HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 11-14-17 '4L Board of Directors
i Kim DeBenedetto
eHssa Figge
Lisa Harding
_ LindaJennin s
Brian Sjoberg
Up Srr&b
' 'Tustin Preservation Conservancy Chuck Thrash
350 South B Street Mark Mcken
Old Town Tustin,California 92780
i
Bomber,2017
Tustin Planning Commission
300 CentennW way
Tustin,CA 92780
Dear Commissioners,
The purpose of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy is to preserve and protect the historic resources within the city o
Tustin.within this mission,we have raised awareness in the Greater Tustin Community of the value ofour historic
structures,including the Tustin Blimp Hangars. In addition,we have recognized local homeowners and businesses for their
preservation efforts.As part of our mission,we have provided numerous tours to the public featuring Old Town Tustin's
historic architectural resources.
Within the past year,it has come to our attention that the historic Maxy Tustin—Lindsay House,located at 305 S. C Street in
Old Town Tustin,is presently vacant and has been put up for sale by the owners.
Built in 1886 by Mary Tustin,widow of Columbus Tustin,it was moved to its present location using mules and logs.
Previously,it was located at the corner of El Camino Real and Sixth Street,where the Black Marlin Restaurant is now
located.The Columbus'Tustin family owned this house until the mid-190's.
Ralph Lindsay and his wife,Louise,bought the home in 1945.In addition to being a business owner in'Tustin,he served as
Fire Chief from 1951-1959.This house is considered a rare example of a primary settlement period building.In addition,it is
one of the fcw remaining Domes constructed in the board and batten style in Orange County.
In an effort to preserve the historic home of our dty founder's family,we provided the funding for a new roof and front
porch repair.This required testing for asbestos and lead bcfore repairs could be started. At the request of the owner's
family,the Conservancy also provided funding for the home's new landscaping and sprinklers.
The Conservancy's Board of Directors feel it is essential that the Planning Commission,in its role as the Historic Resource
Committee,be aware of the fact that this historic dty landmark could be attisk.Many citizens of Tustin have reached out to
us concerned about the future of the Mary Tustin--Lindsay Housc.
We want the Planning Commission to be aware of the potential loss of this historic resource and share their concerns with
the Tustin City Council and City Staff.The Mary Tustin--Lindsay House is possibly the most historic structure in our city.
We ask that the Planning Commission take steps to preserve this historic legacy.
Sincerely,
Charles Thrash A.I.A.,
President,Tustin Preservation Conservancy
Preserve urTs ti nfmil.com
r.
ITEM #1
EGET MINUTES
REVISION TO PAGE 16
Ar
Exodus have in adjusting their service offerings once CUP is
approved, ---is opposed to Exodus not following the guidelines.
Leslie works downtown Santa Ana: there is a need for a
mental health facility, but the wrong location; after hearing the
Commission's di�,�,(-.Ljssions, it appeared to be a "done deal";
mentioned the Santa Ana Police Department being "ineffective
and the Cornmlssion needs to listen to community concerns.
9:44 p.m. Closed the Public Comments S e-iction
Smith Smith called for a five (5) minute recess.
9:49 p.m. Reconvened meeting,
Thompson Thompson's u+ stip for the applicant generally included:
safety; noise; hours; negative stereotyping; need additional information
regarding Exodus' role, responsibility; security guards roles, responsibility,
authority and their relationship with the Tustin Police Department
(Condition 2.2); need a better understanding of what the Commission is
considering; asked staff to explain the noticing process, including who
received a notice; discussion regarding hours, if it were not for the hours
the item would not even be up for, consideration; better understanding of
the entry point into the resideq- tial area and whether or not it can be moved!
towards Newport Avenue: need additional time to make a decision; asked
how people are referred to Exodus, length of stay, to clear the ambiguity
of the 72 hour stay); asked if the surrounding schools have an impact and
1 94 A fO 9a t
if they are part of the d ecisio,n-ma k ;3
ing process, 1n..d. theg (Jifvicde-ok 1 161bl%0.0
Kozak Kozak's quest ions/concerns generally included: felt there is a need for this
type of facility; need additional information on agreements with hospitals;
need further information regarding transport on exit and discharge plans;
how to go about providing community safety related to hours of operation-,
asked how Packers Circle would be used, if used at all, by ambulances; is
Exodus a county facility,: what are Tustin Unified School District's
concerns; what is the role of the S-E.".1CUrity guards and how do they interface
with the Tustin Police Depc-*.rtment; drop off on south side facing homes;
increased homeless population in Packers, Square would release of
clients contribute to the homeless encampments; alternative locations for
this facility - does the applicant have any alternatives in mind; when at full
capacity what happens to a D-0
ff: need additional information with the
connection between Exodus and AB 109; noise impacts; and staff and the
Commission need more time to look at these issues to be better informed
before making a decision.
t,-Jason Mason's comni�---Ints/concerns generally included.- an emotional and
personal issue, she. is) a conservator for her sister and has no place to take
her, wants to have rneaninciful conversations on the topic- not "they"
versus "us". �,%,�e need. to come tc)�gether on, the issue; need to look at the
CUP use-., -:31nd is it appropinate for the area, wants to have more
information too before making a decision; and why the applicant chose that
location.
Minutes- Planning Commission September 26,2017--Page 11 of 18
r
ITEM
FSC RE O, NO. 4353
REVISION TO PAGE 96
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 4353
Page 3
not exceed the Tustin Noise Ordinance. No other amplified sound devices
are pen-nitted outside of the building.
(5)� 2.4 The drive-thru menu/speaker board shall utilize a lighted read-back
display, either integrated as a single unit or two (2) separate units, or
otheli- alternative as a result of changes in technology, to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director.
(1) 2.5 If in the future the City determines that a parking, traffic, or noise problem
exists on the site or in the vicinity as a result of the proposed project, the
Community Development Director may require the applicant to prepare a
parking demand analysis, traffic study, or noise analysis and the
applicant and/or property owner shall bear all associated costs. If said
study indicates that there is inadequate parking or a traffic or noise
problem, the applicant and/or property owner shall be required to provide
mitigation measures to be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department and/or Public Works Department. Said
mitigation may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Adjust hours of operation
b. Provide additional queuing space,
c. Adjust ordering procedures
d. Provide additional parking
e. Provide additional noise buffers includina, but not limited to, walls,
landscaping, or other sound attenuation methods.
(1) M Business operations shall beconducted in a manner that does not create a
public or private nuisance. Any such nuisance must be abated immediately
upon notice by the City of Tustin.
(5)7 2.7 The applicant and property owner shall maintain the availability of four (4)
offsite parking spaces in the adjacent property located at 13822 Red Hill
Avenue for restaurant CUstomer and employee use.
A written and recorded parking agreement shall be drawn to the
satisfaction f the City Attorney and Community Development Director
and executed by the property owners of 13742 Red Hill Avenue and
13822 Red Hill Avenue, assuring the continued availability of the number
of parking spaces designated for restaurant use and availability of
reciprocal access easements.
If in the future, the parking agreement is no longer valid, the tenant and/or
property owner at 13742 Red Hill Avenue shall submit a request to amend
the conditions otJ(
approval, inducling details on how the restaurant will
comply with the Tustin City Code parking requirements, subject to City
review and approval.
ITEM #6
CUP 2016-26 & DR 2016-024 (DEL TACO)
T
Steven Ly, Edwards
Manaft left, �' oIps Phillips, LLP
manatt phelp phillips DIrea 01al: (714)371-2646
! E-mail; S d varda manatti or
S +
September 6, 2017 C lIen-t-Matter: 41399.644
VIATEDERAL EXPRESS &ELECTRONIC MAS
Mike Abel
Senior Vice President
Lee& Associates .
100 Bayview Circle, Suite 600
Newport Beach, CA 92660 i
r
mab6Ua lee-assooiates.com
ReShopping Center Located at El Camino Real, reed Hill Avenue and San Juan
Road
]dear I .Abel: .;
This firm represents Lake Union Investors, L.P., a California limited partnership ("Lake
Union"). Reference-isImade to the following instruments: i)Declaration f Conditions and
Restrictions dated May 4, 1965 recorded in Boob 7532 Page 850 and following of the Official
Records of Orange County, Cafifomia; ')Dedlafation of ements; Parking and Other
Agreemer is dated May 14, 1965 and recorded in Book 7532 Page 833 and following of said
Official Record ; (ift) Agreement dated:Apkii 24, 1969 and re orded in.Book 8957 Page 185 and
following of said Official Records, and i Agreement of Modification of'Certain Declarations
dated September 4, 1975 and recorded ift Book 11509 Page 408 and foil wing of said Official
Records (referred to collectively herel"n as the" A').
References to numbered excels herein shall correspond to the numbered parcels set forth d .
-in the Declaration. Take Union is 4 leasehold owner and is unde.r contract to acquire the fee
estate to_'Pa-rcel l'. froward L. Abel, Trustee of the Howard L. Abel Family Trust(the"Abel
'Prast") and/oar Mayflower Properties, Lk "Ma flow " are the fee owners of Parcels IT, IIA.,
1IB and III. It is understood Haat thei Abel'Trust.and Mayflower have applied to the City o
Tustin for certain development approvals to develop an additional building on Parcel TTI as a new
Del Waco restaurant, Y
Take Union has asked me to express its concerns under the REA with respect to the
proposed new building on Parcel 11 1, as followsk
695 Town.Center give, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa,Califomia 92626-1924 Telephone: 71 . 71.2500 Fax: 714.371.2550
Albany fGhicago I Les Angeles I-New York I orange County I Palo Alto I Sacramento I San Francisco I Washington,hington, D.C,
-anau
man6tt j ph6108 I phlllips
Mi.- e Abel
Stir 201-7
Page 2
6
-your kh - 1� Taro l rill} included i�. he
center,co,Vora "o '-fth ane SIS ar.Q s- eve ppe-
e - -k Oh''' `.9:Otfdted W _p
ISI l a d,CV61,0Pl pisenterbuVilid
been mendo to-_iniu arcel'11I_,ill-the bea ,if!& bl -h ,
rxion�,: flier 4hin ,jh , r(i s must. r -oii,s li -.'.,I'Ovation ft orr mom r -
n rop t. l i�il i a to � -l ' :.. are l= .
. are also aware, he,-REA inn osis} e c U � r�_ ,
i �-' .. .- � _ t-.that ,p �i� Fir =
iiiaihtaih' d�ih mi t n,;With all ildih :or-th parcels ,e t-to-,:the �~
q 1 t -thr �3)._sqpa
r ,m+eet e r i�ri ri, i# �_
F
L i e aior leas= e r t+thia-ndatdi--a-y, btbb ' °
proposed...r deer 1. Mrit- .P-arce 1 III, aril r-y. t�r-s ,r dv l`o rpt.wfll.Tf :
an-undue_ ikd'en--ori Parcel
Lice Uii -1 ks± ori ded- o discus i ==hese m e -�-. iith-you` :aw-ainl -- ft..
.lei .l t.-t! :mow r4' e9t W fif6ce6d,,"ih.fhmr.r id.. C'e1, r 't et.om.O'Meara = l e�:
ni -dire tI via t 1 l� _a-714-641' i{�� �t, � � = �+� to ar �}lei&�tM,...
k
r Y
S te-ve'n L.' dra is
Ce: S t.' 1[•via !.�niail.�-.rsbel l +i ideveo.+ oni
Dan Wpj ow i via-°e=r aid-.= of ici .yco*eom
Tb a'c' .iia e-4ndi : tomd V_ COM
Erica.D emkow`i -aria-- -rri it: . thI i Ltus�ii� :Chris Ma iar-via e- ail � r i i -
1
C �
w
f
i
ITEM #7
PC
E . NO. 4351
REVISION TO PAGE 153
dr
Resolution No. 4351
Page 3
5) The project, as conditioned, would provide housing affordable to low-
moderate income families for a period of fifty-five (55) years
guaranteed by a housing agreement.
6) As conditioned, the City will be reimbursed by the applicant for costs
associated with necessary code enforcement action, including
attorney's fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing and appeal
process as established by the City Council by ordinance.
L. That the location, size, and general appearance of the proposed project,
as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding area in that the
proposed residential structure vcould be returned to its historic
appearance. The proposal will not impair the orderly and harmonious
development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the
occupancy as a whole in that:
1. A residential property listed an the Tustin 2003 Historic Resources
Survey Update that was previously modified would be returned to its
historical appearance.
2. That the location, size, and general appearance of the proposed
project, as conditioned, is compatible with the surrounding area in that
the proposed residential structure is functionally a part of a residential
neighborhood and is separated from the gas station by a block wall.
M. That as conditioned, the LLA would be in conformance with the State
Subdivision Map Act and TCC Section 9321 (Subdivision Code) in that:
1. The proposal is eligible for processing as a lot line adjustment pursuant
to Section 66412(d) of the California Subdivision Map Act and TCC
9321,
2. Only two (2) or fewer existing, adjoining parcels are involved and are
therefore eligible for a LLA.
3. No greater number of parcels will result from LLA 2016-03.
4. The Public Works Engineering Division has reviewed LLA 2017-03 and
found it to be technically correct.
5. That the Public Works Engineering Division and Community
Development Department of the City of Tustin has reviewed LILA 2016-
03 and has made findings that the real property, described in Exhibit
"A" and shown on Exhibit "B", comply with the provisions of the
California Subdivision Map Act and applicable City of Tustin
ITEM #7
CUP 2017-10, 2017-011,, and LLA 2016-0
125 North "'A" qtr X95 West First Street
Re t to Continuethe Item.
p, AG NDA 'FJEPORT
ITEM 47
MEETING DATE. NOVEMBER 1 , 2917
T . PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:: COMMU IIT ' [ E ILL PMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2917-19, DESIGN REVIEW 2017-011 AND
LCAT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2016-03
APPLICANT:T: EE C I E YLIAN
BERHOUR HOLDINGS, LLC
11 893 VVI N D H I LL WAY
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
PROPERTY'OWNER: BERHOUR HOLDINGS, LLC.
11803 WIHDHILL WAY
SANTA ANA, CA 9279
LOCATION: 125 NORTH "A" STREET WEST FIRST STREET
GE EI AL PLAN. PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS
ZONING: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-10)
ENVIRONMENTAL: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(CEQA) SECTIONS 15391, CLASS 1 EXITING
FACILITIES), 15315, CLASS 1 (MINOR LAND DIVISIONS)
AND 15331, GLASS 31 (HISTORIC RESOURCE
RESTORATION/REHABILITATION)
REQUEST: A REQUEST JEST TO REMOVE MARTIAL CONDITION OF
APPROVAL " " FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 1574 P - BY MAINTAINING THE
USE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, AS A
RESIDENCE, RESTORING'ING THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE TO ITS HISTORIC APPEARANCE AND
COMBINING TWO 2) PARCELS INTO ONE 1
PC Report
November 14, 2017
CUP 2017-10, DR 2017-011, LLA 2016-03
Page 2
SUMMARY
On November 14, 2017, the Planning Commission and City staff received electronic
mail correspondence from Justine K. Nielsen of Procopio, on behalf of the property
owner and applicant, Berdi Keuylian/Berhour Holdings, requesting the Planning
Commission approve CUP 2017-10, Design Review 2017-011 and Lot Line Adjustment
2016-03, without Condition of Approval 2.3 of ResolUtion 4351. Condition of Approval
2.3 requires the residence to be occupied by a low-moderate income family for a period
of 55 years subject to a housing agreement.
Staff received a copy of this correspondence on the afternoon of November 14, 20175
and does not have adequate time to fully analyze and respond to the objection to
Condition of Approval 2.3 prior to the currently scheduled Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission on November 14, 2017 at 7:00 p,m. Staff requests the Planning
Commission continue the Public Hearing to December 12, 2017 to allow sufficient time
for staff to review and respond to the request to eliminate Condition of Approval 2.3.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing for CUP 2017-10, Design
Review 2017-011 and Lot Line Adjustment 2016-03 for property located at 125 N. A
Street and 395 West First Street to December 12, 2017.
Elaine Dove Elizabeth A. Binsack
Senior Planner, AICP, ILA Director of Community Development
to 525 B Street
Suite 2200
San Diego,CA 92101
T.619.238.1900
F.619.235.0398
JUSTINE K.NIELSEN
P.619.906.5787
justine.nielsen@procopio.com
AUSTIN
DEL MAR HEIGHTS
PHOENIX
SAN DIEGO
SILICON VALLEY
November 14, 2017
VIA E-MAIL
Chairperson Ryder Smith and MemDer s of the Planni no,Commission
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Re: Planning Commission ,agenda Iteirn No. 7 - CUP 2017-10, Design Review 2017-011
and Lot Line Adjustment 2016-03
Dear Chairperson Smith and Commissioners:
We represent Mr. Berdj Keuylian/Berhour Holdings LLC, applicant in the above-referenced
item and owner of the property located at 125 North 4'A" Street and 395 West First Street located in
the First Street Specific Plan area of the City of Tustin ("Property"). Mr. Keuylian is proposing to
amend the existing use permit to allow for restoration of an existing historic house and continued
use of the 1`10LIse as a residence. For the reasons discussed below, we urge you to approve the CUP,
Design Review and Lot Line Adjustment without Condition 2.3, which requires the house to be
occupied by a low-moderate income family for 55 years.
Background
The ProperLy consists of two legal lots �.vith a historic residential house and a gas
station/convenience store, as shown below. The house was built in the 1920s. along with the
development of the rest of the single-family residential block along North "A" Street. The house is
integrated into the existing single-family neighborhood because it is physically separated from the
,as station by a brick wall. The gas station is located on the corner of West First Street and Nor-th, "A"
Street and was originally constructed in 1977 pursuant to Use Permit 76-27. The Use Permit
contained a requirement that the house be converted from residential to commercial use upon
termination of the existing tenancy. For almost 35 years, this requirement was never enforced by the
City of Tustin.
prlo. or
P
r
i
s�
9, Procopio A
I
125 N A St
Residential
M
95
,". W. First St,
a
.. - Commercial Use
3 5
.:
In 2003, the city of Tustin listed the house as a historic resource in the 2003 Tustin
Historical Resources survey Update as a good example of Spanish Colonial Revival architectural
s tyl e.
When Mr. l euyliari 13Urchased the Property in an auction proceeding in 2010, he was
unaware of the restrictions contained in the 1977 Use Permit elr of the historic nature of the
residence. Shortly after he purchased the Property. Mr. I euylian sutDmatted permit applications to the
City of Tustin for improvements to the existing gas station. During this process, he was made aware
of the 1977 Use Permit requirement to convert the house from residential to commercial use. In
early 20-11. Mr. Keuylian asked for a,nd received a five year extension of the Use Permit requirement
pursuant to an executed and recorded Covenant and Agreement. Notably,bly, 11 r. Keuylian was not
notified at that time that the house was listed as a historic resource.
Earlier this year, Mr, Kc,uyli�-iin cfi cover d the house was listed as a historic resource and
requested: the City allow hire to claim twin the resider tial use, consistent vlthi the First street specific
Plan Land Use Regulations which encourage preservation and use of historic homes for residential
uses. In exchange, Mr. Keuyha n agreed to invest significant resources to restore the residence to its
original historic appearance and 'to clean up the underlying lot lines pursuant to a Lot line
Adjustment. However, the Conin-i silty Development Department ("CDC") Inas requested that in
procopio-com
roto o!k
addition to restoring the existing residence to its original historic appearance, Mr. Keuylian agree to
encumber the Property with an affordable housing requirement that it be occupied by a low-
moderate income family for the next 55 years (the "Affordable Housing Restriction"). Specifically, the
CDC has recommended the follovving condition be inClUded:
23 The single-family home shall be occupied by a Low-Moderate income
family and shall be maintained as such for a period of fifty-five (55)
years and shall be subject to a He sin Agreement in f6rm and content
approved by the City Attomey. Prior to issuance of a building permit,
the Housing Agreement shall be approved and executed by property
owner(syapplicant(s) and the Director of Community Development.
As discussed in more detail below, tWs con6tion is not reqUired by law and lacks a nexus to
the impacts of the proposed development, is unnc-.5cessary, is unreasonably burdensome, and is
unrelated to arly additional public or private benefits.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESTRICTION IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW AND THERE IS NO NEXUS
BEEN THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESTRICTION
The Affordable Housing Restriction is not required by state law of local ordinance. Under
state. law, 15 percent of privately developed residential units within a redevelopment project area are
required to �; set aside as "affordablepp units. Mr. Keuylian is not proposing to redevelop the
Property to create additional residential units so this mandate does not appiy. Moreover, unlike
some jurisdictions, the City of Tustin does not have a local ordinance that mandates a certain
percentage of privately developed units to, be set aside as affordable similar to state law. The City of
Tustin enCOLlrages the inclusion of affordable housing units in private residential development
through the provision of incentives but it is not otherwise required. Therefore, the Affordale Housing
Restriction proposed by CDC is not required by law.
Additionally, under California law, conditions of approval must be reasonable and there must
be a sufficient roughly proportional nexus between the conditions imposed and the projected impact
of the proposed development.]. Here, it is unclear how the Affordable Housing Restriction is at all
related to the proposed development. Mr. Keuylian is merely proposing to continue to use an existing
residence as a legal, nonconforming residential use. As a result, there are no new impacts
associated with the proposed development and the CDC has not identified any SUCh impacts in the
Staff Agenda Report or anywhere else in the record. Therefore, there is no nexus—let alone a roughly
proportional nexus—between the Affordable Housing Restriction and the proposed development, as
required by state law.
1 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 834.835(.1987),, Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S.
374, 397 (1994).
3 proopI . m
ro c o o;
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSI NG RESTRIOTI ON IS UN N ECESSARY BECAUSE THE HOUSE ALR EADY
PROVIDES A BELOW-MARKET HOUSING OPTION
We understand CDC is recommending the Affordable Hot,jsing Restriction because it wants to
ensure the home remains affordable to fowre tenc-_ints. However, this Affordable Housing Restriction
is unnecessary because the house is al'ready offered at a below-market rental rate. Since Mr.
Keuylian purchased the property in 2010, he has rented the two bedroom home for approximately
$1,700 per month. The average rent for a 2--bedroom unit in the City of Tustin is approximately
$2,200 per month.2 The belo�%--.market rate for the existing residence is due to several factors
including the horne's small size of approximately 900 square feet, its single bathroom, and its
adjacencv to a I)Ljsy gas station. Further, in light of the home's historic status and use permit
restrictions, significant modifications to the home -to increase its size or add bathrooms are
infeasible and would not be allowed without the City's approval of an amendment of existing use
permit. Therefore, the home is going to remain a below-market, lower cost housing option for tenants
notwithstanding the inclusion of the Affordable Housing Restriction.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESTRICTION WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE BENEFITS
Because the home i s already offe,red to tenants at below-market rates and will remain below-
market while it is used as a residence, the Affordal)1e Housing, Restriction will not result in any
additional public henefits. Moreover, Mr. Keuyllan v%1111 no-1 benefit from any of the traditional
incentives associated with implementing affordable housing restrictions. Pursuant to the City's
Zoning Ordinance, a number of incentives are availla5l`e to developers who elect to incorporate
affordable housing restrictions into a portion of their proJect. For example, if a developer agrees to
restrict 10 percent of the units in a housing development as affordable, it can receive a density
bonus to allow it to construct additional Units and spread the costs of the affordable units over the
entire project. The Zoning Ordinance also provides incentives. and concessions in exchange for
affordable housing restrictions. These incentives and concessions can include deviations to
development regulations including parking reductions and increased building height as well as
approval of mixed use zoning. Mr. Keuylian will not benefit froryi any of these incentives because he
is not proposing to redevelop the existing house or gas station. His "project" merely consists of an
amendment to the existing use permit to allow for the continued residential use of the house and
minor improvements to the existing gas station.
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESTRICTION IS UNREASONABLY BURDENSOME
The Affordable Housing Restriction is unreasonably burdensome on Mr. Keuylian. As
discussed above, Mr. Keuylian is not redeveloping the Property so free cannot he cannot offset the
costs of implementing and maintaining the Affordable Housing Restriction (e.g., compliance with
specific tenant application standards and income verification requirements). Additionally, the
Affordable Housing Restriction v,.lill be an encumbrance on Mr. Keuylian"s title and may impact his
ability to finance or refinance t h e Property f or the next 55 gears.
2Rent Trenc_,TData �t? T!_jstin, CA, t-ittl,�1--�:/",,/'ski ww.rentjLliigle.co[ii/aver,age-rent-in-tustin-rent-trends/
4
proopi . 1
ocoto S
For the reasons discussed above, we Urge yoLi to approve the CUP, Design Review and Lot
Line Adjustment without the Affordable Housing Restriction because is not required by law and lacks
a nexus to the impacts of the proposed development, is unnecessary, is unrelated to any additional
public or private benefits, and is unreasonably burdensoome.
Very truly yQurs,,
ustine K. Nielsen
prpi .com