Yorba Linda council continues appeal of City Ventures 62‑unit townhome project after hours of public comment

The Yorba Linda City Council voted unanimously late in its meeting to continue consideration of an appeal over City Ventures’ tentative tract map for a 62‑unit townhome project at 19081/19801 Yorba Linda Boulevard, giving staff, the applicant and community stakeholders time to pursue additional meetings and targeted follow‑up.

The council set a continuance date to March 3 and directed the developer and city staff to meet with the appellant and representatives of the adjacent North County Chabad Center and preschool, and to return with refinements to mitigation, parking enforcement language and a larger surety to fund potential traffic or median improvements if they become necessary. The council also approved staff’s recommendation to waive appeal fees beyond the $1,000 initial deposit.

Why it matters: The project was approved by the Planning Commission but was appealed to the council. State housing laws including the Housing Accountability Act and state density bonus rules limit a city’s ability to deny qualifying housing projects, and staff told the council the project is consistent with the city’s housing element and state law. Many neighbors nevertheless testified that a 62‑unit, three‑story development will overwhelm narrow, unlit local streets used by pedestrians, joggers and equestrians and could create parking overflow and safety risks, particularly given the school and house‑of‑worship next door.

Applicant and staff positions: City staff and the applicant’s consultants said the proposal meets legal and technical standards. Staff noted the voter‑approved Measure JJ rezoned the site and that state density‑bonus law allows waivers and concessions when an applicant provides affordable units; the project includes three very‑low‑income units and thus qualifies for the density bonus. The applicant, represented by Alex Renogy, said the project was selectively designed to be lower than the maximums allowed (for example, 35‑foot height on a zone that allows 40 feet, lot coverage about 40%) and pointed to technical studies, a parking management plan and a $50,000 surety conditioned to address potential future median or circulation improvements.

Community concerns: Appellant Gary Devian and dozens of neighbors pressed specific technical and safety questions: they said traffic analysis did not study likely cut‑through routes (Ohio, Palm and Oriente) used by drivers avoiding a median, that the project undercounts parking demand because garages are often unusable for parking, and that CEQA (environmental) analyses were incomplete for site‑specific safety and security conditions. Representatives from the Chabad Center and its preschool emphasized heightened security and asked for stronger, design‑level mitigations such as changes to windows, barriers and off‑site parking arrangements. “Safety is everything,” appellant Gary Devian told the council.

Next steps: Council direction asks the applicant to meet with the appellant and Chabad in city‑facilitated sessions, involve the Sheriff’s captain in security discussions, refine parking enforcement language in the CC&Rs and consider increasing the existing surety so funds are available, if needed, to pay for infrastructure fixes identified after occupancy. The applicant agreed to return with proposed language and a revised cost estimate for mitigation funds.

The council framed the continuance as an opportunity for targeted dialogue rather than further procedural delay. “We need to balance our community’s need for housing with public safety and environmental law,” Mayor Carlos Rodriguez said. The hearing will resume on the council’s March 3 agenda with staff reports summarizing the meetings and any technical follow‑up.