Monterey Park Rejects Plan to Change Zoning in Residential Areas

With angry residents threatening to sue the city, the City Council voted 2 to 1 against a proposal to downzone residential land spread across congested northeast neighborhoods.

The vote came Monday during a noisy meeting filled with hoots, cheers and applause, and it represented the culmination of a year of debates.

Last May the council enacted a temporary ban on construction of apartments and condominiums as a way to control growth. That move allowed an extensive scrutiny of zoning by residents and city officials. Lot by lot, planners studied whether it would be better to change the zoning to single-family on some properties where apartments and condominiums are permitted.

“Our town is never going to be the sleepy little community it was,” one woman told the council Monday. “We can’t make a panic decision, thinking that downzoning will help.”

Council members Judy Chu and Christopher Houseman, who voted against the proposal, said something must be done to alleviate problems of overcrowding in the community of 63,500 residents. Houseman said he wanted “to protect the neighborhood quality of our city.”

Tighter Guidelines

Nonetheless, Houseman and Chu both said that changing the zoning was not the best solution nor the fairest to property owners. Instead, they argued, city officials should tighten existing guidelines that govern such issues as the design and the number of units permitted in apartment and condominium complexes.

Chu said she would consider changing the zoning on only 10 acres out of the 137 acres of housing that planners had suggested for change. “But I question whether it’s worth going to an election,” which she said could cost $30,000 to $40,000. A voter-passed initiative requires the electorate to approve zoning changes that affect one or more acres of property.

Unable to Vote

Mayor Barry L. Hatch had led the zoning revision campaign, saying it was a solution to overcrowded schools and streets and problems with sewers and the water system. Last year he urged city officials to consider residential downzoning throughout the entire community. But other council members never went along with the idea.

In an odd twist, Hatch was unable to vote on the issue Monday. The California Fair Political Practices Commission in January had decided that Hatch and Councilwoman Patricia Reichenberger could not vote on the zoning changes. The commission had ruled that the officials’ residences fell within the areas under consideration or were in close proximity.

Hatch and Reichenberger were permitted to address the council, however, and were among the three dozen speakers. The vast majority of speakers were against any changes.

But Hatch said lowering the density of residences allowed in neighborhoods would help to foster a single-family, residential atmosphere. This also makes good investment sense, he said. “The most prime property in California is single-family.”

During the last two years, he said, his own residence had increased in value by $100,000. “If you have single-family, you have a gold mine.” Homeowners like himself, he said, who own property in areas that also are zoned for apartments and condominiums, will benefit from having the zoning lowered to lesser density.

But speaker after speaker, including City Treasurer Louise Davis and former Councilman Cam Briglio, who died in an accident the next day, pleaded with the council to reject any changes.

Investment Fears

One resident of Asian ancestry said he spent years in Hong Kong working and saving his money, which he eventually spent on a house in Monterey Park. He feared, he said, that if the zoning were changed, the value of his real estate investment would be jeopardized, thus threatening the financial stability of his family’s future generations.

“Please, I beg you. Leave the zoning the way it is,” he said of his house in a multifamily zoning area.

But Clifford E. Sharp said: “I can’t bleed for these people.” He said many residents would make large profits if they sold their properties, regardless of the zoning.

However, another speaker cited the single-family house of a neighbor, suggesting that it was as crowded as a beehive. “I don’t think single-family housing is going to make for less population.”

Briglio, who was crushed to death in an accident at his home the day after the meeting, disputed the notion of the city being too crowded. “There’s no mad rush to come into this city.”

He also raised an example many others cited. He asked what would happen if a triplex, like Briglio’s home, were burned after the zoning had been changed to single-family? How would that affect the amount of money his insurance company might pay him? Also, if he sold his triplex, he said, how could buyers get loans on property that might have to be converted from multifamily residential to single-family?

“I don’t think we have answers to those questions,” said Councilwoman Chu, who chaired the meeting while Hatch watched from the audience.

Tina Martin warned council members that if they enacted extensive zoning changes, the officials might not be reelected. “I am not threatening,” she said. “I’m simply making an obvious point.” She also said she was prepared to take the city to court.

Martin and several others live in single-family houses surrounded by condominiums and apartments. These opponents feared that their properties would decrease in value if the zoning were lowered, because it would be unsuitable for development as multifamily housing.

Other speakers, including resident Boniface Chan , disputed the claims of a city consultant who had said that in certain cases single-family property is equal in value to property zoned for multifamily. The difference in values, Chan said, is tremendous, with multifamily more valuable.

In an interview, William H. Hutchinson said: “It’s too late. It’s like trying to close the barn door after the horse has gotten out.”

“I never felt downzoning was the answer,” Reichenberger said in an interview after the council’s vote.

But she, Chu, Houseman and Councilwoman Betty Couch, who cast the only vote in favor, said they thought the extensive, year-long review of properties had been worthwhile.