The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP.H. 3 SUBDIV ORD 88-01 02-6-89 PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA .? o~- /"~'~ ''~ ,, 2-6-89 · TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: ENV I RONNENTAL STATUS: REQUEST'. WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY NANAGER COIINUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTNENT SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ANEN~ENT 88-01 STCANORE GARDENS HONEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONNENTAL QUALTIY ACT. REQUEST TO AHEND SECTION 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412), OF THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOll THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COHPLIANCE FOR THE CONVERSION OF STOCK COOPERATIVES INTO CONDONINIUNS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 66412(h) OF THE STATE SUBD IV Z SZON MAP ACT. RECOle~ENDATION It is recommended that Ordinance No. 1020 have its first reading by title only. It is recommended that Ordinance No. 1020 be introduced. BACKGROUND At their regular meeting on January 9, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2550, recommending approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 to the City Counctl. The proposed amendment would allow the City to tssue a-Certificate of Compliance (wtth or without conditions) to convert a stock cooperative to a condominium tn 11eu of processing a tract map, pursuant to the provisions of Section 66412(h) of the State Subdivision Map Act (coples of the January 9, 1989 Planntng Comndssion staff report and Resolution No. 2550 are attached for Council's reference.). The Sycamore Gardens became a stock cooperative in January, 1980 and was subsequently annexed into the City in December, 1980. Financing for stock co-ops is very difficult to obtain in California for several reasons, one being that they are few in number, making their sale very difficult. For this reason, City Council Report Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 February 6, 1989 Page ~wo i the applicant desires to convert into a condominium so as to facilitate obtaining financing of units. Because the Sycamore Gardens Stock Co-op is the only stock cooperative in the City, this amendment would likely be implemented one time only and would not create a "loop hole" for numerous parties to take advantage of. At the January 9th hearing, the applicant questioned the provisions of requirement no. 3 of the proposed amendment, which extends tenants rights to any person renting a unit in a stock cooperative at the time of conversion. These rights include, but are not limited to, right of first refusal, notice of intent to convert and displacement and relocation rights (these rights are the same as when an apartment complex is converted to condominiums). The City Attorney has reviewed the language in the Map Act and has determined that, lacking the legislative history behind the language, and thereby the intent behind it, the provisions of requirement no. 3 will in fact require absentee owners to extend said, rights to any renters occupying their units. The City Attorney also informed staff that he will obtain and research the legislative history of the language to clearly determine its intent. Staff will inform the applicant' of any new interpretation that the City Attorney provides to us. DISCUSSION Section 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412), of the City's Subdivision Ordinance presently reads as follows: "9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412) In addition to the exclusions from application of the Map Act specified therein, the requirement of this Chapter shall be inapplicable to subdivisions of four (4) parcels or less for construction of removable commercial buildings having a floor area of less than one hundred (100) square feet (66412.5). (Ord. No. 847, 6-1-81)." The proposed amendment would add additional language to the above section as follows: "Unless a parcel or final map has been approved by the City Council, the conversion of a stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code, to a condominium, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, may be permitted .through the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance (with or without conditions), but only if all of the following requirements are met: Corn rnunity Development DeparTrnen~ City Council Report Subdt vision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 February 6, 1989 Page three (1) At least 51 percent of the units in the cooperative were occupied by stockholders of the cooperative on January 1. 1981. or individually owned by stockholders of the cooperative on January 1. 1981. As used in this paragraph, a cooperative unit is "i ndl vt dual ly owned" if and only if the.stockholder of that unit owns or partially owns an interest in no more than one unit in the cooperative. (2) No more than 25 percent of the shares of the cooperative were owned by any one person, as defined in Section 17, including an incorporator or director of the cooperative, on January 1, 1981. (3) A person renting a unit in a cooperati.ve shall be entitled at the time of conversion to all tenant rights in state or local law, including, but not limited to, rights respecting first refusal, notice, and displacement and relocation rights. (4) The Director of Community Development shall certify that the above requirements have been met. Upon such certification, the Director shall issue the Certificate of Compliance (with or without conditions). This proposed language has been adapted from Section 66412(h) of the State Subdivision Map Act (see Attachment I). A Certificate of Compliance would be' reviewed by the Community Development Department. Upon determining that all of the requirements listed above have been satisfied, the City could impose conditions to the Certificate of Compliance in much the same manner as is done with Tentative Tract Maps (in the case of the' Sycamore Gardens Stock Co-op, all applicable conditions were imposed with Variance No. 88-10). CONCLUSION The proposed amendment has been prepared in accordance with Section 66412(h) of the State Subdivision Map Act and provides a reasonable method to deal with what in all likelihood will be a one-time implementation. As it is written, the proposed Amendment provides the City with a reasonable measure of control through the ability to impose conditions. For this reason staff suggests that t~l tY C°u ncj[ 1 ~d°P t Ordinance N°' 1020~~(~.A~~ Ru~bi n ..~.../~~ /~ ~_~ ~ Stev Christine A. Shingleton ~_ Senior Planner Director of Community Development SR:CAS:ts Attachments: Resolution No. 2550 and January 9, 1989 staff report Attachment I and II Negative Declaration Ordinance No. 1020 Corn rnuni~y Developmen~ Depar~rnen~ 1 2 3 .4 6 ~m 8~ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 2O 2! 22 23 25 26 27 2~ 'RESOLUTION NO. 2550 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY' COUNCIL ' ADOPTION OF SUBDIVISION'ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 88-01, PERMITTING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO CONVERT A STOCK COOPERATIVE TO A CONDOMINIUM. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I · II. The. Planning Commission finds and'determines as follows- A. A proper application was filed on behalf of the Sycamore Gardens Homeowner's Association requesting approval ~ of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 to permit the City to issue a Certificate of Compliance to convert a Stock Cooperative~ to a Condomi nt urn. ~-.. .~, · B. A .public hearing before the Plannln~ Commission to consider proposed Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 was duly called, noticed and held on Monday, January g, )989. C. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act; no ·significant, adverse lmpacts are a~octated with this Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. D. The subject amendment is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare in that it will simplify the conversion of a Stock Cooperative to a condominium, which is a change in the form of ownership only. E. The subject amendment is consistent with the General Plan and it will not negatively impact the orderly growth and development of the City, as th.ere is only one stock cooperative in the City. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 as follows: Section 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance shall be amended to read as follows: (a) ' In addition to the exclusions from application of the r, lap Act 'spect'fted therein, the requirement of this Chapter sha]l be inapplicable to subdivisions of four (4) parcels or less for construct(on of removable commercial buildings having a floor area of less than one hundred (100) square feet (66412.5). (Ord. No. 847, 6-1-'81). Resolution No. 2550 Page -t~o (b) Unless a parcel or final map has been approved by the City ,~ Council, the: conversion'of a stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code, to (3 ' a condominium, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, may be permitted through the issuance of a Certificate of ? Compliance (with or without conditions), but only if all of the following requirements are'met: ...... 8 (1) At least 51 percent of the units in the cooperative O were occupied by stockholders of the cooperative on January 1, lg81, or individually owned-by stockholders. 10 of the cooperative ont January 1, 1981. As used in this paragraph, a cooperative unit is "individually ]] , owned" if and only if the stockholder of that unit owns or partially owns an interest in no more than one 12 untt tn the cooperati vei. '- . ]3 (2) No more tha'n' 25 percent of the shares of the cooperative were owned by any one person, as defined 1~[ in Section 17, including an incorporator or director of the cooperative, on January 1, 1981.. , , ]G (3) A person renting a unit in a cooperative shall be entitled at the time of conversion to all tenant rights in state or local law, including, but not 17 limited to., rights respecting first refusal, notice, Iff and dlsplacemnt and relocation rights. 19 (4) The Director of Community Development shall certify Ii that the above requirements have been met. Upon such certification, the Director shall issue the 2() Certificate of Compliance (with or without 21 condl ti ons ). 22 PASSED AND AD~E/~D at a regul~r meeting of the' Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of ~x~_~/ , 198_~. ' 23 ~ ~ ....... ~/- :24 . ~-' / ~..*' ..~ .... ~,.~ 25 Chat rman" ) AC. ~. Bal(er..... .~21, _ 2l~I Penni Foley Secretary · . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ; COUNTY'OF ORANGE ) CZ'FY OF TUSTIN ) I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certtfy that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planntng Commission .of the.. CJty of Tusttn, California; that Resolution No. _'~257,9-~ was duly passed a[Ld adopted at~a-~regular meettng of the Tusttn Planntng Commission, held on the c/~-x_ day of ""-~_./~.c~,,_~ . PENNI FOLEY \- Recordtng Secretary Planning Commission · DATE: · SUB,3ECT: · IANUARY 9, 1989 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 88-01 APPLICANT' · ENVI RONIqENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SYCAMOIE GARDENS HOMEOkfNER'S ASSOCIATION A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTIY ACT. REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412), OF THE CZ'IT'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOtl THE ISSUANCE'OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE CONVERSION OF STOCK COOPERATIVES INTO CONDOMINIUMS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 66412(h) OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. RECOI~ENDATION It Is recommended that the Planntng Commission adopt Resolution No. 2550 recommending approval to the Ctty Counctl of Subdtvlston Ordinance Amendment 88-01. BACKGROUND * "~'~ On November 14, 1988 the Planntng Commission adopted Resolution No. 2543, approving Variance No. 88-10, granting exemptions to several sections of the Tusttn Ctty Code as they relate to the conversion of the Sycamore Gardens Stock Co-op to condominiums. At that ttme, staff noted that upon approval of the variance, the Sycamore Gardens Homeowner's Association would have the option of requesting approval of a Subdivision Ordinance Amendment that would" allow the Ctty to Issue a Certificate of Compliance for the conversion (pursuant to Section 66412(h) of the State Subdivision ~lap Act) tn lieu of processing a tentative tract map to complete the conversion. Because the Sycamore Gardens Stock Co-op ts the only stock cooperative tn the Ctty, thts. amendment would likely be a one-time only implementation and would not be a "loop-hole" for numerous parties to take advantage of. I I I Planning Comndssion Report Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 January 9, 1989 Page two DISCUSSION II I il Section 9314, EXCEPTTONS (66412), of the City's Subdivision Ordinance presently reads as follows: "9314, EXCEPT[0NS (66412) In addltton to the exclusions from application of the Hap. Act specified therein, the requirement of this Chapter shall be Inapplicable to subdivisions of four (4) parcels or less for construction of removable commercial buildings having a floor area of less than one hundred (100) square feet (66412.5). (Ord. No. 847, 6-1-81)." The proposed amendment would add additional language to the above section as follows: · "Unless a parcel or final map' has been approved by the City Council, the conversion of a stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code, to a condominium, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, may be permitted through the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance (with or without conditions), but only if all of the following requirements are met: (1) At least 51 percent of ~the units in the cooperative were occuppted by stockholders of the cooperative on January 1, 1981, or individually owned by stockholders of the cooperative on January 1, 1981. As used in this paragraph, a cooperative unit is "individually 'owned" if and only if the stockholder of that unit owns or partially owns an interest in no more than one unit in the cooperative. (2) No more than 25 percent of the shares of the cooperative were owned by any one person, as defined in Section 17, including an incorporator or director of the cooperative, on January 1, 1981. (3) A person renting a un'it in a cooperative shall be entitled at the time of conversion to all tenant rights in state or local law, including, but not limited to, rights respecting first refusal, notice, and displacement and relocation rights. (4) The Director of Community Development shall certify that the above requirements have been met. Upon such certification, the Director shall issue the Certificate of Compliance (with or wi.thout conditions). Corn rnunity Development DeparTment A. i CITY OF TUSTIN Co.nun~ty Development Department £NVIRONM£NTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM, I1. 3. Dc.. o~ o~,,~ S~m,~ 1~/~/~ : ~. Ag~ Requiring C]M~Ilst ,(..~(' ~}~" , 'TL./~ NJ i ..... A--I (Exp~iam of ail "~ and "rna~ amwar, or~ required .on ~ sheer3.) Em-ih, Will the peagmal result Jm The cbstructtcn, cavoring ar madiflcatim ' of any ~ic~ gmtogk: ar phy. i~ai feature? Any ircrmse in wind ar Kter erosim of soils, either an or off the site? Changes in ckGositlan ar erosion of beach taxis, ar chcrqm in siltatim, delxnitic~ or .erodan which may madlf7 the channel of a river or str~mn ar the bed ~f the ocean or cny bay, inlet ar lake?' Ye. ~ Ne Planning Commission Report Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 January 9, 1989 Page three This proposed language has been adapted from Section 66412(h) of the State. Subdivision Map Act (see Attachment II). A Certificate of Compliance would be reviewed by the Community Development Department. Upon determining that a.ll o.f- the requirements listed above have been satisfied, the City could impose conditions to the Certificate of Compliance in much the same manner as is done with Tentative Tract Maps (in the case of the Sycamore Gardens Stock Co-op, all applicable conditions were imposed with Variance No. 88-10). CONCLUSZON The proposed amendment has been prepared in accordance wi th~ecti on 66412(h) of the State Subdivision Map Act and provides a reasonable method to deal with what in all likelihood will be a one-time implementation. As it is written, the proposed Amendment provides the City with a reasonable measure of control through the ability to impose conditions. For this reason staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2550. Seni or P1 anner Attachments: Resolution No. 2550 Attachment I and II Director of Community Development Community Developrnen~ Depar~rnem NEGATIV,E DEC'LA,,RATION CITY OF TUSTIN . 300 CENTENNIAL.- WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 Project Title:Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 Project Location: City of Tustin (Municipal Code) File NO.Subdiv. Ord. Ament 88-01 Project Description: Amendment to Section 9314,EXCLUSIONS (6~412) of.the Tustin Subdiv. Ord. allowing issuance of Cert. of Compliance for conversio; Project Proponent:Sycamore Gardens H.O.A. Stock Co-ops to Condominiums. Contact Person: Steve Rubin Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 278 The Community Development Department has conducted an tntttal study for the above project tn accordance wtth the Ct'ty of Tusttn's procedures' 'regarding Implementation of the California Envt~r'onmental Qualtty Act, and on the basts of. that, study hereby ftnd: ] That there. Is ~o substantial* evtdence that th~ project may have a significant effect on the environment. ' That potential significant affects were tden:tftee, but revisions have been tncluded in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avotd or mtttgate the affects to a potnt where clearly no significant effects would occur. Satd revisions are attached to and hereby made a part of thts Negattve Declaration. · Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The tntttal study whtch provtdes the basts for thts determination ts on ftle at the Community Oevelopment Oepartment, City of Tustln.. The publtc is tnvtted to comment on the appropriateness of thts Negattve Oeclarat~on durtng the revte~ pertod, whtch begins with the public notice of a Negattve Oeclaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon revtew by the Community Oevelopment Otrector, tl~i.s revtew pertod may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEI~ PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p,m. on DATED: December 22,1988 January 5~ 1989 Community DevelOpment Direc~p~ gic hclz~.such c. ~-tt'~.:~ Icrdsll~ mucl~llcl.~ ground f~flum, ~r simii~ h.zcrd.? Mil the prmm~l msul? ir. ,.. of c.~bi~ oir ClU~lit~? b. The cr~rtfm of ;obj~-ttan~le odom? cl. Cha'qe iff the ~ of ~urfac~ w~er irt. my ,,,,q2ter body? Dbchca, ge into ~ur'fcxm w~t~rs, ..m' in crt/, altaf~'tlon of ~ ~rl~f qu~lit,/, in.. clucllrq but not limit~cl m tJm~l~m, di~olved ax,/~m or turbidlt~,? f. All, retire of th~ clir~ctlm or mt. of flo~ of ground ~ in tl~ clumtitt of gr~u~ ~m'ets; eith~ through direct odditi-- or with- clinch, ~r through intmml~tlm of m acluif~r by ck~ or excov~fcru?,_ Sutat~rti~l mct~-ttm in th. armurrt of w~ter otherwise c~iic~le for public w~rMr sunlit? ~ IE~pmum of p~c~ie or prc~l-/ to ~t~' r~- Icrt~l hc=ard, such c~ flooding cr tlclil ,~wes? Ye. I Plcllt I.If~. Will th. propc~.al sit ln the diversity of mecim,: ar of cny species of plaits (mcludlng trees, stmJb., gram, cro~., mci aquatic RedU~l~ of the numbem of.. my unique, rare ar endange~ ,species of plants? Introductim of new gacim of p lmt~ Into m oraG, or in a barrier, to the normal replenishma~ of existing specie? cL. Reductim In acraage of any ~jrlcul~Jral crag? Animal LJ~, Will the pmpmal mzult Im numbers of land animals lmlucling rel~tlle., flsh croci shetlfld% benthic argmim~, ar imecl~)? b. Reductlan of the numbem of any unique, rare ar endanger~ sgect~ of mimals? c. Introclucticn of trow.species of mimals into m cre~ ~r mit in a Ixrrler to migratim ar mmmmant of mimals? · cl. Oet~rioratlm to existing flsh er wildlife hab~at? G. Not., Wlll the pragesal ma61t ins e ~. I~ In existing mis. levels? b. ~re of peagle to severe noise levels? Light ed ~ Wl ll the prapeeal produce new light ar glare? Lin'mi Use. Will tt~ propo~l result in a sub- stantlal altoratlan of 1fie pre~,qt or planned Icrml use of an area? ). Natured Rmcumm. Wlll the pragosal r~ult im a. Inct~am In the rate of u~e of any na'l~ral b~ Substantial degletlan'of a~y nanrenewable. natural resource? Rlak ~ Ulcer. WIll the prapamd immlvm A rL~k of ~ 4~l~k~i~ or th. relm ~f ~ ~ (lrduding, ixrt not limited to, oil, pet~ ~L~ m' rodtotion) in th, ~f of m ,=~id.nt ~r u~.~t cal~tk~m? b. Pomibte irrl~rf~ with m ~ r--lxx-~ pkm or m err4rg~-~'~ plan? II. P~t~ul~tim. Wlll the prc~.d al~r the lac~tm; ciistribuflm, cl.mit,/, or growth r~te of the Ii, mm Ix~ul~im of m ~r~? 12. I-kxmin~ Will the p~l off.ct .xisting hou~ ing. or crem~ o cl.mmd f~r' dditl~nal hc.~ing? · 13. Tr~i~C~rcul~tlm. Will the r~ult im b~ ~memtlon of ~tontlal oddlttoml v~hiculor, mov~m~n~ '- ~. · · Effecl~. on existing.lx~tcing f~:ilifl,, or ~ for r~w pc~kirig? c,. Sul~tantid Irr~act ugen editing tt~Sl~or- tatlo~ system? Alterations to present I~all'et'ts of circula- tim ~r movement of I~agle c.xl/or gc.xt.? Aiteratlans to w~t~, mil. or air traffic? f. Inctmse In traffic hazards to motor v~hicles, bicyclists or pedestttm,? Public $enCcm, Will the pragmal have m effect ul~n, or r.ult in a need fa' new or aiter~l governmental ser~ic~ in ,my of the following area~ a. F|m prot~tim? b. Police prate~ti~? , c. Schools? Y~ r .... II I r~ iii I cl. Ptztcz ~r 011~er r~'teatl--I facilities? e. Maintenam~ of public facl.litles, including roads? f. Other gevemmenm! schick? I~, Emrg~. Will the. pmpoml r~ult im a. Use of substantial arrmuntz of fuel or ene~jy~ Substantial incream in cbmand ~3an exist- incj saurcm of energy, or require the clevel~ of new murc~ of mergy? Utilities, Will the p~l reault in a need far new systems~ or substantial ail~rationz to the following utll!t, le~ .. =. Pmmf ~r natural gm? · b. C~mm~ic~tim= systems? cl. Se~r ~r septic tcr~? e.. Starm water drainage? i Ir. Solid M:zs'te and dbl)Oml? '1-- 17. ~ I-le~th. Will the proposal r~ult im 18. 19. a. Creatlan of ~ health hazc~l or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?. b. Exposure of peaple to potanttal health hezc~d=? Amtheticz. Will the p~l result in the abstn~ian of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the prmaml re~lt in the croatian of an aesthetically offensive site ~ to public view? IR~iaa, Will the proposal reSUlt in an impaat upan th~ quali~ or quantity.., of existing recmatlanal oppo~ities? Will the pe~ml result In the alteratlan of or the dmlTuctlan of a prehistaric: or histaric arctmmlogical site? iii 21. ~ll the ~1 result h ~ phys~l or agthetle effects fo a prehi~oric ar histor~ building, ~trucl~re, or-abject? Does the pragoeal hava the potentkzl to cause a phy,~l, change ~hlch ~auld affect unique ettm~ cultural values? or sacred uses within the potential Impact area? ~ Findlngs of $1gnif~ a, Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enviranment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cc~se a fish ar wild- life papulatlan to-drop below self sue.. taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anlrhal communffy, roduc..e the number or re.~h'ict the rmge of a rare or endc,~erecl pliant or animal ar eliminate Important exarn~les of the major periods of California t~history or prehistory? b. _D~?.s the proj~:t' hove the potential to ach,eve short-term, to the disadvmtage of lang-term, envlrmmental goals? (A short- term Impact on the environment, is .one ~ whlch occurs in a relatively brief, deflnitlvb period of time while long-term Impacts : will endure well Into the future,) · ¢. Does the project have Impacts which are I indiviclually limited, but cumulatively can- siclerable? (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 an the environment is significant.) d.. Does the project have envirmmental effects which 'will cause substantial od~erse effects an human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. Oiscumlan of Envircmn~tal EValuation SEE A~'TACti~.D Ym .. · ii IV. IDetenninatlan (To b~ completed by the Lead Agency) On th~ bosim .of fhi~ InitiQl Mluotl~. I find thor thru propoe~ pmi~'t OD~It.D NOT hmm a significant eff~'t on ~ ~vironmw~tt ~1 l~ N~GATIYE DC-CI.Ai~AT!0N will be pr~por~ct. I find that altlx~ th, p~ pmj~ could' hove' a' significant,/ ~ffect ~ ~ ~i~, ~m will ~t be a ~ni~t eff~ in ~ ~ mm't, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EYALUATZON SUBDI¥ISI. ON ORDZNANCE AHENDHENT 88-01 Project Description Supplement - Amendment to Sectton 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412), of' the City's Subdivision Ordinance to"-allow the issuance of a certificate of compliance for the conversion of stock cooperatives tnto condominiums, pursuant to Section 66412 (h)of the State Subdivision Map Act. . . EARTH - The proposed project does not tnvolve phystcal construction activities Which could result in changes to geologic structures, disruptions, displacements, compaction of soil or changes to the topography of affected properties. Neither would, the project result in increases tn wind or water erosion of sotls or changes tn erosion of beaches or exposure of people or property to geologtc hazards (Source: Community Development Department). ATR - This project would not result in any changes to the existing air qualtty b~sed on the review of AQMO standards for preparing EZR dOcuments. . e WATER - The project would involve existing developments and, therefore, would not result tn changes tn surface waters, absorbtton rates, drainage patterns, or any other existing water conditions based on fteld'obser~attons by City staff. · . PLANT LIFE - No new construction ts a, ssoctated with thts project, therefore, it Will not result in changes in the diversity in species or number of species of plants or the reduction of the number of any rare or endangered specles of plants. Neither will the proJect,tntreduce new species of plants into an area or reduce agricultural acreage based upon field observation 'of affected properties by City staff. . ANIMAL LIFE - The project would affect extsttng developments and the method by which they could convert from a stock co-op to a condominium. Existing animal populations on those properties would not be impacted by thts project (Source: Community Oevelopment Oepartment). . NOI.SE - The project would enable the City to impose conditions of approval on a property which could result in short term construction related noise; however, no long term noise impacts are anticipated. 0 Mitigation Monitoring - Construction activities shall be limited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, including engi ne warm-up. LIGHT AND GLARE - The project would ena'ble the City to impose conditions of approval on a property which could result in the installation of new light sources. ., Mitigation Monitoring - Specific lighting plans and light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department which confine direct light rays to the subject property as required by the ...... Zoning Code. Discussion on E:nvtronmental Evaluation Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 Page t~o . LAND USE - The project would affect extsttng developments and the method by whtch they could convert from a stock co-op to a condominium. Both forms of ownership are permitted tn the City's multiple famtly zontng districts; therefore, the project would not alter proposed or extsttng land uses or land use designations (Source: Community Development Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zontng Code). . NATURAL RESOURCES - The project wtll not result In the construction of new dwelltng Units and would not result in any Increases In the demand for any natural resources or the depletion of any non-renewable natural resources (Source: Community Oevelopment Department). 10. RISK OF UPSET - The project, wtll not tnvolve the use of hazardous substances as affected properties are developed wtth exts.Ung multtple faintly structures. As 'the p;oject would not tnvolve construction'of new dwelltng untts, emergency response plans would ..not be tmpacted (Source .... Community Development, Ftre and Poltce Departments). . 11. POPULATION - The project would not affect population, locatton,'"dtstrtbutton or denstty patterns tn ~he Ctty, as it would tmpact extsttng developments and thetr type of ownership (Source: Community Oevelopment Department). 12_. HOUSING - The project would affect extsttng developments and th'e method by which they could convert from a stock co-op to a condominium. Conversion to condominiums is anticipated to allo~ for easter purchase and re-sale of affected dwelling untts. No tncrease or decrease In the Ctty's houstng stock ts expected (Source: Community Development Department). 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - The project would not result tn construction of new dwelling untts; however, potential conditions of approval could requtre the Installation of additional on-stte parklng facilities to accommodate parktng demands tn the affected developments. No new generation of additional vehicular movements are anticipated. Mitigation Monitoring - Development plans for new on-site parktng shall be revtewed by the Community .... Development Department, .~ Engineering Department and Ctty Traffic Engtneer for compliance with al'l applicable Ct ty standards. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - As the project affects existing developments and would ~Ult tn no construction of new dwelltng untts there ts no anticipated tncrease tn demand for publlc services (Source: Ftre, Publlc Works, 'Poltce and Community Servt cas Departments). 15. ENERGY - The project will not result in the construction of new dwelling units and would not result in any increases in the use of energy (Source: Public · Works Department). ' Discussion on Environmental Evaluation Subdlvls;ton Ordinance Amendment 88-01 ' Page three ~ 16_. UTILITIES - All affected properties are presently developed and recetve 'full ~tti'lt); ~;ervtce at the present time. The project would not result tn the expansion of said developments and therefore wtll not result in a need for new utility services (Source: Publlc Works Department). 17. HUMAN HEALTH - The Project would not result in any lmpacts to human health given the na'ture of existing land uses (Source: Community Oevelopment Oepartment). 18. AESTHETICS - The project would enable the City to tmpose conditions of approval on effected properties which could result in modifications to extsttng structures or construction of new parking facilities. Mitigation Monitoring - Development plans for a~y required butldtng modifications and/or parking fact ll'tt es shall be re'~tewed-an~"approved by' the Community Oevelopment Oepartment pursuant to the Ctty's design review requirements so as to ensure the htghest quality possible. 19. RECREATION - As the project affects existing properties and would not result tn the construction of new dwelling units and an lncrease In th'e number of residents of satd properties, no increase tn demand for extsttng recreational facilities or for new recreattonal..~actlttles would occur (Source: Community Oevelopment and Community Servtces Oepartments). 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES - As the project wtll affect only properties de~eloped with multiple fatally housing, there would be no impact upon cultural resources wtthtn the City (Source: Community Oevelopment Oepartment). 21. M~ANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The project would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts as discussed above. The project would effect the method by which ownership could change from a stock co-op to a condominium. There is only one existing stock co-op in the City.. In all likelihood the proposed amendment would be implemented only once (Source: Communtty Development Department). SR:pef 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 1020 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 88-01, AMENDING SECTION 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412) OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE, TO PERMIT THE ISSUANCE OF A ~ERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE TO CONVERT A STOCK COOPERATIVE TO A CONDOMINIUM. WHEREAS, on February 20, 1989, the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby ordain as follows. Section 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows. A. A proper application was filed on behalf of the Sycamore Gardens Homeowner's Association requesting approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 to permit the City to issue a Certificate of Compliance to convert a Stock Cooperative to a Condomi nt urn. Be Public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council to consider proposed Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 were duly called, noticed and held on Monday, January 9 and February 6, 1989, respectively. C.. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act; no significant, adverse impacts are associated with this Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. De The subject amendment is in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare, tn that tt will simpltfy the conversion of a Stock Cooperative to a condominium, which Is a change tn the form of ownership only. E. The subject amendment is consistent with the General Plan and it will not negatively impact the orderly growth and development of the City, as there is only one stock cooperative in the City. Section 2. Section 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance shall be amended to read as follows- (a) In addition to the exclusions from application of the Map Act. specified therein, the requirement of this Chapter shall be inapplicable to subdivisions of four (4) parcels or less for construction of removable commercial buildings having a floor area of less than one hundred (100) square feet (66412.5). (Ord. No. 847, 6-1-81). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lt'; 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1020 Page t~o (b) Unless a parcel or final map has been approved by the City Council, the conversion of a stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code, to a condominium, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, may be permitted through the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance (with or without conditions), but only if all of the following requirements are met: (1) At least 51 percent of the units in the cooperative were occupied by stockholders of the cooperative on January 1, 1981, or individually owned by stockholders of the cooperative on January 1, 1981. As used in this paragraph, a cooperative unit is "individually owned" if and only if the stockholder of that unit owns or partially owns an interest in no more than one unit in the cooperative. (2) No more than 25 percent of the shares of the cooperative were owned by any one person, as defined in Section 17, including an incorporator or director · of the cooperative,' on January 1, 1981. (3) A person renting a unit in a cooperative shall be entitled at the time of conversion to all tenant rights in state or local law, including, but not limited to, rights .respecting first refusal, notice, and displacemnt and relocation rights. (4) The Director of Community Development shall certify that the above requirements have been met. Upon such certification, the Director shall issue the Certificate of Compliance (with or without condi ti ons ). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustln City Council, held on' the day of ........ . ~, 1989. U~SUla E. Kennedy, Mayor M~ry WYnn, City Clerk