Uproar Over Scaling Down : Zoning Plan Sparks Homeowner Fury in Monterey Park

Condominiums surround the two-bedroom, stucco house with brown trim where Tina Martin lives.

Hers is one of the last, single-family houses on a street of condominiums.

If she sold the modest house today, along with the small, two-bedroom apartment that occupies most of her back yard, she estimates the sale could easily bring her more than $200,000, about 10 times the amount she originally paid in 1966.

And if the property were developed as a condominium site, she says that the land might be worth close to $1 million. “What we want is top value for our property,” said the 58-year-old teacher of practical nursing. “I don’t think that’s unreasonable.”

But, contrary to the view of a real estate consultant hired by the city, Martin fears that implementation of widespread, controversial zoning changes in Monterey Park will end any grand dreams of turning the property into a gold mine for her retirement.

Now zoned for multifamily housing, Martin’s property on Orange Avenue would be restricted for use as single-family housing under a proposal being considered by city officials.

Congested Areas

The possible scaling-down of the zoning is being studied for more than 400 acres scattered across the city’s most congested areas, principally in the northeast sector of the 7 1/2-square-mile city. Sixty percent of the city is now zoned for single-family housing and another 19% for apartments and condominiums.

A temporary ban already exists on construction of apartments and condominiums, under rules unanimously enacted last May by the City Council. The council’s five members continue to reiterate their pledges to correct problems with sewers, schools and streets overburdened from rapid growth in the last decade. The building moratorium was imposed while city planners and officials study whether it would help reduce the zoning on individual residential properties in the northeast neighborhoods.

Nonetheless, angry residents such as Martin have come out against down-zoning, saying it will create economic havoc for homeowners. Their view is supported by two former mayors, Cam Briglio and Howard Fry, whose own residences could be zoned single-family.

“I have agonized over the zoning problems, day after day,” said Fry, who was politically active for 17 years. “But this down-grading . . . will cost me or my sons and daughters upwards of $20,000,” if his house is sold.

Briglio, addressing the Planning Commission recently, said: “I hope the city has got a lot of money, because I’ll take (it) to court.”

‘Strike a Balance’

No one, not even Mayor Barry L. Hatch, who initially tried to push for revamping the residential zoning for the entire city, seems to believe the zoning density will be lowered on all the properties under consideration.

“We have to strike a balance,” said Councilwoman Judy Chu.

Still, she and other city leaders say there is a mandate to curb growth in the city of 63,500 residents. “We know for a fact that traffic is a bear,” Hatch says. “So are sewers and problems with water. Our schools are packed.” Eventually, residents will be able to vote on any zoning changes the council may decide to enact. A referendum approved in 1987 required that changing the zoning on more than one acre necessitates a vote by the community.

Lengthy Review

The vote probably will occur in June or July, city officials say, but only after the council holds a hearing on the issue either later this month or next. The Planning Commission has made a review, including two full days of visits by commissioners looking at the properties and three public meetings on the subject.

Indicative of the sweeping nature of the land areas involved, three of the planning commissioners--Ken Fong, Joseph Rubin and Verne Heitman--and two council members--Hatch and Patricia Reichenberger, are disqualified from voting on any changes.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission, after an inquiry last year by city officials, ruled that these city leaders’ residences fell within areas under consideration or are in close proximity.

Two planning commissioners and three council members are the only ones who can vote in public meetings on any possible changes.

“The whole thing has been a strange experience,” said Planning Commission Chairwoman Patricia Chin, who, along with commissioner Stephen Tan, last month made the decisions on what to recommend to the council.

Intense Debate

They could agree only on reducing the zoning on 13.3 acres. The two disagreed on whether the council should consider scaling-down another 54 acres.

Still, the city officials who can’t vote aren’t barred from making their views heard, and last month’s Planning Commission meeting reflected the intensity of the debate.

Although disqualified from voting, Fong addressed the meeting from the floor, saying, “The quality of life has gone down.”

Fong said that because of a job change he is moving to Sacramento. But he said that down-zoning will solve problems of congestion. “Families are tired of condos,” he said. “They want to live in a residential community. That’s the future trend in Monterey Park: more single-family residences.”

But in the meeting that didn’t end until 3:30 a.m., most of the more than 30 speakers spoke against proposals that would have permitted only single-family residences on properties where now condominiums and apartments could be built.

Depleted Nest Eggs

Young adults who still live with their parents worried about what would happen if they lived in a duplex on property that eventually would be restricted to only single-family housing.

Widows and widowers complained that their real estate nest egg might be depleted if their properties were zoned single-family instead of multiple-family.

People who own triplexes worried over what would happen in the case of a fire. If the city rezoned the property to single-family and there was a fire, they asked, what would happen if an insurance company were to limit the settlement to replace a single-family unit?

And one man complained that permitting only a single-family residence on his property would destroy his plans to sell the land as a condominium site and use the profits to retire to Montana, where he wants to set up a bee colony.

“I stand to lose over $200,000,” said Michael Agnew, who has the bee colony plans.

“It’s strictly economic,” said another resident. “You’re taking money out of my pocket, and I don’t like it.”

Apartment Limits

Yet Los Angeles real estate consultants from Kotin, Regan & Mouchly Inc. said that residential property values wouldn’t decline if the zoning were changed from multiple-family to single-family.

The main conclusion, still being hotly debated, is that in most cases land zoned as single-family “appears to be the highest-valued” use, according to the consultants’ report. This situation exists, the consultants said, because of the limits on the number of units that can now be placed on land zoned for apartments or condominiums.

So a house on a 7,000- to 12,000-square-foot lot might be worth about $200,000, the consultants said, regardless of whether it is zoned for single-family or multiple units. The value of the land alone on lots that size, if the property were zoned R-3 (the rating that allows for the highest density of apartment units), probably would range between $124,000 to $210,000, the report said.

The report generally supports the theory of Hatch and others who say the single-family house will be the king of real estate in a residential community like Monterey Park, with little undeveloped land so close to downtown Los Angeles.

Hatch and other city leaders have not focused on the issue of affordability for first-time home buyers who might be able to buy condominiums rather than a house. Nonetheless, he believes the city has no shortage of condominiums. And, he said, developers want to build more. “We’ve got developers and the saliva is foaming on the sides of their mouths.”

But residents at the Planning Commission hearing said they were worried about what would happen to property with, for example, duplexes, triples or four-plexes that might be zoned for single-family property. “People are going to let that land rot and go downhill,” said William Henry Hutchinson of East Mabel Avenue.

One issue troubling residents such as Tina Martin centers on what will happen if their property is rezoned and the apartments on their property become illegal.

Planning Director M. Margo Wheeler said the city has the right to order property owners to demolish any additional units on property zoned as single-family. She noted there would be a 20- to 25-year grace period.