Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 - SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICTMEETING DATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: Agenda Item AGENDA REPORT City Man M ager H� City Finance Director N/A APRIL 21, 2015 JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CODE AMENDMENT 2015 -001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454), SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT The project is a proposed amendment to the Tustin City Code that would provide new standards for second residential units in the Cultural Resources (CR) District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest quarters in the CR District. On March 24, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4277 (renumbered Resolution No. 4280), recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1454, approving Code Amendment 2015 -001. (Applicant: City of Tustin) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1) Introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1454, approving Code Amendment (CA) 2015 -001 by amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the Tustin City Code (TCC) 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, and set a second reading for the next City Council meeting; and 2) Provide direction to staff to take the following actions regarding permit parking, residential privacy, and illegally converted structures in the CR District: a. Conduct an analysis and public workshop to explore the potential establishment of permit parking on all residential streets within the CR District; b. During the plan check process, examine ways to respect residential privacy for properties adjacent to any proposed second floor residential project; and, c. Continue the practice of taking a predominantly reactive approach to the enforcement of illegally constructed or converted structures; or take other action as deemed appropriate. City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: CA 2015 -001 is a City- initiated project. There is no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund. CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: The proposed project furthers the objectives of the following Strategic Plan goals: • Goal A: Economic and Neighborhood Development — The proposed project would enhance the vibrancy and quality of life in the community. • Goal B: Public Safety and Protection of Assets — The proposed project would ensure Tustin is an attractive, safe and well maintained community in which people feel pride. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: The TCC Section 9295g authorizes the City Council to adopt Zoning Code amendments following a recommendation by the Planning Commission and a public hearing. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The TCC 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: • A guest quarter is 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 (CUP) and includes the requirement for a deed restriction to ensure guest quarters are not rented and 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 City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 3 restrictions to be placed on their title and feel that the requirement for two (2) additional parking spaces for second residential units is too onerous. In addition, it was noted that there are many structures in Old Town that either have been illegally converted to second residential units 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, 2013, and March 11, 2014. Approximately 40 members of the public attended at least one (1) of these workshops. 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 makes 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 residential 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. City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 4 Proposed Code Amendment The proposed CA 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. 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. CR District Second Unit Development Standards Existing Proposed (Ordii (Ordinance , No Conditional Use Permit required No Maximum height 30 feet 30 feet Minimum building site 12,000 square feet None Maximum overall lot coverage 50 percent 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) 50 feet Minimum front yard setback for off- 50 feet street parking Minimum side yard setback 10 feet- corner 10 feet - corner 5 feet - interior 5 feet - interior 5 feet One car garage or carport Minimum rear yard setback 5 feet Minimum off - street parking Assigned two -car garage 50% of primary single - family Maximum floor area of second unit 10% of lot area dwelling, not to exceed 600 square feet Yes Impacts not permitted Architectural review Yes Impact to historic structures on California Register Impacts not permitted Concurrent or subsequent Yes Yes construction required Entrances to the rear and not visible Yes Yes from public right -of -way (attached and detached) (attached and detached) Owner occupancy No No City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 5 A�JALY�I�: State Law related to Second Residential Units On September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Sill 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: to impose standards on second residential 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 residential units do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the second residential unit is located; and, to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second residential units may be permitted. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2.b.5, no local agency shall adopt an ordinance which totally precludes second residential 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. 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 Sill Igo. 1866. 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 City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 6 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 Suzes iin the CR District Less than 7,500 square feet 33 Exactly 7,500 square feet 46 7,501 -9,000 square feet 31 9,001 - 11,999 square feet 39 12,000 square feet or greater 45 Figure 1 - CIS District City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 7 Figure 2 - Underlying Zoning and the CR District Maximum Floor Area 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 600 square feet in size (see Sample Floor Flans).. 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. The staff recommendation to allow second residential units of up to 600 square feet is also 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. Larger second residential units with multiple bedrooms within the CR District, along with their needed larger parking accommodations, could compromise the unique character of Old Town, and particularly its single- family neighborhood. Based on the size limitation of 600 square feet, 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 TCC. 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 City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 8 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. However, the property owner has indicated a desire to take advantage of the proposed ordinance and to redesign the project by reducing the overall living space to 600 square feet and by reducing the two (2) garage parking spaces to one (1) garage parking space. r -1 Q Covered or - RoP ,ir Porch Scruaried Parch lox 6 _ 2G G L Kitcha n `« ! 12 G 2 Bedroom 12 n 92 -6 LMng Room Bonus Room _ - re rFV'd jiT Cat ich J :.; 7 _ C SampQ a Moor Mans — Second ResWentW Unfts (approx. 500 square feet) Sarnp a F oo r Man — Second ResWeQ- tW Unh (approx. 500 square feet •• sta 6o) Parking The proposed C4 requires one (1) 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 City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 9 the property do not negatively impact adjacent properties or the character of the CR District. No accessory buildings used as guest quarters in CR District The proposed CA 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 CUP process, have been 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 CUP 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) CUPs 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 CA 2015 -001 is approved as presented, the existing CUPs 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 CUP 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. Community Impacts and Implications The proposed CA 2015 -001 would have impacts and implications. The following are 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 and guests in Old Town. • Greater demand on local parks and schools. • Change in character from mostly single - family to multiple family in Old Town. • More affordable housing in Old Town. • Extra income for Old Town property owners. • Potential for increased property values. City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 10 • 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 CA 2015 -001: • Existing accessory guest quarters in the CR District that were approved by the City would become legal non - conforming. The associated CUPs 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 residential unit and are approved by the City as second residential 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 non - conforming. 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 /Regional Housing Needs 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. The City has a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 1,227 housing units for the 2014 -2021 Planning Period. During 2014, the first year of the current planning period, permits were issued for a total of 758 housing units, all of which are located in Tustin Legacy. The following table summarizes the number of units by income category and the RHNA percentage achieved. As demonstrated by the table, the City has made significant progress in the first year of the current planning period in providing affordable housing. The proposed CA 2015 -001 provides for an additional 149 potential affordable housing units in the CR District, thereby diversifying the opportunities for affordable housing in Tustin. City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 11 City of Tustin Housing Units Constructed and Housing Units Entitled From January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 Number of Number of Approved Percentage of Income Level Units Units w/ Units Total RHNA RHNA Constructed Permits Issued Very Low 0 88 88 88 283 31.1% (0 -50% MR) Low Income (51- 0 73 73 73 195 37.4% 80% MR) Moderate Income 0 101 101 101 224 45.1% (81 -120° /,MFI) Upper Income 0 496 496 496 525 94.5% Total 0 758 758 758 1,227 rare mecian ramuy income Source: City of Tustin Building Division, City of Tustin Planning Division, City Manager Office, Southern California Gas Company Utility Releases PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Planning Commission Action on February 24, 2015 CA 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 Attachment A — 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 (3) 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 Tern 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 Tern Lumbard opposed. Planning Commission Action on March 24, 2015 On March 24, 2015, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing, staff provided a presentation, and two (2) members of the public provided testimony (see Attachments B — March 24, 2015, Planning Commission Report; C — Minutes of March 24, 2015, Planning Commission meeting; and D - Letter dated March 20, 2015, from the Tustin Preservation Conservancy). City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 12 Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all public input, staff's recommendation, the alternative proposals from Commissioners Altowaiji and Smith; deliberated the proposed CA 2015 -001; and, adopted Resolution No. 4277 (renumbered Resolution No. 4280), which passed 3 -1 -1, with Commissioner Altowaiji opposed, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed CA 2015 -001 (Attachment E). Planning Commission Concerns In addition to the proposed CA 2015 -001, the Planning Commission expressed concerns pertaining to street parking, residential privacy, and structures illegally converted into living quarters in Old Town and requested that staff forward these concerns to the City Council for consideration and direction. • Parking impacts According to residents of the CR District, who spoke at the workshops and Planning Commission meetings related to second residential units or communicated directly with staff, many vehicles are parked on the residential streets adjacent to properties with existing rental units and in locations close to businesses and multiple family residences (see Attachment F — Email dated February 27, 2015, and photographs). If the proposed CA 2015 -001 is approved, it is anticipated that street parking may be further impacted in the CR District. Permit parking was discussed as one of the ways to alleviate parking congestion in the residential areas of the CR District and should be explored. • Privacy Some members of the public suggested that additional setback requirements and height limits be imposed on new second residential units to maintain a higher level of privacy between adjacent properties. These stricter standards are not recommended, because there are many existing two -story residences in the CR District, and the proposed CA 2015 -001 would apply the same side and rear yard setbacks and height restriction to second residential units as are applied to the primary single - family dwelling. In addition, some existing guest quarters and other structures that could otherwise be converted to second residential units may be disqualified if additional standards were imposed. However, privacy is one of the factors considered during the design review /plan review process and can also be achieved through other means, including landscaping. • Illegal living quarters In response to complaints from the public and as a result of property inspections such as Mills Act inspections, the City has initiated enforcement investigations related to structures that were illegally built as living quarters or structures that were illegally converted to living quarters. Some of these units were built or converted in recent years; however, many could have been built or converted in the distant past. The City has traditionally taken a more reactive approach to the enforcement of illegal structures versus a proactive City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 13 approach. The Planning Commission noted its concerns with not proactively addressing these units and structures and desired to convey its concerns to the City Council. The proposed CA 2015 -001 does not, and is not intended to, comprehensively address these three (3) broader issues as they pertain to the CR District and the Old Town area as a whole, and therefore, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to take the following actions: 1) Conduct an analysis and public workshop to explore the potential establishment of permit parking on all residential streets within the CR District; 2) During the plan check process, examine ways to respect residential privacy for properties adjacent to any proposed second floor residential project; and, 3) Continue the practice of taking a predominantly reactive approach to the enforcement of illegally constructed or converted structures; or take other action as deemed appropriate. PUBLIC NOTICE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND STAKEHOLDER REVIEW: A public notice was published in the Tustin News on April 9, 2015, informing the public of the City Council public hearing for proposed CA 2015 -001. In addition, approximately 660 notices were mailed to all owners of property within the CR District and within 300 feet of the CR District. A copy of the staff report and proposed CA 2015 -001 were also forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce, the Tustin Area Historical Society, the Tustin Preservation Conservancy, and two (2) local realtor associations prior to the City Council's hearing on the matter. ENVIRONMENTAL: The proposed CA 2015 -001 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. City Council Report April 21, 2015 CA 2015 -001 Page 14 CONCLUSION: Proposed CA 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, while protecting the unique character of Old Town, and particularly its single - family neighborhood. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council approve CA 2015 -001. Scott Reekstin Elizabeth A. Binsack Principal Planner Director of Community Development Attachments: A. February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes B. March 24, 2015 Planning Commission Report C. March 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes D. Letter dated March 20, 2015, from the Tustin Preservation Conservancy E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4280 (formerly No. 4277) F. Email dated February 27, 2015, and photographs G. Draft Ordinance No. 1454 (Code Amendment 2015 -001) H. Existing Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9252j with redlined changes ATTACHMENT A 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 Altowaiji, 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 adopta 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/Environmental 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 14 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 f'' implementation and reporting the completion of the MMRP, an annual II 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 Altowaiji, 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 tultural 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 14 Altowaiji Altowaiji asked the City Attorney to clarifyif he is able to participate since he owns property near the subject area. Bobak In response to Altowaiji's question, Bobak verified, with the Fair Political Practices Commission and received a written, response indicating that although Altowaiji 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 conditionedor 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 foof 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 unit; and also was not so large to negatively impact the neighborhood. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2.015—Page 3 of 14 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 generallyincluded: 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 Ito 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 generaland.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. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24,;2015-,Page 4 of 14 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 revenue. 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Kozak Kozak requested feedback from staff on the concems 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 "non-conforming" 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 bootlegkitchen 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 bemaintained 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). Minutes—Planning Commission—February'24.2015..Page 5 of 14 Binsack Binsack's response to Altowaiji's questions generally 'included: That individuals have.noted a lack of desire to record a deed restriction; there is no parking accommodation for those people living in "guest quarters"; the 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 footlimitation; 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); concem .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,Commissionstay 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 Awo (2) residential units to the primarydwelling,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. c Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24,2015—Paget of 14 Binsack Binsack further stated that taking away a certain square footage allowance 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 to bring back a modified ordinance. Altowaiji Altowaiji 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 Altowaiji's question, "minimum building site" refers to the lot size which both terms are used in the.Tustin City Code. Lumbard Lumbard stated Altowaiji's concerns were valid and again reminded-the- Commission of staffs 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 itis 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. I Minutes.—Planning Commission—Febuary.24, 2015—Page t of 14 Lumbard Lumbard reiterated overall comments/concerns which generally included: Staffs 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 oh 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 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.arnount Of development that can occuron certain properties; she wanted to-clarify Altowaiji's statement "taking property rights away"— it is not"taking of property" in:aaegal 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 optionis currently available to property owners of 12,000 or more square feet within the rest of the city and,would now riot 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 bedroom's are added, the number of people increases:. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24,2015—Page 8 of 14 Altowaiji Altowaiji stated no additional impactin 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 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 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); theproposed code amendment is reason to address the issues mentioned for the CR District; he referred to the existing Govemment Code which allows localagencies 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 characterof 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 thatcurrently exist in the CRD. Minutes-Planning Commission-February 24, 2015-Page 9 o 14 Binsack Binsack's response to Sniith'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 Altowaiji's question, Binsack stated that the proposed ordinance.affects all properties within the CR District uniformly. 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: Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24,2015—Page 10 of 14 Binsack Then .a re-notice would have to take place in order to inform the public. Continued. 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 1866 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 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 Councila 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 unitsin the CR District, we can expect a change requested in theordinance that affects the balance of residential properties within the city; and he encouraged the Commissionto 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 itis different in the CR District then the rest of the,city. Minutes-Planning Commission—February 24;2015—Page 11 of 14 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. 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 norriination 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 Sc DESIGN REVIEW 2014-009 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014=15 and Design Review (DR) 2014-009 was a project that iproposed 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 (PCIND) Zoning District. Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24, 2015—Page 12 of 14 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 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 Altowaiji 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; Califomia 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. Altowaiji 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.. Minutes—Planning.Commission—February'24, 2015—Page 13 of 14 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, USN "Ret." AUSTIN LOMBARD alite4/71—al Chair Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary . Minutes—Planning Commission—February 24,2015—Page 14 of 14 ATTACHMENT B MARCH 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT AGENDA. R, F -POR ITEM #3 MEL'ZTING DAI'E: IVIARCH 24, 2015 TO: P� ANNINIG ("PONIkAISSION FRONI: COWOUNITI( DEVELOPNIENT'FIEPARTMEN T SUBJECT CONIFINU&D CODE AMENI)iIAENT 2015,001 (()F,--?IDlr\IANC"E No. 1454) — 'A S N F) HL S 10 ENT I A L U N I FS IN I H E ClUL L T U A SOUFICE Fir C)NlfiVIENDATION That the Planning Commission adapt ReSOILItinn No. 4277, rp(,omwending that the Council Tustin (Jfy Council adopt Draft Ordinan(:e No, 1454, amending Aificle 0 Chapter 2 of the Tustin ("ity Code (TCC) to provide new standafds dor second residential Units irl the GAIllural Resource (CR) District and prohibit new accessory bUildiOgS iised as guest quarters in the CR DistrIct; ARTIPRIU'VAL AU-'IFH',OFH'TY 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. r--; EE L ■III tlLDt1 tlt sgft N J F BEDROOM "I't"I„'I) .nftn +wwft MO x BATH op DINING: 0 ROOM leallII / ;'tiara WIII III ecoHoom 3 I hOsunifd �t(�)� o.wn Atli BATH CjD r ! _ ,h LIVING ROOM fWING RFOROOM .nw ) i . �i j` _ Sample Floor Plans- Second Residential Unit(approx.800 square feet) Planning Commission Report March 24, 2015 Code Amendment 2015-001 Page 4 STOPDXAr UCROW I N.; UAST"SVIIE Jab 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 p,roposed by staff, Commissioner Altowaiji, and Commission Smith are summarized in the follokikig 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: 0 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. W(C KrI 0 .4 N.; UAST"SVIIE Jab 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 p,roposed by staff, Commissioner Altowaiji, and Commission Smith are summarized in the follokikig 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: 0 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 9331d. 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 Staff Proposal Commissioner Altowaiji Smith (OrdinanceCommissioner Proposal Proposal Max. 2nd Unit Floor Area 50% of rima single-family primary g Y 50% of primary single - (lot under 12,000 dwelling, not to exceed 600 800 square feet family dwelling, not to square feet) square fest exceed 600 square feet Max. 2n° Unit Floor Area 50% of primary single-family (lot 12,000 square dwelling, not to exceed 600 10% of lot area 10% of lot area feet or larger) square feet Second Residential Units 194 i94 194 Bedrooms 194 1 bedroom x 194 lots) ) 582 (3 bedrooms x 194 lots) 284 0 bedroom x 149 lots) +(3 bedrooms x 45 lots) Residents (includes 388 776 478 students) 11 % increase 22% increase 13% increase Students 40 40 40 Park acreage demand 1.2 194 2.3 388 1.4 Vehicles 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 s uare 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 (11) 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 Califomia 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). aziete/_s2Q2,8;."--4_, tt Reekstin Elizabeth A. Binsack Principal Planner 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 C MARCH 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 24, 2015 ( 7:01 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Thompson 1. SEATING OF COMMISSIONERS LUMBARD, KOZAK AND SMITH Mayor Puckett The Mayor swore in Lumbard, Kozak and Smith. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tem Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith None. PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved, 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PLANNING as amended. COMMISSION MEETING. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the February 24, 2015 meeting as provided. Motion: Approved the February 24, 2015 minutes, as amended. It was moved by Lumbard, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 5-0. None PUBLIC HEARINGS Thompson Rearranged the order of the Commission items. Moved the Regular Business items in front of the Public Hearing item. REGULAR BUSINESS: Approved the 3. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION — 435 W. SECOND nomination. 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 bronze plaques, purchased through the program, may be mounted on the building or set on metal stakes. The property owner of 435 W. Second Street wishes to participate in the plaque designation program. Minutes—Planning Commission March 24,2015-Page 1 of 9 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the nomination of 435 West Second Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program and select "Ahern House" as the most appropriate historical name and "circa 1915" as the date of construction of the property. Reekstin Presentation given. It was moved by Smith to approve the nomination of 435 West Second Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program and selected "Ahern House" as the most appropriate historical name and "circa 1915" as the date of construction of the property, seconded by Altowaiji. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Reso. 4. DESIGN REVIEW 2015-003 A REQUEST TO SATISFY No. 4278 REQUIREMENT FOR FIVE (5) ON-SITE PARKING STALLS THROUGH THE OLD TOWN PARKING EXCEPTION PROGRAM AT THE JABBERWOCKY LOCATED AT 434 EL CAMINO REAL Request to satisfy requirement for five (5) on-site parking stalls through the Old Town Parking Exception Program at the Jabberwocky located at 434 El Camino Real. Applicant: William Prescott 18752 E. 17th Street t{ Tustin, CA 92705 Property Owner: Margaret Pottenger P.O. Box 1946 Tustin, CA 92781 Location: 434 El Camino Real ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301, Class 1, "Existing Facilities". RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4278, approving Design Review (DR) 2015-003 approving a request to satisfy the requirement for five (5) on-site parking stalls through the Old Town Parking exception program at the Jabberwocky located at 434 El Camino Real. Thompson recused himself from the item since he owns property within 300 feet of the project. Minutes—Planning Commission March 24,2015-Page 2 of 9 Stonich Presentation given. The applicant, William Prescott, commended Stonich for the staff report and asked the Commission if they had any questions. The Commission did not have any questions for the applicant. Smith Smith's questions generally included: How the rate of $60 was determined; and he also asked if the agreement was similar to a "lease arrangement" or an "annual fee". Binsack Binsack's response to Smith's questions generally included: The rate does not offset the actual cost of parking; cost of a parking space is approximately 17,000 per space; however, this fee is to address maintenance (sweeping, landscape, repairs) of a space and the rate is prorated. In the future, the City could spread the cost via a parking assessment district for possible additional lots and structures within the area which then the surrounding businesses would be paying into the program as well. Stonich Stonich also added, the agreement would be signed, per the Conditions of Approval, then each year the business would receive a bill to pay for the following year and if the rate were to change, it could be changed by a City Council Resolution. It was moved by Altowaiji, seconded by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4278, approving DR 2015-003 approving a request to satisfy the requirement for five (5) on-site parking stalls through the Old Town Parking exception program at the Jabberwocky located at 434 El Camino Real. Motion carried 4-0-1. Thompson abstained. PUBLIC HEARING: Adopted Reso. 5. CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) — No. 4277 SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 24, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 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. 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. Minutes—Planning Commission March 24,2015-Page 3 of 9 The Planning Commission deliberated the matter and then continued their consideration of Code Amendment 2015-001 to March 24, 2015, to provide adequate time for staff to provide an analysis based on alternative proposals. ENVIRONMENTAL: 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. 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. Thompson Thompson recused himself from the item since he owns property within the CR District. Altowaiji Altowaiji informed staff and the Commission that he owns property within the vicinity of the CR District and asked Bobak to elaborate on the outcome of the inquiry to the Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC). Bobak Bobak's response to Altowaiji's comment generally included: The formal/informal advice Bobak received from the FPPC, on behalf of Altowaiji, on whether or not there was a conflict of interest since he owns condominium units close to the border of the CR District and his wife is a real estate agent/broker; and the FPPC confirmed there is no conflict of interest. Reekstin Presentation given. Altowaiji Altowaiji's comments generally included: His comments in the staff report he made at the previous Planning Commission meeting; suggested cutting all of his numbers in half; agreed with the original ordinance adding more units and the flexibility of the ordinance; again mentioned not allowing the 12,000 square foot lots to build is not providing flexibility; and he requested the ordinance be modified to allow the 12,000 square foot lots to build under the existing ordinance. 7:44 p.m. Public Hearing Opened. Linda Jennings, resident at 350 South B Street, thanked staff for the presentation and sensitivity to the historic Old Town Tustin. Her concerns included: The size of the proposed units and the negative impact they would have on parking; the height of the units with regard to privacy; Minutes—Planning Commission March 24,2015-Page 4 of 9 suggested there be no windows on the side of the second units if they face the neighboring homes; and lot size would probably affect the trees negatively. Melissa Figge, resident at 665 W. Main Street, had concerns with the following: Suggested change would apply to the historic feel and look of Old Town; contradicting the time the City has put into considering ways to make Old Town more vibrant by creating a denser area of insufficient parking which would discourage people from visiting Old Town; Ms. Figge asked if the City is meeting the State requirement of affordable housing availability within the City; contrary to the intended plan to improve the vibrancy and the shopping of Old Town Tustin; and referred to the non- permitted second units and bringing them to the new code and to just simply make the units, from this point forward, meet the height restrictions and setbacks. 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing Closed. The Commission's questions generally included: Requested staff address the affordable housing question; asked for feedback on setbacks/coverage; and height restrictions. Reekstin Reekstin's response generally included: He referred to the regional housing needs numbers, and that the City is striving to achieve those numbers through implementation policies; second residential units are one way of achieving the affordable housing goals (new construction) as well as in other areas of the city; the proposed ordinance provides for setbacks and he further explained the setbacks in the front/rear/side and corner yards. There are no restrictions on windows although staff could recommend that owners enhance their landscaping for privacy matters. Altowaiji Altowaiji's questions/suggestions generally included: Reducing the second unit to 700 square feet and asked if that would eliminate the three bedrooms; he asked how many units would qualify to meet the standards -- he asked if that number would be twenty percent -- based on the 194 units; again stated his concern with limiting the size of the units for the smaller and larger units and said there would be no incentive for the owners to build; Altowaiji again disagreed with the flexibility and stated there are more restrictions; he would like the owners of the 12,000 square foot lots to be protected under the existing ordinance and not what staff is proposing; and stated the recommendation is the same as what was proposed at the previous meeting no alternatives were provided, as he desired. Reekstin Reekstin's response to Altowaiji's suggestion generally included: The 800 square feet could accommodate the three bedrooms with standard dimensions; stated the proposed ordinance does in fact give flexibility (i.e. could be smaller, attached to the primary dwelling, could be built above the garage, or second story); and 45 of the units are over 12,000 square feet. Minutes—Planning Commission March 24, 2015-Page 5 of 9 Lumbard Lumbard's questions/concerns generally included: Requested the definition of the existing standard for lots over 12,000 square feet in the City to level set what is current to what is proposed in the ordinance in order to assist the Commission further with their deliberations; he asked if there was a "not to exceed limit" on the second residential units and if a two-car garage would be required on these units regardless of the square footage; he also asked staff to clarify the proposed ordinance and if it was the same recommendation from the last Commission meeting (i.e. 600 square feet, covered parking area—garage or carport). Reekstin Reekstin's response to the Commission's questions/concerns generally included: The current City Code allows lots over 12,000 square feet to have a second residential unit on the R1 properties; the size of the units could be as large as ten percent of the lot area; and regardless of the square footage, a two-car garage would be required on the lots over 12,000 square feet. Binsack Binsack's comments to the Commission's questions/concerns generally included: Per the last meeting, staff was unclear as to what the Commission was requesting of staff; it appeared there was no consensus; two Commissioners seemed to be in favor of the item; Altowaiji appeared to want to leave the 12,000 square feet alone or allow a "sliding scale"; Smith seemed to be acceptable with the proposed ordinance for lots under 12,000 square feet, but wanted the lots over 12,000 square feet to be left alone; staff then brought back to this meeting what the ramifications of the alternatives would be; and Binsack advised the Commission of the next steps if the proposed ordinance was approved or if they should propose an alternative to be presented to the City Council for their recommendation. Altowaiji Altowaiji stated if staff had called him he would have agreed to a reduction to 700 square feet. Binsack Binsack stated, in general, the following: That staff has to report as to what occurred at the meeting; generally, the decision making process does not take place over the telephone; and that staff attempted to correctly and professionally respond to what the Commission asked of staff at the last Commission meeting. Lumbard Lumbard informed the Commission that if another option was selection by the Commission, then they could deny the proposed ordinance or try to vote on the recommended item and move forward. Smith Smith's comments generally included: Thanked staff for the analysis on what the scenarios would look like as well as the impact with regards to the environmental analysis; and the impact of the proposed ordinance is a balance between the thought of preserving existing owners of the 12,000 square foot lots or going with the smaller option. Altowaiji Altowaiji asked Smith to clarify his proposal since it was unclear to him. He also asked if Smith was preserving the option of 12,000 square feet under the current ordinance or if he was allowing the new ordinance under the proposed ordinance. Altowaiji stated he could agree if it was an either or option. Minutes—Planning Commission March 24,2015-Page 6 of 9 Smith Smith's response to Altowaiji's questions generally included: If the property owner wanted to build a 600 square foot unit with a one-car garage on a lot larger than 12,000 square foot lot, he would be acceptable with that; his interpretation of the proposed ordinance was that staff provided an analysis of what he suggested at the last Commission meeting. Binsack The report identifies what the downfall would be if the Commission chose the "sliding scale" option. If the latter is the scenario, and a second owner wanted to add a two-car garage to a 600 square foot unit, they may be precluded from doing so. Lumbard Lumbard deferred his question to Bobak regarding legal issues and if giving certain property owners a choice then which standard would apply to them. Bobak Bobak's response to Lumbard's questions generally included: Her concern is not what choices are being given to the property owners, but the enforcement issues being created in terms of how to determine which standards would apply; if there are no set of standards to follow then giving property owners the option of deciding which standards they want to comply with, could cause issues for subsequent owners; and Altowaiji interjected stating Bobak could include in the ordinance so that staff would understand. Altowaiji Altowaiji asked if a property owner of a four bedroom unit wanted to add two additional bedrooms and they have a two car garage, the City would require a three car garage addition; and he stated there are options for every standard. Bobak Bobak stated it is not a question of which set of standards would be applied. An established set of standards would mean staff would look at that project and make sure the property owner complies with the standards, not, which set of standards should be used. Kozak Kozak's comments generally included: Thanked staff for the report and the community for coming out; again, as he stated at the last Commission meeting, the proposed code amendment is a reasonable compromise approach to a long-standing unresolved issue of second units and guest quarters; the proposed ordinance provides a standard to all properties within the CR District; varying from the proposal would not do justice; the proposed ordinance would add ancillary and incidentals to the main structure; if size is modified, could run into conflict; would like to see the privacy concerns be addressed on second story additions; and he recommended moving forwarded with the recommended action. Smith Smith comments generally included: The options on the 12,000 square foot units and being given certain rights; the dilemma of guest units and them no longer being a guest unit; Smith's interest in considering moving forward with staffs proposal; he urged recommending permit parking or addressing parking situations to the City Council; and that passing the proposed ordinance, the concerns of the community would have to be addressed. Minutes—Planning Commission March 24, 2015-Page 7 of 9 Lumbard After deliberation by the Commission, Lumbard asked for direction with regard to voting on the item. He also suggested sending a report to the City Council stating those Commissioners that support this item and that the issues previously stated need to be addressed. Binsack Binsack's stated staff could provide a report addressing the permit parking and other issues mentioned to the City Council. She also suggested reaching out to members of the community interested in the report moving forward as well. Lumbard Lumbard reiterated his support of the proposed code amendment, as previously stated at the last Commission meeting. Staffs suggested action is a result of a comprehensive analysis of the CR District as a whole and the impacts of suggested change and• the change it would have in the CR District. He also mentioned that the City Council has goals in place related to the Downtown Commercial Core Plan. The proposed item would help reach those goals, but it does not address parking and unpermitted structures. Lumbard also stated that the proposed ordinance properly balances land use and the R1 Zone without overwhelming the historic culture of Old Town while increasing housing opportunities and is a workable solution. He noted his support of the recommendation. Altowaiji Altowaiji was still not in support of the item. He reiterated his comments previously stated. He also had unfavorable comments with regards to the report provided. Altowaiji stated he was willing to support Smith's proposal and was hopeful the other Commissioners would also support Smith's proposal. Il Lumbard Lumbard renewed his motion, as amended, with the ancillary concerns about parking, privacy issues consideration of code enforcement issues, seconded by Kozak. Motion carried 3-1-1. Thompson abstained. STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack None. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith Smith attended the 5K Leprechaun Leap on March 15, 2015. Lumbard None. Kozak Kozak attended the 5K Leprechaun Leap on March 15, 2015. He informed the Commission of the Parks & Recreation Easter Egg Hunt being held on April 4, 2015. Kozak thanked staff for the agenda items and for working with the Commission on the Second Unit proposal. He also congratulated Smith and Lumbard for their reappointment and to the Mayor for the swearing in. Altowaiji Altowaiji congratulated Kozak, Lumbard and Smith on their reappointment as well as the Mayor for the swearing in. Minutes—Planning Commission March 24, 2015-Page 8 of 9 Thompson Thompson also congratulated his fellow Commissioners on their reappointment. He also attended the Building Industry Association Annual Conference on March 20, 2015. 8:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way. . 11 � . TH•MPSO Chairperson a;:ee/)lt--j- t-e5:-ot4/C__ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary iI Minutes—Planning Commission March 24,2015-Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT D LETTER DATED MARCH 20, 2015 FROM THE TUSTIN PRESERVATION CONSERVANCY Board of Directors Kim DeBenedeno Melissa Figge Tustin Preservation Conservancy Linda Jennings ii, 350 South B Street Lisa Harding Tustin,California 92780 Llyn Smith www.tustinconservancy.org Sharon Teter la Working to make yesterday's resources part of tomorrow's history Elizabeth Binsack Director of Community Development . City of Tustin 300 Centennial Tustin, CA 92780 March 20, 2015 Dear Elizabeth, The Board of Directors of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy has the following concerns about Draft Ordinance 1454. We are aware that this proposal has been sent back to staff by the Planning Commission. We ask that these concerns be addressed in the follow-up proposal. Why is the proposal for second units available only to Old Town Tustin residents? Staff seems enthusiastic and positive about the proposal, so why does it not cover the entire city and all those homeowners who have appropriate sized lots? We are concerned with the impact these buildings could have on the architectural integrity of the original structures and therefore on the entire historic district under the proposed building requirements. Our suggestions are: 1. Make certain that the design of the additional structure reflects the architectural style of the original home according to the Secretary of Interiors Standards. 2. Restrict structures to be built behind one,-story homes to a height of 22 feet. The original building would be visible from the street but not the new construction. 3. If the new construction is to be two stories, increase the interior setback to 10 feet to protect the privacy of neighbors. 4. Restrict the construction of the second unit to lots no smaller than 9,000 square feet. Tustin calls itself The City of Trees. Is it not possible that building these second units in so many of our back yards would cause a considerable loss of many of the very old trees that grow throughout Old Town Tustin? Since one of the reasons for allowing these second units is to provide housing for low-income and handicapped,will all the units to be built in Old Town Tustin be required to be ADA compliant? If not, how will this requirement be applied? The issue of parking is paramount to many of our residents and we ask that it be considered along with the original proposal. The Board of Directors appreciates your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, ..eista J2eotautgd President ATTACHMENT E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4280 (FORMERLY NO. 4277) RESOLUTION NO. 4280 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(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. Resolution No. 4280 Page 2 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. 4280 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 le day of April, 2015. AUSTIN LUMBARD / . /p Chairperson Pro Tem cz ✓__lS _ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary I Resolution No. 4280 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. 4280 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of April, 2015. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: Kozak, Lumbard, Smith (3) PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: Altowaiji (1) PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: Thompson (1) PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: , (15-3466_4 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary t ATTACHMENT F EMAIL DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2015 AND PHOTOGRAPHS From: Gominsky, James [mailto:'gominsky@firstam.com] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 4:00 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Questions Hello Elizabeth First I wanted to say it was great to see you at the meeting, well atheist wave to you. I was going to come over in person and say hello but thought being close to starting time it might not be ok. But it was nice to see you. I have a couple of questions if you can answer them or put me in the right direction. 1) Where would I go about landscape upkeep? Or if there is even a department that would handle such a thing. (Reason I ask is the house next to me 540 Pacific is a mess, weeds are 1 ft. to 3 ft. high throughout the yard, and the water meter people have to cut the over grown grass away to check the meter.) I know you can't do anything about the back yard,but if you ever watched the Jefferson's and the junk they had in there yard..you can see the same in this back yard. From Water heaters to washing machines, old bikes, cabinets piled and more it's a fire hazard. 2) Is there any type of parking restrictions that would limit parking there motorcycles on the walk way to the house. I know in Santa Ana they have a city ordinance where they can't park in the yard. The house across from me, Maureen Li they have 7 the cars that they rotate in the street, not counting the other 3 or 4 in their driveway, even next door (540) they have at least 5 to 6 cars. I guess I could do like some of the others have started to do and that is leave my trash cans on the street to block anyone from parking to close to my driveway so that I can get in and out without driving over the curb. 3) I don't think I can do anything about renting out every room in the house, or even the little addition they renting out that they have attached to the garage that they should be using. But I'm hoping that if I can get them to start to take care of their home and take some pride in our city, it would make living on this parking lot of a street much more bearable. I don't want to sound like a whiner,but it is really at a point where it isn't pleasant to live there. We moved into our house nearly 30 years ago, we rented from my brother's wife for about 11 years and purchased the home in 1998 making it ours. Since then I have put in nearly 175,000 into that house and landscape from new garage to front yard to cementing the entire drive and surrounding of the house. What I am saying is this was the place I wanted to make our home and raise my family. Within the past several years we have seen a major down fall in this arca. With new people moving in and not respecting the area it has been a shame. It makes it tough, I can't go complaining to them as I don't know what the end result will be with them. So I am reaching out to you my friend for some guidance. In the summer I bet you I called the police at least 6 times because of the parties they would have in the hack yard. It was every Saturday where he would have what he called "Comedy Night" charge people to come in and listen to comedians do there skits, charge for beer and food. Start at 7 and end at 12:30 to 1 am. All the time using a microphone so that we all could hear the language. Maybe something can be done and maybe not. But I do know that the city council board members are patient to let us vent,but I don't really know if they care about what is said. I would think if they lived in that area they surely would. We are a small part of Tustin. But I shop and eat in Tustin and support our city 90% of the time we are at this house. Elizabeth thank you for taking the time to allow me to vent some,but I do need to get some guidance on the questions. Please let me know and so very sorry for dumping all this on you. But I trust you and need some type of guidance on where to go to fix this. Thank you, Jim James F. Gominsky Sr. Vice President - Customer Service Serving Orange, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties !profFirst American 125 RS CCM First American Title Company 4 First American Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707 Direct: 714-250-4825 Customer Service Support: 714-250-4500 Email: jgominsky@firstam.com Web: www.firstamericantitle.com A member of the First American Financial Corporation family of companies I NYSE: FAF i:, -PN 1� 30mr, Ire. PARKING ON PACIFIC STREET BETWEEN MAIN AND 6"' STREETS SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS A) The house located at 535 Pacific has 10 cars associated with this address. 5 cars parked In one of the driveways, 2 parked in the other driveway and 3 on the street. Most of the time blocking their own driveway, which impedes the full exit to and from my driveway Which none of these vehicles use a garage to park in? B) The house located at 520 Pacific has cars 4 cars Sometimes I or 2 in their driveway and 2 or 3 on the on the street. Which none of these vehicles use agarage to park In? Why they rave a garage b it at this time cannot be used as a car garage. a Q The house located at 540 Pacific has 3 to 4 cars plus a motorcycle tliat is pafk-`d On their Yjalkway leading n the house. Which none of these vehicles use a garage to park in? Bacause their gaga has baen converted into a room in the back of their house to rent. Cars to this house Increase over the weekend due to their Sat night comedy holr. People will spend th! nh,ht due to excess liquids. 0 Yhere is a condo complex directly behind the even address r-urnbers on PaMic, We have approximately 25 to 20 cars parked on our street ,11":;ht1y from owners/renters to that compl:!x that should be par�lr- with';n th2-7r o,,,vn c,,ynp'j'ex. ,E) Xly hawse located all 530 PL36fic 3 vehicles. 2oftba3ar2p,:i,rkedi�imy,,-,-Iia-,,---,Jndthe 3rd parked in my driveway behind a cl)-;)ed gate. r'l - i`n o. ca • w�TM W LD c7 LO LTAIS w rh 1-Tj4s 17&&O.r)r7 Q M ti Q ti i ICU Q9 t.. 9 �s 133�1s ai��add 'z .�n eta. ,K •M see' H 17:1lJ; wet �Ur7rl w ' � y �Ju StN JV�.41. OP :Sw�t�j74 Q M ti Q ti i ICU Q9 t.. 9 tn U-) IOU wi;.;Siv 4WM' 17&►i0 iialvar. a L2-zc b 'ClAtil r Silclr s)► Q?r7G'.13� v, Fav S1:9 OND BJ 11'lFfl) lxt SwSS► Ww i3no it S,f G! 11 I;j"brllW f)►rr eLtf:lfr 3N1 Doscript.ion: Orange,CA Assessor Map 402.33 Page: 1 of 3 Order: j fq ccmmmin t: . I C C HetroScan / Orange . Parcel :401 372 32 LandPcl Land :5478,061 Owner :L1 Miuling M Tr Strucc :$59,539 CoOwner Ocher . Site :535 Pacific St Tustin 92780 Total :5537,600 Mail :535 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780 Exempt :57,000 Xfered :11/18/2008 Doc i :537685 Type :Homeowners Price Deed t Impry :11 LoanAmt Loan t Owned :100 A f Ves[Typ IRtTy TaxArea :13000 Lender 13-14 Tx :$6,548.C6 �./ Cnty.LandUse:l Res,Single Family Residential Phone . Legal :STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V POR OF MapGrid :830 A3 :LOT TR 737 TractNum :737 CensUs :Tr:755.05 B1k:1 Bedrooms :4 Bldg SqFt :1,127 YearBuilt :1929 Bathrooms :1.00 Stories :1 Lot Acres : .34 Total Rms :17 Fireplace :Yes Lot Sg0e :14,810 Air Cond :Ctrl Frcd Air Garage Type : Units Heating :Other Pool :No Spa .• . Intarmonon enmpikd from vonous sources Cordova mates no representanuns or rmrumres as to the occoragy or comptaenav ofmformaoon coniamud in dor report • (_ MetroScan / Orange . Parcel :401 371 07 LandPel Land :$375.737 Owner :Hernandez Manuel T Tr Struct :5124,764 CoOwner :Manuel T;Nydia F Other Site :520 Pacific St Tustin 92780 Total :5500,501 Mail :520 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780 Exempt XEered :07/10/2012 Doc k :389451 Type Price Deed :Quit Claim : /mpry :25 LoanAmt : Loan : 4 Owned :100 n VestTyp :Trust\trustee IntTy : r TaxArea :13000 ( �/ 1 Lender : 13-14 Tx :$6,738.66 ( ' Cnty.LandUse:2 Res,Multiple Residential Phone Legal :STAFFORD 6 TUSTIN TR LOT V S 50 FT MapGrid :830 A3 :OF 11 460 FT OF THE W 200 FT TR 737 TractNum :737 Census :Tr:755.05 Blk:l Bedrooms :3 Bldg SciFt :1,752 YearBuilt :1928 Bathrooms Statics Lot Acres : .23 Total Rms Fireplace :Yes Lot .SgFt :10,019 Air Cond :Ctrl Frcd Air Garage Type : Units Heating Pool :No Spa .• * . MetroScan / Orange _ • Parcel :401 371 08 LandPcl Land :$168,071 Owner :Gorninsky James F Sr Tr Struct :$84,029 CoOwner Other Site :530 Pacific St Tustin 92780 Total :5252,100 -Mail :530 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780 Exempt :57,000 Xfered :03%10/2006 Doc if :160232 Type :Homeowners Price Deed :Trust Transfer % Impry :33 VestTyp •Trust\trustee InCTy TaxArea :13000 Lender 13,14 Tx :$3,21.9.02 Cnty.LandUse:l Res,Single Family Residential Phone Legal :STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT -V POR OF MapGrid :830 A3 :LOT TR 737 TractNum :737 Census :Tr:755.05 Blk:1 Bedrooms :2 Bldg SciFt :1,232 YearBuilt :1956 Bathrooms :1.00 Stories :1 Lot Acres : .23 Intel. Rms :6 Fireplace Lot SciFt :10,019 Air Cohd :Ctrl Frcd Air Garage Type :Attached Units Heating :Central Pool :No SPa - MetroScan / Orange Parcel :401 371 09 LandPcl Land :$450,727 Owner :Gates Michael H Struct :572,146 CoOwner Other . Site :540 Pacific St Tustin 92780 Total :5522,873 Mail :540 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780 Exeinpt Xfered :11/05/2008 Doc U :507431 Type Price :5460,000 Full Deed :Grant Deed : Impfl :14 Lc) LoanAmt :5285,000 Loan :Conventional t Owned :100 VestTyp :Single Person IntTy :Fixed TaxArea :13000 Lender :Cmg Mtg 13-14 Tx :$6,254.02 Cncy.LandUse:1 Res,Single Family Residential Phone Legal :STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V POR OF MapGrid :830 A3 :LOT TR 737 TractNum :737 Census :Tr:755.05 Blk:l Bedrooms :5 Bldg SciFt :2,022 YearBuilt :1922 Bathrooms :3 .50 Stories :2 Lot Acres : .23 Total Rms :9 Fireplace :Yes Lot SgFt :10.019 • Air Cond Garage Type :Detached Units Heating :Yes Pool :No Spa • Information complkd from vonous Jourcc:. CneeLogie makes no repreirnmHdnr nr warranties al to Om accurory Of completeness ofmfemratmn awaked m this report. ior 4F Mon Ir 47ff Ann low it t 4f 1"Am ft-� IL I IL OL I 9v tm- - 0 1L 3p . It 0j. WL Kv 47ff Ann low it t 4f 1"Am ft-� IL , a. � •• • lr a - � y Y •t• 1 r* i - 1. i - - r. � •� •: a� e � .ice• �. `,' ` , _ - « _ a`� t •� jr is •4 ♦ � • _ •, , - .`'►1 •y � �*, i %1• ) : tai 'Il1;�,� ... � � `4 fi S' I., •,. i «r I'y.a [„''.1«tom ♦ '� i � « ••R • '"1C »•. . ,• r e � • / ,err ♦jlw •jr �w�'. ♦• w° +wf • r , � . ;� ►♦•4'r• a 1, llx :�•'+.1;�•- a%'t♦ ~ S "'? ri, 1;C. « �-..•. �1► � a,,t„_ y, r It 'w e + •r��- w .j,�►e•(+.'�t� ,� .0 �lG.�- �' i. I .1 � • t I i. � i' �,�t j:f;,• 't�,r.i .1 V r .«+r i >#• ►1 •�'�` '- 4 r C.'�,. rpt . ar" r -a moo �'� • .. . •- .Y �ct�.✓. t+, •L••w1 � s- ����y .—�.M�_ rI . • ! •a 1 , a. � •• • lr a - � y Y •t• 1 r* i - 1. i - - r. � •� •: a� e � .ice• �. `,' ` , _ - « _ a`� t •� jr is •4 ♦ � • _ •, , - .`'►1 •y � �*, i %1• ) : tai 'Il1;�,� ... � � `4 fi S' I., •,. i «r I'y.a [„''.1«tom ♦ '� i � « ••R • '"1C »•. . ,• r e � • / ,err ♦jlw •jr �w�'. ♦• w° +wf • r , � . ;� ►♦•4'r• a 1, llx :�•'+.1;�•- a%'t♦ ~ S "'? ri, 1;C. « �-..•. �1► � a,,t„_ y, r It 'w e + •r��- w .j,�►e•(+.'�t� ,� .0 �lG.�- �' i. I .1 � • t I i. � i' �,�t j:f;,• 't�,r.i .1 V r .«+r i >#• ►1 •�'�` '- 4 r C.'�,. rpt . ar" r -a ...t ,. , - ,� r ' _l r.._. �"` • .^' _ �'+'—•.+" '�, it a r �� .y,, . . Vic„ i � � , �• �` �' �.;`, ,- .. .rr'•', RCil1QLucst.00t11 Ctt`, - Report Pro, L For Property L oc,-i;ed At 530 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN, CA 92780-4329 Ownt:r Information 'Page 1 of 1. 000. F':c' 11i U�?St Professional Owner Name. GOMINSKY JAMES F SR 03110120061 02/1412006 Mail ng Address 530 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN CA 92780-4329 COW Vesting Codes f / TR 160232 Location Info rCT1.1601T Porch Type. Recording/Sale Date Legal Descr;pt on STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V POR OF LOT TR 737 County ORANGE, CA APN Census Tract / Brock 75505/1 A:ternate APN Township Range Sect 157327 S :bdmsion Legal Book/Page GRANT DEED Map Reference Legal Lct V Tract #' Legal Bock School District. Market Arra 71 School District Name Ne.g^bor Code INSURANCE Munic/Townshlp Owner Transfer Inforrnation Record,ng/Sale Date Construction 03110120061 02/1412006 Sale Price Heat Type CENTRAL Document # Exterior wall 160232 Last Market Sale Information Porch Type. Recording/Sale Date 03/1911998 1010211998 Sale Price $160,000 Sale Type FULL Document # 157327 Deed Type GRANT DEED Transfer Document # COMPOSITION Conditcn New Construction. SHINGLE Title Company 023 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE SINGLE FAM RESIDENCE INSURANCE Lender X BROOKSAMERICA MTG CORP Seller Name f GOMINSKY KATHIE JONES Prior Sale Information Prior Rec/Sale Date PUBLIC SERVICE 11104,19821 10/04/1982 Prior Sale Price $3,219.02 $60,500 Prior Doc Number 13000 338-98 Prior Deed Type HOMEOWNER DEED (REG) Property Characteristics, Gross Area 1,232 Parking Type Living Area 1,232 Garage Area Tot Adi Area Garage Capacity Above Grade Parking Spaces Tota' Rooms 6 Basement Area Bedrooms 2 Finish 13smnt Area. Bath(FrH) I/ Basement Type Year Bui,t / Eff 1956 / 1959 Roof Type Fireplace I Foundation # of Stories. 1.00 Roof Material Other Improvements COVERED PATIO;FENCE Site Information Zoning Acres Lot Area 10,019 Lot Wdth/Depth Land Use SFR Res/Comm Units Site influence Tax Information Total Value 5252,100 Assessed Year - Land Value $168,071 Improved % Improvement Value $84,029 Tax Year Total Taxable Value $2.35;100 Deed Type 1 st M,g Document # 1st Mtg Arnount/Type 1st Mfg Int Rate/Type 1 st Nltg Document # 2nd Mtg AmountlType 2nd Mtg Int. Rate/Type Price Per SgFt. Multi/Split Sale Prior Lender Prior 1st Mtg Amt/Type Pr or 1st Mtg Rate/Type 401-371.08 STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR 23 -E21830 -A3 737 TUSTIN TRUSTEE'S DEED(TRANSFER) $152,000 1 CONV / FIXED $129.87 $45,500 1 PRIVATE PARTY I GARAGE/CARPORT Construction FRAME Heat Type CENTRAL 1 Exterior wall STUCCO Porch Type. Patio Type COVERED PATIO Pool A:r Ccnd CENTRAL Style CONTEMPORARY Quality' AVERAGE COMPOSITION Conditcn GOOD SHINGLE 023 County Use SINGLE FAM RESIDENCE (1) X State Use. f Water Type PUBLIC Sewer Type PUBLIC SERVICE 2013 Property Tax $3,219.02 33% Tax Area 13000 2013 Tax Exemplar HOMEOWNER hitn•//nrn raalriiiar.t rnmAcn/mnnnrt icn�.�rlirr�t=r�'iClir,n=r•nnfrmR-tvnc'—tretterl�rt rCcnrd_.. 08/12/2014 I ATTACHMENT G DRAFT OO °'DHANC E NO. 1654 (CODE AMENDMENT 20 1 5 -001 � 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 Dustin 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 Sill 1866, which amended Government Code Section 65852.2 to facilitate the provision of affordable housing throughout California. S. 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. S. 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 .duly 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. & 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 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. L. 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. 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 the size limit of 600 square feet 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. Larger second residential units with multiple bedrooms within the CR District, along with larger parking accommodations could compromise the unique character of Old Town, and particularly its single family neighborhood. O. That on February 24, 2015, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code Amendment 15 -001 by the Planning Commission. P. 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. C . That on March 24, 2015, the Planning Commission considered their advisory role related to historic and cultural resources, adopted Resolution No. 4277, and recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 15001 to provide more flexible standards for second residential units in the CR District, The Planning Commission also expressed concerns pertaining to street parking, residential privacy, and structures illegally converted into living quarters in Old Town and requested that staff forward these concerns to the City Council for consideration and direction. Ordinance No. 1454 Page 3 R. That on April 14, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the renumbering of Resolution loo. 4277 to Resolution No. 4280 to eliminate an inadvertent duplication of resolution numbers. S. That on April 21, 2015, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code Amendment 15 -001 by the City Council. T. 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. U. 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. V. That the proposed amendments comply with California Government Code Section 65852.2. W. 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. Dousing Element Policy 1.8 to allow second (attached /detached) units in single- and multi - family districts consistent with the Tustin City Code. X. 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 9223x7 of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Cody: 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.) Ordinance No. 1454 Page 4 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 buoidii egs (except in the Uullural 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 (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 single- 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 primary single- family dwelling and shall not be visible from the public right -of -way. (n) When the new residential unit is built between the existing single- family dwelling and the front property line, the rear unit must comply with the provisions of this Section. 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 Ordinance No. 1454 Page 5 Accessory buildings used as guest 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 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 primary single- family unit. 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 legal 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. PUCKER" F, MAYOR ON Ordinance No. 1454 Page 6 ,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 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 5t" day of May, 2015, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: Jeffrey C. Parker, City Clerk Published: SECTIONS � L� AND 925 j� MTH REDLIMED CHANGES Tustin City Code Section 9223 (Proposed Changes in Red) 9223 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R1) a Permitted Uses and Development Standards 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 in Table 1 of Section 9220 and/or as specified in this 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: 25 feet. (b) Minimum lot width at property line: 40 feet on cul-de-sacs at property line. (c) Maximum lot coverage: 30 percent of rear yard. (d) Minimum front yard setback: 50 feet. (e) Minimum rear yard setback: 5 feet, but not less 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. (a) Minimum side yard setback: 1 foot, (b) Minimum rear yard setback: 1 foot except 5 feet required on an alley. 4. Small family day care home subject to the provisions set forth in Section 9271 aa. 5. Home occupations in accordance with this Chapter. (Ord. No. 330, Sec, 2a) 6. Large family day care homes (subject to the provisions set forth in Section 9271 aa). 7. Second residential units (see Section 925212 for standards applicable to Second Residential Units in the Cultural Resource District.): (a) Maximum height: 30 feet. (b) Minimum building site: 12,000 square feet. (c) Maximum overall lot coverage for all structures combined: 50 percent. (d) Maximum lot coverage for the second residential unit: 30 percent of rear yard and 30 percent of side 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. (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. 10 percent of total lot area. Page 1 (j) Any 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) 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. 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 District) 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. Page 2 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 3 Tustin CKy Code Secdon 9252j2 CWikura� Resource (CGS) Ustroct (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- 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 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 subject 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 guest quarters. Page 1