Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 CUP 90-08 DENIAL 06-04-90A. rA Fc--, N ATE: JUNE 4, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING N0. 1 6/4/90 Inter - Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08 APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE ZONING: R-31 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND On March 13, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 89-05, authorizing the construction of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project on a 20,184 square foot lot in the R-3 zoning district. City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 2 A conditional use permit was required since the subject property abuts R-1 zoned properties on its eastern (rear) property line. Provisions of Section 9226(c) of the Tustin Municipal code state: "...when a lot in the R-3 District abuts at any point along its property lines or is directly across a street or alley from a property zoned R -A, E-4 or R-1 (developed or undeveloped), no main building shall be erected on said R-3 lot to a height to exceed one (1) story, and/or twenty (20) feet, whichever is more restrictive, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of said R -A. E-4 and R-1 zoned property, unless the Planning Agency shall grant a conditional use permit thereof." Building permits for the apartment project were issued in May, 1989. During construction (framing), staff began to receive complaints from several owners of the single family residences located immediately to the east of the subject property concerning privacy and the height of the buildings. In March, 1990, staff reviewed the mailing list used for notification of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 89-05 to determine why these residences were only now voicing their concerns about the project. Review of the mailing list, which was prepared by a title company, revealed that while all affected properties were shown on the 300 foot radius map, the typed mailing labels provided to the City did not include the owners of the R-1 properties adjacent to and east of the subject property. Based on several decisions of the California Supreme Court, the City Attorney determined that Conditional Use Permit 89-05 was invalid due to improper notification. Consequently, the building permits for the project were revoked and construction halted. Conditional Use Permit 90-08 was filed by the applicant, seeking re -approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-05. A new mailing list was provided to the City which was verified for completeness and accuracy. As part of his written appeal Mr.. Rezai submitted a statement saying that he was directed to go to Orange Coast Title for his mailing list by staff because the list he submitted with his CUP application was not acceptable, as it was not on pre -gummed labels. Mr. Rezai was shown a set of typed, pre -gummed labels that had been prepared for another project by Orange Coast Title to clarify what was expected of him; however, he was not directed to go to any specific title company. Pursuant to the City's guidelines for Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 3 "Filing an Application for Public Hearing", Mr. Rezai was responsible -for supplying the list of property owners within a 300 foot radius" of, the -'-subject property on pre -gummed labels (see Exhibit A). Mr. Rezai executed an affidavit stating that the mailing list he submitted (identified as Exhibit 2 on the affidavit) was true and correct (see Exhibit B) . A response to Mr. Rezai's appeal has been prepared by the City Attorney's office and is attached to this report (see Exhibits C and D, respectively). A new public hearing was held with the Planning Commission on April 9, 1990. In response to public testimony, the Planning Commission continued the April 9th hearing to April 30th and directed the applicant to explore design modifications to the buildings that would mitigate the concerns of the owners of the adjacent single family residences. At the April 30th hearing, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposed modifications and took additional testimony from the public. After consideration of testimony and proposed modifications, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2762, denying Conditional Use Permit 90-08. This matter was appealed by the City Council on May 7, 1990. A notice of public hearing for this meeting was published in the Tustin News and posted on the subject property on May 25, 1990. A copy of the notice was mailed to the applicant and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property on May 15, 1990. DISCUSSION The following discussion contains a brief summary of legal issues, a description of the originally approved project as well as modifications proposed by the applicant, issues raised by residents at previous public hearings and alternatives available to the City Council. Summary of Legal Issues Raised by the Appellant The appellant raises several legal issues which are as follows: 1. Revocation of the building permit without notice and hearing was in violation of law. Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 4 2. Under Government Code Section 65093, the failure of a person to receive notice is not grounds for holding any action taken to be invalid. 3. The City was negligent and therefore the Applicant cannot be held responsible for the defective notice. The City Attorney's opinions with respect to each of the issues raised above is as follows: 1. The building permit was revoked in accordance with law. Conditional use permits require notice to all owners of real property within 300 feet and an opportunity to be heard so that such landowners are not deprived of their "substantial or significant property rights." Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d 605 (1979). A conditional use permit that is approved without such notice is fundamentally defective and is invalid from the outset. An -invalid conditional use permit is different from a valid conditional use permit that the Council may revoke only following due notice and hearing to the applicant. Likewise, a building permit that is issued in error, such as this case, upon the basis that a valid conditional use permit existed, may be summarily revoked without notice and hearing in conformity with State law and the United States Constitution. In particular, Uniform Building Code Section 303(e) which has been adopted as part of the City of Tustin's Code, provides as follows: "The Building Official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this Code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this Code." A void or invalid building permit does not establish a vested right to develop property. Sierra Club v. California Coastal Commission (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 149. This point is clearly illustrated, in Millbrae Association v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal. App. 2d 222, 246,..wherein the court held that a party did not have a vested right even though they spent over $600,000 to develop the property in reliance on an erroneously Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 5 approved permit. The case law is uniformly supportive of this position. As Mr. Rezai did not have a vested right to develop under the invalid CUP, there is no violation of substantive or procedural due process. 2. Government Code Section 65093 does not apply in this situation. It only applies when notice has been properly given, but for some reason neighboring property owners have failed to actually receive the notice. In this case notice was not provided to all property owners. 3. Negligence is not relevant to the issue before the Council. The City's decision to summarily revoke the building permit and to renotice the conditional use permit cannot be challenged based on the alleged negligence of the City to verify the list of property owners submitted by Mr. Rezai. The public policy issue at stake is notice to neighboring property owners, which cannot be defeated by allegations of City negligence, even if such allegations are true. Separate and apart from the relevancy of negligence, there is significant reason to believe that Mr. Rezai and not the City was the negligent party. Pursuant to the City's Guidelines For Filing An Application For Public Hearing, Mr. Rezai was responsible for supplying an accurate list of property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property. Mr. Rezai subsequently executed an affidavit stating that the information supplied was true and correct. For a more detailed discussion of each of these issues, see the attached Memorandum from the City Attorney (Exhibit "D") . Project Description The project as originally approved by CUP 89-05, and as partially constructed, consists of two separate, two and one half story buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type apartment units. Six units are located in a building that is parallel to the northern property line of the site and five (5) units are located in a building that is parallel to the southern property line. The units are approximately 1,200 square feet in size and contain three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths. The overall density of Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 6 the project is 23.7 units per acre. Under current provisions of the R-3 District, the maximum number of units that could be authorized on the site is 11 units. Building coverage on the site is approximately 38%, with setbacks proposed of approximately 31 feet along the front of the property, eight feet along the north side lot line, 15'-6" along the south side lot line and 10 to 24' 8" at the rear of the property, adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are provided; 11 two -car garages and three open, covered guest spaces. Parking is provided under each building and is partially below existing grade. Access to all parking is from a 27 foot wide central driveway. - The proposed grading scheme for the project involved excavating approximately five (5) feet below existing grade for the central driveway and tuck under parking which results in the two and a half story design. The grade level in the front and rear yard setbacks remains unchanged except for landscape berming and drainage. The architectural design for the project is a modified cape code design which combines wood lap -siding and stucco with wood trim. The color and material scheme is compatible with that of surrounding developments. Proposed Modifications In proposing design modifications to the project, it was the applicant's objective not to eliminate units. Consequently, the modifications presented to the Planning Commission on April 30th incorporated alterations only to the end units of each building. These alterations consisted of: ° eliminating one corner bedroom from each end unit. revising bathrooms as affected by deletion of bedrooms. I combining hip roofs with the existing gable roof. ° using obscure glass in bathroom windows. placing vision cut-off screens over bedroom windows. Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 7 The elimination of a bedroom from each end unit causes those units to step down in height from two to one stories. Resulting heights range from 18 feet to 29.5 feet. Rear setbacks, which were originally the same for all stories, vary from 10 feet to 22.5 feet for the northerly building and 241- 8" to 37 feet for the southerly building. Maior Issues Raised bvResidents During the April 9th public hearing, numerous nearby residents and property owners spoke in opposition to the project, raising a number of issues, which were reiterated at the April 30th hearing. These are discussed below. Lack of conformance with existing single family homes to the east and apartment projects to the north and south. All of the existing single family homes to the east and apartments to the south of the project site are one story. The apartments to the north have two story structures at the front near Pasadena Avenue and one story structures on the rear 150 feet of the property. The apartments across Pasadena Avenue to the west are all two story structures. However, the existing apartments located at 17212 - 17288 Nisson Road have two story structures that are within 40' of the rear property lines of the single family residences along Corla Avenue. With the proposed modifications, the project remains two stories in height for the length of both buildings, dropping down to one story for a portion of the two end units. This is inconsistent with existing apartments on Pasadena, but is consistent with existing apartments on Nisson Road. Impacts on privacy of adjacent single family residences and inability to use their backyards. The applicant attempted to mitigate impacts on privacy by eliminating corner bedrooms whose windows had the most direct view of the neighboring yards, incorporating obscure glass in bathroom windows and by installing vision cut-off screens on the remaining bedroom windows of units 5, 6, 10 and 11 (the two end units of each Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 8 building). Another modification to the project that would provide additional privacy would be to require the applicant to plant minimum 24" box evergreen trees at approximately 10 foot intervals along the rear property line and also the side property lines within 150 feet of the adjacent R-1 lots. Deciduous trees could be permitted along the north and south, (past units 5, 61 10 and 11). Also, as many specimen size trees as possible should be planted in the southeast corner of the site for additional screening. The number of such mature trees will be dictated by space requirements for canopies and roots. Affect on micro climate in the area and the creation of permanent shade conditions on many properties. The applicant prepared a preliminary Shade and Shadow Study to determine such impacts on adjacent properties. The study is based on the Summer and Winter solstices (6/21 and 12/21), the longest and shortest days of the year (respectively). The shade and shadow analysis is not based on the actual proposed building height. Because of time constraints, the consultant did not factor in the sloped roof, staggered height, and one story building height at the rear yard and the various articulations of the building design. Instead the analysis was done using a 271- 6" height (measured at the side elevation) and assuming a flat roofed, block shaped building. Consequently the resulting shadows do not accurately reflect the shape of the buildings (they are, in fact, worse than actual conditions). All shadows were depicted at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The Winter Solstice results in the worst case conditions. Under these conditions, the shadows from Buildings A & B will extend out over the Pasadena Avenue right-of-way at 9:00 a.m., sweeping over the existing apartments to the north of the subject site and extending over the immediately adjacent single family properties to the east at 3:00 p.m. Under these conditions, the late afternoon shadows will often encompass a majority of the rear yards of these Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 9 residences and in some cases will often extend beyond the houses themselves into portions of the front yard. A reduction in building height to 20 feet (one story), could shorten the shadow cast on the single family residences by + 22 feet. This would still cover the majority of their rear yards but would not extend into front yards. Shadows cast at 9:00 a.m. on June 21st are limited to the subject site, while shadows cast at 3:00 p.m. would extend + four (4) feet onto the rear yards of the single family residences (Building A only, Building B shadow limited to subject site). Because the submitted shade and shadow study does not reflect proposed architecture, heights, and roof configuration or address shadows that would be cast as the sun moves from its position at 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., staff was not able to fully determine all of the affected properties and the extent of the impacts. Staff noted at the April 30th hearing that the study should be revised to address additional hours between 9:00 a.m. and noon and between noon and 3:00 p.m., as well as use the actual building shapes to provide the most accurate information possible. A revised study has not been submitted to date. ° Inadequate guest parking for project and potential traffic hazards to vehicles and pedestrians resulting from the semi -subterranean garages. The approved project meets all of the parking standards of the R-3 zoning district, which include two (2) covered spaces per each unit and one (1) unassigned open guest space for every four (4) units. At 11 units, the project requires 22 covered and assigned spaces, and 2.75 open and unassigned guest spaces. As presently configured, the project provides 11 two -car garages (with automatic door openers) and three (3) covered guest spaces (no garage doors). The City does not have the ability to require more guest parking than is required by the zoning code. Potential hazards to vehicles and pedestrians could be mitigated by incorporating a speed bump in the driveway Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 10 ramp and requiring a stop sign at the driveway. Redesianinq buildings to one story_. As noted earlier, the applicant's objective in modifying the buildings was not to reduce the number of units. The applicant has represented that reducing the buildings to one story would entail significant redesign including the possibility of demolishing the entire project and starting over. Based on their testimony at the April 30th hearing as well as comments in letters of protest submitted to the City Council in April, demolition of the project and reconstruction of one story buildings is the most acceptable solution to the single family property owners. Although there are significant cost issues associated with a reduction in the number of units and/or demolition of the project, this alternative should not be automatically excluded from consideration, as all factors and alternatives must be weighed. Impact on property values. This is very difficult to assess. Numbers quoted by affected property owners note a reduction of $20,000 to $50,000 in property values. To accurately assess this impact, an impartial appraisal may be necessary. Light and glare from project lighting into rear yards of adjacent single family properties. Light and glare is always a potential impact when new development occurs, regardless of building height. To mitigate potential impacts, the City imposes a condition on all new projects (residential, commercial or industrial) requiring that the design of all exterior lighting fixtures incorporate cut-offs and shielding so light rays do not extend beyond the property lines of the subject property. Beyond this, all developers are also required to comply with the City's Security Ordinance requirements for lighting in parking and pedestrian pathway areas. Security lighting must also meet glare cut-off standards. Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 11 Approval would be precedent setting. Conditionally permitted uses are recognized as being appropriate in some locations within a particular zoning district but not necessarily in others. The CUP process enables the City to review each such use based on its own merits and the issues that are unique to that situation; approval of a use at one location is not a guarantee of approval in another location. The CUP process also allows the City to impose specific conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. ALTERNATIVES There are essentially three (3) alternatives that are available to the Council: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny Conditional Use Permit 90-08. This would require the applicant to completely redesign the project and would likely necessitate the City requesting that the existing structure be demolished. Any new proposals would be required to go through the design review process, and if appropriate, the CUP process as well. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-08 based upon the modifications that have been proposed by the applicant. 3. Direct the applicant to further revise the project and send the matter back to the Planning Commission. With this alternative, the Council must provide clear and specific direction to the applicant and Commission as to what they want to accomplish. Further revisions will need to be the responsibility of the applicant and his architect as design by committee is simply not a viable solution. This course of action will require a level of compromise by all parties involved. No resolutions of approval or denial have been provided with this staff report. Should the Council follow alternative number 1 or 2, staff will bring back an appropriate resolution at the June 18th City Council meeting. Community Development Department City Council Report Appeal of P.C. Denial of CUP 90-08 June 4, 1990 Page 12 CONCLUSION The City Council should review the issues concerning this matter and provide direction to staff, the applicant and the Planning Commission as appropriate. Steve Rubin Christine A. Shinglet Associate Planner Director of Communit evelopment SR:CAS:kbc - Attachments: Exhibits A, B, C, D and E Elevations and Site Plans of Proposed Modifications Community Development Department EXHIBIT A FILING AN APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. TUSTIN CITY HALL 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 544-8890, ext. 250 IUCTIONS FOR FILING APPLICATI -ORM Filing Procedures: This application plus five (5) copies must be filled out completely and submittd, together with the required exhibits and filing fee (in accordance with the attached fee schedule) to the'Community Development Department by the published deadline. The Planning Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th Monday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Upon completion of the filing process, an advertised public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. Each applicant will be notified of the date of this hearing one (1) week prior to its being held. The Commission will announce its findings by formal resolution and a copy of that resolution with a letter of notification will be mailed to the applicant and/or owner at the address given. Use Permit A Use Permit requires a minimum of one (1) advertised public hearing before the City Planning Commission. The action of the Planning Commission is final unless it is appealed to/by the City Council. If the application is granted by the Commission, certain conditions may be included which must be met prior to the issuance of building or occupancy permits. To expedite your project, it is advisable to consult the Building, Engineering and Planning Departments regarding the necessary steps to comply with these conditions. Variance Permit A Variance Permit requires a minimum of one. (1) advertised public hearing before the City Planning Commission. Action by the Commission is final unless appealed by/to the City Council. Approval of a Variance Application may include conditions that must be met prior to issuance of building or occupancy permits. When applying for a Variance, a justification for hardship (according to requirements of State Law) must be included on a separate sheet attached to the application. Zone Change. A Zone Change requires a minimum of one (1) advertised public hearing before the City Planning Commission and a minimum of one (1) public hearing before the City Council, regardless of what action is taken. Hearings held by the City Council follow the same procedure as the Planning Commission, with the exception that an additional filing fee is not required. Minimum requirements of parking, setback lines, open space, etc., are set forth in the Municipal Zoning Ordinance, a copy of which is available from the Community Development Department, City Hall. Time Limit of Use Permits & Variances Any Use Permit or Variance granted under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall be null and void if not used within one 1 year from the date of the approval thereof or within any longer period of time so designated by the Planning Commission or City Council. (Applications for extension -of the one year time limit shall be filed prior to the expiration date.) (1) REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION Forms 1. Application Form. The application form plus five (5) copies must be completed and signed by the applicant and/or his agent at the time of filing. 2. Letter of Authorization. If the applicant is not the legal owner of the property involved, he must be authorized, in writing, as -the agent of the property owner. A form for this purpose is attached and it must be notarized and submitted as a part of this application. 3. Deed Restriction. If the property is part of a recorded subdivision one 1 copy of all deed restrictions, covenants, and other legal document affecting the subject property is required. Exhibits Clarity of each of the following documents is most important: Blue or black line prints should be of high degree of quality and contrast since they are required to be photographically reduced in to 8-1/2"_x 11" as a part of the application. 1. Exhibit #1 - AREA MAP Size: 17" x 22" Quantity: Two (2) Scale: Not less than 1" = 200' Content: a. All of the area within a 300' radius from the exterior boundaries of the subject property. b. A line, indicating the 300' radius. c. Streets and street names. d. North arrow. e. A title block in the lower right hand corner, containing the following: (1) scale of map (2) name and address of the applicant (3) address of the project (if established) (4) date of preparation f. Net dimensions of the subject property. g. Designation of the subject property by either shading or darkening the exterior boundaries. 2. Exhibit #2 - PROPERTY OWNERS LIST Size: 8-1/2" x 11" Quantity: Two (2) typed sets on pre -gummed labels Content: This list shall contain the owner's name and mailing address of each lot within the 300' radius of the subject property and the property under consideration. A number must be placed before each name that will correspond to the same number placed on that person's property on the radius map. This list must be typewritten or legibly printed on pre-gummed-TaFel s. 3. Exhibit #3 - PLOT PLAN Size: 24" x 36" Quantity: Twelve (12) Scale" Any size large enough to show clearly the details of the development. Content: a. North arrow. b. Title block. (1) name of development. _ (2) scale of map. (3) name and address of applicant. (4) address of project (if established). (5) date of preparation. (6) name of person or firm preparing plans. c. All boundary lines on the subject property fully dimensioned and tied in with the centerline of nearby public streets. d. The name, location and width of any adjacent public or private streets. Widths should include any required street widening. e. The name, location and width of any water courses, structures, irrigation ditches and any other permanent physical features of the land. f. The width and location of all existing or proposed public or private easements. g. All proposed improvements and their distance from the boundaries of the property and from one another noted by proper dimensions. h. All parking spaces and aisles drawn and dimensioned with the flow of traffic noted by arrows, and calculation of required number of parking spaces. i. The location and width of all vehicular and pedestrian access openings into and out of the property. j. All proposed walls and fences, including height and material, and all proposed exterior lighting structures. k. All proposed landscape areas. 1. The zoning and existing land use of the subject property and properties contiguous to its boundaries. _ m. Location of nearest wall of structures on adjacent properties. n. Signs, if applicable. 4. EXHIBIT #4 - FILM POSITIVE (REDUCTION OF PLOT PLAN) Size: 8-1/2" x 11" Quantity One (1) Content: This is a reduced positive photograph on clear film of the Plot Plan (Exhibit #3) and will show all items contained on that Plot Plan. The purpose of this reduction is so that copies may be reproduced and distributed to the Planning Commission and City Council members. 5. EXHIBIT #5 - ELEVATIONS Size: 24" x 36" Quantity: Twelve (12) Scal e: Any scale large enough to show clearly the details of the development. NOTE: Not required as part of ZONE CHANGE OR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS Content: a. All elevations of EACH building type proposed on the site. b. Title block (1) scale of elevations (2) name and address of applicant (3) date of preparation c. Dimensions of all buildings and structures. d. Signs, if applicable. 6. EXHIBIT #6 - FILM POSITIVE (REDUCTION OF ELEVATIONS) - Size: 8-1/2" x 11" Quantity: One (1) NOTE: Not required as a part of ZONE CHANGE OR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS APPLICATIONS Content: This is a reduced positive photograph, on clear film, of the elevations (Exhibit #5) and will show all items contained in these elevations. The purpose of this reduction is so that copies may be reproduced and distributed to the members of the Planning Commission and City Council. 7. EXHIBIT #7 - COLORED PLOT PLAN AND ELEVATIONS Size: 24" x 36" Quantity: One (1) EACH of Plot and Elevations Plans APPLICATION FOR Use Permit Variance Zone Change General Plan Amendment Number Filing Date A petition is hereby made to the Tustin Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of the Tustin Zoning Ordinance No. 157 (as amended) for consideration of the property and intent herein described. A preliminary review by City Staff is required prior to the acceptance of this - application. Project Applicant Name Mailing Address Phone Number Request to Permit Owner/Lessee Mailing Address Phone Number if additional space is required, use back of page Location of Property Legal Description of Property Present Use and Zoning.of Project Deed Restrictions, Easements (Attach if applicable) Environmental Status By: By: Signature of Applicant Signature of Owner Lessee Received by: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT Date 19, I, the undersigned, ' in connection with and as part of my Application No. state as follows in order to effect compliance with California Assembly Bill 1040, Government Code Sections 18438 et. seq. Within the past twelve (12) months I have made the following campaign contributions to a member or members of the: Planning Commission: License & Permit Board: City Council: Date of Contribution: Contribution Paid To: Contribution For: Amount.of Contribution: (If none, write "none".) I declare under penalty_ of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of 19 , at California. Print Name ignature OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS. CITY OF TUSTIN ) We, I, Please print name in full being duly sworn, depose and say that the undersigned currently own the subject property described in this application and that the foregoing information, Exhibits 1, 2, and 4, and the Deed Restrictions and Covenants are in all respects true and correct to the best of (our) (my) knowledge, information and belief. Phone Number Signed: Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Notary Public 1983. A9 ( materla� to, this of TI DC folded 10. an 672-" x i4 submitt*d cc DUST format. T C m �;;•.� C A v OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF GR*"E _ ) SS. CITY OF EXHIBIT B (Please print name inf-577 being duly sworn, depose and say that the undersigned currently .own the subject property described in this -application and that the foregoing information, Exhibits 1, Z, and 4, and the Deed Restrictions and Covenants are in all respects true and correct to the best of (our) (my) knowledge, information and belief. Phone NumberQJ0 Z.Z o Lpq 3 Signed: STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. COUNTY OF Grange —) On _ _ December 19, L988 ,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Feridoun Rezai MApppfnitftW nits ?amm� personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satis- OF =CAL SEAL factory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are sub- • ~ ;� ': MARY LOU BURROWS -a NOTARY PUBLIC•CALIFORNIA� scribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that 4 PRINCIPAL OFFICE IN ORANGE COUNTY he/she/they executed the same. My Commmn Expose April 7, 1989 WITNESS my hand and official seal. `° Signature/G� pial notarial seal) M GAL 17 SEM] BLANK IUC - CALIFORNIA IDE COUNTY fires Nair. 9. 1990 SHAMBHU K. AAI ATTORNEY AT LAW City Council City of Tustin - RECEIVED _ EXHIBIT C MAY- 7 1990 1227 W. 17Tm STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92706 COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT TELEPHONE (714) 550-0404 FAX (714) 547-1175 May 7, 1990 Through: Ms. Christine Shingleton Director of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Re: Appeal from Planning Commission's Decisions to Revoke Use Permit 89-05 and To Deny Use Permit 90-08 Location: 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, California 92680 The Owner -Applicant, Feridoun Rezai submits a Memorandum of Appeal to the City Council from the following two decisions of the Planning Commission. (1) Revocation of Use Permit per Notice & Order dated March 9, 1990, summarily revoking the Use Permit 89-05 without any prior Show Cause Notice and opportunity to be heard being afforded to the Owner -Applicant, based upon grounds and reasons set forth in Part 1 of the Memorandum and incorporated herein by this reference. (2) Denial of Use Permit 90-08 at April 9, 1990 and April 30, 1990 hearings reportedly held to reconsider Use Permit 89-05 even though the Owner -Applicant accepted all recommendations and directions of the Community Development Department Staff and agreed to make all proposed modifications to meet and mitigate the neighbors' concerns now being voiced and still remains open to any reasonable proposal to enable him to com- plete the remaining Project. (See Part II of the Memorandum). - These two appeals are based upon the Memorandum of Appeal, Declaration of Feridoun Rezai, and the documents filed herewith marked as Exhibits 1 through 22 as listed in the List of Docu- ments, and such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing hereof. SHAMBHU K. RAI ATTORNEY AT LAW The prescribed fee of $500.00 for the appeal is paid in form of a check herewith payable to the City Clerk. Shambhu K. Rai Attorney for Owner -Applicant FERIDOUN REZAI 606 606.03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TUSTIN - RECEIVED _ MAY - 7 1990 COMMUNITY DEAEOP'MENT APPEALS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONS DECISION TO REVOKE USE PERMIT 89-05 AND TO DENY USE PERMIT 90-08 APPELLANT (Applicant and Owner): Feridoun Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, California 92804 Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 89-05 Conditional Use Permit No. 90-08 Location: 15642 Pasadena Avenue Zoning: R-3 Multiple Family Residential SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FACTS At their regular meeting on March 13, 1989, the Plan- ning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2575, a copy whereof is appended hereto as Exhibit 15, approving Conditional Use Permit 89-05, authorizing the construction of a two and one 1 1 half story, 11 unit apartment project (the "Project") on a 2 parcel of land of 20,184 square foot situated in the R-3 3 multiple family residential zoning district. 4 Accordingly, the City of Tustin (the "City") issued 5 Building permits for the Project in May, 1989. Shortly af- 6 terwards, the Applicant, Mr. Rezai, as owner -contractor 7 began the construction. At each stage of construction, the 8 respective officials of the Building Department of the City 9 duly inspected and approved the Project right from grading, 10 foundation and footings. After completion of the framing, 11 electrical work and air-conditioning jobs were also com- 12 pleted, and soon thereafter in early March 1990, the respec- 13 tive items of work were duly inspected and approved by the 14 City. By early March, 1990, the siding in the Project was 15 almost complete. By then plumbing work was also finished 16 but its inspection by the City was not completed. See the 17 Declaration of Feridoun Rezai, filed herewith, generally and 18 specifically Paragraphs 11 through 24, inclusive. 19 By March 8, 1990, 85% to 90% of the Project was com- 20 plete. 21 On or about March 9, 1990, Mr. Rezai received a Notice 22 and Order, a copy whereof is appended hereto as Exhibit 4, 23 to cease all construction activity, that the building permit 24 for the construction on the Property were revoked, and that 25 the Property should be closed off and secured with a 6 foot 26 chainlink fence until new permits are secured. 27 28 2 1 The City revoked the duly issued permits and summarily 2 stopped work reportedly on the grounds that not all neigh - 3 boring property owners received by mail the notice of the 4 meeting on March 13, 1989, "as a result of an incomplete 5 mailing list," see said Exhibit 4. 6 Subsequently, another public meeting was held on April 7 91 1990, whereupon it was alleged that all property owners 8 within 300 feet of the subject Property were not given 9 notice of the March 13, 1989 public hearing. It was ob- 10 served that the City staff typically verifies the complete - 11 ness and accuracy of the mailing list for public hearing 12 notice; "however, this has not been a standard practice for 13 lists prepared by a title company,...". See Report to Plan - 14 ning Commission, dated April 9, 1990, a copy whereof is 15 filed herewith as Exhibit 1-A. 16 It must be noted here that the Owner -Applicant, Mr. 17 Rezai had first prepared a list from computer print out from 18 American Title Co., but later upon being advised by City to 19 bring a mailing list directly from Orange Coast Title Com - 20 pany, complied meticulously with the directions and duly 21 brought over.the mailing list provided by the Orange Coast 22 Title Company, which was duly accepted by Mr. Steve Rubin, 23 see Declaration of Mr. Feridoun Rezai filed herewith. 24 On April 9, 1990, the Planning Commission treated the 25 90% Project as a matter of fresh Use Permit 90-08, noted and 26 considered again a Negative Declaration prepared under 27 California Environmental Quality Act. 28 3 1 As directed and/or advised by the staff of the City 2 Planning Commission, the Appellant -owner had made several 3 changes in design and dimensions so as to satisfy and accom- 4 modate the wishes of certain neighbors of the Myrtle Avenue 5 as much as possible. 6 The Planning Commission, however, decided that "they 7 also need time to determine direction" and "that they want 8 the Applicant and the staff to work together" to determine 9 "the mitigation measures that would be financially feasible" 10 and "satisfy the concerns of the residents." See Minutes of 11 Planning Commission Meeting of April 9, 1990, (Exhibit 2, 12 hereto), Pages 7 through 16. 13 Another hearing for April 30, 1990 was scheduled, when 14 the Planning Commission took into consideration a revised 15 list of several changes with respect to the heights of both 16 the Buildings of the Project, roof style, setbacks, floor, 17 and windows in both the Buildings that were proposed to ac - 18 commodate the concerns of the Myrtle Avenue neighbors as 19 best as possible. See Attachment I, appended to Staff 20 Report to Planning Commission, dated April 30, 1990. 21 Nevertheless, the Planning Commission abruptly and in - 22 explicably altered its position vis-a-vis the City's own 23 responsibility for the incomplete mailing of the March 13, 24 1990 public hearing notices and ignoring the fact of 90% 25 complete Project, decided to affirm revocation of Permit 26 27 28 4 1 89-05 and further to deny a fresh Permit 90-08 so as to vir- 2 tually condemn the Project and cause its eventual. demoli- 3 tion. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E 11 1 I. 2 GROUNDS AND REASONS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE 3 ORDER TO CEASE CONSTRUCTION PER NOTICE & 4 ORDER DATED MARCH 91 1990 (EXHIBIT 4 HERETO) 5 6 7 1) The revocation of the building permit for the Project 8 is in violation of express rules and regulations, provisions 9 of Tustin City Code, and the law. 10 11 2) The City has summarily decided that an irregularity 12 has taken place in noticing of the public meeting, that Mr. 13 Rezai and not the City is liable for any such irregularity, 14 and that such lack of notice warrants revocation of the duly 15 issued building permits and stoppage of all work even though 16 the construction is almost complete. 17 18 3) The City's action is clearly taken without substantive 19 and procedural due process of law. 20 21 4) By such action, City has summarily taken a unilateral 22 decision to rescind and/or annul the building permit duly 23 granted to Mr. Rezai. Even if each and every owner of the 24 neighboring property has not received by mailing the notice 25 of the public hearing, that would not, per se, invalidate 26 the duly issued permit nor warrant divesting of duly vested 27 rights of Mr. Rezai. 28 0 1 The public hearing scheduled for March 13, 1989 was 2 duly notified by publication in Tustin News of March 2, 1989 3 as required by the rules. 4 The requirements of notice of public hearing are to be 5 fulfilled by the City as the local agency in question and 6 for that purpose it may use latest equalized assessment roll 7 of records of the county assessor or tax collector. In any 8 case, if some other source of information is needed as in 9 this case, Mr. Rezai cannot be penalized for any inaccuracy 10 therein. 11 12 5) Under the Government Code (Title 7), Section 65093, the 13 failure of any person or entity to receive notice of a 14 public hearing shall not constitute grounds for any court to 15 invalidate any action taken thereby. 16 17 6) Section 9293(d) of the Tustin City Code, filed herewith 18 as Exhibit 5, provides: 19 Before the Council considers revoca- 20 tion of any permit, the Planning Commission shall hold a hearing 21 hereon after giving written notice thereof to the permitee at least ten 22 (10) days in advance of such hear- ing. Within five (5) days there - 23 after, the Commission shall transmit a report of its findings and its 24 recommendations of the revocation to the City Council. (Ord. No. 157, 25 Sec. 7.6). 0. 27 28 7 1 No notice whatsoever was given to the permitee, Mr. 2 Rezai, no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity to 3 be heard was accorded before the Community Development 4 Department, and ordered him to cease and stop all construc- 5 tion. See, Order dated March 9, 1990 (Exhibit 4). 6 7 7) The March 9, 1990 Order (Exhibit 4) is ultra vires and 8 illegal in as much as it was not issued by the City Council 9 as required by Section 9293(c) of the Tustin City Code. (See 10 Exhibit 5) . 11 12 8) The City and its staff entrusted with the respective 13 duties were negligent 14 (a) in relying upon the Orange Title Company for the 15 accuracy and completeness of the list of the property owners 16 within 300 feet of the subject property; 17 (b) in failing to verify the list provided by the 18 Orange Coast Title Company; and further 19 (c) in misleading the Applicant -Owner as to the ac - 20 curacy of the list; and furthermore 21 (d) in failing to advise, caution, or warn the 22 Applicant -Owner as to the need of verifying the mailing list 23 provided by the Orange Coast Title Co. 24 The City was negligent in adopting and enforcing a 25 practice of not verifying the list prepared by a title com- 26 pany. 27 28 8 1 A fortiori, the City is responsible for its negligence 2 because the Applicant -Owner was directed not to prepare it 3 himself, but just to bring the list from the Orange Coast 4 Title Company. See the Declaration of Mr. Feridoun Rezai 5 attached at the end of this brief. 6 7 9) The 9th March, 1990, Order to Cease all construction 8 (Exhibit 4) is invalid on its face as violating the due 9 process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment and 10 statutory requirements, in not providing for a hearing as a 11 prerequisite. See, People's Lobby, Inc. v. Board of Super - 12 visors (1973) 30 CAM 869, 106 Cal Rptr 666. 13 Thus, it has been held by the Court that automatic re - 14 version to a prior zoning classification because of a 15 landowner's failure to meet the conditions attached to a 16 rezoning is invalid because it violates the state laws re - 17 quiring notice, hearings, and planning commission inquiry to 18 effect a rezoning. Scrutton v County of Sacramento(1969) 275 19 CA2d 4.12. 79 CR 872, also see Hayssen v Sonoma County Bd. of 20 Zoning Adjustments (1985) 171 CAM 400, 217 CR 464. 21 When conduct by a public agency engaged in zoning and 22 land use planning results in a denial of due process and 23 fair hearing, a cause of action is stated under 42 USC Sec. 24 1983. Blodgett v County of Santa Cruz (9th Cir 1982) 698 F2d 25 368. See Supp Sec. 3.18A 26 Fx7 28 9 1 10) The revocation on March 9, 1990 of the duly issued Use 2 Permit 89-04 on the ground of omissions from notice mailing 3 list of certain property owners is invalid and illegal be - 4 cause lack of notice as its basis was negated by subsequent 5 actual notice of the two and half story construction being 6 built and conspicuously erected as far back as November 20, 7 1989, if not earlier. See Declaration of Feridoun Rezai and 8 documents referred therein. 9 The neighboring property owners who now complain and 10 are barred from attacking it because of acquiescence, estop - 11 pel, and waiver and laches. OW 13 11) By Notice & Order (Exhibit 4) dated March 9, 1990, the 14 Community Development Department has summarily ordered in 15 effect to condemn the 90% complete building of the Project 16 without any proper determination as to how the non -receipt 17 of notice by certain neighbors have prejudiced them or that 18 a different result would have occurred if all had been duly 19 noticed. See, California Government Code, Section 65010 and 20 Section 65093. 21 22 12) The Owner -Applicant was advised by Order of March 9, 23 1990 (Exhibit 4) that a new public hearing would be held 24 before the Planning Commission "to reconsider Conditional 25 Use Permit 89-05..." See Notice & Order dated March 9, 1990 -- 26 (Exhibit 4). In as much as the April 30, 1990 public meet - 27 ing, the Planning Commission denied the Use Permit 90-08, 28 10 1 said denial.and the March 9, 1990 Order (Exhibit 4) are 2 hereby together timely appealed against before the City 3 Council and it is submitted such appeal is proper and should 4 be allowed. 9 6 7 CONCLUSION OF PART I 8 The Use Permit 89-05, as stated above, has not been 9 legally and validly revoked by Notice & Order dated March 9, 10 1990 (Exhibit 4) and as such still remains in force. The 11 City Council should quash and set aside said Exhibit 4 and 12 permit the Owner -Applicant to resume and complete the con - 13 struction. 14 The Owner -Applicant was, is, and has always been will - 15 ing to meet and discuss with City officials and neighbors so 16 as to add, effect, or devise any mitigating features to ad - 17 dress any reasonable concern they may have. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 1 II. 2 GROUNDS AND REASONS IN SUPPORT OF GRANT 3 OF APPLICATION FOR USE PERMIT 90-08 4 5 6 13) The Appellant (Owner -Applicant for application for Use 7 Permit 90-08) Mr. Rezai, opposes the revocation of the duly 8 granted first Use Permit 89-05 for the Project on the 9 grounds and reasons set forth in Part I, Paragraphs 1 10 through 12, inclusive, above. 11 Without waiving the grounds of the attack against 12 revocation, Use Permit 89-05 (set forth in Part I), the 13 Owner -Applicant alternatively submits the main points why 14 Use Permit 90-08 should be granted in the following 15 Paragraph 14 through 23, inclusive. 16 17 14) This Project consists of two buildings with a maximum 18 height of 29.5 feet as 11 unit apartment project in R-3 dis- 19 trict. Conditional Use Permit is required as the subject is 20 150 feet of a single family (R-1) residence. 21 As a result of joint meeting with the City on April 12, 22 1990 (See Declaration of Mr. Feridoun Rezai), one bedroom 23 has been eliminated from the end unit of each building. The 24 bathroom configurations have been changed. Obscure glass 25 and not clear glass would now be used in bathroom windows. 26 27 28 12 1 Vision cut-off screen would be installed on second floor 2 bedroom windows. Several changes have been made to mitigate 3 the concerns of the neighbors. 4 All these changes are described in detail in the Staff 5 Report dated April 30, 1990 (Exhibit 1), which is incor- 6 porated.by reference. 7 8 15) The Project is situated in R-3 district and the apart - 9 ments across Pasadena Avenue to the west are all two story 10 structures, see Exhibit 6. The Project would serve the 11 residential apartment needs of the Community. Good zoning 12 practice would be best served by the approval of this 13 Project. 14 15 16) Evidently, the City Council of Tustin will not fail to 16 take notice of the fact that despite this normal application 17 procedure, this is not a fresh application for a building 18 permit for this Project. As Notice & Order dated March 9, 19 1990, stated the new public hearing was to be held "to con - 20 sider Conditional Use Permit 89-05..." See Exhibit 4. As 21 explained above, the Project is 90% complete. And, for no 22 fault of Owner -Applicant, the Project stands today chain - 23 linked under the order to cease all work. 24 Extreme hardship, financial ruin, and great injuries 25 would certainly result if the Owner -Applicant is prevented 26 from completing this Project. In similiar circumstances, 27 where the owner has spent enormous amounts of money and 28 13 1 would be left with no alternative but to tear the building 2 down, courts have held that special circumstances warrant 3 grant of Conditional Use Permit. [1) 4 5 17) The Project would not be detrimental to the surrounding 6 property. 7 A Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the 8 California Environmental Quality Act has been twice con - 9 sidered by the Planning Commission, first for the Use Permit 10 89-05 and next for the Use Permit No. 90-08 and the same has 11 been found acceptable as satisfactory. 12 See Staff Reports of April 9, 1990 (Exhibit 1-A), April 13 30, 1990 (Exhibit 1) and that a March 13, 1989 (Exhibits 14 12,13,14,15 and 16). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [1] Allen v. Humboldt County Bd. of Supervisors (1966) 241 Cal.App. 2d 158, 162-163, 50 Cal.Rptr. 444. Zakessian v. Sausalito (1972) 28 Cal.App. 3d 794, 105 Ca1.Rptr. 105. 14 1 2 18) The Project accommodates as best as possible the con - 3 cerns of the neighbors. The modifications listed in Attach - 4 ment I appended to Staff Report dated April 30, 1990 5 (Exhibit 1, hereto) including eliminating corner bedrooms, 6 windows and use. of obscure glass would adequately mitigate 7 the impact of neighbors' privacy concerns. Moreover, addi- 8 tional privacy would be provided by landscaping including 9 planting of 24" box Melaleuca and/or Brisbane Box trees at 10 10' intervals and would create another screen at the second 11 floor level. See Exhibit 1, page 4. 12 13 19) With the proposed modifications outlined in Attachment 14 I appended to the Staff Report dated April 301 1990 (Exhibit 15 1), the height of both buildings will drop down to one story 16 for a portion of the two end units. The elimination of the 17 windows on the back and proposed plan of the landscaping in - 18 cluding provision for trees adequately meets any concern 19 that neighbors on Myrtle Avenue may reasonably have regard - 20 ing privacy. 21 22 20) The Project meets all of the Parking standards of R-3 23 zoning district. With 11 two -car garages (with automatic 24 door openers) and 3 covered guest spaces, this 11 apartment 25 Project adequately meets all the requirements of the Zoning 26 27 28 15 1 Code. A speed bump on the driveway ramp and a stop sign at 2 the driveway would provide .reasonable safeguards against 3 potential hazards to vehicles and pedestrians. 4 5 21) As regards the alleged reduction in property value 6 quoted by affected property owners, the so-called reduction 7 is at best speculative in nature and cannot be indicated by 8 any sporadic low -ball offers buyers may make in any buyer's 9 market subject continually to cyclical variations. 10 11 22) On March 13, 1989, this Project was duly approved by 12 the Planning Commission and Conditional Use Permit 89-05 was 13 duly granted after consideration of a properly prepared 14 Negative Declaration under the California Environmental 15 Quality Act. The only issue now being raised against this 16 Use Permit is that the notices of the public meeting held on 17 March 13, 1989 were not sent to certain neighbors. 18 Subsequently, however, a new public hearing was duly 19 notified to all neighboring property owners and properly 20 held on April 9, 1990 and again on April 30, 1990. 21 However, in consideration for Use Permit 90-08, the 22 Owner -Applicant and this Project should not ordinarily be 23 subjected to any more burdensome or restrictive conditions 24 than those applied to Use Permit 89-05. 25 The proposed changes set forth in Attachment I appended 26 to Staff Report of April 30, 1990 (Exhibit 'l) adequately 27 respond and mitigate all reasonable concerns that these 28 16 1 neighbors on Myrtle Avenue have now expressed. The Project 2 should, therefore, be approved and the Owner -Applicant 3 should be permitted to finish the remaining 10% of the 4 Project that is now left incomplete. 5 6 7 CONCLUSION OF PART II 8 23) The City Council is considering the Use Permit 90-08 9 for the Project which was duly approved a year ago under Use 10 Permit 89-05 and since undertaken and about 90% completed. 11 Certain neighboring property owners who were not noticed 12 earlier have now had chance to express their concerns 13 thereto. In consultation with the staff of the City Plan - 14 ning Commission and other experts, the Owner Applicant has 15 proposed several changes that adequately meet and mitigate 16 all reasonable concerns including privacy. Approval of the 17 Project was and still remains a good zoning practice. 18 The City Council is, therefore, requested to approve 19 and grant the Use Permit 90-08 and allow the Owner -Applicant 20 to proceed to finish the Project with the proposed changes. 21 zz23 / FERIDOUN REZAI 24 25 By His Attorney: 26 % r B� 27 f I -� 28 SHAMBHU K. RAI 17 - RECEIVED _ 1 DECLARATION OF FERIDOUN REZAI MAY - 7 1990 2 COMMUNITY DEVIEOPMENT 3 4 I, Feridoun Rezai, solemnly affirm and declare: 5 1) I am the Applicant and Owner of the real property lo - 6 cated at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, California. I have 7 personal knowledge of the following facts, and if called 8 upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to 9 them as follows. 10 11 2) On or about January, 1989, after the construction plans 12 and drawings were reviewed by the City, I was advised that 13 variance would be required and a public hearing would be 14 held for grant of permit. 15 16 3) For notices for public hearing, I was instructed by the 17 Planning Commission of the City of Tustin to bring the names 18 of all the property owners within 300 feet of my property 19 located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin (the "Project"). 20 21 4) Accordingly, I went to American Title Co. located in 22 Santa Ana, California, and requested them for the list of 23 said property owners. I had known the American Title Co. as 24 I had conducted business concerning other real properties 25 with them in the past. 26 27 28 1 1 At the American Title Company, I was given a computer 2 print-out of the list of the aforesaid property owners. 3 Then, I compiled the lists and prepared a final list of the 4 property owners and took it to the City. 5 6 5) Mr. Steve Rubin, the Senior Planner of the City told me 7 that the list was not good, as it was not on adhesive labels 8 but typed on plain paper. Mr. Rubin then asked me to get 9 the mailing labels directly from a title company. When I 10 asked which title company he meant, Mr. Rubin advised me to 11 go to Orange Coast Title Co. in Santa Ana. 12 13 6) I then went to the Orange Coast Title Company in Santa 14 Ana and explained to them for the notice of public meeting 15 for my construction project at Tustin, I needed the mailing 16 list on adhesive labels of all the property owners of the 17 properties within 300 feet of my property at 15642 Pasadena 18 Avenue, Tustin, California. I received the mailing list 19 labels from Orange Coast Title Co., Santa Ana, on February 20 24, 1989 and carried it directly to Mr. Rubin who took it 21 and advised me that soon a public hearing would be held. 22 23 7) As the mailing list labels were duly accepted by Mr. 24 Rubin, I believed that they were correct and fulfilled the 25 requirements of the City. 26 27 28 K 1 8) On or about, March 9, 1990, Mr. Rubin told me that the 2 earlier mailing list was not complete and instructed me to 3 bring another list from Orange Coast Title Co., I then ob- 4 tained the second list of mailing labels and gave it to Mr. 5 Rubin. 6 7 9) At no time was I ever instructed or advised by any per - 8 son to verify or recheck the list provided by Orange Coast 9 Title Co. I believed and assumed as a matter of course 10 that the City would verify the accuracy or completeness 11 thereof. 12 13 10) I face today this situation of revocation of the duly 14 granted construction permit after all items of the construc- 15 tion were duly inspected by the City at each stage and 16 properly approved and signed off. On March 9, 1990, 85% to 17 90% of my construction Project had been completed and duly 18 inspected and approved by the City. I am now put to certain 19 damage, great .injuries and devastating financial ruin on ac - 20 count of the unlawful and surreptitious manner in which the 21 City and other neighboring property owners waited until 22 March 9, 1990 to question my use permits and prevent its due 23 completion. 24 25 11) As the following facts would show, the neighboring 26 property owners and the City officials caused irreparable 27 damage to me as they waited and approved all stages of con - 28 3 1 struction until they suddenly ordered me to stop work on 2 March 9, 1990. All these facts are matters of public record 3 and my records as well as those of the respective depart - 4 ments of the City including, but not limited to, Community 5 Development Department, Building Division, will attest to 6 the sequence 'of the facts set forth in the following 7 Paragraphs 12, through 24, inclusive. 8 9 12) Upon issuance of the proper permits for construction of 10 the Project, grading including sub -grade work for the 11 garages had been completed by end of September, 1989 and 12 thereafter the digging and footings work and the foundation 13 started. 14 15 13) By November 20, 1989, all the footings and the nine (9) 16 foot high block walls for the garages had been built on the 17 building line. On November 21, 1989, the City inspector 18 duly inspected and approved the work including, but not 19 limited to, the grade beam and steal construction items. 20 21 14) On November 29, 1989, the City Inspector duly inspected 22 the finished work and approved them, "okayed" the pad for 23 the buildings, and gave permission to pour the slabs. 24 25 15 ) On or about December 4, 1989, framing for both the 26 buildings of the Project started. By January 19, 1990, the 27 framing work was completed. 28 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16) On or about January 24, 1990, Mr. Steve Rubin from the City spoke to me on telephone and stated that he had received complaints from the neighbors on the backside against a window constructed on the backside of my Project building. Mr. Rubin then said, "If you don't mind, we should close it." I replied that I respect my neighbor's wishes and do care for any concern of theirs. I then told Mr. Rubin that I would eliminate the window. So, the construction drawings were corrected and the window was deleted therefrom and the drawings so corrected were duly approved and signed by Mr. Steve Rubin on January 25, 1990. By that time the framing was entirely complete. 17) At no time on or after January 25, 1990 was I informed by any neighbor or City or any other person, that there was any objection whatsoever to the Project. As a matter of course, we continued with the construction so as to complete the entire Project. 18) By February 7, 1990, all the construction items includ- ing flooring, roof sheathing and sheer sheeting were com- pleted and the City Inspector had duly inspected and passed thereon. 5 1 19) By March 5, 1990, the subcontractors of the respective 2 trades had finished the rough healing, airconditioning- 3 ventillating work in both the building and the entire 4 Project and each item of the construction aforesaid was 5 properly inspected and duly approved by the City inspectors. 6 7 20) By March 5, 1990, all rough electrical work was also 8 finished. On March 5, 1990, said rough electrical was also 9 inspected by the inspector who pointed out certain addi- 10 tional requirements and wanted that another inspection be 11 called for verification. W� 13 21) By March 5, 1990, fire sprinkler system in the entire 14 Project was finished, too. The work was inspected and duly 15 passed and approved by the City Fire Department on March 6, 16 1990. 17 18 22) By March 8, 1990, the plumbing work in the Project was 19 completely done. We -had asked for an inspection of plumbing 20 on March 9, 1990 but no inspector came. On March 9, 1990, 21 instead I received from the City a Notice & Order to Cease 22 all work. See, Exhibit 4 filed with the accompanying Brief. 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 1 23 ) Upon receipt of said Notice & Order to Cease all con - 2 struction (Exhibit 4), I was first informed that the City 3 Attorney has determined that the Conditional Use Permit No. 4 89-05 is invalid allegedly because of improper noticing of 5 public hearing a year ago, on March 13, 1989. 6 7 24) Because of this abrupt Order to Cease (Exhibit 4), I 8 face the prospect of having been left with the 90% complete 9 Project standing as at present. 10 I have over $1,100,000.00 spent in this Project. There 11 is an outstanding construction loan in an amount of about 12 $650,000.00 on which I have incurring interest. Because of 13 the City's order to cease all work, I face several losses 14 including, but not limited to, additional expenses relating 15 to increase in the subcontractor's charges, increase in cost 16 of material, fixtures and equipment, and loss of rental in - 17 come. 18 I am faced with consequences of the forced violation of 19 the terms of the note and trust deed for the construction 20 loan for the Project and almost inevitable foreclosure of my 21 Property eventually. The full extent and amount of loss 22 sustained by me on account of the cessation of the work or - 23 dered by the City are not yet determined and are evidently 24 continuing with each day the construction work is not 25 resumed. NR 27 28 7 1 25) I have sustained these damages because of the acts and 2 omissions of the City, Orange Coast Title Company and other 3 individuals. At no time have I done anything unlawful, 4 clandestine, or irregular in either obtaining construction 5 permit or in construction work. 6 7 26) A day after the 9th April, 1990 meeting of the Planning 8 Commission, I received a call from Mr. Steve Rubin asking us 9 to go to the City and discuss the certain modifications so 10 as to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors as best as pos- 11 sible. 12 Accordingly, on Thursday, April 12, 1990, the meeting 13 was held at the City office. Present at that meeting were: 14 Architect Rinaldo Haug; Farhad Rezai, Structural Engineer; 15 Richard Lazaro, Plan Checher; Rita Westfield, Assistant 16 Director; Phillip Schwartz; Mr. Steve Rubin, Associate Plan - 17 ner; and myself as Owner -Applicant. 18 All modifications suggested by the City officials were 19 accepted by us and it was agreed that these modifications as 20 enumerated in Attachment I appended to Staff Report to the 21 Planning Commission dated April 30, 1990 (Exhibit 1) , shall 22 be incorporated in the Project. 23 Having accepted and complied with all the recommenda- 24 tions of the City official, we expected that the Planning 25 Commission would grant the Conditional Use Permit on April 26 30, 1990, but the permit was totally denied. 27 28 8 1 I remain open to any suggestion, discussion and 2 proposed for modification that may reasonably be accom- 3 modated to complete the Project. 4 5 27) I was, have always been, and still remain ready and 6 willing to meet -and discuss all aspects of this matter with 7 the officials of the City and neighboring property owners 8 and any other person so as to accommodate all reasonable 9 wishes and opinions and to work amicably to resolve this im- 10 passe and thereby to complete this good construction 11 Project. 12 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of 14 the State of California that the foregoing is true and cor- 15 rect. 16 Executed this 7th day of May, 1990, in Santa Ana, 17 California. 18 19 20 21 FERIDOUN REZAI 22 23 24 25 26 27 606 606.02 28 �I LIST OF DOCUMENTS Document (1) Report to the Planning Commission, Dated April 30, 1990 (with Attachment I) (2) Report to the Planning Commission, Dated April 9, 1990 (3) Minutes of Tustin Planning Commission, Dated April 9, 1990 (4) Letter of Shambhu K. Rai to City of Tustin, Dated March 21, 1990 (5) Notice & Order, Dated March 9, 1990 (6) Excerpts of Tustin City Code, Part 9 (7) Plot Plan (8) Community Development Department Letter, Dated June 26, 1989 (9) Community Development Agency Resolution No. RDA 89-15 (10) Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, Dated June 5, 1989 (11) Community Development Agency Resolution No. RDA 89-16 (12) Community Development Agency Letter, Dated March 27, 1989 (13) Community Development Agency Resolution No. RDA 89-9 (14) Community Development Agency Resolution No. RDA 89-10 (15) Report to the Planning Commision, Dated March 13, 1990 (16) Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575 (17) Planning Commission Meeting Agenda of March 13, 1990 (18) Official Notice of Public Hearing -- RECEIVED MAY - 7 1990 COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT Exhibit # 1 1-A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 CommunityDevelopment Department Letter, ( ) Dated July 14, 1988 18 (20) Community Development Department, Building Division, Inspection card 19 (21) Community Development Department, Building Division, Inspection card 20 (22) Excerpt from California Government Code Section 65093, Section 65095 21 Rep ort to the Pla nnin g DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: Commission APRIL 30, 1990 i USE PERMIT 90-08 FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 SAME 15642 PASADENA AVENUE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL :M #3 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ' RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND At their regular meeting on April 9, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this matter and directed the applicant to explore design modifications to the buildings that would mitigate the cpncerns raised by the owners of the adjacent single family residents. Pursuant to this direction, the applicant has submitted a proposed design modification for the Commission's consideration. DISCUSSION In proposing design modifications to the project, it was the applicant's objective not to eliminate units, to this end, the proposed design modifications incorporate alterations only to the Community Development Department E�' P t 11 y1--- 1 T......... Planning Commission Report Use Permit 90-08 April 30, 1990 Page 2 end units of each building, including elimination of one bedroom from each end unit as well as changes to bathroom configuration, the use of obscure glass in bathroom windows and vision cutoff screens on second floor bedroom windows. A one page summary of proposed modifications is attached to this report (Attachment I). The attached roof and floor plans as well as building elevations illustrate the proposed modifications. A detailed description of the proposed modifications *follows. Building 'A' Modifications (northerly building), Unit #6 Proposed modifications occur at the second floor. The first' floor retains its 10 foot setback from the rear property line. Building setbacks from the rear property line range from 10 feet at all floor levels to 10 feet at the first floor and + 17.5 and 22.5 feet at the second floor where the bedroom was eliminated and bathroom modified. A corner bedrobja (located in the northeast corner of the unit) and bathroom are proposed to be eliminated, and a remaining bathroom altered. Building height of unit 6 is reduced from 29.5 feet and 27.5 feet to 29.5 feet and 24.5 feet at the second story with a first story height of 18 feet where the bedroom was eliminated (all heights are measured at the rear elevation from finished grade in the rear yard to ridgeline) The roof design at the rear of the building is modified from a gable roof to a hip roof. Chimney height is reduced from 30 feet to 20 feet. The effect of the proposed alterations to unit #6 is to reduce the mass of the rear elevation of Building 'A', and step the building back from the rpar property line. -Building 'B' (southerly building), Unit #11 Proposed modifications occur at the second floor. The first floor retains its 24' 8" setback from the rear property line. Building setbacks from the rear property line range from 24' 8" at the first and second floor to Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 90-08 April 30, 1990 Page 3 + 37 at the second floor where the bedroom was eliminated. • A corner bedroom (located at the southeast corner of the unit) is proposed to be eliminated. ° Building height of unit is reduced from 27.5 feet and 30 feet at the second story to 27.5 feet and 24 feet, with a first story height of 20.5 feet where the bedroom was eliminated (heights are from finished grade in the rear yard to ridgeline). • The roof design at the rear of the building is modified from a gable roof to a hip roof. • The stairwell window is proposed to be deleted. The overall reduction in building mass for Building B is less than with Building 'A' due to the location of the stairwell (at the outer wall) . Given the applicant's objectives, elimination of both corner bedrooms would still require a two story building to accommodate the stairwell (this was not an issue with Build ng The as the stairwell is located on the opposite, bedroom that is proposed to be eliminated was considered to be the most critical in regards to privacy and mass by the applicant. Modifications to both Buildings A & B Proposed modifications that are common to windowsth buildings the twolend a change to obscure glass in the bathroom and installation of units of both buildings (units 5, 6, 10 & 11), wood privacy screens on the second floor bedroom windows of those units. The proposed wood privacy screens consist of vertical 1" x 6" wood slats in a 2" x 6" frame mounted over thethe ist11 xng windows would painted to match window trim. designed, a vision cutoff at 45 be spaced 6 inches apart, thereby g degrees. Residents in the subject units would be able to look straight ahead, with limited side views. To comply with building and fire codes, the privacy screens would be equipped with interior releases similar to those used on steel, window security bars. community Development Department 1 Planning Commission Report Use Permit 90-08 .April 30, 1990 Page 4 Major Issues Raised by Residents During the April 9th public hearing, numerous nearby residents and property owners spoke in opposition to the project, raising a number of issues. These are discussed below. Lack of conformance with existing single family homes to the east and apartment projects to the north and south. All of the existing single family homes to the east and apartments to the south are one story. The apartments to thq north have two story structures at the front near Pasadena Avenue and one story structures on the rear 150 feet of the property. The apartments across Pasadena Avenue to the west are all two story structures. With the proposed modifications, the project still remains two stories in height for the length of both buildings, dropping down to one story for only a portion of the two end units. Impacts on privacy of adjacent single family residences and inability to use their backyards. The applicant has attempted to mitigate impacts on privacy by eliminating corner bedrooms whose windows had the most direct view of the neighboring yards, incorporating obscure glass in bathroom windows and by installing vision cut-off screens on the remaining bedroom windows of units 6, 61 10 and 11. Another modification to the project that would provide additional privacy would be to require the applicant to plant minimum 24" box Melaleuca and/or Brisbane Box trees at approximately 10 foot intervals along the rear property line and also the side property lines within 150 feet of the adjacent R-1 lots. Along the rear property line and southeast side property line, evergreens are appropriate. Deciduous trees could be permitted along the north and south, (past units 5, 6, 10 and 11). Melaleuca and Brisbane Box trees are the recommended evergreen variety; they have a 25 to 30 foot height, a 15 foot spread and grow quickly. At full maturity, these trees would form an additional screen at the second floor level. As many specimen size trees as possible should Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 90-08 April 30, 1990 Page 5 be planted in the southeast corner of the site for additional screening. The number of such mature trees will be dictated by space requirements for canopies and roots. Affect on micro climate in the area and the creation of permanent shade conditions on many properties. The applicant has prepared a preliminary Shade and Shadow Study to determine such impacts on adjacent properties. The study is based on the Summer and Winter solstices (6/21 and 12/21), the longest and shortest days of the year (respectively). The shade and shadow analysis is not based on the actual proposed building height. Because of time constraints, the consultant did not factor in the sloped roof, staggered height, and one story building height at the rear yard and the various articulations of the building design. Instead the analysis was done using a 27' 6" height (measured at the side elevation) and assuming a flat roofed, block shaped building. Consequently the resulting shadows do not accurately reflect the shape of the buildings (they are, in fact, worse than actual conditions). All shadows were depicted at 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The Winter Solstice results in the worst case conditions. Under these conditions, the shadow from Buildings A & B will extend out over the Pasadena Avenue right-of-way at 9:00 a.m., sweeping over the existing apartments to the north of the subject site and extending over the immediately adjacent single family properties to the east in the late afternoon. Under these conditions, the late afternoon shadows will encompass a majority of the rear yards of these residences and in some cases often will extend beyond the houses themselves into portions of the front yard. A reduction in building height to 20 feet (one story), could shorten the shadow cast on the single family residences by + 22 feet. This would still cover the majority of their rear yards but would not extend into front yards. Shadows cast at 9:00 a.m. on June 21st are limited to the subject site, while shadows cast at 3:00 p.m. would Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 90-08 April 30, 1990 Page 6 extend +' four (4) feet onto the rear yards of the single family residences (Building A only, Building B shadow limited to subject site). Because the submitted shade and shadow study does not reflect proposed architecture, heights, and roof configuration or address shadows that would be cast as the sun moves from its position at 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., staff is not able to fully determine all of the affected properties and the extent of the impacts. The d' study shoulbe revised to address additional hours between 9:00 a.m. and noon and between noon and 3:00 p.m., as well as use the actual building shapes to provide the most accurate information possible. Inadequate guest parking for project and potential traffic hazards to vehicles and pedestrians resulting from the semi -subterranean garages. As briefly discussed by staff on April 9th, the project meets all of the parking standards of the R-3 zoning district, which include two (2) covered spaces per each unit and one (1) unassigned open guest space for every four (4) units. At 11 units, the project requires 22 covered and assigned spaces, and 2.75 open and unassigned guest spaces. As presently configured, the project provides 11 two -car garages (with automatic door openers) and three (3) covered guest spaces (no garage doors). The City does not have the ability to require more guest parking than is required by the zoning code. Potential haz#rds to vehicles and pedestrians could be mitigated by incorporating a speed bump in the driveway ramp and requiring a stop sign at the driveway. Redesigning buildings to one story. As noted earlier, the applicant's objective in modifying the buildings was not to reduce the number of units. The applicant has represented that reducing the buildings to one story would entail significant redesign including the possibility of demolishing the entire project and starting over. While there would be significant cost issues associated with a reduction in the number of units and/or demolition of the project, which should be Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 90-08 April 30, 1990 Page 7 examined, the Planning Commission should not automatically; exclude more drastic alternatives from consideration, all factors and alternatives must be weighed. Impact on property values. This is very difficult to assess. Numbers quoted by affected property owners note a reduction of $20,000 to $50,000 in property values. To accurately assess this impact, an impartial appraisal may be necessary. Light and glare from project lighting into rear yards of adjacent single family properties. Light and glare is always a potential impact when new development occurs, regardless of building height. To mitigate potential impacts, the City imposes a condition on all new projects (residential, commercial or industrial) requiring that the design of all exterior lighting fixtures incorporate cut-offs and shielding so light rays do not extend beyond the property lines of the subject property. Beyond this, all developers are also required to comply with the City's Security Ordinance requirements for lighting in parking and pedestrian pathway areas. Security lighting must also meet glare cut-off standards. ALTERNATIVES There are really only two (2) alternatives to the proposed building modifications proposed by the applicant. If the existing foundations are retained, alternative designs would result in a reduction in the number of units to achieve a greater decrease in building height and mass. The second alternative would be to demolish the existing building and foundations and start over. As noted earlier, there are significant costs associated with the different alternatives.* However, the Planning Commission will need to -determine the acceptability of the applicant's proposal vs. more dramatic alternatives in accommodating resident concerns. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 90-08 April 30, 1990 .Page 8 r CONCLUSION The Planning Commission should review the proposed modifications to determine whether they have adequately addressed the Commission's and public's concerns and provide appropriate direction to the applicant. t Steve Rubin Associate Planner SR:CAS:kbc Christine A. Shingleton Director of Community Development Attachments: Staff report of 4/9/90 Attachment I Community Development Department Building Height Bldg. A 1st Floor 2nd Floor Bldg. B 1st Floor 2nd Floor Roof Style Bldgs A & B Setbacks Bldg. A Floor Windows . Bldgs A & B ATTACHMENT I PROJECT SUMMARY KRISTING N/A 29.5' & 27.5' N/A 30' & 27.5' Gable 10' clear glass, multipane design @ all rooms PROPOSED 181 29.5' & 24.5' 20.5' 27.5' & 24' combination Gable & Hip 10' @ 1st Floor 17.5' to 22.5' @ 2nd 24' 8" @ 1st Floor 37' @ 2nd Floor closure glass @ wood privacy screens @ 2nd story bedrooms for units 5,'6, 10 & 11. Report to the Planning Commission DATE: APRIL 91 1990 SUBJECT: USE PERMIT 90-08 APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE ITEM X14 ZONING: R-31 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL TiiAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION 1. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2761, approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Use Permit 90-08; and 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution'No. 2762, approving Use Permit 90-08, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND At their regular meeting on March 13, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2575 (Attachment A) approving Conditional Use Permit 89-051 authorizing the construction of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project on a'20,184 square foot lot in the R-3 zoning district. Community Development Department L- -- -- .....................�. Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 April 9, 1990 Page 2 Conditional Use property abuts R - line. Provisions state: J Permit 89-05 was required since the subject zoned properties on its eastern (rear) property of'Section 9226(c) of the Tustin Municipal code "...when a lot in the R-3 District abuts at any point along its property lines or is directly across a street or alley from a property zoned R -A. E-4 or R-1 (developed or undeveloped), no main building shall be erected on said R-3 lot to a height to exceed one (1) story, and/or twenty (20) feet, whichever is more restrictive, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of said R -A, E-4 and R-1 zoned property, unless the Planning Agency shall grant a conditional use permit thereof." Building, permits for the apartment project were issued in May, 1989. During construction, (framing) staff began to receive complaints from several owners of the single family residences located immediately to the east of the subject property concerning privacy and the height of the buildings. In March, 1990, staff reviewed the mailing list used for notification of the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 89-05 to determine why these residences were only now voicing their concerns about the project. Review of the mailing list, which was prepared by a title company, revealed that while all affected properties were shown on the 300 foot radius.map, the typed mailing labels provided to the City did not include the owners of the R-1 properties adjacent to and east of the subject property. (Typically, staff verifies the completeness. and accuracy of mailing lists; however, this has not been a standard practice for lists prepared by a title company, which have access to the most current assessor's tax rolls). Based orf several decisions of the California Supreme Court, the City Attorney determined that Conditional Use Permit 89-05 was invalid due to improper notification. Consequently, the building permits for the project were revoked and construction halted. Conditional Use Permit 90-08 is a request for re -approval of Conditional Use Permit 89-05. A new mailing list was provided to the City which was verified for completeness and accuracy and a new public hearing notice was published in the Tustin News and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 April 9, 1990 Page 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE PLAN Submitted development plans propose construction of two separate, two and one half story apartment buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type units. Six units will be located in Building "A" located parallel to the northern property line of the site and five (5) units will be located in Building "B" located parallel to the southern property line. Proposed units will be approximately 1,200 square feet in size and contain three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths. The overall density of the project is 23.7 units per acre. Under current provisions of the R-3 District, the maximum number of units that could be authorized on the site is 11 units. Building coverage on the site will be approximately 38% with setbacks proposed of approximately 31 feet along the front of the property; eight feet along the north side lot line, 15' 6" along the south side lot line and 10 to 24' 8" at the rear of the property adjacent to the R-1 zoned property. A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are proposed for the project; 11 two -car garages and three open, covered guest spaces. Proposed parking is to be provided under each building and will be partially below existing grade. Access to all parking is proposed from a 27 foot wide central driveway. Entryways to each unit will be provided by .concrete walkways located adjacent to the northerly and southerly property lines of the. proj ect with pedestrian access to parking below grade provided at three proposed stairwells (one at the front and rear of building "B" and one at a central location between unit 3 and 4 of building "A"). Private ground level open space/patio areas are also proposed at the front of each unit adjacent to entries. Air conditioning units will be located in the corner of each enclosed patio area. Walkways and driveway areas will be accented with Special brick pavers or other special pavement treatment. The proposed grading scheme for the project involved excavating approximately five (5) feet below existing grade for the central driveway and tuck under parking. The resulting driveway ramp incorporates 6% blend slopes at each end with an 11.23% slope over the remaining portion. This is within the maximum 13% slope permitted by the City. Because the garage level is only five (5) feet below grade, and an eight (8) foot ceiling is proposed for the garages, the grade at the front entrances to the units is raised as much as 3.5 feet above existing grade, which is accomplished in Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 90-06 April 9, 1990 Page 4 steps. Specifically, the grading concept proposes a two (2) foot grade difference at the side property lines, (pedestrian walkways) stepping up 18 inches to the patio and front door level. The actual finished floor level of all 11 units is six (6) inches above the patio level (see Sheet 3 of attached plans). As the sections on Sheet 3 indicate, the adjacent properties (north and south) will face a 618" wall of decorative split face concrete block. The grade level in the front and rear yard setbacks will not change from existing conditions except for landscape berming and drainage. This concept helps preserve privacy between the project and the rear yards of the single family residences at the rear of the subject property. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The proposed architectural design for the project is a modified cape cod design which utilizes a combination of wood lap -siding and stucco with wood trim at }wilding corners and around doors and windows. The project incorporates a variety of insets, projections and cantilevers to achieve relieve on all sides of the two buildings. The proposed color scheme includes "silver gray" stucco, "pearl gray" siding, "swiss coffee" trim and "charcoal gray" asphalt composition Shingles. Surrounding color and material themes in the general vicinity of the project include white stucco 9 Y p 7 with blue trim and a white gravel roof immediately to the north, white stucco with blue trig and gray asphalt composition shingle roofs immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, tan stucco and wood siding with brick Accents and a shake roof immediately to the south and general eatth tone stucco and wood siding with composition shingle, shakeiand gravel roofs on the single family residences to the east. O rall, staff believes that the proposed color and material schemes compatible with that of surrounding developments. Additional architectural features include: Six inch bay window projections above front doors. Multi -paned windows wherever windows occur. ° Lap -sided garage doors ("swiss coffee" white). Sliding glass doors located on patios. Electric and gas meters concealed below grade by the guest y parking spaces or by landscaping. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 April 9, 1990 Page 5 Mail box enclosures with roofing, siding and colors to match the main buildings. Chimneys at each unit (stuccoed, silver gray) ISSUES Compatibility with Surrounding Development Surrounding development consists of two story apartments to the north and west, one story apartments to the south and one story single family residences to the east. Building permits on file with the City indicate that the surrounding structures were built between the late 50's and late 601s. The subject and surrounding properties were annexed into the City between 1959 and 1968. The proposed project is essentially an "in -fill" development, replacing an existing single family residence with an 11 unit apartment project based on permitted density of the R-3 zoning district (one dwelling unit/1750 square feet of lot area). To achieve compatibility with surrounding buildings and uses, the proposed project has undergone an extensive design review process including three different site designs, resulting in a design (2- 1/2 stories, pitched roofs, chimneys), materials (combination wood siding and stucco) and colors (gray with white trim) that reflect elements found in all of the structures in this vicinity, and balances development constraints of the subject property with surrounding properties. The proposed design attempts to minimize impacts on adjacent properties (specifically to the south and east) by maintaining a two and one half story height, varying rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks that meet or exceed code standards. Although privacy is an issue for the property owners to the south and east, staff believes that this is mitigated by the fact that the one-story units to the south are situated such that their rear walls face the subject property, and the combination of their large eave overhangs and the proposed grades create very narrow view angles into their property and�the proposedbuilding "B" is setback over 15 feet from the common property line. According to the grading plans and surveys prepared by the project civil engineer, the two single family residences that abut the rear of the subject property are setback 25 to 28 feet from the common property line and 35 to 52 feet from the proposed buildings ("A" and "B" respectively). Also, as noted earlier, the grades at the rear of Community Development Department _ r Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 90-08 April 9, 1990 Page 6 the subject property are to be left natural (except for minor grading for drainage) , so residents of the proposed project will not be above the adjacent yards when walking through the rear yard area. Additionally, all living space windows on the rear elevations of the buildings have been eliminated. The two story apartment buildings to the north of the subject property are setback 20 to 25 feet from the common property line, with a 20 foot wide driveway located along the common property line. Mitigat-ion measures of the Draft Negative Declaration will require use of specimen size trees and Italian Cypress to further reduce potential impacts on privacy. Paving Materials - Dark gray colored concrete is proposed along with brick pavers as accents at the driveway and pedestrian walkways, whAch are compatible and consistent with the building colors. CONCLUSION r Based on the above discussion, staff believes that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding developments and would be a positive addition to the neighborhood and should be approved. Steve Rubin Associate Planner SR:CAS:kbc Kristine A. Shingleto Director of Community Development Attachments: Site, floor, elevation and grading plans Initial Study Negative Declaration Attachment A Resolution No.'s 2761 and 2762 { Community Development Department M I N U T E S TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 91 1990 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00.p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Le Jeune, Baker, Kasparian (Shaheen absent) PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the March 26, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting 2. MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 89-08 APPLICANT/ BAYCREST ASSOCIATES OWNER: 1 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 275 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTN: CARY BREN LOCATION: LOTS 24 AND 25 OF TRACT 12870 (PHASE III) ZONING: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13501 (CLASS 1) REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO REVISE BUILDING ELEVATIONS TO ELIMINATE MULTI -PANED WINDOWS. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2764 denying the requested modification to the exterior building elevations, originally approved by Design Review 89-08. Commissioner Baker moved Le Jeune seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 3-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. USE PERMIT 90 -1,C -VARIANCE 90-7 APPLICANT: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES 1200 N. HARBOR BOULEVARD ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92803 PROPERTY OWNER: CODY SMALL CMS DEVELOPMENT 3100 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE; A-3 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 LOCATION: 14041 NEWPORT AVENUE (AT THE I-5 FREEWAY) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL # 402-371-1-3 AND MORE SPECIFICALLY AS 10T 11 2 AND 3 OF THE NEWPORT AVENUE - TRACT; A PORTION OF LOT 15 IN BLOCK D OF BALLARD'S ADDITION; AS SHOWN ON MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AND RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER ZONING: PC COMMERCIAL - PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 35 FOOT HIGH 72 SQUARE FOOT ALUMINUM CABINET BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION WITH "DRIVE-THRU" DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE LOCATED ON THE POLE SIGN FACE RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission either: 1. Deny Use Permit 90-1 and Variance 90-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747, as submitted or revised; or, 2. Approve Use Permit 90-1 as revised by staff regarding location, orientation and size by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747(b), as submitted or revised. Presentation: Susan Tebo, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the three signs with "Drive-Thru" on them were all legal, non -conforming signs. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 3 Staff replied that the monument sign for Taco Bell on 17th Street was approved as a monument sign with "Drive-Thru"; not as a pole sign. The Director noted that "Drive-Thru" as a directional sign is not prohibited, but must at to the Sign Code requirements of being six (6) square feet, or not to exceed four (4) feet in height, and to only one per street entryway; monument signs are mostly less than five (5) feet in height and limited to six (6) square feet; however, the applicant is asking for a 35 foot pole sign, up in the air, and not to the standards of the Sign Code. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Mr. John Baker, Carl Karcher, Enterprises, noted that their intent and desire is to work with the City of Tustin; they are only asking for a sign that fully fits within the Sign Code; they are not asking for a Variance, and personally took offense to the inference that they are asking for an "unsightly" sign; he reiterated their reasoning for opening the new facility; and noted that they want to keep up with the growth and demands of Tustin; the site was chosen because it provides freeway visibility and access for an added customer base; and he agreed that the 35 foot sign could be an inaccurate depiction, but that they have proven that a 24 foot sign would be useless. He presented artists conceptual drawings to conclude that 35 feet was accurate; noted that the Marie Calendar's sign would provide the same visibility that they are seeking; and that "Drive-Thru" is detrimental to the success of the new store. Mr. Jack Vodrey, Carl Karcher Enterprises (and a resident of Tustin for 21 years), noted that he was one of the committee members that drafted the current sign ordinance; that the original ordinance was a weak document that left conclusions up to individual interpretations of staff members; he contributed most of the technical data; and he uses Tustin's Sign Code as an example in other cities, as it is 'one of the best in the state. He read from the Sign Code: "An identification sign means any sign referring to the name, service, or trade of the business." He indicated that the original intent of that statement was to limit the verbage on the sign to the logo, the name, and their service; that most of the signs in the city conform to this concept; that Carl's Jr. Drive- Thru fits the criteria; he felt that there was nothing in the ordinance that indicates that "Drive-Thru' is prohibited; that staff is interpreting the Sign Code in a liberal manner as they see it; the Code states that there can be the name, service, or trade of the business, but cannot include the name of specific products or brand names. He stated that he was grieved to see staff members Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 4 perverting the ordinance to their own will; and suggested that "Drive-Thru" be allowed as a service. Mr. Dan Gjurgevich, Regional Director of Operations for all Orange County Carl's Restaurants, noted that their goal is to bring the new restaurant up to a current status; that out of the 60 restaurants he represents, the ones with the drive-thru provide 43% of their business from the drive-thru; they feel that this is a positive location due to the success of their location nearby, and due to the spontaneous purchases made by people noticing their freeway sign; and that it was very critical to the operators to be visible, and to let the guests know that there is a drive-thru for their convenience. Mr. Robert Aran, Attorney on behalf of Carl Karcher Enterprises, and State Counsel to the California Electric Sign Association and the Sign Users Council of California, addressed the staff's comments: He noted that precedents are not set because one person is allowQd, under certain circumstances, a sign that is a different height than another's; there are no such things as precedents; that staff should be concerned that the general welfare of the area residents are not affected by what is asked for; that the City has the right to reasonably exercise the power to regulate the time, manner and location of the signage of the community; but that the City does not have the power to control sign form of content; that by not allowing "Drive-Thru" the staff is controlling the content of the sign, which is not permitted by law. He commented that, unless the staff had owned a restaurant, their conclusion that a 24 foot sign was enough was unjustified. He also noted that by the time Cal Trans has completed their work, it is conceivable that this restaurant will not have generated enough business because it was unable to advertise properly by the identification of "Drive- Thru". Based on his analysis, the applicant's request is reasonable. Mr. Chester Maharaj, 15622 California Street, Tustin, noted that he felt that it was time that Tustin re -looked at its ordinances because of all of the changes occurring in the City; that big business should not be able to "bull -doze" their way and get what they think they want; that the citizens have to live here; that the staff has done a good job by suggesting a 25 foot sign; that, aesthetically, the applicant's request is not right. After looking at the presentation, he noted that the two photographs are different, one with a wide-angle lens, and one with a medium telephoto lens. He also noted that he felt that the City Council (sic) should be careful in passing things like this, as it is easy for a business to "bull -doze" in, but that the citizens have to live with it. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 5 The Public Hearing was closed at 7:35 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that there were a lot of comments questioning staff's presentation and asked for a confirmation from the City Attorney. Ms. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, affirmed that the presentation is correct; that the presenter's for Carl Karcher's have a different interpretation of the City's Code and that they are entitled to make that argument; however, based on the Attorney's office analysis, they support staff's interpretation. Commissioner Baker asked what Cal Trans would be doing at this location; and asked for a confirmation of the number of signs that the applicant will have. Staff replied that the freeway widening would be initiated at this location within two (2) years; that the property owner could trim the trees to six ( 6 ) feet, and that the photographs are misleading; and that they will have three ( 3 ) building signs, a monument sign, and the pole sign. The Director replied to the applicant's presentation: 1) regarding qualifying for a freeway sign --this is not an outright permitted use, the decision regarding the sign and its content is up to the discretion of the Planning Commission; 2) regarding the content of "Drive-Thru"--staff is not indicating that it is inappropriate signage, but is permitted on street frontages with up to six (6) square feet per sign face; that the applicant's statement from the previous meeting's tape that the purpose of the sign was to "direct the pedestrian and vehicular traffic", met the exact definition of the Sign Code's definition of a directional sign; and 3) regarding Mr. Aran's representation of staff's abilities --She felt that it was a bit of an arrogant position; that Carl Karcher's owes the staff an apology; that they have the ability to make decisions of this nature; and that they are looking out for the best interest of the Community. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if a representative from CMS was present. Staff noted that they preferred not to be involved; they have negotiated a lease with the applicant. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the applicant if they had signed a lease with the developer. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Baker replied that they have not signed a lease, as yet; that the developer had no schedule for trimming the trees; that the situation between Carl's Jr. and the developer is changing, and that Carl's Jr. may purchase the property. Commissioner Kasparian asked the applicant for his reaction to staff's comments regarding Cal Trans trimming the trees. Mr. Baker replied that their main concern is Cal Trans' timetable which seems to be moving and is far behind the applicant's timetable to develop; that trimming is an option that might be available; the trees will grow back; and that they have to make a decision on this major investment prior to knowing how the trees will affect the sign. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification as to whether or not the applicant has permission to trim the trees. Mr. Baker replied negatively. Staff replied negatively, as well, and noted that CMS Development has the permission to trim the trees; that she has spoken to Cal Trans and CMS Development; and that she has a copy of the permit. Commissioner Kasparian asked the applicant if they had an agreement with the property owner to trim the trees; and why not, if it was so important. Mr. Baker replied that the development is changing dramatically relative to Carl's Jr.; they may have less control to trim; CMS told Carl's that they do not intend to trim the trees if they do not have to, -as it would incur a $22,000 expense; that there are safety problems involved; and that it must be coordinated with Cal Trans. Commissioner Kasparian- noted that even if the 35 foot sign is approved, the trees are going to grow; and if there is no control in the future, they would be having the same problem. Mr. Baker agreed and noted that he did not know the nature of the growth of these trees. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the sign was intended to be oriented to draw in traffic from Tustin or the freeway. Mr. Baker replied that it was to draw in freeway traffic; and that any comment he made to the contrary on previous tapes must have been a misstatement. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 7 Commissioner Kasparian asked if one of the photographs show that even at 35 feet the sign is partially hidden. Mr. Baker affirmed, and noted that they were only asking for the minimal amount that they required. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that in the past he has voted against freeway oriented pole signs due to new tenants expanding them and leaving them there forever. Commissioner Baker noted that the 24 foot sign reaches to the level of the freeway; that by the time they reach the off -ramp, people are face-to-face with the sign; he feels that there is no need to go to the higher sign; that it is difficult to negotiate the lanes at that point for exiting on impulse; and that the customers they will attract will probably have already made the decision to get off the freeway for food or fuel. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he is also in favor of signage appropriately done; that the 24 foot sign would be adequate; and that it is incumbent on the applicant to deal with .the property owner to keep the trees trimmed. He also noted that he was in favor of the "Drive-Thru" reference on the sign as it might be recognized as a particular feature of some customers. Mr. Baker asked for time to rebut the comments of the Commission. Ms. Jeffrey commented that the public hearing would have to be re- opened; and that a rebuttal session was inappropriate. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 90-1 and Variance 90-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2747(b), as submitted. Motion carried 2-1. Le Jeune opposed. Commissioner Le Jeune introduced Rita Westfield, Assistant Director. 4. USE PERMIT 90-0 APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ' ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE ZONING: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION - 1. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2761, approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Use Permit 90-08; and 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2762, approving Use Permit 90-08, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the side facing the residences would be'windowless. Staff replied that the rear elevation is windowless; that the Building Code requires one (1) window in the bedroom and living areas, but were deleted; and that the only window remaining on the eastern elevations is in the stairwell. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when they began receiving complaints; and whose responsibility it is to notify the neighbors. Staff replied that the project was in the framing stage, but did not recall which month that was; and that the latest complaint regarding the mailing list was in March; that State law requires the City to ensure that such notification occurs, but that the applicant provides the mailing list and that this mailing list was provided by Orange Coast Title Company; that the radius map was accurate, but the typed list did not include all of the property owners on the map; and that this is not a common occurrence for lists provided by a title company, as they have access to the most current tax assessor's tax roles. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the City does the mailing. Staff replied that. the City prepares and mails the notice using the labels provided by the title company. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 P a g.e 9 Mr. Paul Zukowskv, 15641 Myrtle Avenue, presented pictures of the project to the Commission; noted that 17 families that are located just behind the project were left off of the mailing list; that the Tustin City Code is not in conformance with other city codes, and cited some examples; that the neighborhood is confused; that the buildings are not in conformance with the buildings in the neighborhood; that it would cause loss of comfort and privacy and lower property values; they request that the buildings be redesigned to conform to other apartments and condominiums adjacent to R-1 lots on Myrtle Avenue; that the approval of this project was an injustice to this neighborhood; asked why they were left off of the mailing list for the initial hearing, as is required by State law; and that something needs to be done to resolve these problems and that they would like to work with the Planning Commission to resolve them. Ms. Kathleen Arnold, 15631 Myrtle Avenue, noted that the Ordinance states that this cannot be more than a one-story project, and that it must be 150 feet from the residents; the apartments that were built on Pasadena in the past had to abide by this ordinance; asked why this particular project does not have to abide by the ordinance as the others have; that No. 18, Aesthetics, on Page 5 of the Environmental Initial Study Form make it sound like all of the windows on the project were deleted, but that only the windows on the end were deleted; that the windows on the side are more offensive; and that she cannot use her pool, entertain, or open her bedroom windows, now. Ms. Lakonda Mitchell, 15621 Myrtle Avenue, noted that in February Fred asked her to sign a paper to pass through.her property; she asked him how far from the property line they were going to build the buildings and was told 30 feet; that there would be no windows facing her house; she was then told it would be 17 feet away, and that it is actually 10 feet from her property line; she cannot open her windows or drapes in the living room; there are two (2) lights on either side of the building that will flash into her home; and that she can no longer do anything in the backyard. Ms. Connie Gordon, 15661 Myrtle Avenue, noted that she is against the project because her privacy is also gone even though she is two (2) houses down from the project; and that had they been notified of the first public hearing they would have been to it. Ms. Sandra Zukowskv, 15641 Myrtle Avenue, noted that the windows affecting her are on the side of the building; that she needs to leave her windows open since she has no central air conditioning; that not only has she lost her privacy due to the windows, but that Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 10 she will also have their lights shining into her bedroom at night; and that she is also opposed to the building. Mr. Dean Karels, 17191 Corla, presented pictures to the Commission of what they used to look at and what they now look at; and also one of another two-story building on the street that did not affect any of the residents on Myrtle or Corla; asked how the research of the special plans was done by the staff; noted that at one point this area was designated as a blighted area, which he deemed to be an overcrowded, uncared for area; in his efforts to improve his lot he was stopped by the building department for lack of a permit; and asked if the Commission "rubber-stamps" the Building Department's reports, or do they do research themselves. He also cited various items on the Environmental Initial Study Form as being inaccurate, notably: 2(c) --there will be a reduction in air flow; 4(d) --there will be a reduction in agricultural crops; 13(a)- -that there is inadequate parking allocated, and that the overflow will park on Pasadena which is already crowded; 13(f) --there will be traffic hazards, children may be hurt, there are no local playgrounds, and the schools are overcrowded; 15(a) --there will be an increase in energy usage compared to the single-family dwelling that used to be there; 16 --compared to a single -unit dwelling, 11 units will overtax everything; and 18 --the buildings have changed his view of the sky. Ms. Mary O'Rourke, 15632 Myrtle Avenue, noted that they were never notified, and that they are sad that not one of them knew anything; asked how a special permit could go through without notification; she now looks upon a beautifully kept house with a 2 1/2 story building behind it; that she feels it will devalue the homes; that it is non -conforming to the houses on their street; that she is upset that her house has not sold; that this is an economic obsolescence; that they are all affected by this, have no control, and that something should be done. Mr. Philip Schwartz, 14841 Yorba Street, representing the applicant, noted that they were approved after a hearing and found out some months later about the error in notification and were subsequently stopped; that only some people were not notified, and that they sent out a separate mailing to some of the adjoining property owners advising them of the activity; the project meets all of the Codes and provisions of the City; they have a multi- million dollar investment; they have made .adjustments to the design and would like to accommodate the neighbors as best they can; and that they support staff's recommendations on this issue. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they sent out separate notices; and asked when the letters were sent. planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 11 Mr. Schwartz noted that they sent out separate letters and have offered some copies to the staff. Staff noted that the copies he was referring to were dated July 11, 1989, asking for right of access, and indicating that they would be building an 11 -unit project; and that staff had a copy of letters sent to Lakonda Mitchell and Kathleen Arnold. Commissioner Baker asked if the letters were sent to the residents on Myrtle. Mr. Schwartz replied that those letters and others were sent after the public hearing; that there has been a lot of activity for some months; and that it should not be a surprise to anyone. Commissioner Le Jeune asked when the initial framing was completed. Mr. Schwartz replied that the framing was done in mid-February. Ms. Kathleen Arnold, 15631 Myrtle, noted that she never received the letter that Mr. Schwartz was referring to; that she only verbally granted permission to measure to two workers while the house was still standing. Mr. David Wursba, 15662 Myrtle, noted that the project dramatically decreases the property values on the west side of Myrtle; that there are several errors in the Environmental Initial Study Form: 2(a) --that they may get exhaust from the residents of the new buildings since the buildings are only 10 feet from the property line; 2(b) --may have substantial odors from garbage which will probably be stored at the rear of the project; 2(c) --the new buildings blocks sunlight and wind which may decrease the temperature by 5-10 degrees; and 18 --the aesthetic view has been destroyed. He noted that the proposed changes are not enough, that the buildings should be changed to a one-story structure that would be compatible to the rest of the neighborhood; and that before determining that the aesthetics have not been reduced, the project should be seen from the back yard of an affected property owner. Mr. Karels noted that all of the homes were built with the living rooms to the rear of the house, and that it is not only the bedrooms that are affected. Ms. Zukowsky, clarified that 17 residents were left off of the mailing list. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 12 Mr. Larry Barnett, 15751 Myrtle Avenue, noted that even though he is not directly affected by this project, it could feasibly happen up and down the street in the future; that he feels for these people; and that it should never have been allowed to happen. Mr. Chester Maharaj, 15622 California Street, took exception to Mr. Rubin's statement that the people should close their bedroom windows; that there was a mistake made and the people should not suffer; asked what the setback requirement is; that his feeling is that someone thought that the old people on Myrtle Avenue would do nothing about the project; that there is currently a saturation of apartments and that they are having a problem with graffiti, now; that the building should be reconstructed; and that this project is not being built because Tustin is running out of space, but because someone wants to make money. Ms. Jane DeMong, 15702 Myrtle Avenue, fought the apartments that were trying to be constructed 25 years ago; they do have graffiti; it is ruining all of the property values in their neighborhood; and that it is rather odd that the only people that did not receive letters were the ones that back onto the project. Mr. Edward Cortes, 15701 Myrtle Avenue, noted that if the area is considered residential, it should be kept that way; that he has been proud of the way Tustin has been kept, but that things are drastically changing and he is very disappointed with the new construction. Ms. Josepha Walsh, noted that she lives straight down the block from this project, and that now all they see as they look down the street is this immense monstrosity blocking the view; that there is no sun for the people directly affected; and that they are indirectly affected by the project's presence and are very saddened. Ms. Kay Toice, 17262 Medallion Avenue, noted that a very costly mistake was made, but that it was a mistake which should be rectified by removing this "blight" that has affected everyone. Also, that even though there is a cost involved, it is less than the people involved, and money should not be the issue. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the Director to clarify the findings of the Environmental Initial Study Form. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 13 The Director responded to the questions raised regarding the Environmental Initial Study Form by first noting that SEQA requires support for every determination made; that staff is not permitted to provide conjecture; that they must reference regional and local documents; and that they must have facts from the residents supporting why the determination should not have been made. She also clarified some of the questions raised about individual items in the report: Item 2 ) The AQMD provides a standard for which the air emissions have to be exceeded before a project would have a detrimental impact on air emissions, and this project would not be subject to that threshold; the trash enclosures would have to meet all County health department requirements with regards to being in a fully enclosed area; they refer to the SCAQMD for thresholds regarding air movement, moisture, temperature, or any change in climate, but for this project shadow and shade issues are possibly relevant and the Community Development Department could ask the applicant for a shade and shadow study to demonstrate to the residents how they would be affected; Item 13) There is a parking demand created by residential dwelling units; as a mitigation measure there is a guest parking requirement, but they cannot ask for more than the Code requirement even if there is a problem; there have not been many multi -family structures built in this vicinity to the recently adopted Code, and if the Commission needs to increase the parking they would have to change the Code; Item 14) The Public Service and Energy impacts were all reviewed by the appropriate agencies; schools may be potentially impacted, but the problem is mitigated by the fact that this project which is within the TUSD is required to pay a school facilities fee of $1.52/square foot for construction and renovation of abandoned school facilities; Item 15) Although there is more demand on a project of 11 units versus 1 unit, the issue is not whether there is more demand, but if there is service capacity to handle that demand; according to the service providers contacted, they indicate that the existing systems, with the conditions of approval, would provide the adequate utility services; and Item 18) The aesthetics relate to the design of the building and privacy of the neighbors; and also the viewscapes; and if it is the opinion of the Commission that additional work is required, staff could work with the applicant to provide the additional information. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the minimum setback would be for this project. Staff replied that it would be ten (10 ) feet from the rear property line; that one building is ten (10 ) feet, and the other is slightly over 24 feet; and that it does not matter whether it is single- or two-story. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 14 Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt bad that the citizens were not noticed; that the issue of privacy has come before the Commission many times; he wondered if he would have changed his mind if these people were present at the original public hearing; and he noted that the builder is following the original directions of the Commission. Commissioner Baker noted that it seems like everything is legal, almost; that if only a couple of people were not noticed, it might not be a problem, but 17 unnoticed people is a problem; that he would be upset if all of a sudden he had a 2-3 story structure in his backyard; that he presumed that everyone within 300 feet were notified of tonight's meeting; that he was concerned with appearance, noise and lights; that he has a difficult time with this resolution since he signed it last year; he respects the opinion of the staff and City Attorney, but in this case he also respects the feelings of the people and would have trouble approving the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he feels that the applicant should take some responsibility for the inadvertent mailing list error; that the people were not given due process; that he prefers to continue the issue to determine mitigating dialogue between the builder and the homeowners to reach a common ground; and that the builder does have a substantial investment, but that money is not everything. Commissioner Le Jeune requested direction from staff to create dialogue for the continuation. The Director agreed that the recommendation is favorable; that the builder and applicant would probably also want some direction in terms of the types of concessions that the Commission would like; and that the staff could provide the shade and shadow study. Commissioner Kasparian noted that his personal opinion is that he would like it reduced to one story, but is not sure it is viable; his actual direction would be to encourage the residents to offer suggestions for mitigation; and asked the Director if the specifics for the continuation would have to come from the Commission. The Director replied that his recommendations to go to the residents for suggestions would be as trough it was designed by committee which may result in more antagonism; that different property owners along this street have different interests; that he could direct them to meet with the applicant to suggest some alternatives and bring that back to the Commission before a lot of expense is paid in redesign. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 15 Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he could not recall a project not going through based on the privacy of the next door neighbor; that mitigating measures, like trees, have been installed; that going from a two-story to a one-story would probably not be possible. The Director noted that anything is possible; but that there may not be a sentiment on the part of the Commission to start at the beginning; that everyone bears some of the responsibility, and how do we reach a consensus and achieve some of the mitigation; that there may be a variety of design solutions, and that there is a lot of room to address the issues; that if the applicant has no willingness to discuss the issues, then there is no sense continuing. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that some high apartments on First Street have line -of -sight restrictors to limit privacy invasion of the residents below; that the Commission should do everything they can to mitigate the problems raised. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he would prefer to postpone this issue so that the Commission can provide concrete recommendations to satisfy the concerns of the residents. The Director replied that in the meantime the Commission could request that the applicant be present to discuss the mitigation measures that would be financially feasible. Commissioner Baker asked if this was continued- for two to four weeks, or to a date certain; and if they would have to renotice. The Director replied that if it was continued to a date certain, it would not have to be renoticed; and that May 14 would be possible. Mr. Schwartz replied that the 14th of May would not be feasible. The Director replied that it could be scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting after the workshop on April 30 at 7:00. Mr. Schwartz noted that he did not know if two weeks was enough or not as they have not heard any of the directions as yet. Commissioner Le Jeune concurred that .they also need time to determine direction; that they want the applicant and the staff to work together in the shortest period of time possible to determine if there are any mitigating measures that can be accomplished. Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 16 The Director noted that she hoped that the applicant could bring some ideas to table. Mr. Schwartz noted that he could not provide more parking, etc., and that he did not know if two weeks was enough. Mr. Kas_par.ian noted that after listening to the individuals that spoke this evening, the applicant should have been able to determine some ways to mitigate their concerns; if staff is asking for ideas from the Planning Commission, then the applicant should also be able to; that he understood some of the concerns of the residents, and plans to address them; and that within a two week period of time he should be able to make some determination and that the applicant should also be able to. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to continue to April 30, 1990 at which time the Planning Commission and applicant will discuss mitigating features of redesign to allay some of residents' concerns that have arisen. Motion carried 2-1, Le Jeune opposed. 5. VARIANCE 90-06 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CHARLES ROBINSON 175 SOUTH A STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 175 SOUTH A STREET R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT) THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13501 (CLASS 1) AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 120 SQUARE FOOT FRONT PORCH WITH A SETBACK OF NINE FEET WHERE CITY ZONING CODE REQUIRES A 20 FOOT MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 90-06 by adopting Resolution No. 2763, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Variance 90-6 by adopting Resolution No. 2763, as submitted. Motion carried 3-0. OLD BUSINESS 6. CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 1990 Page 17 Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked when the staff would be requesting applications for the vacant Commission position. The Director replied that, shortly, there will be a notice sent to both newspapers regarding the open position. 7. Report on City Council Actions Taken on April 2. 1990 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of community Development COMKISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked for extra seating to be added for those standing outside City Council meetings, if the builder in item 4 could appeal the postponement decision, and when the water works building would be updated. Lois Jeffrey replied that the builder could not appeal since the postponement was not a final action. The Director replied that the improvements to the water works building have been budgeted and she will provide a full report. At 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian moved. Baker seconded to cancel the April 23, 1990 meeting, to adjourn to the grading manual workshop at 5:00 p.m. and then to proceed to a scheduled Planning Commission meeting on April 30, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, 92680. Motion carried 3-0. Donald Le Jeune Chairman Penni Foley Secretary 04 S$Arse$U K. KAi ATTORNEY AT LAW ;227 W. 17T- STREET SAA- rA A. A, CALIFORITLA 62706 TELEPHONE (714) 550-0404 FAX (714) 547-1175 March 21, 1990 City of Tustin, Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Re: Building Permit Nos. 0238 and 0541 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, California Gentleman or Madam: On behalf of my client, Mr. Feridoun Rezai, 203 Trojan St., Anaheim, California 92804, I address you in the following matter. 1) On or about April 20, 1989, the City of Tustin (the "City") was informed that Mr. Rezai would submit plans for development and construction of certain real property located at 15642 Pasadena Ave., Tustin, California (the "Property"). On April 27, 1988 an application was filed by Mr. Rezai for permit to construct a two-story, 29 foot tall, 11 unit apart- ment building on the Property in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning district. 2) As stated in the City's Resolution No. 2575, a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held on or about March 13, 1989 on Mr. Rezai's application for the building permit and it was recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolu- tion No. 2572 approving the Final Negative Declaration in com- pliance with California Environmental Quality Act as adequate for Use Permit 89-05 for the Property, subject to the stipu- lated conditions. 3) On or about March 27, 1989, Mr. Rezai was notified that the Tustin Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting on March 20, 1989 approved the subject project on the Property and that "(T)he Redevelopment Agency's decision is final." On or about June 27, 1989, Mr. Rezai was further advised that the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting on June 5, 1989 approved the subject project and that "(T)he Redevelopment Agency's decision is final." 1 --- -- - -� .,.....,.. .............. ,~ l C S11"BHU K. RAI ATTORNEY AT LAW 4) Upon issuance of a valid Building Permit from the City on or about September 21, 1989 to Mr, Rezai as owner - contractor, construction on the Property commenced. At each stage of construction, the work was duly inspected and ap- proved. After the completion of the framing, electrical work and air-conditioning jobs were also done and inspected and ap- proved in early March, 1990. By early March, 1990 siding was almost completed. Plumbing work was done but not inspected and approved. 5) On or about March 9, 1990, Mr. Rezai received a Notice and Order to cease all construction activity, that the building permit for the construction on the Property are revoked, and that the Property be closed off and secured with a 6 foot chainlink fence until new permits are secured. 6) Mr. Rezai has over $1,100,000.00 spent in this Property. There is an outstanding construction loan in an amount of about $650,000.00 on which Mr. Rezai has been incur- ring interest. Because of the City's order to cease all work, Mr. Rezai is . faced with several losses including, but not limited to, additional expenses relating to increase in the subcontractor's charges, increase in cost of material, fixtures and equipment, and loss of rental income. The residential rental income from the Property would be reduced because due to the forced cessation of work, the com- plex would miss this year the prime rental season that com- mences in June each year. The full extent and amount of loss sustained by Mr. Rezai on account of the cessation of the work ordered by the City are not yet determined and are evidently continuing with each day the construction work is not resumed. 7) The City has revoked the duly issued permits and sum- marily stopped work presumably on the ground that not all neighboring property owners received by mail the notice of the meeting of March 13, 1989. The City has summarily decided that an irregularity has taken place in noticing of the public meeting, that Mr. Rezai and not the City is liable for any such irregularity, and that such lack of notice warrants revocation of the duly issued building permits and stoppage of all work even though the con- struction is almost complete. The City's action is clearly taken without substantive and procedural due process of law. 8) By such action, City has summarily taken a unilateral decision to rescind and/or annul the building duly granted to Mr. Rezai. Even if each and every owner of the neighboring Oq S$A 3mau K. RAi ATTORNEY AT LAW C property has not received by mail the notice of the public hearing, that would not per se invalidate the duly issued per- mit nor warrant divesting of duly vested rights of Mr. Rezai. 9) The public hearing scheduled for March 13, 1989 was duly notified by publication in Tustin News of March 2, 1989 as required by the rules. The requirements of notice of public hearing are to be fulfilled by the City as the local agency in question and for that purpose it may. use latest equalized assessment roll of records of the county.assessor or tax collector. In any case, if some other source ofinformation is needed as in this case, Mr. Rezai cannot be penalized for any inaccuracy therein. Under the Government Code (Title 7), Section 65093, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice of a public hearing shall not constitute grounds for any court to in- validate any action taken thereby. You are requested to take immediate action to redress the wrong and to cause necessary reinstatement and/or issuance of new permit so as to enable Mr. Rezai to resume the construction without any further delay. Please be advised that as stated above Mr. Rezai has been incurring extra costs and expenses and suffering damages each day he is prevented from resuming and completing the construction on the Property. S KR/ amg Certified Mail No. P 008 441 980 Return Receipt Requested 15 555.01 3 Very truly yours, Shambhu K. Rai 04 City of Tustin --NOTICE & ORDER -- March 9, 1990 Mr. Feridoun Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, California 92804 Dear Mr. Rezai: Community Development Department CERTIFIED MAIL P 087 436 324 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED NOTICE AND ORDER Subject Property: 15642 Pasadena Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Legal Description: Portion of north 5 acres of the west half of lot 'M' of Stafford and Tustin Tract in County of Orange, State of California as per map recorded in Book 2, pages 618 and 619 of miscellaneous records of Los Angeles County, California. Pursuant to Section 303(c) and 303(e) of the Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition, be advised that Building Permit No.s 0238 and 0541, for the construction of 11 apartment units on the above described property, are hereby revoked. All construction activity shall cease immediately. In addition, the property shall be secured with, at minimum, a 6 foot chainlink fence per Chapter 44 of the Uniform Building Code and erosion control devices installed per City Code Section 8922 immediately and maintained until such time that new permits are secured for the project and construction commences. Reason for this revocation is based on the determination by the City Attorney that Conditional Use Permit 89-05, issued by the Tustin Planning Commission on March 13, 1989, allowing construction of two, two story structures within 150 feet of single family residences, is invalid due to improper noticing of the public hearing for said Use Permit as a result of an incomplete mailing list. .................. 300 Centennial Way 9 Tustin, Califomia 92680 • (714) 544.8890 Notice and Order Mr. Feridoun Rezai March 91 1990 Page 2 A new public hearing will be properly noticed and held before the Tustin Planning Commission to reconsider Conditional Use Permit 89- 05 at the earliest possible date. Construction of the afore mentioned project shall not resume until such time as a new use permit is issued. Questions regarding this Notice and& Order should be directed to Steve Rubin in the Community Development Department at City Hall at (714) 544-8890, extension 252. Sincerely, Christine A. Shingleton Directo of Community Development Steve Rubin Associate Planner SR:CAS:kbc TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9290 PART 9 ADMINISTRATION 9290 ZONING PERMITS Zoning Permits shall be issued in conjunction with and as a part of building permits, and shall be issued by the Building Department of the City only after the Building Official has determined that any proposed construction is in con- formity with the regulations for the district in which it is to be located. No building permit shall be issued until the zoning permit portion thereof has been completed by the Building Official of the City or his authorized represent- ative. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.1) 9291 USE PERMITS a General Use Permits may be issued as provided in this Section for any of the uses or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this Chapter upon conditions designated by the Planning Commission. The Commission may impose such Conditions as it deems necessary *to secure the purposes of this Chapter and may require tangible guarantees or evidence that such conditions are e comp being or will be with. Applications for use • permits may be considered after holding public hearings thereon, as required by law. Notice of such i' hearings shall be given to thersons designated grated and in the manner prescribed in Section 296b. (Ord, No. 157, Sec. 7.2) b Application Application for use permits shall be made in writing by the owners of the prop- erty, lessee, purchaser in escrow, or optionee, with the consent of the owners, or plaintiff in an action for eminent domain for acquisition of said property, on a form prescribed by the Planning Commission. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and plans showing the details of the proposed use to be made of the land or building. (Ord. No. 451, Sec. 10) c Decision of the Planning Commission Upon receipt of the application for use. permit, the Planning 'Commission shall determine* whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. If the Commission finds that the aforementioned conditions will not result from the particular use applied for, it shall grant the use permit. The grantiifg of a use permit applied for by the plaintiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the property shall be TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 9291c conditioned upon ultimate vesting of title of the property to the plaintiff. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.22) 9292 VARIANCES a Basis for Granting Applications for variances from the strict application of the terms of this Chapter may be made and variances granted when the following circumstances are found to apply: (1) 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. (2) That because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict applica- tion of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classifica- tion. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.3) b Variances Not Allowed -- The use of lands or buildings not in conformity with the regulations specified for the district in which such lands or buildings are located may not be allowed by the granting of a variance from the strict application of the terms of this Chapter. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.31) c Application Application for variance shall be made in writing by a property owner, lessee, purchaser in escrow, or optionee with the consent of the owners, or plaintiff in an action for eminent domain for acquisition of said property, on a form prescribed by the Planning Commission. They shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00), a plan of the details of the variance requested, and evidence showing (1) that the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of this Chapter or to the public safety, health and welfare, and (2) that due to special conditions or exceptional characteristics of the property, or its location, the strict application of this Chapter would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. (Ord. No. 451, Sec. 10) d Hearing Upon receipt of an application for variance, the Planning Commission shall set a date for a public hearing on said application] said hearing shall be held within forty-five (45) days after the filing of the application. Notice of such hearing shall be given as set forth in Section 9196b. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.33) TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING 92 a Decision of the'Planning Commission 1 After the conclusion of the public' hearing or continuations thereof the Plann Commission shall grant' or deny a permit to modify the application of the re- strictions established by this Chapter. The Commission, if the applicant for variance consents thereto, may change or modify the extent of the variance re quested but only if such change or modification constitutes a more restrictive variance than that requested by the applicant. The granting of a variance ap- plied for by the plaintiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the prop4 ty shall be conditioned upon ultimate vesting of title of the property to the plaintiff. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.34) 9293 PERMITS a Effective Date of a Permit No use permit or permit granting a variance shall have any force or affect unt the applicant thereof actually .receives such permit designating the conditions of its issue thereon and signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission. h • permit shall be issued by the City until the time for filing an appeal from de cision.s of the Planning Commission as provided in Section 9194 hereof has ex- pired, or, in the event of such appeal, after the final determination thereof the City. Council. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.35.)' b Length of -Permits l An permit or variance Any use p granted in accordance with the terms of this Chapte shall be null and void if not used within one (1) year from the date of the approval thereof or within any longer period of time if so designated by the Planning Commission or the City Council. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.4) c Revocation of Permits Any use permit or variance granted in accordance with the terms of this Chapte may be revoked by the City Council in the manner hereinafter set forth if any the conditions or terms of such permits are violated or if the following find- ings are made: �5 (1) In connection with use permits: The continuance of the use would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general Welfare of the persons residing or.vorking in the neighborhood of such use, or would be injur: ous or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. (2) In connection with variances: Continued relief from the strict appli cation of the terms of this Chapter would be contrary to the public interest, safety, health and welfare.. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 7.5) d Hearing for Revocation of Permits Before the Council considers revocation of any permit, the Planning Commission shall hold a hearing thereon after giving written notice thereof to the permit• tee at least ten (10) days in advance of such hearing. Within five (5) days REV: 1-83 LU -2-77 'Q ST IX CITY CODE ZONING 9293d :he„reafter, the Commission shall transmit a report of its findings and its !t nendation.s on the revocation to the City Council. (Ord. Iso . 157, Sec. 7.6) )294 APPEALS I Appeal of Decisions kny person may appeal any order, requirement, ' decision or determination of the Planning Commission to the City Council in the manner set forth in this section unless the jurisdiction of the Planning Cvmmiasion is otherwise specifically de- clared by ordinance to be final and conclusive. Appeals shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk prior to 5:00 p.m.' of the day of the first regular meeting of the City Council following the Planning Commission action to be appealed, together with a filing fee in an amount as prescribed from time to time by the City Council by resolution. b Finality of Planning Commission Actions A record of each action of the Planning Commission shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at its first regular meeting following the action of the Planning Commission, together With a copy of the staff report thereon. The ac- tion of the Planning Commission shall become final unless at said meeting of the .City Council an appeal is requested by the City Council and/or unless an appeal has been filed by any other person prior to said meeting, as prescribed in para - gra nh a above. c' ppeal Procedures Upon any appeal being duly filed by any person as herein provided or by the City Council as herein provided, the City Clerk shall set a time for hearing by the City Council which shall be a date within twenty (20) 'days of -the filing of the appeal. Notice of such hearing shall be given as set forth in Section 9296 of this Code. The City Clerk shall also notify the Planning Commission of the appeal. d City Council Decision on Appeal At the close of the hearing on an appeal, the City Council may reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission and/or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the City Council. If the City Council does not take any action of reversal, modification and/or remand of the decision of the Planning Commission within -sixty (60) days after the filing of appeal thereon, the Planning Commission's action on the matter shall be final. (Ord. No. 157, Secs. 8.19 8.3; Ord. No. 201; Ord. No. 451, Sec. 10; Ord. No. 874, Sec. 2, 11-1-82) REV: 1-83 LII -2-78 r TUSTiN CIT? CODE ZONING 9 _� • 9295 AMENDMENTS • a, Definition Except as otherxise provided in this Section, any amendment to thia Chapter as •be initiated and adopted as other ordinances are amended or adopted. (Ord-. No. 1579 Sec. 9.1) b Types Any amendment to this Chapter which changes any property from one district to another district, or imposes any regulation upon property not theretofore imposed, or removes or modified any such regulation, shall be initiated and .:. adopted as hereinafter set forth in this Section. (Ord. No. 1579 Sec. 9.2) r y BEV: 1-83 LII -2-7 8.1 TUSTIN CM CODE c Piling Procedure ZONING 9295c Any amendment of the nature specified in Section 9295b hereof may be initiated by (1) the filing with the' Planning Commission of a resolution of intention of the City Council; (2) passage of a resolution of intention by the Planning Commission,, or (3) filing with the Planning Commission of a petition of one or more record owners of property which is the subject of the proposed amendment or their authorized agents. A petition for amendment shall be on a form designated there- for by the Planning Commission and shall be accompanied by a fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). (Ord. No. 451, Sec. 10) d Public Hearing Upon receipt of a petition or resolution of intention of amendment, the Planning Commission shall set a date for a.public hearing thereon, but not later than forty-five (45) days after the receipt of said petition or resolution. (Ord. • No. 157, Sec. 9.4) _t . r I. e Notices If the proposed amendment consists of a change in the boundaries of any district, the Planning Commission shall give notice of the time and place of such hearing, and the purpose thereof, in the manner designated in Section 9296b of this Chapter. If the proposed amendment is a matter of general or city -+ride scope, notice thereof shall be given as provided in Section 9296c. (Ord. No. 156, Sec. 9.5) f Action of Planning Commission After the close of the public hearing or continuations thereof, the Planning Commission shall make a report of its findings and its recommendation with respect to the proposed amendment.- The Commission report shall include a list of persons who testified at the hearing, a nary of the facts adduced at the hearing, the findings of the Commission, and copies of any maps or other data and/or documentary evidence submitted in connection with the proposed amendment. Copy of such report and recommendation shall be transmitted to the City Council within ninety (90) days after the first notice of hearing thereon; provided however, that 'such time may be extended with the consent of the City Council or the petitioner for such amendment. In the event the Planning Commission fails to report to the City Council within the aforesaid ninety (90) days or within the agreed extension of time, the amendment shall be deemed approved by the Planning Commission. The recommendations of the Planning Commission on proposed amendments shall be adopted by a majority of the voting members of said Planning Commission. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 9.6) g Action of City Council Upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission or expiration of the aforesaid ninety (90) days or agreed upon extended period, the City Council shall hold a public hearing thereon, giving notice thereof as provided in Section REV: 1-82 LU -2-79 TUSTIN CITY CODE ZONING. 9295g 9296. After the conclusion of su6h hearing the City -Council may within one* (1) year adopt the proposed amendment or any part thereof set forth in the petition or resolution of intention in such form as the Council deems desirable. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 9.7) 9296 NOTICES OF HEARING a Definition Whenever this Chapter prescribes that a public hearing shall be held on the application for variance or amendments to this Chapter, notice thereof shall be given as provided in this Section. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 10.1) b Notice of Hearing Notices of the public hearings on applications for use variance, appeals and amendments to this Chapter changing the boundaries of any district shall be given by the body conducting such hearings in the spanner prescribed by'Sections 65500 and 65854 of the Government Code of the State of California. (Ord. No. 303, Sec. 3) c Notice of Hearing: •Special Htarings Notices of public hearings on matters other than as specified in Subsection *b" - hereof shall be given by the body conducting such hearing by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Tustin, at least ten (10) days before the hearing. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 10.3) d Notice of Hearing: Failure to Post Notices ' Failure to mail or post notices as specified in Subsection "b" hereof shall not invalidate any proceedings. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 10.4) e Notice of Hearing: Filing of Affidavit Upon completion of the posting or nailing of the notices provided for in Sub- section "b" and publication of notices as provided in Subsections "b" and "c" hereof, the City Clerk, if the hearing is held by the Planning Commission, or if the hearing is held by the City Council shall cause an affidavit of such mailing or publication to be filed in the permanent records of the particular proceedings to which such notices pertain. (Ord. -No. 157, Sec. 10.5) 9297 DEFINITIONS "Administrative Office" means an office.for the rendering of service or general administration, but excluding retail sales. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 11.1) "Adult Bookstore" shall mean an establishment having as a substantial or signi- ficant portion of its stock in trade, material which is distinguished or charac- terized by its emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relateH to specified sexual activity or specified anatomical areas, or an establishment with a seg- ient or section thereof devoted to the sale or display of such material. (Ord. No. 819, Sec. 1, 2-19-80) REV: 1-82 LU -2-80 �O N Olt, in• FfAfs Z y ��ssr �• yWa O t O p � ♦`� it tt' `r o wearer CIRCLE Z y t O p � ♦`� it tt' l l' o � CORLA � O �o•• w � �sr n � ifntf' � i ' n Ow ' 8 O 0 0 J G City of Tustin Community Development Department June 26, 1989 Mr. Fred Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, California 92804 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A REVISION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 Dear Fred: The Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting on June 5, 1989 approved the subject project (see attached resolution). The Redevelopment Agency's decision is final. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Community Development Department. Sincerely, Christine A. Shingleton Director of Community Development Steve Rubin Senior Planner CAS:SR:pef Enclosure: Resolution RDA 89-15 Resolution RDA 89-16 y - +. ........ .. ..... 300 Centennial Way 9 Tustin, California 92680 • (714) 544-8890 1 2 3 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-15 4 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF 5 THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 AS ADEQUATE FOR A 6 REVISION TO SAID DESIGN REVIEW, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 7 QUALITY ACT. 8 9 The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve. as follows: lU I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: 11 • A. The revision to Design Review 88-20 is considered a "project" 12 pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality ' Act. 13 B. A Negative Declaration was previously prepared for this project 14 • and was distributed for public review. 15 C. Whereby, the Redevelopment Agency of the - City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Dfrector and other interested parties with respect to the (� subject Negative Dectarati on. 17 D. The Redevelopment Agency has evaluated the proposed final 18 Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and complete. 1 �l II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with 20 CEQA and State guidelines. The Redevelopment Agency, having final approval authority over the project, has reviewed and considered the 21 information contained in the Negati ve ' Declarati on for Design Review • 88-20 prior to approving the . proposed revisions and found it 22 adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed revised project. On the basis of the initial study and comments 23 received during the public review process, the Redevelopment Agency has found that there is no substantial evidence that there will be 24 any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the approval of the revised project because mitigation measures 25 identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental 26 27 28 1 I I I 1 I 1 2 2 Resolution No. RDA 89-15 Page two effects to a point where clearly no significant effects will occur. The mitigation measures are identified in Exhibit A to the attached Negative Declaration and initial study and are adopted as conditions of approval of the subject project pursuant to Conditions 2.1 and 5.1 of Exhi bi t A of Planni ng Commi ssi on Resolu*;^^ "'^ 9c7c ^^nrnnr5+n�i herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t Agency held on the 5th day of June Mary E. wy Secretary n STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF.ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and Secretary Clerk of the Community Development Agency of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of 'the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. RDA 89-15 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 5th day of June, 1989, by the following vote: ' YES COUNCILPERSONS: Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Prescott .NOES COUNCILPERSONS: None 1STAINED: COUNCILPERSONS: None ,3SENT: COUNCILPERSONS: None . MARY E. WYNN,ity Cler' Secretary Clerk City of Tusti , Californ a EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION USE PERMIT 89-05/DESIGN REYIEW 88-20 Project Description Supplement - The proposed project involves the removal of an existing one-story single family residence on an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoned lot and development of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project consisting of two ( 2) buil * dings with below grade, tucked under parking ( two car garages and three guestspaces). Surrounding development includes: existing two-story apartment buildings to the north and west, existing one-story apartment units to the south, and existing one-story single family residences to the east. 1. EARTH - This project would not result in any change to existing geologic conditions; however, grading is proposed that will require excavation 5 feet below existing grade for driveway and parking purposes and raise grade levels 3.5 feet above existing grades for the units themselves, resulting in disruptions, overcoveri ng and compaction of the soil and changes to existing topography. This is proposed to accommodate below grade, tucked under parking and still maintain a two and one half story building design. (Source: Field inspection, June 30, 1988, preliminary grading plans) Mitigation Monitoring - Appropriate soils reports and precise grading plans will be required by the Building Division prior to issuance of grading permits to ensure proper drainage, compaction and retention. 2. AIR - This project would not result in any change to the existing air quality based on review of AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents. (Source: AQMD Regulation No. 15, Site and Floor Plan) 3. WATER a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - This project would not result in any change to the existing water conditions based on review of the site by City staff on June 309 1988. The site is located in Flood Zone C, which is subject to minimal flooding. (Source: Tustin FIRM, Proposed Site/Grading Plans) WATER b - Improvements are proposed which will add impervious surface area to the property which could effect drainage and absorption rates. (Source: Site Inspection, June 30, 1988, Community Development Department) . Mitigation Monitoring - Drainage plans for the project for acceptance of water into the public storm drain system will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 4. PLANT LIFE a,b,c,d - The site is developed with an existing single-family residence -and is landscaped with turf in front and fruit trees in the rear. Development of this project will result in removal of existing vegetation and replacement with new turf, shrubs, ground cover and trees that are common species to the area. (Source: Field Inspection, June 30, 1988, submitted landscape plans) 5. ANIMAL LIFE a,b,c,d, - Based on review of City records and site inspection conducted by City staff, no rare or endangered species are known to inhabit the project site. (Source: Field Observation, June 30, 1988) Discussion of Environmental LValuation Use Permit 89-05 and Design Review 88-20 Page two 6. NOISE - Adjacent, existing residents may experience increases in ambient noise levels related to construction activities, however, this is considered a short term impact. Mitigation Monitoring - Construction activities shall be limited between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday (including engine warm-up).. Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal holidays. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE - The project will introduce additional lighting into the area by means of exterior fixtures on the future buildings. Mitigation Monitoring - Specific lighting plans and light standards will be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department which confine direct light rays to the subject property as required by the Zoning Code. 8. LAND USE - The proposed project will alter the existing land use of the site although the proposed number of apartment units (11) is permitted by the R-3 Zoning District standards. Due to its two and one half story design, the project could impact the adjacent properties to the east which are both developed with one-story buildings. The one-story buildings to the south are located within six feet or less of the common property line; however, the 1 resulting site line blocks views into those yards. (Source: Community Development Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code) Mitigation Monitoring - The proposed building "A" shall 'maintain a minimum 10 foot rear setback and building "B" shall' maintain a minimum 24 foot rear setback. Rear yard grades shall be left natural except for drainage purposes. Specimen size trees shall be planted along the north, south and east property lines of the subject site to provide additional screening. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The project would not result in any significant increased use of natural resources. The site is presently developed, and is located in an area of numerous existing multi -family developments as determined by field inspection on June 30, 1988. (Source: Field Inspection, June 30, 1988) 10. RISK OF UPSET - The proposed project would not result in any increased risk of upset to the property or future residents in that the proposed use is for an 11 unit apartment project *and no hazardous or flammable materials are associated with this- use. Applicable requirements of the Fire Department and Uniform Building Code will be satisfied to significantly reduce any risk of upset ( Source: Building Division and Fire Department) . Discussion of Environmental %_ _ Aluation Use.Permit 89-05 and Design Review 88-20 Page three 11. POPULATION - The proposed project will remove an existing single family residence and replace it with 11 apartment units, adding approximately 24' new residents to the.area, based upon the City's average household population of 2.4 persons/household (deducting the residents of the existing dwelling). The proposed density and resulting increase in population in the immediate area will not result in any significant impacts, as the increase in number of dwelling units and population are permitted and anticipated by the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. Comments received from the Community Services, Public Works, Police and Fire Departments did not note significant impacts to their services as a result of this project. ( Source: State Department of Finance Census data - 1/88, Community Development, Police, Fire, Public Works and Community Services Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code.) 12. HOUSING - See No. 11. 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - The project will generate approximately seven 7 average daily trips ADT per unit, for a total of approximately 77 ADT as compared to approximately 10 ADT for the existing single family residence. Although -this is a substantial increase, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the project would not significantly impact the carrying capacity of existing streets, as they are capable of handling the anticipated additional vehicle trips generated by the project. (Source: Engineering Department/City Traffic Engineer) 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - The project would not result in any significant change to public services, new families are likely to have children utilizing public schools. All services are in place for the area and development of the site has been anticipated by the Community Development Department. (Source: Fire, Police, Public Works, Community Services Departments) Mitigation Monitoring - The developer shall pay impact fees to the Tustin Unified School District prior to issuance of permits. 15. ENERGY - The project will not result in a substantial change in the use of energy. The project site has existing energy service. (Source: Public Works Department) 16. UTILITIES - The project would not result in any increased need for utilities, as all utilities are existing and presently serve the site and have adequate capacity to serve the project. (Source: Public Works Department) 17. HUMAN HEALTH - The project would not result in any effects to human health given the nature of the proposed land use. ( Source: Community Development Department) J Discussion Use Permit Page four \l I of Environmental Evaluation 89-05 and Design Review 88-20 18. AESTHETICS - Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a Use Permit to construct a building on an R=3 lot whose height would be greater than one-story or 20 feet, when the property abuts an R-1 zone and the building would be within 150 feet of a single family residence; all of these conditions apply to the subject project. To mitigate potential impacts to the single family residences to the east, and one-story apartments to the south, the proposed project has undergone an extensive design review process, resulting in a two and one half story building which incorporates colors and materials that are compatible with those found on existing structures and building height that is consistent with existing two-story buildings located to the north and west. Additionally, impacts to the existing developments to the east and south have been further mitigated by proposed side and rear setbacks that meet and exceed minimum required setbacks and the proposed grading scheme which minimizes grade differences to the extent possible. Additional mitigation could be achieved via the proposed landscaping for the project. Mitigation Monitoring - The landscape plans shall incorporate the use of minimum 24 inch box trees along the north, south and east property lines to provide additional privacy screening. 19. RECREATION - Future residents of the project may use existing recreational facilities; however, due to the small scale of the project (11 units) , anticipated impacts are minimal. ( Source: Community Development and Services Departments) 20. CULTURAL RESOUCES - The project archaeological resource, nor is Di strict. The site is presently single-family residence. There exist on the subject property. Inspection, June 30, 1988.) site is not located in an area known as an it located in the City's Cultural Resources developed with a simple, one-story, stuccoed, is no evidence that any cultural resources (Source: Tustin Area Historical Survey, Field 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The environmental evaluation provided herein, attempts to fUl y identify, discuss and mitigate any impacts associated with the proposed develgpment project. Considering the sources used, the proposed level of development and the mitigation and monitoring measures incorporated herein, staff has determined that any project impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. S R:ts:pef 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 J 1U 11 12 13 14 15 iC�! �I lig is 1� I� 20) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TU STIN, APPROVING A REVISION TO THE SITE PLAN FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 15642 PASADENA AVENUE. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin resolves as follows: I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the adopted South/Central Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Agency shall approve all site plans and architectural designs of any project proposed within the Redevelopment Agency Project Area. B. A proper application, (Revision to Design Review 88-20) has been filed on behalf of Feridoun Rezai requesting authorization to revise the approved site plan for a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, by increasing the south side building setback from the 11'-9" to T5-761' and the rear setback from ld feet to 12 feet and reducing the north side setback from 11'-9" to 8 feet and the front setback from 33 feet to 31 feet. C. Thef proposed revisions will *not alter the previously approved project in building height or architectural design. D. The Agency has reviewed the proposed project and determines that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. E. A Negative Declaration has been approved by the Redevelopment Agency in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Acta F. Final development plans shall require approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. G. The project is in conformance with the South/Central Redevelopment Plan. II. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, -- - -'l 10 Resolution No. RDA 89-16 Page two I hereby approves authorization to revise the site plan a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 5th day of June 1989. Ursula E. Kennedy ChairiM Mary E. VWn j Secretar EXHIBIT A REVISION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted revised site plan, date stamped May 4, 1989 and the previously approved plans for the project (with the exception of the 'site plan) date stamped February. 21, 1989, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. 1.2 All applicable conditions of approval of Exhibit 'A' to Resolution No. 2575, attached thereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall remain in full force and effect. J I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and Secretary Clerk of the Community Development Agency of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. RDA 89-16 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 5th day of June. 1989, by the following vote: YES COUNCILPERSONS: Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Prescott ')ES COUNCILPERSONS: None sSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS: None XBSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: None o kJ MARY E. WYNN, CitA Clerk/ecretary Clerk City of Tustin, Cbaiforniq Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency 300 Centennial Way . Tustin, California 92680 • (714) 544-8890 1 ' March 27, 1989 Mr. Feridoun Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, CA 92704 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 Dear Mr. Rezai: The Tustin Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting on March 20, 1989 approved the subject project (see attached resolutions). The Redevelopment Agency's decision is final. Should you have any questions,, please do not hesitate to contact the Community 1 Development Department. Sincerely, Christine A. Shi ngl eton, Director of Community Development teve Rubin Senior Planner CAS:SR:ts enclosure - - - ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 P- 8 8 U lU 11 12 13 14 15 1G 1 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-20, INCLUDI14G REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. Design Review 88-20 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this. project and has been distributed for public review. C. Whereby, the Redevelopment Agency 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. D. The Redevelopment Agency 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 Redevelopment Agency, having final approval authority over the project, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approving the proposed project and found it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial -study and comments received during the public review process, the Redevelopment Agency has found that there is no substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the approval of the project because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mi ti gate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no :�::� ... .2.............. 1 2 31I 4' 5 6 8 9 1U 11 I' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. RDA 89-9 Page two significant effects will occur. The mitigation measures are identified in Exhibit A to the attached Negative Declaration and initial. study and are adopted as conditions of approval of the subject project pursuant to Conditions 2.1 and 5.1 of Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 20th day of March 1989. i Ursula Kennedy Chairman Mary E. W n Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and Secretary Clerk of the Community Development Agency of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. RDA 89-9 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 20th day of March, 1989, by the following vote: YES COUNCILPERSONS: Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Prescott -'TOES COUNCILPERSONS: None BSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS: None ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: None MARY E. WYNN, Cit Clerk/Sec�etary Clerk City of Tustin, California FA 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 J lU lli 12 13 14 15 ]C� lig 1S 19� 20 i 21 22 23 24 25 , 26 2 i _I 28 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND ONE HALF- STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 15642 PASADENA AVENUE. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin resolves as follows: I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the adopted South/Central Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Agency shall approve all site plans and architectural designs of any project proposed within the Redevelopment Agency Project Area. B. A proper application, (Design Review 88-20) has been filed on behalf of Feridoun Rezai requesting authorization to construct a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project at 15642 Pasadena Avenue. C. The Agency has reviewed the proposed project and determines that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. D. A Negative Declaration has been approved by the Redevelopment Agency in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. E. Final development plans shall require approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. F. she project is in conformance with the South/Central Redevelopment Plan. II. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, hereby approves the site plan and elevations for a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project to be located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, subject to the conditions contained. in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 20th day of March 1989. 4r'su�aE. ennedy Chairman eq d' Mary E. Uynn Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY.OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and Secretary Clerk of the Community Development Agency of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. RDA 89-10 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a, regular meeting of the City Council as the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 20th day of March, 1989, by the following •ote : YES COUNCILPERSONS: Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Prescott �OES COUNCILPERSONS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS: -None _ ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: None MARY E. WYNN, City Jerk/Se. etary Clerk City of Tustin, California " i Report to the�� Planning Commission DATE: MARCH 13, 1989 SUBJECT: USE PERMIT 89-05 APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE ZONING: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ENV IRONM NTAL Item No. 2 STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL.QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION . 1. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2572, approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Use Permit 89-05; and 2. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2575, approving Use Permit 89-05, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. attached thereto, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to construct a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project on a 20,184 square foot lot in the R-3 zoning district. - - - - ............. Community Development Department 1 Planning Commission Report Use Permit 89-05 March 13, 1989 Page two The subject property is presently developed with a one-story single family residence located on the front one third of the site and a variety of fruit trees in the rear yard. Surrounding zoning and land uses consist of two-story apartment buildings on property zoned R-3 to the north and across Pasadena Avenue on the west, one-story apartments on property zoned R-2 (Duplex Residential) to the south, and one-story single family residences on property zoned R-1 to the east. Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code states that when an R-3 lot abuts property that is zoned R-1, no main building(s) shall be built that exceed one-story and/or 20 feet in height (whichever is more restrictive), within 150 feet of said R-1 zoned property, unless the Planning Commission approves a Use Permit to permit said building(s) to exceed one-story and/or 20 feet. The subject property is located in the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area; therefore, the proposed project will also require Redevelopment Agency approval of Design Review 88-20. As this application requires a public hearing, notice was published in the Tustin News and mailed to surrounding property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. A copy of this report and the meeting .agenda has been provided to.the applicant. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE PLAN Submitted development plans propose construction of two separate two and one half story, apartment buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type units. Six units will be located in Building "A" located parallel to the northern property line of the site and five ( 5) units will be located in Bui 1 di ng "B" located parallel to the southern property line. Proposed units will be approximately 1,200 square feet in size and contain three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths. The overall density of the project would be 23.7 units per acre. Under current provisions of the R-3 District, the maximum number of units that could be authorized on the site would be 11 units. Building coverage on the site wi 11 be approximately 38% with setbacks proposed of approximately 35 feet along the front of the property, 11.75 feet along the side lot lines and approximately 10 to 24 feet at the -rear of the property adjacent to R-1 zoned property. A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are proposed for the project; 11 two -car garages and three. open, covered guest spaces. Proposed parking is to be provided under each building and will be partially below existing grade. Access to all parking is proposed from a 27 foot wide central driveway. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permit 89-05 March 13, 1989 Page three Entryways to each unit will be provided by concrete walkways located adjacent to the northerly and southerly property lines of the project with pedestrian access to parking below grade provided at three proposed stairwells (one at the front and rear of building B and one at a central location between unit 3 and 4 of building "A". Private ground level open space/patio areas are also proposed at the front of each unit adjacent to entries. Air conditioning units will be located in the corner of each enclosed patio area. Walkways and driveway areas will be accented with special brick pavers or other special pavement treatment. The proposed grading scheme for the project involves excavating approximately five (5) feet below existing grade for the central driveway and tuck under parking. The resulting driveway ramp incorporates 6% blend slopes at each end with an 11.23% slope over the remaining portion. This is within the maximum 13% slope permitted by the City. Because the garage level is only five (5) feet below grade, and an eight (8) foot ceiling is proposed for the garages, the grade at the front entrances to the units is raised as much as 3.5 feet above existing grade, which is accomplished in steps. Specifically, the grading - concept proposes a two (2) foot grade difference at the side property lines, (pedestrian walkways) stepping up 18 inches to the patio and front door level. The actual finished floor level of all 11 units is six (6) inches above the patio level (see Sheet 3 of attached plans). As the sections on Sheet 3 indicate, the adjacent properties ( north and south) will face a 6,8" combination wall and fence (the fence is to be built of lap -siding, painted to match the buildings, the wall will be stuccoed to match the buildings). The grade level in the front and rear yard setbacks will not change from existing conditions except for landscape berming and drainage. This concept helps preserve privacy between the project and the rear yards of the single family residences at the. rear of the subject property. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The proposed architectural design for the project is a modified cape cod design which utilizes a combination of wood lap -siding and stucco with wood trim at building corners and around doors and windows. The project incorporates a variety of insets,, projections and cantilevers to achieve relief on all sides of the two buildings. The proposed color scheme includes "silver gray�� stucco, of pearl gray siding, swiss coffee�� trim and charcoal gray asphalt composition shingles. Surrounding color and material themes in the general vicinity of the project include white stucco with blue trim and a white gravel roof immediately to the north, white stucco with blue trim and gray asphalt composition shingle roofs immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, tan stucco and wood siding with brick accents and a shake roof immediately to the south and general earth - tone stucco and wood siding with composition shingle, shake and gravel roofs on the single family residences to the east. Overall, staff believes that the proposed color and material scheme is compatible with that of surrounding J developments. Additional architectural features include: ° Six inch bay window projections above front doors. community Development Department Planning Commission Report 1 Use Permit 89-05 March 13, 1989 Page four ° Multi -paned windows on all sides. ° Lap -sided garage doors ("swiss coffee" white). Sliding glass doors located on patios. Electric and gas meters concealed below grade by the guest parking spaces. ° Mail box enclosures with roofing, siding and colors to match the main buildings. ° Chimneys at each unit (stuccoed, silver gray) ISSUES Compatibility with Surrounding Development - The proposed project is essentially an "in -fill" development, replacing an existing single family residence with an 11 unit apartment project based on permitted density of the R-3 zoning district (one dwelling unit/1750 square feet of lot area) . To ensure compatibility with surrounding buildings and uses, the proposed project has undergone an extensive design - review process, resulting in design (2-1/2 stories, pitched roofs, chimneys), materials (combination wood siding and stucco) and colors (gray with white trim) that reflect elements found in all of the structures in this vicinity. The proposed design attempts to minimize impacts on adjacent properties (specifically to the south and east) by maintaining a two and one half story height, varying rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks that exceed code standards by over six (6) feet. Although privacy may be an issue for the property owners to the south and east, staff believes that this is minimized due- to the fact that the one-story units to the south are situated such that their rear walls face the subject property, and the combination of their large eave overhangs and the proposed grades create very narrow view angles into their property and the proposed buildng "B" is setback over 11 feet from the' common property line. Additionally , the single family residences at the rear of the subject property are setback 25 to 28 feet from the common property line and 35 to 52 * feet from the proposed buildings ( "A" and "B" respectively) . Also, as noted earlier, the grades at the rear of the subject property are to be left natural (except for minor grading for drainage) , so residents of the proposed project will not "peer down" onto the adjacent yards when walking through the rear yard area. The two and one half story buildings to the north of the subject property are setback 20 to 25 feet from the common property line, with a 20 foot wide driveway located along the common property line. Community Development DeparTment l� Planning Commission Report Use Permit 89-05 March 13, 1989 I Page five Paving Materials - As noted earlier, rust colored concrete is proposed along with red brick pavers as accents at the driveway and pedestrian walkways. Staff questions this color combination with those proposed for the buildings. A darker gray colored concrete and gray brick pavers would be more compatible and consistent with the building colors. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, staff believes that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding developments and would be a positive addition to the neighborhood and should be approved. Steve Rubin Senior Planner _ SR:pef /re-' Christine Shingleton Director of Community Deve opment Attachments: Site, floor, elevation and grading plans Initial Study Negative Declaration Resolution No. 2572 Resolution No. 2575 J Community Development Department C C c 1 2 3 4 5 6 i 8 9 U RESOLUTION NO. 2575 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY . OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 89-05 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT THAT IS ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO BE LOCATED AT 15642 PASADENA AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. A proper application, Use Permit No. 89-05 has been filed on behalf of Feridoun Rezai'to request approval to construct a two and one half story 11 unit apartment project that is 1 adjacent to and within 150 feet of a single family residence, to 11 be -located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue. 12 i B. A . public hearing was duly called., noticed and held on . said 13 14 15 N 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 application on March 13, 1989. C. Establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, as evidenced by the following findings: i 1. The use as applied for is in conformance with the General Plan and Tustin Zoning Code. 2. The use applied for is a conditionally permitted use in the R-3 zoning district. 3. The development of the proposed apartment project on the subject site is compatible with the uses in the surrounding R-39 R-2 and R-1 zoning districts. 4. As designed, the project meets or exceeds all applicable standards of the R-3 zoning district. D. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. E. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. +-- - -- - - - ...................... 1 _ 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1C�! 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2575 Page two. ' 11. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 89-05 approving construction of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project that i s adjacent to and wi thi n 150 * feet of a . si ngl a fami 1y residence, to be located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A". attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of March, 1989. Penni Foley Secretary A. L. Baker Chairman f �-- EXHIBIT A USE PERMIT 89-05 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 2575 GENERAL (1) ' 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped February 21, 1989 on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Design review approval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued within twelve (12) months of the date on this Exhibit. (1) 1.4 The applicant shall obtain right of entry from adjacent property owners for all work adjacent to property lines. Proof of such shall be provided prior to issuance of any permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of any permits. PLAN SUBMITTAL 2.1 At building plan check submittal: (3) A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements shall be complied with as approved by the Building Official. (2) B. Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations (3) including cable TY, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Addi ti onal ly, , a note on plans shall be included stating that no field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Building Official. (2) C. Final grading and specifications and erosion control plans consistent (3) with the site plan and landscaping plans (including berms in the front setbacks) and prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval of the Community Development Department. Said plan shall clearly indicate all grades and call - outs. (2) D. A precise soils engineering report provided by a soils engineer within (3) the previous twelve (12) months. 'E CODES STANDARD CONDITION (2) NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (6) LANDS NDS POLICY GUIDELINES (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION I it A juti on No. 2575 y ' two (1) E. Information, plans and/or specifications to ensure satisfaction of all (2) Public Works Department requirements including .but not limited to: (5) 1) Curb and gutter 2) Sidewalk 3) Domestic water service 4) Sanitary sewer service 5) Street trees 6) Street lights F. Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be repaired before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. G. Prior to any, work in the public right-of-way an excavation permit shall be issued. (2) H. Information to ensure compliance with all requirements of the Orange (5) County Fire Chief including required f i ref 1 ow and' installation,, where required, of fire hydrants subject to approval of. the Fire Department, City of Tustin Public Works Department and Irvine Ranch Water District and compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction as follows: 1) Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in all units and garage areas as necessary. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS 3.1 The site plan shall be modified as follows: A. Guest parking spaces shall be labeled as "Guest Parking" spaces (provide details for such marking and labeling). B. The trash enclosures shall be moved six (6) feet to the east so as to provide adequate back-up space for the guest parking stall at the east end of Building "A". C. Building height shall not exceed 35 feet as measured from the average elevation of the site based upon the lowest and highest grades proposed on the subject property. 3.2 Modify building elevations and proposed exterior materials as follows: A. Provide exact details and exterior door and window types and treatments (i.e., framing color glass .tint) . B. Change the color of the accent concrete and brick pavers from brick red to dark gray so as to be compatible with the building colors. ""I t A ition No. 2575 je three C. . Property line fences/walls shall be designed, painted and stuccoed to match the main buildings. (1) 3.3 All exterior colors .to be used shall be subject to review and approval of the. (4) Director of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments must be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on submitted construction plans and elevations shall indicate all colors and materials to be used. 3.4 Automatic garage door openers shall be provided on all garages. LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (6) 4.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for all landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plan and table must list botanti cal and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and bermi ng details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment must be provided. Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of Community Development may request minor substitutions of plant i lant, materials or request additional sizing or quantity materials during plan check. Note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping irrigation materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community Development. (6) 4.2 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following requi rements: A. Turf is unacceptable for grades over 25%. A combination of planting materials must be used, ground cover on large areas alone is not acceptable. B. Provide a minimum of one 15 gallon size tree for every 30 feet of property line on the property perimeter and five 5 gallon shrubs. C. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum of 8 feet on center when intended as screen planning.. D. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center. E. When 1 gallon plant sizes are used the spacing may vary according to materials used. F. Up along fences and/or walls and equipment areas, provide landscaping screening with shrubs and/or vines and trees on plan check drawings. ?p '` i t A ,tion No. 2575 ie four G. All plant -materials shall be installed i n a healthy vigorous condition typical to the species and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition; this will include but not be limited to trims ng, mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement of diseased or dead plants. H. Earth mounding is essential and must be provided to applicable heights whenever it is possible in conjunction with the submitted landscaping plan. Earth mounding should be particularly provided along Pasadena Avenue. I. Major points of entry to the project, courtyards and pedestrian internal circulation routes shall receive specimen trees to create an identification theme. J. Landscaping adjacent to the right-of-way shall be coordinated with parkway landscaping. K. Minimum 24" box trees shall be planted at the north, south and east -- property lines to provide additional privacy screening to the adjacent C residences. L. The landscape nodes at the garage separations shall be enlarged to a minimum dimension of 3' by 4',, including a six ( 6 ) inch curb. Such shall be shown on the grading plan. Shrub/trees shall be planted in said nodes, in addition to ground cover. Irrigation plans shall include said nodes. 4.3 Indicate lighting scheme for project, note locations of all exterior lights and types of fixtures, lights to be installed on building shall be a decorative design. No lights shal 1 be permitted which may create any glare or have a negative impact on adjoining properties. The location and types of lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. NOISE (1) 5.1 Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 (2) p.m:, Monday through Friday. This shall include engine warm-ups. Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal holidays. FEES (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all (31 required fees including: A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department. ti Ex�hi t A r ,iti on No. 2575 ee .five . B. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District. C. Grading plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development Department. D. All applicable Buil ding plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. E. New development fees to the Community Development Department. F. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District. G. Parkland dedication in -lieu fees in the amount of $3,300.00 to the Community Seryices Department. SR:pef . t CALL T0' ORDER: AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 13, 1989 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Weil, -Baker,. Le Jeune, Pontious, Shaheen PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) CONSENT CALENDAR: IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the February 27, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Use Permit 89-05 APPLICANT: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE ZONING: R-3,.MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. Recommendation: 1) It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt _-Resolution No. 2572, approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for se Permit 89-05; and. 2.). It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt --J Resolution No. 2575, approving Use Permit 89 059 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A. attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner j ................. .s ' Planning Commission Agenda March 13, 1989 Page two OLD BUSINESS 3. Code Enforcement Activity Report Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 4. Sign Code Amendment - Update Presentation: Christine Shing leton, Director of Community Development NEW BUSINESS S. Design Review 89-02 APPLICANT: DAVE WILSON 1400 N. TUSTIN AVENUE ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92667 PROPERTY OWNER: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915 -- LOCATION: TERMINUS OF AUTO CENTER DRIVE ADJACENT TO MAC PHERSON TOYOTA ZONING:. PC -MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT A 21,800 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON A 3.2 ACRE LOT, SHOWN AS PARCEL f2 ON FINAL MAP 13834 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify Environmental Impact Report #85-02 as adequate to serve as the program EIR by adoption of Resolution No. 2573 as submitted or revised; 2) Approve Design Review 89-02 by adoption of Resolution No. 2574 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner 6. 1989 Amendments to Housing Elements Presentation: Laura Kuhfi, Senior Planner STAFF CONCERNS 7. Report on Actions Taken at the March 6, 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on March 27, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. y r 'FICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 111STIN PLANNING COMMISSION . Notice is hereby gi vdn that the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California, will conduct a public hearing on March 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial -Way, Tustin, California to consider the following: 1. Conditional Use Permit 89-05 A request by Feri doun Rezai to construct a two-story, 29 foot tall, 11 unit apartment project on a 20,184 square foot parcel in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zoning district located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin. A Conditional Use Permit is required as the project is adjacent to an R-1 (single family) lot and within 150 feet of * a single family residence. The property may be legally described as a portion of the north five (5) acres of the west half of lot 'M' of Stafford and Tustin Tract in the County of Orange as per map recorded in Book 2, pages 618 and 619 of miscellaneous records -of Los Angeles County, California. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions' of the California Environmental Quality Act. Information relative to these items is on file in the Community Devel opmerit Department and is available for public inspection at City Nall. Anyone interested in the information above may call the Community Development Department at (714) 544-8890 ext. 250. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Publish: Tustin News March 2, 1989 ........................ f, Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Page twelve Staff responded that they had.previously thought this issue resolved but would be happy to provide the policy guidelines again to the Commi.ssi on. Commissioner Le Jeune also noted concern on the screening of the Water Works site along MainStreet; noted that a complaint had been made ..to him about the- house on Pacific and Second where people are unloading large items after hours; and noted that there are several signs that blink that are not in comf ormance with the sign code, and that he would call staff with a list. The Director noted that staff would look into these items and respond to the Commission. She also noted that staff will not be able to remove illegal non -conforming signs until the Sign Code is adopted and a thorough survey is completed. She indicated that staff will provide a revised schedule for the Sign Code. Commissioner Shaheen asked what was happening with the abandoned property on the west side of the Peppertree . subdivision and asked for a letter for him to give concerned homeowners. The Director noted that storm drain improvements are required for the area. She also noted that the Director of Public Works is working closely' with a representative from the Peppertree Homeowner's Association and that she will obtain a copy of the letter --- that was provided to the Homeowner's representative. Commissioner Pontious noted that there are sign problems in the windows along Newport ' Avenue across from ustin Plaza. Staff responded that enforcement action is being taken. Commissioner Weil asked the status of reappointment of Planning Commissioners and also noted that she had some changes to be made on Fence Guidelines provided at the last meeting. The Director noted that the Commission serves at will until removed by the City Cou nci 1. ADJOURNMENT At 9:20 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Weil seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting on March 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Temp. Power -work with iTY OF T .Soil Pipe Ground COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. BUILDING DIVISION (71 a) 544.8890 A-8 Heating Ground A-7 Electrical Ground 300 Centennial Way A-8 Steel Rebar Found'n Tustin. California 92680 A9 Steel Re - bar r, R be G Beam Job Address A-10 Piles •Pile Caps Nature of Work A•11 Trench Forma Found't Use of Building B-13 Insulation Building Permit No. res`-=— Date Issued Owner Contractor Inspector must sign all spaces pertaining to this job. TYPE OF INSPECTION INSP. DATE Temp. Power -work with -• .Soil Pipe Ground A-3 Sewer A•4 Water Pipe Ground A-5 Gas Pipe Ground A-8 Heating Ground A-7 Electrical Ground , A-8 Steel Rebar Found'n A9 Steel Re - bar r, R be G Beam A-10 Piles •Pile Caps A•11 Trench Forma Found't A-12 Underpinning DO NOT COVER OR POUR CONCRETE UNTIL ABOVE ARE SIGNED B•1 Roof Sheathing ` -• B-2 Plumbing Rough &4 Gas Service B•5 Heating Rough B-8 Air Cond. • Ventil. Rough B-7 Electrical Rough B•8 Chimney B•9 Steel Rebar Columns B-10 Steel Re -bar Bond Sm. B•11 Steel Reber Mea. Walls 5.12 Framing B-13 Insulation 'rER NO WORK UNTIL ABOVE SIGNED ,%,t' Lath Exterior C•2 Lath Interior C•3 Dry Wall C-4 Scratch Coat C-5 Brown Coat C-8 Gas • Temp. Serv. C-7 Electric • Temp. Serv. FINAL INSPECTIONS F•1 Plumbing Final F-2 Gas Final F•3 Heating Final F•4 Air Cond. - Ventil. Fin. F-5 Electrical Final F•8 Fire Department F•7 Building Final QT OE U THIS BUILDING UNTIL THE INSPECTORS GMS OFF ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS FOR SIGN INSPECTIONS S•1 Excavation (Poles) S•2 Size i1 Area S•3 Strun Supports S-4 Elect Connection S•5 Job Completed POST IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE JOB CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION l 1 G of Tustin Community Development Department July 14, 1988 Mr. Fred Rezai 203 Trojan Street Anaheim, CA 92804 SUBJECT: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE Dear Mr. Rezai: Pursuant to your request, this letter is to verify that the property noted above is zoned R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Based upon the R-3 density factor of 1750 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit, the subject property, having a lot area of 20,184 square feet (per your site plan), could be developed with up to 11 dwelling units, subject to the satisfaction of all applicable zoning and building code requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at (714) 544-8890, extension 278. Sincerely, Christine A. Shingleton Director of Community Development J!-- A04i Steve Rubin Senior Planner CAS: SR: ts - - - .............:u 300 Centennial Way • Tustin, Callfomla 92680 9 (714) 544-8890 VI CITIf O TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. . BUILDING DIVISION (T14) 544-8890 300 Centennial Way r Tustin, California 92660 v H 47 SSI: , '4p IE ua S'r ' r A" Job Address r'" / Nature of Work 0" Ar T. 0 t Use of Building 14 p4'4LI Wt "Y P v Building Permit No.Z 3 a Date Issued Owner E f=-4.) Contractor Inewtor must sign all spaces pertaining to this job. TYPE OF INSPECTION INSP. DATE A•6 Gas Pipe Ground " Meeting Ground ^-14 vnueiyin.nny I DO NOT COVER OR POUR C NCRETE UNTIL ABOVE ARE SIGNED B•1 Root Sheathing- B-2 Plumbing Rough --�-> B-4 Gas Service B-6 Meeting Rough _.,�j{� B•6 Air Cond. • Ventil. Rough ��--- A - B -i Electrical Rou - _ _ — &8 Steel Re -bar Columns 7 Building Final B-10 Steel Rebar Bond Bm. &11 Steel Reber Mas. Walls B&12 Framing B-13 Insulation COVER NO WORK UNTIL ABOVE SIGNED C-1 Lath Exterior C•2 Lath Interior C-3 Dry Wall C-4 Scratch Coal C -b Brown Coat C-6 Gas - Temp. Serv. C-7 Electric - Temp Seri. FINAL INSPECTIONS QO NOT OCCUPY THIS BUILDING UNTIL THE INSPECTOR SIGNS OFF ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS FOR SIGN INSPECTIONS S-1 Excavation (Poles) S-2 Size i Arse S-3 Str= Supports S-4 Elect Connection S6 Job Completed POST IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE JOB CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION F-1 Plumbing Final F-2 Gas Final F-3 Heating Final F-4 Air Cond. - Venlil. Fin F-6 Electrical , Final -6 Fire DepartmentF- 7 Building Final QO NOT OCCUPY THIS BUILDING UNTIL THE INSPECTOR SIGNS OFF ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS FOR SIGN INSPECTIONS S-1 Excavation (Poles) S-2 Size i Arse S-3 Str= Supports S-4 Elect Connection S6 Job Completed POST IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE JOB CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION F-1 Plumbing Final F-2 Gas Final F-3 Heating Final F-4 Air Cond. - Venlil. Fin F-6 Electrical , Final -6 Fire DepartmentF- sr�a;� or.,�, ou tozc-as Bl., li -21��� GsF gq Q0 2-17-9 �7ao�i CO C11Y 0 TUSTIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. .(� BUILDING DIVISION (714) 544-8890 300 Centennial Way V N ,..- Tustin, California 92680 / s Ir4z n Job Address Nature of work pew I" -(- Use of Building 0AA+VtF1V-'C L Building Permit No. S,411 Date Issued Owner 0,�L) Kt h-1 Contractor O wN04L-• InsPeotor mutt Sign AN simme Pertaining to this job TYPE OF INSPECTION INSP. DATE A•1 Temp, Power -work with A-2 Soli Pipe Ground ' A•3 Sewer A-4 Water Pipe Ground A-5 Gas Pipe Ground A-8 Heating Ground A•7 Electrical Groynd A•8 Steel Rebar Fo A-9 Steel Rebar dFbeam A-10 Piles •Pile Capa A•11 Trench Forms '1 A• 12 Underpinning D NOT COVEEq RPO R CONCRETE UNTIL ABOVE ARE SIGNED m - FL:pe W 4 4 � &1 Roo healhing B-2 Plumbing Rough B-4 Gas Service &5 Meeting Rough —tu &6 Air Cond. • Venlii. Rough d &7 lectricai &8 Chimney &9 Steel Rebar Columns B-10 Steel Rebar Bond Bm. &11 Steel Reber Mea Walls &12 Framing & 13 Insulation COVER NO WORK UNTIL ABOVE SIGNED C•1 Lath Exterior 02 Lath Interior C•3 Dry Wall C-4 Scratch Coat C-5 Brown Cost C•e Gas • Temp. Serv. C-7 Electric - Temp. Serv. FINAL INSPECTIONS L F•1 Plumbing Final F•2 Gas Final F-3 Muting Final F-4 Air Cond. • Ventil. Fin. F•5 Electrical Final -8 Fire Department F•7 Building Final DO NOT OCCUPY THIS BUILDING UNTIL THE INSPECTOR SIGNS OFF ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS FOR SIGN INSPECTIONS S•1 Excavation (Poles) &2 Site 8 Area S-3 Strua Supporta S-4 Elect Connection S-5 Job Completed POST IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE ON THE JOB CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION J I ��F I � �xr -41 � � -7 v -o;- q,,�J I t 1 § 65093. Effect of failure to receive noticeat _ The failure of any person or entity to receive notice given P 210 �.� _ '�. ... 65095 PUBLIC HEARINGS § • or pursuant to the procedures established by achartered t a�b� not constitute grounds for any courtto in validate the ' of a local agency for which the notice was given. xAded Stan1984 ch 1009 § z . Y r� >: § 65854.5. � added by Stats 1975 ch 249 § 2, amended by Stan 1975 ch 1022 �t-5. guts 1979 ch 479 § 1 • _ § 66451.5, as added by Stats 1982 ch 87 § 14. 00) Fad p commissions, was �� See&w Former § 65093. relating to authority for area fanning _ rano � Stats 1953 ch 1355 § 2 and repealed by Stats 1965 ch 1880 § 8. addedS Oringinal § 65093, relating to area planning commission, was added by Stats ?WOW 334 § 1 and repeated by Stats 1953 ch 1355 § I. .22 .................. DATE: MAY 22, 1990 TO: HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT D Inter - Com SUBJECT: FERIDOUN REZAI - DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08 In response to Mr. RezaiIs allegations accompanying his appeal of the Planning Commission's revocation and denial of the above - referenced use permits, we submit the following arguments supporting the City's and Commission's actions in this matter: 1. LACK OF NOTICE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS RESULTED IN AN INVALID CUP. Government Code Section 65091 provides, in part: "Notice of [a] hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll within 300 feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearing". Adjudicatory approvals such as conditional use permits require reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard so that neighboring landowners are not deprived of their "substantial or significant property rights." In the leading case of Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 605, the California Supreme Court held that such rights are unduly compromised where neighboring landowners are not provided with notice of a proposed development project. In this case, the City discovered that the citizens in some of the R-1 homes adjacent to Mr. Rezai's development had not been provided with notice prior to the original CUP hearing. The mailing labels submitted by the applicant were found to be incomplete. 2. THE CITY ACTED PROPERLY BY SUMMARILY REVOKING THE BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT A NOTICE AND HEARING Uniform Building Code Section 303(c) provides, in part: 1 "The issuance or granting of a permit . . . shall not be construed to be a permit for, or in approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid." Section 303(e) further provides as follows: "The building official may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code whenever the permit is issued in error or on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of this code." The relevant provisions of the City's building code make it clear that a permit issued in error may be summarily revoked. Such an error renders a permit void. In Sierra Club v. Cal. Coastal Commission (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 149, the court held that "[a] void permit will not establish a vested right to develop property." Generally, in the absence of a vested right, a court will not consider the amount of time and money spent in reliance on a void permit. This point is clearly illustrated in Millbrae Association v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal. App. 2d 222, 246, wherein the court held that a party did not have a vested right even though they spent over $600,000 developing property in reliance on an erroneously approved permit. The Millbrae court refused to consider cases holding that a person who changes his position in reliance on a zoning ordinance and a permit issued pursuant thereto, and who has performed a material amount of work thereunder, has a vested right in such permit. The court distinguished Millbrae by pointing out that those cases all dealt with a permittee who was proceeding pursuant to a valid permit, which was subsequently revoked. A permit rendered invalid when issued because it violated a zoning ordinance cannot confer a vested right. This general principle is widely held and supported by numerous other cases. (See also Pettitt v. City of Fresno (1973) 34 Cal. App. 3d 813; Chaplis v. County of Monterey (1979) 97 Cal.. App. 3d 249; Weiner v. City of Los Angeles (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 697) 3. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65093 DOES NOT APPLY TO OUR FACTS Mr. Rezai alleges that Government Code Section 65093 prohibits a public entity from invalidating any action for failure to provide notice required by law. Mr. Rezai mistakenly interprets Section 65093 by omitting certain statutory language that is key to its proper application. 2 Section 65093 provides that "the failure of any person or entity to receive notice given pursuant to this title . . . , shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the actions of a local agency for which the notice was given." Mr. Rezai's failure to consider the language underlined above leads to an improper reading of this section. So long as the relevant provisions of the Government Code relative to notice procedures for land use and planning decisions are followed, then Section 65093 will apply to uphold such decisions. Section 65093 anticipates a situation wherein proper notice is given pursuant to Section 65091 but for some reason the notice is not received. In our situation, proper notice was not provided in accordance with Section 65091, and as a result neighboring property owners did not receive notice. Therefore, Section 65093 of the Government Code is not applicable to our facts. 4. CITY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A RELEVANT ISSUE The City acted properly in summarily revoking the building permit based on the invalidity of the CUP. This decision cannot be challenged at this time based on the alleged negligence of the City. In the event Mr. Rezai attempts to pursue a negligence claim against the City, it is our opinion that the City would be found to be immune from liability. In our opinion, it is Mr. Rezai, and not the City, who was the negligent party. Pursuant to the City's Guidelines For Filing An Application For Public Hearing, Mr. Rezai was responsible for supplying the list of property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the subject property (see attached Exhibit "A"). Moreover, Mr. Rezai executed an affidavit stating that the mailing list was true and correct (see attached Exhibit "B"). Thus, Mr. Rezai had the obligation to supply accurate information about neighboring property owners. He was aware of this and purported to supply an accurate list. JAMS R'". - ROURK CVy Attorney LEJ:rr:R:5/22/90(L\811) 3 LOIS E. JgFI'R Y !) Assistant City Attornoey