Tuesday, October 14, 2014


Buyer bids $20 million for


surplus site The Orange Unified School


District Board accepted a $20 mil- lion bid from Shopoff Landfund for the 9.77-acre surplus property located on Walnut Avenue adja- cent to Santiago Middle School. The Walnut property has never


been used for a school. A portion had been leased to a palm farm, with the rest remaining vacant. It was identified as surplus in 2008 and the OUSD Board of Trustees agreed to sell it last March. By law, property owned by a


public agency must first be of- fered to other public agencies at a fair market price. With no takers from the public sector, the district auctioned the property on Sept. 10, asking a minimum $12.9 mil- lion.


The property is currently clas-


sified in the Orange General Plan as “public facilities and institu- tions” with in-place zoning for single-family dwellings on 7,000 sq. ft. lots. OUSD’s $12.9 mil- lion assessment was based on the city’s stated willingness to reclas- sify the general plan designation to low density residential, allow- ing two to six residential units per acre. Of the six bids received,


Shopoff’s, at $20 million, was the highest. Shopoff describes itself as “focused on the reposi- tioning of commercial assets and the repurposing of land through entitlements.” The investor has reportedly asked for a 400-plus day escrow to allow it to attain said zoning entitlements before the sale is finalized.


By Tina Richards The Orange Planning Commis-


sion upheld a community devel- opment staffer’s decision to allow a 300- ft. long, six-foot high block wall fence to be built between two residences in Orange Park Acres, even though it violates city code and the OPASpecific Plan. The fence was erected just six


inches behind an existing chain link fence, leaving a gap that, neighbors say, will collect debris and potentially trap wildlife that routinely traverse the area. The Orange code pertaining to fenc- ing says parallel dividing walls must be five feet apart. The area’s specific plan restricts block fenc- ing to retaining walls and calls for wooden split rail or chain link for all others. Salem Lutheran Church was recently denied its bid to build a similar block fence on its property because the structure was contrary to the OPA Specific Plan. Even the controversial Rid- geline development – now before the California Supreme Court – deferred to the OPA plan’s guide- lines for wooden fencing.


A sight for sore eyes The Orange Park Acres resi-


dents who put up the block wall were told by the city that no per- mit was needed (because it was six feet or less) and that they could build the fence without re- percussion. Next door neighbors James and Laurie Cesena soundly disagreed. With their hillside view obstructed, portions of the fence built on a berm towering well over six feet, and debris pil- ing up in the six-inch “alley,” they asked the city for a stop order to


Foothills Sentry


give them time to appeal the ad- ministrative approval to the plan- ning commission. The couple’s attorney told the planning commission that city staff erred in not consulting the OPASpecific Plan that governs the rural area and was written to pre- serve its character. He also noted that a permit should have been required because a portion of the fence is well over the height limit and that the six-inch clearance is a safety hazard. There is no way to remove trash and debris, and with coyotes, bobcats, raccoons, possums and rattlesnakes com- mon to the area, it is likely that one will get stuck. OP Association President Laura


Thomas explained that the issue isn’t about neighbors disagree- ing; it is about the whole com- munity. She noted that the block wall was counter to the spirit of the OPA plan and expressed her disappointment that the city did not confer with the association before approving the structure. “The city approved a block wall that doesn’t conform to the plan and we weren’t included,” she said. “It’s the aesthetics of a rural environment. A little chip starts to degrade it and then there’s an- other chip and then another.”


Town vs. country “You want to preserve Old


Towne,” Laurie Cesena observed. “We want to preserve OPA.” The planning commission stressed that it was dealing only with the community development decision to approve the fence, that it could not address the merits of the fence itself. “The community development manager thought the


Page 9 Block fences don’t make good neighbors


The City of Orange approved a six-inch clearance for a new brick wall built adjacent to an existing chain link fence. City code calls for a five-foot clearance.


five-foot issue was insignificant,“ commissioner Bill Steiner noted. Adriana Gladstone added that the city’s fall back position was that the five-foot clearance was “dis- cretionary.” Commissioner Daniel Correa


said that a municipal code implied equal treatment and wondered aloud if a discretionary decision


promoted that. He also stressed his concerns that debris and/or animals trapped in the six-inch gap could be a health hazard. The commission voted 4-1 to


adhere to city staff’s decision al- lowing the fence. Correa cast the dissenting vote. The Cesena’s are launching another appeal to the city council.


Advertisement


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  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24