HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 Z.C. 98-002 01-05-99NO. 1
1-5-99
DATE:
JANUARY 5, 1999
Inter-Com
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ZONE CHANGE 98-002, AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL TUSTIN ZONING MAP APPLYING
THE CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE PROPERTIES SHOWN IN
ATTACHMENT A.
SUMMARY: Zone Change 98-002 is a proposal to expand the Cultural Resource
Overlay District to include the residentially zoned properties on Mountain View
Drive, "A" Street, "B" Street and "C' Street between First Street and lrvine
Boulevard. Given the fiscal impacts and public policy issues associated with the
proposed expansion, the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee requested
direction on the expansion from the City Council in June of 1997. The Council
directed staff to distribute a survey/questionnaire; hold workshops; and report the
findings of the survey/questionnaire and workshops to the Council for further
direction. On June 1, 1998, the Council reviewed these findings and directed the
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee and staff to proceed with the expansion of
the Cultural Resources Overlay District. Public hearings on Zone Change 98-002
were held on August 11, 1998 and September 8, 1998 by the Cultural Resources
Advisory Committee and on October 26, 1998 and November 9, 1998 by the
Planning Commission. Two of the public hearings were continued to provide staff
the opportunity to respond to concerns expressed at the hearings and in letters
submitted to the City. On November 9, 1998, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council approve the project.
Applicanb City of Tustin, Community Development Department
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
.
Adopt Resolution No. 99-01 approving the environmental determination for the
project; and,
.
Introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1205 approving Zone Change
98-002 and set for second reading at the Council's January 19, 1999 meeting.
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 2
'FISCAL IMPACT
This is a City initiated project. The fiscal impacts associated with the expansion of the
Cultural Resource District will be approximately $3,600 in staff costs related to processing
the zone change and on-going staff costs for reviewing additional requests for certificates
of appropriateness in conjunction with building permits for exterior improvements.
BACKGROUND
On December 11, 1996, the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee requested that staff
analyze an expansion of the Cultural Resource Overlay District to include the area
bounded by First Street to the south and Irvine Boulevard to the north. On March 12,
1997, staff presented a report to the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee on the
potential expansion. The report provided the Committee with a background of the
significant issues associated with an expansion. The Committee further discussed the
issue on April 30, 1997. Although the Committee is authorized by City Ordinance No.
1001 to initiate such proceedings and hold public hearings on the matter, the Committee
requested direction from the City Council on this issue. This request for direction was
appropriate considering the past controversy related to the formation of the Cultural
Resource District and that the zone change would require the Council's final approval.
On June 2, 1997, the Council directed staff to: distribute a survey/questionnaire to the
residents and property owners within the expansion area; schedule informational
workshops; and, report the findings of the survey/questionnaire and workshops to the
Council for further direction.
In September of 1997, a survey/questionnaire was mailed to 132 property owners,
residents, and other interested persons. The survey/questionnaire contained eleven
questions designed to measure community support and opposition and to assist staff in
structuring the community workshop. The 31 responses received are compiled in
Attachment B.
As shown in Attachment B, 27 out of 31 indicated that preserving significant historic
resources is important. Twenty-five (25) out of 31 indicated that the historic buildings in
the proposed expansion area are significant to the community. Two individuals noted
opposition to the proposed expansion. Four (4) out of 31 noted that they were familiar
with the Certificate of Appropriateness process. (Similar in appearance to a standard
business letter, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the construction,
demolition, exterior alteration, removal or relocation of any structure within the existing
Oveday District).
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 3
The first community workshop on the potential expansion of the Cultural Resources
Overlay District was held on February 24, 1998. To gather additional community input, a
second workshop was held on Saturday, March 21, 1998. Approximately 50 people
attended the two workshops.
At the workshops, staff presented several topics, including an overview of the existing
District, the Certificate of Appropriateness process, the Residential Design Guidelines, the
Mills Act, and the potential expansion. Following the staff presentation, there was a
question and answer session. Speakers from the audience commented on a variety of
subjects, including: property values, restrictions, room additions, the unique character of
· the neighborhood, and the status of some of the homes in the neighborhood. Although
there was some opposition to the potential expansion, the majority of the speakers
indicated support for the potential expansion.
The potential impact of the district expansion on property values in the expansion area
was one of the most critical issues discussed at the workshops. A few speakers indicated
that property values are depressed when historic districts are created. In response to this
statement, staff researched this issue and found no studies indicating a negative effect on
property values. Studies have shown that property values in an area are improved or do
not change significantly following formation of an historic district. Less formal anecdotal
studies also have shown this relationship. For example, research conducted by the City
of Orange Old Towne Preservation Association showed that property values in the
Orange historic district increased more significantly during the late 1970s and early 1980s
than did property values in other areas of the City. The formation of their local historic
district during that time period may have contributed to this positive effect; however, a
causal relationship could not be conclusively determined.
On June 1, 1998, the City Council reviewed .the findings of the survey/questionnaire and
the workshops and provided direction that the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee
hold a public hearing that considers an expansion of the Cultural Resource Overlay
District to include the residentially zoned properties between First Street and Irvine
Boulevard.
On August 11, 1998, the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee held a public hearing on
the potential expansion of the Cultural Resource Oveday District. The public hearing was
continued to September 8, 1998 to provide staff the opportunity to address concerns
raised at the August 11, 1998 public hearing and in two opposition letters presented to
the City on August 10, 1998 (Attachments C and D). The letters were written by a
property owner who lives within the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District
expansion area on Mountain View Drive.
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 4
· Following the September 8, 1998 public hearing, the Cultural Resource Advisory
Committee adopted Resolution No. CRAC 98-01, recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 98-002.
On October 26, 1998, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the potential
expansion of the Cultural Resource Overlay District. The public hearing was continued to
November 9, 1998 to provide staff the opportunity to address the concerns raised at the
October 26, 1998 public hearing and in two opposition letters presented to the City on
October 26, 1998 (Attachments E and F). The letters were written by a property owner
who lives within the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District expansion area on North
B Street.
Following the November 9, 1998 public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 3625, recommending that the City Council approve the environmental
determination for the project; and adopted Resolution No. 3626, recommending that the
City Council approve Zone Change 98-002.
The following, discussion outlines the Planning Commission's recommendation to expand
the Cultural Resource Overlay District to include the residentially zoned properties on
Mountain View, "A" Street, "B" Street and "C" Street between First Street and Irvine
Boulevard.
DISCUSSION
The Cultural Resource Overlay District and Expansion
In 1988, the City Council established the Cultural Resource District, which is generally
located between Sixth Street and First Street and between the SR-55 Freeway and
Prospect Avenue (see Attachment G). Prior to approving the formation of the Overlay
District, the Council discussed several alternative boundaries for the District. During the
public-hearings on the item, them was discussion regarding the inclusion of
neighborhoods to the north of First Street and the commercial area located south of Sixth
Street and west of El Camino Real. Them was also some discussion about excluding the
commercial corridor along El Camino Real. The properties along First Street were not
discussed during the public hearings.
The Council decided to focus the Oveday District on the single-family residential portion of
Old Town and limited the number of commercial properties to be included. Despite
opposition from several owners of commercial properties, the El Camino Real corridor
was included because of the number of historically significant buildings in that area and
its importance as Tustin's historic downtown.
City Council Report
EXpansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 5
Although the area to the north of the Cultural Resource District between First Street and
Irvine Boulevard lies within Tustin's original City limits and contains 74 of the 271
structures listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey (see Attachment H), it was
excluded from the Oveday District primarily for the following reasons:
.
Barrier created by First Street;
Geographical separation from area considered to be "Old Town";
Nature of the resources in the area (i.e. the structures are not as old, and there are
fewer significant structures).
Approximately 86 percent, or 64 of the 74 historic structures in the area between First
Street and Irvine Boulevard, received "C" or "D" ratings. In comparison, approximately 57
percent, or 85 of the 150 historic structures in the existing overlay district, received one of
the lower ratings. "C" rated buildings are not distinctive architecturally or historically, but
can be important when grouped in districts. "D" rated buildings include structures which
have been significantly altered and have lost their integrity, but may possibly be
restorable.
Zone Change 98-002
Tustin City Code Section 9252e stipulates that all Zoning Amendment procedures shall
be followed in considering the establishment of a Cultural Resource District and that three
public hearings be held on the item. According to the City Code, the Cultural Resource
Advisory Committee shall make a recommendation which shall be forWarded to the
Planning Commission, whose recommendation shall be transmitted to the City Council.
If approved by the City Council, Zone Change 98-002 would amend the official City of
Tustin Zoning Map and apply the Cultural Resource Overlay District to the residentially
zoned properties on Mountain View Drive, "A" Street, "B" Street and "C" Street between
First Street and Irvine Boulevard (see Attachment A). The Cultural Resource District
designation is an oveday district and does not remove the underlying zoning district.
Therefore, the requirements of the oveday district are considered in conjunction with the
underlying zoning.
One of the requirements applicable to the Cultural Resource Oveday District is the
Certificate of Appropriateness. This certificate is required prior to demolitions and exterior
alterations and improvements that require building permits. However, Certificates of
Appropriateness are not required for ordinary repairs and maintenance (i.e. repainting,
repairing mortar joints, fixing roof leaks, installing rain gutters). The .Certificate of
Appropriateness process serves to protect the character of the district by requiring that
alterations or improvements are appropriate and harmonious with the neighborhood.
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 6
Certificates of Appropriateness have been required in the existing Cultural Resource
Overlay District since the district was established in 1988. Although most property
owners seem to be somewhat familiar with this requirement, occasionally alterations are
made without City review. Recently, two dormer windows were added to a house on
Main Street without receiving a certificate of appropriateness. The City notified the
property owner that one of the dormers was appropriate, but that the dormer facing Main
Street was not appropriate for the architectural style of the house and had to be removed.
The City offered constructive suggestions on an acceptable design for the inappropriate
dormer and used the City's Residential Design Guidelines for the Cultural Resource
District as a guide. The end result is that the architectural integrity of the house is
maintained and the neighborhood is not adversely impacted by an inappropriate
alteration.
City Policies/General Plan Consistency
The City's Historical Resources Survey Report, dated July 1990, recommends that the
residential area between First Street and Irvine Boulevard be cOnsidered for two separate
potential cultural resources districts (see Attachments A, G and H). The listed historic
resources located in the commercial areas along West First Street and Yorba Street,
however, are not mentioned. This recommendation for additional cultural resource
districts is consistent with a policy in the Tustin General Plan to "Study the potential
expansion of the Cultural Resource Overlay District north of First Street to Irvine
Boulevard." However, the General Plan policy does not indicate any particular
boundaries for the potential expansion.
Planning Commission Recommendation and Findings
The Planning Commission recommends an expanded Cultural Resource District that is
limited to the residentially zoned properties on Mountain View, "A" Street, "B" Street and
"C" Street between First Street and Irvine Boulevard (see Attachments A, G and H).
Properties on First Street and Yorba Street were not included in the boundaries
recommended by the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee to the Planning
Commission because the First Street properties are included within the First Street
Specific Plan, and Yorba Street contains a mix of residential and commercial uses. The
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee noted that: 1) the area between First Street and
Irvine Boulevard contains a uniform group of significant historic homes in excellent
condition that would be an asset to the District; 2) First Street is not a significant barrier;
3) the expansion area would benefit by following the City's Residential Design Guidelines;
and, 4) additional historic resources would be protected.
The Planning Commission identified the following findings in support of an expanded
Cultural Resource Oveday District. These findings are also contained in Ordinance No.
1205.
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 7
,
The expansion would safeguard the City's heritage by preserving neighborhoods,
structures, sites and features which reflect elements of the City's cultural,
architectural, artistic, aesthetic, political, social, natural and engineering heritage.
.
The expansion would foster public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of
the City's past.
.
The expansion would strengthen civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of
identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources.
.
The expansion would promote the private and public enjoyment, use and
preservation of culturally significant neighborhoods, structures and sites
appropriate for the education and recreation of the citizens of Tustin and visitors.
o
The expansion would enhance the City's visual and aesthetic character, diversity
of architectural styles and aesthetic appeal.
o
The expansion would assure that new construction and subdivision of lots in the
expansion area are compatible with the character of the district.
.
The expansion would provide for the early identification and resolution of conflicts
between preservation of historic and cultural resources and alternative land uses.
Criteria for Designation
Pursuant to City Code Section 9252(d), an area within the City may be designated as a
Cultural Resource District by the City Council if the area meets the criteria listed below.
These criteria are incorporated into the findings contained in Ordinance No. 1205.
.
The area exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural,
architectural, aesthetic, social, economic, political, artistic, engineering and or
architectural heritage; or
,
The area identified with persons, a business use or events significant in local,
state, or national history; or
.
The area embodieS distinctive characteristics of style, type, period, or method of
construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship; or
o
The area is representative of the notable work of a builder, designer, or architect;
or
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 8
.
.
o
The area's unique location of singular physical characteristic represents an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City;
or
The area's integrity as a natural environment or feature strongly contributes to the
well being of residents of the City or the well being of a neighborhood within the
City; or
The area is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration or
continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects as unified by past events or
aesthetically by plan or physical development.
PUBLIC INPUT
Public Input- Letters of Opposition
On August 10, 1998, the Community Development Department received two similar
letters of opposition (Attachments C and D) from Mr. and Mrs. James Shumar, who live
on Mountain View Drive. The letters were transmitted to the Cultural Resource Advisory
Committee at their meeting on August 11, 1998. The issues expressed in the property
owners' letters and staff's responses are summarized in the September 8, 1998 Staff
Report to the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee (Attachment I).
On October 26, 1998, the Community Development Department received two similar
letters of opposition (Attachments E and F) from Mr. Irwin G. Gross, a resident on North B
Street. The letters were transmitted to the Planning Commission at their meeting on
October 26, 1998. The issues expressed in the property owner's letters and staff's
responses are summarized in the November 9, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning
Commission (Attachment J).
Public Input- Letter of Support
One letter of support, dated August 31, 1998, was presented to the CultUral Resource
Advisory Committee on September 8, 1998 by Mr. Rick Fox, a resident on North "A"
Street. A copy of the letter is included as Attachment K.
Public Input- Verbal Opposition
At the August 11, 1998 Cultural Resource Advisory Committee public hearing, verbal
testimony was given by six property owners, five of whom spoke in opposition to the
inclusion of Mountain View Drive within the proposed overlay district. The property
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 9
owners expressed concerns about additional regulations, limitations on vacant lot
development, and impacts from adjacent commercial properties and the trailer park. One
resident/property owner on "B" Street also spoke in opposition and was concerned about
the infringement on property rights and personal autonomy and expression.
At the September 8, 1998 Cultural Resource Advisory Committee public hearing, three
property owners spoke in opposition to the proposed expansion. Two were opposed to
the inclusion of Mountain View Drive. The third property owner expressed concerns
about the legality of the zone change, the depersonalization of the neighborhood, the
need for the expansion of the oveday district, the approval process, and adjacent
commercial businesses.
At the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, two property owners in
opposition expressed concerns about additional regulations, First Amendment violations,
the infringement on property rights and personal autonomy and expression, and the
quality of the historic homes in the neighborhood.
A petition containing the signatures of eleven (11) propeCty owners on Mountain View
Drive representing a total of eight (8) properties within the proposed expansion area was
submitted to the Planning Commission on October 26, 1998 to urge the exclusion of
Mountain View Drive (Attachment L).
One individual spoke in opposition at the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission public
hearing. The resident/property owner spoke about First Amendment issues, possible
restrictions and the commercial property adjacent to his residence.
Most of the speakers' concerns are addressed in this report, in the September 8, 1998
Staff Report to the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee (Attachment I), or the
November 9, 1998 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment J). Issues
pertaining to adjacent commercial properties and the trailer park are not directly pertinent
to Zone Change 98-002.
Public Input- Verbal Support
At the September 8, 1998 Cultural Resource Advisory Committee public hearing, three
property owners provided verbal testimony in support of Zone Change 98-002. These
three individuals noted that the proposed zone change is legal, that the neighborhood
should be preserved, that the potential negative impacts are negligible and predictable,
that the Residential Design Guidelines are easy to work with, that property values are not
negatively impacted by the creation of historic districts, that neighborhood preservation is
important, that the historic homes cannot be rebuilt and that the neighborhood has a
special charm.
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-002
January 5, 1999
Page 10
At the October 26, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, two property owners in
support of the zone change noted that many other residents are in support and that the
zone change is a small step toward preserving the neighborhood.
At the November 9, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, one resident who is also a
member of the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee, spoke in support of Zone
Change 98-002, citing the importance of protecting the City's historic resources.
Summaries of the verbal testimony are contained in the Cultural Resource Advisory
Committee Minutes dated August 11, 1998 and September 8, 1998 (Attachments M and
N) and the Planning Commission Minutes dated October 26, 1998 and November 9, 1998
(Attachments O and P).
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
An Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared for Zone Change 98-002 and is
attached to this report (Attachment Q). The Initial Study/Negative Declaration was
available for public review beginning on October 2, 1998, and ending on October 26,
1998. Staff did not receive any comments on the environmental documentation.
Because the proposed zone change is an overlay zone that does not remove the
underlying zoning and because no development is associated with the zone change, staff
has prepared a Negative Declaration for the Council's consideration.
ALTERNATIVES AND PROCESS
Alternatives
In addition to recommending approval of Zone Change 98-002 as originally proposed,
staff has identified the following alternative courses of action for the Council's
consideration:
.
Direct staff to revise Ordinance No. 1205 for adoption at a subsequent meeting of
the City Council for approval of Zone Change 98-002 with boundaries that include
"A" Street, "B" Street, and "C" Street, but exclude all properties on Mountain View
Drive.
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny Zone Change 98-002.
City Council Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
January 5, 1999
Page 11
Cultural Resource Overlay District Expansion Process
The following items outline the remaining tasks in the Cultural Resource Overlay District
Expansion process:
·
If the Council approves the proposed Zone Change, the Council would introduce
and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1205.
,
At the next regular City Council meeting, the City Council would have second
reading and pass and adopt Ordinance No. 1205.
3. Ordinance No. 1205 would become effective 30 days after its adoption.
Scott Reekstin
Associate 'Planner
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
Detailed Map of Proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District
Survey/Questionnaire results
Letter dated 8/10/98 "Petition for Relief and Exemption"
Letter dated 8/10/98 "Position Paper"
Letter dated 9/08/98 w/cover letter dated 10/26/98
Letter dated 10/26/98
Cultural Resource District and Potential Expansion
Area North of Cultural Resource Overlay District
Cultural Resource Advisory Committee Report dated 9/08/98
Planning Commission Report dated 11/09/98
Letter dated 8/31/98
Petition - Zone Change 98-002
Cultural Resource Advisory Committee Minutes dated 8/11/98
Cultural ResOurce Advisory Committee Draft Minutes dated 9/8/98
Planning Commission Minutes dated 10/26/98 (excerpt)
Planning Commission Minutes dated 11/09/98 (excerpt)
Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Resolution No. CRAC 98-01
Resolution Nos. 3625 and 3626
Resolution No. 99-01
Ordinance No. 1205
ccreport~zc98-002 scr.doc
ATTACHMENT A
EXHIBIT A
ZONE CHANGE 98-002
I'l'm
PROPOSED Cultural Resource Overlay Dish'ict
ATTACHMENT B
." I am (ch'eck all thau apply):
29 m prop%~ty owner in the proposed e>rp_ansion area.
_a_n5 _
13 a res~ '= in the proposed e>.,~ansion area.
1 =_ Tustin Rea!5or.
.
3 a member of the Tustin .~ea Histo~ ca~ Society.
.,
... 1 Other .
if you mr=_ a property owner in th=_ proposed ex<~ansion ~ea, do you~
think there =~ ~v=~r=~,== of .ownin~ ~rooarty in aa_~_~n=~_~'~-~ -'=
hi-scoric district? .
!4- Yes
2
'!3 No'a
-.
Do you ~_hink
imoorsin5 ?
--
1 No
3 Not sure
_ O_ _C ~S
Do you think ~n~ the hq st ~q bui!din_ in the pr'oposed e):p=_nsion'
=~== ~re sqc..~qfqcant to th~_ community?
25 Yes
3 No
3 Not
:.re you f-zmz!i=__ wish -i._ '=¥~=,~ Cu!turm! Resources ,~_=,-~_~-
%
17 Yes
14- No
Ar=_ you f=_mt~ ~ =~ wi%h ~h_ Certif~ cat=- of .~oo~o'. - ~.-~ .... =-=.~=~ ss .orocess?
· .
4 Yes
27 - No -
H~ve you er--,- ,-=rd ail or pr-tn of the Residen{i~=!'Desi.zn G'ai,
for th=_ ~a!~ur=_! Resources District?'
3 Yes
23 No
5 .Not sure
ATTACHMENT
B
What is your opinion of the proposed e>~_-pmnsion of the Cultural
Resources Distric~:
l__j_5 I support the proposed exomnsion.
2 i oppose the proposed e>~_-p~nsimn.
.,
6' ! have no opinion ~bout the proposed ak-mansion.
~3 7_. support. _ _ ~-n e~ansion_ including commer-cial _~roo-r~_
6 <Other Responses) '
Do you have any special concerns re~arding the orooosed e>.~ansion?
18 _vas
.Are you intereste'd in mttending the proposed workshop?
23 Yes
.
5 No
if you mre interested in attending, which.Lime for the workshop.
would you- pr=~=~ -
..
!t
Saturday morning
Saturday afternoon
Weekday morning
Weekday afte_~noon
Weekday evening
Optional information:
(Name)
(Address.)
(Phone ~)
this _ _y/Qu ..... ~___ to:
city of Tusti:
Attention: Scott Reeksti~
300 Cente~__~im! Way
Tustin, Ck 927BD -
ATTACHMENT C
James & Jennifer W. Shumar
175 Mountain View Drive
Tustin, California 92780
(7214) 731'7625
~Respondents, Petitioners
7
8
9
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
57
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
An_mast l 0, 1998
'City of Tustin
City Council
300 C~ntennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Zone Change 98-002
Petition for Relief
and Exemption
~rI-IEREAS, Zone Change 98-002 as it encompasses "Mountain View Drive" in the City
o. fTusfin, Count3, of Orange, Calh~omia should not be granted because it subverts the
majority ,~511 of the people.
Petitioner is informed, believes and states that a greater than 2/3 majority of the
Class of residential property owners on Mountain View AvenUe are opposed to
inclusion of any residential property on said street in the proposed Cultural
Overlay District Expansion, Zone Change 98-002. Further, if the Class is taken to
indlude both residential and commercial property owners, that this majority would
exceed 80% of the total of ail property owners on the street.
Historic designation of private property without the consent of the v~sted owner is un~airl
unjust and amounts to an unconstitutional, takSng of value without just compensation. ~
Philadelphia'v. Bovd Theater, City of Bourne, Texas v. Flores.
·
V~rHEREAS, The proposed expansion of the Tustin Cultural Overlay District poses an
unfak burden and excessively limits the uses of a landowner's property. Under the
proposed zoning change, property owners on Mountain View Drive are left with
.easements, covenants and servitudes which constitute negative obligations and
restrictions which are a disproportionate burden imposed for the good of the public and
which adversely impacts individuals who have a'legitimate ownership interest in the land
and the way it is appraised, whether for sale or tax assessment purposes. Arrnstron~ v.
· ' 1
]
3
5
6
7
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
· 16
17
lg
19
2O
21'
22.
23
24
25
26
27
2g
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
United Stales. '~"nile private property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation
goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." ?enn~lvan~a Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S.393~
415.
WHEREAS, Character analysis oftl).e proposed change is.greater than"roughly
proportional" to the burden that the proposed land use would impose on the community.
Failure to meet these mandates is perse a .taldng. The burdens of the zoning change are
borne by a few but the benefits shared in by many The property owners have been singled
out to bear greater burden under the regulatory program than others similarly situated.
Lucas v. South Carolina C~)a~al Council, ] 12 S.Ct..The property owners are dependent
on the security of the ri_mbt lo private propemj and governments must pay property owners
for land ifa regulation affects property rights without substantially advancing the
re=~lations stated purpose without such security the flow of capital to the neighborhood
would be ~eatly diminished.
WHEREAS, The proposed expansion of the Tustin Cultural Overlay District violates U.S.
Constitutional Law that;
The Fifth Amendment states: "...No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process ofiaw, nor shall private propertybe taken for public
use without compensation.
WHEREAS, The proposed expansion of the Cultural OverlaY District will dkectly restrict
or limit the use of real property to the ex-tent that the landowner is unable to realize the
reasonable, investment-backed expectation of the existing use of the property or a.vested
right to specific use of the real property. Dolan v. City of Tigard, These expectations, not
realized, are'permanent and deprivation of expectation applies tO the property as a whole.
Property owners reasonably relied on long standing building~ safety and zoning laws in
being able to realize the lawful use of the property and surrounding tract as motivation for
the purchase of their properties. Penn GentralTransp. Co. v. New York City_., 438 U.S.
124,' Bemadine Suitum v. Tahoe Re~onal Planning Agency (96-243)
·
WHEREAS, The proposed Cultural Overlay District zoning decision is arbitrary and ·
capricious, duplicates-existing law and adds an unnecessary layer of government which
burdens law abiding citizens residing theiein. The zoning change promotes the
implementation'of architectural guideli.nes and regulations which are subjective,
uncodified, without baseline, difficult to imerpret on a consistent basis and enforceable at
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
· .
according Io the .~ste and whims ofunelected public officials. V~rhereby the proposed
zoning restrictions cause deprivation of substantive due process and are illegal.
WI-IF_~~, ~Residents within the pro_posed Cultural Overlay District have further been
denied equal protection under the.law and are 'subject to this action without review from a
jury ofthek peers. Although public hearings were noticed and held, these procedings have
been conducted under the ac_Ms of Cultural Resource Advisory Committee, none of whom
are residents within the proposed expansion area and are admittedly in predisposed favor
of the proposed zoning change.
~AS, Existing property and zoning restrictions are presently compatible with
adjacent land uses, justifiable by appraisal and are not speculative. Therefore, the
expansion of the Cultural Overlay District will make the City's First Street Specific Plan
inconsistent with itself and will deny residential property owners on Mountain View Drive
equal pro.tection under the law. Nec'tow v. Cambridee.
·
·
VfHER~AS, Approximately 25% of the property on Mountain View Drive is presently
..
zoned for commercial use and the perimeter of the entire block is commercial property.
All but one residence on Mountain View Drive is adjacent to commercial property on one
or more boundaries. Offsetting average reciprocity of advantage is lower than realized
benefits from the zoning change bec/rose of the abundance of adjacent commercial
property.which are unaffected by the proposed eXPansion of the proposed Overlay
District. Under the "next in line doctrine" of zoning precedent, all commercial properties
and certain residential properties at the First Street end of Mountain View Drive,
including that property which received the highest grade ("B") in the city's historical value
grading survey have been exempted from inclusion in proposed Historical Overlay
District ExpanSion. 9,rhereas five lots totalling approximately 42,000 square feet of
vacant raw land at the end of Mountain View and Fourth Street is slated for inclusion in
the zoning change and will be subject to Cultural Overlay District guidelines although no
historical property or known archeological finds exSst. This constimes a spot zoning
change for the benefit of a few property owners and tO the detriment of others and is as
such illegal.
WHEREAS, Zone Change 98-002 further, constitutes an illegal spot zoning change which
~ves unfair advantage to residents within the proposed expansion area by facilitating the
dubious designation "historical property" in order to qualify for property tax exemptions
2
3
4
5
7
9
12
13
]7
20
_9.1
23
24
2/;
under the '~xlls A~t." The ]~xlls Aa diverts property tax revenue from schools and was
intended to aid in the preservation of bona-fide historic properties. The goodwill of the
Act is subverted here under the veil ofhistofic preservation by exempting real estate
which does not and should not merit such historic designations and Should not be so
exempt from property taxes.
WI~-REAS, The remedy provided by the doctrine of equitable estoppel bars the right of
the government from interfering with an owner's rights acquired by virtue of his reliance
on prior government action, such as e;dsting zoning laws. ,The rule of equitable estoppel
is applied '~o the.government use of land if an owner while relying on an act of government
has made a substantial change in position or has incurred extensive obligations or expenses
so that it would be unsuitable and unjust'~o destroy the to destroy the acquired right.
WHEREAS, The City has failed to establish a.sound basis for ]and-use through unbiased
comprehensive planning and back_m'ound stu'dies which would conclusively establish the
e~nornic impact of re-zoning on the value of the real estate in' question. City. proponents
have failed to act with due diligence in'expanding the Cultural Overlay District by relying
on zonsultanfing reports and property grading appraisals which are in excess of ten years
old. Although. informational workshops and hearings have followed the rules of bona-fide
public fomrn, Zoning Change 98-002 was pressed without feedback to the community
concerning' legitimate Supporting issues of financial and sociological costs which have
been raised and not addressed. This presents prima facie evidence that the city has'
engaged in a.breach of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a pre-determined plan to
conduct false showings of due diligen~'e merely for the purpose of defending biased and
unfair actions in court when in fact the zone change is being sought under incomplete,
arbitrary and non-factual conclusions.
:1
3
4
$
6
?
8
9
11
12
13
]4
15
!9
20
21
22
~I=_FORE, BE IT REsoLVED that the Tustin City'Council having been presented
with the illegalities and wrongs of ZONE CHANGE 98-002 should:
1. Deny lhe approval of Zoning change 98-002, or
If the majority and constitutional will of the people residing on "A," "B," and "C" Streets
in Tustin, haxdng received unbiased comprehensive planning and back~ound studies which
.
would conclusively establish the economic impact of re-zoning on the value of the real
emate in question, favor the zoning change;
then:
2. Disapprove of the inclusion of any and ail residential properties located on Mountain
View Drive in the City of Tustin where a majority of residents are not in favor ofthe
zoning change.
Submitted August 10, 1998
James W. Shumar, .Ir.
James W. & Jennifer W. Shumar
175 Mountain View Drive
·
Tustin, California 92780
ATTACHMENT D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
t'7
lg
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
2'/
25
29
30
3i
32'
33
34
35
36
James W. & Jennifer W. Shumar
175 Mountain View Drive
Tustin, Califorrria 92780
(714) 731-7625 -
Respondents, Petitioners
August 10, 1998
City of Tustin )
Community Development Department )
300 Centennial way )
Tustin, California 92780 )
Zone Change 98-002
As properl3, owners and' residents, we have responded to each notification letter and have
attended and spoken at two community workshops on February 24, 1998 and March 21,
1998 regarding the Proposed northern expansion oi'the Tustin Cultural Resourses Overlay
District. We, the Petitioners, believe that all oft. he hemal points and issues were duly
raised and aired at the first ~ommUnity workshop on February 24, 1998 and that
subsequent ·proceedings have degraded to "feel good" emotional appeals and anecdotal
expressions-concerning the quality oflife in the neighborhood which do not address
substantive and legal issues set forth in the first meeting.. Now, in keeping with rules of
the California Code of Civil Procedure, we submit the following written Position Paper
and attached Petition in order to preserve our rights to participate and raise all covered
issues in litigation arising from the attempted expansion of the Cultural Resources Overlay
District to include .any residential property on M~untain View Drive between First Street '
and Fourth Street in the City of Tustin.
POSITION PAPER
As a class,' the property owners on Mt. View Drive are confronted with two distinct
issues:
· a) V~rhether or not to support the expansion of the Historical Overlay District.
if so, then;
b) .Whether or not to support the inclusion of Mt. View Drive in any such
expans~on~
7
$
9
10
Although open community workshops on the re. zoning plan have been held, Zoning
· Change 98-002 has been pressed on the residents of the community without feedback
concerning le~timate supporting issues of financial and sociological costs which have
been raised and not addressed. .
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
m,,,,
34
35
36
6 ' These proceedings have been conducted by the members °fthe CultUral Resource
· Advisory .Committee, none of whom are residents in the proposed expansion area and are
admittedly in predisposed favor of the proposed zoning change.
This has served to reinforce'the beliefby many property owners that the city has had a
pre-determined agenda, and that under the guidance and oversight of officials who are in
favor of the zoning change that these-workshops have become faux .exercises'ha due
diligence for the benefit of bolstering the defense ofthe re. zoning process when this issue is
brought to trial.
A primary issue raised in the"community workshops concerns the conflicting beliefs that
inclusion of property in cultural overlay districts will subvert the value of a property and
the opposite ¥iew that inclusion will enhance.value. No current information from informed
or ex'pert sources has been presented to support or detract from either view. Further,
man3; residents mistrust the adoption of a cultural overlay plan based on mapping and
consultative studies which .are a decade old. Among other deficiencies, these studies and
maps indicate residences which have been demolished and designate grades to houses
which have been extensively remodelled and updated.
Taking into consideration both points of view, a further distillation of the question must be
made with specific regard to those properties on Mountain View Drive:
a) Would a property that is not culturally or historically significant in itself but .that
is within the jurisdiction of a historical preservation area be diSadvantaged and therefore
devalued because of its nonconformity?.
b) What economic value and constraints on development will apply to vacant land
which lies within a cultural overlay district?
c)' What economic factors would apply as a whole to an'entire city street
comprised of a combination non-culturally significant improvements' and vacant land lying
on the outskirts of a designated historical preservation area?
.- 2
]
2
3
4
$
6
7
9
]0
]]
12
13
]4
15
17
18
19
20
.21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
.33
34.
35
36
Defining the historical .aspects of any of the property on Mt. View Drive is a major
paradox. None of~he propeffie.s are associated with a historic event or person deemed
duly important in the history of the nation or re~io~ Nor are any of them .associated with
any particularly significant aspect of the cultural political or economic heritage of the
community.
The neighborhood does not embody the distinctive charactaristics of any notable
architectural style, nor are the homes the product of a famous designer or builder. In fact,
as soon as the5, are financially able, most residents make it a priority to upgrade
(modern~zQ and change the function and appexrance their properties to the fullest ex'tent
poss~le.
Certainly, none of the homes in the proposed erpans~on area, in general, and 'the houses on
Mt. View Drive, in particular, would individually or collectively qualifig for a special listing
on Ihe National Re~ster of Historic Places.
..
The justification for expansion of the overlay district relies completely on the criteria for
/x~,HP "C" and "D" ~aded properties, which, most of them are:
· ~
['Property whichJ.. . beca use o £its prominence 'o£spatiaI Iocatioz~ cont~U o f sil~ g,
ag~ or s~Ie, ~e an ~asily ident~able ~1 ~at~ o fits n~igh~rhood or th~ .city and
con~bules to ~e dbt~ctive quality or identity of such nsigh~rhood or cit~
This.weasel-worded clause of government-speak was better expressed by Sir Edmund
Hillary after ascending Mt. Everest... "~ecause it is there."
In this broadest definition, nearly mTyneighborhood in the country could qualify.
A "hook" that has been used by proponents of the zoning change has been that by
inclusion in an overlay district, properties are automatically eligible for property tax relief
under the Mills Act. The belief that tax subsidies to targeted individuals in the guise of
"cultural deCelopment" can stimulate the local economy is misguided. Especially in areas
such as Mountain 'view Drive where these stimuli should not logically apply. Is it proper
to divert property tax revenues away from our schools under the cloak of historical
preservation of homes which a reasonable and prudent individual v~ould have difficulty
defining as anything remotely historical? One question that a qualified expert opinion
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
].3
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
'36
rn~ghi clari~ is: How many of these homes would qualify under the Mills Act w~thout the
~-ezoning change? Whatever the answer, The point would be effectively moot, because
Truly qualified properties are eli=Mble for Mills Act prmection fight now ~thout the zoning
change. So, if the zoning change is driven by the Mills Act, why rezone, if not to qualify
homes which otherwise would not be eIigible7
Is an area historical because it is pounded in our rich national or local heritage or is it
·
kistofical just because enough people hi~ve convinced themselves that it is? Is the colorful
history of Orange County and Tustin really mirrored and preserved in the fifteen houses on
Monntain V~ew Drive or is this.rnere]y a case of history being written as a spoil by the
v~ctor?
A paradigm shift in zoning "for the common good" where'm land use is centrally planned
and centrally authorized by.the government distorts economic oppommities and hurts
those who have the o~anizational talents, labor and capital to invgst in the area. Lending
institutions are dependent on the security of private property rights and without such
security the flow-of capital to the neighborhood is ~eatly diminished. The question then
becomes, "Does the Emperor have new clothes?" [Residents who back this re-zoning
proposal may have convii~ced themselves that they see fine plumage, but the true test will
be whether this finery can also be sensed bybankers, insurance companies, buyers of real
estate and other investors in our neighborhood who comprise the economic backbone that
allows this community to function and survive~
The City of Tustin truly does possess a number of historical properties and landmarks.
Proper steps have been taken to preserve and protect these assets. Can we really compare
the Hewes Mansion, the Ste(,ens Mansion or the Craftsman Bungalows in the downto~ua
areas with any 6fthe properties on Mountain View Drive? Does this not cheapen the
special aspects contained in those homes and neighborhoods ~vhich truly are culturally and
historicallj, significant? Is this' a school where everyone gets an ~.~k~ even though test
scores are all B's and C's?
In the decade-old residential grading study, not a single residence in the entire proposed
expansion area received the highest ~A~ rating for architecture, construction, or historic
importance by virtue of a historic person or event. Of the 15 homes on Mt. View Drive,
'only 11 were even rated in the study. The highest rating given was the residence at 125
Mountain View, which received a '33" rating. That house has been subsequently
2
3
4 ·
$
6
7
9
]0
1]
]2
13
]4
15
]6
exempted from the proposed zone change, presumab]y because it adjoins but is not
included in the First Street Specific Plan. By not bring included in the overlay district,
demolition ofthis "historic" structure can proceed unimpeded when First Street is further
deve]oped to tfigher commercial'use. Of the ]-emaining homes on Mountain View Drive,
eight were rated "C" and/~vo 'T)." Of the. eight "C" ratings, one has been demolished and
two have been extensively modernized just this year.
All but one residence on Mountain View Drive sits adjacent to commercial property on
one or more common boundary. The one house that is isolated shares a 256 foot
boundary line with a vacant lot. On a street where the average lot size is 5500 sq. feet,
there is nearly 42,000 sq. feet (almost 1 acre) of undeveloped property which is slated for
~nclusion in the zoning change. Much of the vacant property on the street remains
undeveloped due to present density and design restrictions coupled with the inability of
property owners to obtain adequate financing to improve or develop %his land. Financiers
have warned property owners that investors are wary' of further restrictions on
development potential. Hence, resale value of these properties will be diminished.
,4
5
6
7
9
]0
11
12
13
15
16
17
lg
19
20
.o
We conclude, therefore, that there has b~n insufficient Oversight and evidence presented
Io support this proposed zoning change. Iff however, constitutional guidelines were
£ollowed and the majority of residents in the area of"A," "B," and "C" Streets desire the
zone change, we would support rezoning of those areas if Mountain View were excluded.
This would be based on the same constitutional guidelines that a greater than 2/3 majority
ofthe property owners on Mountain ¥Sew Drive do not support proposed expansion of
the cultural overlay district and do not wish to be included in it.
Submitted for the record
August 10, 1998
~~_.t/James W' . S~umar
175 Mt. 'view Drive
Tustin, California 92780
Attached: Petition of P'~)ints and authorities.to be argued in the litigation concerning City
of Tustin Zoning Change
ATTACHMENT E
Irwin G. Gross
125 N. B Street
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 731-0483
RECEIVED
OCT 2 5 1998
COMMUNi ' DEb'EL OPENT
October 26, 1998
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
Planning Commission
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: Resolution CRAC 98-01; Adoption of Zone Change 98-002
Dear CommissiOners:
Attached is a letter to the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee, dated September 8,
1998. Due to technolo~cal difficulties, I was unable to deliver it to the CRAC in a timely
manner, relative to the public hearing held on that date. Inasmuch as I have been led to believe
that CRAC materials related to the above-referenced zone change proposal would be forwarded
to you, I am submitting tkis letter directly to you at this time.
Thank you.
Very' Truly Yours,
Irwin G. Gross
Irwin G. Gross
125 N. B Street
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 731-0483
September 8, 1998
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: Resolution CRAC 98-01; Adoption of Zone Change 98-002
Dear Sirs and Madam:
I have been loo 'king at the homes in the proposed expansion area and even comparing this
area to other, newer neighborhoods around town. I have been reviewing the ordinance
(No. 1001) creating the Old Town Cultural Resource Overlay District and the related desig~n
guidelines. I have been looking for some compelling justification for the expansion of the Overlay
District and I cannot find one. I have also been looking for some way to accept living with the
proposed constraints on using my 6wn property, and I cannot find that either. Nor do I have the
right to dictate to my friends and neighbors -- even those who may support this proposal - what they
can or cannot do to their own homes.
I simply cannot see this proposal as anything other than an unjustifiably intrusive ordinance
that flies in face private property fights and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I see it as
having the potential, for some residents, to be unduly burdensome in terms of time and expense.
Because the City would be claiming a fight of interest in private property, I also see this proposal as
an eminent domain action for which the City is offering no fair and just compensation, as required by
law.
I attended both of the prior workshops regarding this matter. During those meetings, I heard
little or no genuine concern for historical preservation, except from some of the advisory committee
members. For the most part, the comments supporting the proposal were about the ambiance and
the comfort level ofliving in a neighborhood of older homes. This is about nostal~a, not historical
preservation. The neighborhood in question is reminiscent of - even s3uubolic of- a time when we
were free of modern pressures and electronic intrusions. Understandably, most of us do not want
these more placid surroundings to substantially change. But this is a matter of personal preference
and is not a compelling justification for interfering with private properts, fights and abrid~ng the
fights of freedom of expression under the First .4xnendment.
I also heard comments from residents who have lived in this neighborhood for most or all of
their lives. They have strong sentimental attachments to these surroundings and, also
understandably, do not want to see them change. Nor is this a compelling justification for interfering
with private property rights and abridging the rights of freedom of expression under the First
Amendment.
Come national holidays, such as the Fourth of July, many of us are out at picnics, waving the
flag, singing God Bless America, and ~ving lip service how wonderful it is to be living in such a free
country. I say "lip service" because when push comes to shove, when some people feel even
remotely threatened by the creative freedom of others, the first instinct is to clamp down and stifle
that creativity, whether that free expression involves pen knd paper or bricks and mortar. The true
test of a free society, which we claim to be, is to have the strength and integrity to allow others their
personal freedom, even when we don't like what they do.
With apologies for the sexist overtones, we have all heard the adage, "A man's home is his
castle." I would expand that concept to say that a person's home is a pallet. A home is, perhaps, the
best expressive medium a person can have. It is the one place a person can count on to define his or
her own concepts of comfort and beauty, indoors and out. In this regard, expansion of the Cultural
overlay District is not historical preservation; it is censorship.
I think most of the other homes in the neighborhood are rather interesting and attractive. My
o~m home, however, is a bland, ugly, flat-roofed, stucco box that simply screams for adornment.
Artistry and craftsmanship have been part of my and my wife's lives since childhood. Few, if any,
people quarrel about our sense of design, and I find it personally repugnant to ask for someone else's
subjective approval of our creative ideas. I believe the ideas we have discussed would enhance the
attractiveness of our home and neighborhood far beyond those allowed to us by the Design
Guidelines.
The proposed action constitutes a taking by the City for which no compensation has been
offered. The ability of a homeowner to maintain, amend, and improve his home is a right of use.
Under prevailing law, a fight of use is as much private property as is physical real estate. Any action
by the City which impaks or abridges that fight of use is a taking, which in this case, is extraordinary
in that the impairment is imposed On a limited portion of the residential population expressly for the
benefit of the larger portion.
Mr. William Hockenberry is a member of the CRAC. He is one of the initiators of the
current expansion proposal and one of its most outspoken proponents. By Mr. Hockenberry's own
words at each of the two public workshops (held on 2/24/98 and 3/21/98, respectively), he regards
the expansion of the District and compliance with its associated design guidelines to be a sacrifice
which needs to be made by the residents who would be so affected.
The American Heritage Dictionary., 3d ed., includes the following among its definitions of
"sacrifice":
2.a. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a
greater value or claim .... 3.a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed ·
value.
Clearly, by Mr. Hockenberry}s own words, the affected property owners would be forfeiting
something of value to the City, which is claiming a greater interest in the right of use of our own
private property. When this forfeiture is accomplished by force of law, it constitutes a taking that
requires just compensation.
I bought a home, not a museum. If I am to be demoted from the status of a fully independent
homeowner to that of a cdrator of a City showcase, I insist on compensation.
Issue: Validi~ of the purpose and necessity_ of the proposed District expansion.
Ordinance No. 1001 establishes the Tustin Cultural Resources Overlay District. In it are a
number of enumerated statements of purpose, many of which are reiterated in the CRAC's findings
published subsequently to the August 11, 1998 public hearing.
Firstly, the PLrRPOSE states, generally, that the Overlay District is "required in the interest
of the health, safety, prosperity, social and cultural enrichment and general welfare of City residents"
[italics mine]. This implies that these items cannot be had without the imposition of the Overlay
District and compliance with its associated Design Guidelines. This unsupported assertion is utter
nonsense. This statement would also have us believe that changing the style of one's front door
would be injurious to the health and welfare of the citizenry. Also unsupported and also utter
nonsense.
# 1. "Safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving," among other things, "the City's
cultural,...political [and] social...heritage."
This, including the portions omitted, is also unsupported and thoroughly unbelievable.
Furthermore, the CRAC and the City have been very selective about the elements of Tustin's
heritage they want to publicize and safeguard. When, for instance, has there been discussion of the
bigoted and racist restrictions built in to many of the early grant deeds held by prominent
landholders?
#2. "Encourage public 'knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past."
~. "Strengthen civic and neighborhood pride and a sense of identity ....
#6. "Enhance property values and increase economic and financial benefits to the City and
its inhabitants."
These may be very noble objectives, but to date, neither the CRAC nor City Staffhave
demonstrated any necessity or ability of District expansion to accomplish them. Staffhas also stated
an inability to show any cause and effect relationship between historical preservation districts and
property values. All that has been offered, to my knowledge, is a reference to information from the
City of Orange going back to the 1970% and '80's. Not only is this unrealistically old, considering
the volatilit3, of real estate and financing markets, but the Old Town district in Orange has _oreater
geographical depth, the homes are older, and they are of much greater architectural interest' than
those found in Tustin.
-3-
#4. "Promote the private and public enjoyment...of culturally significant neighborhoods,"
and the use of those neighborhoods "for the education and recreation of the citizens of Tustin and
'visitors .... "[Italics mine.]
In the course of my discussions with the City of. Tustin regarding other matters affecting my
property, the City has declared that it has no standing to intervene in matters concerning the private
enjoyment of property, yet it implies that authority here. If it is indeed the case that the City may not
legislate to benefit the private enjoyment of one's neighborhood, this is yet another invalid purpose
of the Overlay District.
The Environmental Impact Report which accompanies 9/8/98 StaffReport indicates no
increase in traffic in the proposed expansion area. If a purpose of the Overlay District is to promote
use of this neighborhood for educational and recreational purposes, how is this to be accomplished
without an increase in vehicular or foot traffic? If the City's response were to be that the increase
would be insignificant, then so would be the educational and recreational use of the area, and the
purpose of the expansion is not served.
6'5. "Enhance the visual...and aesthetic appeal of the City."
The City is most definitely employing a double standard here, when it would impose
additional restrictions on the homeowners to enhance visual aesthetics while at the same time
allowing those same homeowners to be bombarded with countless eyesores from neighboring
commercial properties. This includes but is not limited to spilled and mi~ating trash; harsh lighting;
a virtual circus of garish signs, and unsightly commercial vehicles parked on our streets and on
neighboring lots..
This provision is also fallacious in that it presupposes that alterations or improvements not in
accordance with the Design Guidelines will not enhance the visual appeal, of a home or
neighborhood. This is simply not true and is insulting to anyone with any creative talent or ingenuity.
#7. "Assure that new construction and subdivision of lots in Cultural Resource District are
compatible with the character of the district."
City Staffhas indicated that there is akeady a design review process in force city-wide to
accomplish this objective. Expansion of the Overlay District is not necessary in this regard. If, in the
case of relatively recent construction which has caused considerable dismay in the neighborhood,
City Staff dropped the ball in the approval process, that is a staff problem to be corrected in-house,
not at neighborhood expense. It may be the case that there is a need to redefine "new construction,"
as opposed to remodeling, which appears to have a different, less stringent set of standards.
Erpansion of the District is not necessary for this, either.
Assuming there is any validity to the Cultural Overlay District and its ability to accomplish
stated objectives, the question still remains as to the validity of the proposed expansion of the
District. By the City's own admission, fully 85% - more than 3/4 - of the homes in the proposed
-4-
expansion area are classified as having marginal or no historical or arctfitectural significance. Their
only significance, based largely on age, is that they lend context to the homes with "A" and "B"
historical classifications. According to the 9/8/98 CRAC Report,
"[i]n general, the homes and lots in the proposed expansion area are not as large as
those located in the existing Cultural Resource Overlay District. They also are not as
architecturally significant."
Yet, in terms of design guidelines, the overwhelming majority of the homes in the proposed
expansion area, which are rated "C" and "D," will be held to a standard s if they were "A" and "B"
rated.homes, which is significantly higher than that of the rest of the City's residential community.
This is akin to my being required to provide the strongbox for my neighbor's Rolex! Hypothetically,
my nei~hbor has the valuable asset, but I have the burden of helping him protect it to a greater
de~ee than I would in any other part of toWn. 'This is not only discriminatory and oppressive, it is
ridiculous.
The City responds to questions about additional red tape and procedural expenses by stating
that the only additional step is obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness, for which there is no
additional fee. This is highly misleading. The Certificate of Appropriateness provides an additional
and sig~ificant opportunity for rejection of a permit application. The potential remedy for this is an
appeal of the rejection, which carries a fee, by all accounts, in the hundreds of dollars. Staff claims
that there has been an excellent de~ee of acceptance of the guidelines and approval process in the
existing District. This is small wonder when one considers the prospect of butting heads with the
City and paying a hefty price for the honor.
Staff claims that the Guidelines are objective and administered consistently. Matters of style
and aesthetics, however, are too subjective for consistent, uniform application, and the guidelines
cannot presume to cover all that creative minds can invent. Just the fact the CRAC, with a different
composition from 10 years' prior, has changed its mind about the reasons for previously excluding the
proposed area from the original District, shows that decisions on these matters may change as the
way the wind blows.
There is also a question about the mount and quality of community feedback and support for
this proposal. The City points to the questionnaire that was distributed in Fall, 1997. Please keep in
mind that the City is claiming a right of interest on behalf of the entire city, and that there are in
excess of twenty thousand Tustin residents. The questionnaire was mailed to 132 property owners
and others. The 11 questions were so broad, vague, and superficial as to be virtually useless in
measuring community understanding and .appreciation of the issues. In fact, the vast majority of the
mere 31 respondents admitted to answering in a state of ignorance in regard to pertinent documents
and procedures. There was also no definition or identification of"historic resources" or explanation
of what their preservation might entail. When I called John Sauers, a member of the CRAC, with
questions about the design guidelines, I was instructed to "buy the book at City Hall." Thirty-one
responses to 132 questionnaires, in a City of over 20,000, answered in a state of informational
darkness is hardly a valid measure of support.
-5-
The City then points to the two public workshops, which were attended by a to.tal of about
50 people. Considering a substantial overlap of attendees-between the two meetings, there may have
been about 35 different individuals - out of a population in excess of 20,000 - expressing any interest
in the matter. Of those who were in support of the proposal, and much of that was reluctant, the
greatest concern was that no modernistic monstrosities be built in the neighborhood. There was
concern that alterations be attractive and appealing. I am not convinced that there was any real
concern for architectural accuracy.
The public heating on August 11, 1998 attracted 6 speakers, all of whom were opposed to
the proposal. Where is the public outcry for the preservation of Tustin's historical resources? Why
are we not hearing from the thousands of residents in whose interest this proposal is being made? I
believe the answer is that there is no true interest in historical preservation. I believe this is one
instance where public apathy speaks volumes. This is not about historical preservation; this is about
censorship. This is about serving the biased interests ora handful of history buffs and nostalgia
fanatics who, as in so many political campaigns, are relying on neighborhood fear and ignorance of
pertinent information.
For the most part, the Cultural Overlay District, for which the City uses concerns of health
and welfare as a rationale, concerns cosmetic features and superficial appearance. But the true health
of a neighborhood goes more than skin deep. If this neighborhood is to be enjoyed and appreciated
by all - publicly and privately - then the neighborhood has to be treated with respect by those who
use it and its perimeters for financial profit and by those who use 'its 'streets as thoroughfares. The
health of a neighborhood has to be addressed in terms of the here and now, not what was built 100
..
years ago.
Respectfully Submitted,
Irwin G. Gross
-6-
ATTACHMENT F
October 26, 1998
VIA HANrD-DELIVERY
Irwin G. Gross
125 N. B Street
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 731-0483
REC, E X./ED
Planning Commission
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin~ CA 92780
Re: Resolution CRAC 98-01; Adoption of Zone Change 98-002
Dear Commissioners:
I am writing in strong opposition to the above-referenced proposal which would expand the
existing Tustin Cultural Resources Overlay District to include C, B, A, and Mountain View Streets,
north of First Street. I consider such an expansion to be an unjust and unwarranted infringement
upon indixddual property fights and upon First ,~nendment constitutional guarantees of freedom of
expression. I also see issues of economic discrimination and of a taking of property fights by the City
of Tustin, for which no compensation has been offered.
We start down a very dangerous road once we begin to abridge our fundamental freedoms
over matters of personal taste and preference. One should make no rrfistake about the issue ai hand.
Although some arguments thus far presented have begun by vaguely singing the praises of the varied
architectural styles and their link to this city's past, those arguments have ultimately come to focus
on the ambiance, the charm, and the comfort of living in a neighborhood of older homes.
As part of a larger nation, we have history and tradition that go back farther and deeper than
the early years of Tustin. They go back to thirteen colonies that declared their independence from
a despotic monarchy; they go back to a new nation that formed a government based on constitutional
principles that included a Bill of Rights to safeguard the everyday lives of individual citizens. Where
preservation is concerned, we have asked thousands of our finest people to sacrifice their lives in
times of war to preserve this heritage.
'The freedom of choice and to do as one sees fit with that for which one has worked hard and
for which one has made sacrifices to call one's own is no small matter.
Without question there are those who bought into this neighborhood because of its character
and charm. But it is also true that among those individuals there are those who bought into this
neighborhood because of its freedom from the restrictive CC&R' s of newer communities. And it is
very' much the case that many of us bought an older home because that is the best we can afford. For
those who can afford to refurbish their homes with historical authenticity, more power to them. But
others need to be allowed to do the best they can with what they have got, and if that means bu3fing
one of the much-maligned Home Depot doors, then so be it. To be forced to do anything else is a
form of economic discrimination, as well. So, too, is the sizeable fee to appeal a denial of a
Certificate of Appropriateness, which only serves to discourage the exercise of one's right to appeal.
The right to beautify and enhance one's home and property accor~g to one's own wants and
needs is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. In order for a
government to impair this right, there needs to be a compelling reason. In this case, there simply is
none.
There are no historical landmarks or architecturally unique buildings involved, here. By the
City's own admission, fully 85% - more than 3/4 - of the homes in the proposed expansion area are
classified as having marginal or no historical or architectural significance; none of the homes qualify
for any special recognition or registration. The only distinctive feature of these homes is that they
are old. They impart a certain atmosphere - a charm - that the neighborhood residents find
comforting and appealing. This is nostalgia, not a true concern for historical preservation.
Understandably, the local residents do not want to part With this comfort, but they have to
consider that those neighbors who would change, their own homes are also entitled to comfort. There
are limits, of course, in the form of the city-wide design review process that City Staffhas declared
already exists to ensure that alterations are consistent with the existing structure and that new
construction is consistent with a given neighborhood. This should be sufficient to its purpose, and
those in the proposed expansion area should not be required to submit to restrictions greater than that
for the rest of the city.
The formation of the Cultural Resources Overlay District is based on the City of Tustin's
claim of interest in the private properties located in limited portions of the area -known as Old Town.
Some ten years ago, at the time of the District's formation, the inclusion of the now-proposed
expansion area was deemed unnecessary. During the intervening years, there has been no substantial
change in circumstances. Thus far, the City has failed to show that a failure to include the proposed
expansion area will result in irreparable harm to the city at large. Furthermore, the City has failed to
show that adoption of the proposed expansion would actually accomphsh its stated objectives, in very
large part because those objectives are rhetorical, speculative, and with no basis in fact. '
Central to the issue at hand is the public's genuine concern for and commitment to historical
and architectural preservation as opposed to a localized desire for comfortable surroundings.
Mr. John Sauers, an initiator of the original Overlay District, provides a key indicator in his comments
made to mc.in response to a telephone inquiry and then virtually repeated'at the first of two public
workshops regarding the expansion. In the late 1980's, a neighbor of Mr. Sauers wanted to subdivide
his property. Sauers, a long-time Old Town resident, and some other neighbors took exception,
stating, "We wanted to keep things the way they were." This is about disruption of a sentimental
attachment, not about historical preservation.
Under the proposed expansion, the Guidelines would prohibit, with support of proponents,
the use of certain more modern materials,-such as plastic-framed windows. Where was the outcry
when the City, in full lmowledge of the proposal at hand, installed absolutely tacky-looking, plastic-
resin-coated lamp posts on the very streets targeted by the proposal?
Where is the outcry, now, in support of this proposal, from residents on Browning, or
Vandenberg, or Wellin~mon, or even two. blocks from the expansion area? There are over 20,000
residents in this city outside the expansion area in whose name this proposal is made. Why are we
not hearing them implore us to save B Street (and the others) for their grandchildren?
Where is the active community support for preservation of the south blimp hangar on the
Soon-to-be-abandoned helicopter base? Here is one of the two largest, free-standing, wood-frame
structures in the entire world with a very special history linked to our nation's wartime defense;
where is the community effort to prevent its expected demolition? Here is a glaring issue of both
historical and architectural preservation, and community interest, at best, is marginal.
Why, then, should the residents of these four streets be asked to bear the burdens of additional
restrictions for sake of a public interest that clearly does not exist? It is just as clear, therefore, that
the concern is strictly for local preference and that there is no compelling reason to trample and
impair the rights of private property owners by expanding the Overlay DistricI.
The issue of maintaining property values has also been raised. Not all things in life can be
reduced to dollars and cents, nor should they be. Though many have chosen to see their homes
primarily as a financial investment, the ultimate value of any piece of property is determined by the
extent to which it can be used for its intended purpose. We are being asked to consider history and
traditior~ Traditionally, a home is one's most personal possession. A home is the seat of private life;
the seat of family life; a refuge from the rest of the world; the one small corner of the universe that
one can design and mold to provide one's own comforts and satisfactions. The proposed restrictions
seriously impair fulfillment of this purpose and thus devalue the homes of individual owners.
My wife and I bou~t a home, not a museum piece. We bought a home to five m, for our own
comfort and enjoyment, not something for someone else to use as an economic or cultural asset. We
bout_bt a home for the oppommity to devote our life-long creative energies toward making something
that'~s uniquely ours. If we are to be reduced to caretakers of a community asset, as this proposal
would make us, we insist on compensation.
Should this proposal be adopted, one of the ways the City could compensate the many owners
of these older homes who have difficulty obtaining decent insurance coverage would be to establish
a pool to underwrite full or supplemental hazard insurance. The insurance industry already punishes
many of us for owning older homes. If the City is to assert a claim of interest in our homes (for
clearly no other reason than their age), it is only fair and reasonable for the City to help protect that
interest with something other than burdensome restrictions.
Additionally, ~eater attention needs to be paid to the impact of commercial properties and
traffic conditions on the proposed expansion area. The subject homes are economically low-end
homes because they are old, because they are sandwiched in among major commercial corridors, and
because they are in a high-volume traffic area. That we residents should have to submit to higher
standards to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood while everyone else around us fouls it up is
absolutely ludicrous.
In this regard, for B Street in particular, it would be extremely helpful if the City were to
prohibit all truck through-traffic, regardless of weight, as it does on First Street between Newport
Avenue and RedhiI1.
Lastly, in the way of compensation, the proposed restrictions would be somewhat more
palatable and affordable if the City were to waive the fees for appealing a denied Certificate of
Appropriateness.
There is one other item of concern that cannot go unmentioned. Following the September
8, 1998 public hearing before the Cultural Resources Advisory Committee, I spoke informally with
two of its members in regard to concerns about my own home. I m~ntioned some alterations I have
been hoping to make and asked how the Guidelines might apply. The two CRAC members said they
really did not know and that they usually rely on City planning staff for interpretations. The CRAC
is the body that promulgated this proposal at the outset. The response of these members indicates
that they, at least, do not 'know how the Guidelines will operate and how they impact people's lives.
This seriously calls into question the validity of the CRAC's recommendation that the District
expansion proposal be adopted.
CONCLUSION
The question has been asked, in these debates, just how far should freedom be allowed to go?
That is a difficult question to answer, one which this nation's courts have struggled with for two
centuries. But those courts have determined, unquestionably, that freedom of expression ex-tends
beyond offenses to personal tastes and prefei-ences. The real challenge in a free society - in a
constitutional democracy, such as ours - is living with those things whose preference we do not share
with others. The challenge is accepting that our own space is limited and that beyond those bounds,
other people are allowed to do or to have even that which offends us. Government intervention into
the use of one's own home, such as is now proposed, is to be reserved for something more hm-mful
than changing the style of doors and windows.
There is a fallacy in the premise that all change outside the District Guidelines is negative.
The professional architects who have spoken in support of the expansion do not have a lock on
creativity. It is just as likely as not that an alteration can be an attractive enhancement to a home or
property, even if'it strays from the prevailing ~m~idelines. The First Amendment was intended, in part,
to prevent the stifling of creativity that spurs cultural and intellectual growth.
The Mills Act is concerned with the entirety of a property,' inside and out; the proposed
Overlay District expansion is concerned with the superficial semblance of a home's style. The Mills
Act is about historical and architectural preservation; the proposed expansion is about censorship.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Most Sincerely,
Irwin G. Gross
ATTACHMENT G
CiTY OF
TUSTiN
.I'
NDRTH
I.
~GURE 1!
.Z.!DO .~D .-MNTD POTFENTBkL' CULTURAL RF_.SOURCF_~
'.
.
! Boundary of Adopted Old Town CulturzI Re_sourdas
~ ~ ~ ~ R. ccomrncndt-d Po{antra] Cultural Rmsour"~.s District-
NOTE: Boundary lines' adjacent to I-5 nnd SR-55 Frccw:~ys dc. nots ultimate
right-.of-wa-y line. District docs not include areas' for £rccway
. ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT H
ATTACHMENT I
DATE:
TO:
FROI'~:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
Inter-Corn
CUL~&L RESOURCE AIJvISORY COM]VffTTEE
COMB~NITY DE~rELOPMENW DEPARTNIENT
CO2~~D ITEM - ZONE CHANGE 98-02; EXq:'ANSION OF CULTUR.&L
RESOURCE DISTRICT
s~z- ~s ss ~ ~o~~a ~ ~o..m._~t,' J~. ~st ii,.i~oS..
Resource AdvDo~ Com~e~ ~e Comm~ee. . .~nff~ZOnb ~~e'~8.02
the oppo~n~, xo ,ddr~s ~e =can~s.t~~'~e Au~ iii ~9a ~c &mffng ~ in
~o oppos~n ~erspresented W the ~.on Au~ ~ ~998. " ~e comm~ee
tl~ smff ~rov~ ~e draft environmen~ ~o~m~~n for the pr~ . Zone C~ge )8-02
propos~ Io ..~d the :CUlmrM.~esour~ ,~er~ D~ 2o indnde ~he '.restudy Zoned
Stre~ and J~ine BoM~ar~ G~en ~e~~ fm~a~s..and pub~ pO~ ~su~. ~so~ wah
theproposed m~sbm the C~rd ReSou~qe Adviso~ Comm~ee requested ~re~on on the
m~sMn ~om the C~ Coun~d in JuneT~of !99Z ~e .CoUnCa :direa~ smff ~ ~~ute a
su,~/ques~nn~e; bom wor~hopsg.~.ang 7.repo~ . th~ fin~s ~. of a~ sU~/ques~nn~re
a~a worishovs w me Counm for ~nher ~ra~m~. 'On..... June L.
these ~dings and .~re~M .tlte Cu~rM R~our~''Adfi~o~. comm~e 'and .staff w proceM
wHh the ~pansbn of the CulmrM ResOur~'' Overly. D~~:: In: 198& the CO Counc~
e~ffshed the cu~eqt CultUrM Resource D~i~' Which ~ gener~y b'~ed b~een
S~e~ and First Stre~ and b~een the SR-55 Fre~ay and Prosffe~ Avenu~
RECOM]VI~NDATION
That the Cultural Resource Adx4sory Committee:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
.
Adopt Resolution No. CRAC 98-01 recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 98-002, or as modified at the end
of deliberations.
DISCUSSION
This is a continued public hearing item from the August 11, 1998 Cultural Resource Advisory
Committee meeting. The Committee continued Zone Change 98-02 to prOvide staff the
opportunity to address the concerns raised at the Au=m~t 11, 1998 public hearing and in two
opposition letters presented to the City on August 10,. 1998 (Attachments A and B). The letters
Cu]~'I] ResoIll-c: .~.dvj~, (-.omm~ttg~ R~poIl
Expansion ofDistfim-Zone Change 98-02
S~t~mb~ 8, 1998
Page 2
were written by a property owner who lives wi~Nn ~e proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District
expansion area. The Committee also requested ~at staff provide the ~ environmental
documentation for the'project The draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration are prov/ded in
Attachment C. Back~m-ound information on the proposed expansion is contained in the attached
report to the Cultural ResoUrce Advisory Committee dated Au~m~st l 1, 1998 (Attachment D). The
folio.wing discussion focuses on the issues presented /n the two opposition letters, the public
'testimony .receh,ed at the Au~m~st 11, 199g meeting and some alternatives available to the
Committee. :
Public Testimony - Letters of-Opposition
On Au=m.ugt 10, 1998, the Commun~ Development Department received two sirn~ar letters of
opposition from Mr. and Mrs. James Shumar, who l/ye on Mountain View Drive. The letters were
transmitted to the Cul~ Resource Advisory Committee at their meeting on .August ] 1, 1998.
The issues ex'press~ in the prop~-m~y owners' ]etters and stxffs responses are summarized be]ow.
Because some of these issues overlap or are discussed ha both letters, the foLlow/rig discussion does
not n~essari]y follow the order in which they are presented in the opposition letters.
TakSn_*s Issues
Mr. Shumar's first contention is that the extension of the Cultural Resources
Overlay District to Mountain View Drive constitutes a taldng of private property
w/thom just compensation.
Response:
The City Attorney's office has concluded that the proposed ordinance does not
constitute an unconstitutional taking. The Cultural Resource District regulations do
not require that property owners w/thin the overlay district dedicate any property to
the City. Thus, there is no "physical" taldng cvf private property. Furthe~ore, the
District regulations Continue to pennit property owners to put their property to
economically v/able uses. Indeed, the overlay district does not change the
underlying zoning designation of any property. Thus there is no '¥egulatory" taking
of property.
Zone Change Issues.
The proposed zone change is arbitrary and capricious, duplicates existing law and
adds an unnecessary layer of government
Responae:
The proposed zone. change complements the .existing underlying zoning by
establighing an overlay district to protect historic resources. The area to be
desi_maated was identified because of its historic resources and was not arbitrarily
chosen. The requirements applicable to the overlay district are not capricious'
because they were established by the City. Council and are codified. The most
si~ificant requirement that would take effect is the certificate of appropriateness
process for ail exterior improvements, alterations and demolitions requiring building
Ex~pansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
Sept~rnber 8, 1998
Page 3
pcunfits..These cer~cmes are issued by the Community Development Director and
are necessary to protect the character of the historic district No fees or additional
application materials are required in the certificate of appropriateness process,
which takes place concurrently with design review or building plan check.
]ssi, re'
The proposed zone change promotes the implementation of architectural ~m.fidelines
and r%mflafions which are subjective, uncodified, without baseline, difficult to
interpret on a consistent basis and enforceable according to the taste and whims of
unelected public
.Response:
The requirements of the cod/fled Cultm-al Resource 'Overlay District are objective,
fiateTpreted consistently 'and include prm4sions for enforcement which were
established by the City-Council. The Residential Design Guidelines for the Cultural
Resource District were approved by the City Council and are purposely designed to
be less r/~d to allow property o~xmers some flex/bilJty in malting improvements to
their properties.
The propos~l zoning restrictions came deprivation of substantive due process and
are illegal.
Response:
The proposed zone change is by no means illegal and would not deprive anyone of
substantive due process. A minimum of three public hearings is required for the
zone change. Each of the heatings provides the opportunity for public/nput. If
approved, the proposed zone change would be adopted as an ordinance by the City
Council. This process is in accordance with State law.
Procedural Issues
The proposed overlay d/strict ~511 deny Mountain View Drive property owners .
equal protection under the law and make them subject to the zone change without '
review from a jury of their peers.
The proposed action would not deny residential property o~mers equal protection
under the law. The proposed zone change requires public heatings before the
Cultural Resource Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission and the City
Council. The final decision-making authority for the proposed zone 'change rests
with the City Council.
Zoning Issues
The proposed overlay d/strict ex~pansion will create an inconsistency within the First
Street Specific Plan.
Cu]lural Resource Advi~ Committee Report
E×]~an~on of DL~c~- Zone Change 9~-02
Pa=~e 4
,
The proposed zone change would not change the uses pcnzfitted iu the underlying
zoning districts or in the City's Pirst Street Specific Plan. The integrity and internal
consistency of the City's First Street Specific Plan ~dll not be impactei Indeed,
none of the pr°potties witNn the Specific Plan are proposed to be included in the
overlay district
The proposed overlay district will constitute an illegal spot zoning change because it
benefits few-property o~mcrs and inc]udes vacant properties where no historical
structures or known archeological finds exist.
Response:
The proposed extension of the Ckfl~ Resource Overlay District will not change
-the undcr]yJn~ zoning on any piece Of property ~fitbin thc District. The current
proposal ex'tends the Cu]~ Resource Over]ay District in a ]o~cal arid orderly
way, and does not create unnaUnal .boundaries between ]and uses.. The proposed
ex'tension of the ov~lay district does not create a small "pocket" or "island" of
properties with more restrictive zoning r%-mlations than the surrounding prope~es,
and thus does not constitute "spot zoning."
Land Use Issues Pertaining to Mountain 'view Drive
Z~sue: Appro×knate]y 25 percent of thc properties on Mountain .View Drive are
commercially zoned, and the perimeter of the entire block is commercially zoned.
Response:
The northmm and southern terminuses of Mountain View Drive are commercially
zoned. With thc exception of 125 Mountain View Drive, all of the commercial
pioperties adjacent to Mountain View Drive are addressed on Irxfine Boulevard or
Pirst Street Thc remainder of the block is residentially zonext.
Issue:
All commercial properties and certain residential properties al the First Street end of
Mountain View Drive have been exempted fi-om inclUSion in the proposed overlay
district
.~Esponsel
The Property at 125 Mountain View which has a '~B" rating in the City's Historical
Resources Survey, was excluded fi-om the recommended boundaries of the proposed
overlay district because it is commercially zoned (First Street Specific Plan). The
Committee provided direction to limit the proposed expansion area to residentially
zoned properties. Thc residentially zoned properties on Mountain View Drive
proposed for the expansion of the Ckdmml Resource Overlay District are surrounded
by commercially zoned properties to thc north, south, and west One prop~-m~y has
commercially zoned property (a portion of the existing trailer park) to the east A
portion of the trailer park property ex'tends through to Mountain View Drive. This
.portion is residentially zoned, but was not included within the recommended
overlay district expansion because the proposed district boundaries were drawn
along property lines and do not propose to split any prop. erties.
Culanml Resource Adx y Commili¢e Report
Expansion ofDNtfict-Zone Change 95-02
Sept¢mber g, 1'998
Page 5
Vacant raw land is slated for inclusion in the zone change.
Response:
There are vacant resid.-mtially zoned properties included wi~in the proposed district
boundaries. There is no justification to exclude these vacant prOPerties because the
purpose of.the overlay district is to protect historic resources and-the existing and
future character of the neighborhoo& O~mers of existing properties and develop=s
of vacant lots b~efit fi.om this protection.
~istoric Designation and Mills _&ct Issues
The proposed zone change qnalifies propm't5 ownm-s for participation in the Mills
Act program.
l~esponse:
The proposed overlay district has no impa~t on the historic designations of
indi~ddual structures nor on a property owner's eli~bility to participate in the City's
Mills Act pro_m-am. All residential properties cits~Sde that have received 't¢", '23"
or "C" ratings in the City's Historical Resources Survey and are not ~a.iibin
redevdopment areas are eligible for pa,-tScipation in the Mills Act pro.am.
Properties wi~in the proposed expansion area that meet these criteria are considered
by the City to be historic and are eligible.
]ssue:
The Mills Act program diverts revenue from schools for the benefit of properties
which should not merit historic designation.
Response:
The Mills Act progr'am Mil divert revenue from seX,er;al agencies including the
Tustin Unified School District, the City of Tustin and the County of Orange for the
purpose of historic preservation. The mount of revenue diverted is determined by
the Orange County Assessors Office. Eli~ble properties have been designated to be
historic by qualified professional consultants who were hired by the City to evaluate
the City's older structures and to rank these structures according to their
architectural, cultural and historical significance. Again, however, the ex'tension of
the overlay d/strict will not affect any property o~mer's right to participate in the
Mills Act program. ~
Estopvel Issues
]ssuei
The City is precluded from extending the Cultural Resource Overlay District by the
doclrine of equitable estoppel.
Response:
· Equitable estoppel is a legal doctrine closely related to the concept of vested rights.
Basically, the doctrine prevents aPerson from denying the existence of a certain set
of facts if he has intentionally led another person to both believe those facts to be
tree and to rely upon those facts to' his or her detriment. The city Attorney's office
has noted that the doctrine of equitable estoppel is a disfavored remedy against
Culm~ Resource Advis~ c6mmiuee Report
Expansion of District- Zoge Change 9g-02
September g, 1998
Page 6
public agencies, and is applied to prevent the application of zoning regulations only
in ex-~raor~ cases. The ex'tension of the Cultural Resource Overlay Dism-ict will
not interfere w/th the vested fights .of any property owners. The District regulations
do not require that existing uses be changed or modified in any way. Rather, the
regulations will apply to future development proposals, to which no property owner
has a vested ri~t
Planning Issues
The City has ,used outdated studies in planning for the proposed'zone change.
Response:
The City's Historical Resources Smwey Report, dated July 1990, recommends that
the residential area between First Street and Irvine Boulevard be considered for two
s~arate potential cultural resource districts. This recommendation for additional
cult.s-al resource districts is consistent with a policy in the Tustin General Plan,
dated February 1994, to "Study the potential expansion of the Cul~ Resource
Ox, m-lay District north of First Street to Irvine Boulevard_" The consideration of the
proposed district expansion is 'consistent with this policy and has ben based on
sound planning principles.
The I-Iistorical Resources Survey is in need of.updating to include qualified
Properties that have reached 50 years of age since 1990, and to reflect major
remodels, room additions, improvements and demolitions that have occurred since
1990. A resurvey effort has not been budgeted. At this time, the Survey is the best
comprehensive source of information on historic structures in Tustin. In smd34ng
the proposed zone change, the Survey is a satisfactory resource. It is anticipated that
property designations would not change si_maificantly in a resurvey because most
remodels and structural improvements or additions are unl/kely to warrant a change
of rating. The most significant changes would reflect demolitions and structures
that were not considered historic in 1990.
J~SSUe'.
The proposed zone ch'ange was pressed without feedback to the community
concerning financial and sociolo~cal issues.
.Response:
The Ctfltural Resource Advisory Committee conducted two informational
workshops to gather early input from the community. Approximately 50 people
attended the Workshops. More than 100 notices announc'mg the August 11, 1998
public hearing were mailed to residents and property owners. The majority of the
input received to date has been in favor of the proposed zone change. Concerns were
addressed and some issues, including economo impacts, were researched and
addressed_ In fact, no studies have shown that thc formation of an historic district
has a negative effect on property values.
.~SSUe:
The City has engaged in a predetermined plan to conduct false showings of due
diligence merely for the purpose of defending biased and unfair action in court.
Cu]rm-a] Resource Adv. ./Commirme Report
Erpansion of District- Zone Change 9g-02
Septemb~ g, 1998 .
Page 7
Response:
Thc CiD' dislribmed a questionnaire and conducted two community workshops prior
to obtaining, direction from the City Council on the proposed zone change. These
steps were taken tO ensure that the commurdty's input was considered early in the
process.
ProoenY Value and Economic Issues
The City has not conclusively established through unbiased planning the economic
flnpact of the proposed zone change.
Response:
Staffhas provided information regarding prop~-nt~y value issues and historic rtistricts.
As noted in the August ] 1, 199g staff report, srad/es have shown that property
values are improved or do not change significantly following the formation of an
kistofic d/strict No smd/es indicating a negative relafionskip have been found_
A property that is not culturally or historically si?ificant but within the overlay
d/strict would be disadvantaged and devalued because of its nonconformity.
Response:
..
Staff is not aware of any stud/es that would suggest that a property that is not
culturally or kistorically significant, but is within an kistoric d/sir/ct is
d/sadvantaged or devalue& In fact, there are many properties within the City's
.existing Cultural Resource Overlay District that are not historic. These non-historic
properties are not considered "nonconforming".
Vacant Lot and Historic Si~maificmace Issues
Jsxue:'
Response:
Issue:
Response:
What economic value and constraints on development will apply to vacant laud
which lies within a cultural overlay district?
.Vacant land within a 'cultural resource overlay d/strict would not be subject to
constraints that are significantly different from those that .apply to vacant land
elsewhere in the City. Regardless of location, the development of a vacant lot
would require desi~ma review approval by the CID'. The proposed development
would be reviewed on its own merits and in relationship to the surrounding
properties. For example, if a vacant lot were w/thin a neig. hborhood of bUngalows,
this land ,use context would be a consideration in the development of the vacant lot
regardless of the existence Of an overlay d/strict
What economic factors would apply as a whole to au entire city street comPrised of
a combination of non-culturally signiScant improvements and vacant land lying on
the outsldrts of a designated historical preservation area?
There is a higher percentage of vacant lots on Mountain View Drive than e~st on
other older residential streets in Tustin. Furthermore, of the four streets located
ChJtura] Resource Advi~ ~jdrnrn~ttee Report
Expansion ofDisnfim- zon~ Change 9g-02
Septemb~ g, 199g
.
?age 8
fs3~te:
ResponSe:
Issue:
Response:
within the proposed cultural resource district expar~on area, Mountain '~Sew Drive
contains the fewest contributing historic gtmctures; there are seven on Mountain
View Drive, ten on North "A" Street, fourteen on North "B" Street and twelve on
North "C" Street Although Mountain View Drive contains the fewest contributing
historic structures and thc most vacant lots of the four streets, the.street is ]o~cal to
include ~xdthin the proposed overlay district expansion for the follo~afing reasons:
the street is direcfly adjacent to the other three streets in the proposed district, .the
street lies within Tustin's original city limits, the street's development pattern is
similar in appearance to the other three streets, and the street was developed during
the same time period as the adjacent streets. With Mountain View Drive included,
the proposed overlay 'district would include more oft. he prop .¢rties listed in the 1990
Historical Resources Survey, and would serve as a more effective buff'er of
compaffble residential uses adjacent to commercial properties. With respect to
economic factors, studies have shown that propert'y values are ffnproved or do not
change', si~m/tfieanfly following the formation of an historic district No studies
indicating a negative relationship have been foun&
None of the properties on Mountain View Drive are associated ~xdth an historic
event or person de~,~ned duly important in the history of the nation or region, nor are
any of them associated with any particularly si~ificant aspect of the cultural,
political, or economic heritage of the community.
A_lthough Mountain View Drive is not as cohesive as North "A", '~B" and "C"
Streets because of its vacant lots and non-contributing stm. ctures, the street still is
representative of Tustin's heritage as a place where early.Tustin residents lived and
raised families. Whether this heritage is important to the community is subjective.
The-neighborhood does not embody the distinctive characteristics of any notable
architectural style, nor are the homes the product of a famous designer or builder.
None of the homes in the proposed overlay district would qualify for the National
'Register ofH. istoric Places.
In general, the homes and lots in the proposed expansion area are not as large as
those located in the existing Cul~ Resource Overlay District They also are not
as archite, ctm-ally si?ificant. In addition none of the homes in the proposed
ex~pansion area are considered to be eligible for the National Re~ster of Historic
Places. However, it is lo,cai to include Mountain View Drive within the proposed
overlay district ex~pansion for the following reasons: the street is directly adjacent to
the other three streets in the proposed district, the street lies ~xdthin Tustin's ori~nal
City limits, the s~eet's development pattern is similar in appearance to the other
three streets, and the street .was developed during the same time period as the
adjacent streets. With Mountain View Drive included, the proposed overlay district
would include more of the properties listed in the 1990 Historical Resources Survey,
and would serve as a more effective buffer of compatible residential uses adjacent to
commercial properties.
Cu]~ Resource Adx. ,y C0rnm~tt~ Report
E×-pansion of District-Zone Change 9g-02
September 8, 1998
Page 9
Public Testimony- Verbal .'Opposition
.At the Augnst 11, 1998 public hearing verbal testimony was given by six property owners, ~Sve of
whom spoke in opposition to the inclusion of Mountain View Drive within the proposed overlay
district The property owners ex-pressed concerns about additional regnlations, limkations on
vacant lot development, and impacts from adjacent commercial properties and the trailer parl~ One
resident and owner of property on '~B" Stre~t also spoke in opposition and was concerned about the
infringement on property fights and persona] autonomy and expression~ Most of these concertos are
addressed in this report or in the August ] 1,- 1998 report Issues p~Xaining to .adjacent commercial
propmxies and the trailer part are not directly pertinent to Zone Change 98-02.
In addition to recommcading approval of Zone Change 98-02 as ofiginal]y proposed, staff has
identified the folio.wing alternative courses of action the Committee can recommend or take.
o
Recommend to the Plam~g Commi,~sion approval of Zone Change 98-02 with boundaries
that include "A" Street, '~B" Street, and "C" Street, but exclude all properties on Mountain
View Drive.
.
Request thai staff conduct another written survey of the property owners and residents of
Mountain View Drive to measure support and' opposition to the proposed zone change.
.
Recommend to the Pla~n~ng Commission dexfial of Zone Change 98-02 and request that
staff prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at a subsequent meeting of the Cultural
Resource Advisory Committee.
Scott R~kstin
Associate Planner '
~~'0 Elizabeth A. Bmsac .
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
A- Letter dated Augment 10, 1998 "Petition for Relief and Exemption"
B- Letter dated August 10, 1998 ''Position Paper"
0- Draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration
D- Report dated August 11, 1998
E- Cu]~ Resource District and Potential Expansion
F- ,Area North of Cultm-al Resource Overlay District
G- Detailed map of potential ex~pansion area
Resolution No. CRAC 9g-01
· Draft Ordinance No. 1205
SR/seotthhistoric\expansion continued public h-..~ring report-doc
ATTACHMENT J
I II
Report to the
Planning Comrnission
DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1998
ITEM ~,3
SUBJECT:
ZONE CHANGE 98-002
APPLICANT:
CITY OF TUSTIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 CENTENNIAL WAY
TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOCATION:
RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES ON MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE,
"A" STREET, "B" STREET AND "C" STREET BETWEEN FIRST
STREET AND IRVINE BOULEVARD
ZONING:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) AND MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT.
PROJECT:
A REQUEST TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL TUSTIN ZONING MAP AND
APPLY THE CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE
PROPERTIES SHOWN IN ATTACHMENTA.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
]. Adopt Resolution No. 3625 recommending that the City Council approve the environmental
determination for the project; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 3626 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 98-
002.
BACKGROUND
This is a continued public hearing item from the OctOber 26, 1998 Planning Commission meeting.
The Commission continued Zone Change 98-02 to' provide staff the opportunity to address the
concerns raised at the October 26, 1998 public hearing and in two opposition letters presented to
the City on October 26, 1998 (Attachments B and C). The letters were written by a property
owner who lives within the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District expansion area.
Background information on the proposed expansion is contained in the attached Planning
Commission. Report dated October 26, 1998 (Attachment D). The following discussion focuses on
the issues presented in the two opposition letters, the public testimony received at the October 26,
1998 meeting and alternatives available to the Commission.
Planning Commission Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
November 9, 1998
Page 2
Public Testimony- Letters of Opposition
On October 26, 1998, the Community Development Department received two similar letters of
opposition from Mr. Irwin G. Gross, a resident on North B Street. The letters were transmitted to
the Planning Commission at their meeting on October 26, 1998. The issues expressed in the
property owner's letters and staff's responses are summarized below. Because some of these
issues overlap or are discussed in both letters,, the following discussion does not follow the order
in which they are presented in the opposition letters.
Takings
Issue:
Response:
Some of Mr. Gross's major contentions are that the expansion of the Cultural
Resources Overlay District restricts the use of private property, is economically
burdensome, devalues private property, constitutes a forfeiture of something of
value to the City of Tustin and constitutes a taking of private property without just
compensation.
The City Attorney's office has concluded that the proposed ordinance does not
constitute an unconstitutionaltaking. The Cultural Resource District regulations do
not require that property owners within the overlay district dedicate any property to
the City. Thus, there is no "physical" taking, of private property. Furthermore, the
Distdct regulations continue to permit economically viable uses on properties within
the overlay area. The overlay district does not change the underlying zoning
designation of any property. Thus there is no "regulatory" taking of property.
Justification/Purposefor the District expansion
Issue;
There is no compelling justification for the expansion.
Response:
As a matter of public policy, the main purpose of the expansion is to preserve a
culturally significant neighborhood within the City of Tustin in the interest of the
public welfare. Without the protective zoning overlay, the preservation of the area
proposed for the zone change could be jeopardized.
Issue:
The district expansion would not safeguard the heritage of the City.
Response:
By preserving the neighborhood, structures, sites, and features which reflect
elements of the City's heritage, the proposed zone change may safeguard
structures which complement the City's heritage.
Issue:
The educational and recreational uses of the area are likely to increase vehicular
and foot traffic. If there will be no traffic impacts, as noted in the environmental
documentation, then the educational and recreational use of the area would be
insignificant and the purpose of.the expansion would not be served.
Response:
The proposed district expansion woUld promote the use of the culturally significant
neighborhood for educational and recreational purposes. It is anticipated that the
majority of educational.and recreational visitors would traverse the neighborhood
Planning Commission Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
NoVember 9, 1998
Page 3
as part of organized walking tours once or twice a year. The environmental impact
of pedestrian traffic is insignificant and therefore is not considered in an initial study
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
Issue:
The City has failed to show that the adoption of the proposed expansion would
accomplish its stated objectives because the objectives for the adoption of a
cultural resource district are rhetorical, speculative and with no basis in fact.
Response:
Tustin City Code Section 9252 identifies eight separate items that embody the
purpose of a cultural resource district. These items were approved by the Tustin
City Council through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1001. The proposed district
expansion meets the criteria for a cultural resource district based on the evidence
contained in Resolution No. CRAC 98-01 adopted by the Cultural Resource
Advisory Committee.
Issue:
Failure to include the proposed expansion area will not result in irreparable harm to
the city at large.
Response:
One of the designation criteria adopted by the City Council for the adoption of a
cultural resource district requires that the district contribute to the well being of City
or neighborhood residents. However, the ordinance does not require that the
impacts to the city at large resulting from the failure to designate an area be
analyzed. If the proposed zone change were not approved, it is not anticipated
that there would be any short term impacts to the City. In the long term, it is
unknown whether the integrity of the neighborhood would decline and thereby
have potentially negative impacts to the well being of the City.
Issue:
Since there is no public interest, the residents should not bear the burdens of
additional restrictions. The proposed District expansion is a burden imposed on a
limited population for the benefit of a larger population.
Response:
The adoption of Zone Change 98-002 would activate the certificate of
appropriateness process in the proposed district expansion area. The process is
not burdensome because there are no additional fees, applications or processing
time. The extra level of review associated with the certificate of appropriateness is
intended to protect the character of the neighborhood and to preserve cultural
resources for the direct benefit of the neighborhood and the indirect benefit of the
City at large.
Many of the residents of the proposed expansion area have expressed strong
support for the proposed overlay district that is similar to the support that was
expressed when the existing overlay district was created. Through the past
several years, City staff have consulted with numerous residentS who are
committed to preserving Tustin's past. Furthermore, the City has talked to many
residents who are interested in the City's Mills Act Program. Residents from
throughout Tustin have expressed concern for preserving Old Town Tustin.
Planning Commission Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
November 9, 1998
Page 4
Private property rights/Freedom of expression
Issue: The' expansion of the District violates private property rights and the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression.
Response:
The proposed zone change would not hinder an individual's freedom of expression
or private property rights because it would provide for a wide range of flexibility in
the exterior architectural designs of various structures. Furthermore, there are
many instances of case law that substantiate the protection of historic structures as
a legitimate government interest.
Community and Neighborhood Attitudes toward Historic Preservation/Public input
Issue:
Mr. Gross claims that the residents of the proposed District expansion area have
no genuine concern for historic preservation or architectural accuracy; they just like
the ambiance and nostalgia and have a sentimental attachment.
Response:
Issue'.
As noted earlier in this report, concern for historic' preservation and architectural
accuracy has been expressed on many occasions. Residents also appreciate the
ambiance and nostalgia of the neighborhood and may have a sentimental
attachment to Tustin's past. These attitudes complement and support the
importance of historic preservation.
The level of community support for historic preservation is questionable given the
amount of public participation in the process.
Response:
Issue:
The level of public participation in the City's historic preservation programs has
been strong since efforts were undertaken to preserve the City's historic resources.
The community has supported historic preservation through participation in the
Old Town Tustin Charette, the Old Town Tustin Educational Video, the
establishment of 'the existing Cultural Resource District, numerous Old Town
walking tours, two pUblic workshops on the Mills Act, two public workshops on the
potential expansion of the overlay district, and a 1996 public workshop on historic
preservation. Approximately 50 people attended the workshops on the district
expansion.
The survey questions were useless, and the validity of the survey is questionable.
Response:
In September of 1997, a survey/questionnairewas mailed to 132 property owners,
residents, and other interested persons. The survey/questionnaire contained
eleven questions designed to measure community support and opposition and to
assist staff in structuring the community workshop. 31 responses were received.
27 out of 31 indicated that preserving significant historic resources is important.
Twenty-five (25) out of 31 indicated that the historic buildings in the proposed
expansion area are significant to the community. Two individuals .noted opposition
to the proposed expansion. Four (4) out of 31 noted that they were familiar with
the Certificate of Appropriateness process. (Similar in appearance to a standard
business letter, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the construction,
demolition, exterior alteration, removal or relocation of any structure within the
existing Overlay District). The survey was designed and intended .to give City
Planning Commission Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
November 9, 1998
Page 5
decision makers (i.e. the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee, the Planning
Commission and City Council) a general idea of the property owners' and
residents' views regarding historic preservation.
Historic Siqnificance
Issue:
Approximately % of the homes have marginal or no architectural or histodc
significance. They only lend context to A and B structures. These lower rated
structures will be held to a standard as if they were A and B rated.
Response:
There are seven contributing historic structures on Mountain View Drive, ten on
North "A" Street, fourteen on North "B" Street and twelve on North "C" Street. Of.
these 43 structures, 40 are "C" rated and three are "B" rated. In general, "C" rated
structures are not distinctive architecturally or historically, but are important when
grouped in districts. They lend context to "A" and "B" rated structures and to other
"C" rated structures. "C" rated strUctures are not held to the same standards as the
"A" and "B" rated structures because the "C" rated structures have fewer significant
architectural details and are of more cbmmon architectural styles.
Certificate of Appropriateness Process
Issue:
The certificate of appropriateness provides the opportunity for rejection of a permit
application and the appeal process is costly. People have accepted the process in
the existing District due .to the significant appeal fees and to avoid dealing with.
City.
Response:
One of the requirements applicable to the Cultural Resource Overlay District is the
Certificate of Appropriateness. This certificate is required prior to demolitions and
exterior alterations and improvements that require building permits. However,
Certificates of Appropriateness are not required for ordinary repairs and,
maintenance (i.e. repainting, repairing mortar joints, fixing roof leaks, installing rain
gutters). The Certificate of Appropriateness process serves to protect the
character of the district by requiring that alterations or improvements are
appropriate and harmonious with the neighborhood.
The Community Development Director has the authority to approve, approve with
conditions, or deny Certificates of Appropriateness and may consult with and
receive the advice and recommendation of the Cultural Resource Advisory
Committee prior to rendering a decision. The Director's decision is appealable to
the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. There is no fee for an
appeal of a certificate of appropriateness. The certificates are processed
concurrently with plan review/permit issuance and design review, if applicable.
Property Values
Issue:
The property value study in the City of Orange is unrealistically old and is based on
structures that are of much greater architectural interest than the historic resources
in Tustin. There is no demonstration of enhanced property values.
Planning Commission Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
November 9, 1998
Page 6
Response:
Staff has provided information regarding property value issues and historic
districts. As noted in the October 26, 1998 staff report, studies have shown that
property values are improved or do not change significantly following the formation
of an historic district. No studies indicating a negative relationship have been
found. The example from the City of Orange was provided to demonstrate the
impact of the formation of a local historic district on property values. It was not
meant to imply that Tustin and Orange have identical historic districts or that the
same relationship between historic districts and property values would definitely
occur in Tustin. Any study would be based on data from past years and would be-
subject to market volatility.
Design and Aesthetics
]ssue:
Improvements not in accordance with the Design Guidelines could enhance the
visual appeal of a home or neighborhood.
"Matters of style and aesthetics, however, are too subjective for consistent, uniform
application, and the guidelines cannot presume to cover all that creative minds can
invent."
Response:
One of the purposes of a cultural resource district is to enhance the visual and
aesthetic character, diversity of architectural styles and aesthetic appeal of the
City. The Residential Design Guidelines for the Cultural Resource District were
approved by the City Council and are purposely designed to allow property owners
flexibility in making improvements that would enhance the aesthetics of the City. In
cases of poorly maintained or significantly altered properties, an improvement
which is inconsistent with the Guidelines could be considered by some to be an
improvement over what previously existed: However, the improvement would not
be the best approach according to the Design Guidelines. The Guidelines were
developed by qualified design professionals hired by the City and reviewed by City
staff who had expertise and credentials in historic preservation. The Guidelines
were not intended to address every design possible; they were meant to offer
appropriate alternatives for a wide range of improvements to historic homes.
/ssue:
Mr. Gross refers to a recent major residential remodel project which he says has
caused considerable dismay in the neighborhood. According to Mr. Gross, "City
staff 'dropped the ball in the approval process, that is a staff problem to be
corrected in-house, not at neighborhood expense."
Response:
The major remodel at 145 North B Street is an excellent example of a project
involving an historic residence that received design review approval, but was not
required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness because the property is not
located within the overlay district. The findings for a certificate.of appropriateness
are more specific than the design review findings with respect to the
appropriateness of scale and placement. If the property were in the overlay district
and therefore were required to obtain a certificate of appropriateness, it is possible
that the City would have required some alterations to the design of the project.
Planni,ng Commission Report
Expansion of District- Zone Change 98-02
November 9, 1998
Page 7
Public Testimony
At the October 26, 1998 public hearing, verbal testimony was given by four property owners. The
two property owners in opposition expressed concerns about additional regulations, First
Amendment violations, the infringement on property rights and personal autonomy and
expression, and the quality of the historic homes in the neighborhood. These concerns are
addressed in this report or in the October 26, 1998 report and attachments. A petition containing
the signatures of eleven (11) property owners on Mountain View Ddve representing a total of eight
(8) properties within the proposed expansion area was submitted to the Planning Commission to
urge the exclusion of Mountain View Drive. The two property owners .in support of the zone
change noted that many other residents are in support and that the zone change is a small step
toward preserving the neighborhood.
Alternatives
In addition to recommending approval of Zone Change 98-02 as originally proposed, staff has
identified the following alternative courses of action the Commission can recommend or take.
,
Recommend that the City Council approve Zone Change 98-02 with boundaries that
include "A" Street, "B' Street, and "C" Street, but exclude all properties on Mountain View
Drive, and recommend that staff prepare an alternative resolution of approval for adoption
at a subsequent meeting of the Planning Commission.
.
Recommend that the City Council deny Zone Change 98-02 and request that staff prepare
a resolution of denial for adoption at a subsequent meeting of the Planning Commission.
Scott Reekstin
Associate Planner
~.~Eliza'bet~ A. Binsac
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
A- Detailed Map of Proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District
B- Letter dated September'8, 1998 w/cover letter dated October 26, 1998
C- Letter dated October 26, 1998
D- Report dated October 26, 1998 w/attachmentsA through L
E- Resolution Nos. 3625' and 3626
F- Draft Ordinance No. 1205
pcreport~zc98-O02 continued scr.doc
ATTACHMENT K
31 Aug 98
EXTENSION OF HISTORIC OVERLAY DISTRICT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Members of the Cultural Resorces Advisory Committee, ! am her~ to 'Voice my support for the
expansion of the overlay district into the neighborhoods 'north of First Street, because ! believe
that three important considerationS have been satisfied:
1)
2)
3)
firstly, it is completely legal in accord with state and federal law;
secondly, our neighborhood is worthy of our respect and preservation efforts, and
lastly,
the potential negative impacts are negligible and predictable.
! offer the following statement in support of this conclusion:
2.0 LEGAL BASIS
2.1 Legal Basis for Land-use Regulation Generally
As a professional architect, I often encounter clients unfamiliar with the legal framework of
planning, zoning and community development law. Indeed, it is mY observation that a good deal
of the legal history of planning law is the result of frustrated landowners perceiving themselves
halted or stifled in their attempts to exercise what they believe is their god-given right to do
whatever they please, whenever it pleases them.
There seems to be a widespread notion that only landowners have the moral and legal authority
to judge when their property should be developed or altered, and specifically how it should be
accomplished. While 1 don'[ wholeheartedly support this point of view, i nonetheless understand
where it comes from.
Contrary to popular belief, it is a long settled area of law that the power of landuse regulation can
be exercised for a wide variety of public health, safety or ~elfare reasons. One such public
welfare reason is aesthetics. Make no 'mistake about it, if the proposed extension of the overlay
district is approved by city council, it will affect the character of the neighborhood by controlling
the way things look.
2.2 HiStory of Aesthetics-based Regulation
The power of a community to control its character by means of design review and other aesthetic-
based regulations is nothing new, Since at least 1954.in the U.S. Supreme court decision in
Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26 (1954), courts have upheld the .constitutionality of laws and
ordinances'based on aesthetics. In its 9-0 decision, the court in the Berman case cleady
articulated the notion that the concept of public welfare is broad enough to include aesthetics, and
clearly stated that aesthetics are a legitimate public purpose for which government may regulate.
if the desire is to keep government off our lawns, ultimately this is a political decision and not a
legal one.
'In spite of this half-century old decision and at least a half dozen other significant Supreme Court
decisions that have followed, there remain many vocal critics of aesthetics based regulations.
These critics argue:
1) that aesthetic considerations are matters'of luxury - and not necessities;
2) they argue that beliefs about what is beautiful are merely matters Of individual taste
and preference; and lastly,
3) they argue that aesthetic regulations lack objective standards necessary for uniform
implementation, and thus are too arbitrary.
On each of these points, they are simply wrong.
3.0 CONTEXTUALISM
3.1 Many of those who ha'~e voiced opposition, have been very vocal in their criticism of the
way things are today, and are adamant that this ordinance wont[ change things that really matter.
Admittedly this ordinance will not eliminate illegal activities such prostitution and drug-dealing.
Neither will it eliminate the inherent conflict that occurs when residential properties adjoin busy
commercial uses, such as occurs along First Street and irvine Blvd. Nonetheless, by voting
against the oveday district, we are in fact voting for the status quo by refusing to make change. I
see no point whatsoever, in voting for the status quo, if in fact that is precisely what is offensive.
Let's do something to begin a process of change, it may take time - but as the saying goes, "a
journey .of a thousand miles begins with that first step".
3.2 The notion that buildings should be mindful of their neighbors, this notion of appropriate fit - '
called contextualism in the professional jargon, inevitably raises questions of conformity versus
those of artistic freedom and' individual expression. Undoubtedly, each property in the
neighborhood is a fragment of a larger whole, part of a larger context. And it is precisely the
delicate relationship between individual buildings and the big picture that the Tustin historic
oveday ordinance attempts to grapple with. Often times, buildings are sevedy criticized by the
general public, because their size, shape, geometry or color, do not blend with the immediate
surroundings. The very existence of this criticism means that some notion of Contextualism is
already at work in the mind of the general 'public, however vaguely understood or awkwardly
expressed it may be. The decision to conform to socially accepted norms, or to challenge them
may be in part an aesthetic decision, but it is primarily a political choice.
The extension of the overlay district will not seek to impose a specific "official" style, nor will it
attempt to extinguish any particular style that now exists. The City's use of the "Residential
Design Guidelines" as the standard for design-review, specifically recognizes and encourages
stylistic diversity. This proposed ordinance is a middle-ground strategy between the two extremes
of a tidy little wodd made up of cookie-cutter homes with everyone thinking and doing '.exactly the
same thing on cue, and the slash and bum free-for-all where virtually everything of value is
eventually destroyed. Aesthetic regulation is not an "all or nothing" proposition. By supporting the
expansion of the overlay district into our neighborhood we are not inviting big government into
our lives to micro-manage every last ounce of stylistic minutiae. Property owners, whether they
believe it or not, will retain stylistic choices.
3.3 Many have wondered exactly what, if anything, in this neighborhood is worth preserving?
While our neighborhood may not be a museum full of glorious text-book examples of historic
period styles, masterfully created, artfully displayed & meticulously maintained in pristine
condition, we nonetheless live in desirable community with ali the aesthetic benefits that matudty
entails. I believe that adoption of the i-iistoric oveday is a good means towards preserving what
we now have.
Furthermore, adopting 'the historic oveday will set a standard of excellence for future growth and
change. It will also set a precedence for remodels, additions and new construction that is far
more likely to elevate the overall character of the neighborhood in the long-term, than staying the
present course and doing nothing. ! find it deeply ironic that liberals and conservatives alike
complain bitterly about the lack of achievement standards in society at large, and then 'recoil in
fear or desperation when they have the opportunity to actually implement standards.of excellence
in their own frontyards.
.! am deeply concerned that the neighborhood will not seize the opportunity now before it, and that
ten or twenty years from now future landowners and residents will be wondering what we were
thinking. Individual landowners and tenants come and go. On A Street alone, at least a half-
dozen homes have sold since my wife and i purchased seven years ago. This neighborhood will
endure in spite of itself. We owe it to ourselves at least to maintain the standard of quality we
have now, even if the idea of saving this neighborhood for future generations of landowners and
residents is not a motivating force. If the desire is to keep government out of our lives and off our ·
lawns, we must acknowledge frankly that this. is ultimately a politically-motivated decision and not
an aesthetically motivated one.
4.0 POTENTIAL ADVERSE AFFECTS
As far as potential adverse effects are concemed,- the number one concem of the neighborhood
is the possibility of radical property devaluation directly as a result of the proposed ordinance.
While I have satisfied myself through numerous conversations with real estate professionals, that
this is in fact a remote possibility at best, it is only fair to acknowledge that ianduse regulation, by
its very nature, has an impact on the monetary value of real property. Sometimes favorable to the
landowner, and sometimes less so. in any event, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for at
least the last twenty years, that aesthetic regulation is not a "[aking"' of private property in
violation of the 5th Amendment, as long as the regulation substantially advances legitimate public
interests, and it does not deny an owner economically viable use of their land. Fluctuations in
value due to govemment regulation are "incidents of ownership", not unlike Other forces active in
the marketplace, in order to be considered a ."taking" the regulation must do more than simply
lower property values, it must be so restrictive as to deprive the owner of all viable use of the
property.
IN CONCLUSION:
! would like the public record to show that ! am not now and have never been a member of the
psychic friends network, however i honestly believe that we can predict most, if not all, of the
consequences of this ordinance and that they will be either highly beneficial to ourselves and to
future landowners and residents at best, or at worst negligible. Accordingly, ! encourage
members of the committee to recommend to city council that our neighborhood by included into
the historic overlay district. Thank you.
ATTACHMENT L
for excrdsn
owners
zonlrl
·
· .: :' '-'f · _ %
· -. /.: .:?~.i.~:~:. ?;,ZONE ~HANGE 9~02; E~~SION OF C~T~L n~.~aTmV~ nTC~~
~. ~..:?~".'~.--~..;:': ~. We, ~e res~nden~ ~n ~e above tltl~ ~tmn- bein~ th~ le~l'h~nd ~o~on'~2~'Xe';znC
· '~ ~{~:: h'~-:~ °-P-~0{~ t02~ ~P0!u~~°n 0~Moun~m %ew Drive ~n Zone Chanee 95-02'. E~a~m~'?~(
· -,-L~,.: 7 -'.'.Tr,5-, ~' '"~;~5 · .~.~: .9~-'E~%~'e ~ce't'?:.'..'' ~'~-?:.'~"- ,~.'.~'~;'~ ~Y'~¢ e ..... <.'.,~); .,:.~' : '.'/~ .':.~7 ~ -::.'.t; .- :, ~.~,~tC.,
~. ~" "_ t-, ~'.""~k ~ '~,~" . ~' ,:~ci :~.~ ~z~:-.,~t~'~ ~:'-:-;'" <:% .'~..' "~ .':- '.~'.:C~- ?~ ~., -~'.' .... ",' - .-;':,~ .'..,' .'",7,.'/~'.:c:-' . -.
',¢" ",-' ,~',. <, .":'vj*':.<~,~*'~.-;.,~,,- -'.-)~'-'~ .': .' 't-,~:' :-:~" -_: ;¢;':'.,~;'--.~-,.'~.'* ,'~ .:.-,,~-'.~".'.',", ,..-. ~r:~:':~.-.:,"~'-,..~ -
- '-,.-. ',.',, .- '-_~-- ~.' '~.'" ,..- -. -.z,"" ",--
~,'-"~.. ~'.'.. .,,.~..: ,',,.,..~ · .;.. . -' . ..-'~-~.-~,-.,.' · 'l~.. .... ,,, - .,. . ,- _. .... ~ · -~.~ . . - ~ ,:'%-'~. .-'-. .... ..
) ~--: "'::',' '~ '-:'.'"'~':"~ -": ::'~ ;.;:: ' ' "-:"~? '~' ~I
,:'.'~"-.,.":'. ~. :-~..--'~~~.:.:..;.;:-,:,.r~.-'..'; ::"'-.--~--'-" ,. ,--~~~ ~~_~; · -.'%..'1~ ' .~
' * '. ': ..... ~... '..".' ~ -~' L:". tt:,"~' ' - ',':,,- , ,, '2~.. I ~ ' ;' ..'.....~, . ,- ~: .... '.t i ' ' ."" ~'~.. : .- . , '. ,'
' ~':~ '..- -4-- ' "n -~ '~-~ ' ~C '7 .' ..... ~.. .' ','-'..' '~ ' .., ' ' ' ~ '7 . ., . . ' I - ~',-- - ,.::I:Y'..".. . ' ' ; .
. .;-...: .~'..-. ~~~.:'"'~.' ~:.... - . ... : .... .. . .:' ,., .'.: ~: . ~ ~.- ,...,~. · ...~:~ ~ ...'", ...... · ...
'.." L '.'.' ,';'. ' .~:'~..~.'-.. "-. '...-' , _ '-- .'. ,.- - . : ..'. · ... ,.- ".~. :- -'. ~ ". ,~:-' "-, :. ,~ ' }- ~ _. '. - ' · '
~:,~..,' ,.. .,.',~'.".. ~ ~ ....... ... ~.., ~..'. . . '- , " : .. ~ '...~. ...:~ :, .~ ,,,..:~¥:~'~-.: ~-~t. ;; ', ~ .',~ ',,~..' ',:':- ~.,~. ' '... .
· -. . '.,
, above' facsimile of. Signatur'es of'the o~vners of 145 MOuntfiin View Drive and .' - ..',~-" '
:i'i i,-'~' ,- ....':. ,!35 Mountain View DriVe are genhine and thai s'~d owners, shall ::'-:i..
':;i,. .-.' verifyiarne:''': '..'." 'i'::'::': :":":" ' ':.'" .'. ".-'-...' ":"~",-'.::' ~--'.. ',':';;:~.?: . ',-:?."-': '": ' '. '- ,,
' .': '- '- '~" : ' :'.- . :'."- " -' ' : '~.-- ' ',.,, * ' ", ' .:e ~'-~:. ..~'~'-' '~-~',, ,
. '-..: ".- .' :. ' ' '" ' ' ' ," · :; ".:','7':.'/' :."~ ..; :.5;.- .': '~r;,~. j., "A~'~% -.., ..-.-.j:At.:~:;;,. ~'.-' ,..- ~;: .: ~.'t .... ,:....':
........ .... Subnutted 10/11/1998 at Tust~n. Cahfi · - .............. ' ..... ..: ......... , ..... ........... ·
-;.:{ .... ' ' ". ..... ..,... ' -',' '".... * .; .' --.";.: i ' " ~ ' "'"'~" ' ' ~ ~'~~/~' '"~ ~: ''''{''-- ':~.. : ,; .:~.27 ;~:'-,~'..;.; ~". - ~ .. :.. v/-,' ....
'.."~: - ,;.'- : ;-:...-...: '_..',;~:.., ~-.-~..;."' ',.::"' : :.. :::... --, ../,,~ .....',',.\..;
-:.'..: .: V:'.,.... :.,....., '..'. '. '.' .-.-.,,:' '-- ,:..- _,,a~,,,,, ~,, .... "----~--"~.,,+
'" :~' ',:".':..:'~'.::'" ''"' '~' '. '-':' -'-': "- ::-" :..':' ? ? :'- "/:'-':~: ::~-:' C~ ~,)"~::.': "0..~...,,., ...'~ '::, ..~,~',;: _:: '.'.:,.: ~. -. ' .
;.,':-', "'- .... ?."'" .:~; .... ' .... . -" . ..~'- ". -.- ' ~ ;.' ,;" ..~.""'"--,-t; ~ ,' .- ::.: . ---~"~.'iS,':~'"c?~- c,.~... . .. . ,.,. ·
':":"." ':..,.: ..': :-," . '"".::-... ~:.,-':. '-"...'",:., ~ "...,"-t",:' ' -'::-.' .i':.. 'i; .... "'.' ::'.'"' ;'" '.,~:'. '?!7. i': '"::~-":'.~'-.':/~''" ::',".;?/.:" ". ": ,.,
· ' ' ~"' .... .". ~ ,. ''. , :'.'~ - ' · . -" "' .-" '- ,~' . . .: :'' ''~ '
,. . -. ~. . ' . ,. ."~ . .' . '.. '. . ' . · .- . '. ,.. .', . . .,,,. ,' . . ."'".':iv"t ~.- . '~ ,, , . .
.,% . , · ; , ., . . , .. -, . . . - . · . . , . -., ./-,, .~, ,,, ,,,
:. . . .-..', .. , ,:. ..,-..'.. · . . - .. '.... ·; , ' . .. . - ,. . . _., ':,....%' . /~.,"::o,' ,. . , ~ ;, .
.--.: ~' '" *- ' ' '; ' ." ' '. '· · ' ' "~" ' -.''" '.: ' ": , .: ' ',~', ~'~' '" ' t'' . '.- ' -
~ '' . - ,':" ' A'-" ,'; ' ?-'"',' "- , '', ~ - ' ' ~? " -'~'.- ' : ~. · :,' '- '"~.'- ' ,~:' /;'~.-' ? ' ;' - ' ·
.". ' ' -~,. - ' . . ." · , - ' , ,,"' .' '.' "..-' . . · .;:'. ,' ,t. ' -.-'
,', , " -- , ' ..... ~ ' - · -.:? .--:. ;. : ' ' "'.' ' - ~ , ::-.'.Z ~ '-':?':,;"..~'~ · ?'. --' .'-'" ,,-'-.~."
· '" ' .~.. ' " .' . - ': -: "-' · '- ' 't' '' ' '. ' "' '- '. . ' ;7 ' .'..: '~,"~:"':~..'.. ','';/,:-?,,. '. " .'..:'-" '..;
· . , ,-~, . ,. - . . . , .- '.~ ' - - ' * -'' / ~.,a~ - z; . .'. ^, t. - ., , ·
· :- ~ '~' .-" : '",'~ ' ~ ' '" ' ' "'.'.-' ' ~ '" '-i-" . :':' .'.""' ,-:.';': '':'' : ' . '-.,'. ~'"L'~,"
. ".,-'. · . · ~
, . - . . / : . . . .. ~ , -., . . , ,, - . ;.~ · , .... : . . .- . · ..
. . , - , , _,, . t ,-: .-'.·,
"' · - . - ' , · ' - .... - c. ' - ...... '" ,' '. -, .- ,. . ' '
, . ' ' ' ; "'- ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '-? ' :' ~' "'" ' " .... '?;": ..": .~ ":~";' "',~3' -:' - ' '
,- . , . . .. . - . -..-,, . ,. - ,
:'5:' · .'.
-: ,' ,,5..-'., .t '.i ,, -_.
·
.
ATTACHMENT M
CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
AUGUST 11, 1998
Members Present:
lan Donn; Brent Ferdig, Bill Hockenberry, Linda Jennings,
John Sauers
Members Absent:
None
Others Present:
Elizabeth Binsack, Rita Westfieid, Minoo Ashabi, Scott
Reeksfin, KathY Martin
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:31 p.m.
Consent Calendar
None
Public Concerns
None.
Public Hearings
1. ZONE CHANGE 98-02: EXPANSION OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT
Recommendation
That the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee:
1. Conduct a public hearing;
.
Adopt Resolution No. CRAC 98-01 recommending that the Planning Commission
'recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 98-002.
Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner, presented the subject report..
Jennifer Shumar, 175 Mountain View, spoke in opposition to the inclusion of Mountain
View in the expansion.
Cultural Resources :Advisory Committee Minutes
Potential District Expansion
August 11', 1998
Page 2
Michael Cook, 155 Mountain View, stated his' plan to expand an existing structure and
does not wish to be limited by more regulations.
Pat Jarrett, 163 Mountain View, stated that 163 Mountain View is a vacant lot and does
not wish the City to control the type of building constructed on the vacant-property.
Becky Rauland, 140 Mountain View, stated that being part of the overlay would not be an
asset and is opposed.
Irwin Gross, 125 N. B Street, stated 'that the expansion has the potential to 'be
burdensome in terms of time and expense and the City's interest in private property is
unjustifiable.
Karen Crouch, stated that she wishes to preserve her home for the neighborhood, that
the only structure rated "B" has been excluded, that the trailer park and commercial
properties have been excluded, and that she is opposed to the expansion.
Elizabeth Binsack noted that staff received two position papers from Mr. James Shumar
that reference litigation which have been forwarded to' the City Attomey and
recommended that the Committee continue the hearing to September 8, 1998 at 5:30
p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
Committee member Jennings moved. Committee member Sauers seconded, to
continue the hearing to September 8, 1998 at .5:30 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers. Motion carried 5-0.
Committee member Jenninas inquired if after the expansion there would be a different
standard than already exists for building on the vacant lot. ·
The Director indicated that there Would be no change as design standards would be
reviewed whether in the overlay district or not.
Committee member Jenninas asked staff to prepare the environmental documentation for
the next hearing.
The Director stated that staff would provide a draft document for the Committee but
traditionally do not provide the environmental documentation to the Committee because
they are not an approving body.
Cultural Resources Advisory-Committee Minutes
Potential Distdct Expansion
August 11, 1998
Page 3
Elizabeth Binsack explained the public hearing process for the residents'in the audience.
COMMITTEE CONCERNS
'None
The. meeting was adjourned at 6:5'1 p.m
minut~.s~CRAC0sgBminutes.cloc
ATTACHMENT N
DRAFT
· CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
Members Present:
lan Donn, Brent Ferdig, Linda Jennings
Members Absent:
Bill Hockenberry, John Sauers
Others Present:
Elizabeth Binsack, Rita Westfieid, Scott Reeksfin
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:31 p,m.
Public Concerns
None
Consent Calendar
1. Minutes of the Auqust 11. 1998 (5:30 p.m.) Cultural Resource Advisory Committee
Meetin.q.
o
Vice-chairperson Jennings moved, Committee member Donn seconded, to
approve the minutes.
Minutes of the Auoust 11.1998 (6:30 p.m.) Cultural Resource AdvisOry Committee
Meeting..
Vice-chairperson Jennings
approve the minutes.
moved, Committee member Donn seconded', to
Public Hearings
1. ZONE CHANGE 98-02: F_XPANSION OF CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT
Recommendation
That the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee:
Cultural Resources Advisory_ Committee Minutes
Potential Distdct Expansion
September 8, 1998
Page 2
DP AFT
1. Conduct a public hearing;
o
Adopt Resolution No. CRAC 98-01 recommending that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 98-002.
Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner, presented the subject report_
Committee member Donn asked if the three alternatives presented in the staff report
would require.a majority consensus of the Committee.
Staff noted that a majority vote would be required and that a denial would require
preparation of an alternative resolution and a second meeting.
The Director clarified that a majority of a quorum would be required.
Chairperson Ferdiq asked staff to give more details about the exclusion of Mountain View
Drive and whether this exclusion would affect contiguity and boundaries.
Staff noted that the staff report provided an analysis and justification for including
Mountain View Drive based on its adjacent location to the other streets in the proposed
expansion area, its resources, ' and its location within Tustin's original City limits. The
denial alternative was presented in.resl~onse to the opposition letters received and to give
the Committee some options.
The Director added that the Council was desirous of moving forward with the proposal if
people in the expansion area were in favor of the proposal, but was not in favor if the
residents were opposed. This direction should be .considered in making a
recommendation on this-item.
· .
Rick Fox., 170 N. -"A" Street, spoke in support of the proposed overlay district expansion
for three reasons: it is completely legal and in accordance with state and federal law; the
neighborhood is worthy of respect and preservation efforts; and the potential negative
impacts are negligible and predictable. Mr. Fox read a prepared statement that was
submitted for inclusion in the record.
Irwin Gross, 125 N. "B" Street, spoke in opposition-to the proposed overlay district
expansion. Mr. Gross indicated that he. had prepared a written presentation, but had
difficulties printing the document. He questioned the legality of the project, but
acknowledged that the City is permitted to have zoning laws. Mr. Gross mentioned that
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes
Potential District Expansion
September 8, 1998
Page 3
D AFT
the overlay district is not necessary, agreed that the past should be respected,
acknowledged that there are some cases where, modifications have been inappropriate,
and suggested that changes be made to the approval process and the definition of new
construction. Mr. Gross stressed that the historic buildings are people's homes, and that
the process has depersonalized the entire neighborhood in which people express their
independence. He expressed the opinion that commercial businesses should be subject
to the same aesthetic considerations as the residences.
..
The Director commented that if Mr. Gross submitted comments after the meeting that
those comments could be considered by the Planning Commission, but would not be a
part of the record for the subject m~ting.
Jenny Shumar, 175 Mountain View Drive, expressed her gratitude for the response to her
husband's concerns and the efforts at bringing the public together to provide input and be '
part of the process. Ms. Shumar agreed that preservation is important and wants to
maintain her property and sense-of community. She noted that people move to the older
neighborhoods for a reason and that many are the grandchildren of previous owners and
have pride in their homes. Ms. Shumar urged the Committee to exclude Mountain View
Drive.
Carol 'Fox, 170 N. "A" Street, explained that She is an architect who specializes in custom
homes. Ms. Fox indicated that she is comfortable with the Design Guidelines and the
· building permit process in Tustin and gave an example of a project she worked on in the
existing Cultural Resource District where she was able to obtain approvals quickly and
found the Design Guidelines easy to work with. Msl Fox mentioned that property Values
could affect refinancing, adding onto, or selling a home. Therefore, she did her own
research, spoke with three 'appraisers, one of whom speculated that the formation of the
district would not change prope,ffy values and two of whom felt that there would be an
increase, if any change at all. in 'Orange, values are higher within their district. Ms. Fox
also spoke with realtors who said their buyers want historic homeS, because of their
charm. Referring to a recent article in the Los. Angeles Times, Ms. Fox noted that
homebuyers should look at the neighborhood before the house. Ms. Fox presented a
hypothetical example of two homes on two different streets where one was negatively
impacted by a neighboring house. She expressed her support for incorporating the
neighborhood into the historic district.
T.T_~rina Casey, 168 N. "A" Street, noted that she moved to .her home because of the
neighborhood charm. She mentioned that some of the more neglected homes are
bringing the neighborhood down. Ms. Casey stressed that the historic homes cannot be
DRAFT
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes
Potential District Expansion
September 8, 1998
Page 4
rebuilt, that an overlay is needed, and that preservation is needed for future generations.
.Pat Jarrett, 1903 Goidenwest, .Santa Aha, representing 163 MOuntain View, spoke in
opposition to the inclusion of Mountain view Drive in the expansion area. Ms. Jarrett
indicated that the City asked her to remove and replace her garage at 163 Mountain
View. Ms. Janet had the garage and house demolished. She now owns a vacant lot that ·
she is unable to sell.-
Chairperson Ferdig closed the public hearing.
Vice-chaimerson Jenninos commented that the public testimony falls in three categories:
property values, historic integr'rby especially on Mountain View Drive, and .vacant lots.
· According to Committee member Jennings, research has shown that historic districts
bring stability to property values; the Certificate of Appropriateness is strictest for higher
rated structures; and a home built on a vacant lot in the histodc distdct would be subject
to the same requirements as other homes and would be able to be financed.
..
Committee member Dorm noted, .based on the materials, discussion and opinions
presented, that the expansion area should not be reduced in size; that there is some'
historical-significance in the underlying boundaries of the area; and that he supports a
positive recommendation on the expansion.
Committee member Jenninqs moved, ChairpersOn Ferdig seconded, to ·
recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zone Change
98-002. Motion carried 3-0.
The Director noted for the benefit of the public that there will be public hearings before the
Planning Commission and City Oouncil which will provide more opportunity for public
input; all documentation submitted to the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council; additional testimony may be
submitted prior to each public hearing; and each public headng Will be noticed.
· Chain~erson Ferdiq asked how the public could contact staff about the date for the next
public hearing.
Staff responded that the contact person is Scott Reekstin at 573-3016.
The Director added that everyone in the proposed expansion area, and within 300 feet,
will receive a notice in the mail from the City. The public hearings before the Planning
Cultural Resources Advisory Committee Minutes
Potential District Expansion
September 8, 1998
Page 5
DRAFT
Commission and City Council will commence at 7:00 p.m.
Staff Concerns
Non~
Committee Concerns
None
The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m
minutes~.RACD998minutes, doc
ATTACHMENT O
Planning Commission Min
·
October 26, 1998
Page 5
underlying residential zoning district. The location is the area within the Cultural
Resources Overlay District Boundary.
APPLICANT:
CITY OF TUSTIN
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission'
a.
Adopt Resolution No. 3621 approving the environmental determination for the
project, and;
b.
Adopt Resolution No.-3622 recommending that the City Council approve COde
Amendment 98-004.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:50 p.m.
Minoo. Ashabi, Assistant Planner presented the subject report.
The Director stated that this code amendment would allow R-3 properties to develop a
minimum number of units based on the lot size where they currently may only develop a
single family residence .and further' noted that the Cultural Resources Advisory.
Committee considered the issue and recommended the Planning Commission's
approval.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:53 p.m.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Jones seconded, to adopt
Resolution No. 3621 approving the environmental determination for 'the project.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner
Resolution No. '3622 recommending that the
Amendment 98-004. Motion carried 5-0.
Jones seconded, to adopt
City Council approve Code
5. Zone Change 98-002 a request to amend the official Tustin zoning map and apply
the Cultural Resource Oveday Distdct to the properties shown in Attachment A. The
location .is residentially zoned properties on Mountain View Drive, "A" Street, "B" Street
and "C" Street between First Street and Irvine Boulevard.
APPLICANT:
.
Ci'i'~ OF TUSTIN ,'-
COMMUNITY DEvELoPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission:
Planning Commission Mi
October 26, 1998
Page 6
·
a.
Adopt Resolution No. 3625 recommending that the City Council approve the
environmental determination for the project; and
bo
Adopt Resolution No. 3626 recommending that the City Council approve Zone
Change 98-002.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:54 p.m.
Scott Reekstin, Associate Planner presented the subject report.
Irwin Gross, 125 N. 'B' St., stated his concerns wi;~h the City taking away the rights of
property owners by including their neighborhood in the Cultural Resources Advisory
District.
Jennifer Shumar, 175 N. Mountain View, stated her oPposition to the City including
Mountain View Avenue in the Cultural Resources District and presented a petition to
the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Davert inquired about the impact to homes that are not rated as historic.
Scott Reekstin stated that a certificate of appropriateness would be processed in
conjunction with a building permit.
Commissioner Davert asked how a certificate of appropriateness is processed.
Scott Reekstin responded that staff uses the Residential Design Guidelines and the
architectural classification of the home to match materials.
Ruth Echevarria, 138 Mountain View, s~ated her approval of extending the overlay
district and it would be a benefit to the neighborhood.
Carol Fox, 170 N. 'A' St., staled that she is in favor of extending the overlay district and
a majority of the residents on A Street are in agreement. ..
The Public Hearing closed at 8:14 p.m.
: ..
The Commission called for a continuation to allow staff sufficient time to respond to the
letters presented before the Commission.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Jones .seconded, to continue the
hearing to the November 9, ~,1998 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried
.5-0.
REGULAR BUSINESS:
ATTACHMENT P
Planning Commission Mi~
November 9, 1998
Page 3
Commissioner Jones indicated his concern with the appearance of the fence and was
desirous of a meandering fence.
The Director responded that the cost would be raised for the applicant but staff can take a
closer look at the landscaping plan to ensure a variety of plants and heights are used to
soften the appearance.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:06 p.m.
Commissioner Kozak moved, Commissioner Jones seconded, to approve Variance
98-004 by adopting Resolution No. 3627 with Condition 2.2 revised as follows:
"A landscaping plan shall be submitted subject to approval by the Community
Development Department. The plan shall depict a variety of plant material at
varying heights, but not limited to trees, shrubs and groundcover to soften
appearance and add visual interest to the wrought iron fence. At a minimum, five
(5) 15 gallon size trees and five (5) gallon shrubs at five feet on center shall be
provided for the four foot area between the fence and sidewalk."
Motion carried 5-0.
Zone Chanqe'98-002 a request to amend the official Tustin zoning map and apply
the Cultural Resource Overlay District to the properties shown in Attachment A.
The project consists of the residentially zoned properties on Mountain View Drive,
"A" Street, "B" Street and "C" Street between First Street and Irvine Boulevard.
The project is zoned for Single Family Residential (R-l) And Multiple. Family
Residential (R-3).
APPLICANT:
CITY OF TUSTIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Recommendation
That the Planning Commission:
ao
Adopt Resolution No. 3625 recommending that the City Council approve the
environmental determination for the project; and
b,
Adopt Resolution No. 3626 recommending that the City Council approve Zone
Change 98-002.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:08 p.m.
Planning Commission Minu
November 9, 1998
Page 4
Scott Reekstin presented the subject report.
Irwin Gross, 125 N. B Street, spoke about first amendment issues and the fact that he
would like to make improvements to his home but believed he would be restricted by the
guidelines.
Chairperson Pontious inquired if Mr. Gross had presented any plans to City staff.
Irwin Gross stated his concerns about the commercial property next door.
Linda Jennings, Cultural Resources Advisory Committee member and resident, stated
· her support for the expansion of the district to protect the City's historic resources.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:16 p.m.
Commissioner Davert indicated that he had researched the issue, spoke with the Cultural
Resources Advisory Committee and is very enthusiastic about the project.
Commissioner Browne stated that he did not support the project.
Commissioner Kozak stated his support of the project and noted that the underlying
zoning would not change.
Commissioner Jones stated that he believed the regulations are flexible and supports the
project.
Chairperson Pontious stated her support for the project.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Jones seconded, to adopt Resolution
No. 3625 recommending that the City Council approve the environmental
determination for the project. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Davert moved, Commissioner Jones seconded, to adopt Resolution
No. 3626 recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 98-002.
Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Browne was opposed.
4~
Conditional Use Permit 97-028 And Design Review 97-036 a request to demolish
an existing bank building and establish a 4,000 square foot fast food restaurant
with drive-thru operations within a commercial center. The project is located at
14601 Red Hill Avenue within the Central Commercial (C-2) zoning district.
OWNER/
JILL RICHTER
RICHTER FARMS TRUST
ATTACHMENT Q
COMMUNrI~ DEVELOPM'EN~r DEP)d:~~~
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA ~780
~]4) ~7s-s]oo
NEGATIVE DECLAP TION
Project Tide: Zone Change 98-002
Project Location: Mountain View Drive, "A' Street, "B" Street, and "C" Street between First Street and hMne
Boulevard
Project Description: A zone change to expand the Cul~ Resource Overlay District to include the
residentially zoned properties on Mountain View Drive, "A" Street, '"B" Street, and "C" Street between First
Street and Irxfne Boulevard.
Project Proponent: City of Tusfin
Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reeksfin
Telephone: (714) 573-3016
The Community Development Departmem has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance
Mth the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
and on the basis of that study hereby finds:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a sigu/ficant effect on the environment
That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans
and a~eed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant'effectS would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in .attachment A of the Initial
Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community
Development Department, City of Tusfin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this
Negative Declaration during the review period, wkich begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and
ex-tends for twenty (20) calendar da3,s. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review
period may be ex"tended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON October 26, 1998
. Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director.
"coM]vItJN~TY DEVELOP_M~NT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial FFay, Tusrin, CA 92780
(724) ~7~-~ 00
INITIAL STUDY
BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Lead Agency:
ZOne Change 98-002
City o£ Tusd~
300 Centenrfial Way
Tusfin, Califorrda 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin . Phone: (714) 573-3016
Project Location: Mountain View Drive, "A" Street, "B" Street, and "C" Street between First
Street and Irvine Boulevard
Project Sponsor's Name and Ad&ess: City of Tustin
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential and High Density Residential
Zoning Designation: Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Residential
Project Description: A zone change to expand the Cultural Resource Overlay District to include
the residentially zoned properties on Mountain View Drive, "A" Street, "B" Street, and "C"
Street between First Street and lrvine Boulevard.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Professional offices-
South: Commercial uses
Other public agencies vCnose approval is required:
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Q,m!ity Management
District
Other
West:
Single family homes
Professional off'ices
[-] City oflrvine
[-] City of Santa Aha
[-'] Orange County EMA
B. ENWIRO.NIVIENT.4.L FAt. FORS POTEN~'I.a~LLY AFFECJ
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, ~nvolving at leas~ one
~mpact that 5s a "Potentially Si_maific2nt Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
[~Land Use and Planning
[-JPopulation and Housing
~Geolo~cal Problems
[-]Water
[--~Transportation & Circulation
[~]Biolo~cal Resources
[--]Energ~ and Mineral Resources
~-]Hazards
[~Noise
['-]Public 'Services
[~dtilifies and Service Systems
[~esthefics
[-')Cultural Resources
['-]Recreation
['-]Mandatory Findings of Sigu:dficance
C. DETER.MLN-4TI ON:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[-~ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a si~maificant effect on the environment, and a
NEGA'ITVE DECLARATION Mil be prepared.
[-] I fred that although the proposed project could have a si_mfificant e~r~ect on the environment, there
not be a si_ouificant eft%ct in this case because the nfitigation measures described on an attached shec~
have been added to the project. A/XrEGATIVE DECLA_R.4~TiON will be prepared.
find that the proposed project MAY have a si~cant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRON.rMENT.~ IMPACT REPORT is required.
I/'md that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) 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, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, bm it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed. ·
I find that although the proposed project could'have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a si_.mfificant effect in th/s case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed '
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EII~. including revisions or rrfi. tigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there ~5.LL
NOT be a si_maificant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant 'to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
D. E.N~'IRONMZENTAJ_, x~vIPACTS:
Available ffor review at: Ci(y of Tuszin Communi~
Development Department
1. I.,.&ND USE & PLANNING - Would the proposal.'
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zonin, g?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by ~encies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity?
d) Affe~ _a=mSculunm] resources or operations?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
2. POPULA.TION & HOUSING - Would the'proposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial powth in an area either directly or
indirecfl~ (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
~ GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result
in or ~pose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rapture?
b) Seismic pound sh 'aking?
c) Seismic pound failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, pading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER - Would the pr. opOSal rarult in:
a) Changes in abso~tion rotes, drainage pauems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?.
b) Exposure of people or propenT to water related h:aT~rds
such as flooding7
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. } temperature, dissolved
ox3'gen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of sm-face water in any water
body?
..
e) Changes in current~, or the come or direction of water
movements?
..... Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
f) Change in the quantity of~ound waters, either through
direz~ additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or throu~
substantial loss of groundwater recharge eapabi.lity?
g) Altered direction or rate offlow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to ~oundwater quality?
i) Substantial redu~ion in the amount of_m'oundwater
otherwise ~vailable for public water supplies?
5. _AXP, QUAIJTY- Would the ~roposal:
.
e
8~
a) Violate-any air quality standard or connfbme to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c)' Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
TR.~SPORTATION & CIrCULATiON- Would
the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or h-affic congestion?.
b) Hazards to safety from desi~ma features (e.g., sharp
curves.or dangerous inte~ections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., ff~rm equipment)
c) Inadequate eme~ency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or off~'it~?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedes~ans or bicyclists?
f) C6nfiicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle mc'ks)?
g) Rail,-waterborne or air traffic impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage n-ecs)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or mi_marion corridors?
ENTERGY & MIN'EtL4&, RESOURCES - l~buld the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a lmown mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region?
? otentialty
Significant
]mpact
?ore?'" Jy
· Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
$ignifican!
]mpac!
No ]mpact
[2]
[23
4
9. ]~4dZA.RI)S - Would theproposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release ofh~7~rdous
substances (including, but not limited ~o; oil, Pes4icides,
chemicalL or radiation)?
b) Possibl~ interference with emergency r~sponse plan or
emergency evacnation plan?
C) The creation of any health h~7~rd or potential health
hazard7
d) Exposure ofp, ople to e "Xisfing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increased fn-e ba~'~rd in areas with flammable brush,
g-mss, or trees?
10. NOISE- Would the proposal result in:
11.
12.
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people tO severe noise levels?
PUBLIC SERVICES - ~'ould lhe proposal have an
affect upon, or r&ralt in a need for new or a]lerezt
government services in arrf of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other government services?
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or disla-ibution
facilities?
d) S~wer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
13. A.ESTHE~TICS- Would the proposaI:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?.
c) Create light or glare?
J~ otentiaI]),
Significant
Impact
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
]ncorporale~
Less Ihan
Significant
- JVo lmpac~
'14.
ClJLTIJ~a~I_, I:~ESO~CES - Would the proposal?:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Di.mu~ archaeological resources?
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultm-al values?
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
15. RECREATION - Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
oi' other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. IVL4NDATORY.FENDINGS OF SIGNnrlC.~CE
b)
Does the project have the potential to de_made the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a f'mh or .wildlife specie, cause a fish or -
wildlife population to drop below self-gus'mining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or remSct the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of Califomia history or
prehistory
Does the project have the' potential to achieve short-term
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
c)
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulativ'ely ·
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 projects, and the effecB of probable future
project.t).
d)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause subxtautial adveBe effects on human being, ·
either directly or indirectly?
~olel '."..' '
Significant
Potentially Unlexs Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact - Incorporated Impact
No lmpar, t
Ee
EVA.LUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Plebe refer to Attachm~nt.A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D
above.
-.
ATTAC~mr~rN~ 3~ ·
EVALIIATION OF ENVIRO~AL IFiPACTS
EXPANSION OF CULETrRAL 1AESOURCE OVERI2~Y DiSRICT
ORDINANCE NO. t2 05
ZONE CHANGE 9 8 - 0 O 2
BACKGROUND AND ~i2~ViRO~AL EVALUATION
The proposal is a zone change to expand the Cultural Resource
Overlay District to include the residentially zoned properties on
Mountain View Drive, "A" Street, "B" Street and "C" Street between
First street and I~-vine Boulevard. The area subject to the zone
change lies within Tustin's original City limits and contains 74
of the 271 structures listed in the City's i~istorica! Resources
.~rvey. The Cultural' Resource District designation is an overlay
district and does not remove the underlying zoning district.
There is no development associated with the proposed zone change,
and the project will not create any significant environmental
impacts.
--
ENV!RONME~ SETTING
The proposal is a zone change that has no significant impacts on
the affectedarea. Environmental concerns specific to the project
are limited to minor public service impacts related to the
implementation of the proposed zone change~ An analysis of this
environmental issue is addressed in the following' discussion,
which is provided to substantiate the responses to the checklist
questions presented, in Section D of this IJitia! Study.
.
L~/ND USE & P!JuNNING
items a throuch e - "No impact": The proposed zone change
does not conflict with the Tustin General Plan, Tustin Zoning
Code, or environmental plans in that. the General Plan
includes a policy to study the potential expansion of the
Cultural Resource District and because the proposed zone
change is an overlay that would not remove the underlying
zoning. The proposal will not be incomDatib!e with existing
!~nd uses in the vicinity nor affect ag~iqu!ture or divide an
established community. .'
Sources: Project Description
Tustin Community Development Department
City of Tustin General Plan
City of Tustin Zoning Code
Mitigation/MonitorinG Required: None re.quired.
Attachment A - E~-aluation of Environmental Imoacts
Expansion of Cultural Resource Overlay Districf' ~
Page 2
..
POPULATION & ~OUSING
Items a through c - "No Imoact".: The proposal will not
displace existin~ housin~ or create a demand for additional
' housing, as no dwelling units are proposed. The proposed
zone change would .establish an overlay district in an
existin~ neighborhood.
Sources: Project description
Tustin Community Development Department
Miti~ation/Monitorin~ Recruired: None required.
o
GEOLOGICAL PROBL ~SI~S
items a throuah i - "No imoact": No unstable conditions,
significant changes in topography or exlposure to ~eo!o~ica!
hazards will result from the subject proposal.- The proposed
zone change is for. the expansion of the Cultural Resource
Overlay District; no development is associated with the
proposal. ~
Sources -~ Project description
Tustin Community Development Department
Mitication/Monitorin= Reouired: None Required.'
WATER
Items a throuah i - "No Imoact": The proposed 'zone change
would not result in any changes to any. existing water
conditions in that no development is proposed.
Sources: Project Description
Mit' ~ .
~a~ion/Monitorin~ Required: None Recruited.
AIR QUALITY
Items a throuah d - "No Imoact": Based on a review of The
South 'Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA
Air Quality Handbook, this project will not result in any
degradation to the existing, air quality in that no
development is proposed.
Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental !moacts
--
E~nsion of Cultural Resource OVerlay District
Page 3
Sources- Project Description
Tustin Community Development Deoartment
South Coast ~_ir Quality Management District.
1993. CEQA Air Qua!ltv Handbook.
Mitisation/Monitorina Reouired- None Required.
¸.
TRJkNSPORTATION & CIRCUI~ATION
items a throuch a - "No Imoact": The proposed zone change
will not alter existing circulation pattern~. The project
wi!! have no'effect on existing access or circulation routes,
emergency or pedestri~_n access, or other modes of
transportation in that no development is proposed.
Sources: Project Descriotion
--
City of Tustin General
City'of Tustin Public Works Deoartment
City of Tustin'Zoning Code
Miti~ation/Monitorina Recruired: None required.
BIOLOGICAL RES OLrRCES
Items a throuah e - "No Imoact"- The proposal will not
result in any impacts to biological resources in that no
development is proposed.
Sources: .Tustin Community Development D~partment
City of Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitorin~ Reo~ired: · None Required.
.
E~RGY & Mil~ERAL RESOURCES
Items a through c - "No imoact"- The proposed zone change
will not impact energy and mineral resources in that no
development is proposed.
Sources: Tustin Community Development Department
Pr6ject Description
Miti~ation/Monitorina Required: None Required.
Attachment A - ~-~-a!uation of Environmental imoacZs
E~-~nsion of Cultural Resource Overlay District
Page ~
Items a throuah e - "No !~oact": There is no risk of
explosion, interference with emergency response plans
Creation or exposure of people to health hazards, or
increased fire hazard associated with the project.
Sources: Project Description
City of Tustin Building Division
Orange County Fire Authority
Mitioation/Monitorino Required: None Required.
!0. NOISE
Inems a and b - "No !moact"- The proposed code amendment
will not result in any increases in noise levels or ex?osure
of oeoo!e to severe noise levels in that no deve!oomen5 is
proposed.
Sources: Project Description
Tustin Community Development Department
City of Tustin General'Plan
Tustin City Code D~tic!e 4, Chapter 6
Miti~ation/Monitorina Required: None Required.
!i. PUBLIC SERVICES
Items a through d - "No Impact": The proposal will not have
an effect upon, or result in a need for, new or altered *ire
services, police protection, schools, Or maintenance of
publiC facilities.
·
item e - "Less Than Significant Impact": The proposal will
have a minor impac~ on administrative govez-nment sezm-ices
required to issue certificates of appropriateness in
.conjunction with building permits for exterior alterations,
demolitions and improvements in the proposed zone change
RreR.
·
Sources: Various City Departments~
Proj eot description
-At%aci%ment A - Evaluation of Environmental impacts
E)~nsion of Cultural Resource Overlay District
Page 5
Miti~ation/Monitorin= Reouired: None Required.
!2. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYST-~S
Items a-~ - "No Imoact"- The proposal will not require the
ex?ansion of existing facilities or require the construction
of new facilities, such as natural gas, electric, water,
sewer, storm drainage, solid waste disposal or
communications. The proposed zone change will only establish
a zoning overlay district.
Sources- Project Description
2austin Community Development Departm=_nt
Miti=ation/Monitorin~ Rec~ired- None required.
!3. D~STE_~ETiCS
Items a through c - "No Imoact": The proposed zone change
'will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway, create
light or glare, or negatively affect aesthetics in that no
development is proposed. The proposed overlay district may
have positive aesthetics impacts by encouraging the
preserv=u_on of the area.
Sources: Project Description
Tustin Community Development Department
Miti~ation/Monitorin~ Reo~aired: None Required.
!4. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a throu=h d - "No Imoact": The proposed zone change
will not have any negative effects on cultural resources as
the purpose of the overlay district is to protect cultural
resources.
Sources: Tustin Community Development Department
Mitication/Monitorin~ Recruited: None Required.
Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Imoacts
---b~ansion of Cultural Resource OverlaY.District
Page 6 -
RECREATION
items a and b - "No Imoact"- The proposed zone change will
not affect parks, recreational facilities, or existing
recreational opportunities in that no development or new
~=aci!ities are proposed.
Sources: Proj act description
Tustin Community Development Department
Mitication/Monitorinc Re,aired: .None Required.
26. _WLANDATOR¥ FINDINGS OF SiGNI_FICA/~CE
items a throuch d- "No impact"- Based uoon the mhz' =o,_-ma~'=!On
contained in this initial Study, the project in and of itself
will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat nor
achieve any short-term environmental goals, nor have i~Dacts
which are potentially individually limited but are
cumulatively considerable and. could potentially have an
indirect adverse impaCt on human beings. The project's scope
does not have the potential' to achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term
environmental goals in that the project is a proposal to
establish a cultural resource overlay district.
Sources: As stated above
Mitication/Monitorinc Recuired: As stated above.
scr\his=oric: expansion zc98- 02 initial study' attaclnment A.doc
ATTACHMENT R
10
I2
13
14
15
16
17
lg
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
R_ESOLU]]ONNO. CR. AC 98-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CULTURAL RESOLrRCE ADVISORY
COlvlMITTEE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
THAT THE PLANNING COMM/SSION RECOIvlMEND 'TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 98-002 WHICH AMENDS THE
OFFICL4J~. TUSTIN ZONING MAP AND APPLIES THE CULTURAL
I~SO~CE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE PROPERTIES SHOWN IN
EX~-IIBIT A.
The Cultural Resource Ad~4sory Committee of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The Cultural Resource Adxdsory Committee finds and determines:
A.
That the origSnal Cultural. Resource .District was approved by the City Council
througzh the adoption-of Ordinance No. 1001 on June 20, 1988 to recognize,
prese~e, protect and use culturally significant structures, natural features, sites and
neighborhoods within the City of Tustin in the interest of the health, safety,
prosperity, social and cultural enrichment and gene.ral welfare of City residents.
B.
That Tustin City Code Section-9252e provides designation procedures for the
establishment of cultural resource districts.
Co
That a Public Hearing was duly noticed, called and held on Zone'Change 98-02
by the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee on August 11, 1998. The Public
Hearing was continued to September 8, 1998 by the Cultural Resom:ce Advisory
Committee.
Do
That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Tustin General Plan,
including the General Plan policy to "Study the potential expansion of the Cultural
Resource Overlay District north of First street to Irxfine Boulevar&"
Eo
That the proposed Zone Change will benefit the public health, safety and welfare by
protecting historic resources.
That the area to the north of the origSnal Cultural Resource District between First
Street and Irvine Boulevard lies within Tustin's original City limits and contains 74
of the 271 structures listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey.
Go
Thru the City's Historical Resources Survey Report, dated July 1990, recommends
that the residential area between First Street and Irvine Boulevard be considered for
two separate potential cultural resources districts.
10
I2
14
15
16
lg
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
2~
29
ResolmionNo. CRAC 98-01
Page 2
Ho
Jo
Lo
Mo
Oo
P°
Qo
That thc residential area between First Street and Irvine Boulevard contain.q a gToup
of sigmificant historic homes in excellent Condition that would be an asset to the
existing Cultural Resource District
That the proposed Zone Change would safeguard the City's heritage by preserving
neighborhoods, structures, sites and features which reflect elements of the City's
cultural, architectural, artistic, aesthetic, political, social, natural and engineering
heritage.
· .
That the proposed Zone Change would foster public lmowledge, understanding and
appreciation of the City's past _.-
· :
o
·
·
· That the proposed Zone Change would strengthen civic and neighborh0odpride and
a sense of identity based on the reco_m~ifion and use of cultural resources."
· ...
·
That the proposed Zone Change would promote the pri.vateland public enjoyment,.
use and preservation of culturally significant neighborhoods, structures and sites
appropriate for the education and recreation of Tustin's citizens and visitors.
That the proposed Zone Change would enhance the City's vis, a! and aegthefic
character, diversity of architectural styles and aesthetic appeal.
That the proPosed Zone Change would assure that new construction and subd/vision
of lots in the expansion area are compatible with the character of the district
That the proposed Zone Change would provide for the early identification and
resolution of conflicts between preservation of historic and cultural 'resources and
alternative land uses.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District exemplifies or reflects special
elements of the City's cultural, architectural, aesthe/ic, social, economic, political,
artistic, engineering and or architectural heritage.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is identified v~fith persons, a
business, use or events significant in local, state, or national history..
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay DiStrict embodies distinctive
characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable
example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, in that the area
contains a collection of Spanish Colonial Revival, California Bungalow, Craftsman,
10
12
]4
t5
16
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
2g
29
ResolutionNo. CRAC 98-01
Page 3
Colonial Rev/val, Period Rev/val and Victorian-ltalianate residences, most of which
were built between 1915'and 192g.
So
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is representative of the
notable work of a builder, designer, or architect.
To
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District's unique location represents
an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, communit3, or the City,
in that the area lies within Tustin's original City. limits and is visually identified with
Tustin' s past
Uo
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District's integrity as a natural
environment or feature strongly contributes to tSe well being of residents ofthe City
or the well being of a neigjaborhood within the City.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is a ge%oraphically definable
area possessing a concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects
as unified by pas3 events or aesthetically by plan or physical development in that the
area-contains a concentration of 55 ~storic residences of similar size and scale, most
of which were built during a fourteen-yearperiod.
Wo
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District will. not change the
underlying zoning on any piece of property within the Dish'-ict The proposed zone
change extends the Cultural Resource Overlay District in a lo~cal and orderly way,
and does not create urmamral boundaries between land uses. 'The proposed
extension of the overlay district does not create a small "pocket" or "island" of
properties with more restrictive zoning regulations than the surrounding properties.
The Cultural Resource Advisory. Committee hereby recommends that the Planning
Commissionrecommend to the City Council ipproval of Zone Change 98-02, amending the
official Tustin Zoning Map and applying the Cultural Resource Overlay. District to the
properties sho~m and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10
14
15
16
17
lg
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
2g
29
ResolutionNo. CP~4C 981-01
_
Page 4
PASSED A_ND ADOPTED by the Cultural Resource Adv/sory Committee of the City of Tustin al
a meeting held on the 8th day of September, 199g.
Chairman
Cultural Resource Advisory Committee Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORN~ )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZ.~3ETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the-Cultural Resource
Advisory Committee Secretary of the CultUral Resource Advisor), Committee of the City of Tustirg
California; that Resolution No. CRAC 98-01 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the
Tustin Cultural Resource Advisory Committee, held on the ga day of September, 1998.
Cultm-al Resource Advisory Committee Secretary
Scoufnistori~cra¢ rcso 98-01rev.doc
EXHIBIT A
ZON~ CHA~GE 98-002
® 'I' ® ,
®(~ 'i' ®.
,
PROPOSED
Cultural Resource Overlay District E l llll
ATTACHMENT S
RESOLUTION NO. 3625
I0
2o
23
24
26
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTEN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE
FOR ZONE CHANGE 98-002, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and detenuines as follows:
A.
Zone Change 98-002 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Be
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been
made available for public review.
Co
Whereby, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has reviewed and
considered the Negative Declaration.'
D.
The Planning Commission has determined that the Negative Declaration is
adequate and complete.
A Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State
guidelines. The Planning Commission, acting as an advisory body to the City
Council, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative
Declaration, prior to recommending approval of the proposed project, and found
that the Negative Declaration adequately discussed the environmental effects of the
proposed project and recommends that the City Council approve the Negative
Declaration. Further, the Planning Commission finds the project involves no
potential for any adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife
resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to the
California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held
on the 9~ day of November, 1998.
LESLIE PONTIOUS
Chai~an
Planning Commission Secretary
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Resolution No. 3625
Page 2
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. 3625 was duly
passed and adopted at a regxtlar meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
9TM day of November, 1998.
TH-A~ BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Pcresos/3625.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 3626
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 98-002, WHICH AMENDS THE OFFICIAL
TUSTIN ZONING MAP AND APPLIES THE CULT~ RESOURCE
OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE PROPERTIES SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and detemaines:
Ao
That the original Cultural Resource District was approved by the City Council
through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1001 on June 20, 1988 to recognize,
preserve, protect and use culturally significant structures, natural features, sites and
neighborhoods within the City of Tustin in the interest of the health, safety,
prosperity, social and cultural enrichment and general welfare of City residents.
Bo
That Tustin City Code Section 9252e provides designation procedures for the
establishment of cultural resource districts.
Co
That a Public Hearing was duly noticed, called and held on Zone Change 98-02
by the Cultural Resource Advisory Committee on August 11, 1998. The Public
Hearing was continued to September 8, 1998 by the Cultural Resource Advisory
Committee.
D°
That a Public Hearing was duly noticed, called and held on Zone Change 98-02 by
the Planning Commission on October 26, 1998. The Public Hearing was continued
to November 9, 1998 by the Planning Commission.
E.
That a Negative Declaration has been recommended for approval by the City
Council in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Tustin General Plan,
including the General Plan policy to "Study the potential expansion of the Cultural
Resource Overlay District north of First Street to Irvine Boulevard."
G°
That the proposed Zone Change will benefit the public health, safety and welfare by
protecting historic resources.
He
That the area to the north of the original Cultural Resource District between First
Street and Irvine Boulevard lies within Tustin's original City limits and contains 74
of the 271 structures listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey.
I. That the City's Historical Resources Storey Report, dated July 1990, recommends
10
12
13
14
15
16
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Resolution No. 3626
Page 2
that the residential area between First Street and Irvine BOulevard be considered for
two separate potential cultural resources districts.
Jo
That the residential area between First Street and Irvine Boulevard contains a group
of significant kistoric homes in excellent condition that would be an asset to the
existing Cultural Resource District.
Ko
That the proposed Zone Change would safeguard the City's heritage by preserving
neighborhoods, structures, sites and features which reflect elements of the City's
cultural, architectural, artistic, aesthetic, political, social, natural and engineering
heritage.
L°
That the proposed Zone Change would foster public knowledge, understanding and
appreciation of the City's past.
m.
That the proposed Zone Change would strengthen civic and neighborhood pride and
a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources.
N.
That the proposed Zone Change would promote the private and public enjoyment,
use and preservation of culturally significant neighborhoods, structures and sites
appropriate for the education and recreation ofTustin's citizens .and visitors.
O.
That the proposed Zone Change would enhance the City's visual and aesthetic
character, diversity of architectural styles and aesthetic appeal.
P.
That the proposed Zone Change would assure that new construction and subdivision
of lots in the expansion area are compatible with the character of the district.
Q.
That the proposed Zone Change would provide for the early identification and
resolution of conflicts between preservation of historic and cultural resources and
alternative land uses.
R.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District exemplifies or reflects special
elements of the City's cultural, architectural, aesthetic, social, economic, political,
artistic, engineering and or architectural heritage.
So
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is identified with persons, a
.business, use or events significant in local, state, or national history.
T°
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District embodies distinctive
characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable
example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, in that the area
contains a collection of Spanish Colonial Revival, California Bungalow, Craftsman,
Colonial Revival, Period Revival and Victorian-Italianate residences, most of which
were built between 1915 and 1928.
I0
12
13
14
15
.16
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
26
27
29
Resolution No. 3626
Page 3
Uo
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is representative of the
notable work of a builder, designer, or architect.
Vo
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District's unique location represents
an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City,
in that the area lies within Tustin's original City limits and is visually identified with
Tustin's past.
Wo
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District's integrity as a natural
environment or feature strongly contributes to the well being of residents of the City
or the well being of a neighborhood within the. City.
Xo
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is a geographically definable
area possessing a concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects
as unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development in that the
area contains a concentration of 55 historic residences of similar size and scale, most
of which were built during a fourteen-year period.
Y.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District will not change the
underlying zoning on any piece of property within the District. The proposed zone
change extends the Cultural Resource Overlay District in a logical and orderly way,
and does not create unnatural boundaries between land uses. The proposed
extension of the overlay district does not create a small "pocket" or "island" of
properties with more restrictive zoning regulations than the surrounding properties.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Zone Change
98-02, amending the official Tustin Zoning Map and applying the Cultural Resource
Overlay District to the properties shown and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City .of Tustin at a regular meeting
held on the 9~ day of November, 1998.
LESLIE PONTIOUS
Chairman
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
14
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
26
28
29
Resolution No. 3626
Page 4
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 Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3626
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
9~ day of November, 1998.
E*L"'IZ.aT_EiETi~ kl ~INSXCK --
Planning Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT T
RESOLUTION NO. 99-01
]2
]4
22
23
24
')5
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE FOR ZONE CHANGE 98-002 INCLUDING REQUIRED
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
Ao
Zone Change 98-002 is considered a "project" pursuant to the
terms of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act.
B.
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and
has been made available for public review.
Co
Whereas, the Planning Commission and City Council of the
City of Tustin have reviewed and considered evidence
presented by the Community Development Director with
respect to the subject Negative Declaration.
Do
The Planning Commission and City Council have evaluated
the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to
be adequate and complete.
I1.
A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with
CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council has received and
considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration,
prior to approving the proposed project, and found that the Negative
Declaration adequately discussed the environmental effects of the
proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments
received during the public review process, the City Council has found
that the proposed projects would not have impacts on the
environment.
The 'City Council further finds that the project will not have an effect
on wildlife resources, either individually or cumulatively, and makes a
de minimus impact finding pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section
711.4.
]4
20
2!
24
ResolUtion No. 99-01
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 5th day of January, 1999.
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Tustin, California, do 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 Resolution No. 99-01 was duly passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the
5th day of January, 1999, by the following vote:
COUNClLMEMBER AYES:
COUNClLMEMBER NOES:
COUNClLMEMBERABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
ATTACHMENT U
1 ORDINANCE NO. 1205
17
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Section 1.
follows:
Ao
Co
De
mo
Fo
Go
He
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN-, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE
CHANGE 98-002 TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL TUSTIN
ZONING MAP AND APPLY THE CULTUKAL
RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT TO THE
PROPERTIES SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
Findings. The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines as
That the original Cultural Resource District was approved by the City Council
through the adoption of Ordinance No. 1101 on June 20, 1988 to recognize,
preserve, protect and use culturally significant structures, natural features, sites and
neighborhoods within the City of Tustin in the interest of the health, safety,
prosperity, social and cultural enrichment and general welfare of City residents.
That Tustin City Code Section 9252e provides designation procedures for the
establishment of cultural resource districts.
That Public Hearings were duly noticed, called and held on this Ordinance by the
Cultural Resource AdvisorY Committee on August 11, 1998 and September 8, 1998,
the Planning Commission on October 26, 1998 and November 9, 1998 and by the
City Council on January 5, 1999.
That a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project as set forth in the
California Environmental Quality Act. The Negative Declaration was considered
and approved by the City Council.
That the proposed Zone'Change is consistent with the Tustin General Plan,
including the General Plan policy to "Study the potential expansion of the Cultural
Resource Overlay District north of First Street to Irvine Boulevard."
That the proposed zone Change will benefit the public health, safety and welfare by
protecting historic resources.
That the area to the north of the original Cultural Resource District between First
Street.and lrvine Boulevard lies within Tustin's original City limits and contains 74
of the 271 structures listed in the City's Historical Resources Survey.
That the city's Historical Resources Survey Report, dated July 1990, recommends
that the residential area between First Street and Irvine Boulevard be considered for
two separate potential cultural resources districts.
That the residential area between First Street and Irvine Boulevard contains a group
of significant historic homes in excellent condition that would be an asset to the
existing Cultural Resource District.
10
12
3.4
3.5
16
3-7
3.8
3.9
20
23.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 1205
Page 2
re
Lo
M,
No
O.
P.
Qe
Re
Se
r.
That the proposed Zone Change would safeguard the City's heritage by preserving
neighborhoods, structures, sites and features which reflect elements of the City's
cultural, architectural, artistic, aesthetic, political, social, natural and engineering
heritage.
That the proposed Zone Change would foster public knowledge, understanding and
appreciation of the City's past.
That the proposed Zone Change would strengthen civic and neighborhood pride and
a sense of identity based on the recognition and use of cultural resources.
That the proposed Zone Change would promote the private and public enjoyment,
use and preservation of culturally significant neighborhoods, structures and sites
appropriate for the education and recreation of Tustin's citizens and visitors.
That the proposed Zone Change would enhance the City's visual and aesthetic
character, diversity of architectural styles and aesthetic appeal.
That the proposed Zone Change would assure that new construction and subdivision
of lots in the expansion area are compatible with the character of the district.
That the proposed Zone Change would' provide for the early identification and
resolution of conflicts between preservation of historic and cultural resources and
alternative land uses.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District exemplifies or reflects special
elements of the City's cultural, architectural, aesthetic, social, economic, political,
artistic, engineering and or architectural heritage.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is identified with persons, a
business use or events significant in local, state, or national history.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District' embodies distinctive
characteristics of style, type, period, or method of construction, or is a valuable
example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, in that the area
contains a collection of Spanish Colonial Revival, California Bungalow, Craftsman,
Colonial Revival, Period Revival and Victorian-Italianate residences, most of which
were built between 1915 and 1928.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is representative of the
notable work of a builder, designer,' or architect.
l0
12
3.3
17
18
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 1205
Page 3
He
Vo
W.
X.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District's unique location represents
an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the
City,in that the area lies within Tustin's original City limits and is visually
identified with Tustin' s past.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District's integrity as a natural
environment or feature strongly contributes to the well being of residents of the City
or the well being of a neighborhood within the City.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District is a geographically definable
area possessing a concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects
as unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development, in that
the area contains a concentration of 55 historic residences of similar size and scale,
most of which were built during a fourteen-yearperiod.
That the proposed Cultural Resource Overlay District will not change the
underlying zoning on any piece of property within the District. The proposed zone ·
change extends the Cultural Resource Overlay District in a logical and orderly way,
and does not create unnatmal boundaries between land uses. The proposed
extension of the overlay district does not create a small "pocket" or "island" of
properties with more restrictive zoning regulations than the surrounding properties.
Section 2. Approval
The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 98-002 to amend the official Tustin
Zoning Map and apply the Cultural Resource Overlay District to the properties shown in
Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Section 3. Severabili~
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held out 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, 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.
l0
12
3_6
17
3.8
3_9
2O
23-
22
23
24
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 1205
Page 4
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting
on the 5th day of January, 1999.
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF TUSTIN
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1205
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. 1205 was
duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th
day of January, 1999 and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council held on the 19t~ day of January, 1999, by the'following vote:
COUNCILPERSONS AYES:
COUNCILPERSONS NOES:
COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED:
COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: .
Pamela Stoker, City Clerk
SR:ordinanc\1205scr. doc
E~IT A
ZONE CHANGE 98-002
. .
. ~
__/
F~T
: %'; :"- --
· -' $ ,T/~-rT. ' · .-
.~..,,, 'f ... '. ..__. ~'... f
.
·
.
Cultural'Resource Overlay District E"'"'"'~, '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
t.e — 99
Irwin G. Gross
125 N B Street
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 731 -0483
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
In Re Zone Change 98 -002
IRWIN G. GROSS, Petitioner
REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 125
N. "B" STREET, TUSTIN, BECAUSE OF
1. DISCRIMINATION;
2. OPPRESSION;
3. LACK OF DUE PROCESS
1 PETITIONER IRWIN G. GROSS HEREIN REQUESTS EXEMPTION from proposed
Zone Change 98 -002, extending the CITY OF TUSTIN (hereinafter referred to as "THE CITY")
CULTURAL RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT (hereinafter referred to as `THE DISTRICT "),
which would include Petitioner's residential property located at 125 N. B Street, Tustin. This request is
made on grounds of (1) Discrimination; (2) Oppression; and (3) Lack of Due Process. Owing to
numerous time constraints, including the receipt of short written notice at the height of the year-end
holiday season, Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Petition at a later date.
(1) DISCRIMINATION
2. The original ordinance creating the District and subjecting the impacted properties to a
level of regulation above and beyond that required of the vast remainder of the city, is written, in
significant part, in terms of being necessary for the general health safety, and welfare of the city.
Likewise, the subject zone change extending the original ordinance to include Petitioner's residential
property is also expressed in terms of being necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the city as a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
whole.
3 Said ordinance can be interpreted only to mean that the amendment of stylistic elements of
Petitioner's residence, outside the parameters of the proposed guidelines, poses a significant threat to the
general health, safety, and welfare of the city as a whole.
4. Inasmuch as the commercial properties adjacent to and otherwise in the immediate vicinity
of Petitioner's residence have been allowed by the City to engage in conduct and create physical
conditions that are injurious to the health, safety and welfare of the Petitioner, the proposed zone change
is discriminatory
5 Petitioner has been subject to chronic and continuous injury by the neighboring
commercial properties in the manner of unreasonable noise levels throughout the day; disturbances at odd
hours; a wide variety of unsightly and eyesore conditions; and other significant annoyances and
inconveniences that have seriously impaired Petitioner's free use and enjoyment of his residence and
grounds; have degraded Petitioner's home and neighborhood; have diminished the value of Petitioner's
property have virtually destroyed a residential quality of life; and have caused Petitioner immeasurable
distress, physical illness, and psychological impairment.
6 The City has failed to fully and adequately enforce Code requirements that would prohibit
or mitigate injurious conduct and conditions, including but not limited to the emplacement of mitigating
walls and barriers that are otherwise required throughout the city where commercial and residential zones
adjoin.
7 The City, through its various Codes and enactments, has essentially defined the means that
are necessary and reasonable to ensure a residential quality of life where commercial and residential zones
adjoin. This is especially so in the case of the First Street Specific Plan which addresses, with
particularity, the relationship of certain commercial developments to Petitioner's property Impliedly,
where those means are not employed, nuisance conditions exist per se, yet the City has failed to fully
implement its police authority, which has been validated repeatedly by State courts, to abate such
nuisances.
8 When the imposition of a layer of regulation above and beyond that imposed upon the
majority of Tustin property owners is proposed for the sake of the general health, safety, and welfare of
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• •
the city, as in this proposed zone change, while neighboring commercial properties are allowed to
concurrently escape regulation and thus inflict injury, the proposed zone change is discriminatory
(2) OPPRESSION
9 Whether the City does not want to intervene to abate the injurious nuisances impacting
Petitioner's residence or whether the City believes there is a legal impediment to its intervention, the fact
remains that Petitioner is subject to injurious conduct and physical conditions that, more likely than not,
will continue without some form of authoritative intervention.
10 Said injurious conduct and conditions effectively govern Petitioner's use of the structures
and grounds of his residential property to the extent that Petitioner's free use and enjoyment of his home
is severely impaired. Extension of the proposed zone change to include Petitioner's property would
further diminish Petitioner's control over his own property and would constitute oppression.
11 Said injurious conduct and conditions significantly impair the monetary value of
Petitioner's property
12. The imposition of a layer of regulation above and beyond that imposed upon the majority
of Tustin property owners, no matter how seemingly innocuous, diminishes Petitioner's sense of
ownership, effectively reducing Petitioner to the caretaker of a City asset. When additional regulation,
such as is presently proposed, is imposed upon Petitioner for the protection of City interests while
Petitioner must contend with ongoing injury, loss of control, and degradation of property value, the
extension of the proposed zone change to include Petitioner's property is oppressive.
(3) LACK OF DUE PROCESS
13 In the public hearings conducted thus far on the proposed zone change, the City of Tustin,
through its Community Development Department staff, has had an unlimited amount of time to make its
initial presentation. In the subsequent public comment portion of the hearing, speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes, individually, to present facts and argument, even if only a few individuals wish to
address the sitting body Following the public comment portion of the proceedings, the City again
through staff members, then has a virtually unlimited opportunity to give further information, expand
upon, and clarify its position in answer to questions posed by the sitting body
///
- 3 -
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 •
14 No equal or similar opportunities are afforded private individuals in these proceedings.
15 Inasmuch as the City is the petitioner in the matter of the proposed zone change, it is a
party to these proceedings as much as any private individual who may feel an interest in their outcome.
Yet the City's opportunity to present and argue its case far outweighs that of any individual who may
have a complex argument or wishes to publicly raise a number of relevant issues, orally, directly before
the sitting body The Petitioner herein, Irwin Gross, has been precluded by time limitation from publicly
raising relevant issues, and in that respect has been denied due process.
Respectfully submitted this S 511 day of January 1999
Irwin G. Gross, Petitioner
-4-