The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01 TENT P.M. 94-149 01-03-95NO. 1 1-3-95 DATE: JANUARY 3, 1995 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP 94-149 (DONALD LEJEUNE) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. certify the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project by adopting Resolution No. 95-01; and 2. Approve Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 by adopting Resolution No 95-02, as submitted or revised. ' FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project, as this is an applicant initiated project. The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 28,250 square feet (.65 acre) in size and is developed with one (1) single family residence and one (1) attached two-car garage which are situated approximately 200 feet from the front property line on Main Street. The applicant is requesting authorization to subdivide the subject property into two parcels. Although no new construction or development is proposed for Parcels 1 or 2 at this time, the applicant has 'indicated his intention to place an historic residence on Parcel 1 at a future date. City Council Report TPM 94-149 January 3, 1995 Page 2 In order for the City Council to approve a subdivision it must be determined that the proposal is in compliance with applicable zoning requirements. On December 12, 1994, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3314 approving a Variance from certain development standards identified below. The Planning Commission's decision on the Variance is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to provisions of the Tustin City Code. ® To reduce the minimum lot width from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet on Parcel 2; and · To increase the maximum permitted height for an existing fence in the required front yard setback.area of Parcel 2 from three (3) feet to 6'-8". The Planning Commission also adopted Resolution No. 3315 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149. A copy of the Planning Commission's Resolutions are included in Attachment A. A copy of the December 12, 1994 Planning Commission Report is included as Attachment B. The applicant previously receive~ City approvals to place an historic residence on the existing ~8,250 square foot parcel under the provisions of City Code Section 9223(b) (3) which allows an accessory structure to be used as gUest rooms with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 'These approvals have expired. Although the applicant would have the option to reapply for these same approvals or apply for a conditional use permit pursuant to City Code Section 9223(b) (1) which provides for second single family dwellings on R-1 lots of at least 12,000 square feet in size, a subdivision of the property is being requested in lieu of the conditional use permit process for financing reasons. According to the applicant, the parcelization is necessary in order to finance the construction of the future proposed dwelling on Parcel 1. A lien on the existing property is preventing the applicant from obtaining the financing, and this lien would be released from the portion of the property comprising Parcel 1. The value of the lien free property would enable the applicant to obtain the necessary financing. The applicant provided the City with a letter (Attachment C) that briefly explains the reasons for the Tentative Parcel Map request. City Council Report TPM 94-149 January 3, 1995 Page 3 Approval of the subject Tentative Parcel Map would enable the applicant to request approval for the placement of an additional single family dwelling at the site without the need for Conditional Use Permit approval. Any future development would be evaluated through the City's design review process which considers height, bulk, and area of buildings; setbacks and site planning; landscaping; parking; materials and colors, etc. Any new development would also be required to meet all applicable development standards established for the zoning district such as minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum lot 'coverage, parking, etc. The subject property, situated on the southerly side of Main Street between "B" Street and Pacific Street, is situated in an urban setting and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-i). Surrounding development to the north, south, east and west is also residential and consists of single family dwellings. The zoning designation for these properties is Single-Family Residential (R-I), and these properties are all within the Cultural Resource Overlay District. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City Hall and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to create two parcels so that the existing single family dwelling would be located on Parcel 2 and an additional dwelling could be constructed or placed on Parcel 1. Parcel. 1 is proposed to be approximately 10,993 square feet in size, and Parcel 2 is proposed to be approximately 16,264 square feet in size. There is one (1) existing driveway-off of Main Street which is proposed to provide access to the existing residence located on Parcel 2. An easement for access purposes is proposed so that this driveway could also provide access to any future dwelling on Parcel 1. City Council Report TPM 94-149 January 3, 1995 Page 4 In the Single Family Residential (R-i) District with the Cultural Resource District Overlay, the minimum single family lot size allowed pursuant to City Code Section 9252(J) (2) is 10,000 square feet. The two (2) parcels created by the proposed subdivision would satisfy this criteria. The proposed orientation of the future dwelling on Parcel 1 would not be inconsistent with surrounding properties. Given the required front yard setbacks and sufficient lot sizes proposed, the proposed subdivision would be considered appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. A Condition of Approval was included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3315 which requires that, in conjunction with any future design review submittal for any dwelling on Parcel 1, all setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those depicted on the tentative parcel map; and the design of the structure shall be historic in character and consistent with the design which was previously considered as part of Design Review 92-047. This condition is based in part on mitigation measures contained in the environmental documentation for this project. These measures were developed to ensure that approval of the subject project would not set a precedent for any type of development on newly created lots in the City's Cultural Resource District. The subject property is designated with a Low Density Residential Land Use Designation in the Tustin Area General Plan which would allow up to seven (7) dwelling units per acre. The proposed tentative parcel map would be consistent with the Land Use · Designation in that Parcel 1 would have a gross density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre and Parcel 2 would have a gross density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre. Approval of the project would result in the potential for an increase in the density of development on the entire site from 1.5 dwelling units per acre to three (3) units per acre which remains consistent with the General Plan. PUBLIC CONCERNS In response to the public noticing of this project prior to the December 12, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, staff was contacted by two individuals and received four (4) letters of opposition to the project (Attachment D). At the Planning Commission public hearing, five (5) individuals spoke in opposition to the project. The main points presented by those who spoke at the public hearing have been summarized below. Responses developed by staff follow each of the concerns. A copy of the Draft Planning Commission Minutes related to this item is also included, as Attachment E. City Council Report TPM 94-149 January 3, 1995 Page 5 Concern: The proposed flag lot would be incompatible with the area as the block contains no flag lots and any flag lots in the area were established prior to the creation of the Cultural Resource District. Response: The proposed creation of a flag lot in the Cultural Resource District would not be incompatible with the District, nor negatively affect the properties within the District, as there are existing lots in the District which function as flag lots which have not negatively impacted the District in any measurable way. These lots are scattered throughout the Cultural Resource District and contain two (2) or more dwelling units giving the appearance of a front lot with a rear flag lot. One example of this situation can be found at 140-150 South "B" Street. A second example is located at 210 South Pacific Street, where the rear structure contains the garage and additional living space. Each of the proposed parcels would exceed the minimum lot size for single family development in the District. Given a larger size and width than most other lots on the same block, the subject~property is unique and well suited for division into two (2) lots. Concern: A lot line is not necessary to construct a second dwelling unit on the property. Other lots on the block have second dwelling units that share the lot with the ~ primary dwelling unit. Response: As explained in the Background section of this Report, the applicant previously received City approval to place an historic structure on the property. These approvals have expired, and the applicant is requesting a two (2) lot subdivision at this time. The applicant has chosen this process because there is no other mechanism available for financing the proposed improvements, given the current lien on the existing lot. Based on the analysis conducted by staff and the recommendation from the Planning Commission, there is no evidence that the addition of a lot line dividing the property will negatively affect the Cultural Resource District or be inconsistent with those parcels which contain two dwelling units. Concern: The Cultural Resource District needs to be protected from higher density and incompatible uses which are not in conformance with Code requirements such as minimum lot size and frontage. City Council Report TPM 94-149 January 3, 1995 Page 6 Response: The proposed subdivision would conform to all City Code requirements with the exception of lot width at street frontage and fence height in the front yard setback. The Planning Commission approved a Variance related to these two (2) standards. The portion of the lot under sixty (60) feet in width would not contain the dwelling unit and therefore would not give the appearance of increased density or decreased lot width. The increase in the allowable fence height applies to existing fencing which would technically fall within the front yard of the rear dwelling. No new fencing is proposed. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning standards related to density and minimum lot size, as . previously mentioned. Concern: The proposed subdivision would set a precedent for constructing additional dwelling units and subdividing lots in the Cultural Resources District. Response: The proposed project would not set a precedent for additional dwelling units and subdivisions as each project must be analyzed individually based on the specific circumstances which apply in each case. The applicant's request has no similarity at all to the 1986 multiple lot subdivision request on Sixth Street which precipitated creation of the Cultural Resources District. The Cultural Resource District does not prohibit the subdivision of property. The existing Tustin City Code also permits second dwelling units on all R-1 zoned properties of at least 12,000 square feet in size in the Cultural Resources District subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan and Zoning standards establish maximum densities and minimum lot sizes which have been satisfied in this particular case, as previously mentioned. Concern: Property values would be negatively affected. Response: In considering a Variance or a Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning Commission would typically not make findings with respect to the project's affect on property values. The required findings are based on special circumstances; absence of special privileges; conformity with the General Plan, City Code and Subdivision Map Act; environmental impacts; and compatibility. No specific evidence was presented to indicate that the proposed subdivision would positively or negatively affect property values in the area. With the applicant's introduction of a historical structure, staff believes property values will be enhanced. City Council Report TPM 94-149 January 3, 1995 Page 7 Concern: There is no indication as to whether the future dwelling would consist of new construction or an existing house relocated to the property. Response: Condition of Approval 1.7 was imposed by the Planning Commission to reflect the intent that any structure that might be placed on Parcel 1 be of historic character and consistent with the previously approved design. Although this Condition does not exactly specify a certain structure, any future dwelling on Parcel 1 would be evaluated through the Design Review and Certificate of Appropriate processes, which require that legal findings be made with respect to the proposed development by the Director of Community Development. These findings would ensure that the structure is compatible with, appropriate for, and does not negatively affect the history of, the Cultural Resource District. No design review application has been submitted to date, as the applicant is awaiting a determination on the Tentative Parcel Map request. There is no requirement that the design review be approved prior to subdivision. Prior to taking action on the subject Variance and Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning Commission considered the concerns summarized above that were raised during the public hearing. Following the public testimony, the Planning Commission took action to approve Variance 94-011 and recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 based on the required findings which are contained in the subject Planning Commission Resolutions. Moreover, under provisions of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council would not be able to deny the requested Parcel Map unless it makes the following specific findings: That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable General and Specific Plans. That the site is not physically suited for the type of development. That the site is not physically suited for the proposed density of development. City Council Report TPM 94-149 January 3, 1995 Page 8 That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. CONCLUSION With the Planning Commission's approval of Variance 94-011, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. Based upon the information presented above and the Planning Commission's recommendation of approval, it is recommended that the City Council approve Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 by adopting Resolution No. 95-02, as submitted or revised. Scott Reekstin Assistant Planner $CR :br:/TPM 94-149 Attachments: Location Map Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 Initial Study Attachment A - Planning Commission Reso. Nos. 3314 and 3315 Attachment B - Planning Commission Report - 12/12/94 Attachment C - Letter dated December 7, 1994 Attachment D - Letter of opposition Attachment E - Draft Planning Commission Minutes - Item No. 4 Resolution Nos. 95-01 and 95-02 LOuATION / / E^ST , / r THIRD M Al N 9. UTT PARK ST SECOND ST. SIXTH STREET NO SCALE / I ~ ~ ! .,~. ...I ':'- ' ~ -:; I ~Jl .~. ~.--".'?.~~. _ . ' ........... ~,, , · ..... .Z ~ ~ H.Z ~ N/PI~c* - i COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 573-3105 INITIAL STUDY L BACKGROUND Name of Proponent l~orl~ltt. /~. ~'_ Address and Phone Number of Proponent 440 tOe Ma h ¢freeP Date Check List Submitted //. Agency Requiring Check List Name of Proposal, if applicable ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: YES a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief featui-es'?' [.._.1 d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a fiver or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount' of surface runoff?. ' c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? eo Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g° Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ho Substantial'i-eduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ao Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? YES MAYBE NO c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ao bo Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Co d. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? .. YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. _Light and Glare. will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate or use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource.9 -. !0. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: ao A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, .pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? [---] 11. Population._ Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing.' Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ao Generation of substantial additional vehicular movem, eat? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new l~arking? do Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? eo Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? !.5. Energy_~. Will the..proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fiael or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upen existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES F-I MAYBE rl NO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? · Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 21. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: ..- a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. The potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? YES MAYBE NO YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat ora fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while, long-term impacts will endure well into the future). Co Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) do Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHMENT A IV. I)ETEIlMINATION - On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARAIION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Attachment A attached hereto have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date ',TUD.P~5 A Signature Name (Print) Title SECTION III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION - The proposed project is a Tentative Parcel Map request to subdivide an existing 0.65 acre parcel into two (2) parcels. The subject property is located at 440 West Main Street within the Single-Family Residential (R-I) District and Cultural Resource Overlay District. A Variance is also being requested to reduce the minimum lot width on Parcel No. 2 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet, and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel No. 2 from three (3) feet to 6'-8". This height increase is for existing fencing, a portion of which encloses an existing swimming pool. The proposed subdivision of the property would place this fencing in the front yard setback area of Parcel No. 2 which would require a variance. As proposed, the lot line would be placed such that Parcel No. 2 would be configured as a flag lot with 22 feet of frontage on Main Street, while Parcel No. 1 would be roughly rectangular in shape with a lot width of-approximately 87 feet. The gross building site area of Parcel No. 2 would be 16,264 square feet in size. Parcel No. 1, which Would be located directly on Main Street, would be 11,993 square feet in size. Each of these parcels would satisfy. the minimum building site area requirement of 10,000 square feet for single family properties located in the Cultural Resource District. The property is presently developed with one (1) dwelling unit which is situated approximately 200 feet from the front property line on Main Street. Without the Parcel Map and Variance approval, the project site could potentially be developed with a total of two (2) dwelling units subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission pursuant to City Code Section 9223(b) (1). This Code Section applies to second single-family dwellings on R-1 lots of at least 12,000 square feet in size. Approval of the requested Parcel Map and Variance would permit the development of a maximum of two (2) dwelling units on two separate parcels (one unit per parcel) without the need for Conditional Use Permit approval. For the purposes of this Initial Study, the impact categories below have been evaluated for the maximum potential of two (2) dwelling units. The project site is sitUated in an urban setting. Surrounding development to the north, south, east and west is also residential and consists of single-family dwellings. The zoning designation of these properties is Single-Family Residential (R-i), and these properties are within the Cultural Resource Overlay District. i · EARTH - A, C throuqh G - "No", B - "Maybe" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new .improvements at this time, future development based on the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 2 · · proposed tentative parcel map and variance, could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would involve minimal grading to accommodate building footprints and drainage in accordance with the City's requirements. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: Appropriate soils reports and grading plans would be required as part of the City's plan check process prior to development of the site. All grading shall comply with applicable City standards and shall be reviewed by the City's Building Division and Public Works Department. Compliance shall be verified prior to certification of rough grading. AIR - A throuqh C - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any degradation of existing air quality based upon SCAQMD guidelines for preparation of EIRs. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. Sources: SCAQMD standards for preparing EIR documents City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. WATER - A throuqh I - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any additional change to absorption rates, water movement, flood waters, discharge into surface waters, ~flow of groundwater, quantity of ground water,- or water consumption. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would result in a minimal rise in the rate of surface runoff based upon the increase in density and paved area. It is not anticipated that future development will substantially contribute to water usage or drainage flow due to the limited size of the property. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 3 · · · Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Alterations to drainage would be subject to review and approval by the City's Building Division and Public Works Department. Compliance with all City requirements would be verified prior to certification of rough grading. PLANT LIFE - A throuqh D - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map. and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any significant changes to plant life. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. sources: Field Observations- Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. ANIMAL LIFE - A throuqh D - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel' map and variance would not result in any additional change to animal life. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. The project site is free from any significant population of animals, fish or wildlife. sources: Field Observations Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. NOISE - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in degradation of existing noise standards..The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. -~Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This'development may result in short term noise impacts during the grading of the lot and Construction of the dwelling units. Source: Tustin City Code Mitigation/Monitoring: Ail construction operations related to the future development of the property including engine warm Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 4 e · up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m'., Monday through Friday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. LIGHT AND GLARE - "Maybe" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in additional light and glare. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance coUld include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development could produce some light and glare. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Any future lighting associated with the development of the property shall be designed to avoid casting unnecessary glare onto adjacent residential properties. An exterior lighting plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to construction of any new dwelling units on the property. LAND USE - "Maybe" The proposal may result in an alteration to the existing land use of the subject property. The subject site is developed with one single family residence and one attached garage. At the present time, the applicant is not desirous of any alterations to the existing improvements on the subject property and is not proposing any new improvements or land uses at'this time. However, the applicant-has indicated to City staff the intention to add one (1) additional unit to the property in the near future for a total of one (1) unit on each proposed parcel. Any future development will be evaluated through the City's design review process which considers height, bulk, and area of buildings; setbacks and site planning; landscaping; parking; materials and colors, etc. This new development would be required to meet all applicable development standards established for the zoning district such as minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, parking, etc. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 5 · Ail of the surrounding properties are developed with single family'residences, and twelve (12) of the lots on the block bounded by Main, "B", Sixth and Pacific Streets have lot widths which are less than the required 60 feet. The project site is currently designated on the Land Use Element map in the General Plan with a Low Density Residential land use designation. According to the City's Land Use Element, this designation allows for single family development with a density between one (1) and seven (7) dwelling units per acre. This project proposes a tentative parcel map and variance to subdivided an existing parCel into two (2) parcels. The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would result in the potential for an increase in the existing density of development on.the subject site from 1.5 dwelling units per acre to three (3) units per acre. Surrounding properties to the north, south, east and west are also designated on the City's General Land Use Plan as Low Density Residential. The zoning designation of the subject property and adjacent properties in all directions is Single Family Residential (R-i) with a Cultural Resource District Overlay. In the Single Family Residential District with the Cultural Resource District Overlay, the minimum single family lot size is 10,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision would satisfy this criteria. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring: Any future development shall comply with all applicable City Codes and adopted development standards. In conjunction with any future design review request for any structure on Parcel 1, all setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those depicted on the tentative parcel map. NATURAL RESOURCES - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in'any additional use of natural resources. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would create an insignificant demand for natural resources. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 6 Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 10. RISK OF UPSET - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based upon the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any additional risk of upset. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division Orange County Fire Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 11. POPULATION - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance could result in an increase in density as discussed in Item No. 8 above. The site is presently developed with one residence and one garage. Although the application does not ihclude any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. At maximum buildout, the additional development would not contribute to a significant increase in population. Sources: Submitted Application Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: In the event that the proposed tentative parcel map and variance are approved, any future construction plans for the site would need to be reviewed for conformance with the regulations adopted for the R-1 Zoning District and' Cultural Resource District to ensure that the .. number of dwelling units permitted is not exceeded. 12. HOUSING - "Maybe" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in the addition or deletion of any housing. The site is presently developed with one residence and one garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of one (1) additional dwelling unit for a total of two (2) dwelling units. The addition of ownership units would contribute to "Increase the percentage of ownership housing to Discussion of Environmental Evaluation ~Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 7 ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing within the City." Source: Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: In the event that ~the proposed tentative parcel map and variance are approved, any future construction plans for the site will be reviewed for conformance with the regulations adopted for the R-1 Zoning District and Cultural Resource District to ensure that the number of dwelling units permitted is not exceeded. 13. TRAI~SPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - A throuqh F - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not result in any significant impacts to the transportation and circulation system within the area. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. The existing public street system is adequate to serve any potential demand generated by any future development of two (2) dwelling units on the site, as Main Street has a future capacity for 33,800 vehicle trips per day, Level of Service rating "D". Current traffic counts for Main Street indicate 7,800 vehicle trips per day and this project could result in the addition of ten (10) additional trips per day, which has been determined by the Engineering Division to be insignificant. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - A throuqh F - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance will not require additional public services. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. 'Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This new development would require minimal additional public services. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Police Department Orange County Fire Department Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7', 1994 Page 8 Mitigation/Monitoring: The applicant shall be required to pay all applicable school district fees to Tustin Unified School District at the time of any new construction. 15. ENERGY - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not require any additional energy. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would require a minimal increase in need for service due to the increase in .residential units; however, these amounts would not be significant. Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: Ail new construction shall comply'with Title 24 regarding energy conservation. This shall be verified for compliance at Building Permit Plan Check. The applicant shall research the possibility ~of reduced energy lamps for all light fixtures. 16. UTILITIES - A throuqh F - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not require any additional utilities services. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development would require a minimal amount of utility services which are considered insignificant. Source: City of Tustin 'Public Works Department Mitigation/Monitoring: The applicant shall be encouraged to implement water saving and energy conservation devices and to provide for recycling of solid waste. 17. HUMAN HEALTH - A and B - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not negatively affect human health due to the project scope. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 9 tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division Orange County Fire Department Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 18. SOLID WASTE - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not create additional solid waste. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwellings, units. This additional development, while not contributing individually, will generate additional waste for disposal by the City due to the increase in housing units contributing to cumulative impacts. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Submitted Application · Mitigation/Monitoring: Future residents will be required to participate in the programs identified in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element related to the 25 and 50 percent diversion requirements as implemented by the City. 19. AESTHETICS - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not impact the aesthetics of the area. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include any new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units. This development could impact the aesthetics of the area. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department .' Mitigation/Monitoring: Any new development would be subject to the City's Design Review process. In conjunction with any future design review request for any structure on Parcel 1, the design of the structure shall be historic in character and consistent with the design which was previously considered as part of Design Review 92-047. 20. RECREATION - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not impact recreation needs of the area. The Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 10 site is presently developed with one residence and garage. Although the application does not include a~y new improvements at this time, future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance could include a maximum of two (2) dwelling units which would have an insignificant individual effect on the quality or quantity of existing recreational facilities. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 21. CULTURAL RESOURCES - A through D - "No" The proposed tentative parcel map and variance and any future development based on the proposed tentative parcel map and variance would not affect the cultural resources of the area. The site is presently developed with one residence and garage. The property is located within the Cultural Resource District, but is not individually listed in the City's Historical Survey given the age of the structure. Sources: Submitted Application Historical Survey Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. 22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - A throuqh D - "No" a · be ce de The proposed project would not have the potential to degrade the environment or habitat of significant animals or periods in California History as the subject site is a developed site. The proposed project would not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. The proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts. The proposed project would not result in any adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly based upon the analysis conducted in the preparation of this Initial Study. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 November 17, 1994 Revised December 7, 1994 Page 11 Sources: Items 1 through 21 of this Initial Study Submitted Application Mitigation/Monitoring: None required. t1~94149. EN2 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3314 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VARIANCE 94-011 TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF PARCEL 2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 FROM SIXTY (60) FEET TO 22 FEET AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA OF PARCEL 2 OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 FROM THREE (3) FEET TO 6'-8" AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 440. WEST MAIN STREET, TUSTIN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: At That a proper application, Variance 94-011, has been filed by Mr. Donald A. LeJeune to reduce the minimum lot width of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from three (3) feet to 6'-8" on the property located at 440 West Main Street, Tustin. Be That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held by the Planning Commission on December 12, 1994. C~ The Planning Commission has reviewed the subject request for a variance to reduce the minimum lot width and increase the maximum fence height and has made the following findings: Granting the variance shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the project is situated in that all of the other properties on the same block bounded by Main, "B", Sixth and Pacific Streets are zoned for single family residences and twelve (12) of the lots have lot widths which are less than' the required sixty (60) feet. In addition, there are other residential parcels within the Cultural Resource District which function as flag lots. The increase in the allowable fence height shall not constitute a grant of special privilege in that the fencing is existing and is setback approximately 150 feet from Main Street which is consistent with other fencing in the vicinity. ATTACHMENT A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3314 Page 2 · There are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area, in that the subject property is wider and larger in area than most of the parcels in the area and has sufficient area to be divided into two (2) parcels which conform to the minimum lot size requirements specified in the City Code. Due to the flag lot configuration and shape of Parcel 2, the parcels would be deprived of fencing that is necessary for security and safety reasons and is typical of fencing found on other properties in the area. Based on the City's definition of a front yard, the subject fencing would be located within the front yard setback area, but would function as side yard fencing or as a swimming pool barrier'.'i The Uniform Building Code requires that swimming pools be surrounded by a barrier of at least five (5) feet in height. D. A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 94-011 to reduce the minimum lot width of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet and to increase the maximum fence height in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 94- 149 from three (3) feet to 6'-8" on the property located at 440 West Main Street, Tustin, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. 10 11 12 13 14 ±5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 3314 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeti,n.~of th~ T3%stin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day o~/~cem,b~'r~1994. ___ A.L.. ~B~aker ' B~~,~ Chairperson ~ ARA REYES~ Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3314 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of December, 1994. ' BARBARA REYES ~ Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3314 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE 94-011 GENERAL (1) 1.1 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in the Exhibit shall be complied with prior to City Council approval of Final Parcel Map 94-149, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. , (1) 1.2 Variance 94-011 approval is contingent upon City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149. In the event that Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 is not approved by the City Council or approval for Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 expires, Variance 94- 011 approval shall become null and vOid. (1) 1.3 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval' of the entitlement process for this project. (1) 1.4 Approval of Variance 94-011 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form, as established by the Director of.Community Development. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3315 10 11 12 13 14 ~5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-149 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follo ws: ae That Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Mr. Donald A. Lejeune, for consideration. $~ That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on December 12, 1994 by the Planning Commission. Ce A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. De Tnat the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, the Tustin Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. Ee That Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 would not have an impact on School District' facilities. Fe That park land dedication in-lieu fees, pursuant to City Code Section 9370(d) (6), shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel 1. Ge That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. He That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at- large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. I e That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3315 Page 2 II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of December, 1994. BARBARA REYES Secretary /" . ~' '* / · (,~A'. L. BA~R ~/ Chairperson STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3315 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of December, 1994. ! · BARBARA REYE~ Recording Secretary GENERAL EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3315 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 (1) 1.1 Within 24 months from tentative map approval, the Subdivider shall file with appropriate agencies, a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9361(d) of the Tustin Municipal Code. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified,.the conditions contained in the Exhibit shall be complied with prior to approval of the Final Map, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Prior to any sale of the individual parcels, the Subdivider shall record the Final Map in conformance with. appropriate tentative map. : (1) 1.4 Prior to final map approval: ao Bo Subdivider shall submit a current title report. Subdivider shall submit a duplicate mylar of the Final Map, or 8½ inch by 11 inch transparency of each map sheet prior to ~inal map approval and "as built" grading, landscape and improvement plans prior to certificate of acceptance. C. Subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. · SOURCE.CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall sign and return the "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form. *** 1.7 In conjunction with any future design review request for any structure on Parcel 1, all setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those depicted on the tentative parcel map; and the design of the structure shall be historic in character and consistent With the design which was previously approved by the City as Design Review 92-047. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (5) 2.1 Preparation and recordation of a final parcel map will be required. (5) 2.2 The Subdivider will be required to execute a monumentation agreement and bond to guarantee that all monuments will be set in the field per the final parcel map. (5) 2.3 In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including, but not limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps, record of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans are also required to be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The acceptable formats shall be Intergraph DGN or Auto Cadd DWG file format, but in no case less than DXF file format. The City of Tustin CADD conventions shall be followed in preparing plans in CADD, and these guidelines are available from the Engineering Division. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the pla~s are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. Exhibit A Conditions of Approval Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 Page 3 FEES (1) 3.1 Payment of all Final Map fees, in the amount of $1,110.00 (eleven hundred ten dollars) or as may be modified prior to submittal of the Final Map, shall be made to the Community Development Department upon submittal of the Final Map. (1) 3.Z Prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel'l, payment of park land dedication in- lieu fees, pursuant to City Code Section 9370(d) (6) shall be made to the Community Services Department. (1) 3~3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel 1, payment of any applicable School District fees shall be made to the Tustin Unified School District. (1) 3.4 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the County Clerk, in the amount of $25.00 (twenty-five dollars) to enable the City to file with the County Clerk, the appropriate environmental documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality ACt. If within such forty eight (48) hour period, the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. In addition, should the Department of Fish and Game reject the Certificate of Fee Exemption filed with the Notice of Determination and require payment of fees, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department within forty eight (48) hours of notification, a cashier's check payable to the County Clerk in the amount of $850.00 (eight hundred fifty dollars) if an EIR was prepared or $1,250 (twelve hundred fifty dollars) if a Negative Declaration was prepared. If this fee is imposed, the subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. I~imm NO. 4 report to the :' lan ni ng 'Com mission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT / LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DECEMBER 12, 1994 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 AND VARIANCE 94-011 DONALD A. LEJEUNE 440 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 440 WEST MAIN STREET SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) WITH A CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT OVERLAY A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: 1. APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON ONE (1) PARCEL FROM SIXTY (60) FEET TO 22 FEET, AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA OF ONE (1) PARCEL FROM THREE (3) FEET TO"6'-8". · AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE A SINGLE DEVELOPED PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: · Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3313; and · Approve Variance 94-011 by adopting Resolution No. 3314, as sUbmitted or revised; and e Recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 by adopting Resolution No. 3315, as submitted or revised. ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Report TPM 94-149 December 12, 1994 Page 2 BACKGROUND The subject p~operty is approximately 28,250 square feet (.65 acre) in size and is developed with one (1) single family residence and one (1) attached two-car garage which are situated approximately 200 feet from the front property line on Main Street. The applicant previously received City approvals to place an historic residence on the existing 28,250 square foot parcel under the provisions of City Code Section 9223(b) (3) which allows by Conditional Use Permit an accessory structure used as guest rooms. These approvals enabled the applicant to relocate to the subject property the historic structure depicted in Attachment A. However, the Conditional Use Permit approval expired in July of 1993, Variance approval expired in August of 1993 and Design Review approval expired in March of 1994. Although the applicant would have the option to reapply for these same approvals or apply for a conditional use permit pursuant to City Code Section 9223(b) (1) which provides for second single family dwellings on R-1 lots of at least 12,000 square feet in size, a subdivision of the property is being requested in lieu of the conditional use permit process for financing reasons. According to the applicant, the parcelization is necessary in order to finance the construction of the future proposed dwelling on Parcel 1. A lien on the existing property is preventing the applicant from obtaining the financing, and this lien would be released from the portion of the property comprising Parcel 1. The value of the lien free property would enable the applicant to obtain the necessary financing. The applicant has provided the City with a letter (Attachment G) that briefly explains the reasons for the Tentative Parcel Map request. : Although.no new construction or development is proposed for Parcels 1 or 2 'at this time, the applicant has indicated the intention to request approval from the City for the placement of any historic residence on Parcel 1 at a future date. In order for the Planning Commission to recommend approval to the City Council of a subdivision it must be determined that the proposal is in compliance with applicable zoning requirements. As the proposal is not in compliance with these zoning requirements, the applicant has requested a variance for the following: Planning Commission Report TPM 94-149 December 12, 1994 Page 3 · To reduce the minimum lot width from sixty (60) feet to 22 feet on Parcel 2; and · ~ · To increase the maximum permitted height for an existing fence in the required front yard setback area of Parcel 2 from three (3) feet to 6'-8". The variance for the lot width reduction is needed because Parcel 2 would contain a 22 foot wide portion which would accommodate the driveway access for both parcels. The remainder of the lot would be approximately 108 feet in width. The'fence height increase is needed for the existing fencing, a portion of which encloses an existing swimming pool. The proposed subdivision of the property would place this fencing in the front yard setback area of Parcel 2, where fence height is otherwise restricted to a maximum height of three (3) feet. Approval of the ~subject Tentative Parcel Map and Variance would enable the applicant to request approval for the Placement of an additional single family.dwelling at the site without the need for Conditional Use Permit approval. Any future development would be evaluated through the City's design review process which considers height, bulk, and area of buildings; setbacks and site planning; landscaping; parking; materials and colors, etc. Any new development would also be' required to meet all applicable development standards established for the zoning district such as minimum setbacks, maximum height, maximum lot coverage, parking, etc. The subject property, situated on the southerly side of Main Street between "B" Street and Pacific Street, is situated in an urban setting and is zoned Single Family Residential (R-i). Surrounding development to the north, south, east and west is also residential and consists.of single family dwellings. The zoning designation for these properties is Single-Family Residential (R-I), and these properties are all within the Cultural Resource Overlay District. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City Hall and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. Planning Commission Report TPM 94-149 December 12, 1994 Page 4 DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to create two parcels so that the existing single family dwelling would be located on Parcel 2 and an additional dwelling could be constructed or placed on Parcel 1. Parcel 1 is proposed to be approximately 10,993 square feet in size, and Parcel 2 is proposed to be approximately 16,264 square feet ih size. There is one (1) existing driveway off of Main Street which is proposed to provide access to the existing residence located on Parcel 2. An easement for access purposes is proposed so that this driveway could also provide access to any future dwelling on Parcel 1. In the Single Family Residential (R-i) District with the Cultural Resource District Overlay, the minimum single family lot size allowed pursuant to City Code Section 9252(J) (2) is 10,000 square- feet. The two (2) parcels created by the proposed subdivision would satisfy this criteria. As conceptually shown in Attachment B, the proposed orientation of the future dwelling on Parcel 1 would not be inconsistent with surrounding properties. Given the required front yard setbacks and sufficient lot sizes proposed, the proposed subdivision would be considered appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. While the design of the proposed residence on Parcel 1 would be evaluated at a future date through the design review and certificate of appropriateness processes, the potential future dwelling is proposed on the Tentative Parcel Map to be setback ten (10) feet from the easterly side property line, approximately 44 feet from the westerly side property line, approximately 48 feet from the front property line, and approximately 35 feet from the rear property line. The proposed detached two-car garage is shown with setbacks of five (5) feet to the directly adjacent property lines. As proposed, the lot coverage of Parcel 1 would be about 16 percent. A Condition of Approval has been included in Resolution No. 3315 which requires that, in conjunction with any future design review submittal for any dwelling on Parcel 1, all'setbacks shall be equal to or greater than those depicted on the tentative parcel map; and the .design of the structure shall be historic in character and consistent with the design which was previously considered as part of Design Review 92-047 (Attachment A). This condition is based in part on mitigation measures contained in the environmental documentation for this project. These measures were developed to ensure that approval of the subject project would not set a precedent for any type of development on newly created lots in the City's Cultural Resource District. Planning Commission Report TPM 94-149 December 12, 1994 Page 5 The subject property is designated with a Low Density Residential Land Use Designation in [the Tustin Area General Plan which would allow up to seven (7) dwelling units per acre. The proposed tentative parcel map would be consistent with the Land Use Designation in ~hat Parcel 1 would have a gross density of 3.6 dwelling units per acre and Parcel 2 would have a gross density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre. Approval of the project would result in the potential for an increase in the density of development on the entire site from 1.5 dwelling units per acre to three (3) units per acre. Variance In determining whether to approve a Variance to allow the reduction in the minimum lot width and the increase in the maximum fence height in the front yard setback area, the Planning Commission must make the following findings: · That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated; and · That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classificationS. In considering the reduction of minimum lot width and the increase in fence height,"the above findings can be justified. The granting of the Variance wOuld not constitute a special privilege as all of the other properties on the same block bounded by Main, "B", Sixth and Pacific Streets are zoned for single family residences and twelve (12) of the lots have lot widths which are less than the required sixty (60) feet. In.addition, there are other residential parcels within the Cultural Resource District which function as flag lots. The increase in the allowable fence height shall not constitute a grant of special privilege in that the fencing is existing and is setback approximately 150 feet from Main Street which is consistent with other fencing in the vicinity. Planning Commission Report TPM 94-149 December 12, 1994 Page 6 There.are special circumstances related to the site, particularly the size of the parcel which deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by neighboring properties. The subject property is wider and larger in area than most of the parcels in the area and has sufficient area to be divided into two (2) parcels which conform to the minimum lot size requirements specified in the City Code. Due to the flag lot configuration and shape of Parcel 2, the parcels would be deprived of fencing that is necessary for security and safety reasons and is typical of fencing found on other properties in the area. Based on the City's definition of a front yard, the subject fencing would be located within the front yard setback area, but would primarily function as side yard fencing or as a swimming pool barrier. The Uniform Building Code requires that swimming pools be surrounded by a barrier of at least five (5) feet in height. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. The attached Initial Study discusses the numerous impact categories, and mitigation measures were required to reduce these impacts to a level of no significance. Based upon this review, staff has determined that this project would not'have a significant effect on the environment. PUBLIC CONCERNS In response to the public noticing of this project, staff has been contacted by two individuals and has received three (3) letters of opposition to the project (Attachments C, D and E). The individuals who contacted staff directly, requested additional information on the project which was provided to them by staff, and all have expressed concerns regarding the proposed subdivision and the resulting potential for an increase in density at the site. In addition, the applicant personally distributed an informational letter to neighboring residents which is included as Attachment F. Planning Commission Report TPM 94-149 December 12, 1994 Page 7 CONCLUSION With the approval of the subject Variance, the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommends that the Planning Commissionapprove Variance 94-011 and forward Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 to the City Council by adopting Resolution Nos. 3314 and 3315 respectively, as submitted or revised. Scott Reekstin Assistant Planner aniel- Fo~, AICP Senior Planner SCR :br :/TPM 94-149 Attachments: Location Map Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 Attachment A - Elevations from Design Review 92-047 Attachment B - Aerial View Exhibit Attachment C - Letter dated December 2, 1994 Attachment D - Letter dated December 5, 1994 Attachment E - Letter dated December 5, 1994 Attachment F - Letter dated November 18, 1994 Attachment G - Letter dated December 7, 1994 Initial Study Resolution Nos. 3313, 3314 and 3315 ATTACHMENT Z Z A Z z 0 W W l-- ILl ATTACHMENT B CK)NALD A. LEJEUNE 440 W. Main Street Tustin, CA. 92680 (800) 5~7-6227 (Wc~"k) FAX (714) 838-~ (714) ~:3~--~17 (Home) FAX (714) 838-1106 Attn: Scott · Tustin City Hall FAX # 573-31 13 Dec. 7, 1994 Subject: Reason for Application of Lot Split: Our project is a real estate venture and as such, should be financed with a real estate loan. We applied for a loan in Nov. of 1992 to construct the Queen Anne. We have a piece of c~rclal prop_e_rty in Tustin that is funded under the ram. As with any loan, liens are placed on any SBA, 7aal~rog SBA residenti property owned by the borrower. As a result, the SBA has a secondary position on our residential property at ~.~.0 W. Main. Recent losses in value of c~rclal properties due to the economy has prompted the SBA, under the7a program, to adopt regulations that will not permit a release and reconvey in escrow,.which is required for a loan. We have what is considered a mature loan (over 10 years) and have never been late on a single payment. Our credit is excellent. We appealed this ruling by the S~A and were formally denied earlier this year. For us to finance the Queen Anne, our Tax Attorney, in dealing with our bank and the SBA, agreed to release the lien on a front portion of the lot with the stipulation we obtain a lot split. The new lot will be lien free and we hope to use that value to finance the construction of the Queen Anne. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank You, Don LeJeune ATTACHMENT C December 5, 1994 415 W. 6th Street Tustin, California 92680 Mr. Scott Rees, Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Re: TPM 94-149 and VARIANCE 94-011 Dear Mr. Rees: This letter is to file our objection to the proposed development regarding the above reference project. We are the owners and residents of the home at 415 W. 6th Street. In addition, we own the residential home at 405 W. 6th Street. Both of these properti'ed 'hre within 300 feet of the property with the proposext subdivision modifications. We are opposed for the reasons as identified below: 1. Inconsistency with Historical. Preservation Standards. The purpose of the Old Town District overlay is to preserve the current culture of Old Town and enhance it with development that promotes this culture. Although the architectural standards are the most important character of Old Town, land uses and sub divisions must also be included. Prior to the Old Town District overlay, our neighborhood was allowed to have mixed uses of commercial, industrial, high density residential, and subdivisions of larger lots. Most people recognized that this type of subdivision and development activity not only contributed to blight in our area, but has slowly eradicated the culture of "Old Town". Although the proposed subdivision and variance is small, it is not in concurrence with preserving our historical heritage. 2. Contributes to Deterioration of Property Values. All other things being equal, smaller lots reduce property values. The proposed variance bends one of the two important code requirements for subdivision: Minimum 60 feet of street frontage. In addition,.a Presentence would be established that would allow a significant portion of the lots on our block to acquire variances that would allow further subdivision. If this proposed project were approved it would lead to the ultimate degradation of our property values.. 3. Violation of Prior Precedence. In 1986 and 1987, Ainslie Development proposed to subdivide three, nearly 20,000 square foot lots on 6th Street for 6 homes. The planning commission and city council denied this proposed development in response to concerns from local residents. Although PM 94-149 is different in some aspects, it is common in regards to subdivision of a large lot. I believe this prior decision establishes a common precedence to deny the current proposal for PM 94-149. ATTACHMENT D Page 2 Mr. Scott Rees City of Tustin TPM 94-149 Thank you for your time on this matter. contact us at (714) 544-3836. Sincerely, Jeff R. Thompson fi1¢:4156th\PM94-149.001 Should you have ~y questions, please feel free to Cherie A. Thompson ADVANCED SYSTEMS GROUP Complete ~)ft'ware. hardware and technical solutions December 5, 1994 Mr. Scott Rees Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Re: TPM 94-149 and Variance 94-011; Dear Mr. Rees: This letter is to inform you of our objection to the above TMP and variance. We are property owners and residents living at 355 West 6th Street. Our property is located on the opposite side and four houses East from the proposed subdivision. Mr. Rees, prior to purchasing our home, we reviewed the current zoning codes to verify that the lots in Old Town could not be subdivided. The subdivision criteria was very important because we felt if the lots could be subdivided, it would both substantially diminish the property values and the culture of our neighborhood. I am aware that the existing code does allow for a non-rental second resident which is not the issue. What is at issue is subdividing a lot in Old Town, which if approved, will set a precedence for further subdivisions. This subdivision precedence will have the exact opposite effect of what the Old Town District overlay was designed to preserve. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please call me at my office, 714/263-2750 ext 22 regarding any questions. TEO/rl c.c. Donald LeJeune ASG 17752 Sky Park Circle - Suite 250 · Irvine. CA 92714 - (714) 263-2750 - Fax (714) 851-8523 Dec 2 ]994 City of Tustin Planning commission RE: VARIANCE 94-011 Property map 94-149 We strongly object to the proposed plan to devide this piece of property so that another house may be moved on the front portion of the lot. We opposed this when it was applied for last time, and nothing has changed since. If Mr Lejeune is permitted to divide his property, then MANY WHO HAVE LARGE LOTS COULD DO THE SAME, THUS NEGATING THE RULING WE FOUGHT FOR TO KEEP THE AREA IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY MODE. SJ.n~ly Yours · o . ' .-..' -. ' ~-'. ,' ~' --,,'.. ~ ~'~C' Doris H Smith _ ,;, ~,_.,.:.. '. %~', ~onald E Smith x 12-8-94 Scott Rees, Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Re: TPM 94-149 and Variance 94-011 .. Dear Mr. Rees, We would like to voice our protest against the proposed subdivision at the LeJeune property, located at 440 West Main Street. It was our understanding, when we purchased our home on Sixth Street, that The City of Tusin had guide lines to protect Old Town from further subdivision. It is apparent the past has shown the city this lesson the hard way. Allowing subdividing and high density housing the permission to creep into Old Town was a big mistake. We are not opposed to Mr. Lc June proceeding with C6nstruction of the Queen Anne Cottage. However, we do not believe it is in the best interests of neighboring property values for him to change his property lines. If he truly is committed to preserving historic value within Old town then we see no reason for the City of Tustin to grant this subdivision. Current property lines should remain as they are today. His property should be sold at later date just as he purchased it from the last owner. This does not prevent him from constructing the cottage and improving his property value. It's nice that he wants to provide housing for his daughter Cindy. But, changing the property lines is not necessary to meet this goal. We trust Mr. LeJeune's involvement in city politics does not allow him "special treatment" in your decision on this matter. Thank you for your time, Ken and Barbara Ezell 365 West Sixth Street Tustin, California 92680 Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 Page 6 Commission Mitzman stated that although he still objects to the idea of firearms the applicant has convinced him of his professionalism, and since the Police Deparment does not object he would now be in favor. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 92-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3318 revised as follows, Exhibit A, add Condition i 7 to read, · "TO discourage and prevent theft and other crimes, the applicant shall implement and/or maintain adequate security measures at the subject pawn broker business as determined by the Tustin Police Department". Motion carried 5v0. · Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 and Variance 94-011 APPLICANT/ LANDOWNER: 'LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONALD A. LEJEUNE 440 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 440 WEST MAIN STREET SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-i) WITH A CULTURAL RESOURCE DISTRICT OVERLAY A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 1. APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ON ONE (1) PARCEL'FROM SIXTY (60) FEET TO 22 FEET, AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FENCE HEIGHT IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA OF ONE (1) PARCEL FROM THREE (3) FEET TO 6'-8". 2. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE A SINGLE DEVELOPED PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3313; and 2. Approve Variance 94-011 by adopting Resolution No. 3314 as submitted or revised; and ' 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 by adopting Resolution No. 3315, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Scott Reekstin, Assistant Planner ATTACHNIENT E Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 Page 7 Commissioner Wei] stated that letters received from people in the' downtown area give the impression that this area is not allowed to be subdivided and she asked for clarification. Staff stated that with the Variance request the subdivision meets all of the applicable City codes. The Public Hearing opened at 7:42 p.m. Jeff R. Thompson, 415 West 6th Street, Tustin, gave a presentation expanding on the points of the letter he had previously forwarded to the Planning Commission in opposition to this project. He stated that he feels there is an incompatibility in that there are no flag lots in the block in question and since there have been none created since the historical district had been installed in 1986-87, he feels this would be changing history. He stated that the applicant does not need to split the lot in order to construct a second dwelling unit. He feels that the City's prior history of subdivisions have left scars and deterioration in Old Town. He stated that he was not opposed to subdivision within the code but variances of it. If this subdivision is allowed it would be unique since the proposed structure would be constructed in the front of the lot. He presented a panoramic photo of trees which he feels would be ruined if subdivision was allowed where structures can be placed anywhere on a lot through variance. Ken Ezell, 365 West 6th Street, Tustin, opposed to subdivision since he feels the proposed structure can be constructed without splitting the lots. Edgar Pankey, 320 West Main Street, Tustin, stated that he was impressed on the amount of work done on the project, complimented staff and is in favor of the project. Bill Collins, 430 West Main Street, Tustin, stated his home is known locally as the Snow House, built in 1887 and adjacent to the subject property. He is opposed to both the request of variance and flag lot subdivision as he feels it undermines the historic and property 'value of the neighborhood. He questioned the type of structure which was to be placed on the lot and if it would be truly historic. He asked if this subdivision were allowed would it apply equally to all of the neighborhood. Staff stated that as the Resolution is written it requires that any future structure be consistent with what was previously approved. Bill Collins, stated he was in disagreement with many of the findings of staff in the report. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 Page 8 Pauline Collins, 430 West Main Street, Tustin, stated she moved to the neighborhood five years ago because it was historic. She feels that if the variance is allowed it will have a negative impact on the neighborhood by changing its features. Randy Younq, 350 West Main, Tustin, opposed since' there have been no new flag lots created since the Cultural Overlay District has been in existence and because the proposed structure would be located in the front of the lot while all of the other second structures are presently located in the back of the lots. Don LeJeune, applicant, stated that this project has been two years in the making. He feels this is a real estate project that should be financed as such. He stated that his property at 440 West Main Street is the only residential property in Old Town that has a front lot which would accommodate a structure and this was one of the reasons he was attracted to this property in 1983. He feels there is not another person in Old Town who cares more about the Cultural Overlay District than he but~he is also concerned with property rights~ It is the Planning Commissions responsibility to determine land use not the Cultural Overlay. He noted that the construction he proposes will be of a historical nature and no different than what was previously approved with the Conditional Use Permit, with the exception of adding a two car garage. The Public Hearing closed at 8:13 p.m. Commissioner Wei] stated that this is a unique area and appreciates the desire of the residents to keep it rural but she is also supportive of property rights. As a result of the lot split both of the lots will be in excess of what the Cultural Overlay District requires as a minimum lot and can't see this as a detriment to the neighborhood. Commission Lunn .agrees with Commissioner Weil and feels that Mr. LeJeunes' dedication to Old Town and its concepts is well known; the lot split is necessary for the financing and she is in favor. Commission Kasalek does not believe the lot split would set a precedent since the lot is large and wide enough to lend itself to this situation where other.~'lots don't. She wanted to make it very clear that there is no special treatment being given to Mr. LeJeune but she believes this is just a common sense, reasonable request and sees no problem with it. Commissioner Baker stated this was not a request to split the lots for multiple unit use and he has no problem with the request. Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 1994 Page 9 Commissioner Weil moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3313 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Well moved, Kasa-~ek seconded, to approve Variance 94- 011 by adopting Resolution No. 3314 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. For clarification, staff recommended for Commission consideration' a modification to Condition 3.1, under fees, to specify the actual amount of final map fees. Commissioner Well moved, Kasalek seconded, to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 by adopting Resolution No. 3315 as revised. Exhibit A, Condition 3.1 shall read, "Payment of all Final Map fees, in the amount of $1,110.00 (eleven hundred ten dollars) or as may be modified prior to submittal of the. Final Map, shall be made to the Community Development Department upon submittal of the Final Map". Motion carried 5-0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 94-026 APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: MR. ABDUL JIWA 14702 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 MR. MERLE S. GLICK 1134 S ROBERTSON BLVD. LOS ANGELES, CA 90035 14702 .NEWPORT AVENUE RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-i) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A CONVENIENCE MARKET WITHIN AN EXISTING RETAIL TENANT SPACE Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 94-026 by adopting Resolution No. 3319, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner RESOLUTION NO. 95-01 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 94-149 INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A® The request to approve Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 is considered a project pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. Be A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Co Whereby, the City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. De The City Council has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authoritY over Tentative Parcel Map 94-149, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. The City Council has found that the project involves no potential for an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB3158, Chapter 1206, Statutes of 1990. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the City Council has found that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on it in this case because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would occur and are identified in Exhibit A to the Negative Declaration and Initial Study and are adopted as findings and conditions of Resolution No. 95-02, incorporated herein by reference. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-01 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January, 1995. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR MARY E. WYNN, 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 Resolution No. 95-01 was duly Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk 1 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 95-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 94-149 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: ae That Tentative Parcel Map No. 94-149 was submitted to the City Council by Mr. Donald A. LeJeune, for consideration. Be That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on December 12, 1994 by the Planning Commission and on January 3 1995 by the City Council. ' Ce A Negative Declaration has been prepared and certified for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. De That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, the Tustin Municipal Code and Subdivision Map Act. Ee That Tentative Parcel Map 94-149 would not have an impact on School District facilities. Fe That park land dedication in-lieu fees, pursuant to City Code Section 9370(d) (6), shall be required prior to the issuance of building permits for any dwelling on Parcel 1. Ge That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or ~ubstantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. Ho That the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the public-at- large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. I · That the design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-02 Page 2 II. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No 94-149, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit ~ of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3315, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January, 1995. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk THOMAS R. SALTARELLI MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ~ ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS MARY E. WYNN, 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 Resolution No. 95-02 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk