HomeMy WebLinkAbout16-ATTACHMENT B - MAY 5, 2015 CITY COUNCIL REPORTATTACHMENT B
May 5, 2015 City Council Report
1TY O
AGENDA
C'=a REPORT
P�
VST1
MEETING DATE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY:
MAY 5, 2015
JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER
Agenda Item
Reviewed.
City Manager
Finance Director
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CONTINUED CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001, SECOND RESIDENTIAL
UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT
The project is a proposed amendment to the Tustin City Code (TCC) 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 April 21, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing on Code Amendment (CA)
2015-001, continued the item to May 5, 2015, and directed staff to develop a
recommended approach to address the issue of parking in the CR District. (Applicant: City
of Tustin)
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1) Introduce and have first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 1454, approving
CA 2015-001 by amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the 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) Direct staff to take the following actions regarding on -street parking, residential
privacy, and illegally converted structures in the CR District:
a. Conduct an analysis and workshop to explore solutions to address parking
impacts 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 to enforce illegally constructed or converted structures.
d. Continue to enforce the California Vehicle Code for illegally parked cars
obstructing sidewalks, driveways and/or accessible ramps.
City Council Report
May 5, 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:
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
VA W6
01 r*,m WWA L
1,
Conditional Use Permit required
No
No
Maximum height
30 feet
30 feet
Minimum building site
12,000 square feet
None
Maximum overall lot coverage
50 percent
50 percent
City Council Report
May 5, 2015
CA 2015-001
Page 3
Maximum lot coverage for the
30% of rear yard and
None
second unit
30% of side yard
Minimum front yard setback
50 feet -(detached)
50 feet -(detached)
20 feet -(attached)
20 feet -(attached)
Minimum front yard setback for off-
50 feet
50 feet
street arkin
Minimum side yard setback
10 feet -corner
10 feet -corner
5 feet -interior
5 feet -interior
Minimum rear yard setback
5 feet
5 feet
Minimum off-street parking
Assigned two -car garage
One car garage or carport
50% of primary single-family
Maximum floor area of second unit
10% of lot area
dwelling, not to exceed 600
square feet
Architectural review
Yes
Yes
Impact to historic structures on
California Register
Impacts not permitted
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 Action on April 21, 2015
CA 2015-001 was noticed for an April 21, 2015, public hearing, at which time the City
Council opened the public hearing, staff provided a presentation, and nine (9) members of
the public provided testimony (see Attachment A — April 21, 2015, City Council Report and
Attachment B — March 24, 2015, Planning Commission Report).
The public speakers expressed their support, opposition, concerns, and comments
regarding the proposed CA, which included the following:
• The proposed CA should not be applied only to Old Town.
• On -street parking is congested in Old Town.
•
Pen -nit parking should be implemented in Old Town.
• Many garages are used for storage.
• Accessory guest rooms should continue to be allowed and be deed restricted.
• Impact fees should be disclosed.
• Additional CEQA analysis is necessary.
• Residential density should be decreased.
• Additional residential units will not improve the quality of life in Old Town.
• The proposed CA is a good compromise.
• The proposed standards are appropriate.
City Council Report
May 5, 2015
CA 2015-001
Page 4
The City Council deliberated the matter and continued consideration of CA 2015-001 and
the associated concerns of the Planning Commission to May 5, 2015, to provide
adequate time for staff to develop a more specific recommended approach to address the
issue of parking in the CR District.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION:
Parking was the predominant issue raised by the public at the April 21, 2015, public
hearing. There were also comments made regarding the purpose and applicability of
the proposed ordinance to Old Town. The following analysis briefly addresses these
two issues.
Parking in the CR District
According to residents of the CR District, who spoke at the April 21, 2015, City Council
public hearing and at the workshops and Planning Commission meetings, or who
communicated directly with staff, Old Town currently has parking problems. 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
C — Emails dated February 27, 2015, and April 27, 2015, and photographs). Residents
are concerned that the proposed CA would exacerbate the parking problems in Old Town.
To address the parking concerns in the CR District, the following actions could be taken:
• The implementation of permit parking on all residential streets within the CR
District.
On October 7, 2008, the City Council approved a policy and procedures for
preferential permit parking on public streets (see Attachment D). This policy is
intended to mitigate spillover parking that may impact the quality of life and affect
public safety in single family detached neighborhoods.
The City Council has implemented permit parking in several single family locations
throughout the City and in the following single family blocks in the CR District:
Myrtle Avenue between Second Street and Main Street, and the north side of Main
Street between Pasadena Avenue and Pacific Street. The existing policy was
created for traditional single family detached neighborhoods. The CR District has
unique characteristics, in that some areas are developed with multiple family
housing, retail commercial buildings, offices, and public/institutional uses such as
churches and the senior center. Accordingly, the current parking permit policy and
procedures may not be appropriate for Old Town. Instead, it may be necessary to
develop a separate permit parking policy that addresses the specific needs and
characteristics of the CR District using a hybrid approach.
City Council Report
May 5, 2015
CA 2015-001
Page 5
Should the Council wish to consider permit parking in the CR District, staff could
conduct an analysis of the on -street parking situation in the Old Town area and
then schedule a public workshop with the Planning Commission. It is
recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the workshop in their role as
the advisory body to the City Council on all matters relating to historic and cultural
resources and as the liaison between the residents and property owners within the
CR District and the City Council. The results of the staff analysis and the public
input received could then be brought back to the Council for consideration.
• Enhanced enforcement of on -street parking violations within the CR District.
Additional parking enforcement by the Police Department is an additional way to
address parking issues in the CR District, such as vehicles that are obstructing the
sidewalk or access to driveways and ADA accessible ramps. The Police
Department is aware of the public's desire for increased parking enforcement in Old
Town and is prepared to respond accordingly.
Purpose of Code Amendment 2015-001
At the April 21, 2015, City Council meeting, there were questions as to why the Code
Amendment is being proposed and why it only applies to the CR District. The proposed
code amendment is intended to benefit residents within the CR District and provides
more options and flexibility for the Old Town area. The proposed code amendment
would provide all property owners within the CR District the opportunity to have second
residential units which could be rented out for additional income and/or could provide
housing options to their grown children, parents, friends and relatives. The proposed
code amendment is based on the unique historic development pattern and character of
Old Town; the size, shape, and configuration of many of the properties and residences
within the CR District; and the desire of many residents to have and/or rent out second
residential units.
In providing for second residential units on lots of all sizes in the CR District, the
following points should be considered:
• Preserve the single family neighborhood and the character of Old Town
The proposed maximum floor area of 600 square feet is intended to allow only
ancillary and accessory second residential units to preserve the unique character of
Old Town, and particularly its single-family neighborhood.
• Potential to legalize some existing non -permitted and/or illegally established units
The proposed CA 2015-001 may provide an incentive for property owners to legalize
existing non -permitted accessory guest quarters and second residential units in the
CR District, if all development standards can be met and compliance with the
Building Code can be achieved.
City Council Report
May 5, 2015
CA 2015-001
Page 6
• Second residential units are optional and voluntary
If the proposed CA 2015-001 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. In addition,
many property owners are not desirous of having a second residential unit;
therefore, those property owners would not avail themselves of the provisions of the
proposed ordinance.
• Second residential units are affordable by nature and size
There was expressed concern regarding meeting a housing affordability requirement
in Old Town. The provision of these units does not meet the City's affordable
housing requirement per se; however, Assembly Bill 1866 identifies second
residential units as one of the ways to create affordable housing. Second residential
units are affordable by their nature due to their size. By promoting second
residential units, a community may ease rental deficit, maximize limited land,
resources, and infrastructure, and assist homeowners with supplemental income.
These units also provide an affordable housing option for extended family members
rather than affordable housing for the community at large. Therefore, second
residential units primarily benefit the individual property owners and their families,
unlike affordable units elsewhere in the city. Assembly Bill 1866 identifies second
residential units as a valuable form of housing in California at below market prices
within existing neighborhoods, and requires that these units be allowed without
discretionary review.
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.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed CA 2015-001 would provide options to residents of the CR District to
have and rent second residential units while allowing a multi -generational type of
housing, preserving the appearance and nature of the single family neighborhood,
providing a way to legalize existing non -permitted units, and protecting the character of
the CR District. Staff recommends that the City Council approve CA 2015-001 and
direct staff to conduct an analysis and workshop to address on -street parking, to
address residential privacy through plan check, and to enforce illegally converted
structures in the CR District.
City Council Report
May 5, 2015
CA 2015-001
Page 7
Autt LZA
Scott Reekstin
Principal Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
Attachments:
A. April 21, 2015, City Council Report
B. March 24, 2015, Planning Commission Report
C. Email dated February 27 and April 27, 2015, and photographs
D. Policy and Procedures for Preferential Permit Parking on Public Streets
E. Draft Ordinance No. 1454 (Code Amendment 2015-001)
F. Existing Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9252j with redlined changes
ATTACHMENT A
APRIL 21, 2015
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
MEETING DATE
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY:
Agenda Item
AGENDA REPORT City Man
M ager H�
Cit
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
• -.►•1271)
(Ordinance No. 1454
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 No. 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 Cly 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
1
12 n 92-6
_ - re
LMng Room
Bonus Room
rFV'd jiT Cit ich
J :.;
7 _ C
Sampo a Moor Mans — Second ResWentW Unfts (approx. 500 square feet)
Sarnpa Foor 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-
73
73
73
195
37.4%
80% MR)0
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 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.
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 B
MARCH 24, 2015
AGENDA REPORT rITM #1
MEETING DATE: MARCH 24, 2015
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CONTINUED CODE AMENDMENT 2015 001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1454) —
SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE CULTURAL RESOURCE
DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No 4277, recommending that the
Tustin City Council adopt Draft Ordinance No 1454, amending Article 9 Chapter 2 of the
Tustin City Code (TCC) to provide new standards for second residential units in the
Cultural Resource (CR) District and prohibit new accessory buildings used as guest
quarters in the CR District;
APPROVAL AUTHORITY
TCC Section 9295f authorizes the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to
the City Council on proposed Zoning Code amendments,
Planning Commiss on Report
March 24, 2015
Code Amendment 2015 001
Page 2
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Proposed Code Amendment
Proposed Code Amendment 2015-001 would provide new s�Wdards 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 20115-001 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, Plannfng Comm ssion 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 Commissionems
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, Commiss'oners 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 TGC provision that allows the size of the second residential unit to be up to
10'0 of the area of the lot.
Planning Commiss,on 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'o 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.
LU
Z
U
I- j 111DROOM
79
LIVING ROOM
BATM (570
BEDROOM
Sample Floor Plans - Second Residential Unit (approx. 800 square feet)
�I
...............
'�
.2
■■■I
ONE
ME
ME
ON
■No
MEMM
OMEN
.�■■■■li
EMEMMENNIZIEN
MEMEEMMEMM!
Sample Floor Plans - Second Residential Unit (approx. 800 square feet)
Plann'ng Commission Report
Man.h 24, 2015
Code Amendment 2015 001
Page 4,
Sample Floor Plan — Second Residential Unit (approx, 1,200 squa�e fee.)
The standards for, and consequences of, second residential un s in the CR Zoning D'strict
as proposed by staff Commissioner Altowaiji and Commission Smith are summarized in
the following table The table also includes the approximate possible number of second
residential units, bed,00ms, residents students, and vehicles, and demand for park
acreage that could result from each proposal.
The fol owng assump ons were made
1) Number of Bedrooms
The number of possib e bedr oms was calculated by assumFng one (1) bedroom for
ea h second residential un t of up to 600 square feet, three (3) bedrooms for each
second res;dential un of up to 800 square feet an three (3) bedrooms (or more) for
ea h second residential un t on a lo. of at least 12 000 square feet in size in the CR
Di t is
Planning Commission Report
March 24, X015
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
Developments overcrowding threshold.
0 Number of Vehcles
A total of two (2) vehicles was assumed for each second residential unit wit two (2) or
more bedrooms, and one (1) vehicle was assumed for each second residential unit
with one (1) bedroom (or for a stu&o unit).
0 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 s udent generation factors utilized by the Tustin Unified School
District in determining the need for additional school facilities.
0 Park Demand
The anticipated demand for additional park a:-,�reage was based on the City's parkland
dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons, which
is specified in Tustin City Code Section 9331 d.
It should be noted that the numbers of second residential units, bedrooms, residents
students, and vehicles, and park acreage demand in the following table are based on
every single family lot in the CR District having a second residential unit, During the
past thirty (30) years, two (2) second residential units have been approved in the CR
District One (1) is a residence consisting of 1,450 square feet that was built in 1988.
The other second residential unit was approved in 2014, but has not been bu 1t. 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 Repirt
March 24, 2015
Code Amendment 2015-001
Page 6
CR District Second Residential Unit Proposals
Max. 2"J Unit Floor
50% of primary single-family
50% of primary single -
(lot under 12.000
dwelling, not to exceed 600
800 square feet
family dwelling, not to
square feet)
square feet
exceed 600 square feet
2" Unit Floor
Area
50% of primary single-family
(lot 12,000 square
dwelling, not to exceed 600
10% of lot area
10°i° of lot area
feet or larger)
square feet
Second Residential
Units
194
194
194
Bedrooms
194
(1 bedroom x 194 lots)
582
(3 bedrooms x 194 lots)
284
(1 bedroom x 149 lots
(3 bedrooms x 45 lots)
Residents (includes
388
776
478
students)
11 % increase
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
square feet
Two car garage if larger than
Minimum off-street
800 square feet.
parking
One c ar garaye o carport
Two car garage
(lot 12,000 square
spa, a
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 Arnendrnnt 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 658522, 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 des'Te 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 (131) to Duplex Residential (112) 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 chara-Iter of Old Town and the
predominantly single family nature of the area.
Planning Commlss;on Role Related to Historic and Cultural Resources
One of the duties of the Plann,ng Commission is to advise the City Council on all
matters relating to historic and c0urai resources. The majority of these resources are
P anrnng Commiss on Report
Mar:.h 24, 2015
Code Amendment 2015 001
Page S
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 famlly in Old Town,.
Should the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a revised resolution and revised
draft ordinance to relilect 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 Oid Town and the size, shape, and configuration of many of the
properties and res€dentes wahin 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 resident. lal property in
the city.
According to the California Department of Finance, there were 9,453 single family
detached residences out of a total of 26,967 residences in Tustin as of January 1, 2014.
Allowing second residential units on every single family property in the city has not been
studed and could result in over 9,000 additional residences, which could significantly
impact the city and its residents. Staff would recommend that this kind of analysis could
have General Plan implications and would warrant further in-depth analysis.
Code Amendment Procedure (TCC 9295)
Pursuant to Tustin City Code 9295 after the close of public hearing or continuation
thereof, the Planning Commission shall make a report of its findings and its
recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment: The recommendations of
the Planning Commission shall be adopted by a majority of the voting members of the
Planning Commission.
If the Planning Commission cannot reach a consensus on the proposed amendment;
alternatively, the Planning Commission could provide a report via a Resolution to the
City Council indicating the reasons why a consensus cannot be achieved. The City
Council could then consider the proposed amendment or in the alternative, should the
City Council wish to consider the other options proposed, the City Council could direct
staff to prepare the General Plan Amendment, Environmental Impact Report, Notices,
and other analyses that may be necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed Code Amendment is exempt from further environmental review pursuant
to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as found in Public
Planning Commission Report
March 24, 2015
Code Amendment 2015-001
Page 10
Resources Code Section 21080 17. However, if the citywide approach is desired, an
environmental impact report may be required.
CITY ATTORNEY REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed the content and form of Code Amendment 2015.001
(Draft Ordinance No. 1454)
,tt Reekstin
Principal Planner
Elizabeth A Binsack
Director of Community Development
Attachments -
A February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Report
B. Draft February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes
C. Planning Commission Resolution No 4277
D. Draft Ordinance No 1454 (Code Amendment 2015-001)
E. Existing Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9252j with redlined changes
ATTACHMENT C
EMAILS DATED
FEBRUARY 27, 2015
AND
APRIL 27, 2015
AND
PHOTOGRAPHS
From: Gominsky, James[mailto:igominsky(abfirstam.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.
j) 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 goo 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 seethe same in this backyard. 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 it 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 area. 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 back 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
First Ameriran IM
MMEMEp
First American Title Company
4 First American Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707
Direct: 714-250-4825
Customer Service Support: 714-250-4500
Email: iaominskyWirstam.com
Web: www.firstamericantitle.com
A member of the First American Financial Corporation
family of companies I NYSE: FAF
z t
�- ? � rte c �• � � - ,:; r ,� a� �: ? ..�
l=.
- 1 f - I i} � R •,s�4 9
PARKING ON PACIFIC STREET BETWEEN MAIN AND a 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 1 or 2 in their driveway and 2 or 3 on the on the street
Which none of these vehicles use a garage to park In? Why that' have a garage but at this time cannot
be used as a car garage.
C) The house located at 540 Pacific has 3 to 4 cars plus a motorcycle that is parked on their
walkway leading to the house.
Which none of these vehicles use a garage to park in? Because their garage has been 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 hour. People will spend tha
night due to excess liquids.
D) There Is a condo complex directly behind the even address numbers on Pa=ific, We have
approximately 15 to 20 cars parked on our street
N*ghtly from owners/renters to that complex that should be parking within the'r own complex.
E) my house located at 530 Pacific 3 vehicles. 2 of the 3 are parked i-1 my garage and the 3rd
Parked in my driveway behind a closed gate.
f•r •I.r0 ••••!s ra cumauftr .s re 401-37
Al l Onwltt .O 43WS an .,,Oil r . . 36 �'
!p QM r-181 .rlr "'a MKAi'71' �t 4
4r of.Rf. rC1ER+CD 4 ..
crlcuRfarr oum:t mowln .a•suv IIN+
♦ t
MAN �
_ srRE�r� _I
5'r7,
T
o=.° .(D "
CQ Vo
021
rl�Y
MSN
,
I•
1
•
! �• 11!+11
Q
o._0000
to
T
Lor Y
9
rRAcr
ray Lor
t
pl-,.'
37
! 1, a
t
si r ♦ f!`.._' IsN��
nr,e'
i
@1 401 13 015
•
1 ,
jI
I
Eo
•••
M l<M• !I•
SUM
SMEr -
S7AfMiYJ 34
sL16'CN I.Voa 7 r/m rR4cT 1-14. 1-15,16
TRACT Nt7 t7F M,,1I, 13-1 NOt! 455ES5QR'S BLOCK L .LSSr;-loR'r MtP
PARCEL HUABERS ODM 401 RZ 37
SHOW IN CIRCLES CDOtlrl O! ORANGE
—FDTAL, 6F' 17 CARS AaDuncl rrtt7 Aztn'1 p4c, op--DiRTc`r'tiy
rzorr ri M4 "ov S'E•
o$
aIA
n n
M µ
AUrIRCH 1980�
54
MW
7RACT
y IA
33t ✓
nfW6Cr O,JM!
tor(D
rf t♦ftA.;
45�-£550R S OLOCK It
TRACT NO- J07G' M.M. 4G6-41`.wL4� - PARCEL NUMfiERS
sHoorl IN CIRCLES
55
gaol -33
SrREET t
SAW S7AxZT ; I
ASSESSOR S sup
BOOK 461 PAGE 33
CDUNrr Or ORANGE
A�2:11QCX A5
63 /'7 X91-,(, ' � !
fes.
(n
v
••-------•------•-------------: HctraScaa / Dzaage
Parcel :401 372 32 LandPCl
Owner :Li Miulirg M Tr
COOwner .
Site :535 Pacific St Tustin 92780
Mail :535 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780
Xfered :11/18/2008 Doc 8 :5376E5
Price Deed
LoanAmt Loan
VestTyp IntTy
Lender
Cnty,LandUse:l Res,Single Family Residential
Legal :STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V POR OF
:LOT TR 737
Bedrooms :4 Bldg SgFt.•:1,127
Bathrooms :1.00 Stories -1
Total Rms :17 FilCeplace :Yes
Air Cond :Ctrl Frcd Air Garage Type :
Heating :Other Pool :No
Land :5478,061
Struct :559,539
other
Total :5537,600
Exempt :$7,000
Type :Homeowners
Impry :11
t Owned :10:
TaxArea :13000
13-14 Tx :56,548.C6 (A
Phone
MapOrid :830 A3
TractNum :731
Census :Tr:755.C5 Blk:l
YearBuilt •:1929
Lot Acres . 34
Lot SgFt :14,010
units
Spa
lefarmotroR catgailrJ from nariau� }aurcr} tare; oj1L ttwte:t RO �CFrllCRwaaR}
or rarramte} a: to Mo arcurag, or completerntr} o(,RjRrmaaua eaatamd to Ovi report
C
----------------------------- Met:rosc�u / orange---------------------------
Parcel•
:401 371 07 LandPcl Land :5375.737
Owner :Hernandez Manuel T Tr Struct :5124,764
CcOwner :Manuel T;Nydia F Other
Site :520 Pacific St Tustin 92780 Total :S500,501
mail :520 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780 Exempt
Xfered :07/10/2012 Doc # :389451 Type
Price Deed :(quit Claim s Impry :25
LoanAmC
Loan s; Owned :100
vest
Typ :Trust\trustee intTy TaxArea :13000
Lender 13714 Tx :$6,738.66
Cnty,LandUse:2 Res,Multiple Residential Phone
Legal :STAFFORD L TUSTIN TR LOT V S 5o FT MapGrid :830 A3
:OF N 460 FT OF THE V1 200 FT TR 737 TractNum :737
Census :Tr:755.05 Blk:l
Be rooms+ :3 Bldg SgFC. :1,752 •..••....••..
Bathrooms Yearauilt :1928
Stories Got Acres :.23
Total Rms Fireplace :Yes Lot sqh: :10,019
Air Cand :Ctrl Frcd Air Garage Type : [huts
Heating Pool :No+
* - Spa
----- '
------------------------: MQt=0Scan
Parcel :401 371 08 LandPcl Land Si68,071 --.__-..
O'rmer :Gominsky ,lames F Sr Tr Struct :$84,029
CoOwner Other
Site :530 Pacific St-Tustin 92780 Total :$252,100
6tai1 :534 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780 Exeinpt ;S7,000
Xfeced :03%1012006 Doc # :160232:Homeowners
Price ��'
Deed ;Trust Transfer k Impry :33
Loanhmz Load .Owned :100 f
Vest4'yp :Trust\trust1.ee IntTy TaxArea :13000 '
Linder 13-14 Tx :$3,219.02
Cnty.LandUse:l Res,Single Family,Residential Fhane
Legal :STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT v FOR OF t4apGrid :830 A3
:LOT TR 737 TractNum :737
Census :Tr:755.05 Slr.:l
Bedrooms :2S1dg.5gFt•• :1,232 YearBuilt — .1956
Bathrogms :1.00 Stories A Lot Acres :.23
Tdta1•Rms :6 Fireplace Lot SgFt :10,019
Air Caird :Ctrl Frcd Air Garage Type :Attached Units
Heating :Central Pool :No Spa.
�----------------- -:-.: Metroscan / orange t-
Parcel :401 371 09 LandPcl Land :$450,727
Qwner :Gates Michael H Struct ;572,146
CoOwner Other
Site :540 Pacific St Tustin 92780 Total :$522,873
Mail :540 Pacific St Tustin Ca 92780 Exeinpt
Xfered :11/05/2008 Doc # :507431 Type -
Price :$460,000 Full Deed :Grant Deed % Impry :14 �t
LoinAmt :$285,000 Loan :Conventional k Owned :100 { '
VestTyp :Single Person IntTy :Fixed TaxArea :13000
Lender :Cmg Mtg 13.14 Tx :$6,254.02
Cncy.LandUse:l Res,Single Family Residential Phone
Legal :STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V FOR OF MapGrid :830 A3
'LOT TR 737 TracENum :737
Census :Tr:755.05 Blk:l
Bedrooms :5 Bldg SgFt •: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
ln/ormarlon compfludJrom vorro„r eourcca. Car�ogicarake: as rsprerinratioru
ar w•arrarrttat as to the accvrac, or coinptueness ofJ ormarmn eoatalaed rn 1Jutiepart.
r ■rel' yw .� _
t � C
I.
.r
' _ t •_ �•�V • .>/�r•� ♦f�i'..,+.� �L. 'i �.,!1.•i. ' :� frf~ S- X17•
•
6• `? `` _,�,. r- " fir- • !t� r
1i ' I •�Y �-S_L�_!� w� ti{` e� 4'�6L. � "'YjtY�i�J J �, �- 1 , „[��r ! -
I" _ '. � �t I• `l - �-•.i ��_ • til
jt{iL
I
I
1
1
f •
� �'.,+ 1. 1 ly -a+,. � •�r .aty'� f Y- i f! x --4 � '� � S ,} ?: - ..i �, ..� hr
t, ,'r � ,• r {. s �k1iX ! � �4h �S/� Ir _'� 2� e-,gyp**�• _�+' t � �.+ �'�-' a 5 ,.... •.,�}„h1 � �, �
l . ��f '9r ��t �+ X��;•�,.r �. ,, s�:� }�t+�a. 'r� �Ic �.•} `' _ RJ•
1 . t•=t ,f �! t1 t'dV�t _ lik' _ � " 'l��`� 'yP'� ;TM�•#' � i .��, f R . .�r'- -t •
. f' ., d •.,fir r .� t?'.rr.
.�. - -.l• �.�� r .per •., �.
� vl � i ;, � 1. '1 ..".-Ir"" ,.�';�'•y'.. f
ga
fit i
49
r 4• ,
t
rKt Fil SI t ,, T
a jt}� kJ ,y'v �', �frr';,i Y•`fi, ! .?3 Y+ r .,7ft -i ,>. ' r, }j {J
`� �'ri1 +�n ' r •F, v. _ rye - r r 1 �,+i`• +
• Y'' 4. '�i��r
� . , .:r I .''� tf� 7.� di +Y' }r` r• • t.. "'.-.r . _}", 1: �c:' ` .' Y ', I , •1 •;.
�!1-.���,Y••.t t�yk�`r�•2aij �•.r. ' 5,�1 tY ,`i "_ �'„'i �-.•
`, t i�.i .1'y.�"' fi`!y�J. L%f ``i.'•ri '�.. � .i+�l� t: �,! .- 1�'�•�, ,� t' , � - i %'! - -
.�,,,i ia..� ;:��.Sy�y �`... '�,,.ri..✓"'»jr r'tt^ ``'r- Mr„�. :a; r'r
T jp
Y.
+ r ^iy ✓; `417Y 7 cif`' ,r{LT r•rai't'ii 7 i; '.
c -:...':..e��r� l r - ,'• t f :; ,;. r i:iL7.r �;•4r.{r�'�'' �'� f�. * � �.;�1 � ; r
_...,.y�,y, ` p .,t' ,• r''i:e-1.1-.{�IS �r .i`:, � t 7 � y.,l �• `' •.
7 _ ry11S 7 � r ri JL �•it"aJ c ,rJ :' f`. �+�
w11.�-�Y-7•F-.7
.yT
vW
. Sls .� '�'y-••.'tMN: �It1Y Y•�fl•a�`, r....ar.. _ 1.'�rw!4+kiF— .":8
!`�t,t _ '•.ice t ', ,� •, + - r j • T.. ..� r r , • ,. e � i r►. r a w l - , r� �;, - " U . - , i
^�#` , tir T.. .r •+ ,+ n ; • }••. '�'t ., ,t• ^ � •. r`• � "'c
��. u.�=� ~L _ " _ t �. .. � � • .J -Cc` } fjd
n
', ,'rt .�.r .p. iJ,4r . ,• '_,, `ref.. tir I'=rt'GV `G' �r N _ i
•or
-tr
hv
;�Ol,t 4 j.1E� t%,.k r y 1... N�: :• ''• t.,. ti vt t :/=
+.t •(f+ '_ s �,Ln , �.,. "� 1 .. .� ( r,,, tt.� r' 1r .�� '!'t��•��wit lir
�! 1y v r t• •�,' ��'"r'•.r.rC k r .r `tt' ' r� - � 'at '+ •.i
/277
p f4
,:+: ,r � r�G , '°'` l 1 14N•� • i � � !rfrt •'� 1'r r ' � l f( r
y. a.
° ,�-1` c. -• T� ' ix �^ f' •' , .'�+1 �t'f• ••r_ _ ••f r' .P(�1�/ ."".1hty+ ! Mh'� �
�!t • t �; ' t � '' ��^ rti�(�.' � < t^ MN rt'.'JT f {"1 t%~n�.�� , •' x 9: ).('.1'1 y;,1•.•t5'� � x``�� • Ix ���' f •iii
( r ' L, 1! ('a 1'•j � � "t +, P,.. (� . !i n •, x,t �� •>~.. r P • r tV 1
.� f r , x f • , r •� ' j .. • t' , t '� � "'1. 1 r,, A' � -'G e4 � � 11,�A'\f t� ! _l i
' f T -.. � � 'r..� . ,'1:.41•:. ' j'..' t . . � � �`'r�. - r•L�'ty'i4� _ �1 .t:+�/�� R# '
t� _ ''n. } � 1 �,� t ., i t 'fY _ ,.►rx� \ , f 1 � � r` �S --. tx,�^ .E.� �L'�•yj�T;S e }r��{
A , t'• . �`:'' 1 1 r ` ' »� f♦�; -reit .Zy �.
rt .GC r tl (�.+'`'rr .�'�`'+►`J_ A'i
4 _ •; =ti• .•�' �i' i •.j+.,t erv,t9'•i-i y/f Rfi
x`
,',y1, •• i 'ri'r-Gx,:I'\.; " L� ,Yx•,.. � 4;.. 'hj.Xrl�rt�,'�p��t;.
i, d— �, `,hi a/N Mfr.'... +. ���-jrr Oat � f,,++•���= 71�� S� r�y�,� s
Ff, ti{'~ } ^r� t 1 -r, i j-� _ � ,• �j :�' 'fl ..•.iii i " T'� ;f{�,� r-Cv � L
f :"r '�' •x1: •.t �' ' ti.� Try.' � . r -i �! � �� �J't
: , - I� 't.t •' yr jf'•'r,t.
tt 'I r _ e 1 , ��. r fl. 1•N � j` ' t"���1fa�� Iya�
TV.. r
,r F•` 1 —,-i It y t
+cwr„
_ ;\� �`.; --- S `.� ,. ,��-7 _fes= ' `11 ' - `'•
v
v ).l
RealQuest.coTn ft - Report
Property Detail Repoft
For Property Located At
530 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN, CA 92780-4329
Owner Information
Owner Name
Mar ng Address
Vest.ng Codes
Location Information
Legal Description
County
Census Tract / Bock
Township -Range Sect
Legal Book/Page
Legal Lot
Legal B"ock
Market Area
Ne ghbor Code
Owner Transfer Informal on
Record.ng/Sale Date
Sate Price
Document #
Last Market Sale Information
Record ng/Sa:e Date
Sae Pnce
Sate Type
Document #
Deed Type
Transfer Document #
New Construction
T L Company
Lender
Se er Name
Prior Sale Informals n
Prior RecJSa!e Date
Prior Sa a Prce
Pnor Doc Number
Prior Deed Type
Property Characteristics
Gross Area 1,232
Living Area 1,232
Tot Adl Area
Above Grade
Total Rooms 6
Bedrooms 2
Bath(1711-1) 1 /
Year Burl / EH 195611959
F replace i
# of Stones 100
Other Improvements
Site Information
Zoning
Lot Area
Land Use
Site Influence
Tax Information
Total Value
Land Value
Improvement Va'ue
Total Taxable Va'ue
Page 1 of 1
CareLuUi-.:
Xlr=st ProcieS51of1al
GOMINSKY JAMES F SR
530 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN CA 92780.4329 C014
IITR
STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V FOR OF LOT TR 737
ORANGE,CA
APN
7650511
A temate APN
Subdivis on
2013
Map Reference
V
Tract #
2013
School District
71
School District Name
Murucrrownsh p
03/10/2006102114/2006
160232
03119/1998103102/1998
$160,000
FULL
157327
GRANT DEED
FIRST AMER CAN T'TLE
INSURANCE
BROOKSAMERICA MTG CORP
GOMINSKY KATHIE JONES
11104 1982110104/1982
$60,500
388798
DEED (REG)
COVERED
PATIO;FENCE
Padang Type
Garage Arra
Garage Capac.ty
Park,ng Spaces
Basement Area
Finish Bsmnt Area
Basement Typa
Roof Type
Foundation
Root Mater a[
Acres
10,019 LotWdttuDepth
SFR Res/Comm Units
$252,100 Assessed Year
5168,071 Improved 4!
S84,029 Tax Year
$245,100
Deed Type
1 St Mtg Document #
1st Mig AmountiType
1st M'g Int Rate/Type
1st Mig Document #
2nd Mtg Amounf/'rype
2nd Mtg Int Rate/Type
Price Pe- SgFt
Mu! r/SpA Sa e
Prorl-ender
Pier 1st Mig AmVType
Pr or 1st Mtg Raterrype
GARAGEICARPORT Construction
Heat Type
1 Exter or wa
Porch Type
Patio Type
Pool
Air Ccnl.
Sty'e
Oua ty
COMPOSITION C
SHINGLE ondtan
023 County Use
x
State Use
!
Water Type
Sewer Type
2013
Property Tax
331,6
Tax Area
2013
Tax Exemption
401 37108
STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR
23 -E21830 -A3
737
TUSTIN
TRUSTEE'S DEED(TRANSFER)
$152,0001 CONV
/ F.%ED
$45 5001 PRIVATE PARTY
/
FRAME
CENTRA_
STUCCO
COVERED PATIO
CENTRA.
CONTEMPORARY
AVERAGE
GOOD
S.NGLE FAM RESIDENCE
(1)
PUBLIC
PUBLIC SERVICE
$3,219.02
13000
HOMEOWNER
httn-//nrn r,--wIrni,+,ct rnm/icn,'r,�nnrl i¢n9g,rIirnt=R -1rtinn=rnnfi-m&I%nr•-ooIrenort&record. .. 08/1212014
T sa7voe�nasi f .�
1 f,,
:bow.
f Tmi
"tee
l
FAW
ZZ 7
"
-�..... t::.. _
--
Reekstin, Scott
Subject: FW: Change in zoning for our Cultural Resource District
Attachments: unnamed (1) jpg; unnamed (2) jpg; unnamed (3) jpg; unnamed jpg
From: Sonja Kiseljak-Dusenbury[
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 8:51 PM
To: CITY COUNCIL
Subject: Change in zoning for our Cultural Resource District
Hi,
my name is Sonja and I live in Old Tustin where there is a consideration to change zoning. If we increase
population in the small Old Tustin area, we are going to bring more cars into the area. Please find photos
attached that were taken just in the last two weeks. We have parking issues as it is, we do not need any more
cars in this little neighborhood.
It may be a good solution to look at Tustin Legacy and expand the low income housing in that area where there
is plenty of space to plan and build appropriate number of parking spaces for the number of homes build.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely Yours,
Sonja Kiseljak-Dusenbury
r 3 C
di V I A 4 t o 1
Ff
'•v I !c—
1 r
}
.+,.1AX
-
fi
14,
it rG
T
.. _ • - f` ! r� � � - ate- �.,lh r �s
f _ � _. Y � . ♦T � ` � �}� -.{ � r`� ice., �] _' ,Lti q n Ott �.
,
i��'' "� �� t+ 'F , 7` -.s a � 1`� • rel, s�.� -'+.- 4� -
• >s H.
s
I
_ . s f
t � }
'
Aw
r �« t ,
pi—,_
ML
E-
r r V
i ! r
4L
s
i
r
ice`"
ATTACHMENT D
POLICY & PROCEDURES
FOR
PREFERENTIAL PERMIT PARKING
Xdl
PUBLIC STREETS
wo,
WI ofNU OM rL1URE
HONORING UURTAST'
CITY OF TUSTIN
POLICY AND PROCEDURES
PREFERENTIAL PERMIT PARKING ON PUBLIC STREETS
October 7, 2008
The Tustin City Council may adopt the following Policy and Procedures for the criteria,
application, evaluation, administration, fees and implementation of Permit Parking as
applicable to public streets within the City. This policy is intended to mitigate parking
intrusions (spillover parking) that may impact the quality of life and affect the public
safety in single family detached neighborhoods.
Criteria
1. Only residential streets in single family detached neighborhoods shall be eligible for
Permit Parking.
2. Permit Parking, if approved, shall be limited to a designated area, not less than one
block.
3. Permit Parking will be considered by the City Council given:
A. Any one household within a potential Permit Parking Area makes an application
to the Public Works Department for the establishment thereof.
B. A parking analysis/evaluation is completed by the Public Works Department.
4. The City Council may, at its sole discretion, review and approve or deny any
application for Permit Parking in the interest of community benefit or public safety.
Application
1. An application for Permit Parking shall contain a description of the problem, the
time the problem is occurring, the general area affected by the parking intrusion,
and the applicant's name, home address and telephone number(s).
2. The City Engineer shall determine the exact limits of the general area.
3. The applicant or designee shall be the contact person for the City staff.
Permit Process
The City Engineer shall prepare an agenda report to be considered by the City
Council.
de
A. The report shall state the facts pursuant to the request for permit parking
consideration. The applicant shall be provided a copy of the staff report.
2. If a permit parking area is approved by the City Council, each household in the
permit parking area who wishes to park within the designated restricted area will be
required to obtain a permit to do so pursuant to the permit issuance outline below.
3. If the request for Permit Parking is denied, a second analysis of the same or similar
general area will not be conducted for a minimum of twelve months unless there is
a significant, identifiable change in parking characteristics as determined by the
City Engineer. Subsequent analysis of the same general area will be subject to the
same requirements and procedures as the initial request.
Permit Issuance
1. All authorized preferential Permit Parking will prohibit overnight parking from tam to
6am, seven (7) day a week, unless approved otherwise by City Council.
2. All residents in a preferential Permit Parking Area will be subject, without exception,
to all related parking regulations.
3. Each household will be issued a permit(s) upon request and verification of full
utilization of off-street parking.
4. Parking Permits shall be obtained in person at the Police Department. The
applicant must provide proof of residency; vehicle license and registration, and
complete and sign a Permit Parking Application. This document will be the
permanent record of the respective household's Program participation,
acknowledgement and receipt of the Permit Parking Program's procedures and
requirements.
5. Approved permits are not transferable.
6. Temporary guest permits may, at the discretion of the Police Department, be
issued during normal business hours at no cost to households in a Permit Parking
Area.
7. All Parking Permits remain the property of the City and may be revoked if used
contrary to the provisions of this policy.
Bail Schedule
The fine for violation of the Permit Parking regulations shall be as the City Council
may set from time to time.
-2-
Misuse of Parking Permits
Any person selling, fraudulently using, reproducing or mutilating a Parking Permit
issued in conjunction with the Parking Permit Program shall be guilty of an
infraction and shall be subject to a fine as the City Council may set from time to
time and the forfeiture of all Parking Permits, or such other penalty as the City
Council may, from time to time, set by ordinance.
Program Removal
1. A Permit Parking Area or part thereof may be removed from the Permit Parking
Program by the City Council pursuant to a determination that removal from the
Program is in the community interest or in the interest of public safety or at City
Council discretion.
2. There shall be no cost to the residents associated with removing an area from the
Permit Parking Program.
3. If an existing Permit Parking Area is revoked, any request for reinstatement shall
be subject to the same process as that of a new Parking Permit Area.
Exceptions & Exemptions
FEE
To accommodate particular events or circumstances, the Police Department may,
temporarily, suspend enforcement of the Permit Parking regulations.
The fee for preferential Permit Parking regulations shall be as the City Council may
set from time to time. Currently, permits are issued at no fee.
-3-
ATTACHMENT E
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1454
(CODE AMENDMENT 2015-001)
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1454
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING TUSTIN CITY CODE
SECTIONS 9252j2(a)(3) AND 9252j2(c) AND AMENDING
TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTIONS 9223a7 AND 9223b2
RELATING TO SECOND RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE
CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That on September 29, 2002, the Governor approved Assembly Bill 1866, which
amended Government Code Section 65852.2 to facilitate the provision of
affordable housing throughout California.
B. That on or after July 1, 2003, California Government Code Section
65852.2(a)(3) requires a local agency to consider second residential unit
applications ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing.
C. That California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1) allows local agencies
to impose standards on second units that include, but are not limited to, parking,
height, setback, lot coverage, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and
standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property that is listed on the
California Register of Historic Places.
D. That California Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1) allows local agencies
to designate areas within the jurisdiction of the local agency where second units
may be permitted.
E. That on June 2, 2003, in anticipation of the July 1, 2003, implementation of the
newly adopted Government Code Section, the Tustin City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 1271 providing standards for second residential units.
F. That many property owners in Old Town have expressed the desire to have and
rent second residential units and accessory guest rooms in Old Town.
G. That all R1, R2, and R3 properties are eligible for accessory guest rooms, but a
conditional use permit and deed restriction are required.
H. That many property owners do not want deed restrictions related to occupancy
and cooking facilities placed on accessory guest rooms. In addition, property
owners are often desirous of accessory guest rooms with kitchens and to be
able to rent out the guest rooms.
Ordinance No. 1454
Page 2
1. 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.
Q. 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 15-001 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 No. 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 on April 21, 2015, the City Council continued consideration of Code
Amendment 2015-001 and the associated concerns of the Planning
Commission to May 5, 2015, to provide adequate time for staff to develop a
recommended approach to address the issue of parking in the CR District.
U. 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.
V. 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.
W. That the proposed amendments comply with California Government Code
Section 65852.2.
X. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the Tustin General Plan in
that they comply with the following goals and policies:
Land Use Element Goal 4 to assure a safe, healthy, and aesthetically
pleasing community for residents and businesses.
Housing Element Goal 1 to provide an adequate supply of housing to meet
the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio-economic
needs of all community residents.
Housing Element Policy 1.8 to allow second (attached/detached) units in
single- and multi -family districts consistent with the Tustin City Code.
Y. That the proposed parking requirement for second residential units in the
Cultural Resource (CR) District of one (1) garage or carport parking space is
directly related to the use and size of the second residential unit and is
appropriate for the Cultural Resource District where additional garage spaces
may negatively impact the character of the historic district.
Section 2. Section 9223a7 of Part 2 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code
is hereby amended to read as follows (new text underlined):
Ordinance No. 1454
Page 4
Section 3
Section 4.
Second Residential Units see Section 9252'2 for standards applicable to
Second Residential Units in the Cultural Resource District.
Section 9223b2 of Part 2 of Chapter
is hereby amended to read as follows
of Article 9 of the Tustin City Code
(new text underlined):
Accessory buildings (except in the Cultural Resource District used as
guest quarters, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained,
subject to a recorded deed restriction approved by the City.
Section 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 s uare feet.
(j) The second residential unit shall be consistent with the architectural style,
materials and color of the rima single-family dwelling and shall not
detract from the single-family appearance of the primaW single-family
dwelling.
(k) The second residential unit shall not cause a substantial adverse chane 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 Surve .
(1) The second residential unit shall be constructed concurrently with, or
subsequent to the rima 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.
Ordinance No. 1454
Page 5
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):
Prohibited Uses
Accesso buildings used as quest quarters.
Section 6. The parking requirement for Second Residential Units is hereby amended
in Table 1 of Section 9263 of Part 6 of Chapter 2 of Article 9 of the Tustin
City Code to read as follows (new text underlined; deleted text in
strikeout):
Second residential units 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 r)rimary sinale-familv 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 pr lgal
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 May, 2015.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT, MAYOR
Ordinance No. 1454
Page 6
ATTEST:
JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1454
Jeffrey C. Parker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of
Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City
Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1454
was duly and regularly introduced and read by title only at the regular meeting of the
City Council held on the 5th day of May, 2015, and was given its second reading,
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21St day of
May, 2015, by the following vote:
COUNCILPERSONS AYES:
COUNCILPERSONS NOES:
COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED:
COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT:
Jeffrey C. Parker, City Clerk
01011171
-.
ATTACHMENT F
EXISTING TUSTIN CITY CODE
SECTIONS 9223 AND 9252j
WITH REDLINED CHANGES
Tustin City Code Section 9223
(Proposed Changes in Red)
9223 - SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (111)
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 9252'2 for standards aocdicable 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.
1. Places of Worship, schools, parks, playgrounds, public utility crop and tree farming.
(a) Maximum height: 30 feet.
(b) Minimum building site: 20,000 square feet for Places of Worship, 5 acres for schools,
public utility and other uses as specified in Conditional Use Permit.
(c) Minimum lot width at property line: 100 feet.
(d) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent.
(e) Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet, unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map.
(f) Minimum side yard setback:
Corner lot line: 10 feet;
Interior lot line: 5 feet.
(g) Minimum rear yard setback: 20 feet.
2. Accessory buildings JgKqept in the Cultural Resource Drs 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:
Comer lot line: 10 feet;
Interior lot line: 5 feet.
(e) Minimum rear yard setback. 5 feet.
Page 2
Tustin City Code Section 9252j2
Cultural Resource (CR) District
(Proposed Changes in Red)
2. Residential standards
(a) Permitted uses:
(1) All uses shall be permitted in the Cultural Resources Overlay District as are
authorized in the underlying Residential District.
(2) The City Council may also permit other nonlisted uses which support the purposes of
the district as a conditional use following a public hearing and recommendation by the
Planning Commission.
X31 Second Residential Units
(a) Maximum height: 30 feet
(b) Minimum building site: none
(c) Maximum overall lot Covera a 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
6) 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 Survev.
(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 sin le-fari-flly dwelling would conform to the develo ment
standards normally applicable to second residential units and the second residential
unit is built between the primary single-family dwelling and the front property line, the
second residential unit shall be subiect to the development standards normallu
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)
Lci rron,o, ea uses
Accessory buildings used as quest quartg,
Page 1
3. Public or private parking lots for automobiles when adjacent to any "C" or W" District, subject to
the requirements of the City's parking regulations, identified in Part 6 of this Chapter.
Page 3