HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 SAN JUAN CONDOS (6 UNITS)MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Agenda Item
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE TO
THE NOVEMBER 18, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 2014 -001, SUBDIVISION 2013 -01 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
17665, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013 -01, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -002 FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX (6) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1381 -1391 SAN JUAN STREET
SUMMARY:
The project is a request to construct six (6) detached residential condominium units and related
improvements at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street. The project also includes the demolition of the
existing single story single family residence and accessory structures at 1391 San Juan Street.
The proposed project requires the approval of a Zone Change (ZC), Subdivision (SUB),
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Design Review (DR). On August 12, 2014, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 4263, recommending that the Tustin City Council deny the
proposed project.
On September 10 and 11, 2014, the property owner submitted written requests (attached) that the
City Council continue the item to November 18, 2014, to give the property owner additional time to
meet with staff and work on modifications to the project to Increase the number of parking spaces
and open space and to decrease the massing of the buildings.
The staff report that was included with the City Council's September 16, 2014, agenda packet
provides a full discussion of the project.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council continue the item to the November 18, 2014, City Council meeting.
Scott Reekstin
Principal Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
Attachment: Property owner's requests for continuance
Reekstin, Scott
From: Farzad shaygan <
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:56 PM
To: Reekstin, Scott
Subject: Re: 1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Hi Scott,
Per our phone conversation, I am requesting a continuance of our upcoming City council meeting to a later
date ( possibly mid - November). I would like to modify our project and meet with you prior to the council
meeting. Please send me a respond for confirmation. Thank you
Farzad Shaygan
Reekstin, Scott
From: Farzad shaygan <
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 8:39 AM
To: Reekstin, Scott
Subject: Re: 1381 -1391 San Juan Street
The date we are requesting is November 18th. As for changes, we are working on increasing parking spaces,
open space and the mass of building to address your concerns.
Farzad Shaygan
Agenda Item 1
AGENDA REPORT Reviewe
Manager
Finance Director
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 2014 -001, SUBDIVISION 2013 -01 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 17665, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2013 -01, AND DESIGN REVIEW
2013 -002 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX (6) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1381 -1391 SAN JUAN STREET
SUMMARY:
The project is a request to construct six (6) detached residential condominium units and related
improvements at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street. The project also includes the demolition of the
existing single story single family residence and accessory structures at 1391 San Juan Street.
The proposed project requires the approval of a Zone Change (ZC), Subdivision (SUB),
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Design Review (DR).
On August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4263, recommending
that the Tustin City Council deny the proposed project. (Applicant: Alfonso Maciel)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 14 -58, denying:
a. ZC 2014 -001, a request to change the zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650 to reduce the
minimum lot area per family unit from 2,700 square feet to 2,650 square feet to allow
the development of six (6) residential condominium units.
b. SUB 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665 for the subdivision of an approximately
1/3 acre site consisting of one (1) numbered lot and one (1) lettered lot for the
development of six (6) single family detached condominium units.
c. CUP 2013 -01 for the development of condominium units in the R3 Zoning District,
pursuant to the criteria of the Planned Development (PD) District.
d. DR 2013 -002 for the design and site layout of six (6) single family detached
condominium units and related improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT:
ZC 2014 -001, SUB 2013 -01, CUP 2013 -01, and DR 2013 -002 are applicant- initiated projects.
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 2
CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN:
As proposed and based upon the Planning Commission's recommendations, the project does
not further the objectives of the Strategic Plan.
APPROVAL AUTHORITY:
• Zone Change (ZC):
Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9295g authorizes the City Council to review and take action on
Zone Changes, following a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
• Subdivision (SUB) /Tentative Tract Map (TTM):
TCC Section 9321b authorizes the Planning Commission to review and take action on
Tentative Maps; however, since the proposal includes an entitlement application that
requires City Council approval, TTM 17665 is being forwarded to the City Council for
concurrent consideration.
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP):
TCC Section 9291 authorizes the Planning Commission to review and take action on CUPs;
however, since the proposal includes an entitlement action that requires City Council
approval, CUP 2013 -01 is being forwarded to the City Council for concurrent consideration.
• Design Review (DR):
TCC Section 9272 authorizes the Community Development Director to consider DR
applications; however, since the proposal includes an entitlement application that requires
City Council approval, DR 2013 -002 is being forwarded to the City Council for concurrent
consideration.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Recent Site History
In 2005, the City approved a request by the previous property owner to demolish the single
family residence, apartment unit, and garage that existed at that time at 1381 San Juan Street
and construct a two -story apartment building with three (3) units. The previous property owner
later requested approval to construct one (1) single family residence in lieu of the apartments,
but never commenced construction.
In 2009, the current property owner purchased the property at 1381 San Juan Street with the
intention of developing new residences on the site. An application for a tentative parcel map,
CUP, and DR was submitted in 2013 to subdivide the lot at 1381 San Juan Street and develop
three (3) two -story detached residential condominiums on the property. No change in zoning
was necessary for this original application. While the application was being processed and not
yet determined complete, the property owner purchased the adjacent property at 1391 San
Juan Street with the understanding that the existing zoning of both properties would allow a total
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 3
of five (5) units to be developed on the site, subject to the approval of the requested
discretionary actions.
Site Location
The project site consists of two (2) lots, totaling approximately one -third of an acre in size, and
is located at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street. (Attachment A). The project site is bounded by Utt
Drive to the northwest, San Juan Street to the southwest and residential uses to the southeast
and northeast (Figure 1). Surrounding uses include: Multiple family residential across Utt Drive
to the northwest, multiple family residential across San Juan Street to the southwest, a single
family residence to the southeast, and multiple family residential to the northeast (Figure 1).
Rr
R
v.
Or
!N' 4.
Figure 1
Project Description
ZC 2014 -001, SUB 2013 -01, CUP 2013 -01, and DR 2013 -002, are development applications for
the purpose of developing six (6) detached residential condominium units and related
improvements at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street (Figure 2). The project includes the demolition of
the existing single story single family residence and accessory structures at 1391 San Juan
Street.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 4
UNIT 'C' GE = rice UAIIT'F
TE �� T
-- --- . .. ....:
rm.'s: 5
a a " .
W
T UNIT'B' U NT
spa
2—STORY GAHAUF GARAGE 2•$TORY
--- ------------- T
••�
.' UNIT •A' WEE UNIT V 9AM4E r y
«. Tom,,
5 snvt
i R
- rux h J]�PTw�
{+ TE MW
rh�Nr u
ya T.xTN 1 1
RVI sTlz_ �'i} � rer, m — .s'T.� ' 'y4
Figure 2
Pursuant to TCC Section 9226b, condominiums, as defined in the California Civil Code, are
conditionally permitted, when developed pursuant to the criteria of the Planned Development
(PD) District. Thus, the TCC requires that the PD standards be used for the proposed
condominium project, with the approval of a CUP. The project would comply with the
development standards for the PD District as follows:
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 5
Standard
Required
Proposed
Building Height
No maximum
35 feet
Front Yard Setback
Not specified
12 feet, 8 inches
Rear Yard Setback
10 feet
10 feet
Side Yard Setback
5 feet
10 feet
400 sq. ft. /unit
(2.400 sq. ft. total)
5 feet
Corner Side Yard Setback
Common Open Space/
Recreation Area _
10 feet
None
Architecture
The proposed project includes six (6) detached, three -story residential condominium units with
identical floor plans (Figure 3) in three (3) different architectural styles: Craftsman, Spanish, and
Mediterranean. Two (2) of the residences are proposed to face San Juan Street, and the
remaining four (4) residences are proposed at the rear of the property, facing a central driveway
that is accessed from Utt Drive. Each home is 2,275 square feet is size and consists of three
(3) bedrooms and three and one -half (3.5) bathrooms. All of the bedrooms and two (2) of the
three (3) bathrooms are located on the third floor. The main living /dining area, kitchen, laundry
room, and powder room (1/2 bathroom), are located on the second floor. On the first floor there
are a den, one (1) bathroom, and a two -car garage.
SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
J
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
THIRD FLOOR Vj'
Figure 3
The six (6) proposed residences are designed in three (3) different architectural styles:
Craftsman, Spanish, and Mediterranean. Each of the six (6) residences is three (3) stories in
height and features a two -story covered front porch, a deck on the second floor (facing the rear),
and a decorative balcony on the third floor.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 6
■� rr
Figure 4
Il 11;1,
The exterior elevations (Figure 4) are enhanced with architectural details such as gable roofs,
window and door trim, various size windows, decorative window shutters, balconies with
decorative railing, wood entry doors, and various stucco colors to create visual interest. The
roof material is proposed to be full - dimensional concrete shingles, with each residence having a
different color and material to complement the proposed architectural style and color scheme. It
should be noted that two (2) of the six (6) elevations depicted in this report are actually being
proposed in a reverse arrangement.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 7
The applicant has proposed the use of several neutral and earth tone colors. Each unit features
one (1) or two (2) primary stucco colors, plus accent colors, to create visual interest. Each front
door and garage door is painted in a color that complements the stucco color. All shutters and
trim will be painted in accent colors. Material and color sample boards for the project will be
available at the Planning Commission meeting.
Landscape / Hardscape
Landscaping is proposed along the perimeter and within the interior of the site. The proposed
trees include Sunburst Honey Locus Tree and Golden Eclipse Lilac Tree. A variety of ground
covers and shrubs would be utilized throughout the site.
Decorative paving is proposed at the two (2) driveways on San Juan Street and along the middle of
the large driveway off of Utt Drive. Perimeter six (6) foot high "split- face" block walls are proposed
along the boundaries of the site facing San Juan Street and Utt Drive. Six (6) foot high block walls
are also proposed to enclose each of the six (6) private yard areas. Some of the existing six (6)
foot high block wall is proposed to remain along rear property line, while new walls will be
constructed along the remaining portions of the rear and side property lines.
Open Space Recreation Area
A private ground level yard area of between 400 and 533 square feet is provided for each of the
six (6) residences. TCC Section 9224g6 allows private ground level open space in
condominium developments to be credited toward the minimum open space requirement, which
is 400 square feet per dwelling unit of open space recreation area within a common designated
recreation area. However, the proposed development provides all of the required open space
for the condominium development within private yard areas, and does not provide any common
recreation area.
Parking
TCC Section 9263 requires two (2) covered parking spaces for each dwelling unit, plus one (1)
unassigned guest space for every four (4) units. This requirement has been satisfied by
providing each of the six (6) residential units with an attached two -car garage and by providing
three (3) on -site guest parking spaces.
Standard
Required
Provided
Resident Parking
12 covered
12 garage
Guest Parking
2
3
Parking Ratio (Resident Parking)
21unit
21unit
Parking Ratio (Guest Parking)
0.25 1unit
1 0.5 1unit
Total Parking Provided
14
L 15
Parking is also currently allowed on San Juan Street and Utt Drive along portions of the
perimeter of the site; however, on- street parking is for public use and it will be necessary for
safety and visibility reasons to prohibit some or all of the on- street parking along the site
perimeter in conjunction with the development of the site, due to the curb cuts for the proposed
driveway approaches.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 8
Traditional driveways are proposed for the two (2) residences facing San Juan Street. Vehicle
parking would be allowed in these two (2) driveways. However, traditional driveways are not
proposed for the four (4) residences at the rear of the property.
ANALYSIS:
Zone Change
TCC Section 9295 specifies any amendment to the zoning of a property may be initiated and
adopted as other ordinances are amended or adopted.
The project site is located within the Multiple Family Residential (R3) 2700 Zoning District, which
requires a minimum of 2,700 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. A ZC is being requested to
change the zoning to R3 2650 to increase the allowable density of the site to allow the
development of six (6) residential condominium units. Without the approval of the requested ZC, a
maximum of five (5) residential units would be allowed on the 16,060 square foot site. Based on
the zoning designation, the site would need to be at least 16,200 square feet in size to allow the
development of six (6) residential units. The site has a General Plan designation of High Density
Residential (HDR) which allows the development of 15 -25 du /acre. Both the R3 2700 and R3 2650
zoning designations are consistent with the HDR General Plan land use designation. Therefore, a
general plan amendment is not required for this project.
As shown in Figure 5, the properties directly adjacent to the project site, as well as properties in the
immediate vicinity on Red Hill Avenue, Green Valley Drive, and Utt Drive are also zoned R3 2700.
The properties across Utt Drive and San Juan Street are zoned R3, which requires a minimum of
1,750 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit.
The proposed ZC from R3 2700 to R3 2650 would be classified as spot zoning since it only
includes two (2) relatively small lots within a block of properties zoned R3 2700 (Figure 5). As
articulated in court decisions, spot zoning is a term used to describe the discriminatory zoning of
a small parcel that is surrounded by land within a different zone and is contrary to orderly
development and sound land use planning principles.
In a recent case, Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, the court of appeal
determined that spot zoning can be justified where a "substantial public need exists" or if it is in
the public interest. However, the proposed ZC does not appear to promote the public good or
support a substantial public need or interest in that the housing units to be built would be offered
for sale at market rate and would not accommodate low and very -low income individuals or
special needs groups. The proposed ZC would primarily benefit the property owner by granting
the property owner privileges which are not granted or extended to other landowners in the
vicinity and in the same zoning district. In addition, the proposed ZC is a piecemeal approach
lacking of overall zoning or plan for the area.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 9
N9, J&4 V:4
ti��`tiw� /ffflf
fjfff �1k
ff!
EM
.�
Figure 5
If the project site were considerably larger (i.e. the properties fronting San Juan Street between
Utt Drive and Green Valley Drive and /or the entire block of properties were included and fully
evaluated and analyzed) in the requested ZC, the issue of spot zoning would not be a factor in
the decision - making process for the project. An analysis has not been provided with the
submitted application.
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review
TCC Section 9226b5 requires the approval of a CUP for the development of condominium units in
the R3 Zoning District, when developed pursuant to the criteria of the Planned Development
(PD) District. Further, TCC Section 9272 requires applicants to obtain DR approval prior to the
issuance of building permits for all new structures. DR 2013 -002 provides for the design and site
layout of the proposed residential project.
Design Compatibility
In part, the purpose of DR is to: 1) protect the value, standards, and importance of land; 2)
retain and strengthen the unity and order of the visual community; and, 3) ensure that new uses
and structures enhance their sites and are harmonious with the highest standards of the
surrounding area and the community.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 10
In addition to the spot zoning issues, staff and the Planning Commission were concerned about
the compatibility of the six (6) proposed three -story residences with the adjacent single story
residences to the northeast and southeast of the project site (Figures 6 and 7). The only
existing three -story residential development in the vicinity of the proposed project is located on
the southwesterly side of San Juan Street, but it is surrounded on two (2) sides by open space
and on the third side by a two -story multi - family residence (Figures 8 and 9). Although the 35-
foot height of the proposed residences complies with the R3 development standards, the project
has not been designed to be sensitive to adjacent single -story residential uses and may create
intrusive visual impacts on the adjacent homes in the neighborhood. Multi -story residential
developments can be designed to be more compatible with adjacent single story residences by
considering the pattern and rhythm of the streetscape and by providing adequate setbacks,
significant architectural articulation and step- downs, sloping roof planes, and other features that
soften the transition between the adjacent properties. Figure 10 depicts how features, such as
dormers and basements, can be used to reduce the bulk of taller buildings and achieve
compatibility with smaller buildings. However, these features are not proposed, and approval of
the proposed project could set an undesirable precedent for additional incompatible in -fill
development.
Figures 6 and 7
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 11
Figures 8 and 9
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 12
COMPATIBILITY OF 5GALE (HEIGHT):
Hide the building's height within the roof.
Dormers increase usable space.
Excavate help hide significant
differences o in height.
1 story 1 -1/2 stories
2 stories 1+ basement
3 stories
ZONING ALLOWS,
\ M05T FREQUENT \
SOMETIMES
\ BUT REQUIRES
EXTRA CARE
Figure 10
Parking Issues
Single family detached residences within the City are typically developed with individual
driveways (minimum 20') in accordance with the required front yard setback of the Single Family
Residential (R1) zoning district. The proposed development circumvents this requirement by
subdividing the property in a manner which does not create individual lots. One purpose of the
driveway for single family detached dwellings is to allow for additional parking of vehicles.
Although a total of three (3) on -site guest parking spaces are proposed, which exceeds by one
(1) space the required number of guest parking spaces for the project, individual driveways are
proposed in only two (2) of the dwelling units within the development. Therefore, staff
anticipates a lack of adequate parking for the project. Further, the proposed single family
detached dwellings are relatively large in size and generally can accommodate more persons
(resulting in more vehicles) than attached residential products provided in most multi - family
developments.
Open Space and Recreation Issues
TCC Section 9224gh requires a minimum of four hundred (400) square feet of open space
recreation area per dwelling unit within a common designated recreation area. Although private
ground level yard areas of between 400 and 533 square feet are proposed for each of the six
(6) residences, these private spaces may only be credited toward the project's open space
requirement and should not constitute the entire open space area or completely substitute for a
common recreation area. Providing a recreation area with amenities often mitigates the impacts
of higher density development and improves livability.
Tentative Tract Map
TCC Section 9323b2 requires a TTM be prepared for subdivisions creating five (5) or more
condominiums as defined in Section 4125 of the California Civil Code. Tentative Tract Map
17665 is a subdivision of an approximately 1/3 acre site into one (1) numbered lot and one (1)
lettered lot for the development of six (6) single family detached condominium units and related
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 13
improvements. Lot A is to be dedicated in fee title for sidewalk purposes to the City of Tustin at
no cost to the City. (Attachment C).
Pursuant to TCC Section 9331 d2, 0.0067 acres of parkland per dwelling unit (in a higher density
development with 15 -25 dwelling units per acre) are required to be dedicated for park purposes.
When the subdivision consists of fewer than fifty (50) parcels, TCC Section 9331d3 allows the
subdivider to pay a park in -lieu fee. Since the private open space provided for each of the six
(6) residences does not qualify for park credit, park in -lieu fees will be required for this project, if
the project were approved.
To ensure operational standards that are consistent with the intent of the community, a
Homeowners Association (HOA), Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC &Rs) and
homebuyer notifications would be required if the project were approved. In larger condominium
communities, these regulatory mechanisms are generally successful in providing for the
maintenance of the common areas of the community. However, in smaller communities such as
the proposed project, it is often challenging for the small HOA to provide for the long term
maintenance of the common areas and to fund significant capital expenses, such as driveway
and roof repair and replacements, often resulting in the need for code enforcement involvement
and supplemental assessments in HOA dues. Staff is also concerned about the ability of six (6)
owners to carry out the responsibilities of the HOA, including parking enforcement,
maintenance, and architectural review.
Other Agencies Input
In compliance with State Subdivision Map Act, the City sent out letters along with a copy of the
TTM to affected agencies. In response, three (3) agencies provided comments (Attachment D).
The Department of Transportation, District 12, indicated that they have no comments at this
time. Southern California Edison Company (SCE) advised that the proposed map will not
unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any easements and /or facilities
held by SCE within the boundaries of said map. The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)
provided preliminary comments regarding the sewer connection, abandonment /capping of the
existing sewer lateral, OCSD fees, and a contract for the shared sewer lateral. No further
comments were received.
Environmental Review
This project is Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15270(A) of the California Code of
Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). CEQA does not apply to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. If ZC 2014 -001, SUB 2013 -01, CUP 2013-
01 and DR 2013 -002 are not rejected or disapproved, a new environmental review will be
conducted accordingly.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Prior to the August 12, 2014, Planning Commission meeting, staff received one (1) telephone
inquiry and one (1) piece of written correspondence, expressing concerns regarding the project.
During the August 12, 2014, public hearing, six (6) individuals spoke in opposition to the project.
Concerns expressed included: impacts related to limited street parking in a highly congested
neighborhood, view obstruction, the size of the development proposed for the site, limited curb
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 14
space for trash bins, garages used for storage rather than parking, and household
overcrowding.
APPLICANT'S ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT:
At the August 12, 2014, Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant's representative
presented several arguments in support of the proposed project (Attachment E — Planning
Commission Minutes). The most substantive arguments are summarized and highlighted in the
following paragraphs.
Applicant's Argument #1 — The Project Complies with the Tustin General Plan.
The applicant's representative quoted three (3) sections of the Tustin General Plan, including
one (1) General Plan Policy pertaining to Smart Growth principles (higher density, affordable
housing, and mixed use), one (1) General Plan Program related to recycling single family uses
in multiple family residential zones, and a statement regarding density in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan.
The proposed project satisfies some of the City's General Plan policies and programs to a
certain degree by providing higher density housing in close proximity to schools, transit, and
other amenities, and by consolidating two (2) relatively small lots into one development.
However, no affordable or mixed use housing is proposed, so the project is consistent with only
one (1) of the three (3) smart growth principles in the General Plan. In addition, a density bonus
has not been requested, and the project does not offer important public amenities or benefits
that might justify a density that exceeds the allowed density. Without a density bonus, a ZC is
required for the proposed project.
Applicant's Argument #2 — The Project is Allowed by the Planned Development Criteria in the
TCC.
The applicant's representative referenced several TCC Sections pertaining to the Planned
Development (PD) District and implied that the project should be approved because all
applicable development standards have been met. It is correct that the proposed condominium
project is subject to the criteria of the PD District, with the discretionary approval of a conditional
use permit and design review. In the PD District, there is no set minimum lot size, maximum
height, or minimum lot area per dwelling unit. However, the subject property is not zoned PD.
Thus, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2,700 square feet, based on the current zoning
of R3 -2700. Further, the absence of an absolute height limit does not mean that any height
proposed needs to be determined by the City to be acceptable or appropriate. The City has
design review discretion to determine the appropriateness of the height of structures within the
context of the surrounding area. Multiple story buildings can be designed to be sensitive to their
surroundings, as described in this report. If approved as proposed, the project would set the
precedent for what may be deemed acceptable for future in -fill residential development in
Tustin.
Applicant's Argument #3 — Building Site Area Deviation in Lieu of Rezone
Several references were made to building site area in the applicant's presentation to the
Planning Commission. The building site area is the area of the entire building site, not the
amount of lot area per dwelling unit. It appears that the applicant was attempting to apply the
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 15
provision for a minor adjustment to the minimum lot area per family unit. The project complies
with the minimum building site area requirements, so the minor adjustment provision is not
applicable to this project.
Applicant's Argument #4 — Spot Zoning Does Not Apply.
The applicant's representative noted that there are several multiple family residential zones in
the vicinity and also a Suburban Residential (R4) zone that is located on Red Hill Avenue and
within the same block as the subject property. The existing R4 zone near the subject property
was annexed to Tustin in 1974, separately from the remainder of the block. The R4 zone
requires a minimum of 3,000 square feet of lot area per family unit and serves as an appropriate
transition zone between the R3 -2700 and Single Family Residential (R1) zones that abut it. The
R3 zones in the area are across San Juan Street and Utt Drive and are not within the same
context as the subject property, in that the R3 properties are adjacent to other higher density
housing and non - residential uses. As noted earlier in this report, the proposed ZC would be
spot zoning because it would not promote a public purpose, but would benefit the property
owner and be a piecemeal approach that is not based on comprehensive planning.
Applicant's Argument #5 — Parking is Sufficient
It was noted by the applicant's representative that: 1) shared driveways are common in Tustin,
2) the Tustin Cottages community on El Camino Real has larger residences with shared
driveways, minimum guest parking, and no on- street parking on El Camino Real, 3) seven (7)
guest parking spaces would be provided at the proposed project as well as substantial parking
along San Juan Street, and 4) Homeowners Association CC &Rs are able to properly enforce
parking. As was demonstrated in photographs shown in the applicant's presentation to the
Planning Commission, vehicles are often parked illegally on shared driveways. The Tustin
Cottages is a good example of a much larger community that provides more than the required
number of guest parking spaces, additional parallel parking spaces on its internal private
streets, and still is in need of additional parking. Further, it was noted by several members of
the public during the hearing that street parking in the neighborhood is highly impacted and a
significant concern. Although conditions could be imposed on the project with respect to
parking, these conditions are routinely not enforced by HOAs and have become an enforcement
burden for the City.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
Following the public hearing on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the project
and adopted Resolution No. 4263, (by a 4 -1 vote, with Commissioner Altowaiji dissenting,)
recommending that the City Council deny the proposed project (Attachment E).
FINDINGS:
In determining whether to approve the proposed project, the City Council must determine whether
or not the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, or be injurious or detrimental to the
property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare
of the City of Tustin; and whether the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance
of the proposal will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 16
future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole. A decision to
deny this request may be supported by the following findings:
1) That the proposed change in zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650 would be classified as
spot zoning. As articulated in court decisions, spot zoning is a term used to describe the
discriminatory zoning of a small parcel that is surrounded by land within a different zone,
and is contrary to orderly development and sound land use planning principles.
2) That in a recent decision, the court of appeals determined that spot zoning can be
justified where a "substantial public need exists" or if it is in the public interest, and the
proposed ZC is not justified because it does not appear to support a substantial public
need or interest in that the housing units to be built would be offered for sale at market
rate and would not accommodate low and very -low income individuals or special needs
groups. The proposed ZC would primarily benefit the property owner by granting the
property owner privileges which are not granted or extended to other landowners in the
vicinity and in the same zoning district.
3) That if the project site were considerably larger (i.e. the properties fronting San Juan
Street between Utt Drive and Green Valley Drive and /or the entire block of properties
were included and fully evaluated and analyzed) in the requested ZC, the issue of spot
zoning would not be a factor in the decision - making process for the project. Such an
analysis has not been provided with the submitted application.
4) That the proposed development does not provide all of the units with driveways to
accommodate additional parking that are typically associated with single family
dwellings, by subdividing the property in a manner which does not create individual lots.
As individual driveways are proposed in only two (2) of the dwelling units within the
development, a lack of adequate guest parking is anticipated for the project (only three
guest spaces are proposed). This issue will become exacerbated if the HOA does not
adequately enforce garage parking.
5) That the lack of adequate on -site parking may impact the streets in the vicinity of the
project site and result in residents and guests parking their vehicles on the rear driveway
where parking is not allowed and blocking access for emergency vehicles.
6) TCC Section 9224g6 allows private ground level open space in condominium
developments to be credited toward the minimum open space requirement, which is 400
square feet per dwelling unit of open space recreation area within a common designated
recreation area. However, the proposed development provides all of the required open
space for the condominium development within private yard areas, and does not provide
any common recreation area. Providing a recreation area with amenities often mitigates
the impacts of higher density development and improves livability.
7) That the six (6) proposed residences are three stories and thirty -five (35) feet in height,
which is significantly taller than, not in scale with, insensitive to, incompatible with, and
greater in bulk than the existing residences directly adjacent to, and within the immediate
vicinity of, the project site, which also creates intrusive visual impacts on adjacent homes in
the neighborhood.
City Council Report
September 16, 2014
1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Page 17
8) That multi -story residential developments can be designed to be more compatible with
adjacent single story residences by considering the pattern and rhythm of the
streetscape and by providing adequate setbacks, significant architectural articulation and
step- downs, dormers, basements, sloping roof planes, and other features that reduce
the bulk of taller buildings, soften the transition between the adjacent properties, and
achieve compatibility with smaller buildings. However, these features are not proposed,
and approving a project of a height and design that is not compatible with adjacent
development could set an undesirable precedent and result in a proliferation of
incompatible in -fill development.
9) That it is often challenging for small homeowners associations to provide for the long
term maintenance of the common areas and to fund significant capital expenses, such
as driveways, perimeter fencing /wall, utilities (water, sewer, etc.), often resulting in the
need for code enforcement involvement and supplemental assessments in HOA dues.
In addition, the six (6) owners may be unable to carry out the responsibilities of the HOA,
including parking enforcement, maintenance, and architectural review.
10) As proposed, TTM 17665 is not consistent with the existing R3 2700 zoning of the
property, and may not be approved unless the City Council approves ZC 2014 -001.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed ZC 2014 -001, SUB 2013 -01 for TTM 17665, CUP 2013 -01 and DR 2013 -002
would have parking and visual impacts to the neighborhood surrounding the site, is incompatible
with the adjacent residential development, and does not comply with the intent of the City's
open space requirement for the proposed type of development. More importantly, the proposed
ZC is a type of spot zoning that is not extended to other landowners in the vicinity and in the
same zoning district; does not appear to promote the public good or support a substantial public
need or interest in that the housing units to be built would be offered for sale at market rate and
would not accommodate low and very -low income individuals or special needs groups; is a
piecemeal approach lacking of overall zoning or plan for the area; and, that is not justified and
should not be approved. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council deny ZC 2014-
001, SUB 2013 -01 for TTM 17665, CUP 2013 -01 and DR 2013 -002.
�Je,y /fit-,
Scott Reekstin
Principal Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
A. Location Map
B. Land Use Fact Sheet
C. Submitted Plans
D. Other Agencies Comments
E. Planning Commission Minutes of August 12, 2014, and Resolution No. 4263
F. City Council Resolution No. 14 -58
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP
LOCATION MAP
ZC 2014 -001, SUB 2013 -01, CUP 2013 -01, DR 2013 -002
1381 -1391 SAN JUAN STREET
4.4- 4RMioc�a �
rG�
THE ~
COTTAGES
CHARLOMA 4R. TT 7R
�a ¢ PROJECT SITE
s
PARK
f
300'
r
�f.
� r
500'
1 ` r
� fl0339ft \\
ATTACHMENT B
LAND USE FACT SHEET
LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET
1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): ZC 2014 -001, SUB 2013 -01 CUP 2013 -01 DR 2013 -002
2. LOCATION: NEC SAN JUAN AND UTT DRIVE 3. ADDRESS: 1381 -1391 SAN JUAN STREET
4. APN(S):500- 081- (01 -02)
5. PREVIOUS APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2012 -145
6. SURROUNDING LAND USES:
NORTH: MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SOUTH: MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
EAST: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WEST: MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION:
NORTHEAST: R3 - 2700 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SOUTHWEST: R3- MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SOUTHEAST: R3-2700 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NORTHWEST: R3- MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
NORTHEAST: HDR (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) SOUTHWEST: HDR
SOUTH EAST: HDR NORTHWEST: HDR
9. SITE LAND USE:
A. EXISTING: VACANT /SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
B. PROPOSED: SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS
C. GENERAL PLAN: HDR D. ZONING: R3 - 2700
PROPOSED GP: HDR PROPOSED ZONING: R3 - 2650
DEVELOPMENT FACTS:
10. LOT AREA: 16,060 SQUARE FEET,
11. PARKING: 14 REQUIRED SPACES 15 PROVIDED SPACES
12. MAXIMUM HEIGHT: NONE SPECIFIED: 35 FEET PROPOSED
13. BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED
FRONT: NONE SPECIFIED 12 FEET, 8 INCHES
SIDE: 10 FEET 5 FEET
CORNER SIDE: 10 FEET 10 FEET
REAR: 10 FEET 10 FEET
ATTACHMENT C
SUBMITTED PLANS
�. UNIT'S'
UNITE'
YIA': u esroar
eSTORY
'� cAw.cE crnr.cE
dot
I
NEE, ,N °
UNIT 'A' GMAMGE UNIT D' 2L.
R' }siORY A
.17
TIE ..VTE
C
...... ..vv u.
ITT
'
Q— L,
S A N J U A N S t
6 Single Family Residences
°` ONN I... ,.,
w
RRE�
APPLICABLE CODES
UNIT'C' s
s�awE G
G'a`aA°AGE U
UNIT T'
2S70KY
r\
n`.
f
�.,a.nR.
i i
ill I
I �
: ;
�III�I I
II I
Ijljl i
i i
it I
II k
kllll a
j'I II �
��,;. ;
; I
;III Q
ai u
u, j
I :
Q
p`IIEEE 3'
eITT
-
a -
ra�u rnru .
.
ZONING STWIARM
IT
souaRErm *ACE .....,. .a,.,..,
IMI I—
EE
ANC' ANALYSIS
ETEWEEET(E�I— IT.
OPEN SPACE .�.
1EGENO Lr�x[ R•
PARKING ANALIEYS
LEET
PARKIANOO D.AT.N
ikm
SITE PLAN
6 Single Family Residences
°` ONN I... ,.,
w
RRE�
APPLICABLE CODES
ZONING STWIARM
IT
souaRErm *ACE .....,. .a,.,..,
IMI I—
EE
ANC' ANALYSIS
ETEWEEET(E�I— IT.
OPEN SPACE .�.
1EGENO Lr�x[ R•
PARKING ANALIEYS
LEET
PARKIANOO D.AT.N
ikm
SITE PLAN
Lj
L- - - - - - - j
SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
Ji
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
THIRD FLOOR JEN:
-T-
P!tT
C2
co
40
N
01
J
W
<u
LLZ
WW c
ja
ZW
�A- �AMILY
TR(J�T Dll� -C
FED U-11
J U Li U
7�MRFRRFRR�FRFRN-RIO
RIGHT
FRONTA
........ ... ...
LM
REAR LEFT
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS *'A-
C%l
cn
J
o).s
Z
aU 9
LL Z
WW
J
0
Z �j w
fA
C
Go
�y 1-11
now"
Mill
all
NINE as
I I a
REAR
FRONT
LEFT
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS "B- 2,--
K
ali `
L
I I Wo
Im
REAR
FRONT C
LEFT
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -C° t:-
CD
co
N
Qi
LW N
4U
LL vi
WW m
J❑ o
_ZW
a
(!I�
C"
r^ M
Y/ r'
V
C
10
r
m
M
r
UY
A -3.4
zv
e ��K
x VY11 %ryo. ww
S:i�1i5l�, 9:wwrr�
.1f.°1pJiPrb, %r.IV --, �.
LANDSCAPE PLAN Z.»•
0
N
01
e
mw
H
dU
LLZ N
WW
JD m
W
Z
_
�ryn m
UJ'+ h
r
Of
M
Y/ .^ a—
v
C
W
m
M
r
L -1
TENTATIVE TRACT No. 17665
oat
pp .!.or n � #L
SE
A
o -
Pa.F I UNIT B UNIT C
110.]0 noz I PAD =110.fi
1--1 1 F.F. . `, �' PAD= 1108
SE F 11110
I ��: �. ' -I �. F.F.= 111.'JO
yl =
el
i"�2I7f"``.�.� �— UNIT D
Q ^� h r PAD :110.2
0 l
RE, 11070
IF
-UNIT
UNIT F
I - L
PAD =1lib wy
FF.= 111.501 r AD -t11.1
F. III f0r..
LtI I
2
K
�y q
C 9
3
GENFPAL NOTES
IT
IT 11
arm
CHfPHIC SENE iu "rxe unaw.au rw ueurm euu .e,urwriu
�unL�iry c�DMVANIESr�¢�
— - 11N =PE LEGEND
ADDRESS: 1301 & 1391 SAN JUAN STREET
IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
j� L
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK A, TRACT NO. 632, M.M. 20 -30
��.... F
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES
_ - - - -- -
-r - -
-
// U
UT —
DRIVE m
ti
pp .!.or n � #L
SE
A
o -
Pa.F I UNIT B UNIT C
110.]0 noz I PAD =110.fi
1--1 1 F.F. . `, �' PAD= 1108
SE F 11110
I ��: �. ' -I �. F.F.= 111.'JO
yl =
el
i"�2I7f"``.�.� �— UNIT D
Q ^� h r PAD :110.2
0 l
RE, 11070
IF
-UNIT
UNIT F
I - L
PAD =1lib wy
FF.= 111.501 r AD -t11.1
F. III f0r..
LtI I
2
K
�y q
C 9
3
GENFPAL NOTES
IT
IT 11
arm
CHfPHIC SENE iu "rxe unaw.au rw ueurm euu .e,urwriu
�unL�iry c�DMVANIESr�¢�
— - 11N =PE LEGEND
ADDRESS: 1301 & 1391 SAN JUAN STREET
s' ■ ■■
ire i�
rr;rrrsrsa..orrrrr:srp. � �
5 ��ll�'�rl�
® lid ■I ■R� �
�Il
�} S' 1
is �� ■� � ■� ■■ �■ �� n■ ■■ ■� � '� � .
III
UNION ,
UPON
ELEVATION B -1
■ ■
a
'
EXTERIOR COLORS ::
WALL 'MERLEX'P -6
i
ROOFING 'EAGLE' LITER
3532 WEATHERED TERRACOTA
UPON
ELEVATION B -1
■ ■
a
■ __ ■��p
■I■
EXTERIOR .
WALL 'MERLEX'P-8080
fA > -
ELEVATION C-1
II ■ ■ �1
■ ■ ICI■
EXTERIOR COLORS::
WALL 'MERLEX'P-899
2530 WEATHERED ADOBE
A
ELEVATION C-2
ATTACHMENT D
OTHER AGENCIES COMMENTS
STATE OF CAI IEQRS16 'Ai IFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
3347 MICHELSON DRIVE, SUITE 100
IRVINE, CA 92612 -8894
PHONE (949) 724 -2086
PAX (949) 724 -2592
I rY 711
%vw%v.dot.ca.gov
June 24, 2014
Mr. Scott Reekstin
Principal Planner
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA. 92780
Dear Mr. Reekstin:
RECEIVED
JJP; 27 2014
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT
Serious drought.
Help save ivater.I
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH #: None
Log #: 3904
1 -5, SR -22
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Tentative Tract Map 17665. The
proposed condominium subdivision consisting of (1) numbered lot and (1) lettered lot for the
development of six single family detached condominium units on a 16,060 square foot site.
The Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this
project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in the
Department's right of way, an encroachment permit will be required.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that
could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need
to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Aileen Kennedy at (949) 724 -2239.
Sincerely,
MAUREEN EL HARAKE
Branch Chief, Regional- Community- Transit Planning
District 12
c: Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations North
"Provide n safe, sustainable. inlegrmed and elfcient vansportamn srstein
to enhance Califonua's eeonoinv and lieability"
SOUIHI:RN CALIFORNIA
EDISON`
n.. enrso,�• r.cTr:r,.veTk ?�'.V. � a.�,��:�,q
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Attention: Planning Division
Subject: Tract Map No. 17665
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 2014
COMMUNITY 6EVELQPMFNT DEPT
June 25, 2014
Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Tract Map No.
17665 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any
easements and /or facilities held by Southern California Edison Company within
the boundaries of said map.
This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights,
title and interest in and to said easement(s), nor should this letter be construed
as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of
costs for relocation of any affected facilities.
In the event that the development requires relocation of facilities, on the subject
property, which facilities exist by right of easement or otherwise, the
owner /developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide
Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are
required prior to the performance of the relocation.
If you have any questions, or need additional information in connection with the
subject subdivision, please contact me at (626) 302 -4473.
i
Steven D. Lowry /
Title and Real Estate Services
Corporate Real Estate Department
21 ;1 Avalwl Glove Ava. and Flour
Tills and Hcul Gd�nm Jc micd,
Ituncnmud. CAA X11770
Reekstin, Scott
From: Smith, Wendy <WSmith @OCSD.COM>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:09 PM
To: Hutter, Edmelynne; Reekstin, Scott
Cc: Smith, Wendy; PermitCounter
Subject: 1381 - 1391 San Juan Street; Tentative Tract Map No. 17665 Review
Hi Edmelynne,
Per our conversation earlier today, I've completed a preliminary review of the subject tract map. I anticipate having
comments regarding the following topics:
• Physical connection to the OCSD sewer on San Juan
• Abandonment and /or capping of existing sewer lateral
• OCSD fees required for the project
• Possible requirement to have the property owner draw up a contract /agreement (not sure of the correct
terminology to use yet) for the shared sewer lateral. I need to perform more research on this point
I will be on vacation starting tomorrow and returning on Monday July 7`h. I will complete my review at that time.
Thank you for understanding.
Wendy Smith, P.E.
Orange County Sanitation District I Planning Division
Engineer
714.593.7880 ph
wsmith@ocsd.com
for you.
W
ATTACHMENT E
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2014 AND
RESOLUTION NO. 4263
MINUTES ITEM #1
REGULAR MEETING
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 2014
7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER
Given INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Smith
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairperson Thompson
Chairperson Pro Tern Lumbard
Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith
Staff Present Elizabeth Binsack, Director of Community Development
Lois Bobak, City Attorney
Justina Willkom, Assistant Director of Community Development
Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development
Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner
Amy Stonich, Senior Planner
Edmelynne V. Hutter, Senior Planner
Ryan Swiontek, Senior Planner
Samantha Beier, Assistant Planner
Adrianne DiLeva- Johnson, Sr. Management Assistant
Vera Tiscareno, Executive Assistant
PUBLIC CONCERNS
Ms. Hilda Plummer, resident at 13661 Green Valley Drive, voiced her
concern for the safety of the neighborhood children due to a possible
rehabilitation home being located near San Juan Street and Tustin
Avenue.
Thompson asked that Staff check with Code Enforcement or law
enforcement on safety involved. Per Binsack, Staff will follow up with Ms.
Plummer on outcome.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Approved the 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JULY 22, 2014, PLANNING
Minutes of the COMMISSION MEETING.
July 22, 2014
meeting, as RECOMMENDATION:
amended.
That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the July 22,
2014 meeting as provided.
Motion: It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak, to approve the July 22,
2014 Minutes, as amended. Motion carried 5 -0.
Minutes — Planning Commission — August 12, 2014 — Page 1 of 7
PUBLIC HEARING:
Adopted Resolution 2. ZONE CHANGE 2014 -001, SUBDIVISION 2013 -01 FOR
No. 4263. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17665, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2013 -01, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -002 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SIX (6) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 1381 -1391 SAN
JUAN STREET
REQUESTS:
Zone Change (ZC) 2014 -001 to change the
zoning from R3 -2700 to R3 2650 to reduce
the minimum lot area per family unit from
2,700 square feet to 2,650 square feet to
allow the development of six (6) residential
condominium units.
2. Subdivision (SUB) 2013 -01 for Tentative
Tract Map (TTM) 17665 for the subdivision
of an approximately 1/3 acre site consisting
of one (1) numbered lot and one (1) lettered
lot for the development of six (6) single
family detached condominium units.
3. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2013 -01 for
the development of condominium units in the
R3 Zoning District, pursuant to the criteria of
the Planned Development (PD) District.
4. Design Review (DR) 2013 -002 for the
design and site layout of six (6) single
family detached condominium units and
related improvements.
APPLICANT: Alfonso Maciel
A &A Drafting
2017 W. Alco Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92703
PROPERTY
OWNER: Shaygan Family Trust
19 Spike Moss
Irvine, CA 92603
LOCATION: 1381 -1391 San Juan Street
Minutes — Planning Commission — August 12, 2014 — Page 2 of 7
ENVIRONMENTAL
This project is statutorily exempt pursuant to Section 15270(a) of
the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act). CEQA does not apply to projects
which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
If Zone Change 2014 -001, Subdivision 2013 -01, Conditional Use
Permit 2013 -01 and Design Review 2013 -002 are not rejected or
disapproved, a new environmental review will be conducted
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4263,
recommending that the City Council deny:
a. Zone Change 2014 -001, a request to change the zoning
from R3 -2700 to R3 PD -2650 to increase the allowable
density of the site to allow the development of six (6)
residential condominium units.
b. Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665 for
the subdivision of an approximately 1/3 acre site
consisting of one (1) numbered lot and one (1) lettered lot
for the development of six (6) single family detached
condominium units.
C. Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01 for the development of
condominium units in the R3 Zoning District.
d. Design Review 2013 -002 for the design and site layout of
six (6) single family detached condominium units and
related improvements.
Thompson Thompson stated, for the record, that he met with the applicant and the
architects at the site on July 27, 2014 to gain an understanding of the
layout of the site to discuss the issues and possible solutions.
Altowaiji For the record, Altowaiji met with the applicant and Staff six (6) months
ago. He advised the applicant to work with staff, as well as the adjacent
property owners, on the lot line adjustment.
Reekstin Presentation given.
Commission's concerns generally included: Units sharing drive -way
access; lack of parking spaces; various zoning districts; and maintenance
of the property.
Reekstin In response to the Commission's concerns, Reekstin stated that the
concern is not "sharing the driveway', but only that the shared driveway
does not provide any parking spaces (only the rear driveway provides
Minutes — Planning Commission — August 12, 2014 — Page 3 of 7
access to garage and guest parking); zoning allows up to five (5) units on
the property; homeowners associations property maintenance seems to
be an issue with other condominium units within the City.
7:34 p.m. Public Hearing Opened.
Ms. Plummer's concerns generally included: Parking issue; she asked if
the applicant would consider underground parking; and lack of street
space for trash cans on trash day pick -up which causes sanitation issues
due to non -pick up.
Mr. James Maring's, concerns generally included: Parking issue and that
the neighboring school parking affects residential parking.
Mrs. Maia Bourquz's concern is parking being an issue with or without the
proposed project.
Mr. Bernard Bourquz commended Reekstin on his presentation. His
concems generally included: Garages in neighborhood being used for
storage, not for cars, parking issue; and homeowner's association's
challenge of property maintenance due to low rate of participation.
Ms. Donna Karlen's concerns generally included: Parking issue and the
lack of street space for trash cans and the vacant lot overgrown with
shrubs.
Mr. Ronald Nestor, representative for Mr. Shaygan, provided a Power
Point presentation.
Mr. Robert Snodgrass was concerned with the lack of parking.
8:08 p.m. Public Hearing Closed.
Commission's deliberation generally included: Staff and /or Council not
being given a chance to review Mr. Nestor's Power Point presentation
prior to the meeting; Commission's consideration of the discretionary
actions since the concern is "spot zone" change and the legal
interpretation; building height; 5% minor adjustment was not part of
Commission's consideration; asked if units would only be frontage along
Red Hill Avenue; confusion with which standards are being applied;
flexibility with parking, attempt to preserve "community'; infill; adding
footage to the Right -Of -Way; suggested Staff work with the applicant and
neighbors on finding solutions on mitigating parking issues; asked if a
zone change would be necessary if the applicant made one of the units
affordable; and that all Commissioners take into consideration all
concerns of the public.
Bobak Bobak's response to the Commission's questions generally included:
Staff did not receive any letter in advance (legal or otherwise contrary to
the staff report) of the meeting; asked the Commission to direct specific
questions to staff and then address those issues in a staff report to
Minutes —Planning Commission — August 12, 2014 —Page 4 of 7
Council; the Commission does have discretion and referred them to the
list of actions in the staff report; no property owner has a right to
"maximum development" on his /her property unless permitted as a matter
of right (i.e. CUP); the application states condominiums (which can legally
be separately sold to multiple owners) which is why a CUP would be
required but not with apartments (which are generally owned by one
owner); spot zoning's basic principle — should not zone individual parcels
of property in a way that gives the owners of that property significant
advantage over adjacent properties that do not have that same advantage
or disadvantage; and no other property in the City has zoning designation
(R3 2650) that the applicant is asking for.
Reekstin Reekstin explained height differences in various zoning districts and that
Planned Development Standards do not specify height, but do apply to
this project; 5% minor adjustment is for a building site area which is a
different concept than lot area per family unit, which would be the
minimum size for the entire lot and this site exceeds the minimum
requirement; the property was annexed in the 1980's and it is likely the
property is a "carryover zone" from the County Standards.
Binsack Ms. Binsack's responses to the Commission's questions generally
included: Explained the various zoning districts; the City encourages infill
development and has goals and objectives to meet (i.e. affordable
housing); she explained the piecemeal approach; Binsack stated a
comprehensive evaluation on an environmental analysis would benefit
nearby property owners if the City required one of the units to be
affordable; and if a Density Bonus (and application) are requested on a
unit and a very-low unit is proposed, then the City has an obligation to
grant the concession, but it is not the case in the application presented to
the Commission.
Motion: Item was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Smith, to adopt Resolution
No. 4263, as provided, denying the application. Motion carried 4 -1.
Altowaiji dissented.
Binsack As a point of clarification, all items are appealable by the City Council,
however, no need for an appeal since it is a recommendation to the City
Council and will be tentatively scheduled in September. Notification of the
Council meeting will also be sent out to the attendees.
REGULAR BUSINESS:
Approved the 3. COMMENDATION AND TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER
recommended NOMINATION ARTZ BUILDING —150 & 158 W. MAIN STREET
actions and will
forward to City The City of Tustin is nominating the property at 150 & 158 W.
Council for Main Street for a commendation and addition to the Tustin
recognition. Historic Register Plaque Program. Typically, the Tustin
Preservation Conservancy or the Tustin Area Historical Society
would nominate a property; however, a City- initiated nomination
is being brought forward to recognize that the building was
Minutes — Planning Commission — August 12, 2014 — Page 5 of 7
constructed 100 years ago in 1914.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission: Approve the nomination of 150 &
158 W. Main Street to the City's Commendation Program and
Historic Register Plaque Program; select "Artz Building 1914" as
the most appropriate historical name and date of construction of
the property; and, forward the commendation to the City Council
for recognition.
Thompson Thompson recused himself since he owns property in close proximity to
this location, although there does not appear to be a conflict and stated
it was "out of abundance of caution ".
DiLeva- Johnson Provided a presentation of the item.
The Commission commended DiLeva- Johnson on a job well done on the
staff report.
Lumbard Lumbard asked for clarification on the name on the plaque. Suggested
luminaries and busts be located at this property.
DiLeva- Johnson DiLeva- Johnson clarified that the name will be "Artz Building" (year
separate).
Motion: Kozak moved to approve the nomination, seconded by Altowaiji, to move
forward with the commendation to the City Council for recognition.
Thompson abstained.
STAFF CONCERNS:
Binsack The Tustin Pioneer Program was accepted at the last Commission
meeting and now staff will be reaching out to vendors on the busts and
pedestals and will keep the Commission apprised of the outcome. The
draft Commercial Design Guidelines (CDG), with the Commission's
comments incorporated will be presented at a future public forum.
Binsack thanked those Commission members who participated with the
MIG interviews. The next steps will be to interview key community
leaders and then host a public workshop (first workshop tentatively
scheduled in early Fall).
COMMISSION CONCERNS:
Kozak Kozak commended Staff on the Public Hearing item. He continues
participating in the Concerts in the Park and thanked Parks & Recreation
for the "great lineup He also stated that school begins September 3rd
and to please be aware of children walking to /from school while driving.
Kozak stated he was meeting with M I G Friday, August 15, 2014.
Altowaiji Altowaiji commended staff on their hard work with the Public Hearing staff
report.
Minutes —Planning Commission — August 12, 2014— Page 6 of 7
Smith Smith asked if the City had requirements promoting water use (i.e. water
restrictions in order to preserve water).
Lumbard Lumbard suggested Staff take a look at the overall zoning and plan in the
community and how the City's goals may conflict with what current
language says on how things are designated. "Stage 2 Water Alert Due
to Drought Awareness" was announced on August 5, 2014.
Thompson Thompson requested Staff write a memo to the Commission on Water
Conservation Measures that may be affecting zoning administrator
decisions that are made (i.e. not issuing building permits for pools) to help
with awareness; attended an OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee earlier
this day.
Binsack Binsack stated the City does have a Water Conservation ordinance it
place, and other various model ordinances for landscaping improvements.
8:51 p.m. ADJOURNMENT:
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for
Tuesday, August 26, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at
300 Centennial Way.
Minutes — Planning Commission — August 12, 2014 — Page 7 of 7
RESOLUTION NO. 4263
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL DENY ZONE CHANGE 2014 -001, SUBDIVISION
2013 -01 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17665, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 2013 -01, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -002, A
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R3) 2700 TO R3 2650 AND TO
DEVELOP SIX (6) DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
UNITS AT 1381 -1391 SAN JUAN STREET.
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application has been submitted by Alfonso Maciel, for the
development of six (6) detached residential condominium units on an
approximately 1/3 acre site at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street.
B. That the development application includes the following requests:
1. Zone Change 2014 -001 to change the zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650
to reduce the minimum lot area per family unit from 2,700 square feet to
2,650 square feet to allow the development of six (6) residential
condominium units.
2. Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665 to subdivide an
approximately 1/3 acre site consisting of one (1) numbered lot and one
(1) lettered lot for the development of six (6) single family detached
condominium units.
3. Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01 for the development of condominium
units in the R3 Zoning District, pursuant to the criteria of the Planned
Development (PD) District.
4. Design Review 2013 -002 for the design and site layout of six (6) single
family detached condominium units and related improvements.
C. That the site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (133) 2700 and has a
High Density Residential General Plan land use designation. In addition,
the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -
element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be
consistent with the Air Quality Sub - element.
D. That Tustin City Code Section 9295 specifies any amendment to the
zoning of a property may be initiated and adopted as other ordinances are
amended or adopted.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 2
E. That Tustin City Code Section 9323b2 requires a tentative tract map be
prepared for subdivisions creating five (5) or more condominiums as
defined in Section 4125 of the California Civil Code.
F. That Tustin City Code Section 9226b5 requires the approval of a conditional
use permit for the development of condominium units in the R3 Zoning
District, when developed pursuant to the criteria of the Planned
Development (PD) District.
G. That Tustin City Code Section 9272 requires applicants to obtain Design
Review approval prior to the issuance of building permits for all new
structures,
H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Zone Change
2014 -001, Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665,
Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01, and Design Review 2013 -02 on August
12, 2014, by the Planning Commission.
That the proposed change in zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650 would be
classified as spot zoning. As articulated in court decisions, spot zoning is
a term used to describe the discriminatory zoning of a small parcel that is
surrounded by land within a different zone and is contrary to orderly
development and sound land use planning principles. _.
J. That the court of appeal determined in Foothill Communities Coalition v.
County of Orange that spot zoning can be justified where a "substantial
public need exists" or if it is in the public interest. The proposed zone
change is not justified because it does not appear to support a substantial
public need or interest in that the housing units to be built would be
offered for sale at market rate and would not accommodate low and very-
low income individuals or special needs groups. The proposed zone
change would primarily benefit the property owner by granting the
property owner privileges which are not granted or extended to other
landowners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. In addition, the
proposed Zone Change is a piecemeal approach lacking of overall zoning
or a plan for the area.
K. That if the project site were considerably larger (i.e. the properties fronting
San Juan Street between Utt Drive and Green Valley Drive and /or the
entire block of properties were included and fully evaluated and analyzed)
in the requested ZC, the issue of spot zoning would not be a factor in the
decision - making process for the project. Such an analysis has not been
provided with the submitted application. E .'
l
L. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use
will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 3
in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and be injurious or detrimental to
the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property,
or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that:
1. That the proposed development does not provide all of the units with
driveways to accommodate additional parking that are typically
associated with single family dwellings, by subdividing the property in
a manner which does not create individual lots. As individual
driveways are proposed in only two (2) of the dwelling units within the
development, a lack of adequate guest parking is anticipated for the
project (only three guest spaces are proposed). This issue will
become exacerbated if the HOA does not adequately enforce garage
parking.
2. The lack of adequate on -site parking may impact the streets in the
vicinity of the project site and result in residents and guests parking
their vehicles on the rear driveway where parking is not allowed and
blocking access for emergency vehicles.
3. Tustin City Code Section 9224g6 allows private ground level open
space in condominium developments to be credited toward the
minimum open space requirement, which is 400 square feet of open
space recreation area within a common designated recreation area.
However, the proposed development provides all of the required
open space for the condominium development within private yard
areas, and does not provide any common recreation area. Providing
a recreation area with amenities often mitigates the impacts of higher
density development and improves livability.
M. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9272, the location, size,
architectural features and general appearance of the proposed
development will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the
area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or
the community as a whole, in that the six (6) proposed residences are three
stories and thirty -five (35) feet in height, which is significantly taller than, not
in scale with, insensitive to, incompatible with, and greater in bulk than the
existing residences directly adjacent to, and within the immediate vicinity of,
the project site, which also creates intrusive visual impacts on adjacent
homes in the neighborhood.
N. That multi -story residential developments can be designed to be more
compatible with adjacent single story residences by considering the
pattern and rhythm of the streetscape and by providing adequate
setbacks, significant architectural articulation and step- downs, dormers,
basements, sloping roof planes, and other features that reduce the bulk of
taller buildings, soften the transition between the adjacent properties, and
achieve compatibility with smaller buildings. However, these features are
not proposed, and approving a project of a height and design that is not
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 4
compatible with adjacent development could set an undesirable precedent
and result in a proliferation of incompatible in -fill development.
O. That it is often challenging for small homeowners associations to provide
for the long term maintenance of the common areas and to fund significant
capital expenses, such as driveways, perimeter fencing /wall, utilities
(water, sewer, etc.), often resulting in the need for code enforcement
involvement and supplemental assessments in HOA dues. In addition, the
six (6) owners may be unable to carry out the responsibilities of the HOA,
including parking enforcement, maintenance, and architectural review.
P. As proposed, Tentative Tract Map 17665 is not consistent with the existing
R3 2700 zoning of the property, and may not be approved unless the City
Council approves Zone Change 2014 -001.
Q. That this project is exempt pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects which are
disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny Zone
Change 2014 -001, Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665,
Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01 and Design Review 2013 -002, a request to
change the zoning and develop six (6) detached residential condominium units on
an approximately 1/3 acre site at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a
regular meeting on the 12th day of August, 2014.
JEFF'WTHOMPSON'
Chairperson
r�
<z I ri JI
.p
Planning Commission Secretary
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4263
Page 5
f 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. 4263 was
duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held
on the 12`h day of August, 2014, by the following vote:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED:
PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT:
r Zzrrr ' �Z'
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Kozak, Lumbard, Smith, Thompson (4)
Altowaiji (1)
ATTACHMENT F
RESOLUTION NO. 14 -58
RESOLUTION NO. 14 -58
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, DENYING ZONE CHANGE 2014 -001, SUBDIVISION
2013 -01 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17665, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 2013 -01, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2013 -002, A
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R3) 2700 TO R3 2650 AND TO
DEVELOP SIX (6) DETACHED RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
UNITS AT 1381 -1391 SAN JUAN STREET.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application has been submitted by Alfonso Maciel, for the
development of six (6) detached residential condominium units on an
approximately 1/3 acre site at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street.
B. That the development application includes the following requests:
1. Zone Change 2014 -001 to change the zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650
to reduce the minimum lot area per family unit from 2,700 square feet to
2,650 square feet to allow the development of six (6) residential
condominium units.
2. Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665 to subdivide an
approximately 1/3 acre site consisting of one (1) numbered lot and one
(1) lettered lot for the development of six (6) single family detached
condominium units.
3. Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01 for the development of condominium
units in the R3 Zoning District, pursuant to the criteria of the Planned
Development (PD) District.
4. Design Review 2013 -002 for the design and site layout of six (6) single
family detached condominium units and related improvements.
C. That the site is zoned Multiple Family Residential (R3) 2700 and has a
High Density Residential General Plan land use designation. In addition,
the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub -
element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be
consistent with the Air Quality Sub - element.
D. That Tustin City Code Section 9295 specifies any amendment to the
zoning of a property may be initiated and adopted as other ordinances are
amended or adopted.
Resolution No. 14 -58
Page 2
E. That Tustin City Code Section 9323b2 requires a tentative tract map be
prepared for subdivisions creating five (5) or more condominiums as
defined in Section 4125 of the California Civil Code.
F. That Tustin City Code Section 9226b5 requires the approval of a conditional
use permit for the development of condominium units in the R3 Zoning
District, when developed pursuant to the criteria of the Planned
Development (PD) District.
G. That Tustin City Code Section 9272 requires applicants to obtain Design
Review approval prior to the issuance of building permits for all new
structures.
H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Zone Change
2014 -001, Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665,
Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01, and Design Review 2013 -02 on August
12, 2014, by the Planning Commission.
That on August 12, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 4263, recommending the City Council deny Zone Change 2014 -001,
Subdivision 2013 -01 for Tentative Tract Map 17665, Conditional Use
Permit 2013 -01, and Design Review 2013 -02.
J. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said
application on September 16, 2014, by the City Council.
K. That the proposed change in zoning from R3 2700 to R3 2650 would be
classified as spot zoning. As articulated in court decisions, spot zoning is
a term used to describe the discriminatory zoning of a small parcel that is
surrounded by land within a different zone and is contrary to orderly
development and sound land use planning principles.
L. That the court of appeal determined in Foothill Communities Coalition v.
County of Orange that spot zoning can be justified where a "substantial
public need exists" or if it is in the public interest. The proposed zone
change is not justified because it does not appear to support a substantial
public need or interest in that the housing units to be built would be
offered for sale at market rate and would not accommodate low and very-
low income individuals or special needs groups. The proposed zone
change would primarily benefit the property owner by granting the
property owner privileges which are not granted or extended to other
landowners in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. In addition, the
proposed Zone Change is a piecemeal approach lacking of overall zoning
or a plan for the area.
M. That if the project site were considerably larger (i.e. the properties fronting
San Juan Street between Utt Drive and Green Valley Drive and /or the
entire block of properties were included and fully evaluated and analyzed)
in the requested ZC, the issue of spot zoning would not be a factor in the
Resolution No. 14 -58
Page 3
decision- making process for the project. Such an analysis has not been
provided with the submitted application.
N. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use
will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working
in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and be injurious or detrimental to
the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property,
or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that:
1. That the proposed development does not provide all of the units with
driveways to accommodate additional parking that are typically
associated with single family dwellings, by subdividing the property in
a manner which does not create individual lots. As individual
driveways are proposed in only two (2) of the dwelling units within the
development, a lack of adequate guest parking is anticipated for the
project (only three guest spaces are proposed). This issue will
become exacerbated if the HOA does not adequately enforce garage
parking.
2. The lack of adequate on -site parking may impact the streets in the
vicinity of the project site and result in residents and guests parking
their vehicles on the rear driveway where parking is not allowed and
blocking access for emergency vehicles.
3. Tustin City Code Section 9224g6 allows private ground level open
space in condominium developments to be credited toward the
minimum open space requirement, which is 400 square feet of open
space recreation area within a common designated recreation area.
However, the proposed development provides all of the required
open space for the condominium development within private yard
areas, and does not provide any common recreation area. Providing
a recreation area with amenities often mitigates the impacts of higher
density development and improves livability.
O. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9272, the location, size,
architectural features and general appearance of the proposed
development will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the
area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or
the community as a whole, in that the six (6) proposed residences are three
stories and thirty -five (35) feet in height, which is significantly taller than, not
in scale with, insensitive to, incompatible with, and greater in bulk than the
existing residences directly adjacent to, and within the immediate vicinity of,
the project site, which also creates intrusive visual impacts on adjacent
homes in the neighborhood.
P. That multi -story residential developments can be designed to be more
compatible with adjacent single story residences by considering the
pattern and rhythm of the streetscape and by providing adequate
Resolution No. 14 -58
Page 4
setbacks, significant architectural articulation and step- downs, dormers,
basements, sloping roof planes, and other features that reduce the bulk of
taller buildings, soften the transition between the adjacent properties, and
achieve compatibility with smaller buildings. However, these features are
not proposed, and approving a project of a height and design that is not
compatible with adjacent development could set an undesirable precedent
and result in a proliferation of incompatible in -fill development.
Q. That it is often challenging for small homeowners associations to provide
for the long term maintenance of the common areas and to fund significant
capital expenses, such as driveways, perimeter fencing /wall, utilities
(water, sewer, etc.), often resulting in the need for code enforcement
involvement and supplemental assessments in HOA dues. In addition, the
six (6) owners may be unable to carry out the responsibilities of the HOA,
including parking enforcement, maintenance, and architectural review.
R. As proposed, Tentative Tract Map 17665 is not consistent with the existing
R3 2700 zoning of the property, and may not be approved unless the City
Council approves Zone Change 2014 -001.
S. That this project is exempt pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects which are
disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
II. The City Council hereby denies Zone Change 2014 -001, Subdivision 2013 -01 for
Tentative Tract Map 17665, Conditional Use Permit 2013 -01 and Design Review
2013 -002, a request to change the zoning and develop six (6) detached residential
condominium units on an approximately 1/3 acre site at 1381 -1391 San Juan Street.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting
on the 16th day of September, 2014.
ELWYN A. MURRAY
MAYOR
ATTEST:
JEFFREY C. PARKER
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 14 -58
Page 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CITY OF TUSTIN
I, Jeffrey C. Parker, 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. 14 -58 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16th day of
September, 2014, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
JEFFREY C. PARKER
CITY CLERK