The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-ATTACHMENT EAttachment E RESOLUTION NO. 4183 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS ADEQUATE, AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1397 (CODE AMENDMENT 11-002) AMENDING VARIOUS CODE SECTIONS TO PROVIDE CLARITY, CONSISTENCY, AND REDUCE AMBIGUITY RELATED TO NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That on March 15, 2011, the Tustin City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 11-19 directing that the Tustin Planning Commission receive and consider draft Ordinance No. 1397, and a verbatim transcript of the City Council's deliberations on draft Ordinance No. 1397 so that the Commission would be aware of the City Council's concerns, and provide a recommendation on the proposed ordinance to the Tustin City Council. B. That Code Amendment 11-002 (Ordinance No. 1397) is considered a "project by the California Environmental. Quality Act (°CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). C. That City staff prepared an Initial Study for Code Amendment 11-002 (Ordinance No. 1397) that determined that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration (ND) will be prepared. D. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was published and the draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for a 20 -day public review and comment period from September 1, 2011 to September 21, 2011, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines. E. That on September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public workshop on the intent and practice of California Land Use and Planning Law governing nonconforming structures, uses, and lots. F. That on September 27, 2011, a public hearing on Code Amendment 11- 002 (Ordinance No. 1397) was duly called, noticed, and held by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to October 11, 2011. Resolution No. 4183 Page 2 G. That on October 11, 2011, a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held by the Planning Commission. H. The Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration (Exhibit 1) and finds it adequate for Code Amendment 11-002 (Ordinance No. 1397). I. That Code Amendment 11-002 (Ordinance No. 1397) is necessary to provide clarity, consistency, and reduce ambiguity related to nonconforming uses and structures in the City of Tustin (Exhibit 2). J. That Code Amendment 11-002 (Ordinance No. 1397) is consistent with the goals, policies, and general plan land use programs specified in the Tustin General Plan for the City of Tustin, including the following land use goals and policies: LU Goal 1: Provide for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open space and community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future City services. w� LU Goal 2: Ensure that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning. LU Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints, and the City's unique characteristics and resources. LU Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses; ll. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Code Amendment 11-002, by adopting Ordinance No. 1397, to provide clarity, consistency, and reduce ambiguity related to nonconforming uses and structures in the City of Tustin. Resolution No. 4183 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 11th day of October, 2011. JEMA TH*dMPSCK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4183 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 11th day of October, 2011. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) TUSTIN DUILL)ING OUR FUIURL HONORING OUR PW A. BACKGROUND CITY OF TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 Project Title: Code Amendment 11-002 (Draft Ordinance No. 1397) Nonconforming structures and uses Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development Phone: (714) 573-3109 Project Location: Citywide -'Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Land Use Designation: Citywide Zoning Designation: Citywide Project Description: Citywide Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Citywide Other public agencies whose approval is required: ❑ Orange County Fire Authority ❑ City of Santa Ana ❑ Orange County EMA District ❑ City of Irvine ❑ South Coast Air Quality Management ❑ Other ❑ Orange County Health Care Agency Attachments: EXHIBIT 1: Tustin Planning Area INITIAL STUDY B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: City of Tustin The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic DETERMINATION: ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hydrology/ Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed. project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and 4 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. C I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: ei- g Printed Name: Eliz batt Signature: Preparer: Amy Thomas, 21 Page Date: Director Date: Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance D. INITIAL STUDY Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated City of Tustin Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. The City of Tustin General Plan encourages protection of scenic views and resources through site planning and architectural design; and through implementation of the Grading Manual. The ordinance is intended to amend the Zoning Code to revise the definition of "nonconforming" to clarify, provide consistency, and reduce ambiguity throughout the code. The ordinance is not anticipated to affect any scenic resources in that there are no physical changes proposed. Therefore, this project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) No Impact. The General Plan Circulation Element does not identify any State scenic highways within the City. There are no impacts related to the Ordinance in that the amendment is proposed to revise the nonconforming definition to clarify, provide consistency, and reduce ambiguity throughout the code. The intent of the code amendment is to implement and codify the City's current practice of ensuring that historic structures are maintained and illegal and/or unpermitted additions, alterations, or enlargements are lawfully established in accordance with the City's Cultural Resources District Regulations and the appropriate procedures and findings for a Certificate of Appropriateness are obtained. Said Certificate of Appropriateness must include specific findings for construction or alteration to ensure that alterations 4 1 P a g e INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin or adaptive reuse of the structures will not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect the resource and, in the case of a structure is compatible with the architectural style of the existing structure. In addition to allowing expansion/alteration of an identified historic structure, the City also supports adaptive reuse of historic structures. Adaptive reuse preserves the important physical attributes of the historic resource for future generations to appreciate by adapting old structures for purposes other than what the building was originally designed. This concept of adaptive reuse presumes that the owner of the property has legally obtained the proper permits and that the building was adapted (upgraded to meet applicable Building Codes) so that it may lawfully be used differently than the building was originally designed. Illegal additions (even old ones) may detract from the social, cultural or historical significance of an important historic resource. Most importantly, old structures or uses must be lawfully established to ensure that they do not pose a hazard to occupants or the community. The City of Tustin has been recognized by the State of California as a Certified Local Government (CLG). The Certified Local Government Program is a preservation partnership between local, state and national governments focused on promoting historic preservation at the grass roots level. Certification provides the City access to the expert technical advice of the State Office of Historic Preservation as well as the National Park Service's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Partnerships with the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, Preserve America, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the National Main Street Center are also networks that CI -Gs have an opportunity to tap into. City staff routinely and responsibly reviews the City's Cultural Resources Survey when researching the legality of a questionable structure, use or lot. When needed, staff has also employed the expertise of 30th Street Architects, an historic preservation architecture and planning firm recognized statewide as experts in documenting, preserving and restoring historic resources. Staff also researches and considers a wide variety of other historical information (historic phone books, historic -' aerial photographs, evidence provided by persons associated with the historic past of the site, etc.) when examining the facts associated with a questionable structure, use or lot. Ultimately, the Code Amendment will provide consistency in the code and allow implementation to ensure that the integrity of historic structures are preserved for the intended use and/or are legally established and maintained or are adaptively reused. With the clarification of the term nonconforming to include the terms "lawfully established" and "legal", no impacts are anticipated from the implementation of the proposed project. c) No Impact. The code amendment does not exempt individual projects from review. Impacts related to any future project may be identified and evaluated in conjunction with the applicable discretionary process and may be subject to separate CEQA review. Therefore, no impacts are forecast from the implementation of the proposed project. d) No Impact. The code amendment will not create a source of light and glare. Individual projects may be subject to providing a photometric plan and additional review may be required on a case-by-case basis for lighting of parking lots and loading areas. However, there is no impact associated with this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 5 1 P a g e INITIAL STUDY Issues: II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact City of Tustin Less Than Significant Less Than No With Significant Im ac Mitigation Impact Imp ac a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique ❑ Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ 0 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause ❑ ❑ rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(8))? 61 Page INITIAL STUDY d) Result in the loss of forest land or ❑ ❑ conversion of forest land to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? City of Tustin Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. The code amendment will not result in the conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. The code amendment will provide clarity, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Future individual projects will be subject to discretionary review and potential conditions of approval. Furthermore, since there are no improvements proposed in conjunction with this project, it will not result in any impacts to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland). b) No Impact. The code amendment will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. There are no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in the Tustin Planning Area. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with each specific project. Therefore, no impacts are forecast to occur as a result of implementation of the code amendment. c) No Impact. The code amendment will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in that the City of Tustin does not have any forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned areas within the City boundaries. d) No Impact. The code amendment will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production in that the City of Tustin does not have any forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned areas within the City boundaries. e) No Impact. As described in Response Il.b above, the proposed project will not directly impact or result in the conversion of existing farmland uses to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts are forecast to occur as a result of implementation of the code amendment. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 3. Cal EPA/ARB Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 2000 to 2006 hffg)://www.arb.ca.gov/cctinventory/data/data.htm 4. State of California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program hftr)://www.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmg)/Pages/Index.aSDX 5. Public Resources Code section 12220(g), 4526 6. Government Code section 51104(8) 71 Page INITIAL STUDY Issues: III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? City of Tustin Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impacts. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable_ air quality plan, as prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. No physical improvements are___ proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. Impacts related to any future project would be 81 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin identified and evaluated in conjunction with the discretionary review process and/or applicable specific plan or other review document and may be subject to separate CEQA review. Therefore, no impacts are forecast to occur as a result of implementation of the code amendment. b -e) No Impacts. Grading and development activities are not associated with the proposed code amendment. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with the discretionary review process and/or applicable specific plan or other review document and may be subject to separate CEQA review. Furthermore, projects are subject to the City's standard conditions of approval to minimize local nuisance from grading and construction activities. This condition is in conformance with the SCAQMD requirements and therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: ' � IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 91 Page Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated E Less Than Significant Impact ■❑ No Impact -0 FIN Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a -b) No Impact. The California Fish and Game Code was adopted by the State legislature to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the State. Special permits are required for any lake or stream alterations, dredging or other activities that may affect fish and game habitat. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the amendment to the zoning code. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with the California Fish and Game Code and may be subject to separate CEQA review. Therefore, no impacts will result with implementation of the code amendment. c) No Impact. In accordance with the City's existing permit (ORDER NO. R8-2009-0030 NPDES No. CAS618030) with the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board, any future applicant may be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure grading and reclamation activities do not allow runoff from the site to cavy sediment during a storm event to impair the water - quality. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity 101 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac�--' Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Have a substantial adverse effect El 13 El 19 on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ E movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or El E ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an El E adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a -b) No Impact. The California Fish and Game Code was adopted by the State legislature to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the State. Special permits are required for any lake or stream alterations, dredging or other activities that may affect fish and game habitat. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the amendment to the zoning code. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with the California Fish and Game Code and may be subject to separate CEQA review. Therefore, no impacts will result with implementation of the code amendment. c) No Impact. In accordance with the City's existing permit (ORDER NO. R8-2009-0030 NPDES No. CAS618030) with the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board, any future applicant may be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure grading and reclamation activities do not allow runoff from the site to cavy sediment during a storm event to impair the water - quality. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity 101 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin of the term "nonconforming" in the TCC. Any future project that is considered a priority project will be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as part of the discretionary review process to ensure runoff from the site, due to ongoing operations, does not impair water quality downstream. Therefore, no impact is anticipated as part of the code amendment that could cause a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) No Impact. As discussed in response IV.a, b, the code amendment does not propose any physical changes. The code amendment incorporates uses previously determined by the Community Development Director and/or Planning Commission to be similar in use. Impacts related to any future project could be identified and evaluated as part of the discretionary review process in conjunction with the California Fish and Game Code and may be subject to separate CEQA review and conditions of approval limiting grading activities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated from the implementation of the code amendment. e) No Impact. The City's General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element mandates continued maintenance of significant tree. stands. New developments may require a biological assessment as required in the review process. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" in the TCC. Future development applications may be subject to further discretionary review for consistency with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, there is no impact f) No Impact. The City of Tustin is a participating member of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and is within the Coastal Sub/Central Orange County NCCP region. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the amendment to the zoning code. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with the applicable NCCP/HCP plan or any other conservation plan and may be subject to separate CEQA review. Therefore, the code amendment has no impact. I Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 3. Department of Fish and Game, Natural Community Conservation Plan hffp://www.dtq.ca.-gov/habcon/nccp/status/Oran-geCoastal/ Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse El El El change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? 111Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin b) Cause a substantial adverse 13 E change in the significance of an --� archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, El including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Dlscusslon: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. The intent of the code amendment is to implement and codify the City's current practice of ensuring that historic structures are maintained and illegal and/or unpermitted additions, alterations, or enlargements are lawfully established in accordance with the City's Cultural Resources District Regulations and the appropriate procedures and findings for a Certificate of Appropriateness are obtained. Said Certificate of Appropriateness must include specific findings for construction or alteration to ensure that alterations will not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect the resource and, in the case of a structure is compatible with the architectural style of the existing structure. As set forth in the City of Tustin General Plan Housing Element, (pg. 33) Historic Resources – Older neighborhoods in Tustin contain several historic residences that should be preserved as part of the community's heritage. These historic homes were identified through an inventory of historic buildings in 1990. Further, the General Plan, Housing Element (pg. 50) Buildin4 7 Codes and Enforcement: The City of Tustin adopts the Uniform Construction Codes, as required by State /aW which establish minimum construction standards as applied to residential buildings. The City's building codes are the minimum standards necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and ensure safe housing. Only local mod cations to the codes are made which respond to local climatic or geographic conditions and clarify administrative procedures. Although not mandated to do so, the City has adopted the State Historical Code that relaxes building code requirements citywide for historic structures/buildings. Adoption of the codes reduces rehabilitation costs. Ultimately, the Code Amendment will provide consistency with the General Plan and in the Tustin City Code and to ensure that the integrity of historic structures is legally established and maintained. a) No Impact. The City of Tustin General Plan sets out conservation goals to maintain and enhance the City's unique culturally and historically significant building sites or features. Specifically, Policy 12.1 Identify, designate, and protect facilities of historical significance, and Policy 12.3 Development adjacent to a place, structure or object found to be of historic signiricance should be designed so that the uses permitted and the architectural design will protect the visual setting of the historical site. Since the proposed zoning code amendment will not change or alter the physical environment and each individual project will be subject to the City's Goals and Policies of the General Plan and Zoning Code regulations. Further, with the implementation and codification of the City's current practice of ensuring that historic structures are preserved for the intended use and/or are lawfully established. and maintained or are adaptively reused, it is not anticipated to create a substantial adverse change to historical resources and no impacts are forecast from the implementation of the proposed project. In addition to allowing expansion/alteration of an identified historic structure, the City also supports— adaptive reuse of historic structures. Adaptive reuse preserves the important physical attributes of the 121 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin historic resource for future generations to appreciate by adapting old structures for purposes other than what the building was originally designed. This concept of adaptive reuse presumes that the owner of the property has legally obtained the proper permits and that the building was adapted (upgraded to meet applicable Building Codes) so that it may lawfully be used differently than the building was originally designed. Illegal additions (even old ones) may detract from the social, cultural or historical significance of an important historic resource. Most importantly, old structures or uses must be lawfully established to ensure that they do not pose a hazard to occupants or the community. The City of Tustin has been recognized by the State of California as a Certified Local Government (CLG). The Certified Local Government Program is a preservation partnership between local, state and national governments focused on promoting historic preservation at the grass roots level. Certification provides the City access to the expert technical advice of the State Office of Historic Preservation as well as the National Park Service's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Partnerships with the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, Preserve America, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the National Main Street Center are also networks that CI -Gs have an opportunity to tap into. City staff routinely and responsibly reviews the City's Cultural Resources Survey when researching the legality of a questionable structure, use or lot. When needed, staff has also employed the expertise of 30th Street Architects, an historic preservation architecture and planning firm recognized statewide as experts in documenting, preserving and restoring historic resources. Staff also researches and considers a wide variety of other historical information (historic phone books, historic aerial photographs, evidence provided by persons associated with the historic past of the site, etc.) when examining the facts associated with a questionable structure, use or lot. b) No Impact. According to the City of Tustin General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element (Goal 13), and the Standard Conditions of Approval, individual projects will be subject to site inspection by certified archaeologists or paleontologists for new development in designated sensitive areas. These conditions will be required on a case-by-case basis for individual projects subject to discretionary review; however this code amendment proposes no physical changes. Therefore, no impacts related to archaeological resources would result from the proposed code amendment. c) No Impact. Same as response IIIb d) No Impact. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. As such, the project will not adversely affect, destroy or disturb human remains. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated through the discretionary review process in conjunction with a specific project and standard conditions of approval applied; however, no foreseeable impacts related to cultural resources are anticipated. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 3. California Law hfp:/Avww.le.info.ca.-gov/calaw.html 131Page INITIAL STUDY Issues: Potentially Significant Impact VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 141Page 011 ❑ ❑ City of Tustin Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant In --c With Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Issues: d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact With Mitigation Impact Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. According to the City of Tustin General Plan, Public Safety Element (January 2001), the Tustin Planning Area (Planning Area) lies within a seismically active region. However, there are no known active or suspected potentially active faults identified within the Planning Area. The EI Modena fault passes through the Planning Area's northern section; however, studies have not been conclusive about the activernactive status of this fault. The code amendment proposes no physical changes and future proposals would be subject to individual review. Therefore, no impacts associated with rupture of a known earthquake fault are anticipated with the implementation of the code amendment. if. No Impact. There is no evidence of any active or potentially active faults within the Tustin Planning Area (Planning Area) and it is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the Planning Area is located in the seismically active region of southern California. Slight to intense ground shaking is possible within the Planning Area if an earthquake occurs on a segment of the active faults in the region. Under current seismic design standards and California Building Code (CBC) provisions, new buildings would incur only minor damage in small to moderate earthquakes, and potential structural damage during a large earthquake, although new buildings are expected to remain standing during such events (City of Tustin General Plan, Safety Element). With application of the provisions of Chapter 16A Division IV of the 1998 California Building Code and the Structural Engineers Association of California, (SEAOC) guidelines, adequate structural protection in the event of an earthquake would be provided, thus reducing impacts from strong seismic ground shaking to a less than significant level. Since there is no development associated with the zoning code amendment and individual projects would be subject to the California Building Code and the SEAOC guidelines, no impacts will occur as part of this project. 151Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin iii. No Impact. There is no development associated with the zoning code amendment and individual projects would be subject to the California Building Code and the SEAOC guidelines— Furthermore, a standard condition of approval requiring a soils report will be required prior t issuance of a grading permit for any future project. Therefore, no impacts will occur as part a this code amendment. b) No Impact. The City of Tustin is a co -permittee with Orange County in the NPDES program, which is designed to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. Accordingly, during construction of any future project, the applicant will be required to develop and submit a SWPPP to the Santa Ana RWOMP for compliance with the Statewide NPDES for construction activity. The SWPPP would contain BMPs as identified in the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) to eliminate or reduce erosion and polluted runoff. General BMPs applicable to construction include erosion controls, sediment controls, tracking controls, wind erosion control, non -storm water management, and materials and water management. A standard condition of approval requiring BMP's as part of individual development plans may be required as part of the discretionary review process prior to issuance of a grading permit for any future project. Therefore, no impacts will occur as part of this project. c -d) No Impact. As indicated in Vl.a (ii) above, there is no development associated with the zoning code amendment. Individual projects would be subject to the California Building Code and the SEAOC guidelines. A soils report prepared by a certified soils engineer may be required as part of any project on a case-by-case basis. Since there is no development associated with the zoning code amendment, no impacts will occur as part of this project. e) No Impact. The code amendment does not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. On a case-by-case basis as part of the discretionary review process, any future proposed project may be subject to submit a site-specific geotechnical investigation for the site ant preparation of a geologic and soils report prepared by a certified soils engineer. Therefore, no impacts will occur from the implementation of the proposed project. - Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated VII GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, (� either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 161 Page INITIAL STUDY b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ F regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? City of Tustin � 554 Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. There is no development associated with the zoning code amendment. Future individual projects would be subject to CEQA review on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to directly or indirectly have an impact on the environment. b) No Impact. There is no development associated with the zoning code amendment; the plan is consistent with the City's General Plan and does not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: VIII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: - a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 171Page Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No Impact El 19 El 0 Issues: c) Emit hazardous emissions or Significant handle hazardous or acutely With hazardous materials, substances, Mitigation or waste within one-quarter mile of Incorporated an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Impact ❑ ■❑ City of Tustin Less Than Less Than Significant Significant With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ■❑ ❑■ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑El El El No Impa& y N ►1 ►�I ►01 ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC; to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming' throughout the Tustin City Code. 181Page Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC; to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming' throughout the Tustin City Code. 181Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin a -c) No Impact. The project involves the implementation of a new zoning code amendment to clarify the term nonconforming as set forth in the Tustin City Code. There are no hazardous materials proposed as part of this project. Each individual development project will be subject to review on a case-by-case basis for hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. d) No Impact. This project does not involve a specific hazardous materials site. Any new project will be subject to review with the list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. A standard condition of approval may require a site-specific geotechnical investigation for the entire site and preparation of a geologic and soils report will be required as part of the project. Therefore, no impacts related to this issue will result from the proposed project. e -f) No Impact. According to the City's General Plan Circulation Element, air travel is available from John Wayne Airport in Orange County, approximately five miles to the south by surface roadway. However, the Tustin Planning Area does not lie within any of John Way's safety zones. The former MCAS Tustin helicopter station was located in the southern portion of the City. A Specific Plan for reuse of the base has resulted in the elimination of aviation uses, with the exception of heliports individually permitted or blimp operations as an interim use. New development will be subject to review with the Airport Land Use Commission if necessary. Any conditions of approval will be incorporated into each individual project where necessary. Therefore, no safety hazards are anticipated related to this issue. g -h) No Impact. The code amendment to amend the term nonconforming in the Tustin City Code would not involve any uses that would interfere with the City's Emergency Operations Plan or with major emergency evacuation routes out of the area; nor is it anticipated to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with this issue. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or F-1 ❑ El waste discharge requirements? 191 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin 201 Page Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impa&_-.. Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater El El El supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing E ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ El drainage pattern of the site or area, - 4 including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ El which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water El El El quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood ❑ El ❑ hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 201 Page Issues: INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Impact h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? City of Tustin Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El 0 El 0 *111111 IQ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. The City of Tustin is a co -permittee with Orange County in the NPDES program, which is designed to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. The code amendment does not include construction of new facilities. Accordingly, during construction of any future development project, the applicant may be required to develop and submit a SWPPP to the Santa Ana RWQMP for compliance with the Statewide NPDES for construction activity. The SWPPP would contain BMPs as identified in the Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) to eliminate or reduce erosion and polluted runoff. General BMPs applicable to construction include erosion controls, sediment controls, tracking controls, wind erosion control, non -storm water management, and materials and water management. By preparing a SWPPP for NPDES compliance in addition to the standard conditions of approval for water quality, any future project could potentially meet all applicable regulations to manage runoff from the project site. Pollutants in storm water would be substantially reduced by source control and treatment BMPs. Since there is no development proposed as part of this project, it would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) No Impact. The proposed code amendment will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in that there is no construction associated with the proposed code amendment. c) No Impact. Construction of any future project may temporarily alter existing drainage patterns, as there would be areas of exposed soil during grading and excavation activities. If a storm event were to occur during these activities, exposed sediments may be carried off-site and into the local storm drain system increasing siltation. However, as discussed in Response No. IX.a-b, any future project would be required, as part of the standard conditions of approval of the discretionary review process, to implement construction BMPs in compliance with the NPDES permit and Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) to eliminate or reduce erosion and polluted runoff. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with this project. 211 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin d -e) No Impact. The code amendment provides clarification to the term nonconforming in various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity the term °nonconforming". Any future project would be subject to individual review and may be subjeC to CEQA review. To ensure off-site drainage does not result in flooding on or off-site, any future applicant may be required, as part of the standard conditions of approval, to provide on-site hydrology and hydraulic calculations for the proposed development and hydraulic calculations for proposed connections to the existing storm drain system. This will ensure drainage improvements of any future project site will have a less than significant effect on the environment. However, this will be assessed as part of the discretionary review process; there are no impacts associated with the implementation of the code amendment. f) No Impact. Compliance with the NPDES permit (refer to Response IX.a-b) and BMPs (discussed in Responses IX.a-b, IX.c, above) would reduce potential water quality impacts to less than significant levels. There are no impacts associated with the implementation of the code amendment. g - h) No Impact. The code amendment will amend the Tustin City Code for clarification of the tern nonconforming. The proposed code amendment will not place housing or structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map in that there is no development associated with the code amendment. Any individual projects will be subject to review according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. The map would indicate whether a project was subject to a flood zone. However, no development is proposed as part of this project. Therefore, no impacts will occur as part of this project. i) No Impact. As described in response IXg-h, runoff typically increases with parking, however, there is no development associated with this zoning code amendment in that it includes a revision to the term nonconforming in the Tustin City Code for clarification. Any future construction of individual projects wird be subject to comply with the requirements of the Orange County NPDES program, which is designe4 to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. In the unlikely event of flooding as a result of the failure of &-- levee or dam, the City has implemented an Emergency Preparedness Plan that addresses several hazard areas including flooding. This Emergency Preparedness Plan has been reviewed by State and Federal agencies which have their own roles in the event of an emergency. Any future development project would be subject to review on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not it is within a flood zone (as addressed in Vill t -u) and potentially subject to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. However, there are no impacts associated with the code amendment. J) No Impact. Any future development projects would be subject to review to determine whether the project is within an area that has been identified as susceptible to liquefaction or potential bedrock landslides. These areas are identified on Figure COSR-1 of the City's General Plan. When development is proposed within these areas, studies shall be performed as directed by the City to determine the potential for hazards and the amount of development which is supportable on the site. As described in VIII v, in the unlikely event of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow an individual project would be part of the City's Emergency Preparedness Plan. Therefore, no impacts associated with the code amendment. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16,2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 3. Flood Insurance Rate Map 3. OC Watersheds http://www.ocwatersheds.com/dampreport/default.aspx?ID=1000358 221Page INITIAL STUDY Issues: X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? City of Tustin Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to.. clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. The intent of the code amendment is to implement and codify the City's current practice of ensuring that historic structures are maintained and illegal and/or unpermitted additions, alterations, or enlargements are lawfully established in accordance with the City's Cultural Resources District Regulations and the appropriate procedures and findings for a Certificate of Appropriateness are' obtained. Said Certificate of Appropriateness must include specific findings for construction or alteration to ensure that alterations will not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect the resource and, in the case of a structure is compatible with the architectural style of the existing structure. Ultimately, the Code Amendment will provide consistency in the code and allow implementation to ensure that the integrity of historic structures is legally established and maintained. a) No Impact. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Since the uses are similar and may be subject to discretionary review and conditions of approval, it is not anticipated to physically divide an established community and therefore, no impacts will occur. b) No Impact. The City's General Plan indicates the following: Goal 2: Ensure that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning. Specifically, Policy 2.1: Consider a// General Plan goals and policies, including those in the other General Plan elements, in evaluating proposed development projects for General Plan consistency. Policy 2.2: Maintain consistency between the Land Use Element, Zoning Ordinances, and other City ordinances, regulations and standards. 231Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Therefore, the project is in conformance wit'— the General Plan, and there are no conflicts related to the implementation of the code amendment. c) No Impact. As indicated in response IV f, the City of Tustin is a participating member of the Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and is within the Central/Coastal Orange County region. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the amendment to the zoning code. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with the applicable NCCP/HCP plan or any other conservation plan and may be subject to separate CEQA review. As a result, no impacts are anticipated from the implementation of the code amendment. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required. Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: XI MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than Significant Impact No Impact El 0 El Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a -b) No Impact. According to the City of Tustin Conservation/Open Space/Recreations Element (Figure COSR-2) there are no known mineral resources within the City that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, there are no project related impacts associated with mineral resources. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required. Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 241Page INITIAL STUDY Issues: XII NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? City of Tustin Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) `to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. 251Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin a -d) No Impact. The City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element, and the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 6 Section 4614, Noise Control (Noise Ordinance) establish noise standards for the City. The Safety ani Noise Element addresses noise with respect to general land use compatibility, while the Noist Ordinance addresses noise from specific sources. The Noise Ordinance established exterior noise; standards of 55 dBA during the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These noise standards are adjusted further based on the cumulative duration of the noise occurrence, as well as the prevailing ambient noise levels near the project. Each future individual project will be subject to review on a case-by-case basis. The proposed project does not include new development and would not expose people to excessive noise; therefore, no impact will occur as a result of this project. e -f) No Impact. According to the City's General Plan Circulation Element, air travel is available from John Wayne Airport in Orange County, approximately five miles to the south by surface roadway. However, the Tustin Planning Area does not lie within any of John Wayne's safety zones. The former MCAS Tustin helicopter station was located in the southern portion of the City. A Specific Plan for reuse of the base has resulted in the elimination of aviation uses, with the exception of heliports individually permitted or blimp operations as an interim use. New development could be subject to review with the Airport Land Use Commission if necessary as well as with the Noise Ordinance. Any conditions of approval will be incorporated into each individual project where necessary. No impact will occur as a result of this code amendment. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIII POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ El E growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 261Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin c) Displace substantial numbers of El - people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. The intent of the code amendment is to implement and codify the City's current practice of ensuring that historic structures are maintained and illegal and/or unpermitted additions, alterations, or enlargements are lawfully established in accordance with the City's Cultural Resources District Regulations and the appropriate procedures and findings for a Certificate of Appropriateness are obtained. The Code Amendment will provide consistency in the code and allow implementation to ensure that buildings and structures are legally established and maintained. This code amendment will assist in clarifying that only legally established housing units meet the States and Federal standards for affordable housing, not illegally established units. a) No Impact. The Tustin Planning Area is an established and urbanized area. There is no development associated with the code amendment. It is not anticipated to substantially increase population growth. Therefore, no impact on the local or regional population is expected to occur. b) No Impact. There are no physical improvements in conjunction with the amendment to the Tustin City Code. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of the discretionary review process. Therefore, no housing would be displaced by the implementation of the proposed project and there are no impacts associated with this code amendment. c) No Impact. No development associated with the code amendment. No persons would be displaced by the implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with this issue. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General. Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 271Page Issues: XIV PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: INITIAL STUDY E City of Tustin Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac`-- Impact With Impact Mitigation governmental facilities, need for new Incorporated a) Result in substantial adverse physical E ❑ 19 impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? E] El El ii. Police protection? ❑ El ❑ iii. Schools? ❑ E] E] 19 iv. Parks? El El ❑ V. Other public facilities? ❑ El E Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) The proposed code amendment is not anticipated to cause any adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities. Fire protection. No Impact. The Orange County Fire Authority provides fire protection for the City of Tustin on a contractual basis. All water mains and fire hydrants must be constructed in accordance with Orange County guidelines and are subject to approval by the Orange County Fire Authority. Adherence to these guidelines will ensure that no significant impacts on fire protection services will occur. Future projects may be subject to individual review by the Fire Authority as part of the discretionary review routing process. Therefore, there are no impacts related to fire protection. ii. Police protection. No Impact. The Tustin Police Department provides law enforcement services._ _ within the City of Tustin. Routine and scheduled patrolling is done throughout the City and would continue as they do under existing conditions. It is not anticipated that the proposed code amendment would require additional officers. Rather, it is assumed that the Police Department will 281 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin continue to assess and evaluate its crime statistics for problem areas within the City. No impacts associated with the implementation of the code amendment. iii. Schools. No Impact. The code amendment will not provide housing that would generate demand for additional schools. The project will not increase student population necessitating a need for new or expanded school facilities. No impacts are anticipated. iv. Parks. No Impact. The code amendment does not propose new construction. Any future project may be subject to further discretionary review. However, the project is not anticipated to generate a demand for additional parks. No mitigation measures are required. V. Other Public Facilities. No Impact. The code amendment is not anticipated to result in any substantial increase in demands on other government services or public facilities such as roads, libraries, hospitals, or post offices: Future projects are not anticipated to generate traffic however; should impacts be associated with an individual project, they would be reviewed and considered on a case-by-case basis and conditions of approval included as necessary to mitigate impacts. No increased need for maintenance of these public facilities is anticipated. No mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: XV RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreatignal facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. 291 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin a -b) No Impact. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce-- ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. The proposed project does nc involve the construction of uses that will increase demand for parks. Therefore, the proposed projec will not adversely impact existing recreational facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: XVI TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 301Page Potentially Significant Impact ■❑ U 011 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated E ❑E Less Than Significant Impact LE f� LE No Impact I► ►�4 Issues: d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? INITIAL STUDY Potentially Significant Impact ■ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated F 10 City of Tustin Less Than No Significant Impact Impact M 0 El Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. The code amendment will not conflict with adopted plan, ordinance or policies programs supporting alternative transportation in that the new ordinance will provide that will better organize and supplement Tustin's Zoning Code and provide updated uses that have previously been determined to be similar to permitted and conditionally permitted uses. These regulations are consistent with the City's Circulation Element which addresses the circulation improvements needed to provide adequate capacity for future land uses. The Element establishes a hierarchy of transportation routes with specific development standards. Future projects will be required to conform to the City's Circulation Element based on individual review. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue and no mitigation is necessary. b) No Impact. The City has adopted a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use development and transportation improvement decisions. Any future project will require review and conformance with the requirements of the Tustin General Plan and the CMP. However, no improvements are proposed as part of this project. Therefore, it would have no impact and no mitigation is necessary. c) No Impact. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. There is no construction proposed as part of this project, accordingly, it is not anticipated to produce any air traffic increases, nor would existing air traffic patterns impact it. No impacts are anticipated from implementation of the code amendment. d) No Impact. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Therefore, the code amendment is not anticipated to cause hazardous conditions or allow incompatible uses. No impact will occur as part of this code amendment. 311 Page Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. The code amendment will not conflict with adopted plan, ordinance or policies programs supporting alternative transportation in that the new ordinance will provide that will better organize and supplement Tustin's Zoning Code and provide updated uses that have previously been determined to be similar to permitted and conditionally permitted uses. These regulations are consistent with the City's Circulation Element which addresses the circulation improvements needed to provide adequate capacity for future land uses. The Element establishes a hierarchy of transportation routes with specific development standards. Future projects will be required to conform to the City's Circulation Element based on individual review. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue and no mitigation is necessary. b) No Impact. The City has adopted a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to reduce traffic congestion and to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use development and transportation improvement decisions. Any future project will require review and conformance with the requirements of the Tustin General Plan and the CMP. However, no improvements are proposed as part of this project. Therefore, it would have no impact and no mitigation is necessary. c) No Impact. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. There is no construction proposed as part of this project, accordingly, it is not anticipated to produce any air traffic increases, nor would existing air traffic patterns impact it. No impacts are anticipated from implementation of the code amendment. d) No Impact. The code amendment will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Therefore, the code amendment is not anticipated to cause hazardous conditions or allow incompatible uses. No impact will occur as part of this code amendment. 311 Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin e) No Impact. The code amendment does not include any new development and will not result in inadequate emergency access. Future development will be reviewed and considered on a case -b! case basis and conditions of approval included as necessary to mitigate impacts. No mitigation + necessary. f) No Impact. The code amendment will not conflict with adopted policy, plan, or programs supporting alternative transportation in that the new ordinance will clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. These regulations are consistent with the City's Circulation Element which addresses the circulation improvements needed to provide adequate capacity for future land uses. The Element establishes a hierarchy of transportation routes with specific development standards. Future projects will be required to conform to the City's Circulation Element based on individual review. Therefore, there is no impact to this issue and no mitigation is necessary. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Issues: XVI I UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 321 Page Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ LE 10 LE ■❑ No Impact ►0I INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin Issues: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Have sufficient water supplies El El ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the El E] ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with E] E] ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and ❑ E] El local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. The Tustin Planning Area is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board. The proposed code amendment does not include new development and will amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Any wastewater generated by future projects may be subject to review for impacts on wastewater facilities as part of the discretionary review process. Typically, any increase in wastewater flows resulting from an off-street parking project would be minimal. Future development would be required to comply with local and state regulations to minimize any potential impacts from hazardous materials use. As discussed in Section IX. Hydrology and Water Quality, any future project may be required to implement standard BMPs to control storm water runoff at the project site. Therefore, no impacts are associated with this project. b) No Impact. Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) provides water and wastewater services and the Orange County Sewer District provide wastewater services within the Tustin Planning Area. The code amendment does not include new development and will amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. The amount of potable water needed and wastewater generated by a future project be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for any potential to cause significant environmental impacts and would most likely be nominal. Minor infrastructure 331Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin improvements may be required to provide on-site connections from the existing water and wastewater services to any new project. Since there are no new wastewater treatment facilities or potable wate---, facilities will be needed as part of this code amendment there are no impacts. c) No Impact. As discussed in Response No. XVII a) above, the code amendment will amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Future projects would be required to comply with local and state regulations to minimize any potential impacts from expansion of existing facilities. Any future project may be required to implement standard BMPs to control storm water runoff at the project site and may incorporate construction and post -construction BMPs in compliance with the NPDES permit and Orange County Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) to eliminate or reduce erosion and polluted runoff. However, there are no impacts from implementation of the proposed code amendment. d- e) No Impact. As discussed in Response No. XVII b) above, the code amendment will amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Any increase in water demand from any future project is anticipated to be nominal and would be considered and mitigated as necessary on a case-by-case basis. No mitigation measures are required. f -g) No Impact CR&R Waste Services provides solid waste collection and disposal services to the City of Tustin. Any solid waste generated by a future project would be diverted to a transfer station and then to the Bee Canyon/Bowerman Landfill located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine. The zoning code amendment does not propose any construction. Furthermore, any future project would be required to comply with local, state, and federal requirements for integrated waste management (i.e recycling) and solid waste disposal. Waste Management provides recycling opportunities to businesses and institutions, although implementation of recycling programs by businesses ano institutions is voluntary. The project is anticipated to have no impact on landfill capacity. -; h) No Impact The code amendment will amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. A Standard Condition of Approval will be added to individual future projects requiring a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the use of non structural and/or structural BMPs including but not limited to tenant education, activity restrictions, street sweeping, landscaped areas with efficient irrigation and limited run-off, strategically placed catch basins with fossil filters, and catch basin stenciling. BMPs required as part of an individual project would not necessarily result in any significant environmental effect. No impact as part of this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required. Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code 3. OC Watersheds hftp://www.ocwatersheds.com/dampreport/default.aspx?[D=l 000358 4. Water Code Section 10910, et. Seq. (SB 610), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221) 341 Page INITIAL STUDY Issues: XVIII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? City of Tustin Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact With Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Code Amendment 11-002 (CA 11-002) to amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. a) No Impact. The proposed code amendment will amend various sections of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. There is no development proposed as part of this code amendment, therefore, the project will not have the potential to significantly impact sensitive resources. 351Page INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin b) No Impact. As discussed in response XVllla, the code amendment, as proposed, is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan. Therefore, the project is not expected to have ars cumulatively considerable impacts. c) No Impact. As demonstrated throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project will not have any significant effects considered cumulatively considerable. d) No Impact. As demonstrated throughout this Initial Study, the code amendment does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required Sources: 1. City of Tustin General Plan (January 16, 2001) 2. City of Tustin Zoning Code Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.AppAth 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.AppAth 656. 361 Page 1`"'- INITIAL STUDY City of Tustin ® GENERALPLAN L,AN nnwn iw :uli1 371 Page Figure 1-f Tustin Planning Area ORDINANCE NO. 1397 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 11- 002 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 1112 of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the definition of "Legal Nonconforming" as follows: "Legal Nonconforming" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 9297 Section 2. Section 1122a of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: a Any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Except as provided in Section 9273(e) nonconforming uses or structures that have been determined not to be legal nonconforming pursuant to Section 9273 of this Code are illegal and are declared a public nuisance and shall be altered to - conform with all applicable standards and regulations and shall be subiect to actions and penalties allowed by this Code If any ambiguity or conflict arises concerning the legal or illegal status of a nonconforming use or structure within the Tustin City Code, the provisions of Section 9273 shall prevail Section 3. Section 3914 of Chapter 9, Article 3 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: 3914 REGULATIONS GOVERNING EXISTING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES (a) Any lawfully established sexually oriented business lawfully operating on or before February 17, 1998, that is in violation of Sections 3912 and/or 3913, shall be deemed legal nonconforming uses. A I. egal nonconforming use will be permitted to continue for a period of one (1) year, with a possible extension of one (1) year to be granted by the planning commission. Said extension may only be granted if the planning commission finds an extreme financial hardship exists which is defined as the recovery of the initial financial investment in the I legal nonconforming use, unless sooner terminated for any reason or voluntarily discontinued for a period of thirty (30) days or more. Such legal nonconforming uses shall not be increased, enlarged, extended or altered except that the use may be changed to a conforming use. If two (2) or more sexually oriented businesses are within five hundred (500) feet of one another and otherwise in a permissible location, the sexually oriented business which I was first lawfully established and continually operating at the particular location is the conforming use and the later established business(es) is legal nonconforming. Ordinance 1397 Page 2 (b) A lawfully established sexually oriented business lawfully operating as a conforming use is not rendered a legal nonconforming use by the location subsequent to the grant or renewal of a sexually oriented business permit and/or license, of a church, public or private elementary or secondary school, public park, public building, residential district, or residential lot within five hundred (500) feet of the sexually oriented business. This provision applies only to the renewal of a valid permit and/or license and does not apply when an application for a permit and/or license is submitted after a permit and/or license has expired or has been revoked. (c) Any sexually oriented business subject to the provisions of this Section shall apply for the permit provided for by Section 3916 within thirty (30) days of the effective date of Ordinance No. 1204 and shall comply with all applicable regulations contained within thirty (30) days of the effective date of such ordinance. Section 4. Section 7271 e(1) of Part 1, Chapter 2, Article 7 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: e Removal (1) In the event that the Director determines that a lawfully established newsrack does not comply with the provisions of this section, he or she shall use reasonable efforts to provide written notice of such determination to the permittee or owner. The notice shall specify the nature of the violation, the location of the newsrack which is in violation, the intent of the Director to (a) remove the newsrack if it has no permit or (b) to revoke the permit and cause the removal of the legal nonconforming newsrack, and of the right of the permittee to request, in writing, a hearing before the Director within fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice. If the newsrack is one which has not been authorized by the Director and ownership is not known, nor apparent after inspection, a notice complying with this section shall be affixed to the newsrack. Section 5. Section 9227b2.(c) of Part 2, Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: (c) Any exis#+ng—lawfully established and developed parcel which is legal and conforming or legally non -conforming as of the date of the adoption of this subsection, and with the acquisitions of public rights-of-way by a public agency would result in densities exceeding the density permitted by the Zoning Code or would result in an increased nonconformity with regard to density shall not be considered legal nonconforming pursuant to Section 9227b2 and Section 9273 of the Zoning Code with regard to density only, provided that all other provisions of the Zoning Code are satisfied. Section 6. Section 9273 of Part 7, Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: 9273 LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Ses#i msection, a lawfully established structure or uses ef land, buildings, eF StFUGWFes existing at the time of the Ordinance 1397 Page 3 may be continued, although the particular structure or use; eF the bueldiRg OF oes not conform to the Fegulatiens spesifkK[_I9y4h4 GhapteF to current applicable regulations for the district in which the particular building- OF structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no jtgg nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is legally esGupkW-authorized at the time ef-the structure or use first becomes legal nonconforming . If any legal nonconforming structure or use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building -structure shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or build+ng-structure is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a legal nonconforming use 4—a may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the legal nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive le al nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any legal nonconforming use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building -structure is located. (b) (1) Any lawfully establishedildiag-OF structur , adeptien of this , which is legal nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally _.; altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which I such bu4d#Kj-sr--structure is located; provided, however, that any such legal nonconforming building- GF structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildi i& -structure's assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. of the City of Tustin. (2) The RaRniRg DepaFtFA Community Development Department of the City of Tustin may send, by first class and certified mail, return receipt requested, to the current owner of any nonconforming building OF structure, or of any property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth the information required under subsection (b)(3) available evidence pertaining to the following: all available evidence that: 1) the structures were established consistent with all codes, regulations and requirements applicable to the premises at the time of construction, including copies of all permits issued by governmental agencies: and 2) any enlargement, extension reconstruction or alteration made to each building or -structure was made in compliance with the provisions of the Tustin City Code that were applicable to the premises at the time of such enlargement extension reconstruction or alteration or such alteration made the use or structure more conforming with the rules and regulations of the Tustin City Code and 3) each structure has been continuously used and maintained since establishment and 4) Ordinance 1397 Page 4 that any maintenance repair or replacement of the bu4d4 -e*-structure or portions thereof were consistent with subsection (b)(1) above. the time the use was first established the use was consistent with all codes, regulations and requirements applicable to the premises, and (2) the use has been continuously maintained since established: and (3) that the use has not been enlarged or extended since the use first became nonconforming. (4) Said --The statement shall be filed with the Playing Depar-lim Community Development Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. WpoRIn the event of any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations of the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure. available including but not limited to the evidence contained in the statement provided by the owner, and shall within sixty (60) calendar days of submittal of the owner's statement send to the owner a written preliminary determination of conforming or nonconforming status The preliminary determination shall include a finding that the available evidence indicates the use and/or the building aadki-w structure is or is not legal nonconforming The burden of proof to establish the lawful and continuing existence of the structure and/or use at the time the use or structure first became legal nonconforming and for all periods of time as required under this Section rests with the current owner. of mailing of the preliminary determination request a hearing on the preliminary determination before the Zoning Administrator by submitting a written request identifying the preliminary determination and submitting therewith a hearing fee in such amount as the City Council may establish by resolution. The hearing shall be set within thirty (30) calendar days and occur within ninety (90) calendar days of the receipt of the request for hearing and notice of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing to the owner and to any other individual(s) requesting the hearing The owner and each individual requesting the hearing shall have the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses regarding the nonconforming status The hearing may be continued from time to time by the Director. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Director shall send to the owner and any individual requesting the hearing a written final determination of conforming or nonconforming status that shall include a finding that the available evidence indicates the use and/or the bund; --a ate structure is or is not legal nonconforming If no hearing is timely requested the preliminary determination shall be deemed final. In accordance with Section 9294. (c) Notwithstanding Sections 9273(a) and 9273(b), legally established structures and uses listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey may be enlarged extended reconstructed or structurally altered in accordance with the provisions of Sections 9264(b) and 9271 p of this Chapter. Ordinance 1397 Page 5 (sd) A !teal nonconforming buildi iq tructure, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its its replacement value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. (de) The provisions set forth in (b) and (sdd above, shall apply to structures, land and uses which heFeafteF are, or become legal nonconforming due to any reclassification of districts under this Chapter; provided, however, that public uses, public utility buildings and public utility uses existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter, or existing at the time of reclassification of districts, shall not be considered legal nonconforming. (efDAny use of land; mor structure which is made "non -conforming" either in design or arrangement due to acquisition of public right-of-way by the City, shall be exempt from a RGRGGRfGFFniR9 status and the the provisions of this section, and any other provision of the Tustin City Code regulating legal nonconforming uses, mor structures, unless it is established by the Community Development Department that such usg or structure creates a nuisance or is a threat to the health, safety, welfare or well being of Gity FesideF►tsthe occupants or the public. Except as provided in Section 9273(d), following a final nonconformity determination pursuant to this Section 9273 all nonconforming structures and/or uses determined not to be legal nonconforming shall be illegal and such structures and/or uses are a public nuisance that shall either be altered to conform with all applicable standards and regulations or shall be discontinued and removed Section 7. Section 9276c(5) of Part 7 of Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: (5) All modifications to lawfully established wireless communication facilities for which applications for the modifications were submitted on or after the adoption date of Ordinance No. 1192 shall be required to comply with the regulations and guidelines contained herein. Modifications to legal nonconforming wireless communication facilities that are legal nonconforming with respect to any provision of Ordinance No. 1192 must first receive Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit as established by Tustin City Code Section 9291. Modifications to legal nonconforming wireless communication facilities shall not increase the nonconformities. Section 8. Section 9297 of Part 7 of Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the definition of "Legal Nonconforming" as follows: _ "Legal Nonconforming' shall mean a use or structure whenever established that was lawfully established and continuously used or occupied under previous regulations, standards, and/or requirements but that does not meet existing zoning codes, regulations, and/or standards. Section 9. Section 9402 of Chapter 4, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance 1397 Page 6 "Legal Nonconforming sign -Sign " means a sign that was lawfully erected legally which does not comply with the most current adopted sign restrictions and regulations. Section 10. Section 9405c of Chapter 4, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: C. Legal Nonconforming siyf sSi4ns. A legally established, R9nGGRfQR:RiRg So and be FnaiRta'F;ed, but legal nonconforming sign shall be made to conform to all provisions of this Chapter if the Director determines that any of the following events occur. 1. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be changed to another nonconforming sign. 2. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be structurally altered so as to extend its useful life. A sign shall be considered to be structurally altered if the construction materials are physically replaced with new materials. The replacement of face copy in a cabinet type sign does not constitute structural alteration. 3. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be expanded, or altered so as to change the size, shape, position, location or method of illumination of the sign. 4. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be re-established after discontinuance of the use for ninety (90) days or more. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason, except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law, for a period of ninety (90) days, it shall be presumed that such use has been abandoned in accordance with Section 9405d. All other provisions of the enforcement Section 9405e shall apply. 5. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be re-established after damage or destruction of more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement value, including destruction by an act of God. Section 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin on this _ day of , 2011. JERRY AMANTE, MAYOR PAMELA STOKER, CITY CLERK Ordinance 1397 Page 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1397 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1397 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of 2011, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Published: Approved Motion Adopted Resolution No. 4183 as amended 2. APPROVAL OF CODE AMENDMENT 2011-06, DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1407 — BODY ART ORDINANCE. On September 13, 2011, a public hearing was duly noticed and called by the Planning Commission on Code Amendment 2011- 06. The public hearing was continued to September 27, 2011, at which time the Commission adopted Resolution No. 4181 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve Code Amendment 2011-06, subject to confirmation by the Planning Commission as part of the Consent Calendar on October 11, 2011. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission confirm that the revisions to Draft Ordinance No. 1407 correctly reflect the direction provided by the Commission on September 27, 2011. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Eckman, to move the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1397 CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN. On September 27, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Ordinance 1397 and continued the public hearing to October 11, 2011, to allow staff to address concerns brought up by the Planning Commission and the general public. The concerns are as follows: 1) The issue of value (i.e. fair market, appraised, assessed, replacement, reasonable, etc.) for the purpose of repair, maintenance, and/or replacement; 2) Impact to existing historic resources; 3) The time period in which the owner would Statement of Evidence; 4) Incorporation of suggested evidence Investigative Procedures dated August 30, proposed Ordinance; 5) Zoning Code versus Building Code; 6) General Plan Consistency. Minutes — Planning Commission October 11, 2011 — Page 2 need to provide listed in the 2011, onto the ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Planning Commission should consider the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration provided as Exhibit 1 to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4183 and recommend it to the Tustin City Council as adequate for Code Amendment 11-002 (Ordinance No. 1397). RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4183 recommending: 1) That the Tustin City Council find that the Negative Declaration prepared for Code Amendment (CA) 11-002 (Draft Ordinance No. 1397 — as amended) is adequate; and, 2) That the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1397 — as amended, to provide clarity, consistency, and reduce ambiguity related to nonconforming uses and structures in the City of Tustin. Director Presented the staff report for Code Amendment 2011-02 including a discussion of issues related to value, impact to historic resources, investigative procedures, building versus zoning code clarification, and General Plan consistency. Two case studies were presented to clarify each of these issues and the prior misrepresentations made therein. Staff addressed Planning Commission questions and concerns. Commission questions/concems generally included further clarification of the case studies used within staffs presentation, assessed valuation effect on nonconforming structures, time period for statement of evidence, "hall pass" for historic structures, clarifying structures in commercial versus residential zones, the use of subdivision maps and zoning maps recognizing the use of a property, and clarification of the term "standards." The Public Hearing opened at 7:54 p.m. The following members of the public stepped forward: Deborah Rosenthal Steven Jones Markus Brown Bret Fairbanks Nathan Menard Minutes — Planning Commission October 11, 2011 — Page 3 Public comments and concerns generally included clarity in using the zoning code alone, use of assessed valuation with regard to nonconforming structures, inconsistency with the Historic Building Code, lack of clarity regarding burden of proof, and misrepresentation of property in the zoning code. The Public Hearing closed at 8:22 p.m. Bobak Provided clarification based on prior public comments and concerns. Stated that Section 9297 which defines a legal nonconforming use refers to the zoning regulations in effect at the time the structure was built. Stated that subdivision maps created before 1947 serve as one zoning -type form of regulation. Further elaborated that the California Historical Building Code is an exemption to the regulations set forth in the California Building Code. It provides special building code regulations for historic buildings, but it is not an exemption from zoning regulations. Planning Commission discussion generally included approving draft Ordinance No. 1397 as written, pending addition of the word "zoning" inserted at various points throughout the draft Ordinance for clarification and to remove the word "regulations," and modification of dates specified. Motion: It was moved by Moore, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4183 as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011-17, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. Resolution No. 4186 as amended A request by OCSA, Inc. (Super Antojitos restaurant) to operate live entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant located at 341 E. 1 at Street. Sections 3232 and 9270b(3)(e) of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a conditional use permit for the presentation of live entertainment. APPLICANT: OCSA, Inc., (Super Antojitos) PROPERTY OWNER: Dinosha, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15301 (Class 1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Minutes — Planning Commission October 11, 2011 — Page 4 AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2011 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CONTINUED CODE AMENDMENT 11-002 (DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1397), CLARIFYING THE MEANING OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN BACKGROUND On September 27, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Ordinance 1397 and continued the public hearing to October 11, 2011, and requested that staff address concerns brought up by the Planning Commission and the public. The general concerns are as follows: The issue of value (i.e. fair market, appraised, assessed, replacement, reasonable, etc.) for the purpose of repair, maintenance, and/or replacement • Impact to existing historic resources The time period in which the owner would need to provide Statement of Evidence • Incorporation of suggested evidence listed in the Investigative Procedures dated August 30, 2011, into the proposed Ordinance • Zoning Code versus Building Code • General Plan Consistency DISCUSSION At the City Council's request, staff prepared Draft Ordinance No. 1397. The Council desired the Planning Commission to consider issues related to illegal and legal uses, structures, and buildings to provide clarity, consistency, and reduce ambiguity pertaining to the matter of nonconformity. The issue of value, impact to historic resources, discussion on zoning code versus building code, general plan consistency, etc. go beyond the scope of direction. However, this report provides responses to the Planning Commission inquiries at the meeting of September 27, 2011. Attachment B is a staff report from the September 27, 2011, meeting Included herein for reference. Planning Commission Report October 11, 2011 Ordinance No. 1397 Page 2 Issue of Value To address questions and concerns raised, the Ordinance notes values In two separate sections. Section 9273(b)(1) pertains to maintenance and repairs of existing legal nonconforming structures; and Section 9273(d) pertains to legal nonconforming structures that are destroyed by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God. 1. Repair and Maintenance of Existing Nonconforming Structures Section 9273(b)(1) is a provision related to maintenance, repairs, or replacement of existing legal nonconforming structures. The provision allows nonconforming structures be maintained, repaired, or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs, or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the structure's assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City. Assessed valuation is used in this section because it is assumed that property owners will cant' out continuous maintenance of their properties and repairs or maintenance (not caused by neglect) would not cost over fifty (50) percent of the structure's valuation regardless if the properties were acquired pre -proposition 13. In addition, this provision has been in the Tustin City Code since its inception and the City has issued permits to property owners for maintenance, repairs, or replacements. 2. Replacement of Existing Nonconforming Structures Section 9273(d) is a provision related to legal nonconforming structures destroyed by fire, explosion, or other casualty or act of God. The existing Code Section allows for the structure to be restored if the damage does not exceed fifty (50) percent of reasonable value. In effect "reasonable" has been interpreted to mean "replacement" value. The proposed Ordinance has been changed to reflect this. As construction costs increase over time, the replacement value would also increase over time. This method would apply independently of Proposition 13 assessed valuation; thereby, allowing any property owners, regardless of when they purchase the property, to be able to restore the damaged nonconforming structure if it meets the criteria. At the Planning Commission hearing on September 27, 2011, it was implied that plumbing work on an existing bathroom would lead to demolition of an existing garage and permitted addition on either a historic or nonconforming structure. This statement is Inaccurate and to better illustrate how the proposed Ordinance would be applicable to an "A" rated historic home, staff has provided an actual case study in which the Planning Commission could apply any provisions of the proposed Ordinance to and determine the outcome (Attachment C — Case Study 1). Planning Commission Report October 11, 2011 Ordinance No. 1397 Page *3 Impact to Existing Resources 0 Old Town Character One of the concerns brought up was negative. impacts to existing historic resources and impacts to the District. To the contrary, the District and the structures within the District were substantially part of the City's original corporate boundaries which was developed as single family residential neighborhoods with associated agricultural uses. What appears to be occurring is a commercialization and a transformation of the neighborhood into a higher density residential district. An example of this is where a single family home within Old Town was granted a Conditional Use Permit in 1982 to allow for a separate guest quarter to be built next to an existing garage. A deed restriction was recorded on the property to ensure the guest quarter remained as such (with no kitchen) and that it would not be rented out. This guest quarter was rented out and the existing garage was converted to storage area for the guest quarter. Only after the neighbor reported the matter to the City did the property owner remove the kitchen from the guest quarter and terminate the rental unit. The Title Company involved indicated that none of the surrounding "rental" properties have these restrictions. These requirements, to maintain single family use of the properties, have been included in many Deeds, the City's original Zoning Code and Planning Commission's approvals as shown in Case Study 2. What is occurring is that units are illegally converted or Title Company and/or Realtors are failing to disclose these restrictions; thereby, compromising the integrity of the District (Attachment C). The Tustin City Code has provisions for guest quarters and second dwellings and the City has approved and permitted a number of guest quarters and second units. These provisions are protected by State Law and have been taken into consideration when planning for infrastructure, utilities, parks, and public services such as police and fire. When the District is compromised as mentioned above without required impacts analysis, cumulative environmental reviews, and review for consistency with the General Plan, the District can become disarray with Inadequate streets, sewer and water capacity, parks and recreation facilities, needed schools, and police and fire protections. One of the General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies is to strengthen the development character and mixture of uses in the Old Town. The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Implementation Program encourages preservation of historic resources by continuing to uphold zoning ordinance provisions for the CR District and ensuring that design and development standards are enforced. The proposed Ordinance supports this goal and policy and the purpose of the Cultural Resources (CR) District which Is to safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving neighborhoods, structures, and character of Old Town/CR District. Increasing densities without due consideration for any negative impact is contrary to providing appropriate and/or needed mitigation. Should the community wish to increase the density In Old Town, appropriate zone change and Planning Commission Report October 11, 2011 Ordinance No. 1397 Page 4 general plan amendments would need to be processed in accordance with State Law. Improvements to Historic Structures Another concern was related to improvements to historic structures in which flexibility should be given because of its historic nature. The existing Tustin City Code has provided flexibility to those structures that are listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey. Generally, provisions were made to allow additions to follow existing nonconforming setbacks and a nonconforming one car garage can be maintained when additional square footage or bedrooms are added to the nonconforming homes. These amendments were added to the law in 2001 and 2008. To clarify and confirm the applicability of these provisions to nonconforming structures and uses, these provisions have been added to the proposed Ordinance (See Section 9273(c)). A case study describing the applicability of this provision is also included in Attachment C. Time period of Statement of Evidence The Planning Commission indicated that the time period to show Statement of Evidence should be extended. The proposed Ordinance provides for initial timeframes and extensions. Incorporation of suggested evidence listed in the Investigative procedures The Planning Commission suggested evidence listed in the Investigative Procedures memo dated August 30, 2011, when determining whether a potentially unauthorized structure or uses are legal or illegal be Incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. The list of evidence items were not included in the Ordinance because the list may change from time to time and when past or earlier records may become available as imaging technology improves. The goal is to provide the various avenues for evidence gathering when attempting to develop a `whole record." Zoning Code versus Building Code Concerns were brought up that zoning issues should be separated from building code issues. It was alleged that the proposed Ordinance confuses zoning issues with building issues and that special consideration should be given to historic resources because of the age of construction within the CR District. The Zoning Code and Building Code issue are separate and distinct. The way they do relate however is prior to issuance of permits, zoning clearance is first necessary. As to building code issues, the City's adopted California Building Code and California Historical Building Code (CNBC) would be used to regulate and enforce building code related issues. Historic resources do reserve special consideration that other structures In Tustin do not. The CHBC applies to not only Qualified Structures within the Cultural Planning Commission Report October 11, 2011 Ordinance No. 1397 Page 5 Resources (CR) District, but also to those resources that are beyond the District boundaries (Attachment D - Response Letter to Tustin Preservation Conservancy). To further clarify the applicability of the Building Code, generally structures constructed prior to January 1, 2011, no longer comply with provisions of the current Building Code. These structures Include newly constructed homes at the Villages of Columbus, Tustin Ranch, and other structures throughout the City. Additions, alterations, and/or modifications would be allowed and permitted provided that the proposed modifications comply with current Building Code. The City continues to issue several permits for additions, alterations, repairs to existing homes and structures that do not have original permits. The City does not require demolition of legal structures for additions, alterations, repairs to existing homes and structures regardless of where they are located in the City. General Plan Consistency It was alleged that there are many second units that have been in Old Town for a long time which are nonconforming, and that taking those units out of service would impact the availability of housing. It was also alleged that the proposed Ordinance would create Inconsistency with the General Plan because it weighted nonconforming uses over historic resources. No legal units or nonconforming units would be Impacted by the proposed amendment. Legalizing guest quarters as second or third units as °rental" units and/or substandard housing would be In conflict with the General Plan. This action would have the unintended consequence of up -zoning the Single Family (R-1) neighborhoods without actual hearings and due process for those impacted. Second residential units and guest quarters are also permitted in the City. Further, it does not take into consideration or provide for needed Infrastructure, utilities, schools, parks, public services, etc. Those that establish these uses without the benefit of approval do so without paying for school, parkland, sewer, and water fees. The General Plan Housing Element Goal 5 is to promote conservation of the City's sound housing stock, rehabilitation of deteriorated units where they may exist citywide, and elimination of dilapidated units that endanger the health, safety and well being of occupants. Housing Element Policy No. 5.1 encourages owners to remove or replace housing units that are determined to be substandard. Housing Element Policy No. 5.4 requires continuous enforcement of health, safety, and zoning codes to eliminate conditions which are detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of residents. RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4183 (Attachment A) recommending: Planning Commission Report October 11, 2011 Ordinance No. 1397 Page 6 1) That the Tustin City Council find that the Negative Declaration prepared for Code Amendment (CA) 11-002 (Draft Ordinance No. 1397 — as amended) is adequate; and, 2) That the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1397 — as amended, to provide clarity, consistency, and reduce ambiguity related to nonconforming uses and structures in the City of Tustin. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Resolution No. 4183 B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 27, 2011 C. Case Studies D. Response Letter to Tustin Preservation Conservancy ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 4183 This document has not been photocopied to reduce reproduction costs. Please see adopted Resolution No. 4183 at City Council report Attachment E. ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 This document has not been photocopied to reduce reproduction costs. Please see City Council report Attachment D. CASE STUDY Single Family Residence A -Rated Structure Location: Corner of B and Main Streets Pre -Proposition 13 Assessed Valuation Date 1Site 1995 Conforming single family residence I N/Awith a detached two -car garage. 2/26/1996 1200 amp service upgrade (896-0073) J$2,500 Valuation Feb -96 Interior kitchen remodel (1386-0088) $12,500 3/29 1996 Stair repair and porch 896-0195 1500 Remove and replace FAU; Certificate 7/23/1998 of Appropriateness approved; subject $S1000to field Inspections M98-0393) ?Z30/1998 Reroofin 698-0755) $10,000 5/1/2001 Patio cover/Electrical outlet (C01- $4,652.64 0152) Certificate of Appropriateness Issued; Owner takes advantage of TCC 9271P 9/20/2005 transforming conforming structures $®'00 (single family residence and garage) Into nonconforming structures ,(buildings) via buiidin Eermit COS - 9/20/2005 81 square foot mudroom addition $4,949 with trellis (COS -0549) 10/20/2005Relocate 200 amp SVC, new subpanel ko_aa Total Building Valuation: $41,102 Percent of Assessed Valuation: 19.90% Land and Improvement: $439,000 973 Valuation �a tt e�mar it s Eos Nau w Nv W W H cn Z Q 5 on- + a C4 �l�i9:. �aaaaa� d 6sej s t 4 cLolonsplum d 1f MWIMIC *mow amummmmmm mm aa+•:�.� IIS ixC' k i tioe nouaov Nr �! � 9 � 4 4 4 4 d � �aiBR�t�tQ�4: Pal fillAr"sr YO � f i e� �i HIM M • • • . . . . . . .. • Y OMAN. am," a oft " wmm i co J; OJW NOUNM Wf wag poftwoo annu ( mm ami" =�l 3 Wa Noumv m.7�, icaaaa� 1 3 3 N i S 9 - O � but w w cn emao wwu N PMi� m"Mr Maga b q,osnauaovpId vI fills �44444� "Wom www OMP amaor sea ._� +p.NOLLgOYQI► � ��_,«.. �. ��. �aaaaa� k Ed q all aria aalav From: Sent: Mo a November 08, 2U10 12 To: Cc: Subject: Old Town zoning issue MEMO riefed me on the meeting you had with him last week. He said, that in your conversation about his property on, you brought up my property on B St. I'm just writing to let you know that I am disappointed to know that you brought up my personal business with him. None of my neighbors know about that situation and I don't intend to discuss it with anyone other than Chicago Title and city staff such as yourself. Please help me keep it that way as I have been cooperative with the City. The fact that you drew a parallel between his situation on Pacific and mine on B St concerns me because the two are completely unrelated. Just to be clear. With B St, my dispute is with Chicago Title for not providing the CUP or deed restriction in my preliminary title report. I would not have purchased the property if I had that information. I have not disputed the validity of those documents. I have not argued the City's claims regarding the use of the property. I have communicated openly with City staff regarding my intention to cooperate with the City. Lastly, I have honored my promise to the City that nobody would occupy the guest house while the issue with Chicago Title is sorted out l hope you recognize and respect my actions. The situation on PacIfic and elsewhere in Old Town is completely different because there is no CUP or deed restriction. In fact, records regarding the history of the property don't exist at all. The citizens of Old Town are trying to work together with the City to figure out a way to recognize the value of structures and additions built BEFORE the City kept records. Nobody is trying to defend bootlegged additions built recently. I'm shocked that there could be any correlation in your mind between the above two issues because it shows that you do not understand what trying to accomplish. My sincere hope is that you recognize that Old town is a unique place and that is what makes It special. But, the fact that it's unique means that the City cannot impose the same rules for homes built before the rules were created as it does for modem homes. We are now Involved in a process that makes this country great. The citizens have the ability to voice their concerns when they feel that government is not treating them fairly. I hope that you embrace this process even though It seems we are on opposing sides. Currently, we feel City government is not treating fairly because the rules are unrealistic, but we hope that the City will be open to working together with the Commission and Old Town residents to find a reasonable solution. l understand that the City is currently doing its job which is to enforce the rules as they are written. We are requesting that the rules be modified to adapt to real-world conditions so that City staff may have a relevant and appropriate guideline to work from when enforcing the rules. My opinion Itthat City staff should be open to this process, though right now it seems that staff is resistant to the whole concept Please reply to this email to confirm that you understand that B St and Pacific are not related Issues and that you acknowledge that I have not disputed the City's claims regarding the B St guest house. Thank you, First Team Real Estate Exceptional Service... Exceptional Results. VZ= NNOWEN " To: 3ubjecb Case # Dead�!Mandqv�p My name Is sand I am a claims counsel for Chicago Title Insurance Company. I write this on behalf of our insureds and current homeowners of the above -referenced property, It Is my understanding that in 1983, there was essentially a deed restriction enacted against this property which severely limits the use of the "guest house" or second structure in the rear of the property. As I'm sure you already know, none of the surrounding rental properties In the area have such a restriction. The ire local realtors who engage in substantial business In Tustin and Orange County. They purchased this property for Investment purposes and are now faced with this significant limitation an the use of their property. 1 am requesting if we can begin a dialogue or come up with a solution such as some sort of variance or exception to this restriction so that it can be used in the same manner as many of the rental properties in the neighborhood. My contact Information is noted below. Thank you for your attention and time to this matter. Sincerely, From: Sent: Tuesday. October 19, 2010 2:28 PM To: Subject: v RE. Attachments: Declaratlon.pdf Mr. Thank you for your e-mail below. Please find attached a copy of the recorded Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Reservations of Easements. In 1982 a conditional use permit was approved to permit a guest house with no kitchen facilities and the unit was not permitted to be used as a rental or a leasing unit. This conditional use permit was approved after a public hearing and a vote of the Planning Agency (now referred to as the Planning Commission). Various other items were noted in the covenant --- no amendments could take place without the approval of the City and the restrictions run with the land and successors in Interest. To this day, this is an R-1 zone and the your proposal would be counter to the Tustin City Code. The site was intended to be used as a single family home and the guest quarters to act in conjunction with the main structure, not two separate investment rental units. As a Title Insurance Company, it is my understanding it was your obligation to provide this information during escrow. Our Code Enforcement Division staff was advised by the property owner that this did not occur. I would refer you to Section 2.4 of the recorded document. Your clients have been advised of the approval granted by the City. Thank you for your interested in this matter. 1t 12 13 14 is 16 17 to 19 201 211 22 23 24 26 26 27 (� 83-178833 RESOLUTION W. � Exhibit "A" A RESOLUTION OF THE PlANNIN MUCT OF THE CITY OF YUSTINS AAANTINA A CMITIM& USE PERMIT ON APPLI ION U.P. AT The Planning Agency of the City of Tustin doee hereby resolve es follows, 1. The Planning Agency finds Aqd detomf ass as follows, A. That a r or #W614,110" it Mon M.P. MD). was filed on behalf offor a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 41est t+6E s4ua tth kitchen faa�tittess on propery at Be That a public hearing was dilly calledg noticed and held on said application. C. That ostablishmento maintenance and operation of the use applfed tarwi 1 root under the circa" tances of this casco be dotr)mental to the health, safety morals, comfort oa general welfare of the persons resid�nq or working to the neigh►orhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the tollow{ng findings, 1. That the use applied for is to conforwnce with both the Tustin Zoning Code and the Tustin General Plan. 2. That yaest=house oanaot he use* a& a rental.qqP leasing unit and is to be used only for family and guests. 3. Ns kitchew faetlittet @W bee {n'tatlo4,, 0. That the establfMast. mainte,ence and operation of the use applied for will not be 1njuMoua or detrimental to the pro0orgy and isprovemynts in the not boyhood of the subja pr age nor to Eta general welfare of the city of Tustlat a should be granted. E. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the C1 CouAotl Uniform Builds Codes as administered the Bultding official 1 F1 Co as a�ntstored bar orange County F{rg Marshall andstreet i roremsnt n4utrraents as admtn{stand t r tM City Engginser. F. Final davolopasnt plans shall require the nvlw and approval of the Community Oeveiopment Of rater. 0. That this project to cats ortcally except from the re4uirements of the California EnWronmental Quality Act. ! 83•-118833 t 2 P Qe32 1982 J. 4 11- The Pl enniny Agony horoblr approves Use Oerwl t No. 62.6 as appiled fore to allow for a Qguuest house of $61 $ square feet without kitchen facilities. subject to the 0 followfng condition 7 A. The unit is strictly f gusft house and 6116"1used 45 4 ental er 104304 Yn to He klUbso el lowed. 6 B. Developer will be responsible for the constwotion of o 41W missing or dialed street improvements whish shall inoiude,but not be Baited to$ the following= 10 a. Curb and gutter it b. Sidewalk a. Orfve apron 12 d. Street trees to Street lights with underground conduit 13 Co A grading plan shall be submitted for review and 14 approval. t6 D• Prior to fssuanco of arty buildfn� permits 4 copy of a recorded deed restriction prohtbfting kitchen to facilities and use of the strueture fU4s 4 rental unit Department. asst be onN lite witb • Comwunity Development t7 t8 PASSED ANO A0OPM-ILUregular of the Tustio Planning AgencW het d on Nday oN • ig 20 21 afor# 22 23 24 n s Reeerdfng Secretary 26 20 MACt�h 27 28 83-178833 ATEt.fUi COUNTY OF ORANOE CISTTY �OP 1USCATiNIfOtA to JANET U umo the undersigned. hereby Certify that [ in the Retarding Secretary of the Planning A my of the City of Tustin, California that the foregoing Resolution was duiv Passed Md lar meet the Tustin Planning Agencys hely on the of ane sW""""""—`"" paCCAOaO 1N Orp1cm Accost Tustin Planning Agency °i ORAWO Carr. auuonN, 'HUM a� . a+��.•,,:.L Jun Community Development Department TuSTIN September 23, 2011 Tustin Preservation Conservancy Attn: Linda Jennings, President 360 South B Street Tustin, CA 92780 BUIWMG OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: APPLICATION OF THE CALIFORNIA HISTORIC BUILDING CODE (CHBC Dear Linda Thank you for your letter requesting clarification on the We position regarding the applicability of the California Historic Building Code (CHBC) to buildings and structures located within the City's Cultural Resource District. The City has adopted and Implements the CHBC to preserve and protect the City's cultural resources. We share many of your concerns and want to ensure Preservation of these valuable resources and agree that inappropriate alterations do threaten the historic and architectural integrity of these resources. Please know that the CHBC applies to not only Qualified Structures within the District, but also to those resources that are beyond the District boundaries. As you stated in your letter and per Seddon 8-101.2 of the CHBC, the purpose of the CHBC Is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties The CHBC Is Intended to provide solutions for the preservation of qualifled histodoel bufldings or properties, to promote sustalnebildty, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost- effective approach to preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users. The CHBC allows the City the opportunity to accept solutions that are reasonably equivalent to the Building Code when dealing with qualified historical buildings or properties. As defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 18965, a "Qualified Historical Building or Property" Is any building, site, object, place, location, district or collection of structures, and their associated ekes, deemed of importance to the history, architecture or culture of an area by an appropriate local, state or federal governmental Jurdedlotion. This includes historical buildings or properties on, or determined ellglbip for, national, state or local historical registers or inventories, such as the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, State Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Intereet, and city or county registers, inventories; or surveys of historical or architecturally sIgnificaint sites, places or landmarks. The designation of a Qualified Historical Building or Property Is the responsibility of the Jurisdiction In which the property Is located. The historical buildings identified In the City of 300 Centennial Way, -Tustin, CA 92780 • P; (714) S73-3100 4 F. (714) 573-3113 • www tustinca.0% September 23, 2011 Page 2 Tustin 1990 Historical Survey and the 2002/03 Historical Resources Survey as significant historical buildings fan within the definition of Qualified Historical Buildings or Property pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code and the California Historical Building Code. However, historic and non -historic buildings both within the City of Tustin Cultural Resource District and in other areas of the City that are not Identified as signifioant buildings within either of the City's Surveys or any national, state, or local historical register or Inventory are not Qualified Historical Buildings or Property and therefore, do not receive the benefit of the California Historical Building Code. We appreciate the Conservancy's continued Interest In preserving Tustin's many historical buildings and resources, and Its conoetn regarding the appropriate applicability of the California Historical Building Code. Please be assured that the City of Tustin has a vested Interest In preserving the historic fabric and character defining features of significant historic resources to the greatest extent possible. If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at (714) 573.3031. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director ra Mayor and Tustin City Council Tustin Planning Commission Interim City Manager Tustin Historical Society Richard T. Conrad, Executive Director, Division of the State Architect Henry Huang, Building Official State Historical Buiiding and Safety Board, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES Background On September 27, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the proposed Ordinance 1397 and continued the public hearing to October 11, 2011, Planning Commission requested that staff address concerns brought up by the Planning Commission and the public. The general concerns are as followss The issue of value (i.e. fair market, appraised, assessed, replacement, reasonable, eta) for the purpose of repair, maintenance, and/or replacement Impact to existing historic resources The time period in which the owner would need to provide Statement of Evidence Incorporation of suggested evidence listed in the Investigative Procedures dated August 30, 2011, into the proposed Ordinance Zoning Code versus Building Code General Plan Consistency 10/18/2011 1 City Cound Direction At the City Council's request, staff prepared Draft Ordinance No. 1397. Consider issues related to illegal and legal uses, structures, and buildings to provide clarity, consistency, and reduce ambiguity pertaining to the matter of nonconformity. The issue of value, impact to historic resources, discussion on zoning code versus building code, general plan consistency, etc. go beyond the scope of direction. Issue of Value Section 9273(b)(1) pertains to maintenance and repairs of existing legal nonconforming structures. Section 9273(d) pertains to legal nonconforming structures that are destroyed by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God. 10/18/2011 N Repair and Maintenance of Existing Nonconforming Structures - 9273(b)1 The provision allows nonconforming structures be maintained, repaired, or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs, or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the structure's assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City. Assessed valuation is used in this section because it is assumed that property owners will carry out continuous maintenance of their properties and repairs or maintenance (not caused by neglect) would not cost over fifty (50) percent of the structure's valuation regardless if the properties were acquired pre -proposition 13. This provision has been in the Tustin City Code since its inception and the City has issued permits to property owners for maintenance, repairs, or replacements. 10/18/2011 3 CAN Shale iamlly eesMenoe A4WW S&Wur e Location: comer of B and Main Sbeft Pre-PropWdon 19 Assessed Vaknom Der sae sre V*A@ yy� "001993 1Me Y VA LWA eeVti.�+C •Oeta�t0 t�p.9eepeeee, 5139.09D CaseS7.S00 X973 99i 700 ) (eb/6 MMmtleWlnlRnroeel 6tb00q Ulm .: 99f Sm4 -en0 -- 9940195 1,SO0 �°�°°W Study 1 7,73/1,p M 1, m D 994{T7 S A/1/7001 ae�s/aaLrluloa1M1001• se,[5tM 152 finerl�n�tAiRY 90711 y trs/oordamin`etn�Ms 50.00 dtiiMe hmlat teetlpraae) nen0�11Ye Y1U[l1Yee W Ms - 10/18/2011 3 Replacement of Existing Nonconforming Structures 9273(d) Section 9273(d) is a provision related to legal nonconforming structures destroyed by fire, explosion, or other casualty or act of God. The existing Code Section allows for the structure to be restored if the damage does not exceed fifty (50) percent of "reasonable" value. "Reasonable" has been interpreted to mean "replacement" value. For clarity, the proposed Ordinance has been changed to reflect "replacement value." As construction costs increase over time, the replacement value would also increase over time. Impact to Existing Resources Impact to Old Town Character The Cultural Resources District and the structures within the District were substantially part of the City's original corporate boundaries. The area was developed as single family residential neighborhoods with associated agricultural uses. Commercialization and a transformation of the neighborhood into a higher density residential district appears to occur in Old Town. 10/18/2011 4 Y► w c C 0 ., rx N N O N C6 !I o L:a � 2 to N Go - � o C O u aj au c o w a LU u.._ 0 m c r :&A v m � N oc mac-. v e _N C 3 � o � a r of C 'o u° LO +0 y a 0 0.m �u g C r Y 0 c s 0 0 r 4A au to m I= ..0 a m L au m Q. Q m 4A 3 E CL .N -0 a E u c M � o c r U to c •C 3 ry E c CL m w c i.r C � t 16. M in M o v c � au u y . m �� u c O u7 �J aV E O O �► .c ,r 'E c c � c f°�� m c O mu E u °1 c c a o C to .0 c m a.+ e L V c t0 � 0 E avvA all e Ca. 40 tt �► c w +.. C +o Pur Me X CL c a RL u au r .O C T r� O L- CL Q CL m v r O N •0 m c d .a au ev r au H au � au r � � O = O C O ®r.. u •� o 9� M O N 0` �,? w ? 3 I= ..0 a m L au m Q. Q m 4A 3 E CL .N -0 a E u c M � o c r U to c •C 3 ry E c CL m w c i.r C � t 16. M in M o v c � au u y . m �� u c O u7 �J aV E O O �► .c ,r 'E c c � c f°�� m c O mu E u °1 c c a o C to .0 c m a.+ e L V c t0 � 0 E avvA all e Ca. 40 tt �► c w +.. C +o Pur Me X CL c a RL u au r .O C T r� O L- CL Q CL m v r O N •0 m c d .a au ev r au H r W A 12 YI 40 0 i !� fat d !s 5 ep 5 0 Lo ...� � � �� : Viss• last,�a40� Q 7 all[ I girlsv _ s ;ssem sl4P- losRedo121 ap �= � iSM • • Vw Guo .: Wms41F Sm 41% s . . Z;••••o 2 Vf-=l go W.Ij !all • r - _ h N n« N p e CL to C 43 c 00 " m za J 'o V c _ � e o au LD 0 w E o a �10 o "a 00 s w� ,.. cs�c 4 cC u= ;v► c 4Vtw� ` c�a. Ai r W A 12 YI 40 0 i !� fat d !s 5 ep 5 0 Lo ...� � � �� : Viss• last,�a40� Q 7 all[ I girlsv _ s ;ssem sl4P- losRedo121 ap �= � iSM • • Vw Guo .: Wms41F Sm 41% s . . Z;••••o 2 Vf-=l go W.Ij !all • r - _ h N n« N p e CL to C 43 c 00 " m za J 'o V c _ � e o au LD 0 w E o a �10 10/18/2011 0 00-, fee" ' Case S stewtser.tf� ml.ea •.• / e�t�e CO1t V'I �► �., r1uoT a w . n r t ft" i ft l~ •Iran to ON nd ar ft" an WrOr Iiia w e T • 1. it mm" 1bY.M!tto m as ml«, i11111114 I yl i:iMl ri► rMNt g�i0 r ft*cb Cm• `1 ti4tllY- N t1•, h e NII i �i MNlCtgiim 9W anvo, unM ad T MYnnnets� 0 kal Ir b so 1 ab"ll Ye a s Offs"m at W a q a�0. i . It. wni. u C{'� • !corded to 1982 a our reds and omem ho 4 ae i m �' li Ma•iaM IF _ kitchen it Is m W derstendin dw i T w • ewlylperMwMlb we slag unit. Wh the ar• of the `guar t of the sunoun&j rental pn a L iw etrw I�ettt w era• •naw�r1 v 1O1/wy. .0 04 ft Y 1• WI a/}e pr nN aM vote of the is other it ThavEr" W roam al a <ti Heir ntlltMt me w flow".,rwslinout tthe ovpertyforlrnesbntntpur M as 0 no e� .t w Us M e counter to I am rlquatfng Nwe un be ar eatrktton soft Itcan be r � kdormaUenbr�Idbelow n lot a « w m I. ii�ttp1 1 von wvou a i • � l�tililraV ilyhome of two TY O >r alc�ia�te „le lescrow. TAlnkyouBmyowetteoda •�uttute i w a0 r.ttr a s m that this ent. your cll s r, ppt etiyrrit tliie+•rt ,te��nns w d W ortlg 6wiip�e Sin -11. n �. L INS Oft I•OW XMININ ww0,V 10/18/2011 0 Impact to Historic Resources When the District is compromised without required impacts analysis, cumulative environmental reviews, and review for consistency with the General Plan, the District can become disarray with inadequate streets, sewer and water capacity, parks and recreation facilities, needed schools, and police and fire protections. The proposed Ordinance supports the goal and policy and the purpose of the Cultural Resources (CR) District which is to safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving neighborhoods, structures, and character of Old Town/CR District. Increasing densities without due consideration for any negative impact is contrary to providing appropriate and/or needed mitigation. Should the community wish to increase the density in Old Town, appropriate zone change and general plan amendments would need to be processed in accordance with State Law. Impact to Existing Resources Improvements to Historic Structures The existing Tustin City Code has provided flexibility to those structures that are listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey. Provisions were made to allow additions to follow existing nonconforming setbacks and a nonconforming one car garage can be maintained when additional square footage or bedrooms are added to the nonconforming homes. These amendments were added to the law in 2001 and 2008. To clarify and confirm the applicability of these provisions to nonconforming structures and uses, these provisions have been added to the proposed Ordinance (See Section 9273(c)). 10/18/2011 L: Case Study Existing 3' } setback Mudroom and trellis addition making the .. a house non conforming to Tait the setback requirement - 10/18/2011 rA {Case Study J, 4` ^r'�6�10'Is'-9•"r"9-o+}�t0=3^^'¢g=1' 1� I• .. I.I.E4MtC`Eg ISI• LOPE S 4T\' `�. 1i1o18� 's r w+E 0.•� 6 -1 za=oma ,� 41rIt�A n addry a1:ln.i Ib y� ze-11• 1'I-925' 16'.1'l!I LINE 11 ' `FkN[E �•ur �._pRDTeaN - I a4. r1.11 •.Ir FRRO/E4T'( UN" 1N IIMh•W.N lME 1 � 65" TuaYL CA DRNC •A\ Ilk— I— 7%73"M f1mPBlIY LINE _t5 SIOCVNIK cF NE14NepR's Is LOCAmv O' -7S" WEST 0.v scrg V16T s1DEWALK LOGE 10/18/2011 8 10/18/2011 Time period of Statement of Evidence The Planning Commission indicated that the time period to show Statement of Evidence should be extended. The proposed Ordinance provides for initial timeframes and extensions. Incorporation of suggested evidence listed in the Investigative Procedures The Planning Commission suggested evidence listed in the Investigative Procedures memo dated August 30, 2011, when determining whether a potentially unauthorized structure or uses are legal or illegal be incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. The list of evidence items were not included in the Ordinance because the list may change from time to time and when past or earlier records may become available as imaging technology improves. The goal is to provide the various avenues for evidence gathering when attempting to develop a "whole record." Zoning Code versus Building Code The Zoning Code and Building Code issue are separate and distinct. The way they do relate however is prior to issuance of permits, zoning clearance is first necessary. The City's adopted California Building Code and California Historical Building Code (CHBC) would be used to regulate and enforce building code related issues. Historic resources do reserve special consideration that other structures in Tustin do not. The CHBC applies to not only Qualified Structures within the Cultural Resources (CR) District, but also to those resources that are beyond the District boundaries. General Plan Consistency It was alleged that there are many second units that have been in Old Town for a long time which are nonconforming, and that taking those units out of service would impact the availability of housing. It was also alleged that the proposed Ordinance would create inconsistency with the General Plan because it weighted nonconforming uses over historic resources. 10/18/2011 10 General Plan Consistency No legal units or nonconforming units would be impacted by the proposed amendment. Legalizing guest quarters as second or third units as "rental" units and/or substandard housing would be in conflict with the General Plan. This action would have the unintended consequence of up - zoning the Single Family (R-1) neighborhoods without actual hearings and due process for those impacted. Further, it does not take into consideration or provide for needed infrastructure, utilities, schools, parks, public services, etc. Those that establish these uses without the benefit of approval do so without paying for school, parkland, sewer, and water fees. General Plan Consistency The General Plan Housing Element Goal 5 is to promote conservation of the City's sound housing stock, rehabilitation of deteriorated units where they may exist citywide, and elimination of dilapidated units that endanger the health, safety and well being of occupants. Housing Element Policy No. 5.1 encourages owners to remove or replace housing units that are determined to be substandard. Housing Element Policy No. 5.4 requires continuous enforcement of health, safety, and zoning codes to eliminate conditions which are detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of residents. 10/18/2011 11 Recommendation That the Tustin Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4183 (Attachment A) recommending: 1) That the Tustin City Council find that the Negative Declaration prepared for Code Amendment (CA) 1 1-002 (Draft Ordinance No. 1397 — as amended) is adequate; and, 2) That the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1397 — as amended, to provide clarity, consistency, and reduce ambiguity related to nonconforming uses and structures in the City of Tustin. 10/18/2011 12