc, CA
60 units @ 25 units/acre
Laguna Court
Santa Barbara, CA
17 units @ 20 units/acre
Monarch Landing
Pismo Beach, CA
8 units @ 25 units/acre
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
20 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
Courtyard at Serra Meadows
San Luis Obispo, CA
38 units @ 27 units/acre
MASP AFFORDABLE LOT 108 | P6 0172 - 01 - RS15 | ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW SUBMITTAL JULY 25, 2016CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 1 Central courtyard featuring a dry creek bed with boulders, as well as places to sit and gather.
2 Proposed storage for 6 hanging bicycles, 2 sets provided total. 3 Proposed storage for 6 standing bicycles., 2 sets provided total. 4 *URXQGÁRRUFRPPXQLW\FRPPRQDUHDZLWKUHQWDORIÀFHPHHWLQJ URRPV ODXQGU\IDFLOLWLHV
5 7UHOOLVIUDPLQJWKHEXLOGLQJ
6 $VHULHVRIVKRUWUHWDLQLQJZDOOVFUHDWLQJSODQWHUVÀOOHGZLWKGURXJKW tolerant plants.
7 Pedestrian stairway linking the central courtyard to the corner of 9LROHW6WUHHW 3OXP6WUHHW
8 Location of trash facilities.
9 'ULYHWKURXJKYHKLFXODUFLUFXODWLRQHVWDEOLVKHVÀUHDFFHVV
SITE PLAN
0 20 40
SCALE: 1”=20’ (24X36 sheet)
10 N
well as
l.
HWLQJ
URXJKW
er of
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 4
1 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 30 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
T1
20 T2
21 22
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 Plum Street
S18
Violet Street
4 7
5 9
9 6
15’ SETBACK
10’ SETBACK
BB/ P11
BB/ P11
AA/P11
AA/P11
1 1
2 2
3 3
8 8
15’ SETBACK
10’ SETBACK
ZONED MEDIUM
HIGH DENSITY
ZONED MEDIUM
HIGH DENSITY
EXISTING
SINGLE
FAMILY
RESIDENCE,
TYPICAL
EXISTING SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE,
TYPICAL
Arlington Village
Santa Barbara, CA
33 units @ 25 units/acre
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
20 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
Hancock Terrace Apartments
Santa Maria, CA
258 units @ 27.5 du/acre
LAWN
Play Area
POOL
COMMUNITY
CENTER
PARKING
Bar-B-Que
Area
Bldg. 1 Bldg. 2
Bldg. 4 Bldg. 3
Sliding
Gate
Sliding
Gate
Maintena
Shop
EAST BOONE STREET
Tuck-Under Parking
Tuck-Under Parking
PARKING
PARKING
Bioswale
Bicycle Path
West Entrance East Entrance
LAWN
EAST AVE.
S. SCHOOL ST.
© Copyright - Peikert Group Architects LLP
1" = 40'-0"
Rendered Site Plan
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY O
ARCHITECT:
LOCATION:
APN:
ZONE:
LOT AREA:
PROPOSED
DENSITY:
Projec
Buildings
Bldg. Footpri
Tuck-under P
Hardscape
Bike Path
Covered Wa
Hardscape
Parking/Drive
Private Patio
Landscape
Landscape
Lot Cove
258
Density Examples
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
30 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
Cortina de Arroyo Grande Senior Apartments
Arroyo Grande, CA
108 units @ 33.4 units/acre
Paseo Chapala
Santa Barbara, CA
29 units @ 33 units/acre
Surf Apartments
San Clemente, CA
10 units @ 30 units/acre
Jardin de las Rosas
Santa Barbara, CA
40 units @ 42.5 units/acre
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
40 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
259
Density Examples
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
50 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
Grace Village Apartments
Santa Barbara, CA
58 units @ 56 units/acre
Avenida Serra Affordable Housing
San Clemente, CA
19 units @ 51.5 units/acre
HASB - Bradley Studios
Santa Barbara, CA
54 units @ 59 units/acre
T
1 Res.2 Res.3 Res.4 Res.5 Res.6 Res.7 Res.8 Res.9 Res.10 Res. 11 Res.
VANACCESSIBLE
PARKING
13 Guest14 Guest15 Res.16 Res.
Property Line
Elect. Transformer
Patio
Property Line
(E) Garden Area
to Remain
Property Line
Patio Patio Patio Patio Patio Patio
Adjacent Building (New Construction)
Sidewalk
(8) Existing Parking Stalls (3) Existing
Parking Stalls (8) Existing Parking Stalls (8) Existing Parking Stalls (3) 2 Cu. Yd. Dumpsters
(1) Greenwaste Cart
PROW
8' - 0"
Min. Clr.
10' - 0"
A
B
1 13
North
103
203
303
105
205
305
101
201
102
202
302
107
207
307
109
209
309
108
208
308
110
210
310
111
211
311
112
212
312
116
216
316
117
217
317
220
221
320
321
Community Room
Pantry
Stair 3
Lobby
Elev. 1 Elev. 2
+/- 10' - 1"
Unit 103
1A.2
Unit 102
1A.2
Unit 101
2B.1
Unit 105
1A.1
Unit 107
1B.1
Unit 104
1B.1
Unit 106
1A.2
Unit 108
1A.2
Unit 109
1B.1
Unit 111
1A.2
Unit 110
1B.1
Unit 112
1A.2
Unit 113
1B.2
Manager's
Unit 115
3B.1
Unit 117
1A.2
Unit 114
1B.1
Unit 116
1A.1
Patio Patio Patio Patio Patio
Patio
Pat oi Pat oi
Truck-Service Pad
Trash &
Recycle Bollard, Typ.
Elev. Mech.
Electrical
TC/Server
RR
RR
STATE STREET
8' - 0"
14' - 11"
Start Dimension
Point; Building
Grid Parallels
Front PL; All Other
PL's Skewed
Protect Existing Trees
3' - 0" 10' - 0" 3' - 0"
Concrete Slab
9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 6' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 8' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 6' - 0" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 3' - 1" 17' - 10" 3' - 2" 3' - 0" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 4' - 3" Align
Bikes
Level Landing @ Gate
E E
55' - 0"
279' - 8"
72' - 7"
Screen @ Backflow
Preventers max. 42" Height
7' - 6" 4' - 10"
Align
(E) Stamped Concrete (E) Stamped Concrete
(5) Existing
Parking Stalls
Existing Street Lamp
(E) Post/Rail Fence w Wire Mesh
to Remain; Relocate Gate Here
(E) Wall to Remain: Finish w 2-coat Plaster
(match Building Color 2)
Remove (E) Curb (E) Street Light
L2 L3
L3
L3
L2
L1
L1
L1
L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1
L3 L3 L3 L3
Recessed
Lighting @
Covered Patio Ceilings, Typ.
L4
104
204
304
106
206
306
113
213
313
114
214
314
115
215
315
218
318
219
319 Comm.
Storage
Bike Room
(16) Parking Spaces Serving Senior Apartments (15) Spaces Reserved per Existing Parking Agreement A8.1
5 5' Metal Fence (match typ. Guardrail system)See:
5' Metal Fence (match typ. Guardrail system) See:
4' - 0" 1' - 4"
Cont. Colored Concrete as
Flatwork @ Patio
10 / A8.1 10 / A8.1
4' - 0"
2' - 0" OH
16' - 0" Typ.
4' - 0"
2' - 0" OH
16' - 0" Typ.
RD RD RD RD
RD
RD
Daylight to Splash Block & Flow to
Infiltration Trench, Typ. West Elev.
4' - 6"
6" Concrete Curb Guide;
see Civil
6" Concrete Curb
Gas Meter
Reconstruct (E)
Post/Rail Fence w Wire Mesh
Roof drains: Turn Below Slab; Daylight at Curb per Civil, Typ. @ East Elevation
RD RD RD RD RD RD
RD: Turn under Sidewalk, Daylight at Side
Overall Maneuvering
62' - 0"
Overall Maneuvering
63' - 0"
4' - 0"
2' - 0" OH
16' - 0" Typ.
RD
Cont. Scorelines
from Interior
L5 L5
L5
L5 L3 L3
L3 L3
5' - 1"
Brick Wall to Remain: Finish w 2-coat Plaster (match Building Color 2) HB
HB HB
HB
RD
S1
S8
RD: Turn under
Sidewalk
Stair 2 Office
Stair 1
A8.1
1 A8.1
12 Janitor
FR
A8.1
3 12 Guest
4' - 0"
4' - 6"
S8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112
ACCESSIBLE
PARKING
S8
(E) Trees to Remain
(P) Fire Hydrant
Maintenance/Personnel
Access Only to Sideyard (Not
an Accessible Path of Travel)
Water Meters serve up to (6)
residential units, Ref. Plumbing
Provide Key Box for Fire Dept. Use per CFC 506
(Location to be Approved
by Fire Code Official)
A8.1
2 8" 4"
Address or building numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2 inch (CFC Premises Identification 505.1) Natural Satin Aluminum; Ribbon Dimensional Letters; San Serif (West On Sign Systems or Sim.)
© Copyright - RRM Design Group
Sheet No.:
Consultant: Stamp: Sheet Title:
CALIFORNIA
OF ETATS
LICENSED ARCHITECT
DETLEV PEIKERT
C15008 REN. 09-31-17
Project Name:
Revisions:
Notes:
10 E. Figueroa St., Suite 1
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805.963.8283
Fax: 805.963.8184
www.rrmdesign.com
Housing Authority of the City of SB
808 Laguna St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: (805) 965‐1071
Fax (805) 966‐7721
12/21/2015 10:41:20 AM C:\Users\besangster\Documents\Grace Senior Housing - CENTRAL_besangster.rvt A1.1
Site Plan
Building Permit Submittal 12/18/2015
Grace Village Senior Housing
3869 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA
1 SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0"
Site Plan
2 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
Entrance Sign - State Street Frontage 3 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"Entrance Sign - Side Elevation Exterior Lighting Legend
L1 - Bollard Lumec Oval Series Textured Medium Grey
L2 - Wall Sconce Progress Lighting P5641 Metallic Gray (-82) L3 - Recessed Wall Path-Light WAC Lighting LEDme Step Light Brushed Nickel (BN) L4 - Sign up-Light (non-decorative - see elec.)
L5 - Pole Light Gullwing G18 Natural Aluminum
See Electrical Schedule for Specifications
Site Plan: General Notes
1 Revision 1 Date 1
Site Plan: Accessibility
1. All Common Paths of Travel are Accessible per CBC 11B-206, and shall comply with 11B-403:
a. Floor & Ground Surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant. b. Openings in floor or ground surfaces shall not allow passage of a sphere >1/2" c. Vertical changes in level shall not exceed 1/4".
d. Changes in level between 1/4" and 1/2" shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 1:2.
Changes in level >1/2" shall be ramped.
e. Abrupt changes in level exceeding 4" shall be identified by min. 6" warning curbs or guard rails (exception between walks adjacent to driveways).
f. The clear width for sidewalks and walks shall be 48" min.
2. Protruding Objects between 27" and 80" above circulation paths shall not exceed 4" in depth.
3. Post-mounted objects shall overhang paths max. 12" when located between 27" and 80" above FF.
4. (13) Residential Parking Spaces and (3) Guest Parking Spaces are required per Conditions of Approval.
a. Designated accessible parking shall be provided on request of residents with disabilities on the same terms and with the full range of choices that are available to other residents (all parking is uncovered).
b. Thirteen residential spaces include one (1) accessible space c. Three (3) guest spaces include one (1) accessible space d. For two accessible spaces, one (1) van space is provided.
1. Exterior Building Walls are dimensioned to structural face of concrete slab and/or sheathing. Edge of slab aligns with face of sheathing, typ.
2. Refer to Civil for Grading at Accessible Parking & Curb Ramps
3. All curbing not within a parking space shall be painted RED to designate the fire lanes.
4. Contractor to review landscape plans to avoid conflicts between plantings and utilities, i.e. meter locations, electric transformer, backflow preventers, sewer lines and electric conduit (pole lighting at driveway), etc.
5. The site is to remain trash-free throughout construction. Recycling implementation and monitoring shall comply with CalGreen Code Requirements.
6. Contractor shall stop or redirect work immediately in the event archaeological remains are encountered during grading, construction, landscaping or other construction-related activity.
7. Refer to civil plans for erosion control and dust control during construction.
8. Refer to Public Works Submittal for Off-site Improvements (any work shown in the public right of way is for reference only)
9. Refer to Electrical plans for exterior lighting plan and specifications (arch. shown for coordination purposes only)
10. Refer to Arborist Report for tree protection requirements including fencing, irrigation and cutting.
11. "RD" indicates Roof Drains, Typ.; cont. below sidewalks or daylight above landscaped areas per Civil plans; pipe per Plumbing
Yorba Linda Housing Element | March 1, 2021
50 UNITS/ACRE
DENSITY EXAMPLES
Gardens on Hope
Santa Barbara, CA
90 units @ 51 units/acre
260
EXHIBIT F
LOW INCOME HOUSING IN YORBA LINDA
For transparency and documentation purposes, the following slides are being shared in this document to provide context on the work and information given to the Working Group.
261
Meeting 4: Low Income Developments in Yorba Linda
The Housing Element addresses a variety of housing needs and provides programs to support a range of housing types and affordability. Housing affordability categories include Moderate Income, Lower Income, Very Low Income, and Extremely Low Income. These are based on surveys of local area median income (AMI). For example, for Orange County, Lower Income for a family of four is currently defined as $127,800 per year. “Affordable housing cost” for lower-income households is defined in State law as not more than 30 percent of gross household income with varia�ons (Health and Safety Code Sec�on 50052.5). “Housing cost” commonly includes rent or mortgage payments, u�li�es (gas, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, recycling, green waste), and property taxes and insurance on owner-occupied housing. Examples of exis�ng affordable housing developments in Yorba Linda:
262
Meeting 4: Low Income Developments in Yorba Linda
263
EXHIBIT G
MEASURE Z BALLOT LANGUAGE AND OTHER INFORMATION
264
This is the ballot title and language that was used for Measure Z on the November 2022 ballot in Yorba Linda.
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY California state law mandates that cities establish land use regulations for locations within the City that can accommodate the existing and projected housing needs of households with different income levels in the community.
This Measure (implementing City of Yorba Linda Ordinance Nos. 2022-1091 and 2022-1093) increases the allowable number of residential units, along with maximum building heights, that can be built at specific locations within the City. The commonly known addresses/areas of the locations along with a “site” reference are:
265
• Southeast corner Rose Drive and Blake
Road. (S1-200)
• 18132 Yorba Linda Blvd. (S3-074)
• 4742 Plumosa Drive. (S4-075)
• 2722 Old Canal Road. (S6-015)
• 22711 Oak Crest Circle. (S6-020)
• 17151 Bastanchury Road. (S2-008)
• 5320 Richfield Road. (S3-012)
• 4861 Liverpool Street. (S2-013)
• 5091 and 5005 Mountain View Avenue.
(S3-103)
• 19045 Yorba Linda Blvd. (S4-204A)
• 4382 Eureka Avenue. (S3-033)
• 18021-18111 Bastanchury Road. (S3-210)
• Vacant Parcel west of 16951 Imperial
Highway. (S1-021)
• 18597-18602 Altrudy Lane. (S4-200)
• 19081-19111 Yorba Linda Blvd. (S4-204B)
• 4341 Eureka Avenue. (S3-034)
• 5225-5227 Highland Avenue. (S3-205A)
• 17651 Imperial Highway. (S3-211)
• 18101-19251 Bastanchury Road. (S3-203)
If a majority of voters vote “yes”, the Land Use Element and Land Use Diagram of the City’s General Plan and the City’s Zoning Map, Zoning Code and regulations will be amended to allow:
A maximum residential density of ten (10) dwelling units per acre: Sites S3-034, S3205A, S3-211, and S3-203.
A maximum residential density of twenty (20) dwelling units per acre and a maximum building height of forty (40) feet or three stories, whichever is less: Sites S4-200 and S4204B.
A maximum residential density of thirty-five (35) dwelling units per acre and a maximum building height of forty (40) feet or three (3) stories, whichever is less: Sites S1-200, S3074, S4-075, S2-008, S3-012, S2- 013, S3-103, S4-204A, S3-033, and S3-210.
A maximum residential density of thirty-five (35) dwelling units per acre and a maximum building height of fifty (50) feet or four (4) stories, whichever is less: Sites S1-021, S6015, and S6-020.
The Measure does not require that housing is constructed on the sites but merely allows such housing to potentially be built. Whether a property is developed is up to the property owner.
The Measure was placed on the ballot by the Yorba Linda City Council as part of the City’s effort to comply with State housing laws. If the City does not comply with such laws, the City is susceptible to legal ramifications such as decertification of the City’s Housing Element, Attorney General and third party litigation, Court enforcement of State law, loss of local land use control and suspension of City authority over building permits or other land use approvals, judicial approval of projects, loss of funding, and substantial fines and attorney’s fees.
THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF MEASURE ___. IF YOU DESIRE A COPY OF THE ORDINANCES OR MEASURE, PLEASE CALL THE ELECTIONS OFFICIAL’S OFFICE AT (714) 961- 7150 AND A COPY WILL BE MAILED AT NO COST TO YOU.
City Attorney, Todd Litfin
266
EXHIBIT H
LSA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS MEMO ON SAVI RANCH
267
LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch
CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE
LOS ANGELES
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROSEVILLE
SAN LUIS OBISPO
3210 El Camino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92602 949.553.0666 www.lsa.net
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 26, 2023
TO: Nate Farnsworth, City of Yorba Linda Planning Manager FROM: Arthur Black, LSA
SUBJECT: Capacity Constraints Entering and Exi�ng Savi Ranch As you are aware, a single point of entry (the intersec�on of Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway) provides access into Savi Ranch. During prepara�on of the Vision Plan for Savi Ranch (PlaceWorks 2015), LSA provided calcula�ons determining the then-current volume-to-capacity ra�o, the maximum addi�onal traffic volume before capacity is reached, and the poten�al land use that would generate the addi�onal traffic volume. LSA has been asked to revisit the previous analysis to account for changes in ambient traffic volume, changes in retail travel paterns, and proposed roadway improvements along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Savi Ranch Parkway.
No exact loca�on for addi�onal development is currently iden�fied. At the �me an exact loca�on is iden�fied, a site specific traffic analysis should be prepared to confirm trip genera�on, trip distribu�on, trip assignment, and roadway modifica�ons necessary to accommodate the proposed project.
VISION PLAN
Savi Ranch straddles the border between two ci�es. The area west of Yorba Linda Boulevard lies in Anaheim, whereas the area east of Yorba Linda Boulevard lies in Yorba Linda. Between 2013 and 2015, the City of Yorba Linda (City) engaged with the community, including business and property owners in Savi Ranch, to iden�fy a new 30-year land use and mobility vision for the Yorba Linda side of Savi Ranch. The City also met with City of Anaheim staff during prepara�on of the Vision Plan.
Among the goals the City Council iden�fied was to “establish, maintain, and encourage a vibrant commercial and retail environment that provides business opportuni�es throughout the community.”
LSA prepared analysis of mobility entering, exi�ng, and within Savi Ranch. As part of that analysis, LSA was asked to calculate the maximum traffic volume that could be added before roadways and intersec�ons would exceed their capacity. The residual capacity analysis was provided on page 30 of the Vision Plan. Based on the analysis in 2014, approximately 400 addi�onal trips could have been added in the p.m. peak hour (i.e., the busiest hour during the a�ernoon commute period) before intersec�ons would begin to exceed their capacity. This conclusion was based on the current travel paterns where many trips are concentrated on Savi Ranch Parkway between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Mirage Street. Other roadways within Savi Ranch, including Crystal Drive and Old Canal Road, would s�ll operate below their capacity.
268
LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch
6/26/23 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CYL2205\Residual Capacity Memo.docx) 2 Originally, access into and out of Savi Ranch was permited by right-turn only. The intersec�on of Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway was unsignalized and no le�-turns were provided between the two streets. Vehicles traveling north on Yorba Linda Boulevard could turn right and enter the Yorba Linda side of Savi Ranch. Vehicles traveling south (from Yorba Linda) could turn right and enter the Anaheim side. Somebody shopping on the east side could exit from Savi Ranch Parkway and turn right to travel north on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Someone desiring to return to State Route 91 (SR-91) or Anaheim Hills had to first travel to the west side of Savi Ranch, where a rightturn would put them on southbound Yorba Linda Boulevard. Crystal Drive and Old Canal Road provided circula�on within Savi Ranch to facilitate these movements.
In the early 2000s, signaliza�on of Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway allowed le�-turns into and out of Savi Ranch. This has led to traffic being concentrated on Savi Ranch Parkway, par�cularly between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Mirage Street. However, some drivers with long memories or a talent for finding the quickest route s�ll use the old access patern. For example, someone coming from Yorba Linda and headed to the Costco gas sta�on could turn right from Yorba Linda Boulevard and enter the west side of Savi Ranch, then use Crystal Drive to directly access the gas sta�on entrance. This route eliminates two significant sources of delay (the southbound le� from Yorba Linda Boulevard and the eastbound le� from Savi Ranch Parkway). During site visits, the author has observed a small number of savvy consumers using this strategy. Similarly, drivers leaving Savi Ranch and des�ned for SR-91 could use Old Canal Road to reach the west side of Savi Ranch, where they can make a quick right-turn to SR-91 and avoid the westbound le�-turn lanes from Savi Ranch Parkway.
As part of the Vision Plan exercise, LSA was asked if more than 400 addi�onal p.m. peak-hour trips could somehow be accommodated without increasing roadway capacity. These results were also included on Page 30 of the Vision Plan, which states that, if vehicle traffic could be more evenly spread between Crystal Drive, Savi Ranch Parkway, and Old Canal Road, that up to 1,100 addi�onal p.m. peak-hour trips could be accommodated within the exis�ng roadway capacity. The Preferred Plan for land use within Savi Ranch exceeded this theore�cal threshold, which indicated that addi�onal roadway capacity would be necessary to realize the Vision Plan.
The Vision Plan considered a mix of land uses. For illustra�on, the addi�onal trip thresholds were equated to quan��es of different types of land uses. Based on current traffic paterns, 400 p.m. peak-hour trips would be generated by 582 apartments, 308,000 square feet (sf) of office space, or 53,000 sf of retail. In the theore�cal scenario where traffic volumes are more evenly spread and not concentrated along Savi Ranch Parkway, 1,100 p.m. peak-hour trips would be generated by 1,860 apartments, or 700,000 square feet (sf) of office space, or 252,000 sf of retail.
It should be noted that, to date, the Vision Plan has not been incorporated into the City’s General Plan or zoning for Savi Ranch.
METHODOLOGY
Level of service (LOS) of an intersec�on is based on the comparison of traffic volume to the capacity (a func�on of the number of lanes) of the intersec�on. The City has established LOS D as the upper
269
LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch
6/26/23 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CYL2205\Residual Capacity Memo.docx) 3 limit of sa�sfactory opera�on, which means a signalized intersec�on would use 90.0 percent of its capacity or less.
As discussed above, traffic volume into and out of Savi Ranch is concentrated along Savi Ranch Parkway between Yorba Linda Boulevard and Mirage Street. As such, the performance of the signalized intersec�ons at Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway and Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway and the storage space for queued vehicles along Savi Ranch Parkway limit the number of addi�onal trips into and out of Savi Ranch. Therefore, this analysis compares the exis�ng and projected future traffic volume to the capacity of the exis�ng and planned lane configura�on at these two intersec�ons.
An independent data collec�on company collected exis�ng traffic volume data on Wednesday, November 30, 2022 and Saturday, December 3, 2022. These traffic volumes are provided as Atachment A. Projected future traffic volume was referenced from the Yorba Linda Housing Element and General Plan Update Traffic Analysis (Urban Crossroads July 2022). Traffic model-developed traffic volumes for the horizon year 2045 without the proposed General Plan revisions were available for the intersec�on of Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway during weekday peak hours. LSA developed weekday peak-hour traffic volume for Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway based on the projected traffic growth along Savi Ranch Parkway. Saturday traffic volume was developed by applying the ra�o of exis�ng p.m. peak-hour traffic volume to peak Saturday midday traffic volume to the future p.m. peak-hour traffic projec�ons.
The City of Yorba Linda has advanced planning and engineering work for roadway improvements along Yorba Linda Boulevard and Savi Ranch Parkway. These roadway improvements would result in increased capacity at the two signalized intersec�ons in this analysis. The changes are summarized below.
Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway
• Fourth northbound through lane
• Conversion of northbound free-right turn lane to an exclusive right-turn lane and shared through/right
• Second southbound le�-turn lane
• Third westbound le�-turn lane
Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway
• Conversion of southbound free-right turn lane to an exclusive right-turn lane with overlap phasing
• Removal of eastbound free-right turn lane
• Widening of westbound Savi Ranch Parkway
270
LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch
6/26/23 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CYL2205\Residual Capacity Memo.docx) 4 Analysis of future intersec�on performance takes into account these planned improvements.
LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH NO CHANGES IN LAND USE
LSA used Traffix computer so�ware to calculate the Intersec�on Capacity U�liza�on and LOS using the exis�ng traffic volume/exis�ng intersec�on geometry and the projected future traffic volume/planned intersec�on geometry as discussed above. LOS worksheets are provided as Atachment B. Table A summarizes the LOS. As shown in Table A, both intersec�ons would operate with addi�onal capacity with no changes in land use. The p.m. peak hour and the midday Saturday peak hour are more constrained than the a.m. peak hour.
Table A: Intersec�on LOS Summary – No Changes in Land Use Intersec�on AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Midday
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Exis�ng
1. Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.472 A 0.698 B 0.625 B
2. Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.419 A 0.638 B 0.687 B Future (2045)
1. Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.611 B 0.680 B 0.769 C
2. Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.504 A 0.605 B 0.630 B Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).
ICU = intersec�on capacity u�liza�on
LOS = level of service
RETAIL PERFORMANCE
LSA was requested to review the performance of retail development on the east side of Savi Ranch.
According to data collected by five of the large retail spaces, visits per square foot for stores in Savi Ranch are lower than other stores in north Orange County. On average, these large retail spaces atract 53 percent of the visits per square foot of comparable stores.
While the exis�ng large retail spaces currently atract fewer visits (and therefore fewer vehicle trips) than typical, an increase to typical performance from the exis�ng uses or new retail uses could occur in the future within the same retail space without discre�onary approval from the City. It is therefore prudent to retail capacity for this poten�al increase in trip genera�on when calcula�ng the residual development capacity of Savi Ranch.
TRIP GENERATION
LSA queried trip genera�on rates from the Ins�tute of Transporta�on Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edi�on (2021). Table B provides the trip genera�on rates for shopping centers greater than 150,000 sf in size, the calculated trip genera�on for improved Savi Ranch retail performance (i.e., difference between typical and 53 percent of typical), and the trip genera�on for low-rise mul�family housing. Table B calculates the resul�ng new trips that could be generated if exis�ng retail space performed on par with typical retail development. As Table B shows, this could result in approximately 6,500 addi�onal daily trips including 145 in the a.m. peak hour and 596 in the p.m.
271
LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch
6/26/23 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CYL2205\Residual Capacity Memo.docx) 5 peak hour. During the midday Saturday peak hour, an addi�onal 771 trips could be generated by exis�ng retail space.
Table B: Trip Genera�on Rates
Land Use Size Unit ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Weekend Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates
Shopping Center1 TSF 37.01 0.52 0.32 0.84 1.63 1.77 3.40 2.29 2.11 4.40 Improved Savi Ranch
Retail2
TSF 17.39 0.24 0.15 0.39 0.77 0.83 1.60 1.08 0.99 2.07
Mul�family Housing3 DU 6.74 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.32 0.19 0.51 0.21 0.20 0.41 Future Trip Genera�on
Typical Retail
Performance
372.412 TSF 6,476 89 56 145 287 309 596 402 369 771
Maximum Residen�al 850 DU 5,729 85 255 340 272 162 434 179 170 349 Net Future Trips 12,205 174 311 485 559 471 1,030 581 539 1,120 Source: Compiled by LSA using Ins�tute of Transporta�on Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edi�on (2021). 1 Trip rates referenced from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edi�on (ITE 2021) land use 820, shopping center greater than 150 TSF. 2 Calculated as the difference between typical trip genera�on for land use 820 and large retail uses Savi Ranch, which generate 53 percent of typical trips. 3 Trip rates referenced from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edi�on (ITE 2021) land use 220, low-rise mul�family housing.
ADT = average daily traffic (measured in trips)
DU = dwelling unit
ITE = Ins�tute of Transporta�on Engineers
TSF = thousand square feet
Addi�onal trips generated by exis�ng retail space and new trips resul�ng from new land use were distributed according to exis�ng splits in turn volume. Accordingly, a small percentage of the traffic volume was an�cipated to use the less congested paths of entry/exit. As stated previously, once a specific project is proposed, a site specific traffic analysis should be prepared to refine the trip genera�on, trip distribu�on, and trip assignment.
RESIDUAL CAPACITY
LSA tested the resul�ng LOS for both signalized intersec�ons given different levels of addi�onal land use (specifically, addi�onal mul�family residen�al development). Based on the resul�ng LOS, adjustments could be made up or down to determine the maximum development poten�al within the residual intersec�on capacity. Without making any addi�onal changes to the planned intersec�on lane configura�ons, a maximum of 200 mul�family dwelling units could be added. The new trips associated with this level of development would cause the intersec�on of Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway to operate at LOS D (ICU of 0.899) during the midday Saturday peak hour.
However, it should be noted that the iden�fied constraint is caused only by the northbound le�- turns at Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway. When empirical traffic data was collected, 218 vehicles made this movement during the weekday p.m. peak hour and 241 vehicles made this movement during the midday Saturday peak hour. As a rule of thumb, dual le�-turn lanes are recommended when traffic volumes exceed 300 per hour. Dual northbound le�-turn lanes could be provided within the currently planned right-of-way if the separate northbound through and northbound right-turn
272
LSA Traffic Analysis Memo on Savi Ranch
6/26/23 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\CYL2205\Residual Capacity Memo.docx) 6 lanes were combined into a shared through/right-turn lane. Both the northbound through and northbound right-turn experience low volume in the exis�ng condi�ons and are an�cipated to con�nue to have low demand in the future traffic volume forecasts.
If dual northbound le�-turn lanes were included in the future design of Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway, the maximum addi�onal trips possible in Savi Ranch would be increased to 850 dwelling units. At this level of development, the u�liza�on of the Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway intersec�on would be maximized in its current configura�on in the p.m. peak hour. Even with planned roadway improvements, the u�liza�on of Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway would be nearly maximized in the future during a midday Saturday peak hour with the addi�on of 850 dwelling units.
Table C: Intersec�on LOS Summary – With Typical Retail Performance and Maximum Changes in Land Use
Intersec�on AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Saturday Midday
ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Exis�ng Plus Maximum Changes
1. Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.509 A 0.899 D 0.825 D
2. Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.599 A 0.869 D 1.003 F With Dual Northbound Le�-Turn 0.500 A 0.717 C 0.832 D
Future (2045) Plus Maximum Changes
1. Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.645 B 0.830 D 0.861 D
2. Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway 0.665 B 0.834 D 0.983 E With Dual Northbound Le�-Turn 0.558 A 0.681 B 0.811 D
Source: Compiled by LSA (2023).
= Unsa�sfactory LOS
ICU = intersection capacity utilization
LOS = level of service
CONCLUSION
This memorandum describes the residual capacity for trips entering and exi�ng Savi Ranch. The signalized intersec�ons of Yorba Linda Boulevard/Savi Ranch Parkway and Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway were the focus of the analysis, as most trips currently pass through these intersec�ons.
Planned roadway modifica�ons on Yorba Linda Boulevard and Savi Ranch Parkway were accounted for in the analysis of future traffic condi�ons.
If no addi�onal roadway changes are made, then a maximum of 200 residen�al dwelling units could be added to Savi Ranch without causing the signalized intersec�ons to exceed their LOS targets.
If Mirage Street/Savi Ranch Parkway were modified within the currently planned right-of-way to provide dual northbound le�-turn lanes, then a maximum of 850 residen�al dwelling units could be added to Savi Ranch without causing the signalized intersec�ons to exceed their LOS targets.
Atachments: A: Exis�ng Traffic Volume Data
B: Level of Service Worksheets
273
EXHIBIT I
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPARISON MAPS
274
Housing Element Comparison Maps
S3-207
S2-008
S2-013
S3-033
S3-034
S4-204B
S4-053
S3-205A
S4-060
S4-201
S3-074
S3-082
S1-021
S5-008
S1-200
S6-015
S7-005
S3-024
S6-020
S3-210
S4-075
S7-001
S3-211
S4-204A
S4-200
S3-012
S3-024
SMD
Yorba Linda, CA
2022
Housing Element
Sites
General Map - 36 x 80
Z:\Departments\Com Dev\Planning\Nate\Housing Element 2023\HousingElement2023.aprx 291
60 40
30 19
66 9
60 9
15 13
53 53
196
178
77 10
48 122
105
48 272
20 17
40 55
194
SMD
up to 10 du/ac
up to 20 du/ac
20-35 du/ac
Congregational Lands Overlay
Yorba Linda, CA
2022
Housing Element
Density/Units
General Map - 36 x 80
Z:\Departments\Com Dev\Planning\Nate\Housing Element 2023\HousingElement2023.aprx
275
Housing Element Comparison Maps
S6-015
S6-020
New Site
S4-200
S4-204B
S3-207
S3-211
S5-008
S7-001
S1-021
S2-008
S3-012
S2-013
S3-024
S1-200
S3-082 S4-075
S3-203
SMD
Yorba Linda, CA
Resident Housing Working Group
Final Plan Recommendation
Housing Element
Sites
General Map - 36 x 80
Z:\Departments\Com Dev\Planning\Nate\Housing Element 2023\HousingElement2023.aprx 40 66
75 20
26 78
52 177
52 48
194
60 55
40 48
SMD
up to 10 du/ac
up to 20 du/ac
20-60 du/ac
Congregational Lands Overlay
Yorba Linda, CA
Resident Housing Working Group
Final Plan Recommendation
Housing Element
Density/Units
General Map - 36 x 80
Z:\Departments\Com Dev\Planning\Nate\Housing Element 2023\HousingElement2023.aprx 790