143. As an infill development site, construction will be occurring within a noisesensitive environment. In accordance with Municipal Code requirements, any construction or maintenance activity on real property which may disturb the peace and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighborhood or comfortable enjoyment of life and property is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays and Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday, unless said work is of an emergency nature or a prior permit has been obtained from the Community Development Director. Applicant shall rigorously adhere to this Municipal Code requirement during the construction phases of the project to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
144. All existing structures on site shall be demolished prior to the recordation of the tract map, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Building Official.
YLWD 145. The proposed project shall require connection to the District’s water system when the lot is developed or subdivided.
146. The Developer shall be required to connect to existing District owned water facilities in a manner acceptable to the District. Developer shall contact the District to initiate an application to construct the required connection(s). The project shall be subject to the requirements specified in the following “Facility Construction Requirements” section. 147. Developer shall construct an extension of the District’s existing water main to serve the proposed site. Said extension shall be constructed in accordance with the District’s standard drawings and specifications. 148. Developer must make an application with the District for water and sewer service. Terms and Conditions shall be established and approved by the District’s Board of Directors.
149. On-site sewer facilities shall be private.
150. Developer shall provide sewer easements for the new facilities and abandon unused sewer laterals.
151. The Developer shall be required to connect to existing District owned sewer system in a manner acceptable to the District. Developer shall contact the District to initiate an application to construct the required connection(s).
152. The Developer shall be required to modify existing District owned sewer system in a manner acceptable to the District. Developer shall contact the District to initiate an application to construct the required
connection(s). The project shall be subject to the requirements specified in the following “Facility Construction Requirements” section. 153. Developer shall construct an extension of the District’s existing sewer main to serve the project site. Said extension shall be from the project site in its entirety.
OCFA 154. Plan Submittal: The applicant or responsible party shall submit the plan(s) listed below to the Orange County Fire Authority for review.
Approval shall be obtained on each plan prior to the event specified.
Prior to OCFA clearance of a final map or issuance of a precise grading permit or a building permit, if a grading permit is not required:
• fire master plan (service code PR145) NOTE: The preliminary fire hydrant locations may need to be modified to comply with current codes standards.
• Methane investigation/mitigation (PR172-PR176)
Prior to issuance of a building permit:
• underground piping for private hydrants and fire sprinkler systems (service code PR470-PR475)
Prior to concealing interior construction:
• sprinkler monitoring system (service code PR500)
• fire sprinkler system (service codes PR400-PR455)
Specific submittal requirements may vary from those listed above depending on actual project conditions identified or present during design development, review, construction, inspection, or occupancy.
Standard notes, guidelines, submittal instructions, and other information related to plans reviewed by the OCFA may be found by visiting www.ocfa.org and clicking on “Fire Prevention” and then “Planning & Development Services.”
P&R 155. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay park in-lieu fees to the City of Yorba Linda Parks and Recreation Department. The amount of the in-lieu fees shall be determined in compliance with City Ordinance No. 2025-999 (or more recent ordinance update), and subject to the approval of the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department.
Eng. 156. Prior to issuance of final occupancy, the applicant shall provide a Performance Surety Bond in the amount of up to $50,000. This security
shall apply solely to the potential costs for the City’s construction of a reconfigured center raised median.
A median improvement may only be required if the City Engineer, or designee, determines in writing—based on substantial evidence supported by analysis consistent with accepted traffic engineering practice, including applicable standards under the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices—that such work is necessary to address a demonstrated safety concern attributable to illegal left turns out of the project site.
If the City Engineer, or designee, does not make the required written determination and the City does not commence physical construction of the reconfigured raised median within thirty-six (36) months of issuance of final occupancy, this security bond shall automatically expire and the associated security shall be released in full without further action required by the applicant.
Plng. 157. Privacy mitigation shall be designed to prevent direct line-of-sight views into second-story balconies/deck along the north elevations of Buildings 8 and 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, these second-story balconies and decks facing single family residences shall incorporate solid or opaque screening measures, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
158. Prior to issuance of building permits, and in conjunction with Condition #97, the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners’ Association shall incorporate a parking management and enforcement plan, including but not limited to: assigned resident parking, guest parking signage, enforcement authority and towing procedures, and prohibition of conversion of garages to storage or living space. The CC&R’s shall also require all vehicles registered to residents to have an adhesive sticker to be adhered to all resident vehicles for parking identification purposes. Furthermore, the CC&R’s shall require no overnight parking off-site for its residents. The City may, but is not required to, enforce such restrictions, rules and regulations, in addition to applicable laws and ordinances.
159. Within 6 months of 90% building occupancy, the applicant shall submit a parking utilization study and an overflow parking observation memorandum for informational purposes to the satisfaction of the City’s Traffic Engineer.
160. The applicant shall make their best effort to enter into a shared parking agreement with nearby property owners to accommodate special event parking for up to 50 additional vehicles.
-The EndPage 685 of 980
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 2025
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BY: GABRIEL DIAZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: Attachment 13 - Joint Traffic and Planning Comm. Staff Report 11-12-
25.docx
APPLICANT: City Ventures
3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 150
Irvine, CA 92612
CEQA STATUS: Statutory Exemption (Government Code §65457) Previously Certified 2021-2029 Housing Element EIR & Addendum- (SCH No. 2022040574)
RELATED
ITEMS: None
REQUEST: A request for site planning and architectural design review approval for a three-story, 62-unit multi-family, for-sale, attached townhouse project located at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard, east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard within the R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20) zone. (APN: 323-081-35).
PROJECT DATA
Project Address: 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard
APN: 323-081-35
General Plan: Residential-Medium Low
Zoning: R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20)
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 2
Property Development Standards
Required Proposed
Front setback 20 feet 22 feet, 2 inches
Right side setback 20 feet cumulative 11 feet*
Left side setback 20 feet cumulative 5 feet, 11 inches* Rear setback 20 feet 23 feet
Building height
(max)
40 feet or 3
stories, whichever
is less.
35 feet, 3 stories
Parking 217 spaces 137 spaces*
Lot Coverage 65 percent 40 percent
Max Density 53 units 62 units*
*Allowed under California Density Bonus Law, as described further below.
BACKGROUND
Project Overview
The project area consists of one flag lot shaped parcel that contains a single-family dwelling and is approximately 2.65 acres in size. It is located east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard. The applicant, City Ventures, a residential housing developer, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, and Design Review to subdivide and develop the property to accommodate 62 for-sale, attached townhomes, on the subject property. As shown in the project plans (Attachment 1), the project will include 33 three-bedroom/three-bathroom units, and 29 fourbedroom/four-bathroom units within 12 separate three-story buildings. Each unit ranges in size from 1,363 square feet to 1,639 square feet and generally configured with ground level parking, a family room, kitchen/dining area, ground floor outdoor patios, and second floor balconies.
Architecturally, the project proposes a Mediterranean Revival style utilizing an earth-toned color palette with dark wood accents and a traditional red tile roof. Communal spaces include landscaped walking paths with benches and an outdoor dining shade structure with integrated outdoor barbeques, seating, and an open lawn area.
Of the 62 total units, four would be set aside for very low-income households and per State Density Bonus Law, the project is entitled to a 25% density bonus and the concessions and waivers authorized, including reduced parking requirements. The applicant is proposing waivers permitted under State Density Bonus Law for setbacks, landscaping, and perimeter wall heights. A total of 137 parking spaces are being proposed. The project is proposing a singular ingress and egress driveway to access the site from Yorba Linda Boulevard.
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 3
Figure 1: Rendering of one of the proposed townhome buildings.
Approval of the following specific discretionary actions is requested:
Tentative Tract Map 19389 – Subdivision of 2.65 acres into a single lot for condominium purposes for the development of a 62-unit townhome residential community.
Design Review 2025-02 – Design Review to consider the site planning and building architecture for the proposed residential development.
Conditional Use Permit 2025-10 – In any residential zone, a multi-story building closer than 70 feet to an existing single-family residence shall require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The Commission shall make findings that the project’s second and third story building areas, including decks, do not result in any significant loss of privacy for adjacent residences in a manner that would compromise the neighbors’ ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their property.
General Plan and Zoning Designations
The site was identified in the City’s adopted 2021-2029 Housing Element as a rezone site (S4-204B) to support Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) housing growth targets as mandated by the State of California. An adjacent one-acre parcel located at 19111 Yorba Lind Boulveard was also included as part of Site S4-204B, but is not included as part of this development proposal. A successful Measure B (Yorba Linda Right-To-Vote Amendment) vote was obtained to amend the zoning designation on the site from R-E (Residential Estate) to R-M-20 (Residential Multiple-Family 20) through Measure JJ in November 2024.
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 4
Surrounding Land Uses/Existing Conditions
The project site is generally bound by a horse trail easement and single-family residential uses to the north/northeast, Jessamyn West Park to the east, and a religious institution (the North County Chabad Center) to the west. The adjacent one-acre parcel, previously mentioned, is located to the southeast. The southern boundary of the project site is Yorba Linda Boulevard.
Density Bonus Eligibility & Affordable Housing Provision California State Density Bonus Law (described in Government Code 65915-65918) aims to encourage the development of affordable housing by offering qualifying projects increases to the maximum density established by a local jurisdiction. The actual amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale and is based upon the percentage of affordable units provided in the development at each income level (i.e., moderate income, low income, and very low income). The bonus ranges from a five percent increase to an 80 percent increase for projects which are completely affordable. State Density Bonus Law is mandated by the state, and projects that meet the requirements of the state law are entitled to receive the density bonus as a matter of right regardless of local regulations.
The project qualifies under State Density Bonus at seven percent with four affordable units total reserved for very low income (VLI) households. The table below describes the income levels associated with each of the affordability categories based on income level in relation to the current (2025) Area Median Income (AMI) level for the County:
Household
Size
Extremely
Low Income
Very Low
Income Low Income Moderate Income
Above
Moderate
Income
4-person
AMI:
$136,600
Less than
$50,750
Up to
$84,600
Up to
$135,350
Up to
$163,900
Over
$163,900
Under California Density Bonus Law, the project is entitled to a 25 percent density bonus which equates to an additional 14 units above the 53-unit maximum allowed in the R-M-20 zone for a total of 67 units. However, the proposed project includes 62 units. The density bonus increase is a land use right granted by the State to promote affordable housing.
Development Standard Waivers
In addition to density bonuses, the State has determined that projects meeting affordability criteria are eligible for waivers or reductions of development standards that would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density. There is no limit to the number of development standard waivers that an applicant may propose. The applicant’s letter (Attachment 3) has proposed development standard waivers for setbacks, landscaping requirements, and wall heights.
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 5
State Density Bonus Law Waivers
In exchange for four affordable units, the applicant proposes proposed and permitted under State Density Bonus Law:
1) To reduce the required 50-foot setback for buildings in any R-M zone, as measured from single family residences along the northern property line to 34 feet pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.100.A.1.
2) To reduce the required 20-foot cumulative side yard setback in the R-M-20 zone along the eastern and western property lines to 16 feet, 11 inches pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.100.A.1.
3) To reduce the 50 percent landscaping requirements for the building site area from 23,600 square feet to 9,900 square feet pursuant to Zoning Code Section
18.10.110.C.2.
4) To reduce the five-foot-wide screen landscaping buffer requirements between multifamily dwellings and single-family zones for the building site area, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.110.D, to 2 feet, 4 inches at the western property line and 3 feet along the eastern property line.
5) To increase the perimeter wall heights from the maximum six-foot height, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 18.10.130.B., to heights between nine and 12 feet.
The proposed waivers are required under California Density Bonus Law to facilitate affordable housing.
DISCUSSION
Tentative Tract Map 19389 and Design Review 2025-02
Municipal Code requirements pertaining to subdivisions (Tract Maps and/or Parcel Maps) are governed by the Subdivision Map Act (State of California Government Code § 66410 – 66499.58), and Title 17 (Subdivisions of Land) of the Yorba Linda Municipal Code.
Furthermore, all subdivision maps shall comply with the provisions of the City Zoning Code, and all other ordinances, statutes and laws pertaining to the use, sale, leasing or subdivision of land.
Tentative Tract Map 19389 proposes to subdivide 2.65 acres into a single lot for condominium purposes for the development of a 62-unit townhome residential project. Individual unit ownership within a condominium is construed as ownership of only the interior air space confining the boundaries of the dwelling. Each unit owner within a condominium development also owns a divided interest in any common areas within the community. Each unit owner also is represented as a member of a homeowner’s association with responsibility for maintaining
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 6
common areas, as well as other community assets, such as the exterior portions of buildings, site lighting and parking lots, swimming pool, clubhouse, and other amenities.
Access and Circulation
Access to the development is proposed via a singular ingress and egress driveway access to the site from Yorba Linda Blvd., and a “hammerhead” style turnaround for emergency vehicles.
The proposed entry road would lead into the center of the site providing driveway access to the branched drive aisles for the first level garages serving the townhomes within the project.
The entry road would include a decorative entryway paving treatment and landscaped nodes at either side to create an attractive entry.
Grading and Drainage
The topography of the site naturally flows in a southwesterly direction with an elevation drop of approximately 20 feet from the northeast corner to the southwest corner with a 2.6% slope.
The grading activities for development of the proposed project include an approximate cut of 12,880 cubic yards (CY) of soil and a fill of 2,702 CY of soil totaling a net export of 10,178 CY of soil. The proposed cut is to reduce the overall finished pad elevations for the site to increase privacy to the adjoining properties which staff is in support of. Further, staff has conditioned that the precise grading plan be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading permits, and if for any reason the amount of cut or fill is significantly increased staff will require review and approval by the Planning Commission.
The Project’s proposed drainage system would be divided into two drainage areas, one to convey on-site flows via biofiltration system located beneath the drive aisle for treatment and the other to convey existing off-site flows. An underground storm drain system and detention pipe would feed runoff into a proposed storm water sump pump that would discharge at predevelopment flow rates prior to off-site flow into the parkway drain. The project would not result in substantial changes to the existing drainage pattern of the site.
Traffic
As previously noted, this project site was one of 18 housing sites evaluated in the 2021- 2029 Housing Element and Implementation Programs. A Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) and subsequent Addendum were prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the Housing Element, In approving the Housing Element and certifying the PEIR and Addendum, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15093, et al., the City made written findings and adopted statements of overriding considerations wherein it was demonstrated and substantiated that the benefits of the Housing Element and related actions would outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts under the topical areas noted above.
The PEIR utilized a traffic analysis evaluated impacts to existing traffic conditions (i.e., level of service) under two scenarios—with and without the “project” or build-out of the 18 housing
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 7
sites described in the Housing Element. One of the 21 study area intersections is located near the proposed project: Ohio Street and Yorba Linda Boulevard. The traffic analysis found that intersection currently operates at an acceptable level of service and would remain operating at an acceptable level of service with build-out of the 18 Housing Element sites.
This project’s focused Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment 6), prepared by EPD Solutions (the applicant’s consulting traffic engineers), conducted updated traffic counts at the intersection at Palm Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard. The study indicated that traffic impacts associated with the project will not exceed the levels as evaluated in the Housing Element PEIR. Further, the project has been reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineering Manager.
Parking
Pursuant to State law, applicants are entitled to alternative parking requirements for a housing development that is eligible for a density bonus:
Required Parking for 3-Bedroom and 4-Bedroom Units
(Alternative Parking Standards)
Number of Bedrooms On-Site Parking Spaces Required
3-Bedroom 1.5 space
4-Bedroom 2.5 spaces
Guest 0 spaces
Based upon the number of bedrooms provided within the proposed dwelling units, 122 parking spaces are required. State law allows a reduction of required parking spaces from 217 spaces to 137 spaces.
Required Project Parking
(Alternative Parking Standards)
Number of
Bedrooms
Units Required Rate Required
Parking
Three 33 1.5 space 49.5
Four 29 2.5 spaces 72.5
Total Required 122
Total Provided 137
As reflected on the site plan, 124 of the spaces are proposed within the first-floor garages at a rate of two garage spaces per townhouse. An additional 13 guest spaces are located along the center of the site with design considerations made pertaining to accessible parking, electric vehicle parking, and turnaround for emergency vehicles.
Staff directed the applicant to conduct a parking demand analysis (Attachment 9) due to the parking supply not meeting the Municipal Code requirements and concern with potential
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 8
overflow parking issues on the surrounding streets and public park. The report, prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc.(the applicant’s consulting traffic engineers), concludes that the proposed project provides sufficient parking to meet the parking demands for the project .
The applicant has provided a parking compliance memo (Attachment 8) to provide additional information and a market-based justification for the project. The applicant has provided a comparison of five other similar-sized City Ventures-built projects located in the Los Angeles Metro area. It states a 2.21 space per unit parking ratio for this project is comparable and exceeds the average 2.19 spaces per unit for their similar sized projects. The applicant has cited their knowledge of the regional housing market as additional validation that the proposed development is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated parking demand.
In a further effort to ensure sufficient parking is provided for the proposed project, the applicant has agreed to require homeowners to preserve availability of garage parking spaces for the parking of operable vehicles only, since alternative garage uses, such as storage of personal goods, could potentially lower the ability of the project to adequately meet parking demand.
Therefore, through the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), the use of dedicated covered resident parking for personal storage or any use other than for the parking of motor vehicles will be prohibited. Staff has included a condition of approval to require quarterly garage inspections to be included in the CC&Rs. These practices will provide additional safeguards for the community to prevent overflow parking issues in the surrounding area.
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 9
Noise
In general, construction activities on the project site would increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity on an intermittent but temporary basis. Noise levels during construction would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receptors (i.e., neighboring residences in the vicinity), and the presence or absence of barriers between the noise source and receptors. Staff notes that construction-related noise is exempt from the City’s noise control ordinance, provided that certain time and day restrictions are observed (Yorba Linda Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter
8.32.090 and Title 15, Chapter 15.48.010).
The PEIR identified that the application of mitigation measures (which replicates the above provision of the Municipal Code and adds reasonable noise-reduction techniques) would reduce construction-related noise impacts below a level of significance. This mitigation measure would be applied to the proposed project. Staff has also included a condition of approval reiterating allowable construction hours and emphasizing the sensitivity of this issue to surrounding neighboring residents.
Upon completion, the use of the proposed townhome condominium development would not generate significant noise levels. Typical noise levels from ingress and egress of vehicles, routine property maintenance activities, and other noise sources common to a residential community would be expected.
Public Infrastructure
Implementation of the proposed project will result in additional demand for existing public services, including demand for fire and police services. However, as concluded in the Housing Element PEIR, this increased demand can be accommodated by existing service levels, and therefore would have less than a significant impact. Additionally, the increase in demand for the utilities, i.e., water, gas, power, and sewer, can be accommodated by existing service levels as there is sufficient capacity to serve the project site under present conditions. Yorba Linda Water District (YLWD) has provided a will-serve letter for the proposed project confirming availability of sufficient water supply to serve the project.
In addition, Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) has reviewed the proposed site plan for fire/emergency access and did not identify any significant issues of concern that would prevent further submittals to OCFA subsequent to any approval of the project granted by the City. OCFA has suggested applicable standard conditions of approval, which staff has included in the attached resolutions.
The Housing Element PEIR analyzed the number of additional students that may result from implementation of the Housing Element, which included future residential development on the project site. The need for additional school services is addressed by compliance with school impact assessment fees per Senate Bill 50. Therefore, to address the increase in
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 10
enrollment at PYLUSD schools, the project applicant would be required to pay school impact fees to reduce any impacts on the school system.
The proposed project will contribute to the need for additional park facilities in the general area; however, this impact will be fully mitigated through the payment of park fees required by the City. Moreover, the project includes an outdoor dining terrace and open space features that may offset the increased demand for public recreation facilities to some extent.
Architecture and Site Plan
Pursuant to Section 18.36.100 of the Zoning Code, the applicant is requesting approval of site planning and architectural design for the proposed townhouse community. To provide objective-based architectural guidance to the development community and in order to ensure that proposed multi-family residential development is consistent with Yorba Linda’s community values and character, the City Council adopted the Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines (“Guidelines”). The design policies contained in the Guidelines are a key tool for evaluating project proposals and aim to expedite the review process by clearly stating the community’s expectations in terms of design quality for multi-family residential development and serve as additional written objective development standards for multifamily residential development. Staff has evaluated the project and determined that it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Guidelines, including:
Guideline 2.2 – Appropriate Architectural Styles
Guideline 2.6 – Building Form
These Guidelines describe appropriate architectural styles for multi-family and identify Mediterranean Revival architecture as a preferred style. The proposed design includes a variety of materials and architectural details that are consistent with the style, including a combination of stucco, stone veneer and metal accents, Spanish tile roofing, wood railings, and decorative window shutters. Other encouraged architectural elements that are incorporated into the proposed design include: dark wood and metal embellishments, earthen tones, smooth stucco, exposed wood, gabled roofs, patios, tall/narrow windows, recessed garages and entryways, decorative vents, and wood trellis.
Figure 2: Proposed Typical Front Elevation
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 11
Guideline 2.3 – Lot Layout and Site Planning
Guideline 2.4 – Buffers and Transitions
Guideline 2.5 – Privacy
These Guidelines encourage multi-family developments to provide a variety of product types, provide a mix of private and communal open space, utilize open space to break up the building mass, and consider compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Consistent with these Guidelines, the proposed design includes a mix of three- and four-bedroom townhomes with private, outward facing patios and balconies across twelve buildings.
Shared open spaces are also provided for residents with an outdoor BBQ and open lawn and pedestrian walking paths.
Regarding compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, the property is surrounded by single-family residences to the north, east, and south. The North County Chabad Center is located to the west and Jessamyn Park to the west. These public and semipublic uses act as a buffer for other nearby residential uses. Likewise, a mature tree canopy located along the majority of the park boundary provides additional screening of the site for the neighborhood. In their respective locations, the townhome buildings are approximately 93 feet away from the closest single-family residence to the west, 79 feet away from residence to the east, 59 feet away from the residence to the south, and 42 feet away from the residence to the north. Due to the flag lot shape of the project site, the majority of the site buildings would not be visible from the public right of way. The project entry has also included enhanced paving to help provide an aesthetic transition from the street to the main drive aisle.
The proposed landscape plan (Sheet L-7) shows the perimeter of the site will be planted with various trees to provide screening between the project area and the closest residential neighbors to promote enhanced privacy. The grouping of trees is the densest at the northern and southern boundaries due to the proximity to those residences. Finally, the project grading plans show the finished pad elevations of the building will be situated four to eight feet lower than the pad elevation of residences to the south and north, thereby reducing the structure’s appearance of mass and bulk and promoting privacy between neighbors.
Guideline 2.12 – Outdoor Lighting
This Guideline promotes effective lighting that provides safety and direction for vehicles and pedestrians while enhancing architectural building and landscape details. Decorative and shielded light fixtures are encouraged while minimizing glare or spillover onto adjacent properties. The proposed lighting plan (Sheets ES1-3) includes LED streetlights, bollards, and sconce lighting. The proposed streetlights are decorative in nature with a gooseneck design and located along the central drive aisle provide safe illumination for vehicles and pedestrians. The lighting element is shielded and directed downward, and the project photometric plan shows 0.0 footcandles at the property line due to the design and the perimeter walls. The majority of the light fixtures, including bollards and sconces, are located
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 12
within the interior along walkways, patios, and garage to illuminate the proposed walking path and communal areas.
Guideline 2.17 – Amenities
This Guideline requires multi-family developments to provide on-site amenities that are proportionate in scale and number with the project, be centrally located for the majority of residents, and accommodate a range of ages. Consistent with this Guideline, the proposed project includes landscaped walking paths with benches and a covered outdoor BBQ terrace. A tree-lined recreation lawn and picnic tables are also provided. Due to the waiver for reduced open space the on-site amenities are not as robust as desired by staff. However, the project’s proximity to Jessamyn West Park offers access to direct recreational amenities such as recreational courts, open fields, covered gazebo with seating, and play structures that exceed what most multi-family residential communities are able to offer on-site.
Common facilities such as guest parking, mailboxes, and trash facilities are centrally located and accessible to the majority of residents.
Landscaping and Walls
The submitted concept landscape plan provides a preliminary palette of trees, groundcover, and shrubs for the parking lot and other common areas. The site will include 40 trees located along the perimeter of the site. To increase privacy for adjacent properties to the north and south, the perimeter of the site will be landscaped with a continuous row of screen/vertical and shade trees, such as Brisbane Box, Magnolia, and Chinese Elm, which can reach up to 40 feet in height at maturity. The guest parking, recreation lawn, and drive aisle will feature a mix of accent trees, such as Western Redbud and Little Gem Magnolia. The private patio trees will offer the same. Staff is supportive of the preliminary landscape plan but has included standard conditions of approval requiring the applicant to obtain approval of final landscape and irrigation plans from the City Landscape Architect prior to installation of plant materials or issuance of an occupancy permit. All landscaping within the project is also required to be constantly maintained by a homeowner’s association to ensure long-term viability.
As depicted on the preliminary wall and fence plan (Sheet L-4) and Tentative Tract Map, the applicant proposes to construct a slump stone block retaining wall along the northern, eastern, and western boundary of the project site. The tan-colored wall contains accent bands and decorative pilasters for aesthetic purposes. Due to proposed grading differences with neighboring properties, the applicant has proposed a State Density Bonus waiver to allow for retaining wall heights that exceed zoning code standards. However, most of these walls impose the additional height as viewed from within the site. Overall, staff believes the proposed wall and fence plan is satisfactory and enhances privacy for adjacent neighbors.
Furthermore, the perimeter walls have been reviewed for adequate sight distance by Public Works Engineering at the proposed driveway to ensure safe ingress and egress at the project entry.
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 13
Conditional Use Permit 2025-10
Upper-level Stories and Decks
Section 18.10.100.B of the Zoning Code requires the approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission for two-story construction that is located within seventy feet (70’) of an existing single-family residence. A total of 12 of the 62 proposed units would be located within seventy feet (70’) of an adjacent single-family residence. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that proposed two-story construction does not result in any significant loss of privacy on adjacent residences such that it would compromise the neighbors’ ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their properties. Additionally, this section of the code aims to ensure architectural compatibility and, in the case of second-story room additions, architectural integration. Similarly, Section 18.10.120.I of the code also requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for upper-level balconies and decks.
Therefore, staff has reviewed the project for potential view and privacy impacts associated with the proposed construction included on the proposed three-story structure. Since the main issue of concern with new, two-story homes is the potential for privacy impact to neighboring residences, staff limits the scope of review in this section to this particular issue.
The question of architectural compatibility for the development was already addressed in detail in the design review analysis.
As reflected on the adjacent resident exhibit (Sheet A1.20), eight of the units in Buildings 8 and 9 would have upper-level windows and balconies within 70 feet and as close as 42 feet from the residence located at 19030 Lynn Lane. The front elevation windows and balconies will both provide direct views into the rear yards and home from the new town homes.
However, the applicant has proposed to reduce the privacy impacts by planting a row of screen trees along the northern property line and grading the site to reduce the building pad heights by 4 to 8 feet. In review of the screening attributes of the proposed trees along the northern property line, staff believes that those trees will help impede views of the project from the existing residence and mitigate privacy impact concerns on those properties.
Figure 3: Proposed north elevation of Building 9.
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 14
Similarly, the closest units in Buildings 3 and 12 would have upper-level windows within 53- 59 feet of the residence located at 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard. Building 3 has one unit with windows within 70 feet from one unit whereas Building 12 would have 3 units within 59-70 feet. The viewshed from Building 3 would be from the side whereas Building 12’s front elevation faces towards the rear yard of the adjacent home. Building 3 is buffered by the intervening main drive aisle and the proposed screen trees at the shared side property line.
Therefore, staff believes the privacy impacts in this direction are minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Due to the orientation, distance, and presence of balconies, the potential for privacy impacts is greater for Building 12. However, the presence of intervening trees in this area, both proposed and existing, will provide the necessary mitigation for views. The proposed grading plan also indicated a finished pad height 3 feet less than existing grade for this building.
Furthermore, the site layout has been planned to allow for the greatest distance feasible in relation to this single-family residence given the 20-foot setback. Given these efforts, staff believes the privacy impacts are being minimized
As shown on the project floor plans and elevations (Sheets A2.00-A3.11), each townhome includes second floor decks between 61-93 square feet in size. For the large majority of the buildings, i.e., Buildings 1-7 and 10-12, these decks are either oriented inward towards the interior of the project site or at a great enough distance from adjacent properties that privacy impacts are minimal. As previously mentioned, given the height, orientation, and proximity to neighboring residences, staff believes there is potential for view and privacy impacts from the second-story balconies on Buildings 8,9, and 12 to the north and south. However, the viewsheds provided from the balconies are the same or less as the associated second and third-story windows on these buildings. Furthermore, the recessed nature of the decks on the elevation and the presence of corner columns and wing walls reduces the viewshed from the decks, Therefore, staff believes the aforementioned mitigation measures (screen trees and grading pad height) for these particular buildings in addition to the deck design will minimize the privacy impacts.
For these reasons, staff believes the proposed upper-level construction design is sensitive to its environment, compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and would not compromise a neighboring property owner’s ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their property.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION This project site was one of 18 housing sites evaluated in the 2021-2029 Housing Element and Implementation Programs. A Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”) was prepared for the Housing Element and certified by the City Council on August 2, 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2022040574). PEIRs generally analyze broad environmental effects of the program with the acknowledgement that future development may require further sitespecific environmental review. The PEIR found three potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the Housing Element,
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 15
specifically related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. Accordingly, in approving the Housing Element and certifying the PEIR, and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15093, et al., the City made written findings and adopted statements of overriding considerations wherein it was demonstrated and substantiated that the benefits of the Housing Element and related actions would outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts under the topical areas noted above. Following an unsuccessful ballot measure vote under the requirements of Measure B (Yorba Linda RightTo-Vote Amendment), the City revised the Housing Element to reflect residents’ concerns and recommendations.
The City also prepared an Addendum to the previously certified PEIR to evaluate the changes. It found the revised Housing Element would neither result in any significant impacts to the physical environment nor result in substantial increases in the severity of the impacts that were not already disclosed in the previously certified PEIR impacts. The PEIR and subsequent Addendum prepared for the revised Housing Element were certified by the City Council in June 2024, and a successful Measure B ballot measure vote was obtained in November the same year.
The proposed project is a subsequent activity within the program covered by the PEIR and Addendum. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment beyond those effects identified in the PEIR and Addendum, since all potential environmental impacts associated with the project are within or below the scope of and were adequately analyzed in the PEIR and Addendum. All of the mitigation measures contained within the Program EIR and Addendum, which are fully applicable to the currently proposed project, will mitigate the impacts associated with the project to insignificant levels.
Furthermore, a CEQA consistency analysis was completed by the applicant which determined the proposed project does not involve new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of the previously identified effects. As a result, the project does trigger the need to prepare supplemental environmental documents as it is consistent with the existing PEIR.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
On October 27, 2025, at the recommendation of staff, the applicant held a community meeting at the Yorba Linda Community Center. A community outreach mailer was sent to all residents within 500 feet of the project site. The meeting was attended by staff, the applicant, and approximately 40 residents. The applicant has provided a response letter addressing the issues raised at this meeting (Attachment 4).
Since this matter is a public hearing, all surrounding properties within a 300-foot radius of the subject property were sent public hearing notices for the project. As of this writing, staff has received written correspondence from four adjacent residents expressing concerns related to the number of dwelling units proposed, potential for privacy impacts, traffic,
Planning Commission Staff Report
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
November 12, 2025
P a g e | 16
parking, and construction-related impacts. The applicant has informed staff that they have been working closely with any residents that have raised issues to attempt to address their concerns. An update on this outreach will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map 19389, with conditions.
2. Approve, by minute motion, Design Review 2025-02, with conditions.
3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, with conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Project Plans
2) Vicinity Map
3) Applicant Narrative Letter
4) Community Meeting Response
5) Public Correspondence
Traffic & Parking
6) Traffic Impact Analysis
7) Traffic Impact Analysis Appendices
8) Parking Compliance Memo
9) Parking Demand Analysis Memo
10) Level of Service Screening Memo
Environmental
11) Environmental Analysis
12) Project Geotechnical Report
13) Phase I Report
14) Phase II Report
15) Preliminary Hydrology Report
16) Preliminary WQMP
17) Project GHG Report
18) Project Biological Resources Assessment
19) Noise & Vibration Analysis
Resolutions and Conditions
20) Tentative Tract Map 19389 Resolution, with conditions 21) Conditions of Approval for Design Review 2025-02
22) CUP 2025-10 Resolution with Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval
1 PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING
MINUTES
November 12, 2025, 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
4845 Casa Loma Avenue
Commissioners Present: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson Commissioners Absent: Chavez Marquez
Staff Present: Diaz, Dominguez, Farnsworth, Litfin, Valdez _____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Yorba Linda Planning Commission convened at 6:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda, California.
Note: No new items will be considered after 11:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Traffic Chairman Gerardo De Santos
3. ROLL CALL
Planning Commissioners: Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, Masterson
Absent: Commissioner Chavez Marquez
Traffic Commissioners: De Santos, Phayakapong, Patel, Cugini, Johnson Chair Pro Tem Masterson arrived at 6:36 p.m.
2 4. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
None
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Steve Schofro represents Lithium Awareness International to educate on the present, past, and future of tech. He provided documents on Senate bill 283 regarding battery energy storage systems and taking away the rights as a locality to do anything about them. To have a locality or any access with one simple design, one simple drawing, one approval which will put a last resort by fire suppression on any system. They also advise on counterfeit bike batteries, charger placement as there are 1.4 million non-Tesla EV's Enrico some of them have 5 recalls.
6. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS ON THE AGENDA Approval of reading by title all resolutions on the agenda and declare that said titles which appear on the public agenda shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.
Moved by Behura
Seconded by Goldfarb
Approved waiting readings in full of all resolutions.
AYES (4): Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, and Masterson
ABSENT (1): Chavez Marquez
CARRIED (4 to 0)
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2025-10, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2025-02 - CITY VENTURES
Gabe Diaz, Associate Planner, provided a visual presentation for a site planning and architectural design review for a three-story, 62-unit, multifamily, for sale, attached townhome project at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard, east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue located in a Residential Multi-family 20 (RM-20) zone. The property is approximately
2.65 acres with 62 town homes with 33, 3-bedroom units and 29 fourbedroom units. The project will consist of 12 buildings with each unit ranging in size between 1363 to 1639 square feet.
3 The project is proposing 137 parking spaces, utilizing a state density bonus law reduction. This was a housing element site that was chosen to support the RHNA numbers as state mandated to meet housing growth targets. The project is surrounded by the Chabbad Center, single family dwellings and Jessamyn West Park.
The request is to subdivide the parcel through a tentative tract map into a single lot for condominium purposes. There will be common ownership of the common areas, public space, access, and circulation and will be governed by a homeowner’s association that will oversee the communal areas.
Staff have reviewed the tentative tract map for access and circulation, grading and drainage, traffic, and parking.
This project is utilizing the density bonus which is mandated by the state and is a matter of right regardless of local regulations.
In this case there will be three affordable units (5% of the units) providing for an up to 20% density bonus. The applicant is not proposing to use the entire 20%. The three units will be at a very low income for a four-person household that equates to an income of up to $84,600. Due to the density bonus, the 53 base units for the base zone are being proposed at 62 units.
They're also asking for several waivers. State law does not have any limit on the number of development waivers, and the applicant is asking for a reduction of the required 50-foot setback for buildings in the RM zone as well as a cumulative 16’-11” side yard setback instead of 20 feet. They're also asking for reductions in the overall landscaping, and five-foot screen landscaping buffers on certain portions of the site. Due to grading changes, they are requesting an increase in the perimeter wall heights for privacy impact reductions.
The site would be accessed from a singular egress and ingress driveway with a decorative entryway paving treatment. From the northeast to the southwest the height of the site would be reduced and sloped in certain areas from three to 8 feet. There will not be any reduced drainage patterns.
In terms of traffic, it was reviewed under the Housing Element PEIR and the city made findings that determined that the housing element and related actions would outweigh significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. In terms of traffic, staff requested that the applicant conduct a focused traffic impact analysis to further analyze some of the intersections
4 in the area. Impacts were analyzed with a project build and no build of the project conditions. The study found that the traffic impacts associated with the project would not exceed the levels as evaluated in the PEIR and was approved by the city's traffic engineering manager.
In terms of parking, they are entitled to a reduction in parking standards.
The three-bedroom rate is 1.5 spaces per 3 bedroom and 2.5 spaces for four bedrooms which requires a total of 122 spaces. The applicant is also providing additional guest parking spaces. A parking demand analysis was conducted and concluded that the project provides sufficient parking to meet the parking demands for the project. Their own market-based analysis in various parts of the Southern California region resulted in 2.19 parking spaces per unit; in this case they are providing 2.21 spaces. Staff have shared their concerns from the public regarding overflow parking and staff have added conditions of approval that would require quarterly garage checks to make sure that these areas of the home are not used for storage, but for parking.
In terms of noise, there will be temporary construction noise and mitigation measures are included for noise reduction techniques. Staff does not find there will be any generation of significant noise after the project is complete.
The infrastructure has been routed to the Yorba Linda Water District and Sewer District, Orange County Fire Authority, who have reviewed and provided conditions of approval; in many cases having to upgrade facilities to provide for additional strain on the system.
The project must comply with multifamily residential design guidelines which covers architectural style and form, layout, site planning, and amenities. The proposed style will be a Mediterranean architectural design.
The applicant has provided a photometric plan that shows lights being cut off at the property line and a condition has been included should the lights and design need to be modified.
Due to the project being within 70 feet of residential homes, staff have reviewed for privacy and architectural purposes. There will be second story balconies and there are none on the third story. Many of the buildings with decks are oriented towards one another. There could be some privacy impacts on the northern and southern property; they will not be closer than 40 feet from building to building. Due to the presence of
5 existing and proposed screen trees, staff finds the privacy impacts have been reduced but not eliminated, therefore staff believes the privacy impacts are minimized but would take time for those trees to grow to a mature height. A condition of approval has been included requiring the city landscape architect to have final oversight and the size and location of trees.
Due to the requested waivers and the orientation of the site, staff believes that the privacy impacts in most areas would be minimized. The site will be graded to reduce the site elevation from 3 to 8 feet which would help reduce the overall height of the building as well as the privacy impacts.
The project was reviewed under the existing PEIR for the housing element an addendum and certified by the council. The project meets all the requirements under the existing housing element, and the applicant provided consistency analysis that determines the product does not involve any new significant impacts or effects that would increase the severity as seen in the previous EIR.
A public notice has been sent to all property owners within 300 feet as required by state law, and the applicant conducted a community outreach meeting. The community outreach meeting notice was sent to all residents within 500 feet; it was attended by staff, the applicant and approximately 40 residents and the applicant provided a response letter to all the concerns raised at that meeting.
Staff have received comments regarding parking, the number of dwelling units, privacy impacts, traffic, and safety concerns.
Staff are recommending that the Planning Commission approve the project with the attached conditions.
Chair Bernstein asked for Traffic Commission, Chair DeSantos to begin questioning.
Commissioner Patel stated in the applicant’s parking analysis, Artesia and Compton are the only two cities compatible with the size of this project and asked why other comparable size projects were not analyzed.
Mr. Diaz referred to the applicant to respond.
Commissioner Behura asked for concurrence from the applicant that this is actually one meeting which includes Planning Commission and Traffic Commission.
6 Ms. Sanders, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed it is the city’s position to have this count as one meeting.
Commissioner Goldfarb agreed with Traffic Commissioner Patel and noticed that the statistics are misleading because they're all higher ratios and asked who picked the sites that were analyzed.
Mr. Diaz responded the applicant chose the sites.
Commissioner Goldfarb asked if any analysis was done on the ingress and egress from Yorba Linda Boulevard. Was analysis done on safety impacts due to cars, no light, and being close to schools.
Mr. Diaz stated the applicant considered the introduction of a traffic signal which was part of the overall traffic impact analysis. Residents raised that same question and the applicant did not decide to include a light for technical reasons. They've looked at current traffic counts and modeled those with the proposed project and did not find any elevated safety concerns.
Commissioner Goldfarb asked if it was determined that adding 100 or more additional people to that area did not increase safety concerns.
Mr. Diaz stated yes, and the applicant and consultant can talk to those technical issues.
Chair Bernstein asked about the very low-income units. He asked for an explanation on the size of the buildings.
Mr. Diaz stated there will be 3 affordable units. It is conducted on a sliding scale and comes down to a percentage count. Mr. Diaz provided a visual explanation of the size comparison of the buildings.
Alex Rounaghi, development manager for City Ventures and, representative for the applicant, stated this is one meeting not two.
He provided an overview of the company, types of development and a visual presentation of the project. This site was identified as part of the housing element.
He provided renderings of the proposed site, architecture, and perspectives. The project consists of 62 units, three-story single-familyattached housing, of which 59 are market rate units and three are affordable very low-income units.
7 Their traffic study found that there is less than a 2% increase in daily trips on Yorba Linda Boulevard. The analysis was based off feedback from city staff to ensure that they were studying all the right intersections. The traffic consultant will speak on the decision to eliminate the option of installing a traffic light.
Under state density bonus law, they are required to have 122 parking spaces; they are proposing 137 spaces so there will not be overflow parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. They cannot sell projects that do not have sufficient parking. They are willing to add a condition in the CC&Rs to ensure that garages are used for cars and not storage.
He has conducted community outreach to answer any questions from the community and their goal is to be a good neighbor through the process.
They had a community meeting on October 27th and met with several individuals after the fact to answer their questions.
The staff report outlined the mitigating facts to ensure the privacy impacts on the neighboring properties. The grading allows them to shield privacy as well as strategic landscaping
All the city departments, including Public Works and Orange County Fire Authority, have not identified any safety impacts from the project.
Chair Bernstein asked if he and the entire team have read all the conditions of approval and agree with them.
Alex stated yes; there were several minor conditions that they discussed with staff, but they agreed overall.
Chair Bernstein asked Traffic Commission to begin questioning.
Megan Macias and Hasham Hasawi from EDP Solutions prepared the traffic and parking studies for the project.
Commissioner Patel stated the examples they use to compare the parking analysis for this project does not have the same number of units. He asked why they compared the smaller Upland project to this project? Is it misleading to propose 2.19 versus 2.21 and have Upland in the table? Would they be able to add an additional two spaces if it is needed? He asked who will do the garage inspections and how often? Alex responded that the goal of providing that table was to give them an idea; there was nothing scientific about the process by which they
8 identified those sites. The comparison was to provide examples showing this project is not outside of the norm. They do not feel the project will have overflow parking. It is not misleading; the exercise was just to show that there were examples of other projects that had a comparable parking ratio. It is not outside of the norm as it relates to guest parking. The garage inspections will be part of the CC&R's and the condition of approval means the HOA will enforce them and inspect four times per year.
One item of feedback they received in their meeting was the location of the trash enclosure that was too close to one of the residences; they were able to move the trash enclosure and provide one additional parking space.
Traffic Commission asked how many of the other projects that were shown have only one ingress egress.
Mr. Rounaghi didn’t have information on the other project’s access points.
Traffic Commission asked how long they will stay involved in the project once it is completed.
Mr. Rounaghi stated they form an HOA board and they are members of the Board of Directors for the first few years to ensure the CC&Rs are enforced.
Traffic Commission asked where the fire hydrants are located.
Mr. MacDougall, Civil Engineer, pointed them out on a tentative tract map.
They meet the standards of the Water District; they constructed a hydraulic analysis that showed the fire flows to meet the requirements.
Traffic Commission asked:
If any traffic analysis was conducted on egress for those who wanted to go east.
Has any analysis been conducted if residents take the wrong way left-turn when no traffic is approaching? Any proposed mitigation? The assumption of the traffic analysis is people will leave making a right turn if they want to go eastbound on Yorba Linda Boulevard then make a U-turn at Ohio Street.
What is queuing during morning peak hours.
Ms. Macias explained the expectation is that the drivers would take a right out of the site then make a U-turn at the first light at Ohio. There was no
9 analysis done on the left turn because they assume people are obeying the traffic laws when they conduct a study and no mitigation was proposed. It would be an enforcement issue if that was occurring. There was never more than one vehicle queued, and the volumes of the three intersections were well below the capacity and queuing is less that one vehicle.
Traffic Commission asked:
Is the property in a Fire Zone area?
How many units do they need to build in order to break even on the project, what is the profit, and average unit price.
Why was there only one community meeting because there were a lot of comments brought up at that meeting and was any part of the plan changed because of the comments??
Was any other outreach conducted?
How accurate is the formula for traffic studies?
Why are traffic counts different than the volume?
Why weren’t Chabad and park traffic not considered in the analysis.
The Chabad may have similar peak hours because there is a school on the premises with in and out traffic and it is important to know what their peak hours are.
What is line of site at the entrance of development; he wants to make sure they can clearly see when exiting the Chabad and the park.
Was the lack of available public transportation evaluated? There will be a lot of people making a U-turn at the park entrance instead of going all the way to Palm and it should be studied. For other properties that are already built do the parking demand meet the reality of the actual parking? He feels 13 guest parking spaces are inadequate; during holidays and special events, homeowners can have parties. Demand needs to match reality.
Director Farnsworth stated it is not in a fire zone area.
Mr. Rounaghi responded they looked at the price of the land and zoning to come up with the number. He did not have a specific break-even number.
10 The market rate units should be in the $700,000 to $800,000 range. The affordable units are based on a complicated formula that depends on interest rates but should be between $150,000 to $200,000.
A letter was sent to residents within a 500-foot radius, and they received one response in the summertime, and they met with that person. They didn't canvass the community but did send out the letter and were willing to meet with anybody who responded. This site was part of the community outreach and was fully vetted and approved as part of the housing element.
As for the traffic studies, they hired traffic consultants and worked closely with city staff to ensure that the scope of their analysis had the right data for the analysis for the trip generation. They followed the best available traffic study analysis to come up with the findings.
Ms. Macias stated the trip generation is developed by using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers that is based upon surveys that are conducted throughout the United States. There are several things that can be looked at when they conduct the actual roadway counts. They count a 2-hour period during the highest commute hours then they take the highest one-hour period from the two-hour count. The park and Chabad have different peak hours than the project and the traffic generated by those uses is already in count.
The line-of-sight topic was brought up at a community meeting and there is no line-of-sight issue. They reviewed collision statistics along this corridor and there have not been any within the last five years within the surrounding driveways; therefore, because they are in the middle of those two sites they don't believe there is a line-of-sight issue from this project.
Consultant explained the line-of-sight triangle that was plotted by the city.
Ms. Macias responded that ITE trip rates are classified as close to transit or not close to transit, and they used suburban locations not close to transit.
Consultant stated they have not studied current sites. Home buyers will not be allowed to live here if they have three cars as they will not be allowed to have a third car in the guest parking spaces.
Traffic Commission asked how left turns will be mitigated and what intersection do they expect someone to make a U-turn.
11 Consultant responded that they are open to placing signs and hoping that the citizens are law abiding. U-turns are expected at Ohio.
Traffic Commission added they are expecting people to cross three lanes to get into the left turn pocket at Ohio?
Consultant responded that two adjacent intersections to the east would have gaps which would allow traffic to safely maneuver.
Traffic Commission asked if an analysis was done on the safety of crossing three lanes during peak hours to make a U-turn at Ohio? Ms. Macias responded that the intersection at the driveway was analyzed as a level of service C. There will be gaps in traffic because of the mirroring of this signal to the east of the project driveway. There could be further studies done, but every study that they have done has shown that every intersection is under capacity and well within the city’s guidelines. As previously said, this was identified as a housing site and has already had an EIR and traffic study for this site. This is the second set of studies that have been done for a housing project on this site.
Traffic Commissioner asked Ms. Macias, would she feel comfortable crossing three traffic lanes in peak hours to make a U-turn.
Ms. Macias responded yes, it can be done if there is an adequate gap in traffic. If you visit the area during peak hours, you'll see people from the park or the Chabad that are turning left.
Traffic Commission asked If there are any codes that indicate it is a safe distance. The speed limit is about 40 miles an hour during peak hours.
Would they be able to further analyze the safety.
Ms. Macias responded that she is unaware of any codes. The safe distance would be the number of seconds in the gap in the traffic. It could be further analyzed.
Traffic Commission asked if the median island could be modified to prohibit or discourage left turns. Could the westbound side of the curb be extended?
Mr. Rounaghi responded that it would be a city determination to modify the island; they do not have the power to change it. They followed the adopted city traffic guidelines that were adopted by the City Council and traffic commission.
12 Traffic Commission asked what is the speed design that the triangles are based upon? They do not look very long. They need to be able to look down the street and see the oncoming traffic. How far do you have to be out on the sidewalk to see the traffic?
Consultant responded he didn't have the city standard with him; however, it is the city standard for a driveway. It is a driveway and not an intersection. Everything is pulled back 10 feet to allow a car to pull up to the back of the sidewalk to see down Yorba Linda.
Traffic Commission asked if they would be open to recommendations made by the commission because they have done it on other projects such as widening one of the streets and paying for some street improvements.
Mr. Rounaghi stated they have been open to every suggestion that they have received from staff and open to collaborating on the right solution, but they do not have the power to control the median in the middle of the street.
Chris Burt, land use counsel for the applicant, stated one of the subjects that was not discussed in staff's presentation is density bonus law. It is a state housing law that is applicable to this project. The Housing Accountability Act provides that local agencies are limited in their discretion to deny projects that comply with objective written design standards. This project complies with all applicable written design standards. There's been a lot of speculation about illegal activities that this project would cause or that this project will result in some sort of potential health and safety impact. Earlier, a question was posed as to whether there was a written standard that proved that a right-hand turn followed by a left-hand U-turn is safe. There is no city standard that has concluded that that situation is unsafe therefore, the project was designed to be considered with that sort of standard. The traffic analysis considered those movements; it was blessed by the city's traffic engineer. The project and the traffic analysis meet all objective standards. The speculation about all potential safety impacts is unfounded; there is no basis for them and to deny a project within the Housing Accountability Act, the decision-making body has to find a specific adverse impact. A specific adverse impact has to be based upon an objective written health and safety standard; there are no such standards here.
Chair Bernstein reminded the Commission that when they deliberate, they can add as many conditions of approval as they deem necessary. He
13 asked if the removal of the trash receptacle added an additional guest parking space.
Consultant responded yes, they have 14.
Chair Bernstein turned the questioning to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Masterson asked if they met with any City Council members and Planning Commission members regarding the project.
Consultant responded they met with some of the Council members and had high level conversation. They reached out to all the Planning Commissioners but did not get a response.
Commissioner Masterson asked if they factored in the additional traffic in the study for the expansion of Chabad?
Director Farnsworth stated there is an approval for three housing units on the back end of the Jewish Center.
Ms. Macias stated the forecast and traffic analysis was done using the same methodology as the forecast in the housing element traffic analysis.
It was based upon a growth rate applied to existing traffic counts. The growth rate around the project is very low so they assumed a higher growth rate than what was included in the previous analysis, so those three units were included.
Commissioner Masterson asked if they expect cars to stack when trying to make a left turn during peak hours?
Ms. Macias explained the city's methodology for the level of service does not explicitly take queuing into account because it is based upon the volume capacity ratio of each movement at the intersection. They did look at the intersection again using the highway capacity manual method so that they could get the queue length. The other thing that goes into that calculation is the peak hour factor which is what they count when they go out into the field. It is a measure of how much traffic stacks up within each 15-minute period within the course of one hour.
Commissioner Masterson added he feels the guest parking is insufficient.
Due to the affordable housing and the state mandate, they are eliminating approximately 90 parking spaces. The Upland site is close to downtown where there is a lot of available parking. The Compton site has a lot of street parking and most of the other developments have street parking on top of what is provided on site. This site doesn't have the same options as
14 their other developments, and he sees an issue with the parking ratios and a potential problem.
Is a landscaping buffer being proposed on the site of the Jewish center? Consultant stated guests could be ticketed if they park in the park parking lot and go into the housing development.
Jose Cesaros, C2 Collaborative, responded there is a drainage slope along the edge that impacts some of the landscape area, but they have a three-foot buffer that will include shrubs and vines along with trees at the end of the paseos.
Commissioner Masterson asked if there is a six-foot masonry wall between the properties? Will there be continuous screening with trees? Mr. Cesaros responded yes there is a wall but there is not a continuous route of trees.
Commissioner Bernstein added the walls can be as high as 12 feet.
Mr. Cesaros responded the height varies along the synagogue and screening will be provided accordingly. There are grade differences that minimize the mass and scale of the homes; it is a lot less than what it would be at the same grade and trees will be part of that. On the north side the project is down 6 feet with a six-foot screen wall on top with additional trees for screening. For the neighbor behind the project and at the northeast corner there is a 19-foot difference. From a privacy perspective, the grading creates an appearance of the massing being a lot less if it were at the same grade.
Mr. Cesaros added they would like to have the trees as large as possible, but they must take into consideration the installation and budget. At a minimum, they will be 24-inch box trees that are zoned for Yorba Linda.
They are very considerate of this species and plant materials that they are proposing to avoid safety concerns for fire.
Commissioner Masterson asked if they would be willing to abide by the condition to install 36-inch box trees if possible, with approval of the Community Development Director.
Mr. Cesar stated a 36-inch box tree would be tight with utilities that have to be installed and worked around. With a 24-inch box tree they typically get a 12-to-14-foot height because they are meant for screening.
15 Commissioner Masterson stated a big issue is the 20-foot setback from Yorba Linda Boulevard to the height of the first building which is 35 feet. It destroys the street line because it is right on top of it. He does not want another project like the D.R. Horton at Yorba Linda and Prospect.
Consultant explained that the setback requirement is 20 feet and the height limit for the zone is 40 feet; they followed the development standards with respect to that.
Commissioner Goldfarb stated they plan to police the use of garages and keep tenants out of guest parking. They are assuming the HOA will enforce the parking, which means the city will not be involved; it becomes private enforcement under the CC&Rs and if they choose not to enforce it there is nothing the city can do about it. To enforce it, HOA would have to go through a lawsuit and spend the money, so you're making the people who buy there pay if they are not keeping two cars in the garage and the city cannot do anything about it. Will people who purchase the low-income units have to pay the HOA fees as well?
Consultant stated the HOA will monitor the spaces and guests will have to obtain a permit to park there. They can collaborate with staff to ensure that the CC&Rs are maintaining that enforcement. The HOA could have the ability to fine people. All owners will pay the same HOA fees.
Ms. Macias added, in the past, they have had situations where the cities have been the beneficiaries of the terms that the city requires in the CC &Rs. If there are reports of non-compliance, the city would be able to enforce against HOA directly if they are not compliant.
Commissioner Goldfarb stated in their presentation they found no privacy, safety, or traffic issues. They will only be on board the HOA for two years; so, they are short-term good neighbors.
Consultant clarified they are mitigated privacy issues. The same conclusions were also in the staff analysis. They conducted the study in accordance with the city guidelines and traffic engineers and concluded there were no traffic issues.
Commissioner Goldfarb opined that safety is analytical and doesn't have a checklist that you can meet.
Chris Burt clarified that is incorrect. Under the Housing Accountability Act, the standard for a specific adverse impact as defined by the act is that the project has a specific adverse impact which is based upon a written
16 objective health and safety standard. Theorizing about a potential safety issue does not meet that standard. It is a question of whether the project causes a health and safety issue based upon a written objective standard.
Commissioner Behura asked if they did ICU and HCM analysis. Was HCM analysis done for signalized intersections? Was an easily doable GAP completed? Did they look at the midday traffic due to the school let out time?
Ms. Macias stated yes to ICU and HCM and no gap analysis was carried out. The gap analysis is doable but is it warranted based upon the level of service that they observed add the two adjacent signalized intersections which create gaps in traffic. They did not look at daytime traffic because it is not required by the city traffic standards.
Traffic consultant responded they used HCM for the signalized intersection and the queuing analysis. The ICU was used for the signalized intersection.
Commissioner Behura opined that there are standards that they are allowed to look at but Commission must look at the safety of the community. Not only follow the minimum requirements that they are required to do but also steps that they could add if they really want to be a good neighbor.
He understands that not all projects require a mid-day analysis but there is a school that lets out at that time.
Ms. Macias stated by doing a midday study, they are asking them to study at the school which is not part of the project. The project does not have a significant trip generation during midday hours. We are looking at when the project has the most traffic.
Commissioner Behura asked if they had an idea of the average age of the home purchasers. Yorba Linda has a higher parking requirement than other communities and there is a value to use local numbers if they are available.
He asked if they considered using a concrete channelizer.
Ms. Macias responded they did not look at it because there is a median which restricts left-hand turns.
Chair Bernstein opened the public hearing.
17 Pam strongly objects to the development as it is not consistent with Measure JJ. The site was supposed to be on 3.9 acres with 66 units, 20 units to an acre; this is 23 or 24. Some of the commissioners were in the meetings on measure JJ and KK. A calculation could have easily been placed for max density, assuming that a developer was going to develop 100% affordable. With three or four units at 50% AMI, it seems like they are trying to do a bait and switch. The public needs to know how the density bonus is calculated; is it based on three units at 50% AMI and what is it based on 4 units at 50%. This is a three and four bedroom, forsale product and most multifamily developments are studios to two bedrooms, so it doesn't seem like the 418 daily trips are accurate. Even the 220 multifamily protocol that is stated in the studies isn't appropriate because it includes two bedrooms; this development does not include two bedrooms. The development would move the LOS down with more accurate trip generation information and perhaps require a traffic light or increase the queuing length and be above the 50 peak hour vehicle trips.
She does not see an accurate turning radius for fire trucks; there is one lane in and one out with no large turning radius on site.
The EPD memo dated November 4th did not answer all of the questions that were asked at the October 27th meeting.
There are concerns about drainage because it is going from nearly 100% pervious to 100% impervious. This development will not be self-contained and water runoff will occur and affect adjacent properties.
Fair Housing laws allow eight people to reside in a three-bedroom unit and 10 people in a four-bedroom unit, so all the impacts need to factor that in.
There should be concerns about earth movement and the 500 underground storage tanks. Will the development of this project shift the foundations of adjacent properties, and will perimeter walls contribute to soil erosion?
The city resolutions are weak and there is no prohibition from the owners of the 62 units from parking at Jessamyn West Park or the Chabad center.
The developers do not understand the nature of the city; it has a robust home-schooling community and they use the parks at all times of the day.
Brian Sharr resides at 9030 Lynn Lane, and his property will be the second most impacted. He strongly opposes the location as it is lowering the overall charm and attraction of the horse community. He understands that the state mandates this, but all the tax paying community suffers. As
18 for the traffic study, they need to look beyond just the median to where the egress and ingress. The scope is limited and ignored the impact on Yorba Linda Boulevard. Within the stretch of 2 miles, there are multiple quick stops of stores and restaurants and there are 154 units of high-density condominiums within a one block stretch. There are many queuing and back ups along Yorba Linda Boulevard. The total impact needs to take into consideration a parameter of two miles in either direction and not just that intersection.
Shawn Starkey resides 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard and opposes the project. Under the fire code any residential development with more than 30 dwelling units must have two separate fire apparatus roads. The OCFA guidelines raises the threshold to 150 units but the guideline also states that more than one road is required if a single road may be insufficient due to terrain location, travel distance, potential fire or life safety hazards or other factors that could limit access. This project relies on only one entry and exit and if the route were blocked during a wildfire from an earthquake or a traffic accident 62 families and the surrounding neighbors could be trapped. Yorba Linda’s history of wildfire evacuations make this a serious life safety concern. Over 100 additional cars could be trying to leave during peak traffic. Fire apparatus may face restricted turning or limited access across medians in real emergencies. According to the fire code, fire apparatus access roads must not exceed 150 feet without proper turn around or additional access. In this project, it is critical to confirm that all roads meet this requirement to ensure that emergency vehicles can respond safely and efficiently. There must be a minimum turning radius inside required by the CFC of 28 feet and a minimum outside turning radius of 48 feet. This project shows a 20-foot radius which is significantly less than the 28 feet required.
He asked the Commission to confirm on the record whether this project meets the fire codes and guidelines, and, if not require a redesign before any approval. He asked the Commission to carefully consider potential impacts to fire safety, noise, traffic, and the character of the neighborhood.
Brad Howard resides on Palm Avenue. This project reminds him of the fires that occurred in 1989 at Ball and Euclid. Yorba Linda has three fire trucks and if there is a fire and they get into the alleyway there is no way for them to get out. When you exit the driveway they will have to go across three lanes to get to the intersection. The U-turns will be unsafe.
19 It's most probable that these three- and four-bedroom units will have more than two cars and they will probably park in the park and on Palm Avenue or Ohio because there won't be enough parking. Have they asked the surrounding neighbors how they feel about this project with windows overlooking their backyard.
Bill Lawrence resides on Palm. The City Council denied a project in 2014 stating “The Yorba Linda zoning code requires that multifamily or singlefamily development can serve the values of adjacent properties operate in harmony with their surroundings and prove not to be detrimental to the character of buildings or uses already established in the area.” The noise, light and privacy impacts from this project are not harmonious with the surrounding environment and development and will detrimentally impact the character and use of the pre-existing single family residences. The proposed resolution indicates the construction does not result in any significant loss of privacy for adjacent residences in a manner that would compromise the neighbors' ability to obtain reasonable and enjoyable use of their property; however, the neighbors do not feel that way. Tonight, there were no good answers to fundamental questions. Eighty parking spaces below the code with no assurance that parking will not overflow in the neighborhood. The traffic study cite that Palm and Oriente are narrow streets, with no sidewalks and not design for the additional traffic. It is not safe to cross 3 lines of traffic especially if they travel up the hill at 40 mph.
Measure JJ was adopted based on the promise of local control and there are a lot of concerns expressed for this project; you need to deliver on the promises that were made for local control.
Lee Burroughs resides at 19205 Palm Vista behind the park. The questions presented today reveal innate bias in the information that's been presented today by the applicant and in the paperwork. One of the inaccuracies is how there would not be any overflow parking and numbers that don't match what is being proposed for the units.
The documents that have been presented in support of the applicant’s request for the conditional use permit has a lot of incomplete information.
When you are dealing with traffic in this general area it is like a circle between Ohio, Oriente, and Palm. Turning right out from the park and other places to go to the east, go in a circle around the neighborhoods to exit on Palm and then go east. Just studying that portion is not adequate, you have to look at the entire neighborhood and Oriente and Palm should have been part of the study.
20 There is a deficit of 80 spots according to what Yorba Linda determines to be reasonable in its zoning; where will the 80 cars go? There could be more than three or four cars per unit if there is a potential for eight to 10 people in some of the three- and four-bedroom units. Cars will be parked on streets with no sidewalks, minimal streetlights, and no parking control.
It increases the risks to all the pedestrians who walk their dogs and ride their bikes. It will narrow the dark street and cause more of a safety issue.
There will also be threshold construction noise and no substantiation for the project noise. The Commission should require additional studies and another EIR for further proof that they meet basic safety requirements for the community.
Matthew Vawter resides at 4777 Palm Avenue, 318 feet away. After he received the public notice, he reached out to the city manager and assistant city manager and did not receive a response. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked about the technical studies that were completed from biology, traffic, GHG, construction, and vibration noise.
Commission has discretion authority with the CUP and can probably deny the project based on the CUP.
The trees will take time to reach their maturity; there are no trees for privacy on the east side and the planter on the east side is only three feet wide, which is too tight for planting trees in them. The bio study has no mention of the bio studies.
The applicant failed to provide evidence that the noise and vibration will be within the limits of the mitigation measures. The schedule states that the grading operation will consist of six days for 2 1/2 acres and they are exporting 10,000 yards; does that sound reasonable?
Gary Devian resides on JJ Lane on the north end of Ohio. Sixty-two units will affect the neighborhood, and it is inappropriate.
Elizabeth Hansberg supports the project because there is a housing shortage in California. Many professionals are still living with their parents because there is no entry level homeownership opportunity in the city where they grew up. The price point of $1.5 million entry point is prohibitively expensive to most people under 40. This site was approved by the voters as being appropriate for housing.
Travis Hudson resides on Ohio. The garage checks will not affect the cars that are parked on the streets. They didn't conduct a parking analysis, they just showed what was done on other projects and they didn't care to see
21 what was parked in adjacent areas in those other communities. He doesn’t agree with their statement that there will be zero effect on traffic.
Penny resides on Ohio and frequents the Park with her two young children and there is never any parking due to sports and parties. The tenants will park in the park. $800,000 is not affordable housing and this is not the place for these many units.
Jeanie MacArthur on Fairway View Drive opposes the project due to cost of units and placement of the project. That property was donated to the city years ago and was to be used as a park and equestrian community.
John DeLap resides at 4625 Ohio and is a real estate broker. His street has no sidewalks, or lighting with very little traffic. There will be four cars per unit and it will be difficult to enforce the use of garages and the fines are not enforceable. He has traffic concerns due to the high density.
Barbara Fox of 4502 Palm Avenue asked if this is the first three story complex in Yorba Linda? This project does not fit in with the rural nature of Yorba Linda. She feels fire access is inadequate for such a small area. Is there storage in garages for bicycles, workbenches, golf clubs, etc. and how will they police the number of cars per household?
Karen Krueger stated she does not want to see the 50-foot setbacks waived because it set a precedence. The public notice should have gone out to all Yorba Linda residents.
Rebecca Dominguez resides at 19363 Easy Street across from the park.
Her main concern is the safety issue with parking and feels the overflow parking will go on Palm. There are a lot of red-light runners due to the hill on Yorba Linda.
Aaron Adams, 19175 Palm Vista is one of the three who will have the project overlook his yard. He has privacy concerns due to lack of trees on that part of the project. If there is a fire, people will be trapped along the north wall. Also, trees are overgrown on Palm and people cannot see the light as they are coming through.
Ron Thompson, 19111 East Yorba Linda Boulevard has concerns for parking, garage inspections, privacy, burrowing animals, and maturity of trees. Concerns about vibration damage from compaction and removal of 3-5 feet of soil that is five feet from his home. Infiltration testing was not conducted close to his property.
Craig Paul, 18751 Deville Drive opposes the project.
22 Steve Thompson, 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard, opposes the project due to safety, traffic, and quality of life.
Recess 10:10 p.m. to 10:20 p.m.
Chair Bernstein called the meeting back to order and asked the Commission to defer this meeting to next Wednesday due to the late hour.
Director Farnsworth added the next regular Planning Commission meeting is December 10th. A special meeting can be scheduled for November 19th for the balance of the agenda.
Ms. Sanders asked to have the meeting called back to order, take roll and take a motion to adjourn.
Roll call taken; all Commissioners remained present at the meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Behura, second by Commissioner Goldfarb to continue the item to the November 19th Planning Commission meeting. Vote: 4-0
Chair Bernstein asked for deliberation beginning with the Traffic Commission to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Chair De Santos asked for comments or a motion.
Commissioner Behura asked staff if signs for U-turns will be added at the park if this passes.
Public Works stated yes to comply with restrictions in the California MUCD.
Chair De Santos asked if they are amending the recommendation for city staff to continue to evaluate signage for this project.
Jaimie Lai, Public Works Director, added there is a condition on the dais that has been drafted that addresses those concerns.
Mr. Diaz stated it is on the last page of the resolution, condition 156.
Commissioners all took time to review the condition.
Traffic Commission clarified it is the resolution that includes the optional draft condition if necessary?
Ms. Lai responded that the conditions can be modified as needed.
Traffic Commission opined there needs to be improvements on the project; they are not against housing; it has to be done the right way.
23 There are still a lot of questions that haven’t been fully answered. He recommended adding in the draft condition no. 156 and read it into the record. He asked them to study the park and Chabad to see how many cars they contribute. He would also like to study how many cars are coming out of Club Terrace and making a left turn onto Yorba Linda Boulevard heading west. It will play a part of cars in that area. It is important to see real count of parking spaces and demand of other projects that have already been built to help them understand real parking demands.
Commissioner Patel added a signal modification or installation within 500 feet of the subject property and center raised median modifications could be an option. Five hundred feet covers Palm and Ohio.
Commissioner Cugini asked if implementation mitigations are paid for by the city or developer?
Ms. Lai stated the developer pays because the timing is still prior to release of bonds.
Chair DeSantos suggested adding cost and implementation to condition so that it is clear to the developer.
He recapped that the additional language should read “The applicant shall be responsible for cost and implementation of any improvements or any counter measures necessary to mitigate any traffic safety issues, identified by the city after full occupancy of the development. Including, but not limited to, pavement marking modifications, signage installation, center raised median configurations and signal modifications and installation.” Ms. Sanders advised they can follow their standard practice when making their recommendation and don’t need a formal vote, but they can do so.
Chair Bernstein asked if they want Planning Commission to add the cost and implementation of traffic safety to their consideration and Planning Commission will consider parking.
Chair DeSantos stated yes.
Ms. Sanders added the Planning Commission has the Traffic Commission’s deliberation and recommendations that they can take into account.
Traffic Commission vote:
24 Cugini asked for a modification to the motion to add additional studies as well as consideration of looking at parking demand of their current projects.
Motion: Cugini Second: Phayakapong - 5-0
Chair Bernstein asked if Commission if they want to continue, postpone or continue to December 10th. He asked staff if there was a way for the applicant to forward concessions.
Director Farnsworth stated it would be helpful to advise the applicant of any additional information that they would like them to provide in preparation for the next meeting if this is continued. Is there anything else the Commission wants from the applicant before the meeting.
Commissioner Behura asked if it is feasible to have the channelization that he was asking about and can a portion of the driveway be used for channelization to cut down on left turns from the site. Can a Rt-2 sign be installed?
Public Works stated they typically install a right turn only on their side and there could be another one on the far side on the raised median.
Commissioner Behura added that it is likely that there are enough gaps in traffic, but he would like to see it in writing, so the public understands.
Parking is a major concern to him, and he is not convinced where people will park and walk across the streets. Is it possible to have control over the CC&R’s and conduct surprise inspections.
Ms. Saunders stated yes, it can be conditioned or if the applicant agrees, it can be added in the CC&R’s.
Commissioner Behura would like them to look at the feasibility of mature trees for privacy issues. He is also concerned about access for fire trucks and wants the questions addressed. Will they be enforcing no parking against the buildings. He’d like to know the difference between Measure JJ and this project and difference between what would have been and now.
Commissioner Goldfarb asked for clarification on the difference between the 3 and 4 affordable units. He asked about parking accommodation for laborers such as gardeners, plumbers, etc. Does the park already have no overnight parking. (staff nodded yes)
25 Commissioner Masterson asked applicant about replacing building one with additional parking. It would go a long way; they would lose four units, but it would solve the street line issue, and it would provide additional parking.
Chair Bernstein agreed with all commissioners and asked for clarification on how traffic moves if there is a fire truck and outgoing vehicles. He suggested bringing the height of the front building down to two stories.
Commissioner Masterson agreed that it is a fair compromise.
Consultant asked for clarification on what they are looking for with the parking studies because they based it all on what the law allows. What could a study show that would be the basis to not approve the project.
Commissioner Behura responded they are not looking to not approve the project, just want concessions for normal parking requirements. If there was no density bonus, what would have been their normal parking ratio.
Chair De Santos added improvements are counter measures once they see what is happening with the number of people and cars that are there.
Consultant asked how that would work because the final bond release would be after final occupancy. It can’t be an open-ended commitment.
Mr. Burt added this condition is a mandate to fund any improvements they deem appropriate in the future. It doesn’t say who the city decides, the standard, how much they decide, it just says you shall pay for the things we demand in the future. It also is for the next ten years. So, additional projects can be built or have ambient traffic growth and the city now believes this project is responsible. This condition is a non-starter and violates constitutional principles about improper exactions. It is unworkable the way it is drafted.
Commissioner Goldfarb stated they could just ask for a light.
Mr. Burt said no because there is no demand for a light, no relationship to the project.
Chair Bernstein stated they are throwing out uninformed thoughts because they understand their community but not the project. There is no need for a back and forth but would like them to hear the commission and come back with a creative idea.
Mr. Burt stated he talked about the Housing Accountability Act and the Density Bonus Law and needed to discuss the purpose of them and why
26 the project is availing itself of those. It is impossible to complete affordable projects, you need government subsidies so the density bonus law is a mechanism whereby you can get affordable projects, but to build those affordable units, it entitles developers to benefits and one of those is parking. Legally the parking standard for this project is less than the parking that is being provided and they are being asked to further analyze something that they are entitled to do. The Housing Accountability Act limits the agency’s ability to impose undue demands that constitute undue delays and hardships on projects. They are asking them to further analyze a parking ratio that already exceeds what they are required to do under state law. The conditions being imposed on the applicant are going beyond what this commission is entitled to do. Reading the law, the requests and demands of the commission violate the law.
Commission Behura stated anything they are asking for is not a requirement to implement. There is a large impact on the neighborhood.
Ms. Saunders stated Commission is not deciding right now and is just providing their thoughts and comments. If continued, they can discuss changes to the draft condition that will make it more tailored to the impacts of the project. They are aware of the housing laws. What they are asking for is informational and there is no requirement.
Commissioner Goldfarb added even though you are allowed to do something, you might want to be a good neighbor and do a little less than you are allowed to.
Counsel added that the project cannot be built if they reduce the number of affordable units, which means the project doesn’t get built. This is a housing element site that the Commission and Council identified for housing and this development delivers on that. The only project the neighborhood would be comfortable with would be two or three homes.
Chair Bernstein feels the applicant understands what is needed.
Consultant stated he cannot promise that he can remove a whole building and he is trying to understand what they are specifically looking for.
Chair Bernstein responded he can confer with staff on what they need.
There is a two-phase affordable project being built and they took off the entire top floor to make it fit the neighborhood. They don’t have to figure it out tonight; just look at it for options.
27 Director Farnsworth added they will meet with the applicant and their team within the next week and give them further direction. They have a good understanding of what the commission is requesting.
Commissioner Masterson asked if the applicant could meet with Commissioners.
Ms. Sanders said yes if they are not meeting with multiple members.
Moved by Behura
Seconded by Masterson
A motion by Commissioner Johnson, second by Commissioner Phayakapong, recommending to the Planning Commission additional studies and conditions to address traffic safety and parking impacts.
The Planning Commission continued this item to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting date of December 10, 2025.
AYES (4): Behura, Bernstein, Goldfarb, and Masterson
ABSENT (1): Chavez Marquez
CARRIED (4 to 0)
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
11. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
12. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
Yes, from Mr. Schofro
13. ADJOURNMENT
11:15 p.m.
_________________________
NATE FARNSWORTH, AICP
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
4845 Casa Loma Avenue, Yorba Linda, CA 92886
714-961-7100 | www.yorbalindaca.gov
DATE: December 10, 2025
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Community Development Department
BY: Gabriel Diaz, Associate Planner
RE: Attachment 15 - Continuation Memo for Planning Comm. 12-10-25.docx
BACKGROUND
This item was initially heard at a joint Planning and Traffic Commission meeting on November 12, 2025. The request to review a proposal from City Ventures to develop the Housing Element site at 19081 Yorba Linda Boulevard and adjacent to Jessamyn West Park with 62 single-family attached homes was attended by over 80 residents. During the hearing, the Planning and Traffic Commissions took public testimony and deliberated. After considering the proposal, public comments, and input from the Traffic Commission, the Planning Commission voted to continue the project to their regular meeting of December 10th with direction to the applicant to further study concerns related to traffic, circulation, parking, landscaping, and building height. Staff has attached a copy of the staff report and draft meeting minutes from the November 12th meeting for the Commission’s reference.
DISCUSSION
Following the meeting, the applicant coordinated with residents, commissioners, and city staff to incorporate feedback to revise plans, prepare new studies, and explore alternatives. Topics that have been revisited since the meeting include traffic, circulation, parking, landscaping, privacy, and fire access. These items are discussed in further detail below:
Traffic, Circulation, and Safety
At the request of the Traffic and Planning Commissions, the applicant was instructed to provide additional information to supplement the project’s traffic impact analysis, including a gap analysis to determine the feasibility of existing the site and heading westbound onto Yorba Linda Boulevard from the project’s only driveway. This was a large source of concern from the public since the project’s future residents would need to gain access to the left turn lane pocket at South Ohio Street to complete a U-turn if they wanted to go eastbound.
Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 2
The applicant’s traffic consultant, EDP Solutions, Inc., conducted a gap study on November 19, 2025, to observe and collect data during the peak hour traffic period for the site. An AM survey was completed between 7:44 a.m. and 8:16 a.m. to determine if adequate right-turn maneuvering time, 6.5 seconds1, was available based on the number of vehicles expected to exit the site. Given that the project Is expected to generate 19 outbound trips during the AM peak period and the survey data, the anticipated demand is much lower than the vehicle-gap capacity (95 vehicles); it was concluded that vehicles exiting the project site would have adequate gaps to make a right turn out of the driveway.
A line-of-sight analysis was also analyzed using site specific variables such as the posted speed limit (40 mph), the actual observed 85th percentile vehicle speeds (48 mph), and the timed gap needed to turn onto the road (6.5 seconds). The analysis determined that the 459 linear feet of sight distance that is provided is adequate. Furthermore, the downhill sloped portions of the Yorba Linda Boulevard, located east of the project site, is outside of the 459-foot distance.
1 The gap analysis cites the Highway Design Manual, which references 6.5 seconds as the required corner sight distance time gap for a passenger car to make a right turn at an unsignalized intersection.
Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 3
In terms of traffic safety improvements, the applicant has agreed to adding “no-left-turn” signage in the median to ensure project residents are aware of the turn restrictions. The existing median extends 100 feet easterly, as measure from the proposed site driveway, in order to prevent this type of maneuver. Lastly, the applicant has agreed to include reflective bollards and a right turn only divider to further prevent an illegal maneuver.
Lastly, traffic peak hours were specifically analyzed for the adjacent properties located at the North County Chabad Center, Jessamyn West Park, and Club Terrace Drive using traffic data.
Worst case scenarios for the generation of traffic at the Chabad Center and Jessamyn West Park, and Club Terrace Drive intersection were analyzed and were found to either have different land use peak hours and/or would not conflict with the project driveway maneuvering.
Parking
The applicant presented an alternative site layout option at the November 12 meeting that would relocate an existing site trash enclosure further north to create an additional guest parking space.
Although this is a minor increase, the new stall was gained in the redesign that was originally intended to alleviate the potential noise and odor concerns for the trash enclosure location raised by the resident at 19111 Yorba Linda Boulevard. That design was formally submitted to staff, and the added parking stall has been included in the project plans as seen below highlighted in red. The added stall has also been incorporated into the updated parking demand analysis.
Although it is a minor increase, the overall on-site parking count is now 138 spaces compared to the State Density Bonus Law requirement of 122 spaces which is inclusive of ADA spaces.
Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 4
Other parking-related requests from the Commissions included the analysis of parking requirements using SANDAG parking rates for multi-family units to compare to another suburban metropolitan area. The analysis concluded that the project is providing adequate parking based on the SANDAG parking rates in addition to those required under State Density Bonus Law.
Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 5
Landscaping and Privacy
The Commission requested the applicant to include larger 36-inch box trees, to the maximum extent feasible, to minimize privacy impacts for the adjacent properties. A larger box size tree can provide a larger canopy and shading to further obscure views. After consulting with the City Landscape Architect and staff, the applicant has redesigned the rear portion of the project along the horse trail. In order to accommodate these larger trees, the applicant has swapped the walkways with the landscape/tree area to pull the trees closer to the project buildings. In doing so, there is more room to allow for the larger canopies and root systems required for the larger 36” box trees. In addition, the applicant has shifted the planting locations of these trees to align more directly with the upper floor windows and balconies. A total of 13 trees are now proposed along the rear property line compared to the previous design utilizing 12 trees. The changes can be observed in the rectangle seen below on the landscape plans. As a result of these changes the privacy impact towards the horse trail and the northern property, located at 19030 Lynn Lane, have been further reduced.
Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 6
Fire Access
Due to public feedback, the Commission requested the applicant to reach out to Orange County Fire Authority to confirm the project was meeting their site planning standards. This was confirmed between OCFA staff, the city, and the applicant over email correspondence. OCFA reiterated that there were no observable site access design issues with the plans. Staff has included a standard condition of approval provided by OCFA stating that approval of a Fire Master Plan must be completed prior to OCFA clearance of a final map or issuance of a precise grading permit. This requirement was already included as OCFA condition #154 for the Tentative Tract Map resolution and remains unchanged. Any site planning changes made after the initial OCFA review will still be subject to the Fire Master Plan review and all OCFA access and safety standards.
State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) Calculation
As requested by the Planning Commission, staff has included a breakdown of the SDBL calculation for this project for further clarification based on the site specifics for lot size, base density, and the inclusion of very low-income (VLI) units in the project. The subject site is 2.647 acres at a base density of 20 units per acre under RM-20 zoning standards, which would allow for up to 52.94 “base” units. SDBL requires all fractional units to be rounded up; therefore, 53 base units is allowed by-right.
The project proposes to develop 3 of those units (equal to 5.7 percent of the base units) as VLI affordable units. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), the applicant is entitled to a 22.5% “density bonus” as a result (highlighted in the table below). For a 53 base unit project, the applicable density bonus equates to 11.9 additional units, rounded up to 12 units, for an overall total of 65 units. The density bonus increases on sliding scale if the number of affordable units increases as seen in the table below. Although the project is entitled to the full bonus, the applicant has elected to cap the overall total to 62 units.
INCREASE IN ALLOWABLE DENSITY FOR VERY LOW-INCOME UNITS (53 Base Units) (Per State Density Bonus Law)
Percentage of Very
Low-Income (VLI)
Units Provided
Percentage
Density Bonus
Allowed
# of VLI Units
Required for
Reservation to Qualify
Overall Maximum
Project Units
Allowed
5% 20% 3 64
6% 22.5% 4 65
7% 25% 4 67
8% 27.5% 5 68
9% 30% 5 69
10% 32.5% 6 71
11% 35% 6 72
Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has included previous staff reports, attachments, and plans for the Planning Commission’s reference. With the additional studies, analysis, and revised plans submitted in response to the Traffic and Planning Commission’s direction at the previous hearing, staff believes the applicant’s request has further mitigated potential impacts and provided requested clarifications.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map 19389, with conditions.
2. Approve, by minute motion, Design Review 2025-02, with conditions.
3. Adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 2025-10, with conditions.
ATTACHMENTS
1) Project Plans
2) Vicinity Map
3) Applicant Narrative Letter
4) Community Meeting Response
5) Public Correspondence
Traffic & Parking
6) Traffic Impact Analysis
7) Traffic Impact Analysis Appendices
8) Parking Compliance Memo
9) Parking Demand Analysis Memo
10) Level of Service Screening Memo
Environmental
11) Environmental Analysis
12) Project Geotechnical Report
13) Phase I Report
14) Phase II Report
15) Preliminary Hydrology Report
16) Preliminary WQMP
17) Project GHG Report
Memorandum - Continued
CUP 2025-10, TTM 19389, & DR 2025-02 – City Ventures
December 10, 2025
Page | 8
18) Project Biological Resources Assessment
19) Noise & Vibration Analysis
Resolutions and Conditions
20) Tentative Tract Map 19389 Resolution, with conditions 21) Conditions of Approval for Design Review 2025-02
22) CUP 2025-10 Resolution with Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval New or Revised Information
23) Joint Traffic & Planning Commission Meeting Minutes- 11/12/25 24) Supplemental Traffic Analysis- 12/2/25
25) New Public Correspondence
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2026
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: NATE FARNSWORTH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: GABRIEL DIAZ, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SUBJECT: UPHOLD PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
RECOMMENDATION
1. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389 and adopt Resolution No. 2026-5970.
2. Consider a request from Mayor Pro Tem Huang to waive any appeal fees for the appellant beyond the initial $1,000 deposit.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 10, 2025, the Planning Commission approved a 62-unit townhome development at 19801 Yorba Linda Blvd. The Planning Commission’s approval was appealed on December 18, 2025.
Voters zoned the property for 20 units/acre (53 units in total) in November 2024 with the approval of Measure JJ. State Density Bonus Law allows the applicant to exceed City zoning limits (by up to 12 units) and requires the City to waive various development standards.
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval because the voter-approved 2021-2029 Housing Element establishes 19801 Yorba Linda Blvd as a housing opportunity site and because the project is consistent with State law.
DISCUSSION
Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law
Over the last several years, the State Legislature enacted several news laws aimed at addressing California’s ongoing housing crisis. These laws include updates to the Housing
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 2
Accountability Act (HAA), the Housing Crisis Act, and State Density Bonus Law.
Combined, these laws limit local land authority and restrict the City Council’s control over housing.
Key limitations on local land use authority imposed by the Legislature include:
1. The HAA limits qualifying projects to a maximum of five hearings. A hearing is broadly defined to include workshops, preliminary reviews, and continuances. For this project, the Traffic Commission and Planning Commission held a joint meeting on November 12, 2025, followed by a Planning Commission hearing on December 10, 2025 and now, the February 3, 2025 City Council hearing. If the City conducts more than five hearings on the project, it constitutes a violation of the HAA.
2. The HAA limits local agencies’ ability to deny qualifying projects or impose conditions that reduce project density. Specifically, the local agency must find that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact based on objective, written public health or safety standards in effect when the application was deemed complete, and that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the identified impact other than disapproving the project or approving it at a lower density.
Unfortunately, many impacts and arguments that are important to the City and residents do not meet the legal threshold for denial, including:
Impacts on private views
Concerns that a project does not fit within the neighborhood character Concerns related to crime
Impacts on property values
Traffic congestion
Parking shortfalls (based on local standards)
State law requires that an objective analysis must clearly demonstrate that a project would create a significant and unavoidable impact that violates an adopted health and safety standard.
The HAA makes it extraordinarily difficult for local agencies to make the findings required to deny a housing project and the City’s analysis of this project concludes that there are no qualifying reasons to deny the project.
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 3
It is reasonable to expect that a City Council decision to grant the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval will be challenged. The challenge would likely result in litigation. State law pertaining to housing litigation makes it difficult for cities to prevail in such litigation.
The challenge could also result in:
A court order approving the project without conditions Notices of Violation from the California Department of Housing and Community Development and potential risks to the City’s Housing Element on the basis that it is not being implemented and/or its programs are not effective
Local land use regulations and zoning being overridden and housing being developed on any qualifying site under State “Builder’s Remedy” laws
3. Because three of the project’s 62 units are set aside for very low-income households. State Density Bonus Law requires the City to allow:
A 22.5% density bonus. This bonus increases the number of units allowed on the 2.65-acre site from 53 to 65. The project includes nine density bonus units
One incentive/concession. The project provides parking at a lower rate applicable to qualified density bonus developments. The project includes 137 parking spaces - 15 more than required by State law, but 80 fewer than required by City standards
Development standard waivers where the standard would physically preclude the construction of the project at the allowed density. The project includes waivers for setbacks, landscaping, and perimeter wall heights When a project meets State affordability requirements, local agencies are mandated to approve the density bonus, incentive/concession, and development standard waivers unless there are objective and specific health and safety impacts.
The Project
Yorba Linda 3 Inv. LLC (City Ventures) has applied to build 62 townhomes on 2.65 acres.
The project includes 33 three-bedroom/three-bathroom units, and 29 four-bedroom/fourbathroom units across 12 three-story buildings. Units range from 1,363 to 1,639 square feet and are generally configured with ground level parking, a family room, kitchen/dining area, ground floor outdoor patios, and second floor balconies. Access to the project is from a new entrance on Yorba Linda Blvd.
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 4
The project site consists of one flag lot parcel (APN: 323-081-35) east of Ohio Street, west of Palm Avenue and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard. The site is generally bound by a trail easement and single-family homes to the north/northeast, Jessamyn West Park to the east, and the North County Chabad Center to the west.
More details about the project are included in the attached Planning Commission reports.
Summary of Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission approved the project on December 10, 2025, following a joint Traffic Commission and Planning Commission public hearing on November 12, 2025. At both public hearings, Commissioners discussed traffic, circulation, safety, parking, landscaping, and building height. In between the November and December hearings, City Ventures met with Commissioners, residents, and staff to revise plans, prepare new studies, and explore alternatives.
Summary of Changes to the Project Following
Traffic Commission and Planning Commission Public Hearings Topic Response
Traffic, Circulation,
and Safety
Provided a gap study and line of sight analysis supporting the feasibility and safety of exiting the site
Agreed to “no left turn” signage, bollards, a right turn only divider, and a $50,000 surety bond for street median
improvements (Condition#156 NEW)
Analyzed Chabad Center, Jessamyn West Park, and Club
Terrace Drive to confirm offsetting peak traffic demand Parking
Reconfigured the site to add one parking space
Added a parking management and enforcement plan in the CC&Rs, including assigned resident parking, guest parking signage, enforcement authority and towing procedures,
prohibiting converting garages to storage/living space, restricting off-site overnight parking, and requiring adhesive stickers on residents’ vehicles (Condition #158 NEW)
Agreed to submit a parking utilization study and an overflow parking observation memorandum post-occupancy
(Condition #159 NEW)
Agreed to make a good faith effort agreement to secure a shared special event parking agreement with nearby
property owners (Condition #160 NEW)
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 5
Landscaping and
Privacy
Reconfigured the site to accommodate larger 36-inch box trees along the rear property line and align tree locations to enhance privacy (Condition #131)
Incorporated solid/opaque screening materials on secondstory balconies/decks facing single family homes (Condition #157 NEW)
Fire Access
Confirmed with OCFA that the site plan is approved inconcept, has no observable site design issues, and requires standard Fire Master Plan (Condition #154)
A copy of the reports and minutes from the November 12 joint Traffic Commission and Planning Commission meeting and December 10 Planning Commission meeting are attached.
Appeal
On December 18, 2025, Mr. Gary Devian appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of Tentative Tract Map 19389, citing unresolved concerns with parking, circulation, traffic, safety, density, and fire safety. The appeal is attached.
Although only Tentative Tract Map 19389 was appealed, the City Council has the discretion to consider all aspects of the project. Because approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Application are contingent upon the Tentative Tract Map should the City Council not approve the Tentative Tract Map the other entitlements would be null and void.
The City has received public comments regarding the project (attached). In general, the comments identified the following concerns:
1) Density and neighborhood compatibility. Neighborhood character is not a lawful basis for denying the project. State law prohibits denial based on subjective compatibility concerns
2) Traffic, parking, pedestrian safety, and evacuation impacts. Traffic and safety concerns were analyzed and do not meet the legal standard for denial. No substantial evidence of a specific, unavoidable, adverse impact on public health or safety has been demonstrated
3) The project should be relocated. The City cannot require relocation of a private project. Requiring relocation would be an unlawful denial 4) Affordable housing occupants. Affordable housing tenant screening is governed by various state and federal laws. The City cannot impose additional requirements and
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 6
cannot deny the project based on concerns about who might live in affordable housing
5) The project exceeds Measure JJ density. More than 90% of Yorba Linda voters approved Measure JJ in November 2024, allowing the City to meet its housing obligations while safeguarding local control over land use decisions. The zoning established in Measure JJ permits 53 units to be built on this site (20 units/acre on the 2.65-acre site). However, the zoning limits set in Measure JJ, like those in every California city, are subject to State law. Because the project provides affordable housing, the project qualifies for State Density Bonus Law that allows increased density
6) The project’s environmental review is inadequate. The project has been fully analyzed as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no additional information has been provided that demonstrates the CEQA analysis was incomplete/inadequate
In summary, the project complies with State law, and it is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project.
FISCAL IMPACT
The appellant was required to submit a $1,000 deposit for the appeal. Staff time to process the appeal is charged against the deposit and the appellant is obligated to reimburse the City for the cost of the appeal. Mayor Pro Tem Huang requests that the City Council waive any appeal fees beyond the initial $1,000 deposit fee pursuant to Municipal Code §18.36.830. The cost to process the appeal is estimated to be $10,000.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The project site was evaluated as part of the 2021-29 Housing Element Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The PEIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, and the City Council adopted findings and statements of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA to approve the Housing Element. Following revisions to the Housing Element in response to Measure B and community input, an Addendum to the PEIR concluded that the revisions would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts.
The project is a subsequent action within the scope of the certified PEIR and Addendum.
The City has determined that the project’s environmental effects were adequately analyzed in those documents and that applicable mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. A CEQA consistency analysis further confirmed that the project would not introduce new significant impacts or substantially increase previously identified impacts, and therefore no supplemental environmental documentation is
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 7
required.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatively, the City Council may:
1. Approve the project with additional modifications/conditions of approval
2. Continue the item to a future City Council meeting
3. Establish findings for a Resolution of Denial, for consideration at the next regular City Council meeting. Under the HAA, the City Council must find that the project would result in a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety that cannot feasibly be mitigated
ATTACHMENTS
1) Project Plans
2) Vicinity Map
3) Applicant Narrative Letter
4) Community Meeting Response
Traffic & Parking
5) Traffic Impact Analysis
6) Traffic Impact Analysis Appendices
7) Parking Compliance Memo
8) Parking Demand Analysis Memo
9) Level of Service Screening Memo
Environmental
10) Environmental Analysis
11) Project Geotechnical Report
12) Phase I Report
13) Phase II Report
14) Preliminary Hydrology Report
15) Preliminary WQMP
16) Project GHG Report
17) Project Biological Resources Assessment
18) Noise & Vibration Analysis
Resolutions and Conditions
19) Tentative Tract Map 19389 Appeal Resolution 2026-5970, with conditions
APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19389 – CITY VENTURES
P a g e | 8
20) Conditions of Approval for Design Review 2025-02
21) CUP 2025-10 Resolution with Exhibit “A” – Conditions of Approval Meeting Reports, Minutes, and Correspondence
22) Joint Traffic & Planning Commission Staff Report- 11/12/25 23) Public Correspondence for Planning Commission Meetings 24) Joint Traffic & Planning Commission Meeting Minutes- 11/12/25 25) Supplemental Traffic Analysis- 12/2/25
26) Continuation Memo for Planning Commission – 12/10/25 27) Planning Commission Meeting Minutes- 12/10/25
28) Tentative Tract Map 19389 Appeal Application- 12/18/25 California Government Code Sections
29) State Density Bonus Law – Cal Gov. Code Sections 65915-65918 30) Housing Accountability Act– Cal Gov. Code Section 65589.5
From: Nichole Valdez
To: Marcia Brown
Subject: FW: 62 CONDOS
Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026 10:30:08 AM
Hello Marcia,
Below is an email in opposition to City Ventures.
Thank you,
NICHOLE VALDEZ
Administrative Assistant II
From: Scott Nathan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2026 9:51 AM
To: Nichole Valdez <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: 62 CONDOS
Nicole — pls see this email and add it to your list of others opposing this project. Building these condos is a very bad idea and our city deserves better. I have lived here for —36 years and want the best for all the residents !
Thanks—Scott
Retired Old Dog
714-423-0806
Begin forwarded message:
From: Scott Nathan <[email protected]>
Date: February 26, 2026 at 9:16:59 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: 62 CONDOS
Hello Carlos—me again— just read in the paper that they are really trying to build these units. Nobody wants them built and this is just about a greedy developer trying to make more money. Our city does not need these units to be built and will severely impact traffic and cause even more problems. Have you driven down Yorba Linda Blvd. lately, it is so busy.
Pls repsond to me and tell me what I can do to help stop this project. You and the city cancel have an obligation to stop this and look out for the residents of Yorba
Linda.
If I was on the council, I would be embarrassed to even consider building these condos. Let them build them out in Fontana!
I WANT TO HEAR FROM
Thanks—Scott
Retired Old Dog
714-423-0806
From: Susan Lamp
To: Naomi Blesofsky; Shivinderjit Singh; Carlos Rodriguez; Tara Campbell; Peggy Huang; Janice Lim; Aba; Levi Husband Blesofsky; Alex Rounaghi; Ryan Aeh
Cc: Marcia Brown; Nate Farnsworth; Chris Dominguez; Nichole Valdez; Gabriel Diaz Subject: Re: 62-Unit Residential Development Adjacent to Chabad Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 3:19:21 PM
Attachments: Outlook-pyvd1x1l.png
Outlook-jcmvlmh4.png
Outlook-fg0rndjr.png
Outlook-zpc1ydhf.png
The City Council is in receipt of your email.
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: Naomi Blesofsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 2:22 PM
To: Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Janice Lim <[email protected]>; Aba <[email protected]>; Levi Husband Blesofsky <[email protected]>; Susan Lamp <[email protected]>; Alex Rounaghi <[email protected]>; Ryan Aeh <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 62-Unit Residential Development Adjacent to Chabad Project Address: 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.
Entitlements: CUP 2025-10 / TTM 19389 / DR 2025-02
To the City of Yorba Linda, City Ventures, and Relevant Reviewing Authorities:
We acknowledge the ongoing dialogue between the City of Yorba Linda, City Ventures, and Chabad Beth Meir Hacohen, a Jewish religious institution operating an on-site licensed preschool Aleph Preschool. However, we must state clearly, formally, and unequivocally:
Chabad does not agree that the City or City Ventures have acted in good faith, nor that our needs were meaningfully considered at any stage of planning, review, or proposed accommodation.
Our religious campus and educational facilities, including a licensed preschool serving young
children, Hebrew school, daily and evening religious services, holiday programming, and community services, were never properly evaluated, consulted, or incorporated into the project design. Any assertion to the contrary is inaccurate and unsupported by the record.
This letter serves as (1) a formal objection to the project as proposed, (2) notice of failure to engage as directed by the City Council, and (3) a formal demand that enforceable mitigation measures be memorialized in a binding Neighbor Agreement and Conditions of Approval.
I. Line of Sight, Wall Height, and Landscaping
A minimum 12-foot solid wall, with no reductions, visual gaps, step-downs, or transparency, is required along the shared property line.
A licensed landscape architect, approved by Chabad, must design all screening.
City Ventures must fully fund, install, and permanently maintain all landscaping, irrigation, replacement, and upkeep at no cost to Chabad.
Any lesser measure creates unacceptable visual, acoustic, and security exposure into a religious and educational campus serving children.
II. Security Impacts
Statements in project materials asserting that Chabad has full-time security are false.
Chabad does not have permanent on-site security personnel.
Limited monitoring occurs only in the parking area.
Hired security is present solely during major Jewish holidays and special events.
The introduction of 62 new residential units materially increases security risk, as confirmed by local professional assessments and an initial review by COSEM, Chabad’s international security organization.
Enhanced security measures are unavoidable and mandatory given increased density, pedestrian traffic, and uncontrolled access points adjacent to a synagogue and preschool.
III. Gate Access and Control
Claims that Chabad maintains on-site security during operating hours are inaccurate.
Chabad requires full and exclusive control over a physical gate to:
Prevent overflow parking from the residential project
Restrict unauthorized access
Protect congregants, students, faculty, and staff
City Ventures must fully fund the gate, including design and installation, and Chabad must retain sole discretion over its operation at all times.
IV. Construction Noise, Dust, and Operational Disruption No evaluation has been conducted of Chabad’s actual operational schedule, which includes:
Daily and evening religious services
Licensed preschool hours and mandatory nap times
Hebrew school programming
Major Jewish holidays and high-attendance events
Construction must therefore be contractually bound to the following:
Strict limitations on construction hours
Absolute prohibition during Jewish High Holidays
Robust dust, noise, and vibration mitigation
Designation of a dedicated construction liaison
Installation of safety barriers
Full accountability for any disruption, damage, or regulatory violation V. Traffic and Road Configuration
While we acknowledge the revised road placement along the western edge, the current project exit remains dangerously close and directly parallel to Chabad’s synagogue exit on a fastmoving arterial road.
This configuration creates a clear and foreseeable risk of vehicular and pedestrian conflict, particularly during peak religious services and school drop-off/pick-up times.
We strongly recommend:
Shifting the first residential building further west
Relocating the project entrance to the east side of the development parcel
This modification would materially reduce congestion and significantly improve safety for both residents and congregants.
VI. Affordable Housing Units
Chabad is open to discussion regarding affordable housing units; however:
No formal proposal has been presented
All discussions must be in writing
No assumptions of agreement may be made absent documented review and consent VII. Failure to Engage and Formal Demand for Mitigation Agreement This correspondence also serves as a formal response to City Ventures’ continued failure to substantively engage with the senior leadership of Chabad Beth Meir Hacohen.
During recent public proceedings, the City Council issued a clear directive that the developer must engage directly with the adjacent synagogue and preschool to resolve site-specific concerns. To date, City Ventures has chosen a strategy of avoidance and delay.
Be advised: our patience has been exhausted.
We are not interested in generalized references to “standard industry practices.” This project directly impacts a sensitive religious institution and licensed preschool, and the current proposal is dangerously inadequate.
Further, given City Ventures’ documented history including a $199,000 civil settlement and police-led environmental investigation in Santa Rosa for ignoring safety notices, as well as litigation history such as Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina— we have zero confidence in the developer’s willingness to self-regulate absent a binding private agreement.
VIII. Formal Demands: Required Conditions of Approval
To avoid immediate escalation, Chabad formally demands the following be incorporated into a binding Neighbor Agreement and enforceable Conditions of Approval:
1. 15–18 Foot Masonry and Planted Wall
Anti-climb, sound-attenuated
“Living screen” of mature evergreen trees
Complete elimination of three-story line-of-sight into sanctuary and preschool areas
2. One-Time Security Mitigation Payment
Dedicated to physical hardening of the synagogue perimeter Necessitated solely by the heightened risk created by this high-density project
3. Strict Construction Hours with Liquidated Damages
Hours tied to preschool naps and prayer services
Daily monetary penalties for any violation of noise, dust, parking, or access protocols
4.
Affordable Housing Resolution
Formal written resolution or Right of First Refusal (ROFR) Ensuring long-term compatibility with the immediate neighborhood Conclusion and Formal Notice
Chabad supports responsible development. Religious freedom, child safety, and community security are non-negotiable.
Let this letter serve as formal notice to the City of Yorba Linda:
If this project is approved without full incorporation of the above measures as enforceable Conditions of Approval, Chabad will pursue all available legal remedies, including immediate injunctive relief, based on nuisance, structural risk, and infringement upon constitutional freedom of worship.
Chabad Beth Meir Hacohen formally objects to the approval of the City Ventures project at 19081 Yorba Linda Blvd.
We expect a substantive response immediately.
Sincerely,
Rabbi David Eliezrie
Rabbi Levi Blesofsky
Rebbetzin Naomi Blesofsky
Leadership of Chabad Beth Meir Hacohen / North County Chabad Center Naomi Blesofsky
ALEPH PRESCHOOL Chabad Beth Meir Hacohen
Yorba Linda. CA
714-225-2903, texts welcome
From: Susan Lamp
To: mthurst; AllCityCouncil; Nate Farnsworth; Litfin, Todd Cc: czechdesigns; Nancy Pfeifer; Stephanie Ruppe; Chris Dominguez; Marcia Brown Subject: Re: City Venture Parking Requirements
Date: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 1:51:19 PM
Attachments: City Ventures Parking required.pdf
Outlook-ne1mkwyg.png
Outlook-b1whfwsr.png
Outlook-lrpvpokv.png
Outlook-uwiumndw.png
The City Council has received your email.
Regards,
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: mthurst <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 11:57 AM
To: AllCityCouncil <[email protected]>; Nate Farnsworth <[email protected]>; Litfin, Todd <[email protected]> Cc: czechdesigns <[email protected]>; Nancy Pfeifer <[email protected]>; Stephanie Ruppe <[email protected]>; google <[email protected]> Subject: City Venture Parking Requirements
Hello City Council, I have attached my comments from last week, reworded and clarified, as your feedback seemed to misunderstand my point; I was not debating the definition of a garage vs open parking space but rather pointing out that City Ventures has done exactly that. They have blended the required parking using garage spaces which are obviously not shared. In fact, this is so clearly obvious that it was not a mistake, it was done by design.
Please read the attached PDF. You will see that even if CV were to designate EVERY open space, leaving ZERO for guests and ADA, they would still be 2 spaces short.
I realize we are dealing with nonsensical laws from Sacramento, however, we have a Certified Housing Element! That gives us LOCAL CONTROL when developers go outside the lines. CV seems to be treating this development as a Builder's Remedy case, batting away any logical opposition to their plan. It seems these demands from CV are continuously met with agreement instead of pushback. The parking is an obvious shortfall. The traffic impact is as well. While a new report is being requested, I did not hear any assumptions taken into account for the report....such as adding
400 cars.
It is more of a 'going through the motion' exercise than a true Local Control pushback ensuring City Standards & Safety are maintained for the residents.
As you may or may not be aware, the City of Orange is currently facing a lawsuit in which a resident turned into the Vista Del Rio Apartment complex from The City Drive south (similar to Yorba Linda BLVD) and collided with a car exiting...2 plaintiffs are seeking over $100,000,000 in damages.
With the currently proposed CV plan, it is not IF...but WHEN that happens here.
Please take a thorough look at my attachment.
Thank you,
Maggie Thurston
A lot has been lost in the back and forth with City Ventures, and the lack of conversation in the City Council meeting formet.
City Ventures presented a plan last summer that had 1 fewer building, (less units) and more parking. Nate Farnsworth has those plans. That plan was in line with what the voters were led to believe what M-JJ would protect. We HAD to pass JJ to maintain LOCAL CONTROL.
After JJ passed, CVentures purchased ¾ of the site, added a building, increased the units, and decreased the parking citing ‘Bonus Density Law’.
YL City has a responsibility to its voters to hold CVentures to our building standards. While Density bonus laws exist, YL has a Compliant Housing Element that is supposed to stop Builders Remedy actions that bypass local building standards. CVentures is approaching this development as though it has ‘bypass’ power and NO regard for our City Standards.
What does local control look like?
For starters, it includes upholding our City building standards with respect to parking.
Yorba Linda Municipal code requires guest parking for Multi-family dwellings.
City Ventures must increase Resident parking by 15 spaces to provide bare minimum required by California.
https://ecode360.com/44329988#44329997
While CA allows all units to have reduced parking, even though only 3 units are designated as ‘aƯordable’, YL code reflects the REALISTIC parking required for our residents. That is a RED FLAG that there will be massive issues here.
City Ventures is NOT providing the CA Density Bonus minimum requirement. Even if they designated EVERY guest and ADA parking space to residents, they would still be 2 spaces short. Given that there is ZERO street or surrounding parking…the CV plan must be rejected and resubmitted with applicable parking provided.
CV is including a 2-car garage for each unit, 13 Guest spaces, which includes 1 ADA space. However, 4 Bedroom units require 2.5 Per unit. They have not provided the additional 15 spaces required by CA Density Bonus Law. (.5 = 1space per 2 units) CA Density Bonus Law requires:
3 BEDS = 1.5 Spaces, 4 BEDS = 2.5 Spaces
The CV plan has a 2-car garage exclusive to each unit:
Unit Size Required Spaces Provided Total Still Needed
33 – 3 Bedroom 1.5 required 2 car garage provided 66 0
29 – 4 Bedroom 2.5 required 2 car garage provided 58 15 open spaces Guest Parking 13 open spaces 13 (inc. 1 ADA)
TOTALs 137 15
City Ventures proposed Parking:
Accurate parking calculation based on CA Density Bonue/YL Code:
In addition, City Ventures must provide 2.5 (3) handicapped parking spaces Under California’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915). See last page for additional info.
City Ventures is providing ONE handicaped parking spot only.
Under California’s Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915), specific, lower parking ratios are mandated upon request, and these ratios are inclusive of guest and handicapped parking. Therefore, separate, additional guest parking is not generally required beyond the reduced, total on-site parking count defined in the statute.
Key Aspects of Parking under Density Bonus Law (2026):
Mandated Ratios: If requested, cities must allow reduced parking ratios, which include guest/handicapped spaces:
o 0–1 bedroom: 1 on-site space.
o 2–3 bedrooms: 1.5 on-site spaces.
o 4+ bedrooms: 2.5 on-site spaces.
Transit Proximity: If the project is within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop with unobstructed access, the maximum ratio may be reduced to 0.5 spaces per unit (or
0.5 per bedroom for certain projects).
Flexibility: These parking spaces may be tandem or uncovered. No Further Reduction: The city cannot require more parking than these statemandated ratios, even if their local zoning ordinance would normally require more, including separate guest spots.
At MINIMUM-Resident Parking
BDRMs spaces units Total
3 2 33 66 Garage
4 2 29 58 Garage
4 0.5 29 15 Open Spaces
total 139
Yorba Linda Municipal CODE-Guest Parking
BDRMs spaces units Total
3 1.5 33 49.5
4 1.5 29 43.5
total 93
From: Susan Lamp
To: Jim Hillquist; AllCityCouncil
Cc: Marcia Brown; Nate Farnsworth; Chris Dominguez; Nichole Valdez Subject: Re: City Ventures
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 9:46:39 AM
Attachments: Outlook-mjrcjtpg.png
Outlook-x2hq0353.png
Outlook-otbma1p1.png
Outlook-t1j3mzhe.png
The City Council has received your email. Thank you for sharing your concerns.
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: Jim Hillquist <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 3:38 PM
To: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Subject: City Ventures
Mayor Rodriguez, February 16, 2026
My name is Jim Hillquist and I live on Los Palominos Drive (just off Ohio) in Yorba Linda.
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the City Ventures project. First of all, I want to say I am not against this project as lack of housing is a problem. I want to see additional housing available, especially at this price point, so home ownership can be obtained by current renters.
However, there are two significant concerns that involve this project.
1.Security for the Aleph Preschool and the Jewish Synagogue.
2.Parking for owners/residents of the condominium development.
Security for the preschool and Synagogue
This is a potential significant safety issue and one that needs to be worked out with the local synagogue and City Ventures. We never want a violent/non-violent antisemitic issue here that impacts our Jewish neighbors and tarnishes our city. I am asking you to make sure the Synagogue leadership is comfortable with this project. I believe the staff has not properly reviewed this security/Safety issue as it is outside the normal elements that are evaluated.
Please take this step seriously and complete full due diligence. If this can be accomplished then I would consider this issue resolved.
Parking
As a former member of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, it is very easy to determine that this project is woefully short of parking. There are two ways the ITE determines parking requirements for a project such as this. They are the number of units and the number of bedrooms. With 62 units and 99 bedrooms, the current plan is either 18 or 25 parking positions short. The lack of close street parking makes this a potential significant safety issue This shortfall will be heightened by AB 130. This law caps fines but more importantly gives every homeowner time to cure before fines are imposed. Time to cure is reasonable for architectural or landscape issues but not for parking issues that can be addressed simply by moving the vehicle. This means residents can park in the visitor spots, get a notice of association action and then simply move the car before the cure meeting with the association which is usually at least two weeks away. This is a cat and mouse game with no real teeth for parking issues. The declaration from City Ventures that they will only market and sell to people with only two cars is laughable. So, where will the residents park? I see three areas as probable. The first area is the parking at Jessamyn Park. The second area is street parking on Avocado Street, on the west side of the park. The final area is off Ohio, north of Yorba Linda Blvd. This is problematic as there is extremely limited parking and no sidewalks and no street lighting. Additionally, vehicles tend to make the right turn from westbound Yorba Linda Blvd to northbound Ohio at speed as there is significant high-speed traffic coming from behind. I believe that there is a potential issue with vehicle/pedestrian accidents when additional pedestrians are utilizing this intersection especially at night.
This issue can be addressed several ways with additional parking in the project by reducing units or securing parking at the Synagogue or at the United Methodist Church if they are agreeable.
In closing, I support additional housing that does not greatly impact our community in a negative way. Security/Safety of a historically under attack religious Synagogue is a significant issue that needs to be resolved. Lack of parking is also a safety issue with this project. I hope all parties can come together to address and solve these issues.
Respectfully,
C. James Hillquist
From: Susan Lamp
To: Naomi Blesofsky; Carlos Rodriguez; Tara Campbell; Peggy Huang; Janice Lim; Levi Husband Blesofsky; Shivinderjit Singh
Cc: Marcia Brown; Nate Farnsworth; Chris Dominguez; Nichole Valdez Subject: Re: Concerns for New Development & Moving Forward Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 1:50:00 PM
Attachments: Outlook-nbmxyr2z.png
Outlook-pibwml3u.png
Outlook-pietsj04.png
Outlook-mfd00qul.png
The City Council has received your email.
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: Naomi Blesofsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 12:28 PM
To: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Janice Lim <[email protected]>; Levi Husband Blesofsky <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns for New Development & Moving Forward
Dear Mayor Rodriguez and City Council Members,
We are writing today as representatives of North County Chabad -Beth Meir Hacohen to share our growing concerns regarding the proposed 62-unit development immediately adjacent to our synagogue and preschool.
While we have attempted to engage in a productive dialogue with the developer, City Ventures, we find it increasingly difficult to establish a meaningful line of communication. It feels as though our outreach is being met with a "slow-play" approach, which is deeply unsettling given the fast-moving nature of their project.
Our insistence on a formal, written mitigation agreement is not based on general opposition to housing, but on a documented need for oversight. In our due diligence,
we noted that this developer was forced to pay nearly $200,000 in a 2020 civil settlement in Santa Rosa for ignoring city safety notices and failing to manage construction-site risks for over 100 days.
Furthermore, their history of litigation in cases like Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina signals a pattern of pushing the limits of density exemptions at the expense of neighbor safety.
Given the unique security profile of a synagogue and the vulnerability of the children in our preschool, we cannot accept a "trust us" approach. We ask the City to ensure this developer is held to a higher standard of accountability and that our congregation’s safety is not treated as a secondary concern.
We look forward to your guidance on how the City will ensure our community is protected.
Respectfully,
Rabbi David Eliezrie
Rabbi Levi Blesofsky
Rebbetzin Naomi Blesofsky
Chabad Beth Meir Hacohen / North County Chabad Center
Naomi Blesofsky
ALEPH PRESCHOOL Chabad Beth Meir Hacohen
Yorba Linda. CA
714-225-2903, texts welcome
From: Susan Lamp
To: Msstarkey; Carlos Rodriguez; Tara Campbell; Peggy Huang; Janice Lim; Shivinderjit Singh Cc: Marcia Brown; Nate Farnsworth; Chris Dominguez; Nichole Valdez; Gabriel Diaz Subject: Re: Proposed Project at 19081 YL Blvd; Request for postponement until April Council Meeting Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 1:26:06 PM
Attachments: Outlook-hza4u0vq.png
Outlook-mx4kguba.png
Outlook-kcz05dk3.png
Outlook-eb2p1bbq.png
The City Council is in receipt of your email.
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: Msstarkey <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 12:40 PM
To: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Janice Lim <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Proposed Project at 19081 YL Blvd; Request for postponement until April Council Meeting
Dear City Council Members,
Further to my 92/19/2026 email below, voluminous documents were released and distributed this week regarding the captioned project that need to be reviewed, analyzed, and responded to. Shockingly, these items include an Alternative Site Design showing several 3 story buildings now only 5' away from the 19111 Yorba Linda Blvd. (Thompson residence) Western property line! This is patently absurd.
I'm sure you can appreciate that time simply does not permit concerned residents to digest and respond to all this information prior to the upcoming City Council meeting of March 3. I urge the Council to postpone this item until the City Council meeting in April.
Respectfully,
Matt Starkey
19051 Oro Verde Ln
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
714-469-6132
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Msstarkey <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 at 08:58:25 AM PST
Subject: Proposed Project at 19081 YL Blvd; Request for postponement Dear City Council Members,
Following up this week's meeting between several concerned Yorba Linda residents, Gabe Diaz, and representatives from City Ventures and EPD Solutions, there are several serious and as of yet unresolved issues that require further analysis.
Many of these items revolve around various safety concerns which are serious in nature. Just one example that I'm particularly concerned about is the spillover traffic that is sure to occur onto streets like Ohio St., Oriente Dr., and Palm Ave.-- all streets that are narrow and lack curbs, sidewalks, and night lighting. In addition these streets receive considerable pedestrian and even equine use. There are also of course multiple other traffic related exposures that have been brought up in previous Planning and Council meetings that have not been adequately addressed.
EPD Solutions has indicated that an updated analysis will be forthcoming. There is sufficient complexity here to warrant a continuance to be sure all concerns are thoroughly addressed and evaluated. The safety of Yorba Linda residents must be paramount, and we are therefore formally requesting a postponement of this agenda item until the City Council meeting of April 21, 2026.
Sincerely,
Matt & Kerry Starkey
19051 Oro Verde Ln
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
714-469-6132
From: Susan Lamp
To: Msstarkey; Carlos Rodriguez; Tara Campbell; Peggy Huang; Janice Lim; Shivinderjit Singh Cc: Marcia Brown; Nate Farnsworth; Chris Dominguez; Nichole Valdez Subject: Re: Proposed Project at 19081 YL Blvd; Request for postponement Date: Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:11:20 AM
Attachments: Outlook-isuwn1kc.png
Outlook-3rr4q14n.png
Outlook-zfga4hu5.png
Outlook-jlzpmmkh.png
The City Council has received your email.
Regards,
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: Msstarkey <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 8:58 AM
To: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Janice Lim <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Project at 19081 YL Blvd; Request for postponement Dear City Council Members,
Following up this week's meeting between several concerned Yorba Linda residents, Gabe Diaz, and representatives from City Ventures and EPD Solutions, there are several serious and as of yet unresolved issues that require further analysis.
Many of these items revolve around various safety concerns which are serious in nature. Just one example that I'm particularly concerned about is the spillover traffic that is sure to occur onto streets like Ohio St., Oriente Dr., and Palm Ave.-- all streets that are narrow and lack curbs, sidewalks, and night lighting. In addition these streets receive considerable pedestrian and even equine use. There are also of course multiple other traffic related exposures that have been brought up in previous Planning and Council meetings that have not been adequately addressed.
EPD Solutions has indicated that an updated analysis will be forthcoming. There is sufficient complexity here to warrant a continuance to be sure all concerns are thoroughly addressed and evaluated. The safety of Yorba Linda residents must be paramount, and we are therefore formally requesting a postponement of this agenda item until the City Council meeting of April 21, 2026.
Sincerely,
Matt & Kerry Starkey
19051 Oro Verde Ln
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
714-469-6132
From: Susan Lamp
To: Jill Wilson; Carlos Rodriguez; Tara Campbell; Peggy Huang; Shivinderjit Singh; Janice Lim Cc: Marcia Brown; Nate Farnsworth; Chris Dominguez; Nichole Valdez Subject: Re: Urgent concern regarding high density development at 19801 Yorba Linda Boulevard Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 2:20:53 PM
Attachments: Outlook-0twx1xxv.png
Outlook-nnqldgfp.png
Outlook-ttbe54wr.png
Outlook-szqvkb2x.png
The City Council has received your email. Thank you for sharing your concerns.
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: Jill Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 8:43 PM
To: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Tara Campbell <[email protected]>; Peggy Huang <[email protected]>; Shivinderjit Singh <[email protected]>; Janice Lim <[email protected]> Subject: Urgent concern regarding high density development at 19801 Yorba Linda Boulevard Dear [Recipient Name],
I am writing to you as a current resident of Yorba Linda to urge you to reconsider the proposed high-density development at 19801 Yorba Linda Boulevard.
I have significant concerns regarding this project and would appreciate it if you could take my feedback into account during the planning process.
Thank you for your time and for considering my position on this matter.
Best regards,
Jill Wilson
Jill Wilson
From: Susan Lamp
To: [email protected]; AllCityCouncil
Cc: Nate Farnsworth; Chris Dominguez; Nichole Valdez; Marcia Brown Subject: Re: Urgent Concern Regarding High-Density Development at 19801 Yorba Linda Blvd Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 9:48:01 AM
Attachments: Outlook-qzkj51qq.png
Outlook-5axmnjbl.png
Outlook-zobbpx0n.png
Outlook-qep2qfib.png
The City Council has received your email. Thank you for sharing your concerns.
SUSAN LAMP
Executive Assistant
4845 Casa Loma Avenue | Yorba Linda, CA 92886
P: 714-961-7110 W: yorbalindaca.gov
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 1:19 PM
To: Carlos Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Subject: Urgent Concern Regarding High-Density Development at 19801 Yorba Linda Blvd Dear Mayor Rodriguez:
I am writing to urge you to reconsider the proposed high-density development at 19801 Yorba Linda Blvd. I am a current Yorba Linda resident, and this project poses serious risks to the safety and character of our semi-rural, equestrian neighborhood.
The plan to build 62 homes on just 2.6 acres is substantially different from what voters were shown and approved. Voter materials for the November 2024 election described a total of 66 homes across two parcels - 19801 and 19111 -totaling 3.9 acres. Many residents supported Measure JJ based on that information.
Concentrating nearly the same number of homes on a significantly smaller parcel is not what voters agreed to and feels misleading.
This project would also create major traffic and safety concerns. Palm Avenue and Ohio Street have no sidewalks, no shoulders, limited lighting and narrow roadways.
These streets are already used by pedestrians, equestrians, and residents and experience cut-through traffic. Additional vehicles and parking overflow from a highdensity development would make these conditions unsafe. Yorba Linda Blvd. is already heavily congested and cannot reasonably absorb the increased traffic this project would generate.
I strongly urge you and the City Council to visit the neighborhood to see these constraints firsthand. This site is not appropriate for high-density housing. Please
relocate this project to a more suitable area and honor the scale and character of this neighborhood.
Thank you for your time and attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely
Elmina Reyes