RES-10162 Denying Zone Change 1232-05RESOLUTION NO. 10162
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ORANGE DENYING ZONE CHANGE NO.
1232-05, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
16878,MINOR SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 377-
05, DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE NO.
4109-06, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
NO. 1774-05.APPLICANT: SHAHRAM (
DAVID) A YENEHCHI WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to
approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1774-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 16878,
Design Review Committee No.4109-06, Zone Change No. 1232-05, and Minor Site Plan
Review No. 377-05, to review the proposed subdivision of a 3.882 acre parcel into
five residential lots, and the development of five
detached, one-story (with mezzanine), single-family residences; and WHEREAS,
Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1774-05, Tentative Tract Map No.16878, Design Review
Committee No. 4109-06, Zone Change No. 1232-05, and Minor Site Plan Review No. 377-
05, were filed and prepared
in accordance with the provisions of the City of Orange
Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1774-05, Tentative Tract Map
No.16878, Design Review Committee No. 4109-06, Zone Change No. 1232-05, and Minor Site
Plan Review
No. 377-05, were processed in the time and manner prescribed
by state and local law; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted two duly advertised public hearings
on January 23, 2007 and April 10, 2007, at which time interested persons had an opportunity
to testify either in support of, or opposition to, the proposal and
for the purpose of considering Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1774-05, Tentative Tract Map
No. 16878, Design Review Committee
No. 4109-06, Zone Change No.
1232-05, and Minor Site Plan Review No. 377-05,upon
property described as follows:SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION, EXHIBIT A NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby denies Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1774-
05, Tentative Tract Map No. 16878, Minor Site Plan Review No. 377-05, Zone Change No. 1232-
05, and Design Review Committee No. 4109-06,which would have allowed the
subdivision of
A. The Applicant Failed to Produce Sufficient Evidence That the Proiect Could be Built
Safely Next to an Adioining High Pressured Pipeline
The project site is a former Southern Pacific Railroad right of way and was operated as
an active rail line until the 1970s when the tracks were removed. Today there are two buried
pipelines (an active 16" high pressure pipeline, which carries petroleum products and
alternatively, aviation fuel and an idle 10" pipeline, although evidence was presented that the
10" pipeline could be placed back into use). The pipelines are operated by Kinder Morgan
KM), which has a 30-foot wide easement through property
site.There was both testimony and documentary evidence presented that KM has a
poor record of maintaining its pipelines and evidence of fairly recent accidental
explosions involving KM owned pipelines was presented by public speakers. In addition, the
Applicant stated that it had dug three of 17 potholes that would determine the exact location of
the pipeline and that in two of three cases, it was discovered that the KM pipeline was
damaged.According to a memorandum for RAHA architects, a KM representative stopped the pot
holing work upon discovery of surface damage to both pipes. Further excavation and
exploration indicated that the damage was pre-existing and had been created during
previous backfilling work. So, the KM Rep. shut down the active pipe and called in a backhoe excavation
crew to dig a larger hole and repaired the
damaged area.Government Code Section 51014.6 in general prohibits the building,
erection or creation of a fence, wall, structure or improvement within the pipeline easement
and further prohibits any shrubbery or shielding [to be] installed on the pipeline easement
which would impair aerial observation of the pipeline easement. A letter from the California
State Fire Marshall dated June 20, 2003, stated: "It is the position of the State Fire Marshal
that nothing shall encroach into or upon the pipeline easement, which would impede the
pipeline operator from complete and unobstructed surface access along the pipeline right of way. Nor
shall there be any obstructions, which would shield the pipeline right of way from observation.
In the interest of public safety and the protection of the environment, it is imperative that
the pipeline operator visually assesses the conditions along the easement to ensure the integrity
of
the pipeline."The Applicant represented that the KM pipeline would be entirely under
a paved service, but when questioned by the City Council, the Applicant admitted that it did
not know exactly where the pipeline was, other than the probability it was within the
30-foot wide easement. Depending on the determination of the exact location of the pipeline
it was unclear whether or not the pipeline would be under paved street, running in the front
yards of proposed homes or exactly where it would be located. There was a concern that
future owners might build structures or plant materials that would be inconsistent with state law and
the safety
of the pipeline.The Applicant failed to submit significant evidence that the project
as proposed would be compatible with the safety of the pipeline or to discount or
distinguish the evidence submitted concerning KM's poor record for maintenance and pipeline
accidents and if anything, the Applicant's own potholing supported the evidence of KM'
s
record. It may be appropriate to determine the exact location of both pipelines before any
future project is brought before the City Council and to show exactly what improvements will
be made directly over the pipelines.
B. The Applicant's Project was Inconsistent with the Adjoining Neighborhood.
Backing up to the proposed project to the west are Eichler Homes which were
constructed between 1959 and 1962. The Eichler homes are notable for their modern design
at the time) consisting of low profile, flat roofed residences, built around a central courtyard.
The residences are approximately 1,700 to 2,000 square feet in area and 11-12 feet in
height.The Eichler tract represents a unique architectural style in Orange, and the City has
received notice that an application to the State Office of Historic Preservation has been filed to
nominate this tract of Eichler homes for listing as a National Registered Historic District. This
would result in the Eichler homes becoming protected and preclude alterations that would degrade
the historic significance of the
homes.The proposed homes would be 22'8" in height with a mezzanine and deck on top of
the first story facing the back yards of the Eichler homes. The shadow of the proposed
homes would be more similar to that of a two-story rather than a one-story.
Because of the architectural and historical significance of the Eichler tract, it may be appropriate
to have a single-story overlay
for the project site.C. The Project has the Future Potential to have No
On-Street Guest Parking, Creating Parking Impacts for the Adjoining Neighborhood and an
Obstacle to the Ultimate Improvement ofa
Bike Trail Through the Property.While initially the project would have on-street guest
parking on the eastern portion of the site, in the event the City decides to construct a paved bike
trail at this location this parking would cease to exist. The bike trail is on the City's master
plan and is proposed for some future date, which would eliminate the guest on-street
parking. Removal of this parking will in all likelihood cause future residents of this
Project, as well as adjoining neighborhoods, to protest, thus creating an obstacle to the future bike
trail. Evidence of this is the numerous concerns by the adjoining neighborhoods that guest parking
for these homes will spill into their neighborhoods. The area already is impacted with
parking to some degree because of the existence of La Veta Park that has only adjacent on-
street parking. The staff report of April 10,2007, states "Staff and applicant see no
solution or location upon the subject property where additional parking space could be located." The
proposal to include in the CCR's language that prohibits the use of garage space for
storage does not address this problem. Garages are often used for storage use and experience has
been that future residents will use their garages for storage use. This condition simply
creates a
future enforcement problem for the City.D. Conclusion.The Applicant's
proposal from an architectural standpoint was excellent. The Applicant made some modifications to the
Project in response to comments by the City Council. However, the Applicant
left too many questions unanswered concerning the exact location of the pipelines, the safety of building
the
the construction vis-a-vis the pipelines, the consistency with the neighboring Eichler
tract and the parking. There was not sufficient evidence to support this project or the
R-I-7 zoning,although a residential use appears at least on the surface to be
the most appropriate use provided the concerns expressed by the public and the
City Council are answered.ADOPTED this 8th
day
of
May, 2007 ATTEST:La~~{~Mary E~~
y, Cit~ of Orange I, MARY E. MURPHY, City Clerk of the City of Orange,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council
of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 8th day of May, 2007,
by
the
following
vote:
AYES:NOES:ABSENT:ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Smith,
Cavecche, Dumitru
COUNCILMEMBERS: Murphy
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None COUNCILMEMBERS: Bilodeau Z{%Mary. )
lY,