HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-1993 PC MinutesMINUTES
Planning Commission May 17, 1993
City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart
STAFF
PRESENT: John Godlewski, Administrator of Current Planning;
Bob Herrick, Assistant City Attorney;
Bob VonSchimmelmann, Asst. City Engineer; and
Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IN RE: MINUTES OF MAY 3. 1993
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to approve the
Minutes of May 3, 1993, as recorded.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2009-93 - SALAH ALBAYATI
A request to allow the continued operation of an auto wrecking yard located in the M-2
Industrial Zone. Subject property is located at 1436 North Manzanita.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1426-93 has been prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per State CEQA Guidelines. ,
There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived and
the public hearing was opened.
Applicant
Nancy Albayati, 25251 Champlain Road, Laguna Hills, has had a wrecking yard license
for almost 20 years and unknown to them they never applied for (or never knew) they
needed a special use permit. They're still doing the same thing today as they did 20
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
years ago -- the old V.W.'s. There are no radiators or other equipment to contaminate
the soil. They've never had any complaints about their business.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith asked if it was on record that there have been no problems at the
site for the last 20 years?
Mr. Godlewski responded staff didn't even know the business was in operation until they
got a complaint quite awhile back from a neighbor about a drainage problem. That
problem was quickly remedied by the applicant and is no longer the issue. Upon finding
out the business was in operation and did not have a conditional use permit, staff was
obligated to go forward and require that it be done at this time.
Commissioner Bosch commented this appeared to be a technical adjustment based on
along standing use that has had a business license with the City. And, the conditions
are those that would be standard to be applied to industrial uses in this category.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to accept
Negative Declaration 1426-93 in that it will not have a significant impact on the
environment or wildlife resources; and to approve Conditional Use Permit 2009-93 with
the conditions as listed in the staff report.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013-93 -LUTHERAN HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION
OF ORANGE COUNTY
A request to allow outdoor lighting for evening use of an existing athletic field in an R-1
Single Family Residential) District. Subject property is a private high school comprised
of approximately 13 acres of land situated between Santiago Boulevard and the Costa
Mesa Freeway, Meats Avenue and Villa Vista Way.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1427-93 has been prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines.
Jim Donovan, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The project site is the
lower portion of the campus, which is closest to the Freeway. The property is located in
a residential district adjacent to single family residences on two sides. The Orange
Municipal Code allows the development of private schools, playgrounds and athletic
fields in a residential district subject to the City's review and approval of a conditional
use permit. The school's current enrollment is limited to approximately 500 students.
2
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
According to the Business Operations Manager, athletic events, including football and
baseball games, are typically scheduled for Saturday mornings and afternoons. Lighting
is proposed to supplement evening practice and lights would not be utilized after 8:30
p.m. The proposal is to install a total of 12 light fixtures upon three poles near the
northerly property line, directly behind the residential properties that are located along
Villa Vista Way. Each of the 1500 watt fixtures would be mounted to poles at a height
70 feet above the playing field and each fixture includes a reflective shroud to control
glare. Staff's environmental assessment concentrates primarily upon the impacts of
nighttime illumination of adjacent residential property and noise. The applicant has
prepared and submitted a photometric plan. Upon evaluation of the plan staff does not
expect illumination to exceed 1 footcandle along any of the adjacent residential property
lines. Assuming the use of the facility is limited to athletic practice, noise is not
considered a significant issue. Planning staff has received phone calls from two
residents who could not attend this meeting: Mrs. William Beckman, 2215 North
Santiago Blvd. and Mrs. Herbert Young, 2608 Elsereno Drive. Both object to the project
as proposed. If the Commission were to approve the project, staff recommends
approval be subject to the following conditions: 1) Use of the outdoor lighting is not
permitted after 8:30 p.m.; 2) Use of the athletic facility by organized teams is limited to
those of Lutheran High School of Orange County, their successors, their proponents
and guests; and 3) The applicant will revise the photometric plan to show the precise
location of poles in relation to adjacent property lines. Poles will be permitted no less
than 50 feet from any residential property line and a maximum footcandle will not
exceed 1.0 at any point along any of the adjacent property lines.
Commissioner Smith asked for an explanation of a footcandle.
Mr. Donovan explained the City's standard for illumination of local residential streets is
to maintain a minimum of .1 (per the City's Traffic Engineer). At major intersections the
standard increases to 3.0. According to the Crime Prevention Specialist, if you close off
a garage for total darkness and you turn on a 60 watt light bulb and stand 10 feet away
from it, it's approximately one footcandle from that distance.
The public hearing was opened.
Applicants
AI Ricci, 1320 North Manzanita and Mike Monarch, Planning Coordinator for Orange
Lutheran High School, 5 Hutton Center Drive #805, Santa Ana, presented their proposal
for lighting. The lighting will be used in the Fall, between 4:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. from
September to December. No games will be held at the field and will only be used for
practice. The reason lighting is needed is because the school uses volunteer coaches
that usually come after work. Sometimes there's very little time to have practice for the
kids. The use is only for the kids of Lutheran High School. The lighting standards are
beyond the 50 feet requirement -- they are 75 to 100 feet from any residence. The
maximum photometric requirement allowed is 1.0 and they're at .08 or less. They do
not have any problems with the recommended conditions of approval.
3
Planning Commission Minutes
Commissioner Walters read in the staff report the potential use
restricted to the athletic team of Lutheran High or their opponents
would imply that night games would occur. Is that the intention
practice?
May 17, 1993
if such lighting is
and guests. That
or is it strictly for
Mr. Ricci responded no, the lights are not sufficient to have a sustained CIF contest of
any type. They are strictly practice lights. There will be no games whatsoever.
Commissioner Smith asked if the applicants had met with the neighbors to explain their
proposal?
Yes, a meeting was held at the school. Most of the people at the meeting were in
support of the lighting.
Those speakin_q in opposition
David Kinner, 2168 Pami Circle, was the Treasurer of the Courtside Community
Association and represented all the homeowners on Pami Circle (42 homes). He did
not know anyone who was invited to the meeting at Lutheran High School. Their
property line is on the southeast corner of the fields in question. He took a survey in the
neighborhood and the majority of the owners are opposed. They are bombarded on a
daily basis with baseballs. Added lighting will be an additional nuisance. He submitted
the petition to the Commissioners for their review.
Commissioner Walters appreciates that baseballs are a problem during that season of
the year, but in the applicant's request for lights between September and December --
during the football practice training only -- have the residents had any problem with
whatever practice sessions there were up to dusk in the winter months?
Mr. Kinner said there have been a few problems. Their games are played on the
weekends and they have had problems typical with games (i.e., trash being thrown over
the fences).
Lloyd Henry, 2624 Elsereno Drive, opposed the lights. There is parking and congestion
in front of their homes on game days. If they start playing at night, it will be the same
problem. There is no street lighting or signals. Do they have a mailing list that was
used?
Commissioner Walters explained the request for lighting to be within a 3 month period of
time, September to December. He asked how that condition would be monitored and
was told by staff the residents would tell the City if the school were to violate the
condition.
Mr. Henry asked if anything other than lighting were addressed in the environmental
impact report?
4
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
Commissioner Bosch explained the EIR process addresses environmental impacts. It's
concerned with the impact upon the residents, but more so upon the natural
environment -- air quality, noise, lights, etc. There are guidelines within that Act that set
thresholds, which upon staff's review, require different levels of report. With regard to
the parking, it appears from the staff report the high school, as originally constructed
and through it's expansions, has met the City's parking ordinance each time.
Cindy Bradford, 2240 Villa Vista Way, did not have a problem with daytime games.
They are concerned about the evening as far as the noise level. They have young
children who need their sleep. There have been activities until 10:00 p.m. in the past.
Rita Jiles, 2116 East Villa Vista, said it was irritating to her when the kids practiced
because of the whistles.
Louise Blonden, 2160 Pami Circle, didn't think the school showed much regard to the
neighbors. She had a personal experience with refinancing her property. The
bleachers, which are directly adjacent to her property, have caused devaluation. She
has made complaints in the past regarding the noise and loud speakers, but nothing
was ever done. She suggested putting in plantings to buffer the noise. She felt the
lights would be an added nuisance.
Joe Jiles, 2116 East Villa Vista, felt the people who sent their kids to Lutheran High
School were affluent people and he was sure they wouldn't want light poles in their back
yards. He thought this was a foot in the door -- once the lights were up, he wondered if
the conditions would be adhered to.
Rebuttal
Mr. Ricci said Orange Lutheran High School wanted to be a good neighborhood to
everybody. The notices of the meeting at the school were hand delivered to all
residents who bordered the field and also within 300 feet (list provided by the title
company). The lighting will only be used for practice. Once the poles are up it will
provide a way to put up a net along the poles to prevent stray balls from going into the
residents' back yards. There will be no additional parking and there should be no
impacts regarding parking. School parking exceeds the requirements by 16 spaces.
They will abide by the 8:30 p.m. cut off time for lights and are not opposed to putting a
timer on the lights to control it. Loud speakers will not be used during practice; they are
only used at games.
Mr. Monarch thought there was confusion about games and contests; there are none at
night. There is no impact on the parking at all. There are fewer cars at the school
during practice than regular school hours. They intend to install a driving range net
between the light poles to protect the residents from flying balls.
Commissioner Walters has heard complaints based on frustrations borne of being a
neighbor to a busy, active high school. He thought the school needs to do a little more
5
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
earnest effort and perhaps set up some type of community relations meetings and have
an open forum each month or each quarter for the neighbors to voice their concerns.
Mr. Monarch explained the process the school took to get to the public hearing -- it took
a long time. The school desires to hear the neighbors' input and there should be no
problem in the community meetings.
Commissioner Bosch suggested two things: first, erection of a screen causes other
permit processes to occur and it may have an impact relative to vision, etc. By solving
that problem would be a key concern of the neighbors. That should be one of the first
things to solve with the neighbors. He cautioned against presuming nets can be erected
between the poles if the conditional use permit were approved.
Mr. Monarch appreciated the advice. They are in the planning stages and will be talking
with City staff regarding the net.
Mr. Kayler, Business Manager at Orange Lutheran High School, received a letter from
the homeowner's association a few months ago expressing a concern about the number
of baseballs being thrown over the fence. He wrote back and committed the high school
to addressing the problem of foul balls and also to get some type of screen in the right
field area. He spoke with the planner who came out to inspect the lights and asked for
some direction regarding the screens. They will be going through a separate process
for the screens soon.
The public hearing was closed.
Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to accept
Negative Declaration 1427-93. The Environmental Review Board finds that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment or wildlife resources; and
approve Conditional Use Permit 2013-93 with conditions 1-3, and adding condition 4
that use shall be limited from September 1 through December 31 and will apply to week
nights only.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
IN RE: NEW HEARING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4-93 AND ZONE CHANGE 1160-93 -CITY OF
ORANGE ON BEHALF OF THE "COMMITTEE OF 300"
A request to change the zoning for 75 parcels from R-3 (Residential Multi-Family) and
M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to R-2-6 (Residential, Duplex 6,000 square foot minimum lot
size). A General Plan Amendment is also proposed to redesignate the existing
industrial parcels along Montgomery Street to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-15
dwelling units per acre). Subject property encompasses 8.7 acres, located west of
6
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
Montgomery (AT&SF Railway), east of Parker Street, north of LaVeta Avenue and south
of Palmyra Avenue. Properties are addressed as follows: 504, 512, 518 and 522 to 619
West Culver Avenue; 604, 614, and 656 West Palmyra Avenue; 307 to 490 South Pixley
Street, 505 to 639 West LaVeta Street; and 418 to 480 Montgomery.
NOTE: Negative Declaration 1429-93 has been prepared in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State
CEQA Guidelines.
Jere Murphy, Advanced Planning Manager, presented the staff report as there was
opposition from the audience. The proposed area, previously known as Sub Area "B" of
the Old Towne rezoning requests, consists of 75 parcels that total 8.7 acres in area.
The proposal is to change the zoning for the 75 parcels from R-3 and M-1 to R-2-6. In
addition to the zone change this would require a General Plan Amendment to
redesignate the existing industrial parcels along Montgomery to the Low-Medium
Density Residential designation. The "Committee of 300" presented a petition to the
City Council on January 25, 1992 and at that time the Council directed the Planning
Commission to hold public work shops which amounted to five during the Summer and
Fall of 1992. Staff also prepared special studies on the actual build out potential and the
economic analysis of various development scenarios, which were also discussed at
work shops. On February 9, 1993 the City Council reviewed the staff reports and
Minutes of the work shops, concurred with the Commission's recommendation to hold
public hearings on Sub Areas B-E. The Commission has already held its hearing on
Sub Area E. Planning staff has examined this rezoning proposal in relation to several
major areas including existing land use patterns, historic resources, bulk/mass/density,
land use conflicts, non-conforming uses, access to parcels, and pending impacts of
proposed street widening projects, primarily LaVeta Avenue. Of the 7 parcels in the
study area, 65 are residential in use, and 10 are industrial in use. Of the 65 residentially
used parcels, 52 or 80% are single family, nine or 14% of the parcels are duplexes,
three of the parcels are developed with tri-plexes, and one parcel is developed with a
four-plex. Sixty-one of the 54 parcels would be conforming under the R-2-6 zoning; 4
parcels would be non-conforming. Forty-four of the 75 existing structures contribute to
the historic context of this neighborhood due to their representing historic period, and
wide range of architectural styles. The structures range in age from 1895 through 1936,
with a majority being constructed in the early to mid-1920's. The remaining structures
are classified as non-contributing. These structures are typically in-fill structures
constructed after the mid-1940's. Regarding the bulk, mass and density issues 38 of
the 75 parcels have lot areas less than 6,000 square feet in area and are sub-standard
to the R-3 and proposed R-2-6 development standards for lot sizes. These lots range in
size from 2,500 square feet to 4,740 square feet with the average sub-standard lot being
4,185 square feet. Small homes cover a majority of the twenty lots having less than
5,000 square feet in area. Sixty of the 65 residentially used parcels are developed with
single story structures. Most of the structures in the area have retained their original
small scale and single story setting giving the neighborhood an intimate scale. Three
properties located at 504, 512 and 518 West Culver Avenue are zoned as M-1;
however, they are developed with residential units. Also two parcels are zoned R-3, but
they are developed with industrial uses (480 Montgomery and 505 West LaVeta
7
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
Avenue). If the proposed zone change were approved, and LaVeta Avenue is widened
which will eliminate one of the tri-plexes), three parcels with multi-family units would be
made non-conforming. Staff suggests that appropriate language be included in the
zoning code update that would permit these non-conforming structures to be rebuilt to
current R-3 standards (within a one year period) if they were destroyed by fire. The
proposal to rezone the Montgomery Street properties from M-1 to R-2-6 would create
non-conforming uses on all ten parcels. Montgomery Street is most critical with regard
to property access because of the limited width. It is not a fully improved public street
and a portion of the paving is located in the ATFS Railroad right-of-way. This access
problem limits the site for any kind of development and will be compounded when the
lots at 505, 513 and 517 West LaVeta are acquired for street widening. Regarding
street widening impacts, when LaVeta is widened, twenty feet will be taken off of the
parcels on the north side of the 500 and 600 blocks. Staff would recommend careful
consideration be given on how to re-consolidate these lots, as the widening will create
or leave several sub-standard lots. Staff has tried to consider all the above issues in
relation to meeting established goals and objectives of the General Plan and the Historic
Preservation Element, while at the same time trying to balance growth and
development. Fifty-six percent of the lots in study area "B" are substandard in size,
which means that many of the existing lots could not support any additional units over
the existing single unit currently in place or at best allow only one additional unit even
under the existing R-3 zone. Only two lots within the area would be allowed to actually
have three units at build out; 53 lots would allow for two units; and 10 lots out of the 75
would allow for one unit because of the small size. The proposed rezoning will allow
some development of the remaining lots within the area, while maintaining a majority of
the existing historic structures. One of the goals of the Preservation Element is to
protect and to provide for the enhancement of historic resources. Implementing a
change in zoning from R-3 to R-2-6 with the RCD overlay for the remaining existing
properties would meet the objective because 98% of the existing structures within that
area are single story. Staff does not concur with the applicant's request that the parcels
on the railroad tracks at Montgomery Street be developed for housing. The sites lack
adequate access and might be difficult to develop. Staff would recommend the existing
industrial parcels located from 418 to 472 Montgomery Street remain zoned industrial,
with the addition of special buffering standards for non-compatible land uses in such
cases where residential uses abut industrial uses. Staff also recommends that the three
residential lots of West Culver that are currently zoned M-1 be rezoned to R-2-6 (RCD).
It is recommended to rezone parcels at 504, 512 and 518 West Culver Avenue from M-1
to R-2-6 (RCD) and change the General Plan from Industrial to Low-Medium Density
Residential. To rezone 522 to 619 West Culver Avenue; 604 to 656 West Palmyra
Avenue; and 307 to 476 South Pixley Street to R-2-6 (RCD). To retain M-1 zoning on
parcels at 418 to 472 South Montgomery Street and retain R-3 zoning on parcels at 505
to 629 West LaVeta Avenue, exclusive of 534 and 632. The reasons for this
recommendation are to allow for a moderate amount of development to continue to
occur in the area; to encourage the retention and enhancement of the historic character
of the area; to reduce land use conflicts; and to reduce existing land use and zoning
inconsistencies.
8
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
Staff received a letter from Stan Keck, which was forwarded to the Commission.
Commissioner Bosch questioned the two small lots at 480 and 483 South Pixley -- are
they to be retained as R-3 because of their substandard nature? (Yes.) For
completeness, they should be added to Page 6 of the staff report. Then, at build out it
was mentioned only two lots could accommodate three units; 53 lots could
accommodate only two units; and 10 only one unit. Is that on the existing zoning or the
proposed zoning?
Mr. Murphy responded it would be based on the existing zoning and General Plan for
the area. With the rezoning to the R-2-6 district on the R-3 parcels that means you're
only changing the total yield by three units. The change in zoning from R-3 to R-2-6
does not have a significant effect on the area in terms of its potential yield. The lots,
even under R-3 zoning, could only obtain a 2-unit yield.
Commissioner Bosch asked if there were some greater assurance that historical
structures are more likely to be maintained with R-2-6 zoning vs. R-3 zoning, given the
limited number of additional units that could be constructed under the existing zoning?
What's the purpose other than cosmetic of changing the zoning given the restrictions in
the zoning ordinance to development right now?
Mr. Murphy said staff would look at the R-2-6 RCD zoning as being a more accurate
way of depicting what a property owner could actually achieve on the property rather
than the R-3 zone, which may be a little misleading to the property owner thinking they
may actually get three units or more by the R-3 zoning. Staff believes the R-2-6 RCD is
a more accurate way of describing what the yield actually is under today's
circumstances with regard to the single story nature of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ryan did not believe there was any statistical information available regarding the
historic structures; however, there was no correlation that increase the number of units
based on the income stream that would be supporting the change in zone. There is no
disincentive or incentive in either zone towards preservation under the zoning
ordinance.
The public hearing was opened.
Those speaking in favor
Anne Siebert, 340 South Olive, spoke on behalf of the "Committee of 300"; they agree
with staff's recommendations. They applaud staff's thoroughness of studying this area
and felt it was a good compromise to their initial request. They brought their initial
request of the R-2-6 zone with the intent of opening discussion on the area, but they did
not think out the entire area in how it was made up. They agreed the M-1 should stay.
That would be hard to change and she didn't think it infringed upon the residential area.
They also understood staff's thoughts on LaVeta with the widening coming up. She
thought it would be more advantageous and more financially rewarding to have a well
cared for home in a nice neighborhood rather than allowing the neighborhood to be over
9
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
built. Obviously in this case there's not too much overbuilding that can take place
anymore. The area is lovely and the people have taken great care to keep their single
family homes alive and well protected.
Wayne Stocking, 332 South Pixley Street, spoke in favor of the down zoning. He almost
bought a house in a R-3 neighborhood similar to Pixley Street. When he walked the
neighborhood, he saw a lot of development. He returned to that neighborhood five
years later and saw what had happened -- he doesn't want that to happen to Pixley
Street; it's nice little street and it's getting better with time -- he would like to preserve
that.
Shannon Tucker, 556 East Culver, didn't live in the neighborhood, but had walked the
Pixley/Culver/LaVeta/Parker neighborhoods and were well received by the neighbors.
She pointed out there would be an internal consistency which is required by State law if
every lot were built out under the R-2 zoning. To have a R-3 designation would be in
violation of State law because the General Plan only allows 15 units.
Those s ep akina in opposition
Paul Sutter, 11421 Orange Park Boulevard, owns the two M-1 properties on
Montgomery and a tri-plex on Pixley. Rezoning M-1 to residential within 20 feet of an
active railroad track doesn't make sense to him.
Commissioner Bosch explained staff's recommendation was to retain the M-1 zoning
except for the three parcels on Culver that are already developed as residential.
Joe Alessandro, 345 South Pixley, bought his property three years ago with the intention
of building a second unit for his parents. His property is 5,750 square feet, which means
it is R-1 under the new jurisdiction and he can't do anything on that property. There is a
16 foot fire wall behind his property and he was told he could get a variance of 5 feet.
That particular layout would be equivalent to over a 6,000 square foot lot. The normal
setback is 10 feet to the back of the property. There is no other dwellings behind his
property; there is no density problem. He counted the number of cars parked on his
street -- only 10 cars. He talked to two real estate friends of his and both of them told
him he would be losing about $20,000 on the value of his property by down zoning it.
Several people on his block oppose the down zoning.
Commissioner Walters said Mr. Alessandro was opposed to the R-2 zoning from the
R-3, but was it his feeling that even if he got the exemption or variance where he could
build two units, that somehow this down zoning meant he could not build three when
otherwise he could?
Mr. Alessandro replied no, it would down zone him to the point to where he couldn't
build two units because he's under the 6,000 square feet. The three units was never the
issue. It was a second unit because of the size of the property to begin with. If it were
changed to a straight R-2 or R-2 5.5, it would be to his advantage.
10
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
Mr. Murphy explained Mr. Alessandro's property would actually yield two units either
under the R-3 or the R-2-6 RCD district. The lots that would only yield one unit are the
very small lots (less than 4,000 square feet). The lots within 5,500 to 6,000 square feet
will still be able to obtain the two units under the General Plan designation of 15 units to
the acre. Code allows the individual to obtain two units on the lot even though they do
not have the minimum lot size if the lot was legally created, which in this case, staff
believes it was.
Mr. Godlewski added the current wording of the zoning ordinance is such that no new
lots of R-2-6 designation may be created of less than 6,000 square feet. A person may
add units to an R-2-6 property such that there is a minimum lot area of 3,000 square
feet per unit or if zoned R-2 there may be two units even if the minimum lot size is not
met as long as one can meet all the other development standards, which include
setbacks and required number of garages. It may require that one of the units be
smaller. That is in the current ordinance and he would be happy to provide Mr.
Alessandro with a copy of that.
Alice Clark, 205 North Pine, discussed fraud documents. On the Agenda, under item 4,
it states "on behalf of the property owners" -- what property owners? (There was a
typing error on the Agenda. It should be "Committee of 300".) Mrs. Clark referred to the
staff report, item 3 -under Background -- the Committee of 300 presented a petition to
the City Council on January 25, 1992. On January 25 they submitted the first 76 names
at the City Council meeting and then she gave staff several more names at a study
session; altogether 84 names were submitted of people who own R-3 and R-4
properties and opposed the down zoning. This was not mentioned and she didn't think
it was fair. If you were to down zone to R-2 or R-2-6, what is the RCD? She thinks this
is a terrible, terrible thing that has happened in the community.
Commissioner Smith said she had attended every study session regarding zoning in this
particular neighborhood for the past nine years and she was on the Commission last
summer.
T.J. Clark, 811 East Chapman Avenue, asked how rezoning can be considered when
the zoning ordinance affecting the properties haven't been completed and accepted by
the City Council?
Commissioner Bosch explained the request before the City was to respond to existing
zoning and the Commission was looking at modifications to existing zoning site
development standards that do not substantially change the number of units that can be
built on a lot based on density or setbacks. The proposed change in the zoning
ordinance has been around so long, he wondered if they will see it adopted? Every
action that comes before the Commission has to be undertaken with regard to the
ordinances that are currently in effect.
Ruth Kroll, 1229 East Lomita, was pleased staff recommended M-1 zoning on
Montgomery would stay. They are historical buildings but have been kept up. They are
equipped with fire sprinklers and inspected by the Fire Department every year. She
11
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
owns 505 LaVeta and 480 that happens to be in the R-3 zone. They are non-
conforming. If they were to go to R-2, they would be non-conforming. One of the
tenants of the two buildings has been there for more than twenty years. She also owns
525 West LaVeta, which will be affected by the street widening. It seems unfair that
possibly individuals on a street like Pixley would not be able to consolidate their lots like
the properties on LaVeta.
Commissioner Bosch asked the staff to respond to the concern relative to lot
consolidation and whether application of any specific zone puts restrictions on property
owners' ability to consolidate currently individual lots. It was his understanding that
anyone could come at any time before the City and petition to have a lot line removed, a
new tract map issued or a new parcel created subject to the approval of the City in
meeting the Subdivision Map Act where a certain number of parcels are involved.
Regardless of the zone, the action before the Commission does not change a person's
rights with regard to petitioning to consolidate lots. (Staff concurred with Commissioner
Bosch's explanation.)
Corinne Schreck, 446 North James, was against down zoning of people's property
without their specific request. People should pay if they request a zone change on their
property. There are 75 parcels in this particular group. She would like to know exactly
how many and who of those people are requesting down zoning to R-2?
Mr. Murphy did not believe they had that information. He wasn't sure if staff had
canvassed the neighborhood adequately to know the answer to that question.
Ms. Schreck thought there was an FAR being considered, as well as open space. It
might be detrimental to some owners who own smaller properties.
Mr. Alessandro said there were four people who signed the petition; one has moved and
he was anon-owner; his next door neighbor at 337 Pixley said she did not know what
she was signing and was withdrawing her name from the list. The people at 331 have
been telling the neighbors they are moving.
Will Chambers, 242 South Olive, referred to the Conclusions in the staff report. He
wanted staff's definition of "adverse taking"?
Mr. Herrick said the law with the respect to eminent domain places legal restrictions on
the City with respect to some actions they can and can't take prior to taking property.
There is, in their estimate, an issue that perhaps down zoning properties immediately
prior to taking them may create a legal problem in the future. That is why those
properties that are designated for acquisition under the LaVeta Street project have been
dealt with in the way they have. There is no attempt by the City Attorney's office to
determine the issue of what would actually be the economic impact; it was merely to
avoid the potential for a legal issue in the future.
Duncan Clark, 205 North Pine, opposed any down zoning and felt very bad this has
come to this. He knew the developers of that property and grew up in that
12
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
neighborhood. There has been no development in that area, but consolidating those
lots certainly will bring about aproblem -- a problem that will cost the owners plenty of
money. He didn't see any reason for this. He would like to see a change in attitude
about this down zoning.
Commissioner Smith asked what value is a piece of property zoned R-3 if you can only
build two units on it? She understood it to mean the value to the higher zoning comes if
you put the two lots together; that doesn't affect the fact that you can still only build two
on one and two on the other and then you get a cumulative of four and not six?
Mr. Clark is talking about down zoning -- the devaluation of property. You would lose
100,000 if the property is down zoned on the present market.
Dan Williams, 369 South Pixley, can't believe people from other neighborhoods want to
down zone his property. They don't even live or own property in the area. What
concern is it of theirs? He's against down zoning.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Walters has not been involved in this process other than from a distant
view. He has heard the proponents and opponents of the down zoning and he really
didn't see that changing the down zoning has any real impact on the value of the
homes. A person can still build two units on many of the lots (there are a few
exceptions) and that's all one could build before. It appears to be a change to make the
reality fit the rules and ordinances of the City. This is recognizing the maximum a
person could have built to begin with on a single lot.
Commissioner Smith has driven the neighborhood extensively; she has rode her bicycle
through it for years. The question keeps going through her head -- how could you
possibly put three units on these lots because they are small. There are only three 3-
unit structures in the area and she thought one of them was on LaVeta, the second
property back. There is a big misunderstanding around the word "down zoning". In this
particular neighborhood it seems to her that R-2 better describes the reality of what can
be built. Based on existing zoning 53 of the lots at this time will only support two units
and based on the R-2 zoning, given the explanation by Mr. Murphy, there is an
exception for lots 5,500 to 6,000 square feet so most of those lots would also support
two units under R-2. It's only the very small, substandard lots (4,000 square feet or
less) that would not support two units, of which there are a handful. It appears
appropriate to her to label the zoning to look like the neighborhood looks and to reflect
that, in fact, you cannot build three on these size lots -- only two. She didn't think that
was taking away anyone's right to build a third unit because the third unit is not allowed.
Regarding the M-1 properties, it appears the under developed Montgomery Street is
what holds the rationale that they should be retained as M-1. They do not afford the
amenity that a residential street does. It's not appropriate to put residences on the
railroad tracks and she agrees with staff's recommendation of the M-1 property there.
She likes what staff has come up with in terms of the R-2-6. She agrees with the RCD
being retained because of the fact most of the neighborhood is one story and has been
13
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
since 1923. It does not mean people cannot build a second story; it means if you want
to build a second story, your neighbors get to know about it and give input. That's the
greatest value of the RCD -- you get to find out what you're neighbor is proposing to
build next door. Without the RCD, you do not find out until the construction begins. She
didn't like the RCD as another layer of government or as a restrictive area; she likes it
as a means of information to the people surrounding the development project. In this
particular neighborhood she was concerned about traffic issues, parking, noise and
density if there were to be any more than two units per lot. The size of the lots and
homes need to be better labeled by the R-2-6 zoning.
Commissioner Bosch concurred with the comments of the Commissioners in many
regards and also concurs with some of the speakers that indicated it seemed like a
terrible injustice to spend so much time on this particular area. It was essential to
separate this area in the minds of the Commission last year; this area clearly had
different characteristics than the others and needed to be treated separately. It has
been proven, however, impossible to separate the perception of the original application
and the process for this area from that of the remainder and he understands that now.
It's a superficial change. He has a difficult time accepting the idea that real estate
investors today do not understand that the mere number on a piece of property changes
the property value. It's what you can build on it, what you can do with it that changes
the property value. Again, in this case, the Commission cannot find any disagreement
that there will be extremely minor differences of application. There is no change in
potential development except for three units difference over the entire area. It's
important that people in the future are not mislead as perhaps some were in the past by
a zoning designation on a City map that clearly does not represent what one can do~with
their lots. For example, the Pixley neighborhood with several non-conforming tri-plexes.
He did not know how those were approved in the past; zoning has been in place for a
long time and they clearly didn't meet the zoning requirements when they were built. It's
a terrible misleading situation and it needs to be mitigated. Fortunately there's some
benefit that has come out of the process with regard to understanding the value of the
M-1 and resolving the inconsistency of zoning for the residential and the M-1 zone on
Culver Street by changing that. He's deeply concerned about the effects of this
neighborhood over time, more from the impacts of the widened LaVeta than anything
else given the zoning restrictions that are in place. He urged staff as they work on the
LaVeta widening to look at ways to mitigate the impacts of that. That's what is going to
destroy the neighborhood, if anything is -- not the difference of a number on a plan that
has no effect on almost all the property owners relative to their potential to develop the
land. It's a neighborhood that is more of a transitional to contemporary 50's and early
60's character than it is representative of a much older historical development in the City
of Orange. He hopes it keeps its character and is enhanced by the neighbors. He
doesn't see any negative to fulfilling the staff's recommendations.
14
Planning Commission Minutes May 17, 1993
Moved by Commissioner Walters, seconded by Commissioner Bosch, to accept
Negative Declaration 1429-93; and to recommend to the City Council to approve
General Plan Amendment 4-93 and Zone Change 1160-93 as specified and outlined on
Page 5 of the staff report issued this date.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
Mr. Godlewski assumed this item would not be scheduled for City Council until mid to
late July, 1993.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Walters, to adjourn to a
joint study session with the City Council at 5:00 p.m. on May 18 in the Weimer Room for
a presentation of the proposed Capital Improvement Program; and to set a study
session proposed for 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 24 in the Weimer Room to review the
revised Depot Specific Plan. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Smith, Walters
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cathcart MOTION CARRIED
15