Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 PC REPORT CA 2015-001 SECOND RESIDENTIALITEM #j AGENIDA R PORT MEMO - MEETING DATE: MARCH 24, 2015 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CONTINUED CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) — SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4277, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1454, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code (TCC) to provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District; APPROVAL AUTHORITY TCC Section 9295f authorizes the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on proposed Zoning Code amendments. Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Proposed Code Amendment Proposed Code Amendment 2015-001 would provide new standards for second residential units in the CR District, allow new second residential units on any residentially zoned lot in the CR District regardless of lot size, and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. The standards for second residential units in all other areas of the City are not proposed to be amended, and all second residential units in the City would continue to be allowed ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. Planning Commission Action on February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 was properly noticed for a February 24, 2015, public hearing, at which time the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, staff provided a presentation, and several members of the public provided testimony (see Attachments A — February 24, 2015, Planning Commission Report and B — Draft Minutes of February 24, 2015, Planning Commission meeting). The Planning Commission (with the exception of Chair Thompson who recused himself) deliberated the matter and considered three motions. Commissioner Altowaiji made a motion to reject the proposed ordinance and to direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance exempting 12,000 square foot lots and to analyze additional square footage requirements. This first motion failed due to a lack of a second to the motion. Chair Pro Tem Lumbard then moved to adopt Resolution No. 4277 and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Kozak, with Commissioners Altowaiji and Smith opposed, so the motion failed 2-2-1. It was then moved by Commissioner Kozak to continue the item to March 24, 2015, to provide adequate time for staff to provide an analysis based on alternative proposals from Commissioners Altowaiji and Smith. This third motion was seconded by Commissioner Altowaiji and passed 3-1-1, with Chair Pro Tem Lumbard opposed. ANALYSIS Alternative Proposals for Second Residential Units in the CR District At the February 24, 2015, Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners Smith and Altowaiji proposed alternatives to the staff recommendation. It is staff's understanding that Commissioner Smith concurred with staff's recommendation that the maximum floor area for a second residential unit on a lot under 12,000 square feet in the CR District be limited to 600 square feet in size, but proposed allowing lots 12,000 square feet and larger to continue to be able to have larger second residential units, based on the existing TCC provision that allows the size of the second residential unit to be up to 10% of the area of the lot. Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 3 Similarly, it is staff's understanding that Commissioner Altowaiji proposed that all lots under 12,000 square feet in the CR District be allowed to have a second residential unit of up to 800 square feet, which could accommodate two (2), or perhaps, three (3) bedrooms (see Sample Floor Plans) and that the maximum floor area remain the same (10% of the area of the lot) for the larger lots. Commissioner Altowaiji also proposed that only one (1) covered parking space be required for a second residential unit of up to 800 square feet, regardless of lot size; and lots that are 12,000 square feet or more could choose to take advantage of either the existing or proposed standards. This proposal could preclude future additions to the second residential unit on a lot of 12,000 square feet or larger, because it may not be possible to accommodate a second required parking space on the lot after the second residential unit has been built and is later proposed to be enlarged. BEDROOM 1123 , wMEWMW *. ! ft `A ` . ■om,a�u���r ��■I sO�illtr�SE��a ' BEDROOM ■■■I �� « • ��i 104 , ft■■■I �rr��r�rrrriir�iiritrt ■■L -- • ■■■1'i. • . ■■■1 �■ 1 ■ 1 • W 7■■■■ I■■■■I. t► ■■■■II _� ■■■■■■■m6mgw ■■■■■■■N■■� ■■■■■■■17■� Sample Floor Plans — Second Residential Unit (approx. 800 square feet) Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 4 The standards for, and consequences of, second residential units in the CR Zoning District as proposed by staff, Commissioner Altowaiji, and Commission Smith are summarized in the following table. The table also includes the approximate possible number of second residential units, bedrooms, residents, students, and vehicles, and demand for park acreage that could result from each proposal. The following assumptions were made: • Number of Bedrooms The number of possible bedrooms was calculated by assuming one (1) bedroom for each second residential unit of up to 600 square feet, three (3) bedrooms for each second residential unit of up to 800 square feet, and three (3) bedrooms (or more) for each second residential unit on a lot of at least 12,000 square feet in size in the CR District. .WIC. : 1. M4 1; 0". M ai 4. y. "9r��'pp i j r :Tye "Y w W VI ': A':„mak x :'.. 1 i t ., 1 j. +yj1 1 IVA 7 i so T 2 . i w :A .. ” �KM�Iknr' �MbNIWiMIMs - ..- Sample Floor Plan — Second Residential Unit (approx. 1,200 square feet) The standards for, and consequences of, second residential units in the CR Zoning District as proposed by staff, Commissioner Altowaiji, and Commission Smith are summarized in the following table. The table also includes the approximate possible number of second residential units, bedrooms, residents, students, and vehicles, and demand for park acreage that could result from each proposal. The following assumptions were made: • Number of Bedrooms The number of possible bedrooms was calculated by assuming one (1) bedroom for each second residential unit of up to 600 square feet, three (3) bedrooms for each second residential unit of up to 800 square feet, and three (3) bedrooms (or more) for each second residential unit on a lot of at least 12,000 square feet in size in the CR District. Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 5 • Number of Residents It was assumed that each second residential unit would accommodate one (1) person per bedroom plus one (1) additional person, which is consistent with the California Health and Safety Code standard and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's overcrowding threshold. • Number of Vehicles A total of two (2) vehicles was assumed for each second residential unit with two (2) or more bedrooms, and one (1) vehicle was assumed for each second residential unit with one (1) bedroom (or for a studio unit). • Number of Students To calculate the number of students that are anticipated to reside in the second residential units, a student generation factor of 0.2 students per dwelling unit was used, which is based on the student generation factors utilized by the Tustin Unified School District in determining the need for additional school facilities. • Park Demand The anticipated demand for additional park acreage was based on the City's parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons, which is specified in Tustin City Code Section 9331 d. It should be noted that the numbers of second residential units, bedrooms, residents, students, and vehicles, and park acreage demand in the following table are based on every single family lot in the CR District having a second residential unit. During the past thirty (30) years, two (2) second residential units have been approved in the CR District. One (1) is a residence consisting of 1,450 square feet that was built in 1988. The other second residential unit was approved in 2014, but has not been built. It is proposed to be 700 square feet in size, with two (2) garage parking spaces, but the property owner has expressed a desire to not construct the second garage parking space. Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 6 CR District Second Residential Unit Proposals IN It W Staff Proposal Commiss"oner Smith (Ordinance No. 1271) (0 Proposal Proposal- "AL ax. 2nd Unit Floor F rea 50% of rima sin le-famil primary single-family 50 /° of primary single - (lot under 12,000 dwelling, not to exceed 600 800 square feet family dwelling, not to square feet) square feet exceed 600 square feet Max. 2nd Unit Floor 50% ofrimar single-family p y g y Area (lot 12,000 square dwelling , not to exceed 600 10% of lot area 10% of lot area feet or larger) square feet Second Residential 194 194 194 Units Bedrooms 194 0 bedroom x 194 lots) 582 (3 bedrooms x 194 lots) 284 (1 bedroom x 149 lots) + (3 bedrooms x 45 lots) Residents (includes 388 776 478 students) 11 % increase 40 22% increase 40 13% increase 40 Students Park acreage 1.2 2.3 1.4 demand Vehicles 194 388 239 Minimum off-street parking One car garage or carport One car garage or carport One car garage or carport (lot under 12,000 space space space square feet Two car garage if larger than Minimum off-street 800 square feet. parking One car garage or carport Two car garage (lot 12,000 square space One car garage or carport feet or larger) space if 800 square feet or smaller Standards varies among: • Lots that are less than 12,000 sf. • Lots that are larger than 12,000 sf with 800 sf. unit ' Applicability of Standards would be consistent • Lots that are larger than Unknown/unclear standards throughout CR District 12,000 with more than 800 from the meeting sf. unit ' 'These lots could take advantage of existing and proposed standards Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 7 State Law related to Second Residential Units On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which amended Government Code Section 65852.2, and requires applications for second residential units to be considered ministerial without discretionary review or hearing. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout California. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local agencies: • to impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed on the California Register of Historic Places; • to provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located; and, • to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local agencies to regulate the size of the second residential unit, provided that at least an efficiency unit can be constructed in compliance with local development standards. As described in the Health and Safety Code, an efficiency unit must be a minimum of 150 square feet in size. Although agencies may allow second residential units that are as large as, or larger than, primary residential units, it is important to note that larger second residential units would tend to be less affordable than smaller second residential units, thereby defeating the purpose of Assembly Bill No. 1866. If the desire of the Planning Commission is to allow multiple residences on a lot, then it may be more appropriate to upzone the single family residential area of the CR District, or a portion thereof, from Single Family Residential (R1) to Duplex Residential (R2) or Multiple Family Residential (R3). This action, however, would be contrary to the primary goal of the CR District which is to protect the charm and character of Old Town and the predominantly single family nature of the area. Planning Commission Role Related to Historic and Cultural Resources One of the duties of the Planning Commission is to advise the City Council on all matters relating to historic and cultural resources. The majority of these resources are Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 8 located within the CR District. One purpose of the CR District is to assure that new construction in the District is compatible with the character of the District. Although new and additional residential development may be appropriate on properties that are zoned for multiple family residential development, additional density on single family residential properties has the potential to adversely change the character of the single family neighborhoods within the CR District. Therefore, in considering Code Amendment 2015-001, the Planning Commission should consider their role related to historic and cultural resources and strive to protect the character of the CR District, while also providing housing opportunities within Old Town. Impacts and Implications Based on Commissioners' Proposals The proposed Code Amendment would have impacts and implications. The following are the potentially negative consequences of additional second residential units in the CR District: • More residences/residents in Old Town. • Greater residential density on R1 properties in Old Town. • More parked vehicles and traffic in Old Town. • Less street parking for visitors/guests in Old Town. • Greater demand on local parks and schools. • Change in character from mostly single family to multiple family in Old Town. Should the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a revised resolution and revised draft ordinance to reflect Commissioner Altowaiji's proposal or Commissioner Smith's proposal, the impacts and implications listed above would be intensified. For example, if second residential units were constructed and occupied on all eligible properties in the CR District under Commissioner Altowaiji's proposal, it is estimated that the population within the CR District could increase by about 776 residents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 3,599 people living in the greater Old Town area (Census Tract 755.05) in 2010. Therefore, an increase of 776 residents would be approximately a twenty-two (22) percent increase in population in that area. The potential population increase under Commissioner Smith's proposal would be approximately thirteen (13) percent. In comparison, the potential population increase based on staff's recommendation would be about eleven (111) percent. These potential increases could have impacts on public services, such as schools, parks and recreation facilities, police, the library, etc. The staff recommendation to allow second residential units of up to 600 square feet on all R1 properties within the CR District is based on the unique historic development pattern and character of Old Town and the size, shape, and configuration of many of the properties and residences within the CR District. Should the Commission wish to allow second residential units on all R1 properties within the CR District and allow larger Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 9 second residential units with multiple bedrooms on larger lots within the CR District, along with larger parking accommodations, the unique character of Old Town, and particularly its single family neighborhood, could be compromised. In the alternative, if the Commission does not consider the Old Town CR District to be sufficiently unique to warrant the proposed Code Amendment, there may be justification to apply the same standards for second residential units within all single family residential zones within the city. Therefore, the Commission should consider whether it would be appropriate or desirable for the proposed standards to be applied citywide and whether to direct staff to conduct a citywide cumulative analysis of second residential units and the potential population increases and related impacts to traffic, parking, parks, and schools if second residential units were to be allowed on every single family residential property in the city. According to the California Department of Finance, there were 9,453 single family detached residences out of a total of 26,967 residences in Tustin as of January 1, 2014. Allowing second residential units on every single family property in the city has not been studied and could result in over 9,000 additional residences, which could significantly impact the city and its residents. Staff would recommend that this kind of analysis could have General Plan implications and would warrant further in-depth analysis. Code Amendment Procedure (TCC 9295) Pursuant to Tustin City Code 9295, after the close of public hearing or continuation thereof, the Planning Commission shall make a report of its findings and its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment. The recommendations of the Planning Commission shall be adopted by a majority of the voting members of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a consensus on the proposed amendment; alternatively, the Planning Commission could provide a report via a Resolution to the City Council indicating the reasons why a consensus cannot be achieved. The City Council could then consider the proposed amendment or in the alternative, should the City Council wish to consider the other options proposed, the City Council could direct staff to prepare the General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report, Notices, and other analyses that may be necessary. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed Code Amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 10 Resources Code Section 21080.17. However, if the citywide approach is desired, an environmental impact report may be required. CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the content and form of Code Amendment 2015-001 (Draft Ordinance No. 1454). *tt�Reekstin Principal Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Attachments: A. February 24, 2015, Planning Commission Report B. Draft February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4277 D. Draft Ordinance No. 1454 (Code Amendment 2015-001) E. Existing Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9252j with redlined changes ATTACHMENT A FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT O�TY Ovt�ITEM #3AG NDA R PORT GS't� MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 24, 201 5 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) —SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4277, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1454, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code to provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 2 APPROVAL AUTHORITY Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9295f authorizes the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on proposed Zoning Code amendments. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Tustin City Code regulates the establishment of guest quarters and second residential units within Single Family Residential (R1) zoned properties. The following provides a general summary of the requirements: • Guest quarters are defined as "an attached or detached building or room that provides living quarters for guests and (a) contains no kitchen or cooking facilities; (b) is clearly subordinate and incidental to the principle residence on the same building site; and (c) is not rented or leased, whether compensation is direct or indirect." No additional parking spaces are required for guest quarters. The establishment of guest quarters requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and includes the requirement for a deed restriction to inform future owners of the applicable limitations. • A second residential unit is defined as "a building or portion thereof designed for residential use on a lot developed with a legal conforming single-family dwelling." A second residential unit can have kitchen and can be rented out; however, two (2) additional parking spaces need to be provided. Over the years, many property owners have expressed their desire to have second residential units in Old Town which they can rent out for additional income or provide housing options to their grown children, parents, and/or friends and relatives. However, properties smaller than 12,000 square feet in size are not currently eligible for second residential units. It was also expressed that property owners do not like deed restrictions to be placed on their title and feel that the requirement for two (2) additional parking spaces for second residential units are too onerous. In addition, it was noted that there are many structures in Old Town that either have been illegally converted to second residential unit or that the property owner wishes to convert an existing accessory structure into a second residential unit to generate additional income. Public Workshops In response to the public's interest in having and renting second residential units on lots of various sizes in Old Town Tustin, the City conducted public workshops on the subject of second residential units in Old Town Tustin on February 20, 2013, March 12, 20135 and March 11, 2014. Approximately 40 members of the public attended at least one (1) of these workshops. Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 3 The public provided input during the workshops and through the completion of 25 questionnaires. The input may be summarized as follows: • Existing zero -lot -line garages should remain. • Allow carports instead of requiring garages. • Street parking is already congested; adding more units would make congestion worse. • Garages often are not used for parking. • Permit parking should be implemented. • Second residential units often intrude on neighbor privacy. • Three (3) or more residential units on a single family lot should be considered. • How the City considers construction that often pre-exists Zoning & Building Codes • Why limit proposed amendments to the Cultural Resources Overlay District? • Whether variances would be allowed. • Limitations on paved/concrete areas. • Old Town aesthetics, character, and landscaping should be maintained. • Second units should be limited to one story and be accessory to the main residence. • Small guest houses are compatible with Old Town. • No additional parking is needed for guest houses. • Overcrowding concerns since more units would be permitted in Old Town. • Allow second residential units on larger lots only. • Reduce allowable lot coverage. • Limit the massing of the second residential unit. Based on the public input received, staff developed alternative concepts at the March 2014, workshop for the Commission's consideration. These concepts included: • Limit all second residential units to efficiency units/studios (i.e. up to 600 sq. ft.). • Require one (1) covered parking space for the second residential unit. • Allow carports or garages for second residential units. • Prohibit additional detached guest rooms in Old Town. Proposed Code Amendment Proposed Code Amendment 2015-001 would provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District, allow new second residential units on any residentially zoned lot in the CR District regardless of lot size, and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. The standards for second residential units in all other areas of the City are not proposed to be amended, and all second residential units in the City would continue to be allowed ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. The existing and proposed standards for second residential units in the CR Zoning District are summarized in the following table. Proposed changes and additions to the existing citywide standards for second residential units are shown in bold print. Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 4 CR DISTRICT SECOND UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ANALYSIS State Law related to Second Residential Units On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which amended Government Code Section 65852.2, and requires applications for second residential units to be considered ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout California. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local agencies: Existing Proposed (Ordinance No. 1271) (Ordinance No. 1454) Conditional Use Permit required No No Maximum height 30 feet 30 feet Minimum building site 12,000 square feet None Maximum overall lot coverage for all structures 50ercent p 50 percent Maximum lot coverage for the 30% of rear yard and None second unit 30% of side yard Minimum front yard setback 50 feet -(detached) 50 feet -(detached) 20 feet -(attached) 20 feet -(attached) Minimum front yard setback for off- street parking 50 feet 50 feet Minimum side yard setback 10 feet -corner 10 feet -corner 5 feet -interior 5 feet -interior Minimum rear yard setback 5 feet 5 feet Minimum off-street parking Assigned two -car garage g One car garage or carport space 50% of primary single-family Maximum floor area of second unit 10% of lot area dwelling, not to exceed 600 square feet Design requirements Yes Yes Impact to historic structures on Register Impacts not permitted Impacts not permittedCalifornia Concurrent or subsequent construction required Yes Yes Entrances to the rear and not visible Yes Yes from public right-of-way (attached and detached) (attached and detached) Owner occupancy No No ANALYSIS State Law related to Second Residential Units On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which amended Government Code Section 65852.2, and requires applications for second residential units to be considered ministerially without discretionary review or hearing. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout California. Government Code Section 65852.2 allows local agencies: Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 5 • to impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed on the California Register of Historic Places; • to provide that second units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second unit is located; and, • to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2.b.5, no local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second units unless the ordinance contains findings 1) acknowledging that the ordinance may limit housing opportunities of the region; and, 2) identifying that specific adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare that would result from allowing second units within single-family and multifamily zoned areas justify adopting the ordinance. Single Family residential Zoned Properties in Cr District There are 194 R1 properties in the CR District (see Figures 1 and 2). Approximately 23 percent, or 45 of the 194 properties, are currently eligible for second residential units based on their lot size of at least 12,000 square feet. If the proposed code amendment is approved, 149 additional properties would be eligible for second residential units in the CR District. However, based on the placement of the existing single family dwelling and the configuration of the property, it may not be practical to construct a second residential unit on every eligible property. Lot Sizes in the CR District Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 6 Li tz- . .... .......... 4C LL. PIR3 T . . . ...... TWE J WAWA JXAS' r-3 L MA N MOU 1I S Qj Figure 1 - Cultural Resource District Figure 2 - Underlying Zoning and the CR District Maximum Floor Area Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 7 To minimize the potential aesthetic impacts associated with a significant number of additional dwelling units in the CR District, it is proposed that second residential units be ancillary and subordinate to the primary single family dwelling and that the size of each second residential unit be limited to 606 square feet in size (see Sample Floor Plans). This maximum size is equivalent to the size of a three -car garage and is not anticipated to change the character of the CR District. Based on this size limitation, it would be appropriate to require one (1) additional parking space for the second residential unit, rather than the two (2) parking spaces currently required by the Tustin City Code. During the past thirty (30) years, two (2) second residential units have been approved in the CR District. One (1) is a residence consisting of 1,450 square feet that was built in 1988. The other second residential unit was approved in 2014, but has not been built. It is proposed to be 700 square feet in size. Sample Floor Plan — Second Residential Unit (approx. 500 square feet - studio) BAT .-, �; hovered or . Rear Porch k R Screened Porch BEDROOM 20 X 6 e -v H � Y 4� i�` l��' �aS �: • "i� t� � 1� BATHROOM 001 d Kitchen N 9 Bedroom 12 x 12-6, j �E 24 _ LIVING o Living doom ROOM Borg us Room 18 X 11 12x7 Front Porch _ - 0 x 6 24, Sample Floor Plans — Second Residential Units (approx. 600 square feet) Sample Floor Plan — Second Residential Unit (approx. 500 square feet - studio) BAT El ESED ALF.OVE [11 KITCHE3N 2`5 , X7 8, 1 00 001 d N 9 UVI iii Closet DINING Sample Floor Plan — Second Residential Unit (approx. 500 square feet - studio) Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 8 Parking The proposed Code Amendment requires one covered space either in a garage or carport for the second residential unit. The smaller allowable size of the second residential unit and its associated single car garage or carport will ensure that these additional structures on the property do not negatively impact adjacent properties or the character of the CR District. The establishment of permit parking in the CR District is a separate approach that could be considered in the future, should parking conditions warrant its implementation. No accessory buildings used as guest quarters in CR District Proposed Code Amendment 2015-001 would prohibit the construction of new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. It is proposed that new detached accessory guest rooms/quarters no longer be allowed in the CR District because many of these guest rooms, including some approved through the conditional use permit process, have been, or have been suspected of being, illegally rented out and equipped with cooking facilities, without providing the on-site parking spaces required of a second residential unit. Since 1982, nine (9) accessory guest quarters in the CR District have been approved through the conditional use permit process. These guest quarters range in size from 564 to 1,320 square feet, with an average of 822 square feet. Three (3) of the nine (9) conditional use permits were approved for existing structures, and two (2) of the approved guest quarters were never constructed. The average size of the four (4) newly constructed and completed accessory guest quarters is 905 square feet. If proposed Code Amendment 2015-001 is approved as presented, the existing conditional use permits for the approved accessory guest quarters would remain in effect and the existing approved accessory guest quarters would become legal nonconforming uses. These existing guest quarters cannot be rented or have kitchens. However, if the existing guest quarters are in compliance with the proposed new standards for second residential units or if modifications could be made to achieve compliance with the new standards, it would be possible for the owners to request that the accessory guest quarters be classified as second residential units and for the conditions associated with the conditional use permit to be removed. Any applicable deed restrictions pertaining to cooking facilities and renting or leasing of the guest quarters could be reversed by recording new deed restrictions following the City's approval of the conversion of the guest quarters to a second residential unit. Existing guest quarters that are larger than 600 square feet in size would not be eligible for reclassification as second residential units. Community Impacts and Implications The proposed Code Amendment would have impacts and implications. The following are consequences of additional second residential units in the CR District: Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 9 More residences/residents in Old Town. • Greater residential density in Old Town. • More parked vehicles and traffic in Old Town. • More affordable housing in Old Town. • Extra income for Old Town property owners. • Potential for increased property values. More housing opportunities for seniors, young adults, the disabled, etc. The following discussion summarizes the most significant implications applicable to properties within the CR District as a result of Code Amendment 2015-001: • Existing accessory guest quarters in the CR District that were approved by the City would become legal nonconforming. The associated conditional use permits and deed restrictions would remain in effect. These guest quarters may not have kitchens and may not be rented or leased unless they meet all of the development standards for a second unit and are approved by the City as second units. • Existing second residential units in the CR District that were approved by the City and are larger than 600 square feet in size would become legal nonconforming. Existing second residential units in the CR District that were approved by the City and are 600 square feet in size or smaller would continue to be legal conforming. • Existing non -permitted accessory guest quarters and second residential units in the CR District could become legal second residential units if all development standards are met and compliance with the Building Code can be achieved. • New accessory buildings used as guest quarters would be prohibited in the CR District. • New second residential units of up to 600 square feet in size would be allowed on all single family residential lots in the CR District that are zoned R1. Housing Element Compliance The provision for additional second residential units supports the Housing Element of the Tustin General Plan by providing more opportunities for affordable housing and by meeting the need for a variety of housing types that serve the diverse socio-economic needs of the community's residents. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The proposed code amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Resources Code Section 21080.17. Planning Commission Report February 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 10 CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW The City Attorney has reviewed the content and form of Code Amendment 2015-001 (Draft Ordinance No. 1454). PUBLIC NOTICE A 1/8 page public notice was published in the Tustin News on February 12, 2015, informing the public of the Planning Commission public hearing for proposed Code Amendment 2015-001. In addition, approximately 660 notices were mailed to all owners of property within the Cultural Resource District and within 300 feet of the Cultural Resource District. Scott Reekstin Principal Planner jtvEIli beth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Attachments: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4277 B. Draft Ordinance No. 1454 (Code Amendment 2015-001) C. Existing Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9252] with redlined changes SACdd1PCREP0R-RCA 2015-001 (second residential units in CR District).doc ATTACHMENT B DRAFT FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 24, 2015 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Smith ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tern Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved as 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JANUARY 27, 2015, PLANNING amended. COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the January 27, 2015 meeting as amended. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowaui, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson abstained due to an excused absence. 2. 2014 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT AND ANNUAL MITIGATION MONITORING STATUS REPORT FOR FEIS/EIR FOR MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN California State Law requires each City to adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan. The City's general plan serves as the blueprint for future growth and development. As a blueprint for the future, the plan contains policies and programs designed to provide decision makers with a basis for all land use related decisions. State law requires the Planning Commission provide the General Plan Annual (GPA) Report to the City Council. Following the City Council's action, the GPA Report will be forwarded to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the State Office of Planning and Research. The City Council certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environ mental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR} for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin along with its Supplemental and Addendums. The FEIS/EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin, which included the adoption of a Minutes -- Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 -- Page 1 of 13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. The MMRP is a review of actions performed by the City or other responsible agencies in implementing mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR. To coordinate implementation and reporting the completion of the MMRP, an annual review of the progress of the program is necessary. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission review and authorize staff to forward the GPA Report on the Status of the Tustin General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowaiii, to forward the GPA Report on the Status of the Tustin General Plan and the Annual Mitigation Monitoring Status Report to the City Council for consideration. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) — SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT The proposed Code Amendment (CA) 2015-001 would provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District, allow new second residential units on any residentially zoned lot in the CR District regardless of lot size, and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. The standards for second residential units in all other areas of the City are not proposed to be amended, and all second residential units in the City would continue to be allowed ministerially without discretionary review or a public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The proposed CA is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Resources Code Section 21080.17. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4277, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No. 1454, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code to provide new standards for second residential units in the CR District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. Thompson recused himself since his property is located within the CR District. Minutes -- Planning Commission — February 24, 2015 -- Page 2 of 13 Altowaiii Altowaiji asked the City Attorney to clarify if he is able to participate since he owns property near the subject area. Bobak In response to Altowalji's question, Bobak verified with the Fair Political Practices Commission and received a written response indicating that although Altowaiii owns property within the vicinity of the CR District, there is no conflict of interest. 7:11 p.m. Binsack notified the Commission of an audio issue within the Council Chambers. Meeting recessed to restore audio. 7:14 p.m. Meeting reconvened. Reekstin Presentation given. Smith Smith's questions for staff generally included: Infrastructure - sewer systems being accounted for in the CR District; he asked which smallest lot in the CR District could accommodate the 600 square foot unit (i.e. adding a 600 square foot unit to a 3,000 square foot lot); requested clarification of "square footage" and if it included a garage, living space, or an enclosed porch. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Smith's question generally included: No significant strain on the infrastructure given the size and the number of units that could potentially result under the proposed amendment; under the proposed ordinance, this would allow second residential units on any size lot;. however, the smaller the lot, the less likely it would be to accommodate such a structure and would depend where the existing dwelling is located on the lot and how large the front yard is compared to the rear yard, etc.; there are only a handful of 5,000 square foot lots and 33 R1 lots that are less than 7,500 square feet; "square footage" in a 600 square foot unit would be "living space", a porch (not conditioned or a heated place) would not be counted. Binsack In response to Smith's questions, Binsack's stated an ((efficiency)) unit over a two -car garage could be over 400 square feet. Lumbard Lumbard asked how staff decided on 600 square foot for the second residential units and if it would impact the overall zoning. Reekstin Reekstin's response generally included: The 600 square foot was decided on in order to accommodate an efficiency unit, at a minimum, which is required by the State law; staff looked at appropriateness for the CR District as far as maintaining the character of the CR District; looked at floor plan arrangements large enough to accommodate a studio and a one - bedroom L edroom unit, and also was not so 'large to negatively Impact the neighborhood. Minutes -- Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 -- Page 3 of 13 Binsack In addition to Reekstin's response to Lumbard's question, Binsack stated, if over the 600 square foot amount, there could be a significant impact on massing (i.e. an additional bedroom unit, creating a need for an additional parking space and two -car carport/garage) which would lead to a need for parking analysis, traffic, and infrastructure. A studio► or a one -bedroom unit would fit within 600 square feet very comfortably. 7:37 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Mr. Brent Ferdig, Tustin resident, opposed the project and his concerns generally included: Height of the units (30 feet maximum per regulations), per the Internet, the average height for a two-story house is 25-30 feet, which would impose on neighbors privacy and quality of life; he asked if 300 square foot unit would be allowed on the ground level and 300 square foot on the upper level; suggested one rental unit be allowed per lot; does not want the second residential units to become "rental properties" which he felt would attract investors, and would have a negative impact on the neighborhood (i.e. traffic and parking). Mr. Richard Leon, Tustin resident, was in favor of the project and his comments included: He felt the density would be good for the downtown area; he would like to see a similarity to the downtown area in the City of Orange; and he would like to see the downtown be a walking community. Mr. Stephen Jones, Tustin resident, opposed the project. His concerns generally include: Parking issues; he felt the 600 square foot unit would not be limited to two (2) residents, and that it would be plausible that 3-4 cars would be generated; and he asked Reekstin how the proposed ordinance would differ from the rules applied in Tustin in general and why the CR District. Reekstin In response to Mr. Jones's question, Reekstin stated the current ordinance allows a second unit on a 12,000 square foot property (city-wide). The proposal would only apply to the CR District. Mr. Lindburgh McPherson, Tustin resident, was in favor of the project. He was concerned with parking being an issue. He suggested permit parking be looked at and the number of second residential units should be limited to one (1) unit per property. Mr. Jim Gominsky, Tustin resident, opposed the project. His concerns generally included: Parking issues; utilizing garages for rooms; agreed with the other residents on permit parking; should limit the number of cars a resident can have; requested current illegal units be taken care of first before building second residential units; and asked if the second residential units would be considered an apartment or guest house. Mr. Nathan Menard, Tustin resident, commended staff for the proposed ordinance. He stated that there is a need for this project to make the Old Town successful and that it would increase the population to generate Minutes -- Planning Commission — February 24, 2015 -- Page 4 of 13 revenue. 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Kozak Kozak requested feedback from staff on the concerns previously mentioned: 1) he asked if there would be outreach to property owners of existing non -conforming units; 2) single vs. multiple units; 3) and permit parking. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Kozak's questions generally included: Some of the existing non -conforming structures would remain "as is" and some property owners may want to see if they qualify for the second residential units in order to meet the City's standards; and the City is aware of many "detached" structures throughout Old Town; however, they are uncertain as to what types of structures they are or what they may be used for. Binsack Binsack clarified that to be "non -conforming" the structures must have been legally established to begin with. Kozak Kozak clarified his meaning of if non -confirming" to ((guest quarters" that may have a kitchen or other facility without obtaining a permit through the City. Binsack Binsack's response to Kozak's concerns generally included: "Guest quarters" are not being recognized as second residential units; the proposed ordinance would create a level "playing field" so that every lot, within the Old Town area, could overcome the "zoning hurdle", which they currently cannot overcome due to lot square footage limitations; it encourages people to bootleg kitchen facilities in and rent the unit out, or make modifications to some other structure; deed restrictions do make current and future owners aware of what can and cannot be done, but these are often ignored; true non -conforming properties, guest quarters, as well as second residential units, have been legally established; property owners have the right of non -conformity in perpetuity; the true non- conforming properties can be maintained just as they are, unless the property owners choose to do something else within City requirements (as long as they are not destroyed significantly, expanded or altered). Altowaiji Altowaiji's questions/concerns generally included: guest quarters not being allowed; second residential units to the non -conforming units so as not to create "non -conforming or legal non -conforming"; he felt property owners of large lots should have the option of building a guest quarter that is 1,000 square feet; the City would be limiting property owners rather than being flexible; eliminating existing allowance; and impeding the existing availability of adding a guest house (referred to taking rights away from the property owners). Binsack Binsack's response to Altowaiii's questions generally included: That individuals have noted a lack of desire to record a deed restriction; there is P" no parking accommodation for those people living in "guest quarters the Minutes -- Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 -- Page 5 of 13 second residential units could take away from the parking impact issue; property owners could still come forward and construct room additions to the main structure, if they choose to, they just would not have a separate living quarter; 45 lots proposing to reduce square footage for the larger lots, but also reducing the requirement for additional parking; 150 lots would receive an additional benefit. Bobak In conjunction with Binsack's response to Altowaiji, Bobak's comments generally included: It becomes an enforcement issue when adding to the guest quarters is allowed and property owners illegally convert them into second residential units that are rented out and becomes a significant impact for the City (i.e. terms of enforcement, code enforcement actions, attorney resources in pursuing remedies); it becomes less of an enforcement issue if there is a uniform standard and everyone has the same legal requirements; it is less likely a scenario owners would illegally convert guest quarters by adding kitchen facilities and not have the requisite parking; a person could choose to construct a second residential unit without a kitchen facility and would not be in violation of the proposed ordinance; 600 square foot limitation; if later on a kitchen facility was added it would not become a code enforcement issue for the City and the City would have assurances of the requisite on-site parking space; and at that point makes it easier for the City to enforce the code. Altowaiji Altowaiji's argument to Bobak's explanation generally included: "Enforcement issue" could happen anywhere (i.e. a person could change their 600 square foot unit to 900 square feet); concern with existing allowance and people having "rights" with certain things and then restricting those rights by eliminating; lots over 12,000 square feet should qualify to build a second unit per the current ordinance; and he felt the City would be eliminating that "right" by limiting it to 600 square feet. Lumbard Lumbard requested the Commission stay on topic and finish responding to Kozak's third question previously stated. Reekstin Reekstin's response regarding the proposed ordinance generally included: Addresses properties zoned single-family residential that have one (1) primary dwelling and there is a desire to add a second residential unit on that property for a total of two (2) residential units; would not allow a property owner to add two (2) residential units to the primary dwelling and is limited to 600 square feet limited space; currently there are areas within the city with permit parking and this issue could be considered if deemed necessary. Altowaiji Altowaiji noted his prior questions still stand. -LB; i n s a c k Binsack further stated that taking away a certain square footage allowanoe is proposed but the property owners would gain by not having to provide additional parking. Altowaiji's modification to the proposed ordinance is not staffs recommendation to the Commission under the proposed ordinance. If the Commission chose to consider something different, staff would need Minutes — Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 -- Page 6 of 13 to bring back a modified ordinance. Altowaiii Altowaiii stated the proposed ordinance would prohibit property owners of larger lots (over 12,000 square feet) from building larger units; stated they would be "treated differently than the rest of the city in reducing their rights", which he had a problem with. He also questioned "minimum building site" and asked if it was the same as "lot size" (referenced Item 3) and that lot size is used in other areas of the report; suggested staff limit the second residential unit; suggested the 600 square foot be increased to 700-800 square feet; the other restrictions would limit the availability of building a second residential unit by front yard setbacks; and leave the option of the 12,000 square foot property owners be in compliance with the current ordinance. Reekstin In response to Altowaiii's question, "minimum building site" refers to the lot size which both terms are used in the Tustin City Code. 4* Lumbard Lumbard stated Altowaiii's concerns were valid and again reminded the Commission of staff's recommendation as stated in the report presented. Smith Smith asked staff for clarification with regards to Kozak's previous questions being answered. He asked what the City was doing to enforce the illegal units and asked legal counsel to provide comments on the City's challenges on enforcing rules with the illegal units on restrictions of converting guest houses into property income effectively and if any efforts have been placed. Bobak Bobak's response generally included: the City has had some budget issues that constrains what it can and cannot do and generally has relatively reactive code enforcement program; when the City is aware of a problem, code enforcement investigates; the City does not have resources to obtain inspection warrants from the courts to go out and inspect every single property in the city to make sure they are complying with all the various code requirements; when there is a code enforcement issue, code enforcement follows a process (i.e. letter to property owner indicating issue); if not resolved at staff level, then it is referred to the City Attorney's office (i.e. lawsuits); and, the proposed ordinance would make the process easier by removing some of the incentives for people to take something that was legal and turn it into something illegal that the City would need to be made aware of. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated overall comments/concerns which generally included: Staff s intent of the item was to balance the concerns of the Old Town property owners with the character and benefits to the area (i.e. building second units on smaller lots); concerns - fear of threatening the character of Residential 1 zoned community by changing the standards on the larger lots; the desire to avoid multiple units or overly large second units because of parking impacts; density/massing; street parking issues; pros on the item - the limit on square footage would address the potential impact on the street; second residential units would hopefully have only two (2) cars by Minutes — Planning Commission — February 24,2015 -- Page 7 of 13 having guidelines and setting limits by restricting/control what the second unit can look like; should have property rights for the property owners in Old Town regardless of the size of the lot; cons on the item - proposed ordinance does not address existing non -permitted converted units; the issue still exists and should be addressed; parking issue; and parking program options should be considered by Council. Lumbard stated that overall; the proposed ordinance is a reasonable balance and moves toward a more vibrant, robust, commercial core without threatening the character of Old Town. Altowaiji Again, Altowaiji reiterated his concerns which included: Certain ordinances and rules currently available for the property owners qualified to build a second residential unit; the proposed ordinance would limit/take away property rights; creating legal/non-conforming situations to those with guest houses; asked that staff take the item back and work on the concerns listed above; and cannot support taking rights away from certain people. Bobak Bobak understood the concept of reducing the amount of development that can occur on certain properties; she wanted to clarify Altowaijis statement "taking property rights away" — it is not "taking of property" in a legal context to reduce the square footage permitted to be developed when people have not yet exercised their rights by developing their property. Altowaiji In response to Bobak's comments, Altowaiji stated the option is currently available to property owners of 12,000 or more square feet within the rest of the city and would now not be available to them. Bobak Bobak reiterated to Altowaiji that it does not constitute a legal taking of property rights, but reduces what they are able to build. Binsack Binsack addressed the Commission collectively and generally stated the following: Staff considered the intensity, massing, density, number of people, that could potentially take place or be accommodated for the CRD (district -wide not just the 45 properties but the 194 properties in total) in the proposed ordinance; the alternative ordinance [an ordinance that allows larger second units] the Commission is contemplating is not the ordinance staff contemplated; if the Commission, collectively, wants staff to bring the item back, staff did not consider their ordinance and the impact on schools, parks, traffic, because it probably would have an impact; and when a number of bedrooms are added, the number of people increases. Altowaiji Altowaiji stated no additional impact in the existing ordinance to build a second residential unit if over 12,000 square feet lot. Binsack In response to Altowaiji's concern, Binsack generally stated: With regard to 'Lai %-# L his modifications requested, the public notice that was sent out to 600 people was for the proposed ordinance, not Altowaiji's modifications; if the Commission, collectively, wants staff to take a look at the concerns addressed previously, staff can do so; and Binsack understood Altowaiji Minutes -- Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 -- Page 3 of 13 was interested in "relaxing" the standards district -wide (i.e. additional square footage and additional bedrooms thereby creating additional population and traffic). Altowaiji Altowaiji would like to leave the existing allowance in place and add to it -- smaller lots can build a second unit and exempt the 12,000 square foot lots from the proposed restriction and subject it to the other restriction currently in place, or they could take advantage of both. Kozak Kozak's summary comments generally included: Debate on second residential units vs. guest houses; the item presented is a proposed code amendment for a solution and would provide certainty for property owners going forward; much work has been done by staff (outreach to the public and Commission in 2013-14); the proposed code amendment is reason to address the issues mentioned for the CR District; he referred to the existing Government Code which allows local agencies to set uniform standards for second residential units including: Parking, height, setback, lot coverage, and architecture; the proposed ordinance would have the second residential units subordinate to the primary single-family dwelling with the maximum size limitation of 600 square feet living space and one (1) additional covered parking space in order to minimize the negative impact on the character of the CR District; the proposed ordinance also includes a process to bringing existing accessory quarters into compliance with the proposed standards for second residential units; in support of the proposed ordinance; and he also echoed Lumbard's comments regarding permit parking and expanded enforcement with regards to existing non- conforming units. Smith Smith's response, in general, was supportive of the proposed ordinance with modifications previously mentioned; 600 square foot restriction is appropriate with regard to massing issues; agreed with comments regarding the downtown area and making it robust which is part of the vision of the DCCP; perplexed by the result of the ordinance effecting those who have certain freedoms (12,000 square foot lots) and would like to figure out a way to allow those property owners to entertain their current rights; and asked about protecting the current rights for the 12,000 square foot units and how is that undermining the capacity in trying to address the illegally constructed second units that currently exist in the CRD. Binsack Binsack's response to Smith's comments generally included: Does not affect staffs capability of addressing the issues raised; and in order to address the concern with lot size, the item would need to be brought back to the Commission for consideration. Altowaiji Altowaiji again asked if the Commission could pass the proposed ordinance with certain exemptions (lots over 12,000 square feet to remain under the current ordinance). Binsack In response to Altowalji's question, Binsack stated that the proposed ordinance affects all properties within the CR District uniformly. Minutes — Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 — Page 9 of 13 Bobak Bobak stated the proposed ordinance was noticed as an ordinance limiting all second residential units to 600 square feet. If there are members of the community who thought that was acceptable, and therefore did not come forward to address the Commission at the meeting, they might have questions/concerns if they knew 45 of the units would be treated differently, so they may want to comment. She suggested to the Commission, if the consensus is to modify the proposed ordinance, staff needs to address the additional issues and draft some proposed language so the public knows what the Commission is considering. Lumbard Lumbard did not agree with modifying the proposed ordinance. He reiterated the proposed ordinance was reasonably balanced with the major concerns, and agreed it did not include parking or enforcement on permitted structures, but those were separate issues which were not being voted on at the meeting. Altowaiji Altowaiji made a motion to reject the proposed ordinance and to direct staff to prepare a revised ordinance exempting the 12,000 square foot lots and to analyze additional square footage requirements. Motion failed due to a lack of a second to the motion. Lumbard Lumbard moved to adopt Resolution No. 4277, seconded by Kozak. Altowaiji and Smith opposed. Thompson abstained from the vote. Motion failed 2-2-1. Smith Smith asked for an explanation of the policy change that removes some of the capabilities of the second residential units on the 12,000 square foot lots. He also asked staff if the ordinance remains "as is",exempting the 12,000 square foot lots, would that trigger CEQA concerns. Binsack Binsack suggested, if the Commission collectively wanted staff to do so, an appropriate CEQA analysis/document would need to be done to see if there would be an impact and the item would need to be continued; again stated staff looked at the entire CR District (194 units); alternatives could be — allow them to proceed under the existing standard which would be up to 1,000 square feet, two -car garage, and/or rezone those lots, which would change the character of those lots, if that is the Commission's desire. Then a re -notice would have to take place in order to inform the public. Binsack's concern was that staff already outreached to over 600 people, who have not had a chance to review the considerations. Altowaiji Altowaiji agreed with Binsack on the re -noticing and that there could be a conflict with the public's perception but they could have the option to agree with the modified ordinance — not limiting to build on the 12,000 square foot lots or the option to keep the current ordinance. The intent came about with Assembly Bill 11866 to allow additional units to provide additional housing. Binsack Binsack clarified the direction Altowaiji was suggesting ® not looking at an either/or scenario for the 12,000 square foot lots. The property owners Minutes -- Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 — Page 10 of 13 either develop under the current ordinance OR it would be the new proposed ordinance of 600 square feet. They would not get the choice. Lumbard Per Lumbard, the intent of the proposed ordinance is to simplify the standards for the CR District. If there are two (2) different standards (above 12,000 square feet / below 12,000 square feet) there could be questions (i.e. "why 600 square feet allotment and not 11,500 square feet?"), which could complicate things even further. Kozak Kozak's response to Lumbard's comments generally included: The 600 square feet living space is the result of research completed by staff with respect to other jurisdictions that have second dwelling ordinances as well as the range of lot sizes within the CR District; if the City begins to make exceptions, there would be other exceptions requested; the intent is to offer to the Council a uniform plan that is compromised in many ways but again, to preserve the character of Old Town; if there are exceptions to the 12,000 square foot lot standard for second residential units in the CR District, we can expect a change requested in the ordinance that affects the balance of the property; and he encouraged the Commission to move the item forward. Smith To clarify, Smith stated the following: 1) not interested in promoting multiple unit development in the CR District 2) sustain current rights the 12,000 square foot lot property owners currently have or give them the option to opt for the smaller unit with a one (1) car parking requirement. Altowaiji Altowaiji did not promote the proposed ordinance not allowing more than one (1) unit. His concern was not making use of the land. Further discussion took place among the Commission and staff on the issues discussed previously. Clarification needed on Assembly Bill 1866 with regard to not allowing agencies to restrict building secondary units. If the City is restricting the 12,000 square foot lots then the City would unreasonably be restricting their rights since it is different in the CR District then the rest of the city. Via the proposed ordinance, the City is removing the barriers to build second residential units. If the Commission chooses to, they can continue the item for 30 days and staff can bring back alternatives. Further direction from the Commission needed as well as clarification of the proposed ordinance given to the Commission from Bobak. Only two (2) owners of 12,000 square foot units have obtained permits for second residential units (one has constructed the unit, the other has obtained permits but has not yet constructed). It does not appear the owners have taken advantage of the existing regulations. Kozak It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Altowaiji to continue the item to March 24, 2015, to provide alternatives on lots over 12,000 square feet. Lumbard opposed. Thompson recused himself. Motion carried 3-1-1. Minutes — Planning Commission — February 24, 2015 -- Page 11 of 13 REGULAR BUSINESS: 4. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION 178 NORTH C STREET Owners of historic homes or commercial buildings in Tustin are eligible to participate in the City's plaque designation program, called the Tustin Historic Register. The purpose of the voluntary program is to recognize Tustin's historic properties, educate the public, increase public interest in historic properties, and promote community pride. The property owner of 178 North C Street submitted a nomination for a plaque designation for their home. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the nomination of 178 North C Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program and select "Knapp House" as the most appropriate historical name and "1920" as the date of construction of the property. Reekstin Presentation given. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Smith, to approve the nomination of 178 North C Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program. Motion carried 5-0. 5. WITHDRAWAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-15 & DESIGN REVIEW 2014-009 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014-15 and Design Review (DR) 2014-009 was a project that proposed the construction of an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a sixty (60) foot tall mono -eucalyptus faux tree with twelve (12) panel antennas and associated equipment mounted to the structure at the existing self -storage facility located at 14861 Franklin Avenue in the Planned Community Industrial (PC IND) Zoning District. On December 9, 2014, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 10, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. However, on February 2, 2015, the applicant submitted a written request (attached) to withdraw the application for CUP 2014-15 and DR 2014- 009. The February 10, 2015, Planning Commission meeting was subsequently cancelled, so it is requested that the Planning Commission consider the applicant's request at this time. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1) Receive and file the applicant's letter to withdraw CUP 2014-15 and Minutes — Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 -- Page 12 of 13 DR 2014-009 for an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a sixty (60) foot tall mono -eucalyptus faux tree at 14861 Franklin Avenue; and 2) Remove the item from consideration as requested by the applicant. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Altowalji to receive and file the withdrawal letter and to remove the item from consideration as requested by the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission of upcoming events: OC Business Council — Workforce Housing Forum 2015; California Preservation Foundation's (CPF) 40th Annual Conference — San Diego; and the swearing in of the three reappointed Commissioners. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Kozak Kozak had favorable comments regarding the 2014 General Plan Annual Report — many good indicators of progress in the city. On February 3, 2015, he participated in the CPF webinar regarding the Mills Act. Altowaiii None. Smith Smith had favorable comments regarding the Commission's "healthy debate" and staffs response to the many questions/concerns. Lumbard On February 19, 2015, Lumbard participated in the Office of Historic Preservation webinar. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: • 1/20: OCTA Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) • 1/28: OCTA conducted an "open house" at Tustin High School on the 1-5 Improvement Project" • 2/5: Urban Land Institute (ULI) • 2/12: Dedication ceremony for OCTA's West County Connectors Project • 2/17: CPF webinar ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, March 10, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. Closed the meeting in Honor of Captain Robert "Bob" Thomas. Minutes -- Planning Commission -- February 24, 2015 — Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENT C PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4277 RESOLUTION NO. 4277 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1454, ADDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9252j2(a)(3) AND 9252j2(c) AND AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9223a7 AND 9223b2 RELATING TO SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: A. That on September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which amended Government Code Section 65852.2 to facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout California. B. That on or after July 1, 2003, California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(3) requires a local agency to consider second residential unit applications ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. C. That California Government Code Section 65852.2(x)(1) allows local agencies to impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed on the California Register of Historic Places. D. That California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1) allows local agencies to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. E. That on June 2, 2003, in anticipation of the July 1, 2003, implementation of the newly adopted Government Code Section, the Tustin City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1271 providing standards for second residential units. F. That many property owners in Old Town have expressed the desire to have and rent second residential units and accessory guest rooms in Old Town. G. That all R1, R2, and R3 properties are eligible for accessory guest rooms, but a conditional use permit and deed restriction are required. H. That many property owners do not want deed restrictions related to occupancy and cooking facilities placed on accessory guest rooms. In addition, property owners are often desirous of accessory guest rooms with kitchens and to be able to rent out the guest rooms. Resolution No. 4277 Page 2 I. That accessory guest rooms and other accessory buildings have been illegally converted into second residential units. J. That the City conducted public workshops on the subject of second residential units in Old Town Tustin on February 20, 2013, March 12, 2013, and March 11, 2014. K. That the proposed amendments to the Tustin City Code related to second residential units have been prepared to provide more flexible standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District. L. That the Tustin City Code currently requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and a minimum of two (2) additional required garage parking spaces for the establishment of a second residential unit in the Estate (E4) and Single Family (R1) Residential Zoning Districts. M. That the proposed code amendment would allow second residential units of up to 600 square feet in size on R1 lots of any size within the CR District provided they comply with minimum standards, while prohibiting new accessory buildings to be used as guest quarters (i.e. no cooking facility or covered parking provided). N. That on February 24, 2015, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code Amendment 15-001 by the Planning Commission. O. That on February 24, 2015, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Code Amendment 2015-001 to March 24, 2015) to provide adequate time for staff to provide an analysis based on alternative proposals from Commissioners Altowaiji and Smith. P. That the proposed code amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, which exempts local ordinances regulating the construction of second residential units from CEQA. Q. That the proposed second residential unit provisions for the Cultural Resource District are reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Tustin. R. That the proposed amendments comply with California Government Code Section 65852.2. S. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with the following goals and policies: Land Use Element Goal 4 to assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. Resolution No. 4277 Page 3 Housing Element Goal 1 to provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio- economic needs of all community residents. Housing Element Policy 1.8 to allow second (attached/detached) units in single- and multi -family districts consistent with the Tustin City Code. T. That the proposed parking requirement for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District of one (1) garage or carport parking space is directly related to the use and size of the second residential unit and is appropriate for the Cultural Resource District where additional garage spaces may negatively impact the character of the historic district. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1454, adding Sections 9252j2(a)(3) and 9252j2(c) and amending Sections 9223a7 and 9223b2 of the Tustin City Code related to second residential units in the CR District, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin held on the 24th day of March, 2015. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4277 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 City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4277 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 24th day of p March, 2015. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT D DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1454 (CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001) DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1454 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9252j2(a)(3) AND 9252j2(c) AND AMENDING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9223a7 AND 9223b2 RELATING TO SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That on September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which amended Government Code Section 65852.2 to facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout California. B. That on or after July 1, 2003, California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(3) requires a local agency to consider second residential unit applications ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing. C. That California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1) allows local agencies to impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed on the California Register of Historic Places. D. That California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1) allows local agencies to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units may be permitted. E. That on June 2, 2003, in anticipation of the July 1, 2003, implementation of the newly adopted Government Code Section, the Tustin City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1271 providing standards for second residential units. F. That many property owners in Old Town have expressed the desire to have and rent second residential units and accessory guest rooms in Old Town. G. That all R1, R2, and R3 properties are eligible for accessory guest rooms, but a conditional use permit and deed restriction are required. H. That many property owners do not want deed restrictions related to occupancy and cooking facilities placed on accessory guest rooms. In addition, property owners are often desirous of accessory guest rooms with kitchens and to be able to rent out the guest rooms. Ordinance No. 1454 Page 2 I. That accessory guest rooms and other accessory buildings have been illegally converted into second residential units. J. That the City conducted public workshops on the subject of second residential units in Old Town Tustin on February 20, 2013, March 12, 2013, and March 11, 2014. K. That the proposed amendments to the Tustin City Code related to second residential units have been prepared to provide more flexible standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District. L. That the Tustin City Code currently requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and a minimum of two (2) additional required garage parking spaces for the establishment of a second residential unit in the Estate (E4) and Single Family (R1) Residential Zoning Districts. M. That the proposed code amendment would allow second residential units of up to 600 square feet in size on R1 lots of any size within the CR District provided they comply with minimum standards, while prohibiting new accessory buildings to be used as guest quarters (i.e. no cooking facility or covered parking provided). N. That on February 24, 2015, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code Amendment 15-001 by the Planning Commission. O. That on February 24, 2015, the Planning Commission continued consideration of Code Amendment 2015-001 to March 24, 2015, to provide adequate time for staff to provide an analysis based on alternative proposals from Commissioners Altowaiji and Smith. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4277 and recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 15-001 to provide more flexible standards for second residential units in the CR District. P. That on April 21, 2015, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code Amendment 15-001 by the City Council. Q. That the proposed code amendment is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public Resources Code Section 21080.17, which exempts local ordinances regulating the construction of second residential units from CEQA. R. That the proposed second residential unit provisions for the Cultural Resource District are reasonably necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the City of Tustin. S. That the proposed amendments comply with California Government Code Section 65852.2. Ordinance No. 1454 Page 3 T. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in that they comply with the following goals and policies: Land Use Element Goal 4 to assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. Housing Element Goal 1 to provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio-economic needs of all community residents. Housing Element Policy 1.8 to allow second (attached/detached) units in single- and multi -family districts consistent with the Tustin City Code. U. That the proposed parking requirement for second residential units in the Cultural Resource (CR) District of one (1) garage or carport parking space is directly related to the use and size of the second residential unit and is appropriate for the Cultural Resource District where additional garage spaces may negatively impact the character of the historic district. Section 2. Section 9223a7 of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new text underlined): Second Residential Units (see Section 9252j2 for standards applicable to Second Residential Units in the Cultural Resource District.) Section 3. Section 9223b2 of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new text underlined): Accessory buildings (except in the Cultural Resource District) used as guest quarters, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained, subject to a recorded deed restriction approved by the City. Section 4. Section 9252j2(a)(3) of Part 5 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby added to read as follows (new text underlined): 3. Second Residential Units (a) Maximum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building site: none (c) Maximum overall lot coverage for all structures combined: 50 percent (d) Maximum lot coverage for the second residential unit: none (e) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet for detached unit; 20 feet for attached unit (f) Minimum front yard setback for off-street parking: 20 feet Ordinance No. 1454 Page 4 (g) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet (h) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet (i) Maximum floor area of second residential unit: 50 percent of primary single- family dwelling, not to exceed 600 square feet. (j) The second residential unit shall be consistent with the architectural style, materials and color of the primary single-family dwelling and shall not detract from the single-family appearance of the primary single-family dwelling. (k) The second residential unit shall not cause a substantial adverse change, , as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, in the significance of any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places or the City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey (1) The second residential unit shall be constructed concurrently with, or subsequent to, the primary primasingle-family dwelling, which shall be conforming or brought into conformance with the Tustin City Code. (m)AII entrances to the second residential unit shall be to the rear of the primaru single-family dwelling and shall not be visible from the public right -of - (n) When the prima , single-family dwelling would conform to the development standards normally applicable to second residential units, and the second residential unit is built between the primary single-family dwelling and the front property line, the second residential unit shall be subuect to the development standards normally applicable to the primary single-family dwelling, Section 5. Section 9252j2(c) of Part 5 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby added to read as follows (new text underlined): (c) Prohibited Uses Accessory buildings used as _quest quarters. Section 6. The parking requirement for Second Residential Units is hereby amended in Table 1 of Section 9263 of Part 6 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code to read as follows (new text underlined; deleted text in strikeout): Second residential units I Outside the Cultural Resource District: 2 spaces, within a garage, in addition to that required for the primary single-family unit. Within the Cultural Resource District: 1 space, within a garage or carport, in addition to that required for the primarysingle-family unit. Ordinance No. 1454 Page 5 Section 7. The following definition in Section 9297 of Part 9 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows (new text underlined): "Second Residential Unit" means a building or portion thereof designed for residential occupancy on a lot developed with a legal conforming or le al nonconforming single-family dwelling. Section 8. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin on this 21St day of April, 2015. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, MAYOR ATTEST: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1454 Jeffrey C. Parker, 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. 1454 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council Ordinance No. 1454 Page 6 held on the 21St day of April, 2015, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 51h day of May, 2015, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: Jeffrey C. Parker, City Clerk Published: ATTACHMENT E EXISTING TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9223 AND 9252] (With Redlined Changes) Tustin City Code Section 9223 (Proposed Changes in Red) 9223 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R1) a Permitted Uses and DevelopmentStandards In the Single -Family Residential District (R1) only the following uses (or uses which in the opinion of the Community Development Director and/or the Planning Commission are similar) will be allowed subject to the development standards identified inTable 1ofSection 9220 and/or asspecified inthis Chapter. 1. Single -Family dwellings. 2. Accessory buildings only if constructed simultaneously with or subsequent to the main building on the same lot. (a) Maximum height: 25feet. (b) Minimum lot width a1property line: 4Ofeet onoul-de'aaooatproperty line. kd Maximum lot coverage: 3Opercent ofrear yard. (d) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet. (e) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet, but not !aee than 1,000 square feet clear and unobstructed on rear 1/3 of lot. 3. Accessory uses normally incidental to single-family residences. This is not to be construed as permitting any commercial uses. (e) Minimum side yard setback: 1 foot. (b) Minimum rear yard setback: 1 foot except 5 feet naqu)nad on an alley. 4. Small family day care home subject to the provisions set forth in Section 9271 aa. 5. Home occupations inaccordance with this Chapter. (Ord. No. 330' Seo. 2e) G. Large family day care homes (subject to the provisions set forth in Section 9271 aa). 7. Second residential units (see Section 9252i2 for standards a plicable to Second Residential Units in the Cultural Resource Distric (a) Maximum height: 8Ofeet. (b) Minimum building site: 12.00Osquare feet. (c) Maximum overall lot coverage for all structures combined: 5Opercent. (d) Maximum lot coverage for the second residential unit: 30 percent of rear yard and 30 percent ofside yard. (e) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet for detached unit; 20 feet for attached unit. (f) Minimum front yard setback for off-street parking: 50 feet. (Q) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. (h) Minimum rear yard setback: 5feeL (i) Maximum floor area ofsecond residential unit: 1Opercent oftotal lot area. 0Any second residential unit shall be consistent with the architectural style, materials and color of the primary single-family dwelling and shall not detract from the single-family appearance ofthe primary single-family dwelling. (k) Any second residential unit shall not cause a substantial adverse change, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, in the significance of any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places or the City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey. (1) Any second residential unit shall be constructed concurrently with, or subsequent to, the primary single-family dwelling, which shall be conforming or brought into conformance with the Tustin City Code. (m) All entrances to any second residential unit shall be to the rear of the primary single-family dwelling and shall not be visible from the public right-of-way. (n) When the primary single-family dwelling would conform to the development standards normally applicable to second residential units, and the second residential unit is built between the primary single-family dwelling and the front property line, the second residential unit shall be subject to the development standards normally applicable to the primary single-family dwelling. b Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards The following uses (or any other uses which, in the opinion of the Community Development Director and/or the Planning Commission, are similar) may be conditionally permitted in the Single -Family Residential District (R1) subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit and subject to the development standards identified in Table 1 of Section 9220 and/or as specified in this Chapter. 1. Places of Worship, schools, parks, playgrounds, public utility, crop and tree farming. (a) Maximum height: 30 feet. (b) Minimum building site: 20,000 square feet for Places of Worship, 5 acres for schools, public utility and other uses as specified in Conditional Use Permit. (c) Minimum lot width at property line: 100 feet. (d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent. (e) Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map. (f) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. (g) Minimum rear yard setback: 20 feet. 2. Accessory buildings (except in the Cultural Resource Districtl used as guest quarters, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained, subject to a recorded deed restriction approved by the City. (a) Maximum height: 25 feet. (b) Maximum lot coverage: 30 percent of rear yard. (c) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map. (d) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. (e) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet. 3. Public or private parking lots for automobiles when adjacent to any "C" or "M" District, subject to the requirements of the City's parking regulations, identified in Part 6 of this Chapter. Page 2 Tustin City Code Section 9252j2 Cultural Resource (CR) District (Proposed Changes in Red) 2. Residential standards (a) Permitted uses: (1) All uses shall be permitted in the Cultural Resources Overlay District as are authorized in the underlying Residential District. (2) The City Council may also permit other nonlisted uses which support the purposes of the district as a conditional use following a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission. (3) Second Residential Units (a) Maximum height: 30 feet (b) Minimum building site: none (c) Maximum overall lot coverage for all structures combined: 50 percent (d) Maximum lot coverage for the second residential unit: none (e) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet for detached unit; 20 feet for attached unit (f) Minimum front yard setback for off-street parking: 20 feet (g) Minimum side yard setback: Corner lot line: 10 feet;_ Interior lot line: 5 feet (h) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet (i) Maximum floor area of second residential unit: 50 percent of primary single- familv dwelling, not to exceed 600 square feet.. (j) The second residential unit shall be consistent with the architectural style, materials and color of the primary single-family dwelling and shall not detract from the single-family appearance of the primary single-family dwelling. (k) The second residential unit shall not cause a substantial adverse change, as defined in California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, in the significance of a real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Places or the City of Tustin Historical Resources Survey. (1) The second residential unit shall be constructed concurrently with, or subsequent to, the primary single-family dwelling, which shall be conforming or brought into conformance with the Tustin City Code. (m) All entrances to the second residential unit shall be to the rear of the Primary single-family dwelling and shall not be visible from the public right-of-way. (n) When the primary single-family dwelling would conform to the development standards normally applicable to second residential units, and the second residential unit is built between the primary single-family dwelling and the front property line, the second residential unit shall be subiect to the development standards normally applicable to the primary single-family dwelling. (b) Site development standards (applicable to creation of new lots only): (1) Minimum single-family lot size: 10,000 square feet. (2) Minimum multiple -family lot size: 15,000 square feet. Development of existing lots within the CR District may proceed consistent with the underlying residential zoning district. (Ord. No. 1207, Sec. 2, 11-16-98) (c) Prohibited Uses Accessory buildings used as clnest quarters. Page 1