This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
East Orange  Orange Park Acres  Villa Park  Anaheim Hills  Cowan Heights Crawford Canyon  Silverado/Modjeska Canyon Areas  North Tustin


A Monthly Community Newspaper Est. 1969


Planning Commission wrestles with East


Orange development plan By Tina Richards


The public hearing on the Rio Santiago development slated for the 110-acre East Orange parcel known as Sully-Miller has been continued for a third time to Feb. 19 by the Orange Planning Com- mission, as it struggles to under- stand the nuances of a project one commissioner described as hav- ing “moving parts.” The commission is tasked with making a recommendation to the Orange City Council whether to change long-held zoning designa- tions and approve the project as it stands, or send the developer, Milan Capital/JMI Properties, back to the drawing board. The planned project -- 265 units of senior housing, 130 tract homes, a managed sports facility and 50 acres of open space surrounding Santiago Creek -- has been hotly contested by East Orange resi- dents who note that it is counter to existing planning documents and is not an appropriate use of the property, which itself has a checkered past. The parcel is currently zoned


as “sand and gravel resource,” with 12 acres designated for sin- gle family homes. Four separate community, greenbelt and spe-  call for an open space designation to accommodate parks and recre- ation. Commissioners must weigh the merits of the developer’s plan, currently seen only in crisp art- ist’s renderings of meandering pathways, manicured houses, kids and horses, against the exist- ing plans that were based on the       its 100-year history as a mining,


rock and asphalt crushing site.


Unavoidable impacts Confounding the review pro-


cess is an overall lack of project clarity made apparent by the com- missioner’s questions to city staff and JMI consultant Ken Ryan. Several major components of the       - solved issues that it wants the      the Environmental Impact Report calls out eight elements of the  and unavoidable impacts” on the surrounding area. Those impacts range from aes-


       hydrology to light and glare. “Has the city ever approved a project with this many unavoidable im- pacts,” Commissioner Adrienne Gladson asked City Planner Chad Ortlieb. The answer was “no.” - mission has been reduced to three as two of them, Bill Cathcart and Bill Steiner, recused themselves. Pat Buttress, Daniel Correa and Gladson have so far heard eight hours of presentations and public comments during two sessions  people spoke on the record (about three quarters opposed and one quarter in favor) and it wasn’t un- til late in the second meeting that commissioners began asking their own questions of city staff and the project applicant. “This is complicated,” Gladson


said. “We have a number of en- titlements before us. I need the light of all information that tells


See "Planning Comm." continued on page 5


  


Court says this "illegal


spot zoning" is permissible By Tina Richards


A lower court ruling calling a multi-resident senior living facili- ty slated for a single-family North Tustin neighborhood ”illegal spot zoning” was overturned by an ap- pellate court, Jan. 13. The proposed facility is slated


for seven acres on Newport Blvd. owned by the Catholic Diocese of Orange. It falls under the purview  which does not provide for multi- family residences on that parcel. The land has historically been zoned for a church or a school, neither of which the church has any interest in building there. The Diocese partnered with


Kisco Senior Living on the pro-     the county planning department and board of supervisors rewrote the NTSP to accommodate it. About 96 percent of the commu- nity opposed the development, calling its three-story facade “too tall” for the neighborhood that surrounds it and noting that com- mercial enterprises are not per- 


First round goes to FCA The community was alarmed


  -       


     with many of the development’s California Environmental Qual-       Foothill Communities Associa- tion (FCA) sued the developer and Orange County -- and won. Judge Gail Adler called the spe-  capricious illegal spot zoning.” She did not rule on the CEQA


merits. The developer appealed the de-


cision, but the county dropped out of the proceedings under the urg- ing of then-newly-elected Third District Supervisor Todd Spitzer. While the appellate court


agreed that the changes to the NTSP were indeed “spot zoning,” it found that they were not illegal. “Although the board’s [of super- visors] actions constituted spot zoning, the spot zoning was per- missible” the court wrote. “The rezoning ordinance may be justi-       exists.” The court ruled that such a need


- pervisors. In deciding the case overall, the appellate judges were “deferential to the board.”


That


- plying the board could change the            - stitute a contract entered into by  amended as often as deemed nec- essary by the legislative body.”


A changing planscape Further, the court noted that


while the NTSP zoning was ap- propriate when the document was  passage of more than 30 years, the development of the county and the changing needs of the people of the county (especially senior citizens) were proper for the board to consider in determin- ing that the project site might be more appropriately rezoned for


See "Illegal spot zoning" continued on page 5


Tuesday, February 14, 2014


NEWS INSIDE Spit and polish


School district board seeks professional help to mend wrecked reputation. See OUSD hires, page 2


University buildings bloom


Chapman builds first- class facilities for college, community and commuters. See Building, page 4


A never-


never land of liability?


Silverado Modjeska Park District weighs developer’s offer of money for management of flood zone waterway. See Canyon, page 5


Horse sense dispensed


A proposed vehicle code change will give OPA equestrian traffic a say in speed limits. See Orange Park, page 6


Charger of the light brigade


Teenager turns loss into cheer for charity. See Girl loses, page 15


Unfanning the flames


North Tustin group fights wildfire threat with advice and information. See Fire- Wise, page 19


INSIDE Canyon Beat Page 7


Letters To The Editor Page 8 Commentary Soup's On


Services Directory Sports


Obituaries Real Estate


Page 13 Page 13


Professional Directory Page 14 Classifieds


Page 14


Page 16-17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20