Planners reject Eastside restrictions

Deirdre Newman

A group of Eastside residents concerned about what they perceive as a

deteriorating quality of life in their neighborhood struck out in

their efforts to get special design standards for new construction.

On Monday, the Planning Commission unanimously decided not to

approve the neighbors’ suggested changes to the zoning code and

rejected three other proposals from city planners. The decision will

now go to the City Council for review.

The residents suggested limiting new construction in their

140-home tract -- roughly bordered by East 19th Street, Irvine

Avenue, East 18th Street and Tustin Avenue -- to allow only one-story

additions that don’t exceed 14 feet in the rear 40% of the lot.

Homeowners would still be able to add a second-story to the front of

their property under the proposal. The other options were variations

on this proposal with different degrees of limitations.

The neighbors’ proposal was an attempt to preserve the character

of their mostly one-story neighborhood in the face of a few

homeowners who have built walls on their property that “tower over

neighboring back yards.”

Some vowed to keep pressing the city for some sort of relief.

“We still need to continue to look for a solution,” said Barbara

Beck, who lives in the 400 block of Flower Street. “We want to

protect our development from the overdevelopment that is spreading up

from the [Balboa] Peninsula over Newport Heights. Costa Mesa is

next.”

The housing tract poses an architectural challenge because the

properties, developed in the late 1940s, contain 20-foot-wide alleys

that provide access to the rear of each lot. The properties are

distinctive because of the spacious area they provide for back yards.

Historically, there has been a single-story house in the front of

the lot with the back yard behind it and then a detached alley garage

in the back of the property.

Zoning standards mandate a height limit of 27 feet and the

required minimum amount of open space is 40% of the total lot.

About 90% of properties in the tract still maintain the

traditional layout, Beck said. But recently about 4% of the

homeowners in the areas have extended a two-story wall, or a

combination of one- and two-story walls throughout the lot,

transforming their neighbors’ sunny backyards into “stucco canyons,”

Beck said.

The residents’ proposal called for a continuous line of

single-story construction in the rear yard area, but required the

building height to slope down as it approaches the side property

lines.

The other three options included either one- or two-story

construction in the rear portion of the lot. The option most similar

to the neighbors’ proposal limited construction to only one story in

the rear 50 feet of the lot and also required the building height to

slope down as it approaches the side property lines.

About 76 homeowners in the tract supported this proposal and 24

adamantly opposed any zoning changes, calling restrictions a threat

to their property rights and architectural freedom.

Commissioners sided with the opponents, agreeing that the zoning

status quo provides enough flexibility.

“I was personally opposed to [any changes] because I thought it

was bad land-use policy to impose those kind of arbitrary regulations

or restrictions on those kind of properties,” said Planning

Commission Chair Bruce Garlich.

The council is tentatively scheduled to review the issue April 21.

Councilman Gary Monahan, who originally directed staff to explore the

neighbors’ proposal, said he supported the commission’s decision.

“A proposal was made to me by a group of residents and I thought

it was my responsibility to [get it looked into],” Monahan said. “It

was studied by the Planning Department and the commission, and the

commission thought it was not appropriate and I agree with it.”

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers Costa Mesa and may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at [email protected].