Yorba Linda council upholds City Ventures housing project with 12-foot wall, parking conditions after heated hearing

The Yorba Linda City Council voted 4-1 on March 3 to uphold the planning commission’s approval of City Ventures’ proposed 62-unit, for-sale townhome development on Yorba Linda Boulevard, adopting staff’s recommendation with additional conditions intended to address neighborhood privacy, parking and safety concerns.

The council’s approval adds a developer-side screening wall raised to 12 feet (approximately 8 feet visible on the Chabad side due to existing grade), clerestory windows or similar treatments for units adjacent to the Chabad to block direct lines of sight, a $75,000 surety for possible median reconfiguration, and a set of enforceable parking-management measures to be implemented through the project’s CC&Rs and HOA enforcement protocols. Councilman Singh cast the sole “no” vote.

Nate Farnsworth, the city’s community development director, told the council the applicant had revised its site plan to add two guest parking spaces and accepted “nearly over a 160” conditions to address local concerns, and emphasized the limits the city faces under state housing law. “State law also limits the city’s ability to deny the project or to reduce its density,” Farnsworth said, noting the Housing Accountability Act and state density-bonus rules that constrain discretionary denials.

Opponents pressed technical and safety objections during the continued public hearing. Parking consultant Jim Hilquist said an industry-standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) metric yields a peak parking demand near 172 spaces for the project’s bedroom count, producing an estimated shortfall of roughly 30–32 spaces compared with the developer’s supplied count. “There will be overflow parking,” Hilquist warned, citing observations at nearby projects where guest parking was fully occupied during peak periods.

City Ventures’ representative said the developer complied with state density-bonus requirements and had gone beyond what the city could lawfully require: adding two guest spaces, increasing a contingency for median improvements, and proposing tools and enforcement to limit garage storage and manage guest parking. “We implemented a comprehensive parking-management strategy, including a digital monitoring tool, quarterly garage inspections and towing arrangements,” the applicant’s representative said.

Security and privacy concerns raised by Chabad and other faith leaders were prominent in public comment. Chabad and its rabbis asked for measures to prevent overlooking and unauthorized access from the project site; the developer offered to increase the wall height on its side of the property and shift upper-level windows so their lower edge begins at about 6 feet, a design the applicant said would prevent a direct line of sight into the Chabad’s campus.

Council members balanced neighborhood objections against the legal risk of denying the project. Several council members warned that a denial could lead to a court challenge or a builder’s-remedy outcome that would leave the city with fewer enforceable protections. Mayor Pro Tem Wong, who made the motion to adopt the staff recommendation with the additional conditions, argued that the negotiated concessions represented the best practicable outcome under current state law.

The council required that the project’s CC&Rs and HOA governing documents be submitted for review and approval by city staff and the city attorney prior to recordation and building permits, and added explicit language allowing city enforcement of parking-related conditions. The motion increased the surety for potential median work to $75,000 and recorded the council’s expectation that the developer will continue good-faith landscaping discussions with the Chabad to soften the appearance of the screening wall.

The project’s approval does not resolve all concerns. Several residents and experts urged additional study or a continuance, arguing the supplemental traffic and parking analyses understate pedestrian, equestrian and off-site impacts. Appellants had urged the council to either continue the hearing for a fifth meeting or reverse the planning commission’s action; the council declined to continue and approved the project.

The council’s approval is the procedural step required to proceed toward building permits, subject to the conditions the council set. The meeting concluded with the council adjourning in memory of Rosalind Brownie; the next regular council meeting was scheduled for March 17, 2026.

Votes at a glance: The council approved the resolution to uphold the planning commission’s tentative tract map 19389 and associated entitlements with added conditions (motion passed 4–1; Councilman Singh opposed).