Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 CODE AMEND 01-002 05-21-01 NO. 3 670-95 AGENDA REPORT , TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CODE AMENDMENT 01-002 - SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES SUMMARY Code Amendment 01-002 is an amendment to Section 9271 of Tustin City Code to allow residential structures listed in the Historic Resources Survey to maintain the existing side yard and rear yard setback for a new addition if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met and emergency access can be maintained. On May 14, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Code Amendment 01-002 (Attachment A - Staff Report/Resolutions). Applicant: City of Tustin Community Development Department RECOMMENDATION That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 01-056 approving the Final Negative Declaration for the project; and, 2. Introduce and have the first reading of Ordinance No. 1238, approving Code Amendment 01-002 and set for second reading at the Council's next scheduled meeting. FISCAL IMPACT Code Amendment 01-002 is a City-initiated project. The proposed amendment would not have any fiscal impact on City resources. ENVIRONMENTAL A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment D). City Council Report Code Amendment 01-002 May 21,2001 Page 2 DISCUSSION Early development of homes in the residential area of Old Town did not require setbacks and in most cases the currently required setback of five (5) feet for interior lots and ten (10) feet for corner lots is not provided. In addition, many of the lots that are developed with residences listed on the City's Historic Resources Survey are fifty (50) feet in width, which are considered narrow in comparison with the current seventy (70) foot minimum width requirement. Of the 273 structures noted in the City's Historic Resources Survey, more than 120 are historic residences built on fifty (50) foot wide lots (Attachment B). Considering the narrow width of these parcels, a less than five (5) foot setback may be common along the side and rear yard for the residence or accessory structures such as garages. Attachment C illustrates common development patterns. To provide more flexibility for homeowners with historic residences and maintain the historic design and style of these structures, the following amendment to the Tustin City Code is proposed (Attachment E- Ordinance No. 1238): "Section 9271(p)(2): In the Single Family Residential (R-l), Duplex Residential (R-2), and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning districts, the minimum required side or rear yard setback for side or rear yard additions to existing structures (not including accessory structures except garages identified in the City's Historic Resources Survey) that are listed on the City's Historic Resources Survey may be the same as the adjacent elevation or setback of the existing side or rear yard setback of the original structure if the setback is less than the minimum setback required in the applicable residential district provided the requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met and emergency access can be maintained." The amendment would allow an extension of the existing side and rear yard setbacks for new additions to existing main residences. Accessory structures and garages would need to maintain the required applicable setback, unless the accessory structures are specifically noted in the Historic Resources Survey. In addition, the amendment would be applicable to all listed historic structures regardless of whether or not they are located in the Cultural Resources Overlay District. On the City's Historic Resources Survey, there are 133 structures in the District and 140 outside the District. Although the code amendment would allow an extension of the building walls along existing setbacks, all other development standards (i.e., height, site coverage, etc.) of the applicable zoning district would need to be met. For example, in the Single Family Residential zoning district, the project would need to maintain 1,000 square feet clear and unobstructed in the rear yard area and the existing residence and addition could not cover more than forty (40) percent of the lot. Similar provisions are included in the Duplex and City Council Report Code Amendment 01-002 May 21, 2001 Page 3 Multiple Family Residential zoning districts. These requirements would limit the extent of additions and minimize potential adverse impacts associated with expanding a structure along existing setbacks. Design Review Process Additions typically require a case-by-case review with respect to height, mass, development standards, architectural integrity, and impact to adjacent properties that would be considered during a Design Review process authorized by Section 9272(c) of Tustin City Code. As part of the design review process, the environmental impacts of the addition would be considered, consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This process would provide for a case-by-case staff analysis of the issues related to each proposal. Although the Design Review process does not require a public hearing and the application may be approved by the Community Development Director, any environmental analysis that shows that there may be significant impacts would require a public review period and provide an opportunity for neighboring property owners to comment on the project. Uniform Building Code and Emergency Access Requirements According to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), non-fire-rated walls, which are typically associated with residential construction, can be placed a minimum of three (3) feet from the property line (including roof eave or other architectural encroachments). This requirement would also provide for emergency fire access to the side and rear of a residence typically needed for accessing all portions of a structure or leaning a rescue ladder to upper windows. According to the Uniform Building Code, fire-rated walls could be placed along the property line. However, a case-by-case evaluation of the setback would be considered during the design review process to ensure compliance with the Uniform Building Code, emergency access requirements, and design compatibility with adjacent developments. FINDINGS Findings in support of the proposed code amendment are as follows: · Allowing an extension of the existing setbacks would encourage additions that preserve the architectural integrity of historic residences. · Allowing an extension of existing setbacks would provide design flexibility which may encourage renovations that would extend the usefulness of structures that have been identified on the City's Historic Survey. City Council Repo~ Code Amendment01-002 May 21,2001 Page 4 · Consistent with Section 9272 of the Tustin City Code, proposals to enlarge existing residences would be reviewed through the Design Review process on a case-by-case basis to ensure consistency with applicable development standards and compatibility with adjacent properties. Compliance with applicable development standards would limit the extent of additions and minimize potential adverse impacts associated with expanding a structure along existing setbacks. · Allowing an extension of the existing setbacks would only be permitted if requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met and emergency access can be maintained. Minoo Ashabi Elizabeth A. Binsack Associate Planner Community Development Director ccreport\CA 01-001 Attachment: A- Resolution No. 3780 B- Narrow Lots with Historic Structures C- Typical Development Configuration of Historic Structures D- Resolution No. 01-56 E- Ordinance No. 1238 ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. 3780 ! RESOLUTION NO. 3780 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE CODE AMENDMENT 01-002, AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 9, SECTION 9271 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES LISTED ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE CAN BE MET AND EMERGENCY ACCESS CAN BE MAINTAINED The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines: A. That Code Amendment 01-002 is necessary to set forth flexible side yard ~3 and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic structures (listed !4 in the City's Historic Resources Survey) that do not meet the current side and rear yard setback requirements. 15 !6 B. That the amendment to Tustin City Code Sections has been prepared to allow side and rear yard setbacks for new additions to be consistent with ~7 the existing structure if the original structure does not meet the applicable zoning setback requirement and the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. C. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on Code _~0 Amendment 01-002 by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2001. 21 D. The proposed code amendment would be beneficial and not have an :~_ adverse affect on the public health, safety, and welfare of residents or businesses of the City in that: 24 · Allowing an extension of the existing setbacks would encourage additions that preserve the architectural integrity of historic residences. 25 2~, · Allowing an extension of existing setbacks would provide design flexibility which may encourage renovations that would extend the 27 usefulness of structures that have been identified on the City's Historic Survey. 29 ° Proposals to enlarge existing residences would be reviewed through the Design Review process on a case-by-case basis, consistent with Resolution No. 3780 Page 2 Section 9272 of the Tustin City Code, to ensure consistency with -' applicable development standards and compatibility with adjacent 3 properties. Compliance with applicable development standards would limit the extent of additions and minimize potential adverse impacts 4 associated with expanding a structure along existing setbacks. · Allowing an extension of the existing setbacks would only be permitted if requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met and emergency access can be maintained. E. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the General Plan ~ Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element Policy 12.1 which states, ~ "Identify, designate, and protect facilities of historical significance, where feasible." 10 F. That a Final Negative Declaration has been considered and recommended for approval by the City Council in conformance with the requirements of the ~_-. California Environmental Quality Act. ~-~ II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve ~.~ Code Amendment 01-001. as follows: ~ A. The following text shall be added as Tustin City Code Section 9271(p)(2): "In the Single Family Residential (R-l), Duplex Residential (R-2), and 1,? Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning districts, the minimum required side or rear yard setback for side or rear yard additions to existing structures (not ~ including accessory structures except garages identified in the City's ~ Historic Resources Survey) that are listed on the City's Historic Resources Survey shall be the same as the adjacent elevation of the existing side or 2o rear yard setback of the original structure if the setback is less than the minimum setback required in the applicable residential district provided the requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met and emergency 2_- access can be maintained. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meetingheld°nthe14thday°fMay'2001' 25 ' 'f_E~;LIE A. PO'NTIOUS 2? Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 3780 Page 3 ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) _~ COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) 3 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning 4 Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that .~ Resolution No. 3780 was duly passed and adopted at regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of May, 2001. ? ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 9 Planning Commission Secretary 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ATTACHMENT B Narrow Lots with Historic Structures ~' ,."ii il * ~-~.~. i i i ~ I~ i , ~ ,',.',' i,'l "'r'~i'l'-'l~-".'l J , ~ j ~ ~? a ' ~;. ~c' ~',;,., ,.'.~.;=': ... ,'.'-~' ,..,*; r , T'j .... ~, / .:v."/ I / /.'" * ~ J'~ ~ ~ : ~ ; ] '~ ~j ~ ~ ~~ .......,. ,.. .., :..~/i,.,,, . ,.,,. ....,. ',.- .......... .,..' ~..,,. ...... . ~__ '.---.~ ' ~~,.: ,, , ,-, .... .,,,.,~-~ ~ F**:~..','/".,' .' ..".~_5 ?"_ ..... i %":::; ~. ~--'~--: ...... ,--r'"'m ~'' .. ,.. ....... . .... , _.~ ~. ,. ~,./.~ ...~ ~ ........ ,-~ ~ ~ :.. ~a~~~ .... :~ ," / ~),'"/F ~ LL--I ~~~ 7---I"~'~'~;~I ! I ?: /..." ,/i ,'?" ~ ......... " ' ~ "": ~-~---I ~*~/,-- "*1 -~*---I~=~a":~"~.-~z' ~/~1 I .... .! ""':' "~'"'" . ........... "' · .... ~ ...... ~,~ ~"' ~*'~-~' , ~&=~J I, ,". '" ~:-.=J ~ .............~ .... ~*i~ ':~. '~ '~ ~ '*--~' I I ....... ~ ....... ~., ] · ' ~ / t'.'~I .... ~.! '~ . .., i ' . : ' . * ' '.~C:': ..... I : .',' ~ :' I~" ~'~ ~ ' · ' ~ ~ -"~ ............. -~'. ~"'~' . . , , ~ ~ - · ~ ~ -i, , ;,-"T'-- ~m ~. i._~J~[~i~' ~zl ' '1" ~l i ~ I ~, ! sg~m* c~:Hi~ ~ ...... ~ - ...... ~ ,,,,.,, . , . ,, ~I~ ~ .... ~~, !' :.' ~ .',",'~. ,'~J ~' ' ' ' ~ ' ...... ' '" ~ .' ,'., ' .'.'..'.¢ ¢,', .......... ,,.. ~., ,,, .,,,. I I  ¢.~/~ .... 2; I *~ ' ' ' I ~ .... " .... ~ ..... .. ~ ~ ,,.,,~, ~ ~: ~.'./.,i fi' / ,,, ! ....... -' ' - --' ~;7't'~~ .... ~ ...... : ,..~,~sT.,,t,. ....... "' ..... '"' '"" .... : '~'1: .... ' ' "" *'-'~' ' · ....... J ......... }~' '-:; JJl I · , ..~i,.. j~; F'~-' :- ~- ' .........,,, ---' : ..... , ', ....... '--:" ., ..", ~=~ ,..~, ~ ,: ~ I~a-,;~ / ~"0~ ~ I~i'~ %'='" I~-~'?~? ~> .... ....,. .... ., ~ ....... ;.,., ~:;, ...... ~_- ...... ~_; , : , ._J I':~-.*. ,. ,.'; .., ?*:$~=;, ...... . ,l.- --C~*~f-. ',', ",X V' . .......... ; .... . ...... ,.. .Z~ ~-~' *' ~ L~;-J I ..., ,,.-...~..,, . ,.,~,.: ,,,, ,,,,_~~~~. ........ , ..... ,...~,, , ';A '", -'" '"-}'C"-,~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ i~" [~;1'" .... I~;ll '~"l ~,~ I ,I _ ','~:~,-~*, "~;,~ '~'1 :-;;; ~-I ....... i ! ................. I ~L~~ ~o~~ ATTACHMENT C Typical Development Configuration of Historic Structures ATTACHMENT D Resolution No. 01-56 RESOLUTION NO. 01-56 ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE 4 DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT ~ 01-002 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. (':, The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: ? ~ I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: '~ A. That Code Amendment 01-002 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. I.~ C. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin considered ~-' evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject :~ Negative Declaration, and on May 14, 2001, recommended ~,,~ that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. ~- D. The City Council of the City of Tustin considered evidence ~ presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative ],) Declaration, and determined that the Negative Declaration is adequate and complete. _~ II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council has received and :; considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration ~., prior approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately -' discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. ;- Further, the City Council finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively, on wildlife :'" resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact finding :~, related to the California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4. Resolution No. 01-56 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of May, 2001. 5 Tracy Wills Worley ~, Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk 0 ~,, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS ~; CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 01-56 14 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the "~ City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the ~(., members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 01-56 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, ~7 and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of May, 2001. ~(~ COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: 2o COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: 2; COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk 2~ Exhibit A- Resolution No. 01-56 Initial Study/Negative Declaration ~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPM.ENT DE PARTM ENT 300 Ce~?lennial Way. Tu.~tin. C:4 92780 (-'147 573-3100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Code Amendment 01-002 - Side and Rear Yard Setback Requiremems Project Location: Citywidc Project Description: An Amendment to Tustin City Code Section 9271 to allow residential structures listed in the City's Historic Resources Survey maintian the existing side yard and rear yard setbacks fbr a new addition if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. Project Proponent: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Lead Agency Conlact Person: Minoo Ashabi Telephone: (714) 573-3174 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Stud,,' for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of tile California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: [5~ That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on tile environment. [-'--] That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in tile project plans and agreed to by the applicm~t that would avoid or mitigate the eft'ects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental h'npact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis [hr this determination is attached and is on file tit thc Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice o1' Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the (7ommunity Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON May 21,2001. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714~ 575-3~00 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Code Amendment 0 !-002 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: 714/573-3126 Project Location: Citywide Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin General Plan Designation: Residential Land Use Designations Zoning Designation: Residential Zoning Districts Project Description: A Code Amendment to establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences listed on the City's Historic Survey that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback it' the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. Surrounding Uses: North: N/A East: N/A South: N/A West: N/A Other public agencies whose approval is required: ['-] Orange County Fire Authority I--I City of irvine [--[ Orange County Health Care Agency [--I City of Santa Ana [--I South Coast Air Quality Management I-'] Orange County District EMA [--] Other B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The em'ironmental thctors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. [--']Land Use and Planning ['--]Hazards [--]Population and Housing [--]Noise ['-]Geological Problems [--]Public Services [--]Water [-]Utilities and Service Systems [-'-]Air Quality [--]Aesthetics [--]Transportation & Circulation [--[Cultural Resources [--]Biological Resources [--]Recreation [--]Energy and Mineral Resources [~Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NO'[ have a significant effect on thc environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLAP,.ATION will be prepared. [--[ 1 find that' the proposed project MAY have a significam effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAl, IMPACT REPORT is required. [--[ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [--] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed prqjcct. ["-[ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, therc WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLAIL4T1ON, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Minoo Ashabi Title Associate Planner .. . ~..,~.. Date May 1. 2001 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVA'LUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Db'ections 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact:' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative prqject level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact, may occur, the checklist ans~vers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) ".'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where thc incorporation of mitigation meast, res has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact.:' The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect Io a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIi, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier ahalyses may be used where, purst,ant to tile tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process, an effect has been adoquately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within tile scope of and adequately analvzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such e~l~cts were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the rnitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside doculnent should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting hfformation Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are tYee to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) Tile explanation of each issue should identi~': a) the significance criteria or fl~reshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less 7hah Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: hn?act h;corporation lml~act No hnpact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [] [] [] [] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [] [] [] [] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [] [] [] [] d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect da)' or nighttime views in the area? [] [] [] [] II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califbrnia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the Calitbrnia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pro,am of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use'? [] [] [] [] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [] [] [] [] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [] [] [] [] IlL AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the tbllowing determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [] [] [] [] b) Violate an5' air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [] [] [] [] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant 'for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [] [] [] [] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [] [] [] [] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [] [] [] [] l_ess Than Sigmficant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Sign(ficant IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: hnpact h,corporation Impact A'o hnpact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either direcdy or ~hrough habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special stares species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlil'e Servi~e~ 0 0 0 ~ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife D c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological inten'uption, or other means? ~ ~ ~ ~ d) Interfere substantially with the movemem oFany native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlifb nurser>' sites? ~ ~ ~ ~ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5? [] [] [] [] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? [] [] [] [] c) Directly or indirectly destro> a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [] [] [] [] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [] [] [] [] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the prqject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss. injury, or death invoMng: Less Than Sign~ficam Potentially I.Fith Less Than Sig/#.ficant .'?lit~gation S~gni. ficant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact i) Rupture ora known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known hull? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ~ ~ ~ ~ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ~ ~ ~ ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ~ ~ ~ ~ iv) Landslides? ~ ~ ~ ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ~ ~ ~ ~ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of/he pr¢~]ect, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ~ ~ ~ ~ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994). creating substantial risks to lite or property? ~ ~ ~ ~ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of · septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ~ ~ ~ ~ VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [] [] [] [] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the envirom'nent? [] [] [] [] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile.of an existing or proposed school? [] [] [] [] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [] [] [] [] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ora public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard t'br people residing or working in the project f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [] [] [] [] Less 7hah Significant Potenlially l'l"ith Less Than Significam Mitigation Significant g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an lmpacl Incorporation Impact ;Va Impact _ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss. injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? [] [] [] [] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QL'ALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [] [] [] [] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses ~br which permits have been granted)? [] [] [] [] c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or riwr, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ['-I [] [] [] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? [] [] [] [] e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?, [] [] [] [] f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [] [] [] [] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [] [] [] [] h) Place within a 100-year fiood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [] [] [] [] i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury or death invoMng flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [] [] [] [] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [] [] [] [] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Sigm.'ficant Mitigation Significant b) Conflict with an5' applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Incorporation hnpact No Impact regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the prqject (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [] [] [] [] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [] [] [] [] X. MINERAL RESOURCES- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state'? [] [] [] [] b) Result in the 10ss of availability ora locally-important m ineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [] [] [] [] XI. NOISE-- Would the project result in: a) Exposure ofpersons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards establis[..ed in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [] ~ [] [] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [] [] [] [] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? [] [] [] [] d) A substantial lemporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [] [] [] [] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or. where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ora public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [] [] [] [] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels'? [] [] [] [] XII. POPULAI'iON AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [] [] [] [] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement hot, sing Less Than S}gnificant Potenlially With Lc'ss Than Significant Mitigation Sigm.'/ica~?t Impact Incorporation ImI~act No hnpact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the cons~uction of replacement housing elsewhere? ~ ~ ~ ~ XIIL PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the prqject result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives fbr any of the public services: Fire protection'.> Police protection? S hool ? Parks? Other public f~cilities? XiV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational fhcilities such that substantial physical deterioration &the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the prq[cct include recreational i%acilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational Pacilities which might have ~ adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the prqiect: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing tratllc load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, ~e volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service slandard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either ~ increase in traffic levels or a chan,,e ~ location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design ~ature (e.g. shaq~ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., thrm equipment)? c) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadcquale parking capacity? Less Than Significant PotentialO, 14'ith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact h~corporation Imlgact :¥o [mlgact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alter.native transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)'? [] [] [] [] XVl. UTI LITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [] [] [] [] b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of exisling facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [] [] [] [] c) Require or result in the construction of new storm waler drainage facilities or expansion of existing fhcilities, the construction of which could cause significant en¥ironmental effects? [] [] [] [] d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? [] [] [] [] e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatme,a~ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [] [] [] [] 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [] [] [] [] g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [] [] [] [] XVI[. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ora fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] [] [] [] b) Does the project have impacts that are indMdually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects ora project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fiiture projects)? [] [] [] [] c) Does the project have environmental efl'ects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directl.v or indirectly,? [] [] [] [] ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CODE AMENDMENT 01-002 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITION TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES BACKGROUND The purpose of this Code Amendment is to include a new setback requirement related to additions to historic residences. The minimum side and rear yard setback for single- family residential district is typically five (5) feet for interior lots and ten (10) feet for corner lots. There are a number of historic structures that are not built according to the zoning standards. Currently, addition to these structures would need to maintain the minimum setback requirement of the applicable residential zoning. This code amendment would allow historic homes that are located closer to the property line than the required setback to maintain the same building line for additions (not accessory structures) if the requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met. There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a result of the adoption of this code amendment. Impacts of potential future projects would be evaluated in conjunction with each future project. 1. AESTHETICS Items a through d -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The proposed code amendment will have no effects on aesthetics in the area including scenic vistas or scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The proposed code amendment will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the plan area or its surroundings. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin Zoning Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a throuqh c -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear yard setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the Side and Rear Yard Setback - (:ode .,Imendment O l-O02t - Initial Study ,.~ ttachment ,,1 Page 2 o.1'7 code amendment. The proposed code amendment will have no impacts on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The code amendment will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required 3. AIR QUALITY Items a throuqh e -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear yard setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. As such, the code amendment will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts related to any future project would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a throuqh f-"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this code amendment. Impacts related to any future project would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. Sources: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required Side and Rew' )"ard Setback - Code ..Imendment 0 I-O02t - Initkd SnMy Attachment A Page 3 of 7 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a through d -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. However, no physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The code amendment will not adversely affect any historical resources or archaeological resources or destroy or disturb a unique paleontological resource, human remains, or geological feature. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Cultural Resources District Tustin Zoning Code General Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None Required 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a (I). a (ii). a (iii), a (iv), b. c, d and e -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. The proposed code amendment will not expose people to potential adverse geologic impacts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, soil erosion, or loss of top soil, nor is the project on unstable or expansive soil. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required 7. HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a throuqh h -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. The proposed code amendment will not result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans, wildland fires, etc.), nor is the project area located within an airport land use plan or vicinity of a private airstrip. Impacts related to any future project would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. Side and Reco' )'ord Setback - (.;ode, Amendment 0 l- 0021 - bdtkd Study .,I ttacJ~ment Page 4 Sources: Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Agency Tustin General Plan Miti.qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a through i -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district; however, no physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The code amendment will not result in any change in the amount or direction of surface or groundwaters. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING Items a throuqh c - "Less than Siqnificant Unless Mitiqated": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. Any proposed addition would require review and approval of a design review request. Impacts in relation to each specific project would be considered with design review, and appropriate mitigation measures would be incorporated as conditions of approval. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The proposed amendment would provide for establishment of setbacks for historic residences listed in the City's Historic Resources survey through a case-by-case design review process. Land use impacts would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project and potential impacts would be mitigated with conditions of approval in conjunction with approval of a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Alcoholic Beverage Establishment Guidelines Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required Side' and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amembnent 01-002! - Initial Stu~' ,-I ttachmenl A Pa,cze 5 q? 7 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in loss of a known mineral resource or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan or other applicable land use maps. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Miti,qation/Monitorinq Required: None Required 11. NOISE Items a through f- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan, noise code amendment, or excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None Required 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING Items a. b, and c -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. As such no impact associated with the increase in population and housing is anticipated. Sources: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amendment Ol-O02t - Inilial Study .,'1 t tachme~t ,4 Page 6 qf 7 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a -" No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not create demand for alteration or addition of government facilities or services (fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc.). Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Miti.qation/Monitoring Required: None Required 14. RECREATION Items a and b - ':No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The code amendment would not increase demand for neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a throuqh .q -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. No alteration in the traffic generation and circulation patterns within the project area would be affected by the proposed code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, emergency access, level of service standards, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code .4mendment Ol-O02t - Initial Study ,~ Itachm,::nl .,I Page - t~t'7 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None Required 16. UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a throuqh g - "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The adoption of the code amendment will have no impacts to water treatment, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a throu,qh c - "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a result of the adoption of this code amendment. Impacts of potential future projects would be evaluated in conjunction with each future project. The code amendment does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short- term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, nor produce significant negative indirect or direct effects on humans. S:\CDD\Neg dec\ neg dec -CA 01-002attachment A.doc ATTACHMENT E Ordinance No. 1238 ORDINANCE NO. 1238 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT 01-002, AN _. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 9, SECTION 9271 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ALLOW ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC ~ RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES LISTED ON THE CITY'S ~, HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING SIDE OR REAR YARD SETBACK OF THE ? ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE CAN BE MET AND '~ EMERGENCY ACCESS CAN BE MAINTAINED ~0 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: :~ Section 1. FINDINGS A. That Code Amendment 01-002 is necessary to set forth ~:." flexible side yard and rear yard setback requirements for ~..... additions to historic structures (listed in the City's Historic Resources Survey) that do not meet the current side and rear ~ yard setback requirements. :~ B. That the amendment to Tustin City Code Sections has been :~ prepared to allow side and rear yard setbacks for new additions to be consistent with the existing structure if the ~,~ original structure does not meet the applicable zoning setback requirement and the Uniform Building Code "~ requirements can be met. 20 C. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on the :~ code amendment by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2001. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. ~-~ 3780 recommending that the City Council approve Code 2.~ Amendment 01-002. 24 D. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held by the .,..,.- City Council for the first reading of this ordinance at a regular meeting held on May 21, 2001. 2(~ E. The proposed code amendment would be beneficial and not have an adverse affect on the public health, safety, and _~,~ welfare of residents or businesses of the City in that: -~'~ 1. Allowing an extension of the existing setbacks would encourage additions that preserve the architectural integrity of historic residences. Ordinance No. 1238 Page 2 of 3 2. Allowing an extension of existing setbacks would provide design flexibility which may encourage renovations that would extend the usefulness of structures that have been identified on the City's Historic Survey. 3. Proposals to enlarge existing residences would be reviewed through the Design Review process on a case-by-case basis, consistent with Section 9272 of the Tustin City Code, to ensure consistency with applicable development standards and compatibility with adjacent properties. Compliance with applicable development standards would limit the extent of additions and minimize potential adverse impacts associated with expanding a structure along existing setbacks. 4. Allowing an extension of the existing would only be permitted if requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met and emergency access can be maintained. F. The proposed code amendment is consistent with the General Plan Conservation/Open Space/ Recreation Element Policy 12.1 which states, "Identify, designate, and protect facilities of historical significance, where feasible." G. That a Final Negative Declaration has been approved by the City Council in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9271(p)(2): "In the Single Family Residential (R-l), Duplex Residential (R-2), and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning districts, the minimum required side or rear yard setback for side or rear yard additions to existing structures (not including accessory structures except garages identified in the City's Historic Resources Survey) that are listed on the City's Historic Resources Survey shall be the same as the adjacent elevation of the existing side or rear yard setback of the original structure if the setback is less than the minimum setback required in the applicable residential district provided the requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met and emergency access can be maintained. Ordinance No. 1238 Page 3 of 3 Section 3. SEVERABILITY ~ All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to 4 accomplish the purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or ~ unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective. 7 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a ~ regular meeting on the day of ., 2001. ~(,', ~' Tracy Wills Worley, Mayor i2 Pamela Stoker City Clerk ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) it, CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1238 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio of the City Council of the City ~ of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the 2~ members of the City Council is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1238 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular -'~ meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of May, 2001 and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of 22 the City Council held on the day of , 2001 by the ;? following vote: 24 :~ COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: :(7 COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: 2? Pamela Stoker, City Clerk