Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Board of Appeals Case - 520 PacificBuilding Board of Appeals case at 520 South Pacific: DVD's filed with Administrative Files under Building Board of Appeals Case, 520 South Pacific St. Timeline of Appeal and Hearings The following timeline outlines the hearings and review of the appeal process for 520 Pacific Street: 7/27/10 Letter from Bret Fairbanks requesting re -build letter 8/4/10 Zoning confirmation letter from City staff indicating that the structures could not be rebuilt. No record that multi -family use (3 units) had been authorized in single family (R-1) zone. 9/10/10 On-site inspection conducted by City at 520 Pacific Street 9/16/10 Notice and Order/Code Enforcement case initiated 9/22/10 Appeal of Notice and Order filed by Bret Fairbanks to Building Board of Appeals/ Hearing Board (Planning Commission) 10/25/10 Notice and Order recorded by County Clerk 10/26/10 Appeal hearing to Board of Appeals/Hearing Board (Planning Commission) 11/9/10 Continued hearing 12/14/10 Building Board of Appeals approved Resolution No. 4161 ordering the correction of numerous Building Code violations. The Zoning Hearing Board approved Resolution No. 4162 for a zoning determination allowing three units within the R-1 zone. 12/23/10 Appeal of Resolution No. 4162 filed by Mayor J. Amante 3/1/11 A de novo public hearing was held in which the City Council deemed the upper unit located above the garage and the unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage to be nonconforming residential units at 520 Pacific Street. 3/15/11 Tustin City Council denied the Appeal of 4162 and adopted Resolution No. 11-18 determined that three units could exist in R-1 Zone. Continued to November 9, 2010 Continued to December 14, 2010 4/5/11 Numerous meetings and correspondence were exchanged through between City staff and the property owners and their professionals. However, six months after adoption of Resolution 6/16/11 No. 4161 ordering correction of Building Code violations, no corrections had been implemented nor had a complete set of plans been submitted. 6/16/11 Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate and correct safety violations was posted on-site by the Building Official. 6/24/11 Appeal of Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate by Deborah Rosenthal, Fairbanks' attorney, 1) requested the Board direct Building Official work with Fairbanks by providing specific corrections and 2) rescind Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate. 7/12/11 The Board of Appeals/Hearing Board (Planning Commission) set a hearing date of August 18, 2010 and appointed Hearing Examiner Gregory P. Palmer. 8/10/11 D. Rosenthal requested continuance of hearing. Continued to 8/30/11 8/30/11 Appeal Hearing (1): Opening statements and Principal Engineer Continued to 9/9/11 Dennis McCreary of the City of Tustin testified and was cross examined. Tustin Building Official Henry Huang testified and cross exam began. 9/9/11 Appeal Hearing (2): Cross Exam of Henry Huang continued, Continued to 9/22/11 testimony of Assistant Fire Marshal Bryan Healy of OC Fire Authority and cross examination. 9/22/11 Appeal Hearing (3): Scott Fazekas, AIA, (consultant for City of Continued to 10/4/11 Tustin) began testimony and cross. Registered structural engineer Eric Stovner (consultant for Fairbanks) began testimony and Roger Banowetz (retired Inspector contracted by Fairbanks) began testimony. 10/4/11 Appeal Hearing (4): Stovner and Banowetz were cross Continued to 10/11/11 examined. Testimony of Architect Nathan Menard (consultant for the Fairbanks) began testimony. 10/11/11 Appeal Hearing (5): Menard was cross examined by the City. Property owner Bret Fairbanks testified and was cross examined. Deborah Rosenthal provided closing arguments. 10/25/11 Closing arguments from City Attorney provided. 12/16/11 Gregory P. Palmer provided an Advisory Decision of the Hearing (Attachment 2) Examiner on Behalf of The Tustin Building Board of Appeals to the City Attorney and Deborah Rosenthal. 12/27/11 Gregory P. Palmer provided a draft Resolution of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, modifying the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate for building code violations at the property at 520 Pacific Street (Assessor's Parcel No. APN 401- 371-07). 1/18/12 Meeting with Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks, Deborah Rosenthal, Gregory Palmer and City staff to discuss the draft Resolution. An agreement and resolution of certain issues relating to the Notice and Order was reached. Permit (C2012-12) issued to Bret Fairbanks for the installation of fire separation materials between the garage and rear unit; a residential heater; and GFCI installation. 1/25/12 Permit (C2012-19) was issued based on the agreement that was reached on 1/18/12 in fulfillment of the Notice and Order. Approval Authority: Pursuant Section 605.5 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Board of Appeals may adopt or reject the proposed decision in its entirety, or may modify the proposed decision. 1/30/12 Final Resolution provided by Hearing Examiner Palmer. (Attachment 3) '0 d (no z 00 N N ' 0 ' N C = N 3 m N N 7 0 ^! (O O 7 t0 vO'a �O dD� m m O O w d O- a s O 0 O vi _ SO jd mMM; , 09=0 t0 'f0 m m N OO O = H C 0 J y? d N o g C Q m = d Q OS d m O =aza CD O m m m N a Q Q to C m t0 N 2 N m F d m w D07 to 63F0aa - 00 o c 3 a Z=00„ omic —a dDogd5Mm—M 30 K0ao �F= ag a N 0 M m a O D^ p=j m j' CI 01 d. p- ^' O� oto -' 0 m SOD O 0 a N n C=Y ,n'„1 ac �o o d m O d m Nodc�dr�r=.=mmmd=oyno3.>>> o=adeno �, =30="—.M. =a =m DS�.m�oco o0'0._3 00 m 3=a0mlo= maa-.3� m03m=F NSI i.., o•m3N= N d N N Sr 0 0 = F d O m m pl O fp U M O a m (O O y m '� ? y S vi = o? m '< 0 C S O m a= 3 M T O ry d 0 m fO T O m m V _ y m m d d N»^� ^.0 O (L3 C » a_ a o^ m F in a m� N m m c a 0 c y>> M 5 3 a 3 S �.< m a acs am . O d n_. �.m n 5am Noa3co°13� �mcamm Dtoo ('0 SFr M= 2mmma=0A<. 0m<.mm �m'oH ama m O O = > din � -_ d a aO 0 NO O m O. m N m d m O = d 0 mo d= Mo=0$=�'m�Wm,=O = m C 03mm?m amD mm �v0ma<d =<moo�mcmo mm= 3=06 d Osa=c,0300caa3vco ox= .o���o^=m—mama�3M 0nQow moo O an 5'0 Od =m mO d J +C NN0 C = d = S %. C y 0 O m Z fO 3 0 o d m a m m Q o_ n a m m c p_ T en m< m 3 a m y tO a 0 0 M 0 0 ao M m N C Cn C O �fOwydOdm n(O mdC S=.d..^ N=C Ql O 0 3@ m= 5 °' C a S� O `_< C O m 0 N O O- o C m= S= N 7 O m 0n�33c0�o v=o �33���o?c�a�a�o 23 "'� d m a 0� O O- m O N a .- M mp�a^ m C O 0 N C� 0 a O- N ? O N 3'o33mray w3oo ac,00c.���=mmsma, San m o o m 3 m m .<'SDvi d m �W=03 ?ooaE;M0 waad�x.F��0Mmmm0a oo ca<m<m� s� o�m�'m o.m om mO s3 d.g3,�cnm 33�rN^n d Cn N w mOm�m o=3�mcm�m d•ammcd S»dOI N`<3oa 3.= > m�mcn a-o»wmm_Tm�d.ocam0m<^�m3!ym �m m 0 y 01 .m.. n N S» Sam = O N a N n 0 d 0 0 = C O +� O O C O Z m ad �3 p1 vim'm m.`<m ��3a°1. m s_n3 oo D -m c.��o mm Omad 00* I-+ =d0?O� m oand oao 503 w a n S=j omo3na3• 2. 0 aim_. 01 3Q<3a mm .a"Om=Erm cSc: °:0,< NCO 0 m S'dv- `<m=a 3,Nm-,<=a 01 �... c oma-�m = �m S.mO.•N =M`5-03 O �aoa°to mdmo�C o m p N d o m N �, y (p m W m N O- m C 0 3 m Q N y C C m1 Z` 3Fm=�' cSSNa CSO ON MO ^.=35,= o 0 3 9- N� fD Cd a='53=m C C=j�(mY U 5 0 0 O c o a =o r'w m 3 a O m m D Oz O m 0_ N^< a m=<= a 0 a O� m a a n a a=c o-.m=^.cm=Nmo-a °m oa.y DOi - Mon,, 'om m .<mmT'm30-.W=O-('� =_f0 O C O Z N= _= m O _S!O wn wNm SOQO mNNCO NCi OO mm d m 0 uj ». m m1-1 n N m O a 3. �- 3M 3�mF— mm S,5,- 2" w >'c amcom 3fo »m'_o=iw0^»m 0 00 lD o m Y 3 v m m 3 f o m d m 0== o a Fmk d� Saa<Fc 0 C d q m Q N - N cr m O i m y 0 N O y O d + rP A • G ' 00�3o�ovmogmc7=z Noo•co�m�No<3voo-yD� ��Qmo�cci���c°cm v .oN..m�som J�nm'�y�>>7 _wmo�- as*E>>>ao> mm3:°o�3=mm J���NO g•d•mmmcoo'mmomigcnm m?�o�,oc�m �' " °0 � 5' �' m m m °--' e a s m" N o' S a m m= N wo a „ Q O f0 c o o m) " .... -J. f e y< o fD Jn v� m J m o'c W, m 3 a ('5' -�= J p^ w CD N N Jp t0 a N S� .°.. ° J gm S='.mNOSm crC0' A 3 O O m a k Jt 3 a a o? N 3 C J'O m.p�^J� <"'`GK"'�_ ° O �•+�.�J�ONm C° N J '.f0 '3 3to NCC m acC a CO N m m m °•�J+ d ya N0 Tm J oofm m —d 0rd-J O� ��Ma =w 0 °cJ3mo• �CO mda°-te�m o3�•a Emm_m �90 o r'>vm ga. a�5-0 Om ''" co�o�-a _J a�6cSO °v ^o m9Jm nJ v�,�:�� �mmo m oim sEg omo.ao ? Qg °J�. mm 0 ° m o �'O :?_ O 0 ^mN S m f0m 0 0 0 mm J m m mM -O a= m .m N N N N �: O= a [m] 'P 0 a N W N C O p_ S a m IV m' m m J O('� S S 0 _? m C m n C n F N [°9 5' C: X S� S J 3 fD .� a J^ N m m J a ? .N. m C S a m S N C^ W. cmx� J 3. m N l� (n' J m °• ~•v m o 0 m N N? a N r m�� '� N �` p J J m `JG � O N m m S O L `< N n 5 of m^ �. - m C� PD �u O p m p ( N y N O d. o N N S N m m f '�" C N N y m N p° H i/i J. J J• m F-'^o�0=? 3ma-`D8d�o:aa=.> a5a?5 a,ao'"Jouci8`-3m� y�,o�anm0 m a m =S-=Oa� m N I N K N m O m m S N N C m N `<m s o -mi O m P a �: m^ ..'O fD, m^ N ,. .J.. m N C S m fo H a 0 a i. -. O a _. 0 o m .- m m m J 'O °<Of_i/O�D:i p^ J C m a N J G m m m m N 0 •C. S.N.Jy°o J^ad SCD �+' Om@m 3f2Tl a�oo'N" cp J ac1'v0�'`mt =O• <a. m= :E .O-. m N Cry. c MM C a o O C O= m N 3^ C N a O, �' s. J C O C f0 m f0 < N O m M. J i m m@ m _. O m^ .+ =' d N C J C IG J J .O o �? 0 m m� �. m f m a Ip 0, a^ j �C,� .S N N m J C m C N nOn = C .< J p = SpC'O-JOfD .m. m J .°.' S CD p (^(�� 'O N n N m S .+ m `< J p� o' r^ f/� "+ :' J O N p O `< J C (0. O_ m�N�`Gd NM nd,Jm.m n°2`JG� C. y=N-mm�m CD °NT�a3N m @ I p L 5 O- m O. m O (Dl m S .. �G N �' S C C N' J. N N• 3_ 3 m O ^• m S F, av p m < S m m aS�''< O N .J < m C_ O 4i a a `< l m J O S.+m O a mf0 "' O N J p m S f0 n_. O J m==-m m m m J y .1 _ O O- ? J j C .J-. N J ^ ^' m m 0 J C ml m 0 N= 0 m C S C a J N m= in' =_ :E am ° J 0 N= < N O m0 O m a m= m O a O N J m y .mi n m o a=, m -_, m m J-0 ai. m e m O O J 27 m N m) = C pn m y m-p_gaa N S O C O u CD J N n N N v m 0 0 N a 0 JC N 3' UC G= ? m m o C IV m mmamv3o:wm cam cmacoNoocJ�'o oxmc mdmo�mom�c0°i� J j 0 0 p� t� m N m t0 J S C d a J J Q O m J N 0 0=? O O O a 0n 0 m0 a" C N. f n D N m m N N J O O m a D' d O- Q O n O J .-. 3 0 J n 3, S o m d =. ja5< N w c c,c�ao f.c rya c,omc.3.03,3,=�o33N.m-8=c.-.m3J=aaanm"m aom0nM�m ��� �fOp �n mun o�a��Ju�imv,d m'S0'<m :E 0Er .v 0 3 -"m D aN apmVa m Fr m�NJ H. m- S�m CF w am 'o U NmJm N� C mN XOw o Om 0 N 0 -- =n OS Map N ^m�J O p O a C d aam aG Oj m Jm m m " pm�m �C< m am C a00 � a <N3 m �3}mp a �m ama0o'.oa FF N m S4 F 0 aC C 0 ? SO O I N O =O �Q. dmN O a S OJ A O d O J No O Om � O m 0 <� OO Fr a m m m N O o o C 0 O C m 0 =, av'-`'�, nom m m3am_ mO my m J p N J fp n C S N O J f0 J J N y 0 O pNj m a= a N a m �- m m ycn . m m a n 0 a 3 mm J o m� a-= J8D vm, m oJp,m o� J m m J '�aoma N m T J o O� m3o3 Sax ofc3m 3 o -„� N^ o%-. m NN o mJ Cm o o mamom J m J. nSC f30 m ON NDNmnJmN =mSJ N nma -' pm 3 3 o ma a 2 'n Z 00 m O J 0 3. C) 0 S o J� m =m a� m �m o ,J-�. o C) 0 O m m = p O - N cn m � e �p m 0, N O 00 3.G C) o J� m m a� o ' o G5 3 O c m N_ O N cn m J a C) m 'anca» ;n -0c ;oc� = z= §i§§ (/to CL CL na!a,p,em,@� 2`y�ECOO � �nM0 m,nW,0; 0 0 !a w000:a. Zs )) \ƒ)/\w - M§ \}°\ \\\0()( \ \\ EG |;_a'_ §�§\|�77(R - ;_ I§\ I `§ |®i§}k/)\\\\/ =mm3 ( - �� _)(/}E§ 0 6M 0M /}\/�\ ( S00 0 /m 0 00 I (()\\ƒ)k/)k(k)(\k \k � {2$/[[E®f(!3)EGo 2\ �} < n ��`m0 m ! /]=(;;\ ; ®» -0 0 k` _ | « 5_ t %{\(()\/\/� km }m3ao F U -®[-a k§.3 {\ M m =53mm +`EE�umm �0{[f�/yam } CL 3M CD }I @ -(§0 - k \§}( m �( k!m`3 - |}\/ _ ¥§ } \ 5; 00 to (( ) w Er to �C3 0 k \27 \ 1TY O AGENDA FJEPORT ITEM W MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2012 TO: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: Y. HENRY HUANG, P.E., CBO. CGBP, BUILDING OFFICIAL JASON McEWEN, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER TO VACATE AT 520 PACIFIC STREET BACKGROUND: On June 16, 2011, the Building Official issued a Notice and Order/Pre-Citation Notice of Dangerous Buildings and a Notice to Vacate for the property located at 520 Pacific Street (Attachment 2). On June 24, 2011, an appeal was filed by the property owners, Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks. Given the voluminous amount of evidence involved, as well as the technical nature of the matter, staff recommended that a Hearing Examiner/Officer be designated pursuant to section 601.1 of the UCADB to conduct the hearing and provide a report of findings on the matter to the Board of Appeals. On July 12, 2011, the Board of Appeals appointed Hearing Examiner/Officer Gregory P. Palmer to conduct the hearings and consider evidence. Five days of hearings were held in the Tustin Library and evidence was presented to the Hearing Examiner for consideration. After hearing the evidence, Mr. Palmer submitted a written report summarizing the evidence and stating findings, conclusions and recommendations. A timeline of the appeal and hearings is provided in Attachment 3 for reference. APPROVAL AUTHORITY Pursuant to the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), the Board of Appeals is authorized to consider the appeal of the Notice and Order. In accordance with Section 601, the Board of Appeals may appoint a Hearing Examiner to conduct the appeal hearings, consider evidence, and prepare an Advisory Report and Proposed Decision. Pursuant to Section 605.5 of the UCADB, The Board may adopt or reject the Proposed Decision in its entirety, or may modify the proposed decision. Building Board of Appeals 520 Pacific Street Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate Page 2 Pursuant to Section 605.6 of the UCADB, if the proposed decision is not adopted the Board may decide the case upon the entire record before it, with or without taking additional evidence, or may refer the case to the same or another hearing examiner to take additional evidence. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Hearing Examiner Advisory Report and Proposed Decision The Advisory Report and Decision (Attachment 4) and jointly proposed Resolution (Attachment 1), as discussed by the parties' Hearing Examiner, modifies the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate for Building Code violations at the property at 520 Pacific Street. Based on the evidence produced at the hearing, the Hearing Examiner recommended that the Board of Appeals ("Board") uphold the Notice and Order, but only insofar as it relates to three of the violations listed in the Notice. The three violations upheld, which the property owners were directed to repair or replace, include: 1. Cracked and inadequate beam supporting second story dwelling unit, 2. Inadequate carport structural members, and 3. Lack of stairway intermediate guards and risers. The Hearing Examiner's advisory report further recommends that the Board modify three of the additional violations listed in the Notice and Order. These modified requirements include the following: 1. Foundation supporting stairway to second story dwelling unit is not adequate. 2. Fire resistive assemblies are required for walls between the units and adjacent garage, and in the walls and window protection adjacent to the property line on the second story. Several electrical installations pose a danger (unprotected and non- attached Romex wiring, non-CFCI outlets in the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.). 3. Gas heater attached to wood siding in the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to its proximity to combustible material. Lastly, the Hearing Examiner's advisory report and draft resolution recommend that the Board rescind the requirement that the two residential units be immediately vacated. Action Plan On January 18, 2012, a meeting was held with the Hearing Examiner, the property owners, their legal counsel and design professional, City staff, and the Deputy City Attorney to discuss a mutually agreeable plan for action and to settle any discrepancy between parties. The meeting resulted in an agreement between the parties that has been Building Board of Appeals 520 Pacific Street Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate Page 3 included in a revised Resolution which is now before the Board of Appeals for final approval. The following summarizes the parties' agreement as detailed in the proposed Resolution: 1. Timeline and Plans: The Fairbanks' architect will submit a complete set of modified plans by February 8, 2012. The plan shall address the following: a. The cracked beam in the garage will be replaced b. The carport girder will be replaced c. The installation of guards, risers, step backs and rails will be included on the existing stairs d. The foundations for support posts of the stairway and landing will be replaced e. Fire resistive wall separation and window separation will be included between the garage and the rear and upper units adjacent to the property line f. Fire resistive treatment on the stairway to the upper unit will be applied g. The enclosure installed on the stairway landing to the upper unit will be removed and the entrance relocated h. The heating device in the upper unit will be replaced and a permit will need to be obtained for the rear unit heating appliance i. All electrical outlets requiring GFCI type will be replaced j. The carport structure will be partially or completely removed to provide sufficient fire separation between the main house and the garage and units 2. Plan check timeline: The City will complete review of the revised plans by February 22, 2012, and only items related to the proposed construction will be addressed. 3. Written notification: Written notification that permits were ready for issuance will be provided to the Fairbanks by February 22, 2012. 4. Permit issuance: Plans will be approved by the City and building permits issued. The Fairbanks will have 60 calendar days from the date the permit is issued to commence and complete construction of the improvements. Unforeseen circumstances could allow a slight extension of time for completion. Building Board of Appeals 520 Pacific Street Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate Page 4 Note: Plans were submitted, reviewed, and permits issued on January 18, 2012, for improvements associated with the rear unit and on January 25, 2012, for all other remaining improvements. 5. Investigative permit: The City will conduct an inspection of the rear heating unit and issue an after -the -fact permit to assure that the unit was properly installed. 6. Occupancy: The upper unit will not be released for occupancy until all construction related to the unit is completed and permits signed off by the City. Consistent with the original advisory decision, the rear unit may be occupied once the fire separation is completed between the garage and the rear unit. However, no occupancy in the rear unit may occur until after the inspection is finaled for the fire separation, GFCI upgrades, and heater unit. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Deputy City Attorney and staff have reviewed the advisory decision and draft resolution. Based on the revisions in the final draft Resolution following the meeting on January 18, 2012, the City Attorney and staff recommend that the Board of Appeals adopt the jointly proposed Resolution No. 4188 (Attachment 1). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 4188 2. Notice and Order/Notice to vacate issued June 16, 2011 3. Timeline of Appeal and Hearings 4. Advisory Decision of the Hearing Examiner on Behalf of the Tustin Building Board of Appeals 5. Evidence considered and the entire record of the proceedings (Due to the voluminous nature of the document attachment, documents are provided on CD) Y. Henry Huang, P.E., CBO, CGT\ Jason P Building Official // \ Deputy ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 4188 RESOLUTION NO. 4188 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, MODIFYING THE NOTICE AND ORDER/NOTICE TO VACATE FOR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific 5treet. This inspection was described as "cursory inasmuch as it lasted approximately twenty minutes." The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the structures that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice of recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street to Mr. Fairbanks. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the properly as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; Resolution No. 4188 Page 2 E. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; F. That appeal came on for hearing in late 2010 before the Planning Commission which was simultaneously sitting as the Tustin Building Board of Appeals; G. On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission issued Resolution 4162 which adjudicated the additional two residential units on site were legal non- conforming uses; H. Also on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission issued Resolution 4161 which required the property owners to comply with the September 16, 2010, Notice and Order to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the non -conforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved; On March 15, 2011, the Tustin City Council rejected the appeal by the mayor to overturn Resolution 4162; J. That following that ruling, the property owners met with city officials on April 5, 2011, in an attempt to implement the two resolutions of the Planning Commission; K. As a result of that meeting, the property owners hired two subject matter professionals in the industry to inspect the property and to prepare a report concerning the conditions noticed for the property owners and the City to review. Paul Fulbright, architect, and Eric Stovner, structural engineer, were the two subject matter professionals hired by Fairbanks; L. Each subject matter professional conducted his own inspection of the property and found additional conditions on the property which had to be repaired. Among these conditions were a cracked beam in the garage, a lack of sufficient footings below grade for the stairway to the upper unit, no GFCI outlets in the kitchen and bathrooms, etc.; M. The contents of the reports from these two individuals led the Tustin Building Official to request each state, from their professional point of view, if the units were safe for continued habitation; N. Paul Fulbright stated in response to that request that there was no immediate hazard and continued occupancy of the units was acceptable as long as the recommended remedial measures were taken in a timely manner; Resolution No. 4188 Page 3 O. Eric Stovner said in response to that request that he saw no immediate hazard and that continued occupancy was acceptable provided temporary shoring of the cracked beam was done; P. That pursuant to 1997 Uniform Housing Code Section 1101 et seq. (as adopted by Tustin City Code Section 8700), and 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Section 401 et seq. (as adopted by Tustin City Code Section 8800), on June 16, 2011, the City of Tustin, through its Building Official, sent and posted a Notice and Order/Pre- Citation Notice/Notice of Public Nuisance and Notice to Immediately Vacate the two residential units. In support of said Notice the Building Official cited many of the same conditions and violations which were noted in the September 16, 2011 Notice and Order and he added the conditions noted by the property owners' subject matter professionals. The City did not re- inspect the property before serving and posting this Notice; Q. The property owners relocated the two tenants in the two legal non- conforming residential units by the due date of June 20, 2011; R. On June 24, 2011, the property owners filed a timely appeal to the June 16, 2011, Notice and Order; S. On July 12, 2011, that appeal was calendared to be heard by the Building Board of Appeals at a special meeting. At that meeting the Board appointed Gregory P. Palmer to act as a Hearing Examiner on the matter and to render an advisory opinion after presiding at a hearing pursuant to Chapter 6 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and Chapter 13 of the 1997 Uniform Housing Code; T. Duly noticed public hearings were held by the Hearing Examiner on August 30, 2011; September 9, 2011; September 22, 2011; October 4, 2011, and October 11, 2011. The matter was submitted to the Hearing Examiner for decision following closing arguments on October 11, 2011, and October 25, 2011; U. On December 16, 2011, the Hearing Examiner published and served on all parties his Advisory Decision to the Tustin Building Board of Appeals; V. In that Advisory Decision, the Hearing Examiner recommended that, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, the Board uphold the Notice and Order, but only insofar as it relates to three (3) of the violations listed in the Notice; the Board uphold but modify an additional three (3) of the violations listed in the Notice, and the Board not uphold, but rescind, that portion of the Notice and Order which required the two residential units be immediately vacated since while the evidence supported some of the conditions in the Notice were present on June 16, 2011, they were not in such a dangerous condition as to require an immediate vacancy of the units. Resolution No. 4188 Page 4 II. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin has reviewed the Advisory Opinion and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner and hereby adopts the recommendations contained therein. The Planning Commission, acting in it s capacity as the Board of Appeals, hereby upholds in part, modifies in part, and rejects the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate as explained below: A. The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order as explained below: UCADB Section 302 Item 5 and UHC Section 1001.3. Beam supporting second story dwelling unit is cracked and therefore jeopardizing supporting system of second story. CBC Section 3405.3 requires damaged gravity load -carrying components to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Eric Stovner's letters dated May 4 and 25, 2011, stated he observed and noted this violation. ii. UCADB Section 302 item 3 and UHC Section 1001.3 carport structural members are not of adequate size to support roof loads and not designed in accordance with CBC Section 1604.1 and if loaded could collapse. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011, stated he observed and noted this violation. iii. UCADB Section 302 Item 2 and UHC Section 1001.12. Stairway intermediate guards and risers are not provided and thus a fall hazard exists. Further, this condition is not incompliance with CBC Section 1013. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 20 stated he observed and noted this violation. B. The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order as modified hereinbelow: L UCADB Section 302 item 8 and UHC Section 1001.3. Foundation supporting stairway to second story dwelling unit is not adequate. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011, stated he observed and noted this violation. ii. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. Fire resistive walls between the units and adjacent garage are not provided. Fire resistive walls and window protection adjacent to the property line on the second story are not provided. Fire in an adjacent unit, garage, or adjacent building could spread quickly and therefore overcome occupants. Fire resistive assemblies are required for the above mentioned locations in Resolution No. 4188 Page 5 CBC Sections 705, 707, and 709. In addition, there are several electrical installations that pose a danger (unprotected and non- attached Romex wiring, non-GFCI outlets in the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.). Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011, (Items 2a and 4a) stated he observed and noted these violations. iii. UHC Section 1001.7. Gas heater attached to wood siding in the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to its proximity to combustible material. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011, (Item 5b), stated he observed and noted this violation. This violation is upheld solely on the basis that the heating unit was installed without a permit. C. In all other respects, the Notice and Order is hereby rescinded as the evidence was insufficient to sustain the existence of any one of the other conditions used as support for the Notice were present on June 16, 2011. D. That portion of the Notice and Order requiring the property owners to have the two residential units vacated immediately is hereby rescinded. The evidence did not support a finding that the two residential units were in such a dangerous condition on June 16, 2011, that an order to immediately vacate the two units was proper. E. Preparatory to the advisory decision coming before Building Board of Appeals, the Hearing Examiner, the parties, their legal counsel and their design professionals held a meeting designed to discuss the plan for future action in this matter and to settle all their differences. What follows is an outline of certain concessions made by both parties in this matter and a plan for future action agreed to by the parties and which is now presented to the Board for final approval. This plan for future action consists of items which were not necessarily included in the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate but which were included herein as a compromise and because the particular item led to the resolution of certain issues which did form some of the basis of the Notices. F. Fairbanks' architect will submit a modified set of plans to the City no later than February 8, 2012. These plans will address the following issues: a. The replacement of the cracked beam in the garage with a beam of suitable size and strength to carry the load placed upon it. b. The replacement of the carport girder with a girder of sufficient size and strength to carry the load placed upon it. Resolution No. 4188 Page 6 c. The installation of guards, risers, step backs and rails on the existing stairway to the upper unit designed to reduce any fall hazard that is associated with the stairs. d. The retrofitting of the foundations for the seven posts which support the stairway to the upper unit. The plans should explain how the Fairbanks' will support each post with a 12 x 12 inch concrete footing installed below the grade with or without the existing concrete pedestal which currently exists above the grade. e. The replacement of the fire resistive separation between the garage and the rear and upper units. The plans will have to address the type of insulation and drywall components to be used, the fact that any exposed Romex wiring will have to be covered and the accessibility to any associated electrical junction boxes. Should the parties, prior to the review of this proposal by the Board, have already agreed upon the approach to be utilized by the Fairbanks to re -install the resistive separation between the rear unit and the garage, the Board is hereby requested to ratify that action. The parties agreed to this preemptive approach with the goal of allowing the rear unit to be safely occupied by a tenant at the earliest opportunity. The rear unit will be released by the City for occupancy upon the installation of the fire separation and the final approval by the City. f. The demolition of the enclosure installed on the stairway landing to the upper unit and the re -configuring of it to be an open stairway landing with the entrance door to the unit opening onto the landing itself and not onto the top step of the stairway. The plans need to include how the exterior wall will be replaced or configured, how the front entrance door will be replaced, and how balcony rails will be installed on the open stairway landing to prevent a fall hazard. g. The removal of the old heating device from the upper unit and the replacement of that heating device with a new heating unit. h. The replacement of all electrical outlets in the kitchen and bathroom areas of both units with GFCI type outlets. i. The complete or partial demolition of the carport structure between the garage and the main house. If only a partial demolition of the carport structure is proposed, the plans will explain how the partial demolition will be accomplished and that the amount of open space remaining between the main house and the carport is a sufficient fire separation per the applicable code. Resolution No. 4188 Page 7 G. It is acknowledged that some of the items noted above may have already been addressed in plans previously submitted by Fairbanks' architect. To the extent those previous plans adequately address the issues stated herein in the opinion of the architect, they need not be modified. To the extent the above items are not addressed by the previous plans, additional or modified plans need to be submitted which address those issues. H. Once these plans have been submitted to the City, the City will review them for completeness and accuracy. The City will have two weeks from the date of submittal, or until February 22, 2012, to complete that review. This review will be limited in scope. The City will confine its review of the plans to only those issues that bear on and relate to the proposed construction feature. By this is meant that correction items such as requiring automatic fire sprinklers be installed in the units or any other such accoutrement of a designated multi- family dwelling house or apartment house will not be included. The correction, if any is necessary, will relate directly to the proposed construction feature itself and not to anything else. If any such confined corrections are required, they will be communicated to the Fairbanks' and their architect in writing no later than February 22, 2012. The Fairbanks' and their architect will review each correction requested and work diligently with the City to make each reasonable correction requested. By the same token, the City will work reasonably with the Fairbanks' and their architect to reach the goal of a set of plans which can be approved. All parties will work with reasonable diligence to achieve this goal within a reasonable timeframe. J. Once the plans have reached a state where the City can approve them, the plans will be approved by the City and building permits will be issued. The Fairbanks' will have sixty (60) calendar days from the date on which permits are issued to commence and complete construction. While sixty (60) days is the agreed upon timeframe which the parties prospectively believe it is reasonable, given the gravity of the construction requirements, the parties understand that unforeseen circumstances can arise which may require a slight extension of the time to complete the construction. K. Concurrent with the time elements expressed above, at a time of the parties choosing, the City will issue an investigative building permit related to the heating unit in the rear dwelling unit. The Fairbanks' will allow an inspection of the device and the City will determine if the unit was installed safely and in conformance with the manufacturer installation instructions. If the installation is reasonably safe, the City will sign off on the permit, thereby effectively issuing a building permit after the fact. L. Concurrent to the timing of events described above and at a time of their choosing, Fairbanks will apply a fire resistive coating of some type, which is Resolution No. 4188 Page 8 acceptable to the City, to the exposed wood members of the stairway to the upper unit. M. The parties agreed that the upper unit would not be released by the City for occupancy until all the construction related to the unit has been completed and all building permits for the construction have been signed off as being final. This provision should not be considered to be in conflict with paragraph D above. To reconcile these two provisions, the reviewer of this resolution should understand that paragraph D represents the advisory decision of the hearing examiner based on his review of the evidence in support of the notice while this paragraph represents an agreement between the parties to refrain from occupying the upper unit until the contemplated construction is completed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, at a special meeting on the 7th day of February, 2012. Chuck Puckett Chairperson Pro Tem Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Y. Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Board of Appeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4188 was duly passed and adopted at a special meeting of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 7th day of February, 2012. Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary /_191f_[y:hyd:I►:111K NOTICE AND ORDER/NOTICE TO VACATE ISSUED JUNE 16, 2011 Community Development Department Posted on property and sent by Certified and First -Class Mail June 16, 2011 Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 Property Address: TUSTIN NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Assessor Parcel Number. Case Number: 520 Pack Street 401-371-07 V10-0312 HI5 KY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Subject: Upper Dwelling Unit and Rear Dwelling Unit, Garage, Carport and Recreation Building Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fairbanks, On September 16, 2010, a Notice and Order was issued for noncompliance with various provisions of the City of Tustin Building Code. The Notice and Order was appealed and on December 14, 2010, the Tustin Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body per TCC Section 9242) adopted Resolution No. 4161 affirming the Notice and Order for Building Code violations at 520 Pacific Street. Since adoption of Resolution No. 4161, discussions have been ongoing between you, your representatives, and Building Division staff regarding Building and Housing Code compliance. In addition, on or about May 4, 2011, City staff received a report from your structural engineer, Eric C. Stovner, which recommended structural modifications required to bring the subject buildings into conformance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). We are also in receipt of correspondence from your architect, Paul Fuibright, which recommended a number of required upgrades necessary to address various code requirements to obtain permits and correct these structural issues or other Building and Housing Code violations on the property. Based on evidence observed by Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin, Building Division, Principal Engineer, third party review by Scott Fazekas, A.I.A., Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority, the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A., and myself (on the visible parts alone), and a review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby deemed to be "dangerous buildings' (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street Case # V10-0312 June 16, 2011 Page 2 the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby declared to be "substandard buildings" (Section 1001.1). Based only on limited visual evidence, such condition or multiple defects exist on the property to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the occupant(s) is/are endangered. Pursuant to Section 404.2 of the UCADB, observations and findings reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the posting are attached hereto in Exhibit A. Notice and Order You are hereby notified and ordered to vacate, secure, and maintain the subject structures against entry by no later than 4:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 2011. No person may enter or occupy the subject structures unless acting in an authorized manner to assess, perform or inspect the repair and/or removal of the violations. 2. You are also hereby directed, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of service of this Notice and Order, to obtain all City permits necessary to 1) repair, and/or 2) remove all code violations to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Official. Failure to comply with this Notice and Order within the time specified above will result in the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit B attached hereto for additional information) and/or the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. You or any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may appeal the notice and order pursuant to Section 501.1 of the UCADB within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. Pursuant to Section 504 of the UCADB, the filing of an appeal shall not slay the above Notice and Order to vacate, secure and maintain the subject structures against entry. Failure to appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 501 shall constitute a waiver of all right to an administrative hearing and adjudication of the Notice and Order or any portion thereof. Should you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me directly at (714) 573- 3130. Sincerely, Y Henry Huang, ., C.B.O. uilding Official Attachments: Exhibit A — Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street. Exhibit B —Administrative Citation Information Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street Case # V10-0312 June 16, 2011 Page 3 cc: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, City Attorney Bryan Healy, OCFA Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development Dennis McCreary, Principal Engineer Amy Thomas, Senior Planner Scott Fazekas, A.I.A. Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. Eric Stovner, S.E. File Exhibit A Exhibit A: Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street Based on evidence observed by Henry Huang, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin Building Official, Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin, Building Division, Principal Engineer, third parry review by Scott Fazekas, R.A., Mr. Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority, the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, and the owner's architect Paul Fulbrlght, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), and the review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby deemed to be "dangerous buildings" (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby declared to be "substandard buildings" (Section 1001.1). Such condition or multiple defects exist on the property to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the occupant(s) is/are endangered. The following dangerous conditions or multiple defects have been observed on the property reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the posting: Existing Building Conditions: 1. UCADB Section 302 Item 5 and UHC Section 1001.3. Beam supporting second story dwelling unit Is cracked and therefore jeopardizing supporting system of second story. CBC Section 3405.3 requires damaged gravity load -carrying components to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Eric Stovner's letters dated May 4 and 25, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 2. UCADB Section 302 Item 3 and UHC Section 1001.3. Carport structural members are not of adequate size to support roof loads and not designed In accordance with CBC Section 1604.1 and If loaded could collapse. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 3. UCADB Section 302 Item 8 and UHC Section 1001.3. Foundation supporting stairway to second story dwelling unit is not adequate and causes the exit door from the upper dwelling unit to become Inoperative and creates a hazard in case of fire or panic. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 4. UCADB Section 302 Item 2 and UHC Section 1001.12. Stairway intermediate guards and risers are not provided and thus a fall hazard exists. Further, this condition Is not in compliance with CBC Section 1013. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 29 stated he observed and noted this violation. S. UCADB Section 302 Item 1 and UHC Section 1001.12. Exterior stairway for second story unit is not in a safe location to afford exiting during a fire deemed as 10 feet from property line by California Building Code, 2010 Edition (CBC), Section 1027.3. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2g) stated he observed and noted this violation. 6. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. Fire resistive walls between the units and adjacent garage are not provided. Fire resistive walls and window protection adjacent to the property line on the second story are not provided. Fire in an adjacent unit, garage or adjacent building could spread quickly and therefore overcome occupants. Fire resistive assemblies are required for the above mentioned locations in CBC Sections 705, 707, and 709. In addition, there are several electrical installations that pose a danger (unprotected and non-attached Romex wiring, non-GFCI outlets in the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.) and there are no smoke detectors or alarms in the sleeping areas. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2a and 4a) stated he observed and noted these violations. 7. UHC Section 1001.5. Electrical wiring in the garage area is improperly Installed. Improperly Installed conductors and without proper required fire resistive material from the dwelling unit above can be a serious hazard to the occupants in the upper dwelling unit. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (items Id and 4b) stated he observed and noted this violation. B. UHC Section 1001.7. The furnace in the second story dwelling unit does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2b) stated he observed and noted this violation. 9. UHC Section 1001.5. Exposed electrical wiring next to unpermitted furnace In the second story unit can cause a potential fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2c) stated he observed and noted this violation. 10. UHC Section 1001.13. Operating smoke detectors are not installed within the sleeping areas of the upper and rear dwelling units as required by state code and therefore occupants may not have adequate warning of a fire. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 21 and 5h) stated he observed and noted this violation. 11. UHC Sections 1001.3, 1001.6 and 1001.7. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including gas and water) Installation work may pose a fire and water hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item ld) stated he observed and noted this violation. 12. UHC Section 1001.5. Electrical outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathrooms in both dwelling units are non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential electrical shock and fire danger to occupants. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (items 2j and 51) stated he observed and noted this violation. 13. UHC Sections 1001.2, 1001.5 and 1001.6. Plumbing and electrical installed in the kitchens may create fire hazard, water damage and Inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2d) stated he observed and noted this violation. 14. UHC Section 1001.7. Gas heater attached to wood siding and gas line In the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to Its proximity to combustible material. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item Sb) stated he observed and noted this violation. 15. UHC Section 1001.6. Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior of the rear dwelling unit poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5f) stated he observed and noted this violation. 16. UHC Section 1001.6. Added shower and floor area onto original structure may create water damage and inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2e) stated he observed and noted this violation. 17. UHC Section 1001.3. Foundations for the dwelling units and the recreation/storage building should be Investigated to determine If the foundation provides adequate structural bracing and support for the structures. Mr. Paul Fulbrlght's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item lb) refers the matter to Mr. Stovner and no further response was given. 18. UHC Section 1001.3. Wood posts at canopy of recreation room have rot at bottom and therefore need repair to mediate structural hazard. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 19. UHC Section 1001. 5. Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between the garage and house Is subject to potential damage and failure and poses a potential electrical and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 3c) stated he observed and noted this violation. 20. UCADB Section 302 Item 14. Exposed Insulation in the kitchen area of the rear dwelling unit appears to be straw and therefore a high flame spread rating and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5g) stated he observed and noted this violation. 21. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. North exterior wall of the recreation room Is in close proximity to the property line and poses a fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 6d) stated he observed and noted this violation. Determination of the Building Offlcfah- The subject buildings have been identified as having the conditions or multiple defects described above. Therefore, the subject buildings are In violation of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Housing Code, and the California Fire Code, as identified in the referenced Items below, and are therefore determined to be "dangerous buildings". Uniform Code forthe Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302 states, "For the purpose of this code, any building or structure which has any or all of the conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building, provided that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered." "1. Wherever any door, aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit Is not of sufficient width or size or Is not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of exit In case of fire or panic." Refer to Existing Building Conditions noted above, Item 5. "2. Whenever the walking surface or any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit Is so warped, worn, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 4. "3. Whenever the stress In any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live loads, Is more than one and one half times the working stress or stresses allowed in the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 2. "5. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fall, or to become detached or dislodge, or to collapse and thereby Injure persons or damage property." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 1. "8. Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of (1) dilapidation, deterioration or decay; (Ii) faulty construction; (ill) the removal, movement of instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such building; (iv) the deterioration, decay or inadequacy of Its foundation; or (v) any other cause, is likely to partially or completely collapse." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 3. "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it Is being used." Refer to all violations at the property. "14. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has in any nonsupporting part, member or portion less than 50 percent, or in any supporting part, member or portion less than 66 percent of the (1) strength, (II) fire -resisting qualities or characteristics, or (ill) weather -resisting qualities or characteristics require by law In the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy in the same location." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 6, 20 and 21. "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, Inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, Is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Refer to existing Building Code noted above, Items 3-9, 11, 14, 19, and 21. Uniform Housing Code 1001.1 General. "Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building in accordance with Section 102 of the Building code , or any building or portion thereof, including any dwelling unit, guest room or suite or rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, In which there exists any of the conditions referenced in this section to an extend that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare o f the pubic or the occupants thereof, shall be deemed and hereby are declared to be substandard buildings." The subject buildings have conditions described in the referenced items hereinafter and therefore deemed to be a "substandard bulldings". 1001.2 Inadequate Sanitation. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are insanitary. Inadequate sanitation shall Include, but not be limited to, the following: 6. Lack of adequate heating facilities. 13. General dilapidation or Improper maintenance. Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 8 and 13." 1001.3 Structural Hazards. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall Include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or Inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of Insufficient size to carry Imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 1, 2, 3, 11, 17, and 18. 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was Installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of Installation or electrical wiring not Installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices In areas where no codes were In effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that Is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 7, 9, 12, 13, and 19. 1001.6 Hazardous Plumbing. "Plumbing that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or plumbing not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices In areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained In good condition or that is not free of cross -connections or siphonage between fixtures shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 11, 13, 15, and 16. 1001.7 Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. "Mechanical equipment that was Installed in violation of code requirements In effect at the time of installation or mechanical equipment not Installed In accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were In effect or that has not been maintained in good and safe conditions shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 8, 11, and 14. 1001.12 Inadequate Exits. "Except for those buildings or portions thereof that have been provided with adequate exit facilities conforming to the provisions of this code, buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities were Installed In violation of code requirements in effect at the time of their construction or whose exit facilities have not been increased In number or width In relation to any Increase In occupant load due to alterations, additions or change In use or occupancy subsequent to the time of construction shall be considered substandard. Notwithstanding compliance with code requirements in effect at the time of their construction, buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when the building official finds that an unsafe condition exists through an Improper location of exits, a lack of an adequate number or width or exits, or when other conditions exist that are dangerous to human life." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 4, and 5. 1001.13 Inadequate Fire -protection or Firefighting Equipment. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when they are not provided with the fire -resistive construction or fire - extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that confirmed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire -restive Integrity and fire -extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved In relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 6, 10, and 21. California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" Including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Exhibit B EXHIBIT B Administrative Citation Information In accordance with Tustin City Code (TCC) 1162(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8999) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City may also take further legal action including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the violations) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the Issuance date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding citation finals). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified In the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding fine(s), and contact the City to request a re- inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time in writing pursuant to TCC 1165(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1166 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing fortes and other information on administrative citations may be obtained on the City's website at www.tustinca.oro. C\�o[vmm,t ands PW.r .J\ Se nv%Tempa. hn .ilio\Cnntm[OWwk\16F9335L\FIIIBIR A(lFGam1ll18 ATTACHMENT TIMELINE OF APPEAL AND HEARINGS Timeline of Appeal and Hearings The following timeline outlines the hearings and review of the appeal process for 520 Pacific Street: 7/27/10 Letter from Bret Fairbanks requesting re -build letter 8/4/10 Zoning confirmation letter from City staff indicating that the structures could not be rebuilt. No record that multi -family use (3 units) had been authorized in single family (R-1) zone. 9/10/10 On-site inspection conducted by City at 520 Pacific Street 9/16/10 Notice and Order/Code Enforcement case initiated 9/22/10 Appeal of Notice and Order filed by Bret Fairbanks to Building Board of Appeals/ Hearing Board (Planning Commission) 10/25/10 Notice and Order recorded by County Clerk 10/26/10 Appeal hearing to Board of Appeals/Hearing Board (Planning Continued to November Commission) 9, 2010 11/9/10 Continued hearing Continued to December 14, 2010 12/14/10 Building Board of Appeals approved Resolution No. 4161 ordering the correction of numerous Building Code violations. The Zoning Hearing Board approved Resolution No. 4162 for a zoning determination allowing three units within the R-1 zone. 12/23/10 Appeal of Resolution No. 4162 filed by Mayor. Amante 3/1/11 A de novo public hearing was held in which the City Council deemed the upper unit located above the garage and the unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage to be nonconforming residential units at 520 Pacific Street. 3/15/11 Tustin City Council denied the Appeal of 4162 and adopted Resolution No. 11-18 determined that three units could exist in R-1 Zone. 01 4/5/11 Numerous meetings and correspondence were exchanged through between City staff and the property owners and their professionals. However, six months after adoption of Resolution 6/16/11 No. 4161 ordering correction of Building Code violations, no corrections had been implemented nor had a complete set of plans been submitted. 6/16/11 Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate and correct safety violations was posted on-site by the Building Official. 6/24/11 Appeal of Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate by Deborah Rosenthal, Fairbanks' attorney, 1) requested the Board direct Building Official work with Fairbanks by providing specific corrections and 2) rescind Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate. 7/12/11 The Board of Appeals/Hearing Board (Planning Commission) set a hearing date of August 18, 2010 and appointed Hearing Examiner Gregory P. Palmer. 8/10/11 D. Rosenthal requested continuance of hearing. Continued to 8/30/11 8/30/11 Appeal Hearing (1): Opening statements and Principal Engineer Continued to 9/9/11 Dennis McCreary of the City of Tustin testified and was cross examined. Tustin Building Official Henry Huang testified and cross exam began. 9/9/11 Appeal Hearing (2): Cross Exam of Henry Huang continued, Continued to 9/22/11 testimony of Assistant Fire Marshal Bryan Healy of OC Fire Authority and cross examination. 9/22/11 Appeal Hearing (3): Scott Fazekas, AIA, (consultant for City of Continued to 10/4/11 Tustin) began testimony and cross. Registered structural,engineer Eric Stovner (consultant for Fairbanks) began testimony and Roger Banowetz (retired Inspector contracted by Fairbanks) began testimony. 10/4/11 Appeal Hearing (4): Stovner and Banowetz were cross Continued to 10/11/11 examined. Testimony of Architect Nathan Menard (consultant for the Fairbanks) began testimony. 10/11/11 Appeal Hearing (5): Menard was cross examined by the City. Property owner Bret Fairbanks testified and was cross examined. Deborah Rosenthal provided closing arguments. 10/25/11 Closing arguments from City Attorney provided. 12/16/11 Gregory P. Palmer provided an Advisory Decision of the Hearing (Attachment 2) Examiner on Behalf of The Tustin Building Board of Appeals to the City Attorney and Deborah Rosenthal. 12/27/11 Gregory P. Palmer provided a draft Resolution of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, modifying the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate for building code violations at the property at 520 Pacific Street (Assessor's Parcel No. APN 401- 371-07). 1/18/12 Meeting with Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks, Deborah Rosenthal, Gregory Palmer and City staff to discuss the draft Resolution. An agreement and resolution of certain issues relating to the Notice and Order was reached. Permit (C2012-12) issued to Bret Fairbanks for the installation of fire separation materials between the garage and rear unit; a residential heater; and GFCI installation. 1/25/12 Permit (C2012-19) was issued based on the agreement that was reached on 1/18/12 in fulfillment of the Notice and Order. Approval Authority: Pursuant Section 605.5 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Board of Appeals may adopt or reject the proposed decision in its entirety, or may modify the proposed decision. 1/30/12 Final Resolution provided by Hearing Examiner Palmer. (Attachment 3) ATTACHMENT 4 '�i7:�7�7x�3t;9[�P►[�73�:1�:1�1Will Crlw:I_1Ly, III! I21:Zo7►l:3=1a_1mai]o THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS JONES & MAYER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD e FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835 (714) 446-1400 a (562) 697-1751 a FAX (714) 446-1448 Richard D. lanes' Richard L. Adams 11 a i James Boyd-Wenherby Martin J. Mayer Damn J. Belknhausen Kimberly Hall Barlow Christian L Bettenhausen James R. Touchstone Paul R. Coble •a Professional Isw Corporation Of Counsel Micleael R. Capital Dean J. Pucci Steven N. Skoln& Jason M. McEwen, Esq. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 555 Anton Blvd., Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Michael Q. Do Robert Khuu Gregory P. Palmer Thomas P. Duarte Gary S. Kmnker Danny L. Pcalman Elmo Q. Gall Richard A. McFarlane Harold W. Potter Katharine M. Hardy Christopher F. Nemneyer Denies L. Rncawich Krista MacNevin Jee Kathya M. Oliva Ivy M. Teal Ryan R. Jones December 16, 2011 Deborah M. Rosenthal, Esq Sheppazd, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Re: 520 Pacific Street. Tustin, California Dear Mr. McEwen and Ms. Rosenthal: Consultant Mervin D. Feinstein VIA E-MAIL drosenthal @sheppardmullin.com jmcewen@wss-law.com Enclosed is the advisory decision on this matter. As you will see, I have confined the advisory decision to only the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate. As stated before, since this decision is confined just to the Notice, it will not resolve the ongoing conflict between the parties in terms of moving forward from this point in time. Even more fundamentally, since it is an advisory decision, it resolves nothing until the Board of Appeals decides the matter. Pursuant to Section 605.2 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and Section 1305.2 of the Uniform Housing Code (both of which govern this hearing), I also have the obligation to prepare a draft resolution for the Board to review. I will begin working on that document next week. In the meantime, I wanted the parties to know where I stood in this case and I renew my offer to assist the parties in settling the entire matter. If the advisory decision has the effect of changing the city's mind in that regard, please let me know. If the matter can be successfully settled it would save money in the preparation of a draft Jason M. McEwen, Esq. Deborah M. Rosenthal, Esq December 16, 2011 Page 2 resolution and the costs associated with moving the matter to the Board. If I do not hear from the parties in this regard, I will assume they want me to prepare the draft res9101on. Very truly P. Palmer Examiner GPP/mlt cc: Elizabeth Binsack, City of Tustin I Gregory P. Palmer SBN 133647 Hearing Examiner 2 JONES & MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 3 Fullerton, California 92835 (714)446-1400; Fax (714)446-1448 4 e-mail: gpp@jones-mayer.com 5 6 7 ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF 8 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 10 In Re the Matter of Case No: V 10-0312 11 the Appeal Of Notice and Order And Notice To Vacate APN: 401-371-07 12 520 Pacific Street, 13 Tustin, CA 14 15 16 17 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS: 18 The Hearing Examiner appointed to hear and advise on the above captioned matte 19 hereby submits his advisory opinion. 20 INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTION 21 At a special meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission, sitting as the 22 Tustin Building Board of Appeals, held on July 12, 2011, the Board appointed Gregory P. 23 Palmer to act as a hearing examiner on the matter of the Appeal of the Notice and Order 24 and Notice to Vacate pertaining to the property at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California. 25 The property is owned by Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks ("Fairbanks"). 26 27 28 -1- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Hearings were conducted at the Tustin Library on August 30, 2011, September 9, 2 2011, September 22, 2011, October 4, 2011 and October 11, 2011. The hearing was 3 governed by Chapter 6 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous 4 Buildings ("UCADB") and by Chapter 13 of the 1997 Uniform Housing Code ("UHC"). 5 (Joint Exhibit number 2, hereinafter "JX -2"; Exh. 1 and 5; JX -3; Exh. B and C)1. The city 6 was represented by Jason M. McEwen. The Fairbanks' were represented by Deborah M. 7 Rosenthal. The hearing was recorded by a digital audio recording. Both sides had a full 8 and fair opportunity to call, examine and cross examine witnesses and to proffer evidence 9 in support of their cases. The matter was submitted to the hearing examiner for an 10 advisory decision upon the oral closing argument by the Fairbanks, the written closing 11 argument by the City and by the submission of proposed findings of fact and law on 12 October 25, 2011. 13 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 14 This matter began quite inauspiciously. In the summer of 2010 the Fairbanks were 15 selling their home. They accepted an offer and were in escrow. The buyer's lender 16 requested what euphemistically became known as a "bum down" letter from the city. 17 Such a letter would confirm that in the event of a fire or other disaster, the city would 18 allow the two guest houses on the site to be rebuilt. Fairbanks submitted a written 19 request for such a letter to the city on July 27, 2010. (JX -1; Exh. A (00001). 20 In response to this request, the city reviewed its records on the property and 21 conducted a site inspection on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, city staff 22 noted a single family dwelling, the main house, in which the Fairbanks family reside, and 23 two additional units to the rear of the main house. One unit was located above the garage 24 and the other unit located on the ground floor behind the garage. A search of city records 25 26 This additional number reference is used to clarify the location of the exhibit. Much of Joint Exhibit Number 1 has been Bates stamped. These numbers will be used to assist the reviewer in 27 locating the exhibit in the voluminous record of this proceeding. 28 1 -2- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 did not reveal any conditional use permits or building permits for the two guest houses. (JX -1; Exh. B (00010-00084). On September 16, 2010, the city issued the Fairbanks a notice and order/pre- citation notice and declaration of a public nuisance notice. (JX -1, Exh. D, 00092-93). The only specific code violations noted in the notice were the following: 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings used as guest rooms provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses — corner lot line: 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet. (JX- 1, Exh. D, 00095) Fairbanks filed a timely appeal to this notice and order. The appeal came on for hearing before the Tustin Planning Commission on October 26, 2010. (JX -i; Exh. E; 00124). The Commission was sitting as the Building Board of Appeals as it related to 1 building code violation and simultaneously as the Planning Commission as it related to the two zoning violations. The city's presentation included an explanation of many of the 29 code compliance issues which existed on the property, including the straw insulation, the setback and fire separation issues related to the stairway to the entrance of the unit above the garage and the garage, as well as electrical and mechanical violations. These conditions were noted in the September 10, 2010 inspection. (JX -1; Exh. C; 00085- -3 - ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 00091). That meeting was continued so that staff and the property owner could attempt 2 to find an equitable solution to the situation. 3 The matter came on again for hearing on November 9, 2010. There was 4 discussion of when each of the buildings on site were constructed and how, if at all, the 5 construction overlapped with the building codes adopted over the years and the zoning 6 ordinance of the city. The same conditions were noted by the city in its November 9, 7 2010 presentation. 8 The Commission began to focus on the fact that the two guest house dwelling 9 units at issue in the matter were built long before the city's first zoning ordinance was 10 enacted in 1961. Accordingly, the discussion came around to the rear dwelling units 11 being legal non-conformance uses. Helpful to this determination was the discovery that 12 all building permits existing prior to 1959 were authorized for destruction by the building 13 official at that time. (7X-3; Exh. M). As it related to the code violations existing at that 14 time, the commission was directed that it require the property owner to comply with 15 minimum health and safety code compliance through the Uniform Housing Code. 16 The Commission voted unanimously to uphold the appeal of the Fairbanks to the 17 notice and order, to confirm the legal non -conforming status of the two rear dwelling unit 18 as guest houses, and to require the property owner to comply with the minimum code 19 compliance under the Housing Code. Many of the commissioners expressed their desire 20 that their ruling was a good compromise and that there should be flexibility in resolving 21 the remaining issues with the building official and with the applicability of the code. The 22 meeting was continued to December 9, 2010 so the proposed resolution could be 23 modified in conformance with the ruling. 24 On December 9, 2010 the Planning Commission, sitting as the Building Board of 25 Appeals, modified the notice and order and issued Resolution 4161 in which there is 26 contained the following provision: 27 28 -4- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 II. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals 2 pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby modifies the notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific 3 Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance: 4 A. The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the 5 requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010, and attached hereto in Exhibit B, to the extent such 6 corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be 7 necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and 8 preserved. 9 (JX -1, Exh. E, 00096 — 00099) 10 At that same meeting the Planning Commission adopted resolution 4162. In this 11 12 resolution the Planning Commission made the following findings: 13 Q. That there is evidence substantiating that the unit above the garage located behind the main house and the unit including two rooms and bathroom 14 located behind the garage were constructed prior to November 6, 1961, 15 including the following and attached hereto: 16 i. The Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified 17 individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation 18 provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that "At some 19 time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second 20 living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear." 21 ii. There is evidence that 520 and 520%2 existed as shown on the Santa 22 Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952. 23 iii. The son of the original owner, Robert Stephen Gaylord, provided a 24 signed statement indicating that "the unit above the garage was built 25 roughly between 1938 and 1942." Said letter stated that "the unit behind the garage was built by [his] father [George T. Gaylord] 26 between 1945 and 1950." The letter further states that this unit, 21 28 -5- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 including two rooms and a bathroom, were built by George Gaylord for Robert and his brother to occupy. Mr. Gaylord's letter further indicated that "the rooms were made available to others" of which the only person he remembered was Ms. Grennan who was a caretaker for his parents until they sold the house sometime after 1978. iv. The on-site assessment by city staff on September 10, 2010, reve that the upper unit was being utilized as a second residential unit with cooking facilities and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage was utilized as a second residential unit. v. The property owner(s)/appellant has testified at the public hearings and shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). The Planning Commission, after making these findings, also ruled as follows on the zoning issues presented in the appeal. Therefore, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacif Street as attached hereto in Exh. A: A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. B. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. (JX -1, Exh. F, 00406-410) That resolution was appealed to the city council by the mayor of the City of Tustin (CX -4)? The hearing on the mayor's appeal came on the March 1, 2011 council agenda. The mayor proclaimed that the Planning Commission had erred in its ruling on this issue 2 CX -4 refers to City Exhibit Number 4. M THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I because a legal non conforming use requires that the use be legally instituted at its 2 inception and continued without interruption thereafter, neither of which, according to the 3 mayor, was proven in the Planning Commission hearings 3. That hearing was continued 4 to March 15, 2011. 5 On March 15, 2011, the mayor presented an application for a sewer connection 6 permit filed by a prior owner (Gaylord) on June 14, 1971. This application was for one 7 dwelling unit without a kitchen. This, according to the mayor, was conclusive proof that 8 no continuous use was made of the legal nonconforming use and, thus, the property long 9 ago lost that status. Following very little discussion on that point, the city council voted 10 3-2 to uphold Resolution 4162 of the Planning Commission. 11 For reasons which will become clearer as this advisory opinion unfolds, the 12 decisions made by the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals, as upheld by the city 13 council, constitute the law of the case and, as such, must be respected as the matter 14 continued on from this point. As also will be seen, the decision to grant legal non 15 conforming use status to the two rear dwelling units is the pivot point in the history of 16 this matter. 17 MORE RECENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY 18 Following the city council meeting and the decision to uphold the Planning 19 Commission/Board of Appeals decisions, the parties met on April 5, 2011. The 20 Fairbanks brought their architect to the meeting, Mr. Paul Fulbright ("Fulbright"). 21 Among the more salient results of this meeting was that the Fairbanks were to have 22 design professionals, such as Fulbright and an engineer, perform an inspection of the site 23 and prepare a written report for the city to review. 24 In its letter to the Fairbanks confirming the items discussed in the meeting, the 25 city's building official Henry Huang ("Huang") referred to the previous staff report 26 'Note here that the hearing on the mayor's appeal was primarily focused on Resolution 4162, not 27 Resolution 4161, which pertained to the Building Code violation portion of the notice and order. 28 1 -7- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I prepared as the result of the "twenty minute cursory observation by our staff and 2 therefore was very limited." (See JX -1, Exh. G, 00436-00437, Item Number 9). Later in 3 that same paragraph Huang proclaimed "the existing structure is not safe to occupy." 4 (Id). 5 Fulbright did complete an inspection of the structures on site and prepared a 6 written report describing the conditions he found and suggested remediations necessary. 7 His cover letter for that report was dated April 21, 2011. Fulbright's report identifies 8 many of the issues which were already identified by the city during its September 10, 9 2010 inspection. Fulbright identified other issues which were not included in the city's 10 September 10, 2010 inspection report. Among those additional items was the lack of 11 GFCI outlets in the kitchen and bathrooms of each unit, the lack of operable smoke 12 detectors, the north wall of the recreation room is within 12 inches of the property line, 13 and the stairway to the upper unit did not appear to be adequately supported by proper 14 footings/foundations. (JX -1; Exh. H; 00438-004478). 15 Eric Stovner ("Stovner") was also employed by the Fairbanks to inspect the 16 premises from his perspective as a structural engineer and provide a written report. His 17 report is dated May 4, 2011. Like Fulbright, Stovner identified additional items which 18 were neither noticed nor articulated by the city following its cursory inspection done on 19 September 10, 2010. Among the additional items identified by Stovner was a significant 20 crack in a wood beam in the ceiling of the garage which supports the floor of the upper 21 unit. Stovner also identified the support foundation for the stairs as did Fulbright, but 22 Stovner described his concern in more detail than did Fulbright. The posts supporting the 23 stairs are on concrete pedestals that simply bear on grade. There was no evidence that 24 any of the posts rest on a footing that is buried below the grade. (JX -1, Exh. I, 00448- 25 454). 26 27 28 -8 ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Both Fulbright and Stovner recommended remedial measures to be taken including replacing the cracked beam, the carport support girder, the recreation room canopy posts and replacing the stair supports with 12" x 12" footings below grade. (Ld). On or about May 10, 2011, Huang had a phone conversation with Fulbright about the contents of his report. That led Fulbright to send Huang an email on May 11, 2011. In his email Fulbright stated "there are specific items that must be addressed before the property is considered safe and habitable." (JX -1, Exh. J, 00455). A meeting of the parties was scheduled for the afternoon hours of May 12, 2011. Huang cancelled that meeting the morning of May 12, 2011. In an email to all parties explaining that since he was preparing a letter to go out to the participants, Huang said it would not be productive to have a meeting. (JX -1, Exh. L, 00459-60). On May 16, 2011, Huang authored a letter to Fulbright and to Stovner. In that letter, Huang stated he had reviewed both their reports and he had some comments and conclusions. Huang requested both men to articulate whether or not the structures were safe to occupy. Additionally, Huang imposed a unilateral deadline to submit plans designed to show how all the noted conditions would be remediated within 30 working days of the date of his letter.' (JX -1, Exh. K, 00456-57; emphasis added). Fulbright responded to Huang's concern in an email sent to Huang on May 17, 2011. In that email Fulbright stated "I want to be very clear that we did not observe an immediate threat to the occupants of these two units and continued habitation is satisfactory as long as the potential hazards we listed are remediated within a timely manner." (JX -1; Exh. L; 00458). Stovner also responded to Huang's concerns in a letter dated May 25, 2011. In that letter Stovner stated: ' Thirty working days from May 16, 2011 would place the deadline on June 28, 2011, for the Memorial Day holiday. 0 ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I "Per requirement of your letter of May 16, 2011, the purpose of this letter is to 2 state that it is our professional opinion that the existing added units which have been used for over 60 years are structurally safe to continue to occupy before 3 rehabilitation is complete, with the provision that temporary shoring, consisting of nominal 4x4 timber posts, be placed at each end of the split in the garage beam." 4 (JX -1; Exh. M; 00462). 5 With that more recent history, Huang prepared and served the notice and 6 order/pre-citation notice/declaration of public nuisance and notice to vacate here at it 7 issue on June 16, 2011. In that notice, Huang cited the observations made by city staff 8 during the cursory inspection on September 10, 2010, Fulbright's report, Stovner's 9 report, third party reviews by Scott Fazekas ("Fazekas") and Bryan Healey ("Healey") of 10 the Orange County Fire Authority, as well as his own observations "(on the visible parts 11 alone)" and determined the structures to be substandard and unsafe for continued 12 occupancy. Fairbanks was directed to have the structures vacated no later than June 20, 13 2011, at 4:00 p.m. and to obtain the necessary permits to remediate the conditions noted. 14 (JX -1; Exh. N; 00463-00466). Appended to the notice was an addendum which 15 identified 21 specific violations, most of which were noted previously as part of the 16 September 16, 2010 notice and hearings as well as the additional items noted by 17 Fulbright and Stovner. Based on that Notice the two units were red tagged. (JX -1, Exh. 18 N and O, 00463-77; JX -3; Exh. Ll), 19 It was from that notice the Fairbanks filed the instant appeal which led to the 20 appointment of this hearing examiner and the five days of hearings. (JX -3; Exh. E and S). 21 What follows is a chart which provides a visual representation of the 22 violations/conditions noted in the September 16, 2010 Notice which were then either 23 abandoned or repeated in the June 16, 2010 Notice and which conditions were added in 24 the June 16, 2010 Notice. 25 26 27 28 _ -10- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 Unsecured/exposed gas line -rear unit • Straw insulation exposed • Smoke detectors - inoperable • Cracked beam supporting upper units Foundation/footings for stairs No GFCI's Wood posts@rec room bldg — rotted North exterior wall/rec room — setback encroachment STATEMENT OF THE CASE CITY'S CASE -IN -CHIEF Dennis McCreary ("McCreary") is a licensed professional engineer and is employed by the City of Tustin in the Building Division in Plan Check, Code Enforcement, and is the building official in the absence of Huang. McCreary visited the property at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA on September 10, 2010. He went therewith Community Development Director Elizabeth Binsack at the request of the Fairbanks. Hemet the Fairbanks at the location. He spent about 20 minutes actually inspecting the premises and 20-30 additional minutes in conversation with the Fairbanks. He and others at the inspection took photographs of the conditions observed. (JX -1, Exh. B, 00010-00087). McCreary noticed the following violations • Construction on the property line — violation of setback requirements. • Exposed electrical wiring. • No smoke detectors. • Exposed insulation in the kitchen— straw insulation. McCreary was also concerned about the structural support for the rear units but that needed further investigation than he did on this visit. He neither took nor caused to be taken a photograph of the exposed straw insulation. He also did not know its -12- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I flammability and he did not take a sample. He and others noticed other conditions which 2 violated code requirements. 3 This was the only time McCreary visited the site. He then provided the 4 information to Huang following his inspection. Huang has never personally inspected the 5 property. McCreary did not prepare a list of violations observed during the inspection. 6 In fact, the list that was ultimately prepared did not include the lack of smoke detectors. 7 (JX -1; Exh. Q. 8 McCreary observed the interior of the garage but he did not notice the cracked 9 beam. 10 McCreary assisted in creating the violation list used in conjunction with the notice I 1 and order issued on September 16, 2010. (JX -1, Exh. C, 00085-00091). 12 McCreary said there were dangerous conditions present during his inspection. 13 Henry Huang ("Huang") is the building official for the City of Tustin. He is a 14 registered professional engineer with 30 years of experience. 15 Huang first met Fairbanks at the counter in June or July, 2010. He became 16 involved again when McCreary shared his observations and photographs from the 17 September 10, 2010 inspection with him.5 Huang was surprised by the number of 18 violations present. 19 Following the Planning Commission hearing he had a meeting with the Fairbanks 20 on April 5, 2011. He sent a letter summarizing this meeting. (JX -1, Exh. G, 00436- 21 00437). 22 23 24 25 5 In that connection, Huang said he often relies upon the observations of his subordinate staff in terms of conditions observed on property sites as he cannot go out to each individual property to 26 do his own inspection. 27 28 -13- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Huang's interpretation of the Planning Commission's resolution was that all the 2 violations were to be corrected to the minimum health and safety requirement. (JX -1, 3 Exh. E, 00098). This left it to his discretion as the building official. 4 Huang received the report from Fulbright and he received Stovner's report. (JX -1, 5 Exh.'s H and I, 00438-00454). Both of those men agreed with the general observations o 6 the violations observed by the city. This supported the findings of McCreary's cursory 7 inspection. These reports, though, provided even more information. Before this time 8 period, Huang was not aware of the crack in the beam of the garage. 9 Huang received an email from Fulbright on May 11, 2011. In that email Fulbright 10 agreed there were specific items which had to be addressed before the property was safe 1 I and habitable. (JX -1, Exh. J, 00455). Huang became concerned whether the units were 12 safe for occupancy. He sent letters to both Fulbright and Stovner asking them to provide 13 an opinion in that regard. (JX -1, Exh. K, 00456-00457). Huang received responses from 14 each man. Fulbright said that continued habitation was acceptable provided remediation 15 was done in a timely manner. (JX -1, Exh. L.; 00458). Stovner said continued occupancy 16 was safe with temporary shoring posts being installed to support the cracked garage 17 beam. (JX -1, Exh. M, 00462). That, coupled with the findings of McCreary's visit in 18 September, 2010, Huang felt the buildings were unsafe. 19 Huang reached out to Scott Fazekas ("Fazekas") for a third party review of the 20 situation and for a second opinion. He met Fazekas in city hall and showed him the 21 photographs from September 10, 2010 and the letters from Fulbright and Stovner. This 22 review also included the opinion of the Assistant Fire Marshal, Bryan Healey ("Healey"). 23 Fazekas concurred the units were dangerous. That led Huang to issue the notice and 24 order and notice to vacate the units. Huang said he invited the Fairbanks to show him 25 bow they intended to remediate the conditions, but they did nothing. They submitted no 26 plans. 27 28 -14- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 TIIE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 Fairbanks told Huang that he rented out one of the units after he received the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. Huang explained that he did not issue a notice to vacate back in September 2010 because the inspection was not an in depth inspection. He only took the drastic action based on the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. It was not one violation which turned this matter for him; it was a combination of all the violations. This was the first time Huang issued a notice to vacate. On cross examination, Huang confirmed that Fulbright did not articulate any immediate threat to the occupants. Huang said even if the shoring of the beam were done, the structures would still be dangerous based on other issues. The language in the final version of Resolution 4161 which said "to the extent such corrections are reasonable -17- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS building. Item 17. Units Huang was concerned about the Foundations foundational support for the recreation room canopy inasmuch as the bottom of the post was installed too close to the concrete creating a dry rot danger. It was based on Stovner's report. Item 18. Canopy Posts This is a repeat violation based on the recreation room canopy support post problem which was explained directly above. Item 19. Conduit This is based upon a metal conduit which crosses the carport area and which is unsupported. Item 20. Insulation Huang was concerned about the exposed straw insulation as noted by both McCreary and Fulbright. Item 21. Rec Room North This is an additional violation based on the Wall proximity of the upper unit wall to the property line. Fairbanks told Huang that he rented out one of the units after he received the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. Huang explained that he did not issue a notice to vacate back in September 2010 because the inspection was not an in depth inspection. He only took the drastic action based on the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. It was not one violation which turned this matter for him; it was a combination of all the violations. This was the first time Huang issued a notice to vacate. On cross examination, Huang confirmed that Fulbright did not articulate any immediate threat to the occupants. Huang said even if the shoring of the beam were done, the structures would still be dangerous based on other issues. The language in the final version of Resolution 4161 which said "to the extent such corrections are reasonable -17- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I determined by the Building Official to be necessary and appropriate to ensure that the 2 health and safety of the occupants ... are adequately protected and preserved..." was not 3 the original language of the draft resolution. Before it was revised it simply required 4 compliance with the notice and order. Huang said the table (JX -1, Exh. E; 00109-00115) 5 were the violations which he determined reasonable and necessary. 6 Huang agreed that although Stovner described the problem with the posts at the 7 recreation room but Stovner did not call that condition dangerous. Huang did not know 8 the extent of the rot to the posts. The condition of the posts contributed to the overall 9 finding of dangerousness. 10 Huang confirmed that the Fairbanks submitted plans to remediate the conditions 11 on July 5, 2011. (JX -1; Exh. P, 00478-00481). 12 Huang admitted that the violation involving the exterior wall of the recreation 13 room being too close to the property line was not on the September, 2010 list. The city 14 learned about the violation and the posts from Fulbright's report. Fulbright did not find a 15 fire hazard in the wall violation. The wall and the posts were the only violation noted 16 with regard to the recreation room. 17 Huang said the smoke detector charge was added based on Fulbright's letter. He 18 did not know if Fairbanks installed smoke detectors in May, 2011. 19 Huang agreed that GFCI outlets are required now on new construction, but they 20 are not required retrofit items on existing buildings. 21 On Item 14 Huang agrees that Fulbright said the heater was new, in safe condition, 22 and was in working order. Huang wanted Fulbright to provide detailed plans and 23 information on the heater and if it was safe, Huang would be satisfied. Fulbright did not 24 get that information to him. 25 Fulbright said in his report that the unsecured gas line was not a working, 26 pressurized gas line. (Item 15). Hunag did not check on that. 27 28 -18- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Huang agreed Fulbright said the straw insulation needs to be covered and that it 2 did not constitute an immediate life safety hazard. Huang admitted the straw insulation 3 was not tested and his statement that it has a high flame rate was just a statement, not a 4 conclusion. 5 Huang said that if the furnace in the upper unit was installed in conformance with 6 the manufacturer's instructions, at the time of construction, he would accept it. 7 Huang agreed Fulbright also recommended the exposed electrical wiring in the 8 upper unit needed to be removed. Huang was informed that the wires have now been 9 removed. The same was true with regard to the smoke detectors; they are operable now. 10 Huang said that would make him happy. 11 There was no specific condition in the upper unit which constituted substandard 12 wiring. 13 As it related to the stairway to the upper unit, Huang did not know if it was there 14 before 1940, or before 1950. He did not know if the 1927 or 1940 building code required 15 guards and rails on such stairways. He did not know what the 1927 code or 1940 code 16 said about the 10 foot setback requirement. Huang generally agreed that if the stairway 17 was built to code at the time of construction, it could remain. He had no evidence to 18 conclude the stairs were ever altered since they were built. 19 Huang agreed the foundations for the stair support structure was not brought up in 20 the September, 2010, notice. Stovner said the foundations appeared to be in sound 21 structural condition. 22 Huang did not know when the carport was constructed. Even though the girder is 23 undersized, it did not show signs of collapse. Huang based his finding on Stovner's 24 report. Huang did not go out and look at it personally. 25 With respect to the cracked beam in the garage, Huang said that violation also was 26 not in the September, 2010 notice. Stovner identified this issue for the city and Huang 27 28 -19- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I never saw it. Indeed, neither did McCreary. Huang did not know if the crack was fresh 2 and he did not know when it happened. Stovner did not say it was an immediate threat. 3 Huang requested Stovner to advise him if the upper unit was safe for occupancy 4 within 10 days. Stovner responded in that time and after that Huang did not go out to the 5 site to determine if the temporary shoring had been done. 6 Huang agreed he gave the Fairbanks 30 working days from. May 16, 2011 to file 7 remediation plans and yet his notice and order was issued within 30 calendar days. 8 As it relates to the lack of a fire separation between the garage and the two units, 9 Huang did not recall discussing that issue with the Fairbanks. He did not recall if 10 Fairbanks told him he had to remove the coverings due to a rat infestation. Huang 11 acknowledged Fulbright said the occupancy was safe "so long as the potential hazards we 12 listed are remediated within a timely manner." (JX -1; Exh. L; 00458). 13 Huang did not know how long the upper unit wall had been on the property line. 14 There was discussion of the different setback requirements in the codes f7om different 15 years. 16 Huang has never seen an architect or engineer state a building was unsafe where 17 that architect or engineer worked on behalf of a property owner. That Stovner did not 18 find an unsafe condition did not surprise him. 19 Huang interpreted Resolution 4161 as requiring the owner to maintain the property 20 in accordance with health and safety standards and that the Uniform Housing Code was 21 to be used in determining whether it was safe. Resolution 4161 did not require Huang to 22 do anything other than to be satisfied that the buildings were safe. In that connection he 23 requested Fairbanks hire subject matter professionals and assist him. Fairbanks did hire 24 Fulbright and Stovner. Fulbright and Stovner's reports confirmed the previous issues 25 presented to the Planning Commission and identified several new issues. He asked both 26 27 28 -20- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I men to declare if the buildings were safe for occupancy. Their reports, in Huang's 2 opinion, indicated the structures were not safe. 3 Healey is the Assistant Fire Marshal for the City of Tustin. He reviewed the file 4 on 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California and consulted with Huang and others from the 5 city. He did not conduct an on-site inspection. He said the stairway to the upper unit was 6 a fire hazard. The foundations were a problem as well as the proximity to the next door 7 neighbor. He was also concerned with the lack of fire resistive barriers between the 8 garage and the two occupancies. The heaters and smoke detectors also concerned him. 9 The cracked beam in the garage creates a risk of collapse on a firefighter in case of a fire 10 event. Healey said these issues needed to be addressed in order for the property to be 11 considered safe. 12 On cross examination Healey said if the heater was installed properly, then he had 13 no concerns. Healey did not know if the stairs were built to code. He did not prepare his 14 own notice of violation on these issues. His involvement was more of a consultant in this 15 matter. 16 Scott Fazekas is a retired building official who now provides code consultation to 17 municipalities. He is also a licensed architect. At Huang's request, Fazekas met with 18 him to provide a third party review of 520 Pacific Street. He reviewed the photographs 19 and all the reports. 20 Fazekas felt the cracked beam was a dangerous condition. The carport beam 21 constituted a potential for failure. He did not do his own physical inspection of the 22 property. The stairway foundation was dangerous. He said a 12 inch footing below the 23 grade has been the requirement since the 1927 Building Code. The lack of rails and 24 guards on the stairway was also a dangerous condition. The lack of a fire resistive 25 separation between the garage and the units was a danger. The old heater is dangerous 26 27 28 -21- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 and the newer heater was installed without a permit. The straw type insulation should be 2 covered. 3 Fazekas concurred with Huang's decision to issue the notice and order. The 4 structures at issue were not built to any version of the Building Code, even back to 1927. 5 On cross examination, Fazekas admitted he did not discuss these issues with either 6 Fairbanks, Fulbright or Stovner. His opinion was entirely based on document review and 7 discussions with city officials. He concurred that all the 1927 building code required was 8 that the foundation be to the frost line and that in this area the frost line is not really an 9 issue. He was not familiar with the history of the construction of the home and did not 10 know if any of the electrical wiring was energized. He did not recall if he discussed I 1 Resolution 4161 with city staff. 12 FAIRBANKS CASE-IN CHIEF 13 Stovner testified that he is the president of Critical Structures. He has been a 14 registered structural engineer for the last 24 years and specializes in historic structures. 15 Stovner was called by Fairbanks in January, 2011, and he visited the property 16 several times. He was asked to review the property and provide an opinion on whether it 17 was safe and habitable. The two most serious issues related to the property were the 18 cracked garage beam and the carport girder, but neither showed any immediate signs of !, 19 stress and the problems were not immediate. He tested the stiffness of the floor in the 20 upper unit using the heel drop test and he did not notice any bouncing. The crack was not 21 new, did not appear to be worsening, and was not an immediate hazard. He advised 22 Fairbanks to replace it. He reviewed the plans prepared by Menard and they are 23 consistent with his recommendations. Stovner said the upper unit was safe and habitable 24 with temporary shoring. He said the shoring has been accomplished. Since his 25 recommendations, he has seen it and it is shored in a manner consistent with his 26 recommendation. He did not think a permit was required for such temporary shoring. 27 28 -22- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I The shoring was installed shortly after he made that recommendation in his letter. The 2 shoring does not limit the use of the garage for the vehicle storage since the beam runs 3 parallel to the movement of a vehicle into the garage. 4 Stovner had the same sort of testimony as it related to the carport girder. It was 5 best to replace it, but it was not showing signs of distress or sagging and it was not in 6 danger of collapse. 7 The stairway foundation showed no signs of distress or settling. While the piers 8 should not be sitting on the grade, they have not gone anywhere for years and the stair 9 landing appeared strong. There are seven posts supporting the stairway and landing. The 10 door to the upper unit was square. He, nonetheless, recommended they be repaired and 11 the plans address this correction. 12 The canopy posts are not an immediate hazard. In fact, the rot only affects one or 13 two posts. This is a maintenance issue, not a hazard. 14 It offended Stovner when Huang said he had never seen an architect working on 15 behalf of a property owner find a dangerous condition on that property. Stovner has done 16 just that where warranted. He has advised property owners whom he consulted that 17 dangerous conditions existed if they truly did exist. He would have done that on this 18 case, if he found a dangerous condition. 19 Stovner always found Fairbanks willing to cooperate and resolve all the issues at 20 this home. 21 On cross examination, Stovner concurred his review was conducted from only a 22 structural soundness aspect. His was not just based on a cursory review. The stairs do 23 not carry much of a load demand. His opinion did not take into account that the stairs 24 were the only form of ingress and egress from the upper unit; he just looked at them 25 structurally. 26 27 28 -23- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Stovner did not recommend using any prior code for his recommendations. He 2 used the current code. While the building may be eligible for state historical building 3 code application, he felt it was more straightforward to use the current code. Stovner felt 4 all that was needed here was to fix what is broken, not do a complete upgrade. The 5 garage beam did not endanger the occupants of the upper unit. 6 Roger Banowetz is a retired building inspector with 35 years experience. He now 7 consults on building issues. He has red tagged buildings before but never without 8 inspecting them personally. 9 Banowetz has inspected the property at 520 Pacific Street and he has reviewed the 10 list of violations articulated by the city. Based on that review he developed an opinion on 11 each of the violations. 12 The canopy posts at the recreation room only affects one of the five posts and is 13 not a safety hazard. 14 The exterior wall of the recreation room has some fire resistive material in the wall 15 and is not a fire hazard. 16 When Banowetz visited the property smoke and CO detectors were installed and 17 were working. All the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing installations met code 18 requirement. GFCI outlets were not required when the electrical components were 19 installed and the existing electrical components were not a hazard. 20 Banowetz inspected the newer of the two heaters. He reviewed the installation 21 instructions as well as the installation method. It was installed in accordance with the 22 manufacturer's instructions. It was not dangerous and hazardous. 23 The exposed gas line had been removed prior to his inspection. 24 Banowetz tested the straw insulation and determined it was not a fire hazard. 25 Moreover, it has been covered up. 26 27 28 -24- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I With respect to the older heater in the upper unit, he inspected it, reviewed its 2 installation and actually located the manufacturer's instructions for installation. It was 3 installed in a manner consistent with the instructions. It was compliant with all clearance 4 requirements. For its age, it appeared to be in good condition and was not dangerous. 5 The electrical wiring and the power strip which used to be affixed to the wall near the 6 unit had been removed at the time of his inspection. 7 Banowetz saw no issues with the installation of the shower in the upper unit. 8 The stairs to the upper unit were properly installed to the 1940 building code. At 9 that time the code did not address guards and rails. The stairs were sound. They were 10 level and did not appear to be in distress or displacement, the entrance door opened and 11 closed smoothly. With respect to the set back requirement, the 1940 code did not have a 12 setback requirement. The current code requires a 10 foot setback but Banowetz could not 13 find anything about setbacks in the 1927 code. The 10 foot setback requirement was 14 more recent than when the stairs were constructed properly under the code at the time of 15 construction. 16 Banowetz looked at the foundations for the dwelling units and they all looked in 17 good shape. 18 The metal conduit was braced adequately when he inspected it. Since it had been 19 braced, it was not a hazard. 20 When Banowetz inspected the garage beam it was shored. The electrical wiring 21 that was exposed was not installed recently. Once it is covered it will be safe. One 22 junction box needs to be rotated to be accessible, but once that is all covered with 23 drywall, the installation will be alright. 24 The stair foundations were not up to code but have withstood the test of time. 25 Banowetz saw no indication that it would soon fall down. In fact, it is extremely well 26 27 28 _ -25- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I built. He would not make an unsafe determination based solely on a photograph. He 2 would have to see the condition in person first. The stairs were not unsafe. 3 On cross examination Banowetz admitted he is not a certified building inspector 4 and he is not an engineer. He classified the occupancy in the 1927 and 1940 building 5 code as an I occupancy, which relates to a dwelling house. He did not use the apartment 6 house occupancy classification. He did not think this was an apartment house. 7 The covered landing at the top of the stairs is not in compliance with any prior 8 code. Banowetz agreed the 1927 building code applied to the upper unit and the 1940 9 building code applied to the rear unit. It appeared to him that the stair landing as 10 originally constructed was an open porch which was later enclosed. He made that 11 determination from the different roof pitch above the stair landing. 12 Banowetz did not review the reports of Fulbright and Stovner but he was present 13 for Stovner's testimony. Banowetz believes that with seven posts supporting the 14 stairway, it is overbuilt. 15 Banowetz acknowledged that even though the more recent heater installation was 16 installed properly, it still had to have a permit. Banowetz said Fairbanks acknowledged 17 he needed a permit for that installation. Fairbanks is in the process of obtaining that 18 permit now. 19 Banowetz said the 1927 building code did not require a fire separation between I 20 occupancies (dwelling house) and private garages. It only required an "ordinary 21 separation" which was not a fire separation. Nevertheless, where such a fire separation 22 was present and then removed, it should be replaced. Then Banowetz realized that 23 pursuant to § 503 (b) of the 1927 building code subdivision 3 required an ordinary fire 24 separation, which is a one hour separation. This was part of the correction proposed by 25 Fairbanks. 26 27 28 -26- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 Banowetz said while he has deference to the decisions made by a building official, 2 he would not have red -tagged these buildings based on the conditions he noted when he 3 did his inspection. 4 Nathan Menard is an architect who has a business in Tustin and who specializes in 5 historic buildings. He has known the Fairbanks for quite some time and is familiar with 6 their home. Menard has prepared plans which demonstrate how the Fairbanks' intend to 7 remediate all the violations. Menard based these plans on the reports and findings of 8 Fulbright and Stovner. (JX -1; Exh. P). 9 Menard believed the Fairbanks home qualified as a historical structure. That 10 included the garage and the upper unit. He agreed with the timing of the construction of 11 the various buildings throughout the 1900's. He said the City of Tustin adopted its first 12 zoning ordinance in 1947. He believed that since the buildings are of historic character 13 that the degree of danger should be determined using the historical building code, not the 14 current code. Under that standard these building are safe, not dangerous. 15 The stairs to the upper unit were built to the code in force at the time. That being 16 so, one should leave them alone. The foundations to the stairs only needed to be below 17 the frost line and in California, there is no frost line. Again, one should leave it alone 18 because it is an example of construction at the time. He understood the proposal was to 19 repair the foundation using today's code. He did not think that was the right thing to do 20 but the proposal is to install footings below grade. 21 Menard did not think the setback requirement applied in the 1927 code because 22 that was not applicable to group I occupancies 23 Menard inspected the interior of the garage. There was no fire separation between 24 the garage and the interior when he went there. He did notice, however, that the ceiling 25 joists had shims and nail holes. These were indicators to him that something was 26 installed there at a previous time. He proposed type x gypsum board be re -installed. 27 28 -27- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Menard agreed the exterior wall of the stairway landing needs to be fire rated. He 2 proposed two different ways to remediate this problem. 3 The bathrooms and kitchens do not have GFCI outlets. It was not required when 4 constructed but they have been proposed for installation. While such outlets are 5 inconsistent with the historical character of the buildings, it is important to install them. 6 Menard agreed with. Stovner's report and did not find any disagreement with 7 Stovner's testimony. He also does not disagree with the description of conditions found 8 by Fulbright. 9 Menard criticized the findings of 30`" Street Architects, since, in his opinion, the 10 mid and rear additions are historically significant and they never did an on-site inspection 11 of the premises before issuing their report. By their own letter, the 30`h Street Architects 12 merely did a cursory review of the photographs taken by the city and reviewed 13 information provided by city staff. (JX -1; Exh. E, 00153-00156). 14 Menard said his plans for the Fairbanks was submitted to the city on July 5, 2011 15 and the city's review and reply was dated August 8, 2011. 16 Bret Fairbanks ("Fairbanks") testified that he lives with his wife and four 17 daughters at 520 Pacific. He is a physical therapist. They purchased the home ten or 18 eleven years ago. When he purchased the home it was advertised as having two rental 19 units on site, both of which were occupied. The decision to make the purchase was based 20 upon the income from the rental units. The income pays one half the cost of the 21 mortgage. He did his due diligence at the time and discovered a permit for an electrical 22 panel. After the purchase he re -roofed all the structures including the two units. He 23 obtained a building permit for the re -roof and had inspections by city building staff. 24 Nobody told him during those inspections that anything was wrong with the units. (CX - 25 1, 2). 26 27 28 -28- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Fairbanks put the property up for sale in December 2009. His growing family 2 needed more room. An offer was made and accepted. This led to an inspection by an 3 appraiser. The prospective buyer's lender inquired about the two rear dwelling units and 4 requested a "bum down" letter. In July, 2010, he requested a "burn down" letter from the 5 city. The city responded and informed him there were no permits on file for the two 6 dwelling units. Because of that the appraiser gave the units no value and the buyers 7 walked away from the sale. 8 Fairbanks met with Elizabeth Binsack and Huang. Huang was very nice and 9 suggested he would come out to give Fairbanks an idea when the buildings were 10 constructed. A CUP was suggested but that was not viable because the kitchen would no 11 be allowed even with a CUP. 12 On the day of the inspection on September 10, 2010, only McCreary and Binsack 13 showed up. Fairbanks was very disappointed that Huang was not present. He was not 14 comfortable with Binsack since she did not share his belief that the units were a legal 15 non -conforming use. 16 McCreary conducted an inspection and took some photographs. He was told the 17 city officials would get back to him. The next thing he received was the September 16, 18 2010 notice and order. It was signed by Brad Steen, an individual Fairbanks had never 19 met and who had never been to his home. He appealed that notice. 20 Fairbanks spoke to Juanita and Huang about the notice and order. Both were 21 surprised by its issuance. While the appeal was pending Fairbanks spoke to many city 22 officials about fixing the violations. He was repeatedly told not to do anything while his 23 appeal was pending. Moreover, he did not want to make repairs on units that he was 24 advised he could not legally keep. He could not get a building permit while his appeal 25 was pending. 26 27 28 -29- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I The Planning Commission held a hearing at which Fairbanks spoke. The 2 Commission ruled his units were a legal non -conforming use in the face of staff being 3 against it. The research he did to prepare for that hearing was extensive. He found a 4 reference that indicated in 1959 the Tustin City Council authorized the destruction of all 5 building permits prior to that date. The Planning Commission also offered him to make 6 them safe and habitable. The final language was that he was to comply with the notice 7 and order to the extent necessary to ensure health and safety. It was his interpretation of 8 that ruling that the list of 29 violations would be winnowed down to only those that 9 impact health and safety and that he would be allowed to make the repairs and sell his 10 home. 11 Fairbanks met with Huang and it became clear to him that the city was still going 12 to require compliance with all the violations, not just those related to health and safety. 13 Nevertheless, following December 14, 2010, Fairbanks began fixing those things 14 he could fix without a building permit. 15 In January, 2011, the mayor appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the 16 full city council. Again Fairbanks spoke to McCreary about repairing the other items. 17 He particularly wanted to replace the drywall in the garage. He was again advised to wa 18 while his case was still pending before the city council. McCreary and other city offrcia: 19 knew at that time the units were occupied by tenants. Nobody said the units were 20 dangerous to occupy then. 21 Fairbanks hired Stovner to assist him in determining if the property was safe and 22 habitable. Stovner did an inspection and noticed the cracked beam in the garage. The 23 city did not mention this; Stovner did. 24 The city council finally decided to uphold the decision of the Planning 25 Commission on March 15, 2011. The units were now a legal non -conforming use. 26 27 28 -30- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I A meeting was set with Huang and that was when Huang said the minimum health 2 and safety was compliance with the entire building code. Fairbanks thought "here we go 3 again." 4 Fairbanks then hired Fulbright to provide assistance in determining which 5 violations were related to health and safety. Fulbright suggested upgrading the outlets in 6 the bathrooms and kitchens to GFCI outlets. Fairbanks was willing to do that. Fairbanks 7 was more interested in fixing the problems rather than forcing the historical building code 8 upon the city. 9 At the April 5, 2011 meeting, Huang said that Fairbanks had to fix everything. 10 Hunag also wanted Fairbanks professionals to prepare reports with their findings, and 11 Huang wanted plans to be submitted. Fairbanks did not believe that the city was 12 progressing in conformance with the Planning Commission's ruling. 13 They all met again on April 14, 2011. By that time Fairbanks had already 14 prepared or replaced all the smoke detectors with working devices. Huang kept reading 15 the Planning Commission ruling much too broadly. Fairbanks had no problem fixing 16 those things which needed to be repaired due to health and safety. Huang wanted 17 everything repaired. 18 There was a meeting with Huang scheduled for May 10'h or 12`h, 2011. Huang 19 cancelled that Ineeting. Fairbanks believed at that time that Hunag was satisfied with the 20 recommendations of Fulbright and Stovner. Huang knew of the cracked beam in the 21 garage since early April, 2011. 22 Fairbanks expected to get approval to move forward with his repairs at that 23 meeting. Instead, he received a letter dated May 16, 2011. Fairbanks was required by 24 this letter to demonstrate the property was safe within 10 days and to submit plans within 25 30 working days. Fulbright communicated his opinion on the safety of the premises on 26 27 28 -31- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I May 17, 2011 and Stovner did soon May 25, 2011. Fairbanks had been trying to 2 remediate the violations in a timely manner throughout this case, but he was stymied. 3 Fairbanks installed the shoring of the garage beam recommended by Stovner two 4 to three days after he recommended it. It was done by the end of May, 2011. (AX -J and 5 N).6 6 Fairbanks was working on the plans and requested an extension of time from the 7 deadline. Instead of granting an extension Huang also did not give him the full 30 8 working days to get his plans submitted. On June 16, 2011 Huang served the Notice and 9 Order/Notice to Vacate. 10 Fairbanks had to move the tenant in the upper unit who had been there for 6 years. 11 He also had to move a single mother with an 11 year old from the rear unit. He had to do 12 that within 4 days. Fairbanks was very frustrated by this development. The city knew 13 about his situation for a year, and during that time everyone said it was safe, but Huang 14 said it was not. Huang never mentioned the property was unsafe in three previous 15 meetings. 16 Fairbanks explained the status of each of the noted conditions on June 16, 2011. 17 They are as follows: 18 • The recreation room canopy post was in the same condition on June 19 16, 2011. It is just one post. He will repair it. (AX -I). 20 21 • The exterior wall of the recreation room has been resolved. It has 22 the required fire rating. 23 24 • The dwelling foundations were present and sufficient. 25 26 27 6 AX -J refers to Appellant's Exhibit J. 28 -32- TIIE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 • The general mechanical, electrical and plumbing violation was vague to Fairbanks. To the extent he understood it, he took care of the violations before June 16, 2011. He removed the extension corp and the power strip. (AX -A). • The replacement GFCI outlets have not been done yet because he needs a permit to do it. The replacement of them is in his plans. • The heater in the rear unit (the newer heater) was installed by Fairbanks without a permit. He had it inspected by the gas company before June 16, 2011. It was installed pursuant to the manufacturer's instructions. Other than the permit issue, it was safe on June 16, 2011. (AX -E and G). • Fairbanks removed the old unsecured pipe in November 2010. It was not connected to anything. (AX -F). • The straw insulation issue was very frustrating to Fairbanks. The only reason the city staff saw it was because he pulled out a drawer in a built-in cabinet. It was sealed back up in the wall before June 16, 2011. • The old furnace in the upper unit was installed correctly and it well. It was safe on June 16, 2011. (AX -A). -33- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I • The smoke detectors were made operational well before June 16, 2 2011. (AX -B, D and Q. 3 4 • The upper unit stairway was still in the same condition on June 16, 5 2011. He is fully willing to modify them to make them safe. His 6 plans include rails, guards, and stair backs. 7 8 • The foundations for the stairs were also unchanged on June 16, 9 2011. He wants to remediate the foundations and install footings. 10 Fairbanks did not care which code was applicable, he just wants the I 1 case done. The remediation is addressed in his plans. 12 13 • The metal conduit was provided with additional bracing by June 16, 14 2011. This was for the second electrical meter, which was permitted 15 and inspected by the city in 1979. (AX -C). 16 17 • The carport girder was in the same condition on June 16, 2011. His 18 plans propose to remediate this situation. 19 20 • The beam in the garage was first noticed by Stovner in January, 21 2011. The replacement of this beam is provided for in his plans. 22 23 • The fire separation issue between the garage and the two units was 24 still in the same condition on June 16, 2011. When Fairbanks 25 purchased the property there was drywall in that area of the garage, 26 but then he had a rat infestation. To eradicate the rats, he took down 27 28 -34- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I the drywall to clean it out. This was fust identified back in 2 September, 2010. He has wanted to replace it all along but was 3 advised to wait pending his appeal outcome. The remediation is 4 included in his plans and he is willing to do it. 5 6 • The electrical wiring was not exposed until Fairbanks took down the 7 drywall. He did install a new switch without a permit. The 8 installation of the new drywall will cover the wiring. The 9 remediation is in his plans. 10 . The shoring of the cracked beam in the garage was in place on June 11 16, 2011. His plans include the replacement of the beam. (AX -J 12 and N). 13 14 . The exterior wall atop the stairs was in the same condition on June 15 16, 2011. He is willing to remediate it either by installing a one hour 16 fire rating or by some other means. His plans address this. He is 17 also willing, if necessary, to demolish the stairway landing enclosure 18 and make it an open landing if that will resolve it. 19 20 One of the items the city placed in its response to Fairbanks's proposed plans is the requirement that he install automatic sprinklers in the two dwelling units. The first 21 time he heard the city refer to his home as an apartment house was in Huang's May, 2011 22 letter. (JX -1; Exh. K: 00456-457). That claim was not part of the previous case from 23 September, 2010. 24 Fairbanks requested rescission of the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate and for 25 the city and he to sit down and resolve the whole issue. 26 27 28 -35- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I The items that remain unresolved are the items for which a building permit is 2 required to correct. He has plans in to the city to resolve those issues and when his plans 3 are approved and permits are issued, those will be resolved. Those remaining issues 4 were not enough to red tag the units. 5 Fairbanks believed that paragraph three of the April 14, 2011 Huang letter is 6 exactly what the Planning Commission said not to do. (JX -1; Exh. G; 00436). The 7 same is true of paragraph 1 of Huang's May 16, 2011 letter. (JX -1; Exh. K; 00456). 8 BURDEN OF PROOF 9 The applicable standard of proof at this hearing is preponderance of evidence. It is 10 the state of the case that one can say it is more likely than not that a particular fact which 11 is in question occurred. (See Leppo v. City of Petaluma (1971) 20 C.A. 3d 711 and 12 Armistad v. City of Los Angeles (1957) 152 C.A. 2d 319). 13 This burden of proof is home by the city since it was the city which took the 14 action from which this appeal was taken. Thus, the city bears the burden to set forth 15 sufficient preponderant evidence that, at the time it took the action to order the property 16 be vacated (June 16, 2011), the property was in too dangerous a condition to allow its 17 occupancy be continued. In this connection, the introductory paragraph to Section 302 of 18 the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is all-important. That 19 section states: 20 For the purpose of this code, any building or structure which has any or all 21 of the conditions or defects, hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building providing that such condition or defects exist to the 22 extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or its occupants 23 are endangered. (Emphasis added) 24 The phrase from the above section which is italicized is the key to this case. The 25 first portion of the paragraph simply states that if a condition or defect that is explained ii 26 one or more of the 18 subsections to this code are present, the building is deemed to be 27 28 - ---- -36- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 dangerous. Virtually every conceivable defect is contained in the eighteen subsections to 2 the code. The second phrase modifies the first and creates a second layer to the 3 determination of dangerous. That second layer is that to be a dangerous building, the 4 condition or defect has to (1) be in existence and (2) has to endanger the life, health, 5 property or safety of the public or its occupants. The verse is in the active tense. In other 6 words, the city bears the burden to not only prove the condition or defect was present, but 7 that its existence on June 16, 2011, when it took the action in this case, was to such a 8 serious extent as to be dangerous to the life, health, property or safety of the public or its 9 occupants. That is the standard. Put another way, it is the condition of the property on 10 June 16, 2011, which will drive this inquiry. 11 To the same effect is Section 1001.1 of the Uniform Housing Code. Section 12 1001.1 uses the active tense and requires one or more of the noted conditions in Section 13 1001.2; 1001.3; 1001.4; 1001.5; 1001.6; 1001.7; 1001.8; 1001.9; 1001.10; 1001;11; 14 1001.12; 100 1. 13 or 100 1. 14 to be in existence to an extent that endangers life, limb, 15 health, property safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof. 16 It is in that context in which this hearing examiner will analyze the evidence 17 presented in the hearing from the parties. 18 ANALYSIS 19 There are two pivot points in this matter which will be explained as this analysis 20 unfolds. For now, only the first pivot point need be discussed. The first pivot point 21 began with the city issuing the first Notice and Order on September 16, 2010. In the 22 attachment to that Notice the city charged three distinct law violations; one building code 23 violation of building without a permit and two zoning ordinance violations related to the 24 use of the two secondary dwelling units. Additionally, the city identified 29 other 25 conditions on-site which were noticed during their cursory inspection. Those conditions 26 were as follows: 27 28 -37- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 September 10-16, 2011 Notice Zoning —RI Single Family/multi family Footin s/foundations for rear units Mech/elec/ lumbin w/o permits — bathroom upper unit Zoning lot size Insuff. set back upper unit -fire separation Exterior wall on P/L Stairway access for fire personnel Furnace w/o permit the old one Kitchen/cooking facilities w/o permits Shower in upper unit w/o permits Stairs-handrails-rise/run-back open — no inner posts Roof drainage Girder undersized in carport Carport attached to main house — occupancy change Metal conduit- unsupported over carport Metal conduit -unsupported over carport No fire separation between garage and upper unit and rear unit Exposed elec. wiring -car Rear unit encroach @5 ft. setback Heater with gas line w/o permit Ceiling heights too low Power strip -electrical Plumbing w/opermit-kitchen Unsecured/exposed gas line -rear unit Straw insulation exposed Smoke detectors - inoperable 21 22 Notably, the above violations, while included by the city, were not specifically 23 used to support the Notice and Order. They were simply used as support for the three 24 specified violations in support of the notice and order. What the city did not do back in 25 September, 2010 was take any action more serious than a Notice and Order on those 26 twenty-nine noted conditions. It did not allege the units were unsafe and it did not order 27 them to be vacated at that time. This will become important later. 28 -38- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fairbanks appealed that Notice and Order. The Planning Commission conducted hearings on this appeal. As to the building permit violation, it sat as the Building Board of Appeals; as to the two zoning violations, it sat as the Planning Commission. In its presentation in support of the Notice and Order, the city presented photographic evidence of many of the 29 conditions on the property. During this time, Fairbanks began to repair some of the conditions noted by the city. Conditions for which a building permit is required to repair is something Fairbanks sought to obtain but which he was advised he could not have while this appeal is pending. During the hearing the Planning Commission discussed the effect of ruling that two units were legal non -conforming uses. In doing so, the Commission considered the 29 conditions and decided that the city should go through them and decide which of them related to the health and safety of the occupants of the units and require only those be repaired. After considering all this, the Commission did decide to find the two additional dwelling units to be legal non -conforming uses. This decision included to the following language: II. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal bearing bod; pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street as attached hereto in Exhibit A: A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. B. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. QX -1, Exh. F, 00406-410) -39- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I That decision was upheld on appeal by the mayor at the city council level. That is 2 the first pivot point. By ruling the two units were legal non-conforming uses, the 3 condition of the units which relate to those uses were also legal non-conforming uses. 4 This is because if the condition of the two dwelling units were not enough to overcome 5 the evidence in support of the legal non-conforming use, it should be allowed to remain, 6 unless it is a life safety hazard. Thus, the condition of the two dwelling units on 7 September 16, 2010 through March 15, 2011, which were sufficient enough to support 8 the decision they were legal non-conforming uses, become part of the overall use and 9 should be allowed to remain. 10 This is the first pivot point in the matter and, more importantly, that decision 11 became the law of the case. This is an important concept in this matter. It means that as 12 the city moved forward from that point in time, the decision made by the Planning 13 Commission needed to be respected and given its natural outcome. In other words, 14 whatever actions the city decided to take following the commission's decision, should be 15 made through the prism of the two units being legal non-conforming uses. 16 In Roden v. AmerisourceBer eg n Corp. (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1548, 1576 the 17 court stated "The doctrine of the law of the case holds that where an appellate court states 18 in its opinion a principle of law necessary to the decision, that principle becomes law of 19 the case and must be adhered to in all subsequent proceedings, including appeals" 20 (Citizens for Open Access etc. Tide, Inc. v. Seadrift Assn. (1998) 60 Cal.AppAth 1053, 21 1064 [71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 77]). 22 In People v. Shuey, (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 835 the court held "The doctrine of the law 23 of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding the 24 appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that 25 principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its 26 subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and, as here 27 28 -40- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 0 10 Il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 assumed, in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action, and this although in its subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former is erroneous in that particular." (Id. at 841) In Deacon v. Bryans, (1931) 212 Cal. 87 the court stated "It is generally accepted that the principles of law necessarily involved and decided by appellate courts are binding upon the lower courts in future proceedings in the same case, such as upon a new trial. Upon a later appeal the appellate court will not inquire into the correctness of the principles of law laid down upon the former appeal, but will only consider the record to determine if said principles have been followed. Where a decision upon appeal has been rendered by a District Court of Appeal and the case is returned upon a reversal, and a second appeal comes to this court directly or intermediately, for reasons of policy and convenience, this court generally will not inquire into the merits of said first decision, but will regard it as the law of the case. If the appellant was dissatisfied with the first decision of the District Court of Appeal he should have applied to this court for a hearing. [Citing authorities.] While there is a modem tendency on the part of the appellate courts throughout the country not to regard this doctrine of the law of the case as one to be adhered to in all cases, but, rather, to make exceptions where the decision is manifestly unjust, the doctrine has by no means been abandoned but is still followed as a general rule of practice and procedure." (Id at 89-90). In Katemis v. Westerlind (1956) 142 Cal. App. 2d 799, 806, the court stated "The doctrine is applied to the principles of law laid down by the court on appeal as applicable to a retrial of fact. Moore v. Trott. 162 Cal. 268, 273 [ 122 P. 4621.) When a reviewing court in deciding a case states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that principle or rule, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of that case and it must be adhered to throughout its later progress both in the trial court and on any -41- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 succeeding appeal. (Allen v. California Mut. Bldg. & Loan Assn., 22 Ca1.2d 474, 481 [139 P.2d 321]; Estate of Baird 193 Cal. 225, 234 [223-P. 9741.)". What all of this means in the context of this case is that the previous decision of the Planning Commission has become the law of the case. As such, it must be respected even if one of the parties, both of the parties, or this hearing examiner believes it was wrong. Thus, that the units are legal non -conforming uses has been finally adjudicated. Subsequent conduct by the city must be governed by that fact. In other words, the city has to accept the notion that the units are legal non -conforming uses and must confine the requirements for repairs or corrections with that fact in mind. Put another way, it would be improper for the city to attempt a subsequent action against Fairbanks with the goal of trying to achieve a result not achieved by the first action. With that in mind, let's look at what subsequent action was taken by the parties. Following the decision of the Planning Commission and the city council, the city and the Fairbanks met to continue to work toward a resolution of the conditions on site. By that time Fairbanks had already secured the services of Fulbright to provide an evaluation of the property and assist them in ameliorating the conditions. Fulbright physically inspected the entire property and did so in a manner which was much more thorough than the city's cursory inspection in September, 2010. Fulbright noticed many of the same issues which had been present since September, 2010, but he also noticed additional items which were not included by the city in its September, 2010 Notice and Order. Among these items were the need for GFCI outlets in the kitchen and bathroom of each unit, inoperable smoke detectors, the close proximity of the exterior wall of the recreation room to the property line and the foundations for the stairway to the upper units. Fairbanks also hired Stovner to provide an evaluation of the property from a structural standpoint. He physically inspected the property and noticed two additional -42- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I issues which heretofore not been noticed during the city's cursory inspection which took 2 place back on September 10, 2010. These two additional issues were the cracked beam 3 in the garage and the lack of footings in the foundation of the stairs which lead to the 4 entrance door to the upper unit. 5 The cracked beam did not appear to be recent but it was a significant condition in 6 that the beam in question doubled as a floor joist providing support for the floor of the 7 upper unit. It is not known how long the beam had been cracked, but it is undisputed that 8 when the city conducted its cursory inspection in September, 2010, if it was present, it 9 was not noticed by McCreary. 10 The foundation for the stairs presented the problem of adequacy of support. The 11 posts on which the support for the stairs rested are on concrete pedestals. These 12 pedestals, by all outward appearances, merely rested on the grade. In other words, there 13 was no footing for the foundation which extended below grade. The soil on which the 14 pedestals rested appeared to be substantially intact. Indeed, the area below the stairs was 15 not an area of the lot that was used for any other purpose and was not an area traversed 16 by persons for any reason. The stairs appeared by all accounts to have been originally 17 constructed in this manner and have stood substantially undisturbed for decades. 18 At the behest of Huang, both Stovner and Fulbright authored written reports in 19 which they described their findings. This led to Huang requesting both men provide him 20 with an opinion as to whether the units were safe and habitable for occupancy. Huang 21 also unilaterally imposed a deadline upon Fairbanks to submit plans to remediate all the 22 conditions no later than 30 working days from the date this requirement was imposed. 23 This requirement was articulated by Huang in a letter from him dated May 16, 2011. 24 Thus, the plans were due no later than June 28, 2011. 25 Fulbright responded to Huang's concerns saying in an email that he did not 26 observe an immediate threat to the occupants of the two units and continued habitation 27 28 -43- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I was satisfactory as long as the potential hazards were remediated within a timely manner. 2 No one from the city followed up with Fulbright to determine what he meant by "timely 3 manner." Nevertheless, a reasonable inference may be drawn that he meant the 4 Fairbanks should move with reasonable alacrity to prepare and submit the plans to 5 remediate, respond in timely manner to inquires from the city about the plans, get them 6 approved, obtain the required permits and complete the work without unreasonable delay. 7 At every point in the procedural history of this matter, and indeed during his testimony at 8 this hearing, Fairbanks has professed a profound, and at times, very understandable 9 emotional, willingness to do just that. That promise has been delayed, not by Fairbanks' 10 inaction, but by the city issuing its Notices and Orders, placing him in a sort of "Catch - 11 22" position where he wants to correct the conditions, but cannot because the corrections 12 require a permit which he cannot obtain while his appeal of the Notice is pending. One 13 wonders here if the conditions noted back on September 10, 2010, were truly so 14 dangerous, (1) why did the city not move to vacate the property then and/or (2) why has 15 the city twice foisted upon Fairbanks a Notice and Order from which he must appeal in 16 order to preserve his rights and, during which he cannot repair the conditions which 17 require a building permit because the city will not give him one. It seems to this hearing 18 examiner that the city's own actions have been the substantial cause for the delay in 19 repairs, not Fairbanks. 20 Stovner also responded to Huang's concerns for the safety of the occupants in a 21 letter dated May 25, 2011. In that letter, Stovner said, in pertinent part, that in his 22 professional opinion the units were structurally safe to continue occupancy provided the 23 cracked beam was provided with temporary shoring consisting of 4x4 timber posts at 24 each end of the split in the beam. 25 Stovner took the witness stand on behalf of Fairbanks and stated, under oath, the 26 conditions noted by him during his inspections were not life threatening. 27 28 -44- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I All of this led to the second pivot point in this matter. That was the issuance by 2 Huang of his Notice and Order/Pre-Citation Notice/Declaration of Public Nuisance and 3 Notice to Vacate on June 16, 2011. This is the Notice from which this appeal is taken. It 4 is this Notice which proclaimed the units were so substantially unsafe that immediate 5 (within 4 days of the Notice) evacuation of the tenants was required. It is this notice 6 which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In order to make that 7 determination, I have strongly considered what Huang knew, and did not know, on June 8 16, 2011. I have considered the actual condition of the property on June 16, 2011 and 9 whether or not, in my judgment, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, the 10 Notice was properly given at that point in time. 11 The evidence adduced at the hearing was undisputed that the cracked beam had 12 been properly shored in compliance with Stovner's recommendation by June 16, 2011. 13 The smoke detectors had been made operable. All of the remediation which could be 14 done by Fairbanks, without a building permit, was accomplished well in advance of June 15 16, 2011. 16 Huang based his Notice and Notice/Order to Vacate on many things, the first of 17 which was the cursory inspection by city staff on September 10, 2010. I will analyze that 18 component first. By the city's own admission this was a "cursory" inspection. The 19 issuance of an Order requiring the property owner to vacate two occupied dwellings 20 should never be issued based solely on a mere cursory inspection. By all accounts, the 21 only time anyone from the city actually personally observed the conditions on site was 22 when McCreary conducted his cursory inspection on September 10, 2010. No other 23 physical inspection was done by any city official from September 10, 2010 to the date on 24 which the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate was issued on June 16, 2011. 25 26 'As to this condition, the hearing examiner draws on his own experience that maintaining an operable smoke detector in a tenanted occupancy, while required, is somewhat of a transitory 27 concept, given the fact that some tenants disable them on their own. 28 1 -45- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Moreover, many of the items noted by McCreary were conditions that were 2 repeated as support for the June 16, 2011 Notice. The problem here is when did those 3 conditions become so unsafe as to require vacating the premises as the only remedy. 4 When did they become so dangerous as to require vacating the premises. As stated 5 before, one would wonder if they were such a dangerous condition then the city should 6 have ordered the premises vacated on September 11, 2010. Huang stated unequivocally 7 the units were "not safe to occupy" in his April 14, 2011 letter. (JX -1; Exh. G, 00436- 8 437). The city did not order they be vacated then either. That it did not do so indicates 9 strongly that the city did not believe such a remedy was required at that time. Since that 10 is so, I do not find that any of the conditions that were noticed on September 10, 2010, 11 which were then just repeated as support for the June 16, 2011, Notice provides any 12 support for the current Notice. 13 The city, by its own action, when faced with 29 conditions decided only to issue a 14 Notice and Order with one building code violation and two zoning ordinance violations 15 as its basis. If the structures were unsafe for continued occupancy on June 16, 2011, one 16 has to wonder why they were not just as unsafe based on those same conditions back on 17 September 16, 2010. That the city elected not to order vacating the premises back on 18 September 16, 2010, is a strong indicator that even the city did not believe, at that time, 19 that the units were so unsafe as to require that. 20 Then the question becomes does the additional information provided by Fulbright 21 and Stovner add a sufficient amount of conditions which would justify the city's action. I 22 find it does not. Neither Fulbright nor Stovner said that there was a condition on site that 23 substantially impacted the safety of the occupants of the units. Indeed, the most serious 24 issue confronting the Fairbanks was the cracked beam in the garage. Stovner 25 recommended it be temporarily shored pending its replacement. Obviously, replacement 26 27 28 -46- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I requires a permit which Fairbanks cannot obtain. The temporary shoring was 2 accomplished before Huang issued his Notice to Vacate. 3 Both Stovner and Fulbright physically inspected the premises at a time closer to 4 the issuance of the Notice and Order and Order to Vacate than did the city. Inasmuch as 5 these two men physically inspected the property at a time closer to issuance of the Notice 6 their opinion is entitled to more weight than the city's opinion given the fact that the 7 city's visit consisted solely of a cursory inspection which at the time of the Notice at 8 issue here was fully nine months old. Indeed, Fairbanks provided no less than three 9 percipient witnesses with various subject matter expertise, all of whom conducted 10 detailed and extensive inspections of the property close in time to June 16, 2011. This, a; 11 against the city's twenty minute "cursory" inspection, which was nine months in the past 12 and which was never updated, is entitled to greater weight. 13 Not much significance at all was attached to the third party review conducted by 14 Fazekas. Again, unlike the witnesses brought forth by Fairbanks, Fazekas had never beer 15 to the location. His review was solely based upon the photographs taken during the 16 cursory inspection on September 10, 2010 and the reports of others. The third party 17 opinion of Fazekas is based upon material, much of which did not accurately reflect the 18 condition of the property on June 16, 2011. 19 The same can be said about the testimony of Healey. His testimony was likely 20 accurate in terms of the potential fire hazards created by the undersized girder, the 21 stairway and its proximity to the property line and the heaters. The problem is all the 22 conditions utilized for his opinion were in existence since September 10, 2010 and were 23 not of sufficient gravity back then to order the units vacated. 24 All of this relates back to the first pivot point in this matter. The Planning 25 Commission heard all this evidence of the various conditions on site back in fall of 2010 26 and not only did the city not pursue the more draconian remedy of ordering the units 27 28 -47- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I vacated, the Commission did not find the property unsafe for occupancy, but instead 2 found them to be a legal non -conforming use. That decision must be respected by the 3 city and by me as the hearing examiner. Whether right or wrong, that decision is the law 4 of the case. Fortunately or unfortunately, that governs this advisory decision. The 5 conditions which Healey used for his opinion of the fire safety aspect of these units have 6 not changed in a substantial way, with the exception of the garage beam, since 7 September, 2010. It was not a life safety fire hazard back then, it is not now. 8 This leads to the discussion of the final basis upon which the Notice and 9 Order/Notice to Vacate was based. That is Huang's own observation of the conditions. 10 Even Huang had to qualify that in the Notice itself by adding his observations were "on 11 the visible parts alone." Such a qualification had to be added because Huang never 12 actually inspected the premises. The extent of the qualification "on the visible parts 13 alone" was never fully explained by the city but from all the evidence adduced at the 14 hearing it is readily apparent that Huang never physically inspected the site at any time. 15 He was apparently supposed to be present during what became the cursory inspection on 16 September 10, 2010, but he did not show up in the end. There is no evidence that Huang 17 ever conducted a detailed inspection of the site whatsoever. This hearing examiner finds 18 that very troubling. It is, from my point of view, completely incongruent to established 19 practices to make a finding that a property is unsafe for continued occupancy based solely 20 on a cursory inspection which lasted no more than twenty minutes and which was nine 21 months old. I do not believe Huang was so busy as to prevent him from conducting his 22 own inspection in his capacity as the building official prior to issuing his June 16, 2011 23 Notice to Vacate. After all, this building was not so dilapidated that a conclusion could 24 be formulated from reports and photographs alone. This determination was more 25 nuanced than most life/safety hazard decisions a building official is called upon to make. 26 This was not a badly earthquake damaged building or fire damaged building in which the 27 28 -48- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I level of hazard is self-evident. This was an occupied dwelling from which its owner was 2 deriving rental proceeds. It seems to me that a more careful analysis was required to be 3 undertaken by the very individual who made the decision to order the units vacated 4 before that decision was made. 5 Had Huang requested a physical inspection in mid June, 2010, after Fulbright and 6 Stovner told him there was no immediate threat of harm, it is hard to imagine such an 7 inspection would not have been allowed given the fact that Fairbanks had allowed 8 inspections in the past. Had he actually done an inspection closer in to time to his 9 decision he could likely have discovered that the cracked garage beam had to be properly 10 shored up, the smoke detectors were operational, and the cluster of electrical wiring in 11 and around the heater had been removed. Significantly, Huang knew about the existence 12 of the cracked garage beam since his receipt of Stovner's May 4, 2011 report. He did not 13 immediately order the unit vacated at that point. It is obviously hard to say now if 14 Huang's decision would have been different. The point is, however, before the Fairbanks 15 were deprived of substantial income on two adjudicated legal non -conforming use units, 16 they deserved to have the very person responsible for coming to that decision actually 17 know the then current condition of the property before coming to that conclusion. 18 Moreover, Huang did not comply with his own unilaterally imposed deadline. If 19 part of the reason for the issuance of the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate was because 20 Fairbanks had not timely submitted plans which addressed the proposed remediations, 21 such plans were not due until June 28, 2011. Huang's deadline was thirty working days 22 from May 16, 2011. (JX -1; Exh. K, 00456-457). Huang's notice was issued, thirty 23 calendar days later. The plans were not due yet. It is not surprising that Fairbanks did 24 not get his plans in until July 5, 2011, inasmuch as he had to deal with the Notice and 25 Order/Notice to Vacate. 26 27 28 -49- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 It also seems odd to me that the city readily accepts the findings of Fulbright and 2 Stovner when they articulate a condition which needs to be repaired, like the stairway 3 foundations and the cracked garage beam, but it did not accept other findings made by 4 them. As to violations noted by Fulbright and Stovner the city readily accepted them and 5 placed them in the Notice and Order without doing an inspection of their own to confirm 6 it. Yet, the city does not accept the determination by both men that "continued habitation 7 is satisfactory..." (JX -1; Exh. L, 00458) and the units "are structurally safe to continue to 8 occupy..." (JX -1; Exh. M, 00482). It seems to me that if the findings of both men in 9 terms of added violations are accepted by the city, it should likewise accept the findings 10 that the units were safe for continued occupancy. I 1 The testimony of Banowetz in this regard is credited. Banowetz testified that he 12 has red -tagged many structures over the span of his career but he has never red -tagged 13 any structure which he has not personally inspected. That is how it should be. 14 Photographs are two dimensional; they do not tell the whole story. The reports of others 15 are also limiting in their own regard and reliance on them means one is relying upon a 16 conclusion of others which may or may not be completely accurate when viewed on 17 one's own. 18 The evidence related to the lack of a fire resistant separation between the two units 19 and the garage is illustrative of this problem. Undoubtedly, the existence of this 20 condition is a violation of the building code. Yet, by all accounts, the only reason this 21 violation exists is because Fairbanks diagnosed a rat infestation some time ago and to 22 eradicate it required removal of the drywall. This created the condition which now exists. 23 Like many violations of this sort, it leads to many unintended consequences. Not only 24 did it remove the fire separation in removing the drywall, but it exposed the Romex 25 wiring, which in and of itself is a violation_ Well, just like one problem creates two or 26 more violations, one repair will resolve many violations. All that Fairbanks needs to do 27 28 -50- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I is replace the drywall with a suitable fire separation between the garage and the units. 2 This he is ready and willing to do, yet, he has been stymied from doing so by the serial 3 nature of the city's Notices. When looked at in this way, the city's September 16, 2010, 4 and June 16, 2011, Notice has actually had the effect of exacerbating and prolonging this 5 problem rather than resolving it. Fairbanks has never really been given a fair chance to 6 make good on his promise to make all these repairs because he has had to constantly 7 defend himself against the Notices issued by the city. 8 Analyzing each one of the twenty-nine conditions used on September 16, 2010, 9 some of which were repeated in the June 16, 2011, Notice to determine if any one of 10 them alone would be sufficient to sustain the order and the following emerges: 11 Zonin : 12 This goes back to the concept of the law of the case. The Planning Commission 13 adjudicated the two additional units were legal non -conforming uses. Accordingly, to 14 give effect to that decision, the zoning of the property is as a single family dwelling with 15 two legal non -conforming residential units on site. Any attempt to change the 16 classification to multi -family is not supported by the evidence produced at the hearing 17 and it is also trying to achieve indirectly what could not be achieved directly through the 18 first action taken. 19 It was not lost on this hearing examiner the importance of the time it has taken to 20 adjudicate this matter. The mayor argued that the evidence produced at the Planning 21 Commission hearings was insufficient to support the contention that the legal non - 22 conforming use was in use continuously since its inception. He was overruled in that 23 regard. Right or wrong, that issue was adjudicated in favor of Fairbanks. 24 The two residential units were ordered vacated by the city effective June 20, 2011. 25 A legal non -conforming use that is discontinued for six months or more loses its legal 26 non -conforming use status. That six month period will run on December 20, 2011. Such 27 28 -51- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a consequence would be improper to invoke here inasmuch as the cessation of the use was involuntary imposed on Fairbanks. It is not believed that was the sort of situation tha city intended to set up, however, a reviewer of this matter in the future should know how the hearing examiner feels about that issue. Since the two residential units are adjudicated legal non -conforming uses, they may remain in the current condition so long as they are not substantially modified. By the same token, while they remain in their current condition, it would be improper for the city to require they be brought up to all current code requirements. Requiring the Fairbanks to retroactively install items such as automatic fire sprinklers is going too far. Such was not required when these units were built and requiring that now is not respecting the law of the case. Having said that, there is an unspoken irony in this case. As stated before, this whole matter began its long odyssey with the request of Fairbanks for a bum down letter. Well, assuming Fairbanks prevails on this appeal, the city would be within its right to refuse to issue such a letter if its premise is that should the units burn down, they may be rebuilt. The reason for that is should the units be damaged for any reason in excess of 50% that would terminate the legal non -conforming use. Accordingly, if the units were to be substantially damaged by fire or other calamity, they would not be allowed to be rebuilt. About the most the city would be able to confirm in such a letter is that the two residential units are adjudicated as legal non -conforming uses. Rear Unit Foundations The city did not put on any evidence in support of any particularized problem the footings or foundations for the rear unit. Banowetz said he inspected them and that they were present and intact. It is not at all clear the extent of his inspection and the basis for that conclusion, but either which way, the evidence is insufficient to support any violation related to the rear unit footings and/or foundations. -52- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Plumbing Without Permits/Bathroom Upper Unit The city in its presentation discounted plumbing issues in the upper unit. Other than a general claim that they were built without permits, which was rejected by the legal non -conforming finding of the Planning Commission, no specific violation was proven. I will say the shower in the upper unit looks a bit odd inasmuch as it extrudes from the exterior wall, but it was never fully proven that it constitutes a violation. The only electrical issue identified with any clarity was the lack of GFCI outlets in the bathroom. GFCI outlets only recently became a requirement. Banowetz said the electrical wiring in the bathrooms was safe. While the GFCI outlets would not be a required retrofit item, Fairbanks is willing to change them out as soon as he is issued a permit allowing him to do so. 8 Zoning Lot Size I will not analyze this issue for two reasons: (1) it was not used as a support item for the dune 16, 2011, Notice and (2) this issue was resolved by the decision of the Planning Commission. Insufficient Set Back Upper Unit — Fire Separation Part of this condition was resolved along with the Planning Commission's decision. In holding the upper unit was a legal non -conforming use, the physical structures associated with that use, which was present at the time of construction, also enjoys a non -conforming use status, unless damaged or changes are made. Again, right or wrong, that decision must be respected. The stairway, the landing and its support 8 This leads me to the discussion of the applicability of the State Historic Building Code. Part of the appellant's case was the applicability of the State Historic Building Code. I have decided to decline the invitation to analyze the applicability of this code. The reason for that is the only witness Fairbanks called who supported the applicability of the State Historic Building Code wa: Menard. No other witness supported that notion. Fulbright used the current building code to propose his suggested corrections. So did Stovner. Even Fairbanks himself said that he did not care which code was used, he simply wanted to conclude this matter, make the necessary repairs to those items required to make it safe and sell his home. Thus, I do not reach the applicability o the Historic Code. -53- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I system, appears to be one integrated system of construction which has been there since 2 the upper unit was constructed. Therefore, the stairway system is part of the legal non - 3 conforming use. 4 The part of the stairway structure that appears to have been added later is the 5 enclosure of the stairway landing. I noticed immediately the oddity of the stairway 6 landing enclosure when I saw that the entrance door opens not onto a platform, but on to 7 a step. I found that unusual. When it was modified in this way is not known, but it is 8 quite clear to me that the stairway as originally constructed had an open landing. 9 Banowetz acknowledged this as a real probability given the changes in the slope of the 10 roof line adjacent to the enclosure. Nevertheless, this violation alone, or in concert with 1 I others, is insufficient to order the unit vacated. After all, it was noticed by the city in 12 September, 2010, and the unit was not ordered vacated back then. 13 Exterior Wall on Property Line 14 This condition is simply another way to describe the condition analyzed above. 15 That analysis will not be repeated here. 16 Stairway Access for Fire Personnel 17 For the same reason as stated directly above, the analysis of this condition is the 18 same as what has already been said. 19 Furnace Without Permit (the old one) 20 The furnace in the upper unit was manufactured decades ago. As a part of the 21 interior structure of a legal non -conforming use, it shares that status. To the extent this 22 furnace appears to have been installed at the same time as the construction of the unit, it 23 cannot be said it was installed without a permit. That is especially true since the permits 24 prior to 1959 were authorized for destruction. 25 Nevertheless, the unit does have a certain appearance which does not engender 26 confidence in its safety. However, based on the evidence, the gravamen of the violation 27 28 -54- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I noted by the city was the proximity of combustible material and a cluster of electrical 2 wiring too close to the unit. The condition was present on September 10, 2010 and the 3 city did not order the unit vacated. By June 16, 2011, the combustible materials and 4 electrical wiring had been removed, thereby eliminating that concern. The only thing left 5 then which could support a violation was the installation itself. Banowetz testified he 6 found the installation instructions and clearance requirements and the unit was installed 7 properly. This, as against the city's cursory inspection, has to be given more weight. 8 This condition, alone or in concert with others, is also insufficient to support the Notice 9 to Vacate. 10 Kitchen/Cooking Facilities Without Permits 11 The analysis of this condition tracks much the same as what has been said about 12 the stairway and the furnace. The kitchen facilities do not appear to be new. The 13 facilities appear to source from the original construction. So, the decision of the Planning 14 Commission also runs to the interior components which are original. In light of the 1959 15 building permit destruction authorization, it is hard to say the kitchen facilities were 16 installed without a permit. Add to this that Huang discounted in his testimony any real 17 issue related to the plumbing and this violation was not only not proven, it would not be 18 enough, alone or in concert with others, to support the Notice to Vacate. 19 Shower in the Upper Unit Without Permits 20 This discussion was already made in the section dealing with plumbing without 21 permits above. 22 Stairs — Handrails — Rise/Run-Back Open 23 This discussion tracks with the points already made as it relates to the stairs. That 24 the stairs appear to me to have been constructed along with the upper unit, it enjoys the 25 same non -conforming status. Any discussion of whether the 1927 or 1940 code required 26 rails, closed backs, or a particular rise and run, misses the point. The law of the case is 27 28 -55- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I the upper unit is a legal non -conforming use. The entire structure enjoys that status if the 2 structure, including the stairs, has not been substantially modified. To his credit, 3 Fairbanks has proposed to install the guards and rails and step backs even if technically 4 not required. Yet, he cannot do so because the city refuses him a permit. This condition, 5 alone or in concert with others, do not support the Notice to Vacate. 6 Roof Drainaee 7 This condition was only cited in the September 16, 2010, notice and was not 8 repeated in the June 16, 2011 notice. If it was not strong enough to support a Notice to 9 Vacate in September, 2010, and was not repeated in June, 2011, it does not deserve 10 comment herein. 11 Carport Girder Undersized 12 The condition was not only proven by the city, but admitted to by Fairbanks and 13 his subject matter professionals. That being said, it does not appear to be in imminent 14 danger of collapse and it does not appear to be under stress. It is a static, technical 15 violation. In that way, it is not sufficient support, alone or in concert with others, for the 16 Notice to Vacate. 17 Carport Attached to Main House — Occupancy Change 18 The law of the case in this matter is that the two units on site are legal non - 19 conforming uses. Claiming the connection of the carport to the main house somehow 20 turns this property into a multi -family occupancy is not supported by the evidence and 21 violates the law of the case. 22 Metal Conduit - Unsupported 23 The condition was proven and admitted to by Fairbanks. However, the condition 24 was rectified by additional bracing prior to June 16, 2011. Thus, the condition was not 25 enough to order the property vacated in September, 2010, and was not present on June 26 16, 2011. It cannot provide any support for the Notice to Vacate. 27 28 -56- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I No Fire Separation Between Garage and Units 2 This condition was proven and admitted to by Fairbanks. It was present in 3 September, 2010 and the city did not order units vacated at that time. Nothing has 4 changed between September, 2010 and June, 2011. The evidence supports the notion that 5 a fire separation was present until the eradication of a rat infestation led to its removal. 6 The nature of the violation here is static. It is not an imminent danger. If it did not 7 support an Order to Vacate in September, 2010, it does not support such an order alone or 8 in concert with others on June 16, 2011. 9 Exposed Electrical Wiring — Garage 10 This condition only became an issue because of the removal of the previously I 1 installed fire separation in the garage. The same things explained above apply here as 12 well. Once the fire separation is allowed to be re -installed, this issue will evaporate. As 13 said before, the reason this and other issues continue to remain a concern is more 14 appropriately placed at the feet of the city, not Fairbanks, since the city continues to cite 15 him in a serial fashion rather than issuing him a permit to make the repairs he has stated a 16 willingness to correct. This condition is not of such gravity to support the Notice to 17 Vacate. 18 Rear Unit Encroaches of 5 Foot Setback 19 The city did not produce much evidence of this condition. Even if proven, the law 20 of the case is the rear unit is an adjudicated legal non -conforming use. If its construction 21 truly violated the setback requirement, such status would presumably have not been 22 granted. It was granted. It is the law of the case. It is, therefore, not a violation. 23 Heater with Gas Line Without Permit 24 This condition relates to the heating unit in the rear unit. That unit is of newer 25 manufacture. It was admittedly installed without a permit. Banowetz reviewed the 26 installation in a much more detailed fashion than did the city and concluded that, while it 27 28 -57- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 was installed without a permit, it was installed properly and in a manner consistent with 2 the manufacturer's instructions. It is not that substantial a modification which destroys 3 the legal non -conforming status of the unit. Given Banowetz's investigation, the 4 violation is a more technical one, rather than a life and safety violation. Moreover, it was 5 present in September, 2010 and the city did not order the unit vacated. Nothing changed 6 between then and June, 2011. The condition does not support the issuance of the Notice 7 to Vacate. 8 Ceiling Height Too Low 9 This condition was not repeated in the June 16, 2011 Notice to Vacate. Therefore, 10 if the city did not include it in its reason to order the unit vacated, it need not be discussed 11 herein. 12 Power Strip - Electrical 13 This condition has already been described in some detail. It is related to the 14 installation of the power strip and numerous electrical wiring in proximity to the older 15 furnace. That condition was present in September, 2010 and the city did not order the 16 unit be vacated. That is suggestive of the notion that it was not seen so dangerous as to 17 compel that result. By June 16, 2011, that condition has been resolved. The wiring was 18 installed by the tenant and was removed by Fairbanks before the June 16, 2011 notice. 19 The city did not refute the evidence that the condition was corrected by June 16, 2011. 20 The reason for that is probably related to the fact that they did not do their own inspection 21 before issuing the Notice to Vacate.. That the condition was corrected before the June 16, 22 2011, it could not provide any support for the order. 23 Plumbing Without Permit — Kitchen 24 This issue has been addressed above. It, too, does not support the Notice to 25 Vacate. 26 27 28 -58- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Unsecured/Exposed Gas Line 2 The analysis of this condition tracks with the discussion of the power strip above. 3 It was present in September, 2010, and the city did not order the unit vacated. It was 4 corrected before June 16, 2011. This condition was corrected and provides no support fo 5 the Notice to Vacate. 6 Canopy Posts 7 Whatever dry rot was present in the post or multiple posts supporting the canopy 8 of the recreation room, it was an insufficient amount to rise above the level of simple 9 maintenance. 10 Straw Insulation 11 The issue of the straw insulation was never really fully developed by the city. A 12 sample was not taken and no testing was performed. The extent of the exposure was not 13 described. On the other hand, Banowetz said he tested it, it was not unsafe and that type 14 of insulation was used at the time of construction. This evidence was not disputed by the 15 city. Moreover, Fairbanks testified the exposure was momentary and it was later covered 16 up. The bottom line is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain this condition is a 17 violation of any code requirement. 18 Smoke Detectors 19 Smoke detector violations are transitory. They were inoperable on September 10, 20 2010. The city did not order the units vacated because of that on September 16, 2010. 21 Thus, it apparently was not considered that unsafe at that time. Fulbright noted this 22 condition when he inspected. The condition was corrected before June 16, 2011. The 23 city could not dispute that information. The city included this condition in the June 16, 24 2011 notice without any information on which it could base such an allegation. 25 Inasmuch as the city did not inspect the property before ordering it to be vacated, the city 26 had absolutely no information about whether the smoke detectors were working on June 27 28 -59- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 16, 2011. That the city included this is an allegation without any factual support is 2 troubling to this hearing examiner. There is no support in the evidence that the smoke 3 detectors were inoperative on June 16, 2011. 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Based on all of the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the Building Board of 6 Appeals uphold the June 16, 2011, Notice and Order, but only as it relates to the 7 following violations:9 8 9 1. UCADB Section 302 Item 5 and UHC Section 1001.3. Beam supporting 10 second story dwelling unit is cracked and therefore jeopardizing supporting 11 system of second story. CBC Section 3405.3 requires damaged gravity 12 load -carrying components to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Eric Stovner's 13 letters dated May 4 and 25, 2011 stated he observed and noted this 14 violation. 15 2. UCADB Section 302 item 3 and UHC Section 1001.3. Carport structural 16 members are not of adequate size to support roof loads and not designed in 17 accordance with CBC Section 1604. land if loaded could collapse. Mr. Eric 18 Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011, stated he observed and noted this 19 violation. 20 4. UCADB Section 302 Item 2 and UHC Section 1001.12. Stairway 21 intermediate guards and risers are not provided and thus a fall hazard exists. 22 Further, this condition is not in compliance with CBC Section 1013. Mr. 23 Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2f) stated he observed and 24 noted this violation. 25 26 Note that the numbering used in this recommendation is the same numbering of violations used 27 as support for the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order/Notice to vacate (JX -1; Exh. N; 00467-469). 28 -60- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I I further recommend the following violations noted in the June 16, 2011, Notice 2 and Order be upheld based on the evidence presented but be modified as explained 3 below: 4 3. UCADB Section 302 item 8 and UHC Section 1001.3. Foundation 5 supporting stairway to second story dwelling unit is not adequate and 6 causes the exit door from the upper dwelling unit to become inoperative 7 and creates a hazard in case of fire or panic. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated 8 May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 9 While I am recommending the above violation be upheld, based on the evidence 10 presented, I am not recommending it be upheld on the portion dealing with the exit door I 1 from the upper dwelling unit becoming inoperative. There was no evidence of such a 12condition being present. In all other respects, this violation should be upheld. 13 14 6. UCADB Section 302 Item I4 and UHC Section 1001.13. Fire resistive 15 walls between the units and adjacent garage are not provided. Fire resistive' 16 walls and window protection adjacent to the property line on the second 17 story are not provided. Fire in an adjacent unit, garage or adjacent building 18 could spread quickly and therefore overcome occupants. Fire resistive 19 assemblies are required for the above mentioned locations in CBC Sections 20 705, 707, and 709. In addition, there are several electrical installations that 21 pose a danger (unprotected and non-attached Romex wiring, non-GFCI 22 outlets in the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.) and there 23 are no smoke detectors or alarms in the sleeping areas. Mr. Paul 24 Fulbrigbt's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2a and 4a) stated he observed 25 and noted these violations. 26 27' 28 -61- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON TIIE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 While I am recommending the above violation be upheld, based on the evidence presented, I am not recommending it be upheld on the inoperative smoke detector portion. In all other respects, the evidence supported this violation. 14. UHC Section 1001.7. Gas heater attached to wood siding and gas line in the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to its proximity to combustible material. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5b) stated he observed and noted this violation. While I am recommending the above violation be upheld, based on the evidence presented, I am not making this recommendation based on the gas line in the rear dwelling unit. This recommendation is only made based on the fact that the heater was installed without a permit. In all other respects, it is my recommendation that the Notice and Order be rescinded inasmuch as the evidence was insufficient to sustain the existence of any one the other conditions used as support for the Notice were present on June 16, 2011. It is further recommended that the Building Board of Appeals not uphold that portion of the Notice and Order which required the two residential units be vacated. For all the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not support a finding that the two residential units were in such a dangerous condition on June 16, 2011 that an order to immediately vacate the two units was proper. This hearing examiner will retain jurisdiction on the matter only insofar as it relates to any assistance he may be called upon to provide to the Building Board of Appeals review of this advisory decision and/or any assistance he may be called upon to provide to the parties to resolve this matter once and for all. The hearing examiner has confined this advisory decision to the contents of the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate. It is beyond the jurisdiction of this hearing examiner to suggest in this advisory decision -62- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1-Allar_[y:Ly, l:I �:lp EVIDENCE CONSIDERED AND THE ENTIRE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE VOLUMINOUS NATURE OF EXHIBIT 5, THE EXHIBIT HAS BEEN PROVIDED ON DISC AND IS VIEWABLE AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR COPIES MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. Community Development Department January 30, 2012 Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST The appeal hearing to consider the Tustin Building Official's June 16, 2011, Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate the property located at 520 Pacific Street has been rescheduled for the Building Board of Appeals consideration on Tuesday, February 7, 2012. The hearing will be held from 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. Please note that the Chambers will only be available from 4:00 PM until 5:00 PM. In accordance with the 1997 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Section 605.4, not later than two days before the date set to consider the report, any party may file written exceptions to any part or all of the examiner's report and may attached thereto a proposed decision together with written argument in support of such decision. By leave of the board, any party may present oral argument to the board. A copy of the report for public hearing will be available for your review three days prior to the hearing. Should you have any questions regarding the appeal hearing, please contact me at (714) 573-3126 or astonichOtustinca ore. Sincerely, Amy Stonich, AICP Senior Planner cc: File Whitney Hodges of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, 4`h Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 0 F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Community Development Department T U S T I N January 18, 2012 Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS HEARING Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fairbanks: BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST The appeal hearing to consider the Tustin Building Official's June 16, 2011, Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate the property located at 520 Pacific Street has been scheduled for the Building Board of Appeals consideration on Tuesday, January 24, 2012. The hearing will be held at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. In accordance with the 1997 Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Section 605.4, not later than two days before the date set to consider the report, any party may file written exceptions to any part or all of the examiner's report and may attached thereto a proposed decision together with written argument in support of such decision. By leave of the board, any party may present oral argument to the board. A copy of the report for public hearing will be available for your review three days prior to the hearing. Should you have any questions regarding the appeal hearing, please contact me at (714) 573-3126 or astonich@tustinca.or¢. Sincerely, Amy Stonich, AICP Senior Planner cc: File Whitney Hodges of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, 4`h Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org �4 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART 1 A P r o f e a r I o n a I C o r p o r a t i o n January 13, 2012 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. Jones & Mayer 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 Re: 520 Pacific Street; Tustin, CA Dear Mr. Palmer: JASON M. MCEWEN DIRECT DIAL: (714) 415-1080 DIRECT FAx. (714) 415.1180 E-MAIL: JMCEWENQWSS-LAW.COM RECEIVED JAN 17 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT We are in receipt of your draft resolution, as well the revised version that addressed the concerns expressed by Ms. Hodges. Similarly, the City would like you to consider some concerns that it feels warrant inclusion prior to submitting your advisory opinion to the Building Board of Appeals for consideration. First, we feel it is appropriate to include in the resolution the specific actions required by the Fairbanks, as well as a specific timeline to bring the property into compliance with those portions of the Notice and Order that you propose be upheld. As framed, the resolution is ambiguous on these points. The June 16, 2011 Notice and Order directs the Fairbanks to, "within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of service of [the] Notice and Order, [ ] obtain all City permits necessary to 1) repair, and/or 2) remove all code violations to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Official." To the extent your advisory opinion and the proposed resolution upholds violations, this thirty day timeline should apply to such corrections. Given the nature of the proceedings involving this property, we feel it important to specify, in the resolution itself, that the thirty day timeline to submit complete plans remains, and that, once permits are issued, the proposed work be completed within 45 days', thus removing any uncertainty. With respect to the specific action required by the Fairbanks, the proposed resolution upholds (or modifies) the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order with respect to certain dangerous conditions, but is ambiguous or silent as to the actions required by the Fairbanks. Accordingly, the City proposes that, consistent with your advisory opinion and the.Notice and Order, the resolution specify that the Fairbanks submit plans that address the upheld violations. With respect to many of the conditions confirmed by your proposed resolution (Sections II(A)(i), (ii), and (iii) and Section II(B)(i) and (iii), specifically) all that is required to address the issues is a I Such time should begin to run on the date the proposed resolution is adopted by the Building Board of Appeals. 555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1200 ■ COSTA MESA, CA 92626-7670 ■ (714) 558-7000 ■ FAX (714) 835-7787 W W W. W SS-LAW.COM 829301.1 January 13, 2012 Page 2 submittal of plans and/or permit applications necessary to rectify the dangerous conditions, subject to the timeline outlined above. The remaining dangerous condition(s), identified by your proposed resolution in Section II(B)(ii), regarding fire protection between the units, the garage, the property line, and adjacent buildings appears to be contradictory to the opinion stated in your advisory opinion and should, therefore be clarified. With the exception of your removal of the portion of the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order related to the lack of smoke detectors, the language of the proposed resolution is identical to that in the Notice and Order. Both the Notice and Order and your proposed resolution identify dangerous conditions created by the lack of fire separations between units, the garage, property lines, and adjacent buildings and require that fire resistive assemblies be provided in accordance with CBC sections 705, 707 and 709. CBC sections 705, 707 and 709 deal with required fire assemblies and separations between occupancies. While we understand (but do not necessarily agree) that the advisory opinion comes to the conclusion that the "law of the case" in this matter precludes reclassification of the structures on the property as a multi- family use from a zoning standpoint, the fact nonetheless remains that, by definition (pursuant to the CBC), the configuration of the structures on the property and the manner in which they are used make them multifamily in nature in that they are all attached. Accordingly, the City requests that the proposed resolution be clear that the plans submitted must provide fire protection between units in accordance with CBC sections 705, 707, and 709, by way of (1) providing for the detachment of the main structure from the rear units via the carport structure, in addition to addressing the remaining fire protection requirements with respect to the rear units; (2) leaving the main and rear structures attached (again via the carport) but providing for the required fire protection for multifamily dwellings (i.e. provide for fire protection between the carport and main structure in addition to addressing the fire protection between the units of the rear structure from one another and from the garage); or (3) reestablish the use of the former garage/carriage barn structure for that purpose rather than as a dwelling unit. The foregoing is clearly consistent with the previous decision of the Planning Commission related to the legal nonconforming zoning status of the use of the Fairbanks' property. As recognized in your advisory opinion, the Planning Commission has spoken with respect to the status of the property from a zoning and use standpoint. Nonetheless, the Planning Commission was clear that notwithstanding the status as a legal nonconforming use from a zoning standpoint, the safety of the occupants was paramount to the continued residential use of the structures. The purpose of the Planning Commission's decision was to allow the Fairbanks to continue to use their property in the manner in which it had been used since it was purchased. The above recommendation does not take away from that purpose and contemplates that continued use. The City merely seeks to ensure that the fire protection between the dwellings is consistent with the manner in which the property is ultimately being used. Next, the City remains genuinely concerned that the condition of the property is such that the safety of the occupants is endangered. While the City understands and respects that you have come to a contrary conclusion, it nonetheless is uncomfortable recommending adoption of a resolution allowing for continued occupancy of structures its Building Official has deemed 829301.1 le January 13, 2012 Page 3 unsafe. Even the Fairbanks' expert testified that the repairs made by the Fairbanks to date are only temporary, and do not provide long-term protection to occupants of the structures. This concern is also based on liability considerations for the City should any future occupant be injured as a result of the condition of the property. As such, we feel it is important that language be included in the proposed resolution that should the Fairbanks choose to allow occupancy of the structures at issue, they must agree to indemnify and defend the City against, and hold the City, its employees, or its agents, harmless from, all actions, suits, claims, damages, losses, costs, penalties, obligations, errors, omission or liabilities, that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity against the City arising out of or in connection with the continued occupancy of the property. Moreover, correction of the dangerous conditions related to the upper unit, which identified in the City's Notice and Order and upheld in your proposed resolution, will require significant construction to members of the structural support system of the upper dwelling unit, as well as to the only means of ingress and egress to that unit. Accordingly, it is appropriate that any required plan submittals include certification from the Fairbanks' design professionals that continued occupation of the structures during construction will not jeopardize the occupants' safety (assuming the structures are re -occupied prior to commencement of construction) Finally, the City recommends that the proposed resolution be clear that to the extent construction activities commenced in response to the resolution requires construction over adjacent property lines, the authorization of the affected property owner, or proof of an easement for that purpose be submitted along with the proposed plans. We appreciate your time in both hearing and advising the Building Board of Appeals on the evidence presented in this matter as well as in considering the City's comments with respect to the proposed resolution. While City staff does not necessarily concur with the advisory opinion, it is nonetheless prepared to recommend adoption of your proposed resolution if the foregoing clarifications are addressed. Should you wish to discuss any of the forgoing in greater detail, or desire further support or clarification of any of the proposals outlined herein, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. The City hopes to present your advisory opinion and a final draft resolution for the Board's consideration on January 24, 2012. If you believe that you require more time to address the concerns addressed herein, please contact me so that an alternate date can be arranged. Respectfully, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A Professional Corporation [DICTATED BUT NOT READ] JASON M. MCEWEN cc: David Kendig Elizabeth Binsack Deborah Rosenthal 829301.1 iJ & M� RECEIVED JONES & MAYER DEC 19 2011 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3777NORTH HARBORBOULEVARD • FULLERTON,CALIFORNIA9289950MMUNITYDEVELOPMENTDEPT (714) 446-1400 • (562) 697-1751 • FAX (714) 446-1448 Richard D. Jones' Richard L Adams 11 Part t Jemaar Hoyd-Weatherby Martin J. May. Barn. 1. Beltenhamen Kimberly Hell Barlow Christian L. Bettenlauren Jam" R. Touchstone Paul R. Coble •a 1'11ks3ioel Law Corporation Of Counsel Michael R. Cepial D"n L Putti Stma N. Skolnik Jason M. McEwen, Esq. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 555 Anton Blvd., Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Michael Q. Do Robert Mum Gregory P. Palter Thomas P. Duarte Gary S. Krank. Decoy L. Peeiman Eleni Q. Gedl Richard A. McFarlane Hamtd W. Portes Katherine M. Hardy Christopher R Nwmeyer Denise L Rocawich Krista MacNevbs Jet Ktlhya M. Oliva Ny M. Tsai Ryan R. Jones December 16, 2011 Deborah M. Rosenthal, Esq Sheppazd, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Re: 520 Pacific Street. Tustin California Dear Mr. McEwen and Ms. Rosenthal: ,ui n Mervin D. Feinstein VIA E-MAIL drosenthal @sheppardmullin.com jmcewen@wss-law.com Enclosed is the advisory decision on this matter. As you will see, I have confined the advisory decision to only the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate. As stated before, since this decision is confined just to the Notice, it will not resolve the ongoing conflict between the parties in terms of moving forward from this point in time. Even more fundamentally, since it is an advisory decision, it resolves nothing until the Board of Appeals decides the matter. Pursuant to Section 605.2 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and Section 1305.2 of the Uniform Housing Code (both of which govern this hearing), I also have the obligation to prepare a draft resolution for the Board to review. I will begin working on that document next week. In the meantime, I wanted the parties to know where I stood in this case and I renew my offer to assist the parties in settling the entire matter. If the advisory decision has the effect of changing the city's mind in that regard, please let me know. If the matter can be successfully settled it would save money in the preparation of a draft Jason M. McEwen, Esq. Deborah M. Rosenthal, Esq December 16, 2011 Page 2 resolution and the costs associated with moving the matter to the Board. If I do not hear from the parties in this regard, I will assume they want me to prepare the draft res9lo-on. Very truly LrrrVry P. Palmer Hearing Examiner GPP/mlt cc: Elizabeth Binsack, City of Tustin I 1 Gregory P. Palmer SBN 133647 Hearing Examiner 2 JONES & MAYER 3777 North Harbor Boulevard 3 Fullerton, California 92835 (714) 446-1400; Fax (714) 446-1448 4 e-mail: gpp@jones-mayer.com 5 6 7 ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF 8 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 10 In Re the Matter of Case No: V10-0312 11 the Appeal Of Notice and Order And Notice To Vacate APN: 401-371-07 12 520 Paci£e Street, 13 Tustin, CA 14 15 16 17 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS: is The Hearing Examiner appointed to hear and advise on the above captioned matter 19 hereby submits his advisory opinion. 20 INTRODUCTION AND JURISDICTION 21 At a special meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission, sitting as the 22 Tustin Building Board of Appeals, held on July 12, 2011, the Board appointed Gregory P. 23 Palmer to act as a hearing examiner on the matter of the Appeal of the Notice and Order 24 and Notice to Vacate pertaining to the property at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California. 25 The property is owned by Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks ("Fairbanks"). 26 27 28 1 - ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hearings were conducted at the Tustin Library on August 30, 2011, September 9, 2011, September 22, 2011, October 4, 2011 and October 11, 2011. The hearing was governed by Chapter 6 of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings ("UCADB") and by Chapter 13 of the 1997 Uniform Housing Code ("UHC"). (Joint Exhibit number 2, hereinafter "JX -2"; Exh. 1 and 5; JX -3; Exh. B and C)1. The cit., was represented by Jason M. McEwen. The Fairbanks' were represented by Deborah M. Rosenthal. The hearing was recorded by a digital audio recording. Both sides had a full and fair opportunity to call, examine and cross examine witnesses and to proffer evidence in support of their cases. The matter was submitted to the hearing examiner for an advisory decision upon the oral closing argument by the Fairbanks, the written closing argument by the City and by the submission of proposed findings of fact and law on October 25, 2011. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This matter began quite inauspiciously. In the summer of 2010 the Fairbanks selling their home. They accepted an offer and were in escrow. The buyer's lender requested what euphemistically became known as a "bum down" letter from the city. Such a letter would confirm that in the event of a fire or other disaster, the city would allow the two guest houses on the site to be rebuilt. Fairbanks submitted a written request for such a letter to the city on July 27, 2010. (JX -1; Exh. A (00001). In response to this request, the city reviewed its records on the property and conducted a site inspection on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, city staff noted a single family dwelling, the main house, in which the Fairbanks family reside, and two additional units to the rear of the main house. One unit was located above the garage and the other unit located on the ground floor behind the garage. A search of city records 'This additional number reference is used to clarify the location of the exhibit. Much of Joint Exhibit Number 1 has been Bates stamped. These numbers will be used to assist the reviewer in locating the exhibit in the voluminous record of this proceeding. -2- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 did not reveal any conditional use permits or building permits for the two guest houses. 2 (JX -1; Exh. B (00010-00084). 3 On September 16, 2010, the city issued the Fairbanks a notice and order/pre- 4 citation notice and declaration of a public nuisance notice. (JX -1, Exh. D, 00092-93). 5 The only specific code violations noted in the notice were the following: 6 7 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, 8 enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any 9 electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is 10 regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. 11 12 Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings 13 used as guest rooms provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are 14 subject to a conditional use permit. 15 Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses — corner 16 lot line: 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet 17 (JX- 1, Exh. D, 00095) 18 Fairbanks filed a timely appeal to this notice and order. The appeal came on for 19 hearing before the Tustin Planning Commission on October 26, 2010. (JX -1; Exh. E; 20 00124). The Commission was sitting as the Building Board of Appeals as it related to thE 21 building code violation and simultaneously as the Planning Commission as it related to 22 the two zoning violations. 23 The city's presentation included an explanation of many of the 29 code 24 compliance issues which existed on the property, including the straw insulation, the 25 setback and fire separation issues related to the stairway to the entrance of the unit above 26 the garage and the garage, as well as electrical and mechanical violations. These 27 conditions were noted in the September 10, 2010 inspection. (JX -1; Exh. C; 00085- 28 -3- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 0009 1). That meeting was continued so that staff and the property owner could attempt 2 to find an equitable solution to the situation. 3 The matter came on again for hearing on November 9, 2010. There was 4 discussion of when each of the buildings on site were constructed and how, if at all, the 5 construction overlapped with the building codes adopted over the years and the zoning 6 ordinance of the city. The same conditions were noted by the city in its November 9, 7 2010 presentation. 8 The Commission began to focus on the fact that the two guest house dwelling 9 units at issue in the matter were built long before the city's first zoning ordinance was 10 enacted in 1961. Accordingly, the discussion came around to the rear dwelling units 11 being legal non-conformance uses. Helpful to this determination was the discovery that 12 all building permits existing prior to 1959 were authorized for destruction by the building 13 official at that time. (7X-3; Exh. M). As it related to the code violations existing at that 14 time, the commission was directed that it require the property owner to comply with 15 minimum health and safety code compliance through the Uniform Housing Code. 16 The Commission voted unanimously to uphold the appeal of the Fairbanks to the 17 notice and order, to confirm the legal non -conforming status of the two rear dwelling unit 18 as guest houses, and to require the property owner to comply with the minimum code 19 compliance under the Housing Code. Many of the commissioners expressed their desire 20 that their ruling was a good compromise and that there should be flexibility in resolving 21 the remaining issues with the building official and with the applicability of the code. The 22 meeting was continued to December 9, 2010 so the proposed resolution could be 23 modified in conformance with the ruling. 24 On December 9, 2010 the Planning Commission, sitting as the Building Board of 25 Appeals, modified the notice and order and issued Resolution 4161 in which there is 26 contained the following provision: 27 28 - -4- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 11. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals 2 pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby modifies the notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific 3 Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance: 4 A. The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the 5 requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010, and attached hereto in Exhibit B, to the extent such 6 corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be 7 necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and 8 preserved - 9 (JX -1, Exh. E, 00096 — 00099) 10 At that same meeting the Planning Commission adopted resolution 4162. In this 11 12 resolution the Planning Commission made the following findings: 13 Q. That there is evidence substantiating that the unit above the garage located behind the main house and the unit including two rooms and bathroom 14 located behind the garage were constructed prior to November 6, 1961, 15 including the following and attached hereto: 16 i. The Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified 17 individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation 18 provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that "At some 19 time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second 20 living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear." 21 22 ii. There is evidence that 520 and 520%2 existed as shown on the Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952. 23 iii. The son of the original owner, Robert Stephen Gaylord, provided a 24 signed statement indicating that "the unit above the garage was built 25 roughly between 1938 and 1942." Said letter stated that "the unit behind the garage was built by [his] father [George T. Gaylord] 26 between 1945 and 1950." The letter further states that this unit, 27 28 _ _ _ -__-- - -5- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 including two rooms and a bathroom, were built by George Gaylord for Robert and his brother to occupy. Mr. Gaylord's letter further indicated that "the rooms were made available to others" of which the only person he remembered was Ms. Grennan who was a caretaker for his parents until they sold the house sometime after 1978. iv. The on-site assessment by city staff on September 10, 2010, reve that the upper unit was being utilized as a second residential unit with cooking facilities and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage was utilized as a second residential unit. v. The property owner(s)/appellant has testified at the public hearings and shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(6). The Planning Commission, after making these findings, also ruled as follows on the zoning issues presented in the appeal. Therefore, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacif Street as attached hereto in Exh. A: A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. B. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. (JX -1, Exh. F, 00406-410) That resolution was appealed to the city council by the mayor of the City (CX -4)? The hearing on the mayor's appeal came on the March 1, 2011 council agenda. The mayor proclaimed that the Planning Commission had erred in its ruling on this issue 2 CX -4 refers to City Exhibit Number 4. 9.3 DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 17 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 because a legal non conforming use requires that the use be legally instituted at its inception and continued without interruption thereafter, neither of which, according to t mayor, was proven in the Planning Commission hearings'. That hearing was continued to March 15, 2011. On March 15, 2011, the mayor presented an application for a sewer connection permit filed, by a prior owner (Gaylord) on June 14, 1,97 1. This application was for one dwelling unit without a kitchen. This, according to the mayor, was conclusive proof that no continuous use was made of the legal nonconforming use and, thus, the property long ago lost that status. Following very little discussion on that point, the city council voted 3-2 to uphold Resolution 4162 of the Planning Commission. For reasons which will become clearer as this advisory opinion unfolds, the decisions made by the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals, as upheld by the city council, constitute the law of the case and, as such, must be respected as the matter continued on from this point. As also will be seen, the decision to grant legal non conforming use status to the two rear dwelling units is the pivot point in the history of this matter. MORE RECENT PROCEDURAL HISTORY Following the city council meeting and the decision to uphold the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals decisions, the parties met on April 5, 2011. The Fairbanks brought their architect to the meeting, Mr. Paul Fulbright ("Fulbright"). Among the more salient results of this meeting was that the Fairbanks were to have design professionals, such as Fulbright and an engineer, perform an inspection of the site and prepare a written report for the city to review. In its letter to the Fairbanks confirming the items discussed in the meeting, the city's building official Henry Huang ("Huang") referred to the previous staff report 'Note here that the hearing on the mayor's appeal was primarily focused on Resolution 4162, no Resolution 4161, which pertained to the Building Code violation portion of the notice and order. -7- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 prepared as the result of the "twenty minute cursory observation by our staff and 2 therefore was very limited." (See JX -1, Exh. G, 00436-00437, Item Number 9). Later in 3 that same paragraph Huang proclaimed "the existing structure is not safe to occupy." 4 (Id). 5 Fulbright did complete an inspection of the structures on site and prepared a 6 written report describing the conditions he found and suggested remediations necessary. 7 His cover letter for that report was dated April 21, 2011. Fulbright's report identifies 8 many of the issues which were already identified by the city during its September 10, 9 2010 inspection. Fulbright identified other issues which were not included in the city's 10 September 10, 2010 inspection report. Among those additional items was the lack of 11 GFCI outlets in the kitchen and bathrooms of each unit, the lack of operable smoke 12 detectors, the north wall of the recreation room is within 12 inches of the property line, 13 and the stairway to the upper unit did not appear to be adequately supported by proper 14 footings/foundations. (JX -1; Exh. H; 00438-00447B). 15 Eric Stovner ("Stovner") was also employed by the Fairbanks to inspect the 16 premises from his perspective as a structural engineer and provide a written report. His 17 report is dated May 4, 2011. Like Fulbright, Stovner identified additional items which 18 were neither noticed nor articulated by the city following its cursory inspection done on 19 September 10, 2010. Among the additional items identified by Stovner was a significant 20 crack in a wood beam in the ceiling of the garage which supports the floor of the upper 21 unit. Stovner also identified the support foundation for the stairs as did Fulbright, but 22 Stovner described his concern in more detail than did Fulbright. The posts supporting the 23 stairs are on concrete pedestals that simply bear on grade. There was no evidence that 24 any of the posts rest on a footing that is buried below the grade. (JX -1, Exh. I, 00448- 25 454). 26 27 28 or THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Both Fulbright and Stovner recommended remedial measures to be taken including replacing the cracked beam, the carport support girder, the recreation room canopy posts and replacing the stair supports with 12" x 12" footings below grade. (Id). On or about May 10, 2011, Huang had a phone conversation with Fulbright about the contents of his report. That led Fulbright to send Huang an email on May 11, 2011. In his email Fulbright stated "there are specific items that must be addressed before the property is considered safe and habitable." (JX -1, Exh. J, 00455). A meeting of the parties was scheduled for the afternoon hours of May 12, 2011. Huang cancelled that meeting the morning of May 12, 2011. In an email to all parties explaining that since he was preparing a letter to go out to the participants, Huang said it would not be productive to have a meeting. (JX -1, Exh. L, 00459-60). On May 16, 2011, Huang authored a letter to Fulbright and to Stovner. In that letter, Huang stated he had reviewed both their reports and he had some comments and conclusions. Huang requested both men to articulate whether or not the structures were safe to occupy. Additionally, Huang imposed a unilateral deadline to submit plans designed to show how all the noted conditions would be remediated within 30 working days of the date of his letter.4 (JX -1, Exh. K, 00456-57; emphasis added). Fulbright responded to Huang's concern in an email sent to Huang on May 17, 2011. In that email Fulbright stated "I want to be very clear that we did not observe an immediate threat to the occupants of these two units and continued habitation is satisfactory as long as the potential hazards we listed are remediated within a timely manner." (JX -1; Exh. L; 00458). Stovner also responded to Huang's concerns in a letter dated May 25, 2011. In that letter Stovner stated: 4 Thirty working days from May 16, 2011 would place the deadline on June 28, 2011, for the Memorial Day holiday. In 0 1 1013i7�Ii77� �9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "Per requirement of your letter of May 16, 2011, the purpose of this letter is to -- state that it is our professional opinion that the existing added units which have been used for over 60 years are structurally safe to continue to occupy before rehabilitation is complete, with the provision that temporary shoring, consisting i nominal 4x4 timber posts, be placed at each end of the split in the garage beam." (JX -1; Exh. M; 00462). With that more recent history, Huang prepared and served the notice and order/pre-citation notice/declaration of public nuisance and notice to vacate here at it issue on June 16, 2011. In that notice, Huang cited the observations made by city staff during the cursory inspection on September 10, 2010, Fulbright's report, Stovner's report, third party reviews by Scott Fazekas ("Fazekas") and Bryan Healey ("Healey") of the Orange County Fire Authority, as well as his own observations "(on the visible parts alone)" and determined the structures to be substandard and unsafe for continued occupancy. Fairbanks was directed to have the structures vacated no later than June 20, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. and to obtain the necessary permits to remediate the conditions noted. (JX -I; Exh. N; 00463-00466). Appended to the notice was an addendum which identified 21 specific violations, most of which were noted previously as part of the September 16, 2010 notice and hearings as well as the additional items noted by Fulbright and Stovner. Based on that Notice the two units were red tagged. (JX -1, Exh. N and 0, 00463-77; JX -3; Exh. U). It was from that notice the Fairbanks filed the instant appeal which led to the appointment of this hearing examiner and the five days of hearings. (7X-3; Exh. E and S). What follows is a chart which provides a visual representation of the violations/conditions noted in the September 16, 2010 Notice which were then either abandoned or repeated in the June 16, 2010 Notice and which conditions were added in the June 16, 2010 Notice. -10- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 Unsecured/exposed gas line -rear unit • Straw insulation exposed • Smoke detectors - inoperable • Cracked beam supporting upper units Foundation/footings for stairs No GFCI's Wood posts@rec room bldg — rotted North exterior wall/rec room — setback encroachment STATEMENT OF THE CASE CITY'S CASE -IN -CHIEF Dennis McCreary ("McCreary") is a licensed professional engineer and is employed by the City of Tustin in the Building Division in Plan Check, Code Enforcement, and is the building official in the absence of Huang. McCreary visited the property at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA on September 10, 2010. He went therewith Community Development Director Elizabeth Binsack at the request of the Fairbanks. Hemet the Fairbanks at the location. He spent about 20 minutes actually inspecting the premises and 20-30 additional minutes in conversation with the Fairbanks. He and others at the inspection took photographs of the conditions observed. (JX -1, Exh. B, 00010-00087). McCreary noticed the following violations • Construction on the property line — violation of setback requirements. • Exposed electrical wiring. • No smoke detectors. • Exposed insulation in the kitchen — straw insulation. McCreary was also concerned about the structural support for the rear units but that needed further investigation than he did on this visit. He neither took nor caused to be taken a photograph of the exposed straw insulation. He also did not know its -12- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON: THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 flammability and he did not take a sample. He and others noticed other conditions which violated code requirements. This was the only time McCreary visited the site. He then provided the information to Huang following his inspection. Huang has never personally inspected t property. McCreary did not prepare a list of violations observed during the inspection. In fact, the list that was ultimately prepared did not include the lack of smoke detectors. (JX -1; Exh. Q. beam. McCreary observed the interior of the garage but he did not notice the cracked McCreary assisted in creating the violation list used in conjunction with the notice and order issued on September 16, 2010. (JX -1, Exh. C, 00085-00091). McCreary said there were dangerous conditions present during his inspection. Henry Huang ("Huang") is the building official for the City of Tustin. He is a registered professional engineer with 30 years of experience. Huang first met Fairbanks at the counter in June or July, 2010. He became involved again when McCreary shared his observations and photographs from the September 10, 2010 inspection with him.5 Huang was surprised by the number of violations present. Following the Planning Commission hearing he bad a meeting with the Fairbanks on April 5, 2011. He sent a letter summarizing this meeting. (JX -1, Exh. G, 00436- 00437). 5 In that connection, Huang said he often relies upon the observations of his subordinate staff in terms of conditions observed on property sites as he cannot go out to each individual property to do his own inspection. -13- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Huang's interpretation of the Planning Commission's resolution was that all the 2 violations were to be corrected to the minimum health and safety requirement. (JX -1, 3 Exh. E, 00098). This left it to his discretion as the building official. 4 Huang received the report from Fulbright and he received Stovner's report. (JX -1, 5 Exh.'s H and I, 00438-00454). Both of those men agreed with the general observations of 6 the violations observed by the city. This supported the findings of McCreary's cursory 7 inspection. These reports, though, provided even more information. Before this time 8 period, Huang was not aware of the crack in the beam of the garage. 9 Huang received an email from Fulbright on May 11, 2011. In that email Fulbright 10 agreed there were specific items which had to be addressed before the property was safe 11 and habitable. (JX -1, Exh. J, 00455). Huang became concerned whether the units were 12 safe for occupancy. He sent letters to both Fulbright and Stovner asking them to provide 13 an opinion in that regard. (JX -1, Exh. K, 00456-00457). Huang received responses from 14 each man. Fulbright said that continued habitation was acceptable provided remediation 15 was done in a timely manner. (JX -1, Exh. L.; 00458). Stovner said continued occupancy 16 was safe with temporary shoring posts being installed to support the cracked garage 17 beam. (JX -1, Exh. M, 00462). That, coupled with the findings of McCreary's visit in 18 September, 2010, Huang felt the buildings were unsafe. 19 Huang reached out to Scott Fazekas ("Fazekas") for a third party review of the 20 situation and for a second opinion. He met Fazekas in city hall and showed him the 21 photographs from September 10, 2010 and the letters from Fulbright and Stovner. This 22 review also included the opinion of the Assistant Fire Marshal, Bryan Healey ("Healey"). 23 Fazekas concurred the units were dangerous. That led Huang to issue the notice and 24 order and notice to vacate the units. Huang said he invited the Fairbanks to show him 25 how they intended to remediate the conditions, but they did nothing. They submitted no 26 plans. 27 28 -14- 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 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 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 THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 4 5 6 7 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fairbanks told Huang that he rented out one of the units after he received the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. Huang explained that he did not issue a notice to vacate back in September 2010 because the inspection was not an in depth inspection. He only took the drastic action based on the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. It was not one violation which turned this matter for him; it was a combination of all the violations. This was the first time Huang issued a notice to vacate. On cross examination, Huang confirmed that Fulbright did not articulate any immediate threat to the occupants. Huang said even if the shoring of the beam were done, the structures would still be dangerous based on other issues. The language in the final version of Resolution 4161 which said "to the extent such corrections are reasonably -17- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS building. Item 17. Units Huang was concerned about the Foundations foundational support for the recreation room canopy inasmuch as the bottom of the post was installed too close to the concrete creating a dry rot danger. It was based on Stovner's report. Item 18. Canopy Posts This is a repeat violation based on the recreation room canopy support post problem which was explained directly above. Item 19. Conduit This is based upon a metal conduit which crosses the carport area and which is unsupported. Item 20. Insulation Huang was concerned about the exposed straw insulation as noted by both McCreary and Fulbright Item 21. Rec Room North This is an additional violation based on the Wall proximity of the upper unit wall to the property line. Fairbanks told Huang that he rented out one of the units after he received the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. Huang explained that he did not issue a notice to vacate back in September 2010 because the inspection was not an in depth inspection. He only took the drastic action based on the reports of Fulbright and Stovner. It was not one violation which turned this matter for him; it was a combination of all the violations. This was the first time Huang issued a notice to vacate. On cross examination, Huang confirmed that Fulbright did not articulate any immediate threat to the occupants. Huang said even if the shoring of the beam were done, the structures would still be dangerous based on other issues. The language in the final version of Resolution 4161 which said "to the extent such corrections are reasonably -17- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 determined by the Building Official to be necessary and appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants ... are adequately protected and preserved ..." was not the original language of the draft resolution. Before it was revised it simply required compliance with the notice and order. Huang said the table (JX -1, Exh. E; 00109-00115) were the violations which he determined reasonable and necessary. Huang agreed that although Stovner described the problem with the posts at the recreation room but Stovner did not call that condition dangerous. Huang did not know the extent of the rot to the posts. The condition of the posts contributed to the overall finding of dangerousness. Huang confirmed that the Fairbanks submitted plans to remediate the conditions on July 5, 2011. (JX -1; Exh. P, 00478-00481). Huang admitted that the violation involving the exterior wall of the recreation room being too close to the property line was not on the September, 2010 list. The city learned about the violation and the posts from Fulbright's report. Fulbright did not find a fire hazard in the wall violation. The wall and the posts were the only violation noted with regard to the recreation room Huang said the smoke detector charge was added based on Fulbright's letter. He did not know if Fairbanks installed smoke detectors in May, 2011. Huang agreed that GFCI outlets are required now on new construction, but they are not required retrofit items on existing buildings. On Item 14 Huang agrees that Fulbright said the heater was new, in safe and was in working order. Huang wanted Fulbright to provide detailed plans and information on the heater and if it was safe, Huang would be satisfied. Fulbright did not get that information to him. Fulbright said in his report that the unsecured gas line was not a working, pressurized gas line. (Item 15). Hunag did not check on that. -18- GU01.�7l1Lb�1�4`�:7i11�7rrHS�7:� lli)�]�Mi1�9 I Huang agreed Fulbright said the straw insulation needs to be covered and that it 2 did not constitute an immediate life safety hazard. Huang admitted the straw insulation 3 was not tested and his statement that it has a high flame rate was just a statement, not a 4 conclusion. 5 Huang said that if the furnace in the upper unit was installed in conformance with 6 the manufacturer's instructions, at the time of construction, he would accept it. 7 Huang agreed Fulbright also recommended the exposed electrical wiring in the 8 upper unit needed to be removed. Huang was informed that the wires have now been 9 removed. The same was true with regard to the smoke detectors; they are operable now. 10 Huang said that would make him happy. 11 There was no specific condition in the upper unit which constituted substandard 12 wiring. 13 As it related to the stairway to the upper unit, Huang did not know if it was there 14 before 1940, or before 1950. He did not know if the 1927 or 1940 building code required 15 guards and rails on such stairways. He did not know what the 1927 code or 1940 code 16 said about the 10 foot setback requirement. Huang generally agreed that if the stairway 17 was built to code at the time of construction, it could remain. He had no evidence to 18 conclude the stairs were ever altered since they were built. 19 Huang agreed the foundations for the stair support structure was not brought up in 20 the September, 2010, notice. Stovner said the foundations appeared to be in sound 21 structural condition. 22 Huang did not know when the carport was constructed. Even though the girder is 23 undersized, it did not show signs of collapse. Huang based his finding on Stovner's 24 report. Huang did not go out and look at it personally. 25 With respect to the cracked beam in the garage, Huang said that violation also was 26 not in the September, 2010 notice. Stovner identified this issue for the city and Huang 27 28 -19- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON: THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I never saw it. Indeed, neither did McCreary. Huang did not know if the crack was fresh 2 and he did not know when it happened. Stovner did not say it was an immediate threat. 3 Huang requested Stovner to advise him if the upper unit was safe for occupancy 4 within 10 days. Stovner responded in that time and after that Huang did not go out to the 5 site to determine if the temporary shoring had been done. 6 Huang agreed he gave the Fairbanks 30 working days from May 16, 2011 to file 7 remediation plans and yet his notice and order was issued within 30 calendar days. 8 As it relates to the lack of a fire separation between the garage and the two units, 9 Huang did not recall discussing that issue with the Fairbanks. He did not recall if 10 Fairbanks told him he had to remove the coverings due to a rat infestation. Huang 11 acknowledged Fulbright said the occupancy was safe "so long as the potential hazards we 12 listed are remediated within a timely manner." (JX -1; Exh. L; 00458). 13 Huang did not know how long the upper unit wall had been on the property line. 14 There was discussion of the different setback requirements in the codes from different 15 years. 16 Huang has never seen an architect or engineer state a building was unsafe where 17 that architect or engineer worked on behalf of a property owner. That Stovner did not 18 find an unsafe condition did not surprise him. 19 Huang interpreted Resolution 4161 as requiring the owner to maintain the property 20 in accordance with health and safety standards and that the Uniform Housing Code was 21 to be used in determining whether it was safe. Resolution 4161 did not require Huang to 22 do anything other than to be satisfied that the buildings were safe. In that connection he 23 requested Fairbanks hire subject matter professionals and assist him. Fairbanks did hire 24 Fulbright and Stovner. Fulbright and Stovner's reports confirmed the previous issues 25 presented to the Planning Commission and identified several new issues. He asked both 26 27 28 -20- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I men to declare if the buildings were safe for occupancy. Their reports, in Huang's 2 opinion, indicated the structures were not safe. 3 Healey is the Assistant Fire Marshal for the City of Tustin. He reviewed the file 4 on 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California and consulted with Huang and others from the 5 city. He did not conduct an on-site inspection. He said the stairway to the upper unit was 6 a fire hazard. The foundations were a problem as well as the proximity to the next door 7 neighbor. He was also concerned with the lack of fire resistive barriers between the 3 garage and the two occupancies. The heaters and smoke detectors also concerned him. 9 The cracked beam in the garage creates a risk of collapse on a firefighter in case of a fire 10 event. Healey said these issues needed to be addressed in order for the property to be 11 considered safe. 12 On cross examination Healey said if the heater was installed properly, then he had 13 no concerns. Healey did not know if the stairs were built to code. He did not prepare his 14 own notice of violation on these issues. His involvement was more of a consultant in this 15 matter. 16 Scott Fazekas is a retired building official who now provides code consultation to 17 municipalities. He is also a licensed architect. At Huang's request, Fazekas met with 18 him to provide a third party review of 520 Pacific Street. He reviewed the photographs ] 9 and all the reports. 20 Fazekas felt the cracked beam was a dangerous condition. The carport beam 21 constituted a potential for failure. He did not do his own physical inspection of the 22 property. The stairway foundation was dangerous. He said a 12 inch footing below the 23 grade has been the requirement since the 1927 Building Code. The lack of rails and 24 guards on the stairway was also a dangerous condition. The lack of a fire resistive 25 separation between the garage and the units was a danger. The old heater is dangerous 26 27 28 -21- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 and the newer heater was installed without a permit. The straw type insulation should be 2 covered. 3 Fazekas concurred with Huang's decision to issue the notice and order. The 4 structures at issue were not built to any version of the Building Code, even back to 1927. 5 On cross examination, Fazekas admitted he did not discuss these issues with either 6 Fairbanks, Fulbright or Stovner. His opinion was entirely based on document review and 7 discussions with city officials. He concurred that all the 1927 building code required was 8 that the foundation be to the frost line and that in this area the frost line is not really an 9 issue. He was not familiar with the history of the construction of the home and did not 10 know if any of the electrical wiring was energized. He did not recall if he discussed 11 Resolution 4161 with city staff. 12 FAIRBANKS CASE -IN CHIEF 13 Stovner testified that he is the president of Critical Structures. He has been a 14 registered structural engineer for the last 24 years and specializes in historic structures. 15 Stovner was called by Fairbanks in January, 2011, and he visited the property 16 several times. He was asked to review the property and provide an opinion on whether it 17 was safe and habitable. The two most serious issues related to the property were the IS cracked garage beam and the carport girder, but neither showed any immediate signs of 19 stress and the problems were not immediate. He tested the stiffness of the floor in the 20 upper unit using the heel drop test and he did not notice any bouncing. The crack was not 21 new, did not appear to be worsening, and was not an immediate hazard. He advised 22 Fairbanks to replace it. He reviewed the plans prepared by Menard and they are 23 consistent with his recommendations. Stovner said the upper unit was safe and habitable 24 with temporary shoring. He said the shoring has been accomplished. Since his 25 recommendations, he has seen it and it is shored in a manner consistent with his 26 recommendation. He did not think a permit was required for such temporary shoring. 27 28 -22- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I The shoring was installed shortly after he made that recommendation in his letter. The 2 shoring does not limit the use of the garage for the vehicle storage since the beam runs 3 parallel to the movement of a vehicle into the garage. 4 Stovner had the same sort of testimony as it related to the carport girder. It was 5 best to replace it, but it was not showing signs of distress or sagging and it was not in 6 danger of collapse. 7 The stairway foundation showed no signs of distress or settling. While the piers 8 should not be sitting on the grade, they have not gone anywhere for years and the stair 9 landing appeared strong. There are seven posts supporting the stairway and landing. The 10 door to the upper unit was square. He, nonetheless, recommended they be repaired and 11 the plans address this correction. 12 The canopy posts are not an immediate hazard. In fact, the rot only affects one or 13 two posts. This is a maintenance issue, not a hazard. 14 It offended Stovner when Huang said he had never seen an architect working on 15 behalf of a property owner find a dangerous condition on that property. Stovner has done 16 just that where warranted. He has advised property owners whom he consulted that 17 dangerous conditions existed if they truly did exist. He would have done that on this 18 case, if he found a dangerous condition. 19 Stovner always found Fairbanks willing to cooperate and resolve all the issues at 20 this home. 21 On cross examination, Stovner concurred his review was conducted from only a 22 structural soundness aspect. His was not just based on a cursory review. The stairs do 23 not carry much of a load demand. His opinion did not take into account that the stairs 24 were the only form of ingress and egress from the upper unit; he just looked at them 25 structurally. 26 27 28 -23- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Stovner did not recommend using any prior code for his recommendations. He 2 used the current code. While the building may be eligible for state historical building 3 code application, he felt it was more straightforward to use the current code. Stovner felt 4 all that was needed here was to fix what is broken, not do a complete upgrade. The 5 garage beam did not endanger the occupants of the upper unit. 6 Roger Banowetz is a retired building inspector with 35 years experience. He now 7 consults on building issues. He has red tagged buildings before but never without 8 inspecting them personally. 9 Banowetz has inspected the property at 520 Pacific Street and he has reviewed the 10 list of violations articulated by the city. Based on that review he developed an opinion on 11 each of the violations. 12 The canopy posts at the recreation room only affects one of the five posts and is 13 not a safety hazard. 14 The exterior wall of the recreation room has some fire resistive material in the wall 15 and is not a fire hazard. 16 When Banowetz visited the property smoke and CO detectors were installed and 17 were working. All the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing installations met code 18 requirement. GFCI outlets were not required when the electrical components were 19 installed and the existing electrical components were not a hazard. 20 Banowetz inspected the newer of the two heaters. He reviewed the installation 21 instructions as well as the installation method. It was installed in accordance with the 22 manufacturer's instructions. It was not dangerous and hazardous. 23 The exposed gas line had been removed prior to his inspection. 24 Banowetz tested the straw insulation and determined it was not a fire hazard. 25 Moreover, it has been covered up. 26 27 28 -24- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 With respect to the older heater in the upper unit, he inspected it, reviewed its 2 installation and actually located the manufacturer's instructions for installation. It was 3 installed in a manner consistent with the instructions. It was compliant with all clearance 4 requirements. For its age, it appeared to be in good condition and was not dangerous. 5 The electrical wiring and the power strip which used to be affixed to the wall near the 6 unit had been removed at the time of his inspection. 7 Banowetz saw no issues with the installation of the shower in the upper unit. 8 The stairs to the upper unit were properly installed to the 1940 building code. At 9 that time the code did not address guards and rails. The stairs were sound. They were 10 level and did not appear to be in distress or displacement, the entrance door opened and 11 closed smoothly. With respect to the set back requirement, the 1940 code did not have a 12 setback requirement. The current code requires a 10 foot setback but Banowetz could not 13 find anything about setbacks in the 1927 code. The 10 foot setback requirement was 14 more recent than when the stairs were constructed properly under the code at the time of 15 construction. 16 Banowetz looked at the foundations for the dwelling units and they all looked in 17 good shape. 18 The metal conduit was braced adequately when he inspected it. Since it had been 19 braced, it was not a hazard. 20 When Banowetz inspected the garage beam it was shored. The electrical wiring 21 that was exposed was not installed recently. Once it is covered it will be safe. One 22 junction box needs to be rotated to be accessible, but once that is all covered with 23 drywall, the installation will be alright. 24 The stair foundations were not up to code but have withstood the test of time. 25 Banowetz saw no indication that it would soon fall down. In fact, it is extremely well 26 27 28 -25- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BE HALFOF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I built. He would not make an unsafe determination based solely on a photograph. He 2 would have to see the condition in person first. The stairs were not unsafe. 3 On cross examination Banowetz admitted he is not a certified building inspector 4 and he is not an engineer. He classified the occupancy in the 1927 and 1940 building 5 code as an I occupancy, which relates to a dwelling house. He did not use the apartment 6 house occupancy classification. He did not think this was an apartment house. 7 The covered landing at the top of the stairs is not in compliance with any prior 8 code. Banowetz agreed the 1927 building code applied to the upper unit and the 1940 9 building code applied to the rear unit. It appeared to him that the stair landing as 10 originally constructed was an open porch which was later enclosed. He made that 11 determination from the different roof pitch above the stair landing. 12 Banowetz did not review the reports of Fulbright and Stovner but he was present 13 for Stovner's testimony. Banowetz believes that with seven posts supporting the 14 stairway, it is overbuilt. 15 Banowetz acknowledged that even though the more recent heater installation was 16 installed properly, it still had to have a permit. Banowetz said Fairbanks acknowledged 17 he needed a permit for that installation. Fairbanks is in the process of obtaining that 18 permit now. 19 Banowetz said the 1927 building code did not require a fire separation between I 20 occupancies (dwelling house) and private garages. It only required an "ordinary 21 separation" which was not a fire separation. Nevertheless, where such a fire separation 22 was present and then removed, it should be replaced. Then Banowetz realized that 23 pursuant to § 503 (b) of the 1927 building code subdivision 3 required an ordinary fire 24 separation, which is a one hour separation. This was part of the correction proposed by 25 Fairbanks. 26 27 28 -26- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Banowetz said while he has deference to the decisions made by a building official, 2 he would not have red -tagged these buildings based on the conditions he noted when he 3 did his inspection. =J Nathan Menard is an architect who has a business in Tustin and who specializes in 5 historic buildings. He has known the Fairbanks for quite some time and is familiar with 6 their home. Menard has prepared plans which demonstrate how the Fairbanks' intend to 7 remediate all the violations. Menard based these plans on the reports and fmdings of 8 Fulbright and Stovner. (JX -1; Exh. P). 9 Menard believed the Fairbanks home qualified as a historical structure. That 10 included the garage and the upper unit. He agreed with the timing of the construction of 11 the various buildings throughout the 1900's. He said the City of Tustin adopted its first 12 zoning ordinance in 1947. He believed that since the buildings are of historic character 13 that the degree of danger should be determined using the historical building code, not the 14 current code. Under that standard these building are safe, not dangerous. 15 The stairs to the upper unit were built to the code in force at the time. That being 16 so, one should leave them alone. The foundations to the stairs only needed to be below 17 the frost line and in California, there is no frost line. Again, one should leave it alone 18 because it is an example of construction at the time. He understood the proposal was to 19 repair the foundation using today's code. He did not think that was the right thing to do 20 but the proposal is to install footings below grade. 21 Menard did not think the setback requirement applied in the 1927 code because 22 that was not applicable to group I occupancies 23 Menard inspected the interior of the garage. There was no fire separation between 24 the garage and the interior when he went there. He did notice, however, that the ceiling 25 joists had shims and nail holes. These were indicators to him that something was 26 installed there at a previous time. He proposed type x gypsum board be re -installed. 27 28 -27- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Menard agreed the exterior wall of the stairway landing needs to be fire rated. He 2 proposed two different ways to remediate this problem. 3 The bathrooms and kitchens do not have GFCI outlets. It was not required when 4 constructed but they have been proposed for installation. While such outlets are 5 inconsistent with the historical character of the buildings, it is important to install them. 6 Menard agreed with Stovner's report and did not find any disagreement with 7 Stovner's testimony. He also does not disagree with the description of conditions found 8 by Fulbright. 9 Menard criticized the findings of 30th Street Architects, since, in his opinion, the 10 mid and rear additions are historically significant and they never did an on-site inspection 11 of the premises before issuing their report. By their own letter, the 30th Street Architects 12 merely did a cursory review of the photographs taken by the city and reviewed 13 information provided by city staff. (JX -1; Exh. E, 00153-00156). 14 Menard said his plans for the Fairbanks was submitted to the city on July 5, 2011 15 and the city's review and reply was dated August 8, 2011. 16 Bret Fairbanks ("Fairbanks") testified that he lives with his wife and four 17 daughters at 520 Pacific. He is a physical therapist. They purchased the home ten or 18 eleven years ago. When he purchased the home it was advertised as having two rental 19 units on site, both of which were occupied. The decision to make the purchase was based 20 upon the income from the rental units. The income pays one half the cost of the 21 mortgage. He did his due diligence at the time and discovered a permit for an electrical 22 panel. After the purchase he re -roofed all the structures including the two units. He 23 obtained a building permit for the re -roof and had inspections by city building staff. 24 Nobody told him during those inspections that anything was wrong with the units. (CX - 25 1, 2). 26 27 28 -28- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS a 1 Fairbanks put the property up for sale in December 2009. His growing family 2 needed more room. An offer was made and accepted. This led to an inspection by an 3 appraiser. The prospective buyer's lender inquired about the two rear dwelling units and 4 requested a "bum down" letter. In July, 2010, he requested a "burn down" letter from the 5 city. The city responded and informed him there were no permits on file for the two 6 dwelling units. Because of that the appraiser gave the units no value and the buyers 7 walked away from the sale. 8 Fairbanks met with Elizabeth Binsack and Huang. Huang was very nice and 9 suggested he would come out to give Fairbanks an idea when the buildings were 10 constructed. A CUP was suggested but that was not viable because the kitchen would no 11 be allowed even with a CUP. 12 On the day of the inspection on September 10, 2010, only McCreary and Binsack 13 showed up. Fairbanks was very disappointed that Huang was not present. He was not 14 comfortable with Binsack since she did not share his belief that the units were a legal 15 non -conforming use. 16 McCreary conducted an inspection and took some photographs. He was told the 17 city officials would get back to him. The next thing he received was the September 16, 18 2010 notice and order. It was signed by Brad Steen, an individual Fairbanks had never 19 met and who had never been to his home. He appealed that notice. 20 Fairbanks spoke to Juanita and Huang about the notice and order. Both were 21 surprised by its issuance. While the appeal was pending Fairbanks spoke to many city 22 officials about fixing the violations. He was repeatedly told not to do anything while his 23 appeal was pending. Moreover, he did not want to make repairs on units that he was 24 advised he could not legally keep. He could not get a building permit while his appeal 25 was pending. 26 27 28 -29- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Planning Commission held a hearing at which Fairbanks spoke. The Commission ruled his units were a legal non -conforming use in the face of staff being against it. The research he did to prepare for that hearing was extensive. He found a reference that indicated in 1959 the Tustin City Council authorized the destruction of all building permits prior to that date. The Planning Commission also offered him to make them safe and habitable. The final language was that he was to comply with the notice and order to the extent necessary to ensure health and safety. It was his interpretation of that ruling that the list of 29 violations would be winnowed down to only those that impact health and safety and that he would be allowed to make the repairs and sell his home. Fairbanks met with Huang and it became clear to him that the city was still going to require compliance with all the violations, not just those related to health and safety. Nevertheless, following December 14, 2010, Fairbanks began fixing those things he could fix without a building permit. In January, 2011, the mayor appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the full city council. Again Fairbanks spoke to McCreary about repairing the other items. He particularly wanted to replace the drywall in the garage. He was again advised to while his case was still pending before the city council. McCreary and other city offic knew at that time the units were occupied by tenants. Nobody said the units were dangerous to occupy then. Fairbanks hired Stovner to assist him in determining if the property was safe and habitable. Stovner did an inspection and noticed the cracked beam in the garage. The city did not mention this; Stovner did. The city council finally decided to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission on March 15, 2011. The units were now a legal non -conforming use. -30- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A meeting was set with Huang and that was when Huang said the minimum and safety was compliance with the entire building code. Fairbanks thought "here we go again." Fairbanks then hired Fulbright to provide assistance in determining which violations were related to health and safety. Fulbright suggested upgrading the outlets in the bathrooms and kitchens to GFCI outlets. Fairbanks was willing to do that. Fairbanks was more interested in fixing the problems rather than forcing the historical building code upon the city. At the April 5, 2011 meeting, Huang said that Fairbanks had to fix everything. Hunag also wanted Fairbanks professionals to prepare reports with their findings, and Huang wanted plans to be submitted. Fairbanks did not believe that the city was progressing in conformance with the Planning Commission's ruling. They all met again on April 14, 2011. By that time Fairbanks had already prepared or replaced all the smoke detectors with working devices. Huang kept reading the Planning Commission ruling much too broadly. Fairbanks had no problem fixing those things which needed to be repaired due to health and safety. Huang wanted everything repaired. There was a meeting with Huang scheduled for May 101h or 12`h, 2011. Huang cancelled that meeting. Fairbanks believed at that time that Hunag was satisfied with the recommendations of Fulbright and Stovner. Huang knew of the cracked beam in the garage since early April, 2011. Fairbanks expected to get approval to move forward with his repairs at that meeting. Instead, he received a letter dated May 16, 2011. Fairbanks was required by this letter to demonstrate the property was safe within 10 days and to submit plans within 30 working days. Fulbright communicated his opinion on the safety of the premises on -31- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 11 21 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 May 17, 2011 and Stovner did so on May 25, 2011. Fairbanks had been trying to remediate the violations in a timely manner throughout this case, but he was stymied. Fairbanks installed the shoring of the garage beam recommended by Stovner two to three days after he recommended it. It was done by the end of May, 2011. (AX -J and N).6 Fairbanks was working on the plans and requested an extension of time from the deadline. Instead of granting an extension Huang also did not give him the fall 30 working days to get his plans submitted. On June 16, 2011 Huang served the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate. Fairbanks had to move the tenant in the upper unit who had been there for 6 years. He also had to move a single mother with an 11 year old from the rear unit. He had to do that within 4 days. Fairbanks was very fiustrated by this development. The city knew about his situation for a year, and during that time everyone said it was safe, but Huang said it was not. Huang never mentioned the property was unsafe in three previous meetings. Fairbanks explained the status of each of the noted conditions on June 16, 2011. They are as follows: • The recreation room canopy post was in the same condition on June 16, 2011. It is just one post. He will repair it. (AX -1). • The exterior wall of the recreation room has been resolved. It has the required fire rating. • The dwelling foundations were present and sufficient. o AX -J refers to Appellant's Exhibit J. -32- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS C I The general mechanical, electrical and plumbing violation was 2 vague to Fairbanks. To the extent he understood it, he took care of 3 the violations before June 16, 2011. He removed the extension cords 4 and the power strip. (AX -A). 5 6 The replacement GFCI outlets have not been done yet because he 7 needs a permit to do it. The replacement of them is in his plans. 8 9 The heater in the rear unit (the newer heater) was installed by 10 Fairbanks without a permit. He had it inspected by the gas company 11 before June 16, 2011. It was installed pursuant to the manufacturer's 12 instructions. Other than the permit issue, it was safe on June 16, 13 2011. (AX -E and G). 14 15 • Fairbanks removed the old unsecured pipe in November 2010. It 16 was not connected to anything. (AX -F). 17 18 • The straw insulation issue was very frustrating to Fairbanks. The 19 only reason the city staff saw it was because he pulled out a drawer 20 in a built-in cabinet. It was sealed back up in the wall before June 21 16, 2011. 22 23 The old furnace in the upper unit was installed correctly and it works 24 well. It was safe on June 16, 2011. (AX -A). 25 26 27 28 -33- F9 [�iJlfbW�i7�i: 0If1�ii aVI3iTALUXIJ�1;W-9 1 • The smoke detectors were made operational well before June 16, 2 2011. (AX -B, D and Q. 3 4 • The upper unit stairway was still in the same condition on June 16, 5 2011. He is fully willing to modify them to make them safe. His 6 plans include rails, guards, and stair backs. 7 8 • The foundations for the stairs were also unchanged on June 16, 9 2011. He wants to remediate the foundations and install footings. 10 Fairbanks did not care which code was applicable, he just wants the I 1 case done. The remediation is addressed in his plans. 12 13 • The metal conduit was provided with additional bracing by June 16, 14 2011. This was for the second electrical meter, which was permitted 15 and inspected by the city in 1979. (AX -C). 16 17 • The carport girder was in the same condition on June 16, 2011. His 18 plans propose to remediate this situation. 19 20 • The beam in the garage was first noticed by Stovner in January, 21 2011. The replacement of this beam is provided for in his plans. 22 23 • The fire separation issue between the garage and the two units was 24 still in the same condition on June 16, 2011. When Fairbanks 25 purchased the property there was drywall in that area of the garage, 26 but then he had a rat infestation. To eradicate the rats, he took down 27 28 -34- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS t the drywall to clean it out. This was first identified back in 2 September, 2010. He has wanted to replace it all along but was 3 advised to wait pending his appeal outcome. The remediation is 4 included in his plans and he is willing to do it. 5 6 • The electrical wiring was not exposed until Fairbanks took down the 7 drywall. He did install a new switch without a permit. The 8 installation of the new drywall will cover the wiring. The 9 remediation is in his plans. 10 . The shoring of the cracked beam in the garage was in place on June 11 16, 2011. His plans include the replacement of the beam. (AX-J 12 and N). 13 14 • The exterior wall atop the stairs was in the same condition on June 15 16, 2011. He is willing to remediate it either by installing a one hoin 16 fire rating or by some other means. His plans address this. He is 17 also willing, if necessary, to demolish the stairway landing enclosure 18 and make it an open landing if that will resolve it. 19 20 One of the items the city placed in its response to Fairbanks's proposed plans is 21 the requirement that he install automatic sprinklers in the two dwelling units. The first 22 time he heard the city refer to his home as an apartment house was in Huang's May, 2011 23 letter. (JX-1; Exh. K: 00456-457). That claim was not part of the previous case from September, 2010. 24 Fairbanks requested rescission of the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate and for 25 the city and he to sit down and resolve the whole issue. 26 27 28 -35- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The items that remain unresolved are the items for which a building permit is required to correct. He has plans in to the city to resolve those issues and when his are approved and permits are issued, those will be resolved. Those remaining issues were not enough to red tag the units. Fairbanks believed that paragraph three of the April 14, 2011 Huang letter is exactly what the Planning Commission said not to do. (JX -1; Exh. G; 00436). The same is true of paragraph 1 of Huang's May 16, 2011 letter. (JX -1; Exh. K; 00456). BURDEN OF PROOF The applicable standard of proof at this hearing is preponderance of evidence. It the state of the case that one can say it is more likely than not that a particular fact which is in question occurred. (See Leppo v. City of Petaluma (197I) 20 C.A. 3d 711 and Armistad v. City of Los Angeles (1957) 152 C.A. 2d 319). This burden of proof is home by the city since it was the city which took the action from which this appeal was taken. Thus, the city bears the burden to set forth sufficient preponderant evidence that, at the time it took the action to order the property be vacated (June 16, 2011), the property was in too dangerous a condition to allow its occupancy be continued. In this connection, the introductory paragraph to Section 302 the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings is all-important. That section states: For the purpose of this code, any building or structure which has any or all of the conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building providing that such condition or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered. (Emphasis added) The phrase from the above section which is italicized is the key to this case. The first portion of the paragraph simply states that if a condition or defect that is explained one or more of the 18 subsections to this code are present, the building is deemed to be -36- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I dangerous. Virtually every conceivable defect is contained in the eighteen subsections to 2 the code. The second phrase modifies the first and creates a second layer to the 3 determination of dangerous. That second layer is that to be a dangerous building, the 4 condition or defect has to (1) be in existence and (2) has to endanger the life, health, 5 property or safety of the public or its occupants. The verse is in the active tense. In other 6 words, the city bears the burden to not only prove the condition or defect was present, but 7 that its existence on June 16, 2011, when it took the action in this case, was to such a 8 serious extent as to be dangerous to the life, health, property or safety of the public or its 9 occupants. That is the standard. Put another way, it is the condition of the property on 10 June 16, 2011, which will drive this inquiry. 11 To the same effect is Section 1001.1 of the Uniform Housing Code. Section 12 1001.1 uses the active tense and requires one or more of the noted conditions in Section 13 1001.2; 1001.3; 1001.4; 1001.5; 1001.6; 1001.7; 1001.8; 1001.9; 1001.10; 1001;11; 14 1001.12; 100 1. 13 or 100 1. 14 to be in existence to an extent that endangers life, limb, 15 health, property safety or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof. 16 It is in that context in which this hearing examiner will analyze the evidence 17 presented in the hearing from the parties. 18 ANALYSIS 19 There are two pivot points in this matter which will be explained as this analysis 20 unfolds. For now, only the first pivot point need be discussed. The first pivot point 21 began with the city issuing the first Notice and Order on September 16, 2010. In the 22 attachment to that Notice the city charged three distinct law violations; one building code 23 violation of building without a permit and two zoning ordinance violations related to the 24 use of the two secondary dwelling units. Additionally, the city identified 29 other 25 conditions on-site which were noticed during their cursory inspection_ Those conditions 26 were as follows: 27 28 -37- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 September 10-16,2011 Notice Zoning — R1 Single Family/multi family Footings/foundations for rear units Mech/elec/ Iumbin w/o permits — bathroom upper unit Zoning lot size Insuff. set back upper unit -fire separation Exterior wall on P/L Stairway access for fire personnel Furnace w/o permit the old one Kitchen/cooking facilities w/o permits Shower in upper unit w/open-nits Stairs-handrails-rise/nm-back open — no inner posts Roof drainage Girder undersized in carport Carport attached to main house — occupancy change Metal conduit- unsupported over carport Metal conduit -unsupported over carport No fire separation between garage and upper unit and rear unit Exposed elec. wiring -car Rear unit encroach @5 ft. setback Heater with gas line w/o permit Ceiling heights too low Power strip -electrical Plumbing w/opermit-kitchen Unsecured/exposed gas line -rear unit Straw insulation exposed Smoke detectors - inoperable 21 22 Notably, the above violations, while included by the city, were not specifically 23 used to support the Notice and Order. They were simply used as support for the three 24 specified violations in support of the notice and order. What the city did not do back in 25 September, 2010 was take any action more serious than a Notice and Order on those 26 twenty-nine noted conditions. It did not allege the units were unsafe and it did not order 27 them to be vacated at that time. This will become important later. 28 -38- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 Fairbanks appealed that Notice and Order. The Planning Commission conducted 2 hearings on this appeal. As to the building pen -nit violation, it sat as the Building Board 3 of Appeals; as to the two zoning violations, it sat as the Planning Commission. In its 4 presentation in support of the Notice and Order, the city presented photographic evidence 5 of many of the 29 conditions on the property. During this time, Fairbanks began to repair 6 some of the conditions noted by the city. Conditions for which a building permit is 7 required to repair is something Fairbanks sought to obtain but which he was advised he 8 could not have while this appeal is pending. 9 During the hearing the Planning Commission discussed the effect of ruling that the 10 two units were legal non -conforming uses. In doing so, the Commission considered the 11 29 conditions and decided that the city should go through them and decide which of them 12 related to the health and safety of the occupants of the units and require only those be 13 repaired. 14 After considering all this, the Commission did decide to find the two additional 15 dwelling units to be legal non -conforming uses. This decision included to the following 16 language: 17 18 II. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and 19 Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street as 20 attached hereto in Exhibit A: 21 A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second 22 residential unit. 23 B. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage 24 is a nonconforming second residential unit. 25 (JX -1, Exh. F, 00406-410) 26 27 28 -39- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I That decision was upheld on appeal by the mayor at the city council level. That is 2 the first pivot point. By ruling the two units were legal non -conforming uses, the 3 condition of the units which relate to those uses were also legal non -conforming uses. 4 This is because if the condition of the two dwelling units were not enough to overcome 5 the evidence in support of the legal non -conforming use, it should be allowed to remain, 6 unless it is a life safety hazard. Thus, the condition of the two dwelling units on 7 September 16, 2010 through March 15, 2011, which were sufficient enough to support 8 the decision they were legal non -conforming uses, become part of the overall use and 9 should be allowed to remain. 10 This is the first pivot point in the matter and, more importantly, that decision 11 became the law of the case. This is an important concept in this matter. It means that as 12 the city moved forward from that point in time, the decision made by the Planning 13 Commission needed to be respected and given its natural outcome. In other words, 14 whatever actions the city decided to take following the commission's decision, should be 15 made through the prism of the two units being legal non -conforming uses. 16 In Roden v. AmerisourceBer eg n Corp,. (2007) 155 Cal. App. 4th 1548, 1576 the 17 court stated "The doctrine of the law of the case holds that where an appellate court states 18 in its opinion a principle of law necessary to the decision, that principle becomes law of 19 the case and must be adhered to in all subsequent proceedings, including appeals" 20 (Citizens for Open Access etc. Tide. Inc. v. Seadrift Assn. (1998) 60 Cal.AppAth 1053, 21 1064 [71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 77]). 22 In People v. Shuev, (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 835 the court held "The doctrine of the law 23 of the case is this: That where, upon an appeal, the Supreme Court, in deciding the 24 appeal, states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the decision, that 25 principle or rule becomes the law of the case and must be adhered to throughout its 26 subsequent progress, both in the lower court and upon subsequent appeal, and, as here 27 28 40 - ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 assumed, in any subsequent suit for the same cause of action, and this although in its 2 subsequent consideration this court may be clearly of the opinion that the former decision! 3 is erroneous in that particular." ad. at 841) 4 In Deacon v. Bryan, (1931) 212 Cal. 87 the court stated "It is generally accepted 5 that the principles of law necessarily involved and decided by appellate courts are 6 binding upon the lower courts in future proceedings in the same case, such as upon a new 7 trial. Upon a later appeal the appellate court will not inquire into the correctness of 8 the principles of law laid down upon the former appeal, but will only consider the record 9 to determine if said principles have been followed. Where a decision upon appeal has 10 been rendered by a District Court of Appeal and the case is returned upon a reversal, and 11 a second appeal comes to this court directly or intermediately, for reasons of policy and 12 convenience, this court generally will not inquire into the merits of said first decision, but 13 will regard it as the law of the case. If the appellant was dissatisfied with the fust decision 14 of the District Court of Appeal he should have applied to this court for a hearing. [Citing 15 authorities.] While there is a modem tendency on the part of the appellate courts 16 throughout the country not to regard this doctrine of the law of the case as one to be 17 adhered to in all cases, but, rather, to make exceptions where the decision is manifestly 18 unjust, the doctrine has by no means been abandoned but is still followed as a general 19 rule of practice and procedure." (Id at 89-90). 20 In Katemis v. Westerlind, (1956) 142 Cal. App. 2d 799, 806, the court stated "The 21 doctrine is applied to the principles of law laid down by the court on appeal as applicable 22 to a retrial of fact. Moore v. Trott, 162 Cal. 268, 273 [122 P. 4621.) When a reviewing 23 court in deciding a case states in its opinion a principle or rule of law necessary to the 24 decision, that principle or rule, whether right or wrong, becomes the law of that case and 25 it must be adhered to throughout its later progress both in the trial court and on any 26 27 28 -41- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I succeeding appeal. (Allen v. California Mut. Bldg. & Loan Assn., 22 Cal.2d 474, 481 2 [139 P.2d 321]; Estate of Baird. 193 Cal. 225, 234 [223_P. 9741.)". 3 What all of this means in the context of this case is that the previous decision of 4 the Planning Commission has become the law of the case. As such, it must be respected 5 even if one of the parties, both of the parties, or this hearing examiner believes it was 6 wrong. Thus, that the units are legal non -conforming uses has been finally adjudicated. 7 Subsequent conduct by the city must be governed by that fact. In other words, the city 8 has to accept the notion that the units are legal non -conforming uses and must confine the 9 requirements for repairs or corrections with that fact in mind. Put another way, it would 10 be improper for the city to attempt a subsequent action against Fairbanks with the goal of 11 trying to achieve a result not achieved by the first action. With that in mind, let's look at 12 what subsequent action was taken by the parties. 13 Following the decision of the Planning Commission and the city council, the city 14 and the Fairbanks met to continue to work toward a resolution of the conditions on site. 15 By that time Fairbanks had already secured the services of Fulbright to provide an 16 evaluation of the property and assist them in ameliorating the conditions. Fulbright 17 physically inspected the entire property and did so in a manner which was much more 18 thorough than the city's cursory inspection in September, 2010. Fulbright noticed many 19 of the same issues which had been present since September, 2010, but he also noticed 20 additional items which were not included by the city in its September, 2010 Notice and 21 Order. Among these items were the need for GFCI outlets in the kitchen and bathroom 22 of each unit, inoperable smoke detectors, the close proximity of the exterior wall of the 23 recreation room to the property line and the foundations for the stairway to the upper 24 units. 25 Fairbanks also hired Stovner to provide an evaluation of the property from a 26 structural standpoint. He physically inspected the property and noticed two additional 27 28 -42- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 issues which heretofore not been noticed during the city's cursory inspection which took place back on September 10, 2010. These two additional issues were the cracked beam in the garage and the lack of footings in the foundation of the stairs which lead to the entrance door to the upper unit. The cracked beam did not appear to be recent but it was a significant condition in that the beam in question doubled as a floor joist providing support for the floor of the upper unit. It is not known how long the beam had been cracked, but it is undisputed t when the city conducted its cursory inspection in September, 2010, if it was present, it was not noticed by McCreary. The foundation for the stairs presented the problem of adequacy of support. The posts on which the support for the stairs rested are on concrete pedestals. These pedestals, by all outward appearances, merely rested on the grade. In other words, there was no footing for the foundation which extended below grade. The soil on which the pedestals rested appeared to be substantially intact. Indeed, the area below the stairs was not an area of the lot that was used for any other purpose and was not an area traversed by persons for any reason. The stairs appeared by all accounts to have been originally constructed in this manner and have stood substantially undisturbed for decades. At the behest of Huang, both Stovner and Fulbright authored written reports in which they described their findings. This led to Huang requesting both men provide him with an opinion as to whether the units were safe and habitable for occupancy. Huang also unilaterally imposed a deadline upon Fairbanks to submit plans to remediate all the conditions no later than 30 working days from the date this requirement was imposed. This requirement was articulated by Huang in a letter from him dated May 16, 2011. Thus, the plans were due no later than June 28, 2011. Fulbright responded to Huang's concerns saying in an email that he did not observe an immediate threat to the occupants of the two units and continued habitation -43- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I was satisfactory as long as the potential hazards were remediated within a timely manner. 2 No one from the city followed up with Fulbright to determine what he meant by "timely 3 manner." Nevertheless, a reasonable inference may be drawn that he meant the 4 Fairbanks should move with reasonable alacrity to prepare and submit the plans to 5 remediate, respond in timely manner to inquires from the city about the plans, get them 6 approved, obtain the required permits and complete the work without unreasonable delay. 7 At every point in the procedural history of this matter, and indeed during his testimony at 8 this hearing, Fairbanks has professed a profound, and at times, very understandable 9 emotional, willingness to do just that. That promise has been delayed, not by Fairbanks' 10 inaction, but by the city issuing its Notices and Orders, placing him in a sort of "Catch - 11 22" position where he wants to correct the conditions, but cannot because the corrections 12 require a permit which he cannot obtain while his appeal of the Notice is pending. One 13 wonders here if the conditions noted back on September 10, 2010, were truly so 14 dangerous, (1) why did the city not move to vacate the property then and/or (2) why has 15 the city twice foisted upon Fairbanks a Notice and Order from which he must appeal in 16 order to preserve his rights and, during which he cannot repair the conditions which 17 require a building permit because the city will not give him one. It seems to this hearing 18 examiner that the city's own actions have been the substantial cause for the delay in 19 repairs, not Fairbanks. 20 Stovner also responded to Huang's concerns for the safety of the occupants in a 21 letter dated May 25, 2011. In that letter, Stovner said, in pertinent part, that in his 22 professional opinion the units were structurally safe to continue occupancy provided the 23 cracked beam was provided with temporary shoring consisting of 4x4 timber posts at 24 each end of the split in the beam. 25 Stovner took the witness stand on behalf of Fairbanks and stated, under oath, the 26 conditions noted by him during his inspections were not life threatening. 27 28 -44- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I All of this led to the second pivot point in this matter. That was the issuance by 2 Huang of his Notice and Order/Pre-Citation NoticelDeclaration of Public Nuisance and 3 Notice to Vacate on June 16, 2011. This is the Notice from which this appeal is taken. It 4 is this Notice which proclaimed the units were so substantially unsafe that immediate 5 (within 4 days of the Notice) evacuation of the tenants was required. It is this notice 6 which must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In order to make that 7 determination, I have strongly considered what Huang knew, and did not know, on June 8 16, 2011. I have considered the actual condition of the property on June 16, 2011 and 9 whether or not, in my judgment, based on the evidence produced at the hearing, the 10 Notice was properly given at that point in time. 11 The evidence adduced at the hearing was undisputed that the cracked beam had 12 been properly shored in compliance with Stovner's recommendation by June 16, 2011. 13 The smoke detectors had been made operable.7 All of the remediation which could be 14 done by Fairbanks, without a building permit, was accomplished well in advance of June 15 16, 2011. 16 Huang based his Notice and Notice/Order to Vacate on many things, the first of 17 which was the cursory inspection by city staff on September 10, 2010. I will analyze that 18 component first. By the city's own admission this was a "cursory" inspection. The 19 issuance of an Order requiring the property owner to vacate two occupied dwellings 20 should never be issued based solely on a mere cursory inspection. By all accounts, the 21 only time anyone from the city actually personally observed the conditions on site was 22 when McCreary conducted his cursory inspection on September 10, 2010. No other 23 physical inspection was done by any city official from September 10, 2010 to the date on 24 which the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate was issued on June 16, 2011. 25 26 'As to this condition, the hearing examiner draws on his own experience that maintaining an operable smoke detector in a tenanted occupancy, while required, is somewhat of a transitory 27 concept, given the fact that some tenants disable them on their own. 28 -45- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Moreover, many of the items noted by McCreary were conditions that were 2 repeated as support for the June 16, 2011 Notice. The problem here is when did those 3 conditions become so unsafe as to require vacating the premises as the only remedy. 4 When did they become so dangerous as to require vacating the premises. As stated 5 before, one would wonder if they were such a dangerous condition then the city should 6 have ordered the premises vacated on September 11, 2010. Huang stated unequivocally 7 the units were "not safe to occupy" in his April 14, 2011 letter. (JX -1; Exh. G, 00436- 8 437). The city did not order they be vacated then either. That it did not do so indicates 9 strongly that the city did not believe such a remedy was required at that time. Since that 10 is so, I do not find that any of the conditions that were noticed on September 10, 2010, 11 which were then just repeated as support for the June 16, 2011, Notice provides any 12 support for the current Notice. 13 The city, by its own action, when faced with 29 conditions decided only to issue a 14 Notice and Order with one building code violation and two zoning ordinance violations 15 as its basis. If the structures were unsafe for continued occupancy on June 16, 2011, one 16 has to wonder why they were not just as unsafe based on those same conditions back on 17 September 16, 2010. That the city elected not to order vacating the premises back on 18 September 16, 2010, is a strong indicator that even the city did not believe, at that time, 19 that the units were so unsafe as to require that. 20 Then the question becomes does the additional information provided by Fulbright 21 and Stovner add a sufficient amount of conditions which would justify the city's action. I 22 find it does not. Neither Fulbright nor Stovner said that there was a condition on site that 23 substantially impacted the safety of the occupants of the units. Indeed, the most serious 24 issue confronting the Fairbanks was the cracked beam in the garage. Stovner 25 recommended it be temporarily shored pending its replacement. Obviously, replacement 26 27 28 -46- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON: THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I requires a permit which Fairbanks cannot obtain. The temporary shoring was 2 accomplished before Huang issued his Notice to Vacate. 3 Both Stovner and Fulbright physically inspected the premises at a time closer to 4 the issuance of the Notice and Order and Order to Vacate than did the city. Inasmuch as 5 these two men physically inspected the property at a time closer to issuance of the Notice 6 their opinion is entitled to more weight than the city's opinion given the fact that the 7 city's visit consisted solely of a cursory inspection which at the time of the Notice at 8 issue here was fully nine months old. Indeed, Fairbanks provided no less than three 9 percipient witnesses with various subject matter expertise, all of whom conducted 10 detailed and extensive inspections of the property close in time to June 16, 2011. This, as I 1 against the city's twenty minute "cursory" inspection, which was nine months in the past 12 and which was never updated, is entitled to greater weight. 13 Not much significance at all was attached to the third party review conducted by 14 Fazekas. Again, unlike the witnesses brought forth by Fairbanks, Fazekas had never beer. 15 to the location. His review was solely based upon the photographs taken during the 16 1 cursory inspection on September 10, 2010 and the reports of others. The third party 17 opinion of Fazekas is based upon material, much of which did not accurately reflect the 18 condition of the property on June 16, 2011. 19 The same can be said about the testimony of Healey. His testimony was likely 20 accurate in terms of the potential fire hazards created by the undersized girder, the 21 stairway and its proximity to the property line and the heaters. The problem is all the 22 conditions utilized for his opinion were in existence since September 10, 2010 and were 23 not of sufficient gravity back then to order the units vacated. 24 All of this relates back to the first pivot point in this matter. The Planning 25 Commission heard all this evidence of the various conditions on site back in fall of 2010 26 and not only did the city not pursue the more draconian remedy of ordering the units 27 28 1 -47- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I vacated, the Commission did not find the property unsafe for occupancy, but instead 2 found them to be a legal non -conforming use. That decision must be respected by the 3 city and by me as the hearing examiner. Whether right or wrong, that decision is the law 4 of the case. Fortunately or unfortunately, that governs this advisory decision. The 5 conditions which Healey used for his opinion of the fire safety aspect of these units have 6 not changed in a substantial way, with the exception of the garage beam, since 7 September, 2010. It was not a life safety fire hazard back then, it is not now. 8 This leads to the discussion of the final basis upon which the Notice and 9 Order/Notice to Vacate was based. That is Huang's own observation of the conditions. 10 Even Huang had to qualify that in the Notice itself by adding his observations were "on 11 the visible parts alone." Such a qualification had to be added because Huang never 12 actually inspected the premises. The extent of the qualification "on the visible parts 13 alone" was never fully explained by the city but from all the evidence adduced at the 14 bearing it is readily apparent that Huang never physically inspected the site at any time. 15 He was apparently supposed to be present during what became the cursory inspection on 16 September 10, 2010, but he did not show up in the end. There is no evidence that Huang 17 ever conducted a detailed inspection of the site whatsoever. This hearing examiner finds 18 that very troubling. It is, from my point of view, completely incongruent to established 19 practices to make a finding that a property is unsafe for continued occupancy based solel3 20 on a cursory inspection which lasted no more than twenty minutes and which was nine 21 months old. I do not believe Huang was so busy as to prevent him from conducting his 22 own inspection in his capacity as the building official prior to issuing his June 16, 2011 23 Notice to Vacate. After all, this building was not so dilapidated that a conclusion could 24 be formulated from reports and photographs alone. This determination was more 25 nuanced than most life/safety hazard decisions a building official is called upon to make. 26 This was not a badly earthquake damaged building or fire damaged building in which the 27 28 L -48- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON: THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I level of hazard is self evident. This was an occupied dwelling from which its owner was 2 deriving rental proceeds. It seems to me that a more careful analysis was required to be 3 undertaken by the very individual who made the decision to order the units vacated 4 before that decision was made. 5 Had Huang requested a physical inspection in mid June, 2010, after Fulbright and 6 Stovner told him there was no immediate threat of harm, it is hard to imagine such an 7 inspection would not have been allowed given the fact that Fairbanks had allowed 8 inspections in the past. Had he actually done an inspection closer in to time to his 9 decision he could likely have discovered that the cracked garage beam had to be properly 10 shored up, the smoke detectors were operational, and the cluster of electrical wiring in 11 and around the heater had been removed. Significantly, Huang knew about the existence 12 of the cracked garage beam since his receipt of Stovner's May 4, 2011 report. He did not 13 immediately order the unit vacated at that point. It is obviously hard to say now if 14 Huang's decision would have been different. The point is, however, before the Fairbanks 15 were deprived of substantial income on two adjudicated legal non -conforming use units, 16 they deserved to have the very person responsible for coming to that decision actually 17 know the then current condition of the property before coming to that conclusion. 18 Moreover, Huang did not comply with his own unilaterally imposed deadline. If 19 part of the reason for the issuance of the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate was because 20 Fairbanks had not timely submitted plans which addressed the proposed remediations, 21 such plans were not due until June 28, 2011. Huang's deadline was thirty working days 22 from May 16, 2011. (JX -1; Exh. K, 00456-457). Huang's notice was issued thirty 23 calendar days later. The plans were not due yet. It is not surprising that Fairbanks did 24 not get his plans in until July 5, 2011, inasmuch as he had to deal with the Notice and 25 Order/Notice to Vacate. 26 27 28 -49- OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I It also seems odd to me that the city readily accepts the findings of Fulbright and 2 Stovner when they articulate a condition which needs to be repaired, like the stairway 3 foundations and the cracked garage beam, but it did not accept other findings made by 4 them. As to violations noted by Fulbright and Stovner the city readily accepted them and 5 placed them in the Notice and Order without doing an inspection of their own to confirm 6 it. Yet, the city does not accept the determination by both men that "continued habitation 7 is satisfactory..." (JX -1; Exh. L, 00458) and the units "are structurally safe to continue to 8 occupy..." (JX -1; Exh. M, 00482). It seems to me that if the findings of both men in 9 terms of added violations are accepted by the city, it should likewise accept the findings 10 that the units were safe for continued occupancy. 11 The testimony of Banowetz in this regard is credited. Banowetz testified that he 12 has red -tagged many structures over the span of his career but he has never red -tagged 13 any structure which he has not personally inspected. That is how it should be. 14 Photographs are two dimensional; they do not tell the whole story. The reports of others 15 are also limiting in their own regard and reliance on them means one is relying upon a 16 conclusion of others which may or may not be completely accurate when viewed on 17 one's own. 18 The evidence related to the lack of a fire resistant separation between the two units 19 and the garage is illustrative of this problem. Undoubtedly, the existence of this 20 condition is a violation of the building code. Yet, by all accounts, the only reason this 21 violation exists is because Fairbanks diagnosed a rat infestation some time ago and to 22 eradicate it required removal of the drywall. This created the condition which now exists. 23 Like many violations of this sort, it leads to many unintended consequences. Not only 24 did it remove the fire separation in removing the drywall, but it exposed the Romex 25 wiring, which in and of itself is a violation. Well, just like one problem creates two or 26 more violations, one repair will resolve many violations. All that Fairbanks needs to do 27 28 - -50- DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 is replace the drywall with a suitable fire separation between the garage and the units. 2 This he is ready and willing to do, yet, he has been stymied from doing so by the serial 3 nature of the city's Notices. When looked at in this way, the city's September 16, 2010, 4 and June 16, 2011, Notice has actually had the effect of exacerbating and prolonging this 5 problem rather than resolving it. Fairbanks has never really been given a fair chance to 6 make good on his promise to make all these repairs because he has had to constantly 7 defend himself against the Notices issued by the city. 8 Analyzing each one of the twenty-nine conditions used on September 16, 2010, 9 some of which were repeated in the June 16, 2011, Notice to determine if any one of 10 them alone would be sufficient to sustain the order and the following emerges: 11 Zonin : 12 This goes back to the concept of the law of the case. The Planning Commission 13 adjudicated the two additional units were legal non -conforming uses. Accordingly, to 14 give effect to that decision, the zoning of the property is as a single family dwelling with 15 two legal non -conforming residential units on site. Any attempt to change the 16 classification to multi -family is not supported by the evidence produced at the hearing 17 and it is also trying to achieve indirectly what could not be achieved directly through the 18 first action taken. 19 It was not lost on this hearing examiner the importance of the time it has taken to 20 adjudicate this matter. The mayor argued that the evidence produced at the Planning 21 Commission hearings was insufficient to support the contention that the legal non - 22 conforming use was in use continuously since its inception. He was overruled in that 23 regard. Right or wrong, that issue was adjudicated in favor of Fairbanks. 24 The two residential units were ordered vacated by the city effective June 20, 2011. 25 A legal non -conforming use that is discontinued for six months or more loses its legal 26 non -conforming use status. That six month period will run on December 20, 2011. Such 27 28 -51- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I a consequence would be improper to invoke here inasmuch as the cessation of the use 2 was involuntary imposed on Fairbanks. It is not believed that was the sort of situation the 3 city intended to set up, however, a reviewer of this matter in the future should know how 4 the hearing examiner feels about that issue. 5 Since the two residential units are adjudicated legal non -conforming uses, they 6 may remain in the current condition so long as they are not substantially modified. By 7 the same token, while they remain in their current condition, it would be improper for the 8 city to require they be brought up to all current code requirements. Requiring the 9 Fairbanks to retroactively install items such as automatic fire sprinklers is going too far. 10 Such was not required when these units were built and requiring that now is not 11 respecting the law of the case. 12 Having said that, there is an unspoken irony in this case. As stated before, this 13 whole matter began its long odyssey with the request of Fairbanks for a burn down letter. 14 Well, assuming Fairbanks prevails on this appeal, the city would be within its right to 15 refuse to issue such a letter if its premise is that should the units bum down, they may be 16 rebuilt. The reason for that is should the units be damaged for any reason in excess of 17 50% that would terminate the legal non -conforming use. Accordingly, if the units were 18 to be substantially damaged by fire or other calamity, they would not be allowed to be 19 rebuilt. About the most the city would be able to confirm in such a letter is that the two 20 residential units are adjudicated as legal non -conforming uses. 21 Rear Unit Foundations 22 The city did not put on any evidence in support of any particularized problem with 23 the footings or foundations for the rear unit. Banowetz said he inspected them and that 24 they were present and intact. It is not at all clear the extent of his inspection and the basis 25 for that conclusion, but either which way, the evidence is insufficient to support any 26 violation related to the rear unit footings and/or foundations. 27 28 1 -52- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Plumbing Without Permits/Bathroom Upper Unit 2 The city in its presentation discounted plumbing issues in the upper unit. Other 3 than a general claim that they were built without permits, which was rejected by the legal 4 non-confomring finding of the Planning Commission, no specific violation was proven. I 5 will say the shower in the upper unit looks a bit odd inasmuch as it extrudes from the 6 exterior wall, but it was never fully proven that it constitutes a violation. The only 7 electrical issue identified with any clarity was the lack of GFCI outlets in the bathroom. 8 GFCI outlets only recently became a requirement. Banowetz said the electrical wiring in 9 the bathrooms was safe. While the GFCI outlets would not be a required retrofit item, 10 Fairbanks is willing to change them out as soon as he is issued a permit allowing him to 11 do so. 8 12 Zoning Lot Size 13 I will not analyze this issue for two reasons: (1) it was not used as a support item 14 for the June 16, 2011, Notice and (2) this issue was resolved by the decision of the 15 Planning Commission. 16 Insufficient Set Back Upper Unit — Fire Separation 17 Part of this condition was resolved along with the Planning Commission's 18 decision. In holding the upper unit was a legal non-conforming use, the physical 19 structures associated with that use, which was present at the time of construction, also 20 enjoys a non-conforming use status, unless damaged or changes are made. Again, right 21 or wrong, that decision must be respected. The stairway, the landing and its support 22 23 a This leads me to the discussion of the applicability of the State Historic Building Code. Part of the appellant's case was the applicability of the State Historic Building Code. I have decided to 24 decline the invitation to analyze the applicability of this code. The reason for that is the only witness Fairbanks called who supported the applicability of the State Historic Building Code was 25 Menard. No other witness supported that notion. Fulbright used the current building code to propose his suggested corrections. So did Stovner. Even Fairbanks himself said that he did not 26 care which code was used, he simply wanted to conclude this matter, make the necessary repairs to those items required to make it safe and sell his home. Thus, I do not reach the applicability of 27 the Historic Code. 28 -53- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 system, appears to be one integrated system of construction which has been there since the upper unit was constructed. Therefore, the stairway system is part of the legal non- conforming use. The part of the stairway structure that appears to have been added later is the enclosure of the stairway landing. I noticed immediately the oddity of the stairway landing enclosure when I saw that the entrance door opens not onto a platform, but on to a step. I found that unusual. When it was modified in this way is not known, but it is quite clear to me that the stairway as originally constructed had an open landing. Banowetz acknowledged this as a real probability given the changes in the slope of the roof line adjacent to the enclosure. Nevertheless, this violation alone, or in concert with others, is insufficient to order the unit vacated. After all, it was noticed by the city in September, 2010, and the unit was not ordered vacated back then. Exterior Wall on Property Line This condition is simply another way to describe the condition analyzed above. That analysis will not be repeated here. Stairway Access for Fire Personnel For the same reason as stated directly above, the analysis of this condition is the same as what has already been said. Furnace Without Permit (the old one) The furnace in the upper unit was manufactured decades ago. As a part of the interior structure of a legal non -conforming use, it shares that status. To the extent this furnace appears to have been installed at the same time as the construction of the unit, it cannot be said it was installed without a permit. That is especially true since the permits prior to 1959 were authorized for destruction. Nevertheless, the unit does have a certain appearance which does not engender confidence in its safety. However, based on the evidence, the gravamen of the violation -54- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 noted by the city was the proximity of combustible material and a cluster of electrical wiring too close to the unit. The condition was present on September 10, 2010 and the city did not order the unit vacated. By June 16, 2011, the combustible materials and electrical wiring had been removed, thereby eliminating that concern The only thing left then which could support a violation was the installation itself. Banowetz testified he found the installation instructions and clearance requirements and the unit was installed properly. This, as against the city's cursory inspection, has to be given more weight. This condition, alone or in concert with others, is also insufficient to support the Notice to Vacate. Kitchen/Cooking Facilities Without Permits The analysis of this condition tracks much the same as what has been said about the stairway and the furnace. The kitchen facilities do not appear to be new. The facilities appear to source from the original construction. So, the decision of the Planning Commission also runs to the interior components which are original. In light of the 1959 building permit destruction authorization, it is hard to say the kitchen facilities were installed without a permit. Add to this that Huang discounted in his testimony any real issue related to the plumbing and this violation was not only not proven, it would not be enough, alone or in concert with others, to support the Notice to Vacate. Shower in the Upper Unit Without Permits This discussion was already made in the section dealing with plumbing without permits above. Stairs — Handrails — Rise/Run-Back Open This discussion tracks with the points already made as it relates to the stairs. That the stairs appear to me to have been constructed along with the upper unit, it enjoys the same non -conforming status. Any discussion of whether the 1927 or 1940 code required. rails, closed backs, or a particular rise and run, misses the point. The law of the case is -55- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I the upper unit is a legal non -conforming use. The entire structure enjoys that status if the 2 structure, including the stairs, has not been substantially modified. To his credit, 3 Fairbanks has proposed to install the guards and rails and step backs even if technically 4 not required. Yet, he cannot do so because the city refuses him a permit. This condition, 5 alone or in concert with others, do not support the Notice to Vacate. 6 Roof Drainaee 7 This condition was only cited in the September 16, 2010, notice and was not 8 repeated in the June 16, 2011 notice. If it was not strong enough to support a Notice to 9 Vacate in September, 2010, and was not repeated in June, 2011, it does not deserve 10 comment herein. 11 Carport Girder Undersized 12 The condition was not only proven by the city, but admitted to by Fairbanks and 13 his subject matter professionals. That being said, it does not appear to be in imminent 14 danger of collapse and it does not appear to be under stress. It is a static, technical 15 violation. In that way, it is not sufficient support, alone or in concert with others, for the 16 Notice to Vacate. 17 Carport Attached to Main House — Occupancy ChanEe 18 The law of the case in this matter is that the two units on site are legal non - 19 conforming uses. Claiming the connection of the carport to the main house somehow 20 turns this property into a multi -family occupancy is not supported by the evidence and 21 violates the law of the case. 22 Metal Conduit - Unsupported 23 The condition was proven and admitted to by Fairbanks. However, the condition 24 was rectified by additional bracing prior to June 16, 2011. Thus, the condition was not 25 enough to order the property vacated in September, 2010, and was not present on June 26 16, 2011. it cannot provide any support for the Notice to Vacate. 27 28 -56- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I No Fire Separation Between Garage and Units 2 This condition was proven and admitted to by Fairbanks. It was present in 3 September, 2010 and the city did not order units vacated at that time. Nothing has 4 changed between September, 2010 and June, 2011. The evidence supports the notion that 5 a fire separation was present until the eradication of a rat infestation led to its removal., 6 The nature of the violation here is static. It is not an imminent danger. If it did not 7 support an Order to Vacate in September, 2010, it does not support such an order alone or 8 in concert with others on June 16, 2011. 9 Exposed Electrical Wiring — Garage 10 This condition only became an issue because of the removal of the previously 11 installed fire separation in the garage. The same things explained above apply here as 12 well. Once the fire separation is allowed to be re -installed, this issue will evaporate. As 13 said before, the reason this and other issues continue to remain a concern is more 14 appropriately placed at the feet of the city, not Fairbanks, since the city continues to cite 15 him in a serial fashion rather than issuing him a permit to make the repairs he has stated a 16 willingness to correct. This condition is not of such gravity to support the Notice to 17 Vacate. 18 Rear Unit Encroaches of 5 Foot Setback 19 The city did not produce much evidence of this condition. Even if proven, the law 20 of the case is the rear unit is an adjudicated legal non -conforming use. If its construction 21 truly violated the setback requirement, such status would presumably have not been 22 granted. It was granted. It is the law of the case. It is, therefore, not a violation. 23 Heater with Gas Line Without Permit 24 This condition relates to the heating unit in the rear unit. That unit is of newer 25 manufacture. It was admittedly installed without a permit Banowetz reviewed the 26 installation in a much more detailed fashion than did the city and concluded that, while it 27 28 II -57- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON: THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS I was installed without a permit, it was installed properly and in a manner consistent with 2 the manufacturer's instructions. It is not that substantial a modification which destroys 3 the legal non -conforming status of the unit. Given Banowetz's investigation, the 4 violation is a more technical one, rather than a life and safety violation. Moreover, it was 5 present in September, 2010 and the city did not order the unit vacated. Nothing changed 6 between then and June, 2011. The condition does not support the issuance of the Notice 7 to Vacate. 8 Ceiling Height Too Low 9 This condition was not repeated in the June 16, 2011 Notice to Vacate. Therefore, 10 if the city did not include it in its reason to order the unit vacated, it need not be discussed 11 herein. 12 Power Strip - Electrical 13 This condition has already been described in some detail. It is related to the 14 installation of the power strip and numerous electrical wiring in proximity to the older 15 furnace. That condition was present in September, 2010 and the city did not order the 16 unit be vacated. That is suggestive of the notion that it was not seen so dangerous as to 17 compel that result. By June 16, 2011, that condition has been resolved. The wiring was 18 installed by the tenant and was removed by Fairbanks before the June 16, 2011 notice. 19 The city did not refute the evidence that the condition was corrected by June 16, 2011. 20 The reason for that is probably related to the fact that they did not do their own inspection 21 before issuing the Notice to Vacate.. That the condition was corrected before the June 16, 22 2011, it could not provide any support for the order. 23 Plumbing Without Permit — Kitchen 24 This issue has been addressed above. It, too, does not support the Notice to 25 Vacate. 26 27 28 -58- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS A 1 Unsecured/Exposed Gas Line 2 The analysis of this condition tracks with the discussion of the power strip above. 3 It was present in September, 2010, and the city did not order the unit vacated. It was 4 corrected before June 16, 2011. This condition was corrected and provides no support for 5 the Notice to Vacate. 6 Canopy Posts 7 Whatever dry rot was present in the post or multiple posts supporting the canopy 8 of the recreation room, it was an insufficient amount to rise above the level of simple 9 maintenance. 10 Straw Insulation 11 The issue of the straw insulation was never really fully developed by the city. A 12 sample was not taken and no testing was performed. The extent of the exposure was not 13 described. On the other hand, Banowetz said he tested it, it was not unsafe and that type 14 of insulation was used at the time of construction. This evidence was not disputed by the 15 city. Moreover, Fairbanks testified the exposure was momentary and it was later covered 16 up. The bottom line is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain this condition is a 17 violation of any code requirement. 18 Smoke Detectors 19 Smoke detector violations are transitory. They were inoperable on September 10, 20 2010. The city did not order the units vacated because of that on September 16, 2010. 21 Thus, it apparently was not considered that unsafe at that time. Fulbright noted this 22 condition when he inspected. The condition was corrected before June 16, 2011. The 23 city could not dispute that information. The city included this condition in the June 16, 24 2011 notice without any information on which it could base such an allegation. 25 Inasmuch as the city did not inspect the property before ordering it to be vacated, the city 26 had absolutely no information about whether the smoke detectors were working on June 27 28 -59- Y�fi�ti�9l1�i��l37Ji � �� er�•mT•7y_��ax��� .. 1 16, 2011. That the city included this is an allegation without any factual support is 2 troubling to this hearing examiner. There is no support in the evidence that the smoke 3 detectors were inoperative on June 16, 2011. 4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Based on all of the foregoing, it is my recommendation that the Building Board of 6 Appeals uphold the June 16, 2011, Notice and Order, but only as it relates to the 7 following violations:9 8 9 1. UCADB Section 302 Item 5 and UHC Section 1001.3. Beam supporting 10 second story dwelling unit is cracked and therefore jeopardizing supportin 11 system of second story. CBC Section 3405.3 requires damaged gravity 12 load -carrying components to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Eric Stovner's 13 letters dated May 4 and 25, 2011 stated he observed and noted this 14 violation. 15 2. UCADB Section 302 item 3 and UHC Section 1001.3. Carport structural 16 members are not of adequate size to support roof loads and not designed in 17 accordance with CBC Section 1604. land if loaded could collapse. Mr. Eric 18 Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011, stated he observed and noted this 19 violation. 20 4. UCADB Section 302 Item 2 and UHC Section 1001.12. Stairway 21 intermediate guards and risers are not provided and thus a fall hazard exists. 22 Further, this condition is not in compliance with CBC Section 1013. Mr. 23 Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2f) stated he observed and 24 noted this violation. 25 26 9 Note that the numbering used in this recommendation is the same numbering of violations used 27 as support for the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order/Notice to vacate (JX -1; Exh. N; 00467-469). 28 1 -60- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS t I I further recommend the following violations noted in the June 16, 2011, Notice 2 and Order be upheld based on the evidence presented but be modified as explained 3 below: 4 3. UCADB Section 302 item 8 and UHC Section 1001.3. Foundation 5 supporting stairway to second story dwelling unit is not adequate and 6 causes the exit door from the upper dwelling unit to become inoperative 7 and creates a hazard in case of fire or panic. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated 8 May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 9 While I am recommending the above violation be upheld, based on the evidence 10 presented, I am not recommending it be upheld on the portion dealing with the exit door 11 from the upper dwelling unit becoming inoperative. There was no evidence of such a 12condition being present. In all other respects, this violation should be upheld. 13 14 6. UCADB Section 302 Item I4 and UHC Section 1001.13. Fire resistive 15 walls between the units and adjacent garage are not provided. Fire resistive 16 walls and window protection adjacent to the property line on the second 17 story are not provided. Fire in an adjacent unit, garage or adjacent building 18 could spread quickly and therefore overcome occupants. Fire resistive 19 assemblies are required for the above mentioned locations in CBC Sections 20 705, 707, and 709. In addition, there are several electrical installations that 21 pose a danger (unprotected and non-attached Romex wiring, non-GFCI 22 outlets in the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.) and there 23 are no smoke detectors or alarms in the sleeping areas. Mr. Paul 24 Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2a and 4a) stated he observed 25 and noted these violations. 26 27' 28 -61- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE REARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 While I am recommending the above violation be upheld, based on the evidence 2 presented, I am not recommending it be upheld on the inoperative smoke detector 3 portion. In all other respects, the evidence supported this violation. 4 14. UHC Section 1001.7. Gas heater attached to wood siding and gas line in 5 the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to its proximity to 6 combustible material. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 7 (Item 5b) stated he observed and noted this violation. 8 While I am recommending the above violation be upheld, based on the evidence 9 presented, I am not making this recommendation based on the gas line in the rear 10 dwelling unit. This recommendation is only made based on the fact that the heater was I 1 installed without a permit. 12 In all other respects, it is my recommendation that the Notice and Order be 13 rescinded inasmuch as the evidence was insufficient to sustain the existence of any one o 14 the other conditions used as support for the Notice were present on June 16, 2011. 15 It is firrther recommended that the Building Board of Appeals not uphold that 16 portion of the Notice and Order which required the two residential units be vacated. For 17 all the foregoing reasons, the evidence did not support a finding that the two residential 18 units were in such a dangerous condition on June 16, 2011 that an order to immediately 19 vacate the two units was proper. 20 This hearing examiner will retain jurisdiction on the matter only insofar as it 21 relates to any assistance he may be called upon to provide to the Building Board of 22 Appeals review of this advisory decision and/or any assistance he may be called upon to 23 provide to the parties to resolve this matter once and for all. The hearing examiner has 24 confined this advisory decision to the contents of the Notice and Order/Notice to Vacate. 25 It is beyond the jurisdiction of this hearing examiner to suggest in this advisory decision 26 27 28 -62- THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 how the parties should move forward from here. To the extent I have thoughts in this 2 regard, they will be kept to myself until called upon to discuss them. 3 4 Dated: 17b 2011 JONES & MAYER 5 6 7 8 By: P. Palmer 9 Hearing Examiner 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -63- ADVISORY DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ON BEHALF OF THE TUSTIN BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS J&M JONES & MAYER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD • FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835 (714) 446-1400 • (562) 697-1751 • FAX (714) 446.1448 Richard D. lanes• Richard L. Adams II Panner, lemur Boyd -Weatherby Martin J. Mayer Baron J. Ilettenhxuxn Kimberly Hall Barlow Christian L. licuenhausen Jame R. ToudWone Paul R. Coble •a Professional law Corporation of Coun:<I Michael R. Capini Dean 1, Pucci Michael Q. Do Thorne, P. Duane Elena Q. Gerli Katherine M. Hardy Krista MuNevin Im Ryan R. Jones November 10, 2011 Deborah M. Rosenthal, Esq. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Jason M. McEwen, Esq. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart 555 Anton Blvd., Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California Dear Mrs. Rosenthal and Mr. McEwen: Robert Khoo Gary S. Krenkar Richard A. McFarlane Christopher F. Neumeyer Kalhya M. Gliva Gregory P.Palmer Danny L. Peelman Harold W. Puna Denise L. Roeawieh Ivy M. Tsai Consultant Mervin D. Feinstein VIA E-MAIL drosenthal @sheppardmullin.com jmcewen@wss-law.com I am in receipt of Ms. Rosenthal's letter dated November 9, 2011 wherein she seeks to respond to Mr. McEwen's letter of October 31, 2011 and to clarify the position of the appellants. The letter of Ms. Rosenthal was sent unsolicited and without leave from me as the hearing officer. Inasmuch as the briefing of this matter was agreed to by the parties and was completed on October 25, 2011, I will not be considering anything contained in Ms. Rosenthal's letter. To the extent Mr. McEwen may feel motivated to respond by letter, it is not necessary. Since I will not consider any of the contents of Ms. Rosenthal's letter, there is nothing to which a response is required. Deborah M. Rosenthal, Esq. Jason M. McEwen, Esq. November 10, 2011 Page 2 The matter was submitted to me for decision and I am currently working diligently on it. Further communication is neither required nor invited. Thank you for your cooperation in this regard. Very GPP/mlt P. Palmer 4th Floor 650 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 714.513.5100 olrKe 714-513.5130 lox A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Writer's Direct Line: 714424-8257 whGdges@sheppardmullin.com November 9, 2011 Our File Number: 0009-159581 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. Jones & Mayer 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, California 92835 Email: gpp@jones-mayer.com Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California Dear Mr. Palmer: I am writing in response to Jason McEwen's letter dated October 31, 2011, which was in response to your offer to mediate the totality of issues regarding 520 Pacific Avenue. After careful review of the City of Tustin's positions as set forth in Mr. McEwen's letter, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few matters before you submit your recommendation to the Board of Appeals. The City states that it cannot submit to mediation because there are a number of health and safety issues to be remediated at the property. Mr, and Mrs. Fairbanks ("Appellants") demonstrated that the property was not dangerous, and that most of the alleged issues were non- existent. As to the few items requiring permits, Appellants submitted plans to remediate all issues as recommended by the experts they retained. Not only did the City fail to demonstrate that the remaining items were "health and safety" issues requiring remediation, the City continues to insist the structures on the property be brought into compliance with the 2010 California Building Code. The City's position is inconsistent with California Building Code Section 3405, which allows for repair or correction of an existing building to restore the building to its pre - damaged state through the use of materials and strengths that existed prior to the damage. Further, under Section 8-102.1.5 of the California Historic Building Code, Appellants need only repair damaged areas of existing buildings and are not required to correct any non -damaged areas. Accordingly, the City's insistence that all structures on the property comply with the 2010 California Building Code is not authorized by law. SHEPPARD MLT.LIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. November 9, 2011 Page 2 The City also suggests that a change in occupancy of the structures occurred when the carport was added between the main dwelling and the garage, even though this issue was not raised in the Notice of Violation. While we do not concede that the addition of a carport changed the occupancy classification of the adjacent buildings, Section 104(b) of the 1940 Building Code gave the City Building Official discretion to approve a change in occupancy in an existing building at the time of the change. See also, § 3408.1 of the 2010 California Building Code. Testimony at the appeal hearing established that the carport was most likely constructed by Mr. Gaylord, the City's consulting Building Official, during the 1950s to accommodate larger post-war automobiles. Since the City destroyed all permits in 1959, there is no definitive way to know if the City Building Official approved the carport at the time it was added. Therefore, the City cannot meet its burden of proof, or even establish a prima facie case, demonstrating that addition of the carport was a change in occupancy that affected the health and safety requirements applicable to the garage apartments when constructed. Regardless of any alleged change in occupancy, addition of the carport did not cause an "obvious change in hazard" under Section 104(b). While the City points to the current lack of a fire rating between the garage and the upper unit, this is nothing more than a red herring. Testimony at the appeal hearing established that fire protection was present when the carport was installed. Thus, there was no increased hazard for the occupants of the dwelling units or the other structures at the time the carport was added, resulting in the alleged occupancy change. Finally, the City contends that mediation is improper because Appellants have requested a determination on issues outside the "scope of the appeal." Specifically, the City is opposed to Appellants' request for an instruction to the City to issue permits based on Appellants' previously submitted plans. It is important to note that the scope of the matter is not limited to only the items listed in Appellants' appeal application. Rather, the scope of this matter encompasses all issues raised during the appeals process. Although Appellants' plans were submitted after the appeal was filed, they were included as Exhibit P in the Joint Exhibit prepared by the City and extensively discussed at the hearing. Contrary to the City's argument, the issues raised on the appeal thus included the adequacy of the plans submitted by Appellants prior to the appeal hearing. We also note that the purpose of your assistance offer was to resolve all issues between the City and the Fairbanks, including those that would not necessarily be reached in the appeal. We appreciate this opportunity to clarify the facts and law in dispute and look forward to your recommendation to the Board of Appeals on these issues. SHEPPARD MULLIN RILTTTER & HAMPTON LLP Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. November 9, 2011 Page 3 Very truly yours, -w )\)'" -w`''r-k� Whitney A. Hodges, Esq. for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP W02-WEST:3 WAH I\404122474.3 cc: Mr. and Mrs. Bret Fairbanks (via email) Ms. Elizabeth Binsack (via email at ebinsack@tustinca.org) Jason McEwen, Esq. (via email at jmcewen@wss-law. com) ;4 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN G SMART e , o a , October 31, 2011 VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. Jones & Mayer 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, CA 92835 Re: 520 Pacific Street; Tustin, CA 1017MOMM or, =- JASON M. MCEWEN DIRECT DIAL: (714) 415-1080 DIRECT FAX: (714) 415-1180 E-MAIL: ]MCEWEN©WSS-LAW.COM RECEIVED NOV 02 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT We are in receipt of your correspondence dated October 26, 2011. We, along with the City, have carefully considered your offer to assist in mediation of a potential global settlement of the issues surrounding this matter. Although the City is not necessarily opposed to some sort of mediation in the future should this matter continue, we feel that, at this time, we must respectfully decline your generous offer. It is the City's position that the conditions on the Property make certain structures unsafe to occupy. Further, it is the City's position that the law requires correction of those unsafe conditions through the planning, permitting and approval processes adopted by the City. Mediation implies that concessions can be made by the parties towards a mutually agreeable resolution. However, the City cannot offer concessions related to compliance with minimum health and safety standards, a particular building standard, or any required processes. Such concessions require variances, which the City cannot approve without compliance with the procedure set forth in the Tustin City Code. Further, the decision of the building official was made within his discretion as permitted by the various codes. Based on his review and analysis of the condition of the structures he determined that several defects and dangerous conditions exist. The City is also looking for a global resolution of this matter. Indeed, the City has been searching for such a solution since September of 2010 and has since that time urged Appellants to submit plans, apply for permits, and address the dangerous conditions that exist on their property. To date, no plans have been submitted that address all issues at the property. As evidenced by Ms. Rosenthal's correspondence of October 27, 2011, Appellants hope to accomplish far more than is possible through their appeal, not to mention what would be possible through mediation. For instance, Ms. Rosenthal's letter claims, "it is appropriate ... for the Hearing Officer, to recommend specific modifications of the Notice of Order to the Board of Appeals, including instructions to issue permits in accordance with specific plans ...." Contrary to Appellants' suggestion, it would be entirely improper and outside of the scope of the Board's authority in deciding this Appeal, for the Board to order the Building Official to issue 555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1200 ■ COSTAMESA, CA 92626-7670 ■ (714) 558-7000 ■ FAX (714) 835-7787 W W W.WSS-LAW.COM 793306.1 Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. October 31, 2011 Page 2 permits based on plans submitted after the Notice and Order was issued. As Ms. Rosenthal correctly points out, "the scope of the appeal is `those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant."' The state of Appellants' plans, which were submitted after the Notice and Order as well as Appellants' notice of appeal, is clearly not an issue raised by the appeal, and thus, not at issue. Given the positions of the parties, which appear based in their polar opposite interpretations of the facts and law at issue in this matter, we believe it best for you to prepare your recommendation to the Board of Appeals. Depending on your recommendation and the Board's ultimate decision of the appeal, an opportunity to mediate may later arise. Should that be the case, we are happy to revisit the issue. Please know that your offer of assistance is truly appreciated. Respectfully, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A Professional Corporation DICTATED BUT NOT READ JASON M. MCEWEN cc:avid Kendig VFlizabeth Binsack Deborah Rosenthal 793306.1 i 650 Town Center Drive I 4th Floor I Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 A T T O a N E Y$ A T L A W 714-513-5100 o/rre 1 714-513.5130 tax I ww .sheppardmu11ln.com Writers Direct Line: 714424-2821 ,drosenLhai@shcppudmullin.com shcppudmullin.com October 27, 2011 Our File Number: 0009-159581 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. Jones & Mayer 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, California 92835 Re: Proposal for Voluntary Settlement Discussions/ 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Mr. Palmer: We are in receipt of your letter dated October 26, 2011 offering to assist in voluntary settlement discussions between our clients, Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks (the "Fairbanks"), and the City of Tustin ("City"). The Fairbanks gladly accept the opportunity to resolve all aspects of their appeal ("Appeal") and any other disputes between the parties in a global and final settlement. In fact, they believe that settlement discussions should have occurred long ago. Although the Fairbanks are happy to participate in settlement discussions, we would like to take this opportunity to clarify our understanding of your role as the Hearing. Officer in this matter. Your letter stated that your only decision is "related to the prevailing conditions of the property on the day the notice and order was issued by the City." However, we believe your powers on Appeal are far more encompassing than this single factual statement. The Notice and Order issued by the City on June 16, 2011 was purportedly based on the Uniform Housing Code ("UHC"), Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings ("UCADB"), 2010 California Building Code ("CBC"), and the Tustin City Code. The Fairbanks' Appeal specifically raised the following issues: (i) whether the Notice and Order complied with Planning Commission Resolution No. 4161; (ii) whether the Notice and Order was substantively deficient; (iii) whether the Notice and Order was procedurally defective and violated the Fairbanks' due process rights; and (iv) whether the Notice and Order should be withdrawn or modified for lack of supporting evidence. All of these issues are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Appeal. Under UHC Section 1203 and UCADB Section 503 the scope of the appeal is "those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant." UHC Section 1305.7 and SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. October 27, 2011 Page 2 UCADB Section 605.7 require that the final decision "contain findings of fact, a determination of the issues presented and the requirements to be complied with." Section 1.8.83 of the 2010 CBC allows anyone adversely affected by a building official's decisions to "appeal the issue for resolution to the local appeal board or housing appeals board as appropriate." The requirement for special expertise among the board members, of the Hearing Officer, is to allow the administrative equivalent of de novo review on Appeal Section 113.1 of the 2010 CBC provides that any "order, decision or determination by the building official relative to application of this code," may be appealed. Section 113.2 authorizes the appeals board to modify or reverse a building official determination if "the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed." See also 2010 CBC, Appendix B. Appeals are not limited to factual questions, but extend to whether the Building Official has properly interpreted or applied the Code requirements. In this case, all of the issues required to decide the Appeal are properly before the Appeals Board. For instance, the Appellants contend that the provisions of the 2010 CBC "do not fully apply" to the property because, by its own terms, Chapter 34 defers to the 2010 California Historic Building Code ("CHBC") and the majority of cited provisions do not apply to existing buildings. Similarly, the City submitted the July 5, 2011 building plans to the Hearing Officer and, at hearing, Appellants demonstrated alternate methods of compliance that are already in place. To the limited extent the UHC and UCADB apply to historic structures, both require the final decision to set forth the "requirements to be complied with." The Building Official's refusal to identify reasonable corrective measures is a major defect in the Notice and Order, and is a basis for reversing it or modifying it to include specific required corrections. The Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Appeals, appointed a Hearing Officer to hear the presentation of evidence and make recommendations on the entire Appeal. At a regularly scheduled Planning Commission hearing, Appellants orally requested an immediate hearing on the proper interpretation of Resolution No. 4161 as soon as the Appeal was filed. On the advice of counsel, the Planning Commission refused to take up the request for interpretation of Resolution No. 4161 and, instead, delegated it in the first instance to the Hearing Officer. During the Appeal, the City objected to Appellants' request to submit the status of the structures as Qualified Historic Buildings to the State Historic Building Safety Commission, arguing that the Building Official's determination was not yet final. Since the decision whether to apply the CHBC is made "relative to application of the [California Building] Code," it falls within the type of actions appealable to the Board, and thus subject to your recommendation. As set forth in Appellants' Proposed Findings, it is appropriate for you, as the Hearing Officer, to recommend specific modifications of the Notice and Order to the Board of SHEPPARD MOLIAN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. October 27, 2011 Page 3 Appeal, including instructions to issue permits in accordance with specific plans where necessary. These modifications are based on the condition of the structures on June 16, 2011, the provisions of the applicable Codes, the intent of Resolution No. 4161 and compliance with due process. For these reasons, we believe the Appeal procedures contemplate a far more encompassing recommendation from you to the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Appeals, than suggested in your letter or the City's Closing Brief. The Fairbanks hope to work with you and the City through the voluntary settlement process you suggest. They very much appreciate your thoughtful approach to resolving this unfortunate impasse. Thank you for your proposal. Very truly yours, orah M. Rosenthal, AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON 1.1.P W02-WEST:3 WAH 11404079018.2 cc: Mr. and Mrs. Bret Fairbanks (via email) Ms. Elizabeth Binsack (via email at ebinsack@tustinca.org) Jason McEwen, Esq. (via email at jmcewen@wss-law. com) (J&M-- JONES & MAYER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3777 NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD a FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92835 (714) 446-1400 a (562) 697-1751 • FAX (714) 446-1448 Richard D. lanes• Richard L. Adam, 11 Michael Q. Do parmal, Jamar Boyd -Weatherby Thomas P. Duarte Martin 1. Maya Baron J. Betatheusen Elmo Q. Gall Kimberly Hall Barlow Christian L. Bettenheusen Katherine M. Rudy Jame R. Touchstone Paul R. Cable Kriw M=Ncvin Ja Ryan A Jams •s Prormional LAW Corporation 4LCo uul Michael R. Capizri Dean J, Pucci October 26, 2011 Elizabeth Binsack Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks 520 Pacific Avenue Tustin, CA Re: 520 Pacific Avenue, Tustin CA Dear Ms Binsack and Mr. and Mrs. Fairbanks: Robert Khuu Gary S. Krunker Richard A. McFarlane, Christopher F. Neumeyer Kathya M. Gliva Gregory P. Primer Danny L. Palma, Harold W. Patter Denise L. Rocawich Ivy M. Tsai SsuSVlteol Mervin D. Feinuei. As all of you know, with the submission of the city's post hearing brief and the proposed findings of the Fairbanks, the matter now stands submitted to me for a decision. I am prepared to rule on the matter before me in the most expeditious manner I can. However, as I was presiding at the hearing and considering the entire matter afterward, it occurred to me that no matter what ruling is made on the notice and order, it will not resolve the entire matter. The ruling here is solely related to the prevailing condition of the property on the day the notice and order was issued by the city. That is the only thing before me to decide. Whether the notice and order is upheld or not, there are still conditions existing upon the property which the property owner professes a willingness to repair and remediate, but which he cannot because his plans are not approved, and thus, permits cannot issue because this appeal is pending. Moreover, I estimate that, given the volume of material I will need to review, it will take several days to prepare the decision. All of that work will come at a cost. Elizabeth Binsack Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks October 26, 2011 Page 2 That leads me to a proposal for both sides. In an effort to resolve the entire matter, I would propose that I assist the parties in finding common ground on which the entire matter can be settled, not just the notice and order to vacate. I propose to take on a role similar to a voluntary settlement judge. A ruling on the notice and order would be suspended for now pending a settlement meeting and, hopefully, the settlement of the entire matter. During these meetings, I will advise the parties of some of my thoughts on this matter. Neither side may find my thoughts on this matter beneficial to their side in this dispute. I would be willing to share these thoughts only insofar as it may move each side toward a global resolution of this case. I would not entertain this proposal unless both sides agree to it. If one or both sides decline the offer, I will rule on the notice and order based on the evidence presented at the hearing and nothing else. If both sides agree to the proposal, but ultimately the matter cannot be settled for whatever reason, the talks would be stopped and I would decide the notice and order based solely on the evidence argued at the hearing. In this way, I hope to accomplish the real possibility to give the opportunity that the matter may be settled entirely with my assistance and if not, no prejudice will result from the attempt. It will also save the parties much additional work and save both sides the money it will cost to take the matter further. If both parties agree to this proposal, a meeting will be set for all the parties and their representatives to meet at the earliest opportunity. Please let me know as quickly as possible if this is something in which each of you are willing to participate. Thank you for your prompt response. Very truly P. Palmer GPP/mlt cc: Jason M. McEwen, Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart Deborah M. Rosenthal, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton 0 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 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART, APC DAVID E. KENDIG - State Bar No. 155357 dkendig wss-law.com JASOM. MCEWEN - State Bar No. 246787 jmcewen@wss-law.com 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7670 Telephone: (714) 558-7000 Facsimile: (714) 835-7787 Attorneys for Respondents CITY OF TUSTIN and BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN BEFORE THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA In the Matter of: Appeal of Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate the Property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California BRET and STEPHANIE FAIRBANKS, Property Owners and Appellants and CITY OF TUSTIN and BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, Respondents. CITATION NO.: V-10312 Hearing Officer: Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. HEARING DATES PENDING: Type: Appeal Hearing Date: August 30, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Tustin Library 345 E. Main Street Tustin, CA 92780 CITY'S APPEAL BRIEF AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE BINDER �O HEARING DATE: AUGUST 30, 2011, 10:00 A.M. TO: GREGORY PALMER, HEARING EXAMINER/HEARING OFFICER FROM: CITY OF TUSTIN SUBJECT: BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JUNE 16, 2011 NOTICE AND ORDER AND NOTICE TO VACATE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET INTRODUCTION These appeals stem from the decision of the City of Tustin's Building Official, Henry Huang (hereinafter "Building Official" or "Huang"), to issue a Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate related to certain structures located on the property at 520 Pacific Street in the City of Tustin (hereinafter the "Property"). The building official of every city is charged with enforcement of that city's adopted building and safety codes and, more importantly, ensuring that structures within their respective cities are safe to occupy and do not pose a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of occupants or the public in general. The Notice and Order issued by the Building Official on June 16, 2011 is consistent with his charge to enforce the building and safety standards adopted by the City of Tustin. Moreover, the posting of the Notice to Vacate that same day was well within the Building Official's sound discretion. The dangerous conditions that exist on the Property have been confirmed by the City's Building Official, the Appellants' own architects and engineer, the City's Planning Commission (sifting as the Building Board of Appeals (hereinafter "Board"), and a third party building official and building safety consultant. Rather than address the multitude of dangerous conditions that exist on the Property, Appellants chose to file the instant appeals and, in the meantime, rent out the unsafe structures to members of the community. A. The First Appeal With their first appeal, Appellants seem to claim that the Board somehow limited the authority of the Building Official and constrained his ability to enforce the building code in a manner that allows him to only require correction of those conditions on the Property which create an immediate threat to the health and safety of the occupants. This appeal must fail for several reasons. First, this is not a proper subject for appeal to the Board as the appeal does not request action on the decision of the Building Official. Rather, it requests clarification of a previous resolution of the Board. Second, even assuming that the appeal 780024.1 Page 2 is proper and the Board intended to limit the Building Official's Authority, it cannot do so. The Board has "no authority relative to the administrative provisions of [the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings] nor shall the board be empowered to waive requirements of this code." (1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings §205.2 as adopted by Tustin Municipal Code section 8800 (hereinafter "UCADB"). Finally, even if the Board intended to, and was permitted to, limit the Building Official's authority — neither of which the City believes to be true — the structures as they stand pose a serious threat to the health and safety of the occupants, and the Building Official's decision to issue a Notice to Vacate the structures was appropriate and fell within the direction provided in the Board's previous resolution. The specific facts regarding the dangerous conditions will be addressed in detail in response to Appellant's second appeal. B. The Second Appeal The Appellant's second appeal is likewise without merit. With this appeal, Appellant's seek to reverse the Building Official's June 16, 2011 Notice and Order requiring correction of various violations of the provisions of the various building codes as adopted by the City of Tustin, including the California Building Code ("CBC"), the California Housing Code ("CHC") and the UCADB, as well as the Building Official's Notice to Vacate issued that same day. This appeal relies primarily on Appellant's contention that the Building Official exceeded the authority granted to him by the Board in requiring correction of items that do not, by themselves, pose an immediate threat to the health and safety of building occupants. As mentioned above, this contention fails. Secondarily, Appellants rely on the belief that the current version of the CBC (2010) should not apply to these structures. As will be discussed in detail, infra, the current CBC is the proper standard for all buildings unless it can be shown, by the property owner, that a different standard is appropriate. Appellants have never even attempted to provide support for an application of any version of the CBC. Finally, Appellants will apparently argue that the Building Official should have applied the California Historic Building Code ("CHBH") rather than the current CBC. The City contends that this argument should not even be considered by the Board as it was not presented with Appellant's initial appeal. See, UCADB §503 ["Only those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant shall be considered in the hearing of the appeal."]) In fact, it was not until one month after the initial appeals were filed that Appellants' counsel submitted correspondence purporting to "amend" Appellants' appeals. This argument has therefore been waived. Even assuming the argument has not been waived, it nonetheless has no merit. First, the CHBC applies only to "qualified" historical buildings and structures. The accessory dwelling units bootlegged after the original construction of the main dwelling house do not constitute "qualified" historical structures. Moreover, at the time the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate were issued, no plans, applications, or submittals had been -given to the City such that the CHBC could be considered by the Building Official. Even if timely, the argument is quite simply another attempt by Appellants to 780024.1 Page 3 draw attention away from the true issues giving rise to the issuance of the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate — whether or not the structures are safe to occupy'. Neither of the appeals submitted by Appellants have merit. Quite simply, multiple violations of various building code provisions exist on the Property. Given the number, and, more importantly, the nature, of the violations, the Building Official exercised the discretion vested in him by virtue of his position to issue a Notice and Order to repair violations, and a Notice to Vacate the substandard structure. The hearing officer in this matter, and ultimately the Board, should deny each of Appellants' appeals and he should be ordered to bring the Property into compliance with the current CBC and CHC. II. BACKGROUND A. September 16, 2010 Notice and Order On July 27, 2010, Appellants contacted the City of Tustin via correspondence sent to the City's Planning Division. The letter stated that Appellants were in the process of selling the Property, which consists of a single family residence in the front of the Property, with two guest homes to the rear. Appellants requested correspondence from the City that confirmed that in the event of a fire, earthquake or other disaster, the new owner of the property would be permitted to rebuild. (Exhibit A) In response to Appellants' correspondence, City staff conducted a search for building permits, conditional use permits and other documents related to the Property. It was during the course of this search that the City determined that no permits existed for the "guest homes", and that the use of the Property, as described by Appellants, was not consistent with the City's Zoning Code. After discussions between City staff and Appellants, a date was set for a meeting at the Property. On September 10, 2010, the City's Community Development Director, Elizabeth Binsack, Principal Engineer, Dennis McCreary, and Principal Planner, Justina Wilkom, met with Appellant, Bret Fairbanks at the Property. During that site visit, multiple photographs were taken of the structures on the Property. (Collectively, Exhibit B). The photographs depict various conditions on the Property that constitute violations of the CBC, CHC, and various related codes adopted by the City of Tustin. As a result of the September 10, 2010 site visit, City staff compiled a table identifying the various health and safety concerns created by the conditions on the Property. (Exhibit C). On September 16, 2010, the City recorded a Notice and Order on the Property pursuant to Tustin City Code section 5503. (Exhibit D) The Notice and Order put Appellants on notice that a public nuisance existed on their Property by virtue of the multiple violations of the Tustin Building Code, as well as the use of the Property in 'As mentioned in Section IV, subsection C of this brief, the City will address the merits of Appellants' claim that the CNBC should apply to these structures in its opposition to Appellants' Motion to Quash/Dismiss. 780024.1 Page 4 violation of the Tustin Zoning Code. On September 22, 2010, Appellants filed an appeal of the City's September 16, 2010 Notice and Order. B. Resolutions 4161 and 4162 On October 26, 2010, the appeal of the September 16, 2010 Notice and Order was considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin. Because the appeal involved issues related to both zoning and building code violations, the members of the Planning Commission acted in their capacity as the Planning Commission (with respect to the zoning code issues) and as the Building Board of Appeals (with respect to the building code violations). A second hearing was held on November 9, 2010. On December 12, 2010 Resolutions 4161 and 4162 were adopted by the Board, and the Planning Commission, respectively. (Exhibits E and F) Resolution 4161 recognized that "there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010 and provided hereto in [the staff reports prepared on October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010 and attached to the resolution]" (Exhibit E at page 3, Section I, paragraph O). Further, the Resolution found that "the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to present violations of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code section 8100" (Id. at page 3, Section I, paragraph P). Ultimately, the Board modified the City's September 16, 2010 Notice and Order as follows: "The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice of Order ... to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved." (Id. at page 3, Section II, paragraph A). In Resolution 4162, the Planning Commission "reverse[d] the Notice and Order [dated September 16, 2010] at 520 Pacific Street for Zoninq Code violations and deem[ed] the [unit located above the garage and the unit behind the garage] to be nonconforming structures and uses ...." (Exhibit F, page 4, Section II [emphasis added]). Resolution 4162 does not address the building code violations deemed to exist on the Property. C. City's Communications with Appellants' Building Professionals In accordance with the Board's direction in Resolution 4161, the Building Official and the City's Principal Engineer, Dennis McCreary met with Appellants on several occasions between March and April of 2011. On April 5, 2011, the Building Official again 780024.1 Page 5 met with Appellant, Bret Fairbanks, his architect, Paul Fulbright and his structural engineer, Eric Stovner. The substance of this meeting was memorialized by the Building Official via correspondence dated April 14, 2011 (Exhibit G). This correspondence outlined the various topics covered during the meeting and emphasized the Building Official's opinion that it was likely that the structures, as built, did not comply with any version of the CBC from 1927 to the present. (Id.) Nonetheless, he invited Appellants' architect and engineer to inspect and analyze the structures and to provide written reports to the City confirming conformity to the CBC in effect at the time of construction. (Id.) Finally, the Building Official confirmed that based on the observations of City staff and on his own review of the photographs from the September 10, 2010 site visit, the structures were not safe to occupy and that plans for remediation were necessary. (Id.) Thereafter, both Mr. Fulbright and Mr. Stovner inspected the Property and provided written reports to Appellants. Mr. Fulbright's initial report is dated April 21, 2011. (Exhibit H). Mr. Stovner's initial report is dated May 4, 2011. (Exhibit 1). The Fulbright report outlined the code violations identified in the City's October 26, 2010 Staff Report referenced in Resolution 4161 and confirmed existence of nearly every violation. (Exhibit H). Further, Mr. Fulbright recommended that Appellants have other professionals inspect the mechanical, plumbing, and HVAC work in detail and perform maintenance and repairs to ensure those systems are safe, secured, sealed, and in working order. Mr. Stovner's investigation focused on the concerns raised by the City as well as any potentially unsound items otherwise existing in the structures. (Exhibit 1). This letter confirmed various health and safety concerns and recommended remediation measures. (Exhibit 1). Moreover, Mr. Stovner identified items previously unknown to the Building Official. Specifically, Mr. Stovner noted a large crack in a structural support beam in the carport area that's purpose was to support the residential unit above. (Id.) On May 11, 2011, Mr. Fulbright sent email correspondence to the City which confirmed his opinion that the various building code violations found to exist throughout the structures on the Property rendered it unsafe to occupy. (Exhibit J). Specifically, Mr. Fulbright forthrightly stated, "we feel that there are specific items that must be addressed before the property is considered safe and habitable." (Id., emphasis added). Mr. Fulbright also indicated in his email that he did not "feel it is reasonable to retrofit the buildings / structures back to an older building code." (Id.) The Building Official responded to the reports provided by Appellants' professionals via a letter dated May 16, 2011. (Exhibit K) The Building Official emphasized that neither of the submitted reports identified the date of construction of the structures as requested during previous discussions and required in order for the Building Official to allow any standard other than the 2010 CBC. (Id.) Finally, the Building Official presented, yet another, opportunity for Appellants or their professionals to submit plans that incorporated the required corrections and that would address the serious life safety concerns created by the substandard conditions on the Property. (Id.) 780024.1 Page 6 On May 17, 2011, Mr. Fulbright sent further email correspondence in an apparent attempt to clarify his previous statements. (Exhibit L) He indicated that he and Mr. Stovner did not observe an immediate threat to the occupants of the residential units as long as the specified potential hazards were remedied in a timely manner. (Id.) Finally, on May 25, 2011, Mr. Stovner sent correspondence to the Building Official that stated "the existing added units ... are structurally safe to continue to occupy before rehabilitation is complete, with the provision that temporary shoring, consisting of nominal 4x4 timber posts, be placed at each end of the split in the garage beam." (Exhibit M). Again, Appellants' own professionals confirmed that the units were not safe to occupy given their current condition. D. June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate Despite the City's repeated attempts to get the Appellants to bring the Property into compliance with the Building Codes, the Board's recognition of the existence of serious threats to life and safety at the Property, and Appellants' own building professionals' confirmation that the structures were not safe to occupy, Appellants failed to submit plans to bring the Property into compliance. Indeed, even after being advised that the structures were unsafe to occupy, Appellants rented the units out to a pregnant woman and her infant child and to a college student. In addition to the Building Official's own observations and opinions with respect to the structures on the Property, the City contacted officials from the Orange County Fire Authority and requested that they review the evidence of the violations and give their opinions as to whether any violation of the California Fire Code existed and whether the life and safety of the occupants of the structures were endangered by the existence of such violations. Brian Healy of the Orange County Fire Authority confirmed that various violations did, in fact, exist on the property and that the life and safety of the occupants were compromised by the violations. In an effort to gain the perspective and insight of a third party building professional with respect to the Property, the City employed Scott Fazekas, RA to review and analyze the evidence available to the City. Mr. Fazekas, who serves as a contract building official to various local entities, concurred with the Building Official's opinion that various violations of the City's building codes existed and that the structures were not safe to occupy as situated. Given all of the information available to the Building Official, coupled with the fact that absolutely no steps had been taken to correct any of the violations on the Property, the Building Official issued a Notice and Order on June 16, 2011, requiring correction of all building code violations identified in the Order. (Exhibit N) Moreover, the Building Official determined that the multitude and nature of the violations constituted a threat to the health and safety of the occupants sufficient to justify issuance of an Order to Vacate. (Exhibit N) 780024.1 Page 7 The Notice to Vacate was posted on the structures on June 16, 2011. (Exhibit O). The June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate are the subject of the instant appeals. After the Building Official's Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate were issued, Appellants', via their newly hired architect, submitted plans for alterations at the Property. (Exhibit P). The plans were submitted on July 5, 2011. It is important to note that the plans, as well as the City's subsequent comment on those plans are not at issue in these appeals. Nonetheless, the plans as submitted were insufficient to adequately address the multitude of health and safety violations on the Property. III. PROCEDURE FOR HEARING APPEAL Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 8101(0), the City's Building Board of Appeals consists of the five members of the Planning Commission. The purpose of the Board of Appeals is to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretations of the technical codes (i.e. the California Building, Housing, Electrical Codes, etc.). The Building Official serves as the Board's Secretary. The Board in its discretion can appoint a hearing officer to conduct a hearing, consider evidence and render a written opinion and recommendation to the Board. (UCADB §§ 601.1 and 605.2) Chapter 6 of the 1997 UCADB identifies the procedures for the conduct of hearings by the Board of Appeals and/or the Hearing Examiner. Section 503 of the UCADB limits the scope of the appeal hearing to only those matters or issues specifically raised by the appellant. The Hearing Examiner should consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules adopted thereunder have been correctly interpreted by the Building Official, or if the provisions of such codes apply to the structures at issue. Neither the Examiner, nor the Board has authority to interpret the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code or to waive requirements of the codes (See, CBC §113.2 and UCADB § 205.2). The Examiner can consider oral evidence and other admissible evidence in rendering a determination as to whether the codes were correctly interpreted; however, the codes are legal instruments governing the construction, use, and maintenance of buildings and structures. While these codes contain certain provisions which give or imply discretion on the part of the Building Official, others are minimum standards which must be followed to the letter and cannot be set aside. The Hearing Examiner should conduct the hearing, consider the evidence, and render a written report with a recommended determination for consideration and action by the Board. The Hearing Examiner must, within 90 days from the date of the hearing, submit a written report to the Board. The decision of the Board shall become final. (UCADB §§ 601 et seq, and 701.1). 780024.1 Page 8 IV. DISCUSSION A. Appellants' Request that Board "Direct the Building Official to Comply with the Directive of [Resolution14161 With their first appeal, Appellants request that the Board "direct the Building Official to comply with the directive of [Resolution] 4161 and to withdraw the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate issued on the property." As discussed in detail below, this appeal should be denied. 1. The Request is not the Proper Subject of an Appeal to the Board Section 205 of the UCADB outlines the role and authority of the Building Board of Appeals. Section 205.1 states that the Board is created to "hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretations of [the UCADB] ...... The Board does not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the code, nor the ability to waive any requirements of the code. (UCADB § 205.2) The first appeal submitted by Appellants does not seek to address a decision of the Building Official, rather, it seeks action from the Board in the form of direction to the Building Official. Indeed, the appeal form indicates that Appellants' request is for "a hearing before the Board of Appeals re Resolution 4161." The Board exists to consider determinations of the City's Building Official, not to interpret prior resolutions or Board actions. Accordingly, the appeal should be denied. 2. The Board Cannot Limit the Authority of the Building Official Relative to His Enforcement of the City's Building Codes Assuming arguendo that the present appeal is proper, and the Board intended to limit the Building Official's authority — facts the City disputes — the Board has no authority to do so. Section 205.2 of the UCADB makes clear that the Board does not have authority to waive any requirements of the City's adopted building codes. The Board's authority is limited to the Building Official's application and interpretation of the City's building codes. In other words, the issue is whether the Building Official applied the correct standard, and/or was the interpretation of the codes correct? (UCADB § 205.1) However, certain provisions of the various codes are not subject to interpretation. In those instances the Board cannot waive the requirements of the codes and the standards prescribed in the codes must be followed to the letter. (UCADB § 205.2) This requirement is echoed in the administrative provisions applicable to the City's adopted building standards codes. Chapter 1, Division II of the California Building Code 2010 edition (as adopted by Tustin City Code section 8100) states that an application for an appeal to the Board "shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code." (Id, at §113.2) 780024.1 Pa, 3. The Building Official Acted Within the Direction Provided by the Board in Resolution 4161 With Resolution 4161, the Board made certain findings of fact. (Exhibit E) Among those findings was the determination that "there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the [September 16, 20101 Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010 ...." (Exhibit E, page 3, Section I, paragraph O) Further, the Board found "[tjhat the violations identified in . . . the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted by Tustin City Code 8100". (Id. at page 3, Section I, paragraph P). With those findings in mind, the Board modified the City's Notice and Order and ordered the following: "The Property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010 ... to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved." (Id. at page 3, Section II, paragraph A) Within its order, the Board explicitly recognized and reinforced the Building Official's authority to enforce the provisions of the City's building codes. Importantly, the Board also confirmed that it did not have the authority to waive any provision of the building codes. (Exhibit E, page 2, Section I, paragraph L) Moreover, the Board's resolution identified the violations noted during the September 10, 2010 site visit as outlined in the October 26, 2010 staff report. (Exhibit E, page 3, Section I, paragraph O). The staff report referenced contains a detailed table outlining the specific violations observed during the September 10th site visit, all of which are the subject of the Building Official's June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate. (See Exhibit C). Despite these specific findings and orders, Appellant now argues that the Board intended to limit the Building Official to enforcement of certain building code provisions and to excuse compliance with others. Not only is that argument belied by the plain language of the Resolution itself, adoption of a resolution that, in fact, attempted to do what Appellants claim here would be in direct contravention of the authority granted to the Board by the City's various building codes. Finally, as will be discussed in detail below with respect to the Building Official's issuance of the Notice to Vacate, the condition of the structures on the Property creates a serious hazard to the health and safety of the structure's occupants as defined by the 780024.1 UCADB. Even if the Board intended to and was permitted to limit the Building authority to require compliance with all provisions of the City's Building Codes, i cannot, in good faith, claim that the Board intended to allow the structures to rE observed on September 10, 2010. Given that no evidence was submitted by A that would suggest that corrective measures had been taken to address the life and safety concerns identified by City staff, the Board, and Appellants' own professionals, issuance of the Notice to Vacate was clearly justified. B. Appellants' Appeal of the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate is Without Merit Appellants' second appeal seeking reversal of the Building Official's June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate is likewise without merit. There is no doubt, given the evidence before the Board, that the structures as they stood at the time of issuance of the Orders were in violation of the City's Building Codes. Further, there can be no legitimate claim that the structures did not create a threat to the health and safety of the occupants given the violations known to exist in the structures. 1. Notice and Order The Building Official's role is to enforce the current building codes adopted by the City absent evidence, presented by a property owner, that a different standard should apply. Indeed, Chapter 1, Division II of the California Building Code 2010 edition (as adopted by Tustin City Code section 8100) outlines the duties and powers of the City's Building Official. Pursuant to section 104.1: "The building official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions." (Id. at §104.1) Building Code Section 114.2 authorizes the building official to serve a notice of violation or order on any person responsible for the "erection, construction, alteration, extension, repair, moving, removal, demolition or occupancy of a building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code." This order must direct discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and abatement of the violation. (Id.) Finally, Building Code section 116 et seq. mandates that the Building Official require removal or remediation, as deemed necessary by the Building Official, of any structure that becomes "unsafe, insanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or which constitute a fire hazard, or [is] otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare ...... (Id. at § 116.1) Once that determination has been made by the Building Official, restoration of the structure or building must comply with the permitting requirements of the code, which include permit applications and plan submittal as deemed necessary by the Building Official. (Id. at § 116.5) 780024.1 Page 11 Importantly, the purpose of the City's various building codes is "to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards " (Id. at §101.3) Consistent with those duties and authority, the Building Official's Notice and Order identified twenty-one building conditions which constituted violations of the City's various building codes. Those twenty-one conditions certainly do not represent all violations on the Property, only those witnessed by City staff, evidenced by photographs, and confirmed by Appellants' own design professionals and third party professionals consulted by the City. Indeed, the twenty-one building conditions identified mirror those initially brought to the attention of the Board via Appellants' previous appeal, and which were the subject of Resolution 4161. (See, Exhibit C) Each of the twenty-one building conditions identified in the Notice and Order were confirmed to exist via examination of photographs (Exhibit B), review of reports and findings submitted by Appellants or their design professionals (Exhibits H, I, J, L and M) and by personal observation of City staff at the direction of the Building Official. The Building Official can, and will, testify to the basis for each violation identified. Further, Officer Brian Healy of the Orange County Fire Authority, and independent Building Official Scott Fazekas will confirm the Building Officials findings and determination. Appellants' argument that the current version of the City's building codes should not apply to the structures on the property must fail. Indeed, prior to issuance of the Notice and Order, the Building Official invited Appellants and their professionals to present evidence that would support a claim that a previous version of the CBC applied to the structures, despite his belief that the structures did not conform to any version of the CBC from 1927 to present. (Exhibit G) Appellants and their professionals never provided any evidence to support a claim that a standard other than that mandated by the City's current building codes should apply. Appellants would have the Building Official and the City of Tustin act as their employees, and they have repeatedly requested that the City take the laboring oar in determining what other building standards should apply. This is not the City's role. Chapter 34 of the California Building Code, adopted by Tustin City Code section 8102, dictates the extent to which the current codes apply to buildings in existence prior to the adoption of the code. Pursuant to CBC section 3401.2, "buildings and structures, and parts thereof, shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition. Devises or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed." Section 3401.4.3 of that same chapter allows a property owner to use the same materials and methods of construction, "provided such building or structure complied with the building code provisions in effect at the time of original construction and 780024.1 Page 12 the building or accessory structure does not become or continue to be a substandard building." (CBC §3401.4.3) -As appellants' have not provided any evidence to support a claim that the structures as standing comply with any version of the CBC, the Building Official must apply the current standards. 2. Notice to Vacate The Building Official's Notice to Vacate the Property was premised on his interpretation of UCADB section 302 and its various subsections, which are specifically identified in the Notice to Vacate. The Building Official's determination was not based on any single violation identified in the Notice and Order, rather, the Notice to Vacate was premised on the shear multitude of health and safety violations and the cumulative effect on the threat to the safety of the occupants due to those violations. (See, Appendix 1 attached hereto, which outlines each violation cited in the City's June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate, and the evidence supporting each determination) As an example, multiple violations were noted to exist that protect occupants from the threat of fire (e.g., lack of fire resistant walls and windows, improper clearance for a furnace, lack of smoke detectors, improper electrical outlets, exposed straw insulation, etc.). That danger is compounded by the fact that violations related to safe ingress and egress from the residential units were noted to exist. (See, Appendix 1) The increased threat of fire, coupled with the inability to escape in the event of such fire and the constraints on rescue personnel to safely enter was deemed, by the Building Official to constitute a serious threat to the health and safety of the occupants. While these are not the only factors which lead to the Building Official's determination, they serve as an example of one such factor supporting the Notice to Vacate. Perhaps the most compelling support for the Building Official's ultimate decision to issue the Notice to Vacate the Property is the confirmation by Appellants' own professionals that immediate threats to the health and safety of occupants exist in the structures and require remediation. (See, Exhibits H, I, J, L and M) Appellants and their professionals claim that those conditions are easily remedied, and once remedied will render the structures safe to occupy, yet the fact remains that at the time that the Notice to Vacate was issued (and currently as far as can be determined by the City) the life and safety of occupants of the structures was endangered by conditions on the Property. C. Application of the Historic Building Code On August 8, 2011, Appellants submitted correspondence to the City's Planning Commission purporting to amend the grounds for their appeal. More recently, on August 23, 2011, Appellant's counsel filed a Motion to Quash with the hearing officer in this matter requesting that the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate be 780024.1 Page 13 quashed on the grounds that the California Historical Building Code applies to the structures at issue in this matter as opposed to the UCADB or the UHC. The City will address this argument via a separate opposition to the motion filed by Appellants. Due to the timing of the motion and the new "facts" raised therein, the City anticipates providing this opposition on Monday, August 29th, or at the scheduled hearing. V. CONCLUSION Undoubtedly, Appellants and their counsel will seek to cloud the true issues relevant to these appeals — whether the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate issued by the Building Official on June 16, 2011, was proper based on the conditions present on the Property and the City's Building Codes. The issues will be clouded by reference to inapplicable codes, potential future remediation measures, plans submitted after the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate were issued (which are nonetheless insufficient to suitably correct the violations) and an appeal for compassion for Appellants. The very simple facts are, the violations noted in the Notice and Order existed on the date issued, the Property as standing on the date of the Notice to Vacate, was substandard and dangerous, and Appellants have had over a year to bring the Property into compliance with the City's codes and to make it safe to occupy for their tenants. Instead, Appellants' have continued to allow tenants to occupy the unsafe structures, and have fought the City tooth and nail on every issue related to health and safety violations. For all of the forgoing reasons, these appeals should be denied, and Appellant's should be ordered to comply with the Notice and Order forthwith. DATED: August <=L, 2011 WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART, APC DAVIgj�E� JASON M. MCEWEN Attorneys for the CITY OF TUSTIN 780024.1 APPENDIX 1 City's Observations and Findings Supporting Violations Cited in June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 1. UCADB Section 302 Item 5 and UHC Section 1001.3. Beam supporting second story dwelling unit is cracked and therefore jeopardizing supporting system of second story. CBC Section 3405.3 requires damaged gravity load -carrying components to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Eric Stovner's letters dated May 4 and 25, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "5. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become detached or dislodge, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property." "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.3 Structural Hazards. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E (on the visible parts alone); specifically, Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011, paragraph 6 page 1 and photo 2 (Exhibit 1) and his letter dated May 25, 2011, the last sentence of paragraph one recommending the provision of temporary shoring (Exhibit M); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Fulbright's email dated May 11, 2011 (Exhibit 1), paragraph 3, which indicates that specific items must be addressed before the property is considered safe and habitable; • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 2 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 2. UCADB Section 302 Item 3 and UHC Section 1001.3. Carport structural members are not of adequate size to support roof loads and not designed in accordance with CBC Section 1604.1 and if loaded could collapse. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted: Identifying on-site • It could not be determined if footing/foundations exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures • Structural supports do not provide sufficient supporting rafters Roof members are undersized to provide adequate support • The carport is attached to both the main house and the 2 -story garage and attached rear units; making this a tri-plex unit pursuant to building code fire rating. These deficiencies create access hazards for fire access and may pose additional hazards to occupants since the occupancy changes with a tri-plex (common terminology). Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: )etermination "3. Whenever the stress in any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live loads, is more than one and one half times the working stress or stresses allowed in the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location." "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.3 Structural Hazards. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." California Fire Code 3 7s27s0A Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Table 1, page 5); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, specifically, Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011, page 2 paragraph 2 and photo 3 (Exhibit 1); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A., and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 4 792750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 3. UCADB Section 302 Item 8 and UHC Section 1001.3. Foundation supporting stairway to second story dwelling unit is not adequate and causes the exit door from the upper dwelling unit to become inoperative and creates a hazard in case of fire or panic. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • The staircase is built over the property line. A guest unit requires a 5 foot setback to property line (PL). There are several issues associated with the location of this staircase; most imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. • There is no property line firewall separation between staircase and the property line. • Railing has no intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children. Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "8. Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of (i) dilapidation, deterioration or decay; (ii) faulty construction; (iii) the removal, movement of instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such building; (iv) the deterioration, decay or inadequacy of its foundation; or (v) any other cause, is likely to partially or completely collapse." "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.3 Structural Hazards. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 5 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, (on the visible parts alone), specifically in the letter dated May 4, 2011, page 2 paragraph 3 which states that the posts are not founded below grade (photo 4) (Exhibit 1); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 4. UCADB Section 302 Item 2 and UHC Section 1001.12. Stairway intermediate guards and risers are not provided and thus a fall hazard exists. Further, this condition is not in compliance with CBC Section 1013. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2f) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • The staircase is built over the property line. • A guest unit requires a 5 foot setback to property line (PL). There are several issues associated with the location of this staircase; most imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. • There is no property line firewall separation between staircase and the property line. • Railing has no intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children. Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: etermination "2. Whenever the walking surface or any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic." "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard" Uniform Housing Code: 1001.12 Inadequate Exits. "Except for those buildings or portions thereof that have been provided with adequate exit facilities conforming to the provisions of this code, buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities were installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of their construction or whose exit facilities have not been increased in number or width in relation to any increase in occupant load due to alterations, additions or change in use or occupancy subsequent to the time of construction shall be considered substandard. Notwithstanding compliance with code requirements in effect at the time of their construction, 7 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when the building official finds that an unsafe condition exists through an improper location of exits, a lack of an adequate number or width or exits, or when other conditions exist that are dangerous to human life." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack; (Exhibit B, Exhibit C) • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, the letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition L•'� 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street S. UCADB Section 302 Item 1 and UHC Section 1001.12. Exterior stairway for second story unit is not in a safe location to afford exiting during a fire deemed as 10 feet from property line by California Building Code, 2010 Edition (CBC), Section 1027.3. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2g) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • The staircase is built over the property line. • A guest unit requires a 5 foot setback to property line (PL). There are several issues associated with the location of this staircase; most imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. • There is no property line firewall separation between staircase and the property line. • Railing has no intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children. Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: )etermination "1. Wherever any door, aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is not of sufficient width or size or is not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic." "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.12 Inadequate Exits. "Except for those buildings or portions thereof that have been provided with adequate exit facilities conforming to the provisions of this code, buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities were installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of their construction or whose exit facilities have not been increased in number or width in relation to any increase in occupant load due to alterations, additions or change in use or occupancy subsequent to the time of construction shall be considered substandard. Notwithstanding compliance with code requirements in effect at the time of their construction, buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when the building official finds that 0 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street an unsafe condition exists through an improper location of exits, a lack of an adequate number or width or exits, or when other conditions exist that are dangerous to human life." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack; (Exhibit B, Exhibit C) • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, the letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition its] 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 6. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. Fire resistive walls between the units and adjacent garage are not provided. Fire resistive walls and window protection adjacent to the property line on the second story are not provided. Fire in an adjacent unit, garage or adjacent building could spread quickly and therefore overcome occupants. Fire resistive assemblies are required for the above mentioned locations in CBC Sections 705, 707, and 709. In addition, there are several electrical installations that pose a danger (unprotected and non-attached Romex wiring, non-GFCI outlets in the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.) and there are no smoke detectors or alarms in the sleeping areas. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2a and 4a) stated he observed and noted these violations. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site Fire resistive wall issues: • No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance with one hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 1) • The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the property line do not comply with fire protection requirements. The opening is not permitted as shown; exterior wall is not fire rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 2) • On second story unit above the garage, there is no property line firewall separation between staircase and the property line (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 4) • The carport is attached to both the main house and the 2 -story garage and attached rear units; making this a tri-plex unit pursuant to building code fire rating. These deficiencies create access hazards for fire access and may pose additional hazards to occupants since the occupancy changes with a tri-plex (common terminology)(Exhibit C, Table 1, page 5) • No rating separation between walls of garage and living units; thus exposing tenants above and next to the garage to fire hazard originating in the garage (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 6) • Unit does not meet fire rating requirement; 5 foot setback required to property line to protect occupants from fire hazards; or safety personnel responding to an emergency (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 6) • Insulation in rear residential unit (appears to be straw bale) has high flame spread rating (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 9) 11 752750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street Electrical installations that pose danger: • Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including HVAC) installation work are not consistent with conventional installations. Installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 2) • furnace in the upper unit does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3) • Exposed electrical installed next to furnace causes a potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3) • On the carport, the unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between garage and house. The potential for damage and failure due to the exposure of the line is increased and poses a potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 5) • Electrical wiring: Romex cannot be exposed or unprotected and must be attached/secured. (Romex was first used in the 1950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001) (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 6) • In the rear unit, heater was installed with a gas line on a combustible wood sided wall which poses a potential fire hazard due to the combustible material (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 7) • Improper and substandard plumbing and electrical wiring in the rear unit were not installed in compliance with conventional installation methods (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 8) • Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 8) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "14. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has in any nonsupporting part, member or portion less than 50 percent, or in any supporting part, member or portion less than 66 percent of the (i) strength, (ii) fire -resisting qualities or characteristics, or (iii) weather -resisting qualities or characteristics require by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy in the same location." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to 12 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.13 Inadequate Fire -protection or Firefighting Equipment. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when they are not provided with the fire -resistive construction or fire - extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that confirmed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire - restive integrity and fire -extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 13 782750.1 observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 7. UHC Section 1001.5. Electrical wiring in the garage area is improperly installed. Improperly installed conductors and without proper required fire resistive material from the dwelling unit above can be a serious hazard to the occupants in the upper dwelling unit. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items ld and 4b) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted : Identifying on-site • No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance with one hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 1) • The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the property line do not comply with fire protection requirements (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 2). • On second story unit above the garage, there is no property line firewall separation between staircase and the property line (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 4). • The carport is attached to both the main house and the 2 -story garage and attached rear units; making this a tri-plex unit pursuant to building code fire rating. These deficiencies create access hazards for fire access and may pose additional hazards to occupants since the occupancy changes with a tri-plex (common terminology) (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 5). • No rating separation between walls of garage and living units; thus exposing tenants above and next to the garage to fire hazard originating in the garage (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 6). • Unit does not meet fire rating requirement; 5 foot setback required to property line to protect occupants from fire hazards; or safety personnel responding to an emergency (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 6). • Insulation in rear residential unit (appears to be straw bale) has high flame spread rating (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 9) • Electrical wiring: Romex cannot be exposed or unprotected and must be attached/secured. (Romex was first used in the 1950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001) (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 6) 14 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street uilding Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical wiring not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Table 1,) • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owners architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H), • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 15 7sns0A Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 8. UHC Section 1001.7. The furnace in the second story dwelling unit does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2b) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Furnace installed in the upper unit does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3). • Exposed electrical installed in the upper unit next to the furnace which causes potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3). Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code Section 1001.1 General: 1001.2 Inadequate Sanitation. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are insanitary. Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 6. Lack of adequate heating facilities. 13. General dilapidation or improper maintenance. 1001.7 Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. "Mechanical equipment that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or mechanical equipment not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good and safe conditions shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. 16 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owners architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 17 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 9. UHC Section 1001.5. Exposed electrical wiring next to unpermitted furnace in the second story unit can cause a potential fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2c) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Furnace installed in the upper unit does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3). • Exposed electrical next to upper unit furnace which causes potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3). Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical wiring not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: In 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack(Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H), • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 19 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 10. UHC Section 1001.13. Operating smoke detectors are not installed within the sleeping areas of the upper and rear dwelling units as required by state code and therefore occupants may not have adequate warning of a fire. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2i and 5h) stated he observed and noted this violation. Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.13 Inadequate Fire -protection or Firefighting Equipment. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when they are not provided with the fire -resistive construction or fire - extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that confirmed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire - restive integrity and fire -extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition go 1ti14Fnxi Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 11. UHC Sections 1001.3, 1001.6 and 1001.7. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including gas and water) installation work may pose a fire and water hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 1d) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including HVAC) installation that is not consistent with conventional installation methods. Installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 2) • Exposed electrical installed next to furnace which causes potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3). • Shower added on to original structure of the second story unit. The installation to add additional square footage (pop -out) was not constructed in conformance with conventional installation methods (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3). • Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between garage and house. The potential for damage and failure due to the exposure of the line is increased and poses a potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 5). • Electrical wiring in the garage: Romex cannot be exposed or unprotected and must be attached/secured. (Romex was first used in the 1950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001) (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 6) • Heater in the rear unit was installed with a gas line on a combustible wood sided wall which poses a potential fire hazard due to the combustible material (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 7) • Improper and substandard electrical wiring in the rear unit was not installed in accordance with conventional installation methods (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 8) • Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior of the rear unit which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 8) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to 21 782750A Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.3 Structural Hazards. 'Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." 1001.6 Hazardous Plumbing. "Plumbing that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or plumbing not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not free of cross -connections or siphonage between fixtures shall be considered substandard." 1001.7 Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. "Mechanical equipment that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or mechanical equipment not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good and safe conditions shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); WA rt r4Fbll Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone); Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 23 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 12. UHC Section 1001.5. Electrical outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathrooms in both dwelling units are non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential electrical shock and fire danger to occupants. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (items 21 and 5i) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including HVAC) installation work was not installed consistent with conventional installation methods. The installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 2) • Shower added on to original structure included additional square footage (pop -out) and plumbing, and waterproofing that was not installed in accordance with conventional installation methods (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3) • Improper and substandard plumbing and electrical wiring installed in rear unit. (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 8) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical wiring not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: 24 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, and the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • the review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 25 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 13. UHC Sections 1001.2, 1001.5 and 1001.6. Plumbing and electrical installed in the kitchens may create fire hazard, water damage and inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2d) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including HVAC) installation work was not done in accordance with conventional installation methods to insure that life safety protocol is followed. Installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 2) • Improper and substandard plumbing and electrical wiring (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 8) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.2 Inadequate Sanitation. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are insanitary. Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 7. Lack of adequate heating facilities. 14. General dilapidation or improper maintenance. 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical wiring not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." 1001.6 Hazardous Plumbing. "Plumbing that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or plumbing not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not free of cross -connections or siphonage between fixtures shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC 26 762750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building' including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, and the owners architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • the review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 27 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 14. UHC Section 1001.7. Gas heater attached to wood siding and gas line in the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to its proximity to combustible material. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5b) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Heater installed with a gas line on a combustible wood sided wall which poses a potential fire hazard due to the combustible material (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 7) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.7 Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. "Mechanical equipment that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or mechanical equipment not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good and safe conditions shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, g7 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 29 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 15. UHC Section 1001.6. Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior of the rear dwelling unit poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5f) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 8) 30 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street luilding Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code 1001.6 Hazardous Plumbing. "Plumbing that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or plumbing not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not free of cross -connections or siphonage between fixtures shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner lustina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 31 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 16. UHC Section 1001.6. Added shower and floor area onto original structure may create water damage and inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2e) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including HVAC) installation was not consistent with conventional installation methods. The installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 2) • Shower added on to original structure including the additional square footage (pop -out) plumbing, and waterproofing were not installed in accordance with conventional installation methods (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 3) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code 1001.6 Hazardous Plumbing. "Plumbing that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or plumbing not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not free of cross -connections or siphonage between fixtures shall be considered substandard." Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C), • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code 32 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street (UHC), 1997 Edition 33 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 17. UHC Section 1001.3. Foundations for the dwelling units and the recreation/storage building should be investigated to determine if the foundation provides adequate structural bracing and support for the structures. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 1b) refers the matter to Mr. Stovner and no further response was given. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • It could not be determined if footing/foundations exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 1) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.3 Structural Hazards. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone) in the letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 34 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 35 7&2750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 18. UHC Section 1001.3. Wood posts at canopy of recreation room have rot at bottom and therefore need repair to mediate structural hazard. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • It could not be determined if footing/foundations exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 1) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.3 Structural Hazards. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, who's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation (on the visible parts alone)(Exhibit 1); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • the review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 0 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition 37 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 19. UHC Section 1001. 5. Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between the garage and house is subject to potential damage and failure and poses a potential electrical and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 3c) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between garage and house. The potential for damage and failure due to the exposure of the line is increased and poses a potential fire hazard (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 5) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical wiring not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, M 782750.1 C 0 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H) stated he observed and noted this violation; • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 20. UCADB Section 302 Item 14. Exposed insulation in the kitchen area of the rear dwelling unit appears to be straw and therefore a high- flame spread rating and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5g) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted that the insulation Identifying on-site in the rear unit appears to be straw bale which has high flame spread rating (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 9) M 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 3uilding Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portiun thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "14. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has in any nonsupporting part, member or portion less than 50 percent, or in any supporting part, member or portion less than 66 percent of the (i) strength, (ii) fire -resisting qualities or characteristics, or (iii) weather -resisting qualities or characteristics require by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy in the same location." California Fire Code California Fire Cade (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; • Input provided by Mr. Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority based on his professional input of the photographs taken on September 10, 2010; • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone) specifically Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H) stated he observed and noted this violation, and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition CFI 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street 21. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. North exterior wall of the recreation room is in close proximity to the property line and poses a fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 6d) stated he observed and noted this violation. City Personnel D. McCreary, J. Willkom, E. Binsack on September 10, 2010 observed and noted Identifying on-site • The room is considered "habitable space" and appears to not provide sufficient, ventilation, heat and light (Exhibit C, Table 1, page 9) Building Official's Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302: Determination "9 Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." "14. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has in any nonsupporting part, member or portion less than 50 percent, or in any supporting part, member or portion less than 66 percent of the (i) strength, (ii) fire -resisting qualities or characteristics, or (iii) weather -resisting qualities or characteristics require by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy in the same location." "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Uniform Housing Code: 1001.13 Inadequate Fire -protection or Firefighting Equipment. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when they are not provided with the fire -resistive construction or fire - extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that confirmed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire - restive integrity and fire -extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy." California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. The subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. 42 782750.1 Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street Building Official Y. Henry Huang made the determination that dangerous conditions or multiple defects exist on the property which necessitated the posting based on: • Evidence observed and photographs taken on the site inspection conducted September 10, 2010, by Principal Engineer Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, Principal Planner Justina Willkom, and Community Director Elizabeth Binsack (Exhibit B, Exhibit C); • Third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A.; • Input provided by Mr. Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority based on his professional input of the photographs taken on September 10, 2010; • Documentation and correspondence exchanged with the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), specifically, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Exhibit H) stated he observed and noted this violation; and • The review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition \Cdd\Amy\Admin Cites\Appeal Hearin g\520 Pacific Street\Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination Iist.doc080811 43 782750.1 C E 7li1y2.Z,1010 city. Of Tustin D;arTO,W*qmj Ivly,name is Ha qtreet,,Tusft, A coor e e count) " "' diq,16 the �� d - Vp..]1 Lv QOnG ogthplome's . lqqr d4f.fti wd btLvq I- . . . . . d0406h, idt�r"l§all.wmneed.tq.cjq)Oi psqrpw., a homiianyttan v. D*lr*DBWM UlilOIVM"Oq EXHIBIT 00001 ;sjqn T.�P. e_ CalJ64 jol - 8ing)e. Fapmily. Re'sid'ence Atidrim 102 - gulit'rer.pj1Y leg - M14P.. lMpToVef.nii.nts PUBLIC85RWQE. NF-0,FWATIONFORM MWTJ FAMILY..R=SIDENTIAL RIP! IIII IPZMT BLDG BLprp' 1 q4CS. 1_,,,w�Ao,t.4sJ wja�6 bODE IIDE�Tsf I E-15 SIZE -4179 1 -all -ri ftT FC?OL AO ��R� IWE. S17e r3#7 7� qwn si i-rw k.,.4A r. k&I lo/.A RIP! 00003 M I�c�LL4NE�?US;; siRp�� CO��Addll' Ide%iCHS�:h�tcv:lAl�,r; C `` LAQq�rpE COUNTY ASSESSORC MULTIPLE:R OAL UNIT' APPOAli;AL -HEOC tl D T• . .. ) Tq.>ca _ A:P:.Im_. 441 3771'-.D'y'. .. LAND 9 ERIEcOMPUTAT WSVERA i MT, wN' I Y_ ✓' I t \W. .y L.'nli'Llitxi�l Ixnfautl _Jx.eruLrmtr,Yµ'e.n ... yl •.. �..' �` .e att,u[att _,ioi:. T.:GgnxM MCNIN _oAi_ •rwl .�,c ' t e , +y - n y r< PGN-'�_I'- "� Ir YI4W { lTC tANa ndtnNAnax Ino uion s /br '.J': ! �.C,, ;•3�'.$4 1 MIT.- a t b t:fj A0+ ' 'eo.x ol„Urex. - 1 :.C?GABa nNxm NYr. __ ICASQtu•' UBIY NbLT iNaluT¢x _ - -• "'1 to lN1•fNNN -_ 'I•r12a sQ^. INGCATLa fAU nlcx .•y,. r �NArbxndh f. obaatxagaMi fir, 4Nb (L RmAL YlmYurtt Y/Nb IT te--- —� —.-. _� 1E a�pN1Nd taxiarva: . Yt lla •—r. tNYAVxllf6 - .I .._.'-•i+er- L M1.1+� i' - _ ( r 'yP,6AWNA1-nnw, t vAwe J__ _ Z _ p L iflti YNIWd Mim • 'i t iJ- r ] A;32 z v L TaxNp vrW AMK�. 4 � ''s da NiNttu^L hbM6 1 f ,� r .. + P AD EraEittY[ ThArt'LG- tee- N�-4• ' `� ..,. .Zp ,7'i;<.€ �' s/> •��,�k �/P�' a •rs�+l•+rt^Mna+xa ... .�d�,. MMM - ..yr' � inY/FiseF.i� A uts salt .: x � w6J✓ X>!-'7.V-'f72i'1.�-.� 7!.M It 7I� ^ I 1�i'���: IY'' rS-0 SLJIEbtkddta � fie' S' - :23 u L� Pow uGtr :9f1`/�t£tWLVK ..TtyD,{�`a• aGG • zcd,Y� s,� ��' r r,—. O6�y. 0!fDrQtl -� t11.oPfltluAd4 � hPAl!... ,... . •�• _ •_• �--'--^-+'il'clMoLirAu Yac Ngff" �ie�rs•e•.+rr.—r��. - '�4YLT:MN. DIC'Mf'�.4�I�r 'N4 aqutrPtla,YP a _ - x--. _.as,F;;._. ^ress-r•..... — 5T tLtl'eHo r_w--•••rte••-rtrn I..r; , " mow. .•r.—ors =-..•.-.an.n+.•' .. _ 4=14L orE •t°Sixvr j. A GxrAtrN : ` InA1N�gMlta Rc LNa f _. r .~yaW na'J,tYq Jllt ur. �s ar -• .• . ' .. 7,1 - uA915ST MyLtipL�Ep id?T�r.Yn_5.?'_'_ _ u - Ru9:enm� A)IlCoFN�' r u°I)tr ,�o t E.F. u: II I�'IFiLI at .4'•? APp eEBe"�4.@INIu�(. un AM tali: ii ixc tGty. ll(G.. E'w4y FNMnetiuti��t�'lr tl+ni °n.I L Eff' ��,C PgN60HAL"Pgol'FATg'yA{.NC 1NOIbATo •_ _ � ' - yMe <r'e r rnw rotor na• [ 1tNplu. to 1N . oto ld 6q CE YSii: Litlalc!— �� �_,r..r.�� � . ... __ .. w x�urrgaG n :7bn• 00007 .u3E _•.:,I E1RkAlaP11IMSIMPIRMI ?IY}jjftE - 1 • lO011l'iy {•! ��`VR �-"""• r ceayrt.LN'- �oA1bIA3'_ A, .. bML1 _.. ._ 9'a4:,4•t ... ,.� ••--.. Nili T POOnM bk'TT,'"" - .x..p.pinlli l'P ln•1' 6w rRfl.•;-tT t1 aR,'L ,Lf 'a�iSN PNG ..� SNN d. aM : .. 1....., LAH.I IJf.I 5i "p •.Iill•0a' Gx .. I {� }"Y - IT:r- f1 hlllPtCf IN a{-'gin" 6 : '' • - i � -"- 1- I:i'.��- i1. G f n•fi m a v � .E ' ' •. _. l �_L � R Ax xo Pon �7NIi6Q•e Aa tIF 0946810'haN . A' F,abT.t Al TI forAf uAu P "1 �'?T>'L31-• A9AT i:mL Km,.tG " Illi-I 4d PBF .adl aV ,ltEa Sra NEAP '-63i.A4'ri'• atl"�'. Gvt I' T a ixGls 1 +SIF ' cfflr. .. I i {I ',pEkSEcr�ildl lxr > mzHINP[a PLIK 4A S'i w4pb I. ! _ -.ice 4; Nj Ffi W oPi1FI(lPli. YICt rcYi " r,.m' .c ZJ mNc _ ♦ Ava .�P' <-w t"j+ .moi^ I 14 Ftl6T DATE E' �' � ..1-. e - E 'IIS.. a - , GS N{OIIS'�• qa PE" n axlnioA4,1NP:;ti:'¢n •. ._.. ...f nuai I. . ana, ditaGWmlGg' Ji(jQ' Na, 'i1N1'r Lori _R, oLacx .FW110 : �• •r-r � r nl: _ _ la ac'1 rvhi% faeG. Yn G�1 RG PA B f j'i -1: I ' iti [7 0.rr rR MSE • -- -. Sj•,• 5Coc11 +Y Ast r 1 .— i eo N 4oldx, TTkf . .., ... ;•4 r .' . YA• ,, ro MTc,r,4 AIIW ,.yrra ...' NI • a..x... -. ;,_ • Ik j,1ITAk.JIC•.11'lNTAL U itA I\ r Lai .t�E bl..4nl[C •I —a C � .. ." .. .. I. . ..-... .. a.. i i , i - t . Inf. oidN7Lfn�5 4 _ _ -.. •— . •' 101 AIG101 ECyT�f. 1W:, 'r, lCpj,T i' mlill Foal+ I ' .:• Iq.lt>L tnilpl Eiiir � ' - - •.i cit CUV. §! .Y :•w.'.;+(..+_ + 1. . WIT ••squ •y:. .. I13 INqYl L-i .rYr�1U+l'• -,�� . .�' +� palPCF IjLLn Cbk1pUT'��jatl9 )♦ tr�ir I 3+i,F1 J�+Ihr i14[TI • � .. -.. li✓B .. tK Pu .i Ili CAtlANR 1- nIFL11 MSL Im b, IU wpb-.... . , E c�z-.- .... i I! .. .a.�.. ':t •gkt:h'?•)bir T�EG"lig;�.� . �x.�1ia.®G�,�c ii)a 1. I; ir• •I •••�c�v _ t-- iHWFyi/,ktON API eAlIL "'. ,aI�NAt I. IIi+gE .. 4s 3_r .f T,^ a�Yr-aFfrpl{ _ at''(:Cx iRF,a 'I ♦R"--41�A IAaI.YIn�l1. I �r'.l •f SOL:(:PFi uC ,�y MA' A 00008 520 PACIFIC STREET SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 EXHIBIT B 00010 520 PACIFIC STREET SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 GARAGE AND CARPORT 00011 PM, tA 0 0, 0 ■• I j N lrMr •' LH G UJ , 41V r r 000 a pvm, �A&L. 0001 Mr 00018 I F �t �y a, d `yr 1A` i� I d I 0 M �.. _ i,.rt � 1 Jai 1 I I A f r 171 0 PM 00025 • -A m c 5 00027 y 0 T 520 PACIFIC STREET SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 DETACHED STRUCTURE BEHIND MAIN HOUSE 00031 • ` - moi' � -fir �weI tel. - 1. 6 If I a VA i A : 7476�� OL i #JALA6, N N Illibib . 410 520 PACIFIC STREET SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 GUEST HOUSE ABOVE GARAGE 00037 0 0 E] I A II ���� � -. as • - oll 00042 rU m If ■ 0 520 PACIFIC STREET SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 GUEST HOUSE BEHIND GARAGE e.i r. I AA6�r,' 4 �3,t'af,�R1fl t 4 1 I . A.V .00 am sawavall ED i` N� Y �, . �. °-. . ,. __ i _ _ - --. ,I �{ ,7 ,., ��: 0 ru CM 1 . w' i 1 . T�lot, I Awl a�irY�i■s .� -- : . I jl 6� i �' � y�a �, d :�. 4 ,; :� � jj� x;� CM r- 0 7 0 1 rryr L.. k 'n 00070 41k 3 I > e t • e J • K Y+j ♦b + 3r' a w i • - �, \M � r it 1 p R` w [ti d g� ti 4 �h r 1. '. . r . N N lk IVI i 'i 1 , ,� �� � R \ 1 , I- Jh +7 �� � �' � ,� \� \� \� _ _ � ��� ` A �,�\���� .� � ,> >� ,5� ` , ., t ,` � ,� �``\`\ F �i� „ ��� ����' t'� `, �t\ .�� 1,, � 1� J/ N i e I i i i ru 1= J jM J CL E I `"'�� • _� '1, :t SFS h�'S �.�il {: .. �Wb M� ��.i 9. 0 N., I M C3 cn }! es i� A 520 PACIFIC STREET SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 STRUCTURE AT N.W. CORNER OF PROPERTY (REAR) EXHIBITJL RESOLUTION NOsv 4161 AND 4162 62 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues l ovation Code Cothpilafte. Code Sections Photos Issue applicable The 4se'of the properly California Fire Code .as cq,triplex (with a Section 102.3 Change. of unitsj dhanges, the building occupAh ty .)vsp.or occupancy; California Fife Code fromka.(Single family :Section 102 2 unsafe '(90cidoltal) 16 R1. 56fldingprSl it: Rks . familyj . . . . :: . y. _Jmulllple It could not be California Fire Code determined if Section 102 Unsafe 'fooling/foundations 'Building or Situclores q?([sl to proVi.de q4gquale structur bracingand su p portio, No fire separa(iqrr walls Building Code Table. beh,men 6hft 503.Californip. Fire 0od6 units- bjujlt�j.ftelf therefore.nbi th :Section 110.1 Unsafe originalstuotdrdt compliance wiffi.dink. 00hdifidns hour separation requirements which poses iql fire _hazard io`oat�`cupanls- Mechanical, elertylCmi fC—C,8100 Adoption of and plumbing (!ndIQgf6]g 20117 California'Stillftb' HVAC) lutallatfan aode.A105.1 — Permits. Wdek done wii6oal' permits Wait" Permits are recitiha-Io insure that life safely protocol is f6jiowe8.anc I I lfi&tallakih is dolid. ,according to pier, Withoutsuch Permits 96d,1nsj)ecII4n, Ws'iaiiaiiori may create lire Hdiged, w4tg$r, iartiege; etc, Pursuant to the zonIji-- -7][CC-.-_Zf code; the properly, tljzerA MWO31im bul dingi4ftelk not have sufpgfjbf .66- all 0§2WRAI m L rZI SpReqU a M ef, dkbnd or thIN lipjt! TOOMOW &WjiIiikfy� t iq, k loll h6wmi.jr tilg fol'i§ i 0jqDq,s4,-f e.g mf16' fatay T -k f4bilives) *Did hkadlozw. L,i3,2.:dr 13 and wQui d' iv-011"Ird Ei ftlIfiftl4rh af 7 parkingitalk6tupliort the,qdded.. (- ;l: i P 41 9 g - EXHIBIT C 00085 EXHIBIT,A RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4262 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue— applicable Photo$ The second story wall Section 1403 of TCC .Construction and 8100 Adoption of 2007 windows adjacent to the California Building Code property linedo not comply wali fire. Protection Insufficient The opening isnot Pprinittgo asshown; acklo exterior wall Is not fire rate an 4; primary (i d only) stairway restricts Ingress egress In case offire or other emergency. Furnace Installed TCC 8100 Adoption of Without requiied permits 2007 California Building does not meet .Code bs.i — Permits 6leara - nce requirements peqdir6d rn and creates a polential fire hazard. eXpos.ed electrical next TQq al.QQ Adoption of rn > to unpetmill ed furnace 2007 California Building Which causes potential Code All 05.1- Permits Ore Wzafd� re, --d quim N C. O .U) tricM nexHo heater Kitchencooking ookln' TCQ 9223b2,.Nq a iaclllfes notpermjhed facilities permitted In guest in e nj st unite, I godst.uhil, KI.- I' n, and electrical TOC 8.160 Adoplion'of per unit installed without 2007 California Buildibg �Pdrrnits. Permits'sre cod Aiom—permi - W fpqu. red to Insure that, required:'- IIWsafety. Ordtdbd[ is falf6wed and Insfallatron 'it done i3cddrdipg to :plan : W466( such, Parnfitg and Inspection, 411400 may create . . . . . . . . . . . . fire hazar4i mater P a} 9, e. EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOS, 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Com. pliahce. Code eciions Photos Issue a plicable hower added on to. 'TCC 8100 Atloption of .original siruclurehis 2007 California Bulldlno Q .' raquires a building.Cpde Al05r1 — Permits 4 - permit to add • additional *gLAvd) 'ifl squarefootage(Popa out) andperhitts for plumbing, and 5 L Wata.rproofing. - #. Y ftwar added w/o' pefmits R?iUng has no C 8100,Adopkgrj of intermediary posts. and 1007 California Building _ No inner the tun and rise are not Code Al 05:1. — PehdkA coinpllant.willi BullIding (agwred., .. post9 Code req uirements nor 'TCC 8144',Adoption of is,%e unprotected b56A 2007 California Building � which is open. This '.bode 101214andralls— poses a potential WINg; handrails required for II \4 h'ezeriifor small stairways clrlldren. TCC.01 OO.Adoptian of a, 2007 Califargfa'6Y7iIdRijg = ` _ O1 Code 1013GUards :guards shall ba.locaied _ �aldng open-side'il o iNalkl q surfaces Ulltdln9 siacway§. I a' l ical d m§i? thaff3D i I � .inches a6ave the grade ' -- below 8 There rs no prot?erlq ec6ori _. . fne:T¢awailseparatlo0 1i429gxddssharge. -- d5%IndhwaYP.L a betwe'ad staircase add _ oktltip: g the�prgherty line, raquUes�5ft. setba>:k Thg stairceAb is built TCCJ- Z362,� regUires over ihEproperty& ug9se6aekto;propej If Mge'stUndreTuijzo. ,lihs kf 5toof sethacka YG.! plrope_rtygneRLd.. 'fli'e,2 are severl Built over PL. r„ I.w6w.assobfatad°wilh ' 1 iing locahon nf7tila, Stairca5a, mbsi ; �jl ,_ �'� lrif61tg80Eis't1it3 I.aoN of; _ - safc e..eress from iHe � r Roufdratrrs 6rttti OQ( C C Beotjop �x f wfilgtj m§Y,tlSe. prslnediBtq:a sgBaiete 'i(ooding.. a1rorm 8ewar3,�rstem _ � _. M. 21:(0{. CE!Q�,'�`ecitgr''g"7 fJQCtSectt{irt l7Gi!iitsT@;ai lagS,pipperiy - .._.....] rte_=... - E)(Hj6jfA Rk . �QLLITNON NOS. 4161 AND 4102 Location Code CompkFah4ii Code Sections Photos Issue applicawe Structural supports do 2007CBC Section not provide suf�� piefit , I664.'li 23di.Q General .- S supporting TafiiiiRbof ieiiU6 Requirements. ae F rO'nb t9A . su00 undersized "I '& r. i' along block fence rather mructurdl @dp`qateio than Gal�vebjd froth suppqrts, the tW6 stcjfy`swuclure ThKdliijmrtlS btWdhed Change in occupancy to both the math house c0pstitutes a MultItude of and the 2story garage* CBC and Fire Codi an.0, ziltdcbedIdat urilts; violations: m . making kfngthis a,-t'fl'.*ple'x California Fire Code UP.it it - p . u - rsuani .1 1 p . -bpffldln `Cftes6 Section 102.3 Chpnjo cbqO fife MUMO. use orcccupah-qg Mdlencleisiiatei G-allfornia Fire Code. M& A ...fI4for 'fife R Section 102 Wigale access bhq may pose. building or Struclujt9s occui occupancy changes 'o rginoo �itli In q-�",(p teirninolo�glyl, -i Unsupported 7MCFAC-21 :rcc—il-0-0, Tdo-p f a n o f metal coiiOu IL (�AAT) 'o 2007 PalifOrpla Bqjldjpil 'CtldeA101 P bA�.ee garage arid l �PVTTWS NOVS6,.-rh- e- poten-fi-al for r-djvJ-r8-d haft mm.rpoq t 6 exposum of the tiog 10 Increzis6dand poses a poiei;iiii'?ire EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance - Code:Secfi6ge I Photos Issue. a Ifcable No. rating separation between ofgarage 2007 CBC TaNle,602 Fire-Resistanbe 3 1 walls Raling ":. 4 and living units;.lhus Requirements %r FEkterlor psi „ Romex wiring is exposing tenantsaboVe Walls Based on Fire" t '� unprotected andexposed and next to the garage -Separation:'Distanto. )e. fire hazard originating in the garoge: �1. P° U AED t T New junction Nox without t� Electrical wiring: 2007 QEC'Article;334,M5; RomexcennBttie ExposedMrk;and exposed or unprotecied article 330.36 securing and mustbe: and,SuPpoiUng attachedlsecuted. (Romex wasfirst used :in the. 1950's, Color coding.(' ellow)'wasn''.t available until, 001. - Unit does notmeetTre; 2007 CBC T.able:60Z rating requirement; 5 Fire Resstance Rating foot .s.elNackleguired'fo. Regif(remeliCs:,fofEx(edPr property line to protect' Walls Based' bh;.Fie ' occupantsfrom;.fire. .separationvit' hazards; or safely (1927 UBC: Section 1±1,03, 3 personnel respondingto less shah 3 feeij U an emergency. TCC 922362 iilnilpilm; im slileyardsettiack3'feet a r N d_. ;setback ..Se flied (zero. -4 It provldedf 51pa.8e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Healer Installed with a TCC 8100 Adoption of gas line without permits 2007 Califomla Building +k; It is Installed on a Code A1D5.1 — Permits x E combustible wood sided requiredr,-' wall which posesa Sub)edt to ritgnufacture"s: Heater potential fire hazard due Insfallallon standardsand Installed to the compustibiemechanicaVplumbing, W/0 material permit i permit m t Ceiling heightsvary and ,2007CNIC Section do -not meet the; T6". 12082 Ceii ng height, height requirement minimum 'C'e(Iing' helght:does hd f riidet- m(n. T5" Improper hoL " 2007 GFC Section 605.5. substandard electrical ExtensloO.Gords Wiring without permit= Power strip next to:. kitchen sink Where a` range- might fhaVe been r pTeYlously m c v v .y ro Plumbing add'e& Without- `TCC.1100:A option oT�7 peirdiC 2007'6alffornia Building.. ; `Ctide:A;lbt .'t-Pi6hiryis .. TGC g223b2 No cooking K fchen Ir {eaf tlnit not permRtgd Kitchen is not'permilted {per zWng) facilities permftled In (4e. plumbing, electrical; guest unit etc.) 6 l P ,a t;'e. EXHOITh RESOLUTION Nds. 4161 AND 4162 Location --Code Compliance Code Sections I Photos Issue applicable Unsecured and exposed , :2007 CMC Section go 5 line on the interior 131 12;6 1 6 Hangers, which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors gas leak and tire haiard and 1311.7 Outlets within the fear Unit n�seclired gas lyin Insulation Is nonrated Wall andopening. •6nd is cornbustilJ16 picitection 2007 CBC (appears to be straw Table 602 Flrd- tinle) Resistance Rating Requirements for r3dearidr; tF Walls Based on l"Ire SdpifAfibn Distance and Tabkftli.lf Maximum ti Area aF*fj4rYvalI L :installed between walls Will 0 The ro.6ffi Is considered— -HehiMlee ­sPOMETZ5 'habitable specie.and defined by VBG is a -qpp6ars to not providesp-6ce,jr, Ouilding for su'Mclent, vent1fafftinI ' if. " 1. mg 0� heal -and light 1661(14tp Therefore, it requiresLsu fficr6ril , -vent! 0 ..heaf. me r _olli'ng trvjght.JsJqo.Fq—W :20071CM.Section ZP--: E i4 0. A Z I 'G.dilihj Wot emioe d eis--fi- 4'- et rnlriimUM igRljft- (Lb. to r . va I Hans . -prqjbgs - jLftji - V . 30'n9 visit on Sepite . . it I Ag of a site �V el (Or;qm?rL\5'm P -a 00091 Coirimimity Development Depait mmitt Sent via first class end certfflbd nfigil Sapteifnber 16, 2010 Brat 8. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA:92780-4329 NOTIC5 ANb.CYRDERIPRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE' PropRr'.ly Address:. Assestor Parriel Number: CasJa Nunibef: Dear Mr., FalrbanRsi 52.0 PaelfloStreet 401437147' vl1: W.z TUSTIN BUILDING ouR !:ixrum 1-16NO1UNQ'Qqft.VA,tT Thank you for -meafing with. City staff :529 Pacific Street on Septbmber 10, 2010, DuOfig the inspection, two detached structaoj,-.W*eobserved wii)flii the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a s&b6hd guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitle'd. A preliminary seprchofr,.lty recordspiso indicates .that no conditional use permit (CUP) is 6nfile to establish . i guest hoUseb at the property. Other nohcoOlallt Issues Were 91siIjI.Oied during the Inspection; which -include, but are, not limited to the staircase on M §b.u1h!."jdir.6f tbegarage which does not provide the appro , " setback to the 4side - prcip riO guQst _erty. linq, A - !� ljouseabove the garage currently contains Q ok' d 94bi m exist ur property; WhIph are attached hereto:as Exhibitg, Pursuant fo Tustin CRY Code: 1122(x), 4by-.9.4.Wf ation o the Tustin City Code is A pqb1lq qujts Therefore, ra. please be advised Ihl6ti�e hqs, determined that 6 public nuisance Uisance IN- being mainta-ud at 520 P c*bi I q aqii entiil'ement W,gr0 riot obtained for the two datachqd strfjb[Lf1P-kJh-1h& feleff, yard diifh6 two guest houses. You. Obt hpre6YL W& Ofth# NlbWlho jj)�-no. iaier than Frl`day, Obf ....... ---- — ---- - ZO-4-0 1) Subfnit. a .compl6to CUP ifpOlIcAfiO.h,wift thet a0gt.bphiate. Plans; and all biher nacotary entitlement apphqatfons:tq'they Islanniny and Building; Divjsidn for the two guest- houses and rho two detached,.stri7titUf.s uiLtPillle.Fet yard ., 1100 Centerm Tuiwzq,p'QA. Ya.Mb t 1�k (N'4) MA EXHIBIT D 00092 Notice and order. ali 520 p2dric streel". septcrnbv 16, -2010: Case N VI0-0312 Rags 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division •and physically commence with thd dqh)oIJ1ioh and removal of all unipermitted structures and Improvements oh the property; Which include, but are not limited to the iwo guest bouses, the staircase. 2ii. at he - cl,to the pmge and the two detached structures W[thin',the tear yard, NOTE; kr,i WIlding Division at (714) 573- on obtaining permits, please contact the 8 3120: and1br the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additlo6.ally, all permits related to this matter are to be firtaled within ninety calendar days of ppi-milt issi-jahce, pursuant to 200 California Building Code A105.5. This le.liter.constitutes -your Notice. and.Cirder to abate'all public nols2nc I e conditions and ylolat . 10 nA at 520 pacific Street.. You, (or) apy person having any record title or legal interest In the property may request consideration: of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calen'dar days from the date of service of this. Notice and Order. All appeals shallbe made In writing. F2i]Wre to comply with this not -ice within the time limit specified above may result In (1) the issuance: of an administrative citation tation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached heretd for further information), and/or (2) all necessary wdr k Who dcmpleted by, city personnel or private contractori. with all abatement cost's being billed against. you and/or assessed a0ains , t the e pro . p0 rty . and I 1& (3 the referral of. this 'matter . to our City Attorney- for further legal action. Please: hate that the disposal Pf.,anV material involved in public mfisances shiall be carfi_ed.foftJj in a legal manner; Additionally, this ridtorder..loe. and will 11' be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. er. If you heed further clarifibatidn or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-31.35; Brg&8,teen Attachhiehts'. EMbIt A -AdrytinistratiVe Citation Information Exhibit 8,— Code Ao ations• .Qp". Amy Thomas; geNpr Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor 00093 Community Development Department EXHIBIT A Administrative Clitiation Process. TuSTIN WILDING OUR FUTUTLE Hoi,ioFuNo OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City C6da (TCC) 1162(d), tinea may be assessed by means of an administrative citation n ioilowa.6 ,d $100 I . - 0 for a first violation; $200:00. - - for a second violation of the same ordinance or p6rmit, Within. prib year of the hint violation'• or'$5_W 00 for a third or any further Yfolad In one, year �of thefiirit violationi Building On of the earna ordinance or permit With 9 and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 . 8990) Vlolatl . h3 may fiht .0 be,dOzoo0ed at $100,00 for a violation; $600.00 for a second violation of the Whe ordinindi. oe-'Oftit within one year of the first vlblatlon;'or $1,000.00 for a third . or . any juOher violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the lFirst viola6h. The Cftj.mdYaIs.o take further - Is§al action includiing issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal' n. and/or abating the. Viol4tion(s) wJth the cost of such I 1� .. I 1 1. - ii. 11, na' cit abat6m'eht and/or pfosecumn assessed against the. responsible person(s), the propqrt- 11 1 1 , . I � property owribir(s), and/or the property as 6 libri. Should an administrative -citation be Issued, the responsible parso - n has ten (10) daysfrom the date of the administrative citation to. pay the comespbricling fine(B).Additionally, this responsible person must take one of the follb*nq actions to avoid additional Oenaides prior 16 ilie compliance date specified in. the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay tha.donr6sponding fine(s), and ccirit,6ict the City to request a re - Inspection; or 2) Pay the corresponding ffne(s),aftcl request an extensiQrf of Orne.irl writing pursuant, to . TCC 1,165(0), wbirhshaWa i ibaionabla hWtihlp;L or - 3) Re -vest a hearing to appearthp_,vi*Q11t to TCC I 113 A P Wilhin ten _aOrrilgistralIve citsWon-p ', (i,o) days from the.daan ad anced deposit thp�Oninlstratjv 000, ro.gaftrVith v Request, for Hearing forma and other (60mation on Adm(NdRONP-:01(ations (nay be: obtained on the City's website at wwwAustiricb.org. 4 5 3-31'00 'a )� 7 _(7, 0) M-3113 Www.-Wffil- 00094 N.H.. awOrdoro, $20 Ndrc sv't $6PIBMW 16. ME) bay OvImil Exhibit 13 Code Violations .at.520 Pacific Street 2007 CajI&rpj4A3t1Ii Ing bod e, Al .(Adopted per Tustin City bode 8460.) - Parnrifta R"equireid. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, d6molft, kir change the bqqiftjjadY lr *l' Install, enlarge, altee, repair, rerrjOV9,tOriv9 br , 6I!9� building orstructu(e, or to, a replaC6 any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which Is regulated by this code, 6f 16 Cads& R6y such work to be, done, shall first n*e applicatiori to the building official and obtain the required, P.Ktpjt, Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)—Single Family Residential District(Rwl Conditionally Permitted Uses and. Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as.,guest rooms, proyjqqo q9pookiag fabilityJA jp!kt.Qjjed or maintalned, are subject tog conditional use permit; TustIM city Code bm(b)(2)(d)—%I§ingie Family Residenfigt District (R-1) Minimum slde yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses _Corner lot line, rlo-feel; Interior lotlin"- 5 feet NOTE; PleitsAtie.-P-Owtse.0 that there maybe aclditional code compliance requirements. 00095 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, MODIFYING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further Informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the structures that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice of recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street to Mr. Fairbanks. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Director of Community Development or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; EXHIBIT E 00096 Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 G. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010 meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal. However, the correction measures discussed were not acceptable to the appellant; That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961, of which only the Zoning Code matters were affected; J. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Orderfiled at 520 Pacific Street and heard testimony from the appellant; K. That, pursuant to Section 112 Board of Appeals of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, the hearing was held to consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; the provision of such code does not fully apply; or, an' equally good or better form of construction is proposed; L. That, pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals„shall not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code orto waive requirements of such code. Further, the hearing shall be de novo and the Board of Appeals may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter In accordance with the Tustin City Code or remand the matter to the Community Development Director or the Zoning Administrator for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the Board of Appeals; M. That, on October 26, 2010, November 9, 2010, and December 14, 20101 the Board of Appeals considered evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance condition exists at the subject. property due to the present violations of the following Building Code section:_ 00097 Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 California Building Code A105.1 (adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. (Prior staff reports and attachments are attached hereto in Exhibit A) N. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; O. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010, and provided hereto in Exhibit A; ' P. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; and Q. That the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect Provided a report that concluded that there were several nonconforming additions and Building Code violations. (Shown in Exhibit A). Il. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby modifies the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance: A. The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010, and attached hereto in Exhibit B, to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building_Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved, X11•: Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of December, 2010. Steve o ak Chairperson Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Y. Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Board of Appeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4161 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. Y. Henry Huang, 4P, C.B-0O7� Building Official. 018 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Prior Starr' reports and attachments from October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010 00100 ITEM #3 1APPEAL (1rte.-_-- HEARING :- ��` AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET SUMMARY: Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code (see Attachment A). The current property owner of 520 Pack Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order (see Attachment B). In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pack Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as: A. The Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations and B. The appeal. hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 affirming the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and 00101 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 2 requires the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code. That the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals order the property owner(s) to .Comply With the requirements 'of the Notice and Order'identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 2% 2010; with the exception of the date of compliance which is. hereby. established as N oveniber 30, 2010. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Code einforcenjent action at 520 ParifIcStreet -originated when the propertyowner, Mr. Bret Fairbanks; initiated contact,.by sd -ding a written request indicating that he wanted Sending the City to 61loW the unpermitted units an his property to be rebuilt if they were destroyed by natural causes. This, fiaquest, initiated Meetings between Mr. rairbanks and City Staff and ultimately led tozode enforcement: action at the property to abate the life safety: issues caused by lo.uJidtrig.an Q 0 zoning coda violations that are present on the site. A-Notide,bnd Ordled :Order was - on violation of several Building fled on the prop _e, and 2on , ihg Code violation . s see . Attach erty . ment 11 A based -Db . tails . of r t . he code enforcement action ate provided in the report (Section titled` CaneEnforcementat 520 Pacific Street). The Ptanning, Commission has two, roles in considering the appeal of both the Building Code and Z.6nirIg. Code Sections indicated in the Notice and Order. The roles for consideration areas follows; A. Board ofAppeals Pu.rsLiaht'to Section 1.12 of, the, City of Tustin's adopted' California Building Code EElio,), the Board of -Appeals 'May C*onsjdeievidence supportingthe nfofcerment Officers dbibrWnatfon thaf: a poblibi. nuisance: exists at the subject property' Ope to the :dangerous ogj0diti,orm Present at 520, �Pacific Street which ongtnate from violation of the folloyving Building C:oele section;. Obfiforn la 1'3-UildIIn9':0.'�'0.de' A1b.5.1 (Adq P-0161itt jZequited . ArTy-, -*---*F, QYV.nP or, ;au. construct enlarge, altet;kepatr, Move, dE .of a b 11 L 1 ding orstructwe, ontopreptI, [nq convert or rep ce anyie.q9.,rLqq gas, me s re .041C J . regulated 9Ulafed.by this: to be clone, shall firi5fmake appli cni (o.n t .the required PP FT. -AijiYb-6I,kbiirjhcf Body. 'd P&Tbstin City Code 8-100).z Qnzad.. agent Who 'Mtona to. occupancy 1;. enlarge, alter, .,PWhTPrrtC)-Ve -P-njqq. 9r, R1RmIbtQ9, bykte.m, itille i& onto :cause an-y':s-UGh tw'dik :the 40ding;WICW-and' obtain' Pqrsgqfijt 101 Tustin Glty iCode, $Pcfioa 044 the Platirilng C'm y consider the evidence supporting t-he�qpmpnl QffIcPCP'4den-haflonthat t publid exists tthe :rousconditions 00102 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 3 present at 520 .Pacific Street which originate from violation of the following Zoning Code sections: Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (13=1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards Accessory buildings used as guest rooms,, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a Conditional Use Permit: Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family. Residential District (R=1) Minimum side yard Setback for accessory buildings .used as guesthouses. Corner lot. line 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet; sifE DESCRIPTION The property . 520 Pacific Street 118 locaied at,the south end .of Pacific Street north of West Q Street.. The property is located .within the Single Family Residential Distridt;(R- 1) and 1s;within the Cultural Resources Overlay District (CR). The R-1 District allows: tor. single family dwellings and accessory buildings and uses including, but hot limited to, accessory buildings and second Yesidenflal units (subject to specific site developt ient standards; 6e, minimum 12,000 sq,: ft: building site; must provide. two additional garage. parking spaces; ;etc.): accessory buildings used .as guest rooms are eondjtion..ally permitted, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use. Permit (CUP) and are subject to: specific site development and use restrictions;(i.e. no cooking facility may 06 installed or malntamed, they shall not 6e rented; etc ), Aerial photo of 520 Pacific Street 00103 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 25, 2010 Pa9e4 The lot size of the property at 520 Pacific Street it approximately 10.,000 square feet (0.23 acre) and contains the following structures - 1. Single story rraf house (1,342 sq, ft.) 2. Two -story'da rage (161,5".x 18') with a studio apartment (309 sq ff.) ,3. Third unit. (325 sq., ft;): located at ground I evel, to the rear (West) pf.the.-@pMge 4. Detached storagelrecreation room (298 sq. ft.) located directly behind the main house along the north property line 5. Small detached, storage unit located along the rear west prqpojly 'e (approx. :p 1.50 sq. ft:) (not io:scale an plan) 6. Covered parking.structure (Which is attached 101be main housp and the garage) (Numbers; correspond to site plan and site photos belo.WJ Site Plan subvii1tted 8/39110 (Also refer to Attachment C site plan dated Blao(fo) i lr-e 4 2 amunveakir i lr-e 4 2 art SITE PLAN NTS ApPedl 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Pagip 5 3 1' 3 2 View. from iroa driveway of cprpqr! and two-stpry.,garage 3, ti Mew toOking,cast1h rear yard third unit 4mftQcon&btory studlo�apajlment above garage (phovvn beyond) View *lookfing south in rear yard: TMird unitentrance 00105 Appeal 520 Padific Street October 26, 2010 Page 6 Historical Background . VieWllodkifi.g Wbst in rear yar& storage Unit ,at, rear property line The City of"TUSlin was inc.o.rporated on September 19, 1927. The subject property at 520 Pacific Street is Iodated w withi the original City boundaries. The single story home Was built-in approximately 1928 or 1929: The first published building code, the. 1927 edition.(if the Uniform Building'Odc1q, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929, Histortcal.Timelfine 1926: 1928 br29-Tlubn . roOslftdcd I930 107'clty i9v Atillding !1931 lr1Cb'4)bf-4ifai Cdde MbpLt J `The earliest map on 1961, identifies the.prpperty;as R�l Single I - .- - - !Single,,Family -Iiy Residential - and the current zoning for the Property is RJ Single Family Residential: Based olllAIIOCity oft ustin'HisioHical Survey and anrieYatloo rdddrds, this prdpertyrw.as part of a, subdivision of fan-niland to build single family homes prior to the City's incorppratim : According . tQ the historical survey, be, sdW'iVider dedicated Main!8treet and PabifdStfbetwoil *ub [\Jdirgtbedo s for single.f@milY homep,�thpn sold i dividual to iafrilg 'the-propeity at 520 Pacific;StreetHip'tolfic'Mly- the R=l Digtfict hasa§ 'AllbeSt: 11=96 bP Ned Unit Uses within `this dlilsftidt however, I& goe6i nit, use; restricted to 'I'tern-porE.Ity gOqs(s! ard no kitchen or aq6RJng facilities Were perrpltted The use ofsecond -W-ls t;'Paqbll§h d", , 1 — '!s-Z-0ni-' P,-: inft, Gity. ng Code.-- 10 1961 This use dJffef&ptJ6t6'd,d:dQ4sf tj den J, fro in 4q pd�'fq§j -0a udt;vv.h 1 Trh: d'-fre pe-r-l-h-a-hient.ten-ancyK. HbWeverj :thb beebhd residential unit, has. ,hlstorteally, been 4f.ni d based ba . pf6f1dat-cls J . Tirp1gdin r.nlm lot sizeaf 2: 00 square feet;.q garage L 526; PdGifid -Sti7,60 is listed ori the. 1990 City of"UsCi W But &.. C) .0 Hi'stbdb, -.vey.Wh h. -n -ted the hi 'e r1j. �.a' brief . " B lilb— ­ ., - how ''— wa 15- bungalow (Y- b?' thb area s ly �i the houtoi E the sh P1.0p: s]ding . d, bftmv the roof of rhe_ :MNO hopSe, was: pot* origin also o pqtpE: a carport,' ap on #Lieidooft tslde bbhihd the. 66i4.. The survey furthbenoted that 'the . ItWo'stoliy] barbde tipoaredto ba brij.inbi bdW,ift'-ieI-fdpf, and imain,9 6 was sbAdWVdifi 6e at'W, on onginai. building period, 00106 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 7 Some permits have been, issued on the subject property; however, there are no permits that authorize the construction or use of additional residential units at 520 Pacific Street. Over the past several decades,.,the City has addressed residential conversions that have, been done without benefit of permits. For example, code enforcement officers have responded to complaints that have arisen in the Old Town area -of Tustinof construction being done -without permits or of multiple rental units in the RA Sin . gle Family District. Several recent cases, inclOding two cases located on Placific, Street are currently working through or have completed the permit process to bring their property and unpermitted accessory units ts into compliance with the Tustin City Code. Historically, the City has considered several proposals toincrease the deq4Jty of properties located in this area of Pacific Street' however, eac . h time the . . dittrfirnun4 has been Outspoken against any increased density and the Planning Commission has denied. such requests. Rqcords, indicate that; in 1955, The Planning Qom. mission held a publ.ic.hearipg to conside I r a variance to add a second dwelling unit: -at the rear of 580 Pacific' Street and to add two additiohal dwelling Units at the back of the 'fop rty��8 t 00 6 540 Pacific Street. HoWever�,:affer discussion with applicants and objectors, the request . Was cleated. Other requests to increase. cl density ty in the 'Old. Town area were denied, including a,ZonqeQh�pnge request"in 1969 to rezone be corner of Pacific . . pe q. parcel 2 ' t f . r. - - Pacific _ And Main from R. Singig .Family Residential to the, Planned Community. Residential District in oirderlb accommodate an increase an density to 34 dwelling -Urjito (DU) P.& acre (More tfian,,eIgA.fiimb8 iho-4 bb pei.an-re-b , allowed . �y Tustin General Plan). Code Enforcement AtEi.20,Pacific Street On July -275 201.0, Mr; Bret, FaWbtifik§- the property owner of 520 P66iftd B*tr&bt initiated contact ansa sent: a'lefter to the Planning Division. The letter stated that h'e'*as s-.e-liih,g :his property and theirb honriAwati it! escrow. Mr, FQ' anksJurther sfaf(§dAhat fhe property bq§.a!, single family rosWenco in 'front; vyiih, tw :gu0si Ifomgs in -the IJq _rl Pa ibanks Jrb.q.-q,e*,-td.d a confirmation letter from the Cit. stating that,. in; ft y . disaster; he eye of p ftrqj -1 —, . _y - . stating, that, .1- .1 . . _, .. bf, disastbry �tlje CJW. Would 6116.W.- the &&�I —it :t bi-q Cb j:e '(gg units _ 'Qn. Appol .4j. 2010,. Planning Divlsfowsloff. d .1 0.2i.p inary'search of City record's and, sent ,6zoning zcbnfr _mati n leiker. to Mri, Fqjrb.anks ib -0 that no permits wple issued fill the _forrning Mr. 00!A lihitsWhichIEW&6 noted in his letter an a - a CnnditionalrUse permit (CUP) (which is requited ,-16'a esfa bi i s K non rentable;gUestIhits--w.iIfIh AS(RA)- _zoning dls_tnct) had not beeft.lssued.fo7 fhe use..Mr. Fairbanks was also. Infquned Thai, than fifty percent of Its feasonabJetyalUe fray: Ge restored or used ohly iii qR p It nee with.. the regulafio:n's existing in ttie: district: wherein it is located: Provisions fbr, if Wbi6h have been consirycted withou# the I enefit,of. permits. To legalize the isfingi,guesl Units................................... --------------- ............... . . . . . . . ...... ................ .. . . . . . . . . ..... would . . . . . . . . ............... ........... .......... ........ ....... ..... . . . . . 00107 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 8 Shortly after the zoning confirmation letter was sent by Planning Division staff, the case was forwarded to Code Enforcement for follow up. Code enforcement officers conducted'a thorough search of city records and requested a search of County: records for any documentation associated with. 520 Pacific Street. However, no permiisfor the guest units were found. Code enforcement officers. also found the subject Property advertised online and located two "for sale" postings. Both postings identified. a "studio guest house with kitchenette" over the detached two car garage and a 'second guest house with one bedroom; living room.; and kitchen behind the garage".. On September 10', 2010, the property owner allowed City staff to do ascursory on site assessment of the' ontme posting for 5zo Pacific property' (see photos in Attachment D). Several life street safety code violations and other: issues were noted by Planning and: Building Division tall (A, detailed list: of the main concerns/code comp.J.iance issues and the: related code at ons areshown in `fable 1 of the Analysis section of this report). On 8epternber16, 2010; the. Ctty of Tustin recorded.a Notice,and Order Pursuant to: Tustin Olt y Code 5ectlon;;5503 for'the property of 520 Pacific Mianue. The Notice and Order provides written notice. of'the existence -of a public nuisance and requires the ccLaeclion of code violations related to illegal strucfures constructed in violation of. the Tustin Building Code and Zoning Codes. Ih part, Secfion 5502(b) states a public nuisance exists iyt eh "any. coodiiron...exists upon'any premisesthat. s,dangerous to. Human life oris detrimental 'o he_elth as deter..r..rilned byan appropriate city official" .(see Attachment A). The Notice and Order provision is set forth: in Chapter r5 of the Tustin City Code,for Property Maintenance and Nuisance Abatement' Regulations and Standards... The; purpose of this chapfer is to "provide, for the abate"trent Of. condrhoris Which _are; offensrye or annoying tp the senses, detrimental to property .Value- arid-communIf 1.9p ante 'an tib5tructio:n to ot° Jdjorference with the comfortable enJoyrrtent% 6. adtagent property; or hazardous or- ihlurtous-;fo the hd6 th; safety or Wblfare of the. �eneral;publrc In"sueh ways as to donstltuteanUtsan.ce": AR LI'M - ring ilia p0rs6r�? oti stie a$sessment of the property on September 10; "2010, Gity staff .'noted leve a .co a compliance- issues at the property, The following table outlines'the: code cofnpllartce.issues;and concer,0; code;sechotts;_3pplloable=(Including Califo.'tnt`a: Sutlding Code as.;adopted.: by Tustin, Calttornia, t=ire ;Cade, and Tustin CI.- Zoning Gode)t aft.0 photos taJten duffing the. assesstnePf;; 00108 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page g TABLE 1 CnnF CnMPI IAWr.P ICCI IFC 'Location Code Compliance Cade Sections - —. Issue a 311cable photos ' l The use'ofthe property California Fire Code - as a triplex (with 3 :Section 102 Change of uliilg) changes Cha building use or occupanPk '`•� i ril `* E occupancy ftin 3 (single family California Fire Code Section 102 Unsare P -,,V , residential) to R1 SUdding dr?Wrivclures (Multiple famil,,a^_ It could not be Califomla Fire -Code detemlirtedif Sechoh 102 Unsale i fooling/foundations EW&ngor. iruclures eiiisf;to provide adequate structural bracing and support to. ft, structures No fire separalion walls Building,,Code'Table 1��`sq£y",,,r ',,s Multiple residential bdiweehunits; 503 Califomia.Fire,Code - ui7ts_.b0ili.affer t6i'ef6re not' in .Sect iomf10'I Unsure original structures cdhtp)lahceyrithone 'Condtifohi w/operniits. requirements which qu3es a po(eiitial:fire _hazard to 0 cu ants .._, ,_ Mectianlcai, electrical,: TCC 8100�Adoptlon of and ijj rmbind (including 2007 Caiiforn(a. Building WVAC). installation :C6deA105:1 Perthfts: 'tuck done W ihoul re a) Bathroom � permits tn:upper m Permits -are required to. unii'iti/b co ifib4f.ethaf life- safety: ' permtls protocol is follaweo:and I� theta7tploR jstluhe, adCotii. io plan,_ $Vhhotitsuch permits ajip [nspectloh, "iitsfaif do may create fire;hazard wale[ .. tlamage, e(c � - � - pursuantto the iomng TCC 9223a7(fi)- pode ihepropeiy does mihimtun building site far- . hothaVesufticl'z(iilol _ secondres[deplielltrnll9' sizeioaccommodatea 12ip00squarefee i ___ Setorid.gntl s�epnd pj third unit (RagtnreStPin;'12,000 TCCrg229b2 Accessory 16gs6 pused as guest Hurd resielenliaf, sq; R, 104,howeuer'lhis' rooms..prpVidirig no units, cn'o(cfpp[is acill('in - -- puest unit (ho.kitchan ihslalleg d dloined, iaegihesjreywresrGUp: sub)ecttoCoRdihopa'I 7hls?pugtberofunits UsepermiC? "t4ould need to be; � lodt ifdd ht an t? ?.or R-3 disidi ' and would regilire?a i7iiglmuiiL:9iT,. , perking stalls [ii -support fh_e��dded restdefit(at - _ _-.— _ -- use.,. 00109 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26,2010 Page 10 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable The second story wall Section 1403 of TCC` ' - construction and 8100 Adoption of 2007 windows adjacent to the Califomfa building. Code prbperty line do not - ;k r 1 et9 cphtplywllhfire l prblectlon ':- insufficient re' Uire. cots, q �`-- The. opening isnot permitted as shown, -' .,,'rr"4r PL. exterior wall is not fire !u . rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts Ingress egress in case 1 df.`firp orgihee - emer Furhoce.inslelled TCC 8100 Addpi on:of H yVr without required permits 2007 CahfoJ lji 86iiding f' does not meet, CodeAiD6�—Permits I clearancerequirements reg6lmd a 'antlerealesapolential ,tr` C ire Hazard. Exposed electrical next TCC 81.09 Adoptlomof rn r to,pripermitted'furnace 2007 Calrfornfa i30ilffing ' b which causes potenllal Code A105:1=PeRnitS �- N -fve haz'etd:. ragulretl r r! :, :L ., r Z p: fl �t Fi N 9 C o 1 yYi ; m y_ ,Eleclricpl:degice. -. nezho heaier l ' Kitchen cobkir g- TCC 9223b2'No cookifig; facilities not permitted faclihes permitted in - ingdes[umf.,, .guest,unil; Klicher).[0 Pttirnbnrgand.eleclncal TCC 6100-A-doptwn of r .; t; upper uniP installed without 2og7 0allf in building, :. pg mils Permils,a{a� Eode Alp5.1 _.:Permits Yequlred to,insure•ihat . zequned hJ'e�safetylrYo{oGbl is -followed and m5tallbiion ts':do�e ecsdrding?o ,permits and i'nspecfion, -- fire 6a7�ard; avata r 00110 Appeal 520 Pacific Street OcloberM, 2010 Page 11 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue a t!cable photos Shower added on to TCC 8100 Adoption of _. • original structure: This 2007 California Building i(^ b `.r -:�, requires a building. .Code Al MA .4perrnits F l petinit to add additional iequfred) square foolage.(pop. nut) and permits for pliirnbing Apo •. .Waterproofing. -` Shouter addedy7/o r perntIts =y y Raiiing has no _ TCC 8100 Adopi(on of t Intermediary posts and 2007 California Building -L - R' _ No inr eF and rise.are not Coda 0105:1 = Perm is e - camrun cam Ilantwith Building regurred posts , „— Code roquitefnehls hof TCC 8100 A4optlon of, I I is fle unprotected back 2007 California Building Mich is open. "Ibis falling: Code 9i112.Handrags-i /-,_- •�I�; q®� poses a potential handrails: required for Word far smelt stairways i chil8ren. TCC B100Adbpi(o0'.bf _ „-•, j;� M 07 20Oahfmra oBuilding m 13 Code 10Girards- guards shall be located - o along ppensldad -_w> :o walking,surfaces . y. Including stairways .� �C located re`re llizri 30- �, Inches above`Ihe grade ..._ -: . o below ..:. ` ....... .. Tpere is no pr6perty. :.2007 CBC Section. -- linefirewail separagon =10243 Exit discharge u between _sfatrca'sg_ and adcation WlpdoW�at PL. U) the[propedy Iih€:; requires 5ft setliack 'jhe;slaircaseisbudt TCC9'22302(e)requires, bveF.the proper{ykne 5'ti seibadt'oproffdliy - A guest unfl requires a [6 9 fo'gl seipsck io: 77(iere'are seve[a) Issues bssocialed with =�ttllt•over aL, '� ikle' lacfil(orian#slits' s191rcaseAlnosT; Uhrn(nent Is the.;laCk'o,T; �' _ :efflgrgency geGess._abAj safe:�i:gre5sdrdm�.ihe ��'� � unify �' ijoof.dfglps pt1le' :2007290 Selafoh ' . roa�hbanng properly 'i'IU1 1 all roofs shall ba 4 W[JCjI play cause:. dYained, 9ooding; sjgrMsewersys�em 7fk '200VCB 2007 , l6ii J1 09A ;6ralnaga'acm;;s property lin's. 00111 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 12 Location Code Compliance Issue Code Sections photos applicabi.e Structural supports do 2007 CBC Section not provide sufficient 1610.4.1. 23017 Gendral supporting rafters Roof Design Requirements. ' * ' inadequate te erienq(Wsoorjost jina FI i supported undersized to provide along bjolk ferjcpfather Struct6ra) adequalesuppori than canfitaVeria -from supports. ts the.tWos[orystetielpre Theicarporl Is attached Change in occupancy it ,both the main house cons.fituiles q.multitujde of Carport and]he'2-storygarage CBCand Fire aLrld.piloiched rear units; -Cdcle. violations:attached to making this 0 ffi-plex California Fife Code main house unit: pursuant to building Sectio --(12.3:C rann I - ' I ' ' ge of and garagec?gqyp code firia.rating. Miese use r gnqy;, decreate California Firb,.Cbdd access hazards for fire S . a .. c . I . I . on - 1 1 02 vf;sA . E(Cce- -as and may pose BuHqijjg'pr . Skuqures .e addi'tio'nal hazards to ce6wi0ahts since the occupancy changes U. wither .tri=plex common -'terftffnoI6gyj,,. UPsUp—po-e-te-d-eleciriciii TCC -8100A opd-- fionbf metal conduit -1) b'etW iff-garaja and 207 Uif6mie Code Al 051 Pb#hfli hows'e..The potential for reqd1raid line -over' damage and faili,iire doe to'lhe exposuteof the a... line !a increased:and poset; a Potential tire hazard. ^ e7 a NoEating a In separation an -6d 2007 GBC Tattle 002 Ily uritis, thus 't BequiromerfifsfiJeZdarjor! 716 virl. 0913 X0 0 9 a _above - W sdil,oir)rl- alto' n Ota- a i e C fi ir.. gn W-6-1 at no Sepqrafilbrf Riafqp in Nj Elect' lei ng,�, .2007 fR5otrpoxBann' be, J�pbsed NVoJti and �: exposed err unprotected Arucie.1306'.S6rudng ?d mttsf beand qobl).Mifid 8 Ic Lcliled-. in 1het 195'b)s', Color cading (yellow) wasn't 00112 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26,.20.10 Page 13 Unit does not meet fire 2007 CBC Table 602 rating tequiremeni; 5 Fre-Resistance Rating foot-stlback required to Requirements for Exterior property line 16 poled Wglts..Based on Fre occupants.Voiti fed Separaf6ri Distance hazards; -or safety (1021 UBC Section 1403, p.efsodpel responding to less than 3 feet). An emergency, TCC.Mtib21ninimum side yard.selback.5 feet. neater Instaitea wall a J GG. 8100 Adoption of gas IfrieWith out permits :2007 Caldornia Building It is ihstalled'on a Code A105:1 — Patmirs' cote yslible'wood sided requi[erl wallwhibell, 'posesa Subjectloma,nufactUre's pofentw:fire hazard due Installationstanderds"and to 111d rn&hzfJiballplumtiipy material peftijit "17Q5;26Co111rig : eight:; Irtinmui— m C mlh, TejiJi g;_- heigfit°ooes< potmeei'; Photos Min. 5 ft setback required (Zero -4 f[ prmidedy Heater installed w/o permit 00113 Appeal 5.20 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page •14 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue_. acolicable Improper and 2007 CFC Section 605.5 '-=`=°•"7 R- spbslandard Oectrical Extension Cords. wiring without permit - Power sUip next to MIchen sink where a f rangemlght have been pievlously 1 w Plumbing added without -TCC 8100 Adoption of permit 2007 California Building CddeA105 1 - Permits _,__ y:, regwretl): TGC 9223b2 No cookidg Kdchen :in rear unit- rtok per _ Kltehep Is. not p6tmitted (penzoning) facilities perm hed in (610. mbing,electdcalr guestunil. etc:) m. �; U 15eourad and;expcseii 2007 GMC Section 'm gas.11he on thelnterfor. 1`311.2.6 Hangers, a% which poses a pofenLal Supports, and Anchors =; gasJok,a40 fire Hazard- and 1391 m-011dtsWilk � In the rean0riit ExPosed,and uri biired:gas. liiie•in'sisede, iinif ' . a y Insitaban is tonrated Welland`nponing and Is tomhueliti)e $r6tebffi4 2007-t (appearstc4estray✓ 7abfe602Fites�: R baler: f3esfsyanye RhUhg Re?uirements torhdergor, ° !!ells lased on.Fue *� Sebaratbr[171s)_a,'nce�nd , , , '�ab(er`T04 8lvlaxilnuln - *� , " =v Area of Exledo. Wall Cbrnbii tlble rnetetl Lt **" 'Ir9Slalled betwaen"v�alls 00114 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 15 �� Code Sectionsapplicable room is considered spaceThe Habitable. "habitable sps.ce'and defyined. by c appears to not provide space In ab 01 9 for Ving, sleeping, -eating or rcr }p't J .'Ifyin,g"*w.„Z"r. etc �y5 T7 < t 1° 41ad 1 i Ii n� ci , ,...-�1YY1�,- failing _ low 11 and should he a mum /W, � ` t 1 .�.- CWih_g NNW £. .e- - c'L119 9 to::- pvore uooe compuance /ssues:n4lad m Tablo 7::bbsed on cursoryobservatlens by Ctty'staffbn Sep ember 10, 2010, The futl.extent of vloibtions is unkgown due to the limited ability to cenduct n,thorough.gssessmerit f Building G.ode Appeal The appellarit is requesting reconsideration of the Notice and.Order far the,. determination of a public nuisance filed for the property at 520. Paelfic Street The appellant has indicated,_ n' part., in his. letter of appeal (Attachment, B)�that tbe• Building.'Code section which requires permits would not.apply*fo his property because he purchased -the horde Over'10 years :ago ,and the ttuctures :already existed. Flowever the currentproperty owner is ultimately the responsiple person for °inaintai n_ing the property "Responsible Person"- as defined by the: T jshri City°.code Is"`the ov rgpr, of property upon -which :a:violation of the Tustin City Code; occurs or continues to occur, This fermi also; indrty l.odes aowner,; occupant, or otiher-patson-:or.entity ih .control'of the propeoywho is creating, :causing, ormarritaining any condition`irruiolation of the Tusi n :City Cgdet,t The cur rent prope'ity owner may l ave pur hosed fhe. pfoperty lh, the-cuFeent condition Wit h multiple wits: that are --not permitted, however,; 'he has, ::akoi, knowingly, bf not, maintained the structures and collected ,income (rotpi tenants: wj7o Ilve, in numerous substandard bulldjig co7ldttiorts; Zontng CpdeAppeah The appellants also requesting cnnslder40D of the,Zonmg t ode requirement fDr a. Condltlortal Use, P:ermlt and lot Ilne.: jsetbaeklt Ml lefter Indicates, .j1ri part that the property is nof' in vlolafion 'of these codes; Because the structures+ existed prior to Conditional Use.;P.e7mits and'#he fir5toning of Tustin (see gttacjrpent B). 00115 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 16 The Notice and Order indicated violation of Tustin City Code sections that require a CUP to establish accessory buildings used as guest rooms (provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained)(TCC 9223(b)(2) and that a minimum 5 foot side yard setback be provided for accessory buildings used as guest houses (TCC 9223(b)(2)(d)). Although the two. story garage structure was, probably original to the site, the use of the second story apartment abb.Ve the garage was not permitted. In the RL.1 Single Family District, guest houses or guest units were historically intended for ".temporary guests" and the use has been perrinifted accessory to !he main house. Kitchen faciliti . es Were not permitted in guest units nor are re they permitted to be rented out for compensation. Further second units require additional garage parking and a.minimum lot size;,of which hich this pr6pertydoes notrneet.. Appeal Findings Pursuant to Tusfin, City Code SOCtign 0294, the RIpphing Commission should consider the evidencb supporting ,the Enforcement Officer's Idetermination (as shown. in Table 1) that a public nuisance exists at , the :subject property due to the dan gbrous conditions present.As.the hearing badyjheiCohiMiSsiOn should detein-nine Whether or not the two . ' accessory buildi , ngs that are currently uprifly-, being utilized as rentable residential LJTIRS, (with kitchen'fqqili.fies) should: * _qe brought into conformance with Tustin City Code reqpiremenis, as indicated in Ahe:N6ti6e.and Orcle,;lor * DetefMilhe Whether thecode sections were accurately applied to the prope r-ty; or * Moqffy the Notice and QrdEk( Indepehd e'hi Evaluation In considering appeals, #Te. individuals . s .tQ assist its b cornhiis�sibfibd a 'third party sl C. Ld.offils. f.drh Thliiilelh.61f&� bulldlinl9q, and was; o top -a _W-17. have : been , trial and of Appeals has the 4151 and Jh. ..., making fji d (Yv.11batlbh bioVidbd Inc, The firm sbe id -to efriploY qualifiod, and decisions,. Staff btoric ffrid,older idfubiur6g ibdy overtime. The Iiif.61tititt provided .6 rjePb`it .1han concluded that "the front house d . 1i''M_�S_t" o y caTragpbAn are bOffi histikalf�dgrffibbrf.Ai is apparent as drly,oie livirig: unit on 0 [main 1.'owsj01 Jn;-1 921). when df'rusiin Was rici : -1 rp.orifed. -T. here is strongphysical evidence. that the sei and and third living units Were added; G__ _'L US ION: QNQ, USION: Shaff'T8cprnhiendt that the Planning Q.Qmrnissiq .:ap.q 'the Poard tLie and .Orden and property r(§ $ qrty bWrie.cbM.PjY,. With the 00116 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 17 requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated Oct6ber'26, 2010, with the exception of the date of comPlia-hce which is hereby established at November 3.0, 2010: Amy Thombs., AICP Senior Planner Y/HemY Huang, P.6/, C.B.O. Vuild1h,g Official Elizabeth A. Binsack Community DeVelopmerit Director Attachments: A, Notice and Order B_ Letter of Appeal Received Sept. 23;.2010 1-2010 C,- Site Plandated,8/80/10 P. 'PhOtowt.a.ken during 'Sept. 10,2010 assessment E. City, of Tustin -Historical SuRley for 520 Paqfflp Street F'i July 27, 2010, letter from Mr. Bret Fairbanks & August 4; 2010, zoning confirmation letterr-from City'staff H. Report Prepared by Thirtieth: Street Afcfiiwts, Inc: it PC Resolution No, 41.6.1 J1,PCReS.0,11.1tioRNbA1.62 f Zp- - AP - - -- ' 6_5 Ncirlc, n9I*6_20r'a g hue 00117 ATTAC14M.EN.T A. Notice and: Order 00115 Gem comity Development Department 8661 via first class and certified mail September -16, 2010 TUSTIN BURDiNG OUR FUTURE HONQ1UNd QUR PA$r Bret S. Fairbanks Q Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92766-4329 'NOTICEAND ORDERIPRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address; 520 Pacific Street Assessor Paicel.Numbe'r.; A01-371-97 Case Nlumber Dear Mr. fairb2njtpj 7tiank you for••megting Wdh .City staff at 520 Paeifc.Streei'cniSeptemler 10, 20.10; During the: inspection, two, tiptacbeo. Mqu q*tu,re8 were observed W-itin Jhd rbar yard, in add[j onto. a gDost house above the garage and a second guest hous.O behind the` bafage, all of.which fam unpern fitted A ptelimilia y search Of City iecorcls 'also indicates that no co difon I use; permit ,(CUP) is on fileJole.stablidh gussf houses W (hp" OiFoperft-. Ot er norlcompfa ,ad ',0 the - staircase ljrn'� setback; et� Ock 10the side proPert�' 6hz and.the guest house above the garage currently contains. coo fcr are, atte, h tdhe[efo as Exhibit B: Pursuant to - Tu[st Cd -VA -1122(a], - o -'t'4E� TustinTustin'City :C-.'ddL is ; pol ic- n fi- Thdfefdr*e. please be :kvkdd thiol theCity 466rnfiW jfi&C.4 60bjjZj fti . ' sbfic&;!ls be.09, maintained at - 521l PaOig Ztreet- due In Oft lhe7 necessary permits .and entitlarnenf were not objaiped for Vvq wg:,qgq ur the r �Typ — L! 9�zgt _tr gesLbo14ses-; directed 2610! ---do:dD---- 1 CUP appilbmio-n with th'd ,plaits and all .!Otho*'n6a"safy enhtlemeiittapplicatibns to , the Planning aHcl. ROWing Division for th 6 Iwo, gdesL hodgest and tb!D.iwo.a.(t6che.d'.tiructiir.e.5 NQh1hJhOjrP'a7"r'- y'.a"r-d. j Tn x-qc "'Ag I g � g, 00119 Nollce and Order .1 520 Padft Sticel September 15, 2010 C9.0 a V10.0312 P*90 2 Mr.1 MW 2) Obtain a perm - it from the he P . tanning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of pH Unpetmitted structures and improvements . on the property, WhichInclude, but are not limited . to the two guest houses, the staircase ati-ached to the garage arid the two.d etached structures, Mthin the rear houses, yq rd. NOTE: For Information .on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division. at (71.4) 573- 31.20 and/or the planning Division at (714) 573-3140; Addilio.6plly,"all permits re . lated to (h I ismatter are to be finaled within ninety. calendar d ays of permit issuance pursuant to 20 1 Q7 Califorfila, Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes;your Notice and Ordef10 abate all p'Ublic, nuisance conditions and violations at6--a I, - 52 Pacific You (6r) any person having any record title or legal interest in the propei-(y may reque6t consideration of his N6ke and Orderorany action :t i of the enforcement within ten calendar days fro6 (he.date of serviceaof this Notice. and Order. All appeals shall -I, be made inWn i, rn.g. Failure to comply with this notice within the time. limit specified above may result in .(I) the .Is linistfatiVe diltatioh-pu "uqht,t . to'Tustin tin City Code 11.62(x) ;-(e&f Exhibit A aw:ahn'�P �f.an'ddrn rs ..s I. �0 6q.re 0 ..t. `for ft(O.Ari-infonTiation), end/or .(2)all nepessary work being coMpleted by City pe.rtb.r)nbl or PriVate contractor, with all abatement costs being, billed againit you 'and/or assessed ag'aih§t:Ihd property .and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our :City ty Attorney Tor f0rther legal action. Pleas.e note that tho,,dj's posal of any material Involved in public nuisance ed forth III this 1-b s shall be carried In a 169af mariner, Adds ibhblly is notice and order Q11 e recorded against he ptoperty In the Office ord6t.' - c ic , e of the fte"c' -f furthe'r cla0fication-'or 'ass jifa'nce w,11ti'this 'matte directly at (714) $73-0135, Sln,cefeh Co. ig I it 6 rCgmm- Q, Amdjimiarits; EMbit-B,Gbde`-Viol5tibhs7 qri Abq Tit'qrP 6, 0 Community Development Department EXHIBITA Administrative. Citation Process In accordance with Tustin City. C6de (TCC) 1162(d), fil admInlatrative citation as follows: $109.00, for a first AM the same ordinance or within one h_ year of the fim further vJolatloo of the some ordnance or perinit wlthjp:. and Safety Code (TCC Sed 8 lil 00 8909) vlointions n VJ . ais ion; $50oxo for a second violation of the Marne orc.' fifalMolotion; or -$1,000.00.W. a third or dnyfurther Vic Oithimone year of thejlrst vidlatIcT4.-Thii City Aayalso fa the*dsponsible citatidn a-n'Wbr aball akiatwm6iit andlor Pro'se-cutloin aaseisi6d against the owner(s), and1br-thO.,property, is a lien. TusTIN BUILDING OUR FUMIUR HoNORING.Oulk PAST iY be. asase:3sad b meenr:df an '.20006 for a second viclaPon: of ;In;ort$500.00 fora third, or any Or'qf the first vlolatlbm Building al6ikesqoo at $1.00010for a !fret .or, pahnill Within one.year- of the )Utha Iamb ordinance: or p6nifit her legal action Includifid l6sulng w161allon(6) vinth (M.6 -66-t of,aidch, �fisible persan(s), 'the property Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person ham ten (10). days from the date of ci, ti.., 'd q, on to. gay the corresponding fline(s). Additionally, the resi)onsilbla POrsbn Must take one of the following . loWng actions to avoid I . ad 11 d ' pIri6 _ i - . . _take J additional penalties -T to the compliance datespetifled in the ad likgti' min ve citation; i). Correciffib Aolstlqnj pay the p6pres, andi n _�c Oty to request a"re _gflh_a(sVPftd 6WthID inspection" or P hOt- Pay ��nrgspbndjn i fir_jOtsj,�qrid:reqUe4t: an eXtenelon of ;time, in writing Pq twt; to TQQ: I , 'shawa ii reiasonabld hardahlp;, or Relowal a hearing to appeal admWStlaWe citation Purstalzint to t.dQ I ten (1'0) ildyg from M data bflhb ddrniflikedtiV " ti* ethdf-withen advanced deposit ,R6qb6sYfor .Hearing forma' bricLothee7inforniatidwon AdrninistratiVe..Citations May, be.7obt.Wnod JOUCcOmn't'al Way,Tusii7i-C-A.91-7.96 • R (7-U) 573'3jb6. 00121 Nebo Cxo Ok Sh.0 9bmM ib: 2010 C16XYIa]12 W Exhibit B ,Code.Violatioh's at520<Pefd fic Street Ao1 Caltfornla Buildili Gode A705,1. (Adapted, per'tustin City Code 13100) — Permits Required. Any ofterpibulhor'iied agent.who Intends•to.conWudt, enlarge;,alter, repair, move, demolish, orciange- the 'occupancy of a building or stNoWre; or to erect,, ipstall; enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or teplace any electrical, gas; tnechanlcA ;orplumblhg system, the installation of'which is regulated by this code, Or to cause any such wbrk'to be done, 'shall first! make applleatlon to the building official and obtain the required permit. TustidCity Code 9223(b)(2) 'Slogle,Family 1`3eslderitial Distridt (R-1) Condlttonally Permitted Use's and, Deveiopmeht Standards -. Accessory buildings used as guest reoms,provid'ed no cooking faolty is installed or maintained are. subject to af conditional use permit. Tustin;City Code 9223(b)(2)(d)—SingleFatnily Residential Qietn0 (R 1) Minlmulri side yard setback'fior.accessory' buildings used as guest hogsg5 _ Comerlot lihe 10 feet;: Interyorlat line; 5 feet. NOTE.. Ptease;be:advised that'ihere may beaddiflonal code compllance,requiremenls; 00122 ATTACHMENT B F. ., Letter of Appeql Received Sept., .23; 2010 00123 Septe.mber 22, 2010 Brad Steen,, c0deEnforcomdnt officer Community Development Departmepi City of Tustin RECEIVED SEP 2 3 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Letter of A . pp6l for: Notice- and Order/pre-Citatioli Notice Declaration of Public Nuisance Address: 520 Pacific Street, Tustji4 CA 92780 ASsO550P Parcel number: 401-371: X07 Case Number- . Dear Mr. Ekeji, Tbi$ letter is to appeal and an unpentlittedunI.M. TbaccidL-Violatior i reads . . y owner or authorized ngto-i4o intends to ewstructt.cnlarge. alter; repaitj trove, , d 6fiidlisk.or changc-tbe occupancy of m building, ng, or M .'Urq� Ono erect, install, enlarge, niter, repair. reqjo;Vd.I cdihi ert.006j5.We irly u. It is. regulated by his Ode, o.f.10 cause any,surh work to be done; el - I - building official and obu�i: dmXegue4iced �i KappliQatiqii I.Q.The erraif. I have .no; intend6ifs or teco Stnict. mg, P . ung -any portionofthr ssid!s6ctures. pbrchiso y '. .— -1 - - the hopqe (yv ears ago. and tbestnictures ajieady exista Wbd .1 - h, dIth P I WOW- e:property; I,'hay.epjTqv.T.d'ed evi.dedc6to-sljb\y $dt the structures have Miste: d for over 50 years. I tfbdeffl�htid llie he city - s has no permijs otthe Atruetlir 9 0)4`town .Wi lei IM, Most ifnottfldrthe hqtqe0would lie ifi -vjWfiOh:qhiUonsjdered ztpublicnui8mice, With regards to: the other violatlbo& 10&r. artg4.6ndilioiLiluse permits and lot tibo J!dh conditional: ase 204� anti Mar Iii response tlle;leHer, rt ks 'azpadwA Trio. -not feel I nava :'vialat'grl any -' ic-mu" o publ san,G�j Biot rairli;ipks' 00124 A. I ATTACHME T C 8.ite Plan dated 8/30/10 III Kim lllu-O , if PA 0: WT C. - STREET. ks FAIRIjAmf RESJDLNCp .6120 PACIFIG'STRUT TUSTIN� D2780 ILK PA 0: WT C. - STREET. iii 01 :.'..31; ks FAIRIjAmf RESJDLNCp .6120 PACIFIG'STRUT TUSTIN� D2780 iii 01 :.'..31; ATTACHRENT D Photos taken during. Septl1 b, 2010 inspection 00127 (. ° .. t �Je � Fj t. •fq i r T % ' 1 y� a !' 1 Yi 1 9 I p It , 41i I I } zi r�i,,;y�y,,`�*�a�'k"-x Na�R•r "�' �ll�'a riu .t �L�C°�'�" {�' i� '�I�jA` F1 9Srr ��'a�.��� t 4 fi�i+i�5a� i ail •n` .� o .a I ' .. +a'. �, f � �• 1 � Ic r-mnr—,a � u I � 1 I 1 Lt ; i mino ttt h I �i r � I f j +1 ♦'1'� �' jo ` r \ I '1 I • { � I e j � III �I I^ 77�� I w� Ii`I a, � I I• 1t ` 1 `[[ I iiiiii x Is j + f _ 3�I yl _ �1 I W, qz� ATTAP H.M,F-3VT R City of Tustin HistoricalSurveyfort520 Pacifig ureet, C ? �Aj ' Ysi*-+ 3i a'41�,'�.•. #' I:R"'4 ���' t r ��?-•E7 t t w � r, tti,' �i t �✓�ir'�',Y y.' q� a i. L � .. �� .� P IM�'es�.�= pr-Ic nu'ridtl 'me; 41Mgloostoried. house at 520.ie t6o:.tl witu.:n @out fol nonie po beige, the peals Sllip]ep siding, in.;p aty-a mad originil. 'Natrow claplbasd siding covc si tT=-first flow - Ury,mof 'he mucete pppeh cztcnds to cacti tilde, ':toppe by. 1&4e plum glass w i doWt. Dohble-htmg windows am Aids it ht4nitd4 uy Vintlows X import and a: Woastbry c g+p?YF. S%Ltch Alptus m he pdginal, is topp,A.,;y tth a:g: weal# to iddicam that she. bowh onbe was zsb. all climb F.otlfFblPE, eenlcred porch.. A small loavercd.vcatis. 3; JOdytrs the gables, indicating that the roof is tiet ts, tccitng. on tapered clapboard -.1 ad piers, ttlpport -frobt dbordeaaft= a mullioned border and'is tlaaked scat, of the house. A and bncL• bhiutncy oa the sohth are located on the south side, behioa the house:.Tlte at lbe pez - The ai'd'ing is miaow rlupbpuq,'whibb I at the pri[ of the frost4aeing gabled --took, yY.P,:[ls7si•.'o.1Y7�-13Mg-dc3r wds. budtan oap o'F dirniow stouts South.pa a�IIeet-wliicli wem Snlidivtded by [i' �.; +Masple. He Svaf ;its sdA y GhGd aad Edna ➢la pTF, G yf4gmwcrt, wha owae3 nn .Urehatt! on afisa, t roper y ,from 1$ll? va ihtl �Mperty jtaPh�.4p l:TarTy'nt.�34 tIe dGilldptCd a Atop down t71e ccnCri .Isom ivluin lo'tSTr,[hiStiecta >'or die;oxiea5tap-pP.jteotCC alrepL Hg.,icl7Jttha ]ot is Cicolge Gay�acd`,rh j$�9, 'Elly ©�yZui�t Yccgvcd,a. �h'11pjcaoR aoticL ,oSL717d.r hoax' t6lR 61tpil°,; feh6 'Gc'oYgh idol . e sQ'e1l.lika woai ahoy add physlce} 4dUdaboq-5n_st�ueton at ttje Tus[tq GrntbmeY. Scbopl-tor gevaal yrars Afmr,he ietucd ]ti the 19he berate �-L..cameater pl h faylords wdrn sogdtY ng m !Le hodse i 1965 Th s bungnlovv,:Gts well tr t6:thb s meCaceph Uf llie `fnstin Aisotie �stncf'aiid;coetnhn(4s'(o. the Iles ]wed spec;,bFcsuse i[ i;.,e{�nn.' aTpropriale, size zpd,soalq, 00138 ATTACHMENT F Jtily,.27, 201,0,. letter from Mr. Bret. Fairbanks 00139 E July 27,2010 City of Tustin Community Development Department. Justina Wilkom, Principal Planner Dear Ms. Wilkom, -MY name is Bret Fairbanks andJantbc owherof the propeq located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin., CA 92780. We are qurrently selling our home andare i . n escrow. Our pTgperty has a single hm3y.rcsidcnccJn front with 2 guest homes in the back. According to the attached county records have ; addresses 520 an 1 &520 '/L we have : . and pay for 2 separate electric meters, and have various city Permits for. improvements we have done on the home since %..PV- purcbased it -in 100.0. -- The buyers leader is requiring a le*rfrom the city stating in, the. event of a fire; earthquake, or disaster, the city4ouldmilo* the guest houses to be rebuilt. Attached are documents from the county cc showing the guest - houses -have - . been here long before we purchased ihcproppr�,. ThankLyou for your time andcLdnsidcradon. This letter is all we need to. close escrow. if there. is anything I coWd do to I he . Ip.-4.eedjip this process pl=e71-i e M— e t, Ikh ' _ OW. Bret Fairbanks. 'C.P.. (9.49).99-08.86 00140 .sign Type Codes 101 - Single Family Residence 102 - Mulli Family 199 - Misc. Improvements _ ested By Address J:w�;rFi� Phone Signature PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION FORM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 2 3 4 10:. 1'9 12 13 14 WISHED BLDG BLDG BLDG BLDG UNIT IX GARAGE/ ' CONST L1SE .DESIGN BSMT IZE-is SIZE SIZE 511 Y CRPRT POOL LAND APN BLDG' YEAR CODE TYPE. SIZE 2N0 F 3RD FL 4TFI FL STHNP o m- m". '.:. SIZE Y/N SIZE u 00142 c MISCELLANEOUS STRUp7. %Q0143 K A 14,5T2 �21 't 1.121WE, lll� W—- on— 0 J, Ae[IpEss _PlEIRICT .7- OWNER Of6E COUNTY ASSESSOR MULTIPLE r UENTIAL UNIT'APPRAISAL RECC 80 y... - rlAu AT. Ila 401-371-07 --. ErOE Vr .. ptfJLr 1'AwmiN0. VERYIF "NO VALUECOMPUrAnoH6- Lcuc Sp UNR ATTpIBUTE6 I Alp I J EFMIi. I i I -.— .{ All, N '1J o ' AMT.`�_•••.• LI t(lifE'lllrlilrf L]I :.nD�r• SIIMNARY L' IFR[pULM yF� f_'1 qj " ASLCL1ufHiylAn - i OUL UE6AC .. .••• ('t }9�i V[p AMO ��.• AF/M16ER N_ - r CD.,VIR _ i[q 'XO MONTn AT Yun _ 1 I ;T /O1 r' ALLEY ,Fc r: NO n.C.x I IS .mI VIM _ �. j «ax aT mDlri tis r, 110 �'•�.d r]I UWTGOWOgff .. c C.A.. ED au lNDIGTON -' ) r o u I. urtNYWidulGlw Nnun; n - -••�- - I '• - No Lar INDICATfp iQfE -WrrR inDNr ry'u L1STEp'}qIC[ -.. �_-__ I rtj pDpYIMO glp'Im1 ,'FL ND FWAL IRaPM7 VL Jho YAWL _.._ IC SOXIM Wxlpnu: Tlxr " !N]pMAL �PRW[JIir VALUE -' L. Nr9LACFD iM!, r' r lE -ilG -INFMI giaNif �^ ib r ilOt.r+i ! Y 74 � .�'77 • - F/ G• � " Sf ECCFCGrvE,RNA'u_ .. .. Mt6n N9_E� yry.E' _ S >;�QX. �. .7/P�, 7i,-, RnAM lagnlrc,, E3 10 I'D T bUL^T fARILNp1 I [?.'El S� I- 9 eo CAtvwi> A.7 C,v'' 032Z.A n orcinlDr -__ - ra �........... F_4,(,-_ X572 To 27LG r� V le IiLF cen[ I C2,7�.. F.enNrinY. .r>•Jz�sT ._:a'. s'Gcrw[F ,-.- F.09MERLiYBO.. .._ 0fi2 090.=08 ,,"-' NooHeoAHocq,lTrpl�lriTs " '- ---' u LINSI[ rAM U6 -o X!3'�( Ro'j •:. _:^ - + .. ". M uVli TAN 45E .. .. �.', -: XO _ 1 --- -', ,. h.rxpuGr JtE •-' ti1a -' 'ul'L11N.r-I cpl -: —. .. __ :•`«tea -ter:. %E �.Ct-`iJ1IAkIS7N �, 1 S�tt,D�� it 4&aCiZph _ Y G _, ' +� g8 /Mif y- •(.�, _ y t iJEIJ2 LERVLCEsr (��. r 4 (DtACficArND ': - al 4AHink •ftSLND --+,rJ ac{N P. ?M ar �• Lc .. __ _ gAgIiE7 'MljLTIpUEp I'NDICAjPRs . ' Lf uniT'xly [ �. `? LONOLUilck YR r I x - hlt,i_ALuE 1 �� �vw imps ,Aln D 'P41tp Ytri Yxrl 4 V4 Ml I ♦. ,T Oil I'. TI rant Iwmlxe i ru IHG. ;LFNu,. enmDLlev 3R1(?rlgT - -..I ._. .. I .7 POG Trac. Fdm'A..' YERSONAL,ppULT ppr rOSPRRq Lm Splu tnF .�. �vATC UCIP - -, n IW L FN.IRDLLIt' jq� 4TnL91 }Fnt. npfi I� � ^isin c!- .. �--I -�•_ ')I i 'xyax^'vALLT"__ i aa� IC 00146 YIIrL: a Hp i-nT riF L tll ` CONOa VNiI naoy'oETATi— -r r ' i ir: Hlo '— �' iir�I' c 11 ,r! I n 1 Ll' -:•.r i..O�.ni Inr•L ;r _ wN osvn. AxE T r'" y RO ILIMHLu I k1L [ f IF II Il I}'lu It, vEF 1 1 I FVAi I (iT?rf/[M 1 I 1 W[Le rvl) a L'I C... IIP I WIN -011'S.1 A t UESrRIpTION EMA 0S bITAII C - r snep In LVED-IFaLI' `I cmuP rs.liEe,—. n rrg..rf.r f_. 'E er ee•Gk. r LCr .. Iwc 1I 1 REcLAl I ] InQtE - r 1. 1 I . IPEPAK41JaA;rr vnu r p ' ElIlPo'RIN P L6 LLIa�eL {Pr blrl. i : 4 Ncr y-j111N r L� . cavo nmt _ _ _ 7 Rvnma _ u canolncn I ] _ TYL- •. r'W rFIR CVIP r L.- LI WORRMFH lP CPx Fva _(AW L 3r 1 ,a_ q - .. YM1- CQ'.a -�il� :�. -. 111 9 IC =1. COGT OATS. .9 flu Aly! n MiiCELLANE0U5'.GTgUL'CIIgER a an m ul IUP, can 1AµE I n 6}RIICI f SCPIRrC cf vLDCn I found TfSN cpoe I M' +y -¢o I uW a N Co. I.Dix cceL Mrme ""' eauegerE' nn ISE • _ E - LDr- WE •yFe I• -- ! n n COST III, ]Tu coucn F'e[2n ri. { I n Y DE6111,x ryyE .31C M IN,u -� _ •-. r _ I 'xl W Ci 1111 � � y ID OR aCHLT:'NOb; • i ,. er HP. w ria: I p.• ., r: ..:_.... - ... _.. .l_ ni to Auto HfWK urll 6 � .. • W it :aRLF •• .. Ha or YNi}i n N fL FPrA �'• ...__� Lam, 1 fF I . 1 'y� x(1 Cl ,af11L ial PaR[NS; ...:.I � CECN'Inl: a /piG ! r 1 1 '1?4 0 CEUI. •• ... IeII, kFFi tCxr. •c v 1. To F-1 O 1r0 I Cp]1 .Lz ltlt Cvn 't _ . I,,'EY he0 c=' ._ , .. I .. IIT FPY P•R 3.__ �•�,+ I�, ..� _. n.i aPiH PAr'i - IN - --.cbm u-T.}TIOM' VN �If.M 41eT.�yR� 11� IFCi3L AJ 'J'. r..- o n II-.CACAM41 ... -1' ilt lM lry :Q G PP ' r IrTi I 1 si 'rP AJILA 1 r LN !'fiAlAllFMCP L' : • ' 1 Ir. -AL1' U . ' 11j.'iacltk,cm .•, i 7 fE INu.4]NE fa I t nrEr INPL L 10 CmIy11 nFF 'vyi�Y �xLk I 1 1?,v {PYF cmr �: E—Q'sY rda. l �I i ^ I�0 •iWR yvdl ^EAS. n [UxRCr1�5?1111 n •N W0� - i�-F' �'_ Cn IG eo€r IIGiR�_l QPu'P � .. * I� •�r. - ]fdSIJA{4a+ �'i:_= .. 4kif%IA)L •J .: { IAe&E-ji 149a6x RL rte _.tv� 00147 00148 00149 Community Development Department TUST'IN August 4, 2010 Brett Fairbanks ;520 Paciflc'Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mn Fairbanks: I3JALb1kG OUR.FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank "pu for your letter, receive Jul'27, 2010, requesting zoning confirmation, npftrmtyatfon far the property Y y y 2 eq g. g located at 520 Pacific Street: In our totter, you indicated that 'the _roe has a single family 1esidenc.e in the front. with two guest homes in the back. You have 'also included copies of. tax assessor information related to your property for the Cit 's review. In the: event of a fire, earthquake! or disaster, you inquired if'the City Would allow the, guest houses to.be"TObuilt. The; subject: property is.zoned as.'Single Family .Residential .(R-1) and located Vwdhin the. Cultural. Resources Qverlay. (CR) Distnct, Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are allowed as conditionally permitted uses. within the; a-1 zoning district, 'provided.1hano' cgojdng facilities are installed pr maintained. A guest; house Is defined in the Tustin City. Code as detached Wing quarters :of a permanent type of construction :and without` kitchens or cooking facilities and where no compensation`in any form is received. of paid: No permits exist -for guest houses-afthe:subject.property and no conditional use permit is on file to establish, guest houses at the subject "property. In your letter you indicated that'thete: are 1-wo addresses at' -the subject property, 52Q and 520'/z, Racific-'Street. The. City has not assigned a 1/z address -to the subject propeity; Pursuantto Tustin>CityCode Section 927,3(c), "A nonconforrnllflg building, destroyed, to. the,.extent gf jngre than fifty(50) percenfof Its rea'sonablelV610e at the .lime of its;destruct)oh byfire, explosion or, other�casualty pr act of God, rnay;:ba Testored or used'ori y, [n comphapce with the .regulation-sk existlnj ld Ilia district wherein: it is located" The: prowsldn"_s for reconstruotton, of<a nonconforming bwidjng ;does noE apply to: structures or add,tfgns, which :'have been illegally const , L. br c.. s Should)!ou WM to, establish:. guest houses at:.tltc subject: property;,rapprovaf'of conditional usa. perniifs,:and obtslning nece's'sary building permits Would, 6e requitetl Should you have any questlong, please`ddpot hesitate to galj iiie at.(714)573.31.23:. Sjn„ce_relg;. :Rya wlontek ASsoolete Planner Machmen a A' Stnylsl amJy''fiesidential'!(R ]) standatds I ;cultural Resources District{(GM standards G.`Guest 16. ,- Definitlon, 9.L16 Cxhicnmal Xa.TSflb'g771)31Q573 3tl'3 :� wwW,triStjnca o{& 00150” K CC: Ellzapqth A. Binsack DaRa L, Cqdpn Jusfina.Willkom SACdd\Flyan7odlng Confirrnatloh\620 PaclfJb,%dbb ATTACHMENT H. Deport prepared by Thirfieth Street Arc.hitects, Inc:. 00152 thirtieth street architects Mc. October 20,'2010 Ms. Elizabeth Bingack,CoftiibLinitY Dq)?ejppq1dDtDirCctor -. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA'92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin 1?PuFlizabtO: faundingprindpol., john c. lcumhqaruhijuct jilmes C. wilson, archilect p'-folcip"I OVV06d L gUlICY, 3TChi1rCt Rursuant too r, ).q(tdr agreement we 66'yq* conducted,exy a cqK$b1v jj�yj, of ffie. PbPtP9tdpj9of $tKL,C.tbfCS prPYjdQd bY$UdjT 'lb6' o,K-isfiagStrUM Ores at520 pacific Street. The f01)qwi g a sum a , -m r TLnqMgs: . . ry of Oul In As .TeqPilpology We will refer to (lie streetfacing side of the -icomptepc 2s:thp:'*O11Vj the t)YO sides asithe "Jeft and right" based on looRing alUbe site -from the street and ,the structures Wdf biefifid-the bail", �im . bahi . :as . fli6 s Zbnj h& It appears. tlaY thermain:finnt haieei been origitaffllyhfft-on� the site to 1.929-f Both of .stroetares qAj&t the: sdme type - of 6x[pljor, +Siding and -windoW, and --door "trim. The hisc.@!-sPTVey 6, Sndi ebt6shat &r&-1A:dS4dede6. IlIff'th& 6iaklfn—dl fr6fib gable of tlie.residenca may roof pe'a' but wiis 19(bf ihbdi56d. It appears fliat. 6e. oui-gmal development NOW 4 1 a 'mO VO 6h' [Niffg,iffiff in. the: Mala..hpuse- 00153 At some point leiter iii. Lime, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn Was converted info n second living unit with the addition of the stairway at .lie left side of the property, The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added ai this time or later; subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter. cuts on Alff window trim that distinguishes these alterations from tire. original construcfion_ 'The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear- indication of :a later alteration. The date of these: filte'ratious is unknown but they were likely constructed much later than the. original residewe,,probibly .dazing the. late,1940's or early 1950's. Lahr, mother tern 9 d cy tis constructed that stay Have initially been used as a garden shed; tiz cmidreil's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height).. The: building bus yenccgi, `boat anal. batt siding and different detailing than the on'&r 1, structures anti. a vintage 2iYI Cobbfront door. This'was 'probably converted into Yt third living utllt wtne: time in tete eatly 1950. s, based on the knotty pine-. mtenoi-:. This is .a very: substandard structure in terms of ceiling beigbt and consttuefon medtods: Additional alterations fo:the middle; addition were:made later; including a rooftop. slieti; sfriicture: ivtth altyliht'tli5fis appaiently ovec':a shower:. I heie is evitieut e of n ely ceGetrt:eledtrit it work based on the yellow: Romex: that is risible iii-iniiny RF t)ae liirtlding cavifies< Clturtges in, Ilse; ougmai 1eVolopigetit of the site in 1925 included the construction of a: single- family residei e wed. qpe living anie and a tivn.sfory carriage barn `tlrtt'iga apparently used as a garage aucl agricultural;:storage; At:some time;after 1YPYII, tliei carnage barn. ivas CitnvettCd into, a second living unit;: Wtffi ;tge€tiddthoa b 'fhe fr'onf. st O, db#&t ariil mt ldlc 38dition ar Elie rear:. Angd%r;fe.'a> addition iy is ad'det behind t intddle ld itton during the,laie.) 950"S orE:arly 1951) s This vi . snbst5Wastl sfrticture WWW probably of gtttQ p5ed as: _ti, storage sheet nCltrds,plgbouso It was latereotiYorted into a thud' lrvuig urtiE -OWN, ke 8IgOlgwt TJre...original l irilding rias been noted in.. the: Tustin-11istork Stuvey :as "`:one of n,. v'trtRy tf Califo>ma Bntigalorv,liuildtn s that contributes to Tustin" Althougli. Suli'sfidtiftl),y tziodrhed :avhen ffie 'second Luuig unit ryas adtled,. the middle, two sfoiy catpage,�ianp sttuthtra apgelrS io te[aiii enoiigia::of tfSs oci-in' achitec(priil ]mega tty imdlet u'lntg ..&Ijkbutil Yedw000 enter cuts>:at w Baha„ 282L¢c}Va)bWbdulbYNd.—.nW.ptfit11. bMth t¢92C'b3'-9JR/.%73,2Gg9 r 00154 modified flip roofs, etc) to. also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear •addifions were later alterations that are incqnsiJSterit with the architecture of the original structure and are, tberefore, not cpnsidere�d- hjstoricOy significant. Building Code Issties There cippenf, to be tj nu, w_ber Of scribes building, hazards :and code violations in L6 ,current development. The EIIQs-t significant is the codstructiou of the Laclbs&d stairway to the upper w4t..t 'I. c rj; t a tui- y encroaches a..cr oss—thie. side yard pfi5pbrty lizie. This addition is WPgaltad constitutes as hazard, W our opinion, by blockigg access in the side, yards toT #e fighting.. as required . by Ole CBC. This stair, raddition should be removed irod. anew stairNvay/cn. . try constructed elsewhere. The rear living unite structure:. very rion-confortiling to Building Codes an4'if does. not. appear to be economically viable to bring, this structure up to r c r u -enf. codes. FOf fifer Study Vqrtber research using,,S-antiorh and Building StirvOy Maps could coVA 0,00tructio4 sequence. and 'Viiro-Vide 'Proof of consWittibri. dates. There, also tbuld bgAdbrimation relating e to dw� us.. of-Shese structures atoc time bfmapping, Tji$' cost. of rctaining qq7kPl to*ral, Historian to research. this property -yy,()uYI probably Ile aboutSi 1,000; COUCI.Mio-111. W6 &6L.thlit the front. house, and 'tNv.o3=.stoi.y carriage, barn are both his(plieaj.r�; . i"Ifi(fan.t It b appgfdjnt tar tM§± as only one living r Tos6-,'—yas Wcbtpofated-alev ldd&b tbwthe-seE:cifid Ma thud 44 -* q units -LV.Oxo A. dd.44mh 1- ter, . L 99ppMpj,"da4qa.s We -WOUIXI recommend that ffie� -'W� '�,e removed:�4taju y 06111 (16!is be •corrected atAhe; carniq&6 barn ASAP, If. the .continued use 011"P.Mt Alowed by.Ihe.Citi :of Tustin:: We would hop.eAhat 6ld, iticliiii& the 'ieVershlAf someofffio 166pp-RoWAF(a t ect 6f I is! 00005�. tri, tb�. d T - 6 jiikm to,. help fzMt- then li�aj ifite. it Ibis; Pe o,. 00155 We do hot recommend the occupnncj for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. you havo any quesdons regarding.the:above,:please rlo not :hesitate to contact, me. -Vefy Viily yours, J.ohit Loomis i?,rutc?gal' .AT TAOHMENT I PC Resolufl.6h No, 4161 00157 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE, PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows; A. That; on .July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks; the current property owner of 52.0 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written ve0fication.that the two guest ho.mes.located at the rear of the single: -family residence at, 520 Pacific Street' could be rebuilt in the event - 'a fire, earthquake., or disaster; B. That, .onAugust 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr.. Fairbanks thaYthe property is zoned as•Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the :Cultural Resource's Overlay (CR) Distfict and that accessory buildings used;as guest rooms are only allowedl as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no g ed or maintained and that no. compensation in cookin fasiliiies are install any -form is received. The letterfurther'infofined the,propertyowner#hat no, permits or entitlement exist for`the.guest houses al. the subject property; C That, bn September 1'0; 2010r City staffconducted anon slte'assessment of the >propertyat520 Pacific Street: The assessment revealed that'several unpermiftedmodifications and =additions had. been made to: the rear. tinits that.were;nof in compliance with .Tustin City Code requiremeh E;, D That,PUrsuantto Tustin,. City C6&Sectioti 5503, on. September 76, 2010) ,the . City of Tustin sent notice;of recordation of:a Notice and Order for=the property of $ Pacific Streetto Mr. Fairbanks. Said NoGce_a l OrdOt7 rovided written raoti e of the:ex�sfence of`a p06iclip; nce-on the property asdletomm ned by the Enforcement Offieer;a. nd required the eq!TgC. ion:of`code ylolaUons- related to 000errp)tteil, tructures constructed in vtolatigp .of- thg Tustin Clty Code- includiog the City of Tustin Building Code,dnd 2oning Codia 11. TDt purswlit to TWO. City Code _Sect ,ort, 5503 the Enfgrcement Officeris defiped as the';1]trector of Community Development or any aitlel person :qr City'offser of employee'a`s maybe designated by the City Manager to enfor> e; proper y fiaintenance;. �zonrng;, .add other: iautsance:,abatertieot reg�la toffs; 00158 Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an :appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nnisance,ai his property; G. That on October 14, 2010; the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the.project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which .the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010 aduly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support ofi or in opposition ;fo:the appeal and, at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity:as the Board of Ap. Peals, considered: the appeal of the Notice and.Order:fled at 520 Pacific Street; Than pursuant to Section 142'B. oard. of. Appeals of the BuildingCode as adopted by the City of'Tustin; the hearing was held to consider evidence that Is relevant to. whether the .trbe intent. of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Gcde or the roues legally adopted thereunder have: ti:eeri incorrectly Interpreted ,the provision of such code do riot fully apply; or an e,guahy good or betterform of ;constructton;is proposed,. J That; pursuant to Section 112 of the City. of Tustin s adopted California BWldfng Code, the Planning Commiss.Ion;; acting as: Board of Appeals, shall not ,have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of'lhe.Tustin, Butlding Code orfo waive requirements; ofsuch.code. Further, the heating sflall .fie, de novo and the Board of .Appeals may approve; approVe With .conditions, or disapprove the (natter Ih acaordahce with the Tusifn C 1y Code or� remand the matter to the C.oinmunity t7evelopment Director Or the. Zoning Administrator for further proceedings; in accordrance with.directt_ons of the Board ofgppeals . K That;; the Board of Appeals:-consideretl evidence supportfilg the E- nforcemerit O.!r' e s.deterniinatfon thaf a;:publfc.npfsance:cQliditfon exists atthe sub( eaproperty; due to:the presen#y olations oFtbe fojloWthg Build ng Code section California Building Code A 1051;(Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100). pertrjiis Reg aired Anyhernr. authonzea ;agent wlio intend . to 6. nsfruct�. enlatge, alter, rEpair, move dordoJish" :or change the occupancy of'o bund ng or structure;. or to erecf, )nsfaIli enlarge; ':alters. repair, remgVe; cohllett or replace any;electrlcali gas, mechanmal :orplumbing systeIrni the ihstal[atioii of which isTdtjt aced i%ythis node, or #o ;cause anysuch worl<:t4 be done shall nrst flake appilcation to the budding offioial„atld obtafri the required permit; 00159 Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 L. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exists as evidenced by the . Building Code violations observed. on 2 cursory and visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 provided hereto in Exhibit.A.. M. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard. housing and property maintenance conditions exist which. create a dangerous. condition at the subject property dU6 to the present violations 7of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; M That the.extent of rep-pirs ordered by .the Enforcemerit Officer are appropriate for the property; 0. That the time limitations for, starting and completing the repairs are reasonalble--, R That theBoardotAppoa(Is.has7fh-ja.:rj'6ht,io employ qualified ed i d* id,uaI s to assist In its Jnlve5tj�g4ti6n.pw -and, in making findings and. decisions, Staff co m I mi,s�sibned id third1paity survey aridevaluation provided .by Libeibsed Architect John C. Art . hi . tects, Inc. T I he architect provided a report mat concluded -that' "the front house Lind two-story carriage bprn are: bothh.istorically significapi. It is apparent thatithere, was only- pne living(m6 unit on�slte� lhoqse] in 1,929 when he City of Tuitin was in incorporated; p0ated, Thdire is strong physical bviderice that the second and third imlig, units post. VV I VVIY' (attached, hereto. in Exhibit 11: T06 Planning Cotpmission, acting n in jt§,.cap city a as of Appeals , to Section 11.2_.of,.th6 Bbildifig'Gode-asadboled bflhe City of TUbtihj hetobyriaffiriti the: Nofide and notice16040 existence of w public requires the tormt,P)l of code ViQfati00S:JP1atPd tgllbe q! �t * - gLQRsffi4ctPc1 in violaf !on City .9 meMca§ oifthe Tustin in QJ. Y Code s 0. oj 6 a 16 the foilog.condtticn1 The 10: PTO 0 dY-'V%WrYef 1 §14 i0- be (,e 6, y,,oj.,d e Yo d: to oo rh p I y. -w , ift f h o . rib q --u- i ile f. ir.ar 11s'. a f the Notice 2nd:0tder ideritlffed th3tiae related'; staff report dated Octobe_f'26, 2010 as attached beref incorporated herein n with the exq Qp.1jpn of the date.of h H h 'b 067 h p ipf-�tb I 9"Mi.W.5on -1 1W &ttd - H h d -­Jq U PA -880• AND ADOPTIE13 by the Rdard bf..Appears: of `the ,Citi .of T(lif4R,:61� a Moula I r meeting on the 200..dRy,ipf O.etober, 200, 00160 Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 Jeff N'TEO _mpson Chair Pro Tern Y', Henry Hvang, P.E., Ct BA. Board of Appeals Secretqry STATE OF CALIFOPWA COUNTY OF ORANGE? TY -C[ . . OF TUSTIN. 11'.Y, Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify. that ham.t.he Board of Appe-a.1s Secretary 'b.f ft. E[Oard of Appeals of the City of Tustin, CallfbMia,' that Resolution No. 4161 , Was duly passed and adopted ata: regular meeting of the Tustin Board .of.Appeals; held onthor26th Clay of Qq - tober, 2010. Y. H.Onry; Huang, P, E., C.13.0, Building Official' . PaciftP C MoluflonAppeai'520 - Pacific.dom N 00161 EXH - IBJ T I AOF RESOLUTION NO; 4161 Table 1 t:Code Cb-MpIicahc.e Vtsues 00162 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4162 Table 1: Corte Compliance Issues Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable Photos The use of the properly California Fire Code ;. ' 1; '3, r , :as a Inplex (with 3. units) changes the Section 102:3 Mange.of use or occuparrcy',� building occupancy California Fite Code from R3 (single family 'Seclion 1b2 Unsafe 'residential) to R1 (multiple famll Bwlding 6PSfipcfures• _ 4 II could not be California Fire Code' determined if Section 102 Unsafe fooling/foundations 'Building orSfructures I f exist to provide`] adequate structural .L bracing and supportio r K a,, " Multiple residential, No fire separation walls Building Code Taole. between units; W CaIJ{omia Flrp Code .unil5 built after therefore. not in B.ecdon 110.1"Unsafe originahSfTUGtures compliance pith ore. :WidiGons: 'W/O o0mits' hourseparalian Tequlrements which, posesa poterilial fire _hazard to occu ants. Mechanical,. electrical, TCC 8100-Adopilba.0t and plumbing (indudipg 2007 Calfforriia Bullding. HVAC) lnstallalion GodeAi➢5:1-Parmfts. .., ..... work done :witlioul ..-.. {equgern BatFlroom permjis in upper Perils are requlred,to uhif wl'rip .� insure`that lifoAotety, pertmts. protocol is followed -and Insfallati§pis We. according to Plan, permits and,lnspectfori, 6tallalion:maX,create - ' fire. hai9fd..watf rF ° t1aM.�e eic, Pursuant to fbe on[ng' jCC92'23a7(¢)) code the prapg.. X dons' mjnimytn bulfding site Tor - riothavGsuf_ficleptlot,sco�ndYeslriej�Ual,untflSi _ sfie.toaccommodatea 2;000squaref2etetotjtlapd; secpnd OF Ihlril WfiIi:7 TCC 922�,h2 Accessory" (iiaqulres min, 12 000 blilldlggs used.,aa guest sldentral thlfd'_rg, JoG h4wevzr fhie ipoms p[ovliiing no. :' utlit5, lolls 10 000 sg, fi) coolcing facts tyfs — - Guesl unit (noikitchen Inornraintained; fadililres) requires CUP. siihjeFt to Cpiiiffioii2l ,, , TFisnumherUt�ynits L`s_e perdiff would need {o_bg locatedJn bb R,2 ar'R 3 d(strfd and would jegui[eagiirliiiiutifof7 - parking stalls,[asup'por the ;addi d;tesiddbjjAl `11 P'eg€ 00163 EXHIBITA RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue a licable photos The second story wall Section 1403 of TCG',, construction and 6100 Adoption of 2007 windows adjacent to the California Building Code properly line do not comply with fire , proleclion fequiremenis. Insufficient. The opening is notsetback to Permitted as shgwn; l{, r` PL. 4 exterior wall is not fire ..- rated; primary (and only) stairway restrlcts Ingress egress -Incase offre or &W ?` _ omer enc . Fumace.lnstalled TCQ.8100 Adoption of without requfreiJ pennils 2007 CalifomiaBuildirig •: j does not meet ,Cade A105.1 - Permits clearance requirements %eouired y ,- d and crones a polfaMal ; 2 C ilia hazard. ivf" Ejposed electricalnextTCC 8100 Adoption. of a to: unpermitted furnace 2007 California Building -which causes ;potential . Code A105.1 - Permits i fife hazard. equved f I I 1 ;« c ^; N G O U w li]cal'tleVice. nazt:to,heater 71t¢hie cooking TCC .9223b2 No cobking lapililies notpermitted facikUes pernilted In - '- guest unit, guestumg PluroOng,'andeiedfical TGC 81011-Adophontaf ;Opperunit psti�lled $d4halit 2007 California. Bmldiny 1 •= - :;permile Permtfo are. Co*-AK65:j —Permits- feq_Jired to insure that. required. - - Ii(esafoty pfotodol Is followed anti insialtalPon I: IS tlpne accoidin� 30: plan: W1ftiW such` per'tttds and t0sp@ .. i installation may`ere §- re Hazard ,eater :2:if?���:BIe: 00164 EXHIBITA RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location 'Code Compliance Code Sections Issue a "licable photos Shower added on to 'TCG 8100 Adoption of originalslructure. This 2007 California Building requires a building Code A1.05i1= Per rnifs permit to add additional requhgd square footage (pop- out) and permits for plumbing, and I - waterproofing. - 5hower added permits��^�'-a a.Jy ._.... _.._ -. �! :� •��� _ Railing has no T,.CC 8i00:/�do Gori of P Intermediary, posts and 2007.Gallfotnia Building - No inner the run and rise are het Code A1J?5.1.-POmits - eofpplianl'with Buiiding ,reglrrreil posts Code -requirements nor TCG 81OUdopfion of ; Jsjhe unprotected back 2007 Califoblia Bulldlpg which is open: this ZGode 1"012.Handia6 poses,6 polenllal (alihig 'hapdr51s2equifed.for Hazard forsmall children. TCC 6100,),%dppLon of 2007 Oahforr la Buldiryg_- Gode1013:Nards- y, rn guards shall be localed v �al0tlg opep-sideG. --� o walkin surfdoes' FR igctidin9stei.twways laeaied more than 30 4§ ancheS-aoo¢e:the. grade oil 3 There is no propehy 20D�iyHC Section., v Irne.firewall separation illgr3 Exitdscharge -- - Window PL o Between staircase and td hon at the property line. requires 5ft, N setback - - € 710e Ialrcase•Ts builtTEC'9223b2(ej .Tegui"res over thepropertyllne u"�fi.setbaeklo'rpropegy rl' A•guesiLnit:fegulresa. lino 5,foolsetbacklo. l property line (PLT, 11_ieri ,Bunt bvef P,l, , , are seYera1 tssuestassocialed'wiih the I66466 of Nis. 1 staircase; most Imtpinentrs the RR:oj , I yrs,- - Rivergency act�ss olid" ssfeegress from:ifie ti fooJ€i,draoo._ 2)s CS nei bo rt X 6 ll.be 1, lltos Wllch may cause dYained mfe a separate ttogiiin9. sYormsewarsystem 2A07 CDCSect on 2007 Gt3G Section ;1"109 A Alarnage acrossyropeily"- ..-- 3`1 Pa.B:z' 00165 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code.Compliance Code Sectioi)s photo_ Issue applicable - Struslural supports do 2007 p8¢Sectlon.not prowde sufficient 1604 1, 2301;2 General supporting rafters Roof Design Requfremenis. Floorfois.i.5'.'a ��JJInadundersized to provide along blotk fence rather :mdmbEf47are: 1 ` struadequate support: than cantileyergd from the Me stgFy structute i� ". C,. up _ Theicarport ip;atlached Change irn:occUpancy to both the marti house constitutes a'multitude ofry, + Carport and:lhe2sio garage CBC and FireGode , andaliachediear. violations: attachedito Junits; making this a td -plea California Fire Code main house: upIit-pursuant 1'o:building Section 102.3 ChaPgeroi - end garage code fife rati6g.,-These useor6ccupancy - - deficjendes:creale GsllforniaFirelCede. access haiard .16T Ore Seclion 102Uri9afe access and may pose. Building or $Nuctures ` f f g a ldil opal. hazar'ds;to °n occupants since th occupancy. changes � itiilli,:alti;plez;(commdn' .lerminolo ... Unsupported electrical 'TCC 8100Adopben of }' meJaJ conduiQE17n 2007 CalrfomTa Rull0tid betWean garageand Code A1051•. Pemrit5 UnsU po oi}e; d hoG,se The polel tiet for required line oyer':carpoI t damage andialluie:due - to the exposure: of the linrr;ls incfeas6d and pases5a,potenllal fire ha .Aid. ATT P.41. 00166 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue — applicable' No rating separation 2007 CBC Table 602 between walls of garage living thus Fire -Resistance Rating Requirements for and units; Exterior Romex wiring Is exposing tenants above Walls Based an Fire unprotected and exposed and next to the garage Splpafarlj6h Distanbe to fire hazard orig�ihitmg in the garage. Electrical wiring: 200 GEC Articlee-3-3,4�1 5. Romex c&nnbt be E, sed exposed or,unprotected ct �,ftjcje O'� ring .and must.be and Slilpocirfih6 attachedlgoStqed; (Ramex was first -used in'the 1950's. Color wrling a lo . we wasn't available until 2001) Unit-cicTe-&- nor meetjfl-Td 2P07 P6Gfp§16;6.02, rating naqUirament; 5 FirerResistann rQiriq foot setback raqIJii`aa'tb Re-cilij,'", -Irem.ehlsrlo terior proporl?line to or-oteca' Walls .j:Eupants from:,(re ep ,arallon 111stance' hazards; or safdq. (1927 UBC SiidtJ661403; personnel responding, to less than Meet). M an eme efty. TCC :V22 6•�; stile yard setback 5 feel,' 4. Ey,l�tq.5 fit isetbadk- i�*�"U'ib' d* proVoe 0 00167 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4167 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable _ Heeler installed with'a TCC 8100 Adoption of 1r I s'4 Std Y;dv'1 " gas line without permits 2007 California Building It is installed an a Code. A105.1 — Permits w combustible wood sided rpqufred * - Wall Which poses a 8ubject,lo manufacture'sHeater f pptentlal fire hazard due Installation standards and u g 7 installed to the combustible mechanicallplumbing material permit fi ,.:,: _ r � W/o permit �r'sf�r I Ceiling heights vary and ,2007"CMC-Section do not meet the TV 12082 Ceiling height- helghl requirement minimum s Y Cefll�g; - >. height does; hpQm�et� rnln.'Z'fi' Improper ah l _ ` 2007 CFC,Segtio{I 605,5 substandard electrical 'E7ctension fiords wiring without peiipit -. F pwersirip neAG Wtghen sink where a range might. have. been .preyiously. ... °. y `m a c m v .N z PlumbingaddedWjth u jG' 810DPdoptipno pertnir 7aa7 Califomta.6ulld(n9 , .Cgde %505.1 ..:Perml�s i vegdrreN. Kitchen is not permitted: TCC 9223b2 No cook1n.'g: I<Itchett m{ear Uhlt not pegs tied pefoning) faclldies'permlfted In -. - jle:plumh(ng,electrical, guestunit 00168 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Issue Code Sections applicable Photos Unsecured and exposed 2007 CIVIC Section gas line on the interior '131126 Hangers, which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors gas leak:and tire hazah:1 and 1311.7 Outlets within the rear unit Ex unseculred.gas line inside unit Insulation Is nonrated 'Wall andopenling :6ffo is combuslitile oictecticin 2007 CBC II S (appears to be straw: Table 002 fFire, Resistance Rbling Walls Based an 1' -ire Okll aximurn Area of Exerfor-Wall Opbnirfgs 4 teorribugutilL material 11astalledbetween walls Ib, The. roomIsconsift-red- -habitable spadi'.1and defined by.� BG -la -a -Aopbl&rs to not provide sAcient, ventilaffor, iqg or, h etit.and.light cocking Therefore, it requires�LITei6ilt 'Oellingheightisto.low -407Cma,.Seqtlon afl s ou 0,156 6 120 .2001 7.'67 0. M UM.YS" 000s,fidt meet Tn1h'1Tn;Vm— . ........ . . . bas �b6 e 1. jt q4 on �. �g'rnjjj_Qjq gqr� —�;at ' ... PrOn of A site i .7, 1. P 00169 EXHIBIT B,;QF RESOLUTION ,N.O.. .4161. Nollce.and .Order 00170 Community Development Depa.ftiaiei-it Sent via firsl class and ceilified, mail September 16, 2010 Bret - 8. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA -92780-4329 NOTICE ANb ORDER/PRE-CITATION-NOTICE DECLARATION Or PLIBILM NUKAKCIF Property Address.: Ass6stor Parcel Number;. Cas.e.t9umber: Dear Mr. Fairbanks, 520 Pacific,Stre6t .401-371--07 VIQL031'.2 BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OIJIX I'AST Thank you for -meeting With Citystaff at'520 Pacific Street'oh September 10, MO. During, the inspection, two detached structures . - Were; - 0 1 bsor V, 0. yard, in addition to ta guest 0 Mthit.i.il-le rear, npu�§e pboye the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; nil of which are Upp6r.Mitted. A Preliminary "oAtof City records qjsoi indicates that na conditional i . o use:permit (CUP) is on file to establiWguott houses at the property. Dther noricompliant t5s4ps vv.e�ro also: noted 'during iho inspection ; which -include, but are not limiled- to the istaircase ;on th6 §b.uth!side -j06h.e-gqr-ade which:' OPLO n.01'prby d .104.140. appro.pri-Pt'd ;elbiid'; ib the side lordporty line and :tile ,guest .; . b Use 'ov t gar a cooking f�cilitt6§Which is bit 0. �:o 0141 (IgHo qPrreq!ty-e rare attached hereto as 'Puirsuafif-to: T.ustiri City QddO122(5)6by violati4ii pf the Toson: O&Y. Qodo"Jba pub, c. nui once,, 'Eherofagi rldpsq be poyIJ.kkdAhat the City bgs4etermjhp1 that hUl§anrbis being 'friolhW66 20 Pi6ififo-'I hat f6ih4es4. ,qV01M- If V 'aM,O pPf �(IeTRe nt wetp riot ribtained for the two. detached sfructurtts.*In the rear yard .df.' th6 rwijgw�st: hoQ4 . You ak.b.hoybby'dfm.Wd tPAb-otic bf than F6dav, Octot:rer-29� 4) Submita.completb CUP application MICK the apP(JbPr'fn1(a,. P.!a.ds 'ncid all bihbr ne-pessory pritiflemprit ppiplic.qf1ons jp lhePlanning and 8Q(1*djhg: Wivisl6h fbr the tWo west. h(jUses' .arid the two:c1ptsic.. "e'dAj ppt0fesWlthh ft--fifa Tutdtig -CA-, WAD, 4 00171 N.fim and Order M 520 Padfic Street' September 16, 2010 Ca.. ff VIC-0312 Page 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence With the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within .the rear yard. NOTE; For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) V3- 3120 and/or the. Planning Division at. (714) 573-3140. Additionally, 611 pe.rmits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California. Building Code A105.5., This letter, constitutes .'your Notice and.Ofderfo abiite all public nuli" an.db conditions and violatidoppil 52Q Pacific, Street. You (or) any person having any cegord Jitle or Jegal interest in ;the he property may request consideration of this Notice and Order of any action of the enforcement within ten calehdar days from the Ote. of service of this, Notice tice and. Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this not -ice within the time limit specified above may result in (11 th6. is$4pr!CAPf an administrative citation pursuant, to Tustin City Code, 116.2(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information),. andlor (2) all necessary work- being: completed by Ity. personnel or private coritracton, with: all abatement costs being billed against you an0lor asses$, d against the property andW the referral of this matter'to our City Atfdrq6y for further legal action. Please, note that the disposal of any material involved ih public nuisances :shall be Parrie0kofQ1 in a lq� ni3,r.Additlonqily, this notice and order will be recorded against the, property In the: Office' df!gbapCounty Recorder. If Your heed: further Plarificlation oir'assistance with this mttbr, please contact me 4FFqctlY at (714) 573-5.1,55:. ,sinQere�1v in q - "Code Ehforcement,bifeer Attaeffffients ExhibitA,",Adtiiirligtrtiti.v.'b Citation Information ,�hffi t B!— Code V cc Arnly"Thomas: 00njorP,)aTjqpqqpde Enforcement $yppFyf§pF 00172 Conunu dty Development Department EXHIBIT A Administrative Citation Process TUS 1 IN WILDING OUR FUTURE 'HONORING OUR PAST In accotdance with Tustin City Code .(TCC) 1162.(d), Tinea may be assassed by means 'of an administrative citation as follows: $106,00 fob a, first violation, $200:00 for a second violation. of the sarn'e ordinance or permit within one yberof the first violation;: or'1500;00 for a third or any further Walation :of the same ordinance .or permit within one, year nf'lho first vlolabon; Buiiding and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8999) "vl'olafi may be aasesaed at $100.00 fora first violation; $000.00 for a second violation of thio tame ordlnance or -;permit within one yea f the first violatlom;. or $1,000.00 for a third 'or spy further violation of'tho_ same.ordinanco or Aannit within ora year of ihe'first violation. Ttie Cliymay also take furth@r'legal action including iseu'ing the responsible person(s)•a criminal 6ffafr6n ancllor abating 'the violatlon(sj :with the cost.of such abatement andlo. r prosecution assessed against tha responsible person p), the property owrier(s., and/orthe property as a Irian.. Should an. admin strative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of. the admininirative citation to pay the cdrresponding fine(,), .Additionally, the responsible persor7 mu - take one of the folloW ng actloha to avoid •addhlcnaI benaltlea prior to the compliance date; specified in the adm nietrativs citation:, 1) Correct the violation, pay the;eorresponding.finb(s), and contact the City to request ai. re- inispeet)on; or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s);a.:nd request a- ekbnaion'of.tiM0 ir('writing Pursua.I?tto; TCG 1,165(0), which shows.a'i asonabl®-hardship;;or 3)Reftgt,a; hearing to appea) tFie: adrnatrativa CArE1 jon pUtsUant fo JCC 11t3t3 witiiin. ten Y10) days from the: iiat® of the ;adr711nisiiajive citatipn,logetFrer y+Ith an ;advanced. deposit; of th¢r carr®spandirig fhe(iij, Roquagi for Hearing fdrma ;and oth®rrnforinatoq on Adrrir'ietratne G(tatlona'iYtay beobtained; on tri® Cityls.i+rebsite at witi v.tustihca:ora 31)�.Gcntepnial Way, Tustin, C}}. 327a0 ¢ p ._(71 }),573.3, I'Mi "a F, (71d) 57, 3 3173: 'm: '4yww t i3fin'ca_org 00173 14.6cn.140,de,.1 �- 530eu +1M10 C.S. 0 VIW12 Exhibit , 3 Code Violations at.520 Pacific Street 2007 California 13tflldilig Coder Al 05.1 Adopted per Tustin City Code BiOO.i - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized:agent who intends Jo construct, enlarge, eller, repair, move, demolish, or charge the ocqupancy of.0 building or .structure, or to, elect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, coriverf.or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing. system, the installation otwhich is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make applicationto the Building afficial and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)—Single Family Residential -District. (RA) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standard's - Accessory buildings used as .guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintalned are suti)ect top conditional use permit. Tustin City, de 9223(b)(2)(d)— Single Family Residential District (R-1) mmum'sideCoyaribisetback for accessory" buildings used as,guesl houses -..Corner jot line; 10 -feet; Interior lot ling, 5 f_e.'et. C NOTE; Please Ue;ad.V sed that there rnay.be additional code cormplionce [equiremerts, EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO, 4161 lRdP.0tf prepared by Thirtieth Street Architect&, ind. 00175 Me. October 20, 70117 .Ms. Elizabeth -Binsgq4-, C - qMmunity. Developtgadt,pliec of City ofTijstin 300 CeulennialWgy Tustin, CA 9178b ,Re:'.520 Pacihe Street; Tustin Pursuant 4greemqufj We e IvyetdpEtFl., oroo :o.viow phofogrspbs ofsfructuresy.gfqff,0_flbt9, govided b di T4*4w0gy we -y4l r *rn. fidO- 41 t"&&'?, the.-twor. sides, as ib h "Jeff 4W jft�t� based ,oiY rd, 06jif tiro st aeLAh d the sa aur. S q,--a.mage b; Tnqs. I bat behind ff in :-x Zoningis Zoning jssu-j§.,lfc l3of partof our I3iiildmg Sequence siriae type of ti'_Vst ittg}diN4 11TaaIT indicates that lhq,g sable o .."Ih 'j4.,4jk§ffi-4 be briginffli h R. 'ME.'r r g -PpnLs tixat the" opElDa &vel on;r Lyolyed, on.. j_g:LnIt M. .&P rjrlain bbuse, I noypprt b C9 "A WC73-2 a founding prindpal.V thir-tieffig jolm c. 100mi - 9. Urchitact jamm C? wilmll, nmhhoct street architects .1 ,per .p 0wadd.LgMey,;� . #ij . it . cpl Me. October 20, 70117 .Ms. Elizabeth -Binsgq4-, C - qMmunity. Developtgadt,pliec of City ofTijstin 300 CeulennialWgy Tustin, CA 9178b ,Re:'.520 Pacihe Street; Tustin Pursuant 4greemqufj We e IvyetdpEtFl., oroo :o.viow phofogrspbs ofsfructuresy.gfqff,0_flbt9, govided b di T4*4w0gy we -y4l r *rn. fidO- 41 t"&&'?, the.-twor. sides, as ib h "Jeff 4W jft�t� based ,oiY rd, 06jif tiro st aeLAh d the sa aur. S q,--a.mage b; Tnqs. I bat behind ff in :-x Zoningis Zoning jssu-j§.,lfc l3of partof our I3iiildmg Sequence siriae type of ti'_Vst ittg}diN4 11TaaIT indicates that lhq,g sable o .."Ih 'j4.,4jk§ffi-4 be briginffli h R. 'ME.'r r g -PpnLs tixat the" opElDa &vel on;r Lyolyed, on.. j_g:LnIt M. .&P rjrlain bbuse, I noypprt b C9 "A WC73-2 a At some point later in time, li.t appears th.at the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The, carport and rear one-story middle Addition may also, Jiav,e been added at Us tinin.orlater, subs,eqqqj2t to the oriainal construction -of the .residence. Beth :the cridI696d entry and onzrsiory addition have vertical siding and 60 carpenter cliff on the ivindow trim that distinguishes these - alterations from the original, conftrubliod. The deepened fascia detailA[ the rear elevation of the ehclOsed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date' or these - a J;drMidng is unknown, but they Were. likely tolisfFu6ted much later UPap the original residence, tbp.lgtr- 1940'9.br early 1950'.9i "Later; another rear 8.(.f.ditiqP ;W.4$ Cogstrgpted that, mV.. I bOLVe initially. been used ds. -a. garden shed orcbijdrefi's: p)aybqus8 �benqpsb of the .001oSy ceiling height). The; building has -vertical bqkd and bati siding: ap"d ilif detailing ailing than the . original! t M Cobbfront.- gpf.,,-Ttt s probably coaVertedd o%a third Pi4k unit- some.. iagj4•Lbp early on the knotty in tppa This isi a -yiary, -,sbbs"fdhdird.;ifructureli.i. 4. qqPMg height and. C045fr' pq Additioqw.*-eth - 8'ons* 4*#iijaje; Addti6h. �§v*'N made later, incjuojnWT kQ . I f[RI3, shed s qjr . . it 's Sho 0S, -sjbwdr_. Tlierr is eyideRP-P dio,yoidw Rme%.*i tt is visible in many qi Y�1t'ui�diil'g''aCtYCst Ch5nges-Int Use The;ngtnal'd'eveldlZineut of the site in:1928:iholude¢, ;c JLS slat -drig, unitfind a hvozsfqry.. .cfp* Y residen With one li , boa 44t.. W Dr. 0 zge� PR YJ- �...I'Pp, q. 1L lzgt g yds Ou .4 'we" W1 � Th igi D P Mt" C> modified hip roofs, etc.)' to also be, considered historic As part .of the original developmen.t of Weproperty.. The rbdd=addition and ..Kggr-additions were later ORprotions thdt are. inconsistent. with the architecture. of :the origin,* -sttyj:ture and are, iterOore, not considered. historically significantj )WjdjngCode ..'hsijtt 'There appear to be number ofserious building bazardmand. code violations in th ' e pent development. T.be,;mott. significant is f6d. c'btistiuction of the enclosed Sta way to the upper unit rut: tha.l. actually 6ii0oadheA acrbSs. the side. yard property 4PP', This. addition b* ,dn our. opinion by blocking nqqp4q jp, side)1Y -Tlikvt .9 g -addition i).10:be rep - I Wd 4t wwy,!eJjtry OoDSIrUCtcd:dSeyv_l etc, The, tear living unix structure l&,very .'non -conforming , to, 13djaiing. codes. and t.. aloes not -fi pdk- to- be ecortpj*allyviable ,to biing ziWsstfj Me' up Q cu,hy, t gre -Ay 3nri7trr zrsearch'Vbg, Santo V.W 9.018iD.9 SOVdY"Mi& 'Obdid.rdhfi rm the !co ktt—tiopof cvrslrup'&Akes. hk6m dls'o-couia :btinform.4401.2 xO.q0ng;'fqev';§t-rPotqtes,,at th- time if ft. of retmitib elmeb mapping, M6 db g an- -Archife-44 M',p.ft)na4 to research, this.property•'Wo 'Pkb bAbly.. be ab�' I:wz -%feel that the fr6iit, 6W6 iis6 R cnid, bam are: both zhistoriiball'v, site rrl 1929 when We-cyf�. 4.! _�t 6A jvW.qs.inCoIrpPr-dtCd,, :T4 jgft "POW -PA to.'rdie seboud and ..k" . MAi'*9 units; were added )decontmenrlhlruns 11, Yf, removed and : that cc) e: d 'would r6c r, t x6 10111tiODS bP:%ITQ4W.vf the ooh dal use of this space as a,seqpqclr future improver dtbracions to 440. Tuslln,Y.dWoWd hope that Aq 419,pzg. Pie We dip not, MdOmMehd thdi.00COPb9jP POr hbitatiun of the substandard, rear additipp- Xf. YRF hgYe any qlJ04tlo 5, T%4 Ute b 06hitag, 11 ft$ �bo �b.bvq,, ptea.se do. Jjot btsj t t t .Me. Very truly yours, iaghp' Loomis Rn ql� V,� ATTACHMENT J P-0 RO§w-lf o'llb-h, No .41:62. RESOLUTION NO. 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE :ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTYAT 520 PACIFIC ST. REET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, APN 401-371<07) The Planning Commission does herebyresclve as follows: The Planning. Commission finds and determines as follows; A. that, on July 27, 2010; ;Bret. Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 ,Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City'staff provide Written verification drat fhe twq. guest..homes located at the rear of the single. family residence at 520 Pac'Ifc.Street could be rebuilt In the eyent of 'a; fire, earl hquake, or disaster; B. That,; on August 4, 2010, City: staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mt Fairbanks;. that rthe prope.ity fs zoned:as Single Family Residoq tial .(R-1) and located within the Cultural. Resources.Overlay(CR) DfWidt 5nd fhataccessory buildings used as_ guest;rooms are only allowed as .conditionally permitted uses within 'the R-1 district, provided ttef no cookirig facilities are installed' or maintained and that no compensation in any, fomt is;le,ceived. Th'e letter further informed :the: propetty .owner that no permits or entitlement:exfst for the guest.houses at the subject property; C That; on September 10 ;2b10,'Cfty staff conducted anion-sfte.assessment-.of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment;ray ealed that several unpermitted. rnodrficafrons and-additlons had been. made to the: rear° Units that were.not in comptiance with.`Tustin City Gode regurremerits; b That;Rfirsuan3_fo Tustin pity Code Secfroni550�F onSeptemberl6, 20'10; the. Ott 0feustin.'eent nokofor recofdatrori"ofa,Ndticeproperty at 52.0 Paclflo. St(eet„, Said IQotji q.and, Order provided written bottce of the: existence.!AT a pubj c:% nuisance .on the properly as dete[rni0E d by f17e. Ehi6rCement'Q flcef.and jegplfed the, correction of code violations r,40W. #p unp'erfnrtted sJfu-it Fet b6bsttWed in viblatiort of'°Ihe, Tddh QitY Code. lncl9. Code and Zoninif; Godo;; Ev TNt, 7Wt4i0ot,'10 Tlfsttfi City Bode..Sectron 5503, the ;Enforcerrlent Qffcer is tlefined as fhe!'Communfiy Qevelopment Director or city oltier'persori or City officer nr employee as? may be ,designated by the CityManager to. enforce. propo..4 maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance..abatemetit regulations and_starrdards:of.the Cityt 00181 Resolution No. 4162 Page 2 That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City. Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the CornMunity Development Director should be modified or reversed; G. That; on September 22`201 Q,I Bret Fairbanks, the -current property owner of 520 Pacific Street; filed an appeal of. the Notice and Order for the declaration of public 'no! sance at his property; K. That the appellant j.5- requesting consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot_ lines, indicating; iii part; that he isnot in violation of these. codes because the. structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the frst.Zonmg of Tustin; I. That on October 14, 20.10, the: City gave public, notice.by publication in a, newspaper of general ecUlatlon, by posting the.project site, -and by mailing to all property owners With n 300 feetof "the subtedt site of'the.holding of a publichearing ,at:which the appeal would be considered; J. That on October26, 2810, the 1a.,nning Gomrnlss on held.a duly called, -and noticed,public hearing cat which interested persons had an opportunity }o testify in support oft, or cn opposition to, the appeal, and at which the, Planning Commissiorir acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal;o #o Notice and'-Orderfiled;at 520' Pacific Street; K That pursuant.to Tustin_ Ctty Code. 906tio11 9294, the.P.lanning Commission will actin its capacity as -:%6 appeal hearing body to consider ;appeal Pf any decisions of the Comniurnty Deyelopmenf;Director;, L. That the City of Tustin "was :ihcorpo"rafed on September 19, 1:927,. and the subjectproperfy is located within :the orig_rtal Gityibnundaries. The.,hou'se grid detached two storyw , garage ere conatrucfed; m approximately `I.92:'9: and `the first;publishgd'bbh0mg.'code, the 1927 Edition oFthe Uniform' Building C,odei, was adopted by the City of Tustin 'on June 3, 1929; Construction 'rnay, h4vo+commenced prioF.fo adoption of fhe 1927 Uri form t34l4ingOo0e, consegf enfly hl re are no building permif :records for t.Fie otigial'construction of the orlgtnal lauildings fhe:earliesfaonmg map.:on . filet from 1961, Iden#ifies the property as R 1 smgie ,fatuity P.esjdenttal _and, the;currerJ}.;zoi ingfQr•tFii* property %-R 'I Single Fatriily Residenfial M, Thafrthere issubstanti2l,eytdence:that theviolations'identifed in the Notige and Order exists as evid6fted 7 ,y, the Bui)ding.Qode-.violations. observed;on a dursory and Visual .dh6eNatidn of 'a site visit' on .5eptember 10,.'201:0. pfovlded heri=fo ir<EtthlbltR'; MI :. Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 N. That the third unit located behind the garage structure appears to have been constructed in phases, several decades afterlhe original structures. Thevaryingroof heights visible,frqrrii the interior and exterior of the unit and the different siding indicate that the unit was added in sections at different times. .0: That no permits to. tonstrUctand/br convert the units are on file and there pre s vIBMral code violations which indicate that the unit was not built to ; _ a City Code -re uirements. P. Thatthe third unit building -Was constructed approxiinately four feet from the property line, Which it not consistent with the minimum five foot t set I back rp.quited'for accessory '$,ftuctufts Used as guest units... Additionally, several issues jexist, including the Improper and substaniclard. -electrical wiring,, J_fist$1.4jon ofa. newer upper m.#edheatinA unit, lack of required 'frewallAnd. combustible insulation between'walls separating dhitq4l all of which may cause a fire hazalrd*6'bdW.Vahts. Q. Th@kthhqP3.1prining Commission has the tight to employ qualified indiv - i1du8is to. assist in its " investigations i n :in making findings and: d.ec-isions.Staff coffiffiissMOd a third ;party §Ufvby and evaIuq Ion 'provided by Licensed Ar6ifebt.1ohri C. Loo' fnlis,froff Thiffleill Street NbIllitectselifc. The architect provided :a. report. that concluded that "the front. M680 and tWo-story rqvI CWT.Mg'O.6arn. are both histptbcallysignifk-ant It i,q:apparent that there was only,opefiving unit on-site [ma - - e]in-102gwhqn,t�eC3 City -in was I Ff. ou5 Tustin incorporated. The - re. is strong, physical evidence that the'second and third living later, PbsitVMII'(attached hereto in Exhibit Ki That, ftO appeal is exempt from lh.e Call - Vi onme I n I Quality fornial E Apt (CRQA) in . q ..r . . _ t.a. I. -. that 'they appeal is not corisidered a; ot§jij §4 Qf-_QA po k 11; The P[qnp'irjg 0mro.1N.PiOn, qp�_Ing 'in; ifs -as -the appeal Per_capacity peall ftqprlhg body tl!#:.No lee and 01:der forthe property at; 520. publidniiisa 1. rice and k e.g� t_M4OiTre-OT' of. related to 14"W� sifudt#.J�sWfi§rtj 7"uit, .ed jti V141atioj) In City 0_09MOOtb.0To Own OontlMwi The- t.6,fh ' bq*birpments-of 6 060 property : M 60 on er %f.6;_'fMi fit- tba" related 'staff- report dated bctober- �8, 9610, ;as gffaftd hereto as E'Ahifft 0 and ihorpotaiiad. herein wh -the ex 'Ich111 VP 11o.bProbYi;sW`b established mb,*er 00183 Resolution No. 4162 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of .the City of Tustin; at a regular meeting on the 26tl-r day of October, 2010. ELIZA@ETH A_ BINSAC'K Plann'ing Commission S:ecreiary STATE O CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE C GITY OFTUSTIN ) I, ,ELIzABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the: Planning 0 -Mission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of'Tustin; California; that ]Resolution No. 4162 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin fafining Commission ,field on the 26�" day of October, 20.10. ELTZ,ASBT'H A BUISAOK i']Anning Gnritn7PSsI0b'), ecietary. � 1CtichAmylCq�ie Enfor<€IDen1�20.PacifclPp resoluilon Appz�b52.p PaciBc:doa 00184 .9-XKIBjT.A OF RESOLUTION N.Q.4462 Tablel: Code Compliance Issues EXH7mTA RESOLUTION NOs.4161AND, 416% Table l:Code Compliance Issues Locatior Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable Photos The use of the property California Fire Code D� as a triplex (with 3 Section 102-3 Ckange of building occupancy California F�re Code from R3 (§inglefamily �Sectlon 102 Unsafe residential).to R1 Building or Structures multiple farhifit) It could n6f.be California Fire Code determined if' Section 102 I)psafe. footinglio.undatforti; Building or Structures exist to Provide adequate structural thestruclures hourseparation 712: parmiti Insure lhotlitleiafoy' Protocol lb; fQIlbWed;an4 inslallatio'n [B done rite IhAzard� Wow It foot 'Second.and or third un�! 9223b21-Accesq6ty, ropips, roVi, rig no, 'd 40 llib@d�idi to � EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue a licable. The second story well Secllon 1103 of:TCC .construction and 8100 Adoplion nf2007 F" t windows adjacent to the California Building Coge #a"' properly line do not ,f comply:withftre. protection j q. Insufficient iequiremenCs: The. opening • Is not 4 _ .ry ( setback to permitted as showij;. .1 PL exterlor wall isnot fire d, rated, primary (and •' only) slairw6y"festricis '� a Ingressegress'in case of fire prgther emer en - Fumace Installed TGC 8100 Adoption of without required,perrnils :2007 Caitfornia Bplldlrig f�' doesnolmeet CodeAid5i-PerTYIN RR dearence requirements required t .ro rn and creales a'potentialrr- m fire,haYerd. rn Fxposed electrical next: TCC 8100. Adoption of >: to60p nibilled furnace .2007 CalifiViiia Building "A' a°- which causes potential Code 1'0'&,l ro }iro'haz$rd. iequired' f i o` a. v 0 °' to Eleclri a eVice ner1'to heater - Xitchen caoFng. TCC Q2236'2:No cgols!ng' Ywllues nobpemlrtted f idlllt es pem tiled 1n mgpesiuntt Rluinbingand:electncal gue§tupii 4LSQ-8.10a/C`d'o' Fon of,'- 1(dcfienfn r— upperunit installed kithoy4, 2i707 Cal(forD �y)Idin�; I �' permits PermilS;:are C'odeA'i05.'�t-Perinifs?' requuedloinsuredhat 'rerjuired Tife?eafelyprotoyp,�is, follblyed�4d IRslailaoh IA.-Pn'e accorrlIng.lo: Mari; Wilholij'sub�ji' pe[Ass 6d inspection; Mtajlahon may,create;; _ — •"- -• fire;hazaWi vVaje`r lajri2 a .etc; 00187 EXHIBITA RESOLUTION Nes. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable Photos Shower added on to TCC 8100 Adoption of Original structure.. This 2007 California Building, _- - requires a building Code Al d5.1 - Pemiils _ permit to add additional required( 'square fdotage (pop- Put) and permits for F } pWmbin-g; And :waterproofing, g. ,Shbwer added We Permits: Railing has no TGC 8100 Adoption of �z intetmedfaty,posts and 2007 California Byllding - "" --"_ No inner the, run and rise are not Code A105:1 - Permits b'omplian(with Build -109- requ!red. a posts 'Code requirements. nor TCC 8100.A'do . reh a . _ Isthe unprotected krack �$007.California:b Building, which Is open. This Code 1012 HendMWs- poses a potential fairing handrails required for ' liaiard for sm211 stairways children. TCC 8100 Adoptrpn of m 2607 Califomla Bullding- ;m •Code101a Guards- _ - oi. :guards shellbe located— w-. :alor)g open -shred n walking surfaces Includmg stairways .lob-aledfnore:lhari.:30. �-.1 '` � 'p .inches abov_etre grade Z below - -..- -- iO Tfierels:ro;property 200jC8CSedtibn v line firewall separation idNA i(dist-.harge o bdfM$q staircase ah"d IPcaiWn iN,ihdow at:P.l N the property )Ire:, li rE9Wrl s Sit �, eft akk' T4 slalrcase;is tiuilt; TCC g223p'2(e) requires over the.propert. T, e; B-ft.selbau&'.rd'p" , Aguest ,unitrequires'M line STQolsetl abkjo property llne (Pt); T.Wb are several _ k ,..,r r •� �� Muds Aisbcialbd-With ,, the'Locatlon ofi'tifs r c sTpllease imminentis-thelack'd emergency access and - + sareregressfrpm_the - + Roofdrams onlo0[j7 CQC,ec"t199 neighbanngptopertty 1r1{tI.A. iJtmb _911 •W ichma cause - drained into 5eparale ' � � ?r 1 •flooding, 5torr�sewer5y te5�r j' •� 2007,GBCSacticn2DOT• � CBC`Se_dtr-P9;4.= P9 .= tlralnaga.demss,plopeily Him 3�PAl [XH0|TA Location Code Compliance Code �5ectfom Photos Issue. — applicable Siructural SUPPOA3 do 2007 CBC Section not provide sufficj�nt 16041, 2301.2 General . .. ... supporting, rafters Roof Design. RequirerrehIS; Inadequate mbiI)bers are F1OOTjdlSi:S1jp ported adequate support :than calltilevered. from supports the two stoj�y'.Slqic. Thu carport is attached Change.in Occupancy and 1he 2,M - ory gara�e CBC and Fite Code Making this alri-plex California Fife'Cdd& ffflingr MS I tho�eApftum of the Em -EXFIIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable No rating separation 2007 CBC Table 602 between walls of garage Fire -Resistance Rating and living units; thus Requirements for Exterior r ;.rJ" Romex wiring is exposing tenants. above Walls Based .on Fire unprotected and exposed and next to the:garage Separation Distance tofirehazard,originaling. 't 's "x• •' in the -garage. Y u M4 7 ' �'4 Newjunclion oox wi0ioul ��`� permits Eleclncal wiring; -" 12007 CEC Arlicie 334A5 Rarneiscshil9fbe, Exposed Wnrkand exposed of unprotected Arlicle 330 -Secpgng and must. be -and -Suppofling . altacli6ftecdred: (Rotnex was hirsi trsed ih lhe;195b'S.;G'pIRF coding (yelloy)�Wa'sn'f. .available untilf200`1) Unittdoes not mteat fire 2007 CBC TaWe 602: raUif9 requirement 5 Fire Resistance Rating_ _ ioetSetback re-quliedto. .Requirementsfo biGlor `property fine.16-, olecl Walls Based.o'n Fire! :occupants fropq'fico. :soperahbn b tarice: haza['ds orsafe)y (19$71.10GSection't4,03, pefsonoel respgiidin"g:to less Than 3 feet) an emergency:. T8t B223b2 minimum - _1? :-side yard settiack5 feel, ro GI JM.N M;jsbat i (.3gibaeh7 �zerq�4:fl: provided). 5 I P a.g::e 00190 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION FqOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections - Photos Issue — applicable Heater Installed with a TCC 8 100 Adoption of 1 M? gas line without permit. I 2007 California Bu Iding , 15 It is installed an a Code A105.1 — Permits combustible wood sided require'd wall Which poses a Subject to M.2riqfaCturp's, . , Heater potential f1re'6azard due Installation stand ard sand ins hd to:the. combustible n.jechani altoltu.Mbir W10 material permit permit Cilirrig helgirlsvar"rid 2007 CIVIC Secfion� do not meet the 7W 12082 Calling hajgbt height requirement..minimum a III, Ce' ht 'r ho�! min lrfpryppr - �a , n'd -2 F sbstandar d,eqQtrIcaI. u 6 n (3 1 wiring Wilnoulp''elft, it - , Powerstrip nex .io' ''4" —, kitchen sInk.Wher6a (anqe previously -PrUffi6IFF9—&a8-ea,—Yyq o TCG 6 - 100 Adbpi 0,0P.1if , d• p'emi)t:2W-7- Coiliforrila-Bull c Rh g, 04 MPYW: T. 1J2. 9223Netibc5RIfIg r Kirdbiwirt tdof. Lira- no toffnitto KHOO �Zo 10 .CCI . ... . if a cil fli a! 5 -0 b rmi ft %,!q, pIurn bll)6g,e :4 R A. 9,k 00191 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4.162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue — applicable Unsecured and exposed 2007 CIVIC Section gas line on the Middor 1311.2.6 Hangers, which poses a poienlial Supports, and ,Anhors gas leak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Outlets within the rear unit Exposed and unsecured gas line inside unit Insulation. Is nonrated Wall and opening and Is combustible p-rokiiction W07 CBC ' ' 'appears to 60 sfr�w. -. Q? '* - - - Table'd FIrq Reslstbnce.Ratihjg ;L Rpqu-irbrhdht`s.f6rf*lir 'Wells '.i Based on Fire Separation Olst Ape.b., d jt, g. Table oof. ed i Yl 0 gatL Pqobusflble material. installed 2010. 9 In —'j tb. ,HNWIqIOslijk Iiiii6d by CBC AS'81 :appears fb Aot:pr6jifec f 'space Wildinpor. heal 2nd light .cooking el' or ,i e:ii .Jietil` he"Ight-1.540 loyv, :2()Q74.C.MG:Sedrbn . i'eit.C.eflinR 0 Imirilmum:.i b`c! cefling'height 'meet does not Minimum -- !—Pot Mwwei kvV44 a, s6� Zo 00192 �.. ITEM APPEAL HEARINGAGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HE HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 26,20 0) AT 520 PACIFIC STREET SUMMARY: On September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street (Tustin City Code Section 5503). The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code. The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as the Board of Appeals in considering Building Code_violationssnd as the appeal hearing body -for -consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. These correction measures however were not acceptable to the appellant. M Appe21520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010. Page 2 RECOMMENDATION City staff is recommending that the PIMPi0g, Commission (acting in its capacity as the. Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9j42);-_a'Arm'the Notice and Orde 1br�lhe property at 520 Padific.Street. BACKPIROUNDANP DISCUSSION On Sppternber 16, 2010; staff issued a. Notice and Order at 52,0' Pacific Street based, Upon significant substandard building conditions -Which violate the . I . Building Codes. On ;�eptenibjer 23:, 2010, the current pro'p6ftY owner, Mr, Bret. FNr q =,filed an oppoa[ OHM Not be October 26,. -2610, the Planning COMI I and, Order. On 0sibil considered an appeal of the Notice and Ordelr:JnINek role as Board ofApp ..Qalg.and the appeal hearing bbdy. A Memo was provided to. the Planning Corn is jq M_A n to clarif Commjsslori's� toles as the Board of Appeals y the .peals and the appeal hearing body y IFT considering the appeal of the BL!Ild'm'*g �'aind Zoning Code ridspoctiVely, The memo. outlined he iihifted scope of What may :b0i.considered with this. appeal. At the October 26 2910, meeting Mr; Fa#banks submitted a lefter-rPlate to the appPA[ and Included the fb]16Wihg general - - qek,i6rV'cchihe-nts/1r.b_nd-d, h.§Whenifdes.the City recognize t' Uhitswere built?... HOW.60. 0ify determines if -a,'st mclurecan remain ifltha- ­permitsi i s, no If the City4-woold consider . i a-stru-b-t4re hf�gal_ if is deemed historical on th qurvey-and has no permits the. Both �U­hitt _ob'the'proper_tq�:6kIstbd at-fhe time Of, th@_ afttiqh the Zoning code and',sAbuld . be . considered forming 'structuresOf -.9 P.4n con -Afi0r'10sf1MP11Y DY W Fqiroariks aDd -_ thqp jbIjo, Ahe . Planning 0brm-issf.o rffi6ard of Appeals: the matter to prQyidq qtqff -an;oppprtpnity to!efwith; the znd.0koVidb.additibnal if&rpqt'o. This repot discusses the folloWing'topicalfterb$. The: .prio A r PI is also included aspttachrnent Imp rt P fpqr -A. A'brief Aescription of the composition and IpUrp.ose: of:the Bodird of hppeifls> and the Planning dbfftjgsfo'b!.40 the appeal headfi 6.Qdy-;: BUIIdIhp.:Code and Zoning Pz !rQ;#r.q can, remain if. it;has rig permiR� :l7ehsjffteai�ort $f. Old Town. ts 00194 Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 3 Composition and Purpose of the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission as the Appeal Hearing Body -BoArg of Appeals The. Board of Appeals .may consider evideric.,e b her the, fj that is relevant to wh true .0 injer of the City of Tustih's adopted California building Code or the rules adopted there pride( have .been: Incorrectly interpreted, or 'if the pr6 isim of such code does not fully apply, Rowe.vbr, the !3bbfd bfAppeals shall not`have authority to: inierprbith-.e.adrilinistratiijopr.bV!si6h6dfthe'T.ustin Bi-fildihji Cod . q, bbr to Wbiiv6rOq6ir6rhent8-ofthe Tustin building code. Aft Proon-sidetration of tho.appeM and the evidence h _jdeoqe provided, thel3oard. of oil make a determination and,:issue an; order either; A. Mirmiri B. 'ReiveFtinq, of G, M.9MY091110 Noticeand Order.. The Building 006s are legal instrumeirits dovernirig the consth-ictl6huse; And fribinteheiMb of bUikjhdssand structures. These codes contain certain: pfoV sloh..§ Which" requirements. 6f. - the code, Must: b0-foill"ii to the leftef... Granting re - tjirementp� mould ..q. - c onstituteian.excep.iio.n.,-whi.c.h:i.8.-,..t.7o4 FoY this appeal, the board shoultl consider,Based on e..Vidbhdbr whether :a 06'fatl6h, of x ts a Was either, in,qorrggf1y.interpreted orthat :the prov.'rsl'ori ofthe code does ..P.P.)Y* California Bmldtrig "Code Al 0511 ,Adopted per Tustin % 0 Pefdji�§� keqijli.bd., A-ny": bWh8Y or, bjAo- nzed* agent, who intends `to dbnsfrtibti, iTsh-, -or',ch Jmj). -ang6i -be. p'qo.qpocy .qf... : bind. o . _q Ir remove; 01 _convertor Lqp -qiipy- gai§; mechanical :of t - h ft 15 jQI . 3 of w ta] t requia:ii�j by this w .119ii 6,416rid o'-rto.*-&aIj-s'e�a-'n-. -Ubh)k�&Idbe-dd' first I ly.: S ffej Ad application 6the 8ulf6in Oft aland-&Wn, fhereclulred pertriif. IIIIIM Appeal 520 Pacific Street Mvember 9, 2016 Page 4 Appeal Hearing Body The Planning Commission, as the appeal hearing body, may consider evidence prpvided, by staff,. then, issue an order either: A. Affirming or B. Reversing, or C. Modifying the Notice and Order There Is some flexibility in interpiretation of the Zoning Code,. however, r, many provisibns must be followed precisely and do not alloyv flexibility unless specific findings can be. made for a variance. For this the he Planning Commission 19 considering; based on evidence ih9t:a violation of the fQlIowlng Zoning Code sect ns 0 is,�atthe subje propeft Pning Codes , �q i � t subject y: Tustin City Goda 9223(b)(2) Sih_616 Family Residential. DiWict (R -d Conditionally Peri-hiftbd Uses and Develdpifflient Standards'—Accessory buildings used as.guest.roorns, provided no -CobOng facility is installed or majhlained:,are siqbjectloq.Qqndftiorfal Use Permit.; Tustin City Gode, 9223(b)(2)(d) —.. Single Family Residential District (R=*,J) Minimum dtdb Yard setbacks for accessory buildings. Used as guest houses, Corner lotline 10feet; ihteri'ar-16i!-i'rier5f.Eiiat'. In Its: deliberations;; the Planning; Commission./Board ofAppeals, ' sho141d r-@qk1e. ' firidlinig.s1�1 .which are based on the dVidehdLE prest� h t rl�eql On.q the sworn testimony given �J, a sgppart .affirmation, reversal, or hiddificatioh of th6!appeal. Building Code amAZONvg, Ppdo Vlo1aflons At the p"reViob's mie-e-111hid, staff -was- directed 4o do additional 'Wip5hah on 'the propefty erna wes to resolve the Wrf&t. substandard condlfions,st the ak -T -.r 'q . - —. 0.1. nnK.-winhei OWI& , 7 -.,% .5 C-Odb.-.-V[Olaflohii. During: IN deliberations -.at, Wor ; pr.05ent: A-529- _Seg{ember 10 201'0 UBC 6.6 -d -e-s; In add -Libifia histoftal and to pubis$; g, there• were que.st'ions: as' to: Whether the. ed" tn.:Exhtbit A; fable 1` of fhe stats yppqrt pro -v .Qrl as, a'resr{lJ of IV)r y sq Mifta-) wRO Appripable. :)n,.-t,h,e:f JoWJQ (I A� prqvid@� qJ(Jqe and code qopnptj.a1nce! issues. f6hf.boildlhg dodd§ wh'&ria applicable: 00196 Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 5 Timeline Pursuant to the City Historical Survey Rplopq, the Main house wasbuilt in. 1.92.9 and;that a CompJetion Notice Was issued in that:,same year. At the October . 26 . .2010, meeting ' Fairbanks included Mr. a nks included a letter dated October 25' 2010 from Mr. Robert S; Gaylord; previous owner of the property, Which indicated that his father built the, house, garage, ,and the apartment.above the garage -and provided timeline ofwhtrthp5tru..ctur-e— w. fa re built. In spill.mpry, the following are timelines based upon tile historical survey report; and letter from, Mr; Gaylord; P T4q main JMUs (original construction) was built in 1929 The Lih.it above the garage:was built roughly between 1938 and 1942, The unit behind the garage -was built roughly between 1;945 .and 1 , 95Q Mr. Falrbahkt indicated in his testimony and his letter to the Planning 6-bimmissibn that the two units eX0041 ,on the,properf 40t over 60 years and ihat ihe-Oaftornia H-isiQ-6ca-t Building Code shppld.-be applicable io. fhese..!gructures. In n0spodgq- ijgg of the 2:007 California Histbft Building Code (CHBC) 'prcivides' t z. . .... , pfn�e laniefi.dy fbrexisting qUajlj�j��' historjcWb . buildings: The intent bkh.e4c`o'.de' is to protect the public health arid' safely and bm ref4in enough flexibility ib. allow: re'sfordtion of 'd y historic fqoltUrq!- Wife :still retaining its 'historic integrity. Thrqugfi. the permitting .arid' PfltJItl . ernppf prqq of which the Notice and Order directs the owner .10 qqmpjpfe, the qHBC. May be utilized to ensure tbat any -historical structures on the-sdbjeqt ;�`ito. pre -in -6mphao- d6 witHli b,code requiremetitsddh'L time.it was built: However; in brderto use the 'CHBC,:the structure under consideration: musf be qualified: by being :.designated.: -a-% an'hisforfcalbulid(ng prsiruciure. Based on the Notice of .0ompletidii- f6fil; ELK. Pacific. Street thd the: City of Tustin; Hisi6fical SUrVijy; Ahbl- Main dwelling house and garage -are, the .- --- - his site"If is the intent of, thj G HJC i 4I o..-:ioh- -hittorical-expamio'nOf' addtf Ida {o; a A. uprapa historical: butit'd ing 'or propo rt 0. additions conformtofheteyulrarrlEr#s of the y, provided non Jh historical ad'416o P ar R Q. Ze. 'w[lb woold b -j§ 000 ip -' hist' q oric enienc fQ . 1. - —4: ... - - leniency - - y PR other wto pl- :G.,'lv,e.,q the apriti-oabiliV of the -0-HOC 'sfaff took aplep.further 706ridl U-09- using 1W timellpe, proyideo by. Me; . Gaylord,. The -,Ipwffig. are, ffie City's Uij'dih e firrio the s'-trUq'tuf&s'W • The 1927 Adi-ldho'Gude (UIJC)_ in effectSfrom J Iffifli db� �7, 1942,Whep he City iof'Custln�adopted;the1940IJniforniBuildiltg,C.Qde, • The 1946 UpC UP-d4fbd MI. 1947' 1.9'49 Q 8 G-,*..'wp.ad f6d. Iii 1940 00197 Appeal 520 Pacific. Street November 9, 2010 Page 6 Current.2007 California Building Code .(note: codes area typically updated every three to five years). In summary the following timeline could be .used when cQmpaCing the time When each structure was built and the applicable Uniform Oullding Codes: • Unit above the Garage —:UBC 1921 921 • Unit behind the Garage —.UBC 1946 and 1949 Original ConstrUd-fidn (General) - . - (General) - . I Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff was provided ed with a copy of The original Notice of Completion was issued .to the original owners . George .and.Aj . ice , Gaylord, on Jan.qary-.T, 1920 (Mqcb.meilf 9), The Notice of Cqrnpletipn.n6ted. that the � buildings consteudt6ol in.cu.ded '"Ad*tliff house and garage (8eepage, of ng Attachment B). This indicates thatthe. only habitable building on the :site Was the he Udwelling house' ail'id that. the qaeagewas ancillary to the Main llbi.lsb. Some other violations tions inclpde; but not limited to,thefbiloWinp; AOpea * 1520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 7 This number of units would need to be located in an R-2 or R-3 district and would require a minimum, of 7 parking stalls to support the added residential use. Code Violations: i, 1927 1_19C See:.201 Application for Permit;. California Fire Code Section 1023 Char7go of.u$e or occupancy; California Fire Code Sectlion 102 Um;06 Building or .8-trucigros P 1927 UBO Sec. 201 Application for Permit 107 UBC Sec, 2204 Foundations required California Fire Code Section 102 Unsafe Building or Structures 1927 UBC Sao. 505 Mixed occupancy TCC BIOQAdoption of 2007 California Building Code A1051 —Permits Required 260.TQ81iforniti building Code Table 663-,- California Fire Code 8,50tioh, 1.1d.1 O-hj§dfd. Conditions TCG 9223a7(1b)rhinlrburn building site for residential unit is 12 .,000 .1000 ;3quare; feet TCC . 09215 Acc.essoy-b,uildings used as;'gga.It rooms, pro vid! n ohi g taj_i, It y isjjsfqjjqd prjnen- 'pe'dsubecto Conditional Use Permit- G&Oje,and Uiii!C4veTthd Ghkage AAs noted, there are sevoral substandard - conditions, I that I exista . buvo. the:. he. ,garage. 'These :substandard =ndifions are not. -only in Viol.a on. fVBG 1091, Wt also ­ - . - ­ i ... . _. � . . ti �O thb., sidbseqUE-int' :building coqes adopted by the. City, Exhibit A pro V.ides detailed information fbr:babh O'thq code violation-' however, the following providesral -:g�ane eXalffi bbd Vlol6tiohs, 00199 Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9,.2010 Page 8 Code Violations: 0 1927 UBC Sec. 9403 Openings and Walls and 2007 CBC Section 1024:3 Exit discharge. location 1927 UBC See.. 1403 Openings Arid Walls and TCC 9223b2(e) requires 5 ft:, setback to property line 1927 UB.0 Sec. 3206 Roof Drainage, _2007 ,CBC Section 1101.1 all roofs shall be drained into a separate Storm sewer system, and 2007CBC Section J109,4 Drainage across ptoperfy line 1927 UBC 'Sec. 1403 Openings and 'Walls and Section 1403 of TCC 8100 Adoption of nu c'aliforn a'Bu lding Code open; poses a potenfial falling hazard. fot st ' I _4 )lddieri,. q Note Gtvenrthatthg;structureratthlailo attog iseonstrwoled evefthe pro pg4IT ine:: -a petsdh that tray fa,�.l.. throygii; vrodla fah`•onto fife' adjacent property;; Gode Vjolafion_'s;" • 1927 USG Se& 201' Rpplloatioll ior%?etmif a 1s�7 UBG33Q5Raj�ngs a TOC 8100'ladop#ion :of 2007 CAfifornia buiiding. Gode A1:08.1 Pero ifs required _.... TGC 810Q Adopttgn of 2007 CaUfomta 13UI1dtng. Code 1012'.:Handrafls� handrails required.for stairways ®' TG_C 81.0,0 Adoption of 2007 Caltfornla BWlding h'ode 1.013 60*rrJs. Appeal 520 Pacific Street Nove.mber 9, 2010 Page 9 Issues' - Furnace installed without required permits and does not meet clearance requirements arid.broaies a potential fire hazaM. Ekpbsed electrical next to Onpermitted furnace which causes potential fire hpzarcl, Code V161.0tions: ® 1927 2T UBC, Electrical Code, :and Plumbing Cod'0: I927 UBC Sec. 3707 Warm Air Furnaces l9271 QlElQ Sec. 3714 Other Sources of 'HebtT.CC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California bm i ng.Co de A105.1 — Pw7iits required :R 1b27:UBC, Electrical Code,. and Plumbing Code.: Tcc, .810.0 Adoption of -.2007 California DiAd�vl.q Code A105.1 —Pemlts.required ST-1.0ver atlow PQ,t to.oddina( 6trodure. This requires building "pqrrpit: tQ..add- 6d d ifj6 h bl square --id. �b qd- -- t". Ti qq qj):W P 0�* for g.. Pqp�ot. �qgt. Ing! gn--vq.e-rpf Pp. Mg 1927 1. 0 . B C . -'soo201. A I PPMj6dbv.-?6fP0)W)# 00201 Appeal 520 Pacific street November 9,.2010 Page 10 0 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code . TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Cocle.-A105..1 —Permits required) a Kitcheh-co-ok*lp'g"146,i,liti6s not per.M ittedi.hgu6st,unit.. m Plumbing Arid electrical installed wjfboLt.p PpTmit s are required to insure Thatlife safety -Pfb!ddol is 'followed dqd jhgfallatidfi, lsd6hia according to plan. Without such .permits, and inspection cfeat �amage' etc. & fire hazwc(,, vmate. r* :C6.d&V6l0tio_h*' * 1927:U,13.0, �..(eetrfqqJ'Qpclej and Rj u I.. I umwng. * TCG 9223W No CoOdOg facilities, perm -i 0, TCG 81 OOAdoDfion ,Qfl o7 C�Itforrlq. Lli. I, G-.,Q(tq AIM 1 Penvbrequire 00202 Appe01520 PaclficStfael November 9, 2010 Page 11. Code Violations: 1927 UBC See: 1.4.0.3.Openings and W611s.2007 CBG Table 4Q6&1 A Fire- Resistance Rating' Requirements for Exterior 1Na11s eased:;on Fire Separation Distance 0 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Pe snit a 1927 UBC, Eledfrical Code, and Plumbing Code 2001 CEG Artidle 334.1.5 ;Exposed Work and Artiele 330.30 Securing :and Supporting Onitbehlnd the:Garage There are several substandard conditlons .exist on the unitbehind the :garage. These; subsfand'ard' condiElons we; nor' only :in Adiation of UBC 1927, .bui also the. subsequei ti building codes adopted by :the City. Issues: Unit does riot meet fire rating 5 foot setback required to property, line to protect occupants iiom fire hazards; or Safety personnel responding toan emergency: 'Code Violations;, 1927' UBC Sec. 1403 Openings s .Walls 200' CBC: Table 602Fire .Resistanc-e; f2afing Requirements for mihim'uin side yard 00203 Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9,2010 Page 12 Issues: Ceiling.heights vary. and do not meet the'6?'h 7 . height requirement, Code Violations:: a 1927 UB.G Sec, 20-1 Application for Permit 2007 CBC. Section 1208.2 Ceiling height minimum 00204 Appeal 520 Pacific.StTdet November 9, 2010 Page 13 Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code T C810OAd tion of 2007 Californ ld Building Code: Al 0 5.1 Permits required Subject , - op - I . , _ _ .. -.. I. e: Subject to manufacture's installation stand ards%.and.m. echariiicallplum b ing, permit 1927 UBC,Secl. 201 Application f6p Pormit. 200TOC Section 13.11.2,6 Hangers, Supports, and Anchors and 1311.7 0016for CbmbuOhle Material. installed belWedn Walls, Issuei 4 Insulation (appears to be straw b4O) has - high flame spread rating Code Viola#.iohsi: 1927 .UBC Sec, 1403 Openings .and IN I alls 2 . 007 CBC Section - '710.2 coftell6d installation. Insu.I.atinlg' mate.d.al shall have a. ffa.rn.e spread index rating of not more than 25 .and smoke deVelopMOnt index of 450 or less ss Issues: I'mproperand substandard elec iqql Mh without. perm., sink:_ - where 'a range imight have. Peqn.,.- o ;P.lumbinga de without , ermjt a J<-itb4qtl. jp� not pcL tpe .. prmifted (per zoning) ph todeVlolatlbM'. J927' Obb 8e.c.,2bi Appfi6a66h.-.hr..P.&Mit 16, 1927.1-113C., Elebtrical'Ca* and Plumbin.O.Code 00205 Appeal 520 Pacifi,c Steeet November 9,2010 Page 14 0 1927 UBC Sec. 3710 stoves a 2007 CFC Section 605.5 Extens-ion. Cords a 1927 UBC Sec. 201 AppljQqlion (orPermit a 'FCC 81,00,Adoption of 2007 CalifPrnia Building CodeAI05-1 -,PerMits required) TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities, permlfibd in guest unit Other StruicUffes (Recreation Rborfi) Does. not appear to:have. proper insulation ceiling h 6-16 h -t d66; hr Oxieei Issues, The r66M-.- is considered "habitable s0eice and appears to not. provide sufficient, ventilation-, heat and light w. Ceiling"heightistoo: l. minimum, `7'6"' , Code Violatigo 1.927 OB&Sec. 201 APPIRMOOrl. AUK Permit 1.927 Wc!'S-eb. -146.6,41bhi, V., nhlatlon-. and S601tafio& '!L g a b-dildinig- fjbf. sleeping.;eatiC 6b .d Obb a _e 2Ob7 CBC 1208Injohn'umt 76!" O?ppjusion tor l3bi d! g Molatiorts^ compliance; issues: that. met;nether lhe�, W7 Ohiform 13LIjIft'g, .6 Ode, (UBC) nor tho. :curr.e11 , i 2007 OAl[f.OrPTq,. %#dJpg Oo-de; (000)l, UpTe wwg' several '.gadbom, alfqrqflonsi -;andlpr rqppIp that have been done 16 -the-stftjbtq 606fty �Ubsequeht- t: the fo� at; the or Q fbuikJffi6�� wjihotli ben' tk,8f- P�finli l2brItfrLictijon -df the ongrib Several of IhO, code. :compilaticei fssues,th-atworv-jh violation ,,Of'ihe,1997;Uniform OulldingO.bde.sirnllarly violate the 1 '08C L! 0 ylp ... .027 And the Z utilized today;. ..010[rig Obde, :ai , i 1 00206 Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 15 Essentially, the same or similar code provisions were in effect since the time of construction of the original home in 1929. Zonit�y Oode Violations The -City incorporated in 1927 and the adoption of the;first Zoning 'Ordinance by the City of'Tiuslin Was onApril 7., 1947 (Ordinance No, 71).. The ordinance provided'. . comprehensive zoning for, the C4. at that time. It established zoning regulations for the "Rl Qne Fjarnily District" that allowed a guest Unit, for temporary guests "' of the occupants; however, no kitchen was. allowed subject to elte-limitatibris (i.e. minimum OjOO.O---pqt4aT,e foot lot). .On November 6, 1961 Ordinance No. 157 provided 8 new Zoning Code. which permitted a guest house lniith no cooling factl'ities and . was .subject -6 a Conditional We Permit;(OSecond residenitial.units werefirst estabijsh-edlrt the Tustin Zoning Codea(t -that time and set forth slond.ardl's;to -which a. second unit was. subject, Including a I . minimum:.QIt size of 12,00G.squafe tetat and one additional parking.s.pp6e:(in addition to one fdiMhe'imain hbdse). The -site" stand&ds have .fbMain'p-di Jnqq.� h"the ' e with :thL- Ocwhich . . -.,. same epfidf.t. Of the 26.62 gf�te­ L--aWQ -hibb requireds'6,t;diid Units to be reviewedmi . niSbeefally-and not be. subjacl lo,,at'UP, Although; the garage was indicated on The original Notice ,of.Completion pt1hq<sitq,1he. use of the second 't ld-ti�ll unit With a Clot pd 6 and 6 q K §,Pry jt6 d th subjuci site has never met the rhlftiffiLJM-- l6tA2b -required to accommodate ei second unit 'There are no permits on file for' use of the s#rucfure as A. jivalble Onft.. in the R-1 Single..1Family District, :guest houses or guest1. units; were. his bric4fly intended for "tqqi.pqTqr.y guests" and the:use .is: accessory 10 PDAID'9011jund0n; Wit'the main house;_ two, carimerclal apartment units. .How the Vty.deierrirlines ifa -s"truqtUid (mri-omaift-U&V naswo - ! per"o In ME. FiRbanks letter to the P[pnrling C.o;nMisSjqr!: SP4MMEO - 'wl= 1. .11, - - I - . at kh-e ;Octgber 26,. hebrih-9,thedo.pellant infdibalbd that there jare several �p file wit- th'"d-Gify -2)7- - W- - -s: also We* Permits on. &Q. 'MOf! %air an if the CRy would 'oorlsid risa structure . legal if fX k d' M(§d.' historical fh 0'. e stilwe riify recor ds'IhdIdatb*thbt'in 1959 several 'old on File Wlth1hb, P-bftit§ and tbI49fY.-,Xefe.des1lroyed 'by;tss6J-lJ1jijn'd1det; If is, obhanco* located or hay.0.1140n. S ...1ags,:o-ndSt OuTe -Ciff - to th&---C--ity;qf'Tqst1 FQ .. s5bjtict to''Obt6ld'ag permii'v. wbich �W.P-QldbaYP- ensured .6orrivia-h c*04ith tffd, ddd6 Tq ... ;.,. . �- -.1 , -.1., 11 ... 11 - -d; TWW&C -00'.h if, ObhTilfg- ibeilbrgtedl'� Jumbingwork would have J 76i'lirlb - I , all: §tfL!.ctUfet,. ehJW!c8H,. fne.bheihid.6I,= h-qjeli,p 'o 'fs. 'aJ( they were -q pc _tJ . e0fili-ig thef MiJ1 Yn. OQ.cr ire �add ed�, iMu ex q -1A. -Mon .- ihb,41me,alteredor repaired; 00207 Appeal 520 P66fic Street November 9, 2010 Page 16 The City in the past has encountered properties with similar violations. These properties have been either brought into. compliance or currently have pending case files. Non.-caqforming structures Mr. Fairbanks also noted -'that' both Units of the property existed at the time of the adoption of Aho.26hirig Pode and therefore thdiuld be considered rion-conforming structures. A nonconforming structure, as defined in the Ameri.dan Planning Association A Plapners,actionary (April 2004),1$ a structure or a portion thereof,which was lawfully. erected and which has been lawfully Maintairipcii' but which "no Joqger conforms to the regulations and requirements _of.tfiie (district) in which it is located'. In the Curtin's. California Land Use and Planning LaW*,:a hoh�cbnforrhing use is described as a lawful. use eAsilftg on. -the oftectivedat& of .,a new zoning ordinancerestriction that hat. continued since that time withputponforniance to -the ordinance. 1n-b(qdFtd.Ub cdhgidbr6d - ph 6 fmind#�gqfytes� the structures at 520 Pacific Str6et. ­ order'to ".., considered I..... I r), c nfd ­ I , . - _. 11 .,it ", must fia\ids been lawfully erected and maintained: Therefore the structures are not 0risideted ribriccinfornilh.q. :benSWd01Q1?,pr0d Town At the lasL Plann'ing . Gommissionj -shV.6fal individuals inclictitbril that there are other properties in Old 'Town ',ihai.fiave'. severaf uriffs, on a property. As inditated in the prt&r staff report :(Attachment 0, page 7)", the OJty- has cpns'td r 0 several proposals to, increase the dpjjslty of properties , jpgiaf d e y P Lq:tl 15area of Pacific Sfreet, and the brooder Old area, however, each time; the community beeInou poken against any I I - Its increased.densttyand, th led 1 t ,y - has ", d h requests. .enje!suc by' position-to:another property located; at 440. ffqqhment E) The ,_petition ;wa signed ,.. idlbdirig 'Br'bt arid, Stboh6nib: Fairbarjk&, hbUsel. The Ptdperty oyVdef at ittonal P.-Vr Waslen : rn Pr000st whl ne., allit_6 ui permits •and , Appeal 520 Pacific;$treet November 9, 201 Q Page 17 Henry Huang,.P.E, C B.O. Building Official Elizabeth A. Binsack' Community beveloprrtent:Director Attachments: A.. Code Cofnpliarice Issues Table with 1927 Edition Uniform. Building Code B. January 7, 1929, Notice of Completion C. October 2A 2g10, Letter submitted: at Planning Commission Meeting ;from $ref.. Faijbanks_ D. PC Staff Report and Attachrnentsfrorh :October26, :2010 E. 440 PaO& Aireetropposition- petition. r, PQ. Re0Pj. ibh.No,41s1 G. PC' Resolution. No. 4162 $,1Ci1E1P,CREptlRl�Otb)PL.AggndaAppeyl 520' P.aytfic gprQ'inu�d:docX. 00209 ATTAQHMENTA Code Qomplipm;o. 15st-3as Table with 1-027 Ediiioh. 1J.hif.obt,8UildlngCode 00210 a 00211 aM m ,o C, 0 II MC 1) c 2.v rq w O= E ��p M M m 0 a UQw 3: 0 ". 2 5O m M 0 0 0 0 u te"m M 0 =:w M 1 11 . U rvi Y E c "�' c; 'm,� 2 12 0- M 0 7t -d NN e- M m. ,z m 0 'D F -o M m Wm= 12'"g - •0% cffrA (D 3; 2 ma �6 J.m. m 'm M CM S. 0 2-5acc C. > 0 -;5'- 40 0 m,mom =u w a a- ra cc a o­� o 0 A o 0 c CZ 'm M - W;,� - m =,0,5 Z).m, 0 M.a, ff 0 _.- . 0 -3 =I C.6._ 2 iz. 0 - 0 S= M' E 0 0 W Li (N (n 'a >�ItS O -M. > ca d) 12 zi -,b. c .- 0.�.. - W�, D - 5 0 C) ed= E' '3L w - 0 mO] = N N 0 E co onij, -01 0 0 0 0 , C o'. W'm i= '.0 0 Z 0 C, 60 N EQ M.(O W im LL m: F_ Om C 0 w'r_': v o O R 'O'm . 'NI,Q :;.m . ._Q bt;d 6 0) Va (n cly '10 1 am to CL a0 N iZ:C'4 - CD to 0' u a S bi of m E- m; E'a: ic�J 'e. i�-,sof LO r'�NUUry13. > Fia g. 6 fx' ij, IV Io ml V M:m A� _'O og;'E mO. E Js. OR= a 00211 00212 u lr Na,0 70 0.=0. 'M 0) 'E2 m C_ a w CMH= co Lo 'U 4 B, M.C., g 0 3: 75i= M r9 W.M; w 1.5 _L a, U, 0 27E a- 0 �c M 'o 0 c 0 - U rn m cc �12 5-0 ll 0 V_ Y3 E 0 0 , ❑M ci eo•u c oc M-O 0 w :2, D 9' L) a 0 PL',,* '- di. Lo 0 c M 0 w Dom M.f:-E . W- - � allJ M M M. I Om 0 !, 12 =. Y N3: ow > e. .��v �"W! -0. f; 0 E- E: 0M. - 6-1 C:D. E' -,.-CMW �t'us m.m 3a 8 73 0, M om= C., Z, E o B.,i2,5 Em - 0 E M C6 a 0: 0; 0 w 0 R,12 .0 W am M = - _bs ­,=­�,� . :b 9°EE a 0�,M ='M 0 a c ,CC! m.[; Jj o5`co w Z,W­ M -Wo M M w 0 0 M -M w 0 0 M,3 El� a. Oc M.- op 0 0-6 L) 2 E Or ov E :5�Um a j w L C p M'& Q'E 12 M 0NE,-mm,C, u f; E w w M,O ,E -am 'C 100 M c 0,- D m a W:1 Cff'E 0_1 ;q_ >-E 0 0 �C, c b- 'AD'a C.2 - — m, . W -= 0 w M 8. E I Mm .0 -U > a M d I 'j, C -P :0 0 FW Ez 4M E bllq;ci- 1 o .9 > 2' iJ .mm -times E 0 V, Npia U, N Cq, 2 ,q�m MR5 i.,a mmm A;r IM: D Iq t: E tc QE ID,O so, C'M v .M-yj 0:0;." 0 f2 ;a E 7ffi zP MC M , M , 41, r\ _tq B UM10L E 0 and �-u Ao 0 " mo 0 00212 00213 E= m N N u wo a. E u 0 u �Ilvubu M 2 sm at N 0 :rq ---X) 0 > �Q a, '.w - = .11 - N G -M I - j= M. m v 'o 75 a 25 M & M,C 'a 0 .Y W .0 P.- mm o -: 0' cc Ll 'mo 0 c3 0 -0, J0t 0 R" -E m 11 U) m c 0 E > CU* .- 12 42 > O.'D 0 E 'o mist J2 LU Q >- M-- m E� —" ff b Z5.a,;- r�l CL a,u. N 0 u W.z 0 2 N. JM' )A' 0 0 -ja -`o* > 0 a offma a] M.c m LE a -.a Zia m -Rk V - f9 U 4& A a Qom. CA IS .. -o'« :m c ic" 13 CQ 0301 CL: — n. -EMEL In tj 0 -,Lot J! -6T bm to %r, td. A b, E "A 0 — ®R-42 bl= a to M'o �Nbori :D -D'O "w tJo6n, c -10 Z5 I= a, Wi E. Zo. - E! -q p ia—, -'� 021 m I r w CIO, tu: [2ca 00213 00214 70 '10 it 'a 0 I Lo -.0 0 Ol C-4c�Ema 00 0 0 0 0 w w La m 0 Na�0 �5 M Uo .M N 0�,t Ho m :0 c 0 0-:2 E -7� 0 0 =.—, .,= = 0 M .0 WC .- M G,. -l- m r � ai oL,C - M w E. g -= b3 MIE 0 C4- DIM 0 o mou E N m 0 MN mm E 0 u E 6,= m m ui5 E - 0 CTO E'V 9 0 mw ar? 6 0,mm -.0.2 to a . . il= L-.- > 'Um 1, �. M W-2 W I � ON aw I=- ., "o, , nil (9 - is =`= a m to a O"Vs- 0 - E, .2 LM M- wo N 01. C CD Q 5. a u7E 0 C 0 0, M. u C) M, E 0 Wo -'O;F 2 J= 0 M.-,546 0-12 cm 0 mt M4 E! M,m O-�U uCl E U. Gm w a) LD E d. -W Nry 0 me, m 0_c ,E Laid: oL .t3 E Ly ff), E La.m-- .13 , CL -b K"r- ia -.Us M*.VZ m 007 P. ... QO-� 01:0 ,to R th.gym o 11 a- M Me -0 P w'E:in E - um �M- 00214 „�3...,.:, �. 00215 y$1 i • �r - w f' o ° u i m O y 'O w L m 01 m m ti N:L C O m C -O m 01 'iLm aUjN mal : L1mm'm,M m M m t..: M cm':'�'c ym V. mm O+cb -OUm.m'>OL a'A v.cmv HnO N OIL— C. v. n m S;2N mONO�op.'O m=C CO.� OF"u1.;9 U �.'— m�C 9Cp�N WOO 0'5 w m n X01 3 O y ?' m :04 L U O m L. b O. t m n m m C L G O m N m,omD.ma om3')aysm�'tmq 'O R m.c L U y m, O ot: c.3 a'o Pm 1rT G OlU m U CN y Ya d. `o y.. &M m Q 5. E F U p m ?' _ O' yl 'r9 C J C CO o m:.E m �. i�l 7 t m _; O Y �1 'e o o';m m �°q m amt a_' o' " '° m wU L u: ntrn >.'m. m. c.._.a U c,a '0 �....?a ? a E To F nn ami of a m a vPi n� c,c 9; a [7 C �: L V F -t 'OEm N N `n L m $� m�e d. m v 0 y O Q. :D.:v m nPop �unua'mm>t mv'=:E scwa],.. ❑o r� mntt U. a. co mr O'. :6c.Ee.�'ir ,a.v o.�ooma.:� �a r� mc.m o•c.d c`,N �NmN OIp'3m �7=0O'.m. 19.NL`+9Cfma�,u aF�i .0-W mina 1 nA =.:E-; io� mV:. OAF. O.yEN S N N y C T m m v rSrmmNm ro , a '5�,OGC L m a' w?+.- cyo C $ mcF ._amu tCo'.r mN M 0'3*, �'.'rxna cc _,... O V O..y moCD mn 7M �M.,: Gn ,mioc mv.,� ma F,.W:¢m Eryam ,.. m IM a m n. :v F•�'..., �mg'. E_ T '� o_,'u ai 'U u �. �' tri 3 v^;o .n u d'Y-i m. H �,' c," Q`. E v ate^, G v !CoC (.N�...r N.N9U 0,0 m n m',_ . mmf/70Omtn:.i pygN pVEmW�1 NQimou. �' MayU„t;U L+ p Uy oa:m. U c'.0 c 3U"a:e U r t` EiU h'.� m�j.T y� }tUi`'ai mC em m ?Al c�,a U. mrC m @,m m vm t 70(J'1.- y N4N Q a. L Oa m Ro�mOoO Uo�mU,Oo CUcrS� Nm^� c�ya 04 CI>. r'.vvH N 'm- tio:r�c Ek` -m' ' N oo , aor2 Oo4-.La NU Pi• , rnt4U c, w m .m.�U •G ""C m CV my w9 �'N y.nN y0.'N:Gf Q''i71 _ O mGm ml"'Fm{'. v v p dN m a, v y mC'7Y `a mm '��E� O,7N G�.d mIDC aaj •E' nrvn �IG mrn a'U�>mOOLt U'O C yg y0 O Q`ryJry. my. _C •La v O. am =., PS P,y �q+m ��2.a slm�l'� av y'a:'c`�io m4=i m.a m�,�n�•N :Nm y:m.'W`a ,Yryrmom W';y n�u aF'Q!lm @ `o .E:�rn vis c;, E-'2.ce F'm.ia° „�3...,.:, �. 00215 w 00216 N ml (L > N 0 -6, E;L M- m TO 0 U 0 P: 0 ­N CO,O�: — '05 - . I - 0 - _2_­M-c`I-Q ",;7­­,8: E IEI m 2 2,ww =I C. 9 M; w W 0 E -5 jE o. ci t; m 0 41 E 0 0 O.-M -0 - MU E_c 4.0 OR Q y 0 0 C; a 0: o a �'o rz > ma E mf �'2; 0): 12 .0 � �o a �.Z b 0 q.0m.G m m J� c m w m M;2 .X rl l0: 0 0 M.W, :P OR L.—� N. w .5 E 10- iD 2'r = 0 a V� r,m cF, o d M E5 U E :E m to 0 i M I� �:V,o 10. 0 U, R m, aryry 0; M 'O.E O'� N, of� C,-Z,.:gj Q ItrattP FL. 10'm U) VU.0 Wei O'CN p,.03 D,M- 000. E036.6 Nu -ij: To ca m Q,cn.-. a; 10E, P p QM 'C oi ao T,� 0 Ao "C's; IT u 0 E H 0�,, M .0 T. 12 =arOi 'o.r * .0 ok., [Z' q.. a m. , -1 ... .0 - ml Eru 01 =;M "A rd -d� T,., .9''nomd" STU 7r, E 0 w 00216 00217 T P ui C m W 6 n70 -07,c m 0.0 m C C m> .0 u C M- C - 2 2 70 0 0 0 w Nm M C M W.,C 0 a WE -us Xt B; �o o, > ci M m.c a M 0 U.= m w a CO -. .a W-- 0 w �', " 0, cc OM 0 m C a a- C E = r m 2 E C m a a A to E; 0 C ' W'l.OlQ.-w-,C,3:1,=w. M tn' . M, , '. - �.o 0- 1 �Mo ; = a = 0 a ILE-1 0, C-0 w M.0 to m m 0 U, 6 M .!= , C r, E :c r= -r, 9- 4 -�Ctc , a IN - - C'N z � -5 - 'I,WO-C) C I I mem 0 , C a -0 12 2 O S.- - V am M,M o Moat, -,a" i Q. M 0 ca _O 12 M �m . 0 T M 0 ,-C 0 00 M M , m " , M o—70 a W-0 m 5D.' D a3 W',a- 1= M.- U 0 C Rt C -0 0. m 0 12 0 P 0 W YJ 0 N E A u m MO 0 0, M . x —2 'M �w ;;i P m M.— — Mzt ; — a M — 0-1 C c'4 -o'FO w I .0-.-I , =) F�w . D. 0 M=tj 0 -2 -E> 3; vi w 0 0 cl 0 . - - - U V, -�M r4 ;3 C O.W, al a 73 a NM LO - 0' L mc 0 - C - ,acm ur -0.0 0 m ViM-= w 02 ,LL�f=- if V wa- - amF. C-�� >1 1 -6 C'R 0 Om'�Q ? 0,1-- 0 LL. ML`M WO: in Q, M,3: �r u O'E" lb tM at or. -,dj - MIA, cm. -E' E- m 11127 Co. to. M at � "0 0 b3 -07-M-0 4 MI= M; 5 C,j Q.N, Mc,- -��N QMQ.Qk oo 0 M� CLO .0 ::U) r 0 :>, 0 9 -.M;2m! O a E a M 0 o V 0 ,a 12 Mm 0 07 0 0 P); 'M mDen '.0. E o�E k B =u 25�,G. m M.C, 4 a. O..C.' 4,0 00217 Fg . 00218 am�o� 2F_3n in O O L IL f ;L n a _ W 'Orbe ti . s td.Ip' L — ,pl C.L c E. I m Tj 0 mo MM c c and❑a:ic=° n v.0prn a'¢porn�'a L .J a d O'•- Om.N'5Nm�:.a Zj d of d' d fm�•'I'' 0 0 g 0 C.m m� NiJ Ito 2 u; I�d4-"'mv Lim' m.0 mL 'OIL �O 3 d n @.'0p m a pym L a O �. L C'o W. O .�: a Z N y .0 'O O m .m .�.°. m'O'ap y, I a� m m m d .LM--.". — L- 6.a T. 13 E p y, y' p .� 3 aJaU 'p .etp : €d. 0) o N ao' 0E1O . 1. OY C UU`. daU � d.dL O)R� G {Opp Y1�.0 O. d. Nd... i0 a wem LY N'dOd _ N Poll— ,U):.d aj ew ?O O E 1 � O e L,y im ,.al N..0 Io b) U, m:y..N,E.__m�.:,.. rcm M.. .3 a=9E Uvlc.i d, . 00218 00219 0 03 -- 0 0 Y N 4 jC w w R w > mc m 0.0 mE' �544 u Ir w 0 MC U-0 a6- was mca. Em y. M, W w 0 , U. 3! . u o 0 0 'i 0 0. 'F E 7p� CLW an m -22 M 10 b, Q mo > m t, 9 m1 0 a 0 wrd —m � w -2 Cha ta cfi0m�.ui :4 0 E2 , cq11 I TICK, a ll, iiu.. -ZILPT M L.a I A .mr en 0! U, A E-47. m. rz, .0 Fn: =."O co 0 M L3 =-0, m o CO co tL,5 Fit di �WM b 10 O—S.C'o m V- A ff m CR 0 '=0" 1p E-ZV -.3 0 00219 00220 O M P U0 0 .2 E o,=- E,D �:2 0 on a n -E - w r'n U.EL� M US 0 U -M - c p'n. 0 E! '14' 0 I's Q o 8:-'s .0 .,. M 0 r -Mb �r-;= E. c 0 O"M 0 E Mo Up 0 m 35 --o o:0 0:. c M in 76 SA R ia�ym E wo"'O w o LO io 0- t 3: M -'m ML a c N'> M - , c c=W ,N awt o' �u M'.- Mo 8 0 '='m- E c: , R,=, 2 0 "6 .0I;- o c'u U = ='g. a m a 0 La wz�g' - �M .= E m 'N 0 c 0 . 0 E. 2. a =.o -r 0 Q '16 0 m 0 M.M w E Oc' u M O=1`0 C;W I 1� IT: A Z5 E -0 o" M;—,U C.4 . "Cal M ri 0 U3 A;3 ,E, X40 O:N va M C% r4bN c ON TON to W. c _0 M 2 8M�LD �:V. ; m 1E to ktz; 00220 3 00220 ATTACHMENT B JanUary.7;. Nott60,bf Completion 00221 alp ReaoM.d At s.vo.t of ortnt.e got -3r 1926. at 30 gin- Ppgt a l,g,i in Boos 2161., CIS aflinlel Ronatpi of 0?=Hu pvpntT• ingtlo. nniteelp OcunVr gtinrder, MW oten"p, Adel.. lutt CGYP1111L 'ilei mon1fe [ 33054 F cc" Ica( D20T Dinm J' Bls'T-Dr ITALT JIVIML TUDT no .Wiling ApD01ATICV, n oatlaa.l t,notipg ace.alatldn, �Su .onpltlerotlen of. Tge one pof100. Dollaxnr to !t'In land :Auld, the'¢npnl pS;of �h1ah Se De2aDy : '±�. • a apknaMlvddcd, de.e.herpW grpnt t. DL6e62 gATibM ina'1LICE L Gay1mb, luehand extI n,i,1e', .nt iry Joint: tonentq 'tlth fight of =Yle.rolap, ell tUM ioel pmpi ty olt¢00 to the Ceenty.'of, - +,'. oxrnga, grate dd!. ,pela 4nld, er."Itoa en f.'S... I a' Ott portion Df let,fV. of the gta1faia:8'7mfln;72310t;:on ebarp Do a ilaD'rd.mdvdgn h- Roak: E'„pa¢o 61A of O'.cellenanooRegards of Lp04311omtAf ep.oxl7nd tlq `4 Deritnim5 It a-polttY on 144, pout Alnp of'eeld Lot, 430 feat s6ulh 0f tha gpitl*at oyregF of. on,A Lett' rpnvl4 fpodge 9. h .slung th. Suet°ltine of asld LW.:JSooti th.n6d Lexi parallel. to SDa-.Aosth' lino o{ odd Wi 2oa jest! thmui girth gdial:93.'to the ggnYlige o1 4dA. Lott' S0'Letljf. *pe? Beat pox elle] to the:. Bomb Lini'of peld.lot, 2o0'. riot iW..yle .paint DC beglpnlh l A, i4eqr d ka4mnp. to. the ,am a av orihei ps{fig vperty e. ht at4 n'fdr dngsopt' 00st -agre.i eod.yoc gni ued-vat.r'ip, lima nna for'oleptxlo Lgb4 pole and alrei oirs the falliV- ri W dcaptlbpd ;01T1 oe ut -lot.: iyv of atef•oid. d!: Tadtin Tr¢etp pe ehorm on tYop xeooartbd:la; -0apk 2„yoga fiiL ;gL ylephlLtpeodp: Hdaaid. di _Lae<Angdlea, oaugt$r wltorote„de._pplved_ne et' . 'beginning a n:pelat ioo the Dorth iia. pF gglp ,aot. ape 196.563ie1 Hitt' 6f tge N"06ept j or of i.1A th£g ivoklnx thenei, 8outhezlT.Pa?ellel to the Iegt llnp pf. Bold Zak b66;9j- t, Sari ie' a Eat pmjth. of a.id Lott ihIph pol4t,'tY-26b61 Y it.yee( of tL. 9iut' • r orperef nia Vet, thenop Fiit:;a1 n¢ _fine g¢uih lino hf'oatd Vat S e 60 feeTy a or 1'p'+? {: ' tori ppinL - 1H: owil liner thiclu to 2W Lad*EpOi or ts. aiuthwet Cirrimo p. enta Got] L` eiitie ¢pr{§grit' `o7oag a 11m pvallel t d;+Oq f t sedp pT, tAe tY:eb 11ne;of va1E LOV. 'a 66j.bk Ti0f to n oral on lt.= p.rw: 11 3 ntA.t v ELe.de: a 2 66 idat,: oe ' z Leto, 10 �5 to. `pMSt of 4egSn[iing{ - yAi.,00p 17"fL. ino. Up” thi 2ollodng zpnpoad oondltiogo, �'� .. lot: That no partipp or, ib- 11 lip -d{ any .floe le” pd� to os eco kAm-a ei-df[eN 7rpp;:otper i67,n, t5e, Qpyaap3'pil.ro4e_s Ndticdae iips•-peidtsed., : and . Ttiat nD etruptJie: elfull to ote.i,d ypol ya14 Ptopertl tAogpt'.a; dwvlllog_Ecdeb mo:Siae_tnnnls ttou. iilmea' baing'e ked ,the cs'gihorY o.tbull'dliiga isum:gT op?esmotad for. pea , oA eeidrpr.periy u q dnol7Sng pltg '.3r7 Shat ne'Cntllingt Y ,akwevre Yoe -tib Av q `daeliing ah ll be,-ariotad it614h eYtiall lope} loge then 63000 00: 'T .. .. �hthd Thgt;np;gno111og1 or;Itruotuxe apryll: on, prtpigdpp .ld lof ,4Fo tiont phs4 'af. "M e rlflalU4 nidm£lh-lr thW 11ne 6Srj fi pWpv y ok4w tkgtT teoE;. 133 9f iha:Yoiegvlskeoadltlopa bre Eq'elgrid >o be nerenanta uanipg nAtA Eh 1'atiQ joa iii�A,^P,e qeq o dpvfortit.o{ th r e�Sriliig pfpperi`I c1fi-. LDe'nubdlt;:loP'oY afi1p�11aSd ' ftoy6zti• M a'pery: 'qep in the. eve.t Pr,e rlolatinn a; mICO_t QNQ ipieoante•or wnliltihn!, .� then:-iiv title`So:.ieda property 'iti'hll neTartptp''3§e pregfo; F}LD }pna{iot]yo o0mk5'tald pxapa SR 4i 'ra c* -p' i. uga Tpf, g, iiney pdjalpSas: r� Ban}Se.-' gsmtad., s1.1Rt;:tioaete nith i'� t -- SP BATF 11m.1Q, BOLD fp too. -:Heid _ t �gp4, 9 4^ e / t r r 00222 j E xx la Man vxld , the BARi G'r 'I.T.ALY -141101AL,JR-907 APB Ufrvaa�A"� burnout. mu pd Its COrpolatt Been to be BigVad �y its Yii;+r..Adat jsi)Ajjj' Officer. tbarvante. At*, w.tiahti-Ag tv xfmvlouo. of Ste DtArd of PLz.q-.Pkn,. tb*,"s day or OoSobgr� 1913.. -jAT AL .jl,,B9FA3 p .4. Q915mnl R-, D, wi# f. Conaty: at ormit on this 15th dur 'at Oowiir., IJM, la,ftr�R,owi L WOn� q jjd OMITY nob; ih;r"A. poly vvLrledipnAO unit AW544 PatantailT, EPWArta Vi L. WlMt,r431014 AA ft. to bir: ead A, D. 'YaXlqr�lm" to .10-19 to jbc 4alvt.t :.91fic4i, of 64 - p0itivn. 0 c"Pii1ed le VVa thut cil, quito th" viibin- I ptruim . t, "a iiain:wsi. : ai.l)i -iii hO *Jtbiu of the mBpoxietind t6 te,ranob v LakaO pdad tbab,iiab 6.Maj4jjm I .qts mene; 11 1112036 9mr6rB jb"_ita, zm�f,� tF I, -A ata -�- hx.d my. Vr I 116i� sual :OvA _ , . "- - P And Ow, I- this cartillo.tp firw5T o. I mr�- -- n. for. .yid antriy gma ptut I a. On.' 3nmC9 6lcMiX Aof,�' 1h ioo'�44AN' 40,.Ml '(ffhofll Ann.1d.,!4nas OvEgt7 a pi to . I oaaaii.,4 75055 on. 0 kq� -Sj or In. nus; OMM, VeB,tl on. d liarl.g it. . u, elms of iAiwiagvt 4y,41 --d& PtPyp. Ob my 91, LOB AaDclza, Otata or iallInrqla, I. ..p.idqkBijV%.O paw, r0au4A it. :if dp hhd pldj. #4 xtouipt Of W111,0, V UAMKUl. and. IlltALa . . tuab"i AM 'If" su'4D'" tenants; "I that IaiimTA �i600. Ata fa itui dqazlf of orange, An i `Lot iltansTdv76at (¢8J of Tz.6 9— , 47, 2y of R90Vtdbi 7 6f6L16 d: OqupSy zduqmliapa VVd TuEhia brj Rtvprf?tvfn lmua�,-Vt B,-� Up -pit'u4 in , 6 If . LaidYluglaftz ; -i I a. "'j m d7.fh-.-r P.,N11-6 Iii pAbloot to .pputitf ilang V.6viddi Abyey", get th5 !Sid Jn 0�44 asaupt Id ;blah. w*lAh Apply %d'zxd V l.to4vToc a Vp&a jlj� ajAajj.j, -tbBi. ivoiculf fS .oil Tbpfshld pAcies 41ii pot ba: cold oaateyc¢, :lapsed :dr `igvtet lv (pi OCelji tual 0 I'dan IV I 00223 of Z., kvp.qTkd tkdx.p; day pr -July, Ain. 1929. }b yz.LLda f: d . r . tkI. V. . ad Jav If tb Owqo of 11 Wvo. fox,j-vuzx; ar.p. State of Uxalidrddit eu couptuar loaxassla.. Cu thl. 2nd 11 If ;.I" I- tln Y..r r.i .ad a. put. .*7 dud *.f i -'d OuQuT73 ficldli, 1bacv I.,., qu47 ...imdw..aq 9, Im. tile,the udr lmvlr fiftts R, t%c AIkOZO-YAd 14b.t ot the Idy,% 31ndirAty Cojuty, and Banow2adavil t, tbAt. 6q i._V.EiMbkd th, jk,,',ipf jLb.jCoyqj jn,edjfjy.Wppdf tb,.p-.o eu vtnaty...d bf. gitu in 7IT)n" bit i;y*)iid and hfAidid j. offiaul uu2.' t uIp pffl..' I.veIj owmiy OY ti. luiii..t -kid Our ..a Y... I..t .Gvww_ W#k0u., Rcap.th, 35 . pry N . Wo'. �'Au ift. Ti; told, OduttT t -f 71-a 1*e3.oj. 'glib` 04 CAllfuPla, :vr:aawg'I6n Yiolrui.fua .cgl: 193n; etxti'af I du PIPPOT "b,i th.1 flu W10 . 0a vl�ls X'lt _lly diPabs"Rim 'W.'ANvi.t at Xgt.ii P.V40 iu ipd u.T 11.. D.4 U21ty. ;Bobo d02a _0W1- M.M.t4k 5rfqf0 Me,. thl. 3rd day of July, 1.1&. 1929., I J. a. nh.i. ocuity. cicii sy.i. 1; R12clicpot M.Fu%7; Thud 4ul 3.1929 r :Ccuuty. alp L 2Y E.� Dffp t'T. t!h. 0p1 1. 1929'. W53 MIN. voit Aol.x_lm )3001 2.90 R�-Idd 0 - 6rik 06.6vi�� jul"N. riputy. imi Ad.l. ovpp i bu knA_ WLTO qT'-f dily r. .0 rap %hit gq nij pl;ial 3. 2h. I., Di ypiii` 44, and 'ou*fA'W-- liisly aw*';A$ oma., sj�'. 'f Vd d. 1"J�j Irb 'Kn' Pi &is V'j'j aatd Zell Ifni of dud t6t, 50 lcit..ilih6e atl;- '.rii 1.1 zAvztD if np aG gild W; gob re.q ilia6i am tp ol Aii I1 if f tpmpT V, Out P'n'lul is lb- 9-t4 Ilno 02 a1q bt Ad6',1pA*,'VQ Abu pa%ut'OC:t% AvnIm[X.e'. 00224 D Snit pa Nap abate of -old Una, aftSevla,oocup the itfi:doy pf.'Jlaam ]yd9;'' MtlnenOOd ShO preatlOg qqdvogli'Nokt®, npga .ibe .lop d. abO�a deDQClmd, of eortzlh bai2al LO -P}11: D } _ edrdaall'Iti�NatltYpddgvy� t 1 tall dela ooAlaltge mta he o duly oeaptzu tot .and tea pv= =so: aotbal3T ,0bsp% � pa th! 3,rd Barof ialr, 19?9. ?=Ab.iptud by the uderalgabd on lb. -apo day. TN8 ]¢tlk le elft lq'pt¢tNi,LVz.o! the •yTRlt alhh� C1 neCt1t11 11ST oi tm'.Cod4 p± Cijll piOOedusa of Soli,i, utate� Door" gaydprd' Alin S. Daylnrd I RahegRlbtp Agu;41,4PP hp.AbFRft:ai Selo. 34d�ar of Jv11,19ir t t, Andtoaa lata;) Publlb g i A. pq0 Sps p.Id.cp nqaua btnto, nkkta, pT Rnl}TvlaL Ow04 a ps '.,� tib. 1 Y i. aage,, beezaa OOigrd mM Ilifan 3. Gaylord, baing flrot duly orcin, Evp'vee aqd Aes, "4Dkt t t&a; vFe tia,•'tgverp vt (Te �trpgeral agyibep fa tue forvgol?g nhtdie; Shpt 't'1 hire xdva tpi � peep pad 400�,lpp.,�Yppgty tbptebf. nm �uet'tip'e veno Sa sine ¢S tbair ;him, la'cil3epgb: �' bvvrgD RylD:d ' lho e. Oerlord' 1 nhnehpieeo tau B1dnFtiv"tip}� ¢ _es. tti}q 3rd aof pt ,]ult;,. 19", • "(,�,04 'J Y. 1. ladro�. Pafv7. P.d ui . tv lv -old s anld'.Oomty and 9t t Nwad.d ii r' 0 1 apo R1+,d'a�ef,'�yl 7119=9_ t 55V41vfpPv2 ]h l Y' 1A B at a90 �;ypge ,312-OttlR]ei Aovdida of Rr,pgp ttgt� Y iupSlae ahl tney Owglj ilavotdor.�.;Hanpr aetm.3L:e1� F1aa Ooelltfe, � :pp1611en AUhfa iuka' 1 9evfd lm Oelltam to idar k:,..1y29: „ fm ➢aY4 vet 1¢ regv3eY_v¢ve10e PrptoaC bvoviTta?i f331ard "4difp Ohalianp, R:. �. dDoy'_:gp ]opa p ltli Wvl] a 9ohmephprl. Cv.?ev itltioj dnt to 41vk.: - Itl Ret 1b LU: pf Flght o[ SOTS Rn vdtinA of nuxr9leoy 9Lepwm DI. -I, aevmded ova ppr4n4 Deed fbr nlbht pt Cay t I fmu'Tm ]zTly -4o7peal! v pvrpvrgtf p in tee imrip need'ntekrlA +a}'twvpt¢a kha dv4ltz _. e vpLliv bleb y ihf h to.ia zaed'de..no tlml.alr d crlbed as So114ri tv—alit 1 vlylp of 1 no 61rt7 SW) feet !n ilatk. npa bat aR :l?;'Sity (3n) tie€ op 16h .14e. of tho,'tollorl vg d .'lead center ltn I 1l Ngl.ning, at hhgl Dverte_Giek len 139x39, 52 vTlbpt':o4rkv.P pultil9 hlghyjf pacaogll �� 1 �?!? v Rap ty Potk Pmd imlelA.-Nt sad 3eom9ad bT drerga' 0G1nty 1vt9avnd L922¢ eq3- I pnpq]pg thhnoo,-fibq xold poigt nf'bcg]aaingr W.26 del' 1y1. llrj 1427 oR Spnt a kmpeglbe}ei vi: p, vanp,ten�'ntlh 1 l'a- iedl'v Y t[v%1 tee4 am 6 Iqg-acne re ie :air Tb n 20y�keaX; ;pl0pg�tgl4. Nile 46ioua6 v-oovEtJ3 ogle of ;3; d'er $$� 13,6:74 feat nv p•'Sf pe tpeq.`gt(;e?q(a or, 22 d t. 291;x.1: elo 9 ad ten6p i 11 ee 16E.'34 Stet eo, en<lnkv tavtlbn eith tW ' ozFi~'•' llhi al lo�ln iv v.Mlri. lan a abon•1''vv ¢ 14v ftazevt m_orde3,-:;y P Y� 1 7tip�-�Qj, b91ifiellthepna Aorta Yepa}, PeopiEe of npehpp Ooyq y d lltdtslw. }t ,ihe]Sa1tlr [Z tl _qy t' tbb: 11Lvi of rRa ii,R r-+ef:: =lth km of :Canty PDTZ lloml; ha mrae ¢era aha ]pltt}pptq 'STa"std31 ni amep mi the �T.^•ti^.'1rnr.^".^'Y..-.'sra.^�.,•n..+..-.—...—�u.� ,...:.c.:..M.-. .ry.ss :.. ,t, ter'--• •��a—. r::.. -y •,,. 00225 ATTACHMENT C' O'd6ber 25, 2010it Letter ifted:�Itptab-, -Q --moe-tih,9- I Planning : Ommission from Brot. Fqirban.k.s 00226 October 25, 2010 Planning Commission Board of Appeals rrom: Bret Fairbanks Subject: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. Nfyoname is Bret Fairbaab an I live ai,520 Paeffic Street with my wife and four .4 live - ...- WI daughters. We have lived atIhis:kqRpq for over ten yf ars- Igr gw up in oMk old town OAMY.rtTe;.and lst- my great grandmother lived in Tustin; gspj4 my parents ts lived . in Tustin, . - and VQW-my, f2Mily.lives b� M dab fit&4 go to Tftstiu- , ' y High Ilbghes,.and,TMA- 'We have -been heavily invoIYqd.*#t.jjthleficc ty for over ,.. years p aymg T 0" Softball, AYSO, NJB -andTustinTiniie ugfin� Z djjO-�oc.c.6rw Our home has. amain house vvitli:a unit above the the garage; These'units is wero there. ",vten We PVTbfiased the houke and have been thdidfdfoiv.6r.60 years, AIMMARY OF EVENTS LEADING TJPTOAHP)✓At flaisAs beef itis important fbryau this,4 cagwe'about Iij 1jecembof Oflast year we: oavhohe-L.aud:old town buivvith-fovx gi_rls., one.in we<ardrundingoiltdfWOR16 'We were PlAijniMp Tus* Th lu)yw.O finally sepured ain',offer _ On the appraiser phoned the city 10's0el th&-ittil burnt if ts wrb ioI,d- th.erc-was no Permits for the ;units and t! Opp raiger,-then. gave -f-e-fo value fb Ihev.unifs,-fiigldni UO2ZO..get a Loan .. I Wdar.,doy-yn to the city: and Lietfev(attached the id UP iib6ded id to understand hoyr her in lighsc}iool, adst&ted packing. The buyer'� ihey'tould be tebiiIlt. They -co@d:not.beteb- ..Qt.The neu—nd undervalued d -.VL buffi4oWnletter, (attached: acdt A f6W-diny's that: 00227 CUP. I do not have that kind of money. I asked her regarding the Califoro la Historical Building Code and when did the city recognize the units were built and she explained that it might be better to talk with.Heary (Building Official) and Dennis (Principal Engineer) at thebuilding department and gave me their cards. I went over and spoke with Dennis and Remy Wbo were -very friendly and helpful and they sugg*csfed they come out to the house, nut for An inpection but to, give their opinion onwben the house' was built. They said tbey would call me soon fora ti . me to m6et at the.house. On % Se . ptember 10, 1 received a call from Jusdna saying Shat hat they would . be at the house in an hour. I asked Who was coming out and she said Dennis,.Henry� Elizabeth, and 4erself. — , 1 expressed my strong concern.with Elizabeth coming out because of our disagreem.entsin the past I asked spi!PifVcaJI.Y what they were: coming out foi. and she reassured me that it was to observe -the units to determine when, the Y were built and jaut a code inspection. With s0imjeluctaace and showing some good Nth I metthem at.thd','4o0sq.. Dennis, j Rand, . --i btl4e JustihA met me at tho homee Henry; who was the one Person who I wanted .,WAbQ suggested -the lueeting; was-noj&re. They went through units and we briegy qiscussed. the age dibe units but they did not give me auy' "specifies. lwanted Pbffig4o:give me his thoughts -tat vwhed helthtj W6veb_adt, since that Was the purpose of the -meeting - p would and he said b- get back to ine. Qu W, ednesd SepfemberIs""nie*4y" ' "' - ­ - -ay siiftiid4�I"�'�-6ti���,lpbone.d,.and-spoke-wi.fb�ustina,askin :for; any.updates'and she'said they are working bn'it and world get back Yo nie_ On Friday the', Sept !6. o�ginal coRvesation of;deteimtniiig. when the;home was' built. 'I also sgoke with Justina about bur "conversation on the p)ibne and heY reassuring ire that ryas the purpose of -the vrsit. Ihey both seemed surprised by the letter I received: TTenry; said he.hail Y e. piMMS_V qiq�...De.nn-is .in,ddp . .. oui. What I expressed my disappointment vnth the whole visit because jtwas :not what we had agreed upon:" Henry said he would s- -6&, 'th p. wi Dennis. and get back t&m" andJustina was going e f6-lo6k info when the first permifs,wecejs qqdin Tustin . wrote the Jettrft.. 0f,,dpPoaL-,SU6h is affiched and here -we,are: forward tqi ahOnoWi MLIVIng *e a :0M §MMS FOR TBE jtib26 !fit. iiasl`o pe with the sa]c 0 Iny ome audit the• dfty-ofi qumezous occasions #$atuo one has: Whewwas the.Himt residqnti9'pqxqjtissuedjr�,. 6hbqn qd (tot oases OWL oldtogiibiilt 3le-Pyhop1q, ;4_0 honicis. W-Wi documents are necessary to determine if something is historic and can remain? If a structure is deemed historical on the survey and has no permits, what is it legally? APPEAL OF CODE VIOLATIONS Jh.Tegards:to the code violations- Code A] , 0 - 5; 1 Any owner or authorized agent who intends to co� C't, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish,ore . geban the occ:'- - - lip .. duty of a building or siruid or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove,convertof replace quy electriqaj,ga mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of is regulated ' 1 0, - e . a] go] by this code Qr:to cause any such wor.k to be -:done, shall fust make application to, . the bruildin-groifficidzuO obtain the required permit 1 have no iff(Ption_s of rebuilding or _reCIonsLruCI ing any portiono the said ;structures. I ' arrijust .trying tosea my house._ I putchased the home over 10. years: age and the �structures alrea4y. existed -When, I purefigged lfie,prqpgirty, I havepicivided Mdcbdei to the Ajty shQ4ng'M4f.ffie. structures have existed for over 60 years and 1: _- will pTOVide thar evidence�Agairtonight I understand no records ofperpits qfgo fur es that is true 'Por:m6sthb1ijdsbxjilt in old town prior to 1950. Masi if . not all cuts would be in violation of ibis code. Anry snenhoned,=in her agenda xejJoitthiii `-Yffie city has ymporided'tY complaints - * . that Have Misqi in old j(rn area -pf-Lonstimction ' b " X ein done Vithoutpermite,These are "ituaffons where:construction bad started vfithout permits. if I were MIAildingof cdnstmeR. mething I would get a perTurt but units are,exi gsVitt(iti� and i am not,qn&b4V_" - intention . .' ­ ' � _ .. . _ Oe stin.., e PD. tobuild. With regards to permits in T ' ustim After doing much research .and Slj.&"g with O.0 Chi-Trin the county O'ifi qi�ij, and numerous ppoOO.Attw ou- -ty I.. - .. .__ .1 _* p city, therels"i!jg" gri-ty area With thexity, of Tustin regardingis between..1927=a penn '.,the s; �y tran city? Where are ajoj_�CUzmqmstM VAlatowp- Both. of these; codes arcpir -of Ordinance 157, fip�was' adopted oto IQovembeiA 196j.. h6t]IM.-Ita-, -on my pr speck 06229 structure is located or use is madei provided, however, no nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shad cbdoTm to the regulations specified for the district m' which web land or building is located. If no Structural alterations are made therein,. a noncouf6nRipg use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification -.upon the securing of a use permit- If the pouconforming• useis-replated by a more.restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter m-dy.n0vvert to a less restrictive use. If any use is *holly discontinue for any reason except-0pqrsant to a valid order,of a court of 14W for A, period of one (1) year, it shall be,-c_qgqlm ively pm9ua. ti th_at such usIe has been been .abandoned within the meaning of this-Chaptef, and.all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district;in wbicb the land Qtlu41ding is located. (Ord. No. 157, Sm,6.1) B06 Of the units. an my property existed at lhe4ftae of the adoption of ihjs Chapter and 3-46tild bib considered nonc onfor7AM''g,"Sthic"Wra. 9271,(5)-A.fi6iiCOnfOrMiDg-building; percent of it @asonable value at the time; dits-destruction by,fire, ex other 1 .11 casualty Of Act Of God, may be restored or .... orrise only, in compliance with the regulations existing in, the -'district wherein itis located OS�t ­ .1 1 1 1. - 1. ... 1 2) Iii Amy's x6pb rt she talks about nonconforming structures and states thai.'Tpoyk4iqw,for reconstruction` of nonconforming buildings do not hjJp . ly t&stru 6t or I c . s or, I additions whicl have:been constrmtc4 without the bencfit of-hermitsmthecode do6§it.say Tlie--re is a difference between -legal ndh: . c' ri d mingan., Apheo - Prmjtjgs thil'i and the orduance 157, S.dd. -6.1, Which I have.read.abdv'eI MSTORY OF -THE HOUSE A few, g9qd Qf nice, peop pleasure to's Gaylord, the I ihaibrave ,come ahqi#*'t1jW -' 'On..' :TW,!hay.emeta_lbt. is rat into the lustoi�,iral as�eS: There aze some poiptsthal built the.stnictuies; :I;. p.glitbut some 6b230 October 25, 2010 To Whom it may concern, My, name is Robert.Stephen Gaylord, one o.f sons:of George and Ali onGaylorcI. grew upat 480 South Pacific . Ave- (pow 5,2,0 Pa We $ c t :), in Tustin, CA. My father, built .our house, the garage, -rage, and. theapartmnt above the.garage all in the time , —e - . and.1voit'lithe. PrOcOWS it takes f0ra single individual to: do all that. The best that I.ca,n recall is.the unit ab cthegarqewas�tiihro - QV ughlybetween ]93Band 1942. the flr5rtenarit was My uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft: defensebase EI _Segundo. We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion 04 saw the search ligh-L-3 W,anti--Airct1ft guns:,Dad finished the ajiartment for him and.hismew. Wife to stay:qeayus while he e was�s serving MouthepiC . . WOY, the agar 'MCTI-4ds rented to Marines stdtionedatEl Toro Marine Base. I)recall .14estairs tothe:entrance as a.c. . d.i�i.mytdimory.they .wefdalways t r li&je oIL-the side of thEgarage whrre;rny parents would catch rainwater -We "were not allowed . to go Vthose ;stairs. The unitbebjp4 the garage was built by rify fatherroughly bctWcert 1945and 1950. 1 jiMg6 this based p the fact �Oml i93�'gq4wfi Inlybro - 61 John 4. e as In- .-On al =0-1 were young Ibena&i-s-JfiY father builf the two rooms and, bathroom for tis io'occup -aq re rquyed away turn our . . Old home ,aeltoorw WeFfe;iria& hvdilftbld tb.oflie& The ouly pemonJ remember'was, (I believe fhe;-5l?-e 9 IS) Ms., Greqn,'an, -vIib- helpad takd ddie of-hiYPdferAs to the ivq-;y--end- TQ-..h.ic.'t� called me health problemsy - ' Vas Wing when we moved him.out and sbld.the house - MY -Father worked at the- grain _hqp,:boye dococtquij natural adc' Ae . q �50bflCel her... was �ai Eagle S.eaq & Seoul 'th the: Kag.j Nd-aDeacony r. ;�_ - . F -'-"7 ".- ..... ... 11-1 Rreg- cti6Awo&m;and, -aro!.T4-Tus*, fie :was ; Sincerelys (See attachedHe I:w.ouU.also hke.t ffm cot&show that George Gaylord, fire the ie stitic Was*ffe�6ity building-ifispector forTitstinbetween ]936 and 195$;. - d6231 Also attached are numerous documents that. prove the units have existed for sometime and have been recognized by the county as multifamily dwelling units. - A copy of the Historical survey of my home Whichdiscus.ses the two story garage. -Tax assessment records dating back to 1952whicb , have two . addresses and a map of the main house and both rental units. -There is also a copy of Luskeys Santa Ana & Central Orange County Criss Cross City directory frofn August of 1952 with two iad*qsqeswith the name of the VersbEI Who is living in one of the units. - -A property detail report from -the Coimty buildingI department with a land use d.escri.ption of multi -family dwelling with 3 Units. -A public service information form from -.whdn-w&r)urcbased the property showing multi family residential dated May 5, 2000. -A letter from the Orange Cc $Adfittibft* Ugl unty - ri6t-chargmg multi --unit residential rates. - -Aper.mit ipmthe.cityof Tustin for a;sdcbbd:eldc.tdca! m6t6r.for the units in the back. -A permit from the city of Tustin allowing back um-Its-asf well I as: other for " permits . MY property. Hist6hicAL BUILDING CODE - The 15911owing-Is'-a copy of thd.purpdsio ckfth& ditlillin-Lia h[i91orIdABtMdiag Code -which the city of Tu§A"dqp*d in 2007:. Section 8=1Q.1 Z'Purriose: T-hPPU3p9S9�Pf*P:QWiSiopTQ-ViapXCgUI446 ns for. the preservation restora eserybon'restnrafi 0 x ' i-n�n­ 'Uoca li o'n a r- ' re0 n' _stru' . ..... c "6 n _of b.0 ildi ngsor Vre00s1e' - q d 0alb 0""gs06�C Chanter 8- ,2-dP"'es oPidVerty.Asdc h hed d s Cdeech0 SAny 2i0ectplace; li)ca districtrc0UMOf eandSO�ie's.de nupcccto.the history,U chit ctureortk -apw0Va efederal goxerrunental ic-on �smcUdehP c0 bWdn oX ��o9 ----- the jNdtib ;LRdjg.isjer 6. Mso *Lag w , Y '. e I ofi-fles 'or surveyp landmarks. My property is listed in =Mquiremcjloid,,M­ C,7-( -ggt-4ge and,shiSws a pica .Overlay Dis;Wd-py.hoi , - Pturr UI ; :Stru Is licea=�� CY fhcmjf-4ddsr,-tp 1he.caltaia ofqld State 140232 Section 8-102.1 Application. The CHBC is applicable to all issues regarding code complianbe for qualified historical buildings or properties. paragraph 1. The state or local enforcing agency shall apply the provisiorfS of the CNBC in permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary FQi the pleservation, restoration, feconstructions 6o rel ..location reconstructions, rebabil ita _r4 ...P ... on or continued use of q ed historical building or when so ellected by the private property owner I have asked the, city, on munctmouS occasions tW o by are:wb not going by these codes. This .again domonsorates that the code. has not been a:ccjkq.tdly;appljed to my property. CHRC Section 8-303 Residential Occupalkieie 8=3011 Pur vide regulations.for those buildings mciie The tbis,sqrtionj�-io provide designated as qualificdhistorical buildings Or propdrtics and The CHB -,q classified as occupancies. tr 4ITPS enforcing agencies to accept. py.-reastinAble equiv -thaTeg-ular. ith 111 . Aad6afbd&�jand Weni to cod,e--WbqndeaIing* -qbAlffl&dhis .1 properties; 8-30321nfent Theinferrfofthe QMWstb R:rve-the integrity of qualified historical Pff 6�49§ and properties.while maintain - jin area-sanabledegreeOf`prbtectiojjdfli&' _g bqalifi-"sWtY, foi the occupants. 'Ite units have been,there fordb.qad8s and lla&Y';h4,Vd:hc&n.rented fotdecades. The last thing Iwant is'f6rsomebody to gefhu#-qTbp`gin the dagger Uym units. According to Ibe eftl� Section 8-201 he definition oi .. Distuttet Hazard . . is:. Any clear and evident - qPtlditl.00-fhat:6xits as' an to the safety oftbp occupants orpublic right of.way, Con the fequircjnerjts of current rezdar Again the OfOii',5.code (l yB(-)aud,ihitCultural OverI4LYistppreserve -bid �structures andp*:litre :they are safe and,Z-Nve ddne-both- s46t6qvc-m,- 6. 6—onj 00233 town who wanted to tear down tiopennitted structures and Were stopped by the city because they Were historic. The last example is more directly related to my original problem A11 I needed was a letter from the city. On 6th street fflue is a SFR with:a duplex behind the house. Very similar to mine, Attached I ch..di6ail'etterteow3icrrecdive;d�iy1998regafdi4ghis ptbpdrt property: It reads: The subject property is currently zoned Single Family iI Residential (RI), W ch -0ne_ permits Hngle family nEsid6lices. Second single familydwellings may be considtred in the R-1 District Pproperties with more than 12,000 square feet of lot area, comilliance: with sevepil other 4evelopmeni st4u6brd s, and the, 4pprbVW of a Ccuiditional Use Peftnif (TCC- Sec. 9233_(B e main ds'd ' was coiasbtc -in )(1). Our records gindicatetbat,th* :- *--.� - elice 1. 29- We also have on -file various building permits for the, duplex on, the rear oftfile property back to 1964, 114mver, there is ­;no, record.of-an, approved Conditional Use Permit%r'the use., h tlie-duplex_ is considered to be a nonconfoniiinguse Pursuant to Ttisfim"City Code Section 9273(0), nonconformuigbuij4ings,des& di ih destroyed P:..P ektqirt of itiore, SO-Pcfodrxt:bfits value by a catastraphip.evcni may be restored I or. used ,:only in coutplia>}ce with the.`iegulation5 e5ctstin� tri the district wherein: it is located= F6fjr6i,property TIavr a p ennitft-a.Aecolia-elecidw Meler that he Oity-inspeae'djan,d- pf-i'Mil that goes &dtly to the back units.. Ialso have -a permit foT the roofon: the:pear 9MMO thAh4tY'Wpdcted filapermitted. Ac'co-rdifigjb S66tibii 9273 of TCC my, tures true shoitid be Considered use: � i4ed 65 the city VhLin lssiiink-�aib LdIlic propertyI 9r.-spe dmo pehm'18 and would not-.b.avff purchased To sm pmarize! 'buildina, 'Codes -92.-25. (1§1)(2) a d. 9V.2-20)'��d�We�- U1961: 'The:structi>res± �dxisted- - - " ff"thits - ,prior o offlihanbe. - want.fq _=�gvq:tq 4jqoTy 4-Thesliicirires shnnld be nonconforming., - 0 ),Simply recognize tlle;strucrures as, C6234 July 27, 2010 City of Tustin CommunitY beyelopmPat Department Justim Wilkora, Principal planner Dear M& Vv'd.kani. MY name is Bret Faixbanks dad I,gjh the owner of -the" ' 16cab�d.at 520 Pacific Street, Tustila, CA 92780.. We are ...d. - property currcn y sp!6'g our ho -me and are m',escro*. Our property has a e tL�Wly residence in f�uni vj1h, 2, guest �orqqs i - I .. singe In ifie back. According to the attached county recordswebzkye � .%. addMses 5,20,,and 520 V e.have and pay fbr 2.-f(6-=- 'td 61 4, W� :on cctricmieter� aftd-bavc: various 4"e foT jppMyejpeajs we have done tL*d:honaesm'ce *6 J�'arp it i . n 2000. The buyeTs lender is requi ngEletter :from the' city stating inlfidevent.eafirez earthquake, or disdster,.* i -be city wqRjdgllow,:the -gqRsthcnses' to he rebuilt: Attached are docinnews from. . th:doounty tax assessors 6TIed shc-Wing the gudsth6dses Uvd.beea- here Iggg Uefore wo purchase the pi pvetty-- Thank.3,ou f6r your &mandwrtsiderafion-This letter is' all we need to -close escroyv. ,there is am P�� i coW'd- Ao f"eIix iie" t. -b ­k nrr-vce- 13E Wk -S. - CT, —(949)I3jI68Sq 00235 Community Development Department August 4, 2010 Brett. .Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92.780 SUBJECT: ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC ! STREET DearMf. Fairbanks: 6WL0WG 0GjXTMAE jioNolu-Na 61jR PAST Thank you for your letter, received July 27, 2010, nJqubstjng zoning confirmation f the property Located at 8M. Pacific Street: Inyour lefter; you indicated I .L t ' hat the property hes single le . j family resid,Ohoel in the front with two gbeM homes 'in the back_'you have. also.fncluded66ipies of tax -assessor information related to your property for the City's review., In the pyqnt. ot q fire, earthquake,houses to _.or disaster, YOUL inquired if the City Would the guest h rebuilt: The subject: property is zoned as Single Family �fFa'nLi' ly,F(esidP' 141 �977. ..ah d Lj-oIb.6le.d.. within the . C� ultural Ae&Nftdq 'Overlay: (CR) 3istdct. AC6QSSQry buildings Used as. gutsf foefris 64.allLd as condii1onally:purmittod uses within the R-1 zoning dis provided that no cooking facilities' are I moolwhed. & guest house Is daIInedIn the Tustin City. Code 4! 'detached :living .q,uaftiers.of a parrharientlype- of construction and without Icitchens�. or Booking fabiliflesLqnd Where no Y compOnsationin an . I received or paid; , T0t.M I S 'No per exist for gpp!g houses at the subject property and_, no conditional use permit op tp estabhsb hpUses at the:. subject property, In. Iejj@r you indicated that theraere t addresses atthe .subject property, 520 and 5201/2 Pii6if ib. Street.- The.City has not assigned a. 1/z a,ddre- sjq tbe sL1bjeqf.prqPqq,- Pdrsu6nf.fb, Tusfin -City Cade,Section-078(ci), "A noncontorming bdiIQirI gj destroyed io-�ffie exierif of,rriore?Lj6arj.�jjjjy P pro its reasonable value-af. 4 ia im. of itg_destruction by fjtL*e,,, 6Xpjos bh.. br'bfhei�basublfy be abt of G6d, maybe, restored or used drily in derfipilance,. with the reQulatibfis eXisfingAn-1he-distdc! hprqtr].*-iq)!Qcqied. Thoprqvj �­­ ­­ _"L-.-.- ". , -V. :1, .., .. 1. ­ `_ - noncon.- I ­ ' ' ' ' ' ­ — � % LrI d* td. Mffiadrds 'of 4ildfitidiis: Wh1dh W19 � 000., 60t:a! n illegally 166fiWi4dte-d 0 epnst�uctdd`Wiftdf the benefit of'permits. bb.Ljld.'Y u: Wish jp �qst"abliWguQst,., houses atah.e:sobjlect; PfDpLay,; approval. of condition: p4mAd and obtalhipig necessary ;building permits -would be; roq*eo m?q; have any Q00qjqnp, p qa§e.dP no pit cmp-at 14 ,T, SinGereLy liticidtfe Planner B. PUlf9f.di Respqftes bill 4`.(61) 4 Or,& C. Gilest:Hoilse,,D..efinifio_n 3004t-antannlal; Wzy, Tfisflnit,C& 92796 a P; f7j4)L57379 Y90-, .4, P1 00236 Community Development Department Sedf hyfirst =lass mail August 13, 2010 Bret 5. faibanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329. SUBJECT: 520PACIFI,' T.PBR APN;#401-371-07 Cie'ar Mr, Fairbanks:. TUS 1 IN BU1117iNG Oui(kuiultE iiotjoiusG bun WT Dr August 4, 20 10, you 'uvere advised: 6y City staff That ro permits .exW for ;your two .gue t houses and that no -conditional use pefrnit exists to allow guesthouses: at 520 Pacific Sfi,eet.:As such City siaff' hereby requests to inspect,your property; Please contact the at (71-1,31 S73 -.SJ 35 by rib later than Tuesday August 24,.201.0 td'schedule q.ri ;onsite inspection of ypur properfyi `fhanK f'v,(zU in adUance 1q , your cooperation BP&Sle Code-,�n.'fotcement� Officer:.' T71€ach(nent Letter dated August 4,. 20.10 Go= .AfnyThomas, enlpr,1?IagnerCG:ode Enf6fcement:51dPervisor- 9,i7o t e'pYcWiai' ax'ru:Stfn,, IwAs927@ti * l? �7t 1 S -�YQo' a� F (7t?1 7a at t_3: ,, www,`"'kinaa.org 00237 Commm-Lity Development Department Sent by first class mail August 20, 2010 Wet S. Fairbanks 520 -Pacific Street Tustin, .CA 92.78043219 SIJBJECT-' 520 PACIFIC STREET APNItzioj-37i-b7 bear Mr. FdtbEin.ks: TUSTIN 13011DING OUR Fu -rum K.QNORIMG OUR 'PAST Thank you for meeting with ty staff yesterday af(emoon to discuss your two quest houses. w.C. During the. meeting, you stated that.ydu would start developing plans to submit to the C4 soon, klpngIJf to )egallize wi completed qonofflopif use p'eftt. (CUP) application to attempt both' guest ho 7 uses . As Such, the recent request ioinspec, t pur-p jopery, will be put on hold. Howpynecessaryduring the er, you. Understand that an inspection of. your .property �ffiay be necessary 13 cess and that ii approved; both guest houSes would nof 'be pprmltf6d to be rented, loppr=ey be provided with' kitclidn facilities, You :also 8gr, C -d . 'to contact My Thomas wpOit! len days to, provide rastatus on the submittal of YQ(Jrplpns.:and GUP6pjplicatroii, Therefore, please -contact Amy Thomas at (714): 573,-U26: or dthoma. iQtustInca.cFrq or! (Pjr before Tuestlay.September Z, with an updql:6n .o. your p �qn 40g submittal,. Once aaqjn, thank you fbrypqr%ntinp9d icobper5tfbn. Sincdfeilya d .Sta an: Cc Mz;ibeih E31nsack, Commuritip'OV@6Pffiajit0T6Ef6f- 3WC�qRtermjW Vat Tv-stipX&0.2 -7.14, $-13 1113' a WWW. I tus li . ricif.org 00238 Community Development Department Sent via first irst class and certified mail September 15, 2010 Bvet S... Fairbanks .20 P.acific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 TUSTIN NOME AND ORDERIPRE-CITATION NOME DECLARATION MPUBLIG NUISANCE Property Address Assessor Parcel Nurn.ber7 Casa Nurnbec bear K�, Falfbariks; 520 Pacific Street 401'-371 -07 viorwiz BUILDING -OUR FUTURE IIONOR114G OUR PAST Thqnkyou for-meefing with,Cit - ri y. staff at 520 Pacific Streeton September ar 10, 2010. bu In ffie inspection twoi detached s - - . observed within therear yardi. In additlon to 2 Iguest tructUres Were ry hijbse abbV& the gabadd. and :6 s6c6hd t,.house behind ihb gpraqO911 of which are unpermitted A preliminary search of City records also 1ridic9tes that ho 6ondifidnal use:-PeWjt - (GVP) isofffile ..10 establish -guest houses at Me moP.w "'.dump the. jhspec.tjotj;j which lbclud6, but are riot: Pursuant to *'TjstfCity C.bd8 I I 22(a) t QfyCode.-.'!s.. public 'Therqfdro�pleasV'be. .advised that the City has determined that af PUbli.c ridisanbe is, b0hg m thlb.f ri ej at, 52f1 - � Pacific dueI 11h: that ftq:qpqespacy permits:igid. eptit.bMeRt werenot b bM i hi 6 d for the tWo d bf9c h dd: sftie�b s In thetear yard 0? Ahe tw.0,9'0 P-500V$es, You arp.r,hey aay, Wtober-2 Ir 6 ono 1�f ifia f6flowing, by.nolaigriha-gYf - F. 2011k 1) Submit a�cbhjolotbbUO zippi1cal" win t and alt lbri. i .0 popriale. plans a otherrqe-qgg§-@r.y, 4p. pi entitlernent gplicatibns to ho-PlahMinj and Building DiV.isionfbF.,th4. tQb-.d.Uest KdUsb§�, ;arid the Wil,,detac stril*(es."W1 ho, rea ard d . 14-1 ry P L0 W T (714 ),57 qI Wwlw- 00239 NoUm end Order el 520 PaCJICSbeej September 15, 2010 COU 9 VI0-0312 Page 2 Oli 2) Obtain a perm"If from the Planning and Bdilding DIMMon and physically commence with the demolition 'and removal of,all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which jjitjpde; but are not limited to the two guest houses; the staircase attached to the garagg and the two detached structures within the rear yard.* NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or -,the -Planning DMIpnat (714). 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter r are, to be finaled, Within ninety' calendar days .of' permit i ssua &uilding Code A105.5. This lefterconstitutes your Notice - issuance -pursuant to -.207 CaliforniaGalifornia and Order to abate -all public nuisance c6hditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You or any person haVing any -nacord fitle of J . 6061 interest in the Or6perly. may request ZO.R01 tion of this Nbtide�Jnd Order or. any actiofi of the enforcement withi I -n ten cal - endar,days . from the date, of service ofthis Notice and order, All afpppals shall be made in writing: 'aflure to comply with. this. notice Within the, time limit specified above may fbsUlt. in (1)'the. .. issuance ofan admInistirativecitalion pursuant to Tustin.Ci Code 11,62(a)JEOferen66 'Exhibit A- rittOphed hereto ,fo . �.acidacid/pr '(-2)-:alllheI'cessary workbeing completed by: M` personnel or private cdhtractor.With all abatement -costs being billed against yqu. qRd/o e assessed 40514st the Property 4)d/qr (3) the refeTal of this matter to our City Aftdmey for further legal aCtlorl. Please hbt-b_1'ha-tI the dL-ispIosal of any ma—teial jnVolVed, in- ' b. l*G nuisances shall be.-b3imed 4bith: il414gPImanner. and orderVill be recorded`against the prope"Y-n the offlt6-.Of , the C60nty R-e-dorder-, 'If yqq:nE!ed;fuijher-9IarifJC2tion or assistance -with. h- . - 1 - . " . - _ . I ... ... I . .. t. isJnafter, pleas-ei,cont9pt rile directly at 573-5135. Bk9d Steed Code, 15*00rminAot officer .A'tfd fteTits: ExbibijA;A tsitailye �lih Cifaficib, 1nfbrThaUbn �E?(wt'A - d8da'.Vi6latl6ris 'cc-- Am .0161ribbrIC-offe EnfDicementSLpervisor 00240 Nall. m 0rtl d 520 POcn 54.a1 5aplem 16. 2010 ca.f v10d07z Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacrfic.Street 2007,.California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 810.0) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge,. alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect install, enlarge„ alter; repair; remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code; onto cause. any such work to be done, 'shall first make application to, the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin CIty.Code;9223(b)(2) - Single Family Residential,District (R'1).. Conditionally Permitted Uses. and Development Standards:- Accessory buildings used as. ,guest rooms, provided no cooking facility Is installed or maintained aresublect.to aconditonal use permit`_ Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) - Single Farnlly, Residential District (R 1)- Minimum."side yard setback'for accessory buildings used as guesthouses -Comer lot line 10;feet; I'ritertorJot line; B feet No: ;Please be advised -that thei.e;'may be additional,code compliance requirements. 00241 Community Development Department EXHIBIT A Administrative Citation -Process TUST'IN 'BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance whit Tustin City Cade-(rQC) 1102(4), fins maybe asaessad by means of ;an odminietratNe:citation a® follows: $100:00 for ffrst':loladon: $200.00 far a second violation of the same prdlnepce•or permt# wrthit ,one year of'tha fliet;violatlon; or S5t)0:00 for a third ,or.any furth�rvlolatlon of'th®-aame;ordirtanee or permit:wiihIn one year of the first violation: Building and .Safety Code (TCC Seo 6100--N99) AQ "ns may be assessed at $100.00 for a first wolatiorf;`$500;00 fora second vlalat{art of the same ordinance or permit within one year. of the first d olatfan; or' 1,ow.00 for a third -or any further vtolatbn of the sanFs ordinance or permit Within vne year of the first violaflon. Th® Cfty,may also take further legal action including iasui[ig the responsible: poison(®) a cnmlhaleitatfon andfor abating the violalion(s) with: the wst of stied abet rnertt arecyo prose; t!fian, ;3""4ed against the responsible persan(s);. the :propeity cwn&0s), anOfdr the property as a 1 Should an adniiniatratRro citation he!siiu®d, the reaponaible :parson has ten (10) days from the data of the admin atrstive citation to. pay the cwormoriding;fine(s)..Additionally, the ros5onsilil6 parson must :take oma; of :the _follomr4 ,i -,taps to avolrt additional penalties Prior.to ;the Compliance date_specillo in the b driiinistiative citMbh: 1) Gorrec3:theviolsflora;;pdyttTOc9rregpondirxl,fines)'y_and;cgntadthe'City.torequestaro- Inspection, 'or 2) Pipiy.i the correspnnciGig fine(a): and request art wdension. of `;fime iii. Writing piirauant to TCC 1165(b), which"_ehwt^ss teaaonabla hardah(P; or 3) Ftequetit a hearing, ta'iaripsal,khe� adrrliniairatlye at tfonpurauant to TCC 1189 within ter) f10) dava f ran the bate of lha aidminfelratlird_clNafloit. together with an advarats deposit; Repueatfor yearing forma and other nigrmation on Adrrrtnistrati►e CitaUpns filay b abtaincd' on tfee City s weliiiileat www,,tustinCa'orU:. - 00242 > r. •, ' _ .— - :..:_ September 22, 2010 Brad Steen, Code Enforcement officer Community Devil ppent Department City of Tustin Letter of Appeal for. Notice and Order/Pre-Citation Notice Dectoation ofPulillic'Nuisance Address: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780 Asses§orpnrcdiiu'Wb6r' 461-371-wW Case Nambe.r- V1.070312 nedr.'Mr. Std6n,,; Tj,ns letter is to appeal and, request consideration on therecent,notice I received regarding' :uOP&tihitted uii!6, The code *i6latiofiteads any,owner or aathomi-ed:agdatwho inteock* to. §o istruct eplarge; alters % ab d ofish, or.cbA .Paove, em tga, dje, occupancy dabioding or pttgturr ins. eniar repair, gep�pve; convert or yeplgce any grAb. "s qjq c�aJ, gag-papchani al or.ptunkings. stem -theinsfaation, 6f -,w. 1- regulafedby this:code, orto.-cause any such.work:to .b6;d6jid, shall histmakeapplidaLion'tti the ba- Official and obtain the kL- "pired . ]).enill I L . J have no ijjtcA I t ium ofrebu ildp*g, or ,ygpq s nstruct, aid structures. I pXchged ibehonic over I 0.years.ago and the structures ructqRsRb�qady existed when I purchased the7.opdrty*. I h'a5ve provided evidence fa show tha'tthe:.stNctiues have:existed fbr:Qvei 50 e"rs. J.understand thd- 6ty Who, pe—Itg = 0 e 91ro-&-litm on.mypw-.1dit- bli'ttI.ig�ik43*�r-mosthonies'built-in i y old town --Pii.grto'05 an p the homes Wpigq be jg;*1ation and considered, In,iesponse setter, -itis my inj n q app --.y qT- 00243 Cornml-u-dty Development Department October 13. 2010 Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 9214.6 TUSTIN BUILDING OUR ]FUTURE HONORING OUR P.AST SUBJECT: APPLAL HEARING FOR NO-ridE AND ORDER At 520 PACIFIC STREET (A.PN PN 401-371-07) Dear Mr.,Fai.rbar1K,5-. The City of Tustin, figs. received, your request- for hearing to appal ffie . Notice.arid Order for the declanationrffubfic nuisance at y9yr1prqp It. ated at 520 Pacifiq $treeL p g..!qc In accordance I), - edU.�an,9-9.2Q4.�ihdBIOI,,thi3PI'aniii6�-Cr oMM a wjtjj-TUbfi' City Cod* S mission Wilf.raCt S. the appeal hearing body 'and, act in its,cqpaLG%r-.as 1hie Board of Appeals. respectively to- consider the appeal peal A-PuMid hboNnd has tte6h.-sdheMi[ed or]- October 26., 2010, at 7:00 p,rp. in the to.u.ncl) Chambers at 300 63fitennia[.VYay, Tlistifij California: As the appeflanii. ;QrOer; you will, be provided the opportunity to testify. and prgsent -evjaencig j:pncefn1rfg the Nptloe and Order at the publid hearing. A written report concerning the appeal fbr,c(jhtidbrbbori',Itth6hbbn"ng YVIII, be providbd to you by mall prior"to. the date of hearing., :Should you have :any qLiestiolia rqggi-qjng the -,appeal vor 0tMq:?t-(71-4) 3126. or, ath6ftikOlustinca.org. Amy Thpm§siA1PP c . Henry File -.4 00244 CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California Appellant Bret Fairbanks, current property owner, of 520 Pacific Street Project Address[. 520 Pacific Street, Tustin (APN 401-37-1-07) Notice is hereby givenihat'the Planning Commission ;and the Planning Commission acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals (per Section 8101 of the TCC) of the City of T ustin, California, will conduct a publichearing,oh Ocfober 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m: in -the Council Chambers, 300 Gentenniai Way, Tustin, California, fo consider the following: - On September 16, 2010, and pursuant to Tustin City Code :Section 5503, the City of. Tustin recorded .a Notice and Order for the property at PacificStreet providing written. notice of the w-cistence of a public nuisance and reijufnng the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructedlin violation of the 'Tustin 9uiidfng,Code and Zoning Codes. Jn part, Section 5502(b)states a •pubic nuisance exists when 'any coeditioh _exists upon anypremises that is dangerous to human life or is detrimental to health as determined ;by, ;an appropriate citgcffiiraal. The current property owner of 520'Pacffic Street (APN Ana_'air:riT•has.fiterinwnnneal of the Notice and Ofiderfiled on his prclierty: Pursuant to, Section '112 of the. City 0f Tustirl's adopted California.,Build)ng. Go e., the Plann)ng CombiNslon Will act fn its ca paciry as ;board of Appeals frtconsidering evidence supporting Bre City's detemlinahon that a dangerous condition exisls at the subject property due. to the present violation of the iaflawmg @4adin9 Code section: 1. Calrforrifa Braiding Code A1051tAdoptgd,per Ch CCoke . 81 do) Permits Required. any oWn'er Or aiithonzed ageftt who intends to consiiuct. enlarge alter repair, move, demolfsh or change the occupancy of a building or structure or to erect, install, enlarge;. alter, repair, remove; convert or replace ariy. electrical; :bas mecharifcal or plumbing system, ttier fnstallatfoh of-whfch is•regulated.by this code, or to,cause any such work to.be done,'shall first, makaiapplicatioh,tq,the taiitdrhg--,o&ial and,oblafn the iequged -permit'- 2_ will alsol consider the evidence at the;suliject property due the (a'1) ''= ,used' es: t3 Tustin city Code 9223(b)t2j(1)Single Paritil� Ri idenbal oistnct (R.1)- tvjiprtnilm side'— 'y sotback for accessory buildings used as guest hooses Gomer lot line 90 feet Interior lot; if yoy;require special accdmtrtodahons;plegse0;0 itactthe;Piznrimg Cornmisston Reppfoing Secretary at; (714) ,57106; Informatlon relative to this item is on file'ln the Community Development Repartment;and is available for =inpublfc'inspecilori at City Hall Anyone! m Yfiii tei7 `.in thz, inforrnabon. above; may :call , 4. Coinmunity ns ent e, parfinenfat (714) 573 3126 . ft04* fegWre special alcGotrlm'datio,Ds, please:eo_ntact T*to Cdy Hall, 300 CenterinW jt�ay,, Tfistin 9278,0 71457.3=3604 00245 All, X11" in - . , rl, � W-�zml 4.11mool-Ill 00246 43 � rf 1, 'S 1 :.IkWjlaiiF bIM1 IT„/� f Ia�4iV � , !� � i•n k „ rvu C4 M' �Rlk;�Y ,l..t D ,• ! r i i [� ' � ,'4 a.l r � � W r. Y�'�T �F VIL _ ! 4 ;t ,`;_ - //� ��/T 4'i t ti 'fb�)N'rh 5'�v%dle •�i: t' 1 �+`ed ti :1 AH `^.a!• [i�iFT.✓,s..LW f h ronil M14 {,1rPi-�1 �u4'ty to e.avta. .iT w!q • a�->s,.ut - r 1 , S 1 . I f 00247 00248 ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 16ULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT APPRAISAL RECO' BO ADDFE89' �O-'•w- _ _—_TRACT A.P. NO. _444C3)I!D'J 1 DIYIRICT r.yr .v. .p LCT SIOE :•,.. OYJNFA — ------ MiXx PROJEGi NO. -- - 2nM11 LhHO YALD@ COMWATIOM U D W1 DMR Al 1YDTE6 on[ vaAR unn r vkue rood IfRMq L _ I. . IIEnRFDOnATIV[ "u �'.. El Mc IIVItGUTAn [¢f ❑ MG _. _ 1 .GILOFWi Yp � Ib ,.r -mate. _r c..�- � '..: r IcJ Ll • �� _ � w�_ --- v Rab a)✓'. YOYin DAY.- VELI 7 -. J -, ... _._. .. ,o vier r RCM,c. „'0.me IINO V/1LF p JLYt ._ .I �i '� aL I .A1101 /•TTAECf-- 1 ] ❑ ]:� w..u.rrwiTiuTvii /4'/C'J G b -.r la uxlt:LL^splW, Loa Y{VpV(IE! I�'C O s...-_-_.. lNU " v ..� unlr uuT wD,ura. Y � L ...... _ IMD14TIU -.;- _... —,�� _ L,SIID IRI¢. _ _ Y O¢I11W ,RIGIm. =AL 14VVilY: - (g' :b m xwlwG cwonM.. ro f� lm"w orr'v-..l a0:r�'. _... p Dm, e �o M�ii rvYbMu.rilDiem'vwln. .: . •—� _- .. p - A- •_ �-N.a�walr _gin sC'a� L ONa 6.v 4 �t x %R a ulXnut nrcNn RD T79 �,�LxFE::( G��G O.t.L.Z712�y - .. Y �M!MT wgMIHO 1{jSQa ... % ab CAth' F 1 p 3 DiilAler 4 .. >'IYnrme �iG fA Y �•Q..Tn_ 23Gd_A y_ ._:.,._-- ..- Q.:?;8_ Ale T5% -Is YRhEl�lE N_ T f/fi9 _.,_ OKPO _.. _.. -._ . _.-.. ._,. . ... _.. _. a! qOT I'Mf >•' jy .Q T 3Ga1A744 71 b>' 09D "U,® _. . �- — _ +Eauteeo?N_.ao a?i9ie_vl•m -...._ _ . . -,�-�r--•,:r.:.n "'- -• _- .` _- w Nino .. 1 x� ��•:' icNl�/o GWrb1!i� - —•-a. yd. �q...- : . ,. ., aC`$D.LND .. _ =ADI.IIL'1MD 1j( pn„ ' - •.,...y..�...n �—r.. T � : ' ..Mi{hRE7 /dW-TIPS1E11,.IAb1Gay'4tTs II :i0.au laeripu_ L -i? Y 17i .19 L , Ptlladdi4l.;PhaPZxTY, Y9ui;'AtDIDATap_ ' Mg. IT - �µ •,a,,,_-_ _ 00251 w x COxuP -II1. Ulq^ _ CCNMMIir r31)f�llF� _ NOON PETAII � yy{E' � ILIL. IPN 9RM y. vC 4YIIL0 SI OM pP fi Q PP FN dtt � PLAW URll RIIfEb ry fyFaOY6 S'WE 1ZI H._ � I � i[ 1rpIGiT 4P P^C3 1 _I r I 1 1, NN Np PlION MII COST PETA0. acPF. rTL.^. _'.0—" 1611 ; LCdL 1•(yY1Mk C3Vl TL2k _ - LCP[ fikL 1 .. [ IKtk slo L. !A INi C[M� .. w CVIrEG1i1PN'rTIE- Ca1�I 9N NSIf PPO: IIP111p 1M k .a ��— Tir— FEW Ip EV4 11 y Y.EIIHWNEIy! ILe—E 1 3-- tM c •Tr I..'y I r(�. _ 80.610 COST DATA ^ rK` PE.. Aisrm iue0L9 STNNCRfNFB FN.W( LE SRWk _ CCPG ,APC1 LEbGIRIpN FWNMTT SCk .1Q Ilnll CCli e +ooEE •• - con rN_bAvc r¢Fk .. j i pisla" z.- fL 'H4'.O YNi], ss 014 CONm: 4CP,I 17 w lO1N NO nElilN: UNrti _ - �yL it 1 1 T y i �-}—h� at--� • • l T + T a iL i ( 10 FL A:1G - '.. mpg."i. ____ _ �• .. UHI1C .: 1M ;/Do I J t t . I 11 u. {y2P. LPn ' t ..,_ .� 1 d c L i 1 c 1_ J ]i' fIPH FATS T• k! F, _._ F? +M.r..� :'0-- :• .. _ (rty E;Mi AN a COQ,: Cm 7E 11Elrl® • fb r,� NN2A �., T� - y IN mi},:IENCE t MLaP Rilr .. � . �a�SITa1 •T'^ 1LL ul Pnn - _ PI='.�--..ti._a &MN.:IPYY 7 x1xWL•A pMP .np,rYAv,PB :' r _ kC.G1.:o rlyna � iAlL�11.12L 5[RL1 �1?CCilJ�C11k4- 1311 M s91�1NO-MEA ''"�• Km.V AT! y� __ 00252 iiNmV" T-'-' .- Fiffmas pl:fmNoss �NL� �-W�mm w Omm 2 1b MR APrw 3r, MR ?PC)PP F ftmml-5 - 14 1 M, F--sT 00253 tl DIST_ LaT-- MSTE O m OLMX- AMT. pooF Bun -T -m ROOM AND FINISH DETAIL nbw FNftBH ;NTERM FINN 8 1 2 GRn. HP noao ALL iwa co., .1 IM P OMPPil GB xm iiNmV" T-'-' .- Fiffmas pl:fmNoss �NL� �-W�mm w Omm 2 1b MR APrw 3r, MR ?PC)PP F ftmml-5 - 14 1 M, F--sT 00253 Laserficbe WebLink LaserfichW WebLink d,07.1, 10 -to a S& mEEnw.PATe Page 1 of I 00254 Property Detail Report DIGITAL MAP Property Detail Report for: I T� 520 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN CA, 92780-4329 Page I of I Owner Information'. Owner Name' FAIRBANKS,BRETS Mailing Adcttess: 5211 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN, CA, 92780- 4329 Vesting Code: Phone Number. Location Information: Legal Description: STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V 5 50 FT OF N:460 FT OF THE W 200 FT County.: ORANGE FlPS.Code: 06059 Census TrctiBlk,. 0755053)3 APN: 40137107 e Alto ailvAPN: I Im - 4Q1371 7 P Map Rat, A4-1330 Twnshp-Rnge-Sect -- Legal-Book/Page! 401-371 Tract No: Legal Lot: v Legal Block: Subdivison: STAFFORD & TUSTIN j' R I Last Market Sale Information: Sale Dale: 011113/2005 Price: ist Mtq AmouhL 041P60 Sale 06c No: 0000062i309oricalfjer SgFt, 151 M19 lnt-Type: TrdQsfer hoc. No: ociawilos ?jcg'-Pqtr.A=e!' 2nd mig Amount: WIND M6161SPIR Sale: itpt vig Opictio; 337621 ,2nd M*Iq Int Type: Sale e� I le typ "FULL CdNSibEFiA71oN Dead Type: Title co mpany. FIRST sou-rfiWESitft - iii Trfti� Llimdl[ar: WASHINGTO.N%JTP SJB- SO& Name. LOUIS IVIETWINTERR E IpgqPERTI Viope.i.1y Ch2illcterfstips,�, sullb.l.njAM6: VIT :r #Rpovs, Living Afes: 1.749 BLid(odras. Heal Type: a1hqqe Area" Bath!; Basement Area: FFrep6ce.- Roprtype: P&'Wh4lype; Yr BOIII192,/,Effect!W r- - igl, Pb- :;ht. ' and Value lnlhdrr4nffoft: Assessed Value; $453,539. Asse . s . 86-d Year kdos: Ett"Aduiviil- .$556,033, W4'512Propartytm: 0104.5' &- ;, pssor.�ppdAl V Impraverrarit'valuQ7 -- — - _,.3119,027_......._.. 1rpp;I:gvjamed-o14 A.M.42— !K4§;31§ T&X'E_Y-_ H QM AZS (�r I�A� SV4 MOM No Buil'ding's: A..i d 909 psq: MULTI FAMILY OWEUUG, 3; lqolfrtCy,U s-41 Calculated LolSgkt 1N IerT+(pe;. t in * Not f ��qsrrllcii]quefacflgri Wq:p * Cd Not, In In One Mild Ind5stfial Coffim6fcIaj,3imo Witin 7 b0yr: FEMAFlotiilZane ln--Pz!mlnundqHen. 0 , azarjd Njet.-1nW1IdIandhre$azarcI YiSexamf1re H# Not—, - -- - -- - — —# a- .. 1if[p-//maps14ieja. n OTWVU1:02-Q31*14 Y VWZKO: 00255 Design Type Codes Requested By 001-S! nqle Family Residence Address J02s•Multi Family 999 - Misc. Improvements Phone ( ) Signature PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION FORM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 2 3 4 $_ 6 1 7.,,_ 8, 1 9, 1 1011_ _ 12. 13 14 INISHE BLDG BLDG BLDG BLDG UNrr MIX GARAGE/ CONST USE DESIGN BSMT IZE-1S SIZE SIZE SIZE x t CRPRT POOL LAND APN SLDGB YEAR CODE TMYP�E cSIZE 2ND F 3RD FL. -4THA STWUP m :: SIZE _ Y�/N! SIZE ®®®ii®®girl®r_�rG-rases ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT we protect public, hearth and the MOTMEnE by providing Bftctive,w2stewater collection, Weetment. and mcVdina. June 30, 2010 FAIRBANKS, BRET S 520 PACIFIC ST TUSTIN,CA 92780-4329 To the Owner of Record of Partel Number. 40137107 Situs Address*. 520 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET TUSTIN During the Past year, the br5ngO CMinty Sa nitfttion- District (OCSD) has -conducted a review of apoMon of -parcels iri`its servide;area. Prior to the review,.. the OC -SD data represented' the parcel as non-residential; You are receiving this'notice hocabse-a parcel. rev-Wwas peffgrned ancit was detLnnined that there should be a.correction 16 Afte 0631]1's data. An adjustrinent in dither. the property use e.codand-or �mkmber of�r4EksidLiiitfai:ui'�i:fs�.VvilI result in code. —-a.chahge: in tbe annual, sewer. pprvhzejeq: iffe�ptive . Fiscai,Year 2010-11 Your 0 10-11 Your property.'is provided sewerage. services by QC.8D- OCSD is pah .6f �a large, regional sewe'rage.systemsf-Win,9 j3, cities brid.ijbiriddrPorated areas within . b.-ran.ge County, vvqstewaf.eris.c.o.ilecieafirsibyyo.pr)loc2is�e.weringagericy;sfjch',jasyour .city; and then transported hy;OC_,Us b_�gp trunk sewers to one of two ipgional treatment` plants. These . facilities .trba't-and 'dispose - of nearly 23-0 Million- gajons.qf wastewater each :day. The: ;cost of the regionail sawerage system of residential PrxipQrIjp§ is a§gq§ped based upon the jiqmb, of OW6111ing oimb-. The be&6 e-,Ijs- iie f6e- id f6e. thy colleclian, 16666, -- f - -'d 41 � of enan ispo--a k0i$ not' ataX'jt*Js bdlected,b-collected . line item an: the property fax billthe Obuh Tau 461-1 ector- $eWefleacbarge rate forfiscal year 2010 1.1 fora sih-ble taffily fesidbhce'jsi$20.-3'.3 per -,r ppriih ($Q� per year.. Themulti -tjnjt' reside fi,al rate is $14,23� pr moP th M17P46 per yqpr),'per .dW0Rhg u6# - If I you have. questionsM M1b'rn�bflbh'-0r--Wdu1d like. specific lk&fthbfli regarding i oh xp�6arding your parcel, oie.a.5e.61t1he One" ii (114):-693m72 bolwe.en 7 30*pm� ".jpn -�Ffld -.a[ be m- ;Oy qm�� pRid 4;bQ pm'�M ., nqtj - also .dwJhrpj4gh oy; 1' jpqs�ujpy a 0 afrates 62:bcsd.corn„ or, yvrjfino fo the -MU'F 10844 Ellis Ave,Fburitpih Valleys 'CA 92708.- i - PIdptq-j'hclUd0' YOW Ramp;. t'1e poq e dumber, ebd,tbh6Ip1§ porp has" " d tfEfi4"E1%.-AVVflqq; -.F.QUnW6V -i1'iM fi 47 f, t W%QnPAPana 00257 m SEWER CONNECTION APPLICATION AND PEW JAREA DEVELopMENT--�S10GLB O.WHUSHIF) CITY OF TUSTIN 13s W. OW'S1. ?mhn California -- APPLICATION To be completed by owner or ag'opf and. sAm;ff-d ;n qui.- p,pj;c3l6 wjih feguired fees age plmnj—sae rovlrosidd b6i8j;y j6d;Uisli Jho i'll,wifil C06600on1s) ta icily:5 sewerage facilities: Lof. N.S. Siie. T-i.pp 1., rFlzr Psr�iKar Fc To— p�y� c o?. occun-,- - —'— 6vjis&orqed 10 city*3 iot'A"flos ''if b$.r than :hmc of peek discharge and In makiR9 rli'lc d lhod any piroiit� issued will cEnsihft' A a tool at mo�v 0 ge; —ylprtr :6'j zNil,4cfi0o of la IMG YL'MIT I.' d' of he cognd&3a-fs) fa!ffid�ic*01 qvi Ina p,N "Ic*01 accord Once -..pr;r �pgbpj Toe ja&ktjb kg _q Y X T6ie 77o"rrlt• else i�,9 s °ha~ 4pphcah}s }term sst?h qo di;efrarge;ea9�u' tiely domes} y. ;gwege �h,loygh, {ht} can L -c" -a 11nj241, A. I 11 ""of re""'ro Is hero dY ill, ack. If APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING PERMIT IAPI ANT PLEASE FI LL IN SfIQOELUI ONLY t1S.l:F)!'I.!PLEPEIVCIL BALI PLY[fJTPE*i' {.OTHER I NOM.ERAS.�BLE SUBSTANCE f CITY OF APPLICANT FILL IN THL SHADE AAREA . ,. TUSTIN ONLY FILL IN COMPLETELY.146 m rro / u IJ r PI/rli FEES ,a ,r�rr'�i�y �1-LL's -(Ta}v ).._ IYSFEJitY, y[1.IIYjll,tll S v 1l C9 PTT'H TIXH Tom--- ��- E, /'� ]� �33��/_'.� 1.12rHl 1S +R C..J1Park o150L*t'1 It 1 lt.- Y11 1 4 JFNbir�3l +n—_� 11 JI I I ,1 1 If I I IJ J .� 1 Ln I I 1 1. iLL`UN INK r,h 1..4 If '� F}?t]�OHw�IN �f ) ufyrilrsr 4FLT?Ih J" _ K si�lTjf.tS� 0- - •i.., 1, - whiN1N11 neat Wtl.Y ":A SnF;t NE'NY —" '1 1. �•.:u LFWp:$�)IINKLf r11 'n� P tPM:-1„1 n•..n. r TPA1L'ERJ,IXPIr IJ?J _� IJOwPF.OUTLFT5: _. ._ �Ta.l] + Wi If f, PtlS°F.EWCR 1V ALp4T ' IiNlFI rte- - �'F,EF1A11T •', __ Yt. _ , JSil'11NG FE.t - � � 11 a� I .1LLoFyr1 w qr�' �..�TOSAL FCES r C' P411M 11. �l41 i15 fili�ia J .. 'aiu r H ripF'NPfi31'[(ILV,VAf:1�ATfUI -- I•gCPASgI PAIS ISYPIJF FB (l: CrrY Or TtJSTU4 a t nt - Bulding Divis I Dn 300Cmtenaiel Wry, Tustin Ch 92780 13L,d*g Comiar (714i 573-3131 - Inspection R=ardw (714) 5.73-3141 ERMDTNLWB9Mpb1-D4S9 ADDRES5;520 PACMC AT 713ST SUITE PARCELNUKIIiII040177147 SUITE NUMBER_: TRACT NUhME5L- DBVBL011fAEN.TARE6_,'__"* TUSTIN ISSUED B�Y___: DATE ISSUED PikWERTY-CiWNER_-��_,.,_t LOUIS NUS11U). KYE -PROBERT ARE TUS M. Cpk9 ,-4&432 CONTRA AIRCII]TE A-1 ALL AMERICAN ROOFING 1824 F_ CARNEGIt AVE. SANTA ANA, a92705 PLAN CHECK 50.00 .......... . bbdurANT LOAD: 0 66MANCYdR06—UP'. R3 CONSTRUMM rj?F.-. Ag�� sQ.Fr- 6 MMMERCIALSQ7r, o jNbasrRi4LrsQFr-' ' 0' GARAGE 49 FT5 0 WFImpT 0WAREHQUAESQFr. b W_qF SO FT: .0 ITNANT- MM SQ F7.0 PAO, oT.HfWSQ'fF_'T't � D I 140afim oF.uNrrs; I.- F S TO- Rgi 0 VELI 1997 ITUMBEROFSEATS: A. 5000, N: Mo.bq PLAN CHECK 50.00 D I VIEWNG kERMET,5000 MECMTERb9P,. 50,60 . W_q �ELEC 5000 DEV, TA—V: IBM PAO, 00 .;FEE: '6'&Aj*-, 40m0 'PENALTY FlIE: 50.00 5000, WCELLrWEOU$: 30:00 $6.00 bolm4L�...P.P Ric 00262 CITY OF TUSTIN CDm unfiy Ilcvqqpn Dcpanm t -BuilAIng Jpivi.im 3000�nu WWAyjwti. CA 92780 DWIding C=w (714) M.3 I3 I -.)n&p=6aa Record" (714)3]3.3141 BUILDING PERMIT NU . MBER.BL'2-0497 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 40071.07 LOT DEVELOPMENT TUSTIN PROPERi4i - OVMER__�� ........ : DRE11FAIREIANKS 520 S PAC1JqCSTREBT TUYFN CA92780.4329 CONTRACTOR. A-1 ALL AMERICAN ROOFING 1324P CAMNE61E AVE SANTA ANACA42705 (90).25-0LI-227 ADDRESS-520 PACIFIC STTUSTSUITE SUITE MIMBEIL.; TRACTVUM9EX. I9SUmIry_____:DATE I35UED....J�: 01N30/200I - OCCUPANT. LOAD: 0 ocqUP bYqkdtm , Ej COrjSTRUCn.XTYTE..'JN =1DI]VTIAL SQ.FT: 0 CoMMERCIA.L S.� fT. 0 ABbnRLkLSQ.FT-. A GARAGESQFT. OFFICE SQ Fr" .0. WAREHOUSE:SQ FT: 'a ROOF SO FT. .0 0900 ThgANTIMPIL SQ FT; 0, bTHEks_FT. 0 NUMBER Of! UNITS: I XLMMER OF SMRTES:. 0 . . UBC PD17101t 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS: 0 VAI'UATrCN—*-' .57,250.00 BURDF&YALUA7ION.16,000.00 PLA,NeRECK. 310.00 BunDlYGIPERMT1 Sr75.00 50.00 T1l7M�Wvfsw,ft- a cliLkmq P IT ' 19V 37E �$D.00_ NEW DEV. TAM MIP YEDO-- tal VIA Tsfpz6miA�" MfcRomm Ita $0.00 !1660, -116 IB'ZONE PEXALTYFEF: SOX. FXFUND ABLEAOND;. kod 'MISCELL/}NEOUS: 50,04. TOTAL Fra: 517540 P.FFNWP owl I . i . ckwsa ciAgi cm mc; Aic7 u 00263 ( CITY OF TUSTIN Cummpnily Ikvclgjnnmu Dcpanmcm -'Building Dlvidon Consnumim P19IDit 30D C,"IlY idl Woy. T--flN CA 9_790 Builcling Counl., (714)373.7131 ut3i3-3132 lnspeaiun Rlmtdu (714) 573.3141 ASSESOR'5 PARCCI NUMBER: 46137197 nWNEWNIILDE9 M=1147I0N ADDRESS: 520 5 PACIFIC sT I Am.W alum Ihi11 rm...mpt kurlmih: [.mi.npn De.m. U. SUITE 011 UNIT 'NO. 1.r1 n.. u9•b .7W1.&man.- L nmrd•m cba.: anY on v 6LOC]: nmwr.nrNnW4w• mor lvlipJ[L u Imp d.—.4n LOT: 7.RAOT: ..nY trvnun, pn nTa I drm m." mr h pt ie)x Ipne :e:.nr'pr.l h•p Sn%.ti11p. dpa u(m to In Pd iem Cdhidud Tlbct Nlimbbr. RadaveltiPmpT:'Aiec of In e a Uupw t+w lCNptn 81 mmw mwilh5 u ,nmI pl Plw'am 3.l lne .arM '1 P1pTM•gni ed•I m Ing h.., Mm 4..bmpt Ildr•I!pm •M iMb..y la di.'•Mgd:ljimpllpnr Ani vbt•d.n el5enbn Prpp.rty.OWrMr: 70]1,6hy •nY wp]em I.,. p:rmE..fik.9 Ni •vnt ma••[iH pemhy br MI mw. In.n Ib huM[•d dalmiISM100. SPAS' cST BS. Y95TIN CA 92780 ❑ 1 ,eI IA w P q iii�•ereev .dm wwA,.jp!u •.x I pelr.rmpt wuoln wa!+n-tlam A.hnvpla mi clown pnv4f.+ rib6mi.n7W. .uvniu:b Ad1:iYdi: COJlilni C6nY.nNa1 U[vm. McNl. Lw dvp. nnl +pdv ro pirPbArpppUr1•!mW ISPHARDAADAl5 19M.N wIhmdph)u, ?;vnmrom Ibnevn n.rdwn!mdl•lr;: . Eer4 tlih.l ud:linCmYp {4Ylran91 ]nlrrbdld er vlfvW}m.}W. M, 7111676-8294' w.... I.bWat'o:rbnProwmwnu zvk rrxilwi.n•Y.•rmwmplm.:r�in. .-rw.huL..r...ir nrvvfbY srua.n •fbrNlnP rhr AA •r+n. Ma rr.I IWam Spnliiclart ,mel 1 rma.• el .Na .`.: `-. :... . . OA%• 160 61.11HE 9@91777:8856 - r[mlalve+nlh' nmnn[mnmlr.;a.b,n•dt+o r Pewnrty 1.9 samW 7Wnumnblce& Pnel ba•'nlbma tpm+ll,aIwdwrletPPphlPw ygvm.elrt•wntihA 1A8Gy1 LA '91719. a!ad. r blgp ... OHroa pnA MM E^Ii,./+[u RpLw n rlropn. -e.mrwlal.l Lurv.; p.:v.•nt roJb.agW.[m'+.lm JO9,OE9LRUTON.' . ECPLACQ .- .❑ 1 •nmi pna S:[nwr _ ;:E7(Z6TSBG ]IA"A9AY FIBSPL.AgE .allur b p 1 tw. c*'i" II . Dm p 1ndvil7My sr F.At! 6 w!rgll.m.n[ of hh w yl d dlv WS.NPrn:/Ptl IN•Ea1 rCed it n wnt wd anlA.,saw r P 0 "� •fNm,Ijt:p lmhNLbJ.� T(q PI tan wnbn a WirEh"wtkuQm F:eli !❑ 1 M rid:'wL IV {amp n•>irpn„dr vn ii \ Y bmP I.SyuP Fet; 0 G mg ip.3quare Po Y 9 rW ib.0 3p 1i— M.611N1.b TpdyJaf In P.7mm.n[• I IM nvl fWmh "1 Unh B Odnt�bRur F..1 0 Jw wAkA la p.m:I vh+.d MYw ky'+ranpl �lb,lruun n.W Nurimb4r:et SWc.: B R:pt.4lpn(b Numbs ol9 mppm.G. B r:iL4r9 sp.uaf el]llcr p}IMpy4 �” .'I,:L+y-`�'T...2g: W .Wn : s: -9800.00 _ u9Cidtliom 1971 ati':.arl'Ir-�.-1 :•!fW a+an.e l!ci. .w:.u.e«.uldm.rw:.. FEE SUMMAl11"— -'- l' � KNIT IMII'n pw p.n Im rwA lm ad7[hanl. pari ir' 43'48 TSIPZpnvAF 5. 066 bb.u.;)eP•+Iru under m...rwntn mwuP uw,b wm+ gum PPtm1A 8: I66 SI TS1PSp 9Fxe. ;±.' 6 BB uI;I:[fl Tln warl.r`"Grl�y,.M, -,i t.Pl mLl ra,pn Ih.r9J D ndsd'}dant9 0 805 s 6198' ar.pid he m. w51 viiP als 'y(�Bu�CgnnrPPpe�.[ssdgi' MIRF.e n oh. W 6 4IpNMEmth 1r-:ommY Ihm rpror^%w. M+cn.11celPl n 4, &96 t[IIualXm i.o: '-+: 300 NrrrAbfnO Rmrr $ B BBACN F+ S. 000 n O' syn%li 9: B Bed IgrV'dSka 2d S- 002. NR (I41] rermll S' B 668.FdA ! P.;: 9 D B9 •n'2,indli1e ,1 Y •w.nn 5p .p a ny. }YrC avlu..' N1pN9 s)mpr rwI Nnk4:i.p r a.n9lfi.: w+ 5y: ' P4nnppttpv Yrlm I: 9' 6 66N]e! h ��000honor u IMw pganEur tltdp aopl f 1 .oa kn In 1r•,Cptl .NoWGPyAMIFmPnrTvx: 9-- .Qr 06 R:nt6¢f[.E :S 2:02: nmp• ppn m q.p., p fa 4fw.psnnlpn moo.l.Ilu�'46w:C'm., ML;rI.nJ Itlm Y'len TLOT-ie 6 '2E3;92 LON9TRUC7pN lENPINC AGENCY - dhEnW Illjm th tlMfAk .,c=n.l 1l l.d 'p in ttl'_M. - - _ - 1Mw^^nrJ dl tx1 Nbrt-fa wnitlr b a r..m,f 1 I a is n.n oa)'. rums l bed hr SC9: n i.. 00/67706 na4 r d.t — — V514WTISIISSUEDAND FEE gMITNUMP.In IS} ' nom AbPIt�P - 800 ,6551 "N[`i.n0005 MAIEnA13.ANf1 EMI5AONS ' '7APFPAENRpiEO pxm:r.dWc:4 'AIcw 4:cPNTAARoA's:�D AAATIgN `J 41 _Itl Aw.mfa ry .. nu ❑.. wM1e.�OJlia Cahmj'. ktnnnne, 75 4-ANUer Gblmbrdtl-Av�a:ai. 00264 October 25, 2010 To whom, it may concern, My name is -Robert Stephen Gaylord. . one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave, (now 520 Pacific St) in Tustin, CA. My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above The garage all in the time and with the. processes it takes fora single individual to do all that. The best thatJ can recaU*i.s the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle -who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base.ill EL Segundo- WeVisited him several times athis Army air defense battalion and sat%rlbe search ligbtstald Dad finished the apartmentlfbr him, and lisnew- to stay near us while he, was,serving in Southern California. Later, the alSartmeni was rented to Maiines stationed at M Toro Marine Base. Ixec-01 the, M.Ains to the. entrance 0$ a: child-, Inmy memory they were always there on the: Yi4C0fthe .garage where zmyp rc#ts wouldcatch rainwatcnWewere not allowed to go up those stairs; ThOunitbehind-lbe garage was built by in father roughly between 1945 and' 1950. I judge,this.'basedowthefa XW�5,bom - I - 1-1 ct in, 1933 and when my brother John. and 1. were .young, teenagers my father built,the two rooms and baffiro-bm.for.us to occupy. Aftet we mov&d away ;i• qIx.oldhoine-the rooms -were:made available to, others. J]he, the spqlhngAp) Grennan, who helped take. .care of my parents to the very end. ln-fbct,'sbE Eall6d,ffid about health problems my fatties; was,liavn3g when we moved him oui'and 'sold the house:, awoodshop, boys' dWe68 "h4tu. I 00265 M1 _. _. _. _. n . -: a �f or - e •:�'^-.._� ��' ... ... - - � F _ : �-�''��'•`�`��' - rte,,,. ¢+z'-.ate-...._ - -`_ C, 014 Community Development Department July 23, 1998 Mr, Nathan Menard 345 West 6th Street Tustin, CA 92780. SUBJECT: 34.5 - :EST GTH-S.TREET Dearr. M . - - Venard:, City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714)573-3100 On July 21, 19Q8 Ad..(O'ceNbd your request -for 2 zoning cornpliaride letter for a45 West fith:t�f�4f- Tus4h! I The I - lf-stjbj.Oct property is family" rtsloencqs_ Sec Our Mote is - no record' of ;uyrenily zoned 8in'die Family Residential (R-1) whi6h'-pe'- - ; I - - - I I ritcni s sing q rid single family 6kellings may tie co-ns-ld�-ied in 1:6 R-1 District'... . , -on 3n .12,000 square fdtt of lot area, compliance with several other Indth0-2pproVal of a Conditional Use Permit (TCC Sec; 9233(B)(I)), jbp,rME!,In ne-sideridei%ras iconstructed jr.1 9 1_291. We also have on file rthe .1Jp,9x on the -.reaf.of the property, datitig back to 1964. HoWg9er, app. roved Ciinditibnal Use Permit f' 0 Pr the use. As such, thd. duplex is Purs UP.111,10 TUsI!nJCRYCbde,8e6tl0n, hon, tpnformi6b buildihg�F:qpstroY ed.t .-P!.hj,exrwlt of more than 50 percent .,bf-its ", Vd'lu'Li, b -Y, a 'catastrophic eyprit -'be r use-d.:only ip cOMPH, "411,th .rnPY restored s 9 i..,fn,ct.W.h9?rLijn it is -located Seer:atta sections Tustin Olty-.code. sd- ct!Ms 9223 _and :9273 13 E- folndcr, U 41 00267 ATTACHMENT D PD staff Repo.rt,and Attachments from Qctober 26, 2010 ri_.: ITEM #3 APPEAL HEARING eT AGENDA, REPORT MEETINGDATE: OCTO.BER26,2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG., BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT- APPEAL OF NbTICEAND -ORWR AT 520 PACIFIC STREET SUIVIMARYf Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of -Tustin sent- notice for recordation of 1 Notice .and. Order for I , he -'property at UO Pacific Street. The Notice pnd."Ord6T provided Wdttl5ri noticb, of the existence of a public nuisance on the property brid'required the correction ptcqdie violations :related to structures. constructed in violation in City' ode Including 'the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning . ... tto of � the Tustd Code .(sebAttach hjent,A)- The current property owner of 620 Pacirlb Street -(APN 401-371-0), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal o, f the B). Iryacgordance, withlusfih, City Cade Sections 0161 and 9294, the Planning Commission Will consider .Lire appeal :cif the K6tice.and .0rder-for PLISIJjqkqansApip,pm,jne- -d bythe: —....qjjce a -. Enforcement Officer hodlko.proper om! P wilh W4 ih'b A. Th -Lb iodrdid'Ap'peals'in- EONd6ft Bull& .-,g!Cpde violations and; B. The ampf h consider Zoning C.od6, V1616fibfis t1hqt, dere paring body for of the appliedl ffi-& Notice 1�bffd'QFdbr., _REGOMtyll~NDAf po N: Planning, That the -- % - ornmissildb,(6tting,in- ifstapacK - as. �11* p y Board; of C SeWOh 8101 and :acting TCC. Section' 9z a opk Resolutipn Nos. 4161 and ,4162 ng. P.*� 111P'Ppp-081` h0adnig 1504y-06PT C -c 42) 'd g the 0 IdO ah' 'or the Property at:uioi- In th N*rl d Orq@r Pacific Street which pro\Qes 0 �;w t1en.nQ'.UC0',bFfhe . .. nuisance afid 00269 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 2 requires the correction of aode violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code. That the Planning Commission and the Board of, Appeals order the property owners) to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, with the exception of the date of compliance which Is hereby established as November 30, 2010. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Code enforcement action at 620 Pacific Street originated when the property_owner, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, initiated contact by sending .a written request indicating that he>wanied the City to allow the unpermltted units on his property .to be rebuilt if they were destroyed by natural causes,. This request initiated meetings between Mr. Fairbanks and City staff and ultimately led to code enforcement Action at the property, to, abate. the life safety issues caused by building and zoning code violations that are present on the site,.A Notice and Order was filed on the. property based on violation of several Building Code and Zoning Code violations (see Aygchment A);, Details of the code ehforcement action are provided in'the report (Section titled Code Enforcement at 620 PacificStreet)_ The Planning Commission lids two toles in considering the appeal of bctli.:ihe: Bui.fding Code and Zoning Code Sectlo.'ns indicated 'in tite Notice and Order. 'The role's: for consideration are as follows: A. Board of.Anneals Pursuant to Section 112 of th'e.. City of Tustin's `adopted California. BUllding Code (Sec. 8101), the Board of .Appeal`s may consider, evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer'§. determinatmh that a pubJ o nuisance exists at f e subject property, du,e to the dangerous conditiohs presentat 520 Pacific Street Which originatefrpkn violation of th , , (10Wmg 5uildtng Code seotioh;" California: Bunting Code P.eitriits-Reifuited, Any., of a B: Augeal Hearing.Bodv: T- sftn code or to cause any=such work .o tha tiulldfrig Officfat an'd ob.kain Pursuant: to: Tustin City Code Section. 9294,. the Planning. Commission „may Orisider Uka 09116nc4'sup 'bi- ig-the Btiforcem?nf Officer`s detetirjinail4h' ltiat a publio Wpprice exists of the subject property- due; to the. ,dangerous, condjtiAns 00270 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 3 present at 520 Pacific Street which originate from violation of the following %oning Code sections: Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single. Family Residential District (R-1) — Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings used as guest rooms; provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses. Cornerloi.,Iin.a 10 feet; intetior lot line: 5 feet. SITE DESCRIPTION The property at 520 Pacific. Streetis located :at the south end of Pacific Street north of West. 6I1 Street. The property is located within'the-Single. Family Residential District (R- 1) and is within the Cultural Resources Overlay District (CR). The R 1 District allows for single family dwelkngs and -accessory buildings and use's including, but not limited to, accessory buildings and second residential units (subject to specific sitedevelopment standards; i.e.. minimum 12,00.6 sq. ft. building site; must provide two additional garage parking spaces; etc,). Aecessory: buildings. used as guest rooms are conditionally Permitted subjectto the approval of :a.ConditionalUse'P;ermit (CUP) and are.*ubject to specific site development and use,restrlcttons '(i;e. no ccoking facility, MO be installed or maintained; they. 'shall riot tie renter!;: etc.): Aerial photo Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 4 The lot size of the property at 520 Pacific Street is approximately 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre) and contains the following structures: 1. Single,stqr mt.i.lh house (1,842 sqjt.) 2 Two-story garage (16'50x 18') with p studio apartment (309 sq: ft.) above 3 Third unit (325 sq, ft.) located atgrpund level to the rear (west) of the garage Detached storage/recreation room (298 sq, ft) located directly behind the main house along the north property line 5—Small detached storage unit located along the rear west property line (approx. 1.50 sq, 4.) (not to scale on plan) 6. Covered parking structure (which is.a a phed to the main house and the garage) (NurpPers correspond to site plao a dq#a,p otosbelow) Site. Plan ambrrilited 8130110 (Also"1vlart0.Ath1dhf;rl&nh'G site plan dated 8/30110) + NTS Oil" A U 'ER '*PAW + NTS '1 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 5 C 3; 9 level unit over garage View from front driveway of carport and two-story garage M :i,2 unit. entrance 00273 ..Pq^MR, K t'`..eK� 'A u�eW 1ot}ttgg i story u -11'y (not 00273 Appeal 820 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 6 Historical Backgrou-nd-, View looking West in, rear yard: storage unit at rear property line The City of Tustin was incorporated an September 19, 1927. The Subject property at 520 Piciric Street is located within the original City boundaries. The single story home Was built in approximately 11928 or 1929. The first published building code, the 1927' edition of the "Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 9, 1029, Historical Timeline MCR or 29 -Horst - awij,I 1970 9 IV a 5 . el f IMP"rpor"irion Code AdiiPtcd The:earliest zoning map cio. rile; from 1961, identifies the, property as 11=1 Single Family- koitzio-ffial and, the oUfrd.ht 2pning for:the property is R -j. Mogle Family Residential' Based on the City., of Tustin Historical Survey and annexation records, this prop. er _w Ei .part Of a subdiy1tiori Of farmland to build single fdm,ily homes' prior lo the i:�Ry% Incorporation: According to rical survey, the gubd jd-.. dedicated, Main Simi0t, the w5to ivi- L r . And Pacific Street Whilesubdividing-'the lots fof single family homes�,Iheh:sold indiVidudl Jp#-i. including the plr0p.Ody at 6. Q Pacific: Street Histdrically, the )R-1 District has has aUoWed gQOst house or ' 6st'.Ohit uses- Within fis district,, h.&vdvht�, -.the guest ,4nR use. 1:0s been restricted 6 and no kitchen 0 , -cdcKtrj.g fq to, e A *QrqY'; vu. s.;' W . Ore e dili%s for- r 116re p -em -0. neht ten unit; 440 filsfQbased 011 reef Ls JjSje4.L ,on the 109DICIty of Tustin Hisforical"8'ur iqaI.OW, A.Nh*J((b.6.tJ'0YI-M tyJe, an al . rlef hl ol?. of B Affac hCrz)j himet ' survey �q survey noted that Attie slhipjap;: or dea. I r4i ", �Mij�50 !�Oq.orst Q gph[e$" lch A .. . '..— and 11, 4, u�h hbu§e,was-not oflgin6h ft also notes .9 carport an K h i )e:."or.19(pat I EitieO orx Ma- ropf and siding that wag Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 25, 2010 Page 7 Some permits have been issued on the subject property; however, there are no permits that authorize the construction or use of additional residential units at 520 Pacific Street. Over the past several decades, the City has addressed residential conversions that have been done without benefit of permits. For example, code: enforcement officers have responded to complaints that have arisen in the Old 'Iowa area of Tustin of construction being done without permits or of multiple rental units in the R-1 Single Family District. Several recent cases, including two cases located on Pacific Street are currently working through or have completed the permit process to bring their property and: unpermitted accessory units into compliance with the Tustin City Code. Historically., the City has considered several proposals to increase the density of properties, located in this:area of Pacific Street; however, each time lhe.pommunjty has been outspoken against any increased density and the Planning Commission has deirtio such. requests. Records indicate that, in 1955, The Planning Commission held a public: hearing to consider.a variance to add a second dwelling unit at the rear of 530 PaciFtc Street and to add two addi'tiatial dwelling units at the back of the property at 540 PacificStreet, However;.after discussion with applicants and:objectors, the request was tleriied. Other requests to increase density in the Old Town atearWere .dehied, including a Zone- Change request in 106rJ to rezone a parcel :at the oorner of Pacific and Main. from .R'-1 :Single Family Residerjtiat to the Planned Community Residential District'in order to aecorrimodate an jncrease in density 34 dwelling unitsr(Dll) per acre (more than bight times the 4 D.0 pet acre aliowedjby Tustin General Plan): Code Ehfoncgrnent at 520 Pacific Street On July 27; 2010, Mr; $ref Fatrbanksi the property owner of 520: Pgcific Street, initiated. contact: and sejta letter Wthe•Plahnin Division. The IetteCstated that lie ;was selling his properly and the home'was in espfow Mr. Fa1.irbanks; further stated that the property has a;srngle family residence in front, with twoAuesthomes in the:.back ,Mr, FWrbahks; requested a confirmation letter from the Cjty stating 1t ot, in- the event of a. fire. earthquake, or disaster, the Cfty :would. M16W. She guest units• to be rebuilt. (see Attachrrtent On August -4, ,2010,,Planning p. ty'Lsio,0 staff did;:a preliminary soorch of Clty,records and sent a :zohfng cohfirmatioii: lettep to Mh Fairbanks ihforrritng him :chat nn`pentllts WHO, Issued bt the two guest unfits Whicfl W_ tq noted in his, letter and that a Conditional Use: Permlt'(.CUP) (whic"lt is rgg!lircd taaes#ablish filen rentable gUesfi:uhds withjhhis (R.1:)I, .toping jdistlict) had not.been issued.fortl2e rise. ,Mt Fajrbanks SYes also Informed that}, based;on Tusttn,City Code -;,a non ggiiformltig 1?utldfng;destrayed!;tb the c?Xter?t ofrjiofe: tllon ifty percent of its Ieaspnab o",Utler May+be restorpo or used orily, iri compliance: With' the 'regulations exiahig M fig dlsfft wherein tt is loWOd Pf6Vfsibns f6t reconstLuctton of non confonning, b044)1ngs_do:not apply',tq strUpfuresohaddit ops vvhjeh have been aonstruoted without the 1peneflt; Of pWrijts; To legalii a the existing guest: Onits..(Without a Is tchen), a_pproVaf of a CUP would be'required (littaehtpenk G), 00275 Appeal 520 Pacific. Street October tri, 2010 Page 0 Shortly after the zoning confirmation letter was sent by Planning Division staff, the case was forwarded to. Code Enforcement for follow up. Code enforcement officers conducted a thorough search of city records and requested a search of.County records for any documentation associated with 520 Pacific Street. However, no permits for the guest units were found: Code enforcement .officers also found the subject property advertised online and located two "for sale" postings. 13oth postings identified a "studio guest house with kitchenette" over the detached two car garage and a "second guest house with one bedroom, living room, and kitchen behind the garage"', On September 10, 2010, the property owner allowed City staff to do a cursory on-site assessment of the property(see photos, in Attachment D). Several life safety code yiolaiions and other issues were noted by Planning. aril BUilding Division staff (A detailed list of :the main compliance Issues and the related code violations, are -shown in Table 1 section of this report); online posting'fo'r 520 Pacific Street cohcerhs/code. of the Analysis On September 16 20.10,rthe City of lobtin recorded'a Notice and Order Pursuant to Tustin City Code S"ecttoh 5503 for the• property' at 520 Pacific Avenue. Tile Notice :end Order probideswntten notice of the existence ofa public nuisance and requires the:: correction. of code y'irilatlons related to llecJal structures constructed'in violation ;of the ' S.tin' Building Code and 2ohing Codes. .In part,'Section 5502(b) states a public nuisance exists. when "any 09h,06011 > _x.:ists upon' arty premises that is dangerous to human hfe or Is cletrirneintaI to hgalth as'detelmined.,by an app.[opdate city offclal'�(see Attachment A),_ The+ ji(otiee and'.Order• provision is set ,forth in'Chapter'5 of the: Tustin: Gity Code: for Prop',o Melfilonance and Nuisance Abatement Regulations: 'and S.tsGfWds. 'The appearance; an _obstrtictton to or interference with. ,the :comfortable epjoymehg of adjacent p7operty,' or'hazamna :dr injurious, to the: lieaith safely or. 4_ i ire: 6f the generalipublie in syph w2.ys;as to.;constttrlte,a nuisance", ANALYSIS,; Runny heeursory+on s(F@ h's�essrperlt of'the property on September 1p 2D10', City stall nofe. se l; bode, eompfiahce'Is"subs of the. property:'Tlie foflowfrig tableoutlines. the, code Fpmpltance ,l`ssues : rid .r ceips; code. sections.app(Icabte; `,(inplUding .c 1q: BuUdfng' Code as atloptS(, ay TUSt1Yi, 'California Fire Code; and Tustin„City Zoning Code)iaild phofosaakert rJ:urlhg ihe;assessment.. 00276. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page g TABLE 'I CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES Locatlon Code Compliance Code Sections Issue a licable Photos The use of flip property California Fire Code as a triplex.(with 3 Section '102.3 Change or i. units) changes [he: use or occupancy; building occupancy Cpbfornia Fre Code from R3 (single family -Section 102 Unsafe residential) to RI Building or Slruclmes a r< T (multiple amity)It could not be -CaHromia Plre Code determined if Section 1132 I)nwfe. foaling/Inlmdatiens EWding-orShuclures exist to provide adequeteshuctural bracing and support to the structures N^ "'y •' tul0lti9�Y6§tdelifial No -fire eeparalion:walle Building CbdeTeble between units; 503; Califomla Fire Code Units budtaRer- therefore not in Section 110:1 Unsafe origihalstnictu)°es compliahce Mill ono -Candilions yJ[o pe(fT11t,5 hour separallon .._..�-._.::__._. _...... requirements which. po "se's a poletitialfixe hazard looccupants__.... Mechanical, electdozl, TCQ 13100. Adoption of and plumbing (including 2007 California Building. HVAC) Installation 'Code 6105.1— P0a71716 I,I V Bathroom work dano vyilhoul rarruirod) � pennds �,� in upper o P.ermils:are.required to ltgt.. W/ no ED Insure that life daridly perrriits protocol islol[owedf and inslati'etionJs7 clone: act ordina3d plan. Wilfliif such permits and lnspacllon; In9tallellvnlnay create. fi[e hazard,:wator ' tlamepl',_et ' POrsuanl io lh� zoping: TCC g223a7(6) - -code,theyFofSe'PlydOes-..rnmirptrcnljJfhlin9s;lejot_,,, diol Itave:suiticfpril lot. second,resldenllal unitis. ° " -. -_ .:_ ,sizeloaceomrtiot" dp 1200psqueidlost Seeo7fU.andj second of Itlird Lnit TCC QMb,ZAj cessory _ -(i3eguifes mlh: 42, 000 bulldmge used as,guest -' tJ11rd YeSi[jti h.(lol. s R Ioj, how,eye thls rooms kJovlding na Units: 'Suestunl��no.kticheq Installed arrtt°alntalned„ �' TeGlilies) tegtiftes Ct}P siiCtecl to Corldllipnaj Tliis�numliefolunlis £Usepehnit WQuid needld lie .Igcejedfrl a11.R2 orRa3°,: disffislerrd wobtd • 'requlfea,Fnlnimum.oi.7 pork1hi stalts.to support 4headdedrestilegliel -.. ,.... :_-.., _• 00277 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 25, 2010 Page 10 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable photos - The: second story wall Seclion 1403 of TCC �•, yy,ti construction and 8100 Adoption or 2007 Windom adjoeentto the .California Building Code property li0e do not comply with Bre protection requirements. { �- Ihsuflicient The opening is not setback to PL penpdted.aesttotvn; % = exlonorwall is not fire-- rnld& primary (and only) stairway, restricts ;ingress egress in case oftire 'or other emer enc ._ .._ ,,, ... .... . _... ._._ Fumace installelJ TCO 8100 Adoption of T ,wilhoul'required permits_ 2007 Caidamia Building floes no) Inset coae A1.05.1-- Pelm./Is clearance requirements regulied y M and creates a potential c_ i N Via hazard. �K ,Exposed�eleclrlcal nekC TCC ti100Adoptipn.of ar m to unpenitlted fpfnalie 2007 California Building. o'. vvlifd causkis potential Cede A105.1—.Periiifts A fire hazard.. rvggil d' + I � 0 i s 0 >2 a c o, u rn! €lettri"yal..devloe '. neKHp Iieati Kitchen cooNing TCC 922362No.coolddg, — - 'faciltttes not penililted faclltUes pg'tmilled in tirguestumt- psf gugnif ; Kttctien:U1 PrOmhmg and:ele6fla5l TCO 8100 A'dopllon of ; pi : ` upper unit Installs( wWMjpirf 2007 Caltfotnia t3WWII9 r pomuts:.:Petmil's are. Code A105.1 L Pormits it "fegtiired mliautalhat .requfre,'rf-- — -- _ _ : _ ._; _ IQs safety ptRtuwl.ls; , followed aild insiallatton` �1s.dp0eaecoytiiilg 10,._... plan Wilh0Ot6 Gil Berm,. andlhspacti4n, -. ;In'stallaQprcniay,ciaslo' _. • - _ ... ,_ 'fi'rahazard tvalef -. :,Aiaina a"eCea 00278 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 11 Location - Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable Shower added on to TCC 8100 Adoption of"- -afiginal slruclUre. This 2007 California Building f requires a building Code A1A5.1 - Permits _ .permit to add additional required) I 1 square footage (pop- :out) and perrllts for _ plumbing, and - waterproofing. i fy ' Shower added w/o its Rating has no TCC 8100 Adoption of } Intermediary posts and 2007 California Building _� Noun IbEdand flee are not Cade A105.1- Pennifs .inner � r compliant with Building required. posts Opde requirements nor TCC, 8'100 Adoption of �I6.lhe Unprolecled back 2007 Califomla Building - q c ' open, 5 hl n This tt (s �C'� a 012�Nandwatis- poses a.potengol falling hapdrails required for hazardforsmall stairways ; tllllil[en.. TCC B100:Ad9ption of - :2047 Catlforoie Bullding Coae 1013Guards- rn ,guards shall beJesated ti J S along open sided „°� Welkingeuffecas y Including stairways: "'"'•'"' Jbktaled 11Wb Ulan 30 - - -- ` ;Inches shove ilia grede -✓+ '[]ie.Fa Is no 2007 CBE�GI.i ca sap Ilne.flraWallpdralwn 1021,3 1Sdalscct(Foran ge belweenstatrcaseapd location wlrrdgWpt l'�. ; y the properlytind. tegtiires¢Tr.: - - - — --- ---- Af back The;rtarcase.is bulfl CC 9223W(e)-requires overtbepmpertyAme 5, iii setback to,pidperty A�Uesi, unit iequfresa line B foot/ St3tbnck lo: _ propedy Itna{PL), , -- Lliara�mseveral ettlltoYef++PL, �he,locadorrdfih7s slaltpse+most � �. a Imminentsld life tacit gf; _ ' elnergehay-ps. mssand k= siife.egress frdtn.ttie WE ElodfdreYnsniti¢� 20op�BC'seetron nelghboriny pJppu y "19019 all roofs shall 6e yyliicipl gray cattle tlralhed Into a separafa. � ilood�ng, 5tbtthSeWersy5lem' P,OA7 CIJt;'SeC)ieli 2007 CBCSectibb A ORA. - line Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 20, 2010 Page 12 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable - Structural supports do 2007 CBC Section '•i' »ecu='"' not provide sufficient 1804.1, 2301.2 General ...,i...' supporting rakers Roof ;Desigir Requirements. p:F ��j� made9uate ttiembzrs are ;Floorlolst supported undersized lo. provide along block fence rather I� 'ry ( structural adequate support than cantilevered from " supports the two story stricture The canrort is attached -'Change In occupancy Id bath the main house con6tilules a multitude of Carport and the 2 -story garage CBC and Fire Code and attached rear units;: violations: ttached ato making this a tri-plex Califamia Fire Code in house unit pursuant to building Secllon 102:8 .Change,of and.garage. code fire rating. These use or occupancy, - deficiencies create California Fire Code access hazards for fire Section 102 Unsafe access and may pose Bbfldigg or 5huclures additional hazards,to n occupants since the occupancy Glanges V With a hl-plek (6nitif'on lorminoto Unsuppoded electil6l - . TCC 13100 Adoplioit of metal conduit (E" 2807 California Bdlldlhg hetween garage and Cbde A103,1 -.Permits linSuppUdcd house. The pcteplial for requm=d damage and fahure duo a p to the=.e.6 Ilme is nedaldo poses a palentlal fire hazird. j - - •= :" 1 tto:ratin se ara e nt on 200T GBCTaplefiO'I between well's.of garage F it Res lstorige.Rahng _ add living unds`;thu5 jtegUraments for 5de60'n -- = Rb)11eX.Wjtlnp is - 606img tenants ahow Wags OpsectV&P[rH �tnRlOtC te(� aqd eKgOsed nd n. to tKe are a st!P'q tfoq Distance _ 9 16.111r4ha re zaro;ori` 61- S '�. Igrlhe garage; - rn. Elecldcal wtnng;: ?2807 CEC /id[c1e;33!C16� .� Rome>;cannotlie ,l;j,'tposedYVo�k,rirf to eS posed or flnprotected Atllcle 0.0.35 SecMdAp and must be :p4d5tupportinla: aliaplted/seegfed;, ' (klginek_wgs.fi�l.used. In the 1950f5, Color ._. (SIHw j,LhFfigq bo1Rt>rllfiout sodingiyelloQi)sylash't permits. " _ ' :4jatiable, utttit2001) , � (.?�.. - s. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page'13 LocationFdoes pliance —Coda Sections photos e a llcable meetire 2007 CBC T261e.602ment;5 Fire+ResistsnceRating equired to - R"bitements for Exterlor ,property line to protect Walls BasEdon Fire occupontsfmm fire Sepam(lon.Distance hazards; or safely (1927 UBC Section 1,103, personnel responding to less iheR'.3.feeg ah;enfergency. TCC 9223b2 minimum side, yard se,Iback 6 feet setbacR iequl[ad _ _ provided) ' Hester installed with:a TCC 8100Adoplion of geslineWith. out permlis •2007Caljf6rhia'Dullding t.• -� lt:Islnstalled;gna C.odeA?05.1:-=Pennils "- mh couidble:wood steed requlmd - •N Wall Which posesa ;5:obiec1lo'manufactu>•.e's: Neaten .z d po(en0alfirahazerdue 'InatallatIon.standardsand msfalled m v .'. Ibiihe combustible figchapical/plumbing vlf0 tnaledaf permit - perii�,(.L. m L''g(ling helghts.varyand 2007CMCSectlon. lio,00f nleetllle::76" 1298.8 Cnaling;helght t ; liefaht r6qulrenlent, 1plriiq�u rT calling _ feiglll',doe;� - noroeef: -. infix 00281 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 14 Location Code Compliance CodoSections Photos Issue applicable Improper and 2007 CFC Section 605.5 - "': r �csir:�_ y•- - subslandard electrical Extension Cords wiring without permit - Power strip next to kitchen sink where T _range might have been Previously i f Plumbing added Mthout TCC 0100 Adoplion of 102104 2007 California Building Cade A1061- Pefmils TCG gwred) 0223152 No cooking. Hitchen m rear unit- hoi ermined. Kitchen is not permitted. (perzort)ng) facilitiesperthllted in — (i.o plumbing, guest Gbit •v- ,electrical, etc:)" "Uff4eclrred and exposed" 2007 CIVIC Section ,do's Ilfie oit'thg interior `I3i 1 2 6 IFiang'ers, a. which poses:a potential Supports and.Anchors flas luak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Quileis :I i^illhlnilhe fbarunit. , uncecutgdjgwe Iinefnsfd�u�il,E, r,. F l i IftsulalLan 1s nonfaled `yy�lhand opng___ and IryrrfmhLsllh)e �praleclion '2015.7. • (9ppea s 10 bqs raw �T4WAO2 Fife bale) F�gs�slance Rating Adm% 5c- Rt:qulrementet`or 0 W I .a.. ons : ;;Sparagorr blfance and.;. `� Table l04 8 M@nrttunt ` b Area of�xleripbWall [� a opann igs c; a.lop III 00282 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 15 Building:Code Appeal The appellant is requesting reconsideration of the Notice and Order for the determination of a PXblld nuisance filed for the property at 520. Pack Street, The appellant has indicated, rn, part In his letter-of:appeal (Attachment B) that the ;Building Gode. seeflon which requires permits wbuid Not apply tol isproperty'beci use he purch`ased:the home over (p years ago. and the struclures already existed. However the -current property. -owner is ultimately the responsible person for rpairitajning the property. "Responsible Person"i as defined by the Tustin City: Gotle Is Atha owrie� of properlq. upon which a Vinlabon, of the Tusfin Gity Code .occurs. or continues to oceur. `rhlsI rm also:inG pFcpludes any .owner, occupant. orother Person or er fity (n-colitrol'of tjie e 'who 1_crs;ealUl causigj, or:maintarnin an condition in violatlor9 of fhe.TUstin ,rty: GTify Cb`de",. .. kiil*o Code Rp.R•eai __.. to ,rte curretjt cgndition' - -- -- 31sg; )<hogli7gy or hot,. wha Ilse Vin.'; nu#7leratts The appelloh'HS _also regypstlgg caiisideratiori, of lhe, ornhg Gi1de requuetneni ft r;a' Oondl$oiiai llse Permit 'arid lot 1(na. [setback],.. lits tetter Indic tes, 1p pati;, chat'( e, propef " xov not fj: vin(att ly of #hese: codes l eeause We" s#ruotitreS e)#isfe l prloi' to; Condlbtatial Use Permits and the f('rst zoning ofTustin. (§ee Attachment B); 00283 Appeal 520 Pacific Strcel Cctober26, 2010 Page 16 The Notice and Order indicated violation of Tustin City Code sections that require a CUP to establish accessory buildings used as guest rooms (provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained)(TCC 9223(b)(2) and that a minimum 5 foot side yard setback be p`rovlded for accessory buildings used as guest houses (TCC 9223(b)(2)(d)). Although the two story garage structure was _probably original to the site, the use of the second story apartment above the garage was not permitted. in the R-1 Single Family Districl, guest houses or guest units were: historically intended for "temporary guests" and: the use has been permitted accessory -to the main house. Kitchen facilities were not permitted in :guest units nor are they permitted to be rented out for compensation. Further second units require additional garage: parking and a minihturn lot size, of which this property does not meet., Appeal f=indings Pursuant to: Tustin City Code Section'9294, the Planning Cbtntnission should consider the ejiidence supporting the Enforcement.Officeft determination (.as shown in Table 1) ihat a. public. nuisance exists. at the subject property due to the dangerous conditions present. As the: hearing body, the Commissliion;.Mould determine whether or not the two accessory buildings that are currentlybeing utilized as rehtable:. residential units (with kitchen=facilRies.) should,;. 11 brought into conformance, with T05tin_ City Code: requirements. as.indieated in. .the Notics.and Order-; yr a. .I.eten ine.whether1he.code sections Wereaccuratelyapplied to the property,- or Q Mgdify the Notice and;O`rder.. 'ludepehOwit: Evaluation In c..oufsidi Indlylduafs to. as comn'ilssioned a llLoomis from have began ongrt, c4N,crtasloty peals, the Board; .of Appeals has ,the right ao employ qualified st I(1 its nyesGgat[ons and rll makjng f-lndi s -antl decisions �tefF ird party sun/eY and. evaluation provided by Licensed Architect J6bh iitleth 5lreet Qrc fleets, fro Tj1e firm speclaUzes j- itlsto *o ah older able to p'roWtde ;:pro fessioflal: judgmen%-as to w:liich W.0-6 , trtay and whloJ':lrad l�'eti adcjed.attd%rrpodifjed ojrej #tyre, lded a report VW ;gotictWN that "the: i.ff.wit house ,and 'Iw4 story: both hlstoricalty sfgnlftcant Its Js apparent that fare was ;only one, halm housed in 7g2giYJhett.t}jQ City pf Tustin was ihcorpora#ecC There:=. vldehce tfigt the seeohd and tlilyd llvir g;Worts wgre_�clded, rrtuclr lifer;. fachmenfkj. Stgff recpmrnepG§ that the Planning Comrriisskrl and 11h Board OFAppeals (leny.'the' aopeai:atfirin the Notice. and Order; and direct -the prope'Irty owrier(s) tol&omp!.y with the Appeal 620 Pacific Street October 20, 2010 Page 17 requirements .of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, yr th the exception of the date of cdMpliance which is herebyestablished as November.3.0; 2010: Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner —i Y enry Huang, P.tr/, C.B.O. wilding Official FJlzapethA 8insack CofhfnurUty,' Development D reekpr Attaphments; A. Notice -and Order B: Letter:of Appeal Received Sept 23, 201.0 C. Site Plan dated 8/30/10` D. Photos taxon dwing Sept.10, 20.10 assessment E. City of Tustin Historical SvNey'for 626 Pacific Strect F. July 27;'2010, letterfrom'W Bret Fairbanks G. August Aust 4;,2010, zoning confirmation letter from City staff H. Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects; Inc. I, PC Rdsolutioh 1\10-4,161 J: Pc ftsofuiton No_,g1QZI -.. S1C�JVIny)Cod'+EnPofce epg520 Rd �Qc)PGAge�ida Appealhleet[ng;50P�iifictlgq 00285 ATTACHMENT A Notic.e.jand.Order 00286 Con-Limmity Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 626 Pa-rWic Mreet tusljn-04 92160-4829 NOTICE AND ORDr=R/PRE-CITATIONN0T10E bECC'WRAT1014 GF.PL113LiC NUISAUGE Fromrfy MOOS$; 520. 0. $treet 8.t*eSsPr Parcel Number: 401371 7 .qsd Number: V10-03112 Oear Mr; Faftank.si T,harik-you f6r.-meeffrig Mth GifyAaffla.l$10,Padtid Street on SeptdibW IngpeO166, tyro' c1btW16d zlrmtubeigWefp obseNed W11hirl the tear yard, hdiidb akdve 14P darame -and a sdde6d dues( house behfhd We oar [4dups WpTq BUILE)INC. OUIL HAVILE H-ONOKING OUA PAST 10i 2010. During 11i6, in addition .[a a guest tet 511 of Which are, d0nditiohd use, perrmj but are rty, Which )ujsahcq!' tf being. were; hqt hbr nqcei��) guest %0= �OA.i:cntchnlnl Way: TtmiJx?XA-e h�(74) 571 t7j.4) ul Nv 017. or Non. and Cle. m 620 Ptd m Slow Seplembol 10, 2010 Case S V10.0012 Page 0 OR . 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence whit the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and Improvements on the property; which include, but :are not limited to the two guest Houses, 'the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard, NOTE: For information on obtaining pennits, please contact the Building Division at,(714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division a( (7.14) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of perinjt Issuahee pursuant l0 2007'California Building Code.A105.5. This letter constitutes Your Notice and Order to abate all public hulsance cpridtlons vihd violations ;at 52o Paclflc Street,. Yod (or) any person having any record title. or legal interest in :the property may request consideration of this Nolice and Order or any action of the enforcement•withirn ten calendar days f[orn the date of service of this Tlollce and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing; Failure to comply with this notice'Within the time limit specified alioVe .may `result ,In (I) the issuance of an admlmstrati6a clfatioh pursuant to Tutstin City Cade 116' (a) (referefioa ExhibitA attached hereto for further infermatlon); and/or (2)annecessary worts being coS.mRI * by City ,personnel .or private contractor, With- all abatement costs being billed. against; you and/ assessed. against the property and%or;(3) the tetanal of this manor lo::oUr City Attorney ° for hurt her leg;af action. Please note that the :disposal'of any: material involved In public nuisances shall he_carried forth in a Legal malihei Addillonaily, this :rotlea and,order.WIII be recorded agalnst the property In the -Otfici "of the County Recorder if yod,need futthe'r etatificafion or asslstanoe.wilh:thls matter., WOa,b coptact'me directly at Sincerel ; BY.�eeli AttaGhttfente; EKhI6ttA;—.AdmlNstfaiive�jt2ggii.irlfot7natiorS Exhl AB—GodeVlolatlorisi ce: Amy Thomas,Sanlor..PiannerlGodeFrlfaroement9iiperytsor Community Development Department EXHIBITA AdOninUtt-aflVe-Citadon Process In adPdrdanw , WIh.TuEdIn.Cb Me ( or ), flnes re vIolatton; flmt VION hin one y is may b ii - ffiay W66 take Mithar lac and/orabating the violeei 09060 the TO milbld - OP -0, . e Ruruwx OUR FuTim A6NbFUNQ,MR PAft means of an id violation of n third of any jqm Building Mlor a first 5 -ten (10) daye from the k0noltyj ibarouponalble' ponattlea prior to the, 14 1) Owed tits q :cLQft*jiQh4rigflPeW,and contacuthe'dRytoreque!qa-ra.. Jn6kdon, or :2) 130,gn (110 .SY '0 P _9 pt.M -6t0kidn 6f'!IM6 I Wrillha. pUrauant 10 an hi "I t IF (1t)) daXdCtn Ifre dale .9 'MI"IMMWOcitation P, UM0001 to T-Cd1.189 VyjIbir.f.1p6 jr yif NW. &OIM& i# rormi.-and ,-.other Wbrination,uh Admilh1drailvatc1tatIoner Mey ba obt [nod 00289 N.l¢ Oft i 520P' Ml.l d0db, V101aflont at 526 -Padific Street 200760.1briliI4 800ding 'Code A105.1 (Adopt6s:l Per Tustin City Code 810.0). - Remnits Required. Any owner oreudiodzed agrniwJlo Intends to.conslTuct, enlarge; alter, repair, move, demolish, of change the Dccupancyof:a bulldIng or structure, or to erect, Install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or (aplaceiBirry, electrical, gas; maq4talp,91 or plumbing sygem, the Installation ol"Which is regulated by this code, ortac .,@usO any such work to be done, shqll first make. application to the building official and obtain the rerigife.cl permit: Tustin City dodo 9223(b.)(2)rSint-da Famity ReaIdiaptial District (R-1) Cori ruilori.i* Oarmlited Usrsa And Development' Standards - Accessory buildings used, as guest l`OO.Ms;-ProVjOed :go cooking *111tY is Installed. or.Itrjoinialri.ed are, subject to 6 conditional use OernjiL Tustin City Code 92231b)(2)(d) - Single FaMI19 9681diintlal, District (R-1) Minimum side yarcl ze bac]Viror accessory ceseory bu qp used as guest houses- Corner lot llnL.' 10 W64 Interior 101 llhei 6 la6f, NOTEF Pie se 1J6 a6lisd.h I at the e may 00290 .Letter of Appeal: RetOlvod $-ept. 23, 2010 September 22, 2010 RECEIVED Brad Steepi Code Enforcement offioer SPP 2 3 2010 ConptunityDevelopment Department City of Tustin CoMMVNttY ) VEt OPMENT DEPT Letter of Anneal for: Notice and Order/ Pre -Citation Notice, Declaration of Public Nuisance Address: 52o Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780 Asumsorpa reel number: 401-371.-07 Case.Nuntber: YID -0312 [lcgr Mr., Stern, 111ts letler is W appeal ;md request consideration on the recent notice I rb 6*1 od :iegardir lUbp nmtted;unttc. The code violation reads any. owner or authorized 'agent WUo intends to:constrttcL. enlarge alter; repaiF.move' dealolish, or cllaage.the oc¢upgncy q%'i l uilii)t Or.sttvctW Pj'Of to erec}', jog!,A enlarge>nlfcr, repair, remove,: i,mrvert orreplace,dtiy electncal, gas+ m4646cal or plumbur6 system, the installation of Wlve3i'js regU)iited. by WS code, to puse any -such Nvorle to be dour;, shall fist innkeapplibationifl thin buildtno official andolits n the ragtijied permit. 'I havennLttenbonsnf zhudd'ing., rectirm4 c.tfu'g any Qot{io,'p. pf the said_stntclvzes. 1,ptucli vcuj the bt2mc b'ver. l t. yoars. al; 3i d tltastriiG[ui tlFeudy existedwhen l punch sed the pYo�ieity I ltctvji. idea ;Aaouk l05bQw lbat thestruefure5 b11Ve eXisted for over :50 years -1'tiuderstand flit, oily has no,perrmts oflhasatiuctures un uiy.property but:thgt;is trvefux most.hDttfeS b'ltiltn3 ol:d toWu pop to 1Q50.. Must ifngl all ofthc homes Would.l e.uiwnlagoli aqd cgAsidar 4 Publje,qui5:'urc:, With regards to the otUeF.y olatioris'tCg.a&g cpiiditional use perrptts aipi 10lo-P X aii wt,y,uw,yuy,,c y1sg9115an¢,1ne3trsL�'Lo¢lt)g:gl¢InanCL Ot__1'llStilL '. ::. Tn.resXtgnse tl g:letter, tt is ivy orient"tpupply fora conditional use perido' ld progress ?cedrdingly:hdj'PyydT l tlo ttbf.feei 1'IiaQe violated rny.c6Je'attd 5ltY rids tplflny }Va .a pu6Lequtjtsance; y Sinoctdj;t l�Fet,Fairbapks; 00292 ATTACHMENT C Site Plan dated 8/30110 00293 Hill it j��CJG - � ys _�� G20. I. L CTACIPIC.^S7'RL'�T � Td1STIN, XLTFORNIA 92ioo i _ atl fiy a g '• --_ ��.. _. _ 9 ..tea • 1?t��I�`It �'TIt�ET G20. CTACIPIC.^S7'RL'�T � Td1STIN, XLTFORNIA 92ioo i ATTACHMENT D Ph6tas taken during ,Sept 10,.'2010 inspection 00295 �_ i- 4 ., :.5;��r ','' J .,a :;`'.I �';. ,t ....._..,., s,` a !3 1 ATTACHMENT E City sof Tustin. Historical Survey for 520 Pacific Street A DJ) It +SS: VID pnclnC ST DA9'Rt rove i+TR.rt�t O)LI UliMU HUNGAlbap SOURCID: RATING. '1' C ALmAT10NS• p 3314TORIC". DM21CTe COMMNT '17ie�:UfoiIasldisd 7iotrs4 .ti 520 is toppul wild it tr 14+:cd beloly lie'peal:; SIW�4Pp siding. in A. Rtyi t6601lid. MiMV Clupboad Add covmz' Wc,rnet Aml'k fE "11icAwpm4la.poicb'c#fr !as. to. mcit aii7q,: I+y (nrge p4ite;i4ss; }tdntlptyc, ;A'wble Bung WiHd6ti / skit 18.13ea bd'* Wln&Wa ,A y"upott afid d: tlyu.: { gun, 1 PL1cG a3Peua Ss bar urlgi A topped ynL [kurhb tb y5[bdYL�µpf W0' KdR90:4a44�{{'U! �6G. Sl1 ig jubict x [ and rtntcliing cenY:_tcd pos J. fhe 9da and 50'a, cote ri: the: g,blc:i,i iirwr. ''Squuc'PON tsi testing op r4lid i wiW pergolns:. The Trout d"aordoiauihPu: ied ticaogYtout Aiie lraf OC.j1ia:IIUY{G At iytfibad dad ghthge ase Iccvlcd ou the sou! ed .loaf watts a:.ltip at dicLPL . The sidin id-4d.d iviW 'a,hip:'ui thin pmk:4f W4.Iru roof u tiff[ _I Rty.suppvit', 1764 Oaljttma} 9iingnlow Nns (ntIli 621 ed0 QF'Wt:147! ilang 3ot.W pmay'e.$hcd ivhtioh wet4 saKYand,57j, �jigRx yE+ ifc lyse !IlArtc���Wtjta�rdnod Edna Mntt'7et Ytnal gloWeri, wr--ho aitvnul vi otcliard on titin psupedy fmrq �� �t}� 'tlr rassell, f01A"ara�'yfr 24 eta dedlw'jkB fy s�{p dbt4ft'tK4 cenipr rmm Maiq lo sutn+'Siscci� tahyterxiagg{vp of kR�i�S�t, llt t�,tY� t�s �(•�n (Spggo Goyl4gj „'Cnts OaylySds fcraived h toln}gen6n nonce 6u tL.0 Ltrn+e tLnt anrm 5� ,Gcntge sv�i A l"+SIJi4it atw on iiisirocmr ncthufiasnnjsatnri?ec School 74iscvkral Xaasi Aftgrp xclitcd an We: 19SP;1.144P€nt4'.,Tllc t7Ay18rd5 at>n still ltvingin the hnGlti'1n 19G5 77w;'pangWR>v l�Ca, iy41l:r5dt¢,Ih4. slsc[iceyfo: of jl?o,: Ttuhn �m�e Dula3Ft-tu'd whnn�4w Iti-Wd trt,odini�slrect.ls=wase, tt 7n of vn §p'laop[�ald'sii}4,,4aLL;bale; 00306 July 21, 2010 City Gmsdu. Community DaVdIopment lkpartment Justine Wilkeip, hincipal.PJaPner 'Deaf *, waom, My name is Bret Fairbanks and I am the owner ,ofthe ppperty loci at52P0,ific S.lreet; Il�stin CA 92780: We are currently s6ffifig our home and firie`ih escrow, Our property lras:u single family residence infictwith2guestlOn in:,t6 acL A.6cutdin,940,tho Attached county records VeIav62 addresses 520 and 52 and m,.-fojr se c I-, _._O Y7 we have , , separate electric meters, and �4ve Varmus city Permitr for improvements veh.. .v.A dol;C QAtI , Qma a64,4#W*440 it in 2000. Th6 bijycrs 6&r-js requiring a j��atin in the event Ota fire; e cr w city 9 earthquake, or digaster, the city would phoW i4q,guest hpuses to be rebuilt Attached are; doco,mefitg firim the county tax fi&kessor6.6ffic6.shov;dng the guest rouses have been berd long before we p4mbased the property, there is artythi 0 t 0 :es0ow, If t Pg:fi6.o_Wd.domhclV�q&6dnp this pjeaso�et:W.Jmow:, Bret Paitbanla C.P. (949);_933-4$s6 :sign Type Codes 101 - Single Family Residence 02 - Mulli Family -99 - Misc. Improvements _ )es led By yy,� Address .J 1J F,4eS Phone ( I Signalure PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION FORM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL gOATYROpR,Q M.6. 00309 00310 CMISCELLANEOUS STRUCT Stra� ....SPNe ITr,IF«. Olaiveilpvr Ars.. ( ce.�. 4 �• 7-rai — �A :". ...� .o�` - �'Tjit Lot ��!i✓x .. I' Y u. Ce.amaa lyaq ti4, &� D .� � ^ .I• � •^�'ryyrl�T3 � 5"a� iia � ^ si^JG $�e,� SCiva�iJpP IMrss1a0 _. i,1 ma SIR r y s» if. Ki �� ,fit . �°`T�,' 'off-�%7,.i°��" r TNn Llilo/urf'�gq TIN;UNM , `r• �'^ ,1: L�� a _.i.^J., ��kFi�t RW ,tL•ce'Fii�+�. ' r r i( I y . .., - $ �:. .+-' i ri •� -* � i A�' .�Fsl�i n fo�1i 1{P�iloxa a '`" ,1�. ;— +•, u°1 vim,+ MHNIa'let, fM 4 i. 1 _pctYa;�n"' ? Gael '�., 4i��.. -CWIT�..: i �A :". ...� .o�` - �'Tjit vmlrnc. � .. f�� ^� ��!i✓x .. I' Y ti4, L ,ydl y � ^ .I• � •^�'ryyrl�T3 � 5"a� iia � ^ si^JG _ tl l •f •.:., Ki �� ,fit . �°`T�,' 'off-�%7,.i°��" r , `r• �'^ ,1: L�� _.i.^J., ��kFi�t RW ,tL•ce'Fii�+�. ' r r i( I y . .., F'r IYoh'� if*��' p ^: l L � Onr: LOUNTY ASSESSOR MULTIPLE UJ_NTIAL UNIT .APPRAISAL BECC 80 AooPEFF TnAc1 AJ. 111. 1101-371-07 _OIHfN{.CT . =a_. lUi ,ALE l`e' OWNER P"WECI rel TPYII_ 11_ WIO VALII,E COMPUTATIONS LA110'017 UMT AM. IEREE] GAIL 1 •1}N LYYI 1 IrNll.4}1'I ..,.vr 11 MVnH AYTr •,.. 1 ' • IIAnr ��' n01YIT 1. i .. •JfiL) •. .1. ,����u� ".10. n. oAT[ /770a ALTrtf ---T' � 1 , 3,Eyfd..:._ :.JklFlmUiinu+r mr-no-_ . Aur 1 i SUMMANY - .. _ Y InMou n L -,•Yo IM I I GILLFYC O �. H(1 agmueilT iun._. H �`Fr . 7M. 1 MrMMEP L' !I [Lnll/J1 •T,w0 YprilHbAy }Lyl 1_ � - r '-' - Y—>•—y' L AlW CxG fpl' - 101 YIM ' • . ^ Lr- f 1-'1 LAM YAWL i�.;a 1 alf. eT A.M. ArtirvC �T❑'on 1wwiAnox rm ufw tOd'Gd }t 7LY witi 7 —• Ii Im4PllL - 1-+r 0 VC, L G A 1LTTIMOKAlp1 1 1` I '.L.•. QQ I! LW 0 IMry.To ulrn IiUiY; wwiATa ' R �Lm noun, �- .- LNlcttto'iLLu' AnMI'.' ( G Gr,Q00 I( N}rtn 11YI/I LnY[0. -'Iv 4m'tl,•nortPCl,v}iva _ _ .. _ . 8 bo WWI eajM.gly; if _.- �. 11 FDIC) .�N�i?MAI••P OIUT':YAWL.. .. G 6 A;MIAIYYC[a IL7G .•. .. _ Y!! xp A /NNLPALfo.Ant _ M; _110rJ 1 i r .•.. 'OY t!i141vE TIMCTIA�, )[0 C- un C ]7 Z ia�Ex c/S�YC 9X.J l7fP 17A: 3 P1"AIMiI 5 y— IC %.—�• `� .. �. 'V;rc. Annl!M IC 2Dingy 90_ C•VAwwAr r F r _ - �! Ua[Wk �' �'�; 0322 .4.(L •.Fpvf?a orytY /iF,cscAT� n [Pei '-- .•3".riaa 2r- rJ�i cdiF�rr'L:Y374. Tn SXA7 yi!?. _. -� wwc i+'N LQ2". !•.?.'f._v+TFd BP�s..v�i7'�9?•�7'1+.'. S' ?i •• ...-To SFA2 O G.f S ,. k�S-j -MO RQLpzII1rPp.wpra 36A�rT�,��d' iw FORHERLY9 D. �t .. 41 OG2-OBO QB _ - - Nma NIon1(nlw AITRIgULt11 -•—' -' ek CIA G4'7I1•j'J�' •1 1 '.•�'•.- •.Y L, .ie!"rlitcAnvltSs, 1 s !' t' rS L 111bb,...9k:1RkIG4[ - ,.• I ; •. Giayy ItARR'ET HNL 4N 1N TkP,'l - - !ly „. lFr�-- � APpNAI I' .- 03. ERs swraRN . _ - „ LL,_,� ,/�6• °y -d �. o alit '1%IYp WI'AC. )07A �.InR Li[u, An.. rtn aLYA 1V IfIu1vF Y' -t n � - �miumv _uha4Ar In, ...^.- UM1LCC � aA 1 z PLR60UAt3ROp6i7��'gLUE IROIC.1TaR: '�" li � bI�MrS wm^ rtlr�•Mvl '0A 'm�fi,u°°'` -lura nys:Mm ' .lilait �' t- f _. - � _ .__ '• EW 1xAD'6'A7v,T-?M •f 00314 IISE iTPE �J[rU1pN FlllOu rjH19N nRAllP. wJRI .tp[n1MPT, .--'nTuT _'•. c[u, CGW �&� JNII NOpH -p[TAl � � - COu"WMi , 1 LtF rti I { 1i tW L t -I { ! A q •� M1IN bCrtL. ♦ V➢Tp • - I �IN Ir�eYLn•YL 4Y ' 14 _ p1pF WIM➢M I ! T i rr 4 L NIP' -- 'I'Lir r .➢C• v;. ri C QEWRIPTIOI{. enol CGST pETAIL. ri�cLN➢r ..IF 4 ib 1 tw tl+i¢ I�Ir CRb! b !.T.: I ys rrl eu I Yr i :➢SL ezlnriF+l fln •"�_ n L f. l eSNt n Miml)a rrn T.L. 1 •.—r—.__ crApN-aNI,WLc X,n TL +L rv,ILlran4 L,u B-tr, C Cq,M1ry r h{ i� p➢n AM tw j 7} , Li nVnn4NrgVr L. -t,-1 I ac( BASIC CO57 DATE B r nK-•Jn I ..W3 CFLLAiKOUS:SiRi1CfU888 N cTlm.i'm c➢iY ST, L L�1. I t nuL, -I ➢C"ITid! nY[ M w, aLxn 'tk{•.."WI. bi Y L'aLr ^nLV'ehvL ' NrICN' CM,A M6�� rtyL u'n.. • „��.� _ u pQIBN rsFE: u it. Pig%L,6gglg, - .. - I al Nn.Ls Px➢➢ _ . . s, -Hc QFAL .1 .n � 1.-. - .... _ .. • .. `. 61 14FM (10. ACRKrYalllrl • .. L w aL:SYIq 7 Tell, - ,gip rG ❑u.1 e0. rli rob _ � L I I Ci Lp`q wfl ' . 112 ON. PA} ,.._ 41 COUPMATIONS�4NII i t1e�:n bUt+ IleY - LT nP :rn ?Iqn ,�. a • ,' '1 ,In inn rmi. , ¢iZ6 . r 1 iw-FnYA _'-j i �t ➢P LM IYrF ) _ t.yl'� C,YGI. _ , � .l ii f � L-t4�F I....v�1 47 lr¢n w iutw � •`"` ➢i NJn LY AC3Cn: nt� 'T, nN nn is ^,•:a �. .. _._. ! L- .__J . n- �(1 r l Fw JdHs.-. _.•— : -..^ 1 ^YL Il. yp; v. i. _ -1- >41 �-Sd. 00315 00316 AT T ACHMI;NT G "P August 4, 2010, Zbhiln'g- confirMia tjobn I.eft . erjroM..Qj City. staff . o Community Development Department August 4, 2010 Brett' Fairbanks 520 Pacific5treet Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT. ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mr. Fairbanks: I USTIN BUILDING OUR Furum HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for your le�eri. received July 27, 2010, requesting. zoning confirmation for the property located at 520 Pacific Street.. In, your letter, you Indicated that the property has a single family residence In the front with tyb guest homes in the hack. You have also included copies of. tax' assessor information related to your property for the Citys review. In the event of a fire,. earfhguake, or disaster, you inquired if the City would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. Thesuti)ect property is zoned as Sifigle FamilyResidential (R i) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) Disthct Acceasory buildings used as guestrooms are allowed as; conditionally permitted uses within the'R-1 zoning district, provided that no cooking facilities, are installed or naihtained. A ,guesC house is defined in the Tustin City Code as detached living, quaitemof a permanent type bf eonaliucffon.and.without'kitchens of cooking facilities and where. no compensation in any form fs received of;paid. No permits exist'for guest houses at fhersubJect property end_no condltlonal'use permit Is on flI&W estahlfsti guest houses at the; subject property. In °your letter you iihdicafed that there ace fwo addrssse's aLthe subje'et property„520 :and 52o ,(2. Pacific Street Ths:City has not assigned a Yz address to the sueject property: ” ShoUlfl ou W fah to. eaialallsh gilp5t houses aC file $llt7jeGt prQpelly, approval of 'condr0oh. use parmgs'and obtaining rtecassarybullding permits, world 6e ia4gOkad. Should you have any questfoiisi please00W hesltat_9 io Gaii fife At y'- i73 3128., Slnc,, re y;, Y t0jitek �Assosfete fP,l'ann er Attacfitriepts ASltgieFatnjlyR9slderltlhl(Ritstaniards B C�allurplilesouceeQ blsirlct�GR) standaists �C..Ou+#si Nouse IJoiVlltidn 7Q-Cenccri.�ta1 Waq,Tii53u,,�s37�k �?i,.{;ztzt)sF3-�Do * t=ri�t+t)s�a=3i,t'a. q• �v�vw.tusrincaor� 00318 I CC: Elizabeth A. Binsack Dana L Ogdon Justina Willkom 8ACftRyan\Zoning Cgnfirm8llohl520 Pacific St.cloo L Y. '�• t s � k f ' \ s t t 2 \ A f t b • .. t > >kp' \ z N,("i°i P fi^r iiiy it ' i t ti x �,\,\� \ r 1h 1 k 9 "�� Vtl T ) � N t1 ATTACHMENT H Report prepared.by Thirfioth Stre.et.Architects,l Inc. 00320 Inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elinbedi Binsflck; Community Development Director OLY of Tustin -100 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 !Zq: 520 Pacific Street., Ttfgdn Deaf EllGilbeth: Pur"Suant to our kitcr agreement tiyc fiay.c chnduct8a a cursory review of tbp- 13.hoOggrilphs of strbcdm�-Jr--VjdW i ysftd bf'tIjeej iqiljgsjruct lre� pt S�O - street; Tllefbllo�y- "Logi A �Radfic s,a su.=aL unctin . y orourt � 94' 'We yyill refer to LIJ6;stre4th(Tihk- sideSOle of the edbpldx.�, "fi�6fit!"1 (he fwo sid6§ ;pp and rigli , el I . msed oft a Othrwotures jeb g at the ue.&Olja 1. Sl . - Ofq 4tre -hul)(16hul tbe, carriq&e. bam-as the �'mi4dle'�%,jiid "kepic pt Ml s-tructures., iiO ad It.*$§ IMIldin 5eajuetaee A a � . wwprS �tlidc dle)AAAV-OaV -94 4110, (wVtftrYi W. 1 foo -ca kit .-I I � �6MP 0 f 4 . Vt Oft aild, �Mjlqqw- �Iqq :40% V4� -Ur, I '1-- . WA )OPe V,, ... , . Asto-de-41 LaidUtdi -61if tbEi6AS �bvido6b6, that, the, off - &il- ftbb gable of Ole residence; may 1IM-'00fl-4Y NO iVP.O.M ed hip. roof 'pf tj rtidp-kig.hl tAb"614 'it: , 2popml, tfiat Hle-.0ri-gWI dqv , elbpmpptj gqbqpjY.; b one linin Am AAW 00321 thirtieth James wilsoll, nwI311"I street architects Inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elinbedi Binsflck; Community Development Director OLY of Tustin -100 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 !Zq: 520 Pacific Street., Ttfgdn Deaf EllGilbeth: Pur"Suant to our kitcr agreement tiyc fiay.c chnduct8a a cursory review of tbp- 13.hoOggrilphs of strbcdm�-Jr--VjdW i ysftd bf'tIjeej iqiljgsjruct lre� pt S�O - street; Tllefbllo�y- "Logi A �Radfic s,a su.=aL unctin . y orourt � 94' 'We yyill refer to LIJ6;stre4th(Tihk- sideSOle of the edbpldx.�, "fi�6fit!"1 (he fwo sid6§ ;pp and rigli , el I . msed oft a Othrwotures jeb g at the ue.&Olja 1. Sl . - Ofq 4tre -hul)(16hul tbe, carriq&e. bam-as the �'mi4dle'�%,jiid "kepic pt Ml s-tructures., iiO ad It.*$§ IMIldin 5eajuetaee A a � . wwprS �tlidc dle)AAAV-OaV -94 4110, (wVtftrYi W. 1 foo -ca kit .-I I � �6MP 0 f 4 . Vt Oft aild, �Mjlqqw- �Iqq :40% V4� -Ur, I '1-- . WA )OPe V,, ... , . Asto-de-41 LaidUtdi -61if tbEi6AS �bvido6b6, that, the, off - &il- ftbb gable of Ole residence; may 1IM-'00fl-4Y NO iVP.O.M ed hip. roof 'pf tj rtidp-kig.hl tAb"614 'it: , 2popml, tfiat Hle-.0ri-gWI dqv , elbpmpptj gqbqpjY.; b one linin Am AAW 00321 At some point Luer in time, it appeats that the tipper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at (his time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both die enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened t:ascip detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alteration$ is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1990's or early 1950'x. Later, another rear addition wits coas'Micted that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (becouse of the Very' low ceiling height). The budding.has vertical board and batt siding: hhd different dcutiling than the original structures and it vintnge TM Cobb fxOntdoor. Thisvvas proba hly converted, into it third living unit some time in the early kg§Q,s, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure iii ternis of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to die middle addition. were made: later, including n -rooftop shied structure w. ith a skyhghtthat is np�nteotly over i shower. There is GYMca6c of fairly ineeut eleetryeal work based on,tbe. yelltiw.Romex [tial' is visible In many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The oiigintil development of the site -in 1928, included the con strRcti:ou Otto single_ fa,iiily residence with one living ,unif acid a two -Story carriage bum that teas apparently used as ;a garageP. and dgiii ultill-i iyr�ge; At some; tiiiie, after WWII, dii 0469e. bail was cori.Vet•ted:mto. it second Hying u44 --w4 gle addition ot'the [iohkl tidr, cvrpgtlturd tniddle idaitiblt at they rehr Qopthe2rea;iuldlGoh;yyn'saidiled jSeltind t�b�mltllllq udditian duFigtg,flie„Iye,195,0'S or early 19G0'a Tlais very subs auciiud struetUir xvas probably, otiglit ty used:.as::.t, STtittge slied;ot ki 9s pltiyhnnse. Ittiga5 late codvektecl iitt'4 :i lhtzd;lGung ahlt: IHisl6rWsig iGeaA 'The otigt g building ha: beta} rioted m the, Tustin 1fi torip SvrvC_y es di Y iltieiX of'Gilifotnie. Bnngtdow ,Buildings tli tt ooiittihiites. to Tiis3rL", AI sulisrintitil,.ly rhodi"i`ieti yi.hea, the :soeond ltv'iiig tuuf :wis, atlda:d, iltio .rpid�, story carriage bath situeture appetivs to:tettu e iinough;o£'itithiginal archii integrity Abtailiiig :(liorizotitli Edwvc t10 sidifg, oivedter cuts tlY'w....... 2321ncwpgitiviuti'.van.9.-,nMwp9rt�b'cit_cl;cap26./i.3�y9/673,�..6,.43' 00322 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations Unit are inconsistent with the architecture of the original stntcture and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues 'There appear to be a number of serious Building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction .of the enclosed .stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property linea This addition is illegal and constitutes as. hazard, in our opinion, by blocking iccess in the side yards for Fire 13ghdug; :as srequired by the CBC. This stuir addition ,should ,be. removed and a new swirtivay/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very nonconforming to Building Codes uno it does not appear to be economlpally viable to Bring dmis structure up to cunS»t codes, rn ill�ec: Study", 1 kirlber reseiWCb using .Sanborn ttnd Building Sur.Vey Maps could confirm the. poystntcdog segdencz and provide ptbof of donstructioti dates. Otiere alyo::coold; be ititorin,&q relating to [he use. of these structures, ar the time of mapping; The. Wst of retaining :ui Atcbitectubd HhInAln to research :this. prbpeYty ''w:ould probpbly be atiout$1,00.0, Conclusion We T=1 INA the front' House and two story.=rrhige'batn are linin hisiorieally. sgnt8tnne. �tiGihti thece:wetsgnly oneliYmg;iuirton sile7n 1929-whcndiG-G4Cy of--------- ---- -- ineorpor iT d.. �kel0 i 1 stmliY p> j!sfeaS ..vjddiied thaE.,t1?e seEon.,tl trod Itectlinrrt e1i ilatiuris. We ay0-010 ;it.Oxnrndad 4baf aie ,lliepal stiii)ivay be retnoveil. 'and lbfit• 60de. uinlaht5o5 b4earreeled at tltd ptlrfia�e b,,;tm •�&,�;t 1�.11ie continued use.o�',this�. SRace as n,teppnd. iving uniti8 allnwid by tlio_Qty of Tusdn, Wz.:ivould.hope3l af. 1ittGie i{npYo"vept0t3Fp F ofd tPllJOp t(te royp'rslU7 dg Soine of the tnappropuare altetanons to: the a tttiage bate to:Help restore tlir ;italitkcwri'L integrity of this restiulioe_, 281 ue,,iVpba 6auleve5id'=nawport beuoti;��<j26ti3; 9+19J67�2rr.:l3. 00323 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE.PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'SPARCEL NO. APN401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting' that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake; or disaster, B. That, on August h, 20101 City staff provided a written zoning ;;conflrmaiioh letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1). andlocated with7nthe: Cultural Resources O.veday.(CR) Dlstnct and thataccessory brlildings tlsod as guest.roorris are oply allowed as. eonditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed of maintained and that no corppensa}ion in. any form is -received. The letterfiirther informty, o ed the pxp.a tinerYhat,no perrnits or entitlement exist for the quest houses atahe'subaeg'f;'p(ppe.r`ty;; C. Thati on September 10,.2010, CRY -stag conducted an on site assessment of the'praperty, at 520 Pacific Stree ., Y6 assessment revealed that seVeiral unpemvfted modifigations and additions, had been made to the rear dints that Were not'in compliance withTWn CityCode ret)itirerrienis `E. as iilaybe ftAgi zanhg;,+and Alfa (V or 00326 Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 F. That, on September 22,-.2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific 'Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; G. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a Public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, a duly called,.and noticed public hearing at which interested person's: had an opportuhity to testify in support of, or in opposition :to the appeal and, at which the. Planning Commission, acting in its capacity at the Board of Appeals;.considered the appeal of the Notice arld Orderfiled, at'5.20 Pacific Street;, I. That, pursuant to Section 112 Board adopted by the City of Tustin, the he that is relevant to whether the true, ii Califomia.B,ulldir. Lq Code or the rules It incorrectly interpreted; the provision e equally goad or better form of c: Appeals of the Building Code as tg was held o consider evidence it of the City of Tustin's adopted tly adopted th6reuh-oor have 4eeri jb_ .. code do not fully apply; or an J. That, pursomi to Section 112 OHM City of Tustin's adopted California :Building Code; the Planning Commission, •acting es Board of Appeals shall .not have authority tela ive to interpretation of the,administmtivb provisions ofthe'rustinBtflldIng Code ortawaNe rq—qul' ents; of'sueh oode. Further, the hearing shall be de novo and .the Board of Appeals tiiay approve; approve with conditions; or disapprove the matter in' accordance lith the. Tlitiih City Cade or remand the'tnM4 to the Coirirnurnty peue)opmerit Director or ihe,Zomng A'dmlmstratgr for further pro. eeihngs in accord nce With :AireGtioris.4the Board of'App.eals,, ICThat; the Board of Appeals. corlstdere'd evidence- at;tl e subjedfj :r`bj7ef ty n-.,eppg4JIng IAr '0 jitmpcooetcikshIt" rtuefoAN-6 pee- ' 10a- Vons of the follouvipg ding Cede secti0n_5 pde rti Me; denjalish;:' or y to erect ;'mW�qfL E Of. make a- 00327 Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 L. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exists as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and .visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 provided hereto in Exhibit A. M. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code. as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; N. That She extent of repairs ordered by the Enforcement Officer are appropriateforthe property; O. That the time limitations for starting and completing the :repairs are reasonable• P. That the Board of Appeals haS-the right to employ, qualified.individualsto assist to its'. investigations and in snaking findings ani! decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey -and evaluation provided by Licensed ArchrtedtJohn C. Lobmis from Thirfieth:Street Architects;. Ino. The-arcHitect provided a report that concluded thaf "the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site [main house] in 1929 when the* City of %Tustin -was; incorporated.. There is strong physlcal.evidence that the second and third living units, were added;much later, post:INWII' (attached hereto in Exhibit G). 1( The Pla ining,( o 78ection: 11.2 .u� �nWaepype VJ-.G �, t!4JJ�1 Resolution No. 416'1 Page4 Jeff R. Thompson Chaiif PraTem Y, Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE.QF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OFTUSTIN ) I, Y;. Henry Huang, the undersigned.,hefeby certify that 1 art! the HoardiofAppeals Secretary ;f the Board of Appeals of the City'of?ustin, California, tt ist Resolution No. 4161 was duly passed and adopted ata. regularnieefing of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 26th day of.October; 2010. C Y. Hepry Huang;. P.E„'C.B4O. Building Ofticisl -.S:43ddtiWny\Cod0Enfarcamep0520FBcrIcftr akdbnAppeal 526Pb6kjbwa 00329. EXHIBIT A OF REOLUTION NO. 4161 Table 1: Cole Compliande Issues EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4102 Table 1: Code Conipliance Issues -Location Code Compliance Cole Sections Issue applicable Photos Theuse of the properly California Fire Code r' as a triplex (with 3 Section 1023 Change or �, u units) changes the building occupancy use or occupancy;. Califomia Fire Code from R3 (single family Section 10207satio residenliOl). to R1 Building or Sliticlares mulli le-famil It could not be California Fire,Code determined if Section 102 Unsere foclirrgrloundallons Building or.Slmclofas ails[ to provide adequate ,slruclural bracing and cupporl to lite slnmtuies t4; '' ;' i" ' Multiple tesidentlal v s 4 No flee separation walls Building QoitTable halbetweenn units;s; 503; Celifamia Ree Coda units hllllt fitter therefore not in Seclign 110.1 Unsafe orlgipalslructures compliance with one Condnipris W/o perinls,. hour separation . - *regUlrements which poses a polenlial fire . ha2erd to occupants M.9phanlca1, eleclrioal, TCC 9100,Adopilon of •and plumbing (Including 2007 CaliforniwBuiiding MVAC) Installation Code Ai05.1-Permiils ,C. Work done wilhouL. regWrern Baltifodtii In .permits u er Pp Rermils are required to unit W/ no t� •ir iH8 that`lile Wety permits .pidfdcof Is,i611owed:and - :insfalla0on is done •a'cl' ding1p plan. Without such permits aridlnspe,'.. on, rotella9Qr1 may create firer hazard .wateY ' �d.,gt4ga; alc, -- - 7V6f5Ua0l,10thezoning — TCC223a7(b)-- :da the'proiterlydoes co min It bUlldingsitafot _ nothavbeutficteMet: slddhtial is__ _'sec6gdY slzrrloaccoinmadalma 12t009�egUaYe(e$t 5eeofirl�rtd �§acphd orihlyd unit TCC 922ap2`,gccessory' •(Regdires min 12 000 pulldnlgs u Was -,guest t(llsd cesitle.Ofial 4qtf lahhoweyerthls 'rooms prcli rd: ng ho Unit IN Is 10100Q;cq fl� cockigg fricjlfty re GU1101 u* itinp kitphen ipslal(pd ormamiaG a l; ?�cthCras) legdites CUP. _s}Ib�eGtta Candltlotial Thl's number bf unilg° Use Permtl y7flU111'naa. I- b'e' Ippted In anR 2.Or, �dis)rtcl and Would YGquifea.Inuilmutn gisT par Ing slalls.fa support uk 00331 EHHIOITA RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4162 Location7slM, Compliance Cotte Sections Issue applicable Photos ndslory wall Seclicn 1403-oITGGlion and 8100 Adoption of 2007 adjacent to the Cali(omlaBuilding Code linedo riotilli fire enls. Insufficient. The opening (a not selback to tt permitted as shown; .� % PL eslerior wall is not fire yr rated; ptimary (and , only) stairway restnC1S ingress egre'ssIn case Of JIM of Other Fumaoelnsielled TCC:8,100,Adoption of Without required permits 2007 Callfomio eyllding does not meet Code A106:1—Peni#lS cleaiapce.requirements required rn and creates .gpotential L 06iazard. rn Eirpesedelesirical'nezl TCGo1p0Adgpuon-of'� i'tounpanljll(6 furnace 2007CaJif6mla'Bulidih9. 6 o whichga4ses'potenNal ' .Code A'i05;1—Paryrifls Ore haXard. a6grnr9d. c a it, F o F w 0 EIe9lncl?I'deyfce I to heater' ' — K[chen ceiiklr?g `T60 � gz'Ho cooxfp0" facilihes'Itotpdtmlled i`apllHespeYihtlecj In.. ` J'OueseUnlL 'gu¢stur.6 1QWienin Fltim6Vjgaltd;elecldcal TCG810t1Adopponof t ,Uppefunij ]nslallediytlhoil[ 2.00,7 Galljgrtlia Uiidiny:. perrglt§ pehrlisare Gotl Atg5.91 Permlhf . [e ju red a16,6.0W T reyurfed' r[esafelgpt6lolts --------- - '-... follo+ued prid�OsTaJiat(o0j )s fahegcco_rate9.iq: p7.ahilhoutsuoh ��etriljjsatid(ctsp§C)lon::.. i[?9fal(e119R tneycroate:. .. - ,...,, ___ ., .......__,-.. ... ilre.�aiafd;'fgaler. 21 Page, EXNIBITA RESOWTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Locatton Code Complialgce Code Sections photos Issue a licable Shower added on io TCC 8100 Adoption of -' -"r - ^ �. ,,,,.•,ti original structuR. This 2007 California Building - requil boliding Code A905.1 =.Permits permit to addiaddilliaial regulmdr i square footage.lpop- out) and permits for , piumbing,,and waterprodfrng. n re I Showenaddeg w/o' its J E. w Railing has no. TCC 8100 Adoption inlemlediatypo*j$ and 2007 California Building - _ No inner the run and Pse are not Code Aips_.1- pwoila -compiiantWilk IhAdl regulred posts Code requinl tm6n*1.6k TCC 8100 Adoption of - is the unprolecled back . is 2007 California Building which open: This � Code 9012 Handrails- oses a oerida} faille _..� . p. P l 9 handrails re_quliedgo� ;hazard lot smallslairWayys , clnldren, TCCs 8900 Adoption of',.. +"- r 20W Aalifornia l3wldirip i �( - .� .� Code 1013 GuaNs . " guards Ail 1pceled v _ ��ong opel}sjd§:d e walkingsutjeoas � iadudrngslelry¢ays �� located Fiore Itibb:3.0. inche .abbvelhe:grede. Tfiera is noproperiy 2007 CRC Sodtlon iv s I(ne RfeVral se" I pE11'dltOn lielv(0en sls'}rcitsa ajril 9024 3 Ex Re ^� GuIRHnw 00 $ iheproperlyftno .Idcallon . t ,regutres ft LU j The sWinasa is bill TCG,922342.(e) requIl , over 1116 property. line; 5:•jiseivack tu'pmpedy A.guz#U6jtfgquiJE g .`lire, 5ifoohselliadkih.; propoll� Lnejf?L), Thare are seVQYai - _..—.I9S.UBS-a550Cl2IEd;Witt1•.—._—.._—__.—.._-.___._ _.. _ .. . the IOCagD1� Of �ll]IS• sialrpase, musk. ,. ' ,''. ht1?1lidentld e?��°f. '± sofa. rrs 'from: e'. u_= _. {IiQina enlp- 200E RJu'5�1laA--- Iig�gh oOngRropany 11air1ail�a� �� Itie iRlpPf wStPhpiayp lode f1fdR0l to pobding;; � stoTm189VleraY5ltlR1 Zo.4dy:i7 C60 �r l�.ORA ---.--_- _ _ _ _. . Bf;!tis�sploi78iip "e= - -line EHHIBITA RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections: photos ... Issue _.. _ applicable ... - Structural supports da 2007 CBC Section tl not provide sufficient 1604.1, 230}2.Gener61 f i ,supporting rafters Roof Reylgn Requirements.,. InddCtluate: members are Floor joist supported undersized to provide along block fende rather '.< *tictural adequate Support than caritlievered Item supports n me lufd-story struLiure 00334 The carport is allacheii ban§o In cadtipadey to both the main house .copsliWtes a muilltock of, A Carport �..�.� and the 2 -story, garage CBG and Fr0•Eode �"' I and attached rear units, violations: attacited to making this a 16 --plea '.CaUfomia Fire Coda 1 ! _ main house Unit pursuant to hutldlpB 'Section 102,3 Cha -99 of e dot) garage code fire rating. These. deficiencies create ;use or occupancy; California Fre Code r f---_-, Access hazards forfie access and -5e6gon 102Unsafe �•`'-;^-=z-- may pose. .Building or:Stniclures additional Wwds'to .o occupants slncealie� occupancy changes With a Irl-plez (common. terminology); Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 Califomia.Butlding y+ Uhsupportecbetween gara house The poleenial for Code -PamUtst mqufrod fine over carporC damage and fattuire doe ,F. to the exposure of,the. Ilne;ls.incteased and =... ..;;... ._ ...r: - poe.S,a pojential Are hazard, f i n 00334 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION N05. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable No rating separation 2007 CBC Table 602 Uehveegwalls o(garage Fre-Resistance Rating r `' and living units; thus Requirements for Exterior - Romex Wiring Is exposing tenants above Walls Based on Fire unproleeled and exposed and next to the garage. Separation Distanceto Fire hazard originating In the garage: `ort u NeW Junction box without'- � perinils � g IU - '-:c �a030 Eleclncatwidrlg: 2007 CECANIcle 334.15 Romex cennof.bd Exposed Work and oitpusod or unptolected Article530.30 Securing .and;mgslbe. and Suppoding '8ltachedisecuLed: ZRorneli VuSs fifst used In Hie. i ma.s. Cow dnding:(Y?IIpW) washl. available unit12007 Unit does ndt_Jner3(firq 20,a07 CBCTe61q.802 rating r.equiremani 5 6i3 -Resistance Rating •ii; fdotselback requltetl iq, RegWretnanhs for F-xlerior property {Ina. - Protect' Wells Baaed on:f-fre .occupknW Wirt'ilro- Separafibn pislance hs2eris nrsarely '(1927 UBC Sectlon'1403, personnel respending loi less Ihan 3 feel) an errtergenoye TCC 92236z:rnfrtirritim sideya d, selU.ayk 6 feej, � m v MIn: S It �gWretl.,. (zero � tC. prgQitleHj. $J:RgP;e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable Heater Installed with a TCC 8100 Adoption of gas line without permits 2007 California Building It is installed on a Code At 05.1 - Penriils combustible wood sided requited wall which poses.a Subject to manufacture's . Heater potential fire hazard due installation standards and Installed to the combustible mechnnicallplumbing W/0 material permitpertnh r Ceiling heights vary and 2007 CMC Seclfoh do not meet the T6" 1208:2 Gelling height heightrequlretoeot minimum 'd ' Ceilfrjg: ., IjelyhEpoes ". hd:'tiia8l: tnincrer Improper and "" - '2007 CFC SjcG 809:6" substanda d aleclitctl .Extension Cords; wrig Without permit+ Poweralrip nerd to: Idlche.n sl nk Wh61Ba range might have been previously m c m -o - Plu nbing addeA NalhouJ TCD afoo AdaP.(lbn W - 0 pemin 20g7 Ga1�foJnlA HGllrting Code A106 J-1'errfti(s. regtaredj T.CC92234g1io;cooking, Klji hen9n rear:.unit.noT ermitt&d P IClcls.notp tmlRed Sper'zoding)' - ,(acjiiijes"�ennilled In. - (Ipp6lrnbing,_eladrfcal 91>est.url_t eto- .. e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Unsecured and exposed 2007 CMC Section gas line on the Interior '1311.2.6 Hangers, a - which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors gas leak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Outlets _ - within the rest unit Exposed and unsecured gas line inside dint __4>': Insulation 1srnomratei- - Well and opening T and Is ca)ntiusi*l iprotection rCBC Y (appears to bo.alraw' e- Fire - Table 602 Fire- ' bale) Resietence Rating 1, l - Requlrerhenls for Exterior Walla Based on Fire �. Separation Dislance'agd ---! � Table 704.3 Maximum J9rea of Exl'erior Wall "m: L ppenirygs , m. li Combustible material installed between wells Tlie room is consldefeil ]iabrfable Spade as `hablteble space aryd d4lihad by GOC is a appears to hot Rmyld9 sPace In it bUllding far.0MjnfmUF suffjaenf,.vanlllagon, ljv)ng, steeping, eeliQg qrheatandlighf '•yoking Therefore=it •Vetltilahon 'heat'etc=Celbng pei4lllslow -2007 CMG SpQQbn— -i'Af)G;211i%iljjj7'G'minimum 7'6" oht,ek 0 �h 00337 c Notico AM: Ord t Community Developmew Department Sent via first mass and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S -Fairbanks 529 Papific Strqet Tustin, . CA,9278 , 6-4329 NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC -NUISANCE ProPlarly Address: 520 Pacillc Street Assessdr Parcel Nuinber: 40-IL571-07 Case NUmber. V -1 Q-0812 Dear. Mr., Falr4anNs, TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE I 10NORING OU4,-PAST Thank you for miedfing withoOVY. staff at 520 Nci& Street on September:1-.... . ON 61 klo, b Uri. h lnspbdllbn two. d6tbohed stKiduret were obsewed -Within the re�ryard, in A gXJM( .1 . Oditlon. to �q hoy-q,q #ovethe garage and a second guest house behind the -,garage, ail of which a4 upgqn(itted, A prgljMin ry -sf atph df, Ctly records also 1 tes that no:conditional use permit (bQP,) ,'pn-filetb-d a t$h,.§Qq*t.ho at the property Other bbosomPAW W06 aisb.Jbtod durlino l.h.e. lntpecfl * ft Which lOqjUd , Op jauj are -Poi h �Tde, of the garage VAlch.uQed. no provide 4. tca�j� 6.4 lg� iap Wre 0 appropriate: gdt]54ck: ta,: theside property aW the guesthowlo-aboVe the garage iwbniiyfolait16ni We.n A a iT 4 lip -e 91, iryouY rq WhIPIT,- blifjdp.dd 4i2 -2(a), any V161000 ofthe T-Pstin Ofy"Oode lli4t the C1ty has d - t maintained at 'S P'dc id!SVIIR AWAn that the neces'Ornik9l z4hd',.'QhflI . ti Oftio'llt w0hol 401, to dol one Of -the f6ilowfrigby; ih6-. latef fhgh;VerdaV, -Oftojbef2:0-, 7 I) xS'.QW4 at earnpleke GUp -g.plicatipq, With the, appmptWe. p.lanis#gd all pthpr necessary entitlement - pplfcql[Qn�td tho. Plotintog -an.d .13,ullling'Division forltig twigqq8t houses.. b i1nd P1 (7, TAJ 5.4, .41 F 00339 W01iee and Oder al 520 Pa1i6e sllec9 seplertibe, Is. 2010 Casa'9 v10. W 12 Page 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Divisloh and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unperrhitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE; For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally,'all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5_ This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions ,and yicletiohs at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal Interest in the property may request consideration of'Ihis Notice and Order or any action orthe:enforcement within tett calendar hays from the date oiservice of this Notice and Order. All appeals shalt be made in writing: Failure to comply with this notice within the timelimit specified above may result in (1;) the. issuance of an..ad,ministrative citation.pursuant to Tustin City Code 11 62(a), (reference -Exhibit A attached hereto: for further Information), and/or (2);: it necessary wprk tieing qornp.1at0.d by City personnel or private contractof, with all abatement costsbeing billed agalhst ybu.'and/dr assessed against. the property. and/or (3) the referral of' W8 matter to our City Attorney for (urtherlegal action, Please note that the disposal.of any'material involved in public huisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner: Additionally, this!botice and order Will 6e "recorded againstlhe properly in I- i4 Office of the CoUnty Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance .with thls matter; please :contact me d)rectty at°(714) 573-3135. Sijtcprel , Inde Btiforcement Offcer Attachments ExhiMA A51.CnlnistratryeCitatiohlhforniatiori; �x1 ibli B C -d.0 J441100.S. 1361 AihYThomas,SbhlorPthro6eCodeEnfotCem6htStfpeNjsoi 00340 Community Development Department EXHIBITA Adpidnistradve Citadon Process In I a6cordance with Tustin C11 a"datn3tive.citation an follo the same ordinance or permit (ur#har violation of the name 41 and., 9@fety Coda (TCC Sec, V100110n;.$500.00 for 2 Retch first vialation; or $1,1100.00 foi within one Our of tha:first viol TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST CUP (TCC) 1162(d), fino Inay be assessed by means of an 1:; $100,00 for a firs.k. Violation; *$200.00 for a second violatign of !06 one yearof the firttviolailbri; or $500.00 for a third or any firg"Pa or permit within one year of, the first viclatiom Building 00, — aggg) v1dii.tibna may be asseeiied'at $100.00 for a first �Icjatjon of the Damn brdinbrics, or peirmit within one year of the I third or any further WoWIPr; of the same ordinance or. permit on. Tha C41may aWd take. Wribeir legal _action including issuing fmIl 6daflofi and/dr abatiho.thdMolatfoh(s) Mh the coat of such assessed sseds6d ajaifi'61 the 'responsible parson(s), the property aye firoM the resporipible prior to the ,1) CorreCt the AoWoh, ghb(a), andrbqoctecity ;(h 1 request aaT6, InbPaction, or Te- :[h Writing pprALP4. iO. One P g (#k�,aftO� rbqW�At -'0x!ttffWcih io(.ttinip. 10). be ob shned MOkfus In lock 111790- 0 P,'A714)`gT.-A'5vq 00341 H.'" aM Glb,.1 53U f �tlfK $Ir.el cocaCvn 0 Ver1J-0J17 16, x Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, -repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, .or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the instailailon of which Is regulated by this code, brio cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)- Single Family Residential District (R-1) Condfilonally Permitted Uses and Development Standards Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility Is installed or maintained are sti ijeet to e;c6ndidonal use permit Tustlri.City Code 9223(4)(2)(d) - Single Family Resideriflal D strlct(R-4) Mirilmurni side yardsetback for accessory buildings us Interior lot line: 5 feet. ed as guest liduses -Corner lot line: 10 feel; ND7E; Please bea&isedthat,There.may:be2ddibOnalcode=compliancerequirements, 00342 EXHIBIT. C OF RE - .80LUTIO.N N.O. 41-61 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, - Inc. October 20, 2010 Msi, Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tqstiu 3f10 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 R0:1 52,0 Pacific. Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: flUrsuant to our letter agmementj we have conducted ;a c4u9ry review of the P1106gra.phsof structures provided by staff of the, cYJ.Istipgstmqmygl% At520 Pacific Sheet The. following is. a summary of our findings; ?7!e wall mfer to the street facing side h I . �Of the C0141WO: thd. two sides us the "left. d right based on looktug at. flit like frlim file ytieeLaud tbe,structptes L,.laitl0 the :qitdh :ba a t tirdidd gp M -Is I N 1,6".Ua ".rent" Strticliuc;, Zoniijg :&ft.191soe's are hoGpnrf of our'Scope ci:F Wa4, and Rmmf .rddtesse"ci. YXN, th;it th-- taq)g A Mraxiltwp�q6fy loll, typ -,.c�nage bhb�� playplay-oi g: hot Q site in Ip L PINPAYTPX, t PX.9109-,sk 19g, andM.i god A 0 Y qdo* 0:0100; Tha hiliWbal sUrydy� ladic0diihat there iis:iivsdtote *ajtlthe qaEkat A&( gjj&.bj- tW-. appegrg. t1int, tto origin;(j deyp-jqgnejit ppilhahl jnv6we-i Q--nV-. 61ug. unit iii !E .92663,,;§ 00344 f,,Y,,dh,X jnincipj, thirtieth Nine. lm.iq, 9m),Ucel James r-wilson, sahimcl street architects prfmcwl elwoud 1. galley, sielill,d October 20, 2010 Msi, Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tqstiu 3f10 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 R0:1 52,0 Pacific. Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: flUrsuant to our letter agmementj we have conducted ;a c4u9ry review of the P1106gra.phsof structures provided by staff of the, cYJ.Istipgstmqmygl% At520 Pacific Sheet The. following is. a summary of our findings; ?7!e wall mfer to the street facing side h I . �Of the C0141WO: thd. two sides us the "left. d right based on looktug at. flit like frlim file ytieeLaud tbe,structptes L,.laitl0 the :qitdh :ba a t tirdidd gp M -Is I N 1,6".Ua ".rent" Strticliuc;, Zoniijg :&ft.191soe's are hoGpnrf of our'Scope ci:F Wa4, and Rmmf .rddtesse"ci. YXN, th;it th-- taq)g A Mraxiltwp�q6fy loll, typ -,.c�nage bhb�� playplay-oi g: hot Q site in Ip L PINPAYTPX, t PX.9109-,sk 19g, andM.i god A 0 Y qdo* 0:0100; Tha hiliWbal sUrydy� ladic0diihat there iis:iivsdtote *ajtlthe qaEkat A&( gjj&.bj- tW-. appegrg. t1int, tto origin;(j deyp-jqgnejit ppilhahl jnv6we-i Q--nV-. 61ug. unit iii !E .92663,,;§ 00344 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition. may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during die late 1940's or early 1950's. Later,:another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been, as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling, height). The building. has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original struchlies and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is .a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction niethodsc: i`sdditional alteration$ to the middfenddition were made later, including a..rooflop shed stnictum with a skylight that is apparently over a showep Tfie a is evidence of fairly repent. electrl. at work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in [nary of the building: Changes in Use 'rhe daguuil develbpruent of tboe Ice, in lV8,ihcluded theconstruction of a single: fauitly tesldence with one living unit- and a two-story carriage Vim alta[ was appzrendy'usr'd;gs, a �netige and agi:idultiital star..age., ' At;same titre alter,W:WIIi the carriag&bam was converted. into :a seeond:living with tlieaddittort of the rrtititstau, c tipt2rt aril. middle add}ti ih;at,the;tear; -.----------_----- _ --.. ApodiGr xenr.addihori'ivas added liehmd'tliesinlddle addition dpriitg the late 1.950's o> 4arly 1�617's Tins: v ty su5sta4dard struetgre svgs pxobpgnally u5'ed as a stgrage sltetl: of kii7s playhonse.Tt was later.convertcd into a third liying:unit HIsEo�iii i5fg.-gGrancc, 'flip ongingl luliding.alas Geon notgd iy,tlie Tuspn l�,iytpric 5'�lvtfy asp"oue,ora Vaoety ofalifbt�t iEt,H'ungalow'J?valtJings that contributes to 41r$71i`� 1ltltq.@gli. sgb'stanball imbdifgd when the second living uWt wits hddei146 inidijid tiv6 stdy carriage. yarn ;structure appears to tetaiueueugh:bt''tt's origin il aiclytt ctirtl_ ijttegttty- aacl O to atig,(Itbnzontdlutdwood-tiding;:earpenter.euts'at wWdo'w.:'tEim :82}. ACSYpptt�6Ptitnya�7T�.hcwp6ii'tiWicti c0.9i'66$=1.:949/C73-24.49 - 00345 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mita-addition and rear additions were later alterations that are hconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore,. not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to.be a number of serious building hazards and code violations:in. the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually'encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition:is illegal and cons titures as hazard, in our opinion, bybtocfdng Access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition shouId,be removed and a new 'stairway/entry constructed elsewhere: The rear Ibing, unit structure :is very. nonconforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure tip to current Wes. Further Study Further, research usipg Sanborn and Building Survey Maps ebuld,co :firm the construcoon:.sequence and prgvide proof of construction dates,, T.htyq 41So.could be mtorma6pn relating to the Use of these structures atthe time of mgpping.: The :cost of retaining an Arehitectnral ffigq an to :research this pr,ON'Idy would ;probably berabout$1,p00: Cnnclpsion` We feel tli _it. the fonthouse, and two=sfoty carriage, burn;. are both historically sigtrtficant:• 16 is ap9RS P ft. 4 tkxer ivus pnly _one Lyrn'g"" unit on srte;� 192t?'ethen the.Ciky of fiysttn wes Jhaorporated ThereIb stiong tSl>ysteal evidence lhgt:,I(rg set onr}'tind: tliltd living iinittt; ayere Rdded,miich�lateri�itis"f'1VWII; �et•o tnlipahtihildns; } t . - -b tjd ,,rgcpmnt4Jrd tijygt Mlle. illepal slairw,i Ili, fPmaiTrd £rtmr"t 'ai8v :.Si A' t 41e d.:iiialude 'th'e. reversal .of batt. * held! restore .the a - - 7$21 n0Wporrtibalc4attt-neWifoit�:be9elt,-ca 92663'-949/b78 X643 00346 We do not recommend the occupancy -for habitation of the. substandard, rear if you .have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact tae, Very truly yours, John Loomis ,Principal a 871.1nCi4puizbdufLwuid-hi.WQoT[ �E�i'it1;492663_=9497673,2613. i 00347 ATTACIVIENT J PC Resolutiod No.. 4162 00348 RESOLUTION NO, 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING, COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICEAND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL_ NO. APO 40'1-371.07) The Planning Commission does hereby .resolve: as follows; I. The Planning Commission rinds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret F.aitbarlks, the current propeHy owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letlpf requesting that City staff provide written vegtication thatthe two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific :Street could ,be rebuilt in the event of.a fire,, e.arthgdake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff 'provided a written zohin.g. confirmation letter informing Mr Fa rbarAj s that. the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (RA) and located within the'Cultural Resources Overlay (CR), D!$trict and that accessory' building's used as guest rootns,are'only allowed as. oondid6nally permitted .uses Within the RA district, provided that. no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that ho-oompensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the propertyownerthat no permits or entitlement exist for:the. guest houses atthe subjectlproperty; C Ti1ai; on September 10, 2010, Citysstaff conducted amok. site(assessmerit of the property. at 520 Pacific Street: The assessment,reyealed fhat several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made {o tle:fear uhlts that ware not In eompliance with T q n City Cade req -jr erents; 00349 Resolution No. 4162 Page 2 F. That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed; G. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; H. That the appellant Is requesting consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes: because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; I. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a neWspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 3l d feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at Which the appeal Would be considered; 1 Thatch October 26; 2010, the -Planning Cpmmission:_held a duly'called,,and noticed public hearing at Which ihterested.. persons had an opportunity to testify. In support. of, -oT m opposition to, the appeal, and at which the Planning'Commissioh, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, com mered the appeal of the, Notice and Order filed :at 520 Pacific Street; K. That pursuant to Tustin Crty Code. Section 929.4, the Planning Commission w11i act In as capacity as. the appepl hearing: body (9, cansldet°appeal of -ppy decisions 6f the Community, beveiopment Mector, 'L. TITat tha :city of Tustin was mcorpototcd on Septembervl9, `t927, and the subject property is orated wlthlnlhe original City'boundafies; The hlmft• atid' def2ched two stbNge iWere, constructed iiiabWkimafely 11929 gara; 9i; ClraGtl7eCeissubslatitialieviderice Fiat the, oh and. ilibe;( dffoe aissVed on 'er •1 p; 72.0141 00350 Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 N. That the third unit located behind the garage structure appears. to have been constructed in phases several ;tecades after the original structures. The varying roof heights visible from the interiorand exterior of the unit and the different siding indicate that the unit ,was added, in sections at different times. C. That no permits to construct and/or convert the units are on file and there. are several code violations which indicate that the unit was not built to City Code requirements. P. That the -third unit building was constructed approximately fourfeet from the property line, which is not consistent with the minimum five foot setback required for accessory structures used as guest units Additiona1ly,:seVeral issues exist, including the improper and substandard electrical Wiring, i,ri"llaiion of a newer unpermiited heatjng:unif, lack: of requi[ed_firewe and combustible insulation between walls separating units; ail .of Which may cause a fire hazard to occupants. Q. That 1he Planning Commission has the to.assist in its investigations and in n" commissioned a third party survey, an Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth provided a :report that concluded th, carriage barn are both historically slgni only bneJ Oib uhit.on-site [main tiouse] incorporated, There Is strong physical Jivin,01 Units 'we're added much later, pw ridht,to employ cjuai ed indlvfd.uals aking findings and.deejsaons., Staff d' eValuatioh provided by Lloensed Street Archit+ cts, Inc. The argff t6ot It. `"the'front house: and twostory f'cant. Itis, apparert°that there was' to 9929 vyhe i the Cjty-of Tustjn was wldence; that the second and:Third tMll" (attaolied.[Yereto rn Exhibit f2, That -the appeal is exempt from tfie California Ertviiontnehtal: Quality 2bt (6 (SAA) in 'that, the .appeal is not considered :a; protect :under CE Gyidelrnes; " The Planrimg GolpiI14 sion, acting in its :capacity'as {he appeal heal t h body:P.ef '^ 00351 Resolution No. 4162 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular Meeting on the 26th day of October, 2010. Jeff R. Thompson Chair Pro Tem ELIZABETH A: PINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE. OF GAL.IFORNjA ') COUNTY OF ORANGEI ). CITY OFTUSTIN I, ELIZABETH A, bINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I, ani the Planoin,g: Commission Secretary of the.. Planning Commission of the City j fUTustin, California; that Resolution No, 4162 Was dilly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held.onthe 26111 day of October; 2010. ELIZAB,I;TH A,; bINSAOR PIa �g Cdriirr�issi$R Secretary' EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION . NO. 41624 Table, 1: Code Compliancie. Issims, EXHIDITA RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Location Gode Cornpllance Code Sections Issue a ticable Photos The use of the property California fire Code r• Ia triplex (with 3 Section 102.3 Change of ' � Inits) changes the use or, occupancy; building occupancy California Fire Code L from R3 (single family Section 102 Unsafe r residential) toRIBuddr'rrg or Shuclures multi Is Tamil% -` II could not he California Fire Code determined It 5eclion 102 Unsafe faolinglfobndations Building or Structures t exist to provide, adequate structural bracing and slipped to the sheluma n.t s i { ^r ';� +� ;,_ Multiple resldenllal No firesepa�alfohwalls Building Code Table between unj[s 5_03; C, a Fire Code - units built after therefore. no[ Secliod 110.1 Unsafe originalstruclures. Compliance wilh one Condilfons -vilo Permits hour separation requirements Which poses a potentlal fire tonecuants:ghanicel, eleclrfcal, TCG p10pP.uopgon of d plumbing (Including 2007.Celifamia Building I ��AC) [hazard 1pslallatloI Code A1P5.1-Permilsrk danewithouf requireO f Belhrmts in;uprmilsore{aqulydd.to 0411 wure that life safely. porn prolocol Ts folldWed; and - Instailellon is,uona according to p'lah; VJllhout suchperrifts, .and Inspection;; Installation_ may. (reale .Installation _ ter damage; 8lcp _ .. -FursuentlnlFiezonlhg -TCC9223a7(b) code the I)PRdy dogs fiiltllttlu q ji0ijdtgy si(e jvt- rlo hav�syrnclanjJq}ergnd rasldgnllal units_ . slzd to actiOM04ale a, second orlhitd buil 1%PPjUstjoate {eel TCC g22362;Accessary __ seconditd '(Requires min.•12,00A _buildifas used,es guest third. residelftlal': ' sq ft lot hoWeveM , I oofns, p ovltl<l jg h¢: t{fitt5 lot Is 10,0 - q it) cooking facllilg Is it unit unit (ndlkilchen it stalled eY maintained; feal(Illes) regyires•Gll}l .'subjk to 'ogrltttopaJ Thtspumbe�situri�ts. UseR.ermit• .would earl la ba ""gated loan R-Z,or-R• :disincl nd W0Qid• - equlro amtnjlnum of i parkin Walls io suppq(1= i 31ie;adrled fesldenClaf _ ilse 2'I P-aza 00354 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION Nos. 4167 anln a1 1;7 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Isslre a Iicable photos The second story wall Section '1403 oiTCC ^ :7t..i conslruclion and 6100 Adopflon of 2007 Windows la the Califomla Building Code property Tina do not comply With tire pmteclfon requirements.. - -- - --- Insufricienl The opening Is no selhack.to permilled as shown; PL exterior Well Is not fire rated; primary (and only) siairway festdcis ingress egress Incase of fire or other Furnace IhslBllad TCC 0100 Atloptioftof Nnlhout required perrttits. 2007 Gapfcjnla Building I does not meet Code A105.1 — Pormils clearanc27equlrernenls '.m4bl ed 'and: creates a potehilial '+ Tire hazard.:_ _ 'rn: Expased:eleatdcei F61 'TCGM Adop6onef to unpori tilled fumaco 2007 Calirdaia 01ildlg9 .�. which causes potential Code m dli 1 Permits ro .c .fire hazard, reg0fred , f o. N it Uj: Electrical,daV.lce. - nezlto healer -TCC- A(fahen codking_._. - 9223ti2 No cooking aeiBi es not permitted fac fifespennlited to il} g0est ugi4 ;gltes�unii Klc: in Plpmbingand leald4pl jCC 810q QdapTion qt upper unit inslalledWitnput :2dg7 Cat(fola,Ddlidiny, mt� r ` �' ' perm)ts Pew-nlLs are C6Ae Al05 Permits requiredi5,insureifVal; ret(Urierl. - _ - -lite saraly proto��glI.Ir —: --- -- _ • _-- _ l'folloWed pnd;�nslallQitgrr. is done agCo(dtng'to plan �Ihoj f9uclj' I Permjtsaod7ns eIAton,, fnstatlahlon-- fire bezarri,,;W9ter 00355 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4151 ANn asr;7 Location Cade Compliance Code Sections Issue a Iicable photos Shnwer added on to TCC 8100 Adoption of I odyinel .1 u".This 2007 California Building requires,bulWiny Code Al05.1=Permits permh.toeddadditional required/ , square footage (pop- ou1) and peen for plumbing, and walerprooring. a �:Showersddedw/o Railing has no TCC 8100 Adopvgn R intermediary posts and 2007 Califomla Bfillding Noiprier- the nm and rise arenof Code A1051.1 petiitfCs - compliant wilhBuilding requinad - p65ts Code requirements nor TCC 8100 Adophon of . Is the unprotected back 2007 Ce)IfprniabWlding - which is open. This Code 1012 Nandralls: poses a potential falling - handrails required Por hazard lot small stairways children. TCC 0100;Adoodbo at.12. 2007.Gali(orhla BufldjOg '�- ! Gude10130g1.0s I � rd guas shall pe loc2tetl,- m :Q along open -sided .. t IN Walkmg euffadu including slalNJays ..I. r' " located rnofd lhuh-3o - � triches ghava,lhe rjredo, .. wr There is no properly 2007 CBCSeetlo' v. linebrowall separallon 1024 3 Exit dfscharge o between staircase add Idcabon - 1NIndbW aCPL� in. th;e properlyIne.. wf5��ltl'.nP.s"y�li; The staircase fs bunt, - 'TCC 9223b2(p) tcAmres:: ,overitlaprppartyfina �5it-se ttiackBdpraperry' A. guestunilrequlres-e line 3 idol selkiadl(; to property Iine:(PLj. 171a a aria several i `Iss es-aasocfaraWilh - __._ -- iha loca(lon nf�1111's sl>?ircase, mos]". lmmtnenkae g e:lack of ry etiiergehc�ac¢ess'aid eaie egtessirom l( e ubih " . I 2gRoda07" 5-N sonp lnaighbonny 140 >Wojt htgjr ogd$e drgiried InSo:3.sePaf2lQ '1)go g• Starlrf9awef5y�leA1 .. ' zpw CflesaitT,on 3bb7 C�csaclianJ.1ng,�,=,. 1' ' DY6ldage acTp�s�ropetl)!; —�'�-_--=- 3 R a;g.a 00356 EXHIBITA RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code'Sections - Photos :Issue a Ileable Structurdl supports do 'ZIXITCBC Section not provide suffidenl 1046,.26 (,2 General I su orH rapers Roof Desr R u(remehls, n '" Igadequafe members are Flocriolsfsupported undersized to provide. -along block (erlcarather '+- structural edequalesiipporl 'than ranlfieveredTeam M1; Supports dhe:iwo story shudure. The carport is attached Change in occupanccyy to both the main house donsllWtes.a rimUl8l210 of Carport andlhe 2 --story gamgg, ;CBC .and Fire Gode and attached mar units; violations: attzched to mekipg this a tri.plez Califomiq Fire,Codc main house unitpursuanttobuilding, code Se¢gon;1023Chenga,of� andgarage. fire ruling. These usq or accuppncy; 00gaiencles create Fre Code .access hazards for lire: ,ce"11(fomi2 Section 902 Unsafe access and may pose Building or Structures r_ @ddi1lonalhazards.to o cc Ph sincelhe .0 cc. Pari changes, with A In:plex (common _ Unsupported elec 63 TCC 8100Adoplion'of.' - — •: . mefal togdull (F�v1Tj 2007 California Building _ UnsU o �ed .between goraga and Code A105.1 :=Permits Pp - house;Thepoloptialior dolncge and failure due. required line overcaipof[ to the exposurt'of the line lslncreesedtand ...: .;r .....,..._ poseia, polanllal. hire tfazard:.. 00357 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 41G1 AND 4162 00358 o Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue a licable ing separation 2007 CBC Table 602n walls of garage Fire -Resistance Ratinging units; Thus Requirements Hor ExleriprRomex winng s ng tenants above Walls Based on Fire t "unprotected and.exposed xt to the garage Separation Dislange hazard originatingarage.ewjuriclion T"Sn box:M(hout permits Electrical wiring: 2007 CEC Article 334.45. Rgmex cannot be Exposed Work and ` exposed orunprotected Article 330.30,Sepuring and must be and Supporling . attecliedisecpred. 1. :(Ramex was first used M the MO's' Color co.dlpg :(yellow) wasn't .. avallable.unt112001 ... ... ,Unit does not meet -fire 2007CBCTebleGO2 __._-- _... . rating regitiltement 5 Fire-Resrsleince Ratipg w9r, •- fold tse{I,ickiequlred:to Requiremenls4or Exterior _ _properly line to,prolect Wells Be sed 'oscUpants. fr ni dire Separation Distahce .11Mrds, orsafety (1927 UBG SectiDri 1403, personhel rgspondirig to less than 37eet)- @mergency. TCG 9229h2 minimum side:yard selback'5: that p. >m; v Ji�lfi;,,5 n� -- tegairad jzeF6 .g;Jg . 00358 EXHIBITA RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Cpdo Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applivable Heater Installed with a TCG 8100 Adoption of .005 line wllhdul permits 2007 California Building It is installed on a Code A105.1 - Pennifq combustlble:wood sided required ' . wall which poses a Subject to manufacture's Heater potential fire hazard due installalion'standards 'and S; Installed, to the cor ibu_slible mechanical/plumbing W/o jnatad$I permit x" _ ' permit Gerling heights varyand 20W CMC'Seclion. .do nolmeel the TO' lielgh{.reauirki7iepl 1208.2 Ceiling heigh4 iviinimun, s f ; h Cellijig t height does not meet intri..T6"' - 7roprdperantl - 2p07CFC.-Se'cliore805.5 sirbslandard'el¢ctifcal- Ftensipn Garils .wJring ivilh�out;perml- RbwerslnpHekftb � ,.. kl�honslh�yifiere:a• �"" t' range rnigftl fjt�v�'6pet1' i %, t reytpusly J c a PJilnbing"added Wtttto4t 'TCC elan Pdcp�dn bt parmtfio7aa�ja�Nk7�ulldCng code Aio� N-Peml((s 'l9(tlllep re9arRtl! �'cO g223b2 NO cd#gq _ is h l pelRltlted If�'ch91i G11'p2f q�t�t' Trot peRRlfted - ---- ;(per zoping) ,fatiblre5 pe(rtliflgd;In jla plumhlh$,.Eleclrfcalt gtlastJ nit - W Jatxl UQlt J EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 4ntn a1a1 Location Cade Compliance Code Sections Issue ap Ilcable Photos Unsecured mid exposed 2007 CMC Section -' pas Ilne on the interior 1311.2.fi liangers, which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors "1 gas leak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Outlets _ within the rear unit &posed'and unsecured gas line inside unit - .. Insulalfon IBno ate nr d Wall and dpet ing and Is comb slihle• piotechon 2007 ,. �BG- ' (appears to be:slraw Tablee02 Fire .bale) Resistance Haling. RegdGements for Exterior Walls Busedoii Filo 0406hon i)Ishirice and: ' po 769 s MQmuiP Aiea nF F�iledo� Wsll' . .a � .tlpenlaps tt -otnt ustiple mafarial sem: iostalied between walls eaio a id Tie toom is cpijsitle�ed ijap@ahia space as 'Fiablabla space' znti. deffned by:CBC.Is a iapQeals to polpryvttle 'Space Ina puddinb f i ilVing si eNhg eating Ar k ` n r SuiActent tYar 111atJon, hest and ighj.- "ooking� Therefore; it' o equ$essutniciebl)ight�. JE - venl(Id�llon heAT eta 'O eitnghepm i'�,O f,fytC"fiedl)aa—"�- — and ahnuld,bq e@ 1?DB E.minfmum 7:6' ffllhimurn'Z$" ,P ,C. 'a, �i a 4eilfrrg heighE :doe;ptit;tii'gpt � � 00360 EKHMIT B OF RtSOLUTION NO. 4162 Notice an.d,Qrd.igr Coiiinituriity Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks ��o Pacific Street ti�dln, CA 02180-4329 Noficr= Arm OROEFUNRE,CITATION NOTICE. DECLARATION OP PUBLIC NUISANCE P,rqp6flX,. Address: NssOssur. Parcel Nuiitfier: Case. iuhber. Q(Mf ,. 520 -Pacific Street 40.14TI-07. y10:-0912 TuST.1 N BUILPINO OVILFUTURE HONQKING OUP PMM T nI ou staff al 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 201,0. During the "Y "'b d 1 ifrf the spag Ig for ., uctures were observed w t� rearyard;in addition to aguest hodse above th ' �, garage -and second -guest . house bebind the derage;. all of which are .unporrilttted A: (QUP) Is on"fila_ta:.establish guest houses at the P6* inspection : ;W , hibb inclgdo; but -are not Ihiclt a4gyeAhO got,)P6 curreht)y contains Th15ff<Cora please he. aiivlssd that the ,Cloy has ;d'eTerhlined Thal a its, da'- -.n till ff fc r)Uleance is tieing' porill an i omen W6ra. nipt the, th!5 11iltdoy.-Oct b P40 . to:-, 300 Cotoj1*1 VA Nsok CA 347-M n R'V914) 6`733100 IF 00362 "Wee =d ONO. 01 530 Pxdre Street sq"" .' 16,2010 fu:a 1 V10 -U] 12 Pope 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning any Building Division and physically commence With the demolition and removal of ail unpermitted structures and improvements on the property, which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on' obtaining permits, please contact the Building :Division ei (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at, (714) 573-3l4.o. Additlorially, ail permits related to. this, matter are Id be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit Issuance pursuant to 2007 C.al(fomio Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes -your Notice and Orderto agate all pubfic_hufsailee conditions and violations at 520 Paciric Stredl, You (or) .any person having any record' elite 'or legal Interest in the property may request consideration orlhis Notice and Order or ariy action of &'enforcement. within ten.calendar days from the date of,service of this.Notice and Order. Al appeals shall be made in writing: Failure to comply with. this notice withln the time limit specified above may result Ih (1) the issuance of an admirtUrative citation p0rsuant.to 7usiUb'City'Code 1;162(a) jteference Exhibit A atla0bd hereio'for Ritter information), and/or (2) all necessary) WqM being completed by City personnel or' private contractor, With all abatement cpsts being, billed against you acid/pr assessed against the prbperty and/oY,{3) (he:rQferfal of'tfiis mailer to oiu City Attorney for further legal action. Please note thatitle;d(sposel of ahy,Material Involved, in public nuisances shall fie carried rodh Ih a legal manner: Add(1(onolly this notice aril order'will be recorded aga(nsl'Ihe property in the Office of the Gounty Recorden if yau.neod further clarlfication.or assistance Wilh this matter, please m1a0rme rl(rertly at(714).573;3135:. Sincere) �r�Ne�. geq ----------Code-.Enforcementtlfffcer-- _:. --=— —= - -- - ---- Attachments: `,E ihibit A Ad'ml'nisIiatW CitbI0h'J6fotrrlatf6n �xitibit 8 -;bode �iclatlarjs cc= Amy Thnmgs, Senior PlahneriCoda EntnrceJpeht S�lpervisor Community Development Department Ty STIN UNIBITA D v I L 15 i IrluGo"OftoNoN1,14 Administrative CitatJoin Process Tpptin City C40de {TW) 1162(d), Ones may be asad6s6d by himins of an in nifoll8vM' V00.60 fora fJrBt viblattlon; $200.00 for a ne condvIalallon of or Ornili'mithIn one year of'the firat vlolaflon; or $500-06 par <a third or any le OWtrio pNinpnes,or penrilt within and. year of the Building ,GG 9 - - Bi.d . 1 1. 1 ''. - 00i ..,Q - 8DR9) Vlqlatlonu May bma,E-fs%aAsed.ql.'$. 60.60.fOr'.4 tirst - r 0 40conj vidlatleR 0,11he'same ordinance or penrit withinono year of,the 000X06r-a thinl'or any furffifterAolation of thebain;. 6- Inanpig. or peft , rm 0 fire P". The (*-rrimy plOOL - "take further legal pC110 a ' on Inmi citation andlor abat(ng the vlolaflon(3) with the c-osf-o'f.s-u'4h zuse ae.zeiwed ageirid the mspanisilble( jperio*), the pr6pdrly- 1) COrrOd.lbeviclatJoh, pay. the:6wimflponding fine(s), and contacthe cii��ta-requqat ayp- )M-1 b. -t or A Pay TWA196(15 #10 - abb' a -4 '-3), R ........... 101 ai—W]" !,- ­ A. eli6ilonr AnPP a w0din lotrallm. [q§,Jp:aOpp In to 1,166 miliki Iblft Oft tho.�Clty,.piweba 4-a'At N -'O' shay de qb �J.n :P;;(7l.4 v:m-.mtuningnwfg 00364 C Ilcll[suNl Qna [i Sery.Nwrfe ]mo ee.e>waalu Exhibit 8 Code Violations of 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted pek T.Uspn City Code 8100) - Permit's Requtyed. Any owner or authprized agent who Intends to constiuct, eolarge,: alter, repair, move, demolish,_prchange the. occupancy of a bulIdIng or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter; repair, remove, convertor replace any electfipl, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, t6a Installation of which Is regulated by chis code, or to cause any supilmork to be done, shall flrst:trtake,applic Ilion to the building ofgelal:and oblein top. required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Shtgle Family Residential District (R.1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Deyejolemant Sfandards - Accessory .buildings used as guest rooms, provided no:cooking facility Is installed orinalntolned are subject to a conditional usepermit. Tustin Clty, Code :9223(b)(2)(d)-Slnpla Famlly .Residential District(R•1): I011plmum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as yuest'.houses =..:ComeFjot line -.16 feet; Inlericy lot line: 5'jeet. t10TE: Pieese.bs;adysad 1h'atthere rnoy Flo additional.codo compliance reg0i(ertierllsS; EXHIBIT C OF RE OLPTION MO. 4162 Report prepared by Thirflot- Street Architects, Inc. 00366 Inanding Arincipaix j� OM6"ct mbs Imhite thirtieth iuCW . Ivilm", nmbileel streetPHIMjoal chicad Lpirey, AM111=1 architects Me . Octuber2g,201.0 Ms. Elizabeth BzgsSek; Community DevelopffiefitDirector City of Twirl 300 Cent6ai(Al W.Ay Tustin, CA 92780 Re; =ApijaqStmet, Tastin Dear Elizabeth Pursuant, to -OW letter agreement, -,bnv.g,,OOjjd4Ojed a qw&ory revikw, (A the,, phOtpgraph'91,6'r Wu'durailprovided by stpapf tbwe)& Street, The,following ig jis mart' .of. on . r .1 ing . 4 gy We will infer to.the street facing side ofaho tompip,Xras the Affro be". 110, two 4461. us the. `]eft undrtght;' Uased on loblciag,atHteai[e from the street ind IWM built beitiatl Ehe t atxhge; barn 41id-Ojqu @pd'"teal structures,. Z,04wg. Z-q-n*D-lk.i-s94.cs-ateZbotpart of our Scppa.of:Wb'rkand ',jranot a4*e$ j, q a -V the slte in 1928, llotft of these kWxW9 bit the same type of ExtpnQr, siding Dr.14 Ny �"V: find doof. ltjjfijThe hislbi1c.a- smNey at- the ting it tl front giible bf Ijj& retjfianE - ARMS ihaittbe original development in.nin It Habit' 'involved rap. living unit in t1je. 00367 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage b:mi was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the lett side of the property. The carportand rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later,subsetluent to the original construction of the residence, Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window.trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. Thedeepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry. is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date .of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed :much later than the original resideace; probably during die late 1940's or early l9M0's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that. may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building bus vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original stt'uctnres and a vintage TM Cobb front -door, This: wasprobably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1.960'x, based, on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling, height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, -including: a rooftop shed structruti with a skylight. that is apparently oyer`a shower: There is evidence of fairly 'recent electrical work .based on the yellow Romea that is Visible in many of the building oavities, Chah j6 in Use The ongiaal: development of the slte in 199..28 ittclutlW die coustruction of a single- family resiila ace with one hying unit and a two-story carnage barn that was apparently q'sed as 4:garage and a�rlelllttiral;storage. At some; dine altgr'yi?WlI, tbe,.carrlaga l)nrrtwas.cogyerted Into a second h' 13- v _ugtt,t_v_ltlr.the ldd[llohof,the#toritstatrcarportandmidcjleaddidonatthe ;rear. -------- -.. tlitotheri?.ijradclttioli roi as'added.lieliinil ihe:middle nidipon tiuring the;lnte 1950's or -early, L2CD's ibi's Very standatd strtietnre Was, )bably ofigihnllyused n ;ai s'forage: abesi _or:J;itls playhouse: it�ya9later eOnvie feainto a 164.I1Vl tg pare, Hist -000 Signtticapce -The original bOdiltS:htisbee5t.noted lA lire' `I'usril llastodbo.'B Rvey As ='one of R, Yarlet� i)%�alifotniti Bapgal4�p=liu}�dt►tg@'�tt:tlntrtoutas to Tlishn". �llthou'gli. -substantially ;mod.....- ;when, tiie.:S0M)ad, DvWk, unit ivas added -;'the middle, liva siory-oatr3age bard struciute allp�iirs b ela'in epough of It ; o tgiaal a 4tectai'ai infegdiyy An-Aof%bng(hon2antiii,redwood'•.siding,.eat�enter Huls 'at wrndaW trlrn, 2621 newpuq;ha9lggartl-nnw�oti lienth-::nn'liZbG3.-9A91673;2&t3 00368 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The raid4ddition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically signifittint. Building Code issues There ap.pearto,hc a -number of serious building hazards and code viol e ' violations in th current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This.ndditi6a is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by' blocking access in the side yaedls for fire fighting, irs required by the CBC.. This stair addition should ber . removed and a new stair . way/entry constructed elseWhene, The rear living unit structure is very non-coriforrhing to Building Codes and it does riot appear to be economicafly vulible to bring this structuie up to -ducrent codes. rinalior Study Further research usgg. Sanbornand B Ailding. Survey Maps could confirm the cpnkru6bon sequence Lind provide proof of construction dates Thr rd also could beAd6rmai - i - onrelating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping, `The cost of retaining An Architectural Historian to research, this pkbpefty * would prohablX _be.abb.ut. „000. don,elpsiaii. We feel ,that "the front house riod AIVO-51ruy cuiiiage. Yarn ate. both 'historlotigy: if ;is appakeht chat there w the"a—ty-or There' is-*ong 1phyd.cat evidence giqrft NK.014-and - -ihir0vvv.ff.:qIIi4.;.Weip add6d, post WWIL 'WA }vOqh d that file %legul. stairway e b 1P Yiolahons 6s Md;At.thA�IDWgo UP if the, rontiroecontinued-Use isVAVPas fiAPpOnd NYing-wrk is 9116ftdby the,G(y,6frP%b' W d_Td oPf.l im SUIiWZ Impfavrbeits could include of so4mor,thd?Ih4pPt0Pn Pa08 barn to hep t6tgFp the s integ&Y OffW 00369 c We do not recOrnipend the occupancy for habitntion of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any guestipts regarding .the, alwye, please do not hesitate to contact ane. Very -truly youts,. John Logmi§ Principal, AT—IAGHM.ENT'F. 440 Pacific Street opposition petition 00371 REF: 440S, PACIFIC, TUST.IN PERMIT FOR GUEST _HOUSE WE ARE AGAINEST the:Yarignee permit to build a guest house. located at 440 S. Pacific Street, Tustin, California. Owner of record: Jose L. MArt7nez & .Evelyn Leoug.Martinez Si!?n'ature, bite J9ine F. Goniiiiislcy sr.� J G� a�=08 Eleanor A. Gominsky �Qf;— >, eL �: 530;S, Pacifie St. :✓ Tustin, California ports. Smittr 470 S. Pacific St; Tustin, Gaworw4 Bret S. Fairbanks WrI Aa7ue A: Ei rljanks 5�Q 5: Pacifie�St; Tustin,'.Calfor7lia StCYC71:.f�;.i �pY25; 560(pac'itic St;. `pon >:i lYlatstitiJyas�ii; Myoko Mhtstibajoshi-, PAdDe St:: Tdslji, CaAlo1 nia A!.i�. I 6hael T:=011Bxjen NAM;i9f� Nealy 0% len: 545 �. 1?Ac7lic S 00372 Mjblillg Maureen Li Doljght'A. Schaller 535 S. Pacific 8t. Tustin, Califooin X Michael with 455 S. Pa.clfio.-Si. Tustin, Cqgomu eman 8pcmc.O' jwnes S I I Mf -M Tustin, Cali[ ft'w& C. llqps a45 5. -P',ei&'qt. Tustin, California Sianat Ute, Date A.' -P, jonles 52Q;S; :1 es .416 5: Pscihcf t: ('form~ Mb wax. I. 00373 ATTAQ H M E N T F F -C Resolution No. 4161. 00375 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET :(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows:. A. That, on July 27, 201.0; BtetFairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a_ letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that theAw.o:guest homes located at the rear of -the single family residence at 5�0 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That; on August 4, 2010, City 'staff provided -a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr .Faiibahk's. that the property is zon"ed.as. Single Family Residential (R=1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (GR). District and that accessol}! fiulldngs used as guesf.rooms are only allowed, as :conditionally permiffed uses within the R-1 ,district, provided that no cooking facilities are i Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; G. That.on.October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circul2tion, by posting the project site, and by mailing %to all: property owners within 300 fleet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, -,duly tailed, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition'to the appeal and, at which the Planning .commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals; considered the appeal of the Notice and;Qwerfile d at 520 Pacifid.Street The. Planning Commission continued the item :to Novernber'0, 201`0 meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the properiyand to„meet with Mr: Fairbanks to discuss possible alipiriiyes:to resolve the appeal:, I That :on November 91.2010 the planning, Commission; acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals;. oon s(de.red the appeal of the..Notice and Order filed'ai 520 Pacific Street_ J. That, pursuant to Section 112 Board of Appeals of the Building Code as adopted by the City of TlLlsffh,Ihe.hearing was held. to consider evidence that is teleuant to Wliefier the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Codeor tho rules legally adoptedthereunder have been in I.O rectly inte.rpfgteda :the provision of such code do not fully apply;, or an 'equ:allY good or better form ofi construction is proposed.. K That; pursuant: to Section 1'12 of the City of 7ustfn's adopted California Bu'il'ding Cbde;;the P.Jannirt0 Cotntnlssiogv acting as Board of'Appeals, shall ons egpitementsbtsych,codet•urtherA _ ____ _ Board of Appeals may approve, the matter in accordance with tMe L That; the Boatd of Appeals `.corZsideted euidehce su'pporfing :tile enforcement Offleer s detTeriflmatioh that a publ(t nuisance cohditiop exists of the subtext -p opeto tte,p'resent)iolatlons o'fYhefoil.ovaing Buic(in� Code:Becfion: Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair,remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installationof Which is regulated by this codei.,or to cause,anysuch work:to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. M. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exists as evidenced by the Building Code. V161ations observed on a cursory and visual observation of a site vi�sjt o.n September 10, 2010 provided hereto in Exhibit AL. N. Th ' 61 the violations identified herein and 11-1 the Notice and Order ,deffibbs4rate that substandard housing and property:maintenance conditio)is exist which create a dangerous condition ;at :llfd��ubject property, clue to the present violations. of the . California o'Jdt'�ds adopted Per I Tustin City Code 8100; O. That the extent of repairs. ,ordered by the -EtoTcernent Qfifibef are appropriate for the proppft . . I PTha Ihe, time limitatioils for starting and. com in I � - .. -pleff 9. the repairs are reasonable; �Q: Thp*f' fbe; Board :of Appealshas the right to ei-hOloy qubli'fied hdividUMs to assist irt its, in'VOsI§btlbnsand in makiing Aindln'6s; and rlopjjSlon% -8�tqff cairriftiisslbned a third r paty survey And Oval . QW-16tv provided b _y L .: . . - z jce.n,sed Af4mw jo-M) P'...Loomis from 7hiftfeth".Street -A - ifect prpyqdiod, q. rep he 4-ft't h6Usb an .two .-.s Q .prf that concluded that qq(r-Iqge barrr are b6th, historical p-sighific-AhL t i8;dP,-p6rbntAha that jhot.e;V&8( 0 fT. Q sl 1, only 11, was iNd 0're'te.d.therp is 5fir&q physibal dAde! §P.PPI10 Arid Ih)Fd livhg PnIts. W.ere.added: rngq 1 , qri, po�('Iww EM, t h ibit 11, lbb P-f6h-rii%-.C6-fHM(t&h, acfih'g In its capacity yps, the Bbard',pf Appeals k� tj pqr. 'to dUdfun-A 112"-oftha 00378 Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 The property owner(s) is/are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order Identified in the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, as attached hereto Exhibit. B and incorporated herein with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010 to permit the owner additional'tiMe to hire a professional to prepare plans and process and. obtain the :npc;et$gry permits for compliance with 'the Tustin City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by fhe Board of Appeals of the, City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 9th:day.of Novembet;2010.. Jeff R. Thompson .Chair Pro Tem Y Henry Huang Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF ORANGE. ;) CITY OF TUSTIN 1, -Y4 Henry Huang; .the undersigned; hereby ceilify that tam the Board ofAppeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals oftle Cttyof TlistiriCaliforri-ia; that Resolution No 4:161 was duly passed acid adopted a} a regular, meeling of-the'TVAh Beard or,Appeals, Fi 9 on they 9`h ---- Y Henry'Huang, P;E, G B:CY_ Bulldtng'Offioial !S \Cddl9mriCoile En(o{cente6tl5�q i7acHic$hC regollZt[gn.lXppe�7 62aP,�,clfio.doE_x 00379 C 7 ,$* CFb 77 M f a f N N 9 T. L } i�VG•, !t 4 4 ,{� g{� r �.• 7 <��;'.'�•1 n.YY e • �. :S.d.?VYf ... •. �Sn 4 ... f 5. v.. vL.>.•9 t � 00381 2.0 Lit -1Z toz a — =1 0 "I , V 1- 0 7D E 2 N a U m a LU t= 0 N°° 0 1, AB a I E "C'R w m-. ]§ --;. - w W'�. 2, 12 -0 W- w 36 .10 � 0 '.' M-axlm'm-m- �m m M- m -M c9 " -'5 -65 12 = " 0 -- a) cl"�z = "a z - W a 0, *w 0 .-D� � , C a m a a M .5., IT ,, Ova, =,Q7 75 2 a t! c pr '2,w j5 a w. c cU 5 p tab. j, 1 Z5 , 17" A 0 a Lm M MP (b 4 a 0.5 0 - O'= a jjo..g 5� IM, 0 �� m w 16: 0"5 to Z: .i C.) 1- -o > -12 =�'F- M W a pOoYL >j Do a'. a" - >: at - 2 J� 15* N -M Im 2,=G ot c � M.9 Q'-� - � 6) 0 N Ww a d 0 '.n� U). Zia, -r'mM'>MmD=m lZ 'j a o Q > a g -m s:= tp to m �jE-. =1 to, M Id = � Wa 0 a a -- a M, w ".o 0 c a c— am m a 0,C) Cq E* -Z) �'MQ- > a �ii� e INI M :km*'...U.' m, a S C:K-�a =0, O'm :5;':3 b.9 d'a a- �a� a, 4K S 0 0 a W..0 a M I R 24 C, 0 'a W -b D'aq,- M. ml C6 0..:U -Gy "a ZI �6_ tll IL 5 TC. F - 0 � ;- tz:-IL ' 0, L jj:L�a; .0 'M taxmbtiY Q at a 1m, 10- tZ 1E, '>, -E P('fj�j to 10 Lo. 75 , L 6.1 1�3:la:'17 `�r - - a 'G: 0 L, a wt r am act m V�;O� iD WE' lDi cl: - . a' cN im 'O E- 'al 00381 S 00382 7E 12 u -E En 0 M.c IL 0 -6 c o 0 1-- —., 0 M —_ 0 E w un 0 0 Rio C— E c6 0 -E 0� W—�— M, 3: -M �co - , = 3 0 0 2 lE -0 a- m w 6 =75 m aD th a 1 N W Cow- M 0 o E a N E mc _) Z m E, -ac & :m �,o w 0 w U.g .9 E - ;6 r 0 'Luj U. El 3: � =.- V. -M mw a 0 M. 0 m 0 M x E oc .01cm M,o c E w 0 Ow m a E E, 0 C� � Amo a, - 0 m -rA _,m M E *Om. D *0pryy. C M �j 0� ° > E 0 m�5 E m di -.c-, w w -W U Lj a B: P, 0 0 E v 0 m W" B"m --c D. C, o -'E w. 0 3: aU a'm o aw.E 0,0 a- 0 a c a 0'. -7 w 0 Q M -M 0, M = - " = , -- M M,O M .1 2 lD � m m � E 0, 0, a.- ..a o 2 3z 0 Ec w w ICY X.O. M'E n`c a C 0 0-w lo o cn -=- w � m m c 22 c. CO - a, -E: w , , o a > m a ul,= -5 ? o M M U m, E a 0 iL W� M b -E; w a CR M a a a a= 00'. w 0.0 , , F - :E. A G�t a "07M 0 � Dmay-»>-.= 17 -5 , u 6 m m P:5-� pC - R =,,m �� &0 bi, 0 0 u m .0,• Jp L.D. a F- p m,;7 -� 9 lcn 0.0 M, a 0 E; v: D ' >Fj -; 03 E -a w zE .1u- b) lot M 14% 0 m 17, w P o mU,-. wJ M. 1, m E MIf, S. 0* o" - zo4t- af L TO 0 E;a20, ZVI all 00382 00383 CL yM 1A 0 l c.C c Q 1I Irnup a:m Mo 0 M m aacm M m 0 a W w D 0 0 0 a S M a �'M M U A3 0 0 < 2 am m op o 0 n In m u 3: P3 .1 - � 0 8 M w - , 0 fl:ff C� 0 8_0 Mu m- 5— 00-10 0 a'M - =- 0 2 45 12 0 M m M 0 M �c c 'LMamD =rn'o 0 0= 0 0 �-B.&15 iD ='o o CN 0- 0. 0 0' 0*- 3,ptl > O'C 0 W D mi M, 0 E -u w iS 12 -c� x a o' j= a M W.M c 0 0 Um=.o m m 0 e5 .0 MA) W ❑0 W..M V -a- -,0 - U. a, 0 ..m .� _0 0 M- C -c- im> 'foaf c S M 0 A-. T�-- a L M -ML. C 0, M 0. a a Viucn bi C. 4� g.- 1 � ON - M 0) ro� u C4 L ml'u- �04 joAt M"D M CDT -M -n- b M-. O; ts l ;Ed p g ml UL 0'0� A) -M Eiw a C'O M I �a a-. -a zo w tWm. -- M M 0 M N ti IDM. .:& = , M'�. L I .' C- -0, m :" E q� -. - -, -'a 'w M 0 c AV a 41m- 0 7s M. 0 wv 0.2) 87 61 2 0- Hyl f:I5i; E 12 po 00383 tq 1 11 00384 Mi. it L 070 E E W =7 W,U w u S. c c U —.W� .0 0 q 0 W �._ 10 c .- 0 M >CUU 03 YZ , 12 a W—EN ='d' W'W- M C C= 0, E 0 ;0 E I=-0. 0 , �j. 4LL. jo E M w ay vU 3,t a.'al 8 , 1" 1 .�-' 0- 0 Wil M'.- INn. c 0 A.Zrom n. 'Elm 0 o wj: CL a 1r 0 0 Z ;lap; -F �—'c p 7w c' tn e. E lm u .0 f2c wa �11 �cp 1 0 M .:o LLJ u nv% o JF i i -7,1 10 0' lm� O 33 21 RA 2 4 R!ww 01 [Ell tq 1 11 00384 2c 00385 1 i{ I �I 1T IAlSLF L �,1 I 1 . 0 IL a a � d li2silrc.'�i^d' �, lid n. Z m' ixH'x � i Ax • N U a 3 0 2 N IG 10. ' 3 G a w.Wi mNmtm�.v Yz E. L m a~ a N C.a U N c o'c3 b-yalni40°1.aa V O b r m. mm «'� C' d m ,U b U py�.. W. � L tm r] _ j : L m :N- C j, d � N c�UNammN v . m m ¢ W m N Q . T :6o; 'i°. 'o= uml, -I c- FC aom 0 - bm-2 •J �« m c. -•c E'm•tm-oma �a ¢' �G v N.'0. m• O m. C U Q7 td C N a U P N m' C❑ a V..0 O F E: .� C 3$ @• O.`O O•2 0 Q' N L N ¢ a0 EHmm N> m.y. d. cm=� nu'a �E mo.=rnm - L.1, @ m m m bo N m o.aG m N $mOcn' •`dF'v-7 - dNT�mvap �,,�!n ".m yr�:ncpuyiR t' n.p..y 'O)01Nmgmm': C r e� mJmm m W Ga O J U C L 3 t IR mm E, nb W9iEa "aci'.:m u'o ms��m. �U.m ,C Tz@ocm m,p:m m: O'm o"G. m._ U mL�L.. oi. mm,::Ecm mho`- b2 E'o.t N S 0. m @ mLx a =_2 m'IC >.@O J:£_ a C.J .w C.. lm �t Qb`0 N N', o� m.b^ h n C.C:y� O 0,., m.c 'N.m N r O,- cra m O'C L1 t.O D.-. 'C nw: (m0 O .3: U1 G@ C .Q V�:OIN m m .= m ;r�L O @a ac,nNma..:-mcia. 3' m O' E U oabm mLd mCl maL @—`> {[..' h`��mpp. •C /h 9.Lma m�c III @ �: !mxm o y N U L N a O m c N :�`m N, nA GF':.'!J' ' o a o ,Up _: CN��UNinL? N @m:�,:q>> t, m.mt O aleC`m �.O � 6..U.. tUF c,cmN C,o m1L"c m:.mG C_M t.m� mm+c q..ro 402, Fid —i p c w 3 u;£: tq C .. .14 a'C d _ v y i C- 4a- Ca O'm UP a. [J � (�J J m tO' ml12 V 'm mJ � O. �. C] 'O @ I 0, IdA A' @Qp 'G O S S y w ..N Iq; m G- ;¢ ct 'Q 4% U:a x�yy� @ fA .ua m' ,r; In m a m c m:u] Q o W :i d m' -m'. -p P, o a, U o, U.. o o. 'o, �o N m OJm';ii NHIJ r z5 -R a. �' [J .y n,n to . O; !H U 7v�difaUQ�'ly':U {°mw`U" N WeL7 r7 c' Q �;cN y m. -m m.QNm I UO -C) a I cRjl CM:.�o90U~baLS'�" W >Z W IJ O A' ii. p O H m'(i�'0 4'MRSN� a:0 CW ry ;m C� t �N: 4 N CY GAG q K.: I -N U L♦ -.:N S� tC N f..N O p O.I .rte W U 'T„ G' .a O,h. W n p ,y m a o:;� v vyrr.q:m Q Oa; ai. an. mm 0.,m 2-5'7° S.5 -m''m E` o o. 'y'•. N'N O bSgp:t' O (�•_ 2` mm2;. @ C.Y, .j ti. CL,y of T b l... ,� N.M. mgbso Q C C w O G E N:Tin �i, ��J 'v'ai atmcpm N xm c'•m ,amm E'ca tuc �b, +. yF3,c a. O: CE26m mICN E'r1'�Nry•a� mr�-m Rm:m �f��.mm OLA '�. �] mOTa U n7!1194 NpJ't� m .��o 0, H3 !Z1w:§.i� :G 2c 00385 00386 ea bo g. 52 la, CL w CR m T r L5 u - O c L U M 0 0 U N 0 M 0 -1 2 0-1- UN— I w in m - — M MM 0 C'� E 6-' �u W=7 E'u I m o p Ef m* E c w w 4 -10 M-i" 0 �' .1 U-2 F- ' �-1 I E up q' w C -0 0 a — - L -F mC"� - V; m I E MOM 0 3:' d2 me o U. 'q M C-0 c a M.M C . 0 0 c 0 0 D tJ m m E'� 75. 0 , " - im LJ c wo, m'M e1. ll lmvr rl 0 Wild" E 0 03,d, m 0;2 V W jw a = I m. .0-N 0 0. rA .R.— a Is- 04 00:m (DITS, . C4 W'M 4 At— g 1, uto �Ei P3 Lj D a -M, 0 of Ema l ji, m -Q "co 4: E R.ir IL "E -.00 EQ -N PO I wl'�a cr a Up a. 4.6 ;D: V Z - IU UYM QV t -.(N.0'1 w a 1% lic&'A . W..Z- I t� =M'z§�Ng :c .1110 , , �' �i� m LM, -'tD' k Z.0 F MM".. MEL, .9!: W m:2.'q-dzH' E'b 0 19 yid j5, ' C 0 W'a .00 SRI; tb m t3a 0 WM97. OWN: Do Am 22O. 00386 00387• CD L2 aim m LL .2 M -b 1 .00ps C -E! I = w c La - . .-.0m. M, 2 . E a 5; , O_- u 0 m Io. :Ei m. in T r a) 73 IS o -o0. 0 U`OS_ 0 0 W. .10 � Q. 0 . r .0 U EI= 0 CE -LN -, . I, I 0 P �p V 0 n ,I 0 10 Q 0, m 3: 0 L) c .m = ff� , 01 m Or UM-.- �= .2 W -,r 2 2 M.. M Or -,rl Emv' 0 0 > M W* C. . r. Q 10 0 3z , -., . C D , 0 I u 0 0-o 2 75 , m. 0 -Q� A!& b LO 62 0 W.T 0 m Ig 0 X -,,C3 0 w S 0 w M W iRj­m CIL 0 C, = M. LM q O E� g n C05 m 0 Ola m mzu. E .0 D 'm m-67 R 1M c;.w 6 j 0. ai Si tj EI =� m Fz IL a F- p LL R v7 - 'in m n m ityj M. Ch N. 0 fm: LL &E zi� - n 0 .- =. o- Ei _.M.M o to .6 A ,.LU 0; Q ,b M..O Ca �,Co _q =ai D. -M',M -ca: IQ oi. o SN Ol 61 ig 99 0 El, AIR ii 00387• fC M en' of 00388 a YY b ciL°cE m 0 F m u U..r+i m u C C c m v c .,-c-� t°i 7 ,. oi'.m .E m a o,d Cj� >, ,..-a am m .6 9 O N O p audp � mea al m,:E m��` cm m apt Nan.y 1-N.>oom..mw a Em�o.'m.'o.L'�S. mC p, N m5 ami==oaom .0 a:macu Fi'c£=.�u o p N m: °= >. C y o tli'm '; E' 3 h C N� N' & ,& j .m :L. � C t UO—M A L: C,4- = 3 TIM=- .N 1.5 m ti man E °-m o o' :�,.v.t aoCf pmt a'i`m Fm, miW ht OIL IQ ,p- F-�'rt—E'. °tJ. Cb mm C. r�. si cto .obL r,E ❑❑t.. m;.0 m o 2 am m u a�p e o. V. pf R m m G O m � rb °. U m b..p n �i6 m: j�°"� 7,cMi'"CJ N N li, �E W-: QQ N±.0 Ni i.Nc"E u ° M en' of 00388 .1 a. 00389 RORR if rr.. NMI' 0 o 14 go 0 w W,,n -SE ci 0 0 am= M m a5 0;5 m.E E 2.0 0 r 0 .0 a ff :BC �w 2m '' A �P.E. E 2 t .d N6 > a Ej M IX Qlj- 3 ,u =3, MbO— f2 Q O'S I 1;2'!F7-4 05—. t: ici Y'am N w W.,, Z5 a 0 MW-.. U,,�w 6 m122 F- r vi Lo C, IN "'.—M Q-�. p N,, NcL C9 It IL 70'. WFA Il'pNhj a,C4 0.W oa�OOfN NICU GS c4p- ml C4, a al 0. V- .1 a. 00389 24 Arl v. 00390 r r3 CL E . 0-6 E . . . . . . . . . . 7E'R 7E; 0 E = E W 7E1-6l4z 0 u now 0 M:m m E.� r MW w M m 04— 4 'EPI 9 0 m5 - m -00 E 0 02i ma C� 0 > w �Z: r 83 No P:-;O-,cke E U:'D .0, ;0. M C4 0 "MT ak C� V5 0�2 o;8" spa SO IM: Z. o0.� 1,,-; 0 :N •o - En Z-4 E lb urs win"a tQ - III Alm W;' mit- "�Jg dl :w. 0" pa j; 0, :"1.5;' S. oo 10V -->, >0 .a LtR 'a 4.0 ImOsal. g�Q 75 -A ilO igS10a0-jo x4va!zl- . KgRayj 24 Arl v. 00390 r=XH)8.lT'O-...OF RESOLUTION WO, 41-01. Notice- an0 0-d T . -er ,r Community Development Department Sent via first dass and certified mail September 16, 2010 PFelt S. Fairbanks . . - 5.20 PacificStreet Tustin, CA 927aO-4329 NOTICE AND OfiDERMIRE-CITATION NOTICE DECIL&VATIOROF-PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Andress: 820 Padifir:afreet .Assessor Parcel Number. 'Qase Nifthb6c Dear Mr. Fairbanks, A61zW1=(J7 vlo.m12! TUSTIN BUILDING. OUR FUTURE "NORING OUR PAST T`arqK-,-yqu forlm.eefirig with t h City staff OV620,Pacifi:Q.Street oh September A, 201Q. Puring the PONZ J:Wo detached htm6tujreg -Weis obsdN&d WAli"in Ii addition to t 6 rear yard' in add.t, Ta: quest house pbikV6 the. garage and 6 second ;guest house bphip.d tfiegarage; all of which' are tinjiSeftifted. A preliminary s6ar6hof-Gify records' also indkites jh4t 00 ponditl nal Use (iz-upJis op file to.establishguesithouses it 1.11 ppetty.. .9 permit 01h6i fibficorfipllant Issues were ASO. noted :13W119: the 'InSp.6666h;� W.-Mch, 600.dd; bUfl, are ;h-ibt: 'llfrilited-toAhe stalrcasW6� ibWibuffiiide --- d'ob-9 not prov] W e, appropriate: ge lbaq(sto. the: side property .. ..p arId theguest.h ob#&Ob*bVo the garage currently contalm. is qoh— '. .-;. . IkL -youi-prop;rtywhich' Are aq4gq heretofACMA, Nrsupht to fas-in qIfy'C6de 142 `ihareJote please' be advised 31i M066464d at .520, P.6clW. Slirbet Of d, M�, Ab&.1w'.6dietachedsifri. Mife. (0 -do 'f Sttbmd a complete CUP applfd�tlon With the approprfafe plans' and all dth..ec necessary; 00 idalfans W the. 01 Plahhin-dbrid W(6160_ biwifon -for.ifie two guest houses; and the two 46h6d �slhuclldrdii Withiri.thti rear yard; 1. Tusfin, CA!12-A'0 4 R-4A.4 wivw;tusfima.brg 00392 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO, 4161 Notice and Order 00393 Community Development Department Sent via first class and cors led mail September 1 B, 20i 0 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92760-4329 ! 1 .. s.� • !' „. L.0 C' !rl a tl! � � 071 Property Addrem 520 Pacific Strcat Assessor Parr~.' ^!um!Lr 401-371-07 Case Number: V10-0312 Dear Mr. Fairbanks, TuSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for•meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached. structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above -die garage and a second guest house behind the garago; an of which ars unpermitted. Apreliminary search of City records also Indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant Issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to. the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the skis property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facifilles, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Punivant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisances. Therefore, pieaso be advised thst the City has determined that a public nuisance is being mainta=ined A 520 Pacific Street due In that the neceaeary permits and erVdement weed not obtained for the two detached structures In the rear yard or the two guest houses. 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. - 00394 HOW- VW otcw z 520 Pxft Sb Sepevrbr 10, 7010 Ca 8v1G-M12 Page 7 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpennitted structures and improvements on the property-, which include, but are ncl limited to the two guesi houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard_ NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finalcd within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the data of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing_ Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an adminis"Llve citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1102(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, wiut all abatement costs being billed against you and/or/ assessed agalnst the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney fore further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, Please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincere Br!!d Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: ExhibitA— Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor 00395 BATES STAMP NOS. 00396 � 00405 NOT USED I RESOLUTION NO. 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two livable units located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Community Development Director or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed; 00406 EXHIBIT F Resolution No. 4162 -- Page 2 i G. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; H. That the appellant requested consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; I. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; J. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission acted in its capacity as the appeal hearing body to consider the appeal of the decisions of the Community Development Director, K. That on October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the _ appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010, meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal; L. That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961 (Report attached hereto in Exhibit C); M. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; N. That on April 7, 1947, the City of Tustin adopted the First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 71) in which a guest house was defined as "Living quarters within a detached accessory building located on the same premesis as the main building for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling."; 00407 Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 O. That on November 6, 1961, the City of Tustin adopted a new Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157) which required that a guest house was subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that no cooking facilities were permitted. It also established second unit standards which allowed a kitchen subject to a Conditional Use Permit and minimum site standards. Said Ordinance also set forth the definition of nonconforming uses; That Tustin City Code Sec. 9273b for nonconforming structures and uses specifies that "Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin." The Community Development Department of the City of Tustin may send, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, of any nonconforming building or structure, or of any ( property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of said use. Said statement shall be filed with the Community Development Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. Upon any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations of the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure."; Q. That there is evidence substantiating that the unit above the garage located behind the main house and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage were constructed prior to November 6, 1961, including the following and attached hereto: The Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that "At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear" (Attachment 1 of Exhibit B). Resolution No. 4162 ( Page 4 ii. There is evidence that 520 and 620Y existed as shown on the Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952 (Attachment 2 of Exhibit B). iii. The son of the original owner, Robert Stephen Gaylord, provided a signed statement indicating that "the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942". Said letter stated that "the unit behind the garage was built by [his] father [George T. Gaylord] between 1945 and 1950". The letter further states that this unit, including two rooms and a bathroom, were built by George Gaylord for Robert and his brother to occupy. Mr. Gaylord's letter further indicated that "the rooms were made available to others" of which the only person he remembered was Ms. Grennan who was a caretaker for his parents until they sold the house sometime after 1978. (Attachment 3 of Exhibit B). iv. The on-site assessment by City staff on September 10, 2010, revealed that the upper unit was being utilized as a second residential unit with cooking facilities and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage was utilized as a second residential unit. (Attachment4 of Exhibit B). The property owner(s)/appellant has testified at the public hearings and shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) R. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered said evidence at a public hearing; and S. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the appeal is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street as attached hereto in Exhibit A: A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. B. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. Resolution No. 4162 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of December, 2010. /STLVWZAK Chalrpeffon E ZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that -- Resolution No. 4162 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 141h day of December, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 00410 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 520 PACIFIC STREET RESOLUTION NO. 4162 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The existing nonconforming structures and uses shall substantially conform with the findings set forth in Resolution Nos. 4162 and 4161 and are hereby limited to the Conditions of Approval in accordance with this Exhibit. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with, as specified, or prior to, the issuance of any building, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical permit for the subject property. ("«) 1.3 Determination of nonconforming structures and uses is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing and returning to the Community Development Department the following: a) A notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form within ten (10) days of the date of Planning Commission determination. ` b) The property owner(s)/appellant shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) 00411 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT1 Declaration of Nonconforming Structures And Uses NM. IVj RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use DECLARATION OF NONCONFORNIING STRUCTURES AND USES I, the undersigned, declare as follows: 1 am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby famish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of my property at 520 Pacific Sheet upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming structures and uses are as _ follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit b. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. I have read, and understand that, Tustin City Code Sec. 9273 Nonconforming Structures and Uses specifies: a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapterfor the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or stricture than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a ' more restricttve nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discantinuedfor any reason except pursuant to a valid order ofa court oflaw far a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned ivithin the 00413 meaning a(this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. b) Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or ar rangemmi, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure nary be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. 1 declare that 1 have done nothing to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any of the nonconforming buildings or structures, in violation of the above referenced City Code. I understand that, as the property owner, I am responsible for building code compliance, and all costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Any violation of any of the conditions imposed in Resolution No. 4162, I may be subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(x) and I may be subject to the imposition of a civil penalty for each violation and each day the violation exists. 1 agree to defend, indemnify, and bold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, —" from any clairn, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, conceming this matter. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE DECLARATION i declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Stale of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of 20 (Day) (Month) (Year) . 00414 State of California County of Orange on before me, Notary, personally appeared Bret S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A. Fairbanks personally known to me -OR- (proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public By. (Bret S. Fairbanks) (Stephanie A. Fairbanks) 00415 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 1 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 00416 thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: foundingprincipnls juhn c. loomis, architect james c. wilson, architect principal clwaod I. gullcy, architect ^ Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the -- photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the maiu front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newporr boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 00417 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. 1 There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although j substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carnage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard— newpon beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carnage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this -- resource. 2821 newpon boulevard —newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 00419 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John Loomis Principal 2821 ncwport boulevard— newport beach, ca 92663 — 9491673-2643 CC) EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 2 Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952 00421 X 22 * indicates Home Ownership SANTA ANA STREET ADDRESS DIRECTORY PACIFIC } 205Ah91I1er 210*Duvall 245*Wilt 250*Callerer 255*Gdtan Veeh 260 cit 65 Veeh 2 H 230*Steppe 240*10ser J d) SECOND. EAST -from 200 E and Intersects asset ...... Kf 2.2622 115+Hale F A Mrs...... KI 3-6473 .......KI 3.3603 155 FNrbmlhcr ....... KI 2.7505 Enid Mrs......... Kt 3-641: ... KI 3.4340 160 Thompson J F iia....K12.7906 S Prospect sv, Intersects ....... KI 2-7420 SECOND, JIMT-from 200 D KL 3.0637 %vest drd Intersects 120*Chaney C F........ KI 3-0772 fain Intersects 125*Pmelett Almeria Mrs KI 2-0317 Mrs... KI 3.3873 130AZepeda R V........, Ki 3.6628 ...KI 2-6612 135 Brlslme G D Ars.... KI 3.4815 140*Hubbard Mortimer... KI 3-3977 ........ KI 2.6565 ' 145 Bristow Mary E ,....... KI 2.7590 1511+Malimte Harrison.... KI ...KI 3.3722 South C hlte :-Mm.-ID 3-3722 KI 3.3665 South Is irate ...KI 3.36fl5 305*Melvin J E......... KI ....KI 3-09 h 325 Halt Hayden •• •- KI 3.8743 335 Oglesby R L........ KI I.......... KI 3.4382 336 Hackman G B ilxth Intersects 355ALewis T T.......... k'1 r -from ROD W South A Into 177ABartr R w 445 Meek V C .......... KI 3.3833 445LS Everett C K .......KI .......KI 3.7367 460*Charkbn A M...... KI .......KI 3.3920 465*Keefer W G food .. KI 3.5768 ..... products ......... KI KI 3.2195 505*Martin D L ........ .KI nond'Intersents 510*Huntley W M ....... HI C..... KI 2.6949 Jd F ........a Sebe Intarsacte u 530*ddn H NORTH - 540 Wilma John test seotrh Padfla Into. I av In rural abut Myrtle sv inte 11861 Apartments Pasadena av trite'. SOUTH- Tustin av, Into ret south -38- .... k'1 24309 SIXTH -from 800 D want in.. fa 3-0134 135*Fischbck Midd..... Ki .KI 3.7452 South C Intel ... ...KI 2-8160 au 255*Engbm F As ....... KI Met.... ...KI 2-5447 South B Instep wnd Intersects 305*Undmy Hollis....... Ki ...KI 2-7529 335*slams Cadlon....... Kl r Mur W 0 345*11obinson J OIr...... KI bled Intersects raw Cruren Adelaide Met We Intersects • *Pllcker Bertha .i an In rural street 355*Pennhmlon 5 C ..... KI 20406*Knoa Clem Jr new While EmIIY Mrs .1....... KI 5 (See also Sixth In rural street ad dress directory) T111111; D. EAST -from 300 D east S Prospect av Intersects 210*Cardlel A M........ KI 3.5811 240 Nleblas A R,........ KI 3-563, F intersecla THIRD, WEST from 300 D wort 130 Hanson 6 Petersen... KI 3.765: Frear R W MMyyr..... k'1 3-5111 135 Tustin Pon Office.... KI 2-746; 145 Tus Be Library...... KI 3-2421 City Hall.......... Ja 2-5681 Council .............KI 2-5683 BMr lnspes'Ofeov...l0 2-5681 Clerk's Die ....... :..la 2-5681 Fnglotr ........... KI 2.5683 Judge .............1112-5663a2-0373 Justice al •the Peou.sa 2-3681 Mayors Ofc......... KI 2-5681 Polka DcPt.........KI 2-5681 155 Fowler s Schmetser heating comm...... Kl 3.8194 South C Interstate South E Intersects 309 Mitchell Restrict Mrs 315 Custer Marian I ..... KI 3.2433 321)*Gusdenon H E...... 1 2.7322 328 Patton K A .... ..... 3-2550 335*Pierson F R........ KI 3-3902 340ABurke M W.... .....10 2.8355 South A Interseote 430*Chadltk N T ........ ID 3.9165 4404 Millet Dlr If ....... a 3.6349 450AVAIM C 5 Men ..... Hl 3-3582 455*11madsg C R ...... Hit 3-3465 465*Hlmlesmn V L......10 3.3605 CRISS CROSS 7IIRD WEST (Cont'd) California Intersects 500*Leihy 0 A .......... KI 2-8422 505*Sagravn M E ...... la 2.4679 515*5tanton K W Mrs 520*1awrence M E ...... )a 2-0505 525*Johnsen Cantor 530*Lanier C R ........ ID 2.6454 5350llen J W 540*Kenyan 6 F Mrs Paclflo intersects 655*McCabe L J........91 2-3323 660*Meskell G H ........ ID 3-6410 665*Trickey a T ........ KI 2.7733 690*Campbell J D ....... KI 2-7671 Myrtle av inksmacts USTIN AV -from W Second south to 898 W Main 205 Apartments A Home Shop Appliance Repair........ KI 3-4777 Aeru L C........ KI 3-4777 9 Nichols Roy....... KI 24695 C Cunningham Edith 0 Mule Henry . E Lange N C....... KI 2-5832 F Grant Mary Mrs 235 Clam.J B buses for charter .......... KI 2-9892 305*11ardiny B P... -.KI 2-5059 320AWamn C R........ KI 3.3015 W imaln lntersects (See also Tonto an Is rural street address directory) 3RBA AV -from 610 W Fltak 125 Huntsman Rat....... h1 3-5886 333*Pyeall G H......... KI 2-7546 1350Ales A J.......... 10 2.0272 143 Vaunt *Okkermn R E....... k'1, "IBB 145*0avis L 5......... K1 3-3462 rear Bowman Harry 11556*Gray J J 153*Cutler K B......... NO 3.3622 155*McCullough E M Mrs KI 2-2133 1634 flogs L........111 D 165*Mlller H A......... 2.9821 KI 3•1348/ 173 McMullen Thos...... KI 34319 175*Windier Fred 8562 Bledsoe W A Mrs 177ABartr R w _ Louse Intersects City limits 15ee also -Yuba av In county street RURAL STREET ADDRESS DIRECTORY istned by Ste Ana 001 GeorlCin pi trite Csroollllnnaa pp1, Into P.11rul le ek lata 42+McCullou9h R H.....KI 51+Waren Alf ......... )a 62*1-ove L A .......... la IR*Foote 5 E 72*Cumminos M C ..... KI 82*Hall R H........... KI 01 Richardson F L 02*8nened A J poultry BE 12*Posey H H.......... KI Z1*Bates F E hide conk an Clark W F 22*Ha G W ........ BE 23 CII/ford J'S 25 Gray L S ........... KI ACACLI (CtnPd) ACACIA (Canted) ACACIA (ConVd) 20231 Ste Ana Hn Water Ca KI 3-3188 Sytaseore Interseeta 10911*Pwl G C ...... Grdn Gr 2.3776 *Okkermn R E....... k'1, "IBB Dale av Intreseets Grove Intersects Orchard dr Intersects 11556*Gray J J 1D931*111wholder R H..Grdn Or 2-6621 20241*1.1ndemm J C ID 2-2098 Hammock Robt ID941 Ralples Sperling ....... 20262 Kassell D C 8561+11Nts A J GAS........ Grdn Or 2-0441 20271*Shldds A E 8562 Bledsoe W A Mrs 10952*Ayala J M ZD272 Robson J E Louse Intersects Euelld Intersects 20291 Miller R 0 bide contr KI 2-1816 8571ALduer Lorena E Grdn Or 2.5906 11031+Moody E A Rev *Wagner N M Mn.... KI 2.1816 Adele Interseefs 11041*Mwrimn J P..Grdn Gr 2-6146 20292*Mland R A uphdstr.Kl 2-9992 8691 No return rear Morrison A I Mrs 20311*Gay K K 8652 Cushard F A 11042 Wahrenbrwk K A Grin Or 2-5586 20312*Howell J E ......... la 2-1988 8671 Chichester W T.... Grdn Gr 732 11843 Christensen her Mrs 2m124a Cermank V G Lorna intersects Walout Intersects 20321 Amrdell F S........ KI 2-1870 5691*Lewis C C 11861 Apartments 28322 No return 20322'/1*Johnson 0 1 Jose bine Intersects -8 Arts 1 Conklin B M Mrs 20341*Hwle R C......... KI 2.2098 2 Harvey A J 20342a Johnson P E Nelson Intersects 3 Brockman C E Grdn Gr 9080 b Hwmn H 5 2-4446 10741+Bassett C E....Grdn W 2-4446 N M. Grdn Or 2-5571 4 Stehb J J 20351*Bwbmk 5 K..,..... KI 2.1979 20152*LahodM C W.......a 2.1975 10791*RokNm 10012*Farmwouth J (..Grdn Gr 2-6627 5 Poll H P 6 No return 20361+Hurtado V P Went Intersects 7 No rearm 20362*Kala Clem.......... ID 2.1093 1083141Ksof J A 8 Day Lois H..Grdn Gr 2078 20NI Acacia EstRanch.... KI 2.5139 30Hargis A C 8920 9 No return Wllaon V.......a 2.939 108422 Wilson R L 17062 Jackson C L 20406*Knoa Clem Jr 180421, Vaunt 11071,suntan J W Mean dr intersects 10651. Bad W K carp 11081*RIHII AlpPhon..... Grdn Gr 2090 11882Aupshall ' -06- ACACIA AV (Garden Grove) 108522 Vaunt 108526 VacentMrs Veralee ..........Grdn Gr 9232 from Huntington Bench 10861 Bleld J H 10862*Harper E H Mrs..Grda Gr 2!229122092 11091*Parker Luella Mrs Lanyon G L ...... Gain Gr 6667! blvd east, I north of 10872 Porter W A..... Grdn Cr 320 1nii Davenport H E Garden Grove blvd 10892*Garrett H C Pine )ntereeets Court Intersects 30902*5howaller W C 11131AWenu W B ....... Grdn Or 491 00422 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 3 Signed Statement provided by Robert Stephen Gaylord 00423 October 25, 2010 To whom it may concern, My name is Robert Stephen Gaylord, one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord. I grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave. (now 520 Pacific St.) in Tustin, CA. My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above the garage all in the time and with the processes it takes for a single individual to do all that. The best that I can recall is the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base in EI Segundo. We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion and saw the search tights and anti-aircraft guns. Dad finished the apartment for him and his new wife to stay near us while he was serving in Southern California. Later, the apartment was rented to Marines stationed at EI Toro Marine Base. I recall the stairs to the entrance as a child. In my memory they were always there on the side of the garage where my parents would catch rainwater. We were not allowed to go up those stairs. The unit behind the garage built judge this based on he fact I was born m fathermy roughly 11933 andwhmy brother John andtween 1945 and 1950. were young teenagers my father built the two rooms and bathroom for us to occupy. After we moved away from our old home, the rooms were made available to others. The only person I remember was, (I believe the spelling is) Ms. Grennan, who helped take care of my parents to the very end. In fact, she called me about health problems my father was having when we moved him out and sold the house. My father worked at the grammar school as a woodshop, boys' athletics and natural science teacher. He was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and a Deacon with the Presbyterian Church in Tustin, He was often involved in construction work in and around Tustin. He was in every way a faithful law-abiding citizen. Sincerely, Robert S. Gaylord 00424 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 4 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Rev1sed(12114110) 00425 W v u c AR C. U m 0 u ti m 9 e N 00426 —14W �Ww C 41 m 03 0�S 44 L O- 96--S ,: r, pal �-"Sf m _ O 2.2 E }g a ZM$ '�ga.c cM y cm—E� € cmc pais y«d a N In ~9F�m v m a mo mem 0 LU Gyo ORO n oo,omm ,L Cm mOaLE L E i0 tp�i �� =a O'"am M. O m mm 6 to CG m G n O E° U c m N_ c. YO m `y m C a N U m N� i Q m Z m m@ O1 ° C O 12 C C D C r c d C d m O O •m m P 7 N O ° N m�p V •� •nOnff' TS U m C� = U m m 2 13 a s�p yp m (UJ m 2 m° m N C .m ° G ^ C L^'O r rj ° a; N 2 7 =--O O m O a V m E �'�mm«y w•S�mo y`o�mm�,mcm �aa S�a:°Tia�g' .8mom-�w `w $«ami v'm m.�a� 3•m�-'m U--Zma 0c3U @Lr Lm. a_• - 0 m G w O�2 N C y t2 C N C « ,p J cm U�mLi'a m8F ,�a E cCy«9 a. �.�mn J �� ^ a m c�.,�m m_-om yn =[3 �m �aN0p9CW'j p'OCC O.ON m.Cm oryic�Cu;DocUN a� v�N�m=3m f0Jm 2 y M- m I E •� k m� 0 N m � {i o' C� N�� 9« Y'—� m �Ea E -m« Em N C C 0 0— 0 m m: m a>aa3DN m� dMMA 0sl EO A3m='00 Q m�uc9 4°m m>N 0a m'wn N OOUa -6 cE.tC.52mCyC L9� mcOS c.c CI� mU rn .-.mo9oB°mm o -o p�nv� a 912 � �gcc 2: vN3O ° gc e HE m e {7m« omo,o 0 R Na i GO NL�V p•ma Na N•P� m V h �j`m Q C (0:2 U2�cgA2 S'a°m - momE��2 mem mm J m CL .0 O. m E cc llr `n <,9. U s m �+ m 0 o m .jEN1 U o U, m o N � � fid. U x n m Cj =3 EoaEcegci¢ mo.4a � �•c*gm.c DUvl10Eco n.�o. n o m a y mV)iU$� n ne a N�N mt $nmo2v N .-Q Um fg oUmF-NUC E is IQ WLLUmm IT..g UN C m o f m c E� m -mamma= m m�7u a c•tvc 10a Oy a «���EE a.a`>gmami �i m OFX-6mA cc o�m , E'E-dm,3caE9 -d mu VU , WE c so �Ea �mmo��m�a°`mx m« 2mq�t««o�.acSm.P�muJE'Fcmw° LaEpq u°0:_2 Eolu -ejeueo N 00426 N 00427 m of 'Ycf v m « c m 2 not O in 0 a o w O u L m a. i v ` b o - n y v a th ou a '^ n v 'Ic c � « m LD Cc a U 0 E Vm 0; y O Uo mm $ a 0 > N C m- W m N m -'CO O" m m �d y m �' .� m N m N OfEA .Q u D y p m U lap.1 m pp m C C m 9 p m C N W L rn W 3 p �j V m �N1pp YSY�� m 3 m a L m N i. y� um m C m D m `-c�.S�aEi mn'e$w 3yWUC a��..3 cm c amt m4 m� play'.pp�yL� CmmeC�H m Y"mo OS C9mN E:cammmo ��c 4a dmmd�m�Hp E~ m G.O N L .t�mNrl r .� A c� C'`� @ nt.o�L i N H E 9 3 w 0« c F mF E- v a� v"Lm 7 r,� v w v L m n C o y p [c Ei mN � m $� O.S., L c C 61 Oaz mCOj 0-EOC 0 7m amry w$m si m3..o,.d y -.5 o m y o m v c m` c pOm y 2 H EOt b m 3 O U m �L rC" W y ar m m i m m m 0�0d m N9$�GC.L. C L O N m p C N E L C �Cm��o �E�--_hm�� �mL oV�oLN 3o N m mego 0 =HES v='L JL5Ninvvmmv -y°•U HiF€'�y�u-n H`ot o2iEwg 3 �$cr«�w MH L„CC H a� H rJ” r'uu m Y m N 0 m 0 y U N C t 6 r� 7 C LN ME� 6 rn N m �NUoU as �3 om'm 4j omF�o' 3 ` mm v U) m o m ¢cam D v N'o?m aura ym CL om�m mam �i�¢t' Uw�om QE V rpvai am°J �e�oo m p�p'pm� N O O U O O U N m m0(AmU .o-'UUrNU e = m 8=3ep �p'�s 3 go D w -ay$m E 7= L �I N p j G. a C N _' cc mm�aoiw+o'v �octc� Wm'°mF'Cmo ti CmaVv..=N�m-oocm rn m23 '2 2'n ,`0 �'m 00rn U y�>a>o�€muSN $ayyE ayic�oaE o.o api€n`im=��d �m23 aa�n�m}i cco5c`a �H�as n-1-`aoi '�o�`ow 0 ,� 0 98MB enoge llun Nols puooss N 00427 m 11� T. y ' i y u j � r �E ma h 0 3 LO C) D d I yw 'S@ r` x{ t O a N VO F� X10C C r v & E ? to •pan d m m p O C 'a H pmp11 m$ l7 a m C Ln .mc >` O tm r m C a m m o m m 'pqV O C m y E U E O Cmasm ymOmy mf7i �qp N N E 12 Q� t O F $ a a of R m, g c `CpU a d n w 3 m A gm -:g me w 9 m N N S« m w a P: c 3 a ASyr C m E m O c N N po = •p m L m T C m C 2 t= N m m> C U N � 3tl t.. m.C_atm. E� i N NC�m - °-' •`9 m c � E c ;e No -p00. .L. G.CmmC rn o E .� D •. a r' W m L):F46 c E s c3 o°ii ai cg Os c� mL L oFF c L 3 c mE y 3^� jcO 17O•� 3awi mc s=H:�s ��ro 0Zr= mm5P~ac �>. >cm ao mp m G -0E a$ oo—,U-6E cvaaeo°NMWrn m m$m m N cc L G FC 0 Icy ad+ C€ O J o m U C N Fj m ii w �c N w w O m 3 3 C U O� r4 K===— �aE Ey:93= Fu ENw 3a o'cF oli m L� E E,ts v'r 'o N m o m o U w c mmES O V cO mm 3` Op a 'F O U? c0 ,{-C H d c U 0 ox m L L U¢ U F C � U N N r" A O U ,� W� U� •� �� N S 10 a .... v•S �f�L° m'oU E 9 mm L$ mU'ro �m Nrn m s> �.�L Lo aEU E� c m m o m Gm w c m 0 c C�Or6 O. m a c€ m ag m� m �`u7m� aw L a£ic 8a{ w `o ct .EAc 02 _mm C n y^= Cp j _mm C D= 0 C C cc S �U4 5 E m �m o amt ,US Da $m CL E [� 0 Ni a am4 E m V m'aua m 7 mE"w 00 I A l u�la ¢E� L1L m Is I - 0m2w.2 mn. m mLLrii�¢E« CJa U� '�o m CO d $!eo QED UOUD :ca m�$ U > > >`mUQ$D mUQ 7m� mUQ �i rdml.�n mVnmj^6i rn�gm m(Jn m•a °' r'�n m rm� m nm0 NN TUU'-�`0rn�$OfU-Cl0 1C.)Q FNO ) U) Lo- m E r— c m R. E.9 E 5 E rn a o CL E= �v��m ���c;"y aEmm� a V» _ y E w z� E �� m� V E a� m v t n =' L EL o rn o~ m m E m �. O d c m LL3caum�c` x .c m wE3�`c CO r c € M E A C O a6eie6 O J anoge jiun ljols puoaag m 11� a 00429 MR �y �LV4iW�P>t�sayu' k� > rrk � tt _ O d Q m. = aN y Cm OwMm.. Df N y�y m C m w m U W I,mmjl 3 y N E 3 C m m m r m y O m 6t m O T O L 'O 6 0 N ,C ym m m a N N G O` O y M�3ci. emwLmNcwc�i L°oLms�cc$ mem �'ccm� � �tSm�mU',=m ac�mm c a 'ac -6m c32.2--%.6 .aamim m�'�-mtm.�0.2 22 �1 m m m j C C V w. C m E- yy « FL 0 p L �'y O w L m m F m o m c C Q N? a ma l0 01 C °) € E 3 C C m A N m W ` a On -5m� w m r.0. �a�a`wrcm 3 mn L N C p '� U y rj 2 r•Ep� �n� N -m w 11>pp a N W t �1 m m O' 0 CRRC ? 06 $ 6 ^ EyC L =m m m y 6 $y 9 U y .D '9 ZE W O mUm L 0« w •rj '�S'22 C wpp� O J :E a C j:2 QUC p12 _p y m �m'33v°°Oj LTm�O .0 O r4 0m $ yO mm�.TC C - ; ?Cm Oti�N$ Cm Um 2m m m a m v mmc � m00 cN Smim 9cL m �locri1 ^cma$aa Nmmm'3 •Sa�m�Loc.c cwa O �o8 Oro ao�g mr iDUwc m'L°�m'mE LL ._w�wZ c�« �.rs m C a m I o ow `o tFF ` `o —c O C 0=w c� �« w � N Oi GOq m gy � � m i3.N� ppV �m4 �M�3 a�E ?'m cm Y� N CL'�m CmC f1 mm �s aEr aEZ c aEI� 9�� �ti .4�wyyoc� 00).2 -0 U) S <°v� ¢ Nm ¢ morn y� voi$m�eg m'l°m CL O m 0-6-VsZo,'Ja -a, °.-n � mm oimU@mU �2 T mU� C.) m cm c U Urn �m m m� 7.e Ugo �3Ug2 m @ao ma CO I DA Ute'$ wUa U nQ2 n• n m., n m m OU g._U N Rm" o nCn Y� rC w n5-nuc€n0� C.)pyy O GOim0000Us�m.m..Us� Nm N N QSO mrt O 'V, Nai m O C C.5 C N C OC C m m rJ' O C am =mm cm�w� �., aM{ ami��p « o •yaa«'N wE R E w om 'I��I;;�.9= c o_c$ydic yE mw•=- -P=o w 5«�q r� >�mr oo+�- $ o 40 V'� A•`�°�ono n` fin. ,°k E 2 E€amm �`�q� m��n "$moo Eawi3 �S rn� v� ppxXg' 'OQro `a�.'w2tm c;C aEi v�K J a 00429 j 00430 vcm� ��wp J. �EC- 3?N U K1 3,,N �3 T _ Nae° mo�u c� ucE .v5d M m EE 9U m 0 �dawNc Qo Yil E F N m c 'C U o s 0.2 0 a° r E NNo N L dCdN r oma upp�a9ioa m a��° dm...O Ut Ymj Cep c>ym ESa=aNim ham omg Mot yd L d N m C> w D U N •° C. IE d d n6 @ ���pp`m yL cry �I NZi °Nl d N OI 'O c 3 O d d N m L 2 C d 'O �' N _d tp F W ~ N m a ) d O Q dL 2 O C t CF L c m F C 8 `�aV1EOa -WOMB 8O m ti N ig `o p y �j"dd OI 'pdd••'�ppd�� rn .eF 1Np a C as �3 Nd a00E N� daE0 ° �+O m. 4`oE EU U600"2 NmCc ..0 =n ama ma y�a�E$Nm VUJ W�e°NE a N�Nd mN dmomNv] E LL cNi=rL Ua.'�E (j�Wa QEr 0 O. p U U N d m•mm@m N d 17L U U C N m• V d O U U V O :� O o-.-u um =IZO_¢ ?@m3m€E�`d-ca U 0 O'c m'mmm 7 0 7 m C7 N@ 1� n ny� NO.N ypp N m COISfOd h h O C y 0 0 w0 NO.N m UNn'y {�tf 01 QQl2L pc m O NNNW�i7 A�hdd mdON1000SOg �Q �h Nom❑ Qr �(i 8U'S Um aU VJ� T�r U UFNU c 2 FN a = i.- e yw6 ;S dN S°o��vG 00 09 mN wW 0M—jdg Epomma yyNA p49 'Sc �0E £m NNAec 'm9yyydm nvd.aN $v�E iY'nLO`0°+ 2nv co Emm mmE=Svmmma - ,Sj vC9m@M r�0c� 9$ynvyOd C 0 0 J jJOdJ@� j 00430 I, 1 iQ � F- p m 0 a N 0 C Ql y$ C $ N 2!w O N N D t' - m N d 0 J L.. N'$ N m C J p m m V N _m>�,yyLL,�m:QQ �C NL`oO��'cy �.mwpo U ppL 0 u'ppJN 'Cc C v�vn��$maoc NU $d�,c aci E��i ag$mn$mr �°�' y.cm..N Ez mea¢ �v 'v om m.> -n 9 d p m L o 0 3 m m p S. - 4i m 9_ ,. m m U C o P o m N iC a 3 m a N a m C 6.[3 - O •tA 0 3 P €_- C C T m L$ 9 m J a m U OI J m m s m N d._ m 0 N cmaL''yiim�°ar�'�omoB� ;� o P m a o g o- t v �•`-'�c �i Tn �- m$ c 2 L L' a m '° m m m U a m r �m> mcMUCJ Eo�i7S c5 $ ra`0cm�•g mTi�$ o>r L°>a rn c N$9 mpy, v v v oc.�y.3 moo �mc ccmmaL�n$c`�o amm p U m C 'O N 9 N V m m "' C P� C N y Cy O •J d 8 p U N Nm N y .?, L a N umJ .a ': mS4mr $"cmo JP�E$mz, �v $3y3mwfeac oo wU vi ms ry ia= wm E�°1'N°Ny=c��p$ CL a 0 cy cNamm m.-Lc.c ._ pE i r o N" ao,'3_ m;mit c m�3a o �Ny ,� .O1i �v E u m m J o m m@ g id M.2m�$€-ragym v>o�S vm�9 'moo q�3 m�$ a6 Za'i.3 �$mca moacit ciE2 .!g �'IS� d P mat m o m'9 @$�S >d�m tm-a->ca�v in ni`c m>m�mm I`.c_ as `oF mti nm 'rgUz0 .2"115 �i 0i$£3 c 0 P 0 J aseJeE) Iiun leilueppai ieaa b 00431 o a Cc p O C vMLLom - o guy -o asR .- u3 mN oc� aNm;gm m i5E atSE �--}m}C�m �Sm m�c'9 '7d(1 .. fnU dD mC�OO ca W� m�WJ �3pC 0- m i]. �C 0-Lo❑d[V- m ca 0 CLN aR yyF-� m0im •TEm� m� m'sma wm yyF mO�mNEm•.oim Cm� (j - U m m m r C r J� �p m df m D m 7 m U N m r m mr2 r m mr 0 (0 C U m m m L pNj m r Cry m U U N P- G w•o-$rm10m .-O NIL�3m N a a N 4N a'p 'M -.0 m arno 0 Sm He'Mmao_m'>^mm �UU�-Q e-UUN W Q N'-ONIi N CI dl P- nN m `0Ua R'>f/1v 01-•u1 c 0 P 0 J aseJeE) Iiun leilueppai ieaa b 00431 m m P p O C CC O m N N C w y^ OF N m W -6220 d�sa�� fi � auoi a 0 ,fie co c [2kV;C' EEmo�^'S U �' 3 ��o1E.p�12 P C C �f 10 m 3��paa 3� = N U a N O1 m 00-0 N N C•_ C m 0 •� Fq_ m L of .>'.. x w E5m J m y 0 p mac m M2 M- '�wm U At am:$ omco7cEm E °'oxncy o$'vi� --C §�mc Za m mm3 � WK m m m�Scgm :3L o.oL nm c 0 P 0 J aseJeE) Iiun leilueppai ieaa b 00431 r- 00432 a ,,.x53n Ib� 4 F 1i 1 1 O L � a � �I 1 <r 'L cL En UtcE W O Y Ol �mm�q1 O 0I •, C am0'p .y cv'v E 2pE 32..l ii M `° mS'.2 a� p is C G.�N�a �m OoNcpop m� �i�-arnm`o, _ � C CC y c N a$ �30 V,cm r=) EVK:O •moi] an !Cme p�q amo�g8EcLF3=m$ .r O�w'moo�€ •C i�cmoaim E3w L� � N m b m� 0 6 C$ TS l�p � G� C 3 N m p> y a O FF.2 = Z O a'a 'cmc m o:?a�5 ¢:�L•9c a�dc as comm= �$vm$1OacE$aa my nnc c•o E$m c0a€i�% ,y m O ommp ma mG1 N@$i3 =pmmm, mmnaic muj 0 �r-Ec0o V U> j m rn o L'.• Y�i w Illiz, 1091 E. O a r v�c N a b C W � 0O O O O £ C p 1 Y ~yy b y t es w m l w N N U m CI € 3 b o titmyc M m`v.cu� o� m m==m0E E u 0N£av _ EFco��. s�RS.,�i$ �Ht9c2 "LLC W c e m c� ooz(mmtLm=$ a� C m.°.,°dt ma0 m-O md0Om a°2 � a a c wo >jN n d'S mGdm£am O'p NLN Fa mv° .ti m' c�.rnW a>2Ey£ 3:.. ° o 0 arc c�L 0v t: 82-a m o y f c m a U a o m c y 33.G 30: F��3�6�. N N rn a y cc o E m 7-6 CL m2w'iam 0 UaC )Q<E'- ' U) X09 0 m U mam m LLo D > >yU'w fpaO mss mom UQ� mai'o N• - 72UN�pp.M n�nNmn�ny rn 4m� om°o N'n p rn CUo Ooa N:2 - xn�6 m .Nm-4gmO CO m MB m; mO 6 m C C tmO ° L C'2 ° d'�P m yU m, m.. b M 'R km2 m n c 3 c •E E c v m m Ea ccrSc a>>>€ c O 9 llun lelluapisw jean w Illiz, 1091 a I e 4' uv s ;il �kCv n �f G N ° � 3 m m E�m _ o N S E a5 0-00 E f.- 3 i..w.. $m X00 rm ° = t— m U r m N 9 N c o v O1 -i -i cz9n�3m9�mWc yEa' p a --tem 46 E c C m Lc C o`02 m E m o o E• RV A v 0 m`�m vEocmy =n�ca E FV wmm c ��°L°a NAL=a Ci�amc c I.N L?`m i'F°Fd�e`a am Nv>`m vm c >mUEc �jom`m �'a �E t'3 m $53f 46 L a C Si C C m E N a N O C W12 N N `p d 0 V C m 0 m d C a O C o A a ei m° _ m C1 m L N N C 9° O m N m y 6f2m L p t 0 m O m 0 ►$'�3b Mao.UM N0 in 598255=2HIm8mU Amo Em n8CAR 16 o` L Cp 61 ^ m C Z m m N O Y m N y m m e� p�j C 6 aES R o. �'Uv mamb mE �71a t�i WN-QEErnvaN U c cF u1�Np wUaa.mC �= Uo0ce 'wm4m {-NO me U•— a �m yU-u rnm m mbfm�cm mums 3d 7LU W—m COmo�g••°aav cN Na � 7 �WLD mE Ucy U o NOS �mNCNU pSC > > O y 1�'Yhr `A Cm WY' o N pp,� N C a L �p C_ SS C nm 0 0 UAL �:sw OI¢O]=q co N� m m O pf m O m V 3 •n 0 q U W W m C W W O� i0 3 on cm .c9E U m m pm�mm g..°cNE m m U 13 m E JTL C 9 j llun lepuapIsal jeou (pay°ejap) WOOL uogea»aa I EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Prior staff reports and attachments from October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010 00435 ATTACHMENT Community Development Department T US T I N April 14, 2011 Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET - MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2011 Dear Mr. Fairbanks, It was a pleasure to meet with you and Mr. Paul Fulbright, your architect, on April 5, 2011; also in attendance was Mr. Dennis McCreary, Principal Engineer, of the Building Division. Below is a summary of the meeting, in no particular order: 1. Resolution 4161, Section IIA requires the structures to be acceptable to the Building Official. I explained to you that the standard I will use is the building code, which is the minimum level of life safety and also the document referenced by the Housing Code. l i 2. 1 explained that building codes are updated every three years since 1927 and that the major components of the codes have basically remained unchanged. A list showing the general provision numbers for most building components for the 1927 and 1946 Uniform Building Codes, and the 2010 California Building Codes, were given to you for information purpose in our March 31" meeting. I explained in that meeting and again in our April 51" meeting that it is a Building Division internal reference document provided for your Information and reference. Mr. Fulbright agreed that It is very general and useful. I hope that the list will be a resource document for your architect and engineer. 3. The architect and engineer, individually and/or collectively, employed by you must perform inspections, analyze the building and its components, and subsequent modifications, maintenance and repairs, to show conformity to the prevailing codes at the time of construction and submit a written report and plans to the City for review and approval. 4. 1 explained that I will be determining the compliance based on the physical evidence of the structure. 1 understand that there is no record of permit. The Uniform Building Code of 1927 has a provision stating that (paraphrased - Section 305 ....The Issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans and/or specifications shall not be deemed or constructed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code.) The same or similar provision exists in all building code editions including the current code (Section 105.4 of 2010 CBC). Therefore, the physical evidence should show all components constructed per code since the claim was that there 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 •. www,rustinea.org 00436 EXHIBIT G 520 Pacific St Meeting Summary were permits but those permits are no longer available. The structure "as is", is the ultimate evidence of whether a permit was issued in the past. 5. Both you and your architect stated that since these are historical buildings you intend to apply the California Historical Code for the structures. I explained that the historical registry for this structure is for a "2 -story garage", not a garage with two additional dwelling units. The structure is no longer the same structure in the historical registry and therefore the California Building Code is applicable. 6. We did not discuss the recreational building adjacent to the side property line, but Dennis called Paul on April 6, 2011 requesting that this building be included in the report. 7. Mr. Fulbright said he had inspected the structure in a limited fashion. He said his Inspection was limited to the items listed in the City Resolution and he believes there are non -code compliant components but he thinks they can be easily fixed, and that both of you were expecting the discussion to be limited to only those items in the City's staff reporttresolution. 8. It was indicated that a structural engineer has been employed by you who will inspect and report on the structural system and structural components. 9. 1 indicated that the previous staff report identified some of the items that were the result of a twenty - minute cursory observation by our staff and therefore were very limited. The fad Is that even within 1 such short time, numerous non -code -compliant items were identified. Based on these, I am of the opinion that many concealed components in these structures (ref. item 4 of this summary) were also not constructed to any codes. A thorough inspection and report by your architect and engineer is necessary to identify the deficiencies and remedial actions proposed. The existing structure. is not safe to occupy. You assured me that you wish to get the task completed as soon as possible therefore we did not discuss a timeline for which you and your consultants will complete the evaluation and report. It is my opinion based on the visible information that the structure may not have been constructed to comply fully with the codes in the past and that it may pose a safety risk. Therefore an in-depth Inspection performed by a professional(s) employed by you would be Important to protect the life safety of the occupants. I request that the inspections be completed and report be submitted to us within 3 weeks from the date of this letter. Sincerely, A��� Y. Henry Huang, P.E C.B.O. Building Official cc: Paul Fulbright Dennis McCreary S:1CddlauildinglHenrylLenen-Memos1520 pacific 4-5.11 meeting summary.doc 00437 MIT- Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street 1 Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 April 21, 2011. Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pack Street Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street Residence Dear Bret, In accordance with our agreement, we have performed cursory Inspections / field visit & site walks, contextual & neighborhood observation, review of the City of Tustin's staff report "Attachment A, Code Compliance Issues Table" dated October 26, 2010, cursory review of the recent City Council Resolution 4161, and analysis of the various documents you've supplied to us concerning your residential property. We therefore recommend compliance with the requirements of the Notice and Order Identified In the staff report dated October 26, 2010 and our field observations, to the extent such corrections and remediation efforts are reasonably determined to be necessary, or appropriate, to ensure that the health, safety, end welfare of the occupants of the non -conforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved. Please note that zoning issues are not addressed since the subject property is considered a non -conforming structure based on the City Council's recent resolution. Therefore, only building items specbed In the staff report from 10/26/10 and our field observations from our cursory Inspections are addressed below. Please note that our cursory field inspections were limited to the existing building areas which we could access. Areas completely covered I concealed, such as wall cavities, that are only accessible through invasive investigations, were not examined. The following pages are the proposed remedlation corrections to be made. Please.feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Paul Fulbright, AIA, LEED-AP Co -Founder / Principal Fulbright Rodrlguez Architects, Inc. Page I 1 00438 EXHIBIT H film �t(hiteeture Planning u7ban, Design Fulbrig ht Rodriguez Architects, inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 Code Compliance issues: 1.1 General Section: 1 b.) "It could not be determined if fooling /foundations ew'st to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures." Proposed Remedlation: Refer to Structural Engineer's Report ic.) "No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance with one hour separation requirement which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants." Propcead Remedlation: Per the current 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, table R302.6 "Dwelling / Garage /and/or Carport Separation", add "Not less than 5/8 inch Type X' gypsum board or equivalent", to the ceiling of the garage and the end garage wall to obtain a one hourfire resistive rating. 1d.) "Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including HVAC) installation work done without permits. Permits are required to insure that life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, waterdamage, etc" Proposed Remedlation; Our cursory inspection determined that the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing appear to be in working order. We recommend having a licensed General Contractor and/or a licensed Plumber clean and Inspect these areas in detail and perform maintenance and repairs to ensure that all the mechanical, plumbing, and HVAC work within the unit are safe, secured, sealed, and in working order. 2.) Second Story Unit Above Garage Section: 2a.) "The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the property line do not comply with the ire protection requirements. The opening is not permitted as shown; exterior wall is not fire rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency." Page 12 00439 Zff frah eetmiure Planning Urhan Design Fuibright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan CaplSuano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 Proposed Remedtatlon: Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Table 8302.1 (1) "Exterior Walls - Dwelling and Accessory Buildings WdhoutAutomatic Residential Fire Sprinkler Protection", when the minimum fire separation distance Is less than 5 feet the minimum fire resistance rating for walls is a "1 hour -tested [assembly] in accordance with ASTM E 119, or UL 263 with exposure from both sides." Therefore, we recommend that a 1 hour assembly, such as 5/8" Type X gypsum board on the interior and a 1 hour fire resistive siding on the exterior, be provided on the exterior and interior of the wall by removing and filling in the windows at the 2nd level where the entry to the carriage unit is. Furthermore, we recommend the door at the top of the stairs be replaced with a code required 1 hour rated door. The stairs should remain for Ingress / egress to the carriage unit, refer to item 2f below for more detail. 2b.) "The furnace installed without required permits does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard." Proposed Remedla4lon: Our cursory Inspection determined that heater Is a Panelray Model "F" unit which was manufactured by the Day & Night Company of Monrovia, Calffomia. These heating units were produced from the 1940's and 1950's to be used as space heaters. The unit is gas fired and appears to be a radiant panel type of heater that produces heat through the transfer of radiant energy. The heater exhausts through a roughly 3" diameter ductwork to the outside. The lower panel of the unit has a door listing the specifics of the heater; these are as follows: (1) 12,000 BTU/Hr, (2) Natural Gas, (3) F-1 Model No., and (4) MN 4006 Serial No. Per the 2010 Calffomia Mechanical Code, Title 24, Part 4, Chapter 9, Section 924.0 "Room Heaters", Subsection 924.3 "Clearance" It states, "A room heater shall be placed so as not to cause a hazard to walls, r7oors, curtains, fumiturs, doors when open, and so on, and to the free movements of persons within the room. Heaters designed and marked, "For use in noncombustible fireplace only, "shall not be installed elsewhere. Listed room heaters shall be installed In accordance with their listings and the manufacturer's instructions. In no case shall the clearances be such as to interfere with combustion air and accessibility. Unlisted room heaters shall be installed with clearances from combustible material not less than the following. [Note: A does not apply] (B) Radiating Type. Room heaters other than those of the circulating type described in Section 924.3(8) shall have clearance at sides and rear of not less than eighteen (18) inches (460 mm), except that heaters that make use of metal, asbestos, or ceramic material to direct radiation to the front of the heater shall have a clearance of thirty-six (36) Inches (910 mm) in front and, if constructed with a double back of metal orceramic, Page 13 l?VCR lte Ure Planting Ufli an Dog h Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 shall be permitted to be installed with a clearance of eighteen (18) inches (460 mm) at sides and twelve (12) inches (300 mm) at rear. Combustible floors under unlisted room heaters shall be protected in an approved manner. [NFPA 54:10.23,3]" We recommend a licensed contractor move the heater to comply with the code required clearances mentioned above, and extend the existing exhaust venting. We also recommend mounting the heater to the floor on an approved base determined by the NFPA 54:10.23.3.. 2c,) "Exposed electrical next to unpermitted furnace which causes a potential fire hazard." Proposed Remedlation: We recommend that the property owner remove the power strip, television, and dvd / vcr equipment and placing them a safe distance, based upon manufacturer/ equipment specifications, away from the heating furnace to minimize safety hazards and damage to any electrical and I or video equipment 2d.) "Kitchen cooking facilities not permitted in guest unit. Plumbing and electrical installed without permits. Permits are required to insure that life safety protocol Is followed and installation Is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, Installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc." Proposed &rnadtatlon• Based upon the recent City Council Resolution 4161, the carriage unit is considered part of a non -conforming structure. Therefore kitchen facilities are allowable. However, our cursory inspection determined that the kitchen does not appear to have GFl outlets or a hood above the current range. See item 2f below regarding the GFI outlets. Per the 2010 California Mechanical Code, Tale 24, Part 4, Chapter 5, Section 504.0, Subsection 504.2 "Domestic Range Vents" it states, "Ducts used for domestic kitchen range ventilation shall be of metal and shall have smooth Interior surfaces. Ducts for domestic range hoods shall only serve cooking appliances." We recommend having a licensed contractor install a code compliant UL listed hood above the existing range along with proper exhaust venting through to the roof. 2e.) "Shower added onto original structure. Thls requires a building permit to add additional square footage (pop -out) and permits forplumbing and waterproofing." Proposed Remadlatlon• Our cursory inspection determined that the shower does, not appear to pose any lire / J; Page 14 1 1 E,Fd ArTIT ecM4`Ure PIiAUIUg UtPE Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 safety threats at this time to occupants. We recommend cleaning the area and have a licensed contractor, plumber, and/or electrician perform a detailed inspection and provide standard maintenance & repairs as needed to ensure the framing, plumbing, electrical, and venting / exhaust connections are sealed, properly braced, and in worsting order. 2f.) "(Exterior Stair] Railing has no Intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children." Pronased Rernedtatlon: Per the 2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsection 1009.4.2 "Riser Height and Tread Depth" it states, " Stair riser heights shall be 7 inches (178 mm) maximum and 4 inches (102mm) minimum. The riser height shall be measured vertically between the leading edges of adjacent treads. Rectangular tread depths shall be 11 inches (279 mm) minimum measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremostprojection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge. Per the 2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsedion 1012.2 "Height" it states, "Handrail height, measured above stair tread nosings, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be uniform, not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965mm)." Per the 2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsection 1012.6"Handrall extensions" it states, "Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight or ramp run. Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handral/s shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser. Per the 2010 California Building Code, Tule 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsection 1013.3"Opening iJrrlitatlone R states, " Required guards shall not have openings which allow passage of a sphere 4 Inches (102 mm) in diameter from the walking surfape to the required guard height. Our cursory inspection determined that the exterior stair providing ingress / egress to the carriage unit above the garage does appear to have code deficiencies. We noticed that the stair railing height and intermediary posts do not currently comply with code. We measured some of the treads and risers, which appear to be dimension out at 10.5 inches and 7 inches respectively. However, we did not measure all of them to determine the existing dimensions of all treads and risers. We also noticed that the treads are an open configuration, which could pose a potential trip hazard. We recommend that the stairs be brought into compliance by constructing proper depth treads and height risers, Page 15 00442 Architecture PIaanIng Uyan Design Fuibright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 If they do not measure out at the code minimum stated above. Also, we suggest placing solid risers on the entire run of stairs to minimize trip hazards. Furthermore, we recommend adding handrails on both sides at a minimum 34" OR maximum of 38" height and adding vertical support pickets per the code sections above to bring the stairs into code compliance. Handrail extensions will also need to be provided at the bottom of the stairs per the code section above. We also recommend sealing and painting the new work to match the existing as much as possible. 2R.) "There is no property line firewall separation between the staircase and the property line." Pr000sad Remediation: Modify the stairs according to item 2f above and replace risers, treads, and railings with a listed 1 hour fire rated material / coating. 2h.) "Roof drains onto neighboring property which may cause Hooding." Prooesed Remadlatlon: _ Our cursory inspection determined that the roof drains do not appear to pose any life / safety threats at this time to as rain gutters and downspouts are installed. We recommend that a licensed contractor / roofer perform a more detailed inspection and ensure the existing rain gutters are property secured and clean / free of debris. 20 Then; were not any visible and operating smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the carriage unit Pr000sed Remedlation: Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Section R314 "Smoke Alarms" subsection R314.3 "Location" states, " Smoke alarms shall be installed in the following locations. 1. in each sleeping room. 2. Outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinfty of the bedrooms." Therefore, we recommend installing new smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the carriage unit per code. 2j.) The existing outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathroom appear to be older / non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential danger to occupants. Proposed Remedlation: Per the 2010 California Electrical Code Section 210.8, 'Provide G.F.I. protection Page 16 Lug Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obl5po Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 to all 12 volt, 15, and 20 amp receptacles installed indoors, in bathrooms, in basement, at countertop surfaces (within 6 feet of a sink)..." As required by code, replace all the necessary kitchen and bathroom outlets with new GFI type of receptacles. 2k.) The support posts underneath the entry to the carriage unit do not appear to be adequately braced / supported by a proper footing / foundation. Proposed Remsdiatlon• Refer to Structural Engineer's Report 3.1 Carport Section: 3a.) "Structural supports do not provide sufficient supporting rafters. Roof members are undersized to provide adequate support." Proposed Remediatlon• Refer to Structural Engineer's Report ( 3c.) "Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between garage and house. The potential for damage and failure due to the exposure of the line is increased and poses a potential fire hazard." Propos01 ed Rernacilatlon• Per the 20 California Electrical Code Article 344 "Rigid Metal Conduit [RMC)t", Section 344.30 "Securing and Supporting" under subsection (B) "Supports" Itis stated, "RMC shall be supported In accordance with one of the following: 1.) Conduit shall be supported at intervals not exceeding 3 m(10fr). 2.) The distance between supports ror straight runs of conduit shall be permitted 2. Continued) in accordance with Table 344.30(B)(2), provided the conduit is made up with threaded couplings and such supports prevent transmission of stresses to termination where conduit is deflected between supports." "Table 344.30(B)(2) Supports for Rigid Metal Conduit Conduit Size Maximum Distance Between RMC Supports 112-314 10 feet 1 12 feet 1-1/4 - 1-1/2 14 feet 2-2-112 16 feet 3 and larger 20 feet" Our cursory Inspection determined the metal conduit appears to need simple repairs completed by adding additional metal bracing at the code required distances. We recommend bracing be provided spaced at 10 foot intervals, or based upon the size of Page 17 00444 ArCrIIe IaIfa ?laanina Urban Design Fulbright P.odriguaz Architects, inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San -Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 the conduit In accordance with table 344.30(8)(2) above. 4.) Garage Section: 4a.) "No rating separation between walls ofgarage and living units; thus exposing tenants above and next to garage to fire hazard originating In the garage." Pr000s®d Remetdlation• Referto item is above 4b.) "Electrical wiring: romex cannot be exposed or unprotected and must be attachedl secured.(Romex was first used In the 19501s. Color coding (yellow) wasnl available until 2001." Proposed Remedlatlon• Per the 2010 California Electrical Code Chapter 3 "Wlrtng Methods and Materials". Section 300.4 "Protection Against Physical Damage." it states, "Where subject to physical damage, conductors shall be protected." Therefor=., we recommend covering the romex with code required conduit and/or covering with 5/8" Type X drywall. We recommend having a licensed contractor, or electrician, perform a detailed inspection ( and provide repairs by installing code required covering / conduit, bracing, and junctlon boxes. 5.) Rear Residential Unn section: 5b.) "Heater installed with a gas line without permits. It is installed on a combustible wood sided wall which poses as potentia/ fire hazard due to the combustible material." Proposed Remediation• Our cursory inspection determined thatthe heater is a Williams 14,000 BTU Direct -Vent Natural Gas Wall Furnace, Model N0.1403622 produced by the Williams Furnace Company. Per the 2010 Caliromia Mechanical Code, Tide 24, Part 4, Chapter 9 "Installation of Specific App/lances", Section 928.0 "Wall Furnaces", Subsection 928.1 "Installation" It lists the following conditions: "(A) Listed wall furnaces shall be Installed In accordance with their listings and the manufacturers Instructions. Wall furnaces installed in or attached to combustible material shall be listed for such installation. [NFPA 54: 10.27.1.1 ] (B) Unlisted wall furnaces shall not be Instal/ed in or attached to combustible material. [NFPA 54: 10.27.1.2]" This wall furnace appears to be new, safe, and In working order. We recommend leaving the heater in place and have a licensed contractor/ plumber ensure the unit is installed per one of the two code compliant options above. Page Ia Kill ER ` tIAA� fin, Y PtIA WS'L; GAS Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 5d.) "Improper and substandard electrical wiring without permit -power strip next to kitchen sink where a range might have been previously. Plumbing added without permit." Pragosed Remadiat[on• A range i stove was not observed installed in this area and the power strip has been removed, and the only other connection we saw was a water valve that seems to operate a hose on the exterior. This Is a none -issue as it has been remediated. 5f.) "Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit." Proposed Remedlafton• Our cursory inspection determined that the gas line does not appear to be a working and pressurized gas supply line at this time. We recommend having a licensed contractor, or plumber, provide standard maintenance & repairs by removing and capping the current gas line as it Is not connected to a working gas supply. 59.) "Insulation (appears to be straw bale) has a high flame spread rating." Proposed Remedlaflow Our cursory inspection determined that treated straw insulation does exist within walls. Further research determined that the insulation was typical of construction techniques of the first half of the 20th century. Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Section R302.10 " Flame spread Index and smoke developed index for insulation." states, 'R30210 Flame spread and smoke developed Index for insulation shall be in accordance with Sections R302 10.1 through R302.10.5." Section R302.10.1 "Insulation", states, "Insulation materials, including facings, such as vapor retarders and vapor -permeable membranes Installed within floor -ceiling assemblies, roof -ceiling assemblies, wall assemblies, crawl spaces and attics shall have a flame spread index not to exceed 25 with an accompanying smoke -developed Index not to exceed 450 when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723. Exceptions: I. When such materials are Installed in concealed spaces, the flame spread Index and smoke -developed index limitations do not apply to the facings, provided that the facing is Installed In substantial contact with the unexposed surface of the ceiling, floor or wall finish." The existing insulation appears to be primarily covered substantially by interior drywall and exterior siding with the exception of a few small locations behind cabinets in the kitchen. We recommend that those exposed areas be covered with gypsum board to completely cover the wall cavity and exposed insulation, The rest of the insulation, if Page 19 I t'1 Arshre Planning Ur h an D sign Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 any, appears to be undisturbed and does not pose an immediate life / safety threat and we therefore recommend that should be left as is as. 5h.) There were not any visible and operating smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the rear unit. Proposed Remedlatlon: Per the 2010 Califomla Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Section R314 "Smoke Alarms" subsection R314.3 "Location" states, "Smoke alarms shall be installed in the following locations: 1. In each sleeping room. 2. Outside each separate sleeping area in the Immediate vicinity of the bedrooms." Therefore, we recommend installing new smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the rear unit per code. 5I.) The existing outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathroom appear to be older 1 _ non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential danger to occupants. Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Electrical Code Section 210.8, "Provide G.F.I. protection to all 12 volt, 15, and 20 amp receptacles installed indoors, in bathrooms, in basement, at countertop surfaces (within 6 feet of a sink)..." As required by code, replace all the necessary kitchen and bathroom outlets with new GFI type of receptacles. 6-) Recreatlonall room (detached) Section: 6a.) "Rhe room Is considered habltable space' and appears to not provide su(ficlent ventilation, heat and light." Proposed Remadratron: Our cursory inspection determined that this space is approximately 230 square feet of Interior habitable area. There are three operable windows and one door. The windows have an overall glazed area of approidmately 18.4 square feet and the door has an area of approximately 19.5 square feet Roughly half of the window area at 9.2 square feet, and the entire door area at 19.5 square feet, are openable to provide natural ventilation. The combined window and door area equals approximately 37.4 square feet, whereas the combined openable window and door area equals 28.7 square feet. Per the 2010 Cafrfomia Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, section R303 "Llght, Ventilation, and Heating" under subsection R303.1 "Habitable Rooms -All habitable rooms shall have Page 110 [II/ZEyA CRITICAL STRUCTURES .... May 4, 2011 (Revised) Mr. BidFazboois 5711 Pae;fic St Tbsio,CA9M Vaeroatt>rct@pwi&p uccumnaiI.mm Sect Straetural lismgdmaiog Beviety tad Pmfesalanal Op►nion relayed tu Sttact¢ral 9osaisaa of 8te/io and 1 -Bedroom Aparmme sad Heerodoe/Storage Hoon added m Healdmpe at 520 Pacific Sura, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. Fairbanks: We are pleased to present this structural Report related to the structural review of the Studio and I. Bedroom Apartment (Phom I) and Recution/Storm Room additions (Photo 9) to the historic raider, Coated at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA. The purpose of this report is to provide a pmfissiooal structural mgmeoing opinion as to the structural condition and soundness of the additions, and conceptual recommendations for flnrthet action, if required. Chlial Structures, Inc. (CSI) performed site surveys on January 20 and April 14, 2011 to review acxaible aces of the apartments, no probes or toting were performed. Original building drawings were net available for review. OSI reviewed items of concern raised by the City inspector with the Owner and also reviewed the additions for any other items potentially unsound. The home is a one -awry wood -fumed single-family residaez, built circ 1927. The hoose is listed on hismtic surveys prepared by the California Depetmtrnt of Paris and Retzeation and the City of Tustin. The entrance face east The home has bem occupied by the Client some 1990. A woad -framed Studio Apartment addition, built eves 1935, occurs over the wood-fiamed detached garage. A wood -flamed areata cover occurs t the east of the garage a mance. A wood -framed 1 -Bedroom Apaxtmmt, built tea 1945, with slab on gads occurs to the west of the garage. A wood -fumed Recreation/Storage Room building, with slab on Wade and shed roof and canopy, occurs immediately wit and behind the hoose There are an records of building permits or certifiato of occupancy for the additions. The Cityhas cited the Apartments as non -permitted, tad has requend finin the owner a professional engineering review to address the structural soundness of the Apartments. Thee ismeMenteofmilorfouta)atim sjgaiiammclethmughouttheenliegaodmtaiorand e:. . wallfin®hewemmtohseved. AaxYmtheguWstabonga&vmohseved;tbeaadtaoU nd mayhavebeen coned bydnink, ofthemnaesedurmgorshatly after original construction and itisasof smxwwaigaibmn�- The garage and Studio Apartment have a footprint approximately 16 fins wide by 18 fan deep. Sheathing at stud walla, Studio Apartment floor, and I -Bedroom roof con-iw of straight wood sheathing. At both apatmtme, the roofJcLKS with collar tars elan to the esttsior stud bearing walla at the north and atath alder and roof and coling &ammg appear in sound condition. A woodbeam atthe Samar celiog coodtmgaf(2)1-5/8'n. 7.1/2's spanning 16-2', supports 8 bambumty width of the Studio Apartment Bots. Unless mood oda=weq d®aibei duoeadoro of6ammgmoutea ate tautual, nraamaldmw(h 'rnrw oof else oo®d2a 6s ls rut cootinuoaa Bom post pun, and tbeemus rioao®hes' has a sippficantaatketar 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anahalm, CA 92807-1736 EXHIBIT I 949.981 DM CRITICAL STRUCTURES �n 4l^_tits!?:.:.. '..1[....; rl �r•i(. midlpan(Ph=4 Attheemend themmioel2xbbcwons4iddotitaoE6edOMIDdC6x6pat We >emmillmdtepltcmn=of wand¢dbwk-up2xbwithanewoundummbuiuupbmingmena As noWby the City, theghderatoog die midimeof thearpmt covets inadequately dad- A 2 x 6 slam 16 bM mffodmggCcett Utuywidlhofdc*audjoitfimmng(Ph=31 WemmmmdrepLtrmentofthe2x6 withanewbuilt-uprnman The wooMmaled stairs to tlx: apumimt appear in sound structural coodiuon, however, the posts as sapporpni On concrete Pel dwsimply bear on gmde(Phrao 4), and es not bonded below Wade. WMesealemams notevidmt,mRevmrfi mes4tlamtfiomPonUt meionofsailsbygromdwran;iverecomnmdthatthe axatiogpedembbemoatAwhhnewcoocree palmsm exeo3ogbdowpark Tbepmk mmgmnmbor mmhu 4x4smd4x6s(Pnnu,5aud6)andappa$eau2mgyso,md. ThektI clomnocappartobe suBaingdimmorseparatiw6omthe®rrag apubnrwag6amiog(Phmm7and4 The Rootabon/Slamp:Room 000py s suppotasd by wood posts that either bear on amaior slab on wade or bftpavtn(PbotD 10k doe wood is tDodome to gmde and rot has began on sorm posts. Wemvmmmdoew Concrete pedestal. In general, with cite exception ofthebult-uplomm at theguage oeilmg, de 6amog, omd,ing and connection 8PPmrm11mecdandiotrunmtothebtrld'mgcodemquhrmmstodl=atdietimeoftheApattmms' ammxdm, Wihthe exception oftbebaltaphamandstsepostboriogs,doe apmtmasuemgood auucomlt>mdidm. WersxtmmmdthebbwmgcmccMwxtlacrong namediam,mrehabilitate the and the Storap Rom to wood condidow 1. Rep ga9s�mkgbm (2) x2 bwith rcwmld74'x11-7/g"MmukmLVL eognmed lambs, with rmedandappoved Spon mm xnm hmdwm at woodpo¢emtend and numbed to bearmenxlpotmw etend. 2. Replax®paet2x6x16-Vwith new (2)1.3/4"x9-1/4Microlan LVL eogioeercdI,nrjwwith rated and appovedSimpmn comaaim hadwareearh exd 3. ReF'X 85='Pcst(7=9withmwmoaettpedraal,®hot>m12"xirbtm&aon ME 12" mmimmbelow grade, wab new Smpran pot bas bmdwwremnamsed to esuagposs. 4. At Recreadon/Starage Room moopy, trim boarmom ofpow (5 wtWD and crureaur an new concrete pedemak minimtm 12Sd2• bundedan sod 12^ mommn bdowpade, with new S®ponpost bre hardivarecommeatedtDodstmigposts. BoWmofwaodpomehouldbemm=rm4•abovegxada We crust the better report responds to your cannot tmctunl engioeaing n quite n=M Trus m m does nes exp[® or imply any warranty associated with the existing structure and was developed based upon visual obscrvatiom made dining the site visit to the building Please do not hesitate to coaaa m if you have any questions or inquire additional infon ation. Very cAtial�Structure Inc. QpOFESSNr.. Lt ��`� Q�Si lApsj�1! Bric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP ¢ No. S 4204 President 61ltm.W-F-hbob Redden T*dG_Repm 20110504m 1193 N Tustin Ave. Anoheim CA 97807-1736 949.981.85 CRITICAL STRUCTURES 1193 N TusM Ave, Anaheim, G 97907.1736 949.981 D8d5 00450 CRITICAL STRUCTURES 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, G 97907.1736 949.981-0885 00451 r CRITICAL STRUCTURES 1 I93 N Win Ave, Anaheim, G 97807-1736 949.981 ,0885 00452 CRITICAL STRUCTURES Pbmi 1193 N TLmth Ave. Anaheim, G 94807-1736 949.981.0885 00453 ---` CRITICAL STRUCTURES 14.1 pbm 9 1193 N ius8n Ave. Anahekn. G 9M7-1736 949.981885 IllBLislir Huang, Hen From: Paul Fulbright (paul@fraarchilects.com) Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 20114:57 PM To: Huang, Henry Cc: McCreary, Dennis; Bret Fairbanks; 'Rafael Rodriguez; 'Eric C. Slovner, S.E., LEED AP' Subject: 520 Pacific Street Residence - Fallow Up Hi Henry, I wanted to follow up with you from our phone conversation yesterday afternoon in regard to the architectural report we recently submitted for the 520 Pacific Street Residence. The intent for our report is to identify health, safety, and welfare issues and propose remediation solutions to rectify them to ensure the structures / buildings under consideration are safe and habitable. The report does not make any claims, or imply, that the property, or any of the structures / buildings, meet, or do not meet, a certain code. We have visited the site on numerous occasions and reviewed the various City and consultant documents. Based on our \, research and findings, and in simple terms, we feel that there are specific items that must be addre d bef re the —7I1 operty is considered safe and habitable Those items are identified within our report along with the proposed remediation solutions. Those proposed remediation efforts utilize the prlatest California Building Code as we feel this will provide the best possible route to a safe and habitable building(s). Also, based upon the duration that the structures / buildings have been standing and their current condition, we do not think it is appropriate at this time to conduct Invasive Inspection/ exploration. Furthermore, we do not feel it is reasonable to retrofit the buildings / structuresback Jo an older building code. ( J , Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions and/or comments. Thank you I Paul Fulbright, AIA, LEED-AP Co -Founder / Principal Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo St., Ste. 118-339 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949) 783-0727 m: (949)310-6153 linkedin Confidentiality: The Information contained In this a -Mall message, Including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. (FRA, Inc.), and Is intended only for the use of the individual, or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by telephoning at (949) 783-0727, return the a -Mall message, and destroy and/or delete the original. Please consider the envirenmeni before pdndng (his *-may, EXHIBIT J 00455 Commtinity Development Department May 16, 2011 Mr. Paul Fulbright Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street, Suite 118-339, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 and Mr. Eric Stovner Critical Structures 1193 N. Tustin Ave. Anaheim, CA 92807 TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: 520 Pacific, Tustin, California Dear Messrs. Fulbright and Stovner: 1 have reviewed your reports (Mr. Paul Fulbright's dated April 21, 2011, and Mr. Eric Stovnel's dated April 22 updated May 4, 2011) respectively, and have the following comments and conclusions: 1. Your reports were not conclusive or able to establish the date(s) or the approximate era of the constructions. You identified that many components were old and concluded that the existing structures (may consist of several phases) were completed some time ago. Your reports were based only on visual observations and did not address concealed (structural, including foundations, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) components. 2. As I mentioned in our meeting on April 5 with Mr. Fulbright and Mr. Fairbanks, and my summary letter to Mr. Fairbanks dated.April 14, 2011 (attached), and at a subsequent meeting on April 28, the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is the minimum standard for life safety protection in the State of California. At the April 5 meeting, I asked Mr. Fairbanks to have professionals thoroughly examine the existing conditions and gave you the opportunity to identify compliance with 1927, 1946, 2010, or any building code in between, and thus give me reason to exercise administrative latitude to allow you to use an earlier iteration of the code in lieu of the 2010 CBSC. Your reports were unable to accomplish that; therefore, the structures are required to conform to the 2010 CBSC. 3. The Fulbright Report appears to have led you to the obvious conclusion that many components and construction were not complying with any code from 1927 to the present day. You made recommendations on how you propose to mitigate those visible non -complying components and conditions. Mr. Fulbright's report also defers several items to other professionals to mitigate, e.g. electrical, mechanical, and plumbing components or issues. Those other items, and fire prevention, must be promptly addressed in the design and construction phases of the occupancy- change/repair/rehabilitation from a CBSC perspective. These are fundamental components to ensure safe residential occupancy of the units. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 P F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org 00456 EXHIBIT K 520 Pacific May 16, 2011 Page 2 Based on your reports and the above conclusions, the following need to be addressed in a timely manner: A. Is the structure safe to occupy: As noted within the email from Mr. Fulbright on May 11, 2011, "...there are specific concerns that must be addressed before the property is considered safe and habitable." As the Building Official for the City of Tustin, I share your concerns based on your reports and observations of city staff. Please provide an appropriate document to the City within 10 working days from the date of this letter, wet stamped and signed as design professional licensed/registered to practice in the State of California, confirming, whether occupancy should be allowed in any or all of the structures until the improvement/rehabilitation construction is complete. B. Plan Submittal: You (Mr. Fulbright) stated in the meeting that you can only design the occupancy-change/repair/rehabilitation based on the current 2010 CBSC. This is acceptable; however, the design of the improvement must comply with the 2010 CBSC and a permit will be required before starting construction. The construction documents (plans) need to show the existing condition and the extent of planned construction. Itemized construction cost analysis must also be submitted with the plans. Plans and cost estimates must be submitted within 30 working days from the date of this letter. Please note that the CBSC includes the California Building Code (CBC) and the California Residential Code (CRC). If the structure Is attached (consists of 3 or more dwelling units), it - shall be classified as R-1 (multi -family dwelling) and all R-1 requirements in 2010 CBC shall ( ! apply. Alternatively, if units are detached, the occupancy may be classified as R-3 (single family dwelling) and all requirements in CRC shall apply. Regardless which occupancy classification you and Mr. Fairbanks choose, the structure(s) will require additional improvement. There are several alternatives, but the plan must show and ensure the health and safety of the occupants by complying with the 2010 CBSC. Further, depending on the amount and types of improvement necessary, and their costs, thresholds within Section 9273 of the Tustin City Code may not be exceeded. After you have the plans and the cost estimate ready to apply for plan review and a permit, I will be available to meet with you. Sincerely, Y HenryHuang, .E., CBO. Building Official Attachment: April 14, 2011, letter. from Henry Huang to Bret Fairbanks C. Mr. Bret Fairbanks (520 Pacific, Tustin, CA 92780) 5:\Cdd\6ullding\Henry\Letters-Memos\520 Pacific 5-12.11.doc 00457 ( From: Sent: Paul Fulbright [paulQfraarchitects.com] To: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 8:50 AM Cc: Huang, Henry; 'Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP' 'Bret Fairbanks'; McCreary, Dennis Subject: RE: Letter dated 5-16-2011 RE: 520 Pacific Street Residence - Follow Up Hi Henry, Thanks for sending your letter. There seems to be a bit of contortion of the previous e-mail I sent and report therefore creating confusion among everyone regarding the carriage unit and rear unit's safety and their continued habitation. I want to be very clear that we did not observe an immediate threat to the occupants of these two units and continued habitation is satisfactory as long as the potential hazards we listed are remediated within a tlmely'manner. Again, we have identified those safety concerns within our report along with proposed remedlation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you I Paul Fulbright, AIA, LEED-Ap Co -Founder/ Principal Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo st., ste. 118-339 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 i p: (949) 783-0727 m: (949)310-6153 Ilnkedin Confidentiality: The information contained in this e -Mail message, Including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. (FRA, Inc.), and is intended only for the use of the individual, or entity named above, and Is privileged and confidential. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by telephoning at (949) 783-0727, return the a -Mall message, and destroy and/or delete the original. Please consider the environment berore pdndng this a -mag. From: Huang,Hen Henry [mailto:HHuang@tustinw.org] Sent: Monday, May 16, 20114:11 PM To: Paul Fulbright; Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP Cc: Bret Fairbanks; McCreary, Dennis Subject: Letter dated 5-16-2011 RE: 520 Pacific Street Residence - Follow Up Importance: High Paul, Eric, and Bret, The letter is in the mail today. This is a scanned copy for your use. 'Our mission is to ensure the structures in which you live, work and play are safe," 00458 EXHIBIT L Sirlcerefy, Y. Henru Huang, P.E. CBO., CGBP. Building Official, City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Te1:714�30- Fox:714-573-3113 TUSTIN Mnl gnlO UUa IUNq Ilunpunlo Uee qR From: Paul Fulbright fmailto:paul@fraarchitects.com] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 9:31 AM To: Huang, Henry Subject: RE: No meeting this PM - RE: 520 Pacific Street Residence - Follow Up Your very welcome Henry. Thank you for letting me now that you received my e-mail. I look.forward to reviewing your letter. /} Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions / concerns. Thank youl Paul Fulbright, AIA, LEED-AP Co -Founder / Principal Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo St., ste. 118-339 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949)783-0727 m: (949) 310.6153 linkedin Confidentiality: The information contained In this a -Mall message, including any accompanying documents orattachments, is from Fulbright Rodrlguei Architects, Inc (FRA, Inc.), and Is intended only for the use of the individual, or entity named above, and Is privileged and confidential. If you are not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message In error, please notify us by telephoning at (949) 783-0727, return the a -Mall message, and destroy and/or delete the original. AP1easa consider the environment before printing (his a-mair. From: Huang, Hen Sent: Thursday, May 12,2011 11:17 AM stinca.org] To: Paul Fulbright; Bret Fairbanks; Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP Subject: No meeting this PM - RE: 520 Pacific Street Residence - Follow Up - Importance: High 00459 Thank you, Paul, this is to acknowledge that I have received your email. ( Bret, I will have a letter for you before the end of today to provide a clear position of the Building Division. As I am trying to complete this letter, it will not be productive to have a meeting this afternoon. Please do not plan to meet this afternoon. Thanks, "Our mission is to ensure the structures in which you live, work and play are safe." Sincerely, Y. Henry Huang, P.E., CBO., CGBP. Building Official, City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 %1:714-573-3130 Fax:714-573-3113 TUSTIN mm�" LL lLl,Mvc blq ,umR, IluhYlu H4 UYR rAYf l From: Paul Fulbrl ht mailto: itectr ui@f _ Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 20114:57 PM .com] To: Huang, Henry Cc: McCreary, Dennis; Bret Fairbanks; 'Rafael Rodriguez'; 'Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP' Subject: 520 Pacific Street Residence - Follow Up Hi Henry, I wanted to follow up with you from our phone conversation yesterday afternoon in regard to the architectural report we recently submitted for the 520 Pacific Street Residence. The intent for our report is to identify health, safety; and welfare issues and propose remediation solutions to rectify them to ensure the structures/ buildings under consideration are safe and habitable. The report does not make any claims, or imply, that the property, or any of the structures / buildings, meet, or do not meet, a certain code. We have visited the site on numerous occasions and reviewed the various City and consultant documents. Based on our research and findings, and in simple terms, we feel that there are specific items that must be addressed before the property Is considered safe and habitable. Those items are identified within our report along with the proposed remediation solutions. Those proposed remediation efforts utilize the latest California Building Code as we feel this will provide the best possible route to a safe and habitable building(s). Also, based upon the duration that the structures / buildings have been standing and their current condition, we do not think it is appropriate at this time to conduct invasive inspection / exploration. Furthermore, we do not feel it is reasonable to retrofit the buildings / structures back to an older building code. ,ease do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions and/or comments. Thank you Paul Fulbright, AIA, LEED-AP Co -Founder/ Principal Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo St., Ste. 118-339 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 P: (949)783.0727 m: (949)310-6153 linkedin Confidentiality: The information contained In this e -Mall message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. (FRA, Inc), and Is intended only for the use of the individual, or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are'not the Intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message In error, please notify us by telephoning at (949) 783-0727, return the e -Mall message, and destroy and/or delete the original. 04 Please consider the environment before printing this e -MEN. 00461 CRITICAL ' STRU ECEIVED CTURES BALANCING ENVINONMEM AND DESIGN MAY 2 6 2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 13UILDING DIV. May 25, 2011 Mr. Y. HettryHuang, P.E., CBO Building Official, City of Tustin c/O Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific St Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Safe to Occupy Studio and 1 -Bedroom Apartments and Recreation/Storage Room added to Residence at 520 Parc Street, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. Huang: Per requirement of your letter of May 16, 2011, the purpose of this that it is our professional opinion that the existing added units which have ba years are structurally safe to continue to occupy before rehabilitatibeen used for over letter is to state on is complete, with the provision that (_ temporary shoring, consisting Of nominal 4x4 timber posts, be placed at each end of the split in the garage beam. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, Critical Structures, Inc.ee— 1 EricC. Stovner, S.E., LEED Ap O+I�vI t1 President Cs 11005.E Fairbanb Rzideaee Tustin -Letter 2o110525 1193 N Tustin AV% Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 949.981.7885 00462 EXHIBIT M Community Development Department Posted on property and sent by Certified and First -Class Mail June 16, 2011 Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 927804329 TuSTIN NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Property Address: 520 Pacific Street Assessor Parcel Number. 401-371-07 Case Number: V10-0312 111410" BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Subject: Upper Dwelling Unit and Rear Dwelling Unit, Garage, Carport and Recreation Building Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fairbanks, On September 16, 2010, a Notice and Order was issued for noncompliance with various provisions of the City of Tustin Building Code. The Notice and Order was appealed and on December 14, 2010, the Tustin Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body per TCC Section 9242) adopted Resolution No. 4161 affirming the Notice and Order for Building Code violations at 520 Pacific Street Since adoption of Resolution No. 4161, discussions have been ongoing between you, your representatives, and Building Division staff regarding Building and Housing Code compliance. In addition, on or about May 4, 2011, City staff received a report from your structural engineer, Eric C. Stovner, which recommended structural modifications required to bring the subject buildings into conformance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). We are also in receipt of correspondence from your architect, Paul Fulbright, which recommended a number of required upgrades necessary to address various code requirements to obtain permits and correct these structural issues or other Building and Housing Code violations on the property. Based on evidence observed by Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin, Building Division, Principal Engineer, third party review by Scott Fazekas, A.IA., Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority, the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A., and myself (on the visible parts alone), and a review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby deemed to be 'dangerous buildings" (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 a P:(714)573-3100 a F:(714)573-3113 a www.tustinca.org EXHIBIT N Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street Case # V10-0312 June 16, 2011 Page 2 the Uniform Housing Code (UNC), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby declared to be .substandard buildings" (Section 1001.1). Based only on limited visual evidence, such condition or multiple defects exist an the property to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the occupants) Ware endangered. Pursuant to Section 404.2 of the UCADB, observations and findings reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the posting are attached hereto in Exhibit A. Notice and Order 1, You are hereby noted and ordered to vacate, secure, and maintain the subject structures against entry by no later than 4:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 2011. No person may enter or occupy the subject structures unless acting in an authorized manner to assess, perform or inspect the repair and/or removal of the violations. 2. You are also hereby directed, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of service of this Notice and Order, to obtain all City permits necessary to 1) repair, and/or 2) remove all code violations to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Oficial. Failure to comply with this Notice and Order within the time specified above will result in the Issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(x) (reference Exhibit B attached hereto for additional Information) and/or the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. You or any person having any record We or legal interest in the property may appeal the notice and order pursuant to Section 501.1 of the UCADB within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. Pursuant to Section 504 of the UCADB, the filing of an appeal shall not stay the above Notice and Order to vacate, secure and maintain the subject structures against entry. Failure to appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 501 shall constitute a waiver of all right to an administrative hearing and adjudication of the Notice and Order or any portion thereof. Should you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me directly at (714) 573- 3130. Sincerely, Y Henry Huang, W.E., C.B.O. utlding Official Attachments: Exhibit A — Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street. Exhibit B — Administrative Citation information IIIZ[:i:t Notice and Order at 520 Pacillc Street Case # V10-0312 June 18, 2011 Page 3 cc: Efizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug holland, City Attorney Bryan Nealy, OCFA Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development Dennis McCreary, Principal Engineer Amy Thomas, Senior Planner Scott Fazekas, A.I.A. Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. Eric Stovner, S.E. Re 00465 Exh@be1C A Exhibit A: Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street Based on evidence observed by Henry Huang, P.E, CBO, Clty of Tustin Building Official, Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin, Building Division, Principal Engineer, third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A., Mr. Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority, the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, and the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), and the review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby deemed to be "dangerous buildings" (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby declared to be "substandard buildings" (Section 11001.1). Such condition or multiple defects exist an the property to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the occupant(s) is/are endangered. The following dangerous conditions or multiple defects have been observed on the property reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the posting: Existing Building conditions: 1. UCADB Section 302 Item Sand UHC Section 1001.3. Beam supporting second story dwelling unit is cracked and therefore jeopardizing supporting system of second story. CBC Section 3405.3 requires damaged gravity load -carrying components to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Eric Stovner's letters dated May 4 and 25, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 2. UCADB Section 302 Item 3 and UHC Section 1001.3. Carport structural members are not of adequate size to support roof loads and not designed in accordance with CBC Section 1604.1 and if loaded could collapse. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 3. UCADB Section 302 Item 8 and UHC Section 10d1.3. Foundation supporting stairway to second story dwelling unit is not adequate and causes the exit door from the upper dwelling unit to become inoperative and creates a hazard in case of fire or panic. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 4. UCA08 Section 302 Item 2 and UHC Section 1001.12. Stairway Intermediate guards and risers are not provided and thus a fall hazard exists. Further, this condition Is not in compliance with CBC Section 1013. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 29 stated he observed and noted this violation. ' 5. UCADB Section 302 Item 1 and UNC Section 1001.12. Exterior stairway for second story unit is not in a safe location to afford exiting during a fire deemed as 10 feet from property line by California Building Code, 2010 Edition (CBC), Section 1027.3. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2g) stated he observed and noted this violation. 00467 o. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. Fire resistive walls between the units and adjacent garage are not provided. Fire resistive walls and window protection adjacent to the property line on the second story are not provided. Fire in an adjacent unit, garage or adjacent building could spread quickly and therefore overcome occupants, Fire resistive assemblies are required for the above mentioned locations in CBC Sections 705, 707, and 709. In addition, there are several electrical installations that pose a danger (unprotected and non-attached Romez wiring, non-GFCI outlets In the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.) and there are no smoke detectors or alarms In the sleeping areas. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (1' 2a and 4a) stated he observed and noted these violations. 7. UHC Section 1001.5. Electrical wiring in the garage area is improperly installed. Improperly installed conductors and without proper required fire resistive material from the dwelling unit above can be a serious hazard to the occupants In the upper dwelling unit. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items Sd and 4b) stated he observed and noted this violation. 8. UHC Section 1001.7. The furnace in the second story dwelling unit does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2b) stated he observed and noted this violation. 9. UHC Section 1001.5. Exposed electrical wiring next to unpermitted furnace in the second story unit can cause a potential fire hazard. Mr Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2c) stated he observed and noted this violation. 10. UHC Section 1001.13. Operating smoke detectors are not installed within the sleeping areas of the upper and rear dwelling units as required by state code and therefore occupants may not have adequate warning of a fire. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2i and Sh) stated he observed and noted this violation. 11. UHC Sections 1001.3, 1001.6 and 1001.7. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including gas and water) Installation work may pose a fire and water hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item Sd) stated he observed and noted this violation. 12. UHC Section 30015. Electrical outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathrooms in both dwelling units are non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential electrical shock and fire danger to occupants. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2j and 5f) stated he observed and noted this violation. 13. UHC Sections 1001.2, 1001.5 and 1001,6. Plumbing and electrical installed in the kitchens may create fire hazard, water damage and Inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbrighes letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2d) stated he observed and noted this violation, 14. UHC Section 1001.7. Gas heater attached to wood siding and gas line in the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to its proximity to combustible material. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5b) stated he observed and noted this vlolation. 15. UHC Section 1001.6. Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior of the rear dwelling unit poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 50 stated he observed and noted this violation. 16. UHC Section 1001.6. Added shower and floor area onto original structure may create water damage and Inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2e) stated he observed and noted this violation. 17. UHC Section 1001.3. Foundations for the dwelling units and the recreation/storage building should be investigated to determine If the foundation provides adequate structural bracing and support for the structures. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 1b) refers the matter to Mr. Stovner and no further response was given. 18. UHC Section 1001.3. Wood posts at canopy of recreation room have rot at bottom and therefore need repair to mediate structural hazard. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 19. UHC Section 1001. 5. Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between the garage and house is subject to potential damage and failure and poses a potential electrical and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 3c) stated he observed and noted this violation. 20. UCADB Section 302 Item 14. Exposed insulation in the kitchen area of the rear dwelling unit appears to be straw and therefore a high flame spread rating and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item Sg) stated he observed and noted this violation. 21, UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. North exterior wall of the recreation room is in close proximity to the property line and poses a fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 6d) stated he observed and noted this violation. 00469 Determination of the Building Official. The subject buildings have been Identified as having the conditions or multiple defects described above, Therefore, the subject buildings are In violation of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Mousing Code, and the California Fire Code, as identified in the referenced items below, and are therefore determined to be "dangerous buildings'. Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302 states, "For the purpose of this code, any building or structure which has any or all of the conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building, provided that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered." 01. Wherever any door, aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is not of sufficient width or size or Is not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of exit In case of fire or panic.' Refer to Existing Building Conditions noted above, Item S. 02. Whenever the walking surface or any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit Is so warped, worn, loose, tom or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 4. "3. Whenever the stress in any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live t loads, is more than one and one half times the working stress or stresses allowed in the Bullding Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 2. "5. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fall, or to become detached or dislodge, or to collapse and thereby Injure persons or damage property." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 1. 'S. Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of (1) dilapidation, deterioration or decay, (fi) faulty construction; (M) the removal, movement of instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such building; (Iv) the deterioration, decay or Inadequacy of its foundation; or (v) any other cause, is likely to partially orcompletelycollapse," Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 3. "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which It Is being used." Refer to all violations at the property. 414. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has In any nonsupportfng part, member or portion less than 50 percent, or in any supporting part, member or portion less than 66 percent of the (1) strength, (If) fire -resisting qualities or characteristics, or (III) weather -resisting qualities or characteristics require by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy In the same location." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 6, 20 and 21. KeZMINI "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Refer to existing Building Code noted above, Items 3-9, 11, 14, 19, and 21. Uniform Housing Code 1001.1 General. "Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building in accordance with Section 102 of the Building code , or any building or portion thereof, including any dwelling unit, guest room or suite or rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the conditions referenced in this section to an extend that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare o f the pubic or the occupants thereof, shall be deemed and hereby are declared to be substandard buildings." The subject buildings have conditions described in the referenced items hereinafter and therefore deemed to be a "substandard buildings". 1001.2 Inadequate Sanitation. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are Insanitary. Inadequate sanitation shall Include, but not be limited to, the following: 6. tack of adequate heating facilities. 13. General dilapidation or improper maintenance. Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 8 and 13." 1001.3 Structural Hazards. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or Inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of Insufficient size to carry Imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insuffident size to carry imposed loads with safety." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 1, 2,3, 11, 17, and 18. 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was Installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical wiring not Installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices In areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 7, 9,12, 13, and 19. 00471 1001.6 Hazardous Plumbing. "Plumbing that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of Installation or plumbing not installed In accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not free of cross -connections or siphonage between fixtures.shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 11, 13, 15, and 16- 1001.7 Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. "Mechanical equipment that was installed in violation of code requirements In effect at the time of Installation or mechanical equipment not installed In accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were In effect or that has not been maintained in good and safe conditions shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 8, 11, and 14. 1001.12 Inadequate Exits. "Except for those buildings or portions thereof that have been provided with adequate exit facilities conforming to the provisions of this code, buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities were installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of their construction or whose exit facilities have not been Increased in number or width In relation to any Increase in occupant load due to alterations, additions or change in use or occupancy subsequent to the time of construction shall be considered substandard. Notwithstanding compliance with code requirements in effect at the time of their construction, buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when the building official finds that an unsafe condition exists through an Improper location of exits, a lack of an adequate number or width or exits, or when other conditions exist that are dangerous to human life." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 4, and S. 1001.13 Inadequate Fire -protection or Firefighting Equipment. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when they are not provided with the fire -resistive construction or fire - extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that confirmed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire -restive integrity and fire -extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any Increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change In occupancy." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 6, 10, and 21. California fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm 00472 systems. CFC In Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" Including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed In this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. l�) rl. I�I�LfAK! AP - ki 4 .. OWN -0 B le 0 0 %MW- lb " E "pI IE PTF E r s � FE' a = 18` a v RID 1. s t �ryG 9 grgF� e a = a! s c _ a. ��� �=��rr�eS P6,PS�a 5`y'g rz Gtr $ip 1 FEE �a gid i6 @ 'FS a R Ga I�Gr }� �2 War gig �$ 1HIJIV € yC�F MR 1 11 a � iir�,�;�� Lgg j[ yyy pg g¢ �9 O'>5l[[d gP ab 0 gpp 11 p :IZ; �� �h A �aB= fi16 tp91 F pg �E 3 _ Btq I�17g1�^ul Iq; �ag �- €P s 111 et1_ GF _ P eJr. lit rI .fin q.E� ign �t p5 E§Ea R Sy51 �-a �e l Ri ter!°iE is e g rIaig Ra 9 h r y C` F �U I� " i Sit S•. Sy E8 ��'r9 ((EA y `p9�9s@i'1 it 8FE ER€Eto �� cl r S 6 i.°gj I. rrgr lit rm 3 �E aS Fa PaI r --e !$I r I.r rr e's8 �.14k¢er s S'sS� rn M A C°'g Ir ., !' €i r3F IsE o f !Ia d rl U, egt�s� F l q! A� Fa �j� Ila a;6 r�a s� �3�'�� �°; �E 't H EsF fill o Ea°�rE a�� a HE �� _; 1��� g�j6jll aC� �`P Ial 6iir �d r S G P T ra :1a el ATF @. a f. is P [@ t .s. ! Qe °a', J m �I5ii m g9gFHIM s � nl(i: idFg S eAA y'Hs 2 1°4 9G€§�9]" GI.ar r8 15��998 y d €d' 's 0 5 `pF � 6f PP 16 B lal. Ir ,i 8 q��'a O 6 � ka §aYe� GG rGf 2�a. Rid Ha.$ °z �I� Gpit Iyp" im.F6� g r`rr ° ur 1,H R yea e n ll A.a=y Ell A rp O a�dgEL2r t e r r s g O all 9 e Ia r C ann— va ip WOCII:l1r9 00478 FAIRBANKS:: APARTMENTS 520 PACIFIC STREET A TUSTIN, CA 9278o � V10-0312 f SL r C ann— va ip WOCII:l1r9 00478 I —N I Z P� a w mw 1 '-NM i„ I 1 CII Illy �Ig ; �a A 1 I 1 ;1 h cg� �Qy a� I i�I II I � 1 P' NI6,OppDE P r `�' ru�avePlmcr r- 4 FAIRBANKS:: APARTMENTS 1 ® 520 PACIFIC STREET TUSTIM CA 9278o VIO-0312 Ff 479 �- - T -l -,* 2.01, \` - j� � .. ]! § )��|l•i,! Q � to in `! FAIRBANKS:: APARTMENTS Q= PACIFIC .TREE [ CA 9278 , , v-= �! !; ( I B,a = F|||| �§ • ..7}/� {||!|]) '1||! ; ||| �- - T -l -,* 2.01, \` - j� � .. ]! § )��|l•i,! Q � to in `! [film, NEI FAIRBANKS:: APARTMENTS Q= PACIFIC .TREE [ CA 9278 , , v-= �! [film, NEI ) I6 I� ■o] i ON rim ■ w; I§ � \ T� 9�� | &� � �z /m| q v - _ !:! $Tj Q w; I§ -% q;\ ) {\ \ ` )� , \)Zi kill;�\§� »w�. `- \ T� 9�� | &� � �z /m| v - _ !:! R• - { / ! �1 &| ' Tl 7 =nz -% q;\ ) {\ \ ` )� , \)Zi kill;�\§� »w�. -�00481 FAIRBANKS:: APARTMENTS \ T� 9�� | v - _ !:! -�00481 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 DLIN & SMART, APC - State Bar No. 155357 SONIGI. MCEWEN - State Bar No. 246787 cewen@wss-law.com 5 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 ista Mesa, CA 92626-7670 lephone: (714) 558-7000 csnnile: (714) 835-7787 Attorneys for Respondents CITY OF TUSTIN and BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN BEFORE THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA In the Matter of: Appeal of Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate the Property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California BRET and STEPHANIE FAIRBANKS, Property Owners and Appellants and CITY OF TUSTIN and BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, Respondents. CITATION NO.: V-10312 Hearing Officer: Gregory P. Palmer, Esq. CITY'S CLOSING BRIEF 1. INTRODUCTION The City is responsible for enforcing the Tustin City Code (TCC) and applicable state codes in order to protect the health and safety of occupants of buildings as well as the public. As such, the City has the authority to inspect public and private property and the authority to use whatever judicial and administrative remedies are available under the TCC and any applicable state codes to gain compliance (TCC 1122). Building Code violations with respect to the Notice and Order at issue in this matter were determined to exist by the City Building 1 792507.] I 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 Official who applies and interprets the technical codes. The Building Official's determination to issue the Notice and Order and to vacate the structures on the Property were based on extensive and exhaustive consideration of the facts presented by on-site inspection of the property by City staff, input from other Agency professionals, consultation with structural professionals retained by both the City and the Appellant and ultimately on the determination of fact that the minimum standards to safeguard the life or limb, health, property and to protect the public welfare were not met. Nonetheless, throughout the 5 days of hearings, the Appellants' case was fraught with irrelevant distractions designed to draw attention away from the true safety issues that gave rise to the issuance of the Notice and Order at issue in this matter. Much of Appellants' case focused on application of the California Historical Building Code, the current state of the structures, and building plans that were submitted to address various issues on the Property after the subject Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate were issued. As the City has contended from the outset of this matter, these issues are irrelevant and have no bearing on whether the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate issued on June 16, 2011 should stand. With respect to the actual matters at issue in these appeals, Appellants attempted to paint the picture that the various dangerous conditions at the Property were not dangerous at all. However, the evidence in the record, along with the testimony of the City's Building Official, Henry Huang, the City's building inspector, Dennis McCreary, the City's independent building expert registered architect Scott Fazekas, Assistant Fire Marshall Bryan Healy of the Orange County Fire Authority, and Appellants' own professionals, Eric Stovner, Roger Banowetz and Nathan Menard, all support this argument. As will be discussed in detail below, many of the conditions noted in the City's Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate were substandard and do not comply with any version of the California Building Code from 1927 to the present. Nonetheless, Appellants argue that the deficient structures should remain, relying primarily on the argument that since the structures have not yet fallen down, and no one has been hurt up until this point, they must be safe. While each of Appellants' witnesses testified that no one issue identified in the City's Notice and Order constituted a distinct threat or immediate hazard (neither of which are the appropriate 2 792507.1 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 standards with respect to the validity of the instant Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate), not one witness testified that they evaluated all of the conditions at issue on the Property as a whole and found that there was no danger to occupants or surrounding properties. The City's Building Official, who is charged with protecting the welfare of the public through the City's various adopted building standards, did consider each of the conditions — whether structural, architectural, electrical, mechanical, or otherwise — and found that, as a whole, the structures on the Property were not safe to occupy given the extent and nature of dangerous conditions therein. No matter what specific code is applied to this Property, each code addressed throughout this hearing has one thing in common; they all entrust the Building Official with the authority to make determinations related to safety of buildings and structures. (See, California Building Code (CBC) §§ 104.1, 102.6, 116.1 (as modified by Tustin City Code section 8101(r)), 3401.2, 3401.4.1, and 3405.1.1; 1997 Uniform Housing Code (UHC) §§ 201.1 and 1101.1; 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB) §202, and California Historic Building Code (CHBC) §8-102.1.5 [referring to buildings determined to be dangerous as defined by regular building code]). 2. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED Appellants filed two separate appeals with the Building Board of Appeals (Board) related to the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate issued by the City's Building Official on June 16, 2011. The first appeal, as framed by Appellants' counsel, "seek[s] an order directing the City's Enforcement Officer, the Building Official, to comply with the instructions and directive outlined in Board Resolution No. 4161, issued on December 14, 2010 ...." (Joint Ex. 2(E), p. 1) As described above and presented during the hearing in this matter, Appellants' first appeal is not related to an "order, decision, or determination made by the building official ...." (See, UHC §203, UCADB § 205) Instead, the appeal requests that the Board give direction to the Building Official, or to clarify a Resolution previously passed by the Board. With respect to the first appeal, the Board must determine whether Appellants' request is a proper subject of appeal, and if so, whether direction to the Building Official is appropriate or necessary. 792507.1 3 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 The second appeal seeks rescission of the Notice and Order/Pre Citation Notice of Dangerous Buildings and Notice to Vacate issued by the Building Official on June 16, 2011 (collectively "Notice and Order"). The Notice and Order was based on the Building Official's determination that dangerous and/or substandard conditions, as defined by the UCADB and UHC, respectively, existed on the property to an extent that vacation of accessory dwelling units on the Property was necessary. The Board must determine whether the Notice and Order should be upheld, modified, or reversed. 3. STANDARD OF REVIEW The City bears the initial burden of establishing the justification for the Notice and Order. (See, Leppo v. City of Petaluma, (1971) 20 Cal. App. 3d 711, 718)). The City must only meet this burden with a preponderance of the evidence. (Id.) The City need not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. While the City bears the initial burden, Appellants' bear the burden of proof with respect to any defenses. Formal rules of evidence do not apply in this proceeding. (See, UHC §1304; UCADB §605). Evidence may be considered if it is the sort "on which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs ...." (Id.) Hearsay evidence may be considered only for the purpose of supplementing or explaining direct evidence, and may not be used by itself to support any finding of fact. (Id.) 4. APPELLANTS' FIRST APPEAL IS NOT THE PROPER SUBJECT OF AN APPEAL TO THE BOARD AND IS OTHERWISE WITHOUT MERIT A. Appellants' Request Is Not the Proper Subject of an Anneal to the Board UHC section 203.1 and UCADB section 205 outlines the role and authority of the Board related to appeals of actions, decisions, or determinations of the Building Official. The language of the two sections is nearly identical and states that the purpose of the Board is to "hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretations of [the respective codes] ...... The Board does not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the code, nor the ability to waive any requirements of the code. (UHC § 203.2; UCADB § 205.2) The first appeal submitted by Appellants does not seek to address a decision of the 4 792507.1 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 Building Official, rather, it seeks action from the Board in the form of direction to the Building Official. Indeed, the appeal form indicates that Appellants' request is for "a hearing before the Board of Appeals re Resolution 4161." The Board exists to consider determinations of the City's Building Official, not to interpret prior resolutions or Board actions. During the course of the hearing on this matter, Appellants' seemed to argue that the Building Official acted outside the scope of the direction of the Board by requiring that Appellants and/or their design professionals "perform inspections, analyze the building and its components, and subsequent modifications, maintenance and repairs to show conformity to the prevailing codes at the time of construction and submit a written report and plans to the City for review and approval." (See, Joint Ex. 1(G) ¶ 3) If this is the "order, decision or determination" Appellants seek to appeal, they failed to file a timely appeal and have, thus, waived any right to appeal. (See, UHC §§ 1201.1 and 1202 and UCADB §§ 501.1 and 502) B. The Board Cannot Limit the Authority of the Building Official Relative to His Enforcement of the City's Building Codes Appellants argue that the Board, through Resolution 4161 decided that "it would only apply basic health and safety requirements from the Housing Code" (Appellants' Opening Brief at p. 8:7-8) and would not require compliance with the 2010 Building Code or any previous version of the Building Code. Not only is this argument unsupported by the record, the fact remains that the Board cannot waive the requirements of the various building codes even if it intended to do so. Sections 203.2 of the UHC and 205.2 of the UCADB make clear that the Board does not have authority to waive any requirements of the City's adopted building codes. The Board's authority is limited to the Building Official's application and interpretation of the City's building codes. In other words, the issue is whether the Building Official applied the correct standard, and/or was the interpretation of the codes correct? (UHC 203.1 and UCADB § 205.1) 792507.1 However, certain provisions of the various codes are not subject to interpretation. In 5 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 those instances the Board cannot waive the requirements of the codes and the minimum standards prescribed in the codes must be met. (UHC § 203.2 and UCADB § 205.2) This requirement is echoed in the administrative provisions applicable to the City's adopted building standards codes. Chapter 1, Division II of the California Building Code 2010 edition (as adopted by Tustin City Code section 8100) states that an application for an appeal to the Board "shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority to waive requirements of this code." (Id. at § 113.2) C. The Building Official Acted Within the Direction Provided by the Board in Resolution 4161. With Resolution 4161, the Board made certain findings of fact. (Joint Ex. 1(E)) Among those findings was the determination that "there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the [September 16, 2010] Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010...." (Id. at page 3, Section 1, paragraph O) Further, the Board found "[t]hat the violations identified in ... the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted by Tustin City Code 8100". (Id. at page 3, Section I, paragraph P). With those findings in mind, the Board modified the City's Notice and Order and ordered the following: 792507.1 "The Property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010 . . . to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved." (Id. at page 3, Section II, paragraph A) 6 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 A plain reading of this Order reveals that the Board did not direct the Building Official to take any action. Indeed, Appellant admitted during testimony that he understood the Order to direct him to make corrections at his Property. Thus, Appellants' claim that the Building Official failed to act as required by Resolution 4161 is plainly incorrect. Moreover, the Board's Order explicitly recognized and reinforced the Building Official's authority to enforce the provisions of the City's building codes. Importantly, the Board also confirmed that it did not have the authority to waive any provision of the building codes. (Id. at page 2, Section I, paragraph L) Further, the Board's resolution identified the violations noted during the September 10, 2010 site visit as outlined in the October 26, 2010 staff report. (Id. at page 3, Section I, paragraph 0). The staff report referenced contains a detailed table outlining the specific violations observed during the September 10, 2010 site visit, many of which are the subject of the Building Official's June 16, 2011 Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate. (See, Joint Ex. 1(C)) Despite these specific findings and orders, Appellant now argues that the Board intended to limit the Building Official to enforcement of certain building code provisions and to excuse compliance with others. Not only is that argument belied by the plain language of the Resolution itself, adoption of a resolution that attempted to do what Appellants claim here would be in direct contravention of the authority granted to the Board by the City's various building codes. Finally, Appellants argue that the Board, acting upon advice of the City Attorney, directed that Appellants need only comply with the provisions of the UHC to the extent necessary to make the structures on the Property safe to occupy and that the Building Official's requirement that Appellants address all issues raised during the initial appeal was unreasonable. As the Building Official testified, the underlying purpose of the various building codes, including the CBC, UHC, UCADB and CHBC is to provide for the minimum requirements to protect the health and safety of occupants of buildings as well as the general public. The Building Official's determination to issue the Notice and Order and to vacate the structures on the Property were based on the fact that the minimum standards to safeguard the life or limb, health, property and public welfare, as contemplated by the UHC, 7 792507.1 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 were not met despite numerous requests for property compliance. (See, UHC § 102) As will be discussed in detail below with respect to the Building Official's issuance of the Notice to Vacate, the condition of the structures on the Property constituted substandard conditions as defined by the UIIC and created a serious hazard to the health and safety of the structure's occupants as defined by the UCADB. Appellants' own design professionals, through both direct testimony and reports received into the record, confirmed the existence of the substandard and dangerous conditions. 5. THE APPEAL Or THE JUNE 16, 2011 NOTICE AND ORDER IS WITHOUT MERIT At the outset, Appellant, Bret Fairbanks, admits that various dangerous conditions identified by the City and confirmed by Appellants' design professionals, continue to exist on the Property. Thus, even assuming that the remaining issues were addressed prior to June 16, 2011 — a fact supported only by Appellants own self-serving testimony and exhibits consisting of photos submitted after the start of the hearing of this matter and discussed in more detail below — several serious deficiencies, which by definition constitute substandard . and dangerous building conditions, remain. These include lack of firewalls between occupancies, inadequate foundations under the stairs leading to the upper unit, inadequate structural supports for the upper unit, and lack of required fire and emergency egress setbacks. The nature of those remaining substandard and dangerous conditions alone, when viewed as a whole, create a significant risk to the health and safety of the occupants, and justify issuance of the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate. Moreover, with respect to several of the issues Appellant claims to have remedied, he admits to performing much of the work himself, and that the work he performed was done without the benefit of necessary permits, thus, depriving the City of the opportunity to inspect the work to confirm compliance with the applicable codes and safety standards. A. The Evidence Establishes Justification for Issuance of the Notice and Order. The Building Official's June 16, 2011 Notice and Order cites to 21 subsections of the UHC or UCADB relating to substandard or dangerous conditions that were deemed by the 8 792507.1 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 Building Official to exist based on his review of photographs, discussions with City Staff and third party experts, and reports from Appellants' design professionals. The Building Official provided testimony supporting his inclusion of each of the dangerous or substandard conditions in the Notice and Order. Further, Appellants witnesses confirmed many of the substandard and dangerous conditions. The Building Official testified that he began meeting with Appellants after the Board's adoption of Resolution 4161. The Resolution required Appellants to address various health and safety concerns identified by the City during the appeal hearing of the City's September 2010 Notice and Order. Further, the Resolution ordered that Appellants' corrections protect the health and safety of the occupants as deemed necessary by the Building Official. Citing to the purpose of the various building standards codes, the Building Official testified that his minimum standard to protect the health and safety of occupants was the Building Code, and that, accordingly, Appellants would need to show either compliance with the current CBC, or to show justification for use of a previous version of the CBC. As early as his first meeting with Appellant, the Building Official advised that building permits and plans were required to address the health and safety concerns at the Property. The Building Official's position is supported by the law. Section 101.3 of Chapter I, Division II of the CBC makes clear that the "purpose of [the CBC] is to establish the rninimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities ... and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and to provide safety to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations." (Emphasis added.) Likewise, the purpose of the UHC "is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all residential buildings and structures ...." (UHC § 102 (emphasis added)) Even the CNBC, when applicable, states that its purpose "is to facilitate the preservation and continuing use of qualified historical buildings or properties while providing reasonable jqtdE for the building occupants ...." (CHBC § 8-103.3 (emphasis added)) 792507.] The Building Official testified that his informed opinion was that several of the 9 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 substandard or dangerous conditions observed by City staff during a September 2010 site visit and evidenced by photographs taken at the time, would not have ever complied with any version of the CBC from 1927 to the present. Specifically, the undersized carport girder, the lack of required fire protection setback from the property line, the location of the stairs to the upper unit in relation to the property line, and the lack of a firewall between the garage and upper unit all violate every version of the CBC from 1927 to present. Nonetheless, the Building Official invited Appellants or their design professionals to submit support for the application of anv version of the CBC to the various structures on the Property. (See, Joint Ex. i(G)) As explained in his letter to Appellant, the Building Official required evaluation and analysis of the structures on the Property to "show conformance with the prevailing codes at the time of construction". (Id.) As admitted during the hearing by Appellant, and confirmed by his structural engineer and current architect, as well as by the Building Official, Appellant never offered any support for, nor did he submit plans suggesting, application of any earlier version of the CBC. Instead, the record reveals that Appellants' own professionals admitted that bringing the buildings into compliance with an older version of the CBC was not a viable option. (See, Joint Ex. 1(L), p. 00460) The Building Official's requirement that support be provided prior to acceptance and approval of an earlier version of the CBC is supported by the law. Starting with the CBC, the Building Official believed that several aspects of the structures on the Property were not constructed in compliance with any version of the CBC. As such, the Building Official has the authority and the duty to require reports and testing prior to approval of alternative materials, design and methods of construction not specifically prescribed by the CBC. (CBC § 104.11 et seq.) Chapter 34 of the CBC likewise supports the Building Official's actions in this case. Pursuant to CBC section 3401.2, "Devices or safeguards which are required by this code shall be maintained in conformance with the code edition under which installed.... To determine compliance with this subsection, the buildinff official shall have the authority to require a building or structure to be reinspected" Notwithstanding whether the Building Official had the authority to require inspections and reports from Appellants' design professionals, inspections were conducted and reports 10 792507.1 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 were submitted which not only confirmed existence of various substandard and dangerous conditions noted by the City, but they also identified several more substandard and dangerous conditions. (See, Joint Ex. 1(H) and (I)) The report submitted by Appellants' former architect, Paul Fulbright (Joint Ex. 1(H)), addressed the various conditions noted by the City during the previous appeal and either confirmed the existence of the condition and suggested remediation, recommended review by some third party, or, in three instances alleged current compliance with the CBC. The report submitted by Appellants' structural engineer, Eric Stovner (Joint Ex. 1(I)), confirmed the City's concerns with respect to the deficient construction of the carport girder, and identified other instances of structural deficiency found in the accessory dwelling structures. Specifically, the report noted that a garage ceiling support, which also supports the floor of the upper dwelling unit, was not of sufficient size or strength to support the load of the upper unit, and that the support had a significant crack. (Id.) Additionally, the report noted that the structural supports for the stairs leading to the upper dwelling unit had inadequate foundations and were not in good structural condition. (Id. at p. 00449, ¶ 4) The Building Official testified that, prior to his receipt of Fulbright and Stovner's reports, his focus was on the requirement of Resolution 4161 that the Property owner address the health and safety concerns previously identified by the City, but that once he reviewed the reports, he became concerned with whether or not the structures were safe to occupy pending rehabilitation. Indeed, Mr. Fulbright opined that "there are specific items that must be addressed before the property is considered safe and habitable." (Joint Ex. 1(J)). As such, he requested assurance from the design professionals that they considered the structures safe to occupy. (Joint Ex. 1(K)) Each professional responded to the request, but neither offered assurance that the structures were safe to occupy absent some sort of remediation. (See, Join Ex. 1(L) and (M)) Fulbright's email attempted to backtrack from the email sent just six days earlier by stating that "continued habitation is satisfactory as long as the potential hazards are remediated within a timely manner." (Joint Ex. 1(L)) Despite the attempt to rectify the damning truth of his previous statement, the second email continued to call into question the safety of occupants given the state of the structures. Stovner's letter 11 792507.1 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 likewise failed to unequivocally confirm that continued occupation of the structures was safe, and instead affirmed that the structures were not safe absent remediation. (Joint Ex. 1(M)) Given the confirmation of nearly every dangerous and substandard condition by Appellants' design professionals, the revelation of several seriously deficient structural members supporting the units, the inability of Appellants' design professionals to affirm that the structures were safe to continue to occupy, and the lack of permit applications, plan submittals or any evidence of remediation', the Building Official testified that he was compelled to vacate the structures. However, given the severity of the action, the Building Official first consulted with an independent expert, registered architect Scott Fazekas, who serves as contract building official for various jurisdictions, including Tustin, in an effort to ensure that vacation of the structures was warranted. Mr. Fazekas testified that he reviewed the photographs, reports, and correspondence between the City and Appellant, discussed the matter with City staff and agreed that based on his professional opinion, vacation of the structures was warranted given the information available to the Building Official. B. Appellants Failed to Offer Support to Justify Reversal of the Notice and Order. Aside from their argument that the CHBC applies to all structures on their Property (which is addressed separately below), Appellants' arguments with respect to the substandard and dangerous conditions found on the Property are: (1) the Building Official did not personally observe the conditions and, thus, was not qualified to issue the Notice and Order, (2) the substandard and dangerous conditions noted were non-existent, speculative, or did not constitute a danger to the occupants of the structures, and (3) many of the conditions noted by the City were repaired or corrected prior to issuance of the Notice and Order. These t The Building Official testified that he was never advised by Appellant, or by anyone else for that matter, that any corrective action had been taken at the Property. In fact, when asked about whether lie was aware corrective action had been taken, he testified that lie was not, but that he was happy if it had been done, as it meant that at least some issues were resolved. He further testified that remediation of only some of the issues would not affect his opinion as to the unsafe nature of the structures because correction of serious dangerous conditions that exist on the Property requires plan submittal and approval, none of which had been done at the time the Notice and Order was issued. 792507.1 12 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 arguments are deficient for various reasons as will be discussed in detail below in that they are unsupported by law, unsupported by credible evidence, or belied by the testimony of Appellants' own witnesses. 1) The Building Official Relied on Sufficient Evidence in Making his Determination. Without support for the position, Appellants seemed to argue that because the Building Official did not conduct a personal inspection of the Property, he 'was not authorized to issue the Notice and Order. The CBC, UHC, the UCADB and Appellants' own witness contradict this argument. CBC section 103.3 authorizes the Building Official to appoint deputy building officials, technical officers, inspectors, plans examiners, etc., and that such appointees have powers as delegated by the Building Official. Moreover, the CBC is replete with references to the Building Official's ability to require and review submittals, reports and evaluations from outside professionals or agencies. (See, CBC §§ 104.1 [Building Official shall have authority to accept reports of inspection by approved agencies or individuals]; 104.11 et seq. [Building Official can require and rely on research reports and tests related to use of methods and materials other than those specifically prescribed by CBC]; 107.1 [Design submittals from owner's design professionals required and Building Official can require further documents if deemed necessary]; 107.3 [Building Official shall examine or cause to be examined submittal documents]; 110.4 [Building Official is entitled to accept inspection reports of outside agencies]). Likewise the UHC 110 1. 1 requires that the Building Official commence proceedings when he inspects, or causes to be inspected, any property and determines that substandard conditions exist thereon. UCADB section 401.1 has identical language. Even without the specific provisions of the various building codes that allow the Building Official to rely on information provided by others, Appellants' argument, when taken to its logical end, would produce absurd results. To suggest that each City's Building Official be required to conduct every inspection, personally approve construction, or personally observe any violation prior to issuance of a citation or Notice and Order would mean that the Building Official would have to conduct tens if not hundreds of thousands of 13 792507.1 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 inspections each year. Indeed, Appellants' own building inspector witness, Roger Banowetz, testified that it is common practice for building inspectors to perform site inspections, meet with property owners and design professionals, and report nonconformities to the building official for further action. Building Officials regularly rely on information and documentation from employees, professionals, and experts. That is precisely what the Building Official testified to with respect to the instant matter. He relied on his personal review of photographs, his discussions with his subordinate engineer, and his personal review of Appellants' design professionals' reports and made his determinations based on all information available to him. 2) Appellants Failed to Provide Support for the Argument that the Property is Safe to Occupy and/or Free From Dangerous, Substandard and Hazardous Conditions. As the Building Official repeatedly testified, continually maintained throughout this action, and noted prior to his issuance of the Notice and Order, there is no one violation that caused him to come to the conclusion that the structures were unsafe to occupy. Likewise, he testified that there is no one item that, if addressed, would cause him to vacate the Notice and Order. Instead, the Building Official's determination was based on his review of the evidence and the fact that the multitude of dangerous conditions, when viewed as a whole, constituted a serious threat to the health and safety of the occupants of the structures. Rather than address the Property as a whole, Appellants attempted to draw attention away from the cumulative condition of the Property by focusing on each cited condition and having a witness testify that the condition, in itself, does not constitute a serious hazard to health and safety. This method of attacking the Notice and Order is unavailing for several reasons. First, the Board via Resolution 4161 already found that the conditions cited by the Building Official's Notice and Order exist and constitute dangerous, substandard and unsafe conditions. Specifically, the Resolution states: 792507.1 • "[T]he Board of Appeals considered evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance condition exists at the subject 14 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 property ...."(Joint Ex. 1(E) page 00097, ¶M); • "[T]here is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010 and provided hereto in [prior staff reports]" (Id. at page 00098, ¶O); • "That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a daneeroas condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code ...." (Id. at page 00098,V); and • "The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010 ... to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary and appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved." (Id. at page 00098, Section II, ¶A). Appellants would have the Board read the order in Resolution 4161 in a vacuum, and suggest that the Board's intent was for the Building Official to require only certain conditions to be corrected. Such an argument simply ignores the findings that support the Order and specifically affirms that the conditions noted during the first appeal hearings (which are nearly identical to those noted in the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order) constitute dangerous and substandard conditions. Appellant cannot rely on one sentence in the Resolution and simply ignore the rest. Next, the Building Official, who has the expertise, experience and duty, to analyze the structures on the Property as a whole, provided significant testimony as to the various dangerous conditions on the Property, and how they interrelate with one another to create a dangerous and unsafe situation for occupants of the structures. Appellants' attempt to isolate and minimize the various conditions and to characterize several as speculative did nothing to take away from the fact that the vacated structures constituted a hazard to the life and safety of the occupants. As for the allegedly speculative dangers, Appellants' insinuated that the 15 792507.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4 15 8 < 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice and Order should not have been based on "potential" hazards. However, this argument ignores the fact that many of the conditions identified as potential hazards involved work that was clearly (and admittedly) done in the recent past, and without the benefit of permits, inspections or approvals. One of the purposes of the Building Official requiring inspections, reports and plan submittal was for precisely that reason — to ascertain whether various unpermitted installations were properly installed and maintained. Appellants and their witnesses did little to further their argument that the structures on the Property were safe. Each of Appellants' witnesses confirmed that their review of the structures on the Property, their analysis of the conditions, and recommendations for action were based solely on their personal expertise. Moreover, Appellants' witnesses confirmed existence of several dangerous conditions. Finally, to the extent that Appellants claim that certain issues on the Property were resolved prior to issuance of the Notice and Order, not one of Appellants' witnesses testified that thev observed said corrections prior to June 16, 2011, nor was proof of such remediation provided within the timelines provided as requested in the Building Official's repeated written requests for confirmation that the buildings were safe to occupy. (Joint Ex. 1(G) and (K)) a) Stovner's Testimony Appellants' structural engineer, Eric Stover, confirmed that he only reviewed and analyzed specific structural elements on the Property. In fact, he admitted that his initial inspection of the Property, the purpose of which was to identify health and safety concerns, was not complete in that it failed to identify conditions that he later acknowledged were structurally unsound and substandard. Notwithstanding that fact, Stovner testified that he did not consider the occupancy of the structures; he did not consider any fire protection issues (including fire walls, setback requirements, or whether structural members consisted of adequately fire resistive materials); and he did not consider any electrical, mechanical or plumbing installations at the Property. More importantly, Stovner reported and testified that several structural elements on the Property were inadequately designed, lacked proper foundations or were of insufficient size and strength to support the loads imposed on the structural supports. These dangerous 16 792507.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 structural deficiencies include an inadequately sized carport girder, improperly designed supports for the recreation room canopy; inadequate foundation for the stairs that serve as the only mean of ingress and egress for the upper unit on the Property, and the structural support for the garage roof/upper unit floor, which was not of sufficient size or strength to carry the imposed gravity load, which resulted in a significant crack along the supporting beam for the upper unit. Despite his testimony that no one of these structural shortfalls, in and of itself, constituted a dangerous condition, he advised the Building Official that shoring of the garage beam was necessary to make the structures safe to occupy, as well as recommended structural modifications, and total replacement of certain structural materials with larger, stronger materials. In addition, Stovner admitted that at least two of the dangerous conditions were not built in compliance with any version of the CBC (carport girder and garage support beam). With respect to the remaining two issues, Stovner did not even attempt claim that they were built in compliance with an older building code. This is significant due to Appellants' reliance on the Existing Buildings chapter of the CBC and the CNBC. Appellants' repeatedly cited to the application of the existing building provisions of the CBC to suggest that compliance with the current CBC was not required. However, CBC section 3401.2 makes clear that application of the existing building provisions of the CBC are predicated on "conformance with the code edition under which installed." As confirmed by Appellants' own witness, the existing building provisions of the CBC do not apply to the dangerous, structurally deficient conditions identified in the City's Notice and Order. During cross-examination, Stovner reiterated that it was his opinion that the various problems identified with respect to the structures on the Property did not pose a danger to occupants. Nonetheless, he confirmed that he observed at least five of nine conditions, which by definition, each constitute substandard housing conditions in violation of the UHC. (See, UHC §1001.3(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7)) Finally, Stovner testified that he observed the temporary shoring installed at the Property and that it was installed consistently with his recommendation. Stovner admitted though, that he did not prepare any design for the shoring, did not propose design details 17 792507.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 such as connections, did not oversee its installation, and did not advise the City that the shoring was installed. Tellingly, Stovner also failed to testify that he observed the installed shoring prior to June 16, 2011. Instead, he testified that he visited the Property several times while preparing his initial reports, and then again after this appeal hearing had begun. b) Banowetz' and Menards' Testimony Appellants' independent building inspector, Roger Banowetz, and current architect Nathan Menard, also failed to support Appellants' contentions with credible evidence. Based on their testimony, it is apparent that neither Banowetz, nor Menard2 saw the Property prior to June 16, 2011, nor were they even employed by Appellants at that time. Accordingly, their testimony as to the condition of the Property, or whether it was safe to occupy on June 16, 2011, is entirely irrelevant and should not be considered. Likewise, Banowetz testified that he inspected the Property for conformance to the 1927 and 1940 building codes. However, he was unable to point to any basis for reliance on those two codes, despite acknowledgment that the code at the time of construction controls with respect to existing buildings. On the other hand, Banowetz' and Menard's testimony as to the current state of the structures on the Property confirm several seriously hazardous conditions that would endanger occupants of the structures if not for the current order to vacate. Specifically, both Banowetz and Menard confirmed that no fire wall currently exists between the garage and the upper dwelling unit. This area remains in the same condition as when initially observed by City officials. Further, both confirm that the outer wall of the enclosure to the stair landing does not meet relevant set back requirements for any version of the CBC from 1927 to the present. (See, CBC § 3401.2 [Safeguards shall be maintained in conformance with code edition under which installed]). Both Banowetz and Menard deferred to Mr. Stovner with respect to any structural issues (meaning they did not quarrel with his assessment that various structures were improperly designed and insufficient to serve their intended 2 Menard testified that he had been on the Property in the past in social contexts, and again in 2010 related to his preparation of a site plan, but that his recent visits began after issuance of the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order. 18 792507.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 a 13 a 14 8 < 15 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 purpose). Finally, both Banowetz and Menard confirmed the location of the stairway to the upper unit in relation to the property line as well as the fact that each the three residential units on the Property, are connected to one another by walls, floors/ceilings, and or the carport structure. Appellants attempted to argue and Banowetz and Menard both maintained, that the location of the stairs was consistent with the provisions of the CBC at the time the stairs were constructed. Tellingly, neither testified that they could personally determine, nor that they attempted to determine, when any of the structures on the Property were constructed. Instead, they relied on the hearsay statements contained in a letter purportedly written by a former resident of the Property. Nonetheless, Banowetz' and Menard's testimony that the stairs were in compliance with the 1927 of the CBC was based on the exemption to general stairway setback requirements found in section 3301 with respect to Group "I" occupancies. However, given the fact that the configuration of the structures and, therefore, the occupancy, was changed by connection of the three dwelling units via the carport structure, the exception no longer applies and the structures must comply with the codes in effect at the time of the alteration. (See, 1927 CBC §502 [Change in occupancy requires remodeling to comply with the code applicable to the higher occupancy]; 1940 CBC § 502 [No change in occupancy shall be made unless the structure is made to comply with the requirements applicable to the new occupancy group]) Importantly, no version of the CBC, from 1927 to the present has allowed a zero foot setback for external stairways on multi-family/apartment house occupancies. Because no firewall separates each of the units from one another, the structure is considered an apartment house subject to the requirements of Group "H" occupancies. (See, 1927 & 1940 CBC § 401 [Apartment House is defined as "a building or portion thereof, which is designed, built, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or which is occupied as the home or residence of three or more families living independently of each other ...."] and 1927 & 1940 CBC §501 et seq. [related to required fire separations between units for certain occupancy classifications]). 792507.1 c) Bret Fairbanks' Testimony Finally, Appellant, Bret Fairbanks' own testimony does not support his position on 19 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 appeal. First, Fairbanks admits that several of the dangerous and unsafe conditions remain on his Property. Specifically, the lack of required fire walls and property line setbacks, the deficient structural members identified by Mr. Stovner, and various unpermitted mechanical and electrical installations continue to exist at the Property. Appellant readily admits that he installed a gas furnace and substantial electrical wiring without the benefit of necessary permits. Although he is, and has been, well aware that the installations should have been inspected and permitted, he admits that he has never submitted a permit application or requested an inspection from the City. Indeed, Appellant admits that he did not submit a single permit application, construction drawing, or similar document to the City until July 5, 2011 — after the subject Notice and Order was issued. Likewise, he admits that he never requested that a City official inspect the Property to determine whether the dangerous conditions noted remained or had been corrected. With respect to Appellants' claim that various dangerous conditions were remedied prior to June 16, 2011, his testimony must be considered in light of the remainder of the evidence in the record. Appellant has repeatedly stated that he relies on the rental income from the two accessory units on the Property, yet, when the Order to Vacate was issued, Appellant did not request an inspection from the City to show what had been done. Instead, Appellant submitted plans which appear to show proposed remediations rather than completed remediations. (Joint Ex. 1(P)) Not one witness other than Appellant testified that they observed the corrections allegedly performed prior to June 16, 2011, despite the fact that Appellant alleges that many of the issues have been corrected since the initial appeal of the City's 2010 Notice and Order. At the least Mr. Stovner, Mr. Fulbright, and Mr. Menard have inspected the Property since that time, but none testified that they observed the corrections. Even assuming that the corrections alleged issues were remedied prior to issuance of the Notice and Order, Appellant admits (and his other witnesses confirm) that several seriously dangerous conditions remain on the Property. While all claim that the conditions can and will be remedied in conjunction with the pending plan submittal, the fact remains that the dangerous conditions are still present. 20 792507.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vol 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. The California Historical Building Code is Not Relevant to the Instant Appeal. 1) Appellants Have Not Requested Application of the CHBC Despite claims to the contrary, neither Appellants nor their professionals requested application of the CNBC. Tellingly absent from the record is any evidence of a formal request for application of the CNBC. As of June 16, 2011, the date of the Notice, no plans, permit applications or other documents had been submitted to the Building Official at all, let alone such documents requesting application of the CHBC. The only reference even made to the CHBC are in the Building Official's April 14, 2011 correspondence to Appellants (Joint Ex. 1(G)) indicating that only the "2 -story garage" was included in the historical survey, not a dwelling unit above the garage. (Id.) In that very same letter, the Building Official invited Appellant and his professionals to show that structures (specifically the conditions noted in the City's Staff reports as identified by the Building Board of Appeals) were in compliance with n_y version of previous version of the CBC from 1927 to present. (Id.) The Building Official even went as far as to provide a list of previous building code provisions for Appellants' use in addressing the City's concerns and request for confirmation of previous compliance. (Id.) No attempt was made by Appellant or any of his design professionals to show conformance to any building codes. Indeed, Appellants' structural engineer, building inspector, and both architects, confirm the existence of conditions on the Property which never complied with any version of the CBC. The only other reference to application of a version of the CBC other than the current version is in an email from Appellants' (former) architect, Paul Fulbright, wherein Mr. Fulbright admits that he and his firm "do not feel it is reasonable to retrofit the buildings / structures back to an older building code." (Joint Ex. I(J)). As no formal request was ever made, and thus, no decision made by the Building Official with respect to application of the CHBC, the issue is not ripe for appeal. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Building Official's April 14, 2011 letter was a 792507.1 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 a 13 14 8 < 15 3 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 determination subject to appeal3, the time for such appeal passed long before Appellants' June 24, 2011 Notice of Appeal or August 8, 2011 "amendment" letter, and has thus been I waived. Given the nature of the various dangerous conditions on the Property, the Building Official could not have approved application of the CHBC without further documentation from Appellants or their professionals, which was admittedly never provided. Specifically, application of the CHBC requires a complete structural survey to evaluate the structural capacity and condition of structural conditions of the Property. (See, CHBC §8-703.1 et seq.) Appellants' structural engineer, Eric Stover, testified that his initial report and recommendations did not constitute such a survey and that he did not provide one to the Building Official or any other City official, sufficient to justify application of the CNBC. 2) Various Aspects of the Property Never Complied with any Version of the CBC, Rendering the CHBC Inapplicable to the Structures. Section 8-102.1.3 states that "qualified buildings or properties may have their existing use or occupancy continued if such use or occupancy conformed to the code or to the standards of construction in effect at the time of construction ...." As discussed in detail above, Appellants' testimony, as well as the testimony of his witnesses, establish that many of the dangerous conditions identified by the City do not conform to any past version of the CBC. Accordingly, the CI -IBC is not applicable to these structures. 3) The CNBC, Even if Applicable to the Additional Dwelling Units, Would not Invalidate the Building Official's Notice. Again assuming arguendo that the CHBC applies to the additional dwelling units as argued by Appellants — iihich it does not — the Building Official's Notice remains valid. Appellants incorrectly argue that "the Building Official was required to find that the buildings constituted a `Distinct Hazard' or `Imminent Threat."' Tellingly, there is no citation to any section of the CHBC requiring such a finding. Instead the Appellants point to 3 The Board's jurisdiction to hear such an appeal, if ripe, will be addressed below. 22 792507.1 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 the definitions section of the CHBC as to what constitutes a "distinct hazard" or "imminent threat. Appellants did not reference any provision of the CHBC that requires a finding of a distinct hazard or imminent threat prior to issuance of a Notice to Vacate a structure deemed unsafe by the Building Official. In fact, there is no alternate standard related to vacation of buildings anywhere in the CHBC which would apply to buildings that actually qualify for the code's application. Conversely, CHBC section 8-102.15 states that "[w]hen a qualified building or property is determined to be unsafe as defined by the mulur code, the requirements of the CHBC are applicable to the work necessary to correct the unsafe conditions." If a finding of an "imminent threat" or "distinct hazard" were required prior to issuance of a notice to vacate any "qualified historical building", section 8-102.15 would be rendered useless. It cannot be presumed that "the Legislature engaged in an idle act or enacted a superfluous statutory provision [citations omitted in original]. In analyzing statutory language, we seek to give meaning to every word and phrase in the statute to accomplish a result consistent with the legislative purpose." (Wolski v. Fremont Investment and Loan, (2005) 127 Cal. App. 01 347,352). 4) The Building Board of Appeals Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Reverse Modify or Dismiss an Action of the Building Official Related to the CHBC or its Application. The decision as to whether to apply the CHBC to a building or structure rests, initially, with the Building Official. Pursuant to the administrative provisions applicable to all of the City of Tustin's adopted building codes (including the CHBC), as contained in CBC, Chapter 1, Division II, section 104 et seq., the Building Official "shall have authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions." With respect to every other building code adopted by the City, the Building Board of Appeals is designated as the appropriate appeal body relative to the Building Official's application and interpretation of the codes. (See, UHC §203.1, CBC §113.1, UCADB §205.1) However, appeals related to the Building Official's application, interpretation, omission, decision or practice related to the CHBC is appealable to the State 23 792507.1 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 Historical Building Safety Board. (See, CHBC §§8-104.1 and 8-104.3) Accordingly, if Appellants wish to challenge the Building Official's alleged refusal to apply the CHBC to the added dwelling units on the Property (which never actually occurred), their appeal lies with the State Historical Building Safety Board. The Building Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction relative to the application, interpretation, or any other matter governed by the CNBC. 6. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, along with the evidence in the record on appeal, and the arguments presented prior to and during this appeal, the City respectfully requests that Appellants' two appeals be denied, and that the Notice and Order and Notice to Vacate issued by the Building Official on June 16, 2011, be affirmed. DATED: Respectfully submitted, WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART, APC 792507.1 24 and BUILDING OFFICIAL Cit�yy, of Tu ti$t 390 can teinia Way Tustin CA X2708 h \. 1NP[MATE Receipt: 06/24/201112:00 ph Receipt No: 80367269 Chargg � 303448s T Building permits 250.00 Total 250.00 Payments: CreditC _ 258.00 Change 0.00 Customerq: 0008 Customer,',if,,B STEPHANIE FAIRBANKS a_ Cash FIN12i� Stat'._ TUSTIN ni RiTW BUILDING OUR EMM HONORING OUR PAST Date _,� unp, ZA, 2011 Fees— CITY OF TUSTIN BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS Before the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin. Appeal of (print names): tar& arxl 6icp Address of structure: Tu, Assessor's Map: bzal1 =2, R9,S %0i4r mq Lot Permit No. tai/A The undersigned hereby appeals to the City of Tustin Board of Appeals from the decision of the Building Official in accordance with California Building Code and other applicable Codes, i.e., Residential, Fire, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Uniform Housing, International Property Maintenance, and Uniform Code on the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, that: (Gheckom, or mole) the true intent of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) or the rules legally adopted there under have been incorrectly interpreted. the section(s) of Code do not fully apply. an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. X_ RL�ctvectyea_rina ht'Ee,.r- y,r�� e,� Anrz�zts re Recnt,�ticr�gl�nl Explain the appeal, modification, or relief souoht and state briefly the reasnns thprpfnrp- Please submit elevations, plans & relevant information showing variance or modification sought. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all statements contained in this application and any accompanying documents is true and correct, with full knowledge that all statements made in this denial.application are subject to investigation and that any false or dishones swer to any question may be grounds for Owner's Signature Mailing Address: 5202aaiic .Srrfe-k Ti ,ctin 927 O Phone No. \4) 31� 22 2 s:lcddlbuildingVormslbuilding board of appeals.doc ly TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Date A une 24.2011 CITY OF TUSTIN Fees BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS Before the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin. Appeal of (print nam( Address of structure: Assessor's Map: Permit No. NJ,4i The undersigned hereby appeals to the City of Tustin Board of Appeals from the decision of the Building Official in accordance with California Building Code and other applicable Codes, i.e., Residential, Fire, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Uniform Housing, International Property Maintenance, and Uniform Code on the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, that: (check one or more) the true intent of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) or the rules legally adopted there under have been incorrectly interpreted. the section(s) of an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. Code do not fully apply. Explain the appeal, modification, or relief sought and state briefiv the reasons therefore: Please submit elevations, plans & relevant information showing variance or modification sought. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that all statements contained in this application and any accompanying documents is true and correct, with full knowledge that all statements made in this application are subject to investigation and that any false or dishonest answer to any question may be grounds for denial. Owner's Signature= Date: 4 L I � 0 Mailing Address: X20 Raclft'G �' e&. Tj Cc nyI q 21 Q:0 Phone No. 014\R3P, - 222p s:\cdd\building\forms\building board of appeals.doc Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Chapter 5 — APPEAL Section 501— General 501.1 Form of the Appeal. Any person entitled to service under Section 401.3 may appeal from any notice and order or any action of the building official under this code by filing a the office of the building official a written appeal containing: 1. A heading in the words: "Before the board of appeals of the ... of... 2. A caption reading: "Appeal of...," giving the names of all appellants participating in the appeal. 3. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants in the building or the land involved in the notice and order. 4. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific order or action protested, together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant. 5. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought and the reasons why it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. 6. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing address. 7. The verification (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at least one appellant as to the truth of the matters stated in the appeal. The appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the service of such an order or action of the building official; provided, however, that if the building or structure is in such condition as to make it immediately dangerous to life, limb, property or safety of the public or adjacent property and is ordered vacated and is posted in accordance with Section 404, such appeal shall be filed within 10 days from the date of service of the notice and order of the building official. Chapter 2 — ENFORCEMENT Section 205 — Board of Appeals 205.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretations of this code, there is a "Building Board of Appeals" appointed by the City who are experienced and trained to pass upon matters pertaining to the building construction and who are not employees of the City. The building official is an ex officio member of the board but does not have vote on any matter before the board. The board has adopted rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant, with a duplicate copy to the building official. Appeals to the board shall be processed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 501 of this code. Copies of all the rules or regulations adopted by the board shall be delivered to the building official, who shall make them freely accessible to the public. 205.2 Limitations on Authority. The Board shall have no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of this code nor shall the board be empowered to waive the provisions of this code. W02-WEST:3WAH 1\403655762.1 -1- Uniform Housing Code Chapter 12 — APPEAL 1201.1 Form of the Appeal. Any person entitled to service under Section 1101.3 may appeal from any notice and order or any action of the building official under this code by filing a the office of the building official a written appeal containing: 1. A heading in the words: "Before the board of appeals of the ... of.'.." 2. A caption reading: "Appeal of...," giving the names of all appellants participating in the appeal. 3. A brief statement setting forth the legal interest of each of the appellants in the building or the land involved in the notice and order. 4. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the specific order or action protested; together with any material facts claimed to support the contentions of the appellant. 5. A brief statement in ordinary and concise language of the relief sought and the reasons why it is claimed the protested order or action should be reversed, modified or otherwise set aside. 6. The signatures of all parties named as appellants and their official mailing address. 7. The verification (by declaration under penalty of perjury) of at least one appellant as to the truth of the matters stated in the appeal. The appeal shall be filed within 30 days from the date of the service of such an order or action of the building official; provided, however, that if the building or structure is in such condition as to make it immediately dangerous to life, limb, property or safety of the public or adjacent property and is ordered vacated and is posted in accordance with Section 1104, such appeal shall be filed within 10 days from the date of service of the notice and order of the building official. Chapter 2 — ENFORCEMENT Section 203 — Housing Advisory and Appeals Board 203.1 General. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the building official relative to the application and interpretations of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a housing advisory and appeals board consisting of members who are qualified by experience and training to pass " upon matters pertaining to the building construction and who are not employees of the jurisdiction. The building official is an ex officio member of the board and shall act as a secretary but shall have no vote on any matter before the board. The housing advisory and appeals board has adopted rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant, with a duplicate copy to the building official. Appeals to the board shall be processed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 1201 of this code. Copies of all the rules or regulations adopted by the board shall be delivered to the building official, who shall make them freely accessible to the public. 203.2 Limitations on Authority. The housing advisory and appeals board shall have no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of this code nor shall the board be empowered to waive the provisions of this code. W02-WEST:3WAH1\403655762.I -2- 650 Town Center Drive I 4th Floor I Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 714-513.5100 office I 714-513-5130 fax I www.sheppardmuilln.com A T i o a N[ r s A T L A W Writer's Direct Line: 714424-8257 whodges@sheppardmullin.com June 24, 2011 Our File Number: 0009-159581 VIA FACSIMILE AArD E-MAIL Chairperson Kozak and Members of the Building Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, Planning Commission of the City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 E -Mail: cityclerk@tustinca.org Facsimile: (714) 832-6382 Re: Request for Hearing Before the Building Board of Appeals Re ardine Resolution 4161 and 520 Pacific Street Honorable Chairperson Kozak, Planning Commissioners and Members of the Board of Appeals: On behalf of our client, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, we submit this request for a hearing before the Building Board of Appeals ("Board") for the City of Tustin (the "City") and/or the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, as appropriate, seeking an order directing the City's Enforcement Officer, the Building Official, to comply with the instructions and directive outlined in Board Resolution No. 4161, issued on December 14, 2010 ("Resolution 4161i1), and to rescind the Notice and Order/Pre-Citation Notice of Dangerous Buildings ("Notice and Orderi2) and a related vacation notice ("Notice to Vacate0)posted by the Building Official on the Property, all of which are dated June 16, 2011. Copies of the Notice and Order and the Notice to Vacate are attached hereto. This letter is submitted at this time to preserve Mr. Fairbanks' rights to challenge the actions taken by the Building Official subsequent to the Board's approval of Resolution 4161, and to seek an administrative hearing for the Board's review of those actions. Because it appears some of the issues raised in this letter/request may involve the appropriateness of decisions made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the Uniform Housing 1 Attached as "Attachment A." 2 Attached as "Attachment B." ' Attached as "Attachment C." SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 2 Code ("UHC") and/or the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings ("UCADB") (collectively, the "Codes") and the Resolutions, we are also separately processing appeals to the appropriately constituted board(s) of appeals for matters brought under those Codes, whose members are specially qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and who are not employees of the City.4 Mr. Fairbanks reserves the right to file appeals of the Building Official's determinations with respect to violations of the Codes pursuant to the provisions thereof. Mr. Fairbanks, a long-time resident of Tustin, currently owns and occupies a single- family residence located at 520 Pacific Street in Old Town Tustin (the "Property"). In addition to the Fairbanks' home, constructed in 1929, there are two (2) accessory residences on the Property, constructed before 1950 (collectively, the "Residences") and another accessory structure that serves as a recreation room. On December 14, 2010, the Board considered the scope and extent of corrections that would be required on the Residences, and adopted the Resolutions in accordance with Section 113 of the City's Building Code. On the same date the Board, sitting as the City's Planning Commission and acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, adopted Resolution No. 4162 ("Resolution 4162"), upholding the Fairbanks appeal, thereby ordering a previous notice and order issued by the Building Official rescinded and confirming the non -conforming status of the Residences. Resolutions 4161 and 4162 are collectively referred to herein as the "Resolutions." The Resolutions confirm the Commission's and the Board's findings and determination that "lawfulness" at the time of construction is not required to meet the definition of a "non- conforming use/structure" under City Zoning Code Section 9273(a). The Resolutions further confirmed that compliance with the City's Building Code is not required to qualify the Residences as non -conforming uses/structures under the Zoning Code, but instructed Mr. Fairbanks to correct any health and safety violations on the Property. The Resolutions were unchallenged, and therefore constitute a final determination of Mr. Fairbanks' requirements in addressing building standards applicable to the Residences. The Board's intent is clear. The Resolutions plainly state that compliance with the minimum health and safety requirements of the UHC would be the applicable standard for correcting any health and safety violations of the Property. By this letter, we are requesting that the Board direct the Building Official to comply with Resolution 4161 and to withdraw the Notice and Order dated June 16, 2011, rescind and remove the Notice to Vacate, and to work with Mr. Fairbanks in determining the scope of required corrections to the Residences consistent with the Resolutions and the intent of the Board. Pursuant to UCADB §§ 205.1, 501.1 and UHC §§ 203.1, 1201.1. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 3 We further request that the documents and records related to the Property of the proceedings of the City Council on March 1 and March 15, 2011, and of the Board and Commission in connection with the adoption of the Resolutions (including the actions taken by the City Council on March 1 and March 15, 2011) and of the Board and Commission on December 14, 2010, and the transcripts thereof, be included in the record of any proceedings held pursuant to this letter. I. Background And Summary Of Facts In The Record Of These Proceedings Pursuant to the City Historical Survey Report, construction of the principal structure at 520 Pacific Street started in 1928 and was completed in 1929.5 A Completion Notice issued by the City of Tustin on January 27, 1929 further verifies this completion date. According to a City -authorized report prepared by Thirteenth Street Architects, Inc. ("Thirteenth Street Architects"), the two-story or loft -type carriage barn behind the principal structure was probably built on the site in 1928 as well.' The date of construction for the rear one-story middle addition is unknown, but was likely between 1945 and 1950.' In prior hearings regarding the Property, Mr. Fairbanks offered testimony from the son of Mr. Gaylord, a former owner, stating his recollection that the middle addition was probably constructed in or about 1947. The Residences are located in the Old Town Tustin Cultural Overlay District, and were in existence prior to 1950, at the latest. The City adopted its first Building Code in 1927, after which date building permits were required for construction. Under current City Building Code Section A104.7 and 1927 Building Codes Section 202, it is the obligation of the Building Official to retain copies of all building permits. Nonetheless, in 1959, the City Council authorized destruction and disposal of all old building permits and job records. The City acknowledges that it has not maintained records of building permits issued prior to 1959, and therefore cannot demonstrate when any earlier structures were permitted to be constructed, except through indirect evidence such as the Completion Notice issued for the principal Residence in 1929. These proceedings commenced on or about September 16, 2010, when the Building Official filed a notice and order' on the Property, alleging a variety of building and zoning code violations, and declaring the Property a public nuisance. The notice and order were apparently 5 Appeal Hearing Agenda Report. Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Elizabeth Binsack & Y. Henry Huang, dated November 9, 2010, pg. 5 (hereinafter, "Appeal Hearing Report"). ' Thirteenth Street Architects, Inc. Report, dated October 20, 2010 p pg. 2 (hereinafter, "Thirteenth Street Architects"). ' Appeal Hearin Report, 5; See also Thirteenth Street Architects 2. PP g P .Pg• >Pg• ' Notice and Order/Pre-Citation Notice and Declaration of Public Nuisance, Tustin Community Development Department, dated September 16, 2010 (hereinafter, "notice and order"). SHEPPARD MMLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 4 issued in response to a request from Mr. Fairbanks that the City verify the non -conforming status of the Residences. He also asked the City to agree that, in the event of a fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster, the City would permit the accessory Residences on the Property to be rebuilt. Mr. Fairbanks made these requests in connection with a contract to sell the Property so he could purchase a new home. The purchase agreement was cancelled by the buyer after the Building Official issued the initial notice and order. Mr. Fairbanks appealed the first notice and order on September 22, 2010. The Board held three (3) hearings at which more than fifty (50) residents appeared to support the Fairbanks appeal. On December 14, 2010, the Board and Commission adopted the Resolutions, granting the appeal. With respect to the alleged building code violations, Resolution 4161 ordered Mr. Fairbanks to make physical improvements to the Residences that were "reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary and appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved."' With Mr. Fairbanks' support, the Board instructed the Building Official to identify those items listed in the staff report dated October 26, 201010 that were required to protect "health and safety." With respect to the alleged zoning code violations, Resolution 4162 reversed the Notice and Order and deemed the Residences to be legal non -conforming uses/structures. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that: (1) the upper unit located above the garage is a legal nonconforming second residential unit; and (2) the unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a legal nonconforming second residential unit." Between late March and early April, 2011, Mr. Fairbanks met with Mr. Henry Huang, the City's Building Official, and Mr. Dennis McCreary, the City's Principal Engineer. At this meeting, Mr. Huang provided Mr. Fairbanks with list of general code requirements and comparison of various implemented City Codes. 12 The document provided no reference to 9 Resolution No. 4161: A Resolution of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin Modifying the Notice and Order for Building Code Violations at the Property at 520 Pacific Street (Assessor's Parcel No. APN 401-371- 07). 10 Appeal Hearing Agenda Report: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Elizabeth Binsack & Y. Henry Huang, dated October 26, 2010 (hereinafter, "Appeal Hearing Report, Oct. 26"). " Resolution No. 4162: A Resolution of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, Affirming Nonconforming Status of Certain Buildings, Structures, and Uses at the Property at 520 Pacific Street (Assessor's Parcel No. APN 401-371-07). 'Z General Code Requirements for Residential Construction 1917, 1946, and 2010, March 31, 2011, Tustin City Internal Document. Attached as "Attachment D." SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 5 health and safety concerns or instruction to Mr. Fairbanks on how to proceed in compliance with the obligations outlined in Resolution 4161. On approximately April 5, 2011, Mr. Fairbanks and his architect, Mr. Paul Fulbright, met with Mr. Huang and Mr. McCreary. In response to Mr. Huang's request, Mr. Fulbright provided a written report outlining remedial health and safety measures that would be pursued by Mr. Fairbanks base on the notice and order and Mr. Fulbright's personal inspection. Mr. Huang rejected this report, insisting that these remediation measures were insufficient and that the entire property must be inspected for any Building Code violations. Mr. Huang then sent a letter to Mr. Fairbanks, dated April 14, 2011, requiring remediation measures that went far beyond the authority allotted to him under Resolution 4161, requiring evidence establishing the construction date of the Residences and disavowing the application of the historic building codes. On May 10, Mr. Fairbanks, Mr. Fulbright, and Mr. Eric Stovner, Mr. Fairbanks's engineer, met with Mr. Huang and Mr. McCreary. Mr. Fulbright and Mr. Stovner provided reports providing their professional opinions as to what constitutes health and safe violations and appropriate remediation measures consistent with their understanding of the Board Resolutions, 1 At this meeting, Mr. Huang stated he would review the reports but stated to Mr. Fulbright a day later, on May 11, 2011 that structures were unsafe, as demonstrated in his letter dated May 16, 2011. Mr. Fairbanks was given thirty (30) days to submit plans and calculations for as yet unspecified remediation work. In response, Mr. Stovner issued a certified letter stating the structures were safe and suitable for habitation so long as Mr. Fairbanks installed a temporary sure up beam in the garage. 14 Mr. Fairbanks performed the prescribed corrective work, and requested an extension of the thirty (30) day deadline so that the extent of any additional corrective work could be determined. Without further notice or response to Mr. Fairbanks' request for an extension of time, Mr. Huang issued the Notice and Order on Thursday, June 16, 2011. The Residences and the recreation room were also "red -tagged," and the existing tenants were ordered to vacate the premises by Monday, June 20 at 4:00 p.m. The tenants of the Residences vacated prior to the deadline. This application is made in order to obtain a hearing before the Planning Commission and/or the Planning Commission sitting as the Building Board of Appeals, to request that the City's Building Oficial and/or Code Enforcement Officer be directed to comply with the requirements and intent of Resolution 4161. 13 Attached as "Attachment E" and "Attachment F." 14 Attached as "Attachment G." SHEPPARD MOLLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 6 Il. Resolution 4161 Is Final As A Decision Of The Building Board Of Anneals Resolution 4161, adopted by the Board on December 14, 2010, states: "The property owners are herby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved." Pursuant to Tustin Building Code Section 8101(o), A113.1.1, "[tjhe Building Board of Appeals... shall render its decision and findings on contested matters, in writing to the Building Official, with a duplicate copy thereof to any appellant or contestant affected by such decision or finding." This Section further provides that an order of the Building Board of Appeals is immediately final. Under the terms of Resolution 4161, Mr. Huang was required to reasonably determine necessary and appropriate remediation measures to ensure that there are no health and safety violations in regards to the Residences only. He was not permitted to make demands that the Residences, carport, and recreation room be brought into compliance with 2010 Building Code standards, as the Board had already determined that the full scope of current building standards should not apply. During the course of the above-mentioned meetings and correspondences from March to May 2011, both Mr. Stovner and Mr. Fulbright provided proof and their professional assurances to Mr. Huang that the Residences are structurally sound and suitable for habitation. Regardless, Mr. Huang persists in requiring Mr. Fairbanks to remedy any and all aspects of the Property that do not meet the standards of the 2010 Building Code, not just health and safety concerns. He is further requiring Mr. Fairbanks to bring a recreation room on the Property into conformity, despite the fact this structure was not at issue in Resolution 4161. Mr. Huang has clearly overstepped the Boards' final order and the directive of Resolution 4161. Further, Mr. Huang continues to demand that Mr. Fairbanks, Mr. Fulbright and Mr. Stovner provide copies of building permits or other evidence in order to support their professional determinations regarding construction dates of the Residences. For example, in a letter dated May 16, 2011, Mr. Huang demanded Mr. Fairbanks restore all the buildings on the Property to 2010 Buildings Code standards because he has been unable to prove construction dates. Not only is this out of the purview of Resolution 4161, but is also counter to the evidence provided at the December 14, 2010 hearing that demonstrated all building permits and job records were destroyed in 1959 pursuant to a City Council mandate. As stated above, these structures and subsequent improvements were constructed prior to 1959. Therefore, not only is Mr. Huang going beyond the scope of Resolution 4161 by requiring the Structures meet 2010 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 7 standards and not just remediation of health and safety concerns, but he is basing this directive on something the Board has recognized to be impossible to prove. III. The Dangerous Building Notice And Order Was Not Issued Pursuant To The Requirements Of The Uniform Code For The Abatement Of Dangerous Buildings And Is Deficient Under the UCADB, cited in the Notice and Order, a building official must inspect the building or cause the building to be inspected and determine the building is dangerous prior to commencing proceedings and issuing a notice and order. UCADB § 4.01(A). The notice and order issued by the building official must include a statement from the building official that the building is dangerous. UCADB § 4.01(B)(2). The notice and order must also include a brief and concise description of the conditions found to render the building dangerous under the provisions of UCADB Section 4.02(B)(2). The Dangerous Building Notice and Order dated June 16, 2011 does not comport with these requirements and is, therefore, fatally deficient. While the letter is signed by Mr. Huang, there is no indication in the letter or in the attached exhibits that Mr. Huang inspected the property. In fact, the letter itself states that the evidence used to support this Notice and Order was observed by third parties, namely Mr. Stovner and Mr. Fulbright, professionals independently commissioned by Mr. Fairbanks to inspect the Property. The letter further conceded that Mr. Huang only inspected "visible parts" of the Property. The Dangerous Building Notice and Order is deficient because it is not based on the Building Official's inspection, or evidence gathered by individuals he caused to inspect the property. Further, Exhibit A attached to the Notice and Order provides further support that the required statement declaring the building as dangerous is based upon evidence provided by individuals employed by Mr. Fairbanks and not Mr. Huang or individuals commissioned by Mr. Huang to inspect the property. Exhibit A does not include a date, a preparer's name, or any identification of Mr. Huang as the author of this document. Instead, every alleged Building Code violation cites the letters of Mr. Stovner and Mr. Fulbright as the source of the information. This cannot qualify as a statement from the building official as required by UCADB Section 4.02(B)(2). This deficiency, as well as Mr. Huang's failure to independently inspect the Residences, constitutes fatal deficiencies that render the Notice and Order null and void. Additionally, the Notice to Vacate posted in conjunction with the Notice and Order was deficient and defective. The UCADB allows for the vacation of tenants of the building, but requires that a notice to vacate be posted upon each exit of the building. UCADB § 4.04(a). Only two (2) Notices to Vacate was posted on the Property, on which there is a clear exit for each of the three (3) structures that are apparently the subject of the notice. Additionally, the Notices to Vacate were posted to the carport posts and not any structural exit. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 8 IV. The Dangerous Building Notice And Order Violates Procedural Due Process Due process is the theory of law which limits governmental powers and authority. Under American jurisprudence, the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend V, § 3; U.S. Const. amend XIV. Similar to the federal due process clause, the due process clause of the California Constitution has been interpreted to require "reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard before a governmental deprivation of a significant property interest." Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612; Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) 397 U.S. 254, 267. These procedural due process requirements have been held to include the right to a fair hearing.. Gal v. City of Selma (1998) 68 Cal.AppAth 213, 219; see also, Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 731; Nasha LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Ca1.App.4th 470. Proper notice must be given prior to any decision that eliminates an individual's right to property. Horn, supra, 24 Cal.3d at 617. Proper notice must adequately describe the activity requested and "must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests.i15 Such notice has not been provided, and Mr. Fairbanks and his tenants were deprived of their property in violation of clear procedural due process rights. Since the Board issued Resolution 4161, Mr. Fairbanks has continuously attempted to engage Mr. Huang and the City in a meaningful discussion regarding the scope of remedial measures required under the Board's final order. Mr. Huang, in return, has consistently denied Mr. Fairbanks' request for clarification and specification. On April 5, 2011, Mr. Huang provided Mr. Fairbanks with a list of general code requirements with corresponding code sections from the various building codes implemented by the City since 1927. This was an internal document, as conceded by Mr. Huang, and did not articulate specific violations or remediation measures applicable to the Property. In response, on April 21, 2011, Mr. Fairbanks provided Mr. Huang with a list of issues and potential remedial measures recommended by Mr. Fulbright to be consistent with the Board's Resolutions. Mr. Huang did not respond to the list provided by Mr. Fairbanks, and never instructed s "(D)epending on the magnitude of the project, and the degree to which a particular landowner's interests may be affected, acceptable techniques might include notice by mail to owners of record of property situated within a designated radius of the subject property, or by posting of notice at or near the project site, or both. Notice must, of course, occur sufficiently prior to a final decision to permit a `meaningful' predeprivation hearing to affected landowners." SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 9 Mr. Fairbanks to commence the remediation process based upon this document. Mr. Fairbanks, and his professional consultants, remain unclear as to what corrections are required to bring the Residences to the standard ordered by the Board. On May 16, Mr. Huang instructed Mr. Fairbanks to provide validation that the structures were suitable for occupation, which Mr. Fairbanks complied with by providing the opinions of his professional consultants, on May 18, 2011. Mr. Huang also instructed Mr. Fairbanks to draft a plan and list of calculations to be submitted to the City, still without any indication of what violations must be corrected in the interest of health and safety. The first notice that Mr. Fairbanks received as to what measures were required to comply with Resolution 4161 was the June 16, 2011 Notice and Order. This was also the notice that declared his buildings substandard for occupation and required permanent vacation of the existing tenants under threat of criminal sanctions. This notice was not reasonably calculated to afford Mr. Fairbanks or his tenants the ability to protect their property interests. Further, this notice provided Mr. Fairbanks no opportunity for a hearing before unbiased officials prior to deprivation of substantial property rights. The Notice and Order, in sum, is a clear violation of Mr. Fairbanks' procedural due process rights as it did not provide adequate notice and eliminated any chance for Mr. Fairbanks to obtain a predeprivation hearing. Therefore, the Notice and Order should be rescinded effective immediately. There is also a clear conflict between the Notice and Order and the Notice to Vacate, in that the Notice and Order purports to be an administrative citation without criminal sanction, but the Notice to Vacate contains a clear criminal (misdemeanor) sanction. The conflict between these notices also constitutes a violation of procedural due process, such that the Notice to Vacate must be removed and the Residences be permitted to released. V. Conclusion 7 'r all the reasons above, yj` request t this Board direct the Building Official to comply with the instructions and dit`ectives of a Resolutions. We further request that the Board instruct the Building Official to:; ona ietermine t e necessary and appropriate remedial m ur aken y to e`tMr Fairbs, onsistent with the Board's directive and not based on strict compliance with 2010 Building Code standards. Finally, we request that the Board instruct the Building Official immediately to rescind the Notice and Order and remove the Notice to Vacate from the Property. On behalf of Mr. Fairbanks, we sincerely appreciate your consideration of this request and our concerns. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Chairperson Kozak and the Building Board of Appeals June 24, 2011 Page 10 Very truly yours, ,�Q kC71�j If(�J,2� Whitney A. Hodges for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP W02-WEST:3 WAH 1\403650358.3 Enclosures Attachments A - G cc: Mr. Bret Fairbanks (via email brei@pacificpro.occoxmail.com) Douglas C. Holland, Esq. (via email DHolland@wss-law.com) Mr. Y. Henry Huang (via email HHuang@tustinca.org) Ms. Elizabeth Binsack (via email EBinsack@tustinca.org) Mr. Brad Steen (via email BSteen@tustinca.org) bbc: Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP, Esq. Marguerite P. Battersby, Esq. ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, MODIFYING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment ofr�D/y�l� the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the structures that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice of recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street to Mr. Fairbanks. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Director of Community Development or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of �?ej 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the �K-- declaration of public nuisance at his property; Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 G. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010 meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal. However, the correction measures discussed were not acceptable to the appellant; That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961, of which only the Zoning Code matters were affected; J. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and heard testimony from the appellant; K. That, pursuant to Section 112 Board of Appeals of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, the hearing was held to consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; the provision of such code does not fully apply; or, an equally good or better form of construction is proposed; L. That, pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, shall not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code or to waive requirements of such code. Further, the hearing shall be de novo and the Board of Appeals may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter in accordance with the Tustin City Code or remand the matter to the Community Development Director or the Zoning Administrator for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the Board of Appeals; M. That, on October 26, 2010, November 9, 2010, and December 14, 2010, the Board of Appeals considered evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance condition exists at the subject property due to the present violations of the following Building Code section: Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 California Building Code A105.1 (adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. (Prior staff reports and attachments are attached hereto in Exhibit A) N. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; O. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010, and provided hereto in Exhibit A; P. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; and Q. That the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects Inc. The architect \p provided a report tha conclu ed that there were several nonconforming additions and Building Code violations. (Shown in Exhibit A). S II. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby modifies the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance: 0 n< Cts+ -5 of The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010, and attached hereto in Exhibit B, to the extent such corrections are reasonahiv are Co Gcna; u�leloi — f(� Mei L}e/�to Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of December, 2010. Steve o ak Chairperson Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Y. Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Board of Appeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4161 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Building Official ATTACHMENT B Community Development Department Posted on property and sent by Certified and First -Class Mail June 16, 2011 Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 Property Address: TusTIN NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS Assessor Parcel Number: Case Number: 520 Pacific Street 401-371-07 V10-0312 I O I oily BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Subject: Upper Dwelling Unit and Rear Dwelling Unit, Garage, Carport and Recreation Building Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fairbanks, On September 16, 2010, a Notice and Order was issued for noncompliance with various provisions of the City of Tustin Building Code. The Notice and Order was appealed and on December 14, 2010, the Tustin Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body per TCC Section 9242) adopted Resolution No. 4161 affirming the Notice and Order for Building Code violations at 520 Pacific Street. Since adoption of Resolution No. 4161, discussions have been ongoing between you, your representatives, and Building Division staff regarding Building and Housing Code compliance. In addition, on or about May 4, 2011, City staff received a report from your structural engineer, Eric C. Stovner, which recommended structural modifications required to bring the subject buildings into conformance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC). We are also in receipt of correspondence from your architect, Paul Fulbright, which recommended a number of required upgrades necessary to address various code requirements to obtain permits and correct these structural issues or other Building and Housing Code violations on the property. Based on evidence observed by Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin, Building Division, Principal Engineer, third party review by Scott Fazekas, A.I.A., Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority, the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A., and myself (on the visible parts alone), and a review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UQAADB), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby deemed to be "dangerous buildings" (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 1': (714) 573-3100 0 f•: (714) 573-3113 • WWW.tuetitica.org Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street Case # V10-0312 June 16, 2011 Page 2 the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby declared to be "c .ba andard buildinac" (Section 1001.1). Based only on limited visual evidence, such condition or multiple defects exist on the property to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the occupant(s) is/are endangered. Pursuant to Section 404.2 of the UCADB, observations and findings reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the posting are attached hereto in Exhibit A. Notice and Order You are hereby notified and ordered to vacate, secure, and maintain the subject structures against entry by no later than 4:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 2011. No person may enter or occupy the subject structures unless acting in an authorized manner to assess, perform or inspect the repair and/or removal of the violations. 2. You are also hereby directed, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of service of this Notice and Order, to obtain all Cityep rmits necessary to 1) repair, and/or 2) remove all code violations to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Official. Failure to comply with this Notice and Order within the time specified above will result in the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit B attached hereto for additional information) and/or the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. You or any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may appeal the notice and order pursuant to Section 501.1 of the UCADB within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. Pursuant to Section 504 of the UCADB, the filing of an appeal shall not stay the above Notice and Order to vacate, secure and maintain the subject structures against entry, Failure to appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 501 shall constitute a waiver of all right to an administrative hearing and adjudication of the Notice and Order or any portion thereof. Should you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact me directly at (714) 573- 3130. Sincerely, Y, Henry Huang, WE., C.B.O. uilding Official Attachments: Exhibit A — Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street. Exhibit B —Administrative Citation Information Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street Case # V1 D-0312 June 16, 2011 Page 3 cc: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, City Attorney Bryan Healy, OCFA Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development Dennis McCreary, Principal Engineer Amy Thomas, Senior Planner Scott Fazekas, A.I.R. Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. Eric Stovner, S.E. File Exhibit A Exhibit A: Observations and Findings Supporting a Determination that Dangerous Buildings Exist at 520 Pacific Street Based on evidence observed by Henry Huang, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin Building Official, Dennis McCreary, P.E, CBO, City of Tustin, Building Division, Principal Engineer, third party review by Scott Fazekas, R.A., Mr. Bryan Healy, Orange County Fire Authority, the owner's structural engineer Eric Stovner, S.E, and the owner's architect Paul Fulbright, A.I.A. (on the visible parts alone), and the review of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings (UCADB), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby deemed to be "dangerous buildings" (Sections 301 and 302), and additionally based on the Uniform Housing Code (UHC), 1997 Edition, the subject buildings are hereby declared to be "substandard buildings" (Section 1001.1). Such condition or multiple defects exist on the property to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the occupant(s) is/are endangered. The following dangerous conditions or multiple defects have been observed on the property reciting the emergency and specifying the conditions which necessitate the posting: Existing Building Conditions: �1. UCADB Section 302 Item S and UHC Section 1001.3. Beam supporting second story dwelling unit is cracked and therefore jeopardizing supporting system of second story. CBC Section 3405.3 requires damaged gravity load -carrying components to be repaired or replaced. Mr. Eric Stovner's letters dated May 4 and 25, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. UCADB Section 302 Item 3 and UHC Section 1001.3. Carport structural members are not of adequate size to support roof loads and not designed in accordance with CBC Section 1604.1 and if loaded could collapse. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 3. UCADB Section 302 Item 8 and UHC Section 1041.3. Foundation supporting stairway to second fe,j.7 story dwelling unit is not adequate and causes the exit door from the upper dwelling unit to op"c. become Inoperative and creates a hazard in case of fire or panic. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 stated he observed and noted this violation. 4. UCADB Section 302 Item 2 and UHC Section 1001.12. Stairway intermediate guards and risers are not provided and thus a fall hazard exists. Further, this condition Is not in compliance with V CBC Section 1013, Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2f) stated he observed and noted this violation. 5. UCADB Section 302 Item 1 and UHC Section 1001.12. Exterior stairway for second story unit is not in a safe location to afford exiting during a fire deemed as 10 feet from property line by V/ California Building Code, 2010 Edition (CBC), Section 1027.3. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2g) stated he observed and noted this violation. 6. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. Fire resistive walls between the units and / adjacent garage are not provided. Fire resistive walls and window protection adjacent to the V property line on the second story are not provided. Fire in an adjacent unit, garage or adjacent building could spread quickly and therefore overcome occupants. Fire resistive assemblies are required for the above mentioned locations in CBC Sections 705, 707, and 709. In addition, ther are several electrical installations that pose a.. danger (unprotected and non -attached omex� wiring, non-GFCI outlets In the bathrooms and kitchens, heating installations, etc.) and there are no smoke detectors or alarms in the sleeping areas, Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 20Items 2a and 4a) stated he observed and noted these violations. 7. UHC Section 1001.5, Electrical wiring in the garage area is improperly installed. Improperly installed conductors and without proper required fire resistive material from the dwelling unit above can be a serious hazard to the occupants in the upper dwelling unit. Mr. Paul Fulbright's �f letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items id and 4b) stated he observed and noted this violation. 8. UHC Section 1001.7. The furnace in the second story dwelling unit does not meet clearance FV requirements and creates a potential fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 0` (Item 2b) stated he observed and noted this violation, y� 1 9. UHC Section 1001.5. Exposed electrical wiring next to unpermitted furnace in the second story I e unit can cause a potential fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2c) 1� j stated he observed and noted this violation. 10, UHC Section 1001.13. Operating smoke detectors are not installed within the sleeping areas of the upper and rear dwelling units as required by state code and therefore occupants may not have adequate warning of a fire. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2i and 5h) stated he observed and noted this violation. 11. UHC Sections 1001.3, 1001.6 and 1001.7. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including gas and water) installation work may pose a fire and water hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 1d) stated he observed and noted this violation. 12. UHC Section 1001.5. Electrical outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathrooms in both dwelling units are non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential electrical shock and fire danger to occupants. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Items 2j and 51) stated he observed and noted this violation. 13. UNC Sections 1001.2, 1001.5 and 1001.6. Plumbing and electrical installed in the kitchens may J create fire hazard, water damage and Inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 2d) stated he observed and noted this violation. 14. UHC Section 1001.7. Gas heater attached to wood siding and gas line in the rear dwelling unit poses a potential fire hazard due to its proximity to combustible material. Mr. Paul. Fulbright's V letter dated April 21, 2011 (item 5b) stated he observed and noted this violation, 15. UHC Section 1001.6. Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior of the rear dwelling unit poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item Y 51`) stated he observed and noted this violation. 16. UHC Section 1001.6. Added shower and floor area onto original structure may create watera� damage and Inadequate sanitation. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (item 2e) stated he observed and noted this violation. 17. UNC Section 1001.3. Foundations for the dwelling units and the recreation/storage building should be investigated to determine If the foundation provides adequate structural bracing and J support for the structures. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 1b) refers the matter to Mr. Stovner and no further response was given, 19. UHC Section 1001.3. Wood posts at canopy of recreation room have rot at bottom and therefore need repair to mediate structural hazard. Mr. Eric Stovner's letter dated May 4, 2011 / stated he observed and noted this violation. �i 1 19. UHC Section 1001. S. Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between the garage and `yl'11 house is subject to potential damage and failure and poses a potential electrical and fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 3c) stated he observed and noted this violation. 20. UCADB Section 302 Item 14. Exposed insulation In the kitchen area of the rear dwelling unit J 10' appears to be straw and therefore a high flame spread rating and fire hazard. Mr, Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 5g) stated he observed and noted this violation. �J 21. UCADB Section 302 Item 14 and UHC Section 1001.13. North exterior wall of the recreation room is in close proximity to the property line and poses a fire hazard. Mr. Paul Fulbright's letter dated April 21, 2011 (Item 6d) stated he observed and noted this violation. Determination of the Building Official. The subject buildings have been identified as having the conditions or multiple defects described above. Therefore, the subject buildings are in violation of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, the Uniform Housing Code, and the California Fire Code, as identified in the referenced items below, and are therefore determined to be "dangerous buildings". Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302 states, "For the purpose of this code, any building or structure which has any or all of the conditions or defects hereinafter described shall be deemed to be a dangerous building, provided that such conditions or defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public or its occupants are endangered." "1. Wherever any door, aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is not of sufficient width or size or is not so arranged as to provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic." Refer to Existing Building Conditions noted above, Item 5. "2. Whenever the walking surface or any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 4. "3. Whenever the stress in any materials, member or portion thereof, due to all dead and live loads, is more than one and one half times the working stress or stresses allowed in the Building Code for new buildings of similar structure, purpose or location." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 2. "5. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become detached or dislodge, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 1. "8, Whenever the building or structure, or any portion thereof, because of (i) dilapidation, deterioration or decay; (ii) faulty construction; (iii) the removal, movement of instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such building; (iv) the deterioration, decay or Inadequacy of its foundation; or (v) any other cause, is likely to partially or completely collapse." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Item 3. "9. Whenever, for any reason, the building or structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is being used." Refer to all violations at the property. "14. Whenever any building or structure which, whether or not erected In accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances, has in any nonsupporting part, member or portion less than So percent, or in any supporting part, member or portion less than 66 percent of the (1) strength, (Il) fire -resisting qualities or characteristics, or (iii) weather -resisting qualities or characteristics require by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height and occupancy in the same location." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 6, 20 and 21. "16. Whenever any building or structure, because of obsolescence, dilapidated condition, deterioration, damage, inadequate exits, lack of sufficient fire -resistive construction, faulty electric wiring, gas connections or heating apparatus, or other cause, is determined by the fire marshal to be a fire hazard." Refer to existing Building Code noted above, Items 3-9, 11, 14, 19, and 21. Uniform Housing Code 1001.1 General. "Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building in accordance with Section 102 of the Building code , or any building or portion thereof, including any dwelling unit, guest room or suite or rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the conditions referenced in this section to an extend that endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety or welfare o f the pubic or the occupants thereof, shall be deemed and hereby are declared to be substandard buildings." The subject buildings have conditions described in the referenced items hereinafter and therefore deemed to be a "substandard buildings". 1001.2 Inadequate Sanitation. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are Insanitary. Inadequate sanitation shall Include, but not be limited to, the following: 6. Lack of adequate heating facilities. 13. General dilapidation or improper maintenance. Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 8 and 13." 1001.3 Structural Hazards, 'Buildings or portions thereof shall be deemed substandard when they are or contain structural hazards. Structural hazards shall Include, but not be limit to, the following: 1. Deteriorated or inadequate foundations. 2. Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports. 3. Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety. 6. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling of roof supports, or other horizontal members that sway, split or buckle due to defective material or deterioration. 7. Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 1, 2, 3, 11, 17, and 18. 1001.5 Hazardous Electrical Wiring. "Electrical wiring that was Installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or electrical wiring not Installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not being used in a safe manner shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 7, 9, 12, 13, and 19. 1001.6 Hazardous Plumbing. "Plumbing that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of Installation or plumbing not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good condition or that is not free of cross -connections or siphonage between fixtures.shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 11, 13, 15, and 16. 1001.7 Hazardous Mechanical Equipment. "Mechanical equipment that was installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of installation or mechanical equipment not installed in accordance with generally accepted construction practices in areas where no codes were in effect or that has not been maintained in good and safe conditions shall be considered substandard." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 8, 11, and 14. 1001.12 Inadequate Exits. "Except for those buildings or portions thereof that have been provided with adequate exit facilities conforming to the provisions of this code, buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities were installed in violation of code requirements in effect at the time of their construction or whose exit facilities have not been Increased in number or width in relation to any Increase in occupant load due to alterations, additions or change in use or occupancy subsequent to the time of construction shall be considered substandard. Notwithstanding compliance with code requirements in effect at the time of their construction, buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when the building official finds that an unsafe condition exists through an improper location of exits, a lack of an adequate number or width or exits, or when other conditions exist that are dangerous to human life." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 4, and S. 1001.13 Inadequate Fire -protection or Firefighting Equipment. "Buildings or portions thereof shall be considered substandard when they are not provided with the fire -resistive construction or fire - extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that confirmed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire -restive integrity and fire -extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy." Refer to Existing Building Condition noted above, Items 6, 10, and 21. California Fire Code California Fire Code (CFC), 2010 Edition, regulations are applicable to the subject buildings. CFC regulations address fire/life safety such as fire -resistive construction, exiting, fire sprinkler and alarm systems. CFC in Section 110 addresses "unsafe building" including notification, fines, and abatement. Though not specifically detailed in this Notice and Order, the subject building violates several regulations in the CFC. Exhibit B 0 - EXHIBIT B Administrative Citation Information In accordance with Tustin City Code (TCC) 1162(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8999) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City may also take further legal action including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the violation(s) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the properly owner(s), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the Issuance date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding citation fine(s). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding finals), and contact the City to request a re- inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time in writing pursuant to TCC 1165(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1186 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing forms and other Information on administrative citations may be obtained on the City's website at www.tustinca.ora. C\OONmcntw,M 6ettlnQt\tloEdOC\IoW$011.4%\TOmpo 11A*Mt Fik2\font¢nt.0utlOk\46EV22$t\ HI61T A(20"04230 ATTACHMENT C d 'd QM a 9 0 �. M °�Q X C z m0 o N rn x 0 N .- T; .; m •� �:J si d 'd QM a 9 0 �. M °�Q X C z m0 o N rn ATTACHMENT D 11 GENERAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR c��w� L13 0/'- 1 / 9 / RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1927, 1946 and 2010 Requirements 1927 UBC 1946 UBC 2010 CRC, LEC, CMC, CPC General and Administration • Certificate of Appropriateness for Historical Site (zoning Issue) N/A N/A In effect since 1990 • Fees for San District, SCE, TUSD, OCFA, PW & Planning 303 • Civil and Soils Reports and Certifications Discretionary Discretionary Discretionary • Alternate Materials and Methods 302 105 R1.8.6 • Certificate of Occupancy 206 306 R110.1-.5 Occupancy — life safety: 2507 • Occupancy Group I (dwelling), J-1(garage) I (dwelling), J-1(garage) R-1, R-3 (dwelling) U (Garage) • Types of construction (walls, Floor, ceiling) Chapters 22 & 31 V -N (1702) V -N • Fire rating of exterior walls Dwelling 1403 Garage 1503 504, R302.1, • Allowable Floor Area Calculation Dwelling 1402 Garage 1502 1402, N/A, • Interior Wall Covering if exists 2507 (f) R702 • Exterior Wall Covering, (Felt, Stucco) 2205 2205 R703, 8703.2, R703.6 • Roof Sheathing 2208, Chapter 25 2111 R803 • Roof Ventilation (silent) (silent) R806 • Roof Insulation (silent) (silent) R906 • Spark Arrestor (silent) (silent) R1003.9.1 • Wall Insulation (silent) (silent) R302.10 • Floor Insulation (silent) (silent) R302.10 • Attic Access 3205 3205 R807 • Roof Covering Classification 2209,4305 3201-3204 R902 • Roof Ceiling Construction 2208 Chapter 32 R801 • Conventional Roof Chapter 25 Table 32-A R802 • Truss System 2509, 3202 R802.10 • Exterior opening 1403, 1503 504 R612 GENERAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1927, 1946 and 2010 Protectlons (window, door, etc.) • Windows/ Anchorage to R612 wall • Window/Door Safety 3401 Chapter 34 R308.4, TCC8103 (p) Glazing / Security Code Security Code Appendix K 102 Note: renumbered by Ordinance 1374 • Ceiling height (silent) 1405 R305 • Minimum Room Size (silent) 1405 R304 • weather protection 2205 2217 R903 (sheathing, felt and flashing) • Masonry Fireplaces 3706 Chapter 37 R1001 • Garage Vents 1505 NA -Energy • Roof Drainage 3206 CPC 1101.11, 1105, R905 • Crawl Space Vents 2204, 2205 CBC 1203, R408 • Factory -Built Fireplaces 3706 R1004 • Stair Headroom (silent) 3305 R311.7.2 • Riser Height/ Max. N/A, 3301 ref. 3305 R311.7.4.1 Variance between Risers • Tread Depth 3307, 3314 3305 R311.7.4.2 • Vertical Rise 3307, 3314 3305 R311.7.5 • Stair Profile R311.7.4.3 • Stairway Separation 3316, 3301 (stair Table R302.1 (1), from P. L. location, paragraph 3, Table R302.1 (2) read exemption) • Guards (height, spacing 3501 R312 of posts, grip, strength) • Carport (strength, Chapters 15 & 25 1409 Table R302.1 (1), separation from dwelling Table R302.1 (2), Unit, footing, post to R302.4 concrete separation) Fire and smoke Chapter 43 R302 resistance/protections: • Fire Blocking 2205, 2510 R302.11 • Draft Stopping 2205, 2510 3105/3205 R302.12 • Fire Sprinkler System R313 13D GENERAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1927, 1946 and 2010 • Type and thickness of . 4715-4718 Table R3O2.6 Drywall • Structural components R3O2.4 • DU to Garage Separation 503, 1410 503 R302.6 • DU to DU Separation 503, 1410 Table 5-8 R302.3 • Penetrations 2205 2508,3205,3105 R302 (Membrane /Through, Rated Boxes, Fire Pads) • Ducts (Flex or Rigid) 5105 R3O2.5.2 • Fire/smoke / CO/ alarms N/A R314, R315 • Materials for Interior 2206 2411 R7O2 Interior (wail and ceiling) finishes R7O3 exterior • Floor finishes • Exterior Lath 2205 Chapter 47 R703 R703.2 R703.6.1 • Egress width and N.A. 3301 3301, 3302 R311 locations • Escape and Rescue 1405 3305 R310 Windows • No. of exits N.A.33O1 1404 R311.2 • Light and Ventilation 1405 1405 R303 • Exterior Door Size N.A. 3301 3303 R311.2 • Stairs (handrails, guards, 3307, 3501 3305, Chapter 32 R311.7 stairways Stair Headroom, Riser R311.7.7 handrails Height/Max. Variance R311.8 ramps between Risers, Tread Depth, Vertical Rise, Stair Profile) • Locks in Door 3305 Security Code ©,3316,though.3319 • Stud Sizes 2205 2507 R6O2.3.1 • Sill Plates 2205 2516 R6O2.3.4 • Floor Construction 2506 R5O2 Structural: 2108 • Wall Construction 2505, 2507 R602 • Floor capacity (DL, LL) 2207, 2203 1810, 2304 Table R502.3.1 R502.11 • Roof capacity (DL, LL) 2208, 2305 2302 R802.10 Table R802.4 (1) • Lumber grades, size, 2501, 2503 T25 -D, 2502(a) Table R802.4 R602.2 strength (Actual size of nominal 1969, Stamp 1961) GENERAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1927, 1946 and 2010 01 • Post Sizes 2504, 2505 2505 CRC Section R407.3 • Shear wall (type, length, Chapter 25 R602,10- 613.10.1 hold downs, etc.) • Nails (size, spacing, Chapter 25 T25 -E Table R602.3.(1) sheathing nail schedule) • Lateral (seismic and 2307, let -ins Chapter 25, let -Ins wind) resistance — structural analysis • Foundations — design, 2204, 2938 1804, 2802 R403 construction and materials • Raised Floor 2204 Chapter 31, 3102 R403 R502 • Slab on Grade 2204 Chapter 31, 3102 R403 R502 • Type of Cement 2604 R404.1.2 R404.1.2.3.1 • Strength and Grade of 2606 2606 (T.26A) CRC Section R402.2 Concrete R404.1.2.3.1 • Reinforcement ( 2204, 2604, 2610, 2611 (T.26B) CRC Section R403 foundation, footing, 2622, Round or CMU) Square • Alkalinity of Sall Chapter 28 CBC/ACI • Capacity of Soil 2802 2804 CRC Section Table R401.4.1 • Moisture Barrier (walls) 2205 CRC Section R601.3 • Special Inspection 204,205 304 (a) 305 2414 CBC 1704 • Connection details of all 201, 2505,2506, 2507, Chapter 25 Structural components, 2940 Including anchor bolts and hold downs- expand what prescriptive details are in the code Electrical: CEC • Service Size 100/200 230.79 (C) amp • Overhead Service 225.18 230.24 (A) Clearance • Cold Water/ Gas pipe 250.104 Bond • Ground Fault Circuit 210.8 Interrupter • Combination Arc Fault 210.12 Protection • Required 15 and 20 210.11 210.50 GENERAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR 49 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1927, 1946 and 2010 F] amp duplex receptacles 210.52 • Smoke Alarms R314 • Carbon Monoxide Alarms R315 Mechanical: CMC • Heating, gas / electric Chapter 37 303.8 • Ducts and insulation 3715 602 605 • Combustion Air Chapter 37 701 • Ventilation/ exhaust fans 402 • Chimney and Vents (Vent connector, Materials, Size, Length, Support) 3703, 3704 801 • Installation of Specific Appliances (clothes dryer vent, air conditioners etc.) 3707, 3716 306.3 311 903 905 • Appliance location/protection Chapter 37 307 • Condensate disposal 309.1 • Smoke dampers/fire dampers 606 • Gas Fireplace Appliance (Mfg Installation Guide, Clearances, Air Supply) Chapter 37 802.6 907-910 Plumbing: CPC • Sewer or Septic (Size, Type of Material) 305 312 • Sewer Lateral Cleanout 707.4 719 Table 7-6 • Number of Fixture Units Table 7-3 • Drain Waste and Vent sizes Table 7-3 Table 7-5 • Shower Pan 411 • Water proof openings 313.8 • Sleeves 313.10 • Rat -proofing 313.12 • Hangers/supports 314 Table 3-2 • Trenches 315 • Joints/connections 316 GENERAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1927) 1946 and 2010 • Testing/Alr/Water 319 712 723 • Water closets 408.1 410 • Closet flanges 408.4 • Water supply @ flush 410.4 tanks • Air Gap for CPC 801.1 Dishwasher • Floor drain/shower 411 stalls • Tub/whirlpool 414 • Water temp limiting 418 • Bidets 416 • Water Heaters 501-512 (Garage or Attic Tables 5-1 thru 5-22 Locations) (Combustion air, Seismic strapping, Pressure relief, Vents) • Water Distribution 601-614 (Pipe material, Pipe Tables 6-1 thru 6-8 size, Backflow, Vacuum breaker, Water pressure) • Sanitary Drainage Roof Drain 3206 701-727 Table 7-1 (Fixture units, pipe size, drainage flow, cleanouts, testing) • Sewers (size, grade, 707 708 719 cleanouts) • Indirect waste 807 813 814 • Condensate 814 • Pools 813 • Appliances 807 • Vents (Material, Size, 901-911 Connection, Termination, Wet Venting, Island Venting, Combo Waste Vent) • Traps 1001-1008 0 Storm Drains 1101-1109 El GENERAL CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1927,1946 and 2010 (Required, Material, Subsoil Drains, Roof Drains) • Roof Slope (s) 3204 CRC Section 905 • Gas Pipe (Total 1201-1217 demand, Size, Tables 12-1 thru 12 - Material, Meters, 41 Protection, Connections, Hangers/Supports, Valves) California Energy Commission Title 24: • Window/ Fenestration 2008 Res Energy • Lighting Requirements Title 24 Energy for Kitchen and Bath Efficiency STD 150 • Compliance forms on Title 24 Energy plans to include Efficiency Standard Installation and Section 50K and Acceptance Forms Section 10-103. • SEER (seasonal, energy, 2008 Res Energy efficiency, rating) Site Drainage: • Drainage away from CBC 1804.3 structure CRC R401.3 • Drainage behind 2310 CBC 1805.1 retaining walls Additions to existing buildings 104 Maintenance 105 Alterations: 104 (50% value) 104d (minor) Violations and Penalties 305 Last updated 3-31-2011 S:\Cdd\Building\520 Pacific\Requirement3.doc ATTACHMENT E CRITICAL = STRUCTURES April 22, 2011 Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific St Tustin, CA 92780 Via email: bret@pacificpro.occoxmail.com Subject: Structural Engineering Review and Professional Opinion related to Structural Soundness of Studio and 1 -Bedroom Apartments and Recreation/Storage Room added to Residence at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. Fairbanks: We are pleased to present this Structural Report related to the structural review of the Studio and 1 - Bedroom Apartment (Photo 1) and Recreation/Storage Room additions (Photo 5) to the historic residence, located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA. The purpose of this report is to provide a professional structural engineering opinion as to the structural condition and soundness of the additions, and conceptual recommendations for further action, if required. Critical Structures, Inc. (CSI) performed site surveys on January 20 and April 14, 2011 to review accessible areas of the apartments; no probes or testing were performed. Original building drawings were not available for review. CSI reviewed items of concern raised by the City inspector with the Owner and also reviewed the additions for any other items potentially unsound. The home is a one-story wood -framed single-family residence, built circa 1927. The house is listed on historic surveys prepared by the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the City of Tustin. The entrance faces east. The home has been occupied by the Client since 1990. A wood - framed Studio Apartment addition, built circa 1935, occurs over the wood -framed detached garage. A wood -framed carport cover occurs to the east of the garage entrance. A wood -framed 1 -Bedroom Apartment, built circa 1945, with slab on grade, occurs to the west of the garage. A wood -framed Recreation/Storage Room building, with slab on grade and shed roof and canopy, occurs immediately west and behind the house. There are no records of building permits or certificates of occupancy for the additions. The City has cited the Apartments as non -permitted, and has requested from the Owner a professional engineering review to address the structural soundness of the Apartments. There is no evidence of soil or foundation settlement; significant cracks throughout the ceiling and interior and exterior wall finishes were not observed. A crack in the garage slab on grade was observed; the crack is old and may have been caused by shrinkage of the concrete during or shortly after original construction and it is not of structural significance. The garage and Studio Apartment have a footprint approximately 16 feet wide by 18 feet deep. Sheathing at stud walls, Studio Apartment floor, and 1 -Bedroom roof consists of straight wood sheathing. At both apartments, the roof joists with collar ties span to the exterior stud bearing walls at the north and south sides and roof and ceiling framing appear in sound condition. A wood beam at the garage ceiling, consisting of (2) 1-5/8" x 7-1/21's spanning 16-2", supports 8 feet tributary width of the 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 1 949.981.0885 CRITICAL .y�STRUCTURES BALANUNCi ENVIRONMENT AND DESIUM Studio Apartment floor. One of the nominal 2 x 8s is not continuous from post to post, and the continuous member has a significant crack near midspan (Photo 2). At the east end, the nominal x 8s bear on a 4x4 that is scabbed onto the 6 x 6 post. We recommend replacement of the cracked built-up 2 x 8s with a new continuous built-up framing member. As noted by the City, the girder along the midline of the carport cover is inadequately sized. A 2x6 spans 16 feet, supporting 8 feet tributary width of deck and joist framing (Photo 3). We recommend replacement of the 2x6 with a new built-up member. The wood -framed stairs to the apartment appear in sound structural condition. However, the posts are supported on concrete pedestals that simply bear on grade (Photo 4), and are not founded below grade. While settlement is not evident, to prevent future settlement from possible erosion of soils by groundwater, we recommend that the existing pedestals be replaced with new concrete pedestals extending below grade. The Recreation/Storage Room canopy is supported by wood posts that either bear on exterior slab on grade or brick pavers (Photo 6); the wood is too close to grade and rot has begun on some posts. We recommend new concrete pedestals. In general, with the exception of the built-up beam at the garage ceiling, the flaming, sheathing and connections appear in general conformance to the building code requirements in effect at the time of the Apartments' construction. With the exception of the built-up beam and stair post footings, the apartments are in good structural condition. We recommend the following conceptual structural remediation to rehabilitate the apartments and the Recreation/Storage Room to sound structural condition: 1. Replace garage ceiling built-up (2) 2 x 8s with new (2)1-3/4" x 11-7/8" Microllam LVL engineered lumber, with rated and approved Simpson connection hardware at wood post east end and notched to bear on steel post at west end. 2. Replace carport 2x6 x 16-0" with new (2) 1-3/4" x 9-1/4" Microllam LVL engineered lumber, with rated and approved Simpson connection hardware each end. 3. Replace existing stair post footings (7 total) with new concrete pedestals, minimum 121'x12" founded on soil 12" minimum below grade, with new Simpson post base hardware connected to existing posts. 4. At Recreation/Storage Room canopy, trim bottoms of posts (5 total) and connect to new concrete pedestals, minimum 12"x12" founded on soil 12" minimum below grade, with new Simpson post base hardware connected to existing posts. Bottom of wood posts should be minimum 4" above grade. We trust this letter report responds to your current structural engineering requirements. This report does not express or imply any warranty associated with the existing structure and was developed based upon visual observations made during the site visit to the building. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, Qp,OFESS/p Critical Structures, Inc. ��QdSI lAN �q�F "�G Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP w No. S 4204 President CS11005.00_Fairbanla Residence Tustin_Repon_20110422 un�•- 1193 NTustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 2 949.981.0885 Photo 2 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 3 949.981.0885 ;CRITICAL STRUCTURES � — BALiNCINfmFt,'iOWAMNlA1400-v,l! Photo 2 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 3 949.981.0885 CRITICAL STRUCTURES hALHN(,l1JbH RONMEN1 AND Ut9(Iv Photo 3 Photo 4 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 4 949.981.0885 ATTACHMENT F Architecture Planning Urban Design Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 ( San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 April 21, 2011. Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street Residence Dear Bret, In accordance with our agreement, we have performed cursory inspections / field visit & site walks, contextual & neighborhood observation, review of the City of Tustin's staff report "Attachment A, Code Compliance Issues Table" dated October 26, 2010, cursory review of the recent City Council Resolution 4161, and analysis of the various documents you've supplied to us concerning your residential property. We therefore recommend compliance with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010 and our field observations, to the extent such corrections and remediation efforts are reasonably determined to be necessary, or appropriate, to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the non -conforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved. Please note that zoning issues are not addressed since the subject property is considered a non -conforming structure based on the City Council's recent resolution. Therefore, only building items specified in the staff report from 10/26/10 and our field observations from our cursory inspections are addressed below. Please note that our cursory field inspections were limited to the existing building areas which we could access. Areas completely covered / concealed, such as wall cavities, that are only accessible through invasive investigations, were not examined. The following pages are the proposed remediation corrections to be made. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Paul Fulbright, AIA, LEED-AP Co -Founder / Principal Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. Page I1 Architecture Planning Urban Design Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 Code Compliance Issues: 1.) General Section: 1 b.) "It could not be determined if footing /foundations exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures." Proposed Remediation: Refer to Structural Engineer's Report 1 c.) "No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance with one hour separation requirement which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants." Proposed Remediation: Per the current 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, table R302.6 "Dwelling / Garage land/or Carport Separation", add "Not less than 5/8 inch Type Y gypsum board or equivalent', to the ceiling of the garage and the end garage wall to obtain a one hour fire resistive rating. Id.) "Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (including HVAC) installation work done without permits. Permits are required to insure that life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc" Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing appear to be in working order. We recommend having a licensed General Contractor and/or a licensed Plumber clean and inspect these areas in detail and perform maintenance and repairs to ensure that all the mechanical, plumbing, and HVAC work within the unit are safe, secured, sealed, and in working order. 2.) Second Story Unit Above Garage Section: 2a.) "The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the property line do not comply with the fire protection requirements. The opening is not permitted as shown; exterior wall is not fire rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency. " Page 12 i Architecture Planning Urban Design Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 I San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Table R302.1 (1) "Exterior Walls -Dwelling and Accessory Buildings Without Automatic Residential Fire Sprinkler Protection", when the minimum fire separation distance is less than 5 feet the minimum fire resistance rating for walls is a "1 hour -tested [assembly] in accordance with ASTM E 119, or UL 263 with exposure from both sides." Therefore, we recommend that a 1 hour assembly, such as 5/8" Type 'X' gypsum board on the interior and a 1 hour fire resistive siding on the exterior, be provided on the exterior and interior of the wall by removing and filling in the windows at the 2nd level where the entry to the carriage unit is. Furthermore, we recommend the door at the top of the stairs be replaced with a code required 1 hour rated door. The stairs should remain for ingress / egress to the carriage unit, refer to item 2f below for more detail. 2b.) "The furnace installed without required permits does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard." Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that heater is a Panelray Model "F" unit which was manufactured by the Day & Night Company of Monrovia, California. These heating units were produced from the 1940's and 1950's to be used as space heaters. The unit is gas fired and appears to be a radiant panel type of heater that produces heat through the transfer of radiant energy. The heater exhausts through a roughly 3" diameter ductwork to the outside. The lower panel of the unit has a door listing the specifics of the heater; these are as follows: (1) 12,000 BTU/Hr, (2) Natural Gas, (3) F-1 Model No., and (4) MN 4006 Serial No. Per the 2010 California Mechanical Code, Title 24, Part 4, Chapter 9, Section 924.0 "Room Heaters", Subsection 924.3 "Clearance" it states, "A room heater shall be placed so as not to cause a hazard to walls, floors, curtains, furniture, doors when open, and so on, and to the free movements of persons within the room. Heaters designed and marked, "For use in noncombustible fireplace only, "shall not be installed elsewhere. Listed room heaters shall be installed in accordance with their listings and the manufacturer's instructions. In no case shall the clearances be such as to interfere with combustion air and accessibility. Unlisted room heaters shall be installed with clearances from combustible material not less than the following: [Note: A does not apply] (B) Radiating Type. Room heaters other than those of the circulating type described in Section 924.3(a) shall have clearance at sides and rear of not less than eighteen (18) inches (460 mm), except that heaters that make use of metal, asbestos, or ceramic material to direct radiation to the front of the heater shall have a clearance of thirty-six (36) inches (910 mm) in front and, if constructed with a double back of metal or ceramic, Page 13 Architecture Planning Urban Design Ful bright Rod rig uez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 shall be permitted to be installed with a clearance of eighteen (18) inches (460 mm) at sides and twelve (12) inches (300 mm) at rear. Combustible Floors under unlisted room heaters shall be protected in an approved manner. [NFPA 54:10.23.3]" We recommend a licensed contractor move the heater to comply with the code required clearances mentioned above, and extend the existing exhaust venting. We also recommend mounting the heater to the floor on an approved base determined by the NFPA 54:10.23.3.. 2c.) "Exposed electrical next to unpermitted furnace which causes a potential fire hazard." Proposed Remediation: We recommend that the property owner remove the power strip, television, and dvd / vcr equipment and placing them a safe distance, based upon manufacturer / equipment specifications, away from the heating furnace to minimize safety hazards and damage to any electrical and/or video equipment. 2d.) "Kitchen cooking facilities not permitted in guest unit. Plumbing and electrical installed without permits. Permits are required to insure that life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc." Proposed Remediation: Based upon the recent City Council Resolution 4161, the carriage unit is considered part of a non -conforming structure. Therefore kitchen facilities are allowable. However, our cursory inspection determined that the kitchen does not appear to have GFI outlets or a hood above the current range. See item 2f below regarding the GFI outlets. Per the 2010 California Mechanical Code, Title 24, Part 4, Chapter 5, Section 504.0, Subsection 504.2 "Domestic Range Vents" it states, "Ducts used for domestic kitchen range ventilation shall be of metal and shall have smooth interior surfaces. Ducts for domestic range hoods shall only serve cooking appliances." We recommend having a licensed contractor install a code compliant UL listed hood above the existing range along with proper exhaust venting through to the roof. 2e.) "Shower added onto original structure. This requires a building permit to add additional square footage (pop -out) and permits for plumbing and waterproofing." Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that the shower does not appear to pose any life / Page 14 Architecture Planning Urban Design Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 I San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 safety threats at this time to occupants. We recommend cleaning the area and have a licensed contractor, plumber, and/or electrician perform a detailed inspection and provide standard maintenance & repairs as needed to ensure the framing, plumbing, electrical, and venting / exhaust connections are sealed, properly braced, and in working order. 2f.) "[Exterior Stair] Railing has no intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children." Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsection 1009.4.2 "Riser Height and Tread Depth" it states, " Stair riser heights shall be 7 inches (178 mm) maximum and 4 inches (102mm) minimum. The riser height shall be measured vertically between the leading edges of adjacent treads. Rectangular tread depths shall be 11 inches (279 mm) minimum measured horizontally between the vertical planes of the foremost projection of adjacent treads and at a right angle to the tread's leading edge. Per the 2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsection 1012.2 "Height" it states, "Handrail height, measured above stair tread nosings, or finish surface of ramp slope, shall be uniform, not less than 34 inches (864 mm) and not more than 38 inches (965mm)." Per the 2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsection 1012.6"Handrail extensions" it states, "Handrails shall return to a wall, guard or the walking surface or shall be continuous to the handrail of an adjacent stair flight or ramp run. Where handrails are not continuous between flights, the handrails shall extend horizontally at least 12 inches (305 mm) beyond the top riser and continue to slope for the depth of one tread beyond the bottom riser. Per the 2010 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 1 of 2, Chapter 10 "Means of Egress", Subsection 10 1 3.3"Opening Limitations" it states, " Required guards shall not have openings which allow passage of a sphere 4 inches (102 mm) in diameter from the walking surface to the required guard height. Our cursory inspection determined that the exterior stair providing ingress / egress to the carriage unit above the garage does appear to have code deficiencies. We noticed that the stair railing height and intermediary posts do not currently comply with code. We measured some of the treads and risers, which appear to be dimension out at 10.5 inches and 7 inches respectively. However, we did not measure all of them to determine the existing dimensions of all treads and risers. We also noticed that the treads are an open configuration, which could pose a potential trip hazard. We recommend that the stairs be brought into compliance by constructing proper depth treads and height risers, Page 15 Architecture PIannIngo Ur an Design Ful bright Rodriguez Architects, fnc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 if they do not measure out at the code minimum stated above. Also, we suggest placing solid risers on the entire run of stairs to minimize trip hazards. Furthermore, we recommend adding handrails on both sides at a minimum 34" OR maximum of 38" height and adding vertical support pickets per the code sections above to bring the stairs into code compliance. Handrail extensions will also need to be provided at the bottom of the stairs per the code section above. We also recommend sealing and painting the new work to match the existing as much as possible. 2g.) "There is no property line firewall separation between the staircase and the property line." Proposed Remediation: Modify the stairs according to item 2f above and replace risers, treads, and railings with a listed 1 hour fire rated material /coating. 2h.) "Roof drains onto neighboring property which may cause flooding." Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that the roof drains do not appear to pose any life / safety threats at this time to as rain gutters and downspouts are installed. We recommend that a licensed contractor / roofer perform a more detailed inspection and ensure the existing rain gutters are properly secured and clean / free of debris. 21.) There were not any visible and operating smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the carriage unit. Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Section R314 "Smoke Alarms" subsection R314.3 "Location" states, " Smoke alarms shall be installed in the following locations: 1. In each sleeping room. 2. Outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms." Therefore, we recommend installing new smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the carriage unit per code. 2j.) The existing outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathroom appear to be older / non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential danger to occupants. Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Electrical Code Section 210.8, "Provide G.F.I. protection Page 16 r i Architecture Planning Urban Design Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 to all 12 volt, 15, and 20 amp receptacles installed indoors, in bathrooms, in basement, at countertop surfaces (within 6 feet of a sink)..." As required by code, replace all the necessary kitchen and bathroom outlets with new GFI type of receptacles. 2k.) The support posts underneath the entry to the carriage unit do not appear to be adequately braced / supported by a proper footing / foundation. Proposed Remediation: Refer to Structural Engineer's Report 3.) Carport Section: 3a.) "Structural supports do not provide sufficient supporting rafters. Roof members are undersized to provide adequate support." Proposed Remediation: Refer to Structural Engineer's Report 3c.) "Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) between garage and house. The potential for damage and failure due to the exposure of the line is increased and poses a potential fire hazard." Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Electrical Code Article 344 "Rigid Metal Conduit[RMC]t", Section 344.30 "Securing and Supporting" under subsection (B) "Supports" it is stated, " RMC shall be supported in accordance with one of the following: 1.) Conduit shall be supported at intervals not exceeding 3 m(1 Oft). 2.) The distance between supports for straight runs of conduit shall be permitted 2. Continued) in accordance with Table 344.30(B)(2), provided the conduit is made up with threaded couplings and such supports prevent transmission of stresses to termination where conduit is deflected between supports." 'Table 344.30(B)(2) Supports for Rigid Metal Conduit Conduit Size Maximum Distance Between RMC Supports 112-314 10 feet 1 12 feet 1-1/4 - 1-1/2 14 feet 2-2-112 16 feet 3 and larger 20 feet' Our cursory inspection determined the metal conduit appears to need simple repairs completed by adding additional metal bracing at the code required distances. We recommend bracing be provided spaced at 10 foot intervals, or based upon the size of Page 17 1� Architecture Planning Ur b an Design Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 I San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 the conduit in accordance with table 344.30(B)(2) above. 4.) Garage Section: 4a.) "No rating separation between walls of garage and living units; thus exposing tenants above and next to garage to fire hazard originating in the garage." Proposed Remediation: Refer to item 1c above 4b.) "Electrical wiring: romex cannot be exposed or unprotected and must be attached / secured.(Romex was first used in the 1950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001." Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Electrical Code Chapter 3 "Wiring Methods and Materials", Section 300.4 "Protection Against Physical Damage." it states, "Where subject to physical damage, conductors shall be protected." Therefore, we recommend covering the romex with code required conduit and/or covering with 5/8" Type'X' drywall. We recommend having a licensed contractor, or electrician, perform a detailed inspection and provide repairs by installing code required covering / conduit, bracing, and junction boxes. 5.) Rear Residential Unit Section: 5b.) "Heater installed with a gas line without permits. It is installed on a combustible wood sided wall which poses as potential fire hazard due to the combustible material." Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that the heater is a Williams 14,000 BTU Direct -Vent Natural Gas Wall Furnace, Model No.1403622 produced by the Williams Furnace Company. Per the 2010 California Mechanical Code, Title 24, Part 4, Chapter 9 "Installation of Specific Appliances", Section 928.0 "Wall Furnaces", Subsection 928.1 "Installation" it lists the following conditions: "(A) Listed wall furnaces shall be installed in accordance with their listings and the manufacturer's instructions. Wall furnaces installed in or attached to combustible material shall be listed for such installation. [NFPA 54: 10.27.1.1 ] (B) Unlisted wall furnaces shall not be installed in or attached to combustible material. (NFPA 54: 10.27.1.2]" This wall furnace appears to be new, safe, and in working order. We recommend leaving the heater in place and have a licensed contractor / plumber ensure the unit is installed per one of the two code compliant options above. 0310 �� MUn Architecture Plannin Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 5d.) "Improper and substandard electrical wiring without permit - power strip next to kitchen sink where a range might have been previously. Plumbing added without permit." Proposed Remediation: A range I stove was not observed installed in this area and the power strip has been removed, and the only other connection we saw was a water valve that seems to operate a hose on the exterior. This is a none -issue as it has been remediated. 5f.) "Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit." Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that the gas line does not appear to be a working and pressurized gas supply line at this time. We recommend having a licensed contractor, or plumber, provide standard maintenance & repairs by removing and capping the current gas line as it is not connected to a working gas supply. 5g.) 'Insulation (appears to be straw bale) has a high flame spread rating." Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that treated straw insulation does exist within walls. Further research determined that the insulation was typical of construction techniques of the first half of the 20th century. Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Section R302.10 " Flame spread index and smoke developed index for insulation." states, "R302.10 Flame spread and smoke developed index for insulation shall be in accordance with Sections R302.10.1 through R302.10.5." Section R302.10.1 'Insulation", states, 'Insulation materials, including facings, such as vapor retarders and vapor -permeable membranes installed within floor -ceiling assemblies, roof -ceiling assemblies, wall assemblies, crawl spaces and attics shall have a flame spread index not to exceed 25 with an accompanying smoke -developed index not to exceed 450 when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723. Exceptions: I. When such materials are installed in concealed spaces, the flame spread index and smoke -developed index limitations do not apply to the facings, provided that the facing is installed in substantial contact with the unexposed surface of the ceiling, floor or wall finish. " The existing insulation appears to be primarily covered substantially by interior drywall and exterior siding with the exception of a few small locations behind cabinets in the kitchen. We recommend that those exposed areas be covered with gypsum board to completely cover the wall cavity and exposed insulation. The rest of the insulation, if Page 19 I Architecture Planning Ur an MDesiggn Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street I Suite 118-339 1 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 949.783.0727 any, appears to be undisturbed and does not pose an immediate life / safety threat and we therefore recommend that should be left as is as. 5h.) There were not any visible and operating smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the rear unit. Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, Section R314 "Smoke Alarms" subsection R314.3 "Location" states, " Smoke alarms shall be installed in the following locations: 1. In each sleeping room. 2. Outside each separate sleeping area in the immediate vicinity of the bedrooms." Therefore, we recommend installing new smoke detectors within the sleeping area of the rear unit per code. 5i.) The existing outlets in both the wet areas of the kitchen and bathroom appear to be older / non-GFI type of receptacles, which pose a potential danger to occupants. Proposed Remediation: Per the 2010 California Electrical Code Section 210.8, "Provide G.F.I. protection to all 12 volt, 15, and 20 amp receptacles installed indoors, in bathrooms, in basement, at countertop surfaces (within 6 feet of a sink)..." As required by code, replace all the necessary kitchen and bathroom outlets with new GFI type of receptacles. 6.) Recreational room (detached) Section: 6a.) "The room is considered 'habitable space' and appears to not provide sufficient ventilation, heat and light." Proposed Remediation: Our cursory inspection determined that this space is approximately 230 square feet of interior habitable area. There are three operable windows and one door. The windows have an overall glazed area of approximately 18.4 square feet and the door has an area of approximately 19.5 square feet. Roughly half of the window area at 9.2 square feet, and the entire door area at 19.5 square feet, are openable to provide natural ventilation. The combined window and door area equals approximately 37.4 square feet, whereas the combined openable window and door area equals 28.7 square feet. Per the 2010 California Residential Code, Title 24 Part 2.5, section R303 "Light, Ventilation, and Heating" under subsection R303.1 "Habitable Rooms -All habitable rooms shall have Page 110 ATTACHMENT G CRITICAL STRUCTURES May 25, 2011 Mr. Y. Henry Huang, P.E., CBO Building Official, City of Tustin c/o Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific St Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Safe to Occupy Studio and 1 -Bedroom Apartments and Recreation/Storage Room added to Residence at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. Huang: Per requirement of your letter of May 16, 2011, the purpose of this letter is to state that it is our professional opinion that the existing added units which have been used for over 60 years are structurally safe to continue to occupy before rehabilitation is complete, with the provision that temporary shoring, consisting of nominal 4x4 timber posts, be placed at each end of the split in the garage beam. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, Critical Structures, Inc. Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP O+M President CS 11005.00_Fairbanks Residence Tuscrk-Letter_20110525 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 1 949.981.0885 =r. CRITICAL STRUCTURES RECEIVED MAY 26 2011 BALANCING ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING DIV, May 25, 2011 Mr. Y. Henry Huang, P.E., CBO Building Official, City of Tustin c/o Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific St Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Safe to Occupy Studio and 1 -Bedroom Apartments and Recreation/ Storage Room added to Residence at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. Huang: Per requirement of your letter of May 16, 2011, the purpose of this letter is to state that it is our professional opinion that the existing added units which have been used for over 60 years are structurally safe to continue to occupy before rehabilitation is complete, with the provision that temporary shoring, consisting of nominal 4x4 timber posts, be placed at each end of the split in the garage beam. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, Critical Structures, Inc. Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP O+M s(t1 `a`t "' No. S 4204 x President CSI 1005.00_17airbanks Residence Tustin_Letter_20110525 \ OF 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 1 949.981.0885 CRITICAL )STRUCTURES BALANCING ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN May 4, 2011 (Revised) Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific St Tustin, CA 92780 Via email: bret@paaficpro.occoxmail.com Subject: Structural Engineering Review and Professional Opinion related to Structural Soundness of Studio and 1 -Bedroom Apartments and Recreation/Storage Room added to Residence at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA Dear Mr. Fairbanks: We are pleased to present this Structural Report related to the structural review of the Studio and 1 - Bedroom Apartment (Photo 1) and Recreation/Storage Room additions (Photo 9) to the historic residence, located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA. The purpose of this report is to provide a professional structural engineering opinion as to the structural condition and soundness of the additions, and conceptual recommendations for further action, if required. Critical Structures, Inc. (CSI) performed site surveys on January 20 and April 14, 2011 to review accessible areas of the apartments; no probes or testing were performed. Original building drawings were not available for review. CSI reviewed items of concern raised by the City inspector with the Owner and also reviewed the additions for any other items potentially unsound. The home is a one-story wood -framed single-family residence, built circa 1927. The house is listed on n historic surveys prepared by the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the City of Tustin. 0 l The entrance faces east. The home has been occupied by the Client since 1990. A wood -framed Studio \C_, Apartment addition, built circa 1935, occurs over the wood -framed detached garage. A wood -framed aL �d carport cover occurs to the east of the garage entrance. A wood -framed 1 -Bedroom Apartment, built circa 1945, with slab on grade, occurs to the west of the garage. A wood -framed Recreation/Storage Room building, with slab on grade and shed roof and canopy, occurs immediately west and behind the house. There are no records of building permits or certificates of occupancy for the additions. The City has cited the Apartments as non -permitted, and has requested from the Owner a professional engineering review to address the structural soundness of the Apartments. There is no evidence of soil or foundation settlement; significant cracks throughout the ceiling and interior and exterior wall finishes were not observed. A sack in the garage slab on grade was observed; the crack is old and may have been caused by shrinkage of the concrete during or shortly after original construction and it is not of structural significance. The garage and Studio Apartment have a footprint approximately 16 feet wide by 18 feet deep. Sheathing at stud walls, Studio Apartment floor, and 1 -Bedroom roof consists of straight wood sheathing. At both apartments, the roofjoists with collar ties span to the exterior stud bearing walls at the north and south sides and roof and ceiling framing appear in sound condition. A wood beam at the garage ceiling, consisting of (2) 1-5/8" x 7-1/2"s spanning 16-2", supports 8 feet tributary width of the Studio Apartment floor. Unless noted otherwise, described dimensions of flaming members are nominal, not actual dimensions. One of the nominal 2 x 8s is not continuous from post to post, and the continuous member has a significant crack near 1 193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 1 949.981.0885 CRITICAL i STRUCTURES BALANCING ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN midspan (Photo 2). At the east end, the nominal 2 x 8s bear on a 4x4 that is scabbed onto the 6 x 6 post. We recommend replacement of the cracked built-up 2 x 8s with a new continuous built-up framing member. As noted by the City, the girder along the midline of the carport cover is inadequately sized. A 2 x 6 spans 16 feet, supporting 8 feet tributary width of deck and joist fiaming (Photo 3). We recommend replacement of the 2 x 6 with a new built-up member. The wood -framed stairs to the apartment appear in sound structural condition. However, the posts are supported on concrete pedestals that simply bear on grade (Photo 4), and are not founded below grade. While settlement is not evident, to prevent future settlement from possible erosion of soils by groundwater, we recommend that the existing pedestals be replaced with new concrete pedestals extending below grade. The post framing consists of nominal x 4s and 4 x 6s (Photos 5 and 6) and appear structurally sound. The landing does not appear to be suffering distress or separation from the garage/apartment wall framing (Photos 7 and 8). The Recreation/Storage Room canopy is supported by wood posts that either bear on exterior slab on grade or brick pavers (Photo 10); the wood is too close to grade and rot has begun on some posts. We recommend new concrete pedestals. In general, with the exception of the built-up beam at the garage ceiling, the framing, sheathing and connections appear in general conformance to the building code requirements in effect at the time of the Apartments' construction. With the exception of the built-up beam and stair post footings, the apartments are in good structural condition. We recommend the following conceptual structural remediation to rehabilitate the apartments and the Recreation/Storage Room to sound structural condition: 1. Replace garage ceiling built-up (2) 2 x 8s with new (2)1-3/4" x 11-7/8" 1vlicrollam LVL engineered lumber, with rated and approved Simpson connection hardware at wood post east end and notched to bear on steel post at west end. 2. Replace carport 2x6 x 16-0" with new (2)1-3/4" x 9-1/4" N icrollam LVL engineered lumber, with rated and approved Simpson connection hardware each end. 3. Replace existing stair post footings (7 total) with new concrete pedestals, minimum 12"x12" founded on soil 12" minimum below grade, with new Simpson post base hardware connected to existing posts. 4. At Recreation/Storage Room canopy, trim bottoms of posts (5 total) and connect to new concrete pedestals, minimum 12"x12" founded on soil 12" minimum below grade, with new Simpson post base hardware connected to existing posts. Bottom of wood posts should be minimum 4" above grade. We trust this letter report responds to your current structural engineering requirements. This report does not express or imply any warranty associated with the existing structure and was developed based upon visual observations made during the site visit to the building. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you. have any questions or require additional information. Very truly yours, Critical Structures, Inc. Eric C. Stovner, S.E., LEED AP President CS 11005.00 Fairbanks Residence 7lutinjteport_20110504 rev 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 2 949.981.0885 �t CRITICAL Inn- STRUCTURES �`_, BALANCING ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN Photo 1 Photo 2 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 3 949.981.0885 CRITICAL J STRUCTURES BALANCING ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN Photo 3 Photo 4 1 193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 4 949.981.0885 ;: , CRITICAL �I STRUCTURES OAIANCING ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN Photo 5 Photo 6 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 5 949.981.0885 w° CRITICAL STRUCTURES BALANCING ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN Photo 7 Photo 8 1193 N Tustin Ave, Anaheim, CA 92807-1736 6 949.981.0885 AS X17 I � i t , I I X17 1 0 I I , r 1 0 WA r m A i Ile 0 r M Community Development Department May 16, 2011 Mr. Paul Fulbright Fulbright Rodriguez Architects, Inc. 31878 Del Obispo Street, Suite 118-339, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 and Mr. Eric Stovner Critical Structures 1193 N. Tustin Ave. Anaheim, CA 92807 SUBJECT: 520 Pacific, Tustin, California Dear Messrs. Fulbright and Stovner: TUSTI N IIISTUM BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST I have reviewed your reports (Mr. Paul Fulbright's dated April 21, 2011, and Mr. Eric Stovner's dated April 22 updated May 4, 2011) respectively, and have the following comments and conclusions: 1. Your reports were not conclusive or able to establish the date(s) or the approximate era of the constructions. You identified that many components were old and concluded that the existing structures (may consist of several phases) were completed some time ago. Your reports were based only on visual observations and did not address concealed (structural, including foundations, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) components. As I mentioned in our meeting on April 5 with Mr. Fulbright and Mr. Fairbanks, and my summary letter to Mr. Fairbanks dated April 14, 2011 (attached), and at a subsequent meeting on April 28, the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) is the minimum standard for life safety protection in the State of California. At the April 5 meeting, I asked Mr. Fairbanks to have professionals thoroughly examine the existing conditions and gave you the opportunity to identify compliance with 1927, 1946, 2010, or any building code in between, and thus give me reason to exercise administrative latitude to allow you to use an earlier iteration of the code in lieu of the 2010 CBSC. Your reports were unable to accomplish that; therefore, the structures are required to conform to the 2010 CBSC. 3. The Fulbright Report appears to have led you to the obvious conclusion that many components and construction were not complying with any code from 1927 to the present day. You made recommendations on how you propose to mitigate those visible non -complying components and conditions. Mr. Fulbright's report also defers several items to other professionals to mitigate, e.g. electrical, mechanical, and plumbing components or issues. Those other items, and fire prevention, must be promptly addressed in the design and construction phases of the occupancy- change/repair/rehabilitation from a CBSC perspective. These are fundamental components to ensure safe residential occupancy of the units. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org 520 Pacific May 16, 2011 Page 2 Based on your reports and the above conclusions, the following need to be addressed in a timely manner: A. Is the structure safe to occupy: As noted within the email from Mr. Fulbright on May 11, 2011, "...there are specific concerns that must be addressed before the property is considered safe and habitable." As the Building Official for the City of Tustin, I share your concerns based on your reports and observations of city staff. Please provide an appropriate document to the City within 10 working days from the date of this letter, wet stamped and signed as design professional licensed/registered to practice in the State of California, confirming, whether occupancy should be allowed in any or all of the structures until the improvement/rehabilitation construction is complete. B. Plan Submittal: You (Mr. Fulbright) stated in the meeting that you can only design the occupancy-change/repair/rehabilitation based on the current 2010 CBSC. This is acceptable; however, the design of the improvement must comply with the 2010 CBSC and a permit will be required before starting construction. The construction documents (plans) need to show the existing condition and the extent of planned construction. Itemized construction cost analysis must also be submitted with the plans. Plans and cost estimates must be submitted within 30 working days from the date of this letter. Please note that the CBSC includes the California Building Code (CBC) and the California Residential Code (CRC). If the structure is attached (consists of 3 or more dwelling units), it shall be classified as R-1 (multi -family dwelling) and all R-1 requirements in 2010 CBC shall apply. Alternatively, if units are detached, the occupancy may be classified as R-3 (single family dwelling) and all requirements in CRC shall apply. Regardless which occupancy classification you and Mr. Fairbanks choose, the structure(s) will require additional improvement. There are several alternatives, but the plan must show and ensure the health and safety of the occupants by complying with the 2010 CBSC. Further, depending on the amount and types of improvement necessary, and their costs, thresholds within Section 9273 of the Tustin City Code may not be exceeded. After you have the plans and the cost estimate ready to apply for plan review and a permit, I will be available to meet with you. Sincerely, Y Henry Huang, .E., CBO. Building Official Attachment: April 14, 2011, letter from Henry Huang to Bret Fairbanks C. Mr. Bret Fairbanks (520 Pacific, Tustin, CA 92780) 5:\Odd\Building\Henry\tetters-Memos\520 Pacific 5-12-11.doc ATTACHMENT Community Development Department T U S T I N April 14, 2011 Mr. Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 1111TORY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET -MEETING OF APRIL 5, 2011 Dear Mr. Fairbanks, It was a pleasure to meet with you and Mr. Paul Fulbright, your architect, on April 5, 2011; also in attendance was Mr. Dennis McCreary, Principal Engineer, of the Building Division. Below is a summary of the meeting, in no particular order: 1. Resolution 4161, Section IIA requires the structures to be acceptable to the Building Official. I explained to you that the standard I will use is the building code, which is the minimum level of life safety and also the document referenced by the Housing Code. 2. 1 explained that building codes are updated every three years since 1927 and that the major components of the codes have basically remained unchanged. A list showing the general provision numbers for most building components for the 1927 and 1946 Uniform Building Codes, and the 2010 California Building Codes, were given to you for information purpose in our March 31" meeting. I explained in that meeting and again in our April 5'h meeting that it is a Building Division internal reference document provided for your information and reference. Mr. Fulbright agreed that it is very general and useful. I hope that the list will be a resource document for your architect and engineer. 3. The architect and engineer, individually and/or collectively, employed by you must perform inspections, analyze the building and its components, and subsequent modifications, maintenance and repairs, to show conformity to the prevailing codes at the time of construction and submit a written report and plans to the City for review and approval. 4. 1 explained that I will be determining the compliance based on the physical evidence of the structure. I understand that there is no record of permit. The Uniform Building Code of 1927 has a provision stating that (paraphrased - Section 305 ....The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans and/or specifications shall not be deemed or constructed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code.) The same or similar provision exists in all building code editions including the current code (Section 105.4 of 2010 CBC). Therefore, the physical evidence should show all components constructed per code since the claim was that there 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 0 F: (714) 573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org 520 Pacific St Meeting Summary were permits but those permits are no longer available. The structure "as is", is the ultimate evidence of whether a permit was issued in the past. 5. Both you and your architect staled that since these are historical buildings you intend to apply the California Historical Code for the structures. I explained that the historical registry for this structure is for a "2 -story garage", not a garage with two additional dwelling units. The structure is no longer the same structure in the historical registry and therefore the California Building Code is applicable. 6. We did not discuss the recreational building adjacent to the side property line, but Dennis called Paul on April 6, 2011 requesting that this building be included in the report. 7. Mr. Fulbright said he had inspected the structure in a limited fashion. He said his inspection was limited to the items listed in the City Resolution and he believes there are non -code compliant components but he thinks they can be easily fixed, and that both of you were expecting the discussion to be limited to only those items in the City's staff report/resolution. 8. It was indicated that a structural engineer has been employed by you who will inspect and report on the structural system and structural components. 9. 1 indicated that the previous staff report identified some of the items that were the result of a twenty - minute cursory observation by our staff and therefore were very limited. The fact is that even within such short time, numerous non -code -compliant items were identified. Based on these, I am of the opinion that many concealed components in these structures (ref. item 4 of this summary) were also not constructed to any codes. A thorough inspection and report by your architect and engineer is necessary to identify the deficiencies and remedial actions proposed. The existing structure is not safe to occupy. You assured me that you wish to get the task completed as soon as possible therefore we did not discuss a timeline for which you and your consultants will complete the evaluation and report. It is my opinion based on the visible information that the structure may not have been constructed to comply fully with the codes in the past and that it may pose a safety risk. Therefore an in-depth inspection performed by a professional(s) employed by you would be important to protect the life safety of the occupants. I request that the inspections be completed and report be submitted to us within 3 weeks from the date of this letter. Sincerely, Y. Henry Huang, P.E C.B.O. Building Official cc: Paul Fulbright Dennis McCreary S:\Cdd\Building\Henry\Letters-Memos\520 pacific 4-5-11 meeting summary,doc Office of the City Clerk March 17, 2011 Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Tustin. CA 92780 SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mr. Fairbanks: At a regular meeting on March 15, 2011, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-18. This action is final. A copy of approved City Council Resolution No. 11-18 is attached for your reference. Approval of this item is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing and returning to the City Clerk Services Supervisor: (1) a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form (attached); and (2) sign and notarize the Declaration of Nonconforming Structures and Uses in accordance with Finding M.b of City Council Resolution No. 11-18. These actions must be taken within ten (10) business days of the date of City Council's adoption of Resolution No. 11-18. Also attached for your records is Resolution No. 4162 that is referenced and confirmed in the City Council's action. You are hereby notified that Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 governs the time within which to bring an action contesting the City's decision. Should you have any questions about the City Council's action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 573-3025. Si rely, Patricia Estrella City Clerk Services Supervisor Enclosure: City Council Resolution No. 11-18 Agreement to Conditions Imposed Forms Declaration of Nonconforming Structures and Uses Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162 cc: Deborah M. Rosenthal, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, 650 Town Center Drive, 4"' Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 P:(714)573-3026 • F:(714)832-6382 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • www.tustinca.org RESOLUTION NO. 11-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two livable units located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any forth is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street The assessment revealed that several modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 18, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the f ( declaration of public nuisance at his property (pursuant to TCC 9294) and L 1 requested consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot Resolution 11-18 D--- 4 -4 C lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; F. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929, and was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction. The earliest zoning map on file, from 1947, identifies the property as R-1 single family residential and the current zoning for the property is R-1 Single Family Residential; G. That on April 7, 1947, the City of Tustin adopted the First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 71) in which a guest house was defined as "Living quarters within a detached accessory building located on the same premesis as the main building for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling."; H. That on March 18, 1959, the City Council directed, by minute order, that the Clerk was authorized to inform the County Building Department to dispose of old permits and job records prior to the time the City of Tustin set up a Building Department; That on November 8, 1961, the City of Tustin adopted a new Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157) which required that a guest house was subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that no cooking facilities were permitted. It- established second unit standards which allowed a kitchen subject to a Conditional Use Permit and minimum site standards. Said Ordinance also set forth the definition of nonconforming uses however, the term 'legal' was omitted from this Zoning Code Section; J. That the Planning Commission held three (3) duly called, and noticed public hearings on October 28, 2010, November 9, 2010, and December 14, 2010, at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and during the deliberation, an opinion was rendered that based on provisions in the Ordinance, uses/structures existing prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 157 (Nov. 8. 1981) could continue to exist regardless of any legal and/or illegal establishment. Based on this interpretation, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body and as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pack Street and determined that there was evidence substantiating that the upper unit located above the garage and the unit including two rooms Resolution 11-18 ---„ -. and a bathroom located behind the garage are nonconforming uses/structures and may remain; K. That on December 23, 2010, Mayor Amante appealed the actions of the Planning Commissions' December 14, 2010, determination regarding the property located at 520 Pack Street and requested clarification that the Tustin City Code ('Code") requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code; L. That on March 1, 2011, the City Council held a noticed public hearing which was de novo at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal; M. That on March 1, 2011, the City Council found: a. That the subject uses/structures at 520 Pacific Street did not need to be lawfully/legally established prior to November 6, 1961; b. Resolution No.4162 of the Planning Commission is confirmed and reinstated in its entirety. Owner has ten (10) business days from the adoption of Council's resolution to complete the owner's obligations identified in the Planning Commission Resolution No.4162. c. The City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance for Council consideration and referral to the Planning Commission to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity throughout the Code regarding the concept of nonconforming uses and structures. N. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guidelines for CEQA Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulation Title 14, Chapter 3. Therefore, the City Council hereby affirms the nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses subject to conditions of approval attached hereto in Exhibit A and deems the following to be nonconforming residential units at the property at 520 Pacific Street: A. Upper unit located above the garage B. Unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular C� meeting on the 15th day of March, 2011. Resolution 11-18 r_111r &AN Stoker,Paiffiela City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-18 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15th day of March, 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: �r Itorral M-16 MELA STOKER,City Clerk I Gavello, Gomez, Murray (3) Amante, Nielsen (2) None (0) None (0) Resolution 11-18 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 520 PACIFIC STREET RESOLUTION NO.1148 GENERAL (1) 1.1 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with and shall substantially conform with Planning Commission Resolution No. 4161 as specified, or prior to, the issuance of any building, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical permit for the subject property. (") 1.2 Determination of nonconforming structures and uses is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing and returning to the Community Development Department, within ten (10) days of the City Council determination, the following: a) The property owner(s) shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) b) The nonconforming structures and uses shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in the Zoning Code. c) The nonconforming building(s) or structure(s) may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (2) CEQA MITIGATION (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODEIS (6) (7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW "' EXCEPTIONS Resolution 11-18 AGREEMENT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED I, the undersigned, hereby agree to comply with all conditions imposed by the Community Development Department and/or City Council of the City of Tustin on approval of City Council Resolution No. 11-18 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162 as attached to the letter dated March 17, 2011. Bret S. Fairbanks, Property Owner Stephanie A. Fairbanks, Property Owner CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On before me, DATE INSERT NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER —E.G..,"JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION TNISOPTIONALINFORMATIONSBCUONLSNOTMQU BYLAWBUTMAYBEBE RCL TOPERSONSRELYINGONTHISNMM=II OOCUAnM. •Kbl IOIY191 I � 6 4 1„la.rl SIGNERS(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE OFPAGES SIGNER'S NAME SIGNER'S NAME RlG THUMBP RIGNTTNUMBPRIM To order supplies, plcasc contact McGlone but we Services, Inc. at (916) 494 0804. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use DECLARATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES I, the undersigned, declare as follows: I am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby furnish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of my property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming structures and uses are as follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. b. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. I have read, and understand that, Tustin City Code Sec. 9273 Nonconforming Structures and Uses specifies: a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses ofland, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specked by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the some or more restrictive class fication upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. Ifarty use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law jar a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. b) Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use,. design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifly (50) percent ofthe buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. 1 declare that I have done nothing to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any of the nonconforming buildings or structures, in violation of the above referenced City Code. 1 understand that, as the property owner, 1 am responsible for building code compliance, and all costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Any violation of any of the conditions imposed in Resolution No. 4162, I may be subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a) and 1 may be subject to the imposition of a civil penalty for each violation and each day the violation exists. 1 agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this matter. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE DECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of 20 (Day) (Month) (Year) State of California County of Orange On , before me, Notary, personally appeared Bret S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A. Fairbanks personally known to me -OR- (proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public By: (Bret S. Fairbanks) (Stephanie A. Fairbanks) RESOLUTION NO. 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two livable units located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Community Development Director or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed; Resolution No, 4162 Page 2 G. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; H. That the appellant requested consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; I. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; J. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission acted in its capacity as the appeal hearing body to consider the appeal of the decisions of the Community Development Director, K. That on October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010, meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal; L. That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961 (Report attached hereto in Exhibit C); M. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; N. That on April 7, 1947, the City of Tustin adopted the First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 71) in which a guest house was defined as "Living quarters within a detached accessory building located on the same premesis as the main building for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling."; Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 O. That on November 6, 1961, the City of Tustin adopted a new Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157) which required that a guest house was subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that no cooking facilities were permitted. It also established second unit standards which allowed a kitchen subject to a Conditional Use Permit and minimum site standards. Said Ordinance also set forth the definition of nonconforming uses; P. That Tustin City Code Sec. 9273b for nonconforming structures and uses specifies that "Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin." The Community Development Department of the City of Tustin may send, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner, as shown on the Iasi equalized assessment roll, of any nonconforming building or structure, or of any property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of said use. Said statement shall be filed with the Community Development Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. Upon any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations of the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure."; Q. That there is evidence substantiating that the unit above the garage located behind the main house and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage were constructed prior to November 6, 1961, including the following and attached hereto: The Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that "At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear" (Attachment 1 of Exhibit B). Resolution No. 4162 Page 4 ii. There is evidence that 520 and 520'/2 existed as shown on the Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952 (Attachment 2 of Exhibit B). iii. The son of the original owner, Robert Stephen Gaylord, provided a signed statement indicating that "the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942". Said letter stated that "the unit behind the garage was built by [his] father [George T. Gaylord] between 1945 and 1950". The letter further states that this unit, including two rooms and a bathroom, were built by George Gaylord for Robert and his brother to occupy. Mr. Gaylord's letter further indicated that "the rooms were made available to others" of which the only person he remembered was Ms. Grennan who was a caretaker for his parents until they sold the house sometime after 1978. (Attachment 3 of Exhibit B). iv. The on-site assessment by City staff on September 10, 2010, revealed that the upper unit was being utilized as a second residential unit with cooking facilities and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage was utilized as a second residential unit. (Attachment 4 of Exhibit B). v. The property owners)/appellant has testified at the public hearings and shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) R. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered said evidence at a public hearing; and S. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the appeal is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines. II. Therefore, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street as attached hereto in Exhibit A: A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. B. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. Resolution No. 4162 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 141h day of December, 2010. T ZAK Chairp&66n ECIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4162 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 520 PACIFIC STREET RESOLUTION NO. 4162 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The existing nonconforming structures and uses shall substantially conform with the findings set forth in Resolution Nos. 4162 and 4161 and are hereby limited to the Conditions of Approval in accordance with this Exhibit. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with, as specified, or priorto, the issuance of any building, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical permit for the subject property. 1.3 Determination of nonconforming structures and uses is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing and returning to the Community Development Department the following: a) A notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form within ten (10) days of the date of Planning Commission determination. b) The property owner(s)/appellant shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT 1 Declaration of Nonconforming Structures And Uses RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use DECLARATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES I, the undersigned, declare as follows: I am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby furnish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of my property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming structures and uses are as follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. b. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. I have read, and understand that, Tustin City Code Sec. 9273 Nonconforming Structures and Uses specifies: a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming we is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. if no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming rise, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive rise. If any we is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of lawfor a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all ftaure uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. b) Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations sel forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifly (50) percent of 'the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. I declare that I have done nothing to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any of the nonconforming buildings or structures, in violation of the above referenced City Code. I understand that, as the property owner, I am responsible for building code compliance, and all costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Any violation of any of the conditions imposed in Resolution No. 4162, 1 may be subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a) and I may be subject to the imposition of a civil penally for each violation and each day the violation exists. I agree to defend, indemnify, and hold hamiless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Conunission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this matter. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE DECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 (Day) (Month) (Year) . State of California County of Orange On , before me, Notary, personally appeared Bret S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A. Fairbanks personally known to me -OR- (proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. W17NESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public By: (Bret S. Fairbanks) (Stephanie A. Fairbanks) EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 1 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john C. laamis, architect jamcs C. Wilson, architect principal dwood 1. gulley, amhltcet Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 97663 — 949/673-2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard — newport bench, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevard — newpoct beach, ca 92663 —949/673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, zk'— John Loomis Principal 2821 newpon boulevard - newport teach, ca 92663 - 9491673-2643 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952 82 * Indicates Nome Ownership SANTA ANA STREET ADDRESS DIRECTORY PACIFIC (Cout'd) KI 3-7651 W Second Interuects 205 -Miller M E.... .... KI 2.2622 210ADuvall lute B... ... . KI 3.3603 245*Witten A L......... KI 2-7505 250 -Caner F M........ KI 3.4340 255-Galhan Am6rosly .... KI 2.7906 260-Hamell J 5........ KI 2-7420 265 Veeh H R.......... KI 3.8637 W Third Intersects W Main Intersects 435-Blakemy M C Mn.. .KI 3.3873 440-Bromell G A ... .... KI 2.6612 GrI91hY Ruth Mrs.... KI 3.4815 445 -Eaton E W !2* H; C W........ 510*MeCoy H R. ....... KI 2.6565 515 -While F M......... KI 2.7590 520*Gaylord G 7........ K1 3.37Z2 520Vs Reyes Anne Mrs... Ki 3-3722 L E.......... KI 3-3685 X535*Miller rear Knutson M E........ KI 3-3685 540 Grayy W H......... KI 3.4416 550 -Fin ea W H........ KI 3-8743 560 Mllis L 0 Mrs....... KI 3-4382 Sixth Intersects PASADENA AV -from 800 W ..a r.1. w ................-­ 155*Mammn R H........ KI 3.7361 165-LeBmd J A........ KI 3.392( 175*Hlltm C M......... KI 3.5766 1B5*5mith L E......... K13 -21V W Second Interseeb 310*McClfnlock N C..... KI 2-6949 W Main Intersects ROSPECT AV. NORTIT- from 200 E FYret rmtrh (See also Prospect av In rural street directory) ROSPECP AV SOUTH - from 200 E Furst south 130*Swain Frank........ KI 2.4309 150*Eaton M M Mn..... KI 3.9134 160 Coale 0 G 170 Reed J Z........... KI 3.7452 180 -Johnson W L........ KI 2.8160 190*Miller Drla Mrs.... KI 2-5447 E Second intersects 230*Suppe Victor....... KI 2.7529. 240*Kimr J R rem KherW 0 E Third Intersects E Main Inteseecb (See also Prospect av In coral ttrert dlre<torr) SECOND. EAST -from 200 1 cast 115 -Hale F A Mrs...... KI 3.647 155 Falrbrolher Enid Mrs......... KI 3.647 160 Thompson J F 5 Prospect av Intersects SECOND, WEST -from 20011 Went 120AChaney C F........ KI 3.077: 125AProeiess Amer. Mrs KI 2-031' 130-Zepeda R V......... KI 3.6621 135 Bristow G D 140-Huhbard Mortimer... KI 3-397'. 143 Tatum R W 145 Bristow Mary E 150*Mallcote Harrison.... 91 2-2191 South C Intersects South E Intersecte 305*Melvin J E. ........ KI 3.245: 325 Hell Hayden 335 091mby R L........ KI 3-672-1 336 Hucknun G B 355*Lexis T T.......... KI 2.5573 South A Intersects 445 Meek V C.......... KI 3.2761 44544 Everett C K 460*Chnittan A M...... KI 3-3211 465*Keeler W G food products ......... KI 2-5378 505*111artin D L......... KI 3-5515 510*Huntley W M....... KI 3-0814 520*Gullck W N........ KI 33930 530*Judson F H 540 Wilcox John PW-fla Intersects Myrtle sv intersects Pasadena as, Intersects Tustin sv Intersects. -38- 255*Engbaum F M....... KI South B Late 305*Usdmy Hnllls....... KI 335*I1ams Carlson....... KI 345*11obloson J Eller...... KI rear Cruren Adelaide Mn *Pllcher Bertha 355*Pennismlon 5 C..... KI H......... KI 2.3072 AS (See also Sixth In rural street ad dress directory) THIRD. EAST -from 300 D exist S Prospect ev interral 210ACardlel A M........ KI 3.581 240 Nleblas A R...... ... KI 3-563, P Intersects THIRD. WEST from 300 D 130 Hanson 6 Pelenon... KI 3-7651 Fraser R W Niter..... KI 3-511( 135 Tustin Past Of a.... KI 2-7461 145 Tus Be Library ......KI 3-2421 City Hall ........... KI 2-5681 Council ...... KI 2-5683 side Wpes 13h:...K1 2.5683 Clerrs Ofe.......... KI 2.5681 "ricer ..... .... ..KI 2.5683 Fire Dept........... KI 2-0373 Judge .. .... a2-5681 Justice of the Peaca.Kl 2-5681 Mayor's 0fc......... KI 2.5681 Pella Dept......... K[ 2-5681 155 Fenster 6 Schmetser !2* H; C W........ healing rams...... KI 3-8194 South C Intersects South H Intersects 308 Mitchell Braider Mrs '7 Wallen .6 D 315 Custer Marlan I..... KI 3.2433 320*Gunderson H E...... Kt 2.7322 32B patron K A......... KI 3-2550 335*Plermn F R........ KI 3-3902 340*Bude M W......... KI 2.8355 South A Intersects 430*Chadlck N I. KI 3.9165 440*Miller Ella H..............KI 3-6349' 450*W91mn C S Mn.....Nl }3' 455*Browning C R...... NI 3.3465 465*Hampton V L......10 3-3605 CRISS CROSS T9DRD WEST (Cont'd) California intersects 5D0*Lelky 0 A.......... KI 2-8422, 505*5agnves M E...... KI 2-4679 5150Snnlan K W Mrs 520*Lawrence M E...... KI 2.0505 525*Johnsen Canton 530*Lanier C R .... ... KI 2.6454 535*Allen J W 540*Kenyan 8 F Mrs Pacitle Intersects 655*McCabe L J..... ..KI 2.3323 660*Meskell G H........ KI 3-6410 665 -Trickey B T........ KI 2.7733 690*Campbell J D....... KI 2-7671 Myrtle xv Intersects TUSTIN AV -from W Second south to 845 W Mein 205 Apartments A Home Shop Appliance Repair........ KI 3-4777 Agent L C........ KI 3-0777 B Nichols Roy ....... KI 2.4695 C Carolham Edith D Molt Henry E Lange N C....... KI 2-5832 F Grand MAY Mrs 235 Claus J B hums for charter .......... KI 2-9892 305*Hudln9 9 P..:.KI 2.5059 320*Worn C R ........ M 3-3015 W Main Intersects (See also Tustin m In rural street address directory) rOREIA AV_from 600 W First 125 Huntsman Ran ....... Kl 3-58% 133*PYYBatt G H......... KI 2-7546 13SATNas A J.......... KI 2-0272 143 Vacant Intersects 145*Davis L S......... KI 3.3462 rear Bowman Harry ..Kf 2.1837 153*Culier K B......... KI 3-3622 155*McCullough E M Mrs KI 2-2133 163*Spriggs D L........ KI 2-9821 165*Miller H A......... KI }3348 173 McMullen Thos...... Ki 3-431W 175*Wind1er Fred Wgussyn"IA J puWtry 177*Barb R W _ City unlit -Verba at In county street RURAL STREET ADDRESS DIRECTORY (Served by Su Ana PIN Georets Till Car Intersects Intersects PaNsede 9 Intersects 92*McCullough R H..... KI 2.1760 51*Warren Alt ....... ..Kf 2.1837 52*L.w L A.......... K1 2.2949 11 -Foote 5 E 12*Cummings M C..... KI 2.1078 32*Hall R H........... K1 2-1073 01 Richardson F L - Wgussyn"IA J puWtry BE 7334-W 12*1sosey H H.......... KI 2.1060 21*11ales F E hld9 mnu MCI W F !2* H; C W........ RE 7334J 23 ClHrrd J'S 15 Gray L 5........... KI 2-1911 '7 Wallen .6 D i2 Stelling H J 1*Crawford rl-Sextan J E Il*Frappitr 20231 Sta An Hts Water Cc KI 3-3: *Dkkermn R E....... KI 3-3'. Orchard dr Interest 20241*1.1ndesun J C....... KI 2-2 20262 KMsell D C 2M71*Shlelds A E 20272 Robson J E 20291 Mather R 0 bids mnlr KI 2-11 *Wagner N M Mrs.... Ki 2-11 20292*Wllmd R A upholurXI 24 20311*Cay K K 20312*Howell J E ......... K1 2-V 2031244 Cermank V G 20321 Arurdall F S........ KI 2-11 20322 No return 203221/a*Jokmmn 0 1 20341*Hnxsle R C......... KI 2.2C 20342a Johnson P E h "wool N 5 20351*Burbank 5 K........ KI 2.19 20352*CahodM C W....... KI 2.19 20361*Hurtado V P 20362 -Kron Clem.......... KI 2.10 20401 Acacia E9yy Ruth.... KI 2.51 Wlfsan R V....... NI 2-51 20406*K.x Clem Jr Mess dr Intersec -d6- ACACIA AV (Garden Grove) from Huntington Beech LCACIA (Cont'd) Sytmmore Intersects &556*Gray J JVale acv Intresecb 0561*HancocBetts ARon.jo 8562 Bledsoe W A Mn Losdse Intersect B5n*Lehner Loretta E Grdn Gr 2.5906 Adele intersects 8641 No return 8652 Gathered F A 8671 Chichester W T.... Grdn Gr 732 Urns, Intersects 8691*Lewis C C 'Tersee intecaects 9phln West JA AC RL K cup In.. Grdn Cr ....Grdn Cr LC (ConVd) G C..... Gds ........Grdn Gr 2-0441 10952*Ayala J M Euclid Intersects 11031*Moody E A Rev 11041*Marxism J P..Grda Gr 2-6146 rear Morrison A I Mn L1042 WahreMrock K A Grdn Gr 2.4586 11043 Chrutencen lana Mn Walnut intersects H Mn E Grdn Gr 9080 P .Grdn Gr 2078 11081*Rllerr Alpnihsnn..... Grdn Gr 2090 11082*Upshall Vendee Mrs ..........Grdn Gr 9232 11091*1sarker Luella Mrs 11092 Larryan G L...... Grdn Gr 6667 11111 Davenport H E Pine Intersects 11131*Wenu W 8....... Grdn Gr 491 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT Signed Statement provided by Robert Stephen Gaylord October 25, 2010 To whom it may concern, My name is Robert Stephen Gaylord, one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord. I grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave. (now 520 Pacific St.) in Tustin, CA. My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above the garage all in the time and with the processes it takes for a single individual to do all that. The best that I can recall is the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base in EI Segundo. We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion and saw the search lights and anti-aircraft guns. Dad finished the apartment for him and his new wife to stay near us while he was serving in Southern California. Later, the apartment was rented to Marines stationed at EI Toro Marine Base. I recall the stairs to the entrance as a child. In my memory they were always there on the side of the garage where my parents would catch rainwater. We were not allowed to go up those stairs. The unit behind the garage was built by my father roughly between 1945 and 1950. 1 judge this based on the fact I was bom in 1933 and when my brother John and I were young teenagers my father built the two rooms and bathroom for us to occupy. After we moved away from our old home, the rooms were made available to others. The only person I remember was, (I believe the spelling is) Ms. Grennan, who helped take care of my parents to the very end. In fact, she called me about health problems my father was having when we moved him out and sold the house. My father worked at the grammar school as a woodshop, boys' athletics and natural science teacher. He was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and a Deacon with the Presbyterian Church in Tustin He was often involved in construction work in and around Tustin. He was in every way a faithful law-abiding citizen. EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 4 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Revised (12114/10) o c E c co. Z L c ca=10 Tmi `o ui Qc 0$m N6 «H CV 2 0' >mo $mTZ E2 Nim aNO. v N �O1cowp �, 1p`odr of W«rS$ va m$a� y cmao N �V m tg e'ria�EcL' FL c«€ a o m as 25-a � .4�2 ca��ny ZLF mum «•om �ur'ppi=cy !/m�v�•m �Ap3 ,o mL°g.�ca cmc V Cm22wT 4 `V'. �N UNCD' mCb y'O Nyma2.12 4i Fm O�C L��O m•�-«'inmva r.,. °n `o2ym vvm EU' mN2m mo c�-mUb amE«a y m o b:m li moo. m -iia mo$�m 'mc� oca Na.m Ya2c c U9mm va'^ c3 _'m rn� 0: w O �$t'ya b cm2 X53 Ncrn« m= 2 y -c .6_ m �� gym« .y. •� m, a m m� m b -Cc, � 2 a 6 O m � MY 2.2 R '0 U)o'b'L� �'iSEa'Groc.�4m r89='o`oE mmmca$>> o��m= W .m+Umm=�3 R'm ,oa«`obdy c>o€� oo, «Emmoma n:m$«a N o n ni z=: c� w O C L o L m V. 3 In! G C W OI C m« 12 .2 m 6 m N n N B. my vvUUa��oo���m�a°�m�_�o ON ca���v .r N�nyS Em rnm$ vHaivo`m..cN ao,m rn 3`s._3m m�d.oE ,' a "loan a C''ES o55��Lr3o�vB�.rc'm 2�5ccxoowo MENapmmao FES Nmoymaciag t��a �iml-'N 0:mo9$f7 M oc 3�ltmc2P'" 0 an=y ai a rn V 0 m o m .0 5. O m o Um od cm�2a N��e8c2 �o'ewm>E'j 'o aUoLZ Nmo �m'`oo=� mcN Niio� N?O�C'N yx p mEn U m �� o o`•E oc mci a,l�° :gj�Eo�' 7UUt�°Eca n=t' $' a nmo naneo• v Unmooa N QA T C Ot 4 m y m N =USO N T Q W O m •j N$ O p �Q Uf70Ufn�F-NUS 1 -IL ou)cn m�NUU chG m y 0 m T s .a m nm «m c J2 o moo. c o m m O v a Lo m o mtcommm =c c am q m Mani 'Er m wa =E a C NO m o2 vjmm3E $c'a m0yU _vom -owRva« omoo Z«rm a°�my$%i tvor N w o------- � a o c ev m � _ m � E C 0 r 1 N O O 8 L m Y �� u_ m y � a b v c m m m C 0 C m O N � m o O o. `o. m c t $CC m � ' 0 N0m�yyymy 0 w mU w .10 ND Om OmERG U r. 5 m OOOOW b p� _ s p y�� •C m 3 O � L u� ��� y �s�f C� m m 35 Cc mmw:A:G 3 c 3c= ;C .y4 dm ' 8 ,mw 3a 'c tm m c sa2 Em�8c EHva�LS ,irn° UmC o%c9.Q-Em :` Em�F7�7tt€ma 32 �mm8�c��o$o��y�o .oAi m m� c E- 0 _1 5_1 Emo $�tm ` rn's -a mit �wlammw $�am83mo... >0 a s CL .5"0 m osd@.68 �p c�ygm �m�'cS�xg W �✓ w m COm L g J5 /—mp L— C N��2 F C. FcE gg oa«k3 �� Y C T w a��di sgg8y�v� inUrcBrg Lm��gagb�0.y .�4 c2y.E� E0 go.c'/c-p m`8�y a'wa`im`m (3- -0 F$� co me A+v�$ c m r3 0 UN_ b`o m3 t�mu =wCL 'E .oma ¢E-: AIM CL _op Ump aa� Umnmm�VQ4 rngUS;4 S. O'O SU UF -NU L° c �mo m �g� m SMI al E� _ma R. �� 0 y gWa. m m le a'_ a - , `m O� c19 1'E,e.C'3oO1 fo��jE3u 25 ww?C�dEmti 5:60M vow= m ai3w C8Emm3'�T�o m_EC� p mnUv.�€y�—A -2 c�` m 1S'om—�5'wz a�onwwo� v �aAm`--� m=a �835�aaTioS`ov c 0 tv m aBeJe8 anoge ilun Nola puOOog r r� m U 0 d � i W C O a u'ICCY O �do OI m °NI mNm ,Cm m N U pm F m m 0 C N a Z y V O N C O- U C 9 y m m p° c d ~ Eu��€to$Sti m 'w `acii �aEi•Qm�oa�'�N$.Qm'o m m $sv-N�� o�€aaL crn���G§my EOUm c c'm '333 orcyyoo tvam..;og am E�cc..m�i ��qq ''pm i 3 U. G€ m�3�.t-. O O L N c N .0 -M _6£ 7 L m p N y NI-ato �m y0)y m c L E.0 - m N AC O NmaOac^=Loom- E Fmm... ;o Em E�aF{c moi= m uirn$E.- ��§t Qy`c $ c U' -_c° m2yv �ypW m wOn 4�C N{_m{pp oc E m ayS°Nm r/°q1 •`pc 3Nm Cg apL..CaE�3UNj�mp�pCm $tS° y� m r C FNc'ONy _ O EY nE Om C>ma=Prot N6 aUB��c a c$ad�°�m�ai •�- •moo W. 0 @_cc 3$ c. �gO=m(I�LH gump� cgmy�m0 F='9 a€6- L0& 0 m N `I .0 _ 1m ma °m C marN3~ 0 CO W ° m m 3 c m .-�a U •.. m L .N. •�')mO N m@0 C3 <S 0 LEa�mEGGBmF m^�'LTi2E=EE MEE�mmUS!U U m oaEN ��23� C`U �o�aa�N L'aZ.c $ate m n v'°`o g't `°Et �G� o�� _ 6 EA °=8� 0 nNn2o-cam€ a mPy'm•-:.mq DZ dma o$3c g€ Nm' pmd mu E �F`y''nom'I W a m LL CO e a E'n mE ami W a ¢ O�O Cua_t omi cn = a O m a aUa m: UtiU opp'�o N 7 a o o CJa N S Q N p p s m U Q@ m m m'9 j U¢ L d m U m ?, j U¢ LD N N€ N m U o+mmo+m W$USm go n n 9 L) n n m mfO n m rnnrnmmcU.t$'d a. UU-3 OrNUL° UU�NUN �Q UU�NUL m m Ea -°i cEv BNmodo �.� 6m ma �g 82 t?si odcms v OS.p5 U- =aPiE�mv v€$v mfsm €='m myEmgam� 'a 'u IsccmO mei '� Nora m$ U Eo�mvrE�E2 Nco E'aw'o 63 c O :3 � a8eis6 r anoga Ilun Vols puooag m 11 a 1 C � t O ° c z Ar 3 a 3 (T d � J 1 d m D C `3 N U 3 w m 3 C m N nLm 3S �j O C m N Uma to N a 6 pfE um 00 m 3a �g W''g N� O L 2m p, w O 25 p� 3 CS ,�}�T{y+ '��m.3cg p�� L Cy n. i' m N 3 B.0 C N C? Yp C t7 =o D C m N y T Tm; L" S 3C N Y AI > G n� m L v m n O� m u�im�•_•3 Umym�cw arm m c.n '9U 8as y mFF `0 3n�SCppwCmm`on CCU 6W mgt gay °wLC C 1U'j 'N i 0.w..vy LC Cm 3E 3.c .cUm mW rQQ'aT _ Ona mm'°m'y��pQQm '9 m�c�yym C L 3 m O,L n EOoiiyc N p 41 Qmc 7Ow 0 U WFmF �os Q00 C` m N W CE cm.- 0EL� a 0 z ynmm�n @cam"�w A m£w�5m$v,ac qc `�§� mgo $`�cc1��fi°c`�3a `oC �E °a.r'�mrto� a88mm ca" 0t'f ;��J-° �r`mmv D'3.�oa o $ ��'�dY3w UrnNc$m n CL N O M na w m'--s;E 'c m e pO OLC°'` a a m i n• 3 v a.m MIA nm A$ �'0E 6 al @rot s -Q o.1 iyy2'a c,2m Nc �i=5c l'+' T52�Y✓i 'c�,E 5 a=t0Qnv ,mp NLa 3.wn0._ m 0 wz Os Cs mw�g§ V1U tm N _ _ W _ W °S 03 �, 6 S 00 $ ej '«�'Ta my D1ain .n�4 'amE 'ammcm� 9.g omi o.39 mho 3 £ 3a. mc S m$ w. (c,o,)c�5 y p¢E,n p¢E2� pQEc7 � � QmH � m3? yOUo —Mo= d�0 W °,mW C co Oi fp �m m'S mO V cnv a,nY,UnmaUnmcUnm W nW mU8 c�$8 m9U$� nmrv� Pas.- $ nE m D � �C wnm m�$�'@ o$a @F -UL wF-NU N WON.- M c �c.sg § o n U=L!°g Maw g-�� ya�pi-6 �+a��=mea E��i� ca €2 as in o¢ n�.swEm��� c 3c e 0 3 U J a Q H m x �w v 64 a s c 1 Y U N CIS:: CL I`1 �- -.,. j .° n 1 o 1 w 1 :.� � 'Y � pi:Cr:.;l'S ;WYL:i�at• T 'f 9 ONI Bv��'€1O.�C3 �im t5 �i 40 a w N A ".a" J 5 p � N C C n m gig C O g� 0 T c� c�'F2S Ti a/ ".F-gcv €'+9yO.c cavi �� EE c: N —Q° y N j s E g� E 0,2 N N p J p m N t0 9 O1 r a= C V' e w E m 0 0 N O m L °� Q L a O 5a u��i$oa > M= —B 00 vrn Oa•cmu �cm j Lam za 3.tlCp acEg-o.� 0 vE&S- o� Nn ma m-�ct Pa^'�'dwE«!L° Pc i.o�y 9g?tnQyp OF �,G���oQQ h a oT o P« y am N W � CM ~ is N p •a 91 u 00 y d m€ O t 2 J df C N N .-'iC y t 01V 63 pmmaN JcU)'p �'w ~W gdCy �Na .r N mP �c�Ev �.��mc� -v� VccPn'`c 10 iiPPv 2oceqQ Cm Dg N£oN pm �^E+m'"Mo E m�d�`y mvJtm€�°id h € mm m e ��p.-p �+ a �m N4fVA °i�E N� aG£ Bm�.ON@ ry�ca O �a DoE ry2 �4oE 'EU C.1 j5 c t� aBE Co CL 0 �� N m '7 1N ,E N m m m a� M O :s 01 , W J o.5 1 �a UQUEctmcu mmo: UOUEc'"LL LL-oJl'-o� Nc n. $oui > > 7 U c 7 m J v mIn In c c D, NnN g NnN� p`�pcU'm �13 nCX 14 L)^� OI qO) a Of m L m 3 m m= N QN9�1-% v ¢ J• �Q UDR U'S U��UNm W, Wm M2N0 w"°i� Y crS of@�a'�ai �c o C3 ofgLm�o•��moy lEFc�v««c,c m E g m m a.E c$ 2w "mi 9-9° m m E?LL�m`c� ��1E�1p�p1 E�S a svy�$-.`J�Nc c p a p v'd�°i gPtuaJi nv@�i v.awm mmm�ocyc$mm$ ?gcFmJcEmv«vv«` a M Sc doE m .wv�dmm `m Uodreo 11 Q F- m_ s 8 O a 0 c X S rJr m T m m 5� u Z5 O m N m A m .a OI m d y mm y yy b Q� y S 75 O) > 7 'p c U m aoNOm_ wo- w �rn _mcEM N $ m m�5 mg8 2n, yym mmNa r�Si a -2 vmmm� m€n In ��Oa aOl�war �� 6�-8.55 0, m��'pCp�r3'�a mmDm�>>�� E. H um l..l a C d m N N '€ m U$ E N c lY y' ,C E' f- N$ L 'ti m m v g"ep�V F�a jCBjTO— 2 n$m �"8CTS=:S 1!°�` G? ONi C w 4 mOm. N 3 O._p_mi m I r N� c c N r0 a m O L 0 > O y. C C C N s m O C N W C 0 0 W� 8 m 8 W w wl, C 9 N y .+ W `o .42 W a g �S m o o S U c m g m `o p � m y N y y V N? 'p 8 cn 'o° �. rc ° m'�.c t'o5 ; o' aa`��� y$y i�da .�§ac�n,�a 80 8 0ea=3 .r A E S�� ° °1 o Eggg ay�ao2i-SScam $F0 ���9�c"4dO 0 $ 8 E� m.°v� n c.9!$�.c� 10ogt ba EE,_gN °c �.,2 'if `m `m g uCN,C�yC� ,C pm 8 1;p�CQ =a -D N 1""' - O r 6 I a m VI U .0 O m 6 F G L rp?pp .� p'}tt`off 000f m as �3 wcy E �ja�E -D�e rTi yy+.3m �j •a I- (L Wa aS�Wao ¢'d'3co�y`n d� U N � m (ia U pU'C ii� U U N m CC.) MM N $m m�m9Emj, m= mamc wa�j mcbm�E ..smc v U m 7m 7 7m UNy »e0mem �M' �m m r N m i. A d m it O .� O] r�y C n "7 m m A T wng gm a°i WTSrn RM -TS l�{ c�i �g�Er mBUv WQ mrONILR��.". m m m O., O M O Mp N a r `I C 0=0 Lo C ym5 �`c^ m� O N m c =a.c n NU S Em�M -z m o 0 a B• y c c L a GI .0 8 w y o a c E'g E 8 �1-5 ccc�p�m fi�o_.T.m $w$�u�o�� .rLo 8, s_ C m c m 3B8 E E m 9al a m n rn x8 av c E U O 6 C 0 C _S r O% CLS _ p j C'� a E m zammm8_ w¢NNNmmm..._Uom@,..6 L m c 0 S I AeJeE) I Sjunlepuepieaijeaa J R z 0 IL I ' m 9 ami citcE � oa v c a- m it Tn cy m a E,,icmo o •� E3yi: v.c�9 orn -a .-S- wo UM m m c c=�ioa �ccc-m •2 . �'- m e m �Fb '� aly oac�oorn c mm Yn 3'i�wQ� �mE�m>od4-2, 20 °401 C OOW Q; w am90 .O : �m c w E'c v 'mo - m o 0 0 `m a. y c1 CCmLG w m c mwm- OmOIO W aCC«EoCN'D CCm aamm Cw90'.•YCa n Oa �•C O13c �cE�°LO ood m�am N mammomm� ncwmad� w 2 E-= a 3 mcomm v C c cc a '� o _ m LO 'p�m11? 'c s fq VJ 'N 0 0 ,Cm �Ty2Ji m.IE w � G A mC. c O: J w D7 �8c c:-2 @ 'a -2 L rn •a°:n ms Na umc3 aI m �aE rva L m 0 occc A Ma ¢o' Ewe 25 m wg o U o C� co Mc a�-b.'�'-{o'c u),2 J).5 UCOa m$mUE a 7� 7 m �% Q �_ �l A m G 7 ac)" 0 N O. N 9 m a pn m 0L^ « U€ m a0lmoU8,8ROwmm n pn c° E CONC UUF-c�U @m E a Obi �¢n1� E O w o m _ a m C m9g72 .`3 am M10C Ec pw 0O0 Zi LS Fm U b '9w81 �a rn�j °i �_E m-wtmt4 'm m tEd U c E a 3 L 275 t m y 0 o -8382E vat c O pm O J z m c gcg U •In , v m o y m39 ac E g a� qmp m p h ySgy 6� C ,C Cy� N CO �' 6� 1` Yl ... m 1� 1- y ` c E mOct°-�3�c �O �„ O NL mm m oa 03 �mN$mS�LLC �tZm��_yyxmmm n811�$ m?aN L a m $ O U G•m_ 0 ��`LpOs arE$�� yam t s a a m c a m c c c m m c E W L c 'Cm C N�.rs �b9E N a ma' 0$o� 3m yl�• () m0 LD n=gym r=�_ N �0p Q a O 02 ¢ C {� a Ngg IL E �yg j y N a' m CL N� a 0 5 0 t7 'Ewa mS r7i� ¢aE-7 y,L� Q''0 oa m'amma m a U 3� U U=m^ y m mryg��s m' il0 U �.Ynmmn mac L) r Na CaNl��q O $ m N aU^9 .-Q.-UU.- yN n)LO)m QOI'1 G m F 9QN�(n 0 n 3 a 0 c a C 8 0 ga F '0 c m m G S� cam y... a !E v �o�m`y nc�yc MA .2 na c 3 m. 2 E€ E— = c c crT c m m = m m PC Evia°xL°cn.b'. a� 7m m3 u ;u ro u. llun jepueplalu jeea I w rn K - i i o cc t M .m c m 2� d L E� rn°cam ....� U � cy c• S N r 'g ` C A W C N c Emr ES.0 o °m�oQa9god m 00mFL N, CO d@� W N m� m 0 aNai �E �E,c ; c C �q d oa. Fc c�i m m" Ue m m m �'o o� a W c E E QD— L_y=0on w O .E 7 PV N W J M C C di �.rmNmta a9i U W a N�>EEj W n U O.0 N .f yyy Ya9� o6a aq i 9 > a w � 3=:a- om °�in �m =d�L�y o "c3E W ted, G C L d m ,a c �� $ma�m.� c m 0 2a aao aNi .o H 10 y�L c v �r 10 L4 S N N a O .5 o O O N" S m w e m W m m C m O= m y n a °�i�8'�n>U m O W3 J n 9 m=mc mBmU ii_ggE� i7mnL'� i c rt U W d W CII ! N x O a S c SO m 0g d ^ 3 C g 0 tp N C C d C_ Ja w'2 oil {{O?? c C N%U)c EE W9g mamvccc10av acini a"°0 61mmomac-�'�'€um° NE �m U 7 U y m X 7 >> m mE m o C m d c d N cm.� m m 0 m� n n t .r W Y OC U N c QW �N�'0100E Jmv N�gNZ CaKdc W �)q f/J-7 V N = > S0 ONS 'O r Q U d H m a_m �a m 3 a C L W d o > p / 2 G'r m O `n N E d O „ 0 d t Op 6 C N L C1 L d cam 3:y E m .��. E a c a t E �O $A m �,m cmE a v E �t mLe= w ci`mE U c m c a � 1lun jepuaplsaa jea21 (Peyaeaep) wow uopeeloea m � rn EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Prior staff reports and attachments from October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010 Available on the City of Tustin website: www.tustinca.org AGREEMENT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED I, the undersigned, hereby agree to comply with all conditions imposed by the Community Development Department and/or City Council of the City of Tustin on approval of City Council Resolution No. 11-18 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162 as attached to the letter dated March 17, 2011. Bret S. Fairbanks, Property Owner Step #i ai banks, Property Owner CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE 01: CALIFORNIA COUNTYOF (41718-2 On before me Fri DATE INSERT NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER -1'-0 ., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared, - Rrr+ Fft.,Im.y a a.,,1 f4rph„n; r,."I,,,.,r who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) js/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same inlWher/their authorized capacity(ics), and that by hisFher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ERICA RABE = COMM. # 188751 AIL/ /1nMARY PUBLIC CALIF G �/ v� ORANGE COUNT L\ (SEAL) _ �i COMM. EXPIRES APRIL 27,?:," ,- NO'I'ARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION THIS 0"10NAL INFORMATION SECTION M NOT REQUIRED BY LAW BU MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO PERSONS RELYING ON TMS NOT'ARIZFD OOCUM TILE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNERS(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE SIGNER'S NAME I RIGRTniUMBPRJNT SIGNER'S NAME RlcrtrrnnnmPalNr To order supplies, please contact McGlone Insurance Services, Inc, at (916) 494 0804. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Recording fees exempt per GCS 6103 DECLARATION OF I, the undersigned, declare as follows: Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk -Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NO FEE 2011000153132 11:50 am 03/24/11 42 411 D01 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use STRUCTURES AND USES I am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby furnish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of my property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming structures and uses are as follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. b. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. I have read, and understand that, Tustin City Code Sec. 9273 Nonconforming Structures and Uses specifies: a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the t meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. b) Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. I declare that I have done nothing to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any of the nonconforming buildings or structures, in violation of the above referenced City Code. I understand that, as the property owner, I am responsible for building code compliance, and all costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Any violation of any of the conditions imposed in Resolution No. 4162, I may be subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a) and I may be subject to the imposition of a civil penalty for each violation and each day the violation exists. I agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this matter. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE DECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this o day of 20__� . (Day) (Month) (Year) (Bret S. Fairbanks)/--- 4" airbanks) 4" r ` CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF Ort) Tw. ) On 3 -aa -11 before me Prim DATE MSERTNAME, TITLE OF OFFICER—E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that hall m4hey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that bY44s her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ERICA BABE COMM. # 1887514 NORARV PUBLIC " CALIFORNIA 4 • "� p tANGE ?Rj 27 COMM. E%PIKES APRIL 27 2014 � (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION TRIS OPTIONAL IIffORMATION SWTIONLS NOT REQUIRED BYLAW BUTMAY BE B04MCIAL TO PERSONS RELYING ON THIS NOTARIZED DOCUMENT TTILE OR TYPE OF DOCUAgNT DATE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNERS(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE SIGNER'S NAME SIGNER'SNAME RIGHT THUMBPRBrr To order supplies, please Contact McGlone lnsunum Services, Inc. at (916) 494 0804. RESOLUTION NO. 11-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two livable units located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property (pursuant to TCC 9294) and requested consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot Resolution 11-18 Page 1 of 5 lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; F. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929, and was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction. The earliest zoning map on file, from 1947, identifies the property as R-1 single family residential and the current zoning for the property is R-1 Single Family Residential; G. That on April 7, 1947, the City of Tustin adopted the First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 71) in which a guest house was defined as "Living quarters within a detached accessory building located on the same premesis as the main building for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling.'; H. That on March 16, 1959, the City Council directed, by minute order, that the Clerk was authorized to inform the County Building Department to dispose of old permits and job records prior to the time the City of Tustin set up a Building Department; That on November 6, 1961, the City of Tustin adopted a new Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157) which required that a guest house was subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that no cooking facilities were permitted. It established second unit standards which allowed a kitchen subject to a Conditional Use Permit and minimum site standards. Said Ordinance also set forth the definition of nonconforming uses however, the term 'legal' was omitted from this Zoning Code Section; That the Planning Commission held three (3) duly called, and noticed public hearings on October 26, 2010, November 9, 2010, and December 14, 2010, at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and during the deliberation, an opinion was rendered that based on provisions in the Ordinance, uses/structures existing prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 157 (Nov. 6. 1961) could continue to exist regardless of any legal and/or illegal establishment. Based on this interpretation, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body and as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and determined that there was evidence substantiating that the upper unit located above the garage and the unit including two rooms Resolution 11-18 Page 2 of 5 and a bathroom located behind the garage are nonconforming uses/structures and may remain; K. That on December 23, 2010, Mayor Amante appealed the actions of the Planning Commissions' December 14, 2010, determination regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street and requested clarification that the Tustin City Code ('Code") requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code; L. That on March 1, 2011, the City Council held a noticed public hearing which was de novo at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal; M. That on March 1, 2011, the City Council found: a. That the subject uses/structures at 520 Pacific Street did not need to be lawfully/legally established prior to November 6, 1961; b. Resolution No.4162 of the Planning Commission is confirmed and reinstated in its entirety. Owner has ten (10) business days from the adoption of Council's resolution to complete the owner's obligations identified in the Planning Commission Resolution No.4162. c. The City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance for Council consideration and referral to the Planning Commission to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity throughout the Code regarding the concept of nonconforming uses and structures. N. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guidelines for CEQA Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulation Title 14, Chapter 3. II. Therefore, the City Council hereby affirms the nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses subject to conditions of approval attached hereto in Exhibit A and deems the following to be nonconforming residential units at the property at 520 Pacific Street: A. Upper unit located above the garage B. Unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 151h day of March, 2011. Resolution 11-18 Page 3 of 5 ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-18 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15th day of March, 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: STOKER, -6A PAMELA •� City Clerk Gavello, Gomez, Murray (3) Amante, Nielsen (2) None (0) None (0) Resolution 11-18 Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 520 PACIFIC STREET RESOLUTION NO. 11-18 GENERAL (1) 1.1 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with and shall substantially conform with Planning Commission Resolution No. 4161 as specified, or prior to, the issuance of any building, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical permit for the subject property. (***) 1.2 Determination of nonconforming structures and uses is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing and returning to the Community Development Department, within ten (10) days of the City Council determination, the following: a) The property owner(s) shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) b) The nonconforming structures and uses shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in the Zoning Code. c) The nonconforming building(s) or structure(s) may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTIONS Resolution 11-18 Page 6 of 5 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Recording fees exempt per GCS 6103 Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk -Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIVIIVIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIVIIIIII NO FEE 201100015313211:50 am 03/24/11 42 411 D01 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use DECLARATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES I, the undersigned, declare as follows: i am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby furnish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of my property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming structures and uses are as follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. b. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. I have read, and understand that, Tustin City Code Sec. 9273 Nonconforming Structures and Uses specifies: a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafer may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discontinued far any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located b) Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fr,/ly (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. I declare that I have done nothing to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any of the nonconforming buildings or structures, in violation of the above referenced City Code. I understand that, as the property owner, I am responsible for building code compliance, and all costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Any violation of any of the conditions imposed in Resolution No. 4162, I may be subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a) and I may be subject to the imposition of a civil penalty for each violation and each day the violation exists. 1 agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this matter. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE DECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this _ day of P_C,20�_. (Day) (Month) (Year) By: (Bret S. Fairbanks) (Steph ranks) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF 0689Z ) On 3 -aa -11 before me, Frirn 1�411p - DATE INSERT NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER-E.G.., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared, —f".+ FA;rhnAi,% nArl S�nni.o -Fa haA" who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that holsho4hey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by-hisPher/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State Of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official Seal. ERICA RAGE ; 60 COMM. # 1887114 .� NOTARY PUBLIC •CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY CE%PIPES APRIL 27�b (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION nnS OPLIONAL INFORMATION SECTION LS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW BUJ' MAY BB BENEFICIAL TO PERSONS BBLYMO ON TMS NOTAIUTFD D UMBBT, TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNERS(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE NUMBEROFPAGES SIGNER'S NAME SIGNER'S NAME RIGITT7MNBPRMI' I I RIGHT TNUMBPROW I To order supptie, please contact McGlone Insurance Service, Inc. at (910 494 0804. AGREEMENT TO CONDITIONS IMPOSED I, the undersigned, hereby agree to comply with all conditions imposed by the Community Development Department and/or City Council of the City of Tustin on approval of City Council Resolution No. 11-18 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162 as attached to the letter dated March 17, 2011. Bret S. Fairbanks, Property Owner Sta`pfi#ii k ai banks, Property Owner CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNI'YOF-i)rpn8-e ) On 3 -22 -II before me, F "•• PnJ �. DATE INSERTNAME, TITLE OF OFFICER-E.G.., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared, Pr,4- Fa;,WaYc r,,,l •4a hanF" h me who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) jsfare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hisiher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ERICA RABE 0 COMM. # 188751.1 (� .w-A-NNOTARY PUBLIC - CALIF,V,1r (I • ORANGE COUNTY (SEAL) '=2^%'vvCOMM. EXPIRES APRIL 21,V_4_0_ NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE OPTIONAL INFORMATION TUM OPRONAL INFORMATION SECUMB NOT REQUMM BY UW BUr MAY SE BENEFICW.TO PERSONS RELYING ON MS NOTARIZED DOCUMFNT. TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT DATE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES SIGNERS(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE SIGNER'S NAME SIGNER'S NAME RHAUnNMBPa warrnl M pffiM To order supplies, please conw McGlone IlLsnn nm Service, Inc. at (9107 484 0804. CITY OF TUSTIN JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY John Nielsen, Mayor Pro Tem Deborah Gavello, Councilmember Rebecca "Beckie" Gomez, Councilmember AI Murray, Councilmember CALL TO ORDER ATTENDANCE MARCH 15, 2011 COUNCIL CHAMBER AM! 2161 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN TW David C. Biggs, City Manager Douglas Holland, City Attorney Jerry Amante, Mayor Pamela Stoker, City Clerk George Jeffries, City Treasurer NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING AND AGENDA 5:30 P.M. PUBLIC INPUT — At this time members of the public may address the City Council regarding any items on the Special Meeting agenda. REGULAR BUSINESS ITEM INTERVIEW AND APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND AUDIT COMMISSIONS The City Council will conduct interviews and appoint three (3) members to the Planning Commission, three (3) members to the Community Services Commission, and three (3) members to the Audit Commission. The Planning Commissioners selected will serve until March 1, 2013 or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. The Community Services Commissioners selected will serve until March 1, 2013 or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. The Audit Commissioners will serve until March 1, 2015 or until their respective successors are appointed and qualified. The City Clerk's Office received applications for the Planning Commission, Community Services Commission and Audit Commission as follows: NOTE: As required by Senate Bill 343, any non -confidential writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA during normal business hours. Planning Commission: • Kenneth L. Eckman • Steve Kozak • Frederick C. Moore • Larry R. Sample • Paul Wasserman Community Services Commission: • Kenneth L. Eckman • Erin Moore • James K. Palmer • Donna Marsh Peery • Larry R. Sample Audit Commission: • Robert Ammann • Donald G. Berkheimer • Richard G. Hilde • Kim Leason • Craig Shimomura Recommendations: 1. Interview candidates; 2. Cast ballots to determine appointments; and 3. City Clerk to announce results. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2258 ATTENDANCE PUBLIC INPUT — Members of the public may address the City Council on items on the Closed Session Agenda. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 12 from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation: A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION [Govt. Code § 54956.9(b)] — Two Cases B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION [Govt. Code § 54956.9(c)] — Two Cases C. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS [Government Code Section 54957.6] Agency Negotiators: Kristi Recchia, Director of Human Resources and Peter Brown, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Employee Organization: Tustin Municipal Employees Association (TMEA) Employee Organization: Tustin Police Officers Association (TPOA) Employee Organization: Tustin Police Support Service Association (TPSSA) Employee Organization: Tustin Police Management Association (TPMA) Employee Organization: Part -Time Unrepresented Employees Employee Organization: Unrepresented Confidential Employees Employee Organization: Unrepresented Supervisory Employee Organization: Executive Management and Management D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION [Govt. Code § 54956.9(a)] — One Case • Tustin Unified School District v. City of Tustin et al., Case No. 30-2010- 00345476, Orange County Superior Court E. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: [Govt. Code § 54957] — Two Cases 1. Termination of City Manager 2. Appointment of Interim City Manager F. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR [Govt. Code 54956.8] — One case Property Address/Description: Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN's): 393-181-13, 393-181-14, 393-181-15, 393-181-16, 393-181- 17, 393-181-18 and Cole Lane Agency: City of Tustin Agency/City Negotiator: Douglas Stack, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Negotiating Parties: Alan Trider, President, Oakhurst International, Inc. Under Negotiation: Price, Terms and Conditions Right of Access Agreement JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 7:00 P.M. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 12 !16� CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2258 INVOCATION — Father Al Baca, St. Cecilia's Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor Amante ROLL CALL — City Clerk CLOSED SESSION REPORT — City Attorney Douglas C. Holland PRESENTATIONS • WRAP recipients (Ricoh and Victory Foam) • Rebate to Ricoh on behalf of Department of Energy ORAL COMMUNICATION/PUBLIC INPUT — At this time, any member of the public may address the City Council on matters which are listed on this agenda or under the jurisdiction of the City Council. If the item you wish to speak on is a public hearing item, you may wish to wait until the Council considers that item. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM A public hearing provides individuals the opportunity to be heard regarding an intended action of the City Council related to land use or fees. (Agenda Item 1) APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-030 TO ALLOW FOR ANCILLARY BANQUET FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM LOCATED AT 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE. On January 11, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4166, approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 09-030 to allow the Marconi Foundation for Kids to operate ancillary banquet facilities in conjunction with an existing automotive museum located at 1302 Industrial Drive. On January 19, 2011, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to conditionally approve CUP 09-030 was filed by the applicant, Marconi Foundation for Kids. The appeal specifically requests the removal of Conditions City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 12 4.1 through 4.5 of Resolution No. 4166 which pertain to required off-site improvements (i.e., new sidewalks, ADA compliant driveways, curb, etc.) within the public right-of-way. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294b, the appeal hearing before the City Council is de novo. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the project allowing ancillary banquet facilities in conjunction with the automotive museum use. The off-site public improvements are necessary for the following reasons: • Approval of the request is intensification from a warehouse use to assembly use; • The site uses adjacent parcels to meet its parking demand. Access to the project site without sidewalks will require people to walk in the street; • There is not adequate disabled access to and from the site; • The City Council set a policy in 1987 requiring construction of sidewalks in industrial areas. • An agreement was signed by the Marconi Foundation in 1995 agreeing to install the sidewalk; • Other businesses have been required to install off-site improvements when significant improvements, change in occupancy, and/or intensification of uses are proposed; • A precedent would be set if the requirement is waived Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-17, approving Conditional Use Permit 09- 030 authorizing the use of ancillary banquet facilities in conjunction with an existing automotive museum located at 1302 Industrial Drive subject to certain conditions including the requirement to install off-site public improvements. RESOLUTION NO. 11-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-030 AUTHORIZING THE USE OF ANCILLARY BANQUET FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING AUTOMOTIVE MUSEUM LOCATED AT 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. Persons wishing to speak regarding Consent Calendar matters should file a "Request to Speak" form with the City Clerk. (Agenda Items 2 through 13) 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD ON MARCH 1, 2011 Recommendation: Approve the Action Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 5 of 12 Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency held on March 1, 2011. 3. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $3,434,037.03 and Payroll in the amount of $657,127.99. 4. 2010 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT The California Government Code requires that the Planning Commission provide a progress report to the City Council on the status of the City's General Plan and the progress in its implementation, including the progress in meeting our share of regional housing needs and efforts to remove governmental constraints to housing development, maintenance, and improvement. On March 8, 2011, the Planning Commission reviewed the annual report and authorized staff to forward the report to the City Council, With Council authorization, staff will forward the report to the State Office of Planning and Research and the State Department of Housing and Community Development in fulfillment of the State's requirement. Recommendation: That the City Council review and authorize staff to forward this annual report to the State Office of Planning and Research and the State Department of Housing and Community Development. 5. STATUS REPORT ON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECTS Redevelopment Agency staff provides on a monthly basis an update of redevelopment related projects. Recommendation: Receive and file. 6. RENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND NATIONAL OFFICE LIQUIDATORS FOR A PORTION OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 15171 DEL AMO AVENUE Approval is requested for a Rental Agreement between the City and National Office Liquidators, Inc. (Tenant), for a City -owned property located at 15171 Del Amo Avenue. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Assistant City Manager to execute the attached Rental Agreement with National Office Liquidator, Inc and to enter into any extension periods as may be authorized under the Rental Agreement, subject to any non -substantive modifications as may be deemed necessary by the City Attorney. 7. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND PACIFIC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, INC. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 6 of 12 Approval is requested for Amendment No. 1 to a Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Tustin and Pacific States Environmental Contractors, Inc. ("PSEC") for certain environmental assessment services at Tustin Legacy. The Amendment will provide additional environmental services related to infrastructure design requirements for Tustin Ranch Road roadway improvements as well as other technical support. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency: 1. Approve Amendment No. 1 to a Consultant Services Agreement for Tustin Legacy between the City of Tustin and Pacific States Environmental Contractors, Inc., increasing the not to exceed amount by $78,985 to $88,985 (the original agreement, approved November 16, 2010, was for $10,000), and authorize the City Manager and/or the Assistant City Manager to execute the document on behalf of the City of Tustin. 2. Appropriate from un -appropriated funds in the MCAS 20,10 Tax Allocation Bond Proceeds Fund (561) $68,685 to the Tustin Ranch Road Extension Project Capital Improvement Program Fund (CIP No. 70100) and $10,300 in un -appropriated funds from the MCAS Tustin Redevelopment Fund (555) to 555-35-00-6010. 8. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE DATACENTER UPS UNITS The Information Technology (IT) Division is in process of relocating existing server and storage equipment to a new purpose-built datacenter in City Hall. Said server and storage equipment requires uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) to protect the equipment from power failures, surges, and sags. IT staff has determined the need to replace existing in -rack UPS units with redundant room UPS units. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize purchase of two (2) Eaton Powerware BladeUPS 36kVA/36kW uninterruptible power supply units from Ramtek, LLC of Tustin, CA in the amount of $51,909.88 (including tax and shipping). 9. AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION OF A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH R.J. NOBLE COMPANY FOR THE TUSTIN RANCH ROAD PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT CIP 70195 Staff is requesting City Council authorization to negotiate a contract change order with R.J. Noble Company to extend the project limits of CIP 70195 to include construction of the Bryan Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project CIP 70199 by utilizing bid savings realized in the Tustin Ranch Road Project. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to negotiate a contract change order with R.J. Noble Company to extend the City Council/RedevelopmentAgency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 7 of 12 project limits of the Tustin Ranch Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project CIP 70195 to include construction of the Bryan Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project CIP 70199 and utilize the bid savings in CIP 70195. 10. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT TO RECEIVE BIDS FOR THE PARK RE -CAMPING PROJECT CIP NO. 20066 The plans and specifications for the Park Re -Camping Project CIP No. 20066 have been prepared and the project is now ready to be bid. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-16 approving the plans and specifications for the Park Re -Camping Project CIP No. 20066 and authorize the City Clerk to advertise and receive bids. RESOLUTION NO. 11-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PARK RE -CAMPING PROJECT CIP NO. 20066, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS 11. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 11-11 APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2010-03 A lot line adjustment has been requested by the property owner to merge the three (3) existing parcels into one (1) parcel at 200-220 EI Camino Real. The merger is required to ensure that the existing building meets the current California Building Code (CBC) requirements. The proposed lot line adjustment application has been submitted by Robert Douglas Feinstein, successor trustee of the Nancy F. Feinstein Trust established January 11, 2002. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-11 approving Lot Line Adjustment No. 2010-03. RESOLUTION NO. 11-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2010-03 12. CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF THE STEVENS SQUARE PARKING STRUCTURE Approval is requested of a Consultant Services Agreement to conduct a structural engineering assessment of the Stevens Square Parking Structure. Recommendation: It is recommended that: 1. The Redevelopment Agency approve a Consultant Services City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 8 of 12 Agreement with Hess Engineering, Inc. to conduct a structural engineering assessment of the structural stability and architectural and deferred maintenance needs of the Stevens Square Parking Structure, located at 445 South C Street, subject to any non - substantive modifications as may be determined necessary as recommended by the City Attorney, and authorize the Assistant City Manager to execute the document on behalf of the City; and 2. The Redevelopment Agency appropriate $15,950 from un- appropriated funds in the Town Center Fund (558) to Town Center Account No. 558-35-00-6010 for services with Hess Engineering; and 3. The City Council and Redevelopment Agency authorize Agency and City staff to negotiate with Stevens Square, LLC, a cost-sharing agreement that outlines the sharing of any one-time and on-going repairs and maintenance costs in proportion to the ownership interests in the Parking Structure common area. 13. APPROVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY (MWDOC) AND ITS MEMBER AGENCIES ON BUDGET, ACTIVITIES, CHARGES, AND OTHER ISSUES The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) has been working with its member agencies on changes to its business model which will enable them to better meet its member agencies' needs and resolve long standing causes of disagreement with several of their member agencies. Beginning in fiscal year 2011-12, MWDOC will adopt a new business model in which individual member agencies will have a choice as to whether they participate in certain MWDOC programs and the member agencies that elect to participate in those programs will be charged directly for those services. Under the agreement, MWDOC will also realign its rate structure to reflect the regional nature of MWDOC's services. Signatories to the agreement will be given the opportunity to nominate candidates to be appointed by MWDOC to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Board of Directors when vacancies occur among MWDOC's delegation of four directors appointed to the MWD Board. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the agreement with the Municipal Water District of Orange County and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. REGULAR BUSINESS ITEMS Matters listed under Regular Business are generally proposals for new legislation or items requiring discussion. (Agenda Items 14 through 20) 14. "NEIGHBORHOODS OF TUSTIN TOWN CENTER: A NEW BEGINNING" City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 9 of 12 PPL�T:7. • ► The City Council recently endorsed "The Neighborhoods of Tustin Town Center: A New Beginning", A Strategic Guide for Development. The report identified immediate and short term action projects and programs. As requested by the City Council, staff is bringing back a proposed Work Plan outlining the steps City Departments are taking to implement immediate and short term strategies. Recommendation: Receive and file. 15. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY OF TUSTIN EMERGENCY PLAN The City Council approved the City of Tustin Emergency Plan at the March 1, 2011 City Council meeting and requested an additional opportunity for comment and discussion. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. 16. AFFIRM NONCONFORMING STATUS AT 520 PACIFIC STREET On March 1, 2011, the City Council held a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal by Mayor Amante which appealed the actions of the Planning Commission's December 14, 2010, determination regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street. The appeal further requested clarification that the Tustin City Code (TCC) require nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the Code. At the hearing, the City Council denied the appeal and determined that structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street to be nonconforming and directed staff to revise the Tustin City Code as it relates to the term "nonconforming" to clarify, provide consistency in prior practice, and reduce ambiguity throughout the Code. Resolution No. 11-18 reflects the City Council action as to 520 Pacific Street. A separate resolution and draft ordinance revising the Tustin City Code as it relates to the term "nonconformance" will be addressed in a separate report. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No.11-18 affirming nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses at the property at 520 Pacific Street. RESOLUTION NO. 11-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) 17. INITIATION OF CODE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY, PROVIDE CONSISTENCY, AND REDUCE AMBIGUITY OF THE TERM "NONCONFORMING" IN THE TUSTIN CITY CODE City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 10 of 12 It-] 19. 20 On March 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to draft a code amendment to provide clarity, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Pursuant to TCC 9295c, an amendment of the Zoning Code may be initiated by the City Council by filing a resolution with the Planning Commission of the intention thereof. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-19 to initiate a code amendment (Draft Ordinance No. 1397) to provide clarity, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code and to direct the Planning Commission to consider said code amendment for recommendation to City Council. IV :1141110]1Loll0 ILIOwRIs Ia A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, INITIATING A CODE AMENDMENT (DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1397) TO AMEND THE TERM "NONCONFORMING' AS SET FORTH IN THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO CLARIFY, PROVIDE CONSISTENCY, AND REDUCE AMBIGUITY THROUGHOUT THE CODE; AND DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER SAID CODE AMENDMENT FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. ESTABLISHING A TUSTIN HOUSING AUTHORITY The purpose of this item is to request that the City Council consider establishing a Housing Authority to function in the City in order to provide safe and sanitary housing opportunities for the City residents. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 11-20 establishing a Housing Authority in accordance with the California Housing Authorities Law. RESOLUTION NO. 11-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A HOUSING AUTHORITY THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING AUTHORITIE LEGISLATIVE REPORT S OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. At this time, the City Council may take the opportunity to discuss current legislation of interest. CALIPERS RETIREMENT AND RETIREE MEDICAL PROGRAMS The City has contracted with Bartel Associates to conduct our GASB 45 Actuarial Valuation regarding our Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) which specifically includes our Retiree Health Program. Additionally, the City contracted with Bartel Associates to provide a comprehensive review of our City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 11 of 12 retirement program in several key areas. Mr. John Bartel will provide a presentation to the City Council on his review and analysis. Recommendation: That the City Council receive Mr. Bartel's presentation and have the opportunity to ask questions and provide direction to staff to obtain additional information, if needed. OTHER BUSINESS/COMMITTEE REPORTS — City Manager, City Attorney, City Council ADJOURNMENT— The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. for the Closed Session Meeting followed by the Regular Business Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 15, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 12 of 12 AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS VIA: DAVID C. BIGGS, CITY MANAGER Agenda Item 16 Reviewed: Finance Director��M� FROM: ELIZABETH BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: AFFIRM NONCONFORMING STATUS AT 520 PACIFIC STREET SUMMARY: On March 1, 2011, the City Council held a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal by Mayor Amante which appealed the actions of the Planning Commission's December 14, 2010, determination regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street. The appeal further requested clarification that the Tustin City Code (TCC) require nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the Code. At the hearing, the City Council denied the appeal and determined that structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street to be nonconforming and directed staff to revise the Tustin City Code as it relates to the term "nonconforming" to clarify, provide consistency in prior practice, and reduce ambiguity throughout the Code. Resolution No. 11-18 reflects the City Council action as to 520 Pacific Street. A separate resolution and draft ordinance revising the Tustin City Code as it relates to the term "nonconformance" will be addressed in a separate report. *11111161 I r61:101 I IWO I That the City Council adopt Resolution No.11-18 affirming nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses at the property at 520 Pacific Street. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs are estimates. To date, the City has incurred expenditures related to five public hearings in an amount exceeding $10,000.00. However, no costs or estimates have been included for staff attendance at informal meetings with the property owner. No application or appeal fees have been paid. City Council Report Uphold Planning Commission Decision - 520 Pacific Street March 15, 2011 Page 2 �.rt�rmm On March 1, 2011, the City Council held a de novo public hearing in which, after the public hearing and receiving public testimony, the City Council voted 4-1 to deem the upper unit located above the garage and the unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage to be nonconforming residential units at 520 Pacific Street based on the following findings: 1. That the uses/structures at 520 Pacific Street did not need to be lawfully/legally established prior to November 6,1961; and 2. That uses/structures have been given nonconforming status based on the owner providing a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses which were continuously maintained without significant alteration. The City Council then directed staff to draft an ordinance to amend the term "nonconforming" as set forth in the Tustin City Code to clarify, provide consistency, and reduce ambiguity throughout the Code and to draft a resolution directing the Planning Commission to consider said code amendment for recommendation to the City Council. Resolution No. 11-18 Should the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-18 (Attached), the property owner(s) would be responsible for signing a Declaration of Nonconforming Structures and Uses. This statement, required under the Nonconforming Structures and Uses section of the TCC, sets forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of the property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. The property owner will also need to comply with Planning Commission Resolution No. 4161 which requires compliance with the Notice and Order to the extent that California Building Code related corrections, as reasonably determined by the Building Official, are necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved. Pursuant to TCC Section 9273b, in order to maintain the nonconforming status, repairs, alterations, etc., cannot exceed fifty (50) percent of the building's assessed valuation. Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Attachments: Resolution No. 11-18 Approved for Forwarding By: vid C. Biggs City Manager ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. 11-18 RESOLUTION NO. 11-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two livable units located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property (pursuant to TCC 9294) and requested consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; F. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and Resolution No. 11-18 Page 2 detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929, and was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction. The earliest zoning map on file, from 1947, identifies the property as R-1 single family residential and the current zoning for the property is R-1 Single Family Residential; G. That on April 7, 1947, the City of Tustin adopted the First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 71) in which a guest house was defined as "Living quarters within a detached accessory building located on the same premesis as the main building for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling."; H. That on March 16, 1959, the City Council directed, by minute order, that the Clerk was authorized to inform the County Building Department to dispose of old permits and job records prior to the time the City of Tustin set up a Building Department; That on November 6, 1961, the City of Tustin adopted a new Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157) which required that a guest house was subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that no cooking facilities were permitted. It established second unit standards which allowed a kitchen subject to a Conditional Use Permit and minimum site standards. Said Ordinance also set forth the definition of nonconforming uses however, the term "legal" was omitted from this Zoning Code Section; J. That the Planning Commission held three (3) duly called, and noticed public hearings on October 26, 2010, November 9, 2010, and December 14, 2010, at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and during the deliberation, an opinion was rendered that based on provisions in the Ordinance, uses/structures existing prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 157 (Nov. 6. 1961) could continue to exist regardless of any legal and/or illegal establishment. Based on this interpretation, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body and as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and determined that there was evidence substantiating that the upper unit located above the garage and the unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage are nonconforming uses/structures and may remain; K. That on December 23, 2010, Mayor Amante appealed the actions of the Planning Commissions' December 14, 2010, determination regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street and requested clarification that the Tustin City Code ('Code") requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and Resolution No. 11-18 Page 3 current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code; L. That on March 1, 2011, the City Council held a noticed public hearing which was de novo at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal; M. That on March 1, 2011, the City Council found: That the subject uses/structures at 520 Pacific Street did not need to be lawfully/legally established prior to November 6, 1961; b. Resolution No.4162 of the Planning Commission is confirmed and reinstated in its entirety. Owner has ten (10) business days from the adoption of Council's resolution to complete the owner's obligations identified in the Planning Commission Resolution No.4162. c. The City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance for Council consideration and referral to the Planning Commission to clarify, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity throughout the Code regarding the concept of nonconforming uses and structures. N. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guidelines for CEQA Section 15301 of the California Code of Regulation Title 14, Chapter 3. Therefore, the City Council hereby affirms the nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses subject to conditions of approval attached hereto in Exhibit A and deems the following to be nonconforming residential units at the property at 520 Pacific Street: A. Upper unit located above the garage B. Unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Tustin City Council, at a regular meeting on the 15th day of March, 2011. JERRY AMANTE MAYOR Resolution No. 11-18 Page 4 PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-18 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15 h day of March, 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK • Agenda Item 17 ;: AGENDA REPORT Reviewed: — Finance Director N/A MEETING DATE: MARCH 15, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS VIA: DAVID C. BIGGS, CITY MANAGER FROM: ELIZABETH BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: INITIATION OF CODE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY, PROVIDE CONSISTENCY, AND REDUCE AMBIGUITY OF THE TERM "NONCONFORMING" IN THE TUSTIN CITY CODE SUMMARY: On March 1, 2011, the City Council directed staff to draft a code amendment to provide clarity, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code. Pursuant to TCC 9295c, an amendment of the Zoning Code may be initiated by the City Council by filing a resolution with the Planning Commission of the intention thereof. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-19 to initiate a code amendment (Draft Ordinance No. 1397) to provide clarity, provide consistency with prior practice, and reduce ambiguity of the term "nonconforming" throughout the Tustin City Code and to direct the Planning Commission to consider said code amendment for recommendation to City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Draft Ordinance No. 1397 is a City -initiated project. There are no direct fiscal impacts anticipated as a result of adopting this ordinance. BACKGROUND On March 1, 2011, the City Council held a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal by Mayor Amante which appealed the actions of the Planning Commission's December 14, 2010, determination regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street. The appeal also requested clarification that the Tustin City Code ('Code") require nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and City Council Report Initiation of Code Amendment March 15, 2011 Page 2 uses and the appropriate application of the code. At the public hearing, the City Council heard public testimony and after deliberations, denied the appeal with a 4 to 1 vote. The Council then directed staff to revise the nonconforming definition to clarify, provide consistency in prior practice, and reduce ambiguity throughout the code. Based on this direction, staff has prepared Resolution No. 11-19 initiating a code amendment (Ord. No. 1397) which provides the necessary revisions throughout the Tustin City Code. Other Zoning Documents including Planned Communities, Specific Plans, etc., refer back to the Tustin City Code; therefore, these documents will also be revised through reference. Should the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-19, staff will forward the matter to the Planning Commission and will return to the City Council with their recommendations on the proposed ordinance. Approved for Forwarding By: Elizabeth A. Binsac{ avid C. Biggs Director of Community Development City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 11-19 with attached Draft Ordinance No. 1397 RESOLUTION NO. 11-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, INITIATING A CODE AMENDMENT (DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1397) TO AMEND THE TERM "NONCONFORMING" AS SET FORTH IN THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO CLARIFY, PROVIDE CONSISTENCY, AND REDUCE AMBIGUITY THROUGHOUT THE CODE; AND DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER SAID CODE AMENDMENT FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows A. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9295c the City Council may initiate a code amendment of the Tustin City Code by filing a resolution of the City Council's intention with the Planning Commission; B. That on March 1, 2011, the City Council held a noticed de novo public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commission's December 14, 2010, determination regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street; C. That at said public hearing, the City Council directed staff to draft a code amendment to amend the term "nonconforming" as set forth in the Tustin City Code (TCC) and other Zoning Documents to clarify; provide consistency with prior practice; and reduce ambiguity throughout the Code. IL The City Council hereby initiates a code amendment for Draft Ordinance No. 1397, attached hereto in Exhibit A, to amend the term "nonconforming" as set forth in the Tustin City Code to mean structures and uses which were legally erected, established, and which have been lawfully and continuously maintained, but which no longer conform to the regulations and requirements of the zoning district; and directs the Planning Commission to consider said code amendment for recommendation to City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Tustin City Council, at a regular meeting on the 15'" day of March, 2011. JERRY AMANTE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Resolution No. 11-19 Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN 1 I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-19 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15`h day of March, 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Exhibit A ORDINANCE NO. 1397 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO CLARIFY THE MEANING OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Section 1112 of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the definition of "Legal Nonconforming" as follows: "Legal Nonconforming" shall mean a use or structure that was lawfully established or built under previous regulations but does not meet existing standards. Illegal uses or structures have no vested rights. Illegal uses or structures are a public nuisance that shall either be brought into legal conforming status or shall be removed. Section 2. Section 1122a of Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: a Any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Nonconforming uses or structures that have not been lawfully established pursuant to Section 9273 of this Code are illegal and are declared a public nuisance, and shall be altered to conform with all applicable standards and regulations, and shall be subject to actions and penalties allowed by this Code. If any ambiguity or conflict arises concerning the legal or illegal status of a nonconforming use or structure within the Tustin City Code, the provisions of Section 9273 shall prevail. Section 3. Section 3914 of Chapter 9, Article 3 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: 3914 REGULATIONS GOVERNING EXISTING SEXUALLY ORIENTED (a) Any lawfully established sexually oriented business lawfully operating on or before February 17, 1998, that is in violation of Sections 3912 and/or 3913, shall be deemed legal nonconforming uses. A legal nonconforming use will be permitted to continue for a period of one (1) year, with a possible extension of one (1) year to be granted by the planning commission. Said extension may only be granted if the planning commission finds an extreme financial hardship exists which is defined as the recovery of the initial financial investment in the legal nonconforming use, unless sooner terminated for any reason or voluntarily discontinued for a period of thirty (30) days or more. Such legal nonconforming uses shall not be increased, enlarged, extended or altered except that the use may be changed to a conforming use. If two (2) or more sexually oriented businesses are within five hundred (500) feet of one another and otherwise in a permissible location, the sexually oriented business which was first lawfully established and continually operating at the particular location Ordinance 1397 Page 2 is the conforming use and the later established business(es) is legal nonconforming. (b) A lawfully established sexually oriented business lawfully operating as a conforming use is not rendered a legal nonconforming use by the location subsequent to the grant or renewal of a sexually oriented business permit and/or license, of a church, public or private elementary or secondary school, public park, public building, residential district, or residential lot within five hundred (500) feet of the sexually oriented business. This provision applies only to the renewal of a valid permit and/or license and does not apply when an application for a permit and/or license is submitted after a permit and/or license has expired or has been revoked. (c) Any sexually oriented business subject to the provisions of this Section shall apply for the permit provided for by Section 3916 within thirty (30) days of the effective date of Ordinance No. 1204 and shall comply with all applicable regulations contained within thirty (30) days of the effective date of such ordinance. Section 4. Section 7271e(1) of Part 1, Chapter 2, Article 7 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: e Removal (1) In the event that the Director determines that a lawfully established newsrack does not comply with the provisions of this section, he or she shall use reasonable efforts to provide written notice of such determination to the permittee or owner. The notice shall specify the nature of the violation, the location of the newsrack which is in violation, the intent of the Director to (a) remove the newsrack if it has no permit or (b) to revoke the permit and cause the removal of the legal nonconforming newsrack, and of the right of the permittee to request, in writing, a hearing before the Director within fifteen (15) days from the date of the notice. If the newsrack is one which has not been authorized by the Director and ownership is not known, nor apparent after inspection, a notice complying with this section shall be affixed to the newsrack. Section 5. Section 9227b2.(c) of Part 2, Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: (c) Any exisEjgwfull)L established and developed parcel which is legal and conforming or legally non -conforming as of the date of the adoption of this subsection, and with the acquisitions of public rights-of-way by a public agency would result in densities exceeding the density permitted by the Zoning Code or would result in an increased nonconformity with regard to density shall not be considered legal nonconforming pursuant to Section 9227b2 and Section 9273 of the Zoning Code with regard to density only, provided that all other provisions of the Zoning Code are satisfied. Section 6. Section 9273 of Part 7, Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: 9273 LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES Ordinance 1397 Page 3 within this Chapter or elsewhere within the Tustin City Code. this Section shall prevail. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, lawfully established uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the ad9ptiGR Gf this �hapteF may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no legal nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any legal nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a legal nonconforming use of a RORGORWMing buildiRg may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the legal nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive legal nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any legal nonconforming use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. (b) Any lawfully established building or structure, adeptieR Of this Gh which is Iepal nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such legal nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the building's assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. The Planning DepaFtFReFACommunity Develonment Department of the City of Tustin may send, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the current ewneF as shmmin eR the 'art equalized assessmeRt owner of any nonconforming building or structure, or of any property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of said use and providing substantial evidence that all structures on the Ordinance 1397 Page 4 use were made without the prior authorization of the City, and that no alterations were made other than to implement general repairs or to make the use or structure more conforming with the rules and regulations of the Tustin City Code. Said statement shall be filed with the Community Development Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. Upon any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations of the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure. The burden of proof to establish the lawful and continuing existence of the structure and use at the time of the enactment of the ordinance and for all periods of time as required under this Section rests with the current owner. (c) A legal nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. (d) The provisions set forth in (b) and (c) above, shall apply to structures, land and uses which hereafter become legal nonconforming due to any reclassification of districts under this Chapter; provided, however, that public uses, public utility buildings and public utility uses existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter, or existing at the time of reclassification of districts, shall not be considered legal nonconforming. (e) Any use of land, building, or structure which is legal and seaferraing tG all _e a,___ -f _ _ __J _ .1 - J_♦ _t _J _a. _11L._ 11 J. 11 _.-J made "non -conforming" either in design or arrangement due to acquisition of public right-of-way by the City, shall be exempt from a RGRGGRf9FFRiR9 status and the Was and Wses he provision, unless it is established by the DepaFtFRen> Of Community Development Department that such use, building or structure creates a nuisance or is a threat to the health, welfare or well being of City residents. Section 7. Section 9276c(5) of Part 7 of Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: (5) All modifications to lawfully established wireless communication facilities for which applications for the modifications were submitted on or after the adoption date of Ordinance No. 1192 shall be required to comply with the regulations and guidelines contained herein. Modifications to legal nonconforming wireless communication facilities that are legal nonconforming with respect to any provision of Ordinance No. 1192 must first receive Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit as established by Tustin City Code Section 9291. Modifications to legal nonconforming wireless communication facilities shall not increase the nonconformities. Section B. Section 9297 of Part 7 of Chapter 2, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended by adding the definition of "Legal Nonconforming" as follows: Ordinance 1397 Page 5 "Legal Nonconforming" shall mean a use or structure that was lawfully established removed. Section 9. Section 9402 of Chapter 4, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: "Legal Nonconforming siga-Sign " means a sign that was lawfully erected IeSa#Y which does not comply with the most current adopted sign restrictions and regulations. Section 10. Section 9405c of Chapter 4, Article 9 of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended as follows: c. Legal Nonconforming siQasSigns. A legally- established-nenseOarming sign And tie Fn;;4Rt;;6^ea b. «legal nonconforming sign shall be made to conform to all provisions of this Chapter if the Director determines that any of the following events occur. 1. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be changed to another nonconforming sign. 2. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be structurally altered so as to extend its useful life. A sign shall be considered to be structurally altered if the construction materials are physically replaced with new materials. The replacement of face copy in a cabinet type sign does not constitute structural alteration. 3. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be expanded or altered so as to change the size, shape, position, location or method of illumination of the sign. 4. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be re-established after discontinuance of the use for ninety (90) days or more. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason, except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law, for a period of ninety (90) days, it shall be presumed that such use has been abandoned in accordance with Section 9405d. All other provisions of the enforcement Section 9405e shall apply. 5. A legal nonconforming sign shall not be re-established after damage or destruction of more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement value, including destruction by an act of God. Section 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Ordinance 1397 Page 6 PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin on this _ day of 2011. JERRY AMANTE, MAYOR PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1397 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 five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1397 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of , 2011, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Published: 650 Town Center Drive 14th Floor I Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 714-513.5100 office I 714.513.5130 far I www.sheppordmullln.com A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Writer's Direct Line: 714424-2821 dmsenthal@sheppardmullin.com March 9, 2011 Our File Number. 0009-159581 VIA E-MAIL dholland@wss-law.co7n Douglas C. Holland, Esq. Woodruff, Spradlin, and Smart 555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Re: Declaration for Nonconforming Uses at 520 Pacific Street Dear Doug As you are aware, on December 14, 2010 the Tustin Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 4162 affirming the status of two nonconforming residential uses on the property located at 520 Pacific Street in Tustin (the "Property"). In conjunction with this resolution, the Planning Commission provided to Bret Fairbanks, the owner of the Property, a "Declaration of Nonconforming Structures and Uses" with instructions that he execute the document and record it with the Tustin Community Development Department. In light of the City Council's March lit decision to deny appeal of Resolution No. 4162, I have reviewed the original Declaration provided to Mr. Fairbanks. On the whole, the Declaration does not seem tailored to the Property and includes a number of unnecessary provisions. We have revised the Declaration to fit the circumstances, and would like an opportunity to discuss the enclosed draft with you or Staff. In the enclosed draft, we have made a number of minor changes. First, all references to nonconforming "structure(s)" or "building(s)" were removed as they are inapplicable to the Property; to the best of our knowledge, the only nonconformity is the multi- family use. Second, "in the R-1 Zone" was added to the description of the nonconforming residential units to provide clarity and a more comprehensive description. Third, the declaration following the recitation of the code section has been rewritten to miner the language of the Tustin City Code. Fourth, the indemnification provision has been removed as it is inapplicable to the Planning Commission's Resolution, which was not an approval. Finally, it is our understanding that Mr. Fairbanks would not be liable for any costs or fees relating to the appeal or the 2010 Notice of Violation. While it is accurate to state that he may be liable under certain circumstances, this should not be interpreted as an admission of liability in this case. RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use DECLARATION OF NONCONFORMING USES I, undersigned, declare as follows: I am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby furnish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming use of my property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming uses are as follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit in the R -I zone. b. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit in the R-1 zone. I have read, and understand that, Tustin City Code Sec. 9273 Nonconforming Structures and Uses specifies: a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a W02-WEST:3 WAH 1\403340765.1 -I- 650 Town Center Drive 14th Floor I Costa Mesa, CA 92626.1993 714.513.5100 office I 714.513.5130f= I ws ..sheppardmullln.com A T T 0 R N E Y S A I L A W Writer's Direct Line: 7144242821 drosenthal@sheppardmullin.com February 23, 2011 Our File Number. 0100-092513 VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE Mayor Jerry Amante and City Council E -Mail: jamante@tustinca.org of the City of Tustin jnielsen@tustinca.org City of Tustin dgavello@tustinca.org 300 Centennial Way rgomez@tustinca.org Tustin, CA 92780 amurray@tustinca.org Fax: 714-83 2-63 82 Re: AApneal of Resolution No. 4161 and Resolution No. 4162/520 Pacific Street — Request for Continuance and Opposition Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members: On behalf of Mr. Bret Fairbanks, our client, we appreciate the opportunity to submit his opposition to the above referenced appeal (the "Appeal"). Mr. Fairbanks, a long-time resident of Tustin, currently owns and occupies a single-family residence located at 520 Pacific Street in Old Town Tustin (the "Property"). In addition to Mr. Fairbanks' home constructed in 1929, the Property contains two accessory residences constructed before 1950 and other accessory structures ("collectively, the Residences"). The Residences are the subject of the Appeal from Planning Commission Resolutions 4161 and 4162 that is now before this Council. The Appeal claims that the Residences do not qualify as legal Non -Conforming Uses or Structures under Section 9273(a) of the City's Zoning Code on two theories: (1) the Residences were not `lawful" under the Zoning Code at the time they were built; and (2) the Residences cannot show building permits to demonstrate compliance with the City's Building Code at the time they were built. On the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission found that `lawfulness" at the time of construction is not required to meet the definition of a Non -Conforming Use/Structure under Section 9273(a) of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission further found that compliance with the City's Building Code is not required to qualify as Non -Conforming Use/Structure under the Zoning Code. Finally, in an unchallenged portion of the decision, the Planning Commission instructed Mr. Fairbanks to correct any health and safety violations on the Property. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 3 maintained records of building permits prior to 1959, and therefore cannot demonstrate when any earlier structures were constructed, except through indirect evidence such as the Completion Notice issued for the principal Residence in 1929. These proceedings commenced on September 16, 2010, when the City filed a Notice and Order' on the Property alleging a variety of Building and Zoning Code violations, and declaring the Property a public nuisance. The Notice and Order were apparently issued in response to a request from Mr. Fairbanks that the City verify the Non -Conforming status of the Residences. He also asked the City to agree that, in the event of a fie, earthquake, or other natural disaster, the City would permit the accessory Residences on the Property to be rebuilt. Mr. Fairbanks made these requests in connection with a contract to sell the Property so he could purchase a new home, which was cancelled by the buyer after the City issued the Notice and Order. Mr. Fairbanks appealed the Notice and Order on September 22, 2010. The Planning Commission held three hearings at which more than fifty residents appeared to support the Fairbanks family. On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions No. 4161 and No. 4162, partially granting the appeal. With respect to the alleged Building Code violations, Resolution No. 4161 ordered Mr. Fairbanks to make any physical improvements to the Residences that were "reasonably determined by a Building Official to be necessary and appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants for the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved."' With Mr. Fairbanks' support, the Planning Commission instructed the Building Official to identify those items listed in the staff report dated October 26, 20106 that were required to protect "health and safety." The Planning Commission did not identify any specific Building Code violations. With respect to the alleged Zoning Code violations, Resolution 4162 reversed the Notice and Order and deemed the Residences to be legal Non -Conforming Uses/Structures. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that: (1) the upper unit located above the garage is Notice and Order/Pre-Citation Notice and Declaration of Public Nuisance, Tustin Community Development Department, dated September 16, 2010 (hereinafter, "Notice and Order"). 5 Resolution No. 4161: A Resolution of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin Modifying the Notice and Order for Building Code Violations at the Property at 520 Pacific Street (Assessor's Parcel No. APN 401-371-07). 6 Appeal Hearing Agenda Report: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Elizabeth Binsack & Y. Henry Huang, dated October 26, 2010 (hereinafter, "Appeal Hearing Report, Oct. 26'). SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 5 (1992) 2 CalAth 556, 562; People v. Western Airline, Inc. (1954) 145 Cal.App.3d 597, 638. Although the City Council may interpret unclear provisions, the actual language of the ordinance is of utmost importance and it cannot be interpreted contrary to its terms. Molenda v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 974, 992. Further, the City is specifically barred from finding a statutory violation on the basis of unstated or "hidden" requirements. When enforcing an ordinance, one cannot create an offense by enlarging a code section, inserting words or giving terns arbitrary meanings. See People v. Baker (1968) 69 Cal.2d 44, 50. Interpreting Section 9273 to include a requirement that the uses have been "lawful," "legal," or "permitted" creates a violation that does not exist under the language of the Ordinance. In other words, Mr. Fairbanks would be deprived of his property on the basis of requirements that were not apparent on the face of the Ordinance. Finally, it is relevant that the City Council specifically removed from the City Code an earlier requirement that non -conforming uses be `lawful." Tustin's 1947 Zoning Ordinance required that non -conforming buildings and structures be "lawful" when the ordinance became effective. The City Council, when it revised the Code in 1961, deliberately and knowingly removed the requirement that non -conforming uses/structures be "lawfully existing" or "lawfully occupied." Under California law, the City Council must be assumed to have intended to delete any "lawfulness" requirement from the City Code, and the Ordinance must be interpreted without such language. See Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.AppAth 1040, 1056; People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 151;' Burden, 2 Cal.4th at 562. The staff recommendation that the Board of Appeals use the definition of "nonconforming" in the American Planning Association A Planner's Dictionary and Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law is contrary to law, as well as the City Zoning Code.10 People v. Ramirez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 980, 987. Here, the City Code is not open to more than one reasonable meaning, and no additional definition is required. Giving effect to the plain meaning of the actual language in the statute, there is no reason to depend on extrinsic aids to supplement a definition for "nonconforming." Again, the actual words of the current Tustin City Code control its interpretation and enforcement. ' "We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." People v. Coronado (1995) 12 CalAth 145,151 10 Appeal Hearing Report, pg. 16. The American Planning Association's A Planner's Diclionary defines a nonconforming structure as "a structure or portion thereof which was lawfully erected and which has been lawfully maintained," but which "no longer conforms to the regulations and requirements of the zone (district) in which it is located." SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON IAA' Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 7 indicate that, in 1959, the City Council voted to dispose of and destroy old permits and job records." This was done in spite of Section A104.7 of the current Tustin Building Code and Section 202 of the 1927 Tustin Building Code, which requires the Building Inspector to retain building permits for public record." The City therefore has no evidence that the Residences were constructed without permits, because it has no proof of the contents of any permits or even that the City routinely issued permits when the Residences were built. The only evidence before the City is that a Notice of Completion was issued for the primary Residence in 1929 and that at least one of the secondary units was built by the original owner who later served as the City Building Official and was thus presumably aware of Building Code requirements. Mr. Fairbanks offered evidence that the City issued electrical and other permits for the Residences since 1961, without raising any concerns that they were built in violation of the Building Code. The weight of the evidence, therefore, is that the Residences were not constructed in violation of City requirements. It would be contrary to California building law hold that because the City did not keep building permits and thus cannot produce them, the Property must be in violation of any and all Building Codes, or that it was Mr. Fairbanks' burden to produce documents affirmatively destroyed by the City. Similarly improper is staff's effort to argue that the Residences were built without building permits because they allegedly do not comply with the City's 1927 Building Code. In addition to the fact that specific violations have not actually been proven, an inspection more than 80 years after -the -fact is not substantial evidence of original construction without building permits. Finally, even if proven, Building Code non-compliance cannot support violation of the Non -Conforming Structure provisions of the Zoning Code. Section 9273 specifically refers to non -conformity with the provisions of the "chapter" containing the Zoning Code. Under the Tustin City Code, the Building and Zoning Codes are in separate chapters and the requirements of one cannot be substituted for the requirements and, subsequently, violations of the other. Any effort to bootstrap alleged Building Code violations into "illegality" under the Zoning Code therefore fails under the plain language of the Ordinance. For the foregoing reasons, there is no substantial evidence supporting the contention that the Residences were constructed without building permits in violation of the Building Code or the Zoning Code. There is no dispute that the City disposed of all pre -1959 permits and thus disabled itself from proving any violation of the Building Code prior to that date. Therefore, the Planning Commission correctly determined that the Residences were not constructed in violation of the Building Code and were legal Non -Conforming Structures. The Appeal of Resolution No. 4161 must be denied. IZ Minutes of City Council Meeting, March 16, 1959. "Tustin Building Code §202 (1927). SIIEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 9 site.16 In this case, the principal or main Residence consists of the home built in 1929, and the secondary units are accessory uses. Zoning Code Section 9271(n)(5) states: "Detached accessory structures may have a zero -foot side and rear yard property line setback if abutting an adjoining structure on a separate lot with a zero -foot setback or if the abutting lot is unimproved. If an adjoining structure on a separate lot is constructed other than with a zero -foot property line setback, a minimum of three (3) feet shall be maintained between the structures." The accessory Residences are constructed within inches of the property line, creating a zero -foot setback. 17 The structure on the adjoining lot is more than three (3) feet from the accessory Residences. Therefore, the accessory Residences are in compliance with City Code Section 9271(n)(5). Accordingly, the side setback does not violate the existing Zoning Code. For the foregoing reasons, the second residential units are accessory structures, which are not subject to the 2007 Building Code, not required to seek conditional use permits under Zoning Code Sections 9271 and 9273, and allowed to have a zero foot side setback provided that at least three (3) feet is maintained from structures on other lots. Therefore, in addition to the grounds set forth above, the Planning Commission correctly determined that there was no evidence the Residences violate the Zoning or Building Codes. The Appeal of Resolution No. 4161 must be denied. V. Health And Safety Concerns Found On the Property Will Be Remedied In Compliance With Resolution No. 4161 In addition to the technical allegations of non-compliance, questions have been raised throughout of the course of these proceedings about the safety of the occupants in the Residences. Resolution No. 4161 mandated that Mr. Fairbanks comply with the Notice and Order to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by a Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants are adequately protected and preserved. On multiple occasions, Mr. Fairbanks has expressed his sincere interest in maintaining the Property to comply with relevant health and safety requirements.18 He fully supports the intention of Resolution No. 4161 and is ready and willing to begin bringing the 16 Ord. No. 157, Sec. 5.4; Ord. No. 1367, Sec. ll, 4-6-10. 17 Letter to Planning Commission Board of Appeals: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated November 9, 2010, pg. 5. 1 ° Letter to Planning Commission Board of Appeals. Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated December 14, 2010, pg. 2; Letter to Planning Commission Board of Appeals: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated November 9, 2010, pg. 4; Letter to Planning Commission Board of Appeals: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated October 25, 2010, pg. 7. SHEPPARD WILIN RICHTER A IWIPTON LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 1 I compliance with the City Code. The Appeal should therefore be rejected as untimely and not in compliance with Code requirements. VII. The Appellant Should Not Participate In The Anneal The request for hearing asserts that the Planning Commission decisions were incorrect because the Residences were not "legal uses or permitted buildings and/or structures" and that the uses were "actually illegal and were not permitted." It appears that the Councilmember who requested the hearing has already pre judged the issue that is before the City Council in this Appeal. The individual fact -based determination that specific structures were "actually illegal' and "not permitted" is an administrative or quasi-judicial decision. Under California law, administrative and quasi-judicial decision -makers must recuse themselves if there is even the appearance of prejudgment or bias. BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Ca1.App.4th 1205. In this case, the Appeal makes it clear that the decision -maker has already reached a conclusion on the issue before him. Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) Cal.AppAth 547. He should therefore recuse himself from participation in the Appeal. VIII. Conclusion For all of the above reasons, Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162, as approved by the Planning Commission Board of Appeals on December 14, 2010, were correct determinations, as well as reasonable solutions for issues relating to the Residences and the Property. Resolutions Nos. 4161 and 4162 both demonstrate correct, consistent application of California law and the City Zoning and Building Codes. Resolutions Nos. 4161 and 4162 should be upheld, and the Appeal denied. On behalf of Mr. Fairbanks, we sincerely appreciate your consideration of this letter and our concerns. Very truly yours, W H. Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP W02• W EST.3 WAR 11403277941.3 cc: Douglas C. Holland, Esq. Mr. Bret Fairbanks Agenda Item 2 Reviewed: �- City Manager Finance Director N/A MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MARCH 1, 2011 CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2257 at 5:31 p.m ATTENDANCE Present: Mayor/Chair Jerry Amante, Mayor Pro Tem/Chair Pro Tem John Nielsen, and Councilmembers/Agencymembers Deborah Gavello, Rebecca "Beckie" Gomez (arrived at 5:37 p.m.) and Al Murray Absent: None City Clerk: Patricia Estrella, City Clerk Services Supervisor Others Present: Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney PUBLIC INPUT — None. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation: A. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS [Government Code Section 54957.6] Agency Negotiators: Kristi Recchia, Director of Human Resources and Peter Brown, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Employee Organization: Tustin Municipal Employees Association (TMEA) Emplovee Organization: Tustin Police Officers Association (TPOA) Employee Organization: Tustin Police Support Service Association Employee Organization: Employee Organization: Employee Organization: Employee Organization: Employee Organization: (TPSSA) Tustin Police Management Association (TPMA) Part -Time Unrepresented Employees Unrepresented Confidential Employees Unrepresented Supervisory Executive Management and Management B. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: [Govt. Code § 54957] — Two Cases • Performance evaluation of the City Manager • Consideration of 60 -day unpaid leave of absence for employee City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 1 of 11 C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION [Govt. Code § 54956.9(b)] — Two Cases D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION [Govt. Code § 54956.9(c)] —Two Cases E. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR [Govt. Code 54956.8] — Three cases Property Address/Description: Aaencv: City/Agency Negotiators: Negotiating Parties Under Negotiation: Property Address/Description: Agency: City/Agency Negotiators Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation • Property Address/Description/ Negotiating Parties City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes 28,000 square feet of building area on City property located at 15171 Del Amo, Tustin City of Tustin Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager with support from Chuck Noble at Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. Doug Green with Beitler Commercial Realty Services, TCN representing National Office Liquidators Price and Terms of Payment A portion of Lot 31, Block 12 of Irvine Subdivision Plan No. 1 of the Ranchos Santiago of Santa Ana and San Joaquin, in the City of Tustin City of Tustin Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, and Doug Stack, Director of Public Works Christopher Georgious, President, Tustin Red Hill Center, LLC Price and Terms of Payment Pablo & Silvia Hinojosa (2351 Fig Tree Dr.); Carolyn Doyle (2361 Fig Tree Dr.); Angela Zhang & Erik Canche (2362 Fig Tree Dr.); Joseph Gehley (2361 Basswood Circle); Frank & Shawna Barilla (2362 Basswood Circle); Michael & Linda O'Neil (2361 Sable Tree Circle); Donald & Tammis Berkheimer (2362 Sable Tree Circle); John Caamano (2361 Ana Tree Place); Jack & Janice Dukes (2362 Ana Tree Place); Julie Fralick (2361 Caper Tree Dr.); Richard & Barbara Schroer (2371 Caper Tree Dr.); James & Marsha Lindsey (2372 Caper Tree Dr.); Patrick & Vicki Crabb (2371 Silk Tree Dr.); March 1, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Agency: City/Agency Negotiators: Under Negotiation: Recessed at 5:32 p.m. Reconvened at 7:08 p.m. Patricia De La Pena (2381 Silk Tree Dr.); Shaun & Linda Rusmisel (2372 Silk Tree Dr.); Daniel & Lisa Bright (2381 Coco Palm Dr.); Marlene Eich (2391 Coco Palm Dr.); Daniel & Susan Ellis (2382 Coco Palm Dr.); Weidong Wang & Xinxin Qiao (2381 Apple Tree Dr.); DeShaun, Albert & Cheryl Foster (2391 Apple Tree Dr.); Keechul Miles & Joy Park (2392 Apple Tree Dr.) Redevelopment Agency Ken Nishikawa and Doug Anderson Price and Terms of Payment JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2257 at 7:08 p.m. INVOCATION — Councilmember Gomez PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Councilmember Murray ROLL CALL — City Clerk Present: Mayor/Chair Jerry Amante, Mayor Pro Tem/Chair Pro Tem John Nielsen, and Councilmembers/Agencymembers Deborah Gavello, Rebecca "Beckie" Gomez (arrived at 5:37 p.m.) and Al Murray Absent: None City Clerk: Pamela Stoker, City Clerk Others Present: Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney CLOSED SESSION REPORT — Mayor Amante announced that the Council would reconvene in Closed Session following Presentations to continue discussion of agenda items and that the City Attorney would give his report at that time. PRESENTATIONS City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 3 of 11 SOCAL Water Polo o Bill Campbell, presented Ed Reynolds with a proclamation as 2010 National Women's Coach of the Year o Jordan Gonzales, representing Assemblyman Jeff Miller, presented proclamations to Ed Reynolds and SOCAL Water Polo o Accepting the Club Certificate of Recognition from the Mayor and City Council on behalf of SOCAL Water Polo are Youth Players: Sidney Shimomura (10u Coed) Adam Florman (10u Coed) Grace -Ann Pevehouse (12u Girls) Mason Reynosa (12u Boys) Kyle Son (12u Boys) Lilly Aguirre -Murray (14u Girls) Lana Gorlinski (14u Girls) Alex Sirmopoulos (14u Boys) Kyle Greenwald (14u Boys) o Champions Cut Players - Girls 8th grade and under team: 1 st place finish in 2011 Sophia Baia Abaigeal Blake Nikki Daurio Molly DiLalla Kathleen Hungerford Emily Konishi Christiana Manzella Brooke Maxson Briana Roger Angela Russo Julia Sellers Kylee Shimomura Kenzi Snyder Lyric Soto Caroline Thorn o Champions Cut Players — Boys 8th grade and under team: 5th place finish in 2011 Bryan Carbaugh Willliam Cranshaw Austin Donoghue Michael Garas Griffin Gaughran Charles Hornecker Will Lapkin Robert Lee Mike Miller William Monjay Nicholai Pran Nicholas Robertson Gavin Scott City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 4 of 11 Jake Tombrello Recessed at 7:37 p.m. Reconvened at 7:42 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATION/PUBLIC INPUT— . Jennifer Gonzales, The Gas Co., replacing Margaret Pashko Recessed to Closed Session at 7:44 p.m. Reconvened at 8:53 p.m. CLOSED SESSION REPORT — City Attorney Douglas C. Holland City Attorney Report: The City Council met in closed session on item B on the closed session agenda. The City Council on the 3-2 vote, with Councilmembers Gavello and Gomez voting no, issued a notice to terminate Mr. Biggs as City Manager of the City of Tustin. The notice reads as follows: This is a notice that the City of Tustin intends to terminate your employment as City Manager of the City of Tustin, effective on a date yet to be determined, which shall be not before April 1, 2011. The reason for this action is that the relationship between the City Council and the City Manager is not satisfactory. No later than March 8, 2011, you may, by written notification to the City Clerk, request a hearing before the City Council. In the event you request a hearing, then it will be held prior to April 1, 2011. Effective immediately, you are suspended, with pay, from your duties as City Manager ORAL COMMUNICATION/PUBLIC INPUT — None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS (1-2) APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - 520 PACIFIC STREET On September 16, 2010, it was determined that the structures/uses at 520 Pacific Street were inconsistent with the Zoning Code, substandard per the Building Code, and constituted a public nuisance. Specifically, two units and other structures had been added to a property originally developed with a single family residence/detached garage without complying with the City Code. On City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 5 of 11 September 22, 2010, the property owner, Bret Fairbanks, appealed this determination to the Planning Commission. On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission determined that the two rear units at 520 Pacific Street were considered legal nonconforming structures/uses and ordered compliance with minimum Building Code requirements. On December 23, 2010, Mayor Jerry Amante appealed the Commission's actions and called for clarification of nonconforming uses/structures. The hearing before the City Council is de novo. The recommended action would overturn the Commission's action that granted the status of nonconformity to structures at 520 Pacific Street. If the City Council desires to uphold or modify the Commission's decision, a revised resolution with supporting findings would be necessary. A presentation was given by Director of Community Development Elizabeth Binsack and Senior Planner Amy Thomas. The public hearing opened at 9:40 p.m. Addressing Council: • Presentation by Deborah Rosenthal, attorney representing Bret Fairbanks • Bret Fairbanks • Doug Duboch • Linda Jennings • Jonathan Dunn • Marcus Brown • Nathan Menard Recessed at 10:42 p.m. Reconvened at 10:53 p.m. Ex parte Communication: • Councilmember Murray spoke with Bret Fairbanks pursuant to his request as well as Ms. Jennings; • Councilmember Gavello toured facility yesterday and spoke with Mrs. Fairbanks; spoke with Mr. Fairbanks via phone previously • Councilmember Gomez met with Mr. Fairbanks; • Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen had two brief phone calls with Bret Fairbanks • Mayor Amante shared previously that he met with Bret Fairbanks The public hearing closed at 11:19 p.m. Recessed at 11:52 p.m. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 6 of 11 Reconvened at 11:53 p.m. Motion: It was moved by Councilmember Gavello and seconded by Councilmember Gomez that the City Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's December 14, 2010 determination that the two rear units at 520 Pacific Street were considered legal nonconforming structures/uses and ordered compliance with minimum Building Code requirements. Motion carried 4-1 (Mayor Amante dissenting) Mayor Amante directed staff to bring back a resolution for Council consideration reflecting the action. Mayor Amante directed staff to agendize for a future agenda a revision of the code to harmonize ambiguity identified; and to send staff to work with Mr. Fairbanks regarding health and safety issues. Recessed at 12:05 a.m. Reconvened at 12:12 a.m. 2. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1396 EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS On February 1, 2011, the City Council approved Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1392 to enact a temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of tattoo establishments within the City for a period of 45 days. Proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1396 is an urgency measure that would extend the effective term of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1392. The proposed extension ordinance would continue to prohibit the establishment or operation and the issuance of permits or any other entitlements for tattoo establishments pending the completion of a study analyzing potential Code amendments to establish land use regulations, development standards, and operational regulations necessary to protect the public health, welfare, or safety from impacts associated with or implicated by use of property for tattoo establishments. Following a noticed public hearing, the City Council may extend the original urgency ordinance for a period of ten months and fifteen days pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. The public hearing opened at 12:12 a.m. The public hearing closed at 12:13 a.m, with no comments. Motion: It was moved by Councilmember Gavello and seconded by Councilmember Murray that the City Council adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 7 of 11 No. 1396 by at least a four-fifths vote. Motion carried 5-0 ORDINANCE NO. 1396 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUSTIN FOR A PERIOD OF TEN MONTHS AND FIFTEEN DAYS PENDING A STUDY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. (4/5ths Vote Required) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS (3-6) It was moved by Councilmember Gavello and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen to pull consent item 6 and to approve the balance of the consent calendar items as recommended by staff. Motion carried 5-0 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD ON FEBRUARY 15, 2011 Recommendation: Approve the Action Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency held on February 15, 2011. 4. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $ 2,900,099.57 and Payroll in the amount of $ 667,081.70. 5. NOTICE OF DEFAULT — AFFORDABLE HOME LOCATED AT 14554 NEWPORT AVENUE #3 City Council direction is requested in order to cure a homeowner default under the City's Affordable Housing Program at the Arbor Walk development. Recommendation: It is recommended that: 1. At the City Council's pleasure, authorize the City Attorney to pursue the City's exercise of its right of redemption and/or option to purchase the moderate -income affordable housing unit at 14554 Newport Avenue #3, prior to expiration of the statutory default period (March 14, 2011) or any foreclosure sale of the subject property (on or about April 4, 2011), and also authorize the City Manager or Assistant City City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 8 of 11 Manager to execute any required documents, as may be necessary to implement such action as recommended by the City Attorney. 2. Authorize up to $380,000 from the recently approved Affordable Housing Default Revolving Fund to exercise either the amount of any Option Purchase Price required under the Affordable Housing Covenant Affordable Housing Option Agreement, or to exercise the City's right of redemption under the Reimbursement Agreement based on any direction from the City Council and the homeowner's response to the lender's Notice of Default and Election to Sell under the Deed of Trust. 6. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 11-14 APPROVING THE CITY OF TUSTIN EMERGENCY PLAN Pursuant to a grant from the Santa Ana -Anaheim Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program, staff has utilized the services of Willdan Homeland Solutions to develop a new all hazards plan to guide city response during a major emergency. The City's current all -hazards Emergency Plan was adopted in 2001 and has been rewritten to comply with current state and federal requirements. Approval of this plan by the City Council will also comply with a key accreditation standard for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Motion: It was moved by Councilmember Murray and seconded by Councilmember Gavello to adopt Resolution No. 11-14, approving the City of Tustin Emergency Plan and to agendize for discussion at the March 15, 2011 meeting. Motion carried 5-0 RESOLUTION NO. 11-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING THE CITY OF TUSTIN EMERGENCY PLAN REGULAR BUSINESS ITEMS (7-9) 7. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1395: RE SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY AND LOITERING RESTRICTIONS On November 7, 2006, California voters approved proposition 83, commonly referenced as "Jessica's Law." The initiative addressed a variety of topics related to registered sex offenders, and included a prohibition of sex offender residency within two thousand (2,000) feet of a park or school, and an express statement that cities have the power to adopt local ordinances that further restrict sex offender residency. The proposed ordinance would reflect the City's adoption of additional restrictions limiting sex offender residency, including hotel City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 9 of 11 occupancy, and a prohibition of loitering in identified child safety zones. Ordinance No. 1395 reflects changes to Ordinance No. 1390 which was heard but not adopted at the City Council's January 4, 2011 meeting. David Grant — Expressed concerns regarding map and potential impacts upon his residence Motion: It was moved by Councilmember Gavello and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen to have second reading by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 1395 (roll call vote). Motion carried 5-0 ORDINANCE NO. 1395 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING TUSTIN CITY CODE ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 12 RE SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY AND LOITERING RESTRICTIONS. 8. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE UPDATING CITY CODE TO REFLECT CURRENT CITY HOLIDAYS Adoption of the attached Ordinance will update the City Code to reflect the holidays currently observed by the City. Motion: It was moved by Councilmember Gavello and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen to have second reading by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 1394 (roll call vote). Motion carried 5-0 ORDINANCE NO. 1394 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1210 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATING TO CITY HOLIDAYS 9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT At this time, the City Council may take the opportunity to discuss current legislation of interest. None. Recessed to Closed Session at 12:27 a.m. (3/2/11) Reconvened at 1:18 a.m. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT — Council met in closed session and took the following actions: City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Page 10 of 11 • B. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: [Govt. Code § 54957] Under second bullet item, approved an extended leave of absence for an employee • E. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR [Govt. Code 54956.8] Under first bullet item, authorized a rental agreement with National Office Liquidators, terms of which will be included in the March 15 City Council agenda • A. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS [Government Code Section 54957.61; Gave instructions to staff regarding labor negotiations E. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR [Govt. Code 54956.8] Under third bullet item authorized staff to negotiate the items under discussion and provided staff with authority to negotiate and enter into appropriate agreements consistent with directions provided by the Council. ADJOURNED AT 1:20 a.m. Wednesday, March 2, 2011 — The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. for the Closed Session Meeting followed by the Regular Business Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Minutes Pagel 1 of 11 CITY OF TUSTIN JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY John Nielsen, Mayor Pro Tem Deborah Gavello, Councilmember Rebecca'Beckie" Gomez, Councilmember AI Murray, Councilmember MARCH 1, 2011 COUNCIL CHAMBER 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN David C. Biggs, City Manager Douglas Holland, City Attorney Jerry Amante, Mayor Pamela Stoker, City Clerk George Jeffries, City Treasurer CLOSED SESSION MEETING 5:30 P.M. �¢ �mo CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2257 ATTENDANCE PUBLIC INPUT — Members of the public may address the City Council on items on the Closed Session Agenda. CLOSED SESSION ITEMS - The Brown Act permits legislative bodies to discuss certain matters without members of the public present. The City Council finds, based on advice from the City Attorney, that discussion in open session of the following matters will prejudice the position of the City in existing and anticipated litigation: A. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS [Government Code Section 54957.6] Agency Negotiators: Kristi Recchia, Director of Human Resources and Peter Brown, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Employee Organization: Tustin Municipal Employees Association (TMEA) Employee Organization: Tustin Police Officers Association (TPOA) Employee Organization: Tustin Police Support Service Association (TPSSA) Employee Organization: Tustin Police Management Association (TPMA) Employee Organization: Part -Time Unrepresented Employees Employee Organization: Unrepresented Confidential Employees Employee Organization: Unrepresented Supervisory Employee Organization: Executive Management and Management B. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: [Govt. Code § 54957] —Two Cases • Performance evaluation of the City Manager NOTE: As required by Senate Bill 343, any non -confidential writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA during normal business hours. • Consideration of 60 -day unpaid leave of absence for employee C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION [Govt. Code § 54956.9(b)] — Two Cases D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - INITIATION OF LITIGATION [Govt. Code § 54956.9(c)] — Two Cases E. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR [Govt. Code 54956.8] — Three cases • Property Address/Description: Agency: City/Agency Negotiators: Negotiating Parties Under Negotiation: • Property Address/Description: Agency: City/Agency Negotiators Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiation Property Address/Description/ Negotiating Parties City Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting Agenda 28,000 square feet of building area on City property located at 15171 Del Amo, Tustin City of Tustin Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager with support from Chuck Noble at Lee & Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. Doug Green with Beitler Commercial Realty Services, TCN representing National Office Liquidators Price and Terms of Payment A portion of Lot 31, Block 12 of Irvine Subdivision Plan No. 1 of the Ranchos Santiago of Santa Ana and San Joaquin, in the City of Tustin City of Tustin Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, and Doug Stack, Director of Public Works Christopher Georgious, President, Tustin Red Hill Center, LLC Price and Terms of Payment Pablo & Silvia Hinojosa (2351 Fig Tree Dr.); Carolyn Doyle (2361 Fig Tree Dr.); Angela Zhang & Erik Canche (2362 Fig Tree Dr.); Joseph Gehley (2361 Basswood Circle); Frank & Shawna Barilla (2362 Basswood Circle); Michael & Linda O'Neil (2361 Sable Tree Circle); Donald & Tammis Berkheimer (2362 Sable Tree Circle); John Caamano (2361 Ana Tree Place); Jack & Janice Dukes (2362 Ana Tree Place); Julie Fralick (2361 Caper Tree Dr.); Richard & Barbara Schroer (2371 Caper Tree Dr.); James & Marsha Lindsey (2372 Caper Tree Dr.); March 1, 2011 Page 2 of 8 Agency: City/Agency Negotiators: Under Negotiation: Patrick & Vicki Crabb (2371 Silk Tree Dr.); Patricia De La Pena (2381 Silk Tree Dr.); Shaun & Linda Rusmisel (2372 Silk Tree Dr.); Daniel & Lisa Bright (2381 Coco Palm Dr.); Marlene Eich (2391 Coco Palm Dr.); Daniel & Susan Ellis (2382 Coco Palm Dr.); Weidong Wang & Xinxin Qiao (2381 Apple Tree Dr.); DeShaun, Albert & Cheryl Foster (2391 Apple Tree Dr.); Keechul Miles & Joy Park (2392 Apple Tree Dr.) Redevelopment Agency Ken Nishikawa and Doug Anderson Price and Terms of Payment JOINT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING 7:00 P.M. --As CALL TO ORDER — Meeting #2257 INVOCATION — Councilmember Gomez PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Councilmember Murray ROLL CALL — City Clerk CLOSED SESSION REPORT — City Attorney Douglas C. Holland PRESENTATIONS • SOCAL Water Polo ORAL COMMUNICATION/PUBLIC INPUT — At this time, any member of the public may address the City Council on matters which are listed on this agenda or under the jurisdiction of the City Council. If the item you wish to speak on is a public hearing item, you may wish to wait until the Council considers that item. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 8 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A public hearing provides individuals the opportunity to be heard regarding an intended action of the City Council related to land use or fees. (Agenda Items 1 and 2) APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - 520 PACIFIC STREET On September 16, 2010, it was determined that the structures/uses at 520 Pacific Street were inconsistent with the Zoning Code, substandard per the Building Code, and constituted a public nuisance. Specifically, two units and other structures had been added to a property originally developed with a single family residence/detached garage without complying with the City Code. On September 22, 2010, the property owner, Bret Fairbanks, appealed this determination to the Planning Commission. On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission determined that the two rear units at 520 Pacific Street were considered legal nonconforming structures/uses and ordered compliance with minimum Building Code requirements. On December 23, 2010, Mayor Jerry Amante appealed the Commission's actions and called for clarification of nonconforming uses/structures. The hearing before the City Council is de novo. The recommended action would overturn the Commission's action that granted the status of nonconformity to structures at 520 Pacific Street. If the City Council desires to uphold or modify the Commission's decision, a revised resolution with supporting findings would be necessary. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-15 determining that "nonconforming structures/uses" as set forth in the Tustin City Code means that such structures/uses were: lawfully erected, established; have been lawfully and continuously maintained without significant alteration; and, based on said determination order the cessation of the two dwelling units/guest houses and the correction of code violations of structures/uses for conformance with Tustin City Code at 520 Pacific Street. RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DETERMINING THAT "NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES/USES" AS SET FORTH IN THE TUSTIN CITY CODE MEANS THAT SUCH STRUCTURES/USES WERE: LAWFULLY ERECTED, ESTABLISHED; HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION; AND, BASED ON SAID DETERMINATION, ORDER THE CESSATION OF THE TWO DWELLING UNITS/GUEST HOUSES AND THE CORRECTION OF CODE VIOLATIONS OF STRUCTURES/USES FOR CONFORMANCE WITH TUSTIN CITY CODE AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 401-371-07) City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 4 of 8 2. INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1396 EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS On February 1, 2011, the City Council approved Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1392 to enact a temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of tattoo establishments within the City for a period of 45 days. Proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1396 is an urgency measure that would extend the effective term of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1392. The proposed extension ordinance would continue to prohibit the establishment or operation and the issuance of permits or any other entitlements for tattoo establishments pending the completion of a study analyzing potential Code amendments to establish land use regulations, development standards, and operational regulations necessary to protect the public health, welfare, or safety from impacts associated with or implicated by use of property for tattoo establishments. Following a noticed public hearing, the City Council may extend the original urgency ordinance for a period of ten months and fifteen days pursuant to Government Code Section 65858. Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 1396 by at least a four-fifths vote. ORDINANCE NO. 1396 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF TATTOO ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF TUSTIN FOR A PERIOD OF TEN MONTHS AND FIFTEEN DAYS PENDING A STUDY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. (4/5ths Vote Required) CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. Persons wishing to speak regarding Consent Calendar matters should file a 'Request to Speak" form with the City Clerk. (Agenda Items 3 through 6) 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — REGULAR MEETING OF JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD ON FEBRUARY 15, 2011 Recommendation: Approve the Action Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Joint City Council and Redevelopment Agency held on February 15, 2011. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 5 of 8 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $ 2,900,099.57 and Payroll in the amount of $ 667,081.70. 5. NOTICE OF DEFAULT — AFFORDABLE HOME LOCATED AT 14554 NEWPORT AVENUE #3 City Council direction is requested in order to cure a homeowner default under the City's Affordable Housing Program at the Arbor Walk development. Recommendation: It is recommended that: At the City Council's pleasure, authorize the City Attorney to pursue the City's exercise of its right of redemption and/or option to purchase the moderate -income affordable housing unit at 14554 Newport Avenue #3, prior to expiration of the statutory default period (March 14, 2011) or any foreclosure sale of the subject property (on or about April 4, 2011), and also authorize the City Manager or Assistant City Manager to execute any required documents, as may be necessary to implement such action as recommended by the City Attorney. 2. Authorize up to $380,000 from the recently approved Affordable Housing Default Revolving Fund to exercise either the amount of any Option Purchase Price required under the Affordable Housing Covenant Affordable Housing Option Agreement, or to exercise the City's right of redemption under the Reimbursement Agreement based on any direction from the City Council and the homeowner's response to the lender's Notice of Default and Election to Sell under the Deed of Trust. 6. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 11-14 APPROVING THE CITY OF TUSTIN EMERGENCY PLAN Pursuant to a grant from the Santa Ana -Anaheim Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program, staff has utilized the services of Willdan Homeland Solutions to develop a new all hazards plan to guide city response during a major emergency. The City's current all -hazards Emergency Plan was adopted in 2001 and has been rewritten to comply with current state and federal requirements. Approval of this plan by the City Council will also comply with a key accreditation standard for the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). Recommendation: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-14 approving the City of Tustin Emergency Plan. RESOLUTION NO. 11-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING THE CITY OF TUSTIN EMERGENCY PLAN City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 6 of 8 REGULAR BUSINESS ITEMS Matters listed under Regular Business are generally proposals for new legislation or items requiring discussion. (Agenda Items 8 through 9) SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1395: RE SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY AND LOITERING RESTRICTIONS On November 7, 2006, California voters approved proposition 83, commonly referenced as "Jessica's Law." The initiative addressed a variety of topics related to registered sex offenders, and included a prohibition of sex offender residency within two thousand (2,000) feet of a park or school, and an express statement that cities have the power to adopt local ordinances that further restrict sex offender residency. The proposed ordinance would reflect the City's adoption of additional restrictions limiting sex offender residency, including hotel occupancy, and a prohibition of loitering in identified child safety zones. Ordinance No. 1395 reflects changes to Ordinance No. 1390 which was heard but not adopted at the City Council's January 4, 2011 meeting. Recommendation: Have second reading by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 1395 (roll call vote). ORDINANCE NO. 1395 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING TUSTIN CITY CODE ARTICLE 5, CHAPTER 12 RE SEX OFFENDER RESIDENCY AND LOITERING RESTRICTIONS. 8. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE UPDATING CITY CODE TO REFLECT CURRENT CITY HOLIDAYS Adoption of the attached Ordinance will update the City Code to reflect the holidays currently observed by the City. Recommendation: Have second reading by title only and adoption of Ordinance No. 1394 (roll call vote). ORDINANCE NO. 1394 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1210 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATING TO CITY HOLIDAYS 9. LEGISLATIVE REPORT At this time, the City Council may take the opportunity to discuss current legislation of interest. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 7 of 8 OTHER BUSINESS/COMMITTEE REPORTS — City Manager, City Attorney, City Council ADJOURNMENT— The next regular meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 15, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. for the Closed Session Meeting followed by the Regular Business Meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. City Council/Redevelopment Agency March 1, 2011 Meeting Agenda Page 8 of 8 it 0 Agenda Item 1 AGENDA REPORT Reviewed: Finance Director MEETING DATE: MARCH 1, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS VIA: DAVID C. BIGGS, CITY MANAGER FROM: ELIZABETH BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION - 520 PACIFIC ST. SUMMARY On September 16, 2010, it was determined that the structures/uses at 520 Pacific Street were inconsistent with the Zoning Code, substandard per the Building Code, and constituted a public nuisance. Specifically, two units and other structures had been added to a property originally developed with a single family residence/detached garage without complying with the City Code. On September 22, 2010, the property owner, Bret Fairbanks, appealed this determination to the Planning Commission. On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission determined that the two rear units at 520 Pacific Street were considered legal nonconforming structures/uses and ordered compliance with minimum Building Code requirements. On December 23, 2010, Mayor Jerry Amante appealed the Commission's actions and called for clarification of nonconforming uses/structures. The hearing before the City Council is de novo. The recommended action would overturn the Commission's action that granted the status of nonconformity to structures at 520 Pacific Street. If the City Council desires to uphold or modify the Commission's decision, a revised resolution with supporting findings would be necessary. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No.11-15 determining that "nonconforming structures/uses" as set forth in the Tustin City Code means that such structures/uses were: lawfully erected, established; have been lawfully and continuously maintained without significant alteration; and, based on said determination order the cessation of the two dwelling units/guest houses and the correction of code violations of structures/uses for conformance with Tustin City Code at 520 Pacific Street. City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Costs are estimates. To date, the City has incurred expenditures related to four public hearings in the amount of $9,500.00. No costs or estimates have been included for the informal meetings with the property owner. No application or appeal fees have been paid. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In summary, the appeal hearing before the City Council presents the following issues and questions for consideration. Review by the City Council has been necessitated because the Mayor has filed an appeal per TCC Section 9294. The appeal concludes that allowing illegally/unlawfully established uses/structures to be granted the status of nonconformity, the Commission's decision departed from several years of application and contrary to Tustin City Code provisions in that: (1) uses/structures must be lawfully/legally established and not contrary to any applicable laws; (2) that if laws are changed and nonconforming status does apply, the status only applies to legally/lawfully established uses/structures; and, (3) if a use/structure has been given nonconforming status, then that use must be continuously maintained without significant alteration. (4) The recommended action is based on none of the provisions in (1), (2), or (3) applying to 520 Pacific Street. Accordingly, review and determination is necessary to secure uniformity of application and decisions of the City's Code and standards. The matters focused in the report are issues of Citywide concern because the decisions directly impact how unlawful uses/structures, non -permitted or unlawful construction, and nonconforming structures are addressed and will clarify the responsibilities of owners. Lending institutions lend, insurance companies insure, and property owners purchase their homes knowing intrinsically that certain uses are permitted or not on a given property and surrounding properties. Traditionally illegal/unlawful uses have not granted immunity in the present and future. Allowing illegal/unlawful violations to continue gives no consideration to the interest of the public or to the public policy in favor of eliminating nonconforming uses and against expansion of such uses. a BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The report summarizes: the chronology of events; issues associated with the City Council appeal; the nonconforming structures and uses provision/interpretation; nonconforming status as it applies to 520 Pacific Street; and continuance/alteration of nonconforming structures/uses. City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 3 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS Zoning Confirmation Letter: On July 27, 2010, property owner, Bret Fairbanks, initiated contact by sending a written request indicating that they were selling their home and the buyers' lender wanted a letter from the City stating that, in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, the City would allow the (two) guest homes at the rear of their single family home to be rebuilt (Attachment 1). City staff sent a response letter to Mr. Fairbanks on August 4, 2010, clarifying that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) wherein a guest house would be permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); could not contain kitchen or cooking facilities; and, could not be rented. The letter indicated that there were no permits for guest houses at the property nor was a CUP approved to establish such use. Furthermore, consistent with Section 9273(c), in part, states that 'A nonconforming building destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located," the letter clarified that the provisions for reconstruction of a nonconforming building did not apply to structures or additions which have been illegally constructed or constructed without the benefit of permits (Attachment 2). Notice and Order and Property Owner Appeal: On September 10, 2010, City representatives conducted an on-site assessment with the property owners and made visual observations which revealed several modifications/additions and substandard living conditions (reference Table 1 of Attachment 7 City Council Resolution No. 11-15). A Notice and Order was filed on the property which directed the property owner to obtain the necessary permits and/or remove the nuisance conditions. Mr. Fairbanks then appealed the determination to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3). Planning Commission Action: On December 14, 2010, the Commission (acting as Commission on Zoning Code issues and Board of Appeals for Building Code violations) considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. During the deliberation, an opinion was rendered that based on provisions in the Ordinance, uses/structures existing prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 157 (Nov. 6. 1961) could continue to exist regardless of any legal and/or illegal establishment. Based on this interpretation, the Commission determined that there was evidence substantiating that the two units are nonconforming uses/structures and may remain; and also directed compliance with the Building Code. The Commission's resolutions (Nos. 4161 and 4162) and staff reports (October 26, November 9, and December 14, 2010) are provided in part in Attachment 4. Appeal of Planning Commission Action: On December 23, 2010, Mayor Jerry Amante appealed the Commission's action per TCC Section 9294c regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street (Attachment 5). The general reasons noted in the appeal are as follows: City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 4 A. 7 do not concur with the determination of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4162 approving existing uses at 520 Pacific Street as nonconforming uses for the reason that it appears to me that the alleged nonconforming uses are not legal uses or permitted buildings and/or structures. B. The actions taken under Resolution No. 4161 with regard to the Building Code Violations ought, therefore, to be abrogated by virtue of the fact that the uses that are identified in Resolution No. 4162 as "nonconforming" are actually illegal and were not permitted. This view, however, in no way relieves the property owner of his obligation to comply with the various building code violations. C. There is, in my view, a need for a discussion to clarify that the Tustin City Code ("Code') requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code." ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL APPEAL The hearing before the City Council is de novo. The first issue that should be resolved is whether building structures/uses must have been legally established to be nonconforming. Following the Council's determination of "nonconforming structure/uses," the Council should then make a determination if nonconforming status may be afforded and how the nonconforming provisions would apply to the structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street. The Nonconforming Structures and Uses Provision/Interpretation The appeal requests clarification of the Tustin City Code as to whether nonconforming uses/structures need to be legally established and to clarify the intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming structures/uses. A matrix showing the history of the TCC sections relating to nonconforming structures/uses; establishing uses/occupancy; the applicable interpretation and enforcement that have been adopted since incorporation in 1927; and, the full ordinances are attached for reference (Attachment 6). The 1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1940 UBC, and every Building Code adopted thereafter, required lawful establishment of structures and uses. (See Attachment 6) The 1947 Zoning Code (Ord. 47), various provisions of the 1961 Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157), and the current Zoning Code require the lawful establishment of uses and structures. Various provisions of all Zoning Ordinances considered use of land, alterations, modifications, etc. operated and maintained contrary to the Zoning Code to be considered public nuisances. City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 5 It was not until 1961 in Ord. No. 157 that in "definition" of nonconforming use was the word "lawfully" left out. (Section 6.1) This provided the basis for the opinion and the Commission's determination and calls into question whether or not a structure/use that was unlawful could be considered "established" and enjoys the rights of nonconformity. As applied to the point of the Commission's decision in 2010, both uses/structures had be lawfully/legally established and not contrary to any applicable laws; that if laws are changed and nonconforming status does apply, the status only applies to legally/lawfully established uses/structures; and, if the use/structure has been give nonconforming status, then that use must be continuously maintained without significant alteration. None of the foregoing applies to 520 Pacific Street. Nonconforming as It Aoulies to 520 Pacific Street Mr. Fairbanks has indicated that both units on the property existed at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Code and they were used and maintained as dwelling units separate from the main house; therefore, should be considered nonconforming structures (Attachment 7). As noted above, the uses and structures could not have been lawfully established (per the (deed) Notice of Completion), the adopted Building Codes; no rental units were ever allowed per the Building or Zoning Code; and there is no evidence that any of the foregoing have been continually/legally maintained. However, evidence indicates that there have been multiple additions, alterations, repairs, and construction done to the structures and the occupancy of which has changed from a single family use to what is essentially a multifamily complex, none of which are in conformance with the Building and Zoning Code requirements. 520 Pacific Street Site Description The property at 520 Pacific Street is within the Single Family Residential District (R-1) which allows accessory buildings and second residential units (subject to specific site development standards; i.e. minimum 12,000 sq. ft. building site; must provide two additional garage parking spaces; etc.). Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and are subject to specific site development and use restrictions (i.e. no cooking facilities; they shall not be rented). The lot size of the property at 520 Pacific Street is approximately 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre) and contains the following structures: 1 Single story main house (1,342 sq. ft.) which is attached via a carport to the two- story garage 2 Two-story garage (16'5" x 18') with a studio apartment (309 sq. ft.) above 3 Third unit (325 sq. ft.) located at ground level to the rear (west) of the garage 4 Detached storage/recreation room (298 sq. ft.) located directly behind the main house along the north property line City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 6 - Small detached storage unit located along the rear west property line (approx. 150 sq. ft.) (not to scale on plan) 6 Covered parking structure (which is attached to the main house and the garage) (Numbers correspond to site plan below) 2TIV / / 47 SITE PLAN NTS Historical Background: The City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927. The property at 520 Pacific Street is located within the original City boundaries and was built in 1929 and a Notice of Completion and deed restriction were recorded on the property. It noted that no buildings shall be erected except a "dwelling house and garage" (Attachment 8a). The first published building code, the 1927 edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. The next building code adopted was the 1940 UBC (adopted July 20, 1942). Neither the 1927 nor the 1940 UBC editions would have allowed a change in use or the character of the occupancy if the building was not conforming to requirements of the code, "buildings in existence at the time of passage of this code may have their existing use or occupancy continued if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the passage of this code, provided such continued use is not is not dangerous to lifeto life." (Attachment 8b enumerates the deficiencies). The 1947 and 1961 Zoning Codes set forth site development standards and limited uses permitted on a Single Family Residential property which was designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. Guest houses could be permitted "for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling." In 1961 an update to the Zoning Codes added requirements for a "second residential unit" which differed from a guest unit, permitted kitchen facilities for more permanent tenancy, and could be rented. However, the second residential unit was only permitted if ' 5 = ~ kEISIL ➢e synW u¢ f \ I v. ar-;wmv,n.a n. ♦ MAIN / T / RESIDENCE MI xILYVI Ill• Y .dew„ ti OYIM1,If \ / ID / Iv lb / II'Jr' / ini uaov rr. to lulkwk• "m[k¢ SITE PLAN NTS Historical Background: The City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927. The property at 520 Pacific Street is located within the original City boundaries and was built in 1929 and a Notice of Completion and deed restriction were recorded on the property. It noted that no buildings shall be erected except a "dwelling house and garage" (Attachment 8a). The first published building code, the 1927 edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. The next building code adopted was the 1940 UBC (adopted July 20, 1942). Neither the 1927 nor the 1940 UBC editions would have allowed a change in use or the character of the occupancy if the building was not conforming to requirements of the code, "buildings in existence at the time of passage of this code may have their existing use or occupancy continued if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the passage of this code, provided such continued use is not is not dangerous to lifeto life." (Attachment 8b enumerates the deficiencies). The 1947 and 1961 Zoning Codes set forth site development standards and limited uses permitted on a Single Family Residential property which was designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. Guest houses could be permitted "for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling." In 1961 an update to the Zoning Codes added requirements for a "second residential unit" which differed from a guest unit, permitted kitchen facilities for more permanent tenancy, and could be rented. However, the second residential unit was only permitted if City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 7 the property is 12,000 square feet and an additional garage space is provided, both of which were not applicable at 520 Pacific Street. A "guest house" still requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (Attachment 8c). The prior and current zoning code would not allow for apartment/multifamily use in an R-1 zone. This means three (3) families living independently. This is the use that has been established at 520 Pacific without meeting any of the zoning standards or minimum building standards. Specifically, as to 520 Pacific Street, there is evidence that the owner (between 1938- 42) converted the premises so that the area over the garage was used for living quarters and living area was added to the rear (1945-50) for use by family members which was accessory to and used in conjunction with the main house. Sometime thereafter, kitchens were added and units rented. These actions were contrary to the City's Building Codes and Zoning Codes. We also know that additional work has been done by the current property owner (i.e. fire walls removed, gas lines installed, furnaces installed, Romex electrical wiring installed without required permits). During the on-site assessment of the property that was conducted by City staff and the property owners, several substandard conditions and code violations were noted to exist in violation of the Tustin City Code. Many of the substandard conditions are in violation of the 1927 Uniform Building Code and every Building Code and Zoning Code adopted thereafter. A summary of the zoning/building code violations are as follows and can also be found in Table 1 of Resolution No. 11-15: • The use of the property as a triplex (with three units) changes the building occupancy from single family residential to multiple family use • Setbacks to property lines and separation between structures have not been maintained • Pursuant to the zoning code, the property does not have sufficient lot size to accommodate a second or third unit (Requires min. 12,000 sq. ft. lot) • Kitchen cooking facilities are not permitted in a guest unit yet both of the rear units contain cooking facilities, including the installation of non -permitted gas and electrical lines • A guest unit(s) requires a five foot setback to property line. There are several issues associated with the location of the staircase to the upstairs unit; this primary (and only) stairway to the upstairs unit restricts ingress/egress in case of fire or other emergency and the staircase is built over the property line • It could not be determined if footing/foundations exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures • No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance with one hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants • The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the property line do not City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 8 comply with fire protection requirements • Furnace installed without required permits; does not meet clearance requirements; and creates a fire hazard • Exposed electrical next to unpermitted furnace which causes potential fire hazard • Shower added on to original structure. This requires a building permit to add additional square footage (pop -out) and permits for plumbing, and waterproofing • The railing on stairway to the second unit has no intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a falling hazard. Given that the structure at this location is constructed over the property line, a person that may fall through could fall onto the adjacent property Third Party Survey and Evaluation A third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. was commissioned by staff to assist in determining when the structures were constructed and established. The report indicated that "The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport, and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950s or early 1960s. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit." (Attachment 8c) Property Owner Submittal Documents Mr. Fairbanks has provided several documents and the following in support of his request which is to determine that the uses and structures are nonconforming and could be constructed and/or reconstructed regardless of occurrence. In a letter dated October 25, 2010 from Mr. Robert S. Gaylord, previous owner of the property, which indicated that his father built the house, garage, and the apartment above the garage and provided timeline of when the structures were built. In summary, the following are timelines based upon the historical survey report and letter from Mr. Gaylord: The main house (original construction) was built in 1929 The unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942 The unit behind the garage was built roughly between 1945 and 1950 Mr. Fairbanks indicated in his testimony and his letter to the Planning Commission that the two units existed on the property for over 60 years and that the California Historical Building Code should be applicable to these structures.' Mr. Fairbanks submitted several documents to the Planning Commission. These documents are attached hereto for City Council consideration in Attachment 7. City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 9 CONTINUANCE/ALTERATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES/USES If a determination is made that the structures/uses at 520 Pacific Street are nonconforming, then they must be continually maintained (Sec. 9273a) and to enjoy the rights of nonconformity a property owner must furnish a statement under oath setting forth a detailed description of such uses and that the uses have not been enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered unless set forth in compliance with the district (Sec. 9273b.) The City requested such a declaration on December 2, and on December 27, 2010. The owner has indicated that he has made several modifications to the buildings. The extent of these modifications is unknown. He has declined to sign the declarations. Further, per Section 9273b, repairs, alterations, etc. cannot exceed fifty (50) percent of the building's assessed valuation. Given the nature and extent of the substandard conditions summarized in Attachment 8b, (i.e. changes to correct adequate fire protection, hazardous and improper electrical wiring; substandard structural conditions; hazardous, substandard mechanical conditions, inadequate exits and other basic codes) improvements that would be necessary would likely exceed 50 percent of the buildings assessed valuation, nonconformity would no longer be enjoyed, and current standards need to be met. CONCLUSION If the City Council determines that "nonconforming structures/uses" as set forth in the Tustin City Code means that such structure and/or use was lawfully erected, established, and has been lawfully and continuously maintained, but which no longer conforms to the regulations and requirements of the zoning district, then the Council should adopt Resolution No. 11-15 which clarifies the intent of the code and orders the correction of code violations of structures/uses for conformance with Tustin City Code. A time should also be set for conformance to this order. If an alternative determination is made, a revised resolution with findings would be necessary. Approved for Forwarding By: Elizabeth Binsack David C. Biggs Community Development Director City Manager City Council Report Appeal of Planning Commission Decision — 520 Pacific March 1, 2011 Page 10 Attachments: 1. July 27, 2010, letter from Bret Fairbanks 2. August 4, 2010, response zoning confirmation letter 3. Notice and Order/Fairbanks' Appeal letter 4. Planning Commission materials a. PC Resolution No. 4161 b. PC Resolution No. 4162 c. December 10, 2010 PC Staff Report d. November 9, 2010 PC Staff Report e. October 26, 2010 PC Staff Report 5. December 23, 2010, appeal from Mayor Amante 6. Tustin City Zoning and Building Code 1 a. Timeline Matrix of Zoning Code Ordinances b. Applicable UBC Sections (1927, 1940) c. 1947 First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. adopted 4/7/47) d. 1961 Zoning Code (Ord. 157 adopted 11/6/61) e. 1989 Zoning Code amendment regarding nonconforming properties ROW acquisition (Ord. 1013 adopted 1/3/89) f. Current Zoning Code Section 9273 7. Property owner document submittals 8. Draft CC Resolution No. 11-15 a. January 7, 1929, Notice of Completion and Deed Restriction b. Table One: Code Compliance Issues c. Third Party survey and evaluation provided by John C. Loomis of Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. d. March 1, 2011, Staff Report to the City Council 9. February 23, 2011, letter from Deborah M. Rosenthal for Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (received after completion of staff report) S:\Cdd\CCREPORT\2011\EB520 Pacific City Council appeal (6).docx ' Added in the 1940 UBC. Text was identical in the 1927 and the 1940 UBC with the exception of the underlined. Note: the California Historical Building Code permits the Building Official to accept historic code compliance as meeting code requirements. However, the CHBC does not allow hazards to exist. ATTACHMENT 1 CC Report March 1, 2011 July 27, 2010, letter from Bret Fairbanks July 27, 2010 City of Tustin Community Development Department Justin Wilkom, Principal Planner Dear Ms. W ilkom, My name is Bret Fairbanks and I am the owner of the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780. We are currently selling our home and are in escrow. Our property has a single family residence in front with 2 guest homes in the back. According to the attached county records we have 2 addresses 520 and 520 %_, we have and pay for 2 separate electric meters, and have various city permits for improvements we have done on the home since we purchased it in 2000. The buyers lender is requiring a letter from the city stating in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, the city would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. Attached are documents from the county tax assessors office showing the guest houses have been here long before we purchased the property. Thank you for your time and consideration. This letter is all we need to close escrow. If there is anything I could do to help speed up this process please let me know. Bret Fairbanks C.P. (949) 9334886 Original Attachments Not Attached Hereto (available on City archive documents) ATTACHMENT 2 CC Report March 1, 2011 August 4, 2010, response zoning confirmation letter Community Development Department August 4, 2010 Brett Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92700 TUSTIN SUBJECT: ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mr. Fairbanks: BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for your letter, received July 27, 2010, requesting zoning confirmation for the property located at 520 Pacific Street. In your letter, you indicated that the property has a single family residence In the front with two guest homes in the back. You have also included copies of tax assessor information related to your property for the City's review. In the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, you inquired 0 the City would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. The subject property Is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district, provided that no cooking fadiftles are installed or maintained. A guest house Is defined In the Tustin City Code as detached living quarters of a permanent type of construction and without kitchens or cooking facilities and where no compensation in any form is received or paid. No permits exist for guest houses at the subject property and no conditional use permit is on file to establish guest houses at the subject property. In your letter you Indicated that there are two addresses at the subject property, 520 and 520 A Pacific Street. The City has not assigned a 14 address to the subject property. Pursuant to TuErfln City Code Section 9273(c), "A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of Its reasonable value at the time of Its destruction by fire, explosion or othercasualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located." The provisions for reconstruction of a nonconforming building does ret apply to structures or additions which have been Illegally constructed or constructed without the benefit of permits. Should you wish to establish guest houses at the subject property, approval of conditional use permits and obtaining necessary building permits would be required. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 573123. /Sincerely, FyahSwiontek Associate Planner Attachments: A. Singie Famlty Residential (R•t) standards B. Cultural Resources District (CR) standards C. Guest House Definition 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustit a.org ATTACHMENT CC Report March 1, 2011 Notice and Order/Fairbanks' Appeal letter 11 Community Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pack Street Tustin, CA 927804329 NOTICE AND ORDEMPRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address: 520 Pacific Street Assessor Parcel Number. 401-371-07 Case Number: V10-0312 Dear Mr. Fairbanks, TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for -meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage, all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code Is a public nuisance. Therefore, please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday, October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. . 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 0 w .tustinca.org Nabce arM Order N 520 Pacft Street September 10, 2010 Cap a V10.0312 Page 2 M 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpernitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining penults, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material Involved In public nuisanoes shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincerely; Bred Ste'�e�{In(, Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: ExhibitA —Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Department TU S T I N EXHIBIT A Administrative Citation Process BUILDING OUR FILMMM HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Cods (TCC) 1192(d), fines may be assessed by mew of an adminlabad citation w follows: $100.00 for a NO violation; 5200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $900.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within ons yew of the frac violation} BuIkkV and Safety Coda (TCC Seo. 9100 — 809) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a flat violation; 5900.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within ons yew of on frac violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one yew of the fret violation. The City. may also talo further legal action Including Issuing the responsible persons) a criminal citation andfor abWJIV the vMation(s) with the cost of such abatement a"or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as a filen. Should on adminlstratiw citation be Issued, the responsible parson has Oen (10) dep from the dab of the administrative citation to pay the correspondkV fk*U)• Additionally. the responsible person must take one of the following actlom to avoid additional persNka prior to the compliance data specified In the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation. pay the conespom ft Me(s), and contact the City to request a re - Inspection, or 2) Pay the correspondkg flne(s) and request an extension of Urns In wftV pursuant to TCC 11fl9(b), which stows a reasonable hardehfp; or 3) Request a hearrg to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1190 err &M ion (10) days from the dab of the admk*ftdw citation, together with an advanced depoelt of the ecrrespondift flrs(s). Request for Hearing fors and other Information on Administrative Citations may be obtained on the City's webers at wwwg- 300 Centennial Way, Turin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 0 F:(714)573-3113 0 www.turlinca.org naa.,a are.. 520 Prlk ShM SNIwMM 16, 2010 CSN / Vt0�012 f ) Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Paciric Street 2007 California Building Cods A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who Intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Comer lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. 1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Tustin AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Tustin City Clerk's Office 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 K RECORDING FEES EXEMPT PER GCS 0103 Space Above This Um Wr Rewrdera Use NOTICE AND ORDER DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CERTIFICATE California State Government Code 38773.5(e) and Tustin City Code 5503(c) Pursuant to the provisions of the California State Subdivision Map Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that the following described property, situated in the County of Orange, State of California, is currently being maintained in a public nuisance condition and the owner has been notified. Deed Recorded: 01/03/2005 / 12/27/2004 (Sale Date), Document # 2609 and 2610 Tract* 737 Map Reference (Map/Pg/Grid): 23-E2 / 830-A3 Name of Owner or fee interest in property: Bret S. Fairbanks Description of real property: 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 Parcel #: 401-371-07 Dated: September 16, 2010 Local Agency Official: Bradford William Steen Code Enforcement Officer City Case #: V10-0312 (714) 573-3135 Signature:WVA. Fee for RewNing exempt per Gw. Coda 8103 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Orange ) On 4-2?-`�� - /( Wdn before me, Marilyn A. Harris, Notary Public f (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared who proved to me on the 67asis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(* is/ara subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sheAhey executed the same in hisAwr/ttwir authorized capacityfies), and that by his✓beritheir signatures} on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(* acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature./Q (Seal) MARflYN A.NARRig CommWroa r 1780761 i r ry fuotlo - Callromla Ofange County HN 17. 201 1 September 22, 2010 RECEIVED Brad Steen, Code Enforcement officer SEP 23 2010 Community Development Department City of Tustin COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Letter of Appeal for: Notice and Order/ Pre -Citation Notice Declaration of Public Nuisance Address: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780 Assessor parcel number: 401-371-07 Case Number: VIO-0312 Dear Mr. Steen, This letter is to appeal and request consideration on the recent notice I received regarding unpermitted units. The code violation reads any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, after, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or, to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. I have no intentions of rebuilding or reconstructing any portion of the said structures. I purchased the home over 10 years ago and the structures already existed when I purchased the property. I have provided evidence to show that the structures have existed for over 50 years. I understand the city has no permits of the structures on my property but that is true for most homes built in old town prior to 1950. Most if not all of the homes would be in violation and considered a public nuisance. With regards to the other violations regarding conditional use permits and lot lines, I am not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to issuing of conditional use permits and the first zoning ordinance of Tustin. In response the letter, it is my intent to apply for a conditional use permit and progress accordingly however I do not feel I have violated any code and am not in any way a public nuisance. Sincerely, l Bret Fairbanks ATTACHMENT 4 CC Report March 1, 2011 Planning Commission materials a. PC Resolution No. 4161 b. PC Resolution No. 4162 c. December 10, 2010 PC Staff Report d. November 9, 2010 PC Staff Report e. October 26, 2010 PC Staff Report ATTACHMENT 4 CC Report March 1, 2011 Planning Commission materials a. PC Resolution No. 4161 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, MODIFYING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the structures that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice of recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street to Mr. Fairbanks. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Director of Community Development or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pack Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 G. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010 meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal. However, the correction measures discussed were not acceptable to the appellant; That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961, of which only the Zoning Code matters were affected; J. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and heard testimony from the appellant; K. That, pursuant to Section 112 Board of Appeals of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, the hearing was held to consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; the provision of such code does not fully apply; or, an equally good or better form of construction is proposed; L. That, pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, shall not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code or to waive requirements of such code. Further, the hearing shall be de novo and the Board of Appeals may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter in accordance with the Tustin City Code or remand the matter to the Community Development Director or the Zoning Administrator for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the Board of Appeals; M. That, on October 26, 2010, November 9, 2010, and December 14, 2010, the Board of Appeals considered evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance condition exists at the subject property due to the present violations of the following Building Code section: Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 California Building Code A105.1 (adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. (Prior staff reports and attachments are attached hereto in Exhibit A) N. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; 0. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010, and provided hereto in Exhibit A; P. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; and Q. That the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that concluded that there were several nonconforming additions and Building Code violations. (Shown in Exhibit A). II. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby modifies the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance: A. The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010, and attached hereto in Exhibit B, to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by the Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved. Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of December, 2010. Steve oak Chairperson Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Y. Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Board of Appeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4161 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. C Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Building Official Original Attachments Not Attached Hereto (available on City archive documents) Original Attachments Not Attached Hereto (available on City archive documents) ATTACHMENT 4 CC Report March 1, 2011 Planning Commission materials b. PC Resolution No. 4162 RESOLUTION NO. 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two livable units located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Community Development Director or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; _. That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed; Resolution No. 4162 Page 2 G. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; H. That the appellant requested consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; J. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission acted in its capacity as the appeal hearing body to consider the appeal of the decisions of the Community Development Director, K. That on October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pack Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010, meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal; L. That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961 (Report attached hereto in Exhibit C); M. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; N. That on April 7, 1947, the City of Tustin adopted the First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 71) in which a guest house was defined as "Living quarters within a detached accessory building located on the same premesis as the main building for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling.'; Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 O. That on November 6, 1961, the City of Tustin adopted a new Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157) which required that a guest house was subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that no cooking facilities were permitted. It also established second unit standards which allowed a kitchen subject to a Conditional Use Permit and minimum site standards. Said Ordinance also set forth the definition of nonconforming uses; P. That Tustin City Code Sec. 9273b for nonconforming structures and uses specifies that "Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin." The Community Development Department of the City of Tustin may send, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, of any nonconforming building or structure, or of any property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of said use. Said statement shall be filed with the Community Development Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. Upon any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations of the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure."; Q. That there is evidence substantiating that the unit above the garage located behind the main house and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage were constructed prior to November 6, 1961, including the following and attached hereto: The Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that "At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear" (Attachment 1 of Exhibit B). Resolution No. 4162 Page 4 ii. There is evidence that 520 and 520'/: existed as shown on the Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952 (Attachment 2 of Exhibit B). iii. The son of the original owner, Robert Stephen Gaylord, provided a signed statement indicating that "the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942". Said letter stated that "the unit behind the garage was built by [his] father [George T. Gaylord) between 1945 and 1950". The letter further states that this unit, including two rooms and a bathroom, were built by George Gaylord for Robert and his brother to occupy. Mr. Gaylord's letter further indicated that "the rooms were made available to others" of which the only person he remembered was Ms. Grennan who was a caretaker for his parents until they sold the house sometime after 1978. (Attachment 3 of Exhibit B). iv. The on-site assessment by City staff on September 10, 2010, revealed that the upper unit was being utilized as a second residential unit with cooking facilities and the unit including two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage was utilized as a second residential unit. (Attachment 4 of Exhibit B). V. The property owner(s)/appellant has testified at the public hearings and shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) R. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered said evidence at a public hearing; and S. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the appeal is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines. II. Therefore, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street as attached hereto in Exhibit A: A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. B. The unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. Resolution No. 4162 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of December, 2010. T ZAK Chairp6Kon ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4162 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 520 PACIFIC STREET RESOLUTION NO. 4162 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The existing nonconforming structures and uses shall substantially conform with the findings set forth in Resolution Nos. 4162 and 4161 and are hereby limited to the Conditions of Approval in accordance with this Exhibit. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with, as specified, or prior to, the issuance of any building, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical permit for the subject property. 1.3 Determination of nonconforming structures and uses is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing and returning to the Community Development Department the following: a) A notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form within ten (10) days of the date of Planning Commission determination. b) The property owner(s)/appellant shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) Original Attachments Not Attached Hereto (available on City archive documents) ATTACHMENT 4 CC Report March 1, 2011 Planning Commission materials c. December 14, 2010, PC Staff Report ITEM #5 APPEAL HEARING A,,. L.NDA. REPORT MFL-IING DATE: >>ECEMBER 14,'1-010 ): III,ANNING COMMISSION °OARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: CONTINUED APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 26, 2010 AND NOVEMBER 9, 2010) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street (Tustin City Code Section 5503). The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-37'1-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission may consider the appeal of the Notice and Order acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations and as the appeal hearing body for Zoning Code violations. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. However, these correction measures were not acceptable to the appellant. On November ci, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the continued appeai of the Notice and Order then directed staff to prepare resolutions with upportinj dcctanent�, and findings to determine that the use can Lie considered as nonconforming arrc, also directed the appellant to schedule an inspection, to determine and t:ubsequu:14i,• cjmpIv with applicable building codes Appeal 520 Pacific it, -eat r'rr, T1,3 resolution (I'esoinlion Noy. 4161 and 4162) are attached hereto in Attachment A a •,r, Attachnlenti. Pursuant to T;IC Ser,. 9273(b) the property owners must provide a statement, under oath, on a fon7s •,tub-nnitted for :":aid purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming Structures and uses. On December 2, 2010, a Declaration of Nonconforming Structures and Uses which was reviewed by the City Attorney, was provided to Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks for notarized signature. To date, the document (as attached in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4162 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1) has not been signed. RECOMMENDATION That the Plann!rg Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution No. 4161 Affirming the Notice and Order for Building Code violations and adopt Resolution No. 4162 (as revised) affirming nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses at the property at 520 Pacific, Street. Amy Thomas, AIC!' Senior Planner Y,, Henry Huang, P:C-i.. C.B.O. Ruilding Official Elizabeth A. Binsack Cornnurnity Devs!opmerit Director ",l!acbiner�ts: A. PC Resoit!tion No 4161 13. PC Refio: .:(A- V0. 41132' .,. is tltl11`UN15Pi'•WT•; :: r. i:' �`.gritm"91f:3ib...'r:i�a.':. ilOf�iM1:u2il (reG:. Original Attachments Not Attached Hereto (available on City archive documents) ATTACHMENT 4 CC Report March 1, 2011 Planning Commission materials d. November 9, 2010 PC Staff Report ITEM #2 G`�1j�°•n APPEAL HEARING AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 26, 2010) SUMMARY: On September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street (Tustin City Code Section 5503). The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code. The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as the Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations and as the appeal hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. These correction measures however were not acceptable to the appellant. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION City staff is recommending that the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) affirm the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On September 16, 2010, staff issued a Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street based upon significant substandard building conditions which violate the City's Building Codes. On September 23, 2010, the current property owner, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Notice and Order in their role as Board of Appeals and the appeal hearing body. A memo was provided to the Planning Commission to clarify the Commission's roles as the Board of Appeals and the appeal hearing body in considering the appeal of the Building and Zoning Code respectively. The memo outlined the limited scope of what may be considered with this appeal. At the October 26, 2010, meeting Mr. Fairbanks submitted a letter related to the appeal and included the following general questions/comments/concerns: • When does the City recognize the units were built? • How the City determines if a structure can remain if it has no permits • If the City would consider a structure legal if it is deemed historical on the survey and has no permits. • Both units on the property existed at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Code and should be considered non -conforming structures After testimony by Mr. Fairbanks and the public, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals continued the matter to provide staff an opportunity to meet with the appellant and provide additional information. This report discusses the following topical items. The prior Planning Commission report is also included as Attachment D for detailed and comprehensive analysis of the appeal. A. A brief description of the composition and purpose of the Board of Appeals and of the Planning Commission as the appeal hearing body: B. Building Code and Zoning Code Violations C. How the City determines if a structure can remain if it has no permits D. Densification of Old Town Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 3 Composition and Purpose of the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission as the Appeal Hearing Body Board of Appeals The Board of Appeals may consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules adopted there under have been: • Incorrectly interpreted or • If the provision of such code does not fully apply. However, the Board of Appeals shall not have authority to: Interpret the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code; nor to Waive requirements of the Tustin Building Code. After consideration of the appeal and the evidence provided, the Board of Appeals shall make a determination and issue an order either: A. Affirming, B. Reversing, or C. Modifying the Notice and Order. The Building Codes are legal instruments governing the construction, use, and maintenance of buildings and structures. These codes contain certain provisions which allow some discretion but other requirements of the code must be followed to the letter. Granting relief from code requirements would constitute an exception, which is not within the scope of authority of the Board of Appeals. For this appeal, the Board should consider, based on evidence, whether a violation of Building Code section A105.1 exists at the subject property or whether the code section was either incorrectly interpreted or that the provision of the code does not fully apply: California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 4 Appeal Hearing Body The Planning Commission, as the appeal hearing body, may consider evidence provided by staff, then, issue an order either: A. Affirming or B. Reversing, or C. Modifying the Notice and Order There is some flexibility in interpretation of the Zoning Code, however, many provisions must be followed precisely and do not allow flexibility unless specific findings can be made for a variance. For this appeal, the Planning Commission is considering, based on evidence that a violation of the following Zoning Code sections exist at the subject property: Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) — Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards —Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses. Comer lot line 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet. In its deliberations, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals should make "findings," which are based on the evidence presented and the sworn testimony given, that support affirmation, reversal, or modification of the appeal. Building Code and Zoning Code Violations At the previous meeting, staff was directed to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the current substandard conditions at the subject property. The following section describes building and zoning code violations existing on the property. Building Code Violations During the deliberations at the public hearing, there were questions as to whether the code compliance issues noted in Exhibit A, Table 1 of the staff report provided on October 26, 2010, were applicable when the structures were constructed. Staff has provided an updated version of Table 1 (Attachment A) evidencing code violations that were present at 520 Pacific Street at the time of the on-site assessment by City staff on September 10, 2010 (as a result of Mr. Fairbanks preliminary submittal) with applicable UBC codes. In addition, the following provides timeline and code compliance issues using historical and current building codes where applicable. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 5 Timeline Pursuant to the City Historical Survey Report, the main house was built in 1929 and that a Completion Notice was issued in that same year. At the October 26, 2010, meeting Mr. Fairbanks included a letter dated October 25, 2010 from Mr. Robert S. Gaylord, previous owner of the property, which indicated that his father built the house, garage, and the apartment above the garage and provided timeline of when the structures were built. In summary, the following are timelines based upon the historical survey report and letter from Mr. Gaylord: The main house (original construction) was built in 1929 The unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The unit behind the garage was built roughly between 1945 and 1950 Mr. Fairbanks indicated in his testimony and his letter to the Planning Commission that the two units existed on the property for over 60 years and that the California Historical Building Code should be applicable to these structures. In response, use of the 2007 California Historic Building Code (CNBC) provides some leniency for existing qualified historical buildings. The intent of the code is to protect the public health and safety and also retain enough flexibility to allow restoration of a historic feature while still retaining its historic integrity. Through the permitting and entitlement process, of which the Notice and Order directs the owner to complete, the CHBC may be utilized to ensure that any historical structures on the subject site are in compliance with the code requirements of the time it was built. However, in order to use the CHBC, the structure under consideration must be qualified by being designated as an historical building or structure. Based on the Notice of Completion for 520 Pacific Street and the City of Tustin Historical Survey, the main dwelling house and garage are the historic structures on the site. "It is the intent of the CHBC to allow non -historical expansion or addition to a qualified historical building or property, provided non -historical additions shall conform to the requirements of the regular code (CNBC Sec. 8-102.1.1)". Therefore, only those qualified structures would be afforded the historic leniency and all other additions, alterations, and/or repairs would be subject to current code requirements. Given the applicability of the CHBC, staff took a step further analyzing the substandard conditions using the timeline provided by Mr. Gaylord. The following are the City's building code timeline which applied at the time the structures were built. The 1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC): in effect from June 3, 1929 until July 7, 1942, when the City of Tustin adopted the 1940 Uniform Building Code. The 1946 UBC updated in 1947 1949 UBC updated in 1949 Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 0, 2010 Page 6 • Current 2007 California Building Code (note: codes area typically updated every three to five years). In summary the following timeline could be used when comparing the time when each structure was built and the applicable Uniform Building Codes: • Unit above the Garage — UBC 1927 Unit behind the Garage — UBC 1946 and 1949 Original Construction (General) Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff was provided with a copy of the original Notice of Completion which was issued to the original owners, George and Alice Gaylord, an January 7, 1929 (Attachment B). The Notice of Completion noted that the buildings constructed included "A dwelling house and garage" (see page 4 of Attachment B). This indicates that the only habitable building on the site was the "dwelling house" and that the garage was ancillary to the main house. Some other violations include, but not limited to, the following: Issues: • The use of the property as a triplex (with 3 units) changes the building occupancy from R3 (single family residential) to R1 (multiple family) • It could not be determined if footing/foundations exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures • No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance with one hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants • Pursuant to the zoning code; the property does not have sufficient lot size to accommodate a second or third unit (Requires min. 12,000 sq. ft. lot; however this lot is 10,000 sq. ft) • Guest unit (no kitchen facilities) requires CUP. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 7 Phis number of units would need to be located in an R-2 or R-3 district and would require a minimum of 7 parking stalls to support the added residential use. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit; California Fire Code Section 102.3 Change of use or occupancy, California Fire Code Section 102 Unsafe Building or Structures • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit 1927 UBC Sec. 2204 Foundations required California Fire Code Section '102 Unsafe Building or Structures • 1927 UBC Sec. 503 Mixed Occupancy + TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code Al 05.1 — Permits Required • 2007 California Building Code Table 503; California Fire Code Section 110.1 Unsafe Conditions • TCC 9223a7(b)- minimum building site for second residential unit is 12,000 square feet • TCC 9223b2 Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, providing no cooking facility is installed or maintained, subject to Conditional Use Permit Garage and Unit above the Garage As noted, there are several substandard conditions that exist on the unit above the garage. These substandard conditions are not only in violation of UBC 1927, but also the subsequent building codes adopted by the City. Exhibit A provides detailed information for each of the code violation; however, the following provides general examples of the issues and violations. Issues: • The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the property line do not comply with fire protection requirements. • The opening is not permitted as shown • Exterior wall is not fire rated; • Primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency. • The staircase is built over the property line • A guest unit requires a 5 foot setback to property line (PL). There are several issues associated with the location of this staircase; most imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. Appeal 520 Pacific Street I lovember 9, 2,010 Page 8 Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls and 2007 CBC Section 1024.3 Exit discharge location i 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls and TCC 9223b2(e) requires 5 ft. setback to property line • 1927 UBC Sec. 3206 Roof Drainage, 2007 CBC Section 1101.1 all roofs shall be drained into a separate storm sewer system, and 2007 CBC Section J109.4 — Drainage across property line 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls and Section 1403 of TCC 8'100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code Issues: • Railing has no intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children. • Note: Given that the structure at this location is constructed over the property line a person that may fall through, would fall onto the adjacent property. Code Violations: • '1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC 3305 Railings • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 — Permits required • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code 1012 Handrails— handrails required for stairways • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code '1013 Guards Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 7010 Page 9 Issues: • Furnace installed without required permits and does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard. • Exposed electrical next to unpermitted furnace which causes potential fire hazard. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • '1927 UBC Sec. 3707 Warm Air Furnaces 1927 UBC Sec. 3714 Other Sources of Neat TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 — Permits required • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 —Permits required Issues: Shower added on to original structure. This requires a building permit to add Additional square footage (pop -out) and permits for plumbing, and waterproofing. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Applicalion for Permit Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 10 • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • FCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 — Permits requirso Kitchen In upper unit Issues: • Kitchen cooking facilities not permitted in guest unit. • Plumbing and electrical installed without permits. Permits are required to insure that life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities permitted in guest unit i TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 —Permits required Issues: • No rating separation between walls of garage and living units: thus exposing tenants above and next to the garage to fire hazard originating in the garage. • Electrical wiring: • Romex cannot be exposed or unprotected and must be attached/secured. (Romex was first used in the 'I 950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001) Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Pnge 11 Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls 2007 CBC Table 406.1.4 Fire - Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing (:ode 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • 2007 CEC Article 334.15 Exposed Work and Article 330.30 Securing and Supporting Unit behind the Garage rhere are several substandard conditions exist on the unit behind the garage. These substandard conditions are not only in violation of UBC 1927, but also the subsequent building codes adopted by the City. Issues: • Unit does not meet fire rating requirement; 5 foot setback required to property line to protect occupants from fire hazards; or • Safety personnel responding to an emergency. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls 2007 CBC Table 602 Fire - Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance (1927 UBC Section 1403, less than 3 feet) • TCC 9223b2 minimum side yard setback 5 feet Appeal 520 Pacific street November 9, 2010 Page 12 Issues: • Ceiling heights vary and do not meet the TT height requirement Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 2007 CBC Section '1208.2 Ceiling height minimum Issues: • Heater installed with a gas line without permits. • It is installed on a combustible wood sided wall which poses a potential fire hazard due to the combustible material Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 13 Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • FCC 8,100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A 105.1 — Permits required • Subject to manufacture's installation standards and mechanical/plumbing permit • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit 2007 CMC Section 1311.2.6 Hangers, Supports, and Anchors and 1311.7 Outlets Code Violations: Issue: • Insulation (appears to be straw bale) has high flame spread rating Code Violations: 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls 2007 CBC Section 719.2 concealed installation. Insulating material shall have a flame spread index rating of not more than 25 and smoke development index of 450 or less Issues: • Improper and substandard electrical wiring without permit • Power strip next to kitchen sink where a range might have been previously • Plumbing added without permit • Kitchen is not permitted (per zoning) • (i.e. plumbing, electrical, etc.) • 1927 IJBC Sec. 201 Application for Pennit 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code Appeal 520 Pacific Street iovember 9, 2010 Page 14 • 1927 UBC Sec. 3710 stoves 2007 CFC Section 605.5 Extension Cords ! 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 —Permits required) rCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities permitted in guest unit Other Structures (Recreation Room) Does not appear to have proper insulation Ceiling height does not meet minimum Issues: • The room is considered "habitable space" and appears to not provide sufficient, ventilation, heat and light • Ceiling height is too low and should be a minimum 7'6" Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit 1927 UBC Sec. 1405 Light, Ventilation and Sanitation • Habitable space as defined by CBC is a space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Therefore, it requires sufficient light, ventilation, heat, etc 2007 CBC Section 1208.2 minimum 7'6" Conclusion to Building Violations As shown in above and Table 1 of Attachment A, there are several code compliance issues that met neither the '1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC) nor the current 2007 California Building Code (CBC). There were several additions, alterations, and/or repairs that have been done to the structures at the property subsequent to the construction of the original buildings without benefit of permit. Several of the code compliance issues that were in violation of the '1927 Uniform Building Code similarly violate the 1927 UBC. and the 2007 California Building Code. as utilized today. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 15 Essentially, the same or similar code provisions were in effect since the time of construction of the original home in 1929. Zoning Code Violations The City incorporated in 1927 and the adoption of the first Zoning Ordinance by the City of Tustin was on April 7, 1947 (Ordinance No. 71). The ordinance provided comprehensive zoning for the City at that time. It established zoning regulations for the "R-1 One Family District" that allowed a guest unit for "temporary guests" of the occupants; however, no kitchen was allowed subject to site limitations (i.e. minimum 8,000 square foot lot). On November 6, 1961, Ordinance No. 157 provided a new Zoning Code which permitted a guest house with no cooking facilities and was subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Second residential units were first established in the Tustin Zoning Code at that time and set forth standards to which a second unit was subject, including a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and one additional parking space (in addition to one for the main house). The site standards have remained much the same with the exception of the 2002 State Law which required second units to be reviewed ministerially and not be subject to a CUP. Although the garage was indicated on the original Notice of Completion at the site, the use of the second story as a residential unit with a kitchen was not permitted and the subject site has never met the minimum lot size required to accommodate a second unit. There are no permits on file for use of the structure as a livable unit. In the R-1 Single Family District, guest houses or guest units were historically intended for "temporary guests" and the use is accessory to and in conjunction with the main house; not as two commercial apartment units. How the City determines if a structure can remain if it has no permits In Mr. Fairbanks letter to the Planning Commission submitted at the October 26, hearing, the appellant indicated that there are several properties in Old Town that do not have permits on file with the City (Attachment C, page 2). Mr. Fairbanks also questioned if the City would consider a structure legal if it is deemed historical on the survey and has no permits. City records indicate that, in 1959, several "old permits and job records" on file with the County were destroyed by resolution order. It is not uncommon that permits are either unable to be located or have been destroyed; however, all buildings and structures built in the City of Tustin would have been subject to obtaining permits which would have ensured compliance with the code requirements of the time. Therefore, even if permits cannot be located, all structures, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work would have been subject to meeting the minimum code requirements at the time they were added, altered, or repaired. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 16 The City in the past has encountered properties with similar violations. These properties have been either brought into compliance or currently have pending case files. Non -conforming structures Mr. Fairbanks also noted that both units on the property existed at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Code and therefore should be considered non -conforming structures. A nonconforming structure, as defined in the American Planning Association A Planners Dictionary (April 2004), "is a structure or a portion thereof which was lawfully erected and which has been lawfully maintained," but which "no longer conforms to the regulations and requirements of the zone (district) in which it is located". In the Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law, a non -conforming use is described as a lawful use existing on the effective date of a new zoning ordinance restriction that has continued since that time without conformance to the ordinance. In order to be considered nonconforming structures, the structures at 520 Pacific Street must have been lawfully erected and maintained. Therefore the structures are not considered nonconforming. Densiffcation of Old Town At the last Planning Commission, several individuals indicated that there are other properties in Old Town that have several units on a property. As indicated in the prior staff report (Attachment D, page 7), the City has considered several proposals to increase the density of properties located in this area of Pacific Street and the broader Old Town area; however, each time the community has been outspoken against any increased density and the City has denied such requests. Additional documentation evidencing such opposition to another property located at 440 Pacfc Street has been included for reference (Attachment E). The petition was signed by several neighbors on Pacific Street, including Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks, opposing the proposal for their neighbor to build a guest house. The property owner at 440 Pacific Street went through the Conditional Use Permit process which was approved by the Zoning Administrator. He then obtained all the required permits and ultimately rebuilt the unit to conform to Tustin City Code requirements. Amy Thomas—J ICP Senior Planner Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 17 f,_y7&:�� Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Building Official Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Code Compliance Issues Table with 1927 Edition Uniform Building Code B. January 7, 1929, Notice of Completion C. October 25, 2010, Letter submitted at Planning Commission Meeting from Bret Fairbanks D. PC Staff Report and Attachments from October 26, 2010 E. 440 Pacific Street opposition petition F. PC Resolution No. 4161 G. PC Resolution No. 4162 S:1Cdd1PCREPOR71201012C Agenda Appeal 520 Pacific wnlinued.d= Original Attachments Not Attached Hereto (available on City archive documents) ATTACHMENT 4 CC Report March 1, 2011 Planning Commission materials e. October 26, 2010 PC Staff Report ITEM #3 a . l APPEAL HEARING x AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET SUMMARY: Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code (see Attachment A). The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order (see Attachment B). In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as: A. The Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations and B. The appeal hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 affirming the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 2 requires the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code. That the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals order the property owner(s) to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Code enforcement action at 520 Pacific Street originated when the property owner, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, initiated contact by sending a written request indicating that he wanted the City to allow the unpermitted units on his property to be rebuilt if they were destroyed by natural causes. This request initiated meetings between Mr. Fairbanks and City staff and ultimately led to code enforcement action at the property to abate the life safety issues caused by building and zoning code violations that are present on the site. A Notice and Order was filed on the property based on violation of several Building Code and Zoning Code violations (see Attachment A). Details of the code enforcement action are provided in the report (Section titled Code Enforcement at 520 Pacific Street). The Planning Commission has two roles in considering the appeal of both the Building Code and Zoning Code Sections indicated in the Notice and Order. The roles for consideration are as follows: A. Board of Appeals Pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code (Sec. 8101), the Board of Appeals may consider evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance exists at the subject property due to the dangerous conditions present at 520 Pacific Street which originate from violation of the following Building Code section: California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit. B. Appeal Hearing Body Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission may consider the evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance exists at the subject property due to the dangerous conditions Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 3 present at 520 Pacific Street which originate from violation of the following Zoning Code sections: Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) — Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses. Corner lot line 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet. SITE DESCRIPTION The property at 520 Pacific Street is located at the south end of Pack Street north of West 6th Street. The property is located within the Single Family Residential District (R- 1) and is within the Cultural Resources Overlay District (CR). The R-1 District allows for single family dwellings and accessory buildings and uses including, but not limited to, accessory buildings and second residential units (subject to speck site development standards; i.e. minimum 12,000 sq. k. building site; must provide two additional garage parking spaces; etc.). Accessory buildings used as guest roams are conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and are subject to specific site development and use restrictions (i.e. no cooking facility may be installed or maintained; they shall not be rented; etc.). Aerial photo of 520 Pacific Street Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 4 The lot size of the property at 520 Pacific Street is approximately 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre) and contains the following structures: Single story main house (1,342 sq. ft) Two-story garage (16'5" x 18') with a studio apartment (309 sq. ft.) above Third unit (325 sq. ft.) located at ground level to the rear (west) of the garage Detached storage/recreation room (298 sq. ft.) located directly behind the main house along the north property line Small detached storage unit located along the rear west property line (approx. 150 sq. ft.) (not to scale on plan) Covered parking structure (which is attached to the main house and the garage) (Numbers correspond to site plan and site photos below) Site Plan submitted 8130110 (Also refer to Attachment C site plan dated 13/30/10) SITE PLAN NTS Site Photos at 520 Pacific Street (Additional site photos in Attachment 0) View from Pacific Street: Main house, carport, and two-story garage .IIMM.I ..LUV ullwV:uu\ 4p.n/ i u �th}IIIP.4lL 1. 61.1 1-1 SITE PLAN NTS Site Photos at 520 Pacific Street (Additional site photos in Attachment 0) View from Pacific Street: Main house, carport, and two-story garage Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 5 Staircase to second lovol unit over garage View from front driveway of carport and two-story garage View looking east in rear yard: third unit and second story studio apartment above garage (shown beyond) View looking south in rear yard: Third unit entrance View looking east toward second story unit (note: multiple roof lines) View looking north in rear yard: storagellaundry/recreatlon room ;Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 6 Historical Background: View looking west in rear yard: storage unit at rear property tine The City of Tustin was incorporated on September '19, '1927. The subject properly at 520 Pacific Street is located within the original City boundaries. The single story home was built in approximately 1928 or 1929. The first published building code, the 1927 edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. Historical Timeline 1,028 n1, 29- house Io'G rnOSINCLL'd I'1111 1925 1 -)171'ily PON Building 1'111 luuign :11ion l'nde Ad"111 l The earliest zoning map on file, from '1961, identifies the property as R-1 Single Family Residential and the current zoning for the property is R-1 Single Family Residential. Based on the City of Tustin Historical Survey and annexation records, this property was part of a subdivision of farmland to build single family homes prior to the City's incorporation. According to the Historical survey, the subdivider dedicated Main Street and Pacific Street while subdividing the lots for single family homes; then sold individual lots, including the property at 520 Pacific Street. Historically, the R-1 District has allowed guest house or guest unit uses within this district, however, the guest unit use has been restricted to "temporary guests" and no kitchen or cooking facilities were permitted. The use of a second residential unit was first established in the City's Zoning Code in '1961. This use differentiated a guest unit from a second residential unit which allowed kitchen facilities for more permanent tenancy. However, the second residential unit has historically been permitted based on specific site development standards including: minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet; additional garage parking; etc. 520 Pacific Street is listed on the 1990 City of Tustin Historical Survey which noted the California bungalow architectural style and a brief history of how the area was developed (see Attachment E). The survey noted that the shiplap siding on the house, which was made in the 40's and 50's, covers the gables, which might indicate that the roof of the main house was not original. It also notes a carport and garage located on the south side behind the house. The survey further noted that the (two story] garage appeared to be original based on the roof and siding that was consistent with the original building period. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 7 Some permits have been issued on the subject property; however, there are no permits that authorize the construction or use of additional residential units at 520 Pacific Street. Over the past several decades, the City has addressed residential conversions that have been done without benefit of permits. For example, code enforcement officers have responded to complaints that have arisen in the Old Town area of Tustin of construction being done without permits or of multiple rental units in the R-1 Single Family District. Several recent cases, including two cases located on Pacific Street are currently working through or have completed the permit process to bring their property and unpermitted accessory units into compliance with the Tustin City Code. Historically, the City has considered several proposals to increase the density of properties located in this area of Pacific Street; however, each time the community has been outspoken against any increased density and the Planning Commission has denied such requests. Records indicate that, in 1955, The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a variance to add a second dwelling unit at the rear of 530 Pacific Street and to add two additional dwelling units at the back of the property at 540 Pacific Street. However, after discussion with applicants and objectors, the request was denied. Other requests to increase density in the Old Town area were denied, including a Zone Change request in 1969 to rezone a parcel at the corner of Pacific and Main from R-1 Single Family Residential to the Planned Community Residential District in order to accommodate an increase in density to 34 dwelling units (DU) per acre (more than eight times the 4 DU per acre allowed by Tustin General Plan). Code Enforcement at 520 Pacific Street On July 27, 2010, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, the property owner of 520 Pacific Street, initiated contact and sent a letter to the Planning Division. The letter stated that he was selling his property and the home was in escrow. Mr. Fairbanks further stated that the property has a single family residence in front, with two guest homes in the back. Mr. Fairbanks requested a confirmation letter from the City stating that, in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, the City would allow the guest units to be rebuilt (see Attachment F). On August 4, 2010, Planning Division staff did a preliminary search of City records and sent a zoning confirmation letter to Mr. Fairbanks informing him that no permits were issued for the two guest units which were noted in his letter and that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (which is required to a establish non -rentable guest units within his (R-1) zoning district) had not been issued for the use. Mr. Fairbanks was also informed that, based on Tustin City Code, a non -conforming building destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent of its reasonable value may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. Provisions for reconstruction of non -conforming buildings do not apply to structures or additions which have been constructed without the benefit of permits. To legalize the existing guest units (without a kitchen), approval of a CUP would be required (Attachment G). Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 20, 2010 Page ti Shortly after the zoning confirmation letter was sent by Planning Division staff, the case was forwarded to Code Enforcement for follow up. Code enforcement officers conducted a thorough search of city records and requested a search of County records for any documentation associated with 520 Pacific Street. However, no permits for the guest units were found. Code enforcement officers also found the subject property advertised online and located two "for sale' postings. Both postings identified a "studio guest house with kitchenette' over the detached two car garage and a "second guest house with one bedroom, living room, and kitchen behind the garage". On September 10, 2010, the property owner allowed' City staff to do a cursory on-site assessment of the online posting for 520 Pacific property (see photos in Attachment D). Several life street safety code violations and other issues were noted by Planning and Building Division staff (A detailed list of the main concerns/code compliance issues and the related code violations are shown in Table 'I of the Analysis section of this report). On September '16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503 for the property at 520 Pacific Avenue. The Notice and Order provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructed in violation of the Tustin Building Code and Zoning Codes. In part, Section 5502(b) states a public nuisance exists when "any condition... exists upon any premises that is dangerous to human life or is detrimental to health as determined by an appropriate city official' (see Attachment A). The Notice and Order provision is set forth in Chapter 5 of the Tustin City Code for Property Maintenance and Nuisance Abatement Regulations and Standards. The purpose of this chapter is to "provide for the abatement of conditions which are offensive or annoying to the senses, detrimental to property values and community appearance, an obstruction to or interference with the comfortable enjoyment of adjacent property, or hazardous or injurious to the health, safety or welfare of the general public in such ways as to constitute a nuisance". ANALYSIS: During the cursory on-site assessment of the property on September '10, 2010, City staff noted several code compliance issues at the property. The following table outlines the rode compliance issues and concerns; code sections applicable (including California Building Code as adopted by Tustin, California Fire Code, and Tustin City Zoning Code); and photos taken during the assessment. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 9 TABLE 1 CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable 'rhe use of the property California Fire Code as a triplex (with 3 Section 102.3 Change o/ units) changes the use or occupancy: building occupancy California Fire Code' from R3 (single family Section 102 Unsafe residential) to R1 Building or Structures (multiple family)It could not be California Fire Cade determined if Section 102 Unsafe fooling/foundallons Building or Structures exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures Multiple residential No fire separation walls Building Code Table between units; 503; California Fire Code units built after therefore not In Section 110.1 Unsafe original structures compliance with one Conditions w/o permits hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants Mechanical, electrical, TCC 8100 Adoption of and plumbing (including 2007 California Building HVAC) installation Code A105.1 —Permits Balhroom work done without require(!) in upper pennits unit w/ no roPermits are required to permits C9 insure that life safety protocol Is followed and installation Is done I according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, Installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Pursuant to the zoning TCC 9223a7(b)- code; the property does minimum building site for '! not have sufficient lel second residential unit is size to accommodate a 12,000 square feet Second and second or third unit TCC 9223b2 Accessory third residential (Requires min. 12,000 buildings used as guest sq. it. lot; however this roams, providing no units lot Is 10,000 sq. ft) cooking facility is Guest unit (no kitchen installed or maintained, facilities) requires CUP. subject to Conditional This number of units Use Permit would need to be located In an R-2 or R-3 district and would require a minimum of 7 parking stalls to support the added residential 1150 Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page '10 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable Photos The second story wall Section 1403 of'fCC construction and 8100 Adoption of 2007 windows adjacent to the California Building Code`fi� property line do not M comply with fire -••�•�-" 4v protection insufficient requirements. The opening is not t setback to PL permitted as shown; exterior wall Is not Bre �.�.t. rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts' ingress egress in case of Bre or other emergency. Furnace installed TCC 8100 Adoption of without required permits 2007 California Building does not meet Cade A 105.1 — Pernda clearance requirements roquired and creates a potential fire hazard. Exposed electrical next TCC 8100 Adoption of a, to unpermitted furnace 2007 California Building which causes potential Code A 105.1 — Pemdts --" g Bre hazard, required c ,I` m a 0 u �e Elecldeal device next to healer Kitchen cooking TCC 9223b2 Na cooking facilities not permitted facilities permitted in in guest unit. guest unit Kttchen in Plumbing and electrical TCC 8100 Adaption of upper unit installed without 2007 California Building F a� permits. Permits are Code A105.1 —Permits required to insure that required life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and Inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 20, 2010 Page 11 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Shower added to f00 8100 Adaption of ;. e original structure.. This 2007 California Building - iequires a building Cade All 05.1 — Permits permit to add additional required) square footage (pop - nut) and permits for plumbing, and R.7, waterproofing. Shower added w/o --' ..." permits :•—' - Railing has no TCC 8100 Adoption of intermediary posts and 2007 California Building No inner the run and rise are not Code A105.1 — Permits f - compliant with Building required - „]�". posts Code requirements nor TCC 8100 Adoption of is the unprotected back 2007 California Building ,(a� which is open. This Code 1012 Handrails— poses a potential falling handrails required for hazard for small stairways _ children. TCC 8100 Adoption of - rn 2007 California Building - B Code 1013 Guards—guards shall be located > along open -sided a° walking surfaces including stairways 'c located more than 30 !riches above the grade o below w There is no properly 2007 CBC Section line firewall separation 1024.3 Exit discharge 0 between staircase and location Window at PL the properly line. requires Sft setback The staircase is built TCC 9223b2(e) requires over the property line 5 0. setback to property A guest unit requires a line 5 foot setback to property line (PL). There are several Built over PL Issues associated with the location of this ? staircase; most Imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. Roof drains onto 2007 CBC Section 'p neighboring property 1101.1 all roofs shall be - which may cause drained Into a separate flooding. storm sewer system .. 2007 CBC Section 2007 CBC Section J 100.4— Drainage across property lisle Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 12 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Structural supports do 2007 COC Section not provide sufficient 1604.1, 2301.2 General supporting rafters Roof Design Requirements. - ltladequute " members are Floor joist supported sLRlctOrul undersized to provide along block fence rather adequate support than cantilevered from '; sapporl5 the two story structure ,r _. --- The carport is attached Change in occupancy to both the main house constitutes a multitude of - - . Carport and the 2 -story garage CBC and Fire Coda attached to and attached rear units; violations: making this a tri-plex California Fire Code '.� ` main house unit pursuant to building Section 102.3 Change of hand garage code fire rating. These rise or occupancy; 1. deficiencies create California Fire Code access hazards for fire Section 102 Unsafe - access and may pose Building or Sinrcluros i r additional hazards to 0 occupants since the ,a occupancy changes with a td-plex (common terminology). Unsupported electrical TCC 8100 Adoption of metal conduit (EMT) 2007 California Building Unsupported ppo between garage and Code A105.1—Porrniis house. The potential for required ..•. line over yYr' damage and failure due to the exposure of the line is increased and poses a potential fire hazard. 94 ' No rating separation 2007 CBC Table 602 between walls of garage Fire -Resistance Rating and living units; thus Requirements for Exterior Romex wiring is exposing tenants above Walls Based on Fire unprotected and exposed and next to the garage Separation Distanceto fire hazard originating in the garage. '„y.. .. '2 ^" Electrical wiring: 2007 CEC Article 334.15 B Romex cannot be Exposed Work and k 6 (7 exposed or unprotected Article 330.30 Securing �! arid must be and Supporting attached/secured. (Rumex was first used Roo in the 1950's. Color New junction box with coding (yellow) wasn't permits _. available until 2001) -Ir ..- Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 13 Unit does not meet fire rating requirement; 5 foot setback required to pmperty line to protect occupants from fire hazards; or safely personnel responding to ,in emergency. Heater installed with a gas line without permits It Is installed on a combustible wood sided wall which poses a potential fire hazard due to the combustible material Fire -Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Wells Based on Fire Separation Distance (1927 UBC Section 1403, less than 3 feel) TCC 9223b2 minimum side yard setback .5 reel 2007 California Building Code A 105.1 — Permits required Subject to manufaclure's Installation standards and mechanicallplumbing permit cewng neignts vary and zuur cone section do not meet the 7'8' 1208.2 Ceiling height height requirement minimum Coiling height does not meet min. 7'8' Photos Min. 5 it setback required (zero - 4 It provided) Heater Installed W/o permit Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page '14 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Improper and 2007 CFC Section 605.5 substandard electrical Extension Cords •w- .i wiring without permit - Power strip next to kitchen sink where a range might have been I` f j previously tx Plumbing added without TCC 8100 Adoption of permit 2007 California Building Code A 105.1 - Permits required) :M TCC 9223b2 No cooking Kitchen in rear unit- not permitted Kitchen is not permitted (per zoning) facilities permitted In •� (i.e. plumbing, electrical, guest unit etc.) .y Unsecured and exposed 2007 CMC Section - gas line on the interior 1311.2.6 Hangers, which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors -� gas leak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Outlets within the rear unit ! .t Exposed and unsecured gas line inside unit • Ii Insulation is nonrated Wall and opening and Is combustible protection 2007 CBC (appears to he slmw Table 602 Fire - bele) Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based an Fire m 'C Separation Distance and Table 704.8 Maximum. m a Area of Exterior Wall Openings120 tiy, sire ro y Combustible material installed between walls Appeal 520 Pacific Street •i]ctoher 26, 2010 Paqe 15 Location Code Compliance Issue Code Sections applicable Photos I he roam is considered Habitable space as 'habitable space' and defined by CGC is a appears to not provide space in a building for sutlicienL ventilation, living, sleeping, eating or `o linat and light cooking. I heralore, it requires sufficient light, ,--- - g ventilation, heat, etc Ceiling height is too low 2007 CMC Section J -c E and should be a 1200.2 minlmum 7'6" minimum Tri' OA' m v � Ceiling height does not meet minimum i ate: Code compliance issues noted in fable 1 based on cursory observations by City staff on The full extent of violations is unl(nown due to ilia limited ability M conduct a thorough assessment.) Building Code Appeal The appellant is requesting reconsideration of the Notice and Order for the determination of a public nuisance filed for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The appellant has indicated, in part, in his letter of appeal (Attachment B) that the Building Code section which requires permits would not apply to his property because he purchased the home over '10 years ago and the structures already existed. However, the current property owner is ultimately the responsible person for maintaining the property. "Responsible Person", as defined by the Tustin City Code is "the owner of property upon which a violation of the Tustin City Code occurs or continues to occur. This term also includes any owner, occupant, or other person or entity in control of the property who is creating, causing, or maintaining any condition in violation of the Tustin City Code". The current property owner may have purchased the property in the current condition with multiple units that are not permitted, however, he has also, knowingly or not, maintained the structures and collected income from tenants who live in numerous substandard building conditions. Zoning Code Appeal The appellant is also requesting consideration of the Zoning Code requirement for a Conditional Use Permit and lot line [setback]. His letter indicates, in part, that the property is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first zoning of Tustin (see Attachment B). Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 16 The Notice and Order indicated violation of Tustin City Code sections that require a CUP to establish accessory buildings used as guest rooms (provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained)(TCC 9223(b)(2) and that a minimum 5 foot side yard setback be provided for accessory buildings used as guest houses (TCC 9223(b)(2)(d)). Although the two story garage structure was probably original to the site, the use of the second story apartment above the garage was not permitted. In the R-1 Single Family District, guest houses or guest units were historically intended for "temporary guests" and the use has been permitted accessory to the main house. Kitchen facilities were not permitted in guest units nor are they permitted to be rented out for compensation. Further second units require additional garage parking and a minimum lot size, of which this property does not meet. Appeal Findings Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission should consider the evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination (as shown in Table 1) that a public nuisance exists at the subject property due to the dangerous conditions present. As the hearing body, the Commission should determine whether or not the two accessory buildings that are currently being utilized as rentable residential units (with kitchen facilities) should: • Be brought into conformance with Tustin City Code requirements as indicated in the Notice and Order; or • Determine whether the code sections were accurately applied to the property; or • Modify the Notice and Order Independent Evaluation In considering appeals, the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The firm specializes in historic and older buildings and was able to provide professional judgment as to which structures may have been original and which had been added and/or modified over time. The architect provided a report that concluded that "the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site [main house] in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII" (See Attachment H). CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals deny the appeal; affirm the Notice and Order, and direct the property owner(s) to comply with the Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page W requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner Y enry Huang, P. ., C.B.O. uilding Official Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Notice and Order B. Letter of Appeal Received Sept. 23, 2010 C. Site Plan dated 8/30/10 D. Photos taken during Sept 10, 2010 assessment E. City of Tustin Historical Survey for 520 Pacific Street F. July 27, 2010, letter from Mr. Bret Fairbanks G. August 4, 2010, zoning confirmation letter from City staff H. Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. 1. PC Resolution No. 4161 J. PC Resolution No. 4162 SAUdNmy\Code Enforcemen0520 PacificWC Agenda AppealHearing 520 PaclOc.doc Original Attachments Not Attached Hereto (available on City archive documents) ATTACHMENT CC Report March 1, 2011 December 23, 2010, appeal from Mayor Amante December 23, 2010 Ms. Patty Estrella, City Clerk 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92870 SUBJECT: APPEAL REQUEST Dear Ms. Estrella, As per Section 9294c of the Tustin City Code, I am hereby appealing the actions of the Planning Commission taken on December 14, 2010, as they relate to 520 Pacific Street. My concerns relate to Resolution No. 4162 as approved by the Planning Commission in its capacity as the appeal hearing body and as it is applicable to and relates to Resolution No. 4161 approved by the Planning Commission in their role as the Board of Appeals. The general reasons that I wish this matter to be heard before City Council are as follows: A. 1 do not concur with the determination of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4162 approving existing uses at 520 Pacific Street as nonconforming uses for the reason that it appears to me that the alleged nonconforming uses are not legal uses or permitted buildings and/or structures. B. The actions taken under Resolution No. 4161 with regard to the Building Code Violations ought, therefore, to be abrogated by virtue of the fact that the uses that are identified in Resolution No. 4162 as "nonconforming' are actually illegal and were not permitted. This view, however, in no way relieves the property owner of his obligation to comply with the various building code violations. C. There is, in my view, a need for a discussion to clarify that the Tustin City Code ("Code") requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code. Please make arrangements for City Council to hear this item. inrely, Jerr Amante yor ATTACHMENT CC Report March 1, 2011 Tustin City Zoning Code a. Timeline Matrix of Zoning Code Ordinances b. 1927, 1940 UBC Code Requirements for changes in use c. 1947 First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 70 adopted 4/4/47) d. 1961 Zoning Code (Ord. 157 adopted 11/6/61) e. 1989 zoning Code Amendment regarding nonconforming properties ROW acquisition (Ord. 1013 adopted 1/3/89) f. Current Zoning Code Section 9273 ATTACHMENT CC Report March 1, 2011 Tustin City Zoning Code a. Timeline Matrix of Zoning Code Ordinances m S m llaE�� T =m�m9 Qi°L bN= g m ?$ G 8,�gm 6�4��•9'_•_ W� m `o ..@m$IsI., �EarE�.E. ErEf Ol gE'9Em9 NE ~ ' Cm N3 Tcm'J -49 O' V'N°3Umgy O1d r'ii•Wi6 Z m� g'o��4E's0yrc �uSU A �nF6g��eg�q� oo ag ga. H mu3@'� ZU 6a 0W. W mmZ100 H. T— =C q m p=p Em€ gpm WC g9qq 9�T_6 9 m sa m NrGGGGb L M N,F� L C ?>g�°2 n ma'E H S WEpSt'1 CW L9y0SS�2�3 IS— 2mEra�LW/i 3 S- C rc Wo�S c 3 m C c .mid Cp4� 6L W._9 W@ O{yp, N CT W m C �b COC{j� CW --m L q rO CD$m9_SE gSmTm@$=WW=m am3 02s$�93�m55 $. m3ammm�2`y� S, 9�E5 g I'd rcm6 Ila- 3 mWm T2'93mV E oU° oQ—5aC6zE2aW@ O Z°,1U2 SE ON u � 0 9 o O e m m m E pc o f m r mq e"p�S m � O W= V'`� m W C m ME.�a E'vy'a w4 la g., 0ayov Smom°'uc``ruqs$�—ov$ •_ to ,••� OEM ' m ;aC_ EsSN�° `�WC-D am E m SN OCWp Z cypdWyCO 93W Lq , 'os z js$ Em €mm° I'L@>W CymmNq u mu 2 `oaE5 0 E2 O m $ 5 6— Lo Ti $ W q W p 9 a pippp m N v N C m 6 g W T C C O W , � W W>_ V •s g g C Q W CJ m g5 Ym �' Lee@y o._ Wm w 0 n3YYm �Em�ao�ow V�mi'r'c a$ °cm�g'G mS �9 r78.Ly 2E�_ 'o.E��— o E3 LmI a 1�g V, U S�EW'4K E'M MymmC€ mEn�i' g'3°��. oE2t._ &M SSS dEx So wm4$ oTrn a L. mmmScm#• .i EE m a m 5@ W c 9 a W m a m e e m .2�a� oO� u oid a=EE' ='�Ji € c Zo,e`Ecm—aEan'�'gBAa��= @' E c W W W°y m n o E A m a n W c N n E m q tp pp v° v� Sy c a� c c c s n y y¢ 9 m£ 1920 9Qm 9M$ E m.K We E m be vE � Sc�,q�g`� Z O`3 =Eae0C9 m � §§ ti a5 a= g N E'ft c m _rum - o W c ffi m m o my Do su=; 29 0 UO zL)w a cn cnN �o a0 w} m C 9 a to 'q4 X, lD X@N n m o 0 H c.N.H mE -moria �Rg c m g w>> 5@5mm m5.�3 .m d m'Ec �i' @°"Sud`@mN Sm5��0] 5 cm°g°.r�'a,y @t•E �vc 2mx'a mt?m�ayaEa�m cEuco?R gEE_'� `a �mm HEMo 9`o y�mg�wW olg S Bi m'Cmm°Emsg�a ESL" `°�.S@o@�>0 m9��a � >om�SL N cs°f Eo ny°_$ma M,m.�°�32'nA a"v $`BP a €m`m m�@mm -@my8 �cEmn�-m5 ° °ci `°aZco$n�a@ m omOZ5y $ c �'9os &mo oy-a m. -a poa ys��$ m > 3 9 a E m@ `° m C m m o 5 > C c p E+_ m �.waEmL�mcm a`m m�a Fi�u N�nt'q nE �'m Y"n �.��.' C 'Eia >q@>,_noa�d �s� c�c5o`y+'NSN'�� 'E mLcm am g�._.oa m'a m$°c �iqqa c c iQi SE. e€ yy�NEnat E@?L Qy cR m=c cZy @..y Ed S CE Q m3 nm FE .2 -'g a5ona � E�tm�cmL o�§° ��y'S 3_CE_�aa m1- mammG35 N E E Mao - Sam m m 44 O C C Q m° O N _U m'4m m m TJ' W C m d gm `o -m amo' g9y �i fthoLo 3° c m _a m e c c m a't'Sm goy aQBcc ry .,-a u °3 2 mg E @ ppm�d`5 X32 Zm F' �g 9, Li'�4 mE�gg> qE �S tom qa gpm �m�`m >y.m tt y�y E C C m m' -a N m L ._ - m m a m m N•S ° L E s o m M SFE -'rr A$ E s' g !� m._53 mid o E6 g'@- �' � m a mAm� c `Bi5 c mymLr^ '- r6 7 U€6,- E o WE Of Eq�3$c�ygEq�mgm En`o 3'p-'Ea2 oaam gC'-w- ca �'m °Ej��_9,0`o`p 3t acJI �9 �' Sn@LgOcmEo €�n5�� o i0�ccm mt0mm �S$!QEY c @mm mvc md�-mm._$ E ki u m �i c c iy - Y ms - 9 € y�E,, 4c @ g€ 13 K¢!_^aonE>@�3@a E'.°I i=Uu'i58va 5�S Etl e mm's N Q at ti N Q1 H M Do C, =od j d — aW$A n5 m y m N.12C OI ° C C d N L H a E.I!�+2 In a"m °iaY nyE�d R m - 6 N ryN L ` U dYlrrO >>aoa v _ 9 a { 8pp C ppT pp o p u y m Cq q.i o o m o$@ m- qc j E 1° E g m m `CO 0 O U E y W N° R° d W 9 C C g d N n 5 E= 5 J 0 m O= d L O - Sc r = � Ec d'_ 3-a9 cac d r°1 -".A o oo aN9 W o a' m 2 W 2 0 �m rymry n c m u y� m g e R °3�a Ys_am�i-Ern=r' aom9'o g' -SSE gEmS a�N F s rw �'ac -16' O N E oa W a�a`r $gym- �n y>. d m E i� C'n 0 W E o yy S E c E€ c @ E £�€a' $ a' c c d m m 1° G= ° ° �Ty'ey¢'v•4�°�5.8 oymd8o9,PxOa>; Y'�Es�34�`o �E� dE dWm�N= ccNmA8 E9oac � E°E-m�e^u�y3E� uE_W.mra ov Sa,O $aaaa=o�'gs$ �auu�uNN °'N 2Uua5mnl.?.d N ticn r cn N N G DI G L ° q O C OE t0 �o SFJ-cmc9 m =m-mA2c_ Z.m-63 gcE nl�pJ Upp' M.cme ^SVrm�Sm$5 a`o m..�m�Ecc�-ml'2 m N-NNm0�8ma `ovF nL Z b -2 9 C C S Ea s m> m° e@ 2 D o> 5 a 'd-af .'x� ��U n`� J�. `O _'S omU wl c %Fc ${agm °`o ...mm 6 m `om'� �b �w .y t'O `ow gomy,5� wmE9E5�3 m.r684 °off `°did avv°n� m'c pip yy.C.,F .p m�' mcEaJ ��U � gg2 R8 m.°J nmgc$'=X'R_ `m `d ao25°m 8 sm'o �m .8� 3gj,m8 Emo9w88pgg °,2`g `m5 9 'E �a '��~ w�H §!F` 2 nE Ec,rii rd qT Ecc Nm �U°a`r $`m 'm 88 0 .�"m ._5 ma m$82n@�E iJnm m @o c a p C m0 O` °C O L O J2 m C O N N 19 "'JJJb J i lo;an rwi d g"_ @ a g a $Oy._ �X�°`0 {5o 0 O Fli 5'n `gym Yo' $'�a5 'V J _v c 3 § g N aa8E-mwm5m y b4 gao o�qra9'ctri' CS ma ai�co° me>aa�•�J.ca 5a o.m$ N c.Ma!mE£$wmJ m2 $£'g IEA_ Jmoa 3 �89@Gmm .E m� na�JS.�>9Uo>E�%.g'A z a' 8o88�✓, yUd m N V Ol N Q1 N m N v m y c m E m a:7Uwa C ° O a ICC m m 9Lo i m p m � m s m _ g N .s O° $ vg �8 nv m c U m 3 >m t y m UE U m u= mm mt 9 Z Z m a 2 m = T o� m c a U ym y > m tS t. U U c 1=0 $E p 9 a c J9 m ME so g � m a Oc m �Lm+ ui w-QQ m m `� m n$ a a. c $ u..8 E c s 8 a g E @ (p 9�2� N 0 C'a C4 n N m m s ON N C c n I a J N m 0 � 4Te �ES +E&d '�pa J c 0 -_ ��Ty 6CCp��mm C ryma ED @�J�Cv TCC LREpi 6mL m9 m VQE Lp� €mnl°p3 qy n vi� OEm�£@� a- aS mei `°CoS m,�my�s LU m ,cmm b`om m >E. U9 9.2.'>rn `3 r¢ ay - .cc >La@aCmsm CBm>'3m'p�ffi mg$ rJm.m m! 5 ,-m a a1csp � Vmgm f�g r0t8m5mSn5 mqC�m�VaTma�°am c c° �i c o . a ca-_S�2o rJTm o. Nn._ a5 cmmm oanm� Ja m m c p�j g Em mi'S 3m „010 .ti U Lco fra°m`o o5 gg a ..e c mSUR m a1� dl o m m�Sm v 9 l°W m^ c Y c y Q1 m m Olir m^n N m 0B da cl�Z> c.'mm tiCl m mE mm a acs IQiwp �? �� E23qM$m 4Cm '.=- �U� Ja CJC.o. mm5 N C o p m mom m N[ a Wojq c €r m c E c ay9� o a m mo`y JaUa ago$ QmU6 N a m .my ��c ms`o mam 16-2 9 C m L O T y.a N E' o 0 5 6 C, y'+mZmmm umi m n�vA m o 5 U ATTACHMENT CC Report March 1, 2011 Tustin City Zoning Code b. 1927, 1940 UBC Code Requirements for changes in use 9 y 9 t o Y O ? a. n v"i a {I. u ae.4'� C �+1 p 7'd ° WI.� p 1�1 C c? 9 - a °° u .- = r o •�: E '• n O .N NL' E L e o uu - m a S •_ T� uR'C uN�Yggv .=kQ PU,_�°YPS.r '=e =HNO Vv u uE c eriu Wrs :o E� �a >c"�=y� ee }j „•� p.1 CTL20eo u _�E 2' `u Aa gi°• Y: YOY '`-�3 ge$s ds nio ac c cmoC u�' eC00 -t b' -n a 'o CC.m. a >e c. Owl u N sLC tO -Jp Y YL_y yEV 6a ug0Mu YO �=°NUL � Y '` G Q 9 S = u=i C D c d e 3 9 t G' 9 L S a Si E- '•moi a p u� .p O'S, = aTi u w.E mC u 5 > e pp Ya u m c ca 12 E.5 m3�3=•5 aok 5. ;3 rs°y`m3uTv riu s u c u r•' oss c$�23 eE - z'N�=N _ A 'v•�y c�asm n�H-s•c-3 og Yu �,smmv.8$ 'ec `O *'�s$.9 em=�- C m.� 'OY Q: O, N Y Y-uY n CN .tC.- n N _C C O E C �U K 3 [l y O �� NN td m OY. L is e�-y eYC9CC-. e - 88 Y 9'p_ p49c� N u G?-•5-y!�C O�n NL3�i COOT >• •8Sr :ct �a>'=°, �>`Z`v'c°o.��$ Y.�'Oc�•--jiy- eeV Dov eu o�N%gi; 'a ccuE °i S, a'E'••vD_ `o �i:.-eE°ex•`u y� ��c��� c py�7+ a L y �� �E8.3 '�E!L =g' y�e,Wogo.4su�vc`•d c$e��m'�.�g v Sit °Z e��•N 9"'ms >4t=x'00 �.9 c Nuv: ..c �cT• n a .moo EC'5 Qi:, lciso NNa'.e °0v ut �=u� c u.§.4_.z�'.Eu qy ya _ u u 2-0a�•E �a 3.3._�s c-o�=•�`oM at �'E3`d °�C a� uta �� a N e o - 9� •� y 8 _ �I N e 4 G o 00 Qg Ci3.Q gge �i t^. ew `gym yy C t p.2vY ;�'' 5QQ gg3�°i ��Gqq J�'d • u,yy SY _`.' �LY �0ui • � .N., a°3..0R Q 3 �=y �u{CL.'-cNg rQyl �Uc �!R; gaa�uY'y12 lCi1 .82CHOO $ 3" JgvCi: ggTiaNkC6 .a3N`u ySN� eQ�v. ai$M'=TYeeu d lLE.G, y NiiO •: ._.5e � ��.�x ugi s3 e�-�'�' `"$�d`o `o Uu�e- ev'� >_ OWN$ uS Tom EWye „�Fi c• -a u u Lu d e y4•c•o=.au Cd ae sou a >: �'��� uy �ua 4 v? =Y._t v a U c P '7 ci =an See. �' > �i��,-6 n•- „ 8 sTer E'3. m'5°-•OL'.c (U°i�m a zS �=g:'etEY,`'ucQ5•�A O V vvii yy°u C e3g°'°U 550 = $Z 9-�-•ugT>•- ecyu -.c Cx'�aw;lC asua U ,o $ = b'9 9 U �ow "�• � 0 4:F S•te a .o ,o •- � o o c u O °' T E -.. _ � ° c :� °N�' y u 9! •= e e „ gg oU �> a =ou' N d .e Cpp °'- k5't-�u'-'v _T=`o SS OLE Ul �,.,1 3•,}� 'ygy�u �U SLP $eye Q=• `=�.9 �i y: 3. ii��3 t' i ot2 n-.3 F '� e"P•''Ea 44cgg c Oo�p e°O o`C7-c u� u>'u y',d$du yzp 'E �XX$3u V O fi=t ��h d u>E` mUyUu '�5 o`1y_X i�aeyEoSuW u pp�y a�r�Sa��F-E, ��.`°e .c'P3 o' US yQ,a❑_ Q7}d �°1=v: eU z'Sn` v4c tmv Ea. °3 •x co uE S' 3e�ou °u°a u� ° ay- (rdj iL Q•o W� ��uv °�S �+��' sgYg 9•- c= .�i°..0 OY-=L w. >21 y F9 u yCT •p e.N O O v dgi .?•O� T L��j eil ll e�Yy�6 �.°. RYQ�QQ'V �C fh�Q EZYGGD...�m=�OLpp 6{�!,y v� N ^(J ° 1 9 y 9 t o Y O ? a. n v"i a {I. u ae.4'� C �+1 p 7'd ° WI.� p 1�1 C c? 9 - a °° u .- = r o •�: E '• n O .N NL' E L e o uu - m a S •_ T� uR'C uN�Yggv .=kQ PU,_�°YPS.r '=e =HNO Vv u uE c eriu Wrs :o E� �a >c"�=y� ee }j „•� p.1 CTL20eo u _�E 2' `u Aa gi°• Y: YOY '`-�3 ge$s ds nio ac c cmoC u�' eC00 -t b' -n a 'o CC.m. a >e c. Owl u N sLC tO -Jp Y YL_y yEV 6a ug0Mu YO �=°NUL � Y '` G Q 9 S = u=i C D c d e 3 9 t G' 9 L S a Si E- '•moi a p u� .p O'S, = aTi u w.E mC u 5 > e pp Ya u m c ca 12 E.5 m3�3=•5 aok 5. ;3 rs°y`m3uTv riu s u c u r•' oss c$�23 eE - z'N�=N _ A 'v•�y c�asm n�H-s•c-3 og Yu �,smmv.8$ 'ec `O *'�s$.9 em=�- C m.� 'OY Q: O, N Y Y-uY n CN .tC.- n N _C C O E C �U K 3 [l y O �� NN td m OY. L is e�-y eYC9CC-. e - 88 Y 9'p_ p49c� N u G?-•5-y!�C O�n NL3�i COOT >• •8Sr :ct �a>'=°, �>`Z`v'c°o.��$ Y.�'Oc�•--jiy- eeV Dov eu o�N%gi; 'a ccuE °i S, a'E'••vD_ `o �i:.-eE°ex•`u y� ��c��� c py�7+ a L y �� �E8.3 '�E!L =g' y�e,Wogo.4su�vc`•d c$e��m'�.�g v Sit °Z e��•N 9"'ms >4t=x'00 �.9 c Nuv: ..c �cT• n a .moo EC'5 Qi:, lciso NNa'.e °0v ut �=u� c u.§.4_.z�'.Eu qy ya _ u u 2-0a�•E �a 3.3._�s c-o�=•�`oM at �'E3`d °�C a� uta �� a N e o - 9� •� y 8 _ �I N e 4 G o 00 Qg Ci3.Q gge �i t^. ew `gym yy C t p.2vY ;�'' 5QQ gg3�°i ��Gqq J�'d • u,yy SY _`.' �LY �0ui • � .N., a°3..0R Q 3 �=y �u{CL.'-cNg rQyl �Uc �!R; gaa�uY'y12 lCi1 .82CHOO $ 3" JgvCi: ggTiaNkC6 .a3N`u ySN� eQ�v. ai$M'=TYeeu d lLE.G, y NiiO •: ._.5e � ��.�x ugi s3 e�-�'�' `"$�d`o `o Uu�e- ev'� >_ OWN$ uS Tom EWye „�Fi c• -a u u Lu d e y4•c•o=.au Cd ae sou a >: �'��� uy �ua 4 v? =Y._t v a U c P '7 ci =an See. �' > �i��,-6 n•- „ 8 sTer E'3. m'5°-•OL'.c (U°i�m a zS �=g:'etEY,`'ucQ5•�A O V vvii yy°u C e3g°'°U 550 = $Z 9-�-•ugT>•- ecyu -.c Cx'�aw;lC asua U ,o $ = b'9 9 U �ow "�• � 0 4:F S•te a .o ,o •- � o o c u O °' T E -.. _ � ° c :� °N�' y u 9! •= e e „ gg oU �> a =ou' N d .e Cpp °'- k5't-�u'-'v _T=`o SS OLE Ul �,.,1 3•,}� 'ygy�u �U SLP $eye Q=• `=�.9 �i y: 3. ii��3 t' i ot2 n-.3 F '� e"P•''Ea 44cgg c Oo�p e°O o`C7-c u� u>'u y',d$du yzp 'E �XX$3u V O fi=t ��h d u>E` mUyUu '�5 o`1y_X i�aeyEoSuW u pp�y a�r�Sa��F-E, ��.`°e .c'P3 o' US yQ,a❑_ Q7}d �°1=v: eU z'Sn` v4c tmv Ea. °3 •x co uE S' 3e�ou °u°a u� ° ay- (rdj iL Q•o W� ��uv °�S �+��' sgYg 9•- c= .�i°..0 OY-=L w. >21 y F9 u yCT •p e.N O O v dgi .?•O� T L��j eil ll e�Yy�6 �.°. RYQ�QQ'V �C fh�Q EZYGGD...�m=�OLpp 6{�!,y v� N Sections 501-505 PART III REQUIREMENTS BASED ON OCCUPANCY CHAPTER 5 -CLASSIFICATION OF ALL BUILD- INGS BY USE OR OCCUPANCY AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL OCCUPANCIES Occupancy Sec. 501. Every building, whether existing or hereafter Classified erected, shall be classified by the Building Inspector according to its use or the character of its occupancy, as a building of Group A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I or J. as defined in Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 respectively. (See Tables No. I and II of this Chapter.) ' When a building is used for more than one occupancy pur- pose it shall be classified in the occupancy group representing the greatest occupancy hazard. Group A Occupancy shall be considered the most hazardous and Group J the least hazardous. When portions of a building are separated from the remainder of a building by one or more unpierced continuous walls extend- ing from the foundation of the building to and through the roof and affording four-hour fire -resistive protection (sec Sec. 4302), such portions shall be considered as separate buildings. Any occupancy not mentioned specifically or about which there is any question shall be classified by the Building Inspector and Included in the Group which its use most nearly resembles based an the existing or proposed life and fire hazard. Change Sec. 502. No change shall be made in the character of oc- In Use cupancy or use of any building which would place the building in a different Group of occupancy, unless such building Is made to comply with the requirements of this Code for that Group. Exception: The character of the occupancy of existing buildings may be changed subject to the approval of the Building Inspector, and the building may be occupied for purposes in other Groups without conforming to all the re- quirements of this Code for those Groups, provided the new or proposed use is less hazardous, based on life and fire risk, than the existing use. No change In the character of occupancy of a building shall be made without a Certificate of Occupancy, as required in Sec- tion 207 of this Code. I Buildings In existence at the time of the passage of this Code, may have their existing use or occupancy continued, if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the passage of this Code, provided such continued use is not dangerous to life. Mixed this 505. (a) Genera). When a building is used for more Occupancy than one occupancy purpose each part of the building compris- ing a distinct "Occupancy Division," as described in Chapters 5 to 25, shall be separated from any other occupancy division as specified In Tables No. I and II of this Chapter, 36 ATTACHMENT 6 CC Report March 1, 2011 Tustin City Zoning Code c. 1947 First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 70 adopted 4/4/47) ORDI1.7ANCE NO. 70 , ORx)IRA;ter OF THE CITv OF TUSTIN li-VILATING THE I nECTION, CONSTRU^TION,-ULARG^^NT, A1:TFRATION, R"PAIR, MO`!ING, R3x04AL, DTY,.:17 OLITIONy c0F,RBION, OOCUPAN^•Y, rCVIPY-.NT, D9T.i R''•L".RT, ARTA NID 1CAL"i= T-UiANCE OF ALL BUILDING ADD/OR STRUC.T..IBT.S Ifi THE - CITY OF T??STIR; PRO'1IDI*]C: FOR T?xr 299FA??CT OF PTR?!I1S AND COLL71TION OF Frr? ,TF -ER -FORT.; PRCTIDING P72TALTIE9 ?CP. ;,J- xtIOLAT ION T-RrRFOF; DFCLARING AND ESTABLISRING FIR`: ZODr9: A`]D R7:PEALTr1G CROINANCE I i NO. 56 OF TRT CITY OF TDSTIN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN D079 ORDAIN AS FOLLUM: i Section 1. that portion of a certain document, three(3) I copies of rrhich are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Tustin, being marked and designated as "Uniform Building Code, 1946 Tdition, published January 1, 1946, by Pacifio Coast Building Officials Conference, " be and the same is hereby adopted as the building code of the City of Tustin for regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alters - tion, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area, and maintenance of 3,11 buildings and/or structures in the city of Tustin; providing for issuance of permits and collection of fe+.s therefore;. providing penalties for violation of such code; declaring and establishing fire zones; and each and all portions of the re gulatione, .provisions, penalties, conditioner and terms of such "Uniform Building Ccda, 1946 Tdition, published January 1, 19146, by the Pacific Coast 3uilding Officials Conference, " an file in the office of the City :lerk and hereby referred to, are hereby adopted, and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this Ordinance. Section 2. T%at the entire inccgperated area of the City of Tustin Is hereby declared to be and is hereby established as a Fire Distxict and said fire district shall be ?rnc•sn and designated as Fire pones 1, 2, and 3, and each such zonn shall include such t^.rritory or portions of eaid city ns illustrated, outlined and designated an a certain man on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Tustin being marked ::nd desig- r nated as "Fire*?ones of the City of Tustin," which is hereby adopted as the fire zoning map of the ^ity of Tustin for'the application of the re,ulations included in the Uniform ?uildinr. Code, 1946 ?dition, published January 1, 1946, by Pacific ^oast wilding Officials Conferenre; sr.ia map showing and setting forth the territory or portion of said City in such fire zone is uub- lished concurrently herewith and is a part hereof and attached hereto and on ^rhich is sho-n by ap•'jr0priate markings t*e vario,:s fire zones set up, designated aid estrblished hereby. Section 3. That the portions of said Uniform Building Code so adopted are as follows; Section 101 to Section 6004, both sections inclusio,, being Chapter 1, to 60, both inoluaive, of said Code; and also that section of the Code marked "Avperdix" being ??ction 702 (o) to section 5115.1 both sections inclusive; Table 22-A, 7inirum Foundation @equirementa for Type v Buildings; Section 2301; "ei^hte of Building yateriala; Section 2313, Table 'Jo. 23-A, Horizo nto.l Force Faators;. Section 2525, Termite Provisions, Section 2415, 'Casonry of Unburned Clay Units. Section 4. That said un'.form Building Code, 1946 .'dation, as adopted by this ordinance is hereby amended in the following particulars: That Section 205, paragraph 2, is hereby amended so as to read es follows; "Anyperson, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall ve guilty of a misd^mearor,. and.upon convictionthereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 4300.00 and by imprisonment of the County Jail for a period of not exceeding 90 days, or both such fine and 1^.prison- ment. Tach and every day of the oonti nuance of any violation of this ordinance shall be deemed to be a separate offense." That Section 303 is hermby amended by adding new sub- section denominated (e) to r=a as follows; In addition to the fore goin�";:,fees , and applicant sball pay the following fees for plastering: For all plastering from twenty square yards (20 sg.'.yde.) to one hundred square yards (100 sq. yds.), both incluai:ve, the mini - Mal fee shall be :;1.00. Tor all plastering over one hundred square_ yards (100 sq, yds.) and up to one. thoudandequare-yare.s - (.17000 sq. yda;-)..'one-cent..POT •,equare;Y44': )Fo;.a2j plastering over one thousand square yards (1,000 sq. yds.) up to three thousand square yards (3,000 sq. yde.) one-half cent per square yard. ror all plastering over three thousand square yards (3,000 sq. yde.), one-gaartar cent per square yard. That Section 303 is hereby amended by adding a new sub - j section to be denominated subsection (f) and to rer,.d as follows: That before any building per -it is assued there nuat be deponited with the iseuing official an additional fee to cover the cost of inspections required for the propeid completion of the construction authorized by said permit, said fer,deposit, in- cluding the cost of the building permit, shall in no event be less i than 112.00 and that if after the required inspections the _;hole of said "12.00 shall not have been used to defray the ooit of inspection the applicant shall be ertitled:to a refund of that ain8dnt paid in excess of the cost of the building per..^_it and the cost of inspections for said building, if any. Section 5. Thct' eotion 2501 is hereby amended by adding a ne^ subsection to be denominated subsection (e) and to read as follows: "(_) Infected Lumber. All wood used in any structure shall be, free from fungus, dry rot, pile burns, termites and all other disease or growth detrimental to lumber." Section S. That Ordinance 10- 50' entitled "An Ordinance of the ^ity of Tustin adopting the Uniform Building Code, 1940 Edition, Regulating the 7redtion, Construction, ::nlnrgement, 70pair, Yoving, Removal, Conversion, 7emolition, Oeeµpaney, 'equipment, Use, Hniaht, Area, and Wmintenance of Buildings and/or Structures in said city:. Providing for the Issuance of Permits and Collection of Fens therefor;. Declaring and-stablish- ing'"ire Distticte; Providing Penalties for the 'violation there- of, and Repealing Ordinance Vo. 20," Is hereby repealed. Section 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be uncon- stitutional, such decision shall not affedt the balidity of the remaining portions of thi's Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that, it would have passed this.Ord'iranon and each section, 9 .;19/ subsection, sentence, claus,, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses Gnd phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section G. ?.mer;enoy. This Ordinance is urgently required for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety of the City ' of Tustin, and shall be in immediate effect on the date of final adontion by the City Council. The following is a specific state— ment showing the evergency of this ordinance: That the demand for building permits and applications for new eonstructionja extremely great and any newly -proposed buildingasand:other,POonstrun ttoni' do not':meet.with '.approtred'•.r: .. standards for adequate fire protection under existing conditions and that public safery ;:nd health require immediate reyalations be imposed to control and provide minimum safery standards for building and constructions in the various.areas of the city. Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the *Same to be published once Tin the Tustin news, a,:*eekly newspaper of general circulation, .printed, published and circulated in the City of Tustin, Cr;,nge ^.ounty California, ;.;nd said Ordinance shall take effect and be is full force and affect immediately from the date of its final passaxe and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTTD by the City ^.ounoil of the Pity of Tustin at, its regular meeting held on the 7th day of April, 1947. :'ayor ty The Introducedbateaaregulax-meetingdofance the CitydCouncil ofand gtherCity Of Tustin, held the 17th day of March, 1947, and was duly passed and adopted at rr. regul4B& on the day ofvAYES:cNO?Se C017NCTL'^`r:. AS SM T: ` C Clerk of theCi . of Tustin. ATTACHMENT 6 CC Report March 1, 2011 Tustin City Zoning Code d. 1961 Zoning Code (Ord. 157 adopted 11/6/61) 77"! ORDINANCE $1;57 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO USES OF LAND AND - USES, LOCATION,. HEIGHT, BULK, SIZE AND TYPES OF BUILD- INGS AND OPEN SPACES AROUND BUILDINGS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS OF THE CITY, SPECIFYING SAID DISTRICTS: PROVIDING FOR THE 'i ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH REGULATIONS AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF= REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. The Council of the City of Tustin, California does ordain as follows: Ordinance No. 71 of the City of Tustin and any amend- ment to said Ordinance is hereby repealed. Section 1. ADOPTION OF ZONING PLAN. There Is hereby adopted a Precise Zoning Plan for the City of Tustin, State of California. 1.1 This Ordinanoe shall be known by the following short title: "THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN* Section 2. The purpose of this Ordinance Is to provide for i regulations for the systematic execution of the Land Use element'' of the Master Plan for the physical development of the City of Tustin. Section 3. There are hereby established districts into which the City of Tustin is divided and which are designated as follows: RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT OR 'R -A' DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL ESTATE DISTRICT OR "E-4' DISTRICT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OR "P -D" DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR '$-1' DISTRICT DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR RR -2" DISTRICT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR 'H-3" DISTRICT RETAIL COMMERCIAL OR "C„1' DISTRICTS .r. CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS OR 'C-2" DISTRICTS l HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OR 'C_3" DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OR "M' DISTRICT PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OR 'PM' DISTRICT UNCLASSIFIED OR 'U' DISTRICT 776 3,1 In addition Section 3, there is hereby which may be combined with Section 3: said district t COMBINING PARKING DISTRICT 3.2 The bounder established by Sections 3 oertaln map entitled •ZONII porated herein and made a as is herein fully.set,for made for full particulars 4 eithin said districts.. Thi to be subject to the regal+ distrie,Ve as said regulabii hereof* to the distriots-estabalshed in estdblishad.one combining district 9uv of the dletriste'seb forth in pe designated ae folloge: OH +P" DISTRICTS a of the districts designated and 4.3.1 hereof ars as shown on that MAP OF THE GIW, OF TUSTIN", incor rt of this Ordinance by reference and to which reference In hereby $.to the looation.of;the.areas shown 'Districts shown are hereby,declared ¢Ione pertaining to,such designated. za ara set -forth in Section 4 and g 3.3 Where the e#agt boundaries of a district cannot lie reAdily'or.axpotly aeoe}talned.,by;refeFenge to. the.Zpning Map of the City of Tustin" this boundary shall be daeaed to be, along the nearest "rest lot line, as the-oase,may be. If a district boundary,line,di ides,or splits a lot, the -lot shall be. deemed to be•included'.witbin the district which Is the,more restrictive. The provisions of the Section shall not apply to acreage. Lreafter 3.4 All lands included within the City of Tustin are, and shall befdesignated as the�distriot-under which the land was zpned"undarlIthe County Zoning!ONInance: All other lands which are hot desifnated on the aforementioned Zoning Map as being included.in:agv diatrigt.are, a� shall be designated as OUor Unolassifled Dist ict. Section 4,,DBSIGNAT;OK OF.HEGIILATIONS;IN TBE DISTRICT NEHRIMAP H at4iitisHm .&xoept a provided in thin sections no structure EXHIBIT ON FILE WITH CLERK I d '771 shall be ereoted,. reconstructed, enlargad<, altered or moved; nor shall any'building or land be used except as hereinafter specifically provided and allowed In the districts in which such structure and land are located. Section 5. GENEHAL.PEOVISIONS, CONDITION5.AND-EXCEPTIONS $.1 A11 regulations in this ordinanoi pertaining to the districts established -in Section 3 and 3.1 hereof are subject td'the'general provisions, conditions and-exysptione.contained:. to this section.. F 5.2 If any ambiguity 'arises concerning the apyropri#te olaesEication of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this ordinance, or with respeot'to matters of height, area requirements or zone boundaries as set forth herein, the Planning Commission shall ascertain all pertinent facts and by resolution s"rth-"its findings and interpretations and thereafter mush interpretation shell governs eioept if the City Council of Tustin directs the Planning CohOl cion to adopt a.different inter preta t3on. 5:3 All of the uses listed in this seotlon,,and all matters directly related thereto are declared to besuaes, possessing characteristics of such unique and special form as, to make impractical their inclusion In any'olass of use set.forth. in the various districts herein defined, and therefore the. authority for and location of theoperation of any of the uses designated herein shall be subject to the Issuance of a use _ permit In accordance with the provisions of Section 7,2.,. In addition •to the.oriteria for determining whether or not a use permit should be issued as set forth in Section 7 hereof, the Planning Commission shall consider the foljowing additional, factors to determine that the charaoteristios.of the listed uses will not be unre4agnably.incompatible ,with uses permitted in surrounding areae: 778 (.1) damage or nuisance from noise, smoke, odor, duet or vib- ration; (2) hazard 'from explosion, contamination or fire; (9) hazard occasioned by unusual volume or character of traffic or the congregating ofalarge number of people or vehicles. The uses referred to herein are as follows: (a) Airports and landing fields (b) Establiehmenta or enterprises involving large assemblages of people or automobilesas follows: ' 1, Amusement parks and race tracks 2, Circus or carnivals , .. 1. 3. Recreational facilities,. privately operated (o) The mining of natural mineral'resources, togdher with the necessary buildings and appurtenances incident thereto. (d) Removal or deposit of earth other than in connection with excavations or deposits in connection with oonairuotion of building', roadways, or public or home improvements. — 5.4Accessory buildings shall be constructed with, or subsequent to the construction of the main building.. 5.5 Publicutility distribution and transmission line towers, pylae and underground facilities for distribution. of gas, water, electricity and telephone communications shall be allowed in all districts without limitation as to height or without obtaining a Use Permit thereof and the provisions or this Ordinance shall not be oonstived to limit or interfere with the inatallation, maintenance and operation of public utility pipelines and electrio transmission or telephone communleatiori lines when located in accordanoe with the app plicable rules and regulation& of the Publio Utilities Com- mission of the State of California and wi$hin•rights of way, I I easements,-franchlse, or ownerhlp of such public utilities: 5.6 Signs for the advertising of the sale of a aub.. division may be 'displayed on the site of the subdivision, •upon the securing oft Uae Permit for the ereotion of such sign.; r" 779 directional Signe to, sigh subdivision may be allowed not. ex - Goading one mile from subject subdivision If not over 100 square fseti in area., upon the securing of a Use Permit. for such signs. 5.7 Where chimneys, silos, cupolae, flag poles, monuments, gas storage holders, radio and other towers, water tanks, church steeples and similar structures and mechanical appurtenances are permitted in adistrict, height limits may be exceeded upon the securing of a Use Permit in each case. 5+8 In any district with a height limit of less than seventy-ffva'(75) feet,'publlo and semi-public buildings, schools, churches, hospitals and other institutions permitted in such district maybe erectedtoa, height exceeding that herein specified for such district, provided that the cubical contents of the building shall not exceed an area equal to the area of the site upon which it is to be constructed multiplied by,the`faetor three (3), and provided that the front, rear .and aide yards shall be increased one (1),foot.foe each one (1) foot by which such building exceede.the height limit hereinbefore established for such district. , 5.9 Upon seouring a Use Permit any building inany or.'M"-District may be erected to a height exceeding that herein specified for such district, provided that the cubical contents of the building shall not exceed an area equal to the area:of the site upon which it is to beconstructed multiplied by the factor five (5). 5.10 Interpretati9n of Parking Hequireigents. When the , provisions of Sections 5.8 or 5.9 above are used,, any portion. of a structure above ground used for, tenant, patron or guest, parking of automobiles shall not be counted as ,a part of .the allowable groan area. In determining theamount of parking required for etructuree non -conforming as ho.parking requirements, the requirements set out shall only apply to any proposed ex- pension of the area of the building or use and to remodeling of a structure or use when such a change in occupancy. will, in the opinion of the Planning Commission, be of such a character as to require compliance with the parking requirements of this ordin- ance in order to protect the public safety and property, valvae in the area. 5,11 Fences, hedges and walls may be erected in any district subject to the following conditions. (a) Fencee, hedge&, and walls shall,not exceed six (0 feet in height on or within all rear and eidaiproperty lines on interior lot linea, .,. and on or to the rear of all front .yard set- back linea (,b) No fence, hedge or -wall over three (3) feet in height shall be -erected in any front yard, or - In the side yard on the street side of either a corner lot or on a lot, the rear line or, i which abuts the side lineof an adjoining lot (a) A six foot fence, hedge or:xallmay be located not closer than five (5)feet from the side property line on the street side of any corner lot (d) Fenoes or structures exceeding six (6),•Yepq,An ; height to enclose tennis courts or similar..sroas when such fences enclose the rear half of lqt, may be erected subject to the.obtaining of a Use Permit therefor (a) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a fence�or wall required by any law or regu- lation of the State of California or any agency • thereof for reasons of public safety 281 5..12 Archiieotural features on the main buildings. such as cornices, eavei and; canopies mey hot extend closer'. than three -(3) fset ,tb any sid'a lot:llne'.' Eaves and asnopies . Tay expend a maximum of 3t'into the required. front yard and. no closer than five"'(5*) feet .to any rear lot line. Fire-*' places, not exceeding six (61) feet in+brsadith, mdy attind " not closer than three (.3'*) feet'bo any ,side, lot` Sine. 5.13. Open,•unodVsi4ed raload porch".. landing places j or out side:etairways may project not olaifer-than four (4) feet to any side lot line, -"and not exceed six'(6*):feat in breadth, may extend not closer than:thrse (3') feet to'any side lot line. 5.14 Whenever an Official Plan Line has been establish - 64 forany-street, regaired. yards -she.U, be measured from such line mad in• no wase elialN the provi►loss of this•°ordininoe be r" oonegivad as permitting any.encroaohment upon an Official Plan •Line,. .. .. , '.5x13 { Where'an accessory building is: attached to the main building, 'At shall be made structurally a part of and have i a oouaon,roof wlthAhe.mainibuilding; and -shall -comply in all - r it1bats with the�rsquiremsnte of this.ordinance-applicable to the main building. Provided however, that.garage.entrances on . a dwelling, or dwellings, fronting:-cn any 'lot liae;ahall be located not `less' than 26 feet!froar said Tot line. Unless so attaohsd,'aq•aoosseory building in.an,:•H• Distriot shall be located'an the rear one-half (1/2) of the. lot and at least. ton (10) reet.from any dwelling-bVAMing,Iexisting vV..urger con-, i� struction on•the same'lot,ibr any adjacent loth .Suoh accessory buildi4 shall, not be •1t ckted irithii i7e• ($) feet. of, any alley or w1th13i•.(1j one foot -'of tie -side. line of the-lat+or; in the base of a cola'erlobq-•to project-beyondthe: front,gard• re- quired or existing an the adjacent lot. Carports in any OR" 782 District shall be enclosed by a solid wall on any side or rear of such oarport;.when such wall Is proposed to be located,withln five (51) feet of any adjoining lot line. .. .. _ 5.16 Swimming Poole in 'R' Districts.shall'be..00n- structed on the rear one-half of the lotlor 50 feet.from.the. I front property line, whichever is the lose; such poole_ehall not be located closer than 5 feet to any rear lot.line or side line, On the.atreet side of any corner lot, where the rear lot line abuts a side lot line, no pool shall be located closer than 10 feet to such side lot line.. .. Pllter and beating systema for such pools shall not be located closer than 30 feet to.any.dwelling other ,than the owner's. ... Nopool shall occupy over 50% of the .l`equirsd rear yard. Coverage by a swimming pool.ehall not be considered In measuringmazlmum lot coverage'. 5.17 In R-1 and 4-2 Districts, where four (4),or mora lots In a block have been improved with buildings at,the time of the passage,. of this ordinanoe..(not Including accessory buildings),the minimum required front setback shall be..the average of the improved lots, if said. setback Le -leas than the aforestated requirements« .. _ ... 5.18 Single family dwellings only may be ereoted.on any parcel of land. the, area of which' is less than the building site area require& for the particular district in which said parcel is located, but if, and only,if said parcel was.,in single ownership at the time,of:. the adoption of this ordinance and said single ownership was.reborded in the Offloe.of the County Recorder. of Orange County, No structure shall be erbated on any .sub- standard parcel if said parcel was acquired from the owner or owners of contiguous property -or. said contiguous ownerls or dwnere' P'+ 6. transferee, after the effective date of this ordinance. 5.19 The width of side yards on single family dwsll- inge>ponstructed pursuant to Section 5.18 may be'reduosd to tan 'percent (10%). of the w4th.of .euoh parcel, but in no case to lees than four (4) feet.' ' 5..20 In.any 'B•,Distriotj except4R-11, where a _ dwellingrunit,ie:located on,a lot•mo,that-the front entrance 9 is located on,agy aide lot line, the required side setback - from thw front 'setback line,to such entrance,shall not be less than 8 feet. - 5.21 Dwelling groups shall ba•construoted so that the following minimum distances are provided: . (a), Minimum of ten UQ) feet between buildings (b), Minimum of twelve (12) feet between aide yard line and aocess aide of single row dwelling groupa,. ('o)• Minimum of thirty (10) feet between access 5.22 BuildikWiA8erhe main we 1 of buildings in doubl? rows' Building; llpem are. an, atated..14 thins section,un]eee otherwise .shown.on'Zone Map. No.buUding. k1. spall-.bm .oloaer,to a property line or. to the.genter lhnc of any street or highway than the building line applicable I• thereto# Front, aide or near yard abutting Highway or Streeti -'Measured from Centerline q 784 Build'ing'Line', r'or '+Build3a4 Lii(e f6r- SRCONDARY Highway PRIMARY Hi$h�way, DISTRICT • (60 F. HM ... ". • . (100"11 ) ' . . Front H-A 60 50% 65F 70t ;60+ 75'. R-4 601 30'. 65,.. 70'' 601 75" :. H-1 60.. :30P:': 651 , 70i. 6p" 75' R-2 6o' ,,5o, .. 654. 70' 600.. 75` H-3 601 $01. .b50 . 70' 61V . , 75,.,,• C-1 55, .55' 55' 651 650 65► .. , . C-2 55*. 55' , ..55' '65*. '65t-'•' 65a: 0-3 55F. 551OF 6$,.- •'.; 65,,...,,.65$. M-1 55' 551 351' 63% 65F 651 PM 631 :65F 65' 750.. ;75,,. 750 •-5.23 Architectural Approval. In case an application is made for a permit Por any building or structure in any H-3,.; M" or`"PM". i District, saltkappllcatioii shallbe�aaoomNL14d'by-arahitectural drawings orsketchdi!, showing the slevdtions of' he prcposod building- or= .'atruoti4Fe ank peojoeed 1a4Aaoap41 or other treatment' of the grounds' ar4(ind'4uoh building br' st'ruoturel. '§u'oh draw- ings or sketches shall be considered by the Planning Commi'ealon in an endeavor to provide; that the arohitectpral and general appearance of such buildings, at res and ,ggpunde; be in,, keeping with the character of theneighborhoodand such as not to be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development, of the city, .or to Impair the desirability of investment or'oc- cupation In the neighborhood. 5.24 The Planning Commission may appoint ari Architectural. Committee of three of its members, ar.two of Its members and the City Planner. r - 5.25'' The'Architeotural Committee shall have authority to approve • architectural sketches within the meaning of Section 5.22 of this ordinance: -•- ••• :'•' 5.26 1W case 'the applicant is riot -satisfied with the deolsion,of the Architectural Committee; he may within fifteen (15) days after such action appeal th'writing to the Planning Commission'. The Architectural Committee may, if it deems it advisable; refer any application for architectural ap- proval to the Planning Commission which shall either affirm or reverse the decision of the Architectural Committee within 30 days after the filing of such appeal. `5.27 In case the applicant is not satisfied with the action of the Planning Commiaeion, he may within (30) days appeal in writing to the City Council, and said Council shall reverse or affirm the decision of the Architectural Committee within thirty (30) days after the filing of such appear 5.28 No permit shall be issued in any case herein- above mentioned until such drawings and sketches have been approved by the Architectural Committee of the Planning Com- mission, or City Council, and all buildings, structures. and grounds shall be in accordance with the drawings and sketches. 78; Section 6. NONCONFORMING USES 6.1 Except as otherwise provided in this section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of I the adoption of this ordinance may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this ordinance for the district !"1 in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no non-oonforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. Ir any non-conformtag use is dis- continued or abandonedo* any subsequent use ,of� suet}. lend or. building shall conform to 'the regulations specified. for'thp- , district in which such fans or building.ls located. ,If no r-- struoturgl alterations are made therein, a non -conforming use of a nonmoonforming building maybe phangad to,anothpr.uRg.of _ .,the some or more restrictive olapsifioation upon the securing., ;.of a use permit, if the non conforming use is replaced :by a more,restrictive don-oonfor*bAgg,.use,,the ooqupanoy thereafter maynot-revert to a less restrictive use.; If•eny pee Is wholly. discontinued for any reason exaept:purouant to a valid.;ordea of a courtof law for a period of; one (1)' year, it,shall be con-'; elusively presumed that,suoh use has beenabandoned within the meaning of this ordinance,, and all future:.uses, shall comply, with the regulations of the particular; district }.n which ,the .land or building is: located. 6.2 Any building: or structure existing at the date of the adoption of this,:ord4nanee which is,non.confcrming either In uea, deslgn,o arraggement,Shallnet be enlarged,. extended•, reoonstructed or etruotgrally altered unleps ouch.: enlargements extension, reconstruction pr alteration is in;com— pliance with She regulations not forth in this ordinance fpr the district where such building or structure is located; pro- vided however, any ouon non-contoraing building or structure' may be maintained,- repaired or portions thereof replaced eo long as such maintenanoe, repaire'or rdplaoemente do noteioeed fifty (90%) percent of the buildingle �assessed vaiuetio`a as shown on the assessment rolsofthe City of Tustin. 6.3 A non-oonformi ' ng building destroyedtothe " r" extent of more •than,fift y per bent150i of ite:reas'onable value at the time'of�.its destruction by firs,'exploaion, or other oasuaIty or Act ,of Godo may be restored and used only In oompllpnoe with the; regulations extating in the distridt 787 wherein it Is located. 6.4 The .foregoing proviaione'of this section shall apply to.strjetures, land and uses which hereafter become non- conforming due to, any.amaunt.of reclassitiontion of districts under this ordinance-; provided, how ever; publie,umes, public utility buildings, public utlltty uses existing at the, time of the adoption of this ordinance or existing at the time of realaesi- fioa'tion of districts shall not be considered non-oonforming. ' Section 7: '20NIS& PERMITS: tUSE :PMITSi AND,VABIANC93; AND'.'_ .REVOCATION OF PERMITS. .7{1 Zoni�ita shall be issued in conjunction with and;ae.a part of building permits, and shall be issued by the Huilding,Department of the City of Tustin after, the ,Build- Eng Tnepeotor has determined that ,any proposed construction is in sonfoPmlty withthe regulations, for the ,didtriet inwhich It is to be located: No build ing permit,epall be }ssuedyuntil the zoning permkt portion thereof hsa been completed by the Building In- epeotor of the City of Tustin or his authorized representative. 7.,X Ties v_ a fey y be issued,as provided in this section fgr.,any of the uses or: purposes for .which much permits are re. „ . tie'terms,of thio ordinance upon'oon- ggired or permitted by... ;¢itions ¢ealgnated by the Planniwg,Commlesion. The Commission may Impose such.ponditions.ae it deems neaeeasry to secure the i purpgaeeofrthls,ordinanoe.`and may require tangible guarantees or evidepce that such,condltionq are,bsing or will,•be complied with. Applications.for use.permits.may be considered alter holding publichearings thereon,, asrequired,by law. Notice of much 4 hearingq shall be given to the persons designated and in the. manmerprescribed in Section 10.2. 7.21._ Application for;,useapermits shall be made in writing, by the owners of the property, leasee, purohaser,in ea. FM crow, or optionse, 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 of the City of Tustin., The application shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars and plana showing the details of the proposed use to be made'of the land or building, 7.22 Upon receipt of the application for use permit, the Planning Commission shall determ4a whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will,,under the circumstances of the particular base, be detri- mental to the health, safety, morale, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing -or working in the neighborhood of suoh 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 ths�Commission finds that the afore- mentioned conditions will not result from the particular use applied for, it shall grant the use permit. The granting of a use permit applied .for by the plaintiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the properiy'shall be conditioned upon ultimate vesting of title of the property to the plaintiff. 7.•3 Variances. Applications for variances fro® the strict application of the terms of this ordinance may be made and variances granted when the Following circumetanoes are found to apply: (1)That anyvariance'granted shall'bs subjeot•to' 'each conditions as will insure -that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not -1 oonstitute a grant of special privilege Inconsistent with ihe'limitations'upon other properties*in the vicinity and district in which the aubjeat property is situate. (2) That because of special circumstances ap- plicable to subject property, Including sizs,'ahape,'topography, location or surrounding&, the strict applioation of ths'zoriing ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges 789 'enjoyed by other properties lnthe vicinity and under identiml i zone classification. 7.31 The use cil_lands ,or buildings not in,conformity with the'regulatione:epeoifle4,for the, district -in which such I _ lands or buildings are located may not be allowed..by the granting of a variance from the striotappllcAtioq.of the terms of this ordinance: , 7:32 Applications for,varianca-;shall be made In,writi_pg. by,a property owner, leasee., purchaser in ebcrow,.�or optionee with'ths:ognsent of;the.'ownere„,yr plaintiff An ap,.aotion for' eminent'domain'for poquieltion of said property,on a form pres- oribed by'the-Plaaning Commievion.of..the Pity gf�Tustln. They shell be. accompanied: by a.,fee:.of: firty;.dcllare ('�50,gD)',j,a plan of the d'et611e of the 'variance requested,and evldence,.showing.(1). that. the granting'of,Che varlanoe;wilI notbe contrary to ths,intent r„ of this ordinance or to the public safety,' health and welfare, ' and'(2) that due to speoial.conditions or exceptional character_ iatiosof the'property,`or its location,"ths.strict application. of this ordinance would result inpractioel'difficulties,and un- necessary hardship. 7.33 Upon reselpt of an application for variance, the Plaiming Commission of the City of. Tustin shall set a date for, "a''pgbld'o hearing'on said application; said.hearing_shall be hold - within forty_five"(45) days after the filing ;of the application. Nbbice of such hearing ehall.be given as met forth in Section 10.2. 7.34, After the conclusion of the public hearing or con- i tinuat.ioni thbreof the Planning Commission shall grant or deny a -permit to modify' the,applipatioR of..:the restric,,yione established ` by this ordinance. ..The Co®jpiAslgn,,.,l.f the ;applloant,sor t$e variance consents' thereto, mgy'ohangq or modify .the extent, of the variance requeete&.but•only` f egoh change, or modification oon- etitutes.a more .reethiativelvariange than. that requested by, the 790 applicant, The granting of a variance applied for by the plain- tiff in an action in eminent domain to acquire the property shall be conditioned upon ultimate vesting of title of the f property to the plaintiff. 7.33 No use permit or permit granting a varianowshall have any force or effect until the applicant thereof actually resolves such permit designating the conditions of its issue thereon and signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission of.tho City of Tustin: No permit shall be issued by the -City of Tustin until the timefor filirigan'appeal from decisions of, ` the• Planning Commission as' prbAded Iii Seotidn! 8 'hereof' has' ex- pired. or, in the event of-such.appsil. ,'after the finaL determin- stion thereof by the 'City Council,: 7:A: Any iise- permit or'variince 'grahtbd" in goocidanoo' " with the terms"bf mai:'ordiniiaoe'shall bdnu]S"and: -void•-lt not used,wixhin one (1).,year from-the'date of the approVAl thereof' or withineanyllongeiz'period �of time if ad' desighat6d by the` ' Planning.Gosmitsolun "or'the, City Coundil.:' 7.i$ Any use permit or variance granted in accordance +" .with the terms or this'ordlnsnce may be revoked by the City Council ini.ths-,m nner hereia&fter'set!forth �if any of'the oon. ' dations orterms oT such permits' ers'violated''or if the follow- 1 ing findings are mad'ei '' fa) In connection with use permits: The b'ontinuance'P of the use.would:be detrikentel"-to the'he'alth, safe'ty,''morals, ooWfort and general welfare of 'the persons r6elding'oe working" the neighborhood of such use, or wo6ld be i.Wjurious or datri"#tal to property and.improvemantd-in"the nelahboi`hood' or to' the general welfare of- the City.. ' . (6)' im oonneation with variincat�:COZMAUdd'relief` " from.the strict application of the terms of.thisordinance seffld bs:�oontrary to the public interest, safety,. health and welfare, ' 791 7.6 -Before the Council considers revocation of any permit, the Planhing Commission shall hold a'hearing -the eon after giving written notice thereof to the:pprptttee at,leaet. r. ten (10) days in advance of such hearing. Within five 15) days thereafter,, the Commission shall tranomit.a report. of Lts-fLad,. ings and its recommendations on the revacation to the City i i Council.. - Section i - APPEALS " 8.1 'Any pereon'may appeal any6rder-, requirement, decision or determination of the Planning Commission,'in the manner set forth'in Chia section unless the jurisdiction of the Commission is declared,,by`ordinance to he final and'aon_, clusive on' the- aubjeot matter iiL question.'- ' 8a2 Appeals shall be -made in viriting and file& with the City Clerk,together iiith a tiling -fee of'teA (;10) dollars, with;n five.(5) days after the'final action of the Planning Commission.'Upoa receipt of notioe,of such appeal the.City Clark shall gfW a 'time within forty-five (45) daya:'sfter the receipt of such'notipe of 's public hearing on said appeal. Notice of such Hearing shall be given as set forth In. Section 10 hereof.' Thb'City Clerk shall also notify the -Panning Commission of the City of Tustin of such appeal.;. - 8.9'The 9eoret"ary of the Planning Commission, -upon. - V receipt of the notice'of appeal,' shall prepare a report of the fact's,pettainingto the Seoision' of the Plannning Codmiesion I and shall submit such report,to the City Council, along with.the reasons for the Cbmmiss1006 action*. . 8:4' "At the closing,of_th'a' pubiio_.hearing. the City I Council' may 'af4Yrm, revise'or. modify the'deelision of the Planning Commission.. -"If the Council4ces not take any action on the appeal 'within sixty "(.66). days after'the f111ng'thereof 792 the Commission'a action Abell, be deemed affirmed., Section 9 AMSMDMSMTS'- - 9.1" B)coept as otherkise;provided is this'seotion, any amendment to:thlaordinancemay ter 'ihitiated''and "adopted ' as other ordinances are 'amended '*kr Adopbed:`•• "• ' 9.2 Any amendment to this ordinance which changes any property from one district tolanother distridt., or Imposes any regulation upon property not theretofore imposed, or re- moves or modifies any such regulation, shall be initiated and adopted as hereinafter set forth'in this article. 9.3 Any amendment of the nature speoifigd in Section 9.2 hereof may.pe initiated.,(1) the filing with the Tustin Planning Commission ,of a,rasalutign of intention of the Council of the City of.Tyatin, (2)„passage of a resolution of intan- - tion by the Tustin Planning ,Cgmmisaign, or (j) filing xiththe Planning Commission of'a petition ,of,one or more recordowners of property .which is:,the-subject of,the,prop?ged amendment or their•authoriaed'_agents_ ,A petition for,ampndment shall be ona. form designated therefor. by the Tustin Planning•Commission and,Ahall be a000apanigd by 6;5.¢ewof onp.,hundreA.(l100,00.) dollars.” 9,.4 Upon.rpoeipt,of:a petitior{ or,reaolgQion of Intentionof amendment* tn he,?kanninK .Cgmniesio'ehah n. .. date for a public hearing.thereon,, but not.leter than forty�flye (4$) days after the rscelpt of. said petition or,resolption. 9.5 ' If the yroposg4 agendmeua oonaiats of, a,change in the boundaries of, e[yr, diptriot� (the.,Planning Commission' shall give notice of the, time,and, place of: such hearing, and the purpose thereof ,in tha manner' designated in Sgation•10.2 of this ordinanoe.',If.,ihe proposed amendment Is.of.a-matter of general or oity-ride scope., notice thereof shell be given . as provided in Section 10.3 hereof, .9.6 After.the.closs of .the publio hearing or can- tinuytions thereof, the Plsnning',Comnission shall make a reporb ofite findings and its reoommendation-with respect to the proposed amendment Thq_Commiesion report,ahsll icnoluds.a list of persons who testified at the hearing, a,euaasrK of the facts adduced at the hearing, the findings of the Commission,, and copies of, any maps or, other data and/or deoumentary evidgnoe submitted in conaeotion•with.the..proposed amendment, Copy of such report a)tdreoommendation shall '*a tansaittpd to the City ,Council within. ninety (90) days after the first notice of hear- ing thOreon; provided however,, that such.time may be extended with the consent of the City,Council or the petitioner for such "jndmentr Tn the event the., Planning Commission fallsto report to the City Council within the aforesaid ninety (90). days a within the agreed exteasion.of time, tha amendment r shall be,deamed approved by -the Planning Commission. The rsoom. mandation of,the, Planning Commission on proposed. amendments, shall be adopted by a. majority of the voting members of said Planning Commission. . 9.p Upon reee pt,of the reaommpndatton-of�the Planning Qomrgiesion,or ' iratipi oP'tbe.atoresaid pinety (90) days or -,agreed upas exEbnd.ed'perlod,_ the City"C`dnnoilI'shall hold a publia hearing thereon giving x{etlopthereoS as provided in. Seetlon l0. After',th4,00na.usion.of suoli'hearing the'City.', In' Counoil may with/one (1)year adopt the proposed amendment or' any part, theaeot.set forth. in. the po-titiog..or, lresolution of, Intent iap-in euoh,form As, the Council -.deems depirable,: . r Seotion,i0,, NO ;Cgs 9P-,Hwlx 0.8 , lihenpver this,oidinA.noe presbribeq that a public hearing shall be held on Lha applicstlon br variange or amepd- ; menta to this,ordinance, no tics thereof shallbe given as . PrpAfded,antha.seotiori - .. ... . 794. 10.2 Notices of publlo.hearings on applioations for use - variance, appeals and amendments to this ordinance.changing the boundaries of any district shall be given by.the body can., � ducting such hearings in the manner prescribed by Sections 65951 and 65651 of the Government Code of the State of California. 10.3 Notices of public hearings on matters other than • . . .,•., ...L. .. . .. as specified in Section 10.2 harpof shall be given �by the body conducting suchhearing by publication in a newspaper of general . ., ..� .. I.. .. .. o . . . . circulation in the City of Tustin at location (10) days before the hearing. .. ., . .. i„ . . . , r. . , , 10.4 Failure to mail or poet notices as specified in Section 10.2 hereof shall not invalidate any proceedings, 10.s Upon completion of the posting or mailing of the notices provided for in�Seotbn 10.2 and publication of notices as provided in Section 10.:2 and 10.9 hereof, the City Clerk, if the hearing Is hold by the Planning Commission,: of if the hear- ing Is held by the City Council shall cause an affidavit of such mailing or publication to be -filed in the 'permanent records of .tha.partioular"proceedings to which such notices pertain, Section q,. '.Definitions or the ,terms used in ,this, Ordinance are est, forth Sn.,Paragrpphs 1 to. 5,,k.'inclusive. 11.1 ,"AQpinistrptive Office" r, an office -,for the. render_ Ing ofservice or gellerpl,admipietrati_gn,.,but,excluding retail. ,. sales,, }l.2 .tAlley"',- a ipubl,ic or private ray„less, than 39 feet in wj.dth_rhiph:a;fords,a opcondary_mepaq.,pf apaega.tg,�abutting property. 11.3 ,!Aver",- any,buil¢ina or port,;,gn,• thereof which is, designed and,built,for ,gooupanoy of three or„more families,. 11.4 , "motes* or "Hote1” - a •bingle .b�ldlrig, of 's group of detached buildings containing guest Mom;.gr,,por;v"Ats,,;HiLt}.. F I automobile; storgge�space provided, oix the site -for. such rooms or apartmenta:provided. in cgOnectionstherewith, which group is '1^ deeignbd and -used primarily for .the acoommodation of transient - i automob).le•trgvslsra. ,11,9 •Block•. _ ,all -property fronting upon one aide of a ,street between intersecting.and, intercepting. atreets,•or - hetwom a, street: and a railroad Sight -of -way, water -way, dead and atreeb--or city boundary 'An 'intercepting street shall determine.only the boundary -of the block on -the aide of a street i which -it intercepts. _ I1.6.,•aoardina,Houee!,_ a dwelling other than ahotel, . r where lodgAg'and/or.mealq for three (3) or more person ,is ,. provided.for aompgnsatiop. - - 11.7 "B il] ldj any.otruoture having a roof supported by e,glu=s gr by walls ,and•designed,for-the shelter or housing of any,peraon, animal or ohattel. 11.e: !Bgilding. Acca se orv° - a subordinate building, inoluding.;Ahelters or pools, the use of which -is -incidental to j.that of t},W.. main: building on the samelot and/or building sits. . 11.9. "Building. Main" _ a building in which is conduoted I the principal use of the lot and/or building site oh which it Ss situated.. 11,10 •Bui;dins:Site• _ ,a lot., or parcel of land, in - single or joint ownership•„and,,_ occupied or to be occupied by a main huilding.and accessory.buildinge, or by a dwelling ' group.and its accessory buildings, together with such open I spaces as are required by the terms of -this ordinance and r ! having its.* principa•1 frontage on a street, road, highway or, waterway. 11,11 "Buildi�Betaila- any establishment where the ,retail sale of any article,. substance,..ar...commodity, but not including the sale oflumber or other building matev%als, dr the sale of used or esoond-hand goods or materials of any kind.. 700 il 11 12 'Business, Wholesale' - The wholesale handling of any artiolei„eubetange or commodity, but. -not Including the handling of lumber. or other building; mates—We or,the' opm storage, or• sale of -any material or. commodity-,, andnot Including. th6iprooessing•or, manufacture of any produot,or substfnoe.:: 11913 •CembinLdzaDLstriat`.. any, diatriot 4mi•which`thclr general, district regulations, are,00mbined,vith those special: . districtsdefined jn, Section, Sal, for the purpose, of adding:adS., ditional,speciah regulations... �.. .• , 11*14 'District” --a portion of the City,_wlthiritwhich, hertain4usas of land, and buildings -are permitted, -or prohibited and within which csrtain.yards.,aud other, open spacee`ara lreq4tred. and:' certain";holgiht.. limits .-are established' for. buildings, All an- set fortji;,,j�nd" spegV.Ied In- thla. 4rdlnanses..a .. llrl5 "-Dwa111nr'" - a building or portion thereof. 'r i designed and used eacluslvely for residential sooupancri,144luding- one•i'amlly., tqo,farm],y;and, valtiple;ramjlX...dve1l1ngq but.net in. oludiAg bglielay,;pot*lq,.og�rboarding.houseei.• ,• � .� .. 110-: r'!pweIJAnA a SinglePamjayfjl . ac building,sdesSgned -for,, • . or: us9d. tq;,)?W-e neb.,more than; one family i°,:inoluding OIL necessary, employeeA o!''spq* f�4, 11:17milyor Duplex' -'m bulldlitg.moii.:" taining not more�than.•,two.kitohana,•i designed and/or used•to house . not,"rp.:thsd;,two'.families p living:, independently. of. esch�other,. -Ln- oludiing all in empinyegs.`pl:-each*nab family` �.i, lle,18 Melt"1vle• +,`*bulldLhg,or -pGvticn there- of, used Boa daa}htie¢ as •a residence if or 3 o more families livtng. Independently at,egoh.J%ther end d9IWttheir own pd¢kingAn' eaid building,luoludiajilpartodnthoussa, apartment hotels and.flats;`• but not, ,inglud4ng ,pt47:sm.boarding..houssm and"hotels. • : "kJ.•,'iq,•.:..• D„ • inx 6rouwa•' ..i a: goup.:of •• 2 `"or niers detaobad :. or lyy,; ly�..or multiple>dwelliags:ooaupy 797 Ing &..parcel of, . land-inone own.apphip and,hovAng any yard or court In, oomsonv.. but not inaludin*. aufjqmdbile acuate. lIi,20,,`Famil3rO " o4?k or. more persons ocoupying a promises .and> living on, a single housekeeping u.nit�. as distinguish. 9& from a..group'oO,guO$.iUS a,..1hotel, '0�4, Tr6tornitiy.or sorority house., A!Amily shall bs:dsems&,to include necessary servants: Faxoo'.,-• any structural device forming a physical- barr,t.qV by, means ofibsdgel. xQ hk qh n,,b e4 Ai .p.pko otake� plastic or other simila x, JPA,t.ariala. 11.-22 'kQarsqO or '!Cgq=O_ sqooasjble and usable oolrered space of -not less. t 0 10113C 20_ feet. sao4,�or a storage of 814 10 t4biles., st 4,.20 'GusAt.housew-:�, detached 34ving.,quarters, of a. Permaceat!- type of oo.nstruopion,and without kitchens or cooking,4. faoilltias,. and whereJ no;.comp.tscsqtion in.at*, form,is ro4sived or p&44.. L 11424,'Hgm'el 2go'g-1- 1920 - an.,operatI141pondubted on the promise&, by the, occupant of the dwelling as. -a- 6*qoWAr.V use iz, connect ol�. thdr . I , and;, pp 40j*r#s",_s1gnP. no Aisplay, no stock or commodity sold on th@--pftbjpOM#r no. employees in. connection. therewith. and no,mochonloal equipment asigned*. t; bq, used, }g..oqnnsctjqn.tharof�%. other than that necessary. . or, conveniont,for, do m4olp.') RUrPplpeo- 1. 1 yertl,cal .41XVance from the average. Is 9,1-,.o;.;the =4 lowest; point'VfL that portion of' the lot, covered by tPe :to OZI -POI'of, PM -0 .0 the roof l,. 11.26 -low see 'Motel,., I mors.,than 1100 square feet of the area qf.any 10 uso4jor Os ot crags: pf jpxlk,, InoludApg qqrap metal4". "lvage or Gt#?r,.1'.S,9Fap. materj4ls�'l q.v., f or, the dismantling crwrooking*:'Qf antomplytIes- or other, v.ohiples,. or. maphihory,, 1— 798._.. whether for sale'Orstorage.. 11.28 `.16W' eH6;'buildine site. ... . i1.29 *Lot the narrowest dimensionOT a lot ...--. fronting on a efreet'-,` : 11.30:e1.'at siCe'�'�, 'any 1ot7boundary not''afrbnt or rear lot line; 11,'1` "Lot ISna�_� _ 6' 1`Siie'9epatating tpe frontage from a street* the side from s street or adjoining property`the •rear" from an alley or street or adjoihing proporEy. -- - 11.'32 "`Lot` Ths<b'(i i• = a'lot,baving frputage oh two parallel or approkimateli phra11e1`8Ci?•pets. 11.33, "Non-CoAfQrX;pg use" a use that does bbt'boli:` form to thb°regulatloie for tTib 4iitrlot.zDr!"kCFit. 're'situated. 11.34 ' ,gp�' - an.sooeekble'and usable'.spaoe' an the budding sita;ap`leait Ninb'.(9) feet`by twenty"120l'fbet, locateg-off -the etre_4tfor the parking of automobiles.. 11.9 "'i �%=` ndludee any dAdi4idual,alta; county or oity ak ccuhti. �partnereh'ipat,';'oo$gor8tibne;' 000perativee.,' ' - aeeoei'ation, trubt' or any other iigal' dnti'tier.t Lntiliiding 'tusi : Federal -6evtrimsatY— .. - " 13'.36 •ii i�'eka 6nnl OfficeW 'aa''offiob'for'the'oonduat of any one of tNe �ebllow ne ut 'Olay-• AQODuntant, arahiteaV attorney, ohirgpractor, cptometrs�;, ohiropodiats, designer, ` draftemaan, ehglneer, eui*iYor,- denC1§'b; � phyai'ciaii9- and Wu'rgeong, •,'T'W'premi'ses liceneeh uftd&.+Sebfion ` 2300 of bhe 'Welfarb'hhd Ta`stitutione'Ceda4: bf the State of California.- ll.j8 "H000mt gHouse• ' see B6hrd*- ng'Efoueev'' - ii.g4''Sant'eAum' `-� ' 9' healthsttihhon-or retreat; o'r , other pisawwi4erb pstAehbs', are hbused'hIA iihbpe treatmsht 19. ' given,. but 'eiblilding'me'ntal'and initituibtio op',anst'itutiona for treatment of persons addicted to the,ati'aF"drbgvv ' 1 .799 11,40 'Service Static 0- a service station shall mean an occupancy which provides for the eerYSoing of motor 'vehicles ` aaef operations'dnoidental._thereto, limited`td the retail Salo, of petroleum products and automotive aoceecoriesp auti6abile mashing by handy waxing and:pellshiI4 of'automobiles; ;tire.changing 'and repairing, (excluding '1recapping);. battery -serviee,'charging-and`. .replacemgnt, not Including repair and rebuilding; radiaior,dlesn_;. Ing and flushing, exaluding gteam-cleaning and keopli;',-inathlls_ tion,ofnooeesories;-also'inaluding,the following ,oparationiFAY ,conducted within a'bu#ding; lubrication of motor'vehlclerp brake seryiaing=limited..to'-serviaing and.replacement-df.,braW#.Cylinders and brake shoes;+wheal'balauoing{ the,test,adjustment,, and rs:, , plasgmeht'of oirburgt0rs,_o6ils, condensers,, distribatpr capai _fan;. belts, filters# generetorq, points, rotorsr:epirk'.pluas. voltage regulators,. waterand fuel pugipe., waterbosee and wiring: 11.41 msotWk Lines"' _ a line established by,this or-.., dinance to govern.. the placement'of buildings or structured with; respect to 1'ot� linest Streets or alloys. 11.42 " Sids_and Progt.of. Corner Lots!- for the- purpose of this.grdinanee the narrowest frontage.of a corner lot facing.,..ry the -street In the front, and the longest frontage Yaoi.hg' the intersecting-:etreetisthe side, lirrespeotive�of the direction In whichthe-dwelling?Rees. ll.43,*Z=C,'- any advertising diopley or.struature., �.il,'44.•Street_.a'public thoro4hfare�a9gepted by the'.. .,City ofTustin, Hhich ,afforda prinoipal-means of•;aaosip ,to abutting property', including.avenue, plagii way, drive, lane,`toulevard, .1 •highwayj road and any other thoroughfare,exceptan alley as define herein. .11i43 'Street Lina!wLths.. boundary, street' right of,wdy,and:prapertA.,-p 15;46.`$tsyoturc* —'anything: constructed, or. erected, the M-- use ,of whioh.requires, locatton on or in-the-ground� ov.attaah- ment to something h&ving.:I4Do&tio4 on the ground, inoluding swdmming pools 1. excluding. driveways, patio* orrpanking spaces.. 11M r•Struatursa. Alterations!'. arty _she nge, in. the supporting 'membsrs.oVa::atr'uoture „ such aA bearing wallsi.. columns, beams or -girders.:.: :11.48,-•Traibr Court! .,.land or premises used or;intended to be usedi.let;or-rented for'rocoupancy by one,or more•.trailers or movable;dwallings,:`rooms'orraleeping.quarbere.of:any*klndi.; 11;48.•t:.•Sf$Q,•- thti=purpose.for" which. landor .A:buildinrq... is designed,strr qd',. qr-.intended or .for .which -.either. land or ".. building .i'*A4rA4Y .be oeoupted .or malAtained _ 11-10 4 "Rae.Anoeaecr'• :- a,use..inoidental..or.chub.. ordinate t'of<anddarctel exolueively.to•the ma•Ln.use.:Of a,aot or a build9ng. looatedon the same lots,.:,: _ r-- 11.751 i"Und* An.opan'.apame'other; than a court.,on_the same lot #1$h a building, which._open,apafie.s unoaoupied and un. . obstructed, from the ground .upward,-p;gept aa..otherwise .per_ matted in 6eotlo& 5. i,. .. '�... ' 11M.- •Yabd-Rronts., a• yardrextending.aoross the•'front: pf 't#.*..' lot between'.thll aida.yard''lines and. measured..from.'.the,: frontpline*of'the lot to the nearest line .of thenbuilding;S:. provided:however,r that if.atyr,01fLoial Plan:Line bas been established for the _street upon whichttbe-Sot faces, =the front 1 yard meaauremeaf shall':ba•.taken from, Such 'Offi'ciaL Rlan7Line to the nearest ;liAe•. bt.tha bulldingi.^._4 gard'.extetiding across the !full... r -- width of the lot;a{id measured between. the -rear line .of the lot:' , and the nearest,,14ne.-ot,: thq� main,.buildfng{ s. ... 11..54 •YarL> ae• -A yard between. the 'aide line of, the lot and the.Maearest,,line. of .the building,. and extending from the frontline of the lot to the rear yard. 801 Seotlon,12 .INTERPRETATION .. ... 12;1 Exdept"ar,.ppeoifically provided h1rein, this or- dlnAnce ahpll not'lis;lfittz rdted`t,* repaal;_'.atirogeto,.'.,annual or In any way affect any existing provision_of,any lsw.Or ordinanee' ur,regulatione or pehmitp previouslyadopCed orliesued,relating to the•.erection,, oonstruotion„.moving,,,alteretion on;,enlargement of ang building or,imprgvement; providdd hgreaer, in,sny in etanoes where thii'ordinanoe-impasse greater,restriotiods upon the ereotionp'construction, establishment, -moving, alteratioh,. or improvoilint of buildings or the useof anv'-building�or' structure thatis ilsposed ori required by an.:existing ISdk, or- dinanca'cr'regulation,' the-provisions'df this ordluanag shall control: •12.12 Whenever the'PiatlnIng-CcAy�}asion''of the,Oity of Tuattn'La called, upon to;detormins'whither or -hot the use of lan& or.any,structure'in any ¢istriet! In, :similsC�6n character . to'thd paritioalar useWAlloxed'in a district-,.`t#*`Commiselon' , shallydonp�ddr.the, f61loxing faotore as. ortt#*Aa'for Vow determidatioh: (a). Effect upon%thepubliohealth; safety, and goner&!.”Ifare'.or. the ,neighborhood InvolVel And, the. city a4 ' (b) Effect..upon •traffit, conditions .;.; (o) Effect upog.,tho.orderly_devglopment of,the area in quostlon and the, -City'af'large'in, regard 'to,.the'general� r planning, of thq whol4s,,49mapntit. _ • Sootion.17.,„ EN$DHpE40f P$QC*DUHE,A. P$NOTIES, 13 1 It.,hall be�the�duty,of the' Planning_..¢rpion of the city, of'Tustin'tb•enforce the provisicno of this ordinance .pertaining.,to the use of landor buildingd,andthe erection, con- struction, reconstruction, moving; alteration, or addition to 802 any building or structures. ,Any. permit or license ofany type . Issued by any department or officer of the City at Tustin.or the County of Orange, Issued in,00nfliot witb•the provision of.,this ordin4noq is ,hereby deolargd;".to bs,cul?,and,void:, 13.2 ,Any;buildiag or strugture;erected, constructed, altered,.gplarged, ognverted, moved pry main tained gontrary to the provisiona,of this.ordinanoq and any uqe of land or_ buildinge.opgrated gr osintained,conttary.to.,the provisions of. this ordinange are hgreby declared to be publlb,nulamagq,,The City Council .max,aomsegoe.thq necessary.actionor.procgedinge for the .abatement, remgval and ,,enjoining„thereof lnthe.masner preseribed,by.law.IA thq courts which may have jurisdiotig4 to grant suoh rgli4f_es will aeoomplish_.auch,gbatement,and .. restraint. The pemediep,provided forin this section shall be In addition to any other remedy or remedies or penalties r— provided, n.this. .ordinance or any,.,other law ,or ordinanee,.. 13.3 Any PerpgnzKl)ahgr,as prinaipal, asgat,.employee or otherwise., v#gl§y,iAg or'cagRing,the .,violation ;of, anyof the, , provisions of this, ord4ianoe,shall, ba guJ'Ity,of.a miedeipeanov, and upon. gonviot4op..theaeof.,,shall be punishable by,a fina.oY not more than flvA hundred ($500.00) dollars or by imprls=4 ment in the county,.`jall tor,ei3�:(6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; Any.,vlolation.of this..ordinanoa Which is oo®itft& and con$.SAuee from day to day constitutes a .. separate offense for each aad.pvetyday during which such violaticn .l'a-0cmmitted or gg.jPinp",. $ection 14.:. , , {T�"{r, g nz�xp cuss APD jTf3cT; nATk... 14.1 if+any provision of thi;„off }noe.of the application thsroaf to any person or oircum04noa`is held - insalid, such ShdAlAity '�halnot' hffeot 'Any' other provieions 9r appLSoaCSonb b#' tae- ordinhnab 'Whlb"h oi6 bW given effect 803 without the invalid provisions or applications, and to this end i the provisions of this ordlnange are severable. r 14.2 This Ordinaneer.ehall take effeot thirty (30) �— days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular, meeting nfthe.City Council of the City,o?tTustin,..Califoraia, held on the.6th day of November., 1961.. F 804 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS RUTH C. POE, CITY CLERK, and ex-offlolo Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify jthat the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin Is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meet- ing of the City Council held on the 16th day of Ootober� 1961, and was given its second reading and duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of November, 1961j. by the following vote: i i i AYES: COUNCILMEN: Kidd, Humeston. Byrd. Mack, Sheridan NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None i City Clerk• City of Tustin, California .| . � ! : all | \ its r' \ /; i ! .!! I ! ■ , ; ! a \ \ \ ;j) }... . ! .__� _.. � . ; `i |� �,� � r �, ,!� i i : ■ | i | •,� � � �! , : �.� � � ., � \ / A :� , ! - / ���!! � � �21 �. ,. . ... s . . . ., , q ||! ||�i|i!&l ` \ §)@ !§ / � ) !�/ e.;l |!!b|b!a ) ally [ \ i`'' i . j) A§ m§!a ,@5! [ \ q | ... . .. ?� «I! — \]^ c , —. \_ A | ,! . . .§! ..;®. .[! ' _ -� �• .�1— ' . it � p' fill" ' �U\H� qill )� - ! � ' /� \, \) ! j §� � !� §•� l� _ � J§ Nil !� ),¥ '\� ■ ! \ ■ § ! / \ � . ° ;§ §. �)) w�!. '§Q!!b(m[�' ƒ;q£/q! /§In§ :|; � !|: • . . ]! r3 m ! ! I %�� | m} !|S i) § ! � ! ! § . : M i ! �` ,/ §9\4- . § .!� §! . , ! • . !! . !! _ { \ ! ! ; ! ■ !"!!) !. , ! ! ! ! . •23 734 § ! tl4! :. - r- m~ .| ]�) - m•!!.1 l� }�| /� §§NNa§ ƒped©§ |1h\§j){ | I !!a|& . ;e, , . � %| Pill, $. � m \[. � §) . | !• § • ) , / All |§ - \gs ! am! a a ! •!� � ' | | � � Pip )� ' ■ � | . |!|,| . ' IjA!§ §± )s m� § m Rleb w� �,� •� • !! ;: ,.! ! • Af Jr ,,»- m m[ m� §g\ƒ :mm§ ]a!Itall A 1 mm 16 . � ƒ ' q!= IMA -11 . jj4; �mmmq�m±3g . � ; ' ! �;! ! 5.l' 3 _ - (• .-; w3 ƒg ) . ATTACHMENT 6 CC Report March 1, 2011 Tustin City Zoning Code e. 1989 Zoning Code Amendment regarding nonconforming properties ROW acquisition (Ord. 1013 adopted 1/3/89) 1 2 3 4 51 I 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDINANCE NO. 88-1013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, . CALIFORNIA APPRUYING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 88-06, EXEMPTING LEGAL CONFORMING PROPERTIES FROM BECOMING NON -CONFORMING DUE TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION BY THE CITY. WHEREAS, on January 3 1989 , the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The City Council finds as follows: A. A public hearing before the City Council to consider Zoning Ordinance Amendment 88-06 was duly called, noticed, and held on Monday, December 19, 1988. B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act; no significant, adverse impacts are associated with this Zoning Ordinance Amendment. C. The subject amendment is in the best interest of the public health, safety- and welfare in that it will not penalize legal conforming properties for becoming non -conforming due to the community wide benefit of public right-of-way acquisition by the City. D. The subject amendment is consistent with the General Plan in that it will not negatively impact the orderly growth and development of the City. E. The Planning Commission has adopted Resolution No. 2541 recommending to the City Council approval of said document. Section 2. The City Council does hereby approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment 88-06 as follows: A. Section 9273 (e) shall be added to the Tustin City Code to read as follows: "Any use of land, building, or structure which is legal and conforming to all provisions of this Zoning Code, as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, and made "non -conforming" either in design or arrangement due to acquisition of public right-of-way by the City, shall he exempt from a non -conforming status and the provisions of Section 9273, Non -conforming Structures and Uses, unless it is established by the Department of Community Development 1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Ordinance No. 88-1013 Page two that such use, building or structure creates a nuisance or is a threat to the health, welfare or well being of City residents." adjourned PASSED AND ADOPTED at anregular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of January , 1984. -,YKdAAA e ary R n, Ci ty C rk rsu a L. Kennedy, Mayor J STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF.TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1013 was duly and regularly introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of December, 1988, and was given its second reading and duly passed and adopted at an adj ourned regular meeting held on the 3rd day of January, 1989, by the following vote: AYES : COUNCILPERSONS: NOES : COUNCILPERSONS: ABSENT: ' COUNCILPERSONS: Summary Printed Tustin News: January 12, 1989 January 19, 1989 Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Prescott None None W.ry , city r: City of Tus`Lin,' Calif rnia ATTACHMENT 6 CC Report March 1, 2011 Tustin City Zoning Code Current Zoning Code Section 9273 Municode Page 1 of 1 1 9�273 - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. (Ord. No. 157, Sec. 6.1) (b) Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is In compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the building's assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. The Planning Department of the City of Tustin may send, by certified mall, return receipt requested, to the owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, of any nonconforming building or structure, or of any property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of said use. Said statement shall be filed with the Planning Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. Upon any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations of the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure. (Ord. No. 310, Sec. 1) (c) A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fitly (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. (Ord. No. 310, Sec. 2) (d) The provisions set forth in (b) and (c) above, shall apply to structures, land and uses which hereafter become nonconforming due to any reclassification of districts under this Chapter; provided, however, that public uses, public utility buildings and public utility uses existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter, or existing at the time of reclassification of districts, shall not be considered nonconforming. (Ord. No. 319, Sec. 3) (e) Any use of land, building, or structure which is legal and conforming to all provisions of this Zoning Code, as of the date of adoption of this "ordinance," and made anon -conforming either in design or arrangement due to acquisition of public right-of-way by the City, shall be exempt from a nonconforming status and the provisions of Section 9273, Nonconforming Structures and Uses, unless it Is established by the Department of Community Development that such use, building or structure creates a nuisance or is a threat to the health, welfare or well being of City residents. (Ord. No. 1013, Sec. 2, 1-3-89) han-Milrnry mnnienrle. rnm/nrint manx?rlientfll=l 1107kHTMRenuest=httn°GI-,i°/?P/"?fl (17/17/'7011 ATTACHMENT CC Report March 1, 2011 Property owner document submittals October 25, 2010 Planning Corn mission Board of Appeals From: Bret Fairbanks Subject: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street My name is Bret Fairbanks and I live at 520 Pacific Street with my wife and four daughters. We have lived at this house for over ten years. I grew up in old town Tustin on Myrtle and I st My great grandmother lived in Tustin, my parents lived in Tustin, and now my family lives here. My daughters go to Tustin High, Hughes, and TMA. We have been heavily involved in the athletic community for over 8 years playing Tustin Girls softball, AYSO, NJB, and Tustin United club soccer. Our home has a main house with a unit above the garage and one unit behind the garage. These units were there when we purchased the house and have been there for over 60 years. SUMMARY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO APPEAL I'll make this as brief as possible but I think it is important for you all to understand how this all came about In December of last year we put our house on the market We love our home and old town but with four girls, one in junior high and another in highschool, we are running out of room. We were planning on moving to another home here in Tustin. In July we finally secured an offer on the home and started packing. The buyer's appraiser phoned the city to see if the units burnt down if they could be rebuilt. They were told there was no permits for the units and therefore could not be rebuilt The appraiser then gave zero value to the units making the home undervalued and the buyer unable to get a loan. I went down to the city and requested a bum down letter (attached July 27, 2010). I later met with Dana (Assistant Director) and Justin (Principal Planner) who gave me a letter (attached August 4) saying basically that there was no permits. I later met with Elizabeth (Director) to speak with her regarding the letter. A few days after our meeting she sent a letter (attached August 13) saying due to unpermitted structures I needed to schedule an appointment for an inspector to come out to the house. It was at that time the buyer could not wait any longer and we lost the sale of our home. After receiving the letter I returned to speak with Justin who suggested I apply for a conditional use permit (CUP). I got the application and had initial plans drawn up for review and the inspection was put on hold (attached August 20). The week of August 30 I went down to speak with Justin regarding the initial site plans I had submitted for the CUP. She explained the changes that needed to be done and other documents that needed to be submitted as well. I expressed my concern regarding spending money on the CUP applications, making all these changes, and still getting turned down for the CUP. I do not have that kind of money. I asked her regarding the California Historical Building Code and when did the city recognize the units were built and she explained that it might be better to talk with Henry (Building Official) and Dennis (Principal Engineer) at the building department and gave me their cards. I went over and spoke with Dennis and Henry who were very friendly and helpful and they suggested they come out to the house, not for an inpection but to give their opinion on when the house was built. They said they would call me soon for a time to meet at the house. On September 10, I received a call from Justin saying that they would be at the house in an hour. I asked who was coming out and she said Dennis, Henry, Elizabeth, and herself. I expressed my strong concern with Elizabeth coming out because of our disagreements in the past l asked specifically what they were coming out for and she reassured me that it was to observe the units to determine when they were built and not a code inspection. With some reluctance and showing some good faith I met them at the house. Dennis, Elizabeth, and Justina met me at the home. Henry, who was the one person who I wanted and who suggested the meeting, was not there. They went through the units and we briefly discussed the age of the units but they did not give me any specifics. I wanted Dennis to give me his thoughts on when he thought the units were built, since that was the purpose of the meeting, and he said he would get back to me. On Wednesday September 15`h, a few days after our meeting, I phoned and spoke with Justina asking for any updates and she said they are working on it and would get back to me. On Friday the 17`h I received the Notice and Order / Declaration of Public Nuisance (attached Sept. 16). The following Monday September 20'h, 1 went down to speak with Henry regarding our original conversation of determining when the home was built. I also spoke with Justin about our conversation on the phone and her reassuring me that was the purpose of the visit. They both seemed surprised by the letter I received. Henry said he had briefly looked at the pictures and had not spoken with Dennis in depth about what he saw. I expressed my disappointment with the whole visit because it was not what we had agreed upon- Henry said he would speak with Dennis and get back to me and Justin was going to look into when the first permits were issued in Tustin. I wrote the letter of appeal which is attached and here we are. I went down to the city in good faith seeking assistance with the sale of my home and it has turned out to be a giant nightmare. This has been an extremely trying and stressful time for my family and me, financially and emotionally. We were excited and looking forward to moving and now we are trying to save the home we live in. QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY There are several question I have asked the city on numerous occasions that no one has an answer to that are critical to my home and many other homes in old town. When does the city recognize the units were built? When was the fust residential permit issued in Tustin and who issued it? Why do many homes (not guest houses) in old town built between 1927 and 1950 have no permits? How does the city determine if a structure can remain if it has no permits? For example my home and all other historic homes. What documents are necessary to determine if something is historic and can retrain? If a structure is deemed historical on the survey and has no permits, what is it legally? APPEAL OF CODE VIOLATIONS In regards to the code violations. Code At 05.1 Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit I have no intentions of rebuilding or reconstructing any portion of the said structures. I am just trying to sell my house. I purchased the home over 10 years ago and the structures already existed when I purchased the property. I have provided evidence to the city showing that the structures have existed for over 60 years and I will provide that evidence again tonight. I understand the city has no records of permits of the structures on my property but that is true for most homes built in old town prior to 1950. Most if not all of the homes would be in violation of this code. Amy mentioned in her agenda report that "the city has responded to complaints that have arisen in old town area of construction being done without permits". These are situations where construction had started without permits. If I were rebuilding or constructing something I would get a permit but the units are existing structures and I am not and have no intention to build. With regards to permits in Tustin. After doing much research and speaking with OC Archives, Chi Tran the county building official, and numerous people at the county and city, there is a big gray area with the city of Tustin regarding permits between 1927 and 1950. 1 understand we were a growing city and trying to get established and organized but who issued permits, the county or the city? Did they issue permits? Who kept the records? When were they transferred to the city? Where are they? I pulled permits on homes (not guest hooses) along main street in old town built in 1930, 1944, 1945 and 1950. Not one of them had a building permit from when it was built and these are homes along main street of old town - In regards to violation 9223(bx2) and 9223 (b)(2)(d). Both of these codes are part of Ordinance 157 which was adopted on November 6, 1961. Both units on my property existed prior to this ordinance. According to Tustin City Code 9273 (a) of that same chapter: Non -Conforming Structures and Uses: Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land. building? or structures regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discontinue for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. (Ord. No. 157, Sec.6.1) Both of the unite on my property existed at the time of the adoption of this Chapter and should be considered nonconforming structures. 99273 (c) A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) Percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty of act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. (Ord. No. 310, Sec 2) In Amy's report she talks about nonconforming structures and states that "Provisions for reconstruction of nonconforming buildings do not apply to strucu= or additions which have been constructed without the benefit of permits." Where in the code does it say this? There is a difference between legal nonconforming and nonconforming structures and the city of Tustin has adopted nonconforming structures and uses according to ordinance 157, Sec. 6. 1, which I have read above. HISTORY OF THE ROUSE A few good things that have come about with this whole situation is that I have met a lot of nice people in the neighborhood and community and I have found out a lot about the history of Tustin and the history of my home. On several occasions I have had the pleasure to speak with John Gaylord and Robert Gaylord who are the sons of George Gaylord, the original owner of the property and the man who built the structures. I appreciate the effort that went into the historical assessment of my home done by Thirtieth Street Architects. There are some points that he got right but some discrepancies. Attached is a letter written by Robert Gaylord, one of the sons who actually grew up in the house and would know the history better than anyone of us. October 25, 2010 ro whom it may concern My name is Robert Stephen Gaylord, one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord. I grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave. (now 520 Pacific St.) in Tustin, CA_ My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above the garage all in the time and with the processes it takes for a single individual to do all that. The best that I can recall is the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base in EI Segundo_ We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion and saw the search lights and anti-aircraft guns. Dad finished the apartment for him and his new wife to stay near us while he was serving in Southern California. Later, the apartment was rented to Marines stationed at EI Toro Marine Base. I recall the stairs to the entrance as a child. In my memory they were always there on the side of the garage where my parents would catch rainwater. We were not allowed to go up those stairs. The unit behind the garage was built by my father roughly between 1945 and 1950. I judge this based on the fact I was born in 1933 and when my brother John and I were Young teenagers my father built the two rooms and bathroom for us to occupy. After we moved away from our old home, the rooms were made available to others. The only person I remember was, (I believe the spelling is) Ms. Grennan, who helped take care of my parents to the very end. In fact, she called me about health problems my father was having when we moved him out and sold the house. My father worked at the grammar school as a woodshop, boys' athletics and natural science teacher. He was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and a Deacon with the Presbyterian Church in Tustin. He was often involved in construction work in and around Tustin. He was in every way a taithfid law-abiding citizen. Sincerely, Robert S. Gaylord (See attached letter) I would also like to point out that city records show that George Gaylord, the man who built the structures, was the city building inspector for Tustin between 1956 and 1958. Also attached are numerous documents that prove the units have existed for some time and have been recognized by the county as multifamily dwelling units. - A copy of the Historical survey of my home which discusses the two story garage. -Tax assessment records dating back to 1952 which have two addresses and a map of the main house and both rental units. -There is also a copy of Luskeys Santa Ana & Central Orange County Criss Cross City directory from August of 1952 with two addresses with the name of the person who is living in one of the units. -A property detail report from the County building department with a land use description of multi -family dwelling with 3 units. -A public service information form from when we purchased the property showing multi family residential dated May 5, 2000. -A letter from the Orange County Sanitation District charging multi -unit residential rates. - A permit from the city of Tustin for a second electrical meter for the units in the back. - A permit from the city of Tustin allowing a new roof on the back units as well as other permits for my property. HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE The following is a copy of the purpose of the California Historical Building Code which the city of Tustin adopted in 2007. Section 8-101.2 Purpose. The purpose of the CHBC is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties. Chapter 8-2 of the CHBC defines Qualified Historical Building or Property. As defined in the Health and Safety Code Section 18955. Any building, site, object, place, location, district or collection of structures, and their associated sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture or culttae of an area by an appropriate local, state or federal governmental jurisdiction. This shall include historical buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for, national, state or local historical registers or inventories, such as the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical resources, State Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and city or county registers, inventories or surveys of historical or architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks. My property is listed in the city of Tustin Historical Resources Survey which satisfies the requirement of CHBC Chapter 8-2 as a qualified historical property. Attached is a copy of the historical survey of my home. ha the description in talks about the two story garage and shows a picture of it. According to the CHBC and the Cultural Resource Overlay District my home and property are historic. We should want to keep these structures because they have a great history behind them, it adds to the culture of old town, and there is no distinct danger to anybody. Section 8-102.1 APPlication The CHBC is applicable to all issues regarding code compliance for qualified historical buildings or properties. Paragraph 1. The state or local enforcing agency shall apply the provisions of the CHBC in permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, restoration, reconstructions, rehabilitation, relocation or continued use of qualified historical building or property when so elected by the private property owner. I have asked the city on numerous occasions why are we not going by these codes. This again demonstrates that the code has not been accurately applied to my property. CIl_BC Section 8-303 Residential Occupancies 8-303.1 Purpose The purpose of this section is to provide regulations for those buildings designated as qualified historical buildings or properties and classified as occupancies. The CHBC requires enforcing agencies to accept any reasonable equivalent to the regular code when dealing with qualified historical building and properties. 8-303.2 Intent The intent of the CHBC is to preserve the integrity of qualified historical buildings and properties while maintaining a reasonable degree of protection of life, health and safety for the occupants. The units have been there for decades and they have been rented for decades. The last thing I want is for somebody to get hurt or be in danger living in the units. According to the CNBC Section 8-201 the definition of a Distinct Hazard is: Any clear and evident condition that exists as an immediate danger to the safety of the occupants or public right of way. Conditions that do not meet the requirements of current regular codes and ordinances do n of themselves, constitute a distinct hazard. Again the purpose of this code (CHBC) and the Cultural Overlay is to preserve old structures and make sure they are safe and I have done both. SITUATIONS SIMH AR TO MINE Lastly, I do feel like I am being treated differently because there aro other properties just like mine, and the city has responded differently. Precedence has already been set For example: There is a property on B sheet that is a duplex with another unit above the garage with stairs and entrance just like mine (see attached photo). This property is zoned R and has no permits from when it was built. There are a few permits given in the 60's -80's but no original building permits and no conditional use permit. In 2006 the city thoroughly inspected the property in response to an application made for the Mills acL In the city's report they stated the importance and historical significance of the property and did not mention anything about current zoning or building violations and the structures remnin. There are numerous other examples where the city has given permits to existing structures that have no original building permits. There are examples of people in old town who wanted to tear down unpennitted structures and were stopped by the city because they were historic. The last example is more directly related to my original problem. All 1 needed was a letter from the city. On 6h street there is a SFR with a duplex behind the house. Very similar to mine. Attached is a letter the owner received in 1998 regarding his property. It reads: The subject property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which permits single family residences. Second single family dwellings may be considered in the R-1 District on properties with more than 12,000 square feet of lot area, compliance with several other development standards, and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (TCC Sec. 9233(B)(1). Our records indicate that the main residence was constructed in 1929. We also have on file various building permits for the duplex on the rear of the property, dating back to 1964. However, there is no record of an approved Conditional Use Permit for the use. As such, the duplex is considered to be a nonconforming use. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(C), nonconforming buildings destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its value by a catastrophic event may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. For my property, I have a permit for a second electrical meter that the city inspected and permitted that goes directly to the back units. I also have a permit for the roof on the rear structure that the city inspected and permitted. According to Section 9273 of TCC my structures should be considered nonconforming use. I relied on the city when issuing the permits and would not have purchased the property or spent money on the roof if not allowed. To summarize: • Code A 105.1 — An owner who intends to construct. I don't have any intentions of building. • Codes 9223 (bx2) and 9223 (b)(2xd) were written in 1961. The structures existed prior to this ordinance. • The property is historic and we should want to preserve the history. • The structures should be nonconforming. I want to thank the commission for your time and consideration. I am not trying to get away with anything or build anything without permits. All I am asking for is the city to do what they have done with other properties similar to mine, to follow code 9273, and to recognize the structures as nonconforming. I am asking the planning commission for help and to see that the code violations have not been accurately applied to my property and to simply recognize the structures as nonconforming as the city has appropriately done in the past. July 27, 2010 City of Tustin Community Development Department Justin Wilkom, Principal Planner Dear Ms. Wilkom, My name is Bret Fairbanks and I am the owner of the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780. We are currently selling our home and are in escrow. Our property has a single family residence in front with 2 guest homes in the back. According to the attached county records we have 2 addresses 520 and 520 �h, we have and pay for 2 separate electric meters, and have various city permits for improvements we have done on the home since we purchased it in 2000. The buyers lender is requiring a letter from the city stating in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, the city would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt Attached are documents from the county tax assessors office showing the guest houses have been here long before we purchased the property. Thank you for your time and consideration. This letter is all we need to close escrow. If there is anything I could do to help speed up this process please let me know. Bret Fairbanks C.P. (949) 933-6886 1 Community Development Department August 4, 2010 Brett Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mr. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for your letter, received July 27, 2010, requesting zoning confirmation for the property located at 520 Pacific Street. In your letter, you indicated that the property has a single family residence in the front with two guest homes in the back. You have also included copies of tax assessor information related to your property for the City's review. In the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, you inquired if the City would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. The subject property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained. A guest house is defined in the Tustin City Code as detached living quarters of a permanent type of construction and without kitchens or cooking facilities and where no compensation in any form Is received or paid. No permits exist for guest houses at the subject property and no conditional use permit is on file to establish guest houses at the subject property. In your letter you indicated that there are two addresses at the subject property, 520 and 520 yz Pacific Street. The City has not assigned a Ih address to the subject property. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(c), "A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located." The provisions for reconstruction of a nonconforming building does not apply to structures or additions which have been illegally constructed or constructed without the benefit of permits. Should you wish to establish guest houses at the subject property, approval of conditional use permits and obtaining necessary building permits would be required. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 573-3123. Sincerely, ya wiontek Associate Planner Attachments: A. Single Family Residential (R-1) standards B. Cultural Resources District (CR) standards C. Guest House Definition 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 " P: (714) 573-3100 0 F: (714) 573-3113 0 ww .tustinca.org Community Development Department So. -rt by f7rst :lass mail August 13. 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 SUBJECT: 520 PACIFIC STREET APN # 401-371-07 Dear Mr. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Or. August 4, 2010, you were advised by City staff that no permits exist for your two guest houses and that no conditional use permit exists to allow guest houses at 520 Pacific Street. As such, City staff hereby requests to Inspect your property. Please contact me at (714) 573-3 i35 by no later than Tuesday August 24 2010 to schedule an onsite inspection of your property. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, B Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachment: Letter, dated August 4, 2010 Cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 0 F: (714) 573-3113 9 www.tustinca.org Community Development Department Sent by first class mail August 20, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 SUBJECT: 520 PACIFIC STREET APN # 401-371-07 Dear Mr. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for meeting with City staff yesterday afternoon to discuss your two guest houses. During the meeting, you stated that you would start developing plans to submit to the City soon, along with a completed conditional use permit (CUP) application to attempt to legalize both guest houses. As such, the recent request to inspect your property will be put on hold. However, you understand that an inspection of your property may be necessary during the approval process and that if approved, both guest houses would not be permitted to be rented, nor could they be provided with kitchen facilities. You also agreed to contact Amy Thomas within ten days to provide a status on the submittal of your plans and CUP application. Therefore, please contact Amy Thomas at (714) 573-3126 or athomaslatustinca.org on (or) before Tuesday September 7, 2010 with an update on your pending submittal. Once again, thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, �en Code Enforcement Officer Cc: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Justina Wilikom, Principal Planner Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 • F. (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Community Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 Property Address: Assessor Parcel Number. Case Number. Dear Mr. Fairbanks, DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 520 Pacific Street 401-371-07 V10-0312 TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you foF-meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpemtitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant Issues were also noted during the inspection; which Include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore. please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday. October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. 300 Centennial Way. Tustin. CA 92790 a P: (714) 573-3100 • F; (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org N0001 MW Order ar 520 Pad Oc Streer SeOUmMr 1e, 2010 Case #V10-0012 Papa 2 MW 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 5733140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal Interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the Ums limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 5733135. sincere A Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: ExhibitA—Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Nmo.m oa. r 520 Pr Sb Spfr,Or M 21110 C-SVI0 12 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Paciflc Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit Tustin City Coda 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential Dh trlct (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility Is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential DisWct (R-1) Minimum sloe yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Comer lot line: 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. Community Development Department EXHIBIT A Administrative Otadon Process TUSTIN 6URDMG OUR EtnuRe HONOWHO OUR PAST In aceotdence with Tudin City Cods (TCC) 1182(4), fins may be assessed by means of an admitsbadw dallorh as fobwa itOQOO for a fist vbimdm $200.00 for a second vk*dm of Bu same ordbw or permit within are yaw of the first vk"m or $800.00 for a third or any MOW violation of to same ordinance or perms within one year of the flat violation, BWklrhp and Safely Code (TCC Sem 8100 — 8GO violation may be eeesseed at $100.00 for a fiat violation; $800.00 far a second vbtsllon of the some ontinancre or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a It" or any father viohatlon of the ammo ordi ims or pwmit within ane year of the tint violation. The City.may deo Waft~ kpat action' all I Woubv the responsibispuson(s) a criminal ckaton andlor abetlrq the vfatation(*) with the east of such abatement andfor prosecution assessed against the rssparriWo pueon(e), the propoky ownw(a), andlardie properly as a lien. Should an adminisbutive citation be keus4 the r I p m ibls person has fsn (10) days ham the dated the clbtlon to pey to eareepaxarhp fiefs). Addfbrhaly, Ore rMpanelble person n%M take one of the fabwih0 actions to amid additional pansifts prior to the compfenee dabs Specified! In On dldiorh 1) Correct the vbktory pay to oarresparrdip fke(*), and contact the Cly to request a re. Irnpeelbn, or 2) Pay the oorrespa dap flns(s) and request an ehdendorh of time In vaitip pursuant to TCC 11tf N, which dhows a raasortabla Fmcl ahig ; or 3) Roqued ■ h awkW to mpped flu a*WrM ralWe e'-il m pursurt to TCC 1188 within ton (10) days }torn the data of the admi isbdhae eifatbn, lopeter with an adrrheed depodt of thi c;cnsq nc& tie(*). Request for a bob A forme and ad information on AdmiNsbudm Clfatono hay be obtained on the CWs websib d www September 22, 2010 Brad Steen, Code Enforcement officer Community Development Department City of'rustin Letter of Appeal for. Notice and Order/ Pre -Citation Notice Declaration of Public Nuisance Address: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780 Assessor parcel number: 401-371-07 Case Number: V 10-0312 Dear Mr. Steen, This letter is to appeal and request consideration on the recent notice I received regarding unpemtitted units. The code violation reads any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. I have no intentions of rebuilding or reconstructing any portion of the said structures. I purchased the home over 10 years ago and the structures already existed when I purchased the property. I have provided evidence to show that the structures have existed for over 50 years. I understand the city has no permits of the structures on my property but that is true for most homes built in old town prior to 1950. Most if not all of the homes would be in violation and considered a public nuisance. With regards to the other violations regarding conditional use permits and lot lines, l am not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to issuing of conditional use permits and the first zoning ordinance of Tustin. In response the letter, it is my intent to apply for a conditional use permit and progress accordingly however I do not feel I have violated any code and am not in any way a public nuisance. Sincerely, Bret Fairbanks Community Development Department T U S T I N October 13, 2010 Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: APPEAL HEARING FOR NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (APN 401-371-07) Dear Mr. Fairbanks: The City of Tustin has received your request for hearing to appeal the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at your property located at 520 Pacific Street. In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 9294 and 8101, the Planning Commission will act as the appeal hearing body and act in its capacity as the Board of Appeals respectively to consider the appeal. A public hearing has been scheduled on October 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. As the appellant contesting the Notice and Order, you will be provided the opportunity to testify and present evidence concerning the Notice and Order at the public hearing. A written report concerning the appeal for consideration at the hearing will be provided to you by mail prior to the date of the hearing. Should you have any questions regarding the appeal hearing, please contact me at (714) 573- 3126 or athomasAtustince.oro. Sincerely, Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner cc: Y. Henry Huang, Building Official File 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92790 • P: (714) 573-3100 0 F: (714) 573.3113 0 www.tustinca.org CITY OF TUSTIN AL OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California Appellant Bret Fairbanks, current property owner of 520 Pacific Street Project Address 520 Pacific Street, Tustin (APN 401-371-07) Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission ac ng In its capacity as the Board of Appeals (per Section 8101 of the TCC) of the City of Tustin, California, will conduct a public hearng.on October 28, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, to consider the following: On September 18, 2010, and pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street providing written notice of the exisla nce of a public nuisance and requiring the correction of code violations related to Olegal structures constructed In violation of the Tustin Building Code and Zoning Codes. In part, Section 5502(b) stall a public nuisance wrists when'any condition... exlste upon any premises that is dangerous to human life or is detrimental to health as determined by an appropriate city offkiai.' The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401371-07) has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order flied on his property. Pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission will ad in its capacity as Board of Appeals in considering evidence supporting the City's determination that a dangerous condition exists at the subject property due to the present violation of the following Building Code section: 1. California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, atter, repair, move, demolish, or charge the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, instal, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the instailatlon of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission will also consider the evidence supporting the City's determination that a dangerous condition exists at the subject property due the present violation of the following Zoning Code sections: 2 Tustin City Core 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Reefdentel District (R-1) — Corditonepy Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings used as guest norms, provided no cooking facility Is installed or maintained ars subject to a conditional use permit 3. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) — Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses — Comer lot One 10 feet interior lot line: 5 feet If you challenge the subject Item in court you may be Iffdad to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pubic hearing described in this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the City of Tustin at or prior to the public hearing. If you require special accommodations, please contact the Planning Commission Recording Secretary at (714) 573-0108. Information relative to Onix tem is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hart. Anyone interested In the krIomn3Oon above may call the Community Devebpment Deparbnent at (714) 5733128. �• :.: �...:_r If you require special accommodations, h please contact Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin 92780 714-573-3000 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC SI' OATS: 29 STYLE: CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW SOURCE: RATING: T C ALTERATIONS: F HISTORICAL DISTRICT: YES COMMENT: DESCRIPTION: The single.sooried hoose at 520 is topped with a front feeing gabled roof and matchiag reamed porch. A mull louvered vent is mntexed below the peau. Shiplap siding, in a style made in the 40's and 50's, covers the gables, indicating that the roof L not original. Narrow clapboard siding coven the first floor exterior. Square posts, testing on tapered clapboard -clad pica, support the roof. The cauerete porch extends to each side, topped with pergola The front door features a mullioned hard= and is flanked by large plate glass windows. Double -bung windows are used tluoughoot the rest of the hoose. A red brick chimaey on the south ride is flanked by windows. A carport and a two-story clapboard -clad garage am located on the south side, behind the horse. The garage, which appears to be original, is topped with a gabled toof with a hip al the peak. The aiding is narrow, clapboard, which teens to indicate that the house onto was also ail clapboard -sided with a hip at the peak of the hoot -facing gabled roof. osntvartcatv": This California Bungalow was built on me of the lou along South Padtb Street which were subdivided by Merry Merple. He was the ser of Richard and Edna Maple, frtdt gmwers, who owned an orchard mads property from 1903 until the property passed to Harry in 1924. He dedicated a strip down the canerr, fron Main to Sixth Stant:, for the extension of Pacific Street. He sold this lot to George Gaylord in 1929. The Gaylords received a completion notice on their home that same year. George was a well -liked wood shop and physical education insnoctor ar the Tusda Gnmtncr School for several yeas. After he retired in the 1950's, he berarm a carpenter. The Gaylords were stall living in the house in 1965. This bungalow flu well into rhe sucescape of the Tustin Historic District and emnibutcs to the tre -litud street became it is of an appropriate atm and scale. �.� ,.r per.. Viz.,. :y �... � ,aaa��X... 3 �u�vvr =� ;; ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR MULTIPLE REMIUMAL UMR APPRAMAL R60 e9 fnonne rr.•:, _�.__.... _. rgeei _ _ �.n. 40. •f�•)71q� owtR,cr :• - - 101 see Of , owmm reaNr LLlel weue CCIleT�llelet LYQ M uen fTTMYItl wn run wlr uNrr +Nut rN.Yf I MIYM ,iI1. da -17L axam" GR.OLM6— ..L..._._ .L. P/K •ftY ._ Yp4R On. .W / _ R4 4 w{N r"� 1❑ 1 '.at RGLY6 p I'�� I. � .IONr. IMNT rl M _. — L9 ^--• 4rNw wmlMr /(i�1O .❑a�f na Inau.pn _ I O [4 q 6q a uwT rsow. . s a I. u.uam n_. e C a L t.RKIMR.alO. •.. .._._ _ _—_. _... _. .}_ %i.Q.�_. 4lYO INR VMI 4aT. rO4nTfa —. _ •..._.— _. —� -- . _ N b. V.Rm t❑ a IM.OnTO Wa Mal•_ --.•_._ _. _. _. ...y _ I. '"m MOM _ ..� ... _._.1' .ALLia.000. MIa .I OM! mra Nswn ru.a --}' !g a ■ >sllM esar. - .d r M MMNy r110rewY Vyy a Mtruei Nr A n M I LP NYa •- wilt -LLlf 1..11.j...�.1_a-•�.y� �.:J MW.._. N MWt4l II4Mt Mf+MI IQn4W iwK �Cpi �- n W4. r1141M �r•�a� — --Y — � - w-Nr.✓. . N. .i'd7Q 7.s Aim .GK . --- 4 �: ZYueis r .ro YO Ae TC•.)M e } bU_M?/tCJ i7'+/�sl .. .--_— a FORMERLY89 • ---- �Pii�999��s _ a flMlf rYl. r• MCI" C a Oar. rwL m o M [ _ —yi sr _ ..___ • atr4eum I a �----._ .__ 4 aa.. aw.w J CI tO a❑ 4 Mr WWIWW IC3112t13 KNOW UMTeRM MaMT1M w rlr rb Lana rla allR.:: APPRUM Y! OiK na IOIa K 09Aee �a f.11a M M4T. t I \N D.S. TIM. efldwW` ii13LL.1 I1 reeeowL re0ompi nuam"CAM _ i91 M Mw� gears y . I ! r.T L, wr « 74 sm AIL ure COST DAM IMAM. mv. wr A P, mv 14 mwm m M 4 .0 .......... 7-77— L, wr « 74 sm AIL ure COST DAM IMAM. mv. wr A P, mv 14 mwm m M C5" 1 4 C5" 1 eo'eM est �l- -1-14i rx 1 11 .0 eo'eM est �l- -1-14i rx 1 11 Laserfiche WebLiak Page I of I Laserficher WebLink kv 'R I B®Of C9 J,13.N -17 FILE xuwex IWEEl Wm Y.M �10 it mIiI, K, i.er Acro xa.w.nw me RURAL sTMmT ADDEM 11' 1; Property Detail Report Property Detail Report for: 520 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN CA, 927804329 Owner Information: Owner Name: FAIRBANKSARETS Mailing Address: 520 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN, CA, 92780.4329 Vesting Code: Page I of I J1 DIGITAL MAP e.,.%, m+p,trre Phone Number. Location Information: Legal Description: STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V S 50 FT OF N 460 FT OF THE W 200 FT County. ORANGE FIPS Code: 06059 Cereus TrcV81k 0755053/3 APN: 40137107 Altemative APN: 40137107 Map Ret A44130 TwnshyRnge-Sect -. Legal Sook/Page: 401-37/ Trad Na $179,027 Legal Lot V Legal Block: Total Taxable Value: SubdhAson: STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR HOMEOWNER last Market Sale Information: Sale Date: 01103Y2005 Sale Prim: 1'r Mtg Amount $341,400 Sale Doc No: 0000002609 Prim Per SgFt 1'r Mtg Int Type: Assessor Lot SgFt Transfer Doc No: 0000161105 Prim Per Ave: 2nd Mig Amount $56,600 Mulk/Splil Sale: 1't Mtg DOC No: 337621 2nd Mig Int Type: 3 Sale Type: FULL CONSIDERATION 0.2296 Sewer Type: Dead Type: Calculated lot SgFt Title Company: FIRST SOUTHWESTERN TITLE Lender. WASHINGTON MUTUAL FSB Seller Name: LOUIS METRO INTER R E PROPERTI Property Characteristics: Building Area: 1,749 Total Rooms: Construction: Living Arae: 1,749 Bedrooms Heat Type: Garage Area: Baths: Air Cord: Basement Area: Fireplace: Roof Type: Parking Type: No of Stories: Roo( Material: Yr Bullt/Effectim: 1926/ Duality; Style: Pod Code: Tax and Value Information: Assessed Value: $133,339 Assessed Year. 2009 Est Market Val: Lard Value: $274,512 Property Tax: $3,043 Assessor Appd Val - improvement Value: $179,027 improvement %: 39.47 Total Taxable Value: $448,539 Tax Exemption: HOMEOWNER Site Information: Assessor Acres: 0.2296 Zoning: Land Use: Assessor Lot SgFt 10,000 No of BuHdkgs: Land Use Deco: Assessor Lot W/o: / ReslComm Units: 3 County Use Code: Calculated Anes: 0.2296 Sewer Type: Calculated lot SgFt Water Type: Not In Seismic Liquefaction Hazard Not In Seismic Landslide Hazard Not In Fault Zone Hazard M One Mile indus&Wi Commercial Zone Not In 100yr. FEMA Flood Zone In Dam Inundation Hazard Not in Wildland Fire Hazard Not In Severe Fin Hazard $358,033 133 MULTI FAMILY DWELLING http://maps.digitalmapeentral.com/production/CityGIS/vO7_O2_003/index.htmi 8/10/2010 gesign Type Codes 001 -Single Family Residence 002, Mulli Family 999 - Misc. Improvements Requested By Address 3;lv i rFr Phone ( ) Signature PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION FORM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 9 OUA7TROpRO Check Amount S Cash Amount S Mailed Dale By IM NN IN IMI� MINN ME IMENIMME IM AMINEINE ININE IM ININE MINN INE ��i� 9 OUA7TROpRO Check Amount S Cash Amount S Mailed Dale By ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT We protea r eblic healon and the envira me by prwidmq eHective wnswwacer wllecoon, ffeannentand recyrjmq. June 30, 2010 FAIRBANKS, BRET S 520 PACIFIC ST TUSTIN,CA 92780-4329 To the Owner of Record of Parcel Number: 40137107 Situs Address: 520 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET TUSTIN fi'vtlor. During the past year, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has conducted a review of a portion of parcels in its service area. Prior to the review, the OCSD data represented the parcel as non-residential. You are receiving this notice b B because a parcel review was performed and it was determined that therem should be a correction to the OCSD's data. An adjustment in either the ,swhe property use code and/or number of residential units will result In a change in �s the annual sewer service fee effective Fiscal Year 2010.11. 'yrw Your pmperty is provided sewerage services by OCSD. OCSD Is part of a large ,km regional sewerage system serving 23 cities and unincorporated areas within Orange ,C, County. Wastewater is collected first by your local sewering agency, such as your city, and then transported by OCSD's large trunk sewers to one of two regional 9790 treatment plants. These facilities treat and dispose of nearly 230 million gallons of 'nW wastewater each day. The cost of the regional sewerage system of residential *W properties is assessed based upon the number of dwelling units. The sewer user fee is for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. Although the OCSD's sewer user fee is not a tax, it is collected as a separate line Rem on the property tax bill. Using the services of the County Tax Collector - Treasurer significantly reduces the OCSD's administrative and collection costs. The sewer fee charge rate for fiscal year 2010-11 for a single family residence is $20.33 per month ($244 per year). The muco -unit residential rate is $14.23 per month ($170.80 per year) per dwelling unit. If you have questions regarding this information or would like specific information regarding your parcel, please call the OCSD "Rate Line" at (714) 593-7281 between 7:30 am and 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. Inquiries may also be made by email at ratesCa2ocsd.com, or writing to the OCSD Financial Management Division, 10844 Ellis Ave, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. Please include your name, telephone number, and Parcel Number with any correspondence to help us promptly respond. I OB44 Ellis Aven . Fp wm Vallev. CA 92711&701R . !7141 952.2411 . www m -.ad r 0 SEWER CONNECTION APPLICATION AND PERMIT (AREA DEVELOPMENT -SINGLE OWNERSHIP) CITY OF TUSTIN 175 W. Third St. Tustin, California APPLICATION Te ompleted bowner or agent ad submiN.d In quhr tupGbee elacy wilb raquind fan end plann-Ise reverse side Applicant.. G�d/tG_g. _T, _Cj;E Y[.oao .-__-.---_---_, hereby request, the Iullowmq connecticalsl to City's sewerage facilities: Location Lot Nos. Sia Type l5ea raven. side for intructionsl To_ �Ax•Ga1-s.t'a.I' FGrZ 7 Cur tvU15 C,:iA c7Part) Tract No. _ _ Total lots_ - _---_—Fafimetad date of accupenry—.--- If commercial m industrial property, total acreage served---.- -- 'he waste to be di.tcherged to City's se,arags facililfes, if other thanpurely d.-Llic sewage will have the loilowinq gen«rnl characterittics as to estimated quantities, lime of peak disc arga and principal source ar tou..It In making rhi, upplicalion. applicant acknowledges that any permit itsuad will constitute a cantmct. if accepted by apNicont/and -.y a enforclsd by civil ncKor, at law arrld/w injunction. Date: GS �i e1aNAWRX 4 PERMIT For Connection la City S.werage Facilities and for Discharg. of Dom.stia Sauvage Only Parmi,don to con%tmct connmtioulsl Io Iha tewarnga facilitiesof the City is hereby -]ranted to applicant providing wch rnmxr:onisl Is meas in accord... with plans and spacificalions hereby approved. and attached herein: further providing that r«quest far impeclion must be given to the Tustin City Hall 1544.78201 at Inst 24 hears prior y to the co n.trwinq of any comtruction work. +rC1 This permit sho gives the applicant permis ion to discharge orly ah/ dum.stfq sewage dw"h the con- -nctiorlth hereinabove aulhorited into the smverage system of the My. The discharge of any industrial or common E. N.d waste is not nuthoriced without a further and separate permit from the City. Rnceipt of required Inas and charges ns spaciffed by Orange County Sanflalton D:Swct No. 7, Ordfr•.nce No. 70S.jft, it harelsy ackriatletiod. AL.Yi Data. ! /.477 _ ..... .. CITY OF STIN — Amount Pefd - -V APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING PERMIT i API*ANT: PLEASE FILL IN SHADED AONLY "ISI' 1^;OFI.IBLC PENCIL, BALI. POINT PEN art OTHER I NON;ERgSA@LE SUBSTANCE 1 uun n.Nl • /, + _ r �}►�r r •L:r /� � .• 1 n'� RSC` xy 11 n. I•.•'.... ,Fir nlxw llN ✓.`.x.l.... .lour X,4.,. L-MAt". ... fl q'•...unnl. N I'IIMII 1r Al WA; loo WHLN PFlG"RL V VALIcU CITYOF II TUSTIN fill 61466 WAINAC�L•KfTITUItLtI s RATH TUB_�- LMUW[NOlxl�_ � - �• KIICHpH :iikA'G•\I\UgT1t OIVU.rAI. •_• LAUNORV tH�Y m AIITFI Wq;:H Althl • OIlIIWNLNLH Sf RLIIF [INq _��._..... .�.�_ — i(,UUIL :INK ___•`—� P \ON ORM. r _— URINKINOAflUN1A1N!"'� ZI1t •) (I (�� URINAL SWILNYIN<I MOL • WATLR NEAT5R -----� WAT[R SMTLN[NK LAWNYRINKL[R[ N[!.O Co— 0 IRAIL[R NOOK UM — I f IHOU[ESLWKRIVALUATIONI I -_ _ _,I• _ _ 1 PERMIT ISSUING FEE SPACEI THIS IS YOUR PERNIT TOTAL FEE S CITY OF TUSTIN Community 13 dopm w Depu m- Swidlog Division Vim 300 Cc id Wry, TuWa CA 92780 Building Canter (714) 573.3131- InsFMim Racmda (714) 573-3141 INC: PERMITNU88B6R:11472.0499 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST NST SUITS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUI.B3BR: 14011371-07 SUITE NUMBER_: LOj:NUMBER_............_,_.Y._...:... TRACT NUMBER.: DEVELOPMENTAREA_..._i_..._I Tl)STIN ISSUED BY ....... _..: �' '.., DATE ISSUED ...... _ PROPERTY OWNER....___T._.: LOUIS METRO ENTER R E PROP ERT 101 WINDSOR LN TUSTIN CA92790-4329 A-1 ALL AMBRICAN RDOFINO 1824 E CARNHG19 AVE. SANTA ANA. CA92703 (949)250-1221 JOB DESC30PT10N: T/O RP, REP W/ I5 YR OAP, 308 FELT, 3.5M -REAR O.C.F.A. Num6c_...... : OCCUPANTLOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: RESIDENTIAL SQ.FT: 0 COMMERCIAL SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ FT: 0 GARAGE SQ FT: 0 OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: u TENANT IdPR. SQ FT: 0 OTEBRSQ. FT: 0 NUMBEROFUN[TS: l NUMBER OF STORES: 0 UBCEDnWN: 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS. 0 VALUATION...: $0.00 BUILDER VALUATION: $0.00 PLAN CHECK $0.00 FFP SI BUILDING PERMIT: IMMARY $0.00 MECN PERMIT. $0.00 PLUMBING PERMIT. $0.00 F1 Fr PERMIT: $0.00 SIGN PERMIT: $0.00 GRADING PERMIT: SOHO PRIVATE Imm. $0.00 NEW DEV. TAX: $0.00 TSIP ZONE FEE: SO.00 TSIP TONE B FEB: $0.00 SMTP FEE: $0.00 MICROPI.M FEE: $0.00 OCFA PER.' 50.00 PENALTY FEE: $0.00 REFUNDABLE BOND: 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS: 50.00 TOTAL FZ : S&M Nt>QttaD COMRACTOR n1L1An�T W n, I Iewby�mia Ar i r � tYr.ed Cawrralr.4 Y�'Ylwrrs]pe9(meyrll/ols'lOmlrnlrib0 ] rig M�Yr llmblr CWSsds] tlm Y Y big Gwrd oReL Upi.IX IVUy/ 4[/ F71S22 ]NCP]]SHCu]S:Of RiC OsPLr DAT&tl9VSr1 _Ir--wl Srtlen Belo&Pma .ow. ft" Wlor7nw(ak t'++ar+Ya r Pw:me b H ]oats ]Tm rle. L.br Ooh m ro. p.o.m. r es .art m Y gmrrrbber.yr b!� Wa�4M1 pm�lim�r]s11s TmrtY.[YrOdS l � An•.M asaM CITY OF TUSTIN Comm®ity Devnlepn Depvtment- Building Divii n 300 CeemtmYl Wry, Tustin CA 92780 Building Couaw(714) 573-3131 - ItbpeedoR Rumdw (114) 573-3141 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBF]CBM-0487 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST TUST SUITE ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 401-371-07 SUITE NUMBER...: LOT NUMBER. ......... _......__..: TRACT NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT ARRA.............. .: TUSTIN ISSUED BY ........... _: DATE ISSUED.......: 10A0"1001 PROPERTY OWNER. .............. —: BRETTFAIRSANKS 0 5205 PACIFICSRIPET R3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE.: 5N TUSTIN CA927904329 RESIDENTIAL SQYr-. CONTRACTOR A -I ALL AMERICAN ROOFING ARCHITECT 1824 E. CARNEGIE AVB SANTA ANA, CA92705 a (949)250.1221 '� nnT�L„/yQ.i• 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 JOB DBSCRIPTIONt T/O RF, REP W125 YR OAF, 300 FELT, 3.50 - MAIN O.C.F.A. NNmbek_...... : OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP, R3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE.: 5N RESIDENTIAL SQYr-. 0 COMUfftd" SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ FT: 0 GARAGE SQ FT: a OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: 2900 TENANT IMPR SQ FT: 0 OTHER SQ, FT: 0 NUMBER OF UNCIS: 1 NUMBEROP STORIES: 0 UBC EDITION: 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS: 0 VALUATION._: !7,250.00 BUILDER VALUATION: $6,000.00 PLAN CHECK 50.00 FERSUMMARY BUILDING PERMIT: $175.00 MECH PERMIT: $0.00 PLUMBING PERMIT: SOHO ELEC PERMIT: $0.00 SIGN PERMIT. $0.00 GRADING PERMIT: 50.00 PRIVATE P/P- 50.00 NEW DEV. TAX: 10.00 TSIP ZONE A FEE-- 50.00 TS1P ZONE B FEE: 50.00 SMIP FEE: 10.30 MICROFILM FEE; 10.00 OCFA FEE $0.00 PENALTY FEE: 10.00 REFUNDABLE BOND. 10.00 MISCELLANEOUS: $0.00 TOTAL FRES: 117190 LILIIIem COMMAC OR DSCL4RATIONt - 11oMry0�rmdIr•.. .Cmam,bb,letea a I - v1 70001 �1 aM L ARVYb O k gNawY L ev hReed eb. a-pim N11.lQ: mm IJCENdR Mli CT NM RSIiw OAT6iN1/tlN OWNRR RUUDRR NmwuT , lbn e, bbblr�ft u.r _troop dNls,01m .Bo1eb0�Pm4bleo CndsMbe WIO.�N. seMek t Y7ed NNdW •rdR,ae oftmr bMTJobe M WaM1 COegs�ls u pmHed fes Rf' Labe 1100 M W LWrt Cao tr Je P„b,asedY wk bpi, A�Yt�rlt bl�l CITY OF TUSTIN CwomunNy Dmiopmenl Depadumn - Banding DIYI31m Conon lion Penn(] 700 Cmid Wry, TLNIq CA 92780 M.1,6n6 C..w (714) 573-3131 w 573-3132 Inipwim Recorder (714) 573-3141 ASSE5OR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 441371V ADDRESS: 526 S PACIFIC St SUITE OR UNIT NO: - LOT: TRACT: BUDCK: CNYw Tqn Nu : PeU•rropmem A.••: %.P v O.ry : FA19RUM 5NSC ST MIN. CA WEE A,d*I Er,Y : 38NAN IDMS 714/636-6291 COlnbclp: UK -LAND 166 "Al 969/737-8056 C006 CA 91719 ME u66CAPTION: REPLACE EXISTING BASBART FIREPUM OeeuPnleY MM: dawMY SrPn FaN] 6 DttUli•FI /J4/IpFp�1y INILJ SpP. Mm: f TYPOGeMtllwtlen: WMndY.fWr•IM: f SMI. fan; N IarEYm wA Ptlwa11YP W er 0. CYr N TuM L r eYeYiln r llw rY Nm.. mw, ntlurl clip M d eliWy. 6 M.E... RY.APYP Or4vrW-Ar.mw IAaIIYY N UMI: a B Otlw 6ww• ]Anll\•]W parr.. 6 Mwvirn an.InP: Nwv NES". B FP•M tav1C C6:immICYl9pmn Fan 6 A¢s4Y MlIq vYYlYn:1 9NLN 1]K Eal4.m 1996 v1Pl Urex. 59149TW IDI. AFa: E LN lug"Al1IN: 16TSIP Zan aFr: f LN EYn11cr M1TYI: f B.NEMm fa: 3 L96 xANmrYrl A•nNl: ! LNmlmalan Pal 6 LN PFtN PIIM: 1 6.NpCFp Pa: 6 LN OP 6 O.NaNYrNxm swr: 6 LN D'o a..nxp r mlYl f LY6Pm new. w] f LN rlal•rmis... M1mN: 6 B.NM,Y,EPI 6 LN N.•Y yYIIvpM:n hY 6 6.NpMIry Fa: f LN Tar F. 6 26192 rYaY l�w•M its ..w 680/7/111 PERMFTIBI ISSUED AIA PERMT NUW&ERL11 BN -6561 t>� wYTaAnT9Rs EtaAAArxmr � nwaY lllYm Nv I a.. Mwva FA.YNp dbn ml Pm.nYln N uWIY l lY.wmy wM 4mP 7<pJ N OMIM ] N m• A+n.r\Flan ytl mYiAvnn Mlw.rtl Nlcl, Ikaw Kpiw: S"7� liw d.a. Q. o•w nnllWll dtNUtTIYL eIVfry rYlaar ®IDIeCAlI9Y ]M C.YIw.IY Il.rm lnx MIwY OUY wYwp. Pww. N niuV W MnY Mlal Y • PYYpIr P xwpl YYw. VYp ll..aWPIA `w�N tlY ullApla MIeYI. 1 e.tl1Y mr M •.pla4wl a IwI w aa. nacre., ma NYsn • Iwel Y pnrtl Y OYarL wY M IPY in anx.n4n wx1. nM mlmeaW M ih F..Iq. N m.l lav Wxlbi IMM.. .aNn11FB. IWaMII. P OnMFM N Jar•Y4 Mp1. 1tit M mma lti It M I MYr Nem IMI I Nn pYpl hwn ]M (MyN]ra I�w• b. rp IM ma.ap n..a Iswren roal.e. el.Y.r \ Pmwwsc a.r: A.ry oIr w CP.IIY.IR]IfgYp. mlmx pCPnIIYN, YIY, Yylaw, p.yyl. N wva Nn.Ynav, yw n q 411Ynp; Ne IHPr M gMYn Iw.uh Pawl Iv IM. N/.• YMwa/111 M Y IM Y bllla 80611801 b IM pmnMp el pv EppYYI'lllcarl IIY R]dvlP B Icawdry ..n $nWxn ]p1J] N pWSI ]NIM Bpiyp E PgIY•w pLl P Np M Y IM Y apYp NY.N.n .M W M61w vY.MmC..wNM..m NsbMn N e.dlpa W I b lY.q pPNYn IP. pYml xlPev vY gRrll b. nrl Pntlr N rwl rrpY IM 14v lulwa dNYN1eN Oq. ❑ I.•.Y.IN IMpaPvly.P mYYpbWN.rlIwgYYYYr.Nv .dgYlpmn. w. m py M.Ir Nd I.Y[Iu. Y M nlwY.w NbMIs .wlt•cn.n ]9a, wb.lar • 11Nlaanna faY: yr GYrrbn'• llcanr taw 4nr Mt sPIY m n awr tl aws.W .M vYY• w rww. IM•v uN wliv ew• Nn M MIUY P M.YI m IYPgI nb Y Iv awn pplYlp.. PP4W MI ditll Inpapmwq w. MI yllYly w aNNa IY IYa V. M waY. Aw Y../IF r Ywmpwp. rb nlnn w Y.w N pawam, dr w^.I.WYY w1 Mr ad nuv.n N YSWm aPl M Y W M ml Mb Y w IY vYP.p al Yd.1 ❑ I. YvwnwNVYAMIY..m..MnlrM o•IppIMwMNiwba [Nplallrl m eYnlYla m• Penn 1].eM ]4x4. ■A•e \ RNYNww (N.: MCYNpIaYLennur Pr•Mllalrmr.armwNYrrIYNw Yri Y xnn•pv InM: W W vYllre® Yr WY P.KIv ww . �nrNw.w YYn. rarw•.I 1.IM CC1nMY1Is... U.I. ❑ I rw..rgl uwY lwlxn eYWY f HNYOb Ciel lav IM rWwllE IpePNN: ower Glnls.•. 9.w: "EIM COIrw4TOr maAAATtlIE Nin ulna MYY N xwWY w r W 1°rW 0.✓rwYwrl 1 Mw M w nll.rlan] • awliw• N a.11lM m wlw�Ywa Iw Wdlm'n CPVwxnYM,.• xlmlvY Ip OrtYlbl ]A9YtMlb.IGa..lw 180 MYM[n vl nY wdY Id W[II Ry Mal Y m11dn, ❑ 1 Nw ax .Y wHa. YMr1 C.s9rMlb• 'ww. Y rWa M fML. ]]e9 N IMlabw Cepl, lav IM IW4twiln N vY wwY IY wMA mY awnY n r.aN. IMWraw'• frlwwrprl Yrwwcn uwr Pn'a,cv°OI"Yulli "` L. —q Zt6 CG•1M11Y1 Stan T. .rxY W aYPaWIa Pala•aw. Y.IY WIMIIgY Ya. ❑ I wIY1Y IpI n xd PIIIP.iYn N ti M Iw MIl•x VI pwal n dm•, I lIW IY agYr dlY x11wII N wn mrM a Y Y Mala IJllp m xr WMr• CaInP•IYNwI ww. r C.II•IrM. rtl IA uw x I rwY Mtwr llilllm m W MY•I'1 VIil.n.wllA NecillwY r i.uan ITLON111.lYVCaY,IdW1 wIYFY rA eleu WAal�lp: Y.wIw WYYw'n CaIlYr�m. Yxwg1A1W1W. w w r\rp w lrabyr p NMfa ewlYl•a rY rY Ialln • m w a+pa m.or r\w IxloaEaa w .rM.n m v. tax r evYnrNM� 4dMP• a NYma Im m MvtNl ]]Ae N Y lNY CYY. nWYI Yr NMMY mp. C9Ytlpltrp Ifla]pa AeiHCY I I.IIYY rAA 1M xY• Y Y PMIMYx Yllfnf xBPa Ip IY PIMIwIs tl W .np Ir YM1FI U4 Plal Y ISIa Yn11w ilE) IFIgEA'f AM.m: lfMlwYt 1m11BE1 NA]AIFNAI STErmATLIMEN I AIA] Bwmr r rase ❑A.n.me. ow: 9.c1.9. aw IYI ova r U.Sa. Fr w• Y. ❑ MA ❑ R~ArT ApYbtlY I. IwOY iwn. m W Ylrw oliW Ir 1 Pial ngly ]l la lvMlsY .nl nYYMpdV vl Im1A s. P. IpYaaF.. !X!I Pdr1.MI ay. MFIY IW pOlmel Y PIY dY prt anm m wAml mAet.a :P 4dw M.IIx wN Y FNYW Wm n purdN Y dlFprnY w/Y .aia N M.pY[.ta q.Y la M.MI. YN.axlr.aldlnYam.lM ur N ruM. p nnc.p..PN. w.! dyYYw. Y .dddue. YM IM we.a.a. d nm t r m. uYY.m Aeawnrlra.�I. I.p.• M to amvY w YlY mercy N ar YYMP YMIa M mu pw..11 ua is Y.IVI¢bI bpM II.. lwP rdAMa. l Ya. W y 1M I Mw r W a. rpblb wY naw mal xw Yuw HmpxP Y evnad. l qr Y �rb1Y Wn Y GY.a 3YY Ywa rYalA Y m• MiMB PIIIs.OYx, W MNY wIMY nNYmnNYal N 1M qx to dlla In.n b Ya. ran lb W earl. Is naxYddl wpw. ' SIwI.M. N Mr, d AYlarua Ay . 1l'��J MawnrNWrlal Ml enFryMMba wM nMA l9 /J4/IpFp�1y wOW rAIY•.FwHl ned lM WiprXiCYwY NIwy,pMtl �/C /lT.. `+II J� Yaa Wa MI Pavan nr • NM naI Vlal M..... SId411]AI{ DATE OIr1vI. N MrYal tUlry M1lnl Nwrr: N IarEYm wA Ptlwa11YP W er 0. CYr N TuM L r eYeYiln r llw rY Nm.. mw, ntlurl clip M d eliWy. Wbiw-ORIp fnnxT-hr•:Yu RY.APYP Or4vrW-Ar.mw October 25, 2010 To whom it may concern, My name is Robert Stephen Gaylord, one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord. I grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave. (now 520 Pacific St.) in Tustin, CA. My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above the garage all in the time and with the processes it takes for a single individual to do all that. The best that I can recall is the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base in EI Segundo. We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion and saw the search lights and anti-aircraft guns. Dad finished the apartment for him and his new wife to stay near us while he was serving in Southern California. Later, the apartment was rented to Marines stationed at EI Toro Marine Base. I recall the stairs to the entrance as a child. In my memory they were always there on the side of the garage where my parents would catch rainwater. We were not allowed to go up those stairs. The unit behind the garage was built by my father roughly between 1945 and 1950. 1 judge this based on the fact I was bom in 1933 and when my brother John and I were young teenagers my father built the two rooms and bathroom for us to occupy. After we moved away from our old home, the rooms were made available to others. The only person I remember was, (I believe the spelling is) Ms. Grennan, who helped take care of my parents to the very end. In fact, she called me about health problems my father was having when we moved him out and sold the house. My father worked at the grammar school as a woodshop, boys' athletics and natural science teacher. He was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and a Deacon with the Presbyterian Church in Tustin. He was often involved in construction work in and around Tustin. He was in every way a faithfal law-abiding citizen. Sincerely, Robert S. Gaylord /,Ili.. � i•. ( 6 f Community Development Department July 23, 1998 Mr. Nathan Menard 345 West 6th Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: 345 WEST 6TH STREET Dear Mr. Menard: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 On July 21, 1998 we received your request for a zoning compliance letter for 345 West 6th Street, Tustin. The subject property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which permits single family residences. Second single family dwellings may be considered in the R-1 District on properties with more than 12,000 square feet of lot area, compliance with several other development standards, and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (TCC Sec. 9233(8)(1)). Our records indicate that the main residence was constructed in 1929. We also have on file various building permits for the duplex on the rear of the property, dating back to 1964. However, there is no record of an approved Conditional Use Permit for the use. As such, the duplex is considered to be a non -conforming use. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(C), non -conforming buildings destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its value by a catastrophic event may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. See attached Code sections. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 573-3118. Sincerely, BradleyEva on Assistant annex Attachment Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9273 BE:345West6th.doc I- i � la U A November 9, 2010 Planning Commission Board of Appeals From: Bret Fairbanks Subject: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street (continued) My name is Bret Fairbanks and I live at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780. At the end of the last meeting on October 26, 2010 I was a little upset because we didn't resolve the issue but hopeful because at least we were finally moving forward. From my understanding, we were to meet with the city during the interim and determine the age of the units and discuss some possible alternatives. On November 4, 2010 my wife Stephanie and I met with Elizabeth, Dana, Justin, and Amy. I was hopeful going into the meeting but after only a few minutes I knew we were back to square one. During the last planning commission meeting, commissioner Puckett suggested I fix some of the more minor problems and we could work on a better overall solution. During our meeting with the staff there was no alternative solutions discussed. The staff simply said I needed to apply for the conditional use permit (CUP) and would have to remove the stairs, carport, etc.... This is the same order they gave me in the original Notice and Order/ Declaration. Remember the CUP was not even introduced into the code until 1961 and these structures have been here since the 1930's and 1940's. Unfortunately, meeting with the staff was unsuccessful, and they suggested no alternatives, contrary to what Amy just said. There are some things that should be fixed and I want to fix them but I shouldn't have to bring a historic home built in the 1930's and 1940's up to code. I am in the fight of my life trying to save my home that was built over 60 years ago and could have changed some since its original build. What building hasn't changed in over 60 yrs? No one complained to the city, no one is building anything, they say it is a safety hazard but people have lived in the units for over 60 years with no complaints or safety issues. Why all of the sudden now? The city has been out to the property on numerous occasions and saw the property, issued permits for the property and said nothing. If it is so bad like they say, where is the accountability for the city when they knew the structures were there and let me purchase the property? The reason they let me purchase the property was because the structures are allowed and are considered non conforming structures. Just like they did with my neighbor who has the letter stating to that fact. Is it the position of the city that anybody who owns a home built in old town before 1950, is going to be held accountable for something that was built way before their time? I purchased the property from First Team real estate as a multi tenant structure. Both the county and the city at some time either recognized or knew there were units there and allowed them to continue before I even purchased the property. I am being held responsible for something somebody did over 60 years ago which the city new about and later destroyed the permits. I am not asking to be treated as a special case or granted any special permits. I am just asking the commission to do what the city has already done with my neighbors and recognize the structures as non conforming. Precedence has already been set. A simple letter is all I ask. If the city is holding me responsible for something built over 60 years ago then is it the policy of the city of Tustin that when someone sells their historic home and the city has no records of permits, they need to call the city, mutually agree upon when it was built, find the code of when it was built and make sure it was up to that code. And if not up to that code, the owner will be held liable. That is what is happening to me. Why would anyone ever want to buy a home in old town again? AGENDA REPORT DISCREPANCIES I appreciate all the time and work Amy and the staff have put into this agenda Believe me I know how much work it is. Their report is interesting but does have some misrepresentations. Amy said in her agenda report "the intent of the (CHBC) code is to protect the public health and safety and also retain enough flexibility to allow restoration of a historic feature while still retaining its historic integrity." She is close but is trying to stress the public health and safety aspect. Again, I don't want anybody to get hurt but according to the CHBC: Chapter 8-101.3 Intent. The intent of the CHBC is to facilitate the preservation and continuing use of qualified historical buildings or properties while providing reasonable safety for the building occupants and access for persons with disabilities. Chapter 8-2 Definitions of CHBC Life Safety Hazard. See Distinct Hazard. Distinct Hazard. Any clear and evident condition that exists as an immediate danger of the occupants or public right of way. Conditions that do not meet the requirements of current codes and ordinances DO NOT, of themselves, constitute a distinct hazard People have lived in the units for over 60 years with no problems. I think they are reasonably safe. Accordine to Ord. No. 1344, Sec. 1, adopted by the city of Tustin on 11/20/07. Code 8105 — Adoption of State Historical Building Code. The California Historical Building Code, 2007 Edition as published by the International Code Council, shall be and become the Historical Code of the City, providing alternative building regulations for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration or relocation of buildings or structures designated as historical buildings by the Federal, State of California, County of Orange, or City of Tustin, all provisions in effect June 23, 1998, and approved by the California Building Standards Commission of January 29, 2007. The agenda continues with according to the "Notice of Completion for 520 pacific St. the main dwelling home and garage are the only historic structures on the site." "Therefore only those qualified structures would be afforded the historic leniency and all other additions, alterations, and/or repairs would be subject to the current code requirements." Just because the units are not on the notice of completion does not mean they are not historic. Again, the definition of a qualified Historic Building or Property as defined in "Qualified Historical Building or Property" Any building, site, object, place, location, district, or collection of structures, and their associated sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture or culture of an area by an appropriate local, state or federal governmental jurisdiction. This shall include historical buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for, national, state or local historicl registers or inventories, such as the National register of Historic Places, California register of Historical Resources, State Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and city or county registers, inventories or surveys of historical or architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks. Where does it say to qualify for a historic structure you need a Notice of completion? Again, my property is listed in the city of Tustin Historical Resources Survey, which satisfies the requirement of CHBC Chapter 8-2 as a qualified historical property. Attached is a copy of the historical survey of my home. In the description it talks about the two story garage and the carport and shows a picture of them. According to the CHBC and the Cultural Resource Overlay District my home and property are historic. We should want to keep these structures because they have a great history behind them, it adds to the character and uniqueness of old town, and there is no distinct danger to anybody. I don't want to dig into every little thing about the report but I need to address some of these discrepancies. In regard to the Change of Occupancy. CNBC Section 8-302.2 The use or character of the occupancy of a qualified historical building or property may be changed from or returned to its historical use or character, provided the qualified historical building or property conforms to the requirements applicable to the new use or character of occupancy as set forth in the CHBC. Such change in occupancy shall not mandate conformance with the new construction requirements as set forth in regular code. CNBC 8-303 Residential Occupancies. 8-303.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide regulations for those buildings designated as qualified historical buildings or properties and classified as occupancies. The CNBC requires enforcing agencies to accept any reasonably equivalent to the regular code when dealing with qualified historical buildings and properties. Amy addressed the foundation and said it couldn't be determined if the foundations exist to provide adequate structural support. If they can't determine then that means the foundation could be just fine. How am I in violation of this? The units have survived over 60 years of earthquakes, rains, winds, etc... and are still standing. I would think they have proven to be adequately supported. In regards to the fire separation between units. This is a concern for my wife and I. I don't want there to be a fire in the garage and spread all over the place. When we moved in, there was insulation and fire protection between the garage and the upper unit but 1 took it down because rats had gotten into the space and were running all over the place. At the time I didn't realize it was fine -resistive protection for the upper unit, it was just full of rat poo. In regards to the zoning code and the need to have a 12,000 sq ft lot. The first zoning code was in 1947 and the units existed prior to this code. Therefore it is non conforming according to the code. According to the 1947 zoning code: Section 9 "113" Multiple dwelling zone regulations. 9-C4 Lot Area Every lot shall have a minimum average width of Fifty (50) feet and a minimum area of seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet. The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet. According to the zoning code of 1947, Mr. Gaylord had enough lot area and could have been zoned an R3 or he could have been an RI and applied for a variance as many people did and as the city records show. Records dating back to 1952 from the county, who was keeping the records at that time, list the property as multifamily (see attached). In 1958 a home on B Street that had a guest house on the property was granted a variance to use it as a public accounting office. The planning commission found that practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships would result from strict compliance with the 1947 zoning ordinance. That such a variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the owner. (see Attached Resolution No. 513) With regards to the units requiring a CUP and having 7 parking stalls. The conditional use permit and parking regulations are in the 1961 zoning code and the units were built way before 1961. With regards to the setback of the property. In 1967 the city realized that many properties had setbacks different then what the code states because the structures existed before the zoning codes. TCC Code 9271 Specific Provisions. N (5) Detached accessory structures may have a zero -foot side and rear yard property line setback if abutting an adjoining structure on a separate lot with a zero -foot setback or if the abutting lot is unimproved. If an adjoining structure on a separate lot is constructed other than with a zero -foot property line setback, a minimum of (3) feet shall be maintained between the structures. Jim is my next door neighbor. I have a zero -foot setback and his garage is on the other side of his lot giving more than 3 feet between the structures. Amy mentioned the staircase is over the property line. We don't know that for sure. They are assuming this and Jim my neighbor has stated he has no problem with this. The problem with the lot lines are that according to the city public works department, the city has never done a recent survey on Pacific street. It is still all measured in chains. If they do a survey they will find all kinds of problems with property lines because my lot should be 50 feet wide and measuring from the front it is only 49feet 3 inches. I have no problem with that but it will open up a giant mess of property lines. In regards to the design of the stair case. According to the 1927 building code Section 3314. Stairways in dwellings, stairways serving only one apartment not above the second floor level, or stairways leading to a mezzanine floors not exceeding on thousand (1000) square feet in area are exempted from the width, rise, tread and enclosure provisions in this Chapter but in no case shall such stair ways have a rise of more than eight (8) inches and a tread exclusive of the nosing of less than nine (9) inches. The rise on the stairs are 7.4 inches and the run is 11 inches. The insulation in the walls. The reason they have this picture is because I showed Dennis the insulation hoping it would help give him a time frame from when the home was built. The city then turns around and cites me for having it. The insulation is treated compressed straw that was very commonly used in the 1930's and 1940's for insulating homes and met the requirements of the code at the time. Amy states that in the past the city has encountered other properties similar to mine and, either brought them into compliance or currently have a pending case. Why then, do I have the letter from the city stating a property similar to mine is non conforming? The reason is because all the properties that have been brought into compliance are people who have started to build without permits. She mentioned the property at 440 Pacific and the petition I signed. Lets clear that up. George who lived at the property was a long time resident of old town and a friendly neighbor. He had a rental unit above his garage that had been there forever as well. We knew the people who lived in the unit and would get together at the Smiths residents for neighborhood gatherings. After he passed the new owner came in and started building additional units inside the garage. He started construction with out permits and then the city came in. I have provided two examples of properties where the no construction was being done and how the city responded. One on B Street which is a duplex and has a unit above the garage with stairs just like mine and the city inspected the property and granted the Mills act.(attached photo) The other example is the letter I have already presented. Neither person was doing any construction and both have units just like mine. In the report, it defines non conforming structures according to the American Planning Association. However this dictionary defines it, is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the city of Tustin defines it. According to TCC 9273 (a) Non-Conforming Structures and Uses: Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures EXISTING AT THE TIME of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; (Ord. 157, Sec. 6.1) Both of the units on my property existed (before November 6's, 1961) at the time of the adoption of this Chapter and should be considered non conforming structures. The biggest issue and why all this came up was that the units did not have any permits. Most of the violations are because there are no permits. The units have lasted for over 60 years. They were built by George Gaylord who was the city building inspector from 1956-1958 (see attached). The testimony of Robert Gaylord, the son who grew up in the home says his dad was a law abiding citizen and did a lot of construction work in and around Tustin. All this and now the city openly admits that old permits and job records were destroyed. Attached is a copy of the Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Tustin City Council Dated March 16,1959. It reads: Disposition of old permits. A communication from the County Building Department asking that they be advised as to the disposition of old permits and job records prior to the time the City of Tustin set up a building department. Motion to dispose of old records. On motion of Councilman Bacon, seconded by Councilman Byrd, that the clerk be authorized to inform the County Building Department to dispose of these old records as they see fit. Motion Carried. No wonder no one before roughly 1950 has any permits. They were destroyed. Why am I being punished and the city has no accountability? According to the 1927 building code General Provisions — Building permits Sec.202 It is the responsibility of the building inspector to retain permits for public record. I have spent so much time and energy on this it is crazy. I have been stressed, my family has been stressed, we have lost the sale of our home and thousands of dollars because of this. The decision tonight will not only affect me and my family but all the residents of old town. Property values will drop even more if we don't recognize these historic structures and preserve them rather then destroy them. The city slogan is Building our future, Honoring our past. Is this how we honor our past? I do feel for the city staff. They are in a very tough position especially now that we know permits were destroyed. It's not their fault but they are left to handle it. The city does not want non conforming structures, however, especially in old town, there are a lot of non conforming structures. But these non conforming structures are what makes old town unique and different, and what attracts people here. Go to any old town and you will see the same things. That is why the city made the Cultural Overlay District to protect these structures. Now, the staff is tom on what to do. The best solution they have for all the structures is to apply for the CUP. However the CUP was not in place until 1961. You can't apply a newer code to an older structure that existed way before that code. I truthfully understand the struggle the city staff has with this problem. It affects everybody in old town. But this, all this that we are doing is not the way to handle it. We as a city need a better solution. As far as my situation. To summarize: • Code A105.1 — An owner who intends to construct. I don't have any intentions of building and therefore am not in violation of this code. • Codes 9223 (b)(2) and 9223 (b)(2)(d) were written in 1961. The structures existed prior to this ordinance. • The property is historic and should go by the CHBC and we should want to preserve it. • All I wanted is the letter. The structures are nonconforming. I want to thank the commission for your time and consideration. I am not trying to get away with anything, or build anything without permits, nor asking for a special grant. All I am asking for is the city to do what they have done with other properties similar to mine, to follow code 9273, and to recognize the structures as nonconforming. I am asking the planning commission for help and to see that the code violations have not been accurately applied to my property, that you reverse the Notice and Order, and to simply recognize the structures as nonconforming as the city has appropriately done in the past. 255 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL October 8, 1956 COUNCILMEN PRESENT: Jerome C. Kidd, Vincent L. Humeston, 7.. Frank E. Bacon, Jr and Lee Byrd. COUNCILMEN ABSENT: W. L. Tadlock I CITY ATTORNEY: C. Arthur Nisson, Jr. present. Mayor Jerome Kidd called the meeting to order at 7:40 P. M. O On motion by Councilman Bacon, seconded by Councilman O Byrd, that Minutes of the meetings of September 24th, and September 27th, be approved as mailed. Minutes of the adjourned meeting of October 4 1956, to be read. Motion C carried. Councilman Bacon moved, seconded by Councilman Byrd that the Minutes of October 1, 1956 be .approved as read. Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Bacon, seconded by Councilman Humeston SECOND READ- that Ordinance No. 104 have .it's second reading by title ING OF ORD, only, "An Ordinance of the City of Tustin, creating a 104. Planning Commission in and for. the City of Tustin and repealing Ordinance No. 49 of the City of Tustin-' Motion i carried, all councilmen present voting Aye. Motion by Councilman Bacon, seconded by Councilman Byrd ADOPTION OF that Ordinance No. 104 be adopted. Motion carried, all ORD. # 1(* Councilmen present voting Aye. Mayor Kidd called a recess at 8:15 P. M. in order that PROPOSED a delayed meeting of the Planning Commission could be HEARING ON. held for the ourpose of a hearing and discussion on ORD. # 105 proposed Ordinance No. 105. Council meeting was continued at 8:30 P. M. Motion by Councilmen Bacon, seconded by Councilman Byrd, that Ordinance No. 105, "An Ordinance of the City of Tustin i ORDINANCE emending Ordinance No. 71 and providing procedure for the # 105, READ establishment of usezones and building line setback BY TITLE ONLY. requirements for the territory annexed to the City of Tustin," be read by Title only. Motion carried, all Councilmen present voting Aye. Councilman Bacon moved, seconded by Councilman Humeston that Ordinance No. 105 be approved for it's first reading. Motion carried, all Councilmen present voting Aye. Mayor Kidd requested approval to leave the state on a hunting trip. Councilman Humaston, moved, seconded by Councilmen Bacon that his request be granted. Motion carried. Application for Building Inspector were discussed and EMPLOYMENT -OF after considering the qualifications of all applicants, GEORGE GAYLORDa Motion by Councilman Humeston, seconded by Councilman AS BUILDING Bacon that George Gaylord be employed on a fee basis, with INSPECTOR ON A FEE BASIS. 38 RESOLUTION NO. 513 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN GRANTING A VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN TO ARTHUR 0. PARK. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does resolve as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin finds and determines that a proper application for variance was filed by Arthur 0. Park for the purpose of using the guest house at the rear of the property hereinafter described for a public accounting office, said application for variance is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at this place; the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin set a public hearing on the matter on the 10th day of November 1958 at 7:00 P. M. in the Council Chambers, Tustin City Hall, and due notice of said hearing was given as required in Ordinance No. 71 of the City of Tustin, and said hearing was duly held on November 10, 1958 at 7:00 P. M. in the said Council Chambers. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin further finds and determines that practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships will result frnm the strict com- pliance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 71, as amended, as it relates to the hereinafter described property unless a variance be granted, and in particular it is found and determined that: (a) There are exceptional circumstances and conditions applicable to the hereinafter described property and the intended use thereof that do not apply generally to the property or class of uses in the same zone. (b) That such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant. (c) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or district in which the property is located due to the type of use intended by the applicant, and set forth in his application, to which Ze£erence is hereby made. Section 3. The variance applied for by Arthur 0. Park concerning the property hereinafter described is 39 hereby granted on the condition that use be limited strictly as stated in the application for variance, and this variance is not transferable except upon application to, and approval by, the Planning Comm- _ fission of the City of Tustin. Section 4. The property referred to hereinabove i is described as follows: Lot 14 of Tract 176, situated in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California. The subject property is commonly known as 510 South "8" Street, Tustin, California. The record owners of said property are: Arthur 0. Park and Vera L. Park. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting thereof held on the 10th day of November 1958. Chairman of the Plannin Comm. Attest: Secretary of the Planning Comm. 40 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) A. 0. PARK, City Clerk and Secretary of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution was regularly introduced to said Planning Commission at a regular meeting hereof held on the 10th day of November 1958, and was at said meeting regularly passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Tadlock, Means, Mrs. Gregory, Clark, Dr. Stanton & Bacon. NOES: None ABSENT: SSegei Dated: November 10, 1958 Secretary of a Planning Comm. T NOE COUNTY ASSESSOR MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNIT APPRAI84L RECO 0, •fw3rINT F R IT i •� .—_ . LAlO MU[ COMPUTATION! LAND ON UMT •TTMDUTW _ _To SF.t. 9:1 —. - Opo at!ausrNawr 0»TL G9 LMIT Jy1T JA U! YKJL : I nrOTw Al OV 62�090�00 _.__ i r zr L ... _. _ _ ..._ _-� .1 ague»ra rYe .L. r: »L r "n . _ t IMIEOYLM rLL [ »C ^� M -v -, luum NT -YONn1 LPr reran - _T.....- t Nall m � w r• 4L4.sr rwowT _ .tl r "°.�' PGR. _,— L .—; �y---''— UMO YKY[ - Dom' I �uY �J tiyNlG• -_ � r MRRrnar rwruiLP _._ r .. �-� • , - ......_. -Y_ . r- • Q f C4 L AL -IC 1CIf, s t ____...-- YLIUWCLGYKtl N' t' _ ie +� �•: sy iRq RCLR0. ' YiMW WC RGL» 0� _•^ � PLY»a. r»r w E. 0 P Y. IMDrGTOP- _ Nir GN RL'11 IY I %49 1 R. tln l CRY. r U»IT yRf u»O YULT. C O Td1 •_ l _. .. .._. _ _ �. U-tOr :aTll _tt... -.. .... - x ""- nmruno Gtal rtcl . rn --r »L .rsTm Pnra 1_ --_--_ ,.: oacrl.lc nlcMrL nl I" ro ,., y gLIMrW M LwlwO Ca✓Y». YN r »C rr 19r�L lMyaT V.tUI . •. - ��- -.... _. G! C _ � __ 1WnCVLYPfw V ` .._.... &. YrY�,..L® rK 4 . rR /Lnb»Y APfIT' YLLYL _ ... I ....•.. - ._.. _ X. TML :.41' i-. .... _ -... ..-. .. : »IYLjY..rfM�l . - i,^ l'1 - ..-. .- k:. ...a_. `1f � MC L. /.il'lCY6N t Tnw¢ Me!!" rtl ^ nC -j �A71P/Y7•_ u.-Lr.r .rarer_ f—.Ln ,79-80 G.I<.w/> _L•KE � '' 037,2 -IqP S.vFtL o•�Y�'.r✓FF6GT8� L6t LAw aed..Jr4twe..YS70 To 2300 X. f.... a�uN cvo[ _._ _. O.i B_. d0%S_,. M r LF G»e i �Q r PP1141iN19 DPpNOM Ye( rtrPY. � I.CRR umrurtl Yen Y¢r, m n S� Daa. Tran Number L rRas+:Iawr�loleATal Op J W mIa raA ells. _rYr, __ •� .—_ . x, _ _To SF.t. 9:1 —. - Opo at!ausrNawr -_ FORMERLY/O_..'f --- lll9ol[DONNOOD ATTIUDYTFa 62�090�00 _.__ M. Y,R, .LLL .ere rtl •- M0r7_ ---__ __. -IC 1CIf, s t ____...-- YLIUWCLGYKtl N' t' _ ie +� �•: sy iRq RCLR0. ' YiMW WC RGL» 0� _•^ � PLY»a. r»r w NANNY MULTW," sm"YOq _ Nir GN RL'11 IY I %49 1 R. tln l CRY. r U»IT yRf M r LF G»e i �Q r PP1141iN19 DPpNOM Ye( rtrPY. � I.CRR umrurtl Yen Y¢r, m n S� Daa. Tran Number L rRas+:Iawr�loleATal Op J W mIa raA ells. _rYr, __ Property Detail Report Property Detail Report for: 520 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN CA, 92780-4329 Owner Information: Owner Name: FAIRBANKS,BRET S Mailing Address: 520 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN, CA, 92780.4329 Vesting Code: Page 1 of I k'tr DIGITAL MAP Phone Number: Location Information: 01/03/2005 Legal Description: STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V S 50 FT OF N 460 FT OF THE W 200 FT County: ORANGE FIPS Code: 06059 Census Trct/Blk: 0755053/3 APN: 40137107 Alternative APN: 40137107 Map Ref: A4-830 Twnshp-Rnge-Sect - - Legal Book/Page: 401-37/ Tract No: Legal Lot V Legal Block: 2nd Mtg Amount: Subdivison: STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR Last Market Sale Information: Sale Date: 01/03/2005 Sale Price: 181 Mtg Amount: $341,900 Sale Doc No: 0000002609 Price Per SgFt 1st Mtg Int Type: Transfer Doc No: 0000161105 Price Per Acre: 2nd Mtg Amount: $56,600 Mullf/Split Sale: 1st Mig Doc No: 337621 2nd MIg Int Type: Sale Type: FULL CONSIDERATION Deed Type: Tille Company: FIRST SOUTHWESTERN TITLE Lender WASHINGTON MUTUAL FSB Seller Name: LOUIS METRO INTER R E PROPERTI Property Characteristics: Building Area: 1,749 Total Rooms: Construction: Living Area: 1,749 Bedrooms Heal Type: Garage Area: Baths: Air Cord. Basement Area: Fireplace: Roof Type: Parking Type: No of Stories: Roof Material: Yr Built/Effective: 19281 Quality: Style: Pool Code: Tax and Value Information: Assessed Value: $453,539 Assessed Year. 2009 Est Market Val: $556,033 Land Value: $274,512 Property Tax: $5,046 Assessor Appd Val: Improvement Value: $179,027 Improvement %: 39.47 Total Taxable Value: $446,539 Tax Exemption: HOMEOWNER Site Information:' Assessor Acres: 0.2296 Zoning: Land Use: 133 Assessor Lot SgFt: 10,000 No of Buildings: Land Use D sc: MULTI FAMILY DWELLING Assessor Lot W/D: I Res/Comm Units: 3 County Use C Calculated Acres: 0.2296 Sewer Type: Calculated Lot SgFt: Water Type: Not in Seismic Liquefaction Hazard Not in Seismic Landslide Hazard Not in Fault Zone Hazard In One Mlle Industrial Commercial Zone Not In 100yr. FEMA Flood Zone In Dam Inundation Hazard Not in Wildland Fire Hazard Not in Severe Fire Hazard http://maps.digitalmapcentral.com/production/C ityGIS/vO7_02_003/index.html 8/10/2010 esi�pe Codes 001 - Single Family Residence OOZE 4ulti Family 999 - Misc. Improvements PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION I MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Requested By Address .5� W1IF<c , Phone( ) 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 FT 11 12 1 13 1 14 APN BLDG# CONST YEAR USE CODE DESIGN TYPE FINISHED BSMTSIZE-1ST SIZE BLDG 2ND F BLDG SIZE 3RD FL BLDG SIZE 4TH FL BLDG SIZE 5TH/UP UNIT MIX GARAGEI CRPRT POOL SIZE YIN LAND SIZE LL c a x `m i :j �� w /Q dad f rr c. c r' Orr O P uthorized B tLA -5 99 QUATTROpRO Check Amount S Cash Amount $ Mailed Date By - � :•fit .'. i.j -. - ° .:. . •;i ..r1� .i .. .�; � � �� tom. - f aiAl�lKT • i ' _ .an .3 • 'may— //%//W,�.�>�Ly�p•'MYa i.�n� a SAW 1 - !fill i, Gv'C� Community Development Department City of Tustin July 23, 1998 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714)573-3100 Mr. Nathan Menard 345 West 6th Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: 345 WEST 6TH STREET Dear Mr. Menard: On July 21, 1998 we received your request for a zoning compliance letter for 345 West 6th Street, Tustin. The subject property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which permits single family residences. Second single family dwellings may be considered in the R-1 District on properties with more than 12,000 square feet of lot area, compliance with several other development standards, and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (TCC Sec. 9233(8)(1)). Our records indicate that the main residence was constructed in 1929. We also have on file various building permits for the duplex on the rear of the property, dating back to 1964. However, there is no record of an approved Conditional Use Permit for the use. As such, the duplex is considered to be a non -conforming use. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(C), non -conforming buildings destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its value by a catastrophic event may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. See attached Code sections. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 573-3118. Sincerely, Bradley J Assistant Attachment: Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9273 BE:345West6th.doc M MINUTES OF A HEGULAR MEETING OF THE TUS`IN CITY COUNCIL, MARCH 16, 1959. MEMBtHz F'RESBNT: Kidd, 'Padlock, Humestnn, Bacon & Byrd. CITY A1^1'OHNB1 Dennis D. Hayden, present. Cl'PY BNGINEER : J. L. McBride, present. Mayor Kidd opened the meeting at 7:35 B. M. CHANGE IN It was moved by councilman Bacon, seconded by Council - MINUTES OF San Byrd that minutes of the last regular meeting SPECIAL and minutes of the Special Meeting Of March 9, 1959 MEETING as corrected by the insertion of the words 'it be found" in the first motion of said urinates, be approved as mailed. Motion carried. PRESENTA- A letter from Mr. Henry S.Campbell was read, stating; that he wisneu Do preseuD Do the people of the City TION OF of Tustin an old map Of 'Rice's Addition to the City RICEts' which was made is July, 1887. ADDITION of Tustin, RESOLUTION Councilman Tadlock moved, seconded by Councilman Humeston N0. 461 thaD HESOLUTION NO. 461, accepting said map, be adopted, motion carried, all Councilmen voting Aye. DISPOSITION A communication from the County Building Department OF OLD asking that they be advised as to the disposition of PERMITS. old permits and']ob 'records prior to the time the City of Tustin set up a building department. MOTION TO On motion of Councilman Bacon, seconded by Councilman DISPOSE Byrd; that the clerkbeauthorized to inform the OF OLD County Building Department to dispose of these old RECOHDS. records as they see fit. Motion carried. RETURN OF City Engineer McBride certified that Mr. Burt Huff DEPOSIT TO had completed in a satisfactory manner, certain drain - BURT HUFF age requirements for his property at 530 West Hirst ON DRAIN- Street and recommended that the deposit of 4500.00 AGE. by Mr. Huff, be returned to him. on motion of Councilman Byrd, seconded by Councilman Tadlock and carried, It was so ordered. WAIVING OF It was moved by Councilman Humeston, seconded by TRACT HAP Councilman Tadlock that action taken by the Tustin FOR H. S. Planning Commission waiving a final Tract Map on a two lot sub-divislon for the Tustin Union High School District, be approved. Notion carried. IDS FOR Motion of Councilman Byrd, seconded by Councilman BIDS FORENT Humeston, that City Engineer McBride prepare plans OF C ST. and specifications for improving the Eastside of C Street, approzimately 200 feet South from West First Street, and the City Clerk be authorized to accept 41.00 per foot for the construction of the curb and gutter from property owner. Motion carried. DODGERS Motion of Councilman Humeston, seconded by Council - INVITE man Bacon that an invitation by the Los Angeles Dodgers to Tustin Baseball fans to attend a Dodger December Irl, 2010 Planning Commission Board of Appeals From: Bret Fairbanks Subject: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street Again I would like to thank the commission for all their time and effort they have put into reviewing this appeal. I thought after the last meeting we had resolved the matter for the most part however after receiving the agenda for this evenings meeting I felt like we were heading backwards once again. I don't know if there was some miscommunication between the staff and the commission however, the agenda and resolution being presented tonight do not accurately reflect what was said at the last meeting. As of today the meeting minutes of November 9`h have not been posted. I have reviewed the video and have translated precisely what was said during the last meeting and it is quite different then what is in tonight's agenda. According to the last meeting at 1:43:20 Mr. Holland says "If the planning commission wished to indicate that they wanted to make a finding that this was a legal nonconforming use, you would be directing us to prepare an appropriate resolution to include findings that you would summarize and incorporating those findings, supporting and granting the appeal on that issue. The second part, if you were to do that, my recommendation would be that you take no further action in regard to building code issues and fire code issues and that you direct staff to do an inspection solely for housing code compliance for ensuring that buildings are meeting minimum health and safety requirements that are provided for housing code." Commissioner Puckett then says "In essence we would be going along with the appeal, Right?" Mr. Holland "Yes, if I understood Mr. Kosak's question to me" Commissioner Kosak, "Yes I think you did." Commissioner Puckett, "But if we do that, if we go along with the appeal, that still does not relieve the fire code hazards and whatever, we still have to look at those." Mr. Holland, "But I would be recommending you look at it in the context of housing code, basic health and safety requirements. In that context." At 1:52:00 Mr. Holland states "As I understand what the motion is, you are directing staff to come back with a resolution, sustaining the appeal, recognizing nonconforming status, and your asking us to include in that resolution that is going to document your action this evening will be pieces of evidence that supports that finding, but you have also asked us to see if there are other things that are out there that we can add to that record. We understand that. If you make that as a motion we can move on, we will have back to you a resolution for your consideration." "Ile has directed staff to come back with a resolution that has that evidence to support that direction. That is to grant the appeal and to make the finding that this is a nonconforming use." Just before commissioner Puckett makes the motion he states "It is evident the units existed before 1961, l think based on Mr. Gaylords letter and other information, telephone books, whatever, that they were used for rental purposes prior to 1961, the evidence that permits were destroyed, lawfully, the exact dates cannot be proven, 1 believe certainly that they were prior to 1961 and certainly are nonconforming structures. I'm going along with approving the appeal." "I'll make the motion that Mr. Holland made." Commissioner Kosak asks "Does that include the second part, the health and safety and housing code compliance?' Commissioner Puckett "Yes, whatever Mr. Holland Said." According to the last meeting there was a motion made for staff to put together a resolution, granting the appeal, which would in effect reverse the Notice and Order on all violations. Staff was to gather all evidence that supports the direction of nonconforming structures and add to that list if they could find anymore information to further support the findings. Part of that motion included Mr. Hollands recommendation to take no further action in regard to building code issues and fire code issues and that you direct staff to do an inspection solely for housing code compliance for ensuring that buildings are meeting minimum health and safety requirements that are provided for housing code. During the last 2 weeks I had some correspondence with Mr. Holland through email and he told me that there is still a need to make sure that all buildings and structures on the premises are safe. I want to make sure as well. I am willing and ready to make changes to ensure the safety but I just don't know what to do. He said that I will not be required to bring all construction on the premises up to new code, but will be asked to make such changes and corrections as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the buildings are adequately protected and preserved. It was his understanding that staff would be recommending that the planning commission address this issue by having me secure the services of an appropriate professional who can identify appropriate, housing code compliant approaches. I will do that, but that is not what is happening. I am still being cited for building code violations and there are all kinds of things (deed restrictions, conditions of approval) in the zoning resolution other than what the motion asked for. I would like to remind everybody that I am not, nor have I ever asked for a special permit or granting. I just asked the staff to follow the code and recognize the structures as nonconforming just like they have done in the past with the letter I presented earlier. This is not something new. Previous city staff has already given letters stating what I needed. Precedence had already been set All I needed was a simple one page letter that should have been provided according to the code. Unless there has been a policy change or the legislative intent changed regarding nonconforming structures and uses, according to: Code 9273 (b) Nonconforming Structures and Uses The planning department of the city of Tustin may send, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, of any nonconforming building or structure, or of any property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of said use. Said statement shall be filed with the Planning Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. Upon any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations on the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure. I have attached my declaration as required by code 9273 giving a detailed description of said use. To help clarify the second unit and the cooking facility issue. The second unit has always and still does have a stove in it. I did not remove the stove I simply replaced it. We were supposed to be moving so we were fixing up the units and during that same time I was talking with Amy and Iustina about the CUP process which they said could not have a stove. So I put the stove in the shed while doing repairs and thinking why put it back if 1 have to take it out later. I simply replaced the stove which has been there since prior to 1961. The staff knew that and knows that, I have told them that. They cited me for having a stove in their code compliance issues. I did not enlarge, extend, reconstruct, or structurally alter anything. According to the nonconforming code, any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs or replacements do not exceed fifty percent of the assessed value. All I did was replace the stove. Why would I remove the stove and take away my rental income and decrease my property value when I am trying to sell my house? It just doesn't make sense. The truth is that it has a stove in it and always has. I have also attached a current picture of the rear unit showing the kitchen as listed when we were selling the house. I have also added the disclosure statement from when we purchased the property which shows that both units had a stove. I understand my obligation as the owner is to demonstrate that the nonconforming uses were in effect in 1961 and to demonstrate that the uses were maintained on the premises, continuously, since 1961. That is what I have done and what I thought the commission clearly stated right before their motion. According to the motion made, the resolution was to include: 1) Sustaining the appeal 2) Finding that the structures are nonconforming, and 3) Evidence to support such Findings. No where in the current code or during your motion does it say I have to sign a conditions of approval ora deed restriction for nonconforming structures. We can't confuse the requirements of what a use permit or variance may need with a letter simply recognizing nonconforming structures. They are two different things. I am not applying for a use permit or variance. I am simply asking the city to recognize nonconforming structures. According to the code the only requirement if asked, is to provide a declaration of nonconforming use. Which I have attached. Requirements such as deed restriction and approval of conditions may be necessary for a use permit but all I want is a zoning conformation letter. Is it the policy of the city that if a citizen has a nonconforming structure or use on their property, in order to get a zoning confirmation letter from the city, (simply for lending purposes), one needs: 1) A complete set of plans and engineering calculations prepared by a licensed professional or documentation necessary to demonstrate that the building(s) meet minimum Building Code requirements, as required by the Building Official for the issuance of permits. Which building requirements? What year? Who determines when it was built? 2) Pay for and get recorded a deed restriction on your property 3) To sign an indemnification clause holding the city harmless even though we know that old records and permits were destroyed by the city. This is what the city staff is asking of me. Is this how we are going to handle all historical properties? This is not how the city has done it in theyast and as recently as 1996 and 2006. ( previous property examples on B street and 6 street). They just issued a zoning confirmation letter which is all I need. How can the city do this knowing that old permits and records were destroyed. With all those records could have been variances, permits, etc..., and who is to say what has or has not changed since then. The city has a huge problem on their hands and needs to come up with some helpful/friendly solution rather then forcing home owners like myself to go through all this just to sell their home. Who and why would anybody want to live in Tustin, heaven forbid old town. The citizens of old town should not be scared to call the city or hesitant to apply for the Mills act because the city might fmd something wrong. Maybe I'm naive to think that we could live in a town where citizens could work with city officials instead of fear them. I want to remind everyone that l am not trying to get away with anything. I bought my home 10 years ago, just like it is today. I tried to keep it up the best I could. My family grew and I needed a bigger house. Anybody here tonight that has a home built prior to 1959 could be in the exact same position as l am. You most likely don't have permits for your home and if you have any additions or guesthouses or possibly zoning variances, 1 don't know what to tell you. Because permits and records were destroyed, the city can't just say there are no permits on file, sorry. We can't hide the fact that permits were destroyed. There has to be a better solution. There are other cities with old homes and nonconforming structures where permits don't exist and the city has worked with the citizens to preserve the structures and come up with a solution to ensure the safety of the occupants. Just like the commission said at the last meeting we do need a task force or something to help resolve the matter rather than come after the home owner. The truth is that I lost the sale of my home because the staff incorrectly interpreted the nonconforming code. Now, I feel like I am being punished for that. I know the commission and staff have put a lot of time and effort into this and I appreciate it. I feel like I have done so much, 1 want to and am trying to resolve this issue. I thought the commission had already ruled on the violations and granted the appeal. I understand your concern regarding some of the issues at the property and will hire a professional as Mr. Holland recommended, to come out and make sure I am meeting the minimum health and safety requirements per the housing code. I will make sure the stairs are safe and put in fire separation between the units to make sure things are safe. This is our third planning commission meeting. I am asking the commission to please give me and my Family the courtesy of getting this resolved. DECLARATION OF NONCONFROMING STRUCTURES AND USES 1, the undersigned, declare as follows: 1 am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby furnish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of my property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming structures and uses are as follows. a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. b. The unit behind the garage is a nonconforming third residential unit. 1 declare that I have done nothing to enlarge, extend, reconstruct, or structurally alter any of the nonconforming buildings or structures, as described above, nor have I caused any such work to be done. I acknowledge that such work will adversely affect the nonconforming status of such buildings and structures. 1 declare, to the best of my knowledge, that the above nonconforming use of the buildings and structures as described above were in effect in 1961 and have been continuously maintained on the property thereafter. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of 20 (Day) (Month) (Year) State of California County of Orange On , before me, Notary, personally appeared Bret S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A. Fairbanks personally known to me —OR - (proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. W ITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public (Bret S. Fairbanks) (Stephanie A. Fairbanks) CAL I FO It NI A ASSOC I A [*[(IN REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT T OF ILEAL-rO0.sa (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1102, ET SED.) 7 THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF - COUNTY OF - DESCRIBED'AS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THIS STATEMENT IS A DISCLOS R TRE C NDITIO _ F E % B VE"DESCRIBED PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1102 OF THE CIVIL CODE AS OF (date) - IT IS NOT A WARRANTY OF ANY KIND BY THE SELLER(S) OR ANY AGENT(S) REPRESENTIN AN PRINCIPAL(S) IN THIS TRANSACTION, AND IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR WARRANTIES THE PRINCIPAL(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN. COORDINATION WITH OTHER DISCLOSURE FORMS This Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement is made pursuant to Section 1102 of the Civil Code. Other statutes require disclosures, depending upon the details of the particular real estate transaction (for example: special study zone and purchase -money lions on residential properly). Substituted Disclosures:, The following disclosures have or will be made in connection with this real estate transfer, and are intended to satisfy the disclosure obligations on this form, where the subject matter is the same: 0 Inspection reports completed pursuant to the contract of sale or receipt for deposit. 0 Additional inspection reports or disclosures: SELLER'S INFORMATION The Seller discloses the following information with the knowledge that even though this is not a warranty, prospective Buyers may rely on this information in deciding whether and on what terms to purchase the subject properly. Seller hereby authorizes any agent(s) representing any principal(s) in this transaction to provide a copy of this statement to any person or entity in connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the property, THE FOLLOWING ARE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER(S) AND ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE AGENT(S), IF ANY. THIS INFORMATION IS A DISCLOSURE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER. Seller O is O.is not occupying the property. A. The subject property has the Items checked below (read across): C3 Range 0 Oven CL,C1jshwasher r n , 0 Trash Compactor O,Washer/Dryer Hookups', 0::: CJ Byyrglar Alarms � EJ,'(V. Antenna F CL,Oentral Heating' y'.n f`. 0 Wall/Window Air Conditioning O Septic Tank 0 Patio/Decking 0 Sauna 0 Hol Tub 0 Locking Safety Cover - 0 Security Gate(s) Garage: 0 Attached Pool/Spa Heater. 0 Gas Water Healer. 0 Gas Water Supply: 0 City Gas Supply: O Utility 0. Window Screens 0 Smoke Detectors) 0 Satellite Dish 0.901ttral Air Conditioning O. Sprinklers O Sump Pump 0 Built-in Barbecue 0 Pool 0 Child Resistant Barrer' O Automatic Garage Door Opener(s)- 0 Not Attached O Solar 0 Water Heater Anchored, Braced, or Strapped' 0 Well 0 Bottled O Window Security Bars 0 Quick Release Mechanism on Bedroom Windows' (Continued on page 2) ('see footnote on page 2) 0 Microwave ❑S3erbage Disposal 0 gain Gutters _- 0FireAlarm 0 Intercom 0 Evaporator Cooler(s) ❑ Public Sewer System 0 Water Softener O Gazebo 0 Spa 0 Locking Safety Cover' 0 Number Remote Controls _ C,,Garpon 0 Electric •, O Private Utility or Other Buyer and Seller acknowledge receipt of copy of this page, which onstttute$ Page 1 at Pages. Buyer's Initials I'/_ ) ( ) Seller's Initials,( I 1 / THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED By THE CAL RNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORSO (C. A.R.I. NO RR PATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OR ADEQUACY OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION. q REAL ESTATE BROKER IS THE PERSON QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE. CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL States machlnThe eyo9anht ly O her meansaws of the , ntl luding facsimhu or computerized 10m ats. Copyrighthe o ri 01990 1999tion JCALIFORf I NIAASor SOCIATION Of R qq wt�v"� INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.EAL:fOR:iU Published and Distributed by: REVISED 4/99 — OFFICE USE ONLY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. I Reviewed by Broker 1 a subsry idiaof the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ei Subject 'Property Address: Date: S 4 - r Exhaust Fans) in _- 220 Volt Wiring in Fireplace(s) in ❑ Gas Starter ❑ Rool(s): Type: : r Age:(approx.) ❑ Other: Are there, to the best of your (Settees) knowledge, any of the above that are not in operating condition? ❑ Yes ❑- No. If yes, then describe. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): B. Are you (Seger) aware of any significant defects/malfunctions in any of the following7 ❑ Yes ❑ No. If yes, check appropriate space(s) below. O Interior Walls ❑ Ceilings La Floors 17 Exterior Walls 17 Insulation 11 Roof(s) ❑ Windows ❑ Doors ❑ Foundation ❑ Slab(s) ❑ Driveways ❑ Sidewalks I] Walls/Fences n Electrical Systems n Plumbing/Sewers/Septics ❑ Other Structural Components (Describe: If any of the above is checked, explain. (Attach additional sheets it necessary): 'This garage door opener or child resistant pool barrier may not be in compliance with the safety standards relating to automatic reversing devices as set forth in Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 19890) of Pad 3 of Division 13 of, or with the pool safely standards of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 115920) of Chapter 5 of Pan 10 of Division 104 of, the Health and Safety Code. The water healer may not be anchored, braced, or strapped in accordance with Section 19211 of the Health and Safety Code. Window security bars may not have quick release mechanisms in compliance with the 1995 Edition of the California Building Standards Code. C. Are you (Seller) aware of any of the following: 1. Substances, materials, or products which may be an environmental hazard such as, but not limited to, asbestos, formaldehyde, radon gas, lead-based paint, fuel or chemical storage Tanks, and contaminated soil or water on the subject property ............................... ❑ Yes 111— No 2. Features of the property shared in common with adjoining landowners, such as walls, fences, and driveways, whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the subject properly ................................... ❑ Yes 0' No 3. Any encroachments, easements or similar matters that may affect your interest in the subject property ........................ ❑ Yes ❑ , No 4. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs made without necessary permits ...................... ❑ Yes ❑, No 5. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs not in compliance with building codes .................. ❑ Yes CI 'No 6. Fill (compacted or otherwise) on the property or any portion thereof ................................................... ❑ Yes ❑'No 7. Any settling from any cause, or slippage, sliding, or other soil problems ................................................ ❑ Yes ❑ No S. "Flooding, drainage or grading problems......................................................................... ❑ Yes ❑ No 91, Major damage to the property or any of the structures from fire, earthquake, floods, or landslides .............................. ❑ Yes ❑- No 107Anyzoning violations, nonconforming uses, violations of 'setback' requirements ......................................... ❑ Yes 0-- No 11. Neighborhood noise Problems or other nuisances .... .............................................................. ❑ Yes ❑' ,No 12. CCBR's or other deed restrictions or obligations.................................................................. ❑ Yes 12Y -No 13. Homeowners' Association which has any authority over the subject property ............................................ ❑ Yes ❑''No 14. Any "common area' (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas co -owned in undivided Interest with others)......................................................................................... ❑ Yes O' No Any notices of abatement or citations against the property .......................................................... ❑ Yes @" No 16, Any lawsuits by or against the seller threatening to or affecting this real property, Including any lawsuits alleging a defect or deficiency in this real property or "common areas' (facilities such as pools• tennis courts, walkways, or other areas, co -owned in undivided interest with others).............................................................................. ❑ Yes ❑' No It the answer to any of these is yes, explain. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): Seller certiffes.thal the information herein is true and correct to the best of the Seller's knowledge as of the date signed by the Seller. Seller '/��r,E/<"�•^- -' Dale �l _ Seller Date Buyer and Seller acknowledge receipt of copy of this page, which constitut s Page 2 of Pages. OFFICE USE ONLY Buyer's Initials ( ) ( J Seller's Initials (' Reviewed by Broker 1 {— r I REVISED 4/99 orOesgnee_ u PRINTWE I Date r, r R >.. l _. .-_ . CALI1:0 It. NIA t Assoc I A T t o N REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF RFALTORSk' (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1102, ET SEG.) THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF - COUNTY OF _ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIIJErywSr i THIS STATEMENT IS A DISCLOSURE E C ND 1-0WO-490'VEDESdFiiBgb P RTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1102 OF THE CIVIL CODE AS OF (date) . IT IS NOT A WARRANTY OF ANY KIND BY THE SELLER(S) OR ANY AGENT(S) REPRESENTIN AN PR CIPAL(S) IN THIS TRANSACTION, AND IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR WARRANTIES THE PRINCIPAL(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN. I COORDINATION WITH OTHER DISCLOSURE FORMS This Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement is made pursuant to Section 1102 of the Civil Code. Other statutes require disclosures, depending upon the details of the particular real estate transaction (for example: special study zone and purchase -money liens on residential properly). Substituted Disclosures: The following disclosures have or will be made in connection with this real estate transfer, and are intended to satisfy the disclosure obligations on this form, where the subject matter is the same: I-) Inspection reports completed pursuant to the contract of sale or receipt for deposit. 0 Additional inspection reports or disclosures: SELLER'S INFORMATION The Seller discloses the following information with the knowledge that even though this is not a warranty, prospective Buyers may rely on this information in deciding whether and on what terms to purchase the subject property. Seller hereby authorizes any agent(s) representing any principals) in this transaction to provide a copy of this statement to any person or entity in connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the property. THE FOLLOWING ARE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER(S) AND ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE AGENT(S), IF ANY. THIS INFORMATION IS A DISCLOSURE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER. Seller 0 is rJjarnol occupying the property. A. The subject property has the Items checked below (read across): O,Range 0 Oven 0 Dishwasher 0 Trash Compactor 0 Washer/Dryer Hookups 0 Burglar Alarms 0 TV. Antenna 0 Central Healing 0 WalVWindow Air Conditioning 0 Septic Tank 0 PalkitDecking 0 Sauna 0 Hot Tub 0 Locking Safety Cover' 0 Security Gate(s) Garage: 0 Attached Pool/Spa Heater: 0 Gas Water Heater: 0_'iaa Water Supply: 0 City Gas Supply: 0 Utility 0 Window Screens 0 -Smoke Delectar(s) 0 Satellite Dish 0 Central Air Conditioning 0 Sprinklers 0 Sump Pump 0 Built-in Barbecue 0 Pool 0 Child Resistant Border' 0 Automatic Garage Door Opener(s)' 0 Not Attached 0 Solar 0 Water Heater Anchored, Braced, or Strapped' 0 Well 0 Bottled 0 Window Security Bars 0 Quick Release Mechanism on Bedroom Windows' (Continued on page 2) ('see footnote on page 2) 0 Microwave 0 Garbage Disposal 0 Rain Gutters 0 Fire Alarm 0 Intercom 0 Evaporator Caoler(s) 0 Public Sewer System Ii Water Softener 0 Gazebo 0 Spa 0 Locking Safety Cover' 0 Number Remote Controls 0 Carport 0 Electric 0 Private Utility or Other Buyer and Seller acknowledge rgcyipt of copy�of this page, which constitutes Page 1 of Pages. Buyer's Initials ( i . ! ) ( ".., .0 1 Seller's Initials THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CALIF IA ASSOCIAnowbF REALTORSe tC.A.R.I. NO_R ESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OR AOEOUACY OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION. q REAL ESTATE BROKER IS Hg PERSON OUAQFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TA%ADVICE. CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17 U.S. Code) forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this torn, or any portion thereof, b� ptratarap/ machine or any other means, inciuding facsimile or computerized formats. Copyright 01999.1999, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF R TORSd, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. RaAished and LESTATE STTE BUSINESributedS S ._ — _n_ REVISED 4199 OFFICE USE ONLY „ REAL ES ry of BUSINESS SERVICES. INC. Reviewed by Broker = a subsidiary of the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OFREALTORSiO I or Desionee 979 C,u„61/irnil Au..... �.. ,.. • , n , nn /bjecl Property Address: Exhaust Fan(s) in 220 Voll Wiring In ❑ Gas Starter Roof(s): Type: Fireplaces) in / •'�' Age: ❑ Other: Date: - s —c,,, (approx ) Are there, to the best of your (Seller's) knowledge, any of the above that are not in operating condition? ❑ Yes ❑ No. If yes, then describe. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): B. Are you (Seller) aware of any significant defectsimalfunctions in any of the following? ❑ Yes plNo. If yes, check appropriate space(s) below. ❑ Interior Walls ❑ Ceilings ❑ Floors ❑ Exterior Walls ❑ Insulation ❑ Roof(s) ❑ Windows ❑ Doors ❑ Foundation ❑ Slab(s) ❑ Driveways ❑ Sidewalks ❑ Walls/Fences ❑ Electrical Systems ❑ Plumbing/Sewers/Septics ❑ Other Structural Components (Describe: It any of the above is checked, explain. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): 'This garage door opener or child resistant pool barrier may not be in compliance with the safety standards relating to automatic reversing devices as set forth in Chapter 12.5 (commencing with Section 19890) of Part 3 of Division 13 of, or with the pool safety standards of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 115920) of Chapter 5 of Part 10 of Division 104 01, the Health and Safety Code. The water heater may not be anchored, braced, or strapped in accordance with Section 19211 of the Health and Safety Code. Window security bars may not have quick release mechanisms In compliance with the 1995 Edition of the California Building Standards Code. C. Are you (Seller) aware of any of the following: 1. Substances, materials, or products which may be an environmental hazard such as, but not limited to, asbestos, formaldehyde, Paint. fuel or chemical storage tanks, and radon gas, lead-based contaminated soil or water on the subject property ............................... 2. Features of the property shared in common with adjoining landowners, such as walls, lances, and driveways, ❑ Yes ❑ No whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the subject property........ ' 3. Any encroachments, easeents or similar matters Thal may affect your interest In the subject property .. m " • • ' 0 Yes 0 No 4. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs made without necessary permits ..................... 5. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs not In compliance with building codes ❑ Yes ❑ No ....... . 6. Fill (compacted or otherwise on the property or an "' • • P Y any thereof ................................................... • • • . ❑ Yes ❑ No 7. Any settling from any cause, or slippage, sliding, or other soil problems ..................... , ❑ Yes ❑ No . .......................... 6. Flooding, drainage or grading problems ........... ❑ Yes ❑ No 9. Major damage to the property or any of the structures from lire, earthquake, floods, or landslides "' ' ❑ Yes ❑ No ......... . ........ 10. Any zoning violations, nonconforming uses, violations of "setback" requirements......... """" • • ❑ Yes ❑ No 11. Neighborhood noise problems or other nuisances . ...............................................................❑ 0 Yes 0 No 12. CCBR'e or other dead restrictions or obligations ............. Yes ❑ No . .... ................................................❑ . Homeowners' Association which has any authority over the subject property .............................. Yes ❑ No . . ............ 14. Any "common area' (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas co -owned in undivided ❑ Yea ❑' No interest with others) ........................... ..y .................................. 15. Any notices of abatement or citations against the property .............. • ❑ Yes ❑ No 16. Any lawsuits by or against the seller threatening to or affectingthis real "" " • • ' property, Including any lawsuits alleging a detect or deficiency in this real property or'common • • • ❑ Yes ❑ No areas' (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas, co -owned in undivided interest with others) .......... . . .............. ............................. ..............❑ . It Iha answer to any of these is yes, explain. (Attach addillonal sheets it necessary): (Attach Yes ❑ No Seller certifies that the Information herein Is true and correct to the best of the Seller's knowledge as of the dale signed by the,Seller. Seller -� Dale Seller i Date Buyer and Seller acknowledge receipt Of copy of this page, which constitutes Page 2 of Pa es. OFFICE USE Buyer's Initials ( V 9 ( 1 Seller's Initials 1 =%T 1 ( Reviewed ONLY ) eY eroler REVISED 4/99 FnfW DATE Or Designee A DEC kN Date A J CALI FO It NIA A S S U C I AT ION REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT i x. (CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 1102, ET SED.) OF It EA L'rU IIY 1 THIS DISCLOSURE STATEMENT CONCERNS THE REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF COUNTY OF — STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBE AS O \ THIS STATEMENT IS A DISCLOSURE T ND N HE ABOV ESCRIBED PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 1102 OF THE CIVIL CODE AS OF (date) . IT IS NOT A WARRANTY OF ANY KIND BY THE SELLER(S) OR ANY AGENT(S) REPRESENTING ANY PRINCIPAL(S) IN THIS TRANSACTION, AND IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR WARRANTIES THE PRINCIPAL(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN. I COORDINATION WITH OTHER DISCLOSURE FORMS This Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement is made pursuant to Section 1102 of the Civil Code. Other statutes require disclosures, depending upon the details of the particular real estate transaction (for example: special study zone and purchase -money liens on residential property). Substituted Disclosures: The following disclosures have or will be made in connection with this real estate transfer, and are intended to satisfy the disclosure obligations on this form, where the subject matter is the same: fl Inspection reports completed pursuant to the contract of sale or receipt for deposit. CI Additional inspection reports or disclosures: SELLER'S INFORMATION The Seller discloses the following information with the knowledge that even though this is not a warranty, prospective Buyers may rely on this Information in deciding whether and on what terms to purchase the subject property. Seller hereby authorizes any agent's) representing any principal(s) In this transaction to provide a copy of this statement to any person or entity in connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the properly. THE FOLLOWING ARE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE SELLER(S) AND ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE AGENT(S), IF ANY. THIS INFORMATION IS A DISCLOSURE AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BUYER AND SELLER. Seller ❑ is OIs not occupying the property. A. The subject property has the Items checked below (read across): /R"ange Water Supply: 0, City ❑ Well Gas Supply: ❑ Utility �11Bottled IJ Window Scree _ ns �� I ❑ Window Security Bars ❑ Quick Release Mechanism on Bedroom Windows' (Continued on page 2) (*see footnote on page 2) At ❑ Microwave ^ qGS!rbage Disposal I-1yR in Gutters ' Cr Fire Alaml ❑ Intercom D Evaporator Cooler(s) ❑ Pubkc Sewer System O Water Softener ❑ Gazebo 0 Spa O Locking Safety Cover' ❑ Number Remote Controls ❑ Carport ❑ Electric ❑ Private Utility or Other Buyer and Seller acknowledge receipt of copy of this page, which constitutes Page 1 of Pages. Buyer's Initials ( t ) I Seller's Initials(���� — y'( ) THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CALIF IA ASSOCIATION F REALTORS* (C.A.R.). N"EPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OR ADEQUACY OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION.q REAL ESTATE BROKER15THE PERSON OUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGALOR TAX ADVICE, CONSULT ANAPPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17 U.S. Code) forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form. or any portion thereof, by pho!ococy machine or any other means, including facsimile or computerized formats. Copyright Id 1990-1999, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS0, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. �i REAL and Distributed S REVISED 4/99 j� OFFICE USE ONLY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. Reviewed by evoker � a subsidiary or the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIArioN OF REALTORS® or Designee 525 South Wait Avenue I. ns AnnnWn Cnl,lnrnia nW70 0.. Oven ❑ Dishwasher ❑ Trash Compactor ❑ Washer/Dryer Hookups s�yn �..,I ❑ Burglar Alarms ❑ .Bfnoke Delector(s) ❑ T.V. Antenna 17 Satellite Dish O Central Heating ❑ Central Air Conditioning ❑ Wall/Window Air Conditioning ❑ Sprinklers ❑ Septic Tank ❑ Sump Pump ❑ Patio/Docking ❑ Built-in Barbecue ❑ Sauna ❑ Hot Tub ❑ Locking Safety Cover' ❑ Pool ❑ Child Resistant Barrier' ❑ Sammy Gate(s) ❑ Automatic Garage Door Opener(s)' Garage: ❑ Attached�_— ❑ Not Attached Pool/Spa Healer: Cl-GasJ ❑ Solar Water Healer. O Gas ❑ Water Healer Anchored, Braced, or Strapped' Water Supply: 0, City ❑ Well Gas Supply: ❑ Utility �11Bottled IJ Window Scree _ ns �� I ❑ Window Security Bars ❑ Quick Release Mechanism on Bedroom Windows' (Continued on page 2) (*see footnote on page 2) At ❑ Microwave ^ qGS!rbage Disposal I-1yR in Gutters ' Cr Fire Alaml ❑ Intercom D Evaporator Cooler(s) ❑ Pubkc Sewer System O Water Softener ❑ Gazebo 0 Spa O Locking Safety Cover' ❑ Number Remote Controls ❑ Carport ❑ Electric ❑ Private Utility or Other Buyer and Seller acknowledge receipt of copy of this page, which constitutes Page 1 of Pages. Buyer's Initials ( t ) I Seller's Initials(���� — y'( ) THIS FORM HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CALIF IA ASSOCIATION F REALTORS* (C.A.R.). N"EPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE LEGAL VALIDITY OR ADEQUACY OF ANY PROVISION IN ANY SPECIFIC TRANSACTION.q REAL ESTATE BROKER15THE PERSON OUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGALOR TAX ADVICE, CONSULT ANAPPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL The copyright laws of the United States (Title 17 U.S. Code) forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form. or any portion thereof, by pho!ococy machine or any other means, including facsimile or computerized formats. Copyright Id 1990-1999, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS0, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. �i REAL and Distributed S REVISED 4/99 j� OFFICE USE ONLY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. Reviewed by evoker � a subsidiary or the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIArioN OF REALTORS® or Designee 525 South Wait Avenue I. ns AnnnWn Cnl,lnrnia nW70 i _•� ;,Abject Property Address: Exhaust Fans) in 220 Volt Wiring in Fireplace(s) in ❑ Gas Starter n Roof(s): Type: 1; Age: 17 Other: ' Date: S - - (approx.) Are there, to the best of your (Sellers) knowledge, any of the above that are not in operating condition? ❑ Yes O' No. If yes, [hen describe. (Attach additional sheets if necessary): B. Are you (Seller) aware of any significant defects/malfunctions in any of the following? ❑ Yes ❑"No. If yes, check appropriate space(s) below. :3 Interior Walls ❑ Ceilings ❑ Floors ❑ Exterior Walls ❑ Insulation ❑ Roof(s) ❑ Windows ❑ Doors ❑ Foundation ❑ Slab(s) ❑ Driveways ❑ Sidewalks ❑ Wails/Fences ❑ Electrical Systems ❑ Plumbing/Sewers/Seplics 17 Other Structural Components (Describe: If any of the above is checked, explain. (Anach additional sheets it necessary): 'This garage door opener or child resistant pool barrier may not be in compliance with the safely standards relating to automatic reversing devices as set forth In Chapter 12,5 (commencing with Section 19890) of Part 3 of Division 13 of, or with the pool safely standards of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 115920) of Chapter 5 of Part 10 of Division 104 of. the Health and Safely Code. The water heater may not be anchored, braced, or strapped in accordance with Section 19211 of the Health and Safety Code. Window security bars may not have quick release mechanisms in compliance with the 1995 Edition of the California Building Standards Code. C. Are you (Seller) aware of any of the tollowing: 1. Substances, materials, or products which may be an environmental hazard such as, but not limited to, asbestos, formaldehyde, radon gas, lead-based paint, fuel or chemical storage tanks, and contaminated soil or water on the subject property ............... . ............... Cl Yes ❑ No 2. Features of the property shared in common with adjoining landowners, such as walls, fences, and driveways, whose use or responsibility for maintenance may have an effect on the subject property ......................... ........ ❑ Yes 17 No 3. Any encroachments, easements or similar matters that may affect your interest in the subject property ........................ ❑ Yes ❑ No 4. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs made without necessary permits ...................... ❑ Yes ❑ No S. Room additions, structural modifications, or other alterations or repairs not in compliance with building codes .................. ❑ Yes ❑ No 6. Fill (compacted or otherwise) on the property or any portion thereof ................................................... ❑ Yes ❑ No 7. Any settling from any cause, or slippage, sliding, or other soil problems .................................. ....... ....... ❑ Yes ❑ No S. Flooding, drainage or grading problems ................................. ....................... ................... ❑ Yes ❑ No 9. Major damage to the property or any of the structures from fire, earthquake, floods, or landslides ............................. ❑ Yes ❑ No 10. Any zoning violations, nonconforming uses, violations of "setback" requirements ......................................... ❑ Yes ❑' No 11. Neighborhood noise problems or other nuisances................................................................. ❑ Yes ❑ No 12. CC&R's or other deed restrictions or obligations.................................................................. ❑ Yes ❑ No 13. Homeowners' Association which has any authority over the subject property ............................................ ❑ Yes ❑ " No 14. Any "common area" (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas co -owned in undivided interest with others) ................................................... ...................................... ❑ Yes ❑ No 15. Any notices of abatement or citations against the property .......................................................... ❑ Yes ❑ No 16. Any lawsuits by or against the seller threatening to or affecting this real property, including any lawsuits alleging a defect or deficiency in this real property or "common areas' (facilities such as pools, tennis courts, walkways, or other areas, co -owned in undivided interest with others) .............. I .............................................................. ❑ Yes ❑ No If the answer to any of these is yes, explain. (Attach additional sheets it necessary): Seller cert llesiJ, t the Information herein is true and correct to the best of the Seller's knowledge as of the dale signed by the Seller. Seller. `1 �a kiL rel--- 1��: r.<_� Date Seller Date Buyer and Selle/pc nol ge receipt of copy of this page, which. constitutes Page 2 of Pages. OFFICE USE ONLY Buyer's initial5,�!A ( ' Y ) Seller's Initials r I J Reviewed by Broker 7' --r— ('?�' ) ( ) REVISED 4/99 I or Designee_ PAWT DATE Dau A DFC 99 ----..-_._ loci Property Address: Data: AGENT'S INSPECTION DISCLOSURE (To be completed only if the Seller is represented by an agent in this transaction.) THE UNDERSIGNED, BASED ON THE ABOVE INQUIRY OF THE SELLER(S) AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AND BASED ON A REASONABLY COMPETENT AND DILIGENT VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE ACCESSIBLE AREAS OF THE PROPERTY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT INQUIRY, STATES THE FOLLOWING: ❑ Agent notes no items for disclosure. ❑ A9gant notes the following items: i1� `'/i, • r • rri! 1C. 1. I:` Agent (Broker Representing Seller).'_2' .' By / .' � � � Date (Please Print) (Associale-License or Broker Signature) ' IV AGENT'S INSPECTION DISCLOSURE (To be completed only if the agent who has obtained the offer is other than the agent above.) THE UNDERSIGNED, BASED ON A REASONABLY COMPETENT AND DILIGENT VISUAL ACCESSIBLE AREAS OF THE PROPERTY, STATES THE FOLLOWING: ❑ Agent notes no items for disclosure. ❑ Agent notes the following items: INSPECTION OF THE Agent (Broker Obtaining the Otter) : :By,! ' <� / " - Date _ (Please Print) , (Associate-Ucense or Broker Signature) V BUYER(S) AND SELLER(S) MAY WISH TO OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND/OR INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND TO PROVIDE FOR APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER(S) WITH RESPECT TO ANY ADVICE/INSPECTIONS/DEFECTS. UWE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT. // Seller Date Buyer/ - Ze7f <, '✓ 4�4.t/z; Date Seller Date Buyer r�r r /' '- ' Date Agent (Broker Representing Seller) ! '� = r'�•/ Agent (Broker Obtaining the Offer) By •.� i'i Date (AssocialtrLicansa of Bloker gnaturs) By Dale (AssoaatedJcense or Broker Signature) SECTION 1102.3 OF THE CIVIL CODE PROVIDES A BUYER WITH THE RIGHT TO RESCIND A PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR AT LEAST THREE DAYS AFTER THE DELIVERY OF THIS DISCLOSURE IF DELIVERY OCCURS AFTER THE SIGNING OF AN OFFER TO PURCHASE. IF YOU WISH TO RESCIND THE CONTRACT, YOU MUST ACT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. A REAL ESTATE BROKER IS QUALIFIED TO ADVISE ON REAL ESTATE. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE, CONSULT YOUR ATTORNEY. This form Is available for use by the entire real estate industry. II is REVISED 4/99 not intended to identity the user as a REALTOR®. REALTORS is a OFFICE USE ONLY Reviewed by Broker !.l registered collective membership mark wlkch may be used orgy by r ■`� memoers d the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® who or Designee _ /� subsci be to its Code of Ethics. Date PRMT MTE ATTACHMENT CC Report March 1, 2011 Draft CC Resolution No. 11-15 RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DETERMINING THAT "NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES/USES" AS SET FORTH IN THE TUSTIN CITY CODE MEANS THAT SUCH STRUCTURES/USES WERE: LAWFULLY ERECTED, ESTABLISHED; HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY AND CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAINED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION; AND, BASED ON SAID DETERMINATION, ORDER THE CESSATION OF THE TWO DWELLING UNITS/GUEST HOUSES AND THE CORRECTION OF CODE VIOLATIONS OF STRUCTURES/USES FOR CONFORMANCE WITH TUSTIN CITY CODE AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 401-371-07) The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff sent a response letter to Mr. Fairbanks clarifying that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) wherein a guest house would be permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP); could not contain kitchen or cooking facilities; and, could not be rented. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. On September 10, 2010, City representatives conducted an on-site assessment with the property owners and made visual observations which revealed several modifications/additions and substandard living conditions (Exhibit B); D. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of Building Code and Zoning Code; E. A third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. was commissioned by staff to assist in determining when the structures were constructed and established. The report indicated that "The original development of the site in 1928 Resolution No. 11-15 Page 2 included the construction of a single family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport, and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950s or early 1960s. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit." (Exhibit C) F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; G. That on December 14, 2010, the Commission considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. During the deliberation, an opinion was rendered that, based on provisions in the Ordinance, uses/structures existing prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 157 (Nov. 6. 1961) could continue to exist regardless of any legal and/or illegal establishment. Based on this interpretation, the Commission determined that there was evidence substantiating that the two units are nonconforming uses/structures and may remain; and also directed compliance with the Building Code. (Res. Nos. 4161 and 4162). H. That on December 23, 2010, Mayor Jerry Amante appealed the Commission's action per TCC Section 9294c regarding the property located at 520 Pacific Street. The general reasons noted in the appeal were as follows: "i do not concur with the determination of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4162 approving existing uses at 520 Pacific Street as nonconforming uses for the reason that it appears to me that the alleged nonconforming uses are not legal uses or permitted buildings and/or structures. The actions taken under Resolution No. 4161 with regard to the Building Code Violations ought, therefore, to be abrogated by virtue of the fact that the uses that are identified in Resolution No. 4162 as "nonconforming" are actually illegal and were not permitted. This view, however, in no way relieves the property owner of his obligation to comply with the various building code violations. There is, in my view, a need for a discussion to clarify that the Tustin City Code ("Code') requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code." That on March 1, 2011, the City Council conducted a public hearing, considered the matter, and made the following findings based on the Resolution No. 11-15 Page 3 evidence provided at the hearing and evidence described in the staff report. The staff report and attachments thereto are herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit D. The City Council hereby finds as follows: 1. The City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927. The property at 520 Pacific Street is located within the original City boundaries and was built in 1929 and a Notice of Completion and deed restriction were recorded on the property. The deed restriction stated that no structure shall be erected except a dwelling house and garage (Exhibit A). 2. The first published building code, the 1927 edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. The next building code adopted was the 1940 UBC (adopted July 20, 1942). Neither the 1927 nor the 1940 UBC editions would have allowed a change in use or the character of the occupancy if the building was not conforming to requirements of the code, "buildings in existence at the time of passage of this code may have their existing use or occupancy continued if such use or occupancy was legal at the time of the passage of this code." 3. The 1947 and 1961 the Zoning Code set forth site development standards and limited uses permitted on a Single Family Residential property which was designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. Guest houses could be permitted "for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling". 4. The 1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1940 UBC, and every Building Code adopted thereafter required lawful establishment of structures and uses. The 1947 Zoning Code (Ord. 47), various provisions of the 1961 Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157), and the current Zoning Code require the lawful establishment of uses and structures. Various provisions of all Zoning Ordinances considered use of land, alterations, modifications, etc. operated and maintained contrary to the Zoning Code to be considered public nuisances. 5. In 2003 an update to the Zoning Code added requirements for a "second residential unit' which differed from a guest unit, permitted kitchen facilities for more permanent tenancy, and could not be rented. However, the second residential unit was only permitted if the property is 12,000 square feet and an additional garage space is provided, both of which were not applicable at 520 Pacific Street. A "guest house" still requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). 6. The prior and current zoning code would not allow for apartment/multifamily use in an R-1 zone. This means three (3) families living independently. This is the use that has been Resolution No. 11-15 Page 4 established at 520 Pacific without meeting any of the zoning standards or minimum building standards. 7. Specifically, as to 520 Pacific Street, there is evidence that the owner (between 1938-42) converted the premises so that the area over the garage was used for living quarters and living area was added to the rear (1945-50) for use by family members which was accessory to and used in conjunction with the main house. Sometime during or thereafter, kitchens have been added and units rented. These actions were contrary to the City's Building Codes and Zoning Codes. We also know that additional work has been done by the current property owner (i.e. fire walls removed, gas lines installed, furnaces installed, Romex electrical wiring installed without required permits). 8. The owner indicated that both units on the property existed at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Code and they were used and maintained as dwelling units separate from the main house; and, therefore, should be considered nonconforming structures. As noted above, the uses and structures could not have been lawfully established (per the (deed) Notice of Completion), the adopted Building Codes; no rental units were ever allowed per the Building or Zoning Code; and there is no evidence that any of the foregoing have been continually/legally maintained. However, evidence indicates that there have been multiple additions, alterations, repairs, and construction done to the structures and the occupancy of which has changed from a single family use to what is essentially a multi -family complex, all of which are not in conformance with the Building and Zoning Code requirements. Many of the substandard conditions are in violation of the 1927 UBC and every Building Code and Zoning Code adopted thereafter (Exhibit B). J. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the appeal is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines; K. That, the City Council hereby determines that "nonconforming structures/uses" as set forth in the Tustin City Code means that such structures/uses were: lawfully erected, established; have been lawfully and continuously maintained without significant alteration; and, based on said determination, the cessation of the two dwelling units/guest houses and order the correction of code violations of structures/uses for conformance with Tustin City Code at 520 Pacific Street. Resolution No. 11-15 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Tustin City Council, at a regular meeting on the 15` day of March, 2011. JERRY AMANTE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-15 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15t day of March, 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 CC Report March 1, 2011 January 7, 1929, a Notice of Completion and deed restriction _��fj!.r..']t":ri?tq�!P �RRArTte.ryfl.�n [X n2li t l IImmUT, tl. BACK 01 ITILT NATION" TP"T mal 4rl10/ hccemfo ...ad It. ---snob new p M .lpaed by it. na{nwld"t and it" Offl,.r, tharswtu GOVT anthvrb" by r,solutl" of Its Mald of mz.. ss, Ll. Y' da) of mtob.r, 19f5. k slY[ 01 fTdLT IITIDAIL SEOII ll8 I1TINt UI10, • XT C. L. mis.% Tlaw-MtldsO\. And X. C, railer assistant -rat Otno#4 not. California Oalitoew A 1 manor of Oranla. 3e.. rr Ow this 16th ay of datobar, 1928, "for, r, K.[. 8W��I��{ ' . Xotm M110 In and far .ata OgomtT w" IpK. Y, M. therdldt d"r oosgol"load mad ass., pv.ovalY wWared 0. L. mull, Kbq to wo to M Us Tlaeyn.ldwvt, and t. t. Iulloao town to go " b rM pelwtaat Tion OII",r. at 104'! worpantlon de-orib" In and that ....wand LM Tlthin ln.trn.enl, ana tcom b ":D M tM pr..... .ba --sant" aha within lvstrarmst on bwhalt at the aospn{loo thanes aaWt aN antdo.ledpd to " that swab aa,pr..... organ'" Lha ser. ll I17XXSK K101f01. 1 howl hat"nn ant 9 bard and affixed n official nal, Us qp end Has in this L,tlriaal. first .hers wrltpn. !tr (fatal) t. C. nrp Boom Malo In i am for said Do:b:tr w" nap. Y Mod for Moon or m..p"a at brava.. far_), 1915 of to KI-. past 6 -'clank a.16� and XaOard" In ewY 2160 Tale 86, of Official P-Vordw. Ors-8a Cannot', Owllfomla. itivi go-l' ' Thltap, Moordn. 4 Puq A.sn,an. 2apol, �. ".I. Lute d0u'Nm Alta Cwllf:. a 0 a -__ 35M mwaAarfol GPM Orin ' rlrbr OuaXanaK as toot! o0lmalr, . 0 •-ryentlev oxlanie" v"en, t" inn of tM star& of Gollfenla, W baTlnr Sas aru-lpsl plane of on"nnm la the CLIP of Low d-K.I.., meat' at lane aelel.., auto of oallfocal., 11 oavgd4f-ttou at Tom Dollars (110.00) to it is aw" ow"" too rocelpt of which Is hanq'Oatnuwl""d, door Mr.br OPaKT Tal LaLM p. "S"T and. four ■lnli. bxababd W vita, " joint lon"laa all that real prop", altvato lo Lha oaantr of organ(". etase of mlSfotola, and paruvalatlT e..ertb d as follow.. Lot ToemT-.1[bt (21) of Trial No. 141, we pan up T.eorded in loot 29. Fou 29 of ' I 0.oallw.an. nap.. Moon. of Olw-r- dooetr. Callfernlo, in We attic. of sows aauvtf P.aoner at ewld ogmq. aabjnt to aoddifla.r. M..rb4oe.. A.....M1an. and "Kat. of Par of Record. Momn1 an ....govt n.. Aho town, throe rut of Old peal"a lot polos was lingo for 1M dbeelburlon of -jeep/awl .Wrap. sad otos wblia Utility lion. dbl..t so toe tar llu neoal rear mole -r tp manq 11... and 409I.a.ate, If our. C prom", h"er.r, pat this ca -Maggs, 1. and. and twwapl" bp. watch "1M falls" ao"ftfa", which anall apply 1. on, or owl"Sy wan "a prof"., SMS, hl.. da laden, "'Sons, Id"Watrtlon god uslorw; Flow" TML Wd'..wl....Mll Dot M void. -oor y". I,"" or Tut" M. or or war pgwea- Of lfrl... Mpaan an, a.l.tla d..w.t. hlauod, That "*,.".a. hall or ana" for ..lose" ptrp"a "i1,' d in the sob pure"w shall hg a..lpgt" u ca.ld.oee straw.v wagon sarpw..a aha][ No d } 9C AwmTm thin 3rd day of NIr, A.D. 1929. Th. Md,e oh.rFA0 far this lOnd 1. 110.00 for 1ta tire. 0. J. ".rhe I% R Jus.. of the surarla. Own W to Cmat� M Oru10, Itm of 04trurol.. slot. of California, OwdtT or Iq\y. L.. �� Do this Tm r.r 0' iu1T, la eb rn.T ft, ,t Movnd ofan Dl edt.4 am n.dt1-.Svs, beton As. A. L 14lAtb. • Sate" ?ubla, In .m rot role Drool), nadid2 lob .1 w11 tbai saleom sad .um, P"".Ily .warm 0. L. Nle, "oen to m to W tiss a.A.an aide. n... A. Sehm.lbed b She .,%Us and t®Arm ICetrne.t. A. the attorney to f.ot of to bol led.1tT Doapanl. add nAmnledged 16 AM tat b. subeordn.d 1W As" Of the Mr.l Ind.anity Danny tbCT.So a. w..tr Am is tan Masa Ae Itnrasy 1. hat. 11 1I71128 xacmr. I heIse W.unto ash .y hm tm Armed " olfl.lal ..I. at an, Omni, In .std Num) of h. Ig.L., She dw, add net int ab...Sltasa. ((d4L)) D. e. Redp.Sb !marl Sunlit, to end far aid Omoeq of W. LMAS.., diet. of Dellfaml.. My N had-" n leatran I-,- W, 1932. But. Of Callf.A.l.. 1 .e Omni, I do sal.sellr .nor (.A afftn) she% I .111 support the No.Sluttpdtf The 0lim States, em the Du.Sltu.Sm or the .Uta of Oallramle, add tat I will f.ltbfallr dl.OW.Tn the duties of lots" ?m11t 1. nod for the mid Cwosr .ouordlns 1Mo be.% # .y Allier. a.. 1. ?.Stam. vubeaHbm aro euro to heron ... tole 31d d.S of .MIT, I.D. 1929. ((OW11T =L)) J. I. U.S. Dw.ty Clark by A. L. Rllodmbt D.yatl. Film Jul 3119294. Y. atm., Owoly 01era. by II, Deputy. Rs ... d.0 of rutn.i t1 bam t.htton, Ja1 3, 1929• .t 33 pd....t 10 A.M. to IoM 290, hp )ll Offtalal Aowtds of OHpI. Ownty. Juatlde 2hltaaf,CmetT Reaardnr. Arbor bAsaalb.lM Ouutr. Tina Oooleff. C010I1ID ld.le lot. 2D7bD 1OTIw N oowwlw STATIC it wL110aYA, ) CaOr" a 011201. j} .e. wCRCI mi10110 .m AL101 R. wiWRD, bue>m bot sib, b.lal fleas dull nen, data. and .If th" in., an .a• em ore Soot the 71h do of Jmlli", 1929. the nope 1. tan .Seal of tot porta nal OHOanI .Stntm 1. she City ar TsaIH, Con" of Oran". m.t. of Lltfdrla, Sm ...tlwlarlr dAaanoet .. fall.., l0-.Itt That nordtas Of 1M 'r of the `l.tfata And Tela Team`. to sheet u a hep fanrdm In boot 2, Mesa 6L .m 619 of n.mlL ue.A Lm14. of Ws Atpiu oountY. D.IlfarWa, den.rl .. T tllaalta .t . Istat do the Lit It.. of A4 Wt UD fast Sml1 or et. 20nW..S sat . of saki W1t, Anson. eqa elan! %he •.at line of said Lot 50 fel: tbnm Tan panllol to. Try north lloe, or sold WI 200 r ... I tbwoe north OAr.l1.1 to the ee.% 11. 1 said Wt 30 feMl ttun 1..t penll'I to tis. Intl lin. of ..ld We FCC rsat so In. nowt of budding. C, U n' Suf 60 rv. up. of ehi/ Leal. sff"n", About the 9th dry of JMebry.l5n. mwno" the oraMlon Bud amrltd.n.. aaaa the LOO anew described, of .a'Lb batld,144 o-mlU A dwllla+ww .w prep. vim fur Shia MILLION. bora bead duly Constructed, and the .w Mn aalmilf yawl"," Qq 1. 31d day Or Julyr 1929. ad .carotid by the Rod ealenw . the am day. ) 700 IMAM to tam lm ooreweoe of the pmviiim. of halm 1117 of the adde ei �8!`• List )n Mdura of tn..ses. Drum oyko.d ALIM 1. "[lard D1I000RUD AND 011053 11 bean m tole 310 11 of 1111,1919. ((Out)) y. I. Andn" Funt y ylblla I. and for old omatt rad list.. state of Oallfurate, .e Oauny a corner, j George 0.1.E rod 111ae 1. rebid. aside Slut duly Man, dKOM Rd My. tW they an the moan of the ROpen, Ea.tlbed Id Lu foreplm morin, not they hees read bbl wsts nod tow the ddatm4 thereof. Me task the rya 1s tam a that. oma tmriedp. Dear, ",lard All.. 0. 0glotl s3eeDRIBID AND VMRN to bfoo . Ibis 3rd eat M 1.17, 1939. ((OUL)) F. I. Andres. Rel My,ubllo !1. sou for .20 Ocmy bed hese. "Ou aw at rwceet of Gorr AI 3,190. at 55 mo.pia 20 A.Y. in bot 590. sop 312 Official Reooldt of Damage 0mo;y. Juntas eMMa.,, O.atl Remotest. Ism Iewlhelab, Dewy. nes poplin. 0011FARD AML este 120}11 Beats An, Courant.. Jay r, 2929. TU Impost wt l0 tepLr Mutase. rn MM gownl.or Mises ,&b. Ohilfine, 0. L oba mb Job 0. obtMoll, 4. OaWMoheq Oeem Jeffrey Led the glen. to Rai RM or night of NOV. "RRAIM of ShCenieor nausea. Oulr MOM4.4 e3e ..Is,. No for Right of a" 1 , Ifree the Int. Doeosy, r "np.alom. 1st the fourth Road DLItIM, we .]opted .d 4.10,.0 • mall. MrheeT -high to road 1..1. Mrelmlerlt "ealbed a fall.., tn.dv A .trip or 1.40 riry (60) fast to .30th eM hetn thin, (30) trot ad Mesh .Ade of IW r011edng dewilbw wear 11.1 •hest.lma .1 gmelm..e•. Rtatea 139-34,52 of shot tonne..alto Mgt., eoeeo017 Ram a Dauvky ,Mm Road as 1&14 .s ..A Imarw by d.ea a Gamy 10 19tl e. 1922, mod ruselnN thouus from to O.I., at hnl.leg, N. t6 W. 19. I., 103.00 test to the MGtsatoD of a a.ao palest Revlon a .whim or 2000 fres reo being a..o 4.tonn 'assume, gnnbory, 'Lear --to guar through 0 .1r.1 onto at 3 1", 15•. 136.72 t.t to a ileo tesOwy comm B. 211 dam. 241 r., siege rad .aaeos if.. 1".34 to., to e. thy[..nlm ,tam thelMsh- �robrlr ,tor of Imes•. rabebLlm es shame as • 4o th.tsot a.o.dw I. 2aa% 1. NesRr N, 111-6-11Msow bombed ShM, Rounds of 0,sda. Cha y. vel lfer'L.. 111 the lot.rMmtmm of us Ams- of this nehe-Cf'RA1 el the chs. of O.ny Fork Rod. the Ira. an to he him .0114 the twit .o •hens Mhe .9mw.orty eye• .',� EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 CC Report March 1, 2011 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Revised (March 1,2011) R '•I ICN .0 U a •� 0 c + o 4� § a. met 'Wow O D m C OIC 0 0�_gdd E2 D C D ow a�iyo Ldp ~ O m Q m^ a�jda 2 m O) O N« m O O 0 W U.SO r D C c dCc E a moon Scoui`om C L m m L d m =TFLr $0L—c 3 M F E D ad m W -am mmm'o- E"Emmmc~EE m mavdOU wa yp� tea ? m m^ 0 C 0 0 0— m •C y « L m'9 N .m.. Ti c D° = O C N y ° c m2�m>, m2a�io9�02Nrn �,.w^.aa m N m N° O C m o mOj a.�:s C73Em2� N�'c CE'Sm �SDOmmrn `=«o OIC N m NDm E E£D yjau�y^ m m w moo m m m c m "MM 2 m Tl,n c c $$ ramM "$';�2:=c4=mm.�5 c 3: U m m m m D a a r U �a—ym �•?c O ��o y"o°i�u�a`m gFi L'mD wa-2•t5305 'a 05E -am«"�.m3�p m`$D o•��c%cm M ,w0_. c B. =UO 2�,ca CO m«m 'm 3m '2:00 ccm ow� CNNO 7.Om0p`O Et'� O'»C ° —M_mO M N yc 2m2 o'"c3mDppg OLC G ?N8=„3 C�^dCDS Na-C«Od«0 NL dO m On d$p OD tAtea m2 'Q�� �? y y �i t r ^I 10 E 3= m M o y �i m m `� $ O' c o m m v)o i._ `�° Eo oim - E10a t °E'O�"g �ymu CL o Hn��€}to; Mm L m S 011 m M$ E 3 1p m pp O C d C W C n N 07D N TL O 0 �d m m C.-.�^>.00 a. 30 D T C 3�UCm ow OIL a•�O.COm�N��NN« cn ,I m n c m U U M—$ E L m W C O O g ._ c E COU ai a m d `o m 49 c c �" o 0 0 acid c c o D ul 3 m m d m t m m 3@ ....H �mr cmmmmommocc�m aa�2a N m o U) m m D a LLLm aodm CDM oL R: tcuai �c �' $F -m c...00 N �y o. `o O N y O C €me mm�'caE amm 0�mm3o om h €��mmL omc�0mmqA C b ,d M mm �m $ Um N4 UU UVymp.ma Ny iU� mu m�m2:9 1 �UGm m>2 6C.0 a°iyE14i�� m O. y aU��mm�o$•-o �� LLO V tLO�Q OIO� yLLOy UU cd moo i y U 0 mLL� m Um'�am e o IO m' O - Da �' � co MI.- -; ro p m -'' O U n�0000c�mn 435 nine O.N O_ m Ci W,Q 00 U) UU) FU -NN L)IXU, U)m��$UUw v pGI_: N m m L m 0L c TL_ N V w O N O v IO '� O y ° C J c E `o.� m g m 0 U N m O. O w c m c n E 9 c yy LL ? 5^ C K d 'a Cc_ C a «O O C N N _02 p, y N D `'eE�' C) alm=.�B99 rm�a,mE m.ayr�r�m �a gmmaL � zn Lm.srdn.c [C2 Je)auaE) '•I e 71 � a w a H; vr�a�D S 0 � °i �nn(ai�m@'pNd td.03a o�ry1 «c a� OS d� ENyy' "CNU R.?d3 La.Yd aaT >>CL wN j C UC dd;Ow EaE u �"� cai 2 aci 35,'U � � Of. `�pp•no cop w wm JN cU m •� `� a 'C a 0 m= EO d c cBrnEw�Hzt3°b'wU •- N d 0 0 •j , d a w �-• w w 0 :� .. U C �n d E_ d w- 01 w, a pfd To d• -=--co oa 02 also :p�m�d - LL O1 0-- N t 97 �mc d atEcym^cGjc c d M Ewm awdc EE Sid Lnc 0=0 •3 erd2c�cp�cam Co Y^0a addp�=��o• mddc U� do= a0i =v 10 �ia and mm$v`o �"•ccc�^0'"E cdz O1E V5-a"uwi E 1�^U.:-aod�aN� Et 3v a'cv °y 'fie F=-yn'E `o sivm'9cy� wnmZp vFiU-dn dd�O d3a�w cc a 32 $C =p3.:. 339n $rf cd3 vV�O�Nd mEdNh `aY`°1• 9oacoy w20O>>$dcoL°avvy�E9ivsooO vTdi n3a=2"pyca 3�-cE cOcvry1 ' oyo cyvmU rnam@C.:ir d 'y- 9uN.tii v o7Edm3UyO oyc3Cd U'a E 2aFacy3amgmya'Ewm -am— CL '00 UQE dQ 8 ° $�Hg�odcd W`d =R°3Na� a o ooEs l 0d`d VCaOt -daQm(VC�Cwd 'CCOC 0Cw 2 CSaQ W$roO�Q"' w d d d rd L C D Z=af} Z w a w C O� C 00 W m 'y = O C C m V q yyC � E ama ww+ � C�� w dtjd= omi a_'vc m Q.Wn' d ¢ovi n w �a ai �'G EU.. a a m O U a S- p m e m�-a d p� G N �M`1 w a O p E a" a$ U 7 m U¢ 2 W= T C uJ C d U CLd NvoUoa= 0•4 01 0 0U0 0 U�$OU'c Eomad 0 's 0 2 U'- dNU9 c w= w w 7 d C m a d ow d w Ca ^_ O C NN UVV U j 2 d �C m 515 N _ S c a 0 m r 0 LLd U.�-' O °? m N SW S 0 w =.8 C4 w d O.d E O N tit O R d == - 2 w= a a a 0 m `� E.6 d $, D E a C d y p •� o m� o E° y Ow U -c'3$ Q0.4 ac_0 m"!nc'J= cdd �$roam3cwy °aw .. t a d �?^Dy^y- �?N'�d�m«i 2 p G_= vdoc�m�avmdrno m c= C •m m�pp ci d aQ -€€ d a? d N O N a N ` d L �y w w ,_, C .Y m O d Mm 3na5 n5 mei d5ma ywj IL cww�w3U'F 3-V a-� G O a J Ril -a bau° rri m m C c m E V .2 O C •u o _a a w Cl n r4 0 N m N m N N Ny N C d G •_ C N a 0 j N C CNC N N S- S G H 5 m t N 3 Q r C C O L S 0 N y 0 c �'3aar�m 2r pi Timid a'>,coa �i SmLo2�.m 02 00- amt m°w a3mmac c 3$cp os O. C w N a m C C ) 03 y N j S �r�mc�ac�a°$amn `c w0 n dmCSS cm. Xm$N m4zm Cm m.w am m SLam°Sxo�9m���°m`am3 mmu�m�tmy�°Ua �CC dm° C L O - N m m m O C N S. = t C O y�I� m o w d•'e_ d S3 c> aai m a 3$ N L m m'CaOm=Cmm 'v1U -a WE a m n 'g M c0 V R O a m y a m M am' CL a A m °e c ap E U S,= °f 04mmU n ttm O N m F m CCS m 839$U m�°n m'$3c� :.iw`o E Zi'c Ep£ D N O U n N M b L° C U o c 3m' tycm E m c 9 c c; E €'3 g.pcN93-' o mwU u¢�c`�' N d E 00 ° $,9n@E U Fan N S E go m 8 W A_ n «-E a m A 5 - co�c5c� ?L E= =E (D dm occom Lam`a3� E y N m m m �c wE mw= , M N m y J S d amj dI _:= W AE Ua �m�_� mC10 t0 E [ m 0 �a c�Ec�m.` •mo �om v `� 3 %'c°- w a 01 3 a'.9 aymyi a m °� .. 0 O ��$a�'>°tea aN�y m�NL°t OCVL U t co oQt �Ti 01c o+�E ��o0C x't- F- 3a adrMOL°o5`om u 3a�m�c w.33= 86WASO enoge;jun AUols puoneg m C O m " Y U � y c .t .a ... - °a a s v c m _ O c N ui O N c U m O N L y « m _ c U L m u` t0 c a ° O = 5 d y 6 u 4 p• N m N N Ny N C d G •_ C N a 0 j N C CNC N N S- S G H 5 m t N 3 Q r C C O L S 0 N y 0 c �'3aar�m 2r pi Timid a'>,coa �i SmLo2�.m 02 00- amt m°w a3mmac c 3$cp os O. C w N a m C C ) 03 y N j S �r�mc�ac�a°$amn `c w0 n dmCSS cm. Xm$N m4zm Cm m.w am m SLam°Sxo�9m���°m`am3 mmu�m�tmy�°Ua �CC dm° C L O - N m m m O C N S. = t C O y�I� m o w d•'e_ d S3 c> aai m a 3$ N L m m'CaOm=Cmm 'v1U -a WE a m n 'g M c0 V R O a m y a m M am' CL a A m °e c ap E U S,= °f 04mmU n ttm O N m F m CCS m 839$U m�°n m'$3c� :.iw`o E Zi'c Ep£ D N O U n N M b L° C U o c 3m' tycm E m c 9 c c; E €'3 g.pcN93-' o mwU u¢�c`�' N d E 00 ° $,9n@E U Fan N S E go m 8 W A_ n «-E a m A 5 - co�c5c� ?L E= =E (D dm occom Lam`a3� E y N m m m �c wE mw= , M N m y J S d amj dI _:= W AE Ua �m�_� mC10 t0 E [ m 0 �a c�Ec�m.` •mo �om v `� 3 %'c°- w a 01 3 a'.9 aymyi a m °� .. 0 O ��$a�'>°tea aN�y m�NL°t OCVL U t co oQt �Ti 01c o+�E ��o0C x't- F- 3a adrMOL°o5`om u 3a�m�c w.33= 86WASO enoge;jun AUols puoneg m a m oma {q I 3 O 9 t a s!m Ali& o U) a y O � o $ �cai aci aai«3 cw c d T $Lm„�0 Np�b mdCO =j �Ol O1admm COIL S` ,Qc Nampd T�O aCpZNm aEC m LC8L3�cyO5dc"d'^N oEa � dmx o UanId�d-aate ma c°c u�5'-`vppppmjm mN c N CE-Ut 3=Tm'pTL�'ti Nd«= '`y�'Lr CN my Ol3�y NC_N 09 rn'o �rn_E�Fyyda y -O c • C .S��mymc•��'.--a'd=='c u m=EE��:2c�ym�om€Ena� d 0 O 01- NN co mEad->c�� 7ry�: m y Of 3 a C O .m. r Ol ."... d y m N t C m N y ON1 O E O 6 O '"' �+ L '-6 W C cf'-ny=E« .c E«aEy °8c'iiaEv`o mrnc o_D°000 o yIng o °-�yp'c aaia�a.yd..E Q'�d id y vn EaEi •`tier3�UB U U¢Z`3y a'oui a'�d Em`o€cc - o aE?+o�'o•IL-c'c 4 e«ai°cm$ ��c�'oa`3d8''d0 $•ma m. -c E. oim.gac aa�amdNCOyd`m ma m -day a y onE=cm�m10Z'.c odaayUoE a�«,- ai°ccm3�>M -0 W nov'ldm~'-�m5~�m=�Ec��: =vnd�ycmp�3g F-o°d N p:.m � C�tGU=ar N ° O 0°�E�nvcrsaaci"3�an°I�y?o MLt. :sC N N i.���`vEE�� M 8cc mmm15 cmofdR ci'y5xQarmJ. =U sc€m'«m°EEd no`cSvwz��wrm`o=omvc�»Z���w=d8%H�R« 8a« 0.- my d u��E C °ymoma Na. E Qm'a d p y'ID dE zwwom I n cis ° oho I C0 rL '¢o yWa C (5v msc¢En rn m $U<S U 7 asgU<a �•m� NYIdUy'€Urdu O �_�m U�m N O N F 8 nFNNL) @ r'¢^UIU-- NU L c � o b. cv v �Dcg€a wE V m$oc§0c -E,6 mm 2acdm _�vi cc 115 ci $ mmSd mdm m$ `mScCyy c c� a F ay Q m 1:?SaS n�=�.Wao..5ca > t0 vlomnyon3 C O a6e�e6 an°ge Ilun 14ols pumag a Q H m x r ,,, v L o. N °o. zo a J 44 Z C J L O ma N N m 3 N= cy m= G r V a> N y•m-�L3p ig3 �LymT3'2daoH my U 0 O m m2 m O L mMj�O 8, C 0 C d L C iJ.f d d O V d O c C m E E m C C 2 b L C m N C N C N- m E2 o _cL 22 m� C 6 m L L d aJ c m 0-5 0 m p, L J 0- O N U "' 2 C G �aC pp L a C m Ni/7V 0ry�CJ U69 {J'm0 FE'S >i`mCCCO.W J y N OI'- L °NLyym C C E p U,5'-5°=gm�c _ �� E w aEu 3a-.CUM«mma of 'c c 'c ° 7 `� `� - `¢ T V o m@o -SZ a m o 3 m m �.v J c m Ti GYN m V d O H m« y m t� V. V O)L N m° N 1 .0 yE 0 >U'moy�J�m�o�2ao E $�E^�t��Lcmi .;J�mm mc�om...J N°-mmJn c o !L m�bmmti moya« Na0N�cmc 00 moo mmEcb«:°59m�=cS �..'2=m0= N mm$5Um �'cmc�N �d«Nmom�v.�.3o�L v worm -_ a Mo 3mJ oFi«�42 `omEe=�a=mtoJ$ �J 0 �y mm NNa=oma 0mcna2 �. occa��mCQm�3m odabicaym«E 0:5wia_Nio�3 7c7 cm .I cC'6.em9o E an�� c c c a 'o QQo� 20 m53m. N � L«N0Nv8 GJ V_E-6 J>NL.O 4�zpLVUmh 2.CN U0G�yCL$ CyC LO0 3 m Lm Lm O . LQQ'' N NmC- _ M, O 0.- a n m pd 0= m MCL �W'od =°mJE v cm th v -m620 cr ayc e �A IL om oma.- oma iorS 3�G m '=yyy��?0? m.Y� l ¢E� ¢E2� ¢offc�_ °t%jcv� °ytn@ 'pm Q U U $'QO Ig gm co co UyUXX UyM mDl�.B U) UJ UCUe C3UQ O m 7m7 Om UQ emU�'� �U�mrnmlLc 0 90nm co co�m-mmI OU Ur U ryp.N:�Uprp V,J L) N Grn mUp m o'U� O y yU$� n2r V� N mO N 400 ACWm N mU m E p� N VQ oO C E00 �Q lit i -NU LI-NUL NI -NU Ol U d[2 m O mm mF-T E0 OsJE 3. Om` NmT C$ Vm� N G N15 OE O« O U om Lm .C« O em mO NC E N CC N CGGOOpI cm 0 N N C LoumE mwm Nrmm� mm dm �r S� m_oV $m mU ny �0 mhLm.1mL 3 ar o< KcL e 3 J ,,, Q H x a Tom-' Ip Ip Y� •0 � L O i ''\i� C N L V, UCL' i N O � O a4. 1 'I p w a u lw 0 j m � m m 4VL _ N y O N 0'E a$ m o E m m a E m c o m m n c.i t La U C.+ N0 2°�Lv m5 N U M b0 m 2tj�rn 2 .y ~ C rl d 3 N N aw J J O m N y m m 20, C a C C O N i0 m m C � m'9 a E m c cac,d v uii "' -2� m�mcE cEo Dcy`m O•cmE c'0�3@0'90 •� C $0y `�NamH 0 amiE �LLaa 7 m,'3_mcd•r. O72RN m E �U,�o�yo.� 0O m°'q aoa'�sE r'rnoaQ 3v c� S._m w Oxau�aCa o"E m@�ia" >m�J`o mom. -o.- O E �£ a ° m m u � m M M a w t >m�_�Ey� Q.0 m vm mN0-0 `m grnmoaai� m C 70, N o�amImc 0 a ma°F-m m- W y `J o•.c m O r J v m= m m J- a 3 1 a d m m ~m �: c FL- m C'C CL N 2�O L.o� a m ii `° d U r 2 a N m `; N 9rntcm Cp m e = y O R L° m N O N m C J C n C 'v FJ- - uml O cu- N NaLt N= w nc{pg Ev m FS :a .m c^' an.mmcca- .mrNdCNUaaL aO`o'cr€'� UyjcN=rornO awe. 080 'v)Eaa«csm =B W:E crno ,mCmd��pv-min h�dUaN hU«1as�a N cm C C0. o� @cmm o€ @cr-a �p mm@ '� C0 o€`C�,c VA Na N100E ry m..yp Na N'O nJU ui5 QL) Q dLoE 2 o'9m NaH �LmJ owl W �iLoE E W (L Q E�- 4 v'n V)� N E Q U�U�L) In E mLL lily �LLNy UEU�cN o° o //m7'�. O m m m U fL a =).M Y n u m Ql :.. m @ n E ti c m° o j o 0 o e a :�i oi00 x cmi� m m U a@ IV - IL NIL e N S N- C) m- U y_ u M.0 N Q. yym ym U on j �Q �C8 00 �Q W ul0 cRU Utn 7u U) co ci �Q,8L) V Nu @ v vC°o mX =E o=W=ru Wa,�o S� L 3E a �cmac?`omc'cm amc m E J RE mJ mp o 0m cpm$ a E o m 2 E N c x .2 Lu mm= a.'3 0-0-6,m E my a UDpy m dN E ° mN.�N M� mm C ND �j`O.TCC c'mmS.m a �� CmLo 'f W-0 FL 8-SLX E M= Jw NNNOmms c .. m aamu Nnp� NNu� no.m._ C�m�O)m Cma U S, �OJmC'mm L�CCm Ca NOUV'=�Cd J�m�+mm�Mlry�p m ON'='m N10 u7cNEJm I-9mmEJ3ammm 3mx Ea.ca3�t e 0 In 8 yodie9 Tom-' L U711-1 77� a m N Olm O C •j: O L 1 a $ x r mE Z a O m L _.. y 'N O EEy Ol aN m C £ N m c N c C m R m 'O O m N= N C L Q N S N r0 "' L 3 0 0 m a o N C T y m > C N O �_ b W m C V jj I� a m O m O a N 2 CAO c y a O M p 0 Q a p O y m y m Mm m' m N m U m n a U m c c m m E L° a0i m c y 3U =a.w�£a�m pmtrimcmm�E`o--¢03W�.�U��Emn �3c ac=itm °c�'c;�ycEaai� ryryvmy3coaU Cm mn Em. 'O Om • Cyto ca ja 6U m m= 0 w o a m a ° c $ m4?NEa 3 y� ai �. '3-�'a o 3 a mita' C._ p�.�E.. m�-3.•mm�cp mo E- 'c c-, 0 == ,M= u nrn E 1- Li "g m o E'er m m.9 mN m ._ _, m c E v a E 'c o.'-mUcE'��`� m E `0 3 O= E mm o-aA cE=�rnm6 acirn 'c m" ii .. o. m 3 N E m c m w 0> v m rn 0 .� o o ,�' L N n`yy 0 y 0. m 7 c 2 d 2 a am m m 2 m U �� a c C 8� ��L CL YNmN«a 6C�dp V� :O m OCA? m CO C W ONICCpC CaL B^aLN d U y � N 0 O Tma� m .� c m,2- 3 c C Q c 4) 0- £m`a'_C-y oumio5 v°'v J p � N y fIl 3 L a .• mcm>amt-5rmncm.,..,c..-_02 =pc� := a 0,6 -0m aoomux-mW!.2=,y= CLo Q cda o `E oN cm.U'�E ry 0: c �c- ,_a�=o `' c m cc �mo E mNEmo� �� =c�3d om4=3c�ayN->mE3?c33,Ec_,33Em 0 co2iE2ti"m• MO .>ma�i•5u°a:oo�p Em m3=o` p a�d$ y� a.cEi FEm � a` WMM =3mmm ���=am,WLLtgc' 0 c�t o Em 0y tri ,co' pE,cric oia� n Nm a m cm 4 R? � vmlildtg'c m^_c_ u ryry d U N U N N O !� o Y O C 2 N WEa ttpp yUry y O !� E,2 N= ya (n c L) U y'QWa ¢OO1 L�'V)EHEC U.o L) (5a L) ooV UN•�a" ym0Comm �i U m ca ww .0 C U m m ]E 03 m D D 03 m E U N m O= yV ED c ca C C-) m d m L" = L O�1 m Qp dmmy o cn N ON QNmmo^o%=aN a0 dl$ dW sic ONE .-O NILCm W UU�Q W N W¢ M, rn > 'u 'c o '$ u c� OM m oma$ rn m ,.. �- r0 m 246 s mo �'o3g v�'�Erm`--2�� o QN NfOCC.=.90 CC=m=NNOC 0 m o 32m V y "3'^'S r�L� (CcQ1 `on�mc=y0 m�ydC cScySc o -m m L O! d C'� �3p U 7 .-M oam>vm U m c �. X �cmNEt5E mm amao amymaEoE vas�:s ZnEmE95 am Wo:dEN m c 71°x$ Lnm c 103 m JaBwe� llun lepuaplsar jeaa co m 2.530. s 0 CL ra _ N CrE E� UtcE MO M yw � m 8 dED 2 Eco 2'ff �'�� o O16 Eocc N e sc8ja N•�C0� oca ro c e a 2 3c: A •� a 3 c 9 � c r >. o a $ � w m o oia a A wm�o'-o - a° aNa� E�N�dE NOm a' •�c O NLmN2 a N VK'>> C iN >a m 2 Ti �a N �F- ,S Om �da28Ec�$co`8 Ewm�°°vt w 0 z- O �_ "w d "w�p N N y N„ = a �.�ENornt3o3m L C Coif m f- c •k g 3 c U�3m��.�Z :-=-o0 t mro Edodi > «a'SmEmm'dm m v y 16 ,_, y= - L c M ymOcit aOo`m�o N N WE .- p E 10 `m V a N C D° NLS.. a 'O �°8aN9imcE.€gym O2 Na= o mN aO NR N Np dN S 6 LOcd N:G 5 o8 d? `dEG/ ` n i'm araCO �4wo N � N ° N c0 a U sm L 0.2 mai N d 'L CO 4 j a E aN 0 c E N O m m3w—a' QED Eat y°Nc Na o m Uo(D oho ooci mm o mea"=•E UOUm ma mU E U 7 V ap UQ �% t� N.+ 7 V UN O NaNNVU�yd'9ad.'9u€ -°USO �` gE NC OAC U UF -NU o � E a rq E N V a N 3 aM90 0D mim.� E o O 3 N = E N Uy01a �wE a 532:5 0 a8m ;E2 U N C 5 n 3 N L C C =rn 2 rn�83a8E Uvt c 0 N V O J co R m a E O m a O C c X C C LU J S C C F 0 0 N j w y N L a w Ole N N O N �yyy1 LU O r N' `a U C L N$ m y m'v 4 E m'g m >> m E m °.� E a=,°t ref 00 a� ryrE N � C J L ._ m O 0, O `: N c € y C C N y p C m N Cc .7 ama$a3 c°3 Cn mEa r -=n W O N_ N R� N~5 d W G.C. E j O m"' o m N L W Q C 0 ° c m`o��c 7'r�3°o3°O1Em t C >�°iNacml-c� v°U a'c�3do a aZom0 °1L°�8;M�C6 f0caoi°m'c°� 5 c m m m o C.0'° U n ME E t m Nm He r4 m 0mC Lry cO 'amam�Or `v in a6mo a'=t m M «a o.va mYogOc.n'amwa,v_ MNL Uy mo 0.2 m ca `Nodi m�. '8 004= M<L 3:5534 tmo F-UJm35 am 0 Lq �.`c? W a o�o�a€i oc o€c N u m E co�v Na -ama °� cLi� NaU°' w¢p u ciaN CO wa co 0 W,2 E� N€ y�� m co Na ao u°� UOUa U Uc Uo 0o c+ai n. UcU2 mn er' m U cn,:MC m LLO 7 v7 m yU.0 maS m.-rO C V w �j W N� ED itO 7 V UfV Lei nxnaiNn Nn CrC rN'- a �U �� n rn GSM 'n c NU Pei i- Ol e-QN �l/7 m c 0 a mD c € O N' Ea°>;c3t o. t> a N v Nc�ySc 'd�m" LU a m=�m) o m: vc8Lcc v C3SE =c O o o a = ad N a Lma N_ a�2m EJoIe. 0 (L as a cma �•.5 �Oaiu Y d 7 rn3 �3m� cNN$ mL Tio, Ilun jelluapisai ieaa m e sw ° l0 7 c a ?� m m m L aa) L� a07 LaE E � y E U — m e -E U a °may OL,,,L 0U wf'29Ern=E_ V b C -°oo N y.m-� ct.rb-a�3.�•c�do nEmy C U M �y�oEmc�oct .m C m '��pa `o awi �'c C ` m m m « n° m 9 ° w m 7 a w� C my E'- rn; s m p W m G M'M'= c O V �UO]mNm� C 6 m mm� a w O�cc gLjN°i�3� aiE2 ° �Q i m V cN«E�'�3mm ���€� p TmayC�..$�m°� m°�ycuw�'E'ca mmL w d °tea °�'n cL.a. r. a owm° 9-a d 0.9 3mw��Om mEmaMoz mmm;-za5 D U m E mm m N m N v3 cO' O rn L a€vm 0:z6 Ow cy�o0 �y_0 N�Uo c'm cn �� on tqa ya�; `° HSE._ uU�c�w cUan,mC6 yE m a '$n mmt/J�Em�yc U O'D O C C m N v�'i$mm U o U C w T m m I". y C m U C U commcc"wEm MIL) N W n �N d mace p Crn Nin 7 V 7>� a'yC UtNtpp N d r U j i m C N71 N C.N = a U C Y C n O Nag � = W., LO C �Q�'�y=v �= � �> 0 $� oLrn d -o m o C y L m N C yC C ,v_ m 0 0 C M0 aL ... C• GA s�o� Nm mw S2m L2(° U w m NNCmL o m ca o30 m Q?QM m c LaE _m .Lam C� m ES m cLu+E U c a c IL- L m r U m E i'n C I llun lepueplsai jea21 IPa4°el�P) woos u°ilea�°aa .°o� EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 CC Report March 1, 2011 Third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john c. luumis, architect james e. wilson, architect principal e1wood I. galley, architect Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear' structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage burn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newport boulevard - newport beach, ca 92663 - 9491673-2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, i� John Loomis Principal 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 —949/673-2643 EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION NO. 11-15 CC Report March 1, 2011 March 1, 2011, Staff Report to the City Council (Not Attached) ATTACHMENT 9 CC Report March 1, 2011 February 23, 2011, letter from Deborah M. Rosenthal for Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP (received after completion of staff report) 650 Town Center Drive 14th Floor I Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 714-513.5100 office I 714-513-5130 fw I w ...sheppurdmo111n.com A T T 0 0. N E Y s A T l A W February 23, 2011 VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE Mayor Jerry Amante and City Council of the City of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Fax: 714-832-6382 Re: Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members: Writers Direct Line: 714424-2821 drtrxnthal@sheppardmullin.com Our File Number. 0100-092513 E -Mail: jamante@tustinca.org jnielsen@tustinca.org dgavello@tustinca.org rgomez@tustinca.org amurray@tustinca.org On behalf of Mr. Bret Fairbanks, our client, we appreciate the opportunity to submit his opposition to the above referenced appeal (the "Appeal"). Mr. Fairbanks, a long-time resident of Tustin, currently owns and occupies a single-family residence located at 520 Pacific Street in Old Town Tustin (the "Property"). In addition to Mr. Fairbanks' home constructed in 1929, the Property contains two accessory residences constructed before 1950 and other accessory structures ("collectively, the Residences"). The Residences are the subject of the Appeal from Planning Commission Resolutions 4161 and 4162 that is now before this Council. The Appeal claims that the Residences do not qualify as legal Non -Conforming Uses or Structures under Section 9273(a) of the City's Zoning Code on two theories: (1) the Residences were not "lawful" under the Zoning Code at the time they were built; and (2) the Residences cannot show building permits to demonstrate compliance with the City's Building Code at the time they were built. On the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission found that "lawfulness" at the time of construction is not required to meet the definition of a Non -Conforming Use/Structure under Section 9273(a) of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission further found that compliance with the City's Building Code is not required to qualify as Non -Conforming Use/Structure under the Zoning Code. Finally, in an unchallenged portion of the decision, the Planning Commission instructed Mr. Fairbanks to correct any health and safety violations on the Property. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members Febnury 23, 2011 Page 2 Mr. Fairbanks agrees with the Planning Commission conclusions and has not cross -appealed approval of the Resolutions. In addition to accepting the City Attorney's explanation of Section 9273(a), Mr. Fairbanks believes the evidence shows that the Residences were lawfully constructed under the Zoning Code at the time they were built. Mr. Fairbanks further believes that the Residences meet applicable setback requirements under both the former and current Zoning Code, and that no violation of the applicable Building Code has been demonstrated. Mr. Fairbanks has repeatedly agreed to correct any health and safety violations identified by the City. I. Backyyound Information Pursuant to the City Historical Survey Report, the principal Residence was built in 1928 and completed in 1929.1 A Completion Notice issued by the City of Tustin on January 27, 1929 further verifies this completion date. According to a City -authorized report prepared by Thirteenth Street Architects, Inc. ("Thirteenth Street Architects', the two-story or loft type carriage barn behind the principal structure was probably built on the site in 1928 as well.' The date of construction for the rear one-story middle addition is unknown, but was likely roughly between 1945 and 1950.' Mr. Fairbanks offered testimony from the son of Mr. Gaylord, a former owner, stating his recollection that the middle addition was probably constructed in or about 1947. The Residences are located in the Old Town Tustin Cultural Overlay District, and were in existence prior to 1950, at the latest. The City adopted its first Zoning Ordinance in April 1947. Since the City did not have a Zoning Ordinance when two of the three Residences were constructed during the 1920's, multi -family residential use of the Property was by definition "lawful. The 1940's addition was likely commenced before the effective date of the first Zoning Ordinance in 1947 but, more importantly, there is no evidence that it would have violated that initial Zoning Code. The City does not have a map showing that the Property was not zoned for multi -family use in 1947, and all uses of the Property, including multi -family uses, were lawful before adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. The City adopted its first Building Code in 1927, after which date building permits were required for construction. Under the current City Code Section A104.7 and the 1927 Building Codes Section 202, it is the obligation of the City Building Official to retain copies of all building permits. Nonetheless, the City Council authorized destruction and disposal of all old building permits and job records in 1959. The City acknowledges that it has not 'Appeal Hearing Agenda Report. Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Elizabeth Binsack & Y. Henry Huang, dated November 9, 2010, pg. 5 (hereinafter, "Appeal Hearing Report") ' Thirteenth Street Architects, Inc. Report, dated October 20, 2010, pg. 2 (hereinafter, "Thirteenth Street Architects"). ' Appeal Hearing Report, pg. 5; See also Thirteenth Street Architects, pg. 2. SHEPPARD MnLIN RIMM & HAMPTON LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 3 maintained records of building permits prior to 1959, and therefore cannot demonstrate when any earlier structures were constructed, except through indirect evidence such as the Completion Notice issued for the principal Residence in 1929. These proceedings commenced on September 16, 2010, when the City filed a Notice and Order' on the Property alleging a variety of Building and Zoning Code violations, and declaring the Property a public nuisance. The Notice and Order were apparently issued in response to a request from Mr. Fairbanks that the City verify the Non -Conforming status of the Residences. He also asked the City to agree that, in the event of a fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster, the City would permit the accessory Residences on the Property to be rebuilt. Mr. Fairbanks made these requests in connection with a contract to sell the Property so he could purchase a new home, which was cancelled by the buyer after the City issued the Notice and Order. Mr. Fairbanks appealed the Notice and Order on September 22, 2010. The Planning Commission held three hearings at which more than fifty residents appeared to support the Fairbanks family. On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions No. 4161 and No. 4162, partially granting the appeal. With respect to the alleged Building Code violations, Resolution No. 4161 ordered Mr. Fairbanks to make any physical improvements to the Residences that were "reasonably determined by a Building Official to be necessary and appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants for the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved."' With Mr. Fairbanks' support, the Planning Commission instructed the Building Official to identify those items listed in the staff report dated October 26, 2010° that were required to protect "health and safety." The Planning Commission did not identify any specific Building Code violations. With respect to the alleged Zoning Code violations, Resolution 4162 reversed the Notice and Order and deemed the Residences to be legal Non -Conforming Uses/Structures. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that: (1) the upper unit located above the garage is ° Notice and Order/Pre-Citation Notice and Declaration of Public Nuisance, Tustin Community Development Department, dated September 16, 2010 (hereinafter, "Notice and Order"). ' Resolution No. 4161: A Resolution of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin Modifying the Notice and Order for Building Code Violations at the Property at 520 Pacific Street (Assessor's Parcel No. APN 401-371-07). 'Appeal Nearing Agenda Report: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Elizabeth Binsack & Y. HenryHuang, dated October 26, 2010 (hereinafter, "Appeal Hearing Report, Oct. 26"). SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER 8 HAMPr0N LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Membm February 23, 2011 Page 4 a legal nonconforming second residential unit; and (2) the unit including two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage is a legal nonconforming second residential unit' On December 23, 2010, after the close of business, Mayor Amante emailed a letter to Community Development Director Elizabeth Binsack that appealed these Resolutions. Director Binstock forwarded the email to the City Clerk, who did not receive it until December 28, 2010, more than 10 days after the Planning Commission decision. II. The Residences Are Leeal Non-Conformin¢ Uses Under Section 9273 Of The Tustin, Zonine Code Under the plain language of the Zoning Ordinance, the Residences are legal Non - Conforming Uses. Section 9273(a) states that: "uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made ...n° (emphasis added). As explained by the City Attorney, Section 9273(a) legalized all uses and structures in existence when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted on November 6, 1961. There is no dispute that all the Residences were constructed far in advance of 1961. As found by Planning Commission Resolution 4162, therefore, the Residences have been legal Non - Conforming Uses since at least 1961. 77te Residences' status as legal Non -Conforming Uses allows continued occupancy and use of the two accessory Residences as second residential units in the existing R- 1 Zone. Their status as legal Non -Conforming Structures allows the owners to maintain the setbacks, height, coverage and footprint of the Residences as they existed in 1961, even if they do not conform with the requirements of the current R-1 Zone. No additional permits, including conditional use permits, are required to maintain a legal Non -Conforming Use or Structure. Section 9273 does not contain any requirement that the Residences be "lawfully" constructed or occupied as of 1961 when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. In re Jerry R. (1994) 29 Ca1.App.4th 1432, 1437. If the Ordinance is clear and unambiguous, it cannot be modified by the addition of words or concepts that do not appear on its face. Burden v. Snowden Resolution No. 4162: A Resolution of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, Affirming Nonconforming Status of Certain Buildings, Structures, and Uses at the Property at 520 Pacific Street (Assessors Parcel No. APN 401-371-07). ° Ord. 157, Sec, 6.1. SHhTPARa MULLIN 1110M S HAMPTON GIP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 - Page 5 (1992) 2 Cal.4th 556, 562; People v. Western Airline, Inc. (1954) 145 Cal.App.3d 597, 638. Although the City Council may interpret unclear provisions, the actual language of the ordinance is of utmost importance and it cannot be interpreted contrary to its terms. Molenda v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 974, 992. Further, the City is specifically barred from finding a statutory violation on the basis of unstated orLhidden" requirements. When enforcing an ordinance, one cannot create an offense by enlarging a code section, inserting words or giving terms arbitrary meanings. See People v. Baker (1968) 69 Cal.2d 44, 50. Interpreting Section 9273 to include a requirement that the uses have been "lawful,"" al," or "permitted" creates a violation that does not exist under the language of the OrdinancIn other words, Mr. Fairbanks would be deprived of his property on the basis of requirements that were not apparent on the face of the Ordinance. Finally, it is relevant that the City Council specifically removed from the City Code an earlier requirement that non -conforming uses be 'lawful." Tustin's 1947 Zoning Ordinance required that non -conforming buildings and structures be "lawful" when the ordinance became effective. The City Council, when it revised the Code in 1961, deliberately and knowingly removed the requirement that non -conforming uses/structures be "lawfully existing" or "lawfully occupied." Under Califomia law, the City Council must be assumed to have intended to delete any `lawfulness" requirement from the City Code, and the Ordinance must be interpreted without such language. See Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Ca1.App.4th 1040, 1056; People v. Coronado (1995) 12 CalAth 145, 151;' Burden, 2 Cal. 4th at 562. The staff recommendation that the Board of Appeals use the definition of "nonconforming" in the American Planning Association A Planner's Dictionary and Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law is contrary to law, as well as the City Zoning Code.1° People v. Ramirez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 980, 987. Here, the City Code is not open to more than one reasonable meaning, and no additional definition is required. Giving effect to the plain meaning of the actual language in the statute, there is no reason to depend on extrinsic aids to supplement a definition for "nonconforming." Again, the actual words of the current Tustin City Code control its interpretation and enforcement. ' "We must select the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute, and avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd consequences." People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 151 0 Appeal Hearing Report, pg. 16. The American Planning Association's A Planner's Dictionary defines a nonconforming structure as "a structure or portion thereof which was lawfully erected and which has been lawfully maintained," but which "no longer conforms to the regulations and requirements of the zone (district) in which it is located." SHEPPARD auuAy RICMTR & HAVMN LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 6 For the foregoing reasons, the only requirement for a legal Non -Conforming Use/Structure under Zoning Ordinance Section 9273(x) is that the subject property have been in existence when it was adopted in 1961. There is no dispute that the Residences were built prior to 1961. Therefore, the Planning Commission correctly determined that the Residences were legal Non -Conforming Uses and the Appeal of Resolution No. 4162 must be denied. There is no evidence the structures in which the residences are locating violate the existing Zoning Code. Under these circumstances, the designation of "nonconforming structure" is inapplicable. However, even if the structures violate the existing Zoning Code, they would be legal nonconforming structures because they were built prior to 1961 These structures are nonconforming uses under the statute. III. The City Has Not Shown That The Residences Were Constructed Without Buildinu Permits There is no evidence that the Residences failed to obtain building permits at the time of construction in violation of the Building Code. To show the alleged violation of the Building Code, the City bears the burden of demonstrating that the Residences did not have building permits. However, the City affirmatively destroyed all pre -1959 building permits, thus disabling itself from proving anything about the issuance of building permits, much less that building permits were not issued when the Residences were constructed. The Notice and Violation did not attempt to demonstrate that any of alleged additions, alterations or repairs post-dated 1959, or to pinpoint the date of their addition. Therefore, the City has not shown that the Residences violated the applicable Building Code at the time of construction or that they were built in violation of issued building permits. Because all of the violations alleged in the Notice and Order depended on showing that building permits were not issued, the allegations must be rejected in their entirety. When reviewing zoning and planning issues, the party asserting a violation or noncompliance bears the burden of proving the alleged violation or noncompliance. See e.g. Homebuilders Assn of Tulare/King Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore (2010) 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 7, 15; Huntington Park Redevelopment Agency v. Duncan (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 17, 25. Specifically, a party asserting alleged illegality of a building permit bears the burden of producing proof in support of that assertion. Sierra Club v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (1976) 58 Ca1.App.3d 149, 158. As with non -conformity, only after the City establishes a prima facie case of violation may the burden shift to the property owner to demonstrate compliance." Under California Zoning and Planning Law, therefore, the accusing party must establish the existence of a building permit violation through substantial evidence. City records 11 Appeals Hearing Report, pg. 15. SHEPPARD 11HLLIN RICHTER h HAMF M LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 7 indicate that, in 1959, the City Council voted to dispose of and destroy old permits and job records.' This was done in spite of Section A104.7 of the current Tustin Building Code and Section 202 of the 1927 Tustin Building Code, which requires the Building Inspector to retain building permits for public record.' The City therefore has no evidence that the Residences were constructed without permits, because it has no proof of the contents of any permits or even that the City routinely issued permits when the Residences were built. The only evidence before the City is that a Notice of Completion was issued for the primary Residence in 1929 and that at least one of the secondary units was built by the original owner who later served as the City Building Official and was thus presumably aware of Building Code requirements. Mr. Fairbanks offered evidence that the City issued electrical and other permits for the Residences since 1961, without raising any concerns that they were built in violation of the Building Code. The weight of the evidence, therefore, is that the Residences were not constructed in violation of City requirements. It would be contrary to California building law hold that because the City did not keep building permits and thus cannot produce them, the Property must be in violation of any and all Building Codes, or that it was Mr. Fairbanks' burden to produce documents affirmatively destroyed by the City. Similarly improper is staffs effort to argue that the Residences were built without building permits because they allegedly do not comply with the City's 1927 Building Code. In addition to the fact that specific violations have not actually been proven, an inspection more than 80 years after -the -fact is not substantial evidence of original construction without building permits. Finally, even if proven, Building Code non-compliance cannot support violation of the Non -Conforming Structure provisions of the Zoning Code. Section 9273 specifically refers to non -conformity with the provisions of the "chapter" containing the Zoning Code. Under the Tustin City Code, the Building and Zoning Codes are in separate chapters and the requirements of one cannot be substituted for the requirements and, subsequently, violations of the other. Any effort to bootstrap alleged Building Code violations into "illegality" under the Zoning Code therefore fails under the plain language of the Ordinance. For .the foregoing reasons, there is no substantial evidence supporting the contention that the Residences were constructed without building permits in violation of the Building Code or the Zoning Code. There is no dispute that the City disposed of all pre -1959 permits and thus disabled itself from proving any violation of the Building Code prior to that date. Therefore, the Planning Commission correctly determined that the Residences were not constructed in violation of the Building Code and were legal Non -Conforming Structures. The Appeal of Resolution No. 4161 must be denied. "Minutes of City Council Meeting, March 16, 1959. Tustin Building Code §202 (1927). SHEPPARD MULLIN R1LHM 6 HARPM LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 8 IV. Althoueh Unnecessary To The Decision, Evidence Showed That The Residences Were "Lawfulty^ Constructed Until 1947, all uses of the Property were lawful, including multi -family use. The evidence before the City is that at least two of the Residences were constructed before 1947. With respect to the third accessory Residence, the evidence supports a conclusion either that it was commenced before the initial Zoning Ordinance became effective or that it complied with the Zoning Ordinance. There is no evidence that it did not comply with the original Zoning. Therefore, the weight of the evidence is that multi -family use of the Property, as well as the Residences themselves, were `lawful' under the City Code when constructed. The Notice and Order cites the Property for violating three code provisions. 14 First, it alleges a violation of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 as adopted per City Code Section 8100. This section require a permit before a change in occupancy or construction. The City offered no evidence that Mr. Fairbanks failed to obtain a permit for any work on the Residences since enactment of the 2007 Code, except for an assertion that he attempted to install an unpemtitted stove in one of the accessory Residences, which was later shown to be untrue. Otherwise, the Notice offered no specific building code provision violated by his actions. Given the pre -1950 construction date of all three Residences, there was no basis to allege a violation of the 2007 Building Code. Second, the Notice and Order alleged that the structures violated Zoning Code Section 9223(b)(2) by failing to obtain a conditional use permit for secondary residential units. Under this section, accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained, are subject to conditional use permits. As demonstrated above, the accessory Residences are legal Non -Conforming Uses, and, thus, are not subject to the requirement for conditional use permits or related regulations. Therefore, Code Section 9223(b)(2) is inapplicable, a conditional use permit is not required and no violation is shown. Lastly, the Notice alleges that the Property is in violation of Zoning Code Section 9223(b)(2)(d). This section requires a five (5) foot minimum setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses. Only conditionally permitted uses are subject this regulation." Once again, the Residences are not conditionally permitted uses; they are legal accessory Non - Conforming Structures. City Code Section 9271(a) defines accessory buildings, structures, or uses as those associated with, and subordinate to, a permitted principal use and that are constructed with, or subsequent to, the construction of the main building on the same building Notice and Order, Exhibit B. " Ord. No. ! 367, Sec. 11, 4-6- 10. SHEPPARD MALL N HILiIT H A HAMMN LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 9 site." In this case, the principal or main Residence consists of the home built in 1929, and the secondary units are accessory uses. Zoning Code Section 9271(n)(5) states: "Detached accessory structures may have a zero -foot side and rear yard property line setback if abutting an adjoining structure on a separate lot with a zero -foot setback or if the abutting lot is unimproved. If an adjoining structure on a separate lot is constructed other than with a zero -foot property line setback, a minimum of three (3) feet shall be maintained between the structures. The accessory Residences are constructed within inches of the property line, creating a zero -foot setback. 17 The structure on the adjoining lot is more than three (3) feet from the accessory Residences. Therefore, the accessory Residences are in compliance with City Code Section 9271(n)(5). Accordingly, the side setback does not violate the existing Zoning Code. For the foregoing reasons, the second residential units are accessory structures, which are not subject to the 2007 Building Code, not required to seek conditional use permits under Zoning Code Sections 9271 and 9273, and allowed to have a zero foot side setback provided that at least three (3) feet is maintained from structures on other lots. Therefore, in addition to the grounds set forth above, the Planning Commission correctly determined that there was no evidence the Residences violate the Zoning or Building Codes. The Appeal of Resolution No. 4161 must be denied. V. Health And Safety Concerns Found On the Prnnerty will rte ne.,.vat-A r.. In addition to the technical allegations of non-compliance, questions have been raised throughout of the course of these proceedings about the safety of the occupants in the Residences. Resolution No. 4161 mandated that Mr. Fairbanks comply with the Notice and Order to the extent such corrections are reasonably determined by a Building Official to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants are adequately protected and preserved. On multiple occasions, Mr. Fairbanks has expressed his sincere interest in maintaining the Property to comply with relevant health and safety requirements." He fully supports the intention of Resolution No. 4161 and is ready and willing to begin bringing the " Ord. No. 157, Sec. 5.4; Ord. No. 1367, Sec. 11, 4-6-10. t Letter to Planning Commission Board of Appeals: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated November 9, 2010, pg. 5. " Letter to Planning Commission Board of Appeals: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated December 14, 2010, pg. 2; Letter to Planning Commission Board of .-Appeals: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated November 9, 2010, pg. 4; Letter to Planning Commission Board of Appeals: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Bret Fairbanks, dated October 25, 2010, pg. 7. SHEPPARD MUM IN RICHTP.116 HANPr0N I.I.P Honorable Mayor Amame and Council Members February 23, 2011 Page 10 Residences into compliance with applicable Health and Safety Codes, once the specific problems are identified by the Building Official. To date, this has not occurred. Questions have also been raised about Mr. Fairbanks' ability to correct Health and Safety violations without triggering the provisions of Code Section 9273(b) that prohibit maintenance, repair, or replacement exceeding fifty (50) percent of the building's assessed valuation. Under Resolution 4161, there has not yet been a determination of the scope of the repairs required for health and safety reasons, which will 'be decided by the Building Official in consultation with the property owner. Mr. Fairbanks believes that any health and safety violations can be corrected without exceeding fifty percent of the value of the Residences. However, the remote possibility that full compliance with Resolution 4161 may run afoul of Section 9273(b) is not a grounds for finding that the Residences do not comply with the Zoning and Building Codes. The Appeal of Resolution 4161 must be denied. VI. The Appeal Was Not Properly Filed Under the Zoning Ordinance It is unclear that the Appeal was properly filed in accordance with Zoning Code Section 9294(c). Under the City Code, any Council member may request a de novo hearing of any Planning Commission decision. The request for hearing must be "filed with the City Clerk during normal business hours within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision." In this case, the Planning Commission decision was on December 14, 2010, so the Appeal was required to be filed with the City Clerk during normal business hours on or before December 24, 2010. Due to the holiday, the Clerk's office was closed on December 240i. Therefore, to satisfy the mandatory requirements for timely filing, the Appeal should have been filed with the City Clerk before the end of business on December 23, 2010 and accompanied by the mandated fee. In this case, the request for hearing was apparently emailed to Director Binsack after normal business hours on December 23, 2010 and forward by her to the office of the City Clerk later that evening. The Appeal was not filed directly with the Cleric in compliance with the City Code, and it was not filed "during normal business hours" nor "within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision." It is unclear whether filing by email is permitted under the City Code, however it is clear that the Appeal was not filed "during normal business hours." It is also unclear that the Appeal was properly filed in accordance with the Building Code. Under the City Code, there is no procedure for appealing Planning Commission decisions when the Commission is sitting as the Board of Appeals. In this case, the Appeal included Resolution 4161, which strictly relates to Building Code violations, and cannot be appealed under Zoning Code Section 9294(c). This sort of bootstrapping is prohibited under California law. A request for hearing by a City Council member should be held to the highest standards of technical compliance, because they are presumed to know the requirements for SHUPAHD Yt1U21 AICHM & HAHP1t1N LLP Honorable Mayor Amante and Council Member February 23, 2011 Page 11 compliance with the City Code. The Appeal should therefore be rejected as untimely and not in compliance with Code requirements. VU. The Appellant Should Not Participate In The Appeal The request for hearing asserts that the Planning Commission decisions were incorrect because the Residences were not "legal uses or permitted buildings and/or structures" and that the uses were "actually illegal and were not permitted." It appears that the Councilmember who requested the hearing has already prejudged the issue that is before the City Council in this Appeal. The individual fact -based determination that specific structures were "actually illegal" and "not permitted" is an administrative or quasi-judicial decision. Under California law, administrative and quasi-judicial decision -makers must recuse themselves if there is even the appearance of prejudgment or bias. BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Ca1.App.4th 1205. In this case, the Appeal makes it clear that the decision -maker has already reached a conclusion on the issue before him. Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1994) Cal.AppAth 547. He should therefore recuse himself from participation in the Appeal. VIU. Conclusion For all of the above reasons, Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162, as approved by the Planning Commission Board of Appeals on December 14, 2010, were correct determinations, as well as reasonable solutions for issues relating to the Residences and the Property. Resolutions Nos. 4161 and 4162 both demonstrate correct, consistent application of California law and the City Zoning and Building Codes. Resolutions Nos. 4161 and 4162 should be upheld, and the Appeal denied. On behalf of Mr. Fairbanks, we sincerely appreciate your consideration of this letter and our concerns. Vrneryy truly �yours, dirt 'm W H. Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON t.t.P W02-WEST3 WAHI W032779413 cc: Douglas C. Holland, Esq. Mr. Bret Fairbanks -► s?' � � �,s:�t,► bxu i��a ��'.� �'�� �srac,.� •.,�.:a�: ��o �i�iya�^�:c+& 4r%-r�"tr9�:J'�:'1Cr.'�".fMp + �'t xrr;r:?,IL"�,rAl 1,9�.:i2rL#'YSC� !E•r+ 5}YlP :�i � iAi>kti tJgavw4+�t.'l�3 �ltlel4+, '"•µ.1 �h-°i I R$'�' �2,ii(�y i<� 7su�m+�:iaap: ��: i'�xoa sk+M'Yip,::�3�t, t{t ^ak ,�..�3 f� u�a: Q a �- ,'+ DOS blyi {, 9C1 ai a +:dFP. ssi�.i l� furl sr ? 3 .94' e xJ HiQ%1u31 c' �4af 'ti+, ray aut�•r �'��'�•Y��Tva+ak! �'F! ,i�tttidlti€sFi .aYv7 sr'E�hM9d !�• .wY't3"+;$+'z wo ta low A-e k'zlv-'s vv" 4+J�a .le�iti=•isv� :�ti erc4au� 4J.� ,•i�'i'si:�'yitl3s �t�J'%'2::�.� U i t:F+;l`� ,�l3s;e3�["::3i�2 sdt !.IIR'C1,i:s3lir.,h%7�.T^^rAi:{�(kW 7145135130 ShM*Nrd Mullin OC 03:00:58µm. 01-29-2011 212 650 Town Center Drive 14th Floor I Costa L4e14. CA 92626-1993 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 714-513.5100 Ace I 714-513-ST30 An I *WW4WAT=*VAkom I Writte, nirecl Line- 714.424.2821 January 28, 2011 drowthak@sheppudmllin.com Ow. fife Number: 0009.159581 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Elizabeth Binsaek Planning Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 q Re: 520 Pacific Appeal - Scheduling. Request Dear Ms. Binsaek: We represent Mr. Bret Fairbanks in connection with appeal of the Planning Commission decision on his home at 520 Pacific Street. I will be out of town at a previously scheduled hearing on February 15, 2011. I would therefore appreciate your scheduling the appeal for the next available City Council meeting, on March 1, 2011. If the appeal hearing has already been noticed, we would request a continuance to the March 1 meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, lJt.Q.go+rcv.��."rnl• ��C •la3•H. Deborah M. Rosenthal for SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON CCP W02 -WEST DMR1403273371.1 cc: Mr. Bret Fairbanks Douglas C. Holland, Esq. - r145135130 sMppkrd Muffin oc 03:011t39pm. of-N-2mi ir2 t 2EhF1.01uk,*SWw 11rarNff*gR RdVAKJrQMG11tl1 MWVWM oEo Me 19921)2721 amoafa 1 M21)2121 Boot EIR 44dtifrftMA4d I fN1irATimrr} I S?tltipH;rtt;291l9 I�rKfW I' mma A T f 0 R V E Y S A T t. A W M21127ttUO V!Uf 1 (92112m1 mal Ito 1WWWA&"Md"Ak=W FACSIMILE COVER SHEET "THIS FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION WILL NOTBE MAILED" Date: January 26, 2011 File Number. 0009-159581 Total number c pages: If all pages are not received, please call (iltc)uding I•page cover sheet) [�2] Sheppard Mullin at (86 21) 23216000 TO. Facsimile No. Teleohone No. Elizabeth Binsack, Planning Director City of Tustin (714) 573-3113 (714)573.3000 Deborah M. Rosenthal 520 Pacific Street Appeal - Scheduling Request Please see the attached correspondence, December 23, 2010 Ms. Patty Estrella, City Clerk 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92870 SUBJECT: APPEAL REQUEST Dear Ms. Estrella, As per Section 9294c of the Tustin City Code, I am hereby appealing the actions of the Planning Commission taken on December 14, 2010, as they relate to 520 Pacific Street. My concerns relate to Resolution No. 4162 as approved by the Planning Commission in its capacity as the appeal hearing body and as it is applicable to and relates to Resolution No. 4161 approved by the Planning Commission in their role as the Board of Appeals. The general reasons that I wish this matter to be heard before City Council are as follows: A. I do not concur with the determination of the Planning Commission in Resolution No. 4162 approving existing uses at 520 Pacific Street as nonconforming uses for the reason that it appears to me that the alleged nonconforming uses are not legal uses or permitted buildings and/or structures. B. The actions taken under Resolution No. 4161 with regard to the Building Code Violations ought, therefore, to be abrogated by virtue of the fact that the uses that are identified in Resolution No. 4162 as "nonconforming" are actually illegal and were not permitted. This view, however, in no way relieves the property owner of his obligation to comply with the various building code violations. C. There is, in my view, a need for a discussion to clarify that the Tustin City Code ("Code") requires nonconforming buildings, structures, and uses to be legally established at some point and to clarify the legal intent of prior and current definitions of nonconforming buildings, structures and uses and the appropriate application of the code. Please make arrangements for City Council to hear this item. in rely, Jerr Amante yor Community Development Department TU S T i N SENT BY REGULAR U.S. AND CERTIFIED MAIL December 17, 2010 Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Dear Mr. Fairbanks: The Planning Commission and Board of Appeals at a regular meeting on December 14, 2010, adopted Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 regarding the nonconforming structures and notice and order at 520 Pacific Street. The applicant, or any other interested party, may appeal any action of the Planning Commission to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days of the Planning Commission's action (Tustin City Code Section 9294a). The appeal period is extended to December 28, 2010, due to the holiday. Should the Planning Commission's decision not be appealed, the attached "Declaration of Nonconforming Structures and Uses" must be executed and returned to the City by January 18, 2011 (TCC Section 9273 et seq.) Executed copies of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 are attached for your records. Sincerely, Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Enc: Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 SACddWmy\Code Enforcement\520 Pacific\PC approval lefter.doc 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 a F: (714) 573-31 13 • www.tustinca.org tl,S. Postal Service,:., CERTIFIED MAIL,,, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.caM-- C3 Lrl —D Postage$ O RI Comfled Fee Postmark O Retam Recalpt Fee Here O(Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee E:3 (Endorsement Required) ru NTotal Postage 8 Fees D-. Sent io t M r CIN Siete, ZIi44 ,�l s� r a So V` , MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2010 7:04 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kasalek Sworn in by 1. SEATING OF COMMISSIONER MOORE. Mayor Amante Kozak, Chair 2. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION: Thompson, RECOMMENDATION: Chair Pro Tem That the Planning Commission follow the procedures contained in the staff report to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Puckett, to select Commissioner Kozak as Chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kasalek, to select Commissioner Thompson as Chairperson Pro Tem. Motion carried 5-0. ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Kozak Chair Pro Tem Thompson Commissioners Kasalek, Moore, Puckett Staff present Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director Doug Holland, City Attorney Henry Huang, Building Official Dennis McCreary, Principal Engineer Doug Anderson, Transportation/Development Services Manager John Buchanan, RDA Program Manager Sesar Mortin, Management Analyst Captain Steve Lewis, Tustin Police Department Officer Jeff Singleton, Tustin Police Department Officer Jeremy Laurich, Tustin Police Department Minutes — Planning Commission December 14, 2010 — Page 1 Justina Willkom, Principal Planner Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Amy Thomas, Senior Planner Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS New City Manager David C. Biggs introduced himself; noted his efforts to become acquainted with the City, the staff, and Tustin residents; and, wished everyone Happy Holidays, CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 9, 2010, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Approved 4. 2010 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT The Annual Report summarizes the City's historic preservation efforts and describes how the City met all of the minimum requirements of the Certified Local Government program during the 2009/2010 report period. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission direct staff to forward the Annual Report to the State Office of Historic Preservation. PUBLIC HEARINGS Approved 5. CONTINUED APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 Resolution Nos. PACIFIC STREET (Appellant: Bret Fairbanks) 4161 and 4162, as modified On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. However, these correction measures were not acceptable to the appellant. Minutes — Planning Commission December 14, 2010 — Page 2 On November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the continued appeal of the Notice and Order then directed staff to prepare resolutions with supporting documents and findings to determine that the use can be considered as nonconforming and also directed the appellant to schedule an inspection to determine and subsequently comply with applicable building codes. The resolutions (Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162) are attached hereto in Attachment A and Attachment B. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution No. 4161 affirming the Notice and Order for Building Code violations and adopt Resolution No. 4162 (as revised) affirming nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses at the property at 520 Pacific Street. Chair Pro Tem Thompson recused himself due to the fact that he and his family live just under 500 feet from the subject property; he left the dais. Thomas Presented the staff report The Public Hearing opened at 7:23 p.m. Staff answered Planning Commission questions. Bret Fairbanks, Appellant, spoke from a prepared statement, which was provided to staff and the Planning Commissioners before the meeting was called to order. Discussion of Resolution No. 4162 ensued. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Condition 1.3.(c) and (d) should be deleted; Conditions 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 should be deleted; Condition 2.1 should be deleted; that the approval should be for a nonconforming rental unit; the deed restriction eliminated; and, language in the Declaration be modified as suggested by the City Attorney to read as follows: "I declare that I have done nothing to construct, enlarge, alter, Minutes —Planning Commission December 14, 2010 —Page 3 repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any of the nonconforming buildings or structures in violation of the provisions of the above -reference Tustin City Code." It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kasalek, to approve Resolution No. 4162, as modified. Motion carried 4-0. Discussion ensued regarding Resolution No. 4161. It was recommended by the City Attorney that the following modifications be made to Resolution No. 4161: Page 3, Item No. II: 'The Planning Commission acting in its capacity of the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin hereby modifies the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance"; and, delete the rest of the sentence. Item II, Paragraph A, should read as follows: "The property owners are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the staff report dated October 26, 2010, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, to the extent such corrections reasonably determined by the Building Office to be necessary or appropriate to ensure that the health and safety of the occupants of the nonconforming buildings are adequately protected and preserved." The Public Hearing closed at 8:47 p.m. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kasalek, to approve Resolution No. 4161, as modified. Motion carried 4-0. Chairperson Kozak called a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:58 p.m. Chair Pro Tem Thompson returned to the dais. Continued to 6. DESIGN REVIEW 09-033, A REQUEST TO INSTALL January 25, 2011, AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS meeting FACILITY CONSISTING OF A SIXTY-FIVE (65) FOOT TALL MONO -CEDAR FAUX TREE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND CO -LOCATION OF A FUTURE FACILITY LOCATED WITHIN CEDAR GROVE PARK. Minutes — Planning Commission December 14, 2010 — Page 4 Swiontek THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 11385 PIONEER ROAD IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR), EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4163 approving Design Review 09-033. Presented the staff report. Planning Commission and staff discussion ensued. Since the applicant had asked for a continuance, the Chair asked if there were people in attendance who would not be able to attend the January 25, 2011, meeting and wished to give testimony this evening. The Public hearing opened at 9:26 p.m. The following spoke in favor of the project: Cathy Bardenstein. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Jennifer Wierks Brandon Key Sharon Komorous David Bessen Margaret Choe Tracy Powell David Pifel. The following indicated that he was undecided: Paul Martin. Pete Shubin, representing T -Mobile, indicated that the applicant was attempting to arrange a meeting at the Tustin Public Library in order for the applicant to further explain T -Mobile's position to interested residents. The Public Hearing closed at 10:09 p.m. The Planning Commission requested that the following concerns be addressed in the next staff report: The following are issues that members of the Planning Commission and/or the public raised at the December 14, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting. The Commission requested Minutes —Planning Commission December 14, 2010 —Page 5 that these items be addressed when the hearing item is placed on the January 25, 2011, agenda. 1. Health Concerns • Elaborate on studies done by the World Health Organization and American Cancer Society • Provide more context, clarification, and background • Is it possible to limit the antennas' emissions 2. Alternate Locations • Clarify the need for the facility at the proposed location • Provide clearer maps on signal strength as well as simplified maps • Can the OCFA site be utilized instead and only this facility be used • Provide comments/input from OCFA • Provide more analysis on alternate locations, explore other locations within the park • How was the site selected and how was the site determined to be the best location • Explore the alternative use of micro-sites/micro-antenna networks • Provide an independent, third -party analysis of the OCFA site to determine its viability 3. Potential Hazards • Does the proposed facility pose a fire danger or an increased risk • Is the school gate ever open, before or after school • Elaborate on safety concerns, could the tower fall over 4. Architectural/Aesthetic Impacts • How will the project affect the historical significance of the park • What design modifications would be necessary to accommodate six wireless carriers and assess the long term impact to the park of those modifications • Clarify the tower height in relation to existing trees and identify the minimum height necessary for coverage • Is there a maximum co -location potential at this site or is it open-ended • Put up stakes on project site (story poles) to represent the project location in the field • Provide photos and locations of existing mono -cedars similar to the one being proposed • The facility would intrude on the Redwood/Cedar Grove Minutes — Planning Commission December 14, 2010—Page 6 5. Impact to the Park • How is the project site currently used and how would it be impacted by the potential facility • How close to the cement path would the facility be • The facility would commercialize the park • It was noted that the proposal would not be consistent with the General Plan 6. Public Outreach • What has been done and what are the results • Summarize the 01/06/11 meeting between T -Mobile and the public • Allow T -Mobile to conduct community outreach with residents to help them understand T -Mobile's system and why Cedar Grove Park is their only option • T -Mobile has failed to communicate the project to the public, provide more public outreach 7. Property Values • Provide more information on the potential effect on property values 8. What are other cities/communities doing with these facilities Chair Pro Tem Thompson suggested that the item be continued to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Kasalek, to continue the item to that date. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted 7. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144, A Resolution No. SUBDIVISION OF A 131 -ACRE SITE INTO 12 4164 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 LETTERED LOTS FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4164 recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for conveyance purposes only. Willkom Presented the staff report. Staff answered questions from the Planning Commission. The Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:23 p.m. Minutes — Planning Commission December 14, 2010 — Page 7 It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Thompson, to approve Resolution No. 4164. Motion carried 5-0. None REGULAR BUSINESS 8. STAFF CONCERNS: REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE NOVEMBER 6 and DECEMBER 7, 2010, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. The Director stated that at the November 16 meeting the City Council appealed and overturned the Planning Commission's approval of Use Determination 10-003 regarding hydroponics and indoor gardening. The Director reported that at the December 7 meeting the City Council held the second reading of the Construction Code which becomes effective in January 2011. COMMISSION CONCERNS Kasalek • Welcomed Commissioner Moore; • Indicated she enjoyed the Thanksgiving Prayer Breakfast; • Offered congratulations to new City Council members Beckie Gomez -McKeon and AI Murray; • Congratulated Jerry Amante who was selected Mayor and John Nielsen, Mayor Pro Tem; • Thanked Doug Davert and Jim Palmer for their years of service; • Congratulated Lindburgh McPherson and Michael Demoratz on the 130th birthday of Wilcox Manor; • Noted the Christmas Tree Lighting event was wonderful; Director Dave Wilson and Marilyn Esposito are to be commended for their enthusiasm; • Congratulated the Tustin High School football team for a great season and making it to the CIF championship game; • Offered kudos to the Tustin Police Department for all their great work; • Wished everyone Happy Holidays. Moore • Noted that he appreciates the opportunity to serve on the Planning Commission and also the warm welcome he received; • Indicated he also enjoyed the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast and the Tree Lighting Ceremony. Minutes — Planning Commission December 14, 2010 — Page 8 Puckett • Welcomed Commissioner Moore; • Congratulations to Al Murray and Beckie Gomez -McKeon; to Mayor Amante and Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen; and, to Chair Kozak and Chair Pro Tem Thompson; • Thanked Doug Davert and Jim Palmer; • Congratulated both Tustin High School and Beckman High School for reaching their respective CIF football championship games; • Stated he attended the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast—the Tustin Community Foundation raised funds for good causes at the Prayer Breakfast; also attended the birthday celebration at Wilcox Manor, and the Tree Lighting Ceremony; • Thanked the Tustin Police Department for supporting the Santa Sleigh, which is a wonderful experience for Tustin's youngsters and for the folks who ride in the sleigh; • Noted that it appears that Tustin Ranch Road extension will finally be started in 2011; thanks, Public Works, for that project; • Congratulated Commissioner Kasalek for receiving a holiday decoration Tustin Pride Award; • Wished everyone Merry Christmas. Thompson • Echoed the above congratulations to the new City Council members; • Stated he attended the following events: on November 12, the Tustin Area Republican Women Federated Group; on November 16, the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee meeting; on November 17, the Third District OCTA Leadership Forum, hosted by Mayors Jerry Amante and Carolyn Caveche; on November 18, the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast; on December 8, the Transit System Round Table; on December 9, the Christmas Tree Lighting; • Congratulated the OCTA for opening the SR 91 project—the first American Recovery and Reinvestment Act project in the County; • Shared a brochure related to climate change and again requested that staff put together a workshop providing updates to the Building Code, Historical Building Code, and current policy philosophy regarding SB 375; • Wished everyone Happy Holidays. Kozak • Noted he attended the December 7 City Council meeting; • Added his congratulations to all those mentioned above; • Thanked his colleagues for selecting him as Chairperson; Minutes — Planning Commission December 14, 2010 — Page 9 Kozak continued • Noted the Christmas Tree Lighting and other festivities were marvelous; • Referred to the City being chosen to receive a 2010 B.E.S.T. APWA Project of the Year Award for the Tustin Public Library project; this ceremony took place on December 9; • Offered holiday best wishes. 10:40 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, January 11, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. teve Chairperson SE/H LL PI�LA C Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Minutes —Planning Commission December 14, 2010 —Page 10 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 14, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kasalek 1. SEATING OF COMMISSIONER MOORE. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION: RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission follow the procedures contained in the staff report to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kasalek, Kozak, Moore, Puckett, and Thompson PUBLIC (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) CONCERNS: At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law). If you wish to address the Commission on any matter, please fill out one of the forms located at the speaker's table so that your remarks on the tape recording of the meeting can be attributed to you. When you start to address the Commission, please state your full name and address for the record. ®In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (714) 573-3025. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under the 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. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any Item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, during normal business hours. Agenda — Planning Commission December 14, 2010— Page 1 CONSENT CALENDAR: 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 9, 2010, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 4. 2010 CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT ANNUAL REPORT The Annual Report summarizes the City's historic preservation efforts and describes how the City met all of the minimum requirements of the Certified Local Government program during the 2009/2010 report period. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission direct staff to forward the Annual Report to the State Office of Historic Preservation. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. CONTINUED APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (Appellant: Bret Fairbanks) On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. However, these correction measures were not acceptable to the appellant. On November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the continued appeal of the Notice and Order then directed staff to prepare resolutions with supporting documents and findings to determine that the use can be considered as nonconforming and also directed the appellant to schedule an inspection to determine and subsequently comply with applicable building codes. The resolutions (Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162) are attached hereto in Attachment A and Attachment B. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution No. 4161 affirming the Notice and Order for Building Code violations and adopt Resolution No. 4162 (as revised) affirming nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses at the property at 520 Pacific Street. Presentation: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner Agenda —Planning Commission December 14, 2010 —Page 2 7 6. DESIGN REVIEW 09-033, A REQUEST TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A SIXTY- FIVE (65) FOOT TALL MONO -CEDAR FAUX TREE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND CO -LOCATION OF A FUTURE FACILITY LOCATED WITHIN CEDAR GROVE PARK. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 11385 PIONEER ROAD IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR), EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: RECOMMENDATION: T -MOBILE WEST CORPORATION CITY OF TUSTIN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4163 approving Design Review 09-033. Presentation: Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144, AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144, A SUBDIVISION OF A 131 -ACRE SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 LETTERED LOTS FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES. APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATION: PROJECT SITE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, ARMSTRONG AVENUE TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND RED HILL AVENUE TO THE WEST. ZONING: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2, PLANNING AREAS 9-12 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) AND ADDENDUM CERTIFIED ON JANUARY 16, 2001 AND APRIL 3, 2006, RESPECTIVELY. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE Agenda— Planning Commission December 14, 2010— Page 3 MCAS TUSTIN REUSE AND SPECIFIC PLAN, ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES WILL NOT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WILL BE PREPARED. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4164 recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131 -acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for conveyance purposes only. Presentation: Justina Willkom, Principal Planner REGULAR BUSINESS: None 8. STAFF CONCERNS: REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE NOVEMBER 6 and DECEMBER 7, 2010, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, January 11, 2011, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Agenda —Planning Commission December 14, 2010 —Page 4 ITEM #5 APPEAL HEARING AGENDA R-EPORT MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: CONTINUED APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 26, 2010 AND NOVEMBER 9, 2010) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street (Tustin City Code Section 5503). The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission may consider the appeal of the Notice and Order acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations and as the appeal hearing body for Zoning Code violations. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. However, these correction measures were not acceptable to the appellant. On November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the continued appeal of the Notice and Order then directed staff to prepare resolutions with supporting documents and findings to determine that the use can be considered as nonconforming and also directed the appellant to schedule an inspection to determine and subsequently comply with applicable building codes. Appeal 520 Pacific Street December 14, 2010 Page 2 The resolutions (Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162) are attached hereto in Attachment A and Attachment B. Pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b), the property owners must provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses. On December 2, 2010, a Declaration of Nonconforming Structures and Uses which was reviewed by the City Attorney, was provided to Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks for notarized signature. To date, the document (as attached in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4162 Conditions of Approval Attachment 1) has not been signed. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution No. 4161 affirming the Notice and Order for Building Code violations and adopt Resolution No. 4162 (as revised) affirming nonconforming status of certain buildings, structures, and uses at the property at 520 Pacific Street. Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner /ttl/ Elizabeth A. Bmsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. PC Resolution No. 4161 B. PC Resolution No. 4162 S:\Cdd\PCREP0RT12010\PC Agenda Appeal 520 Pacific continued.docx ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 4161 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the structures that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice of recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street to Mr. Fairbanks. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Director of Community Development or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; G. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010 meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal. However, the correction measures discussed were not acceptable to the appellant; That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961, of which only the Zoning Code matters were affected; J. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and heard testimony from the appellant; K. That, pursuant to Section 112 Board of Appeals of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, the hearing was held to consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; the provision of such code does not fully apply; or, an equally good or better form of construction is proposed; L. That, pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, shall not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code or to waive requirements of such code. Further, the hearing shall be de novo and the Board of Appeals may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter in accordance with the Tustin City Code or remand the matter to the Community Development Director or the Zoning Administrator for further proceedings in accordance Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 with directions of the Board of Appeals; M. That, on October 26, 2010, November 9, 2010, and December 14, 2010, the Board of Appeals considered evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance condition exists at the subject property due to the present violations of the following Building Code section: California Building Code A105.1 (adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. (Prior staff reports and attachments are attached hereto in Attachment B.) N. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; O. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exist as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation during a site visit on September 10, 2010, and provided hereto in Attachment A; P. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; and Q. That the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that concluded that there were several nonconforming additions and Building Code violations. (Shown in Attachment B). Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby affirms the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of Building Code violations related to nonconforming structures subject to the following condition: A. A complete set of plans and engineering calculations prepared by a licensed professional or documentation necessary to demonstrate that the building(s) meet minimum Building Code requirements, as may be reasonably required and as deemed appropriate by the Building Official for the issuance of permits. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of December, 2010. Jeff R. Thompson Chair Pro Tem Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, Y. Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Board of Appeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4161 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Building Official S:\Cdd\PCRESOS\2010\PC Reso 4161 Board of Appeals 520 Pacific REVISEO.dou ATTACHMENT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Revised (12/14/10) ri f0 y � C ` N w U N 1 2W M- �• c n 3 YI 01,� P#g. a. G O.W®R� o v c - r tG• LU 2. L y -2 E € ."c - N r 'Ca cOUC O0� o�N7� 2« m o E ZELcNm am U= p= n d m cndr" r-I0 p ° W K? a.) Lo N ` NNo OC _•— U U Y;g U O U «yL= E oc C'JSO OA LTO -OyCy . 00 y C cNyH3 .. �-6 C y8 aC -o'-: VdC M O C 2 d OO�LOCOO' doUN2U- ••C Ua 9C 'C j3 U O 'O '%MUOCEOO'- UyNE t m -d -y NN � � �m UH �«U OU O0 o m m mm �u a•> o 'pO c "' te2 c N l QO Ov w. 5.9 UCO MOc U C 0.I �N r IO.5L3 UC0UU C Sd ccL 22 TCU m -5N'ry 01 �_3� ��°N CC NU O.OI�UNUN N C •pp co C UNNUUp p C NO=a3 C O O N C U .0 y Na M0, 22 CD C OI •- L CO 0 s g N nT>OI ..�a«� y•�a€t°OcyUCdU UUN U NNO.0 0m C li0 n•f0 a�OT'O 'O E yL.5pC La'O a=0OYU C- 'O 9 U U N L L pl `«GC U 0 U U v Ip U U C O- U O N U E '� .. L ._ :_ y lq O O o M a 0-5 C t O> a d 0 O U L '> > 111 �'(J C UyyUN« Ua O`H'O-•OO 3-0000 VUN«OIE�U U o O m U C d C �r OI U C U L E CL l0 `1EL UaO C S O W N U U U O NCL Oma m'o��i� C O C .L" N 3 o io m3w Tc ��cmca°I`mrn«. Sac Toy>>Ecc Z'•Ndm .ti m�cmUUoiIOUEL �rn�2L) ��m°,`o�o,aa-�$�3�i�coodp�N "0 rn`�co°o�����ccl'•oEul3yc0 �'Zoao_yv mymdDei�32 �a=ra °•�...�ooyd cX Luy:o U O O = •� U° C E 'O U O D U T U C K m-aaw«�._y� U> C L U y 0 O C d E C U U L L •c 0== j°` O t L A U U C p p Ha N6] OC U U'Oa «F• dLL NF- N 0 ClI-.. C� OI W pL 3U C V t L N y C 0-.F U C O w O --p Up A U 'E E O •� N j O O ry 0 d r.O G N Q V G� C .2 O G •� 9U C-4 NEN a.0 C V 2w N C AMi°i� a�lv Q- -a yod/nmd�2v° °apaELo '2� a U LL V LLoya o Ili U GU GLLp� U U - U�-� O y c U o m m° o= o tm U o U o o o y U a o G a � o ny 4•3 oU a N O.= zU-U L% O •p O' N q" O_ N X O ._ O G mQUu) zUln C11 -NUC mQ�L? cri ��NUUfdU C T a T•E O N E N 3 C L E N C y E aL « M u0 it a -I O CL 'O o L C L U a 3 U� O0 O CMU N N Ss0 a C E C p U X C (I v U p U O Q N C O j 0 U n 0odU a E LU F CO E Un N U 'o OC�NC �gxtm U ooaNNNmc�C 0 t-m�aUG w�E vo -vaiwOmma« 0 zm_uL�aL 0 Y V JeJauaE) ri x C O II > Il O +' C m m N m �'c .c Q w O ie�,l I U r Tj O N Y� m Na c m i a m p! C y Cm N OCc 03 d oo rn2 tdm Cl 0 a-c c r4 om CN m> U yNd C a LHyL Cm caO o �3aL�m2r?awErnom002 n > eN -�.S2 a cc 2 5m 7MjNmON-N Vr N L E p N N^N ac 2> V U 2 NU LLN cm> N o— Co OaaO mL NQ m3a a rnc m°c o 0m mEL 9 m2`2cL' aigmcm H E°o `c�vM0«cc NeLy c aENoi.Gmm d 'CpoCaj mc°gc'DMm- ,7L cia=U; • E IMNM`N aLC 0L m N 79L> O •O m CN L I= W, ` L O C wcmMNm= N3Nm-3 >va Eoc. -JUp c!mawHm oC.mcm Euc•om«o m.O9Wo•Z .cOpC% Ya ytC wmCcm>CEC°U W O m 3 maL°U O`mL O C2N3Ldp O nr LtE_ILm owpc o m> >m. Np-o�ai Or `U N` d -.oLN9mCO° C OTm O m yN •p It m N 72 0. m CmN N .-p"�ONm. UCO>L m .2'9 NNU N IL p0 Nd0NN L C N OO N O E N N E UO N .m. O 'U-"-oo C C C 'OO S ,C N m N O tL.. L m 'C p N y N H W m U a N V Y m N m m m (n U W-C.L.. a 3 I"' v 5.9 C L 3 m .L. a s m p C •`- 32d •pm p " oU r(b Ua cm yip FV-, rn Q. a N c O CD V OA I W Ci C'o a IL Q o ui Co CL o=o UN�om °m m �ci¢a o s �.c c¢ E U r 0 G r- m C U o C m � e° c o n O .-UUI-NUL 0°• �Ot��U V - OVC y N N N — 0cc m �cCcNo55� 3 °p o3"CCLGm .T L F2 3: am o 002 O m 'aw N�c�E N o y =°"a�oE OcRC N N M m fG C E M N f0 '0O U > T_° E aa)O �i a -NC° N O N2 Oc U m .CC aLO C Lcd -yE CCmU1 N 2' C i N`NI ' a adam LCNp O Nr E O€ a3: HmS0 E- OBeJe6 anoge Iiun do;s puooeg R a U C O X W C O C 06 - m O _ a V M Z O € - — In a n m 0f0 o •ppm °o a Q1 N N m m m N m m F N N c G a Z y y V O N o �• U« c .. a s N d E m m � 0 y c .m. m Q1 O m '= c N m T N t d -8 ME C '0:6 N C O O mM d_^ wNO c$ Q�. LCN .•' U NcjNNNaO CC7w m Mau omLai omNCCNmm{p aE ma ^N Lc ...N N m p m N y > mEN moN O UWm>U CO m «N .NUN~NamOca C= O N N E ? « Ef•j E« . MM=W NEc0rn M«o E°0c U � ED O ao O- m .pmd O _'•O� O O m 0 E—y m c N 9 V L O tm �aL30fa m«$� E_ E m'O S_� �2rMmNdaOOc v.-3�• Lmcm a0—pt•uvc ..OL m CNN a=mo$'a�ui F- mMT c T m a O« L N �. m— C -a; 0 L) U N ••pQ OppO] E .� c m m Cn C L m a+ 'O d0. "' Ia c 0 m C a L U •E C U U U` O Q m •_ c m •c a C m Ijg C m N m a'F C m C C m m N O 3 N°'9yo_ 2 p N V c N U N C N m W$V2 m 02 3 c U '$�aXi Lmmd3a'«_$ in 'O .y N a low C m c = a° Fo ,a0)paVam O c V LEEp•Eie L>>NO 0 c `EEc7 U O m mL o« A moa0 m �a«v=c�a« G CSN+ U c w r= c L€ `p c tm U 9 p C �FF Im € C G OQ m 0 n r —.0 to QCe) aCO 0 m Oc �a 'cm'a N MSB am'a y V y'awa m 0 u m Li 0 O.M I (0 d= 5 I ci � �i E Oc I wo Eaor wa ¢or In ¢ov M CL 0 to U'o U�U �o - o CO e m '� m 0 0 co r a m Ua o=0 m c M � •O m U$Ua 000 m a m c 0 •W I �O m V 7 7Q7 ��Ci¢ �i mU¢ �i m V mUa N N -p m m N N t V OO O N mp m O -p m N m U O Ip 01 O�0 m`-Uo O (VJ p. 01� 0 0 o CNpm p. O) aa) O'sUo �3�UHC14 ��UUFNUE �Q�cJcirNUd O C m c '.m_. C a m U N c w a Em cE$ Mao S�� �imOam€cC 00 UA rami a�icc cyE`mmv mm m�'o pa� € v2�mgam� mN ow rn$ 'm0 N�cc 2M NasN NNN«mCd EL VO N L O C U L 3c•�'F m� m LL3:v6M LU U)o�'am'OOa3 C O M 0 a6eJe6 J anoge 3!un tiols puooag a " Illlil O C C Z a d J ll h.. 'V N o u > O •c C r.+ O m 1.+ c w m- N C1 d CD 0.2 U m 0 m 3 y m N m O U may O T a d p N CU 01 ,p .••I E 0,= m F- cmm m N Y L d u m C w 3 a L N N 3° Lav 0 L ". �`C !t�C C E0m o mtmOmCc«_mmC �ma mommo0m«oEa Vu C7M a•=mNm Tm�Np m H m cL dcm >U ° a2 ay 0Cfi�c3d om0t9 y 3 � mN>CU -V0 p CC ? dm y Em*5 aa yam= i>�c c d 0 _ M E m 9 0- pLm 0Q c0 M a0O oyyam ?>rn W w cdc ,CmacC3 •���c� �2 NE •p pa.a O�1�>'cU C\4) m > C'j C) C m 0t �°cpy �uEO E0- E 0°Ld ° 0 Q ac L.E0 O CN C «mC L«O 2 E o�OmL C CNa2mLO•�N�LLO O'C V T•t0mOLm °NEv-y0 Mo0 LOrm�0 « Oa Cm0m« 0E«ON UmaU EQmO U ° oH Qm m a) CD m�amg u -d m6 cm COD ppc�� a�a O MCO TE EC2 O O mC O2 ON > D. d OC - 22 V; N OaU N� 0O0y O 2 -cm m O rC T _-NLa O N°r m O 2vwZu� raa� °M. 3 m$3EtUmE£�c F ,cNma E " rn- rnI _rn 0._._ O :0 O C m d C p m € C. C C. IO a- 2y� m O O a a O •am .am p= � c 0_0 p -� N C t p, N C m C 'a+� N m a m m C CL M C`1 `0 'j v' m m 30 U v A (h O m m NOc� m (n Li O O.M I O.M m O •- O Q m C Q 0 Q 0 N 4j Q U N N C f� 'O (8 (/) G Cl a N T U C U) cn R m0 y U) '� �m `m maU CL oU o o o-0 o= O N yo Coj.m� m U yU'- m U Im00 C O m U o )'-UQa�co U� m�U� CO o)m c m o) m �m m -p- mm I 0 CL N CN.Up� pm OUO•'pmQ C cUOC 0) RM m U 000' U Oo 'M C.) LI-- f� GI-�C Na0N 0)QN,- f� G Nn hole- C €I H Ng00'ja 0000e °)�GON'm �Q��F-NU NUL yF-NU 1O NNS A U C C c N C O C m Hrm-. « a u m m = C m 3 V y y L •d m N NCCo N yC L am d N 2 m mm NN JTm Ltt�tpp�i 0CO E wc�mU a So mTE aCOy O 0 0 O" 0 cO C E c m y O NO" N 0 U d O mmmmy ma C a . m 60 m N C_ l p N. LC"O m C S U L.0N° CO L'a p"N p LaLj0 L Em fENmwp MN LM L «y.mm.0«0UN�0 c 3c c 0 m 0 O J Y V � y.� +rr Ic 1t. �J O O r C t'+ r n qq( ; r,• � F N O , o t IL p I � u � J m c II I 1 �- � I N N m > mv° m=' gt EN 0 a) O m m c_rr m °i, a E m co•p m otu mmomm�zau v F� �OaO" rmF m. m.. c«No 'i=umm :5 , m m4 mem {0 M m 2 N F' C d N 3 mal TwO JO U N y aui m 2m,cm mC W C G N N m T C -M a) NEO bo c c O v ca��(tJetuu" N la w'"ocE c E U m m oMmdo•cdE .0 .' E �N O2 N m ° 3 0co 32�E n N �cn�m ca° j'O rmL y CLL�j m cli1�f co M 7 U 0 0 y 0 .- M Co O L E r N t p• U 3 N "y" W O U do E Nav 0m a 4) a > m Oy° 0- C °. C pCL a C OO N mU 0m OpO ma0) aC Om w admV COD N c op ap F- m m f wcmQ =mm M- dmt- g2 TL7E hM uj 0c> N'p tc omt0 N >co �uc 2 =2 UNH, mt FU mcU';ma .ti �mN°mOmEa �m CL �mOccaLnaa N° tmNm vt ayycaL yEm o 2°�UC' amo.ma u m °� N`m mEmo«°cc�m FL-°�CLSM0 HU3F-ac°i�a FG N O `o o T a m % WFG N '_-' O my •11 M cno '-c-p •F C d ' a N ') N O Ur 4N'°::. E N O 'OC �. O W 4N'O > >U UU uU N U N '� E .0 M EL d U E d m u m'`o�aEi aui N•� dou�imtuiEE dtnmm�2 a°i `O2 am � '�- W EL6 N'a m U CN E[A O Q U fn~N E O mLL LLN �'-Nf7 ULLO O fq Q. a U oUa °-'O p, o m OU�U m '� m m N m .O m N C C m Ci N O U v 7 0 U c >> m 3 m g E o E o c � � U ��nvO1 N C N 1[ O O to cy 1=o._Oo._a N C N �[ O c U-- U m_ =Haid r�am'9 N °. N '� G U 078 O Cr �QMh Nw❑ p MQm�U cg 0>Utn 7UNm �Q�UUhtNU 12 tOj 'OO GW 9 aN d m« O O ` c tGy Om o '=O U^am tam A c�E, or yQN', �aL mE atm aaF-doa tMo 0 '�F-• cS m... C uimc °w ? o ay CL as 0 m���Sootd2mmtmimo. ywm°''mdm� C H j N l�`O N OM mE Oama NUm'EOrC tix H N T U m N m m a 0 'a -j C 12 N 'C N m N N T E. t. N O(n L m C C m a m m c 0 C a1 La ..my 2 0 d m .t. N C C 'C ..t.. L C' a a= m N N a a m C a F d x C M d" y m N N N O U U 2°'amvm mBaamr_�tu-.cmicmiv�t°i�€�aoi.SE�mrmnnmi m inMmE=m FL-9mmE uvmmmmm'3«=)Eata9 ar e 0 e podjeo J O .j .-. ma,=oa Mn m Ea N LL O L j C �M AMC ti `rI C E .3 W y G y C « N O L a C Q) ` Y a,oi an d m Ol 'O N m C N C m p O° C« O a V N �• N p O 9 V C m m m m C c m m> m N N m M C U N> om L O T 'S H N C N N C O 2 U F_ a m •° O O i O O N W 'O °p• > c y m N N p U m m ._ L 3 H y ,= N C N O 8 U m egdEm N V C 'C m rnmmmcm3U m f0 C m L d 1 L La.Na acmim 3 ." N N = c °cavtm cc)c `o C4 cT«cmc> oo c ^ o•- 3 m� mmN D.(Do-3yrn `'cEda v m m m coy y o o•mU N m m c m aU m� �cmimcrn m> mNEo E.�p mTcmQ md_ 'o°mm�. _ a 7 Y m d O 9 j m m L V= O m j N •O 0 (�lpp'm.y 3 6 m N C L m m L « C 3 m m= c O P (D O C em I� t L N ICD N 7 C i0 U Ol m m- m N ° m� a3-_ a •- N U c E .N. coEo C «« y p ,m L L C E. N .. N C N 'c...mu..am,rL°3°'yomomr' Fm,E« p m c E c gL � o o� m m �2=�mrn xmw� }9a omm_m ac 0=M c,� d 1 d oc EU � 5 E E°�u9c Ecol Lm. �Y°2m2 mm�a°oc�=«o>>� V C N m m m V N N m p) U C 0 O SIM m$ m .+ C O O N C .. O c Q) 2 ._ O C 2 L L a m ... C N C d 9 H :O m m 3 0:,o D. W C `m ,= m 0 0 0 c'00 N N N 3 L "O N N 0 2 O >ma� c m a; c mm�-p;,,=� « m m�mm..m-mcm..=c..- «> -cc N O �a«mgv'm�m�U� O N L U a c L cm°oma O O m N L Nmv_pc3�3 mmvc s O ry GI'2 x m N •N N N Ol j 3 O U w m 0 (0 Sc 0 CO L m m c w c c a ami U N c N L m m m «L N L c `� m o E> 3 a; c 3 c U L 3 N C. N O m M o °•B o.m« m o `mm�3�rom.. °�m�'-m ° o c01) >"mo 0E ayawmyamc�U`oapc'c3 p�vac>�mELc rl m o`o O m U m �. O m Ln c f0 Co L N m O c c O O O 3 m _ -° t m O C C O m m an d m « d a._ m N N O V I0 S= -mm: mEM O O "' m N �: O Y N °cv�E�cyaxc2mamL m._ m d L L N j «Q (Docs O L L; C D' U S d C N C C Cn 0M4= m>'0H O m .0 C t0 I -._LL OF-mLLUOI E N C X 0 •L-• C L N C N L tgULOm�a31-�.m..LUN.. C r p N t O y LL] m ey C iC N"o a mw v 'm C c�°c' o€cmic' M,'° c] N C r E =�m'u5 vc E'O 'm Q- jyc 'ca Nm'So mcm 2�u M •CY um U) `_-' ci�E$�cy C/) cam yE �auE Umm LU FL y °wd Q °mv �3�m°c�U^•-m U') cm vONwN m •°m M C3 Em? mC m°mom wvc�"_m E m 0 ID cn'ia U 7c0mem L° �m �U�m UNm o,m'n °m =FUm�m �° Lrnm Cr�'Z_ m N¢ O `1 � m � r- m 9W i r.- m mr O-C/J C,4 N O. N .° .O O a..- 'a 2r0''? N m N m O N O' m ass! 00 0 ONLLC�Cd O r'UU°�Q�UUN W Q m SON LLQ'Cd .r..�FU-• N U C N 8 Nccon m U N y LLL] N dm L�O••c�rn L2 mrU 3N cac EC Umc EmoE`m�i. Eo p N a-.•'3mt° m m C C «'O 5w ;- •C C O m O N Yl O C O Y m c U N 3 O N 3 0 .O N 3 Lo j. N r Ol m Ol 0l O1 C C C C rC m U 'p N x (n �- �mQmEuEm�_-° m m L T C N C o U ��>-pHacdami OX L �rn_ma��OoE 2M O m a C Zammm« m O X C'L O > WKmmm Som C" O 200 m e ML°.�aoL am C O c a6eieE) jiun le puapisai LLeaa J a m x W `'' - •E m v amiyom r _ .E 3 a I, s ( � + �� y O ( ■ iii` O a a i y O .+ e cL En •0 C O ULcE d 0 U C Ol (a O N N C aE y > L 41 C 0 O]LV a d Of l M p m m «�� m .0. O () �= U C O O o�om•g02'Eam o U mto Ec3 o=c=aai w'm Ea CDwcmaci=c ya a m Cn >.> - O U O N C 2 0 0 im- C 'o- m a= 3 C a 0) m a pp c � yp>Lc0 �0 M0 v3�y�EaV6 c a) m0 2 °c'9'o2 E F in a O m QQO L a N` •C E C 'L-' « 2 w O�yy��"€ ,+v_-' c0) c0i >>ca�i `o aim>'E3y j Ummumid=o>a Leo- —0�=_3 U o o r_ o c 0 a € m « m a m a m o v a 2 a c ++ m c m ami O• QaEOpE3H m�D•moM�E. m•o•aac�aMaci cyE«yEy�imc�m'°>. is a N m O m m p m m ` m N ow a N .ymam Nd!>r dW mLZ �L« �OO v>�O. o U•c Ecmn'n d maim .. c�-m`o E 3 �« H a ca �n 2 m o FL- cmi a H ya cd a O2 c t-2 iiE� o€crn °a 0- O Na�E 'ama ;�E Na o= U m O. I C m O U L mID Ci U M CL 0a o Ali0=0 c m G - CL o m V m W i,i Q �1 U m m ..+ 0 E 7 VON O V r- t,. ai mUn�'z„0L•€ C-4 000 O•jmN n=Inco E NO,O O'C CL 0) �¢�UUHN0 LtnS E a C) �•E Nm y r a C m CL. 3 mm�y�°� >in� E 'o 0 3 a L r Lm m m aa)a a�•E m 53m`Eu`c y =m E � •per p a) N L �0 U m mE c�3cm'c co.c U 2rn-'coi3�i8E Om.a C 0 U O J 0 IL 4 CIS t. X c LLI I 0 0- 0-- 0 M y cli N> s >= 0 0 w MC -0 M -0 *2 — r-I 0 —.— = M (D m O.L.=.- a) E 'Z6 -ffi CD E M.9 2 tw CU 0) N , > -:5 'a 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 Co —= 03 (D 3r.00 c a C'm .= W-0— F- C%l > E m 0 d -0 ci 0 C-4 =M —M (,D C ( > U- U) 0C0 .2 2 w co0 0 a' E 0 (D w (D u 0 > Y.0 0 F- 0 0. a, do 0 .0 C 0) 0 0-- CD 2,—.— �= a 00 m cn o ;B 0.2 a.9 E Lu w m w — 0 'C 0 CL =M 0 — M CL nN (D 1, = = M W — 0 a) ca E NOV 0 cn = 2 0 (D w .60 E 0 :6 LN 46 cm yxwcr-i m > 0 > 3:0 M M (D' LL ° m `0 o .2:' CL 0U0 .2 a) L> E 0 U a (D 0 F- aQL u 3SS 3 F- Q w 3 am Lq CD co —0 E a — as 0 (D cj (D _.a 0 c,) Q- E -00 C,4 M,= M EL Q. 5. N 0) 0 "6 Q.'= 0<= 0 0 0 w — m 1 6 0.— 0,2�� El 6 tm, C/S 0 4) CL ' c. cn . CL co U) L) C.) 0 'a L) 0 c Cf) C-) C/3 m r- 0 0 0 m zi M C M m C3 LL 0 m Z51 M�s m � < t2 2 M C.) D D Z) CO (.) u L) cq m FL r.- P.- C14 N C-4 p00 9) 0 -8 or r- t� N rLO M-o 0) 0) rQ�Ci iii R 1� CxL) , 00 -PC F- 04 L) cm CLO co m c Q C%l (n m CD 0 Mu M 0 0 CD a •a 1) CD > mcFL a) E a M 0 a m m M o C,� — m m :E :E 0) of CD 3: W E 0, FL -M �o 0 mw., �m — 0) 0' (1) CDcn a m 2 > E r 0 0 llun leiluep!saj jean -j 00 C1 WfiA A.t L IL N C 0) E a) t. 44." 07 E L O E E2 0)c ° O Nc N E i 1 N 0 o h « N N 0° N a N C O N � C~y Co'E- '> > 4) N L 0CL 0 v O Q d 2 OU,=,,U O� NN C C C O]y dNdi a C TL" t0 C N O N O L+ tII N 'c�01c'EcaEOc;�c 0) w raF-°aci -E cco H at`o m �'o= o c �� E o O. N 07 cOp� Y� m `• O y t0 V« O CO N C `o �j. C Y N N 4- .L. E N° N� 7S N v C a U O o O;O C O= N d rn, O L U r O oavS aOi`0-'9L °cc «m�3 c w aE.cmm�c3y�>caci cot5a= N 0 a E O N° 0 N a o .S m o c '° 0 m N A O 0 V t0 S r0 N N C D ° '5 O d "O N N 0 E N O a L° C t C N N a o 07 `O O c or m m 0;° No°00''U O1-8E4� tq Ecawmc3mcO�mU y nL'3 C N 0) M N 2 0 t— OLS O �O 0 a ' •R t0 O C= p�0 f0 0 ?� O O W m N 0 Y N N O V IG0 y C N 0w L ci3•u:9aciO.c°� m E ._ ado OUv d O ._ O o m •- m m '� U (� O O N'a 0) 0) N j0 O N mm�n�EEMa 03 0 0" t0 C y rn ��� 0Ua'cr �L N yc a G U N U d Ol l0 C A E N WrnaO�cc" U O U G G y >` 01 0) F- N C maClmo-a ° 0 U •_ E °A U am O G U 0] �. W E N O _co � 0] - a •O C N 6 0 U N Ndr C>>dc>O NO.NL Ga��S:1[j� C 007 S O N 01 0 0l t0 mOaN OI O. Q) •01 W t0 0 a p O' 8 N> O O N � U �L C.L. •av �Q JAS V N� 0� O Ol ED � 0l 0 O L O CO> C N a�L° Q sU aa o N W U N m a� y y o> N o C > m E :2r a° E m o 3 a c c E U O y m c y E cIn tL-t m H.c UmE C 0 M 0 jiun jeijuapisai jeaa (payoeiap) wool uoi;eajoam C1 ATTACHMENT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Prior staff reports and attachments from October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK REFERENCE ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. 4162 RESOLUTION NO. 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING NONCONFORMING STATUS OF CERTAIN BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND USES AT THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two livable units located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code and minimum Building Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Community Development Director or any other person or City officer or employee to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; Resolution No. 4162 Page 2 F. That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed; G. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; H. That the appellant requested consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; I. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; J. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission acted in its capacity as the appeal hearing body to consider the appeal of the decisions of the Community Development Director; K. That on October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010, meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal. L. That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street and continued the meeting to December 14, 2010, and directed staff to return with findings to modify the Notice and Order to allow uses established prior to November 6, 1961 (Report attached hereto in Exhibit C); M. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed July 3, 1929, and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. This was the Building Code in effect at the time of original construction; Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 N. That on April 7, 1947, the City of Tustin adopted the First Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No. 71) in which a guest house was defined as "Living quarters within a detached accessory building located on the same premesis as the main building for use by temporary guests of the occupants thereof; such quarters having no kitchen facilities and not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling." O. That on November 6, 1961, the City of Tustin adopted a new Zoning Code (Ord. No. 157) which required that a guest house was subject to a Conditional Use Permit and that no cooking facilities were permitted. It also established second unit standards which allowed a kitchen subject to a Conditional Use Permit and minimum site standards. Said Ordinance also set forth the definition of nonconforming uses. P. That Tustin City Code Sec. 9273b for nonconforming structures and uses specifies that "Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs of replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin." The Community Development Department of the City of Tustin may send, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, of any nonconforming building or structure, or of any property upon which any prior nonconforming use exists, a demand that said owner shall furnish to the City of Tustin a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of said use. Said statement shall be filed with the Community Development Department of the City of Tustin within thirty (30) days from the date of such demand. Upon any failure to duly file such a statement as herein provided, said building, structure and use shall conform to all regulations of the zone in which it is located within thirty (30) days after such failure." Q. That there is evidence substantiating that the unit above the garage located behind the main house and the two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage were constructed prior to November 6, 1961, including the following and attached hereto: The Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation Resolution No. 4162 Page 4 provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that "At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear" (Attachment 1 of Exhibit B). ii. There is evidence that 520 and 520'/2 existed as shown on the Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952 (Attachment 2 of Exhibit B). iii. The son of the original owner, Robert Stephen Gaylord, provided a signed statement indicating that "the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942". Said letter stated that "the unit behind the garage was built by [his] father [George T. Gaylord] between 1945 and 1950". The letter further states that this unit, including two rooms and a bathroom, were built by George Gaylord for Robert and his brother to occupy. Mr. Gaylord's letter further indicated that "the rooms were made available to others" of which the only person he remembered was Ms. Grennan who was a caretaker for his parents until they sold the house sometime after 1978. Based on this evidence, the caretaker utilized the rooms behind the garage as an accessory use to the main house. The limitations on cooking facilities in the Zoning Code adopted November 6, 1961, would have been in effect at the time Ms. Grennan was a caretaker and there is no evidence that cooking facilities would have been installed at that time (Attachment 3 of Exhibit B). iv. The on-site assessment by City staff on September 10, 2010, revealed that the upper unit was being utilized as a second residential unit with cooking facilities and the two rooms and bathroom located behind the garage was being utilized as guest rooms in that no cooking facility was installed or maintained at the time of inspection. Therefore, there is evidence that the upper unit was being utilized as a second residential unit and that the two rooms and bathroom at the rear were being utilized as a guest unit (Attachment 4 of Exhibit B). V. The property owner(s)/appellant has testified at the public hearings and shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). R. That on December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered said evidence at a public Resolution No. 4162 Page 5 hearing; S. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the appeal is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines; II. Therefore, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9242, hereby reverses the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street for Zoning Code violations and deems the following to be nonconforming structures and uses at 520 Pacific Street as attached hereto in Exhibit A: A. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. B. The two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage are nonconforming guest rooms. Cooking facilities shall not be installed or maintained therein without complying with the provisions of the Tustin City Code, nor shall they be rented, leased, or let out for monetary or any other compensation at any time. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of December, 2010. Jeff R. Thompson Chair Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4162 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. Resolution No. 4162 Page 6 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary S:\Cdd1PCRESOS\2010\PC Reso 4162 Appeal 520 Pacific REVISED.docx Resolution No. 4162 Page 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 520 PACIFIC STREET RESOLUTION NO. 4162 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The existing nonconforming structures and uses shall substantially conform with the findings set forth in Resolution Nos. 4162 and 4161 and are hereby limited to the Conditions of Approval in accordance with this Exhibit. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified or prior to the issuance of any building, plumbing, electrical, or mechanical permit for the subject property. (***) 1.3 Determination of nonconforming structures and uses is contingent upon the property owner(s) signing and returning to the Community Development Department the following: a) A notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form within ten (10) days of the date of Planning Commission determination. b) The property owner(s)/appellant shall provide a statement, under oath, on a form submitted for said purpose, setting forth a detailed description of the nonconforming structures and uses pursuant to TCC Sec. 9273(b). (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A) c) A recorded deed restriction for the use of the property as follows: Upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit; the upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit; The two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage are nonconforming guest rooms. Cooking facilities shall not be installed or maintained therein without complying with the provisions of the Tustin City Code, nor shall they be rented, leased, or let out for monetary or any other compensation at any time. Said deed restriction shall be recorded within thirty days of the date the determination by the Planning Commission is final (or no later than January 24, 2011). (Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4162) SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE(S) (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW "" EXCEPTIONS Resolution No. 4162 Page 8 d) A complete set of plans and engineering calculations prepared by a licensed professional or documentation necessary to demonstrate that the building(s) meet minimum Building Code requirements, as required by the Building Official for the issuance of permits. (1) 1.4 The property owner(s) shall agree at his/her sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this matter. The City agrees to promptly notify the property owner(s) of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed in Resolution No. 4162 is subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a) and may be subject to the imposition of a civil penalty for each violation and each day the violation exists. (1) 1.6 The property owner(s) shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. PLANNING DIVISION (***) 2.1 Pursuant to Tustin City Code Sec. 9273(b) Nonconforming Structures and Uses, any future enlargements, extensions, reconstruction, or structural alterations which exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings' assessed valuation shall conform and comply with the current regulations of the Zoning District in which the property is located. EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT1 Declaration of Nonconforming Structures And Uses RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use DECLARATION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES I, the undersigned, declare as follows: I am the owner, and responsible party for the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California (APN 401-371-07). I hereby furnish to the City of Tustin, a statement under oath, setting forth a detailed description of nonconforming building(s) or structure(s), or use of my property at 520 Pacific Street upon which nonconforming use existed prior to November 6, 1961. Said nonconforming structures and uses are as follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. b. The two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage are nonconforming guest rooms. Cooking facilities shall not be installed or maintained therein without complying with the provisions of the Tustin City Code, nor shall they be rented, leased, or let out for monetary or any other compensation at any time. I have read, and understand that, Tustin City Code Sec. 9273 Nonconforming Structures and Uses specifies: a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, uses of land, buildings, or structures existing at the time of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued, although the particular use, or the building or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made; provided, however, no nonconforming structure or use of land may be extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure than is occupied at the time of the adoption of this Chapter. If any nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. b) Any building or structure, existing at the date of adoption of this Chapter, which is nonconforming either in use, design, or arrangement, shall not be enlarged, extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, unless such enlargement, extension, reconstruction or alteration is in compliance with the regulations set forth in this Chapter for the district in which such building or structure is located; provided, however, that any such nonconforming building or structure may be maintained, repaired or portions thereof replaced, so long as such maintenance, repairs of replacements do not exceed fifty (50) percent of the buildings assessed valuation, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the City of Tustin. I declare that I have done nothing to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of any of the nonconforming buildings or structures, as described above, nor have I caused any such work to be done. I acknowledge that such work will adversely affect the nonconforming status of such buildings and structures. I declare, to the best of my knowledge, that the above nonconforming use of the buildings and structures as described above were in effect in 1961 and have been continuously maintained on the property thereafter. I also declare that I am not aware of, nor have I seen or received any documents or records, including, but not limited to, real estate disclosures, title reports, grant deeds, covenants and restrictions, or similar documents, which are inconsistent with my declarations herein. I understand that, as the property owner, I am responsible for building code compliance, and all costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. Any violation of any of the conditions imposed in Resolution No. 4162, I may be subject to issuance of an Administrative Citation pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 1162(a) and I may be subject to the imposition of a civil penalty for each violation and each day the violation exists. I agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this matter. I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE DECLARATION I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of 20 (Day) (Month) (Year) State of California County of Orange On , before me, Notary, personally appeared Bret S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A. Fairbanks personally known to me -OR- (proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledge that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Seal) Signature of Notary Public By: (Bret S. Fairbanks) (Stephanie A. Fairbanks) EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT 2 Draft of the Deed Restriction for the Use of the Property at 520 Pacific Street RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: Community Development Dept. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS COVENANTORS: Bret S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A. Fairbanks SUBJECT PROPERTY: Commonly known as 520 Pacific Street and Assessor Parcel Number 401-371-07 in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and more particularly described as: All that certain land situated in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows, to -wit: That portion of Lot "V" of the Stafford and Tustin Tract, in the City of Tustin, 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, described as beginning at a point on the West line of said lot, 410 feet south of the Northwest corner of said Lot, running thence South along the West line of said Lot 50 feet; thence East parallel to the North line of said Lot 200 feet; thence North parallel to the West line of said Lot 50 fee; thence West parallel to the North line of said Lot 200 feet to the point of beginning. RECITALS: A. Bret S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A. Fairbanks ("Covenantor") have applied to the City of Tustin, a municipal corporation (the "City"), for nonconforming building(s), structures(s) and uses which existed at the Subject Property prior to November 6, 1961. The nonconforming structures and uses are as follows: a. The upper unit located above the garage is a nonconforming second residential unit. b. The two rooms and a bathroom located behind the garage are nonconforming guest rooms. Cooking facilities shall not be installed or maintained therein without complying with the provisions of the Tustin City Code, nor shall they be rented, leased, or let out for monetary or any other compensation at any time. B. Existing at the Subject Property is a 1,342 square foot single -story single-family residence; a 309 square foot two-story garage (16'5" x 18') with a second residential unit (309 sq. ft.) above; two rooms and a bathroom (325 sq. ft.) located at ground level to the rear (west) of the garage; a detached storage/recreation room (298 sq. ft.) located directly behind the main house along the north property line; a small detached storage unit located along the rear west property line (approx. 150 sq. ft.); and a covered parking structure (which is attached to the main house and the garage). This residence is within the Single -Family Residential (R-1) zoning district where single-family residences are permitted. C. In conjunction with the issuance of necessary building, electrical, mechanical, and/or plumbing permits for the alteration, repair, removal, conversion or replacement of any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the City is requesting that the Covenantor execute and record this Statement of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Such deed restriction is necessary to ensure that the nonconforming second residential unit, the two nonconforming rooms and bathroom, and the nonconforming detached storage/recreation room are not extended to occupy a greater area of land, building or structure, nor that structural alterations are made therein. D. Covenantors desire to enter into this Statement of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. DECLARATION Determination of nonconforming structures and uses is contingent upon Conditions of Approval as set forth in Resolution No. 4162 as approved by the Tustin Planning Commission on December 14, 2010. The Covenantor hereby Covenants that the Subject Property shall be held, conveyed, encumbered, used, occupied, developed, maintained, and improved subject to the following covenants, conditions and restrictions, all of which are for the purpose of enhancing the attractiveness, usefulness, value and desirability of the Subject Property, the surrounding property, and the public at large, and to minimize possible adverse effects on the public health, safety, peace and general welfare. Each of the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (the "Declaration") shall run with the Subject Property and shall be binding on each successive owner of the Subject Property and his heirs, administrators, successors and assigns during their respective ownership thereof. 1. Covenantors shall develop, improve, and maintain no more than a single -story single-family residence; a 309 square foot two-story garage (16'5" x 18') with a nonconforming second residential unit (309 sq. ft.) above; two rooms and a bathroom (325 sq. ft.) located at ground level to the rear (west) of the garage as nonconforming guest rooms; a detached storage/recreation room (298 sq. ft.) located directly behind the main house along the north property line residential dwelling unit on the Subject Property. 2. Issuance of, building, electrical, mechanical and/or plumbing permits, are contingent upon a complete set of plans and engineering calculations prepared by a licensed professional or documentation necessary to demonstrate that the building(s) meet minimum Building Code requirements. PA 3. Use of any portion of the property, beyond those listed herein is not permitted unless the applicable entitlement, permits, or other necessary rights are first obtained. 4. Use of any portion of the nonconforming guest rooms shall be limited to accessory use associated with, and subordinate to the permitted principal single family dwelling use. Said guest rooms shall not contain cooking facilities nor shall they be rented, leased, or let out for monetary or any other compensation at any time. 5. If any use is wholly discontinued for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. 6. Covenantors agree that in the event of failure to comply with the conditions set forth in this Declaration, Covenantors will not object to the revocation of the above - referenced building permit. In such event, Covenantors waive any right to have any uses or improvements installed subsequent to the approval of the building permit herein requested, considered or treated as non -conforming uses or improvements after such approval. Covenantors shall pay for all recording costs required by the office of the Orange County Recorder, and cause the recordation of this Statement. 8. The provisions of this Declaration shall be liberally construed and interpreted to affect its purpose of complying with City of Tustin Planning Commission Resolution No. 4162 and the Conditions of Approval contained therein. 9. The provisions of this Declaration are intended to benefit the public and public properties. Accordingly, it is agreed that the City shall have the right to enforce this Declaration by any legal or equitable means against such person or persons in actual possession of the Subject Property who directly or through any agent violate the terms hereof. All obligations of the Covenantors under this Declaration shall inure solely to the benefit of the City. There are no third party beneficiaries of said obligations nor shall the right of the City be transferable in any manner to any person other than a successor municipal corporation whose geographic boundaries include the Subject Property. 10. The provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed independent and severable and the invalidity or partial invalidity or unenforceability of any one provision or portion thereof shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision hereof. Any titles of sections or paragraphs of this Declaration are for the convenience of the reader only and no presumption or implication of the intent of the parties hereto as to the construction of the Declaration shall be drawn therefrom. EXECUTED THIS _ day of , 20—at Tustin, California. ACCEPTED BY: "CITY" "COVENANTORS" CITY OF TUSTIN, a municipal corporation 0 Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director (Bret S. Fairbanks) (Stephanie A. Fairbanks) (Signature of Owners must be properly acknowledged and notarized. PLEASE ATTACH THE APPROPRIATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.) G! EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 1 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john c. loomis, architect jarres c. wilson, architect principal elwood 1. galley, architect Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to'the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John Loomis Principal 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 2 Santa Ana Street Address Directory published in August of 1952 82 * Indicates Home Ownership SANTA ANA STREET ADDRESS DIRECTORY CRISS CROSS PACIFIC (Cont'd) W Second intersects 205*Miller M E......... KI 2.2622 210*Duvall Zula B....... KI 3.3603 245*Witten A L......... KI 2.7505 250*Carter F M........ KI 3.4340 255*Galban Ambrosio.... KI 2.79D6 260*Hansell J S........ KI 2-7420 265 Veeh H R.......... KI 3.8637 W Third Intersects W Main intersects 435*81akeney M C Mrs... KI 3-3873 440*Bromell G A........ KI 2-6612 Grigsby Ruth Mrs.... Ki 3.4815 SECOND. EAST -from 200 115*Hale F A Mrs...... KI 3.6 155 Falrbrother Enid Mrs......... KI 3-6 160 Thompson J F -u - 0 KI 7-65451 ' 515*Wh1te F M......... KI 2-7590 520*Gaylord G T........ KI 3-3722 5201h Reyes Anne Mrs... KI 3-3722 X535*Miller L E.......... KI 3.3685 rear Knutson M E........ KI 3-3685 540 Gray W H......... KI 3-4416 550*Fin an W H........ KI 3.8743 560 Mills L D MSixth Intersects PACAnrNA AV -from 800 W C F........ KI 3.077' Almeria Mrs KI 2-831 I V......... KI 3.662. GMortimer... Ki 3.397' 150*Mzlicote .Harrison.... KI 2-2191 South C Intersects South B Intersects 305*Melvin J E......... KI 3-2453 325 Helt Hayden 335 Oglesby R L........ KI 3-fi723 336 Hxkman G B 355*Lewis T T.......... KI 2-5573 South A intersects 445 Meek V C.......... KI 3-2761 445V2 Everett C K 460*Charleton A M...... KI 3.3211 465*Keeler W G food products ......... KI 2.5378 505*Martin D L......... KI 3.5515 510*Huntley W M....... KI 34814 520*Gulick W N........ KI 3-3930 530*Judson F H 540 Wilcox John Patalla Intersects Myrtle av intersects Pasadena av Intersects Tustin av Intersects -38- SIXTH-from 600 D west 135*Fischback Mlchi..... KI 3.1714 South C Intersects 255*Engbaum F M....... KI 3-0443 South B Intersects 305*Lindsey Hollis....... KI 2-50% 335*I1ams Carlton....... KI 3.5890 345*Robinson J Ellz...... KI 3-7832 rear Cruzen Adelaide Mrs 455*Mason J -H.......... KI 2-3072 465*Hendricks A S Pacific intersects City limits (See also Sixth in rural street ad- dress directory) rHIRD. EAST -from 300 D east S Prospect av Intersects 210*Cardiel A M........ KI 3-5810 240 Nieblas A R......... KI 3-5634 F Intersects rHIRD. WEST from 300 D g contr...... KI 3-8194 South C Intersects South B intersects Beatrice Mrs 4arian I..... KI 3-2433 )n H E...... KI 2-7322 C A......... KI 3.2550 F R........ KI 3-3902 1 W......... KI 2-8355 South A Intersects N T........ KI 3-9165 Ilz H ..... ..KI 3.6349 . S Mrs..... KI 3-3582 gC R...... KI 3-346! o V L...... KI 3-3605 THIRD WEST (Cont'd) California Intersects 500*Lelhy 0 A.......... KI 2-8422 505*Sagraves M E...... KI 2-4678 515*Stanton K W Mrs 52D*Lawrence M E...... KI 2-0505 525*Johnsen Carston 530*Lanier C R........ KI 2.6454 535*Allen J W 540*Kenyon B F Mrs Pacific Intersects 655*McCabe L J........ KI 2-3323 660*Meskell G H........ KI 3-6410 665*Trickey B T........ KI 2-7733 690*Campbell J D....... KI 2-7671 Myrtle av intersects TUSTIN AV -from W Second south to 845 W Alain 205 Apartments A Home Shop Appliance Repair ........ KI 3.4777 Aerts L C........ KI 3.4777 8 Nichols Roy....... Ki 2-4695 E Lange N C....... KI 2-5832 F Grant Mary Mrs 235 Claus J B buses for charter .......... KI 2-9892 305*Harding B P.... KI 2-5059 320*Warren C R........ KI 3.3015 W Main intersects (See also Tustin av in rural street address directory) YORBA AV -from 600 W Forst north 125 Huntsman Rae....... KI 3-58% 133*Pyeatt G H......... KI 2-7546 135*Thies A J.......... KI 2.0272 143 Vacant 145*Davis L 5......... KI 3-3462 rear Bowman Harry 153*Culler K B......... KI 3.3622 155*MCCullough E M Mrs KI 2.2133 163*Sppriggs 0 L........ KI 2-9821 165*f4111er H A......... KI 3-1348 173 McMullen Thos...... Ki 3.4316 175*Windier Fred 177*Bartz R W City limits (See also •Yorba av in county street directory) RURAL STREET ADDRESS DIRECTORY -45- ACACIA-from MacArthur blvd southwest intersecting 2000 Palisades rd (Served by Stat Ana pill Georela pl intersects C,rO Id Intersects Palisade dr Intersects 20042*McCullough R H..... KI 2-1760 20051*Warren Alf......... KI 2-1837 20062*Love L A.......... KI 2-2949 20071*Foote 5 E 20072*Cummings M C..... KI 2.107E 20082*Hall R H........... KI 2.1873 20101 Richardson F L 20102*13myneel A J poultry BE 7334-W 20112*Posey H H.......... KI 2-1060 20121*Bates_ F E bldg contr 5........ BE 7334-J aunx*Dura 20352*Laho 2.1911 20361*Hurl ..........KI p20362*Kms 20401 Acacl G R....... KI 2-1849 E 20406*Knox i H........ KI 2-1086 H...... KI 2-9923 ACACIA A H L....KI 2-1697 from H ......,BE 7333-M blvd ear U*-*..Kf 2.1690 Garden er Co KI r5� it Intf 10 bldg conn KI 2-1816 N M Mrs.... KI 2-1816 R A uphoistr.Kl 2-9942 1 E......... KI 2-1980 ink V G F S........ KI 2.1870 on 0 I i C......... KI 2-2098 PE S K........ KI 2-1979 C W.......K1 2-1975 )in.......... KI 2.1093 :gg Ranch.... KI 2-5139 t R V....... KI 2-5139 em Jr Mesa dr, intersects -55- .CACIA (Cont'd) Sycamore intersects Dale av Intresects 8556*Gray J J Hancock Rohl 8561*Betts A J 8562 Bledsoe W A Mrs Lo Ise Intersects 8571*Lehner Loretta E Grdn Gr 2-5906 Adele intersects 8641 No return 8652 Custard F A 8671 Chichester W T.... Grdn Gr 732 Lorna Intersects 8691*Lewis C C Josephine Intersects -3 Nelson intersects 0741*Bassett C E.... Grdn Gr 2-4446 0791*Rokkum N M..Grdn Gr 2-5571 0812*Farnsworth J 1.. Grdn Gr 2-6627 West Intersects .0831*DeLoof J A .0832aHargis A C .GB42a Wilson R L .0842b Vacant .0851 Reed W K carp E H Mrs..Grdn Gr 2229 W A..... Grdn Gr 320 ,er W C (Cont'd) G C..... ...Grdn Gr 24441 J MEuclid Intersects E A Rev on J P.. Grdn Gr 2.6146 a Al Mrs lbrxk K A Grdn Gr 24586 11061 I Conklin B M Mn 2 Harvey A J 3 Brockman C E Grdn Gr 9080 4 Stehlyy J J 5 Polus ki H P 6 No return 7 No return 8 Day Lois H..Grdn Gr 2078 9 No return 11062 Jackson C L 11071*Tariton J W 11081*Rlley Alphon..... Grdn Gr 2090 11082*Upshall Veralee Mrs ..........Grdn Gr 9232 11091*Parker Wella Mrs 11092 Lanyon G L...... Grdn Gr 6667 11111 Davenport H E Pine intersects 11131*Wenu W B....... Grdn Gr 491 FW:/:1 : ti: �T2I-LI�YejW11[i]Ni[O A fi ATTACHMENT 3 Signed Statement provided by Robert Stephen Gaylord October 25, 2010 To whom it may concern, My name is Robert Stephen Gaylord, one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord. I grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave. (now 520 Pacific St.) in Tustin, CA My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above the garage all in the time and with the processes it takes for a single individual to do all that. The best that I can recall is the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base in El Segundo. We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion and saw the search lights and anti-aircraft guns. Dad finished the apartment for him and his new wife to stay near us while he was serving in Southern California. Later, the apartment was rented to Marines stationed at EI Toro Marine Base. I recall the stairs to the entrance as a child. In my memory they were always there on the side of the garage where my parents would catch rainwater. We were not allowed to go up those stairs. The unit behind the garage was built by my father roughly between 1945 and 1950. 1 judge this based on the fact I was bom in 1933 and when my brother John and I were young teenagers my father built the two rooms and bathroom for us to occupy. After we moved away from our old home, the rooms were made available to others. The only person I remember was, (I believe the spelling is) Ms. Grennan, who helped take care of my parents to the very end. In fact, she called me about health problems my father was having when we moved him out and sold the house. My father worked at the grammar school as a woodshop, boys' athletics and natural science teacher. He was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and a Deacon with the Presbyterian Church in Tustin. He was often involved in construction work in and around Tustin. He was in every way a faithful law-abiding citizen. Sincerely, Robert S. Gaylord EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 ATTACHMENT 4 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Revised (12/14/10) N 'C m _ h 6` n a fC O f C p N M `0 3 0 `fib r a MOM `O C v m C — C N m TC1Cy7 mc E 'a a0LL«-E •p C N C Nt'O o0 m `m cmc H -o a mo L~Cm 0 aT m cn •� ��C UQ p N NO W m H L 0° LOrpy O 'a ONa O -CL0 yCCr E O N °UMOFE CTm a m .O.• T... r NN C C •IICp a>> C C a a-0 y Z Om V CN mM OO COC Up O I.«OCER a m c ad mm O I m -U`Om fm °C aT Ui U °O� NENz wO2 m 0.O 2m E -G a N1 MN «Oa�ai C E CU am v' ma C, IM m 0 O C= m —0� HU O w°°T •°mmC LUH2`�dmNm>C O L ym °2 a 3 € �•O UrEOO �C= v0-- c- pm , U�- m N ._°� .N 3 �j 'cpl •Oy- C. O N m r d O L m N N m 0 V m � m C 0 0 L A N OI -p 3 0 L C U N C N O� d 3 r O °i..+ j .L.. O m •y v L° C 0' N S m--`o Nma��m acm `p a•M-.~ m m C m J3 =a 0mm ci aT-Lav�mpaa«a'o° m�VNILLcn E'o'cya°om m"ja ooE��t4) N U >ao.o�mL'�5 W m G O m 3 Oi m '- M j .L_. 9 c0 m O C `• O OIL ' E 3 0.2 m d =' m T« j >. ° O C w C-4 m m m a U ` N a N �. N O y rL°, E m m a C 'm c .-. >. C°° •- Q a T C 3 U c •UI Y« U O S O a>> c_ C .. Im-1 m r E m U U C7 U E S 3 N `1 m C r .a aC s C O=. U C 3 m l0 C m E co a m c g N •O 2' N �1 m C-4 W m U C C w O m =I C O O .m. M N V C C U O �m 3 m m m m m .> �l L N m O O O ;0 y U to E D m O O m m U O N V m Z >� La . C N j O m m m U>> a m 9 U O N Q m �C L m 0 0 C a d C m m L O 5 L m m U C O O H a w m OW m m C aL. h a LL m F- m `o m H C7 OI m o L 3 C U L C m m o w F- m c O `o C € m m m G C .5 � € O `I m y E f7 m Ia m i+J]Nm0. m �O M70m� NmN'Z m- Ogym° pN O)=0 tq y o�alrUi m�0)Z) m 0 j ami o am �Um� 2 O EumiUm� _ C. = o. r CO E N LL N :cm �Q O u) GN CLLN� con O 0 mLL� Uv'Ma �aU 0 m Om�vm�O.-tea �� c °•E c c�UQ•EI UOUOm�O M'aM t0•E c °f m�C M�UHE c o U 00 N Q O O 0, O O V Opm °' N C N= U a N Imt O m O U G M�N�UUcAU �QUfA UmMF-NUS MQQ1 FLUtgm y m T O N �a A OML C ry C 0 CO O m N a N T m U- o m -m w m •- o w M c-�2 ma H a no0 0 U rmc mg moam F-•umiOcao....E 02 =amwmma� Zaw mL �aL c 0 w m m J �EJ8U8� N 1 m EE O p C N J v d I' 1 m \ m m Om C U y O N y' N° `kr N OO N O O N 01 c O n_ U O m •�: t m � c v !7R► u m a m c oa c m y � � a V 0 ° u O G n m { E C L C O m N O o N- m E f 14 O LO m y0 CD 3U? m 0 'C rq m y m N L) m .«L CU m c N F-C O `U c`° 0mO cNc3° aa O o .mc m¢m2 mm cern OO>°CLCC ° ENS 'taw0 a y 2a•o6am ax0Q =E %U LamcCi T -NL 0 0«2 m2 N-0 OL= -Mm m`C2u0«cc= Ucm Nc Lj oa« Em=E� mLa`a 2c (D.-L)ac E3�iam0cm E Um'm MN _v EEnommm>°m0Laa - O °a'sEm0�aiSmmmT 03 c m E— F° E �- y 7 r mmc"OOc'Omm£NCD$•y3= �`°`mo«9t U c�d°r>>m.�`m aE ma=ern y�mmE Em_. M� ` >m-E J3 cVwNrnN•V O yFBmC vv� w �TOm° r-a'ON «rnn tCy "vOmy W—CU5CD0 E x cDdm .�p m m N om 3U CUm0 mm 02 :" rm .mmmo om« 1Cm m OOw n FLFmc��mTCm E>°««N.L 0 UT0d �mO. U 2 0Ea U E OLEO a 0m L _ m omT y« O m yaNVQ�0 'yc yO a cC U« a3��'3=a Ey°>_Du?5 `CXcu 0 m .0 m'mV mm CO' Lmm = c a C O O C C W ma w N m m m :E 5 a °5 c L 3 m :E a s CO 0 U Ua•c• d oSm NW a °9yV0E mW cs O cv °° a) CL Qou CO mo Orx M ac °UQ UO`m camco Q CP 4omUrnL UF-NU ) m Ov1m 'dU°NOrn°O. O C m m a u 0 •a °°.m mO 2 L E aQf0I m mo 0.0i EC m N N Z T amm> vCmaNE.5 UNN u� mm`C OcoN cm�ymErny u ymO m�NfNW t� , Oa�Cma` 2Tm N O U n Cm mQ W Cr N uC 0=.p O'O n N LON OL ��m^x3yay5«Ol b`Vm 5m� L m C Ea Li $uQl-nm2o5ma u c 0 v 06CJe6 0noge pun tiols puooag m m to L U O N X LuC ° 3 O - mo O ° L m 3 E U)a (II _-..—..._a_.._._ 20 a)m3o a 01 � m o Nr4 O m o19 O Z an d �° o O m 0m F- m m N V O O m E m C o N U E 'O t C .. U O m C N U m N m m L m N 'p t O V O m m U f =. .° 'O O um«Ea$3m=U U C m m m €�• a$L`ao O ....- N m 010i 'E mmc$UN bo W ='mac°i°�c3r 3om 'omEEcc.'3mamim�Upami 'O cc € C N C N L m p C N N m C> N E N C 3 m N E O 7 C m° m `• m o L m m 3m«N•OC)30.« 1` I.., L m 0I C N Na«!n "._ r m C L O N m L> C U 0 N a$aCO«..L O.mC '�,w m N E :3 m� 'a m°i�mc0EcHrnSE.-gym �pp�«oomc�U'=�'co2m�m E O O U •3 U w m a) C° m `• o 3 0 au O' C aF _ o N O m„o`mcZ. y C .- c 3�„N„mc«cmEm�dt3S�w N'ccdc Ol I�dyLm- N ((,}1 'o a Em��m N^ a V 3 m a` m a) C m a O L U N E« O a j IM � U °• I... y C C� N O T m a « L_ N a C 'OO U�p U N 'pp O C C 'O' -OO d M m C 3 a y C U U U` o ami m c C m y N `m �- €« 'O y W 0= m O C U E O •� 3 m° m C a C d- N N U N U C N m .- m C C 01 3 > j m L O N m O a+ ao o' C C �O-:c;_, a� °m....d•-mmcL2a;E,mmNcmrn•3 F-wom$3T�E r,«cm� N N �a°9Em¢�$N OB $ c _ 2-022 m«� m m m . • $ a $ �.cot3.��mEC m F' r o !' �_ :° TUm4F�EE°mcm = c `m m $ `m a f0 a _m W u€$m�>c€c°L�OEEU oN`E0U t%7 �g 3� C\l FL -CJ ��$«as 0 mi arFL- -im�a Lm.c vdLm. U) d m o c€ m rn c a€ ° D€ 0.2 U C y I� _$ M m U C O .= m `oma O U C O •� m �� � E M UMI ama � E Na'� E •ama m m U) = m O ti 000D I wa ALL m O .mm I wFL ¢ u� m c o! I v� °wa ' 91 m CL Eui L) U �U Oo_o E)a Ua oo Evi U OU'm °` o m U Coe m'-m°O m"omc m QFC Cl)m V a e m •o n m m U Q �' m::mc Z D m m V¢ e C-4 N €NtU G� =N��(UJO� � N CND W M [P +• U O o 0) O $VO $ Cr O) Q 0) O U O -UU'-��OF-NU UUFNUAR �Q�UUF-NU N cm$ oFooao m m EaOi a mE vas cm d•o `a .1 2L c 0ro`�'3 E a •€- = U a cm�o 9E D43,vm d ( �Mm gm 2�m N C C m N a O m m m -- 2 O UEyaVM N m a?VL L m .O IM •C m M= O .- o C tl3v°mc` x w$3c` L m U5_ U)o amoa3 c 0 v a6ele6 O anoge Thin tiols pu070$ m PIP 0 Y C La o o_ , Z a •y,... 0O m NCNp '2 'EN �c o�aC U N m 3 NN m N �ruoMm = CU�N mp -:3:.-:3:.GaY _NN 0Lsc O a pcm cu =d m I>D 0, 2, L r dd'odm u t^ .Nam0C0 T C~ m TOp mm �5E IC, rnoa"paC0cLZMo° c c m m a CL 2 C °c° 0x>m vp m8`3- -6'E22 LmmE.�0a°. rp > 0=2€dm �Cco" a> mo - yOa 0LLU N0 W, O m U 0 4) UONw •O aOLU C mo 'o d C N L C ¢ CT E Co N>r.NNy'15 ;9 m ar°m 0Twa1 of 3 CC C() N m NO •CCm >N w 0 rmCTCO 0 N2 ampN amp ' ZaE°O)i r- Z 0 �tw LLrNm 0a mGC�maC 10a)IN _ C V wG'rOom NtN 0 CL mc°'EN� w - o ) ^° "° U y 00 Um p d o NQm4C y v Ernm�o °mC j O °0Emmw o 75 oO II N O CCEOo CC di 2m '_ 'oy ° 'O ==N O Nom TCy E W C a o m '.- am YCNd(n NN Ua 'NymUN > Nm'o�EC -0 mC yyU om r2tUy_yr ° ' domm 2mm ECy�2 cL. NC.U 00 2m w - w ENC L2 LEaw2N N U aN aO C E Z N ° I- L L O mC C In _ M4 _ M I m °gipp o:o=a °v m m mm C € C= w C 0,5 r C= N N M 0 �_ M N o �_ O m E m O R N dm d am C E am !EO '- m O L 3c0 m 3 O N d y O a m 0mci�o m u oma om om in °m ¢ E� ¢ E='v a E� N m m� m t m Mo m y m C N N fA 8 f/1 CD d 'p C• C O O N O M U O U O- 0 0= v O t m `.m C m�a0 m 0 0 >.0 t0O N m m ,-, U NU'X W N m U N m p C C O U• -U. C 3U e m m•- Nm O m = u= OfwU¢ CSU mxNU'-' m Ofm C m O! �m U N Cj Q CUG m C CUG m i.'cry = c ��pr�� c €gym" a)CLC) OOQUOom;3UOo c-4 L) eHNUL NI --NU �aa.m �ON�_ �a �O �ryg000'�p000� - ALN -a NNS m V C C m C IUO O C .. m m L O C m 9 y L mm c mN tm 0 E 0 ID E aNm C= " aaL NNm�Cdj ENN o' nm UC ` m C` O_mT m o 0 E Eaa UTm o rp yN 0 3 C a N, NC •OaOCC O E l Uc2Eo CV mO m 2 `my y vi « �a` ° E- o� °m:E4) 8 Nmw0 o c 3O c�� U±a mC.w c 0 m 0 J Y - 0 N m L L c � m N y d d �O U u O L a > l+ = d r c c --------- I .� � d L N T N 'L"• 00 _ m ON C m= o= E N N +c -a Z Of 0 9 E m c .p m p m d ON1 NN`LOcL1 OE=y0 '� oN'gyp m-0 0 "O N a1 h p U N �. N .. m N m [qD m m N 6j fl'f CU 2 N F" C 7f N 3 N N >...m.. J O V N y y 2 O C c a C o t0 T C 2- m •5 N E O c c :D gmLmo22m c: xUu d Tnr�cE m o0owE o_C(D W. -- E c•da3 0�0 -c3'�N�yy� p0 a �a .NF.,Nc U.0 N 01 0'La m N m= p C �LLN>d m. N~>CL��fO rn m E�U000No'm ... O m amaaE m N �yaU3mNc '� ... w Oma E m d mrnC0CD o . = umiy3 �'p N O d p N G N t! a M N 3 N O cE Wpmc� y oma C d N '.2- U aT+ �'O E G.L.. w m m a '/1 N d G m O m 0 0 0 (J = To1�'A=M Qa�Ma1No.. m G �'rnd0CD me>=Lm O oUm�0 0aU)^° a 0 m4 Lv - W W y 6 o O' c N �' p N 0 m N r G N 60,1 `1 0 m m 2 -_ •O N m W m Q) L c m O m Ul N = m L FW N ccn13 a3o�damivmi S�m��y 0 amacmi3awy N Nv E2 L°L ac>Ea Umaoc- 2oc'C'-a1 �.c mtEmaci CL- .m.. U a U y •U N m� o yo` V N O C N 'E 'N CD y E y c E N mU ioEw.o£ccpm a-�a0V w FL Lm 3F a6oma N N.N. `o V'O 01 N Off. c € y c c € �n c Ypm -p = m` NN b€ •cmi c c NmR 0� om NO 00CDE 0-14 Na_O Ot >��m� aoE�iEV UUcUc2 NN._.a om mu (3 Q) o'oinm6,1 m mho mE:sg U ua0E roo-_ v'c� W �•G to CN [- UO Q U -UN N U) y CN E NLL jLN �lL C-4 U U O to C d Q o�ti U C D o. m OU c OU�c my ii m� cc eco m,00 OU O= O co M 9 V �o>>U 0°Eoe �$� apU¢� N G N �[ O O N N C N 2 N C U N O 'U m` i.1 m N 61 N m m U O mm O m O.m-Of0N .-Q.-CONDO 6A Q 6A ...L O O m N N m m0 �Q�65Q UU'>U6o OU6dm mO. 6T��UO"d '-Q�-UUF-NU L O `p -p V m 02 c m `1 = 0 t j O'c 'c �0 0 U L O m C O D ray X 0 w 0 0 0 o L° � m=L o.. m N E .-. •O - d .=H c m a) a C or G. N G a 5L rn`m Gm-moG� po m 5 N .v N N U N W pl 'Ip d N .mr N G H j N` N p? Ofd 60 lc0 .U.. !%) E O'p p2p G� w m d U N N D O) m N N C L m N L L N No L9N U '•pmGTU Gm3 C O pocNd 0 9ti a te -4NNa dUC°�O:NN mX0-_d mI O{Np "tw« 'N Lvv - _°mmoo LN2 Eaa v�� E6� mCE m rvGNg . c 0 m $ yiodjeo J a co R w � t m y C E P N N.. O x I � E ° U o n o L I� 0 c r"A o z n ' y o a Tc o0i otc N my� o M ja al C A N 1a `1 m 0E -m m? c E y or �5a o d Gl N C N C aJ p O COC, d V O C 1a d y N a1 'O N C O n U N Q N p 'j y a) a] C C a1 y> O= w C y a) C y U♦ -'°'00 o O S O y N �1 01 m O' > C N N N 0'.00 0 m a 3 N« L p C N U �yj N Un O d aI N N '° a1 U O- 'C N— N 8 `N '- N b0 y L° E my a°1 Cc c'c m Laca; .L,,,n�m o13o°Lmm °mt���E a°i Ma c d 3 U y p 3 0° N c o m 1° E c 3° 0 c d m N C C a al C T L„ C N > O O >D _ _ �6 v01i ant N m c2 " c°1 m V Lc 10aN�mco'°� �°:oQ3�m o.�Um1"E�y°' '3 Etc �mmto`0go a10i3�01 yC,E ma1a�•��3 maoi��o•o••QdN C3 a� � �'v1 0 3 0 € — �y `c o >, -o `m � � C4 �1 � rn p 'O U f0 N- d N n.. N U C E �' N O .y L 2 .: c c E ._ N ... C N EF 20E�oa)m Ec IEN6coa2mcrn E NV am@3 my cUoy� mo2rn.. �i �� xow0 wmn mom,_ac °n d 1 m) c `�U °c �c Eo�a1U�c5cclLo. ryminCL 00IM 0 U r N p 'O C N N` w 9 W v! E C O O Q1 ` U N '° LN N a r C N N L U � 3 T°c dm�o��t°N m'vNm..��mc�3£_c"E •.°-, 'n� y?:0 3 y -a ,f ;g "y m CIoc --off - - ymv ��a°a3aci3°df0vc O N C° C N WC) y d 0 N L O Mo p N x O N� aOL m m c «.c m n 0 mmywto cLcm°oE>3°:�mcV oy N o' .y. `o °'0 o ms's E N>m 3Tadm" 0 acid T$•c '2c°,xo3`y na°c1ccmwO �a L��,odom . o a0•00^c0c°��o2 m m= C M a1 0 m y yOL€ NC�o3CN = OcN CO O a m> N F- ° m F.0d° F- N W pcmm3,=c�cN M Cn U L O a C r 'C O rn « p? c c v E a°1i _ o4omw�c01i cf0ic €um R o=pmw�uc ELO 0-0 r mpw if C '.0 .A N m•ca m C N m�D �' LL c 0^'Cs .a 3�yO B UE a�E 6mm �myocmy". ° y � °) e m °.Em W a°1 `LL c 't oCZ FL <� c a°1 � m c.y.. °O� Na CL UyV wmoi cp Ua 0ZLim U�io oV yV yaciya0cr) cm mrnm Emmm m mem w�M m°m -vi mC, U c U m U m U y 0 c 7 e U L m m N mON or M.T N•ap1NN CNm000.='1VN mO�Of,�yaN yUy p n p m m of co s 0 c n la o x r C 0) C p .!= y a) I UNw W'�m .- UU�Q0 N W Q m �O N IL C3 CA Of > a1 C N « m «O U IM U C 1` N a° O) m U a1 C .. L. 1U m 0 0 01 y m I$ m .m. O N p ._ N O N 5 �rnp1 6):2° 'O o3o mO�nw c E N ° y C CL.. C N C_ C O y U N N O N O m «O O N y U V N 0 3� a) O N� 3 N N a N 3 1p0 N� N V N C .y. ° t OI y C C C TC m m U a y x m 41 N N T C Uf C E .0 0.5; yL CM �x0 m•-oa o 6 myc°� Ot`0 a) - N C N al m N E L m C OI N a1 n m O E U 3v�iv�� �'E�ivmo�'-'m-.c«occiN2m Za mmm$S Wd°'aximm�- 0 7�g N.ot o.0 C 0 a6eIeE) jiun leguapisai jeaa J M a a m N y � a -• c� NBC cL E UL c E O T LO C oU N N O U N m O O. d O 15° d m j m i� N �' m y a Co '° U C O 'm0 ��'� U N arm, a c v O Ol E � m com'9 2cam um2Smaci��c tea>N`°Eo m C= 5 y 5m C N l0 maomoc� ° C E° 0 01�'O (NDmaCc,2.0 a� v c Eo°mmacia°i � momz2Eac-'s° Co N 38Lm.�¢n3 yz�~caaomFc E Fti�`oumaimm ammc�E��E�'cc 'E 0 E N V O Of o N C N —�=j m L N y y 3 C !' N N N m 0 0 O. m c_rn L c C U m_ C otmo comm m c a�cNE5ym ;0.O of ,=--.G mNv.cmOaa�o' c a�mEyaooLco w am. n °-9 c E o E c d m `mN°M3c m m m m o m m E r 9 v vM= Sm am m -c E e ,O1ym omacia°Ea cvm�a acaXimaai� m .. m d m Ca t 3 m0 ._._ m W m t z° y m y o 4i HE3��H°�cmiaHn Cowma N � o y O h a O c Ol u m m m N d C] a a d E o c m N O m m U cia m I c m O—, O .m m p, E cia'uL m O m rn c m_ U)QIL Q E N� c m Uy pA mmm� oA�a�mc m� UamUmm mam0E DmUN° U r�r ai mUr� °,=L'€ N RN m m U 00 °. r=rcd E �¢UI-NU <vtn5 E a O1QN- E m 03 0 C m ! 3ammmNa am a5comm� >r aci mmE E° mo 03oL 0 O w=m U 2 o.ma M�•� m c3 r2 ��c y.. N�Uta .mcami E� o 2.r eL = 3 c m y c o L U mm N'N E= :E 2rn=ou3o:R2E p c rn Uvz c O M U O J a W i i r N ° 0 L N O m 'C C D J m @ 'a m 'p m '_o N N V C CL N X C C W J m >im o°v01i y N L a w M,0 y N N m N> C 0== Ol >>= ymcE -p 0 mv576 m' m 0 0 `. � y C C -= b0 c cm�Tnmm a cEm a L 3m� 0 acc�m amo�a.�°3==myEm c43 m y aLn `y may€Q O nF-mm��c 0 0 N N rO a'W= a C O J N fn N> C U LL C,m °° j C co Em mmd U a) L 0 T�WN=CmF'CL. A O "O 9Ua•Cm'-3"o m 0 i-� C M 0 0 m 9 �0 _ aL a m O m cm p N p C m C W CU C M ?a=m c C n `m9 aLE = 0a NCS=rnHL m a�=m N>_U'pmasmmrmno =m a. cra c E L N m 0 0 U O = O F- a<L ° 35.s 3.2 F -U J N 39 am Cy LO 0 co O U C r rn N O ` Cd C L M EL .uE C NN� Na Oma = N�n m `i L3 mm� m I °E� ,3=Q ED U) >° U)°W au CL v m� �m ma Lo �'� Qi °an iCc � m j�m c0N co0� MON am NnnNOd -nUaimmmnn0) N CU O -O p N OO ��NW ,I—U QUN, 0s-mCUU t4U) m O m'€ N 0 j m V m U- m m 'c €oma '; m a mm --`m> v 'c.. mcam� E E d- m 3= v �°oa�et y a° 0 c m m w m�y�y V= C 0 m= 3 N m N d m y ._ N N N Ol ami cE=.G O) a� Y= m�- U as �3=rn>E€ Em c'iE m—cLi�c Evi3aSc :°Gala d� �rn3 rn3 c O _ m 0 3!un lepuap!saA jean 3 W 0 and (D 0-0 (D CD -0 E ES we= E 0 w L) E -6 E CD N : m 0 F E o oO E 0 0 = CD cu CA a) 0 0. M .0' E dNy 0 0 cr o 0 2 -2 F o c 2 , M , 0 Q 0 cawN t'a 0).tz wa 21 'c E =0 mc ;E r 0 0 0 T E.LM U M S. .- w kr: a M = E ca -0 W= E2 ED 0 (D EFUma u M.3" " co A U= Cvi 0 C-4 > C'm N E E = 0 �w 0) 01=0 wa M 2 0 (M4m 0 Z! =2 0 > CD M 3: 4) 43 0 M M-5 0 — C c -M > CL 6a a 0 WM= 0 :5 E 0 c -05 -6 cn 0-5 M 0 0 �o M 2 232 0 0 0 E , M 0 m ` M M CDME2 a= 0= CL.9 0 M 0 = = 0 NEN U5=mwwu,a>-u 5�>Ec c M:E 0 a . m 0•- M -S N 2 0 0 U) 0.0 M.63: M u m L) co 2 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 c M K -Ir M 0 (D NM Y M 0 — 0 (b = M oc o -a CN .—a NLD - 33 E 46 E.G 0 Li UUM 62- 8 M 0 u "o 0 W w - 0 M ED 'S c a, U (D U) U) (n aL) m,EL= F= M cn E 0 CL M cn E E Imm 0 c M.G a �M a) �- , a 0 -E .Om go 0 E 0 2.0 .2 w o M M M Etna- co Mm 0 CD L) D =1 't M 0 . = M x M:2 M 0 z > cq M CLO t>0.C:E 4) In 01 =— C\l m v N= 8 0> cq • 0 O 2M N O a) N> 0 0 0 ME CL w a.= 0 C V a 0 0 M O E u Ma 0 NL a UA 0 > 0 E .2 1,5- CD E M M W 0 M M cmE Na-M M 0CCL0 UmE0 i; 0 u Ilun lelluaplsaj (POLIoelap) WOOJ UolleaJoem -j cn EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Prior staff reports and attachments from October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK REFERENCE ATTACHMENT ITEM #3 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2010 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kozak ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Pro Tem Thompson Commissioners Kasalek, Kozak, and Puckett Staff present Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Dana Ogdon, Assistant Community Development Director Doug Holland, City Attorney Dennis McCreary, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Principal Planner Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Amy Thomas, Senior Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved, as 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 26, 2010, amended PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kasalek, to approve the Consent Calendar, as amended, to include the following modification: "Chair Pro Tem Thompson recused himself due to the fact that he and his family live just under 500 feet from the subject property; he left the dais." Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Staff directed to 2. CONTINUED APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER bring back AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (Appellant: Bret findings and to Fairbanks) prepare new resolutions Minutes — Planning Commission November 9, 2010 — Page 1 recognizing the On October 26, 2010, the Planning non -conforming Commission/Board of Appeals considered the status but also appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. addressing the health At the conclusion of the meeting, the and safety issues Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. These correction measures were not acceptable to the appellant. RECOMMENDATION: City staff is recommending that the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) affirm the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. City Attorney Noted that the Chair Pro Tem should not participate in the Board of Appeals since he lives within 500 feet of the subject property; he should properly recuse himself and leave the dais. The Chair Pro Tem left the dais. Commissioner Puckett nominated Commissioner Kozak as the Interim Chairperson for this item. Commissioner Kasalek seconded the motion. Interim Chair Kozak explained the process Thomas Presented the staff report. Director Noted that two documents were received prior to the meeting: an e-mail correspondence from Wendy French supporting the Appellant, and a letter from Mr. Fairbanks; these documents were provided for the Commissioners at the dais. City Attorney Stated that the public hearing was closed at the prior meeting and the discussion should be limited to testimony related to the non -conforming use concept; in 1961 the first non -conforming codes were adopted; whatever existed at that time could remain if the property owner could show that the use was consistent with the Code; the use could not be Minutes — Planning Commission November 9, 2010 — Page 2 7:47 p.m. 8:56 p.m. changed; and, it is the owner's burden to provide proof of the use existing on the property in 1961. Added that the Board of Appeals focus should be to determine what the use was in 1961, what changes have occurred, and then to make findings to support a decision. The Public Hearing opened. Interim Chair Kozak invited the Appellant to the lectern and requested that he focus on the issues as described by the City Attorney. The Appellant, Bret Fairbanks, read from his prepared statement, reiterating much of his previous testimony. Interim Chair Kozak stated the evidence of life safety issues is compelling and must be addressed. The Appellant referred again to his prepared statement, quoting from the California Historical Building Code, and restating that he made no changes to the property, except that he removed the fire wall in the garage; he didn't realize at the time what it was or he would not have done so. The following spoke in support of the Appellant: Nathan Menard Brent North William Finken. Discussion ensued. The Public Hearing closed. Interim Chair Kozak indicated was prepared at this time to City Attorney for his input. that he did not feel the Board state findings and asked the The City Attorney suggested that staff prepare findings that support the non -conforming use and also perform an inspection to ensure housing code compliance and minimum health and safety codes. Commissioner Puckett affirmed that approving the non- conforming status based on evidence supporting that finding and granting the appeal would not relieve the existing safety issues. Minutes — Planning Commission November 9, 2010 — Page 3 Commissioner Puckett moved that a resolution be prepared that includes the above suggestions from the City Attorney, Commissioner Puckett also suggested that a task force be formed to investigate these issues in Old Town so as to avoid going through this process in the future. Interim Chair Kozak seconded the motion; and, requested a resolution also address health, safety, and housing code compliance issues. Motion carried 3-0. The Appellant asked what he should do before the next meeting. The Director stated staff would do further research; the building health and safety issues still must be addressed, but no further research by the Appellant is required. Chair Pro Tem Thompson returned to the dais None REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 3. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. The Director indicated she had nothing specific to report but would be happy to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. COMMISSION CONCERNS Kasalek Congratulated newly appointed Planning Commissioner Fred Moore new City Council members Al Murray and Beckie Gomez; Community Services Commissioner Amy Nakamoto; and stated she knows all of them and believes they will do an outstanding job; • Attended the Dino Dash, which was a huge success, and today's Grand Re -opening of the Magnolia Tree Park playground equipment; • Stated she is looking forward to the Mayor's Breakfast on November 18; • Asked staff what can be done about the traffic congestion around Costco at The Legacy. Director Indicated staff would ask Public Works to respond to that question. Minutes — Planning Commission November 9, 2010 — Page 4 Kozak • Thanked staff for their hard work; • Added his congratulations to new appointed and elected officials as stated above; • Indicated he enjoyed the 20th anniversary Dino Dash, a Tustin Public Schools Foundation event; • Noted the Tustin Community Foundation Mayor's Prayer Breakfast takes place November 18, and tickets are still available; • Thanked America's veterans past and present for their service and sacrifice; • Encouraged everyone to participate Saturday, November 13, in America Recycles Day in Old Town, a CR&R compost giveaway at the Main Street water facility; • Noted that the Tustin High School football team is ranked in the Top 5 in the County; • Asked staff to prepare a process/analysis related to the ongoing issues in Old Town. Director Indicated that staff will identify the issues and bring back suggestions to the Planning Commission. Puckett • Congratulated the Tustin Schools Foundation on another successful Dino Dash and shared his memory of standing on a ladder to drop the flag to begin the first Dash in 1991; • Wished all the best to old friends Ron and Joan Hoesterey, who have sold their Anaheim Hills property and are moving to Texas; Ron is a former Mayor of Tustin; the Pucketts hosted a going -away party that was well attended by former Council and community members; • Thanked staff for their work on tonight's item; • Welcomed Fred Moore to the Planning Commission; • Congratulated the new Council and Committee members; • Stated that, due to the rain, he did not get to be the Grand Marshal of the Tustin High School Homecoming Parade, but did receive a nice welcome as he was driven into the stadium in a Humvee; he placed the sash and crown on the Queen and could be seen in the background of Channel 2 News shots of the Homecoming festivities; • Shared that he enjoyed the Magnolia Tree Park event and thanked the City and Parks and Recreation staff for their hard work to make that re -opening happen; Minutes — Planning Commission November 9, 2010 — Page 5 Puckett continued • Reminded everyone that the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast is a fundraiser supporting the Tustin Community Foundation; the Santa Sleigh will be on display at the breakfast and also at Enderle Center that evening; • Wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Thompson . Indicated he participated in the CR&R cleanup event last month; • Attended the BIA Orange County dinner "Legends, Lessons, and Visionary Leadership" on October 27, which included well-known and dynamic speakers, and also attended the Orange County Business Council Infrastructure Committee meeting this morning; • Added his congratulations to newly elected and appointed members of Council and Commissions; • Stated he wished to close the meeting in honor of veterans past and present. Kasalek Added that she wished to congratulate Amy Thomas and Dennis McCreary on the outstanding job they did gathering evidence and presenting the staff report. Director Noted the meeting should be adjourned to the first meeting in December and wished everyone Happy Thanksgiving. 9:17 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned to the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 14, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes —Planning Commission November 9, 2010 —Page 6 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kozak PUBLIC (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) CONCERNS: At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law). If you wish to address the Commission on any matter, please fill out one of the forms located at the speaker's table so that your remarks on the tape recording of the meeting can be attributed to you. When you start to address the Commission, please state your full name and address for the record. ®In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (714) 573-3025. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under the 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 26, 2010, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, during normal business hours. Agenda — Planning Commission November 9, 2010 — Page 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. CONTINUED APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (Appellant: Bret Fairbanks) On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. These correction measures were not acceptable to the appellant. RECOMMENDATION: City staff is recommending that the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) affirm the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Presentation: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner REGULAR BUSINESS: None STAFF CONCERNS: 3. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: Agenda — Planning Commission November 9, 2010 — Page 2 7:00 p.m. None Approved Received and filed Continued to the next Planning Commission meeting, November 9, 2010 ITEM #1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2010 CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Pro Tem Thompson ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Pro Tem Thompson Commissioners Kasalek, Kozak, and Puckett PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 12, 2010, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 2. APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURES REGARDING NOTICE AND ORDER It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kasalek, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code (see Attachment A). The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order {see Attachment B). Minutes —Planning Commission October 26, 2010— Pagel In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pack Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as: The Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations; and, The appeal hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 affirming the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code. That the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals order the property owner(s) to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. Chair Pro Tem Thompson recused himself and left the dais. Commissioner Puckett moved that Commissioner Kozak serve as Interim Chairperson. Commissioner Kasalek seconded the motion. Thomas Presented the staff report, noting the revisions to the resolutions that were provided for the Commissioners at the dais. Interim Chair Kozak called the Hearing before the appeal body to order and asked for roll call. All present, except for Chair Pro Tem Thompson. The Public Hearing opened at 7:03 p.m. Interim Chair Kozak invited the appellant to the lectern. Minutes — Planning Commission October 26, 2010 — Page 2 Bret Fairbanks read from a statement which he provided to the Planning Commissioners at the meeting. The following spoke in support of the appellant: Nathan Menard Linda Jennings Maureen Li Markus Brown Brent North Jim Gominsky Mark Fairbanks William Finken Lindburgh McPherson Doug Dubach. Stephanie and Janice Fairbanks submitted speaker forms but did not come to the lectern. The Public Hearing closed at 8:15 p.m. The Interim Chair requested a short break. The meeting resumed at 8:35 p.m. The Interim Chair asked for staff comments which the Director provided. The Interim Chair asked for testimony from the Principal Engineer, Dennis McCreary, and the Orange County Fire Authority representative, Bryan Healey. Dennis McCreary and Brian Healy explained the nature and number of Building and Fire Code violations that exist on the site. The Public Hearing reopened briefly at 8:54 p.m. to allow Bret Fairbanks' rebuttal to staff comments. The Interim Chair proposed a motion to repeal the Notice and Order. Planning Commission discussion ensued. The motion died for lack of a second. General discussion continued among the Planning Commission, staff, and audience members. Commission Puckett moved that the item be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, November 9, 2010, to allow Minutes —Planning Commission October 26, 2010 —Page 3 time for staff to work with the appellant and to reach an alternate recommendation. Commissioner Kasalek seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0. Chair Pro Tem Thompson returned to the dais. None REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 4. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE OCTOBER 19, 2010, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. The Director noted the presentations by SCE and Kinder Morgan regarding pipeline awareness in Orange County were very informative. If the Commissioners are interested in viewing these items, the PowerPoint shows are available on the City's website. COMMISSION CONCERNS Kasalek 0 Stated she attended the Planning Officials Forum on October 14 which was enjoyable and different from other forums she has attended, in terms of the subject matter, and was very interesting; • Noted she enjoyed the Art Walk held last Saturday and noticed the Old Town merchants seemed very pleased with the foot traffic into their businesses; • Reminded everyone that the Halloween Howl takes place this Friday and the Dino Dash on November 7; this year will include a bike tour in concurrence with the Dash; • Wished everyone Happy Halloween; • Reminded everyone to vote on November 2. Kozak Indicated that he appreciated being able to attend the Planners Forum and the California Preservation Foundation workshop in Santa Monica. Puckett 0 Noted that it was nice to see Tustin's Community Development Director do a fine job moderating at the Planners Forum; the water bottle with the Nixon seal was a nice souvenir; • Reminded everyone that the Tustin High School Homecoming game is this Friday and the Homecoming Parade is back this year—on Saturday morning—and he was pleased to have been chosen the Grand Marshal of that parade; Minutes —Planning Commission October 26, 2010— Page 4 Puckett continued Encouraged everyone to vote and noted and he is one of the authors of Measure X. Thompson Stated on October 14 he attended the Planners Forum and appreciated the varied subject matter; on October 18, the Laurel Glen Park playground reopening; on October 19, at the City Council meeting he and former Planning Commissioner Al Murray presented their updates on the Orange County Transportation Citizens Advisory Committee meeting and the Vector Control meeting, respectively; on October 20, the Santa Monica workshop regarding the use of the California Historical Building Code with fellow Commissioner Kozak; • Enjoyed providing two tours of Old Town during the Art Walk, which he shared with the people in Santa Monica when asked what Tustin has been doing to re -invigorate Old Town; • Asked staff to provide an overview of the City's adoption of the Uniform Building Code and how that Code works with the Secretary of Interior Standards. 9:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Minutes —Planning Commission October 26, 2010 —Page 5 ITEM #2 APPEAL HEARING AGENDA REPoRT MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 26, 2010) SUMMARY: On September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street (Tustin City Code Section 5503). The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code. The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as the Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations and as the appeal hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals considered the appeal of the Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission/Board continued the item and directed staff to meet with the appellant to discuss possible alternatives. Following the meeting, staff met with the appellant to identify how the structures could be constructed and occupied in a safe and conforming manner. These correction measures however were not acceptable to the appellant. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION City staff is recommending that the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) affirm the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On September 16, 2010, staff issued a Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street based upon significant substandard building conditions which violate the City's Building Codes. On September 23, 2010, the current property owner, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order. On October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of the Notice and Order in their role as Board of Appeals and the appeal hearing body. A memo was provided to the Planning Commission to clarify the Commission's roles as the Board of Appeals and the appeal hearing body in considering the appeal of the Building and Zoning Code respectively. The memo outlined the limited scope of what may be considered with this appeal. At the October 26, 2010, meeting Mr. Fairbanks submitted a letter related to the appeal and included the following general questions/comments/concerns: • When does the City recognize the units were built? • How the City determines if a structure can remain if it has no permits • If the City would consider a structure legal if it is deemed historical on the survey and has no permits. • Both units on the property existed at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Code and should be considered non -conforming structures After testimony by Mr. Fairbanks and the public, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals continued the matter to provide staff an opportunity to meet with the appellant and provide additional information. This report discusses the following topical items. The prior Planning Commission report is also included as Attachment D for detailed and comprehensive analysis of the appeal. A. A brief description of the composition and purpose of the Board of Appeals and of the Planning Commission as the appeal hearing body; B. Building Code and Zoning Code Violations C. How the City determines if a structure can remain if it has no permits D. Densification of Old Town Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 3 Composition and Purpose of the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission as the Appeal Hearing Body Board of Appeals The Board of Appeals may consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules adopted there under have been: • Incorrectly interpreted or • If the provision of such code does not fully apply. However, the Board of Appeals shall not have authority to: • Interpret the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code; nor to • Waive requirements of the Tustin Building Code. After consideration of the appeal and the evidence provided, the Board of Appeals shall make a determination and issue an order either: A. Affirming, B. Reversing, or C. Modifying the Notice and Order. The Building Codes are legal instruments governing the construction, use, and maintenance of buildings and structures. These codes contain certain provisions which allow some discretion but other requirements of the code must be followed to the letter. Granting relief from code requirements would constitute an exception, which is not within the scope of authority of the Board of Appeals. For this appeal, the Board should consider, based on evidence, whether a violation of Building Code section A105.1 exists at the subject property or whether the code section was either incorrectly interpreted or that the provision of the code does not fully apply: California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 4 Appeal Hearing Body The Planning Commission, as the appeal hearing body, may consider evidence provided by staff, then, issue an order either: A. Affirming or B. Reversing, or C. Modifying the Notice and Order There is some flexibility in interpretation of the Zoning Code, however, many provisions must be followed precisely and do not allow flexibility unless specific findings can be made for a variance. For this appeal, the Planning Commission is considering, based on evidence that a violation of the following Zoning Code sections exist at the subject property: Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) — Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses. Corner lot line 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet. In its deliberations, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals should make "findings," which are based on the evidence presented and the sworn testimony given, that support affirmation, reversal, or modification of the appeal. Building Code and Zoning Code Violations At the previous meeting, staff was directed to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the current substandard conditions at the subject property. The following section describes building and zoning code violations existing on the property. Building Code Violations During the deliberations at the public hearing, there were questions as to whether the code compliance issues noted in Exhibit A, Table 1 of the staff report provided on October 26, 2010, were applicable when the structures were constructed. Staff has provided an updated version of Table 1 (Attachment A) evidencing code violations that were present at 520 Pacific Street at the time of the on-site assessment by City staff on September 10, 2010 (as a result of Mr. Fairbanks preliminary submittal) with applicable UBC codes. In addition, the following provides timeline and code compliance issues using historical and current building codes where applicable. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 5 Timeline Pursuant to the City Historical Survey Report, the main house was built in 1929 and that a Completion Notice was issued in that same year. At the October 26, 2010, meeting Mr. Fairbanks included a letter dated October 25, 2010 from Mr. Robert S. Gaylord, previous owner of the property, which indicated that his father built the house, garage, and the apartment above the garage and provided timeline of when the structures were built. In summary, the following are timelines based upon the historical survey report and letter from Mr. Gaylord: • The main house (original construction) was built in 1929 • The unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. • The unit behind the garage was built roughly between 1945 and 1950 Mr. Fairbanks indicated in his testimony and his letter to the Planning Commission that the two units existed on the property for over 60 years and that the California Historical Building Code should be applicable to these structures. In response, use of the 2007 California Historic Building Code (CHBC) provides some leniency for existing qualified historical buildings. The intent of the code is to protect the public health and safety and also retain enough flexibility to allow restoration of a historic feature while still retaining its historic integrity. Through the permitting and entitlement process, of which the Notice and Order directs the owner to complete, the CHBC may be utilized to ensure that any historical structures on the subject site are in compliance with the code requirements of the time it was built. However, in order to use the CHBC, the structure under consideration must be qualified by being designated as an historical building or structure. Based on the Notice of Completion for 520 Pacific Street and the City of Tustin Historical Survey, the main dwelling house and garage are the historic structures on the site. "It is the intent of the CHBC to allow non -historical expansion or addition to a qualified historical building or property, provided non -historical additions shall conform to the requirements of the regular code (CNBC Sec. 8-102.1.1)". Therefore, only those qualified structures would be afforded the historic leniency and all other additions, alterations, and/or repairs would be subject to current code requirements. Given the applicability of the CHBC, staff took a step further analyzing the substandard conditions using the timeline provided by Mr. Gaylord. The following are the City's building code timeline which applied at the time the structures were built. • The 1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC): in effect from June 3, 1929 until July 7, 1942, when the City of Tustin adopted the 1940 Uniform Building Code. • The 1946 UBC updated in 1947 0 1949 UBC updated in 1949 Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 6 • Current 2007 California Building Code (note: codes area typically updated every three to five years). In summary the following timeline could be used when comparing the time when each structure was built and the applicable Uniform Building Codes: • Unit above the Garage— UBC 1927 • Unit behind the Garage — UBC 1946 and 1949 Original Construction (General) Following the Planning Commission meeting, staff was provided with a copy of the original Notice of Completion which was issued to the original owners, George and Alice Gaylord, on January 7, 1929 (Attachment B). The Notice of Completion noted that the buildings constructed included "A dwelling house and garage" (see page 4 of Attachment B). This indicates that the only habitable building on the site was the "dwelling house" and that the garage was ancillary to the main house. Some other violations include, but not limited to, the following: Issues: • The use of the property as a triplex (with 3 units) changes the building occupancy from R3 (single family residential) to R1 (multiple family) • It could not be determined if footing/foundations exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures • No fire separation walls between units; therefore not in compliance with one hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants • Pursuant to the zoning code; the property does not have sufficient lot size to accommodate a second or third unit (Requires min. 12,000 sq. ft. lot; however this lot is 10,000 sq. ft) • Guest unit (no kitchen facilities) requires CUP. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 7 • This number of units would need to be located in an R-2 or R-3 district and would require a minimum of 7 parking stalls to support the added residential use. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit; California Fire Code Section 102.3 Change of use or occupancy,- California Fire Code Section 102 Unsafe Building or Structures • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC Sec. 2204 Foundations required California Fire Code Section 102 Unsafe Building or Structures • 1927 UBC Sec. 503 Mixed Occupancy • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code Al 05.1 — Permits Required • 2007 California Building Code Table 503; California Fire Code Section 110.1 Unsafe Conditions • TCC 9223a7(b)- minimum building site for second residential unit is 12,000 square feet • TCC 9223b2 Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, providing no cooking facility is installed or maintained, subject to Conditional Use Permit Garage and Unit above the Garage As noted, there are several substandard conditions that exist on the unit above the garage. These substandard conditions are not only in violation of UBC 1927, but also the subsequent building codes adopted by the City. Exhibit A provides detailed information for each of the code violation; however, the following provides general examples of the issues and violations. Issues: • The second story wall construction and windows adjacent to the property line do not comply with fire protection requirements. • The opening is not permitted as shown • Exterior wall is not fire rated; • Primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency. • The staircase is built over the property line • A guest unit requires a 5 foot setback to property line (PL). There are several issues associated with the location of this staircase; most imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 8 Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls and 2007 CBC Section 1024.3 Exit discharge location • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls and TCC 9223b2(e) requires 5 ft. setback to property line • 1927 UBC Sec. 3206 Roof Drainage, 2007 CBC Section 1101.1 all roofs shall be drained into a separate storm sewer system, and 2007 CBC Section J109.4 — Drainage across property line • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls and Section 1403 of TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code Issues: • Railing has no intermediary posts and the run and rise are not compliant with Building Code requirements nor is the unprotected back which is open. This poses a potential falling hazard for small children. • Note: Given that the structure at this location is constructed over the property line a person that may fall through, would fall onto the adjacent property. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC 3305 Railings • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 — Permits required • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code 1012 Handrails — handrails required for stairways • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code 1013 Guards Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 9 Issues: • Furnace installed without required permits and does not meet clearance requirements and creates a potential fire hazard. • Exposed electrical next to unpermitted furnace which causes potential fire hazard. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • 1927 UBC Sec. 3707 Warm Air Furnaces • 1927 UBC Sec. 3714 Other Sources of Heat TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code Al 05.1 —Permits required • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 —Permits required Issues: • Shower added on to original structure. This requires a building permit to add additional square footage (pop -out) and permits for plumbing, and waterproofing. Code Violations: 0 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 10 • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 —Permits required) Issues: • Kitchen cooking facilities not permitted in guest unit. • Plumbing and electrical installed without permits. Permits are required to insure that life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities permitted in guest unit • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 —Permits required Issues: • No rating separation between walls of garage and living units; thus exposing tenants above and next to the garage to fire hazard originating in the garage. • Electrical wiring: • Romex cannot be exposed or unprotected and must be attached/secured. (Romex was first used in the 1950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001) Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 11 Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls 2007 CBC Table 406.1.4 Fire - Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • 2007 CEC Article 334.15 Exposed Work and Article 330.30 Securing and Supporting Unit behind the Garage There are several substandard conditions exist on the unit behind the garage. These substandard conditions are not only in violation of UBC 1927, but also the subsequent building codes adopted by the City. Issues: • Unit does not meet fire rating requirement; • 5 foot setback required to property line to protect occupants from fire hazards; or • Safety personnel responding to an emergency. Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls 2007 CBC Table 602 Fire - Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance (1927 UBC Section 1403, less than 3 feet) • TCC 9223b2 minimum side yard setback 5 feet Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 12 Issues: • Ceiling heights vary and do not meet the 7'6" height requirement Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 2007 CBC Section 1208.2 Ceiling height minimum Issues: • Heater installed with a gas line without permits. • It is installed on a combustible wood sided wall which poses a potential fire hazard due to the combustible material • Unsecured and exposed gas line on the interior which poses a potential gas leak and fire hazard within the rear unit Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 13 Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code Al 05.1 — Permits required • Subject to manufacture's installation standards and mechanical/plumbing permit • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit 2007 CMC Section 1311.2.6 Hangers, Supports, and Anchors and 1311.7 Outlets r. - Combustible material 2010 s 10 installed between walls Issue: • Insulation (appears to be straw bale) has high flame spread rating Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 1403 Openings and Walls 2007 CBC Section 719.2 concealed installation. Insulating material shall have a flame spread index rating of not more than 25 and smoke development index of 450 or less Issues: • Improper and substandard electrical wiring without permit • Power strip next to kitchen sink where a range might have been previously • Plumbing added without permit • Kitchen is not permitted (per zoning) • (Le. plumbing, electrical, etc.) Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 14 • 1927 UBC Sec. 3710 stoves • 2007 CFC Section 605.5 Extension Cords • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building Code A105.1 — Permits required) TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities permitted in guest unit Other Structures (Recreation Room) Issues: • The room is considered "habitable space" and appears to not provide sufficient, ventilation, heat and light • Ceiling height is too low and should be a minimum 7'6" Code Violations: • 1927 UBC Sec. 201 Application for Permit • 1927 UBC Sec. 1405 Light, Ventilation and Sanitation • Habitable space as defined by CBC is a space in a building for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Therefore, it requires sufficient light, ventilation, heat, etc • 2007 CBC Section 1208.2 minimum 7'6" Conclusion to Building Violations As shown in above and Table 1 of Attachment A, there are several code compliance issues that met neither the 1927 Uniform Building Code (UBC) nor the current 2007 California Building Code (CBC). There were several additions, alterations, and/or repairs that have been done to the structures at the property subsequent to the construction of the original buildings without benefit of permit. Several of the code compliance issues that were in violation of the 1927 Uniform Building Code similarly violate the 1927 UBC, and the 2007 California Building Code, as utilized today. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 15 Essentially, the same or similar code provisions were in effect since the time of construction of the original home in 1929. Zoning Code Violations The City incorporated in 1927 and the adoption of the first Zoning Ordinance by the City of Tustin was on April 7, 1947 (Ordinance No. 71). The ordinance provided comprehensive zoning for the City at that time. It established zoning regulations for the "R-1 One Family District" that allowed a guest unit for "temporary guests" of the occupants; however, no kitchen was allowed subject to site limitations (i.e. minimum 8,000 square foot lot). On November 6, 1961, Ordinance No. 157 provided a new Zoning Code which permitted a guest house with no cooking facilities and was subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Second residential units were first established in the Tustin Zoning Code at that time and set forth standards to which a second unit was subject, including a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet and one additional parking space (in addition to one for the main house). The site standards have remained much the same with the exception of the 2002 State Law which required second units to be reviewed ministerially and not be subject to a CUP. Although the garage was indicated on the original Notice of Completion at the site, the use of the second story as a residential unit with a kitchen was not permitted and the subject site has never met the minimum lot size required to accommodate a second unit. There are no permits on file for use of the structure as a livable unit. In the R-1 Single Family District, guest houses or guest units were historically intended for "temporary guests" and the use is accessory to and in conjunction with the main house; not as two commercial apartment units. How the City determines if a structure can remain if it has no permits In Mr. Fairbanks letter to the Planning Commission submitted at the October 26, hearing, the appellant indicated that there are several properties in Old Town that do not have permits on file with the City (Attachment C, page 2). Mr. Fairbanks also questioned if the City would consider a structure legal if it is deemed historical on the survey and has no permits. City records indicate that, in 1959, several 'old permits and job records" on file with the County were destroyed by resolution order. It is not uncommon that permits are either unable to be located or have been destroyed; however, all buildings and structures built in the City of Tustin would have been subject to obtaining permits which would have ensured compliance with the code requirements of the time. Therefore, even if permits cannot be located, all structures, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work would have been subject to meeting the minimum code requirements at the time they were added, altered, or repaired. Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 16 The City in the past has encountered properties with similar violations. These properties have been either brought into compliance or currently have pending case files. Non -conforming structures Mr. Fairbanks also noted that both units on the property existed at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Code and therefore should be considered non -conforming structures. A nonconforming structure, as defined in the American Planning Association A Planners Dictionary (April 2004), "is a structure or a portion thereof which was lawfully erected and which has been lawfully maintained," but which "no longer conforms to the regulations and requirements of the zone (district) in which it is located". In the Curtin's California Land Use and Planning Law, a non -conforming use is described as a lawful use existing on the effective date of a new zoning ordinance restriction that has continued since that time without conformance to the ordinance. In order to be considered nonconforming structures, the structures at 520 Pacific Street must have been lawfully erected and maintained. Therefore the structures are not considered nonconforming. Densification of Old Town At the last Planning Commission, several individuals indicated that there are other properties in Old Town that have several units on a property. As indicated in the prior staff report (Attachment D, page 7), the City has considered several proposals to increase the density of properties located in this area of Pacific Street and the broader Old Town area; however, each time the community has been outspoken against any increased density and the City has denied such requests. Additional documentation evidencing such opposition to another property located at 440 Pacific Street has been included for reference (Attachment E). The petition was signed by several neighbors on Pacific Street, including Bret and Stephanie Fairbanks, opposing the proposal for their neighbor to build a guest house. The property owner at 440 Pacific Street went through the Conditional Use Permit process which was approved by the Zoning Administrator. He then obtained all the required permits and ultimately rebuilt the unit to conform to Tustin City Code requirements. Amy Thomas, ICP Senior Planner Appeal 520 Pacific Street November 9, 2010 Page 17 &t�- I Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Building Official �z P . Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Code Compliance Issues Table with 1927 Edition Uniform Building Code B. January 7, 1929, Notice of Completion C. October 25, 2010, Letter submitted at Planning Commission Meeting from Bret Fairbanks D. PC Staff Report and Attachments from October 26, 2010 E. 440 Pacific Street opposition petition F. PC Resolution No. 4161 G. PC Resolution No. 4162 S:\Cdd\PCREPORT\2010\PC Agenda Appeal 520 Pacific continued.docx ATTACHMENT A Code Compliance Issues Table with 1927 Edition Uniform Building Code Q H to w w N m _ .� •E . a.0M(vIL IL { 8 c o « K L O d c p Z,j L v v a C m L c o 0 y C y« N N o. vN� yL N a yoo a;���=4) 2 Mn N y N=M .nma 01 M O N C w O `O y W-= .L.. ¢ H« « C C O O 'O « F G O o pp L T l0 O C U L O C O O) y N N 01 T O.O. � U M Ol C r W.0 O E B` C C 0 Y y 'O N d 0 ._ a y 0) a O U N L L N L ._ y N U N m C y N N 3.0 T« y - y L C O. L� N 'O 0) O O) c C-0 C~ C m C C _ O 0) N- p L>> d y Z J N { Op O) lN7 �p M 2 y Of C C O C O {0 d a` D. t0 O O y .M 4l = C .. O {Yp) � 2 d T 0 FJ .0 f.1 •O °` O N U N C S N N N 2= y O O Ol C~ ate+ m VI •O y E «'O y H C y n � N 9 Y � 01 O O N h M cy '�€aa 2 -pt a. O-- y C N� N N aOLN53U ME 2D m mw o�� N _ 0 aLO 2"icc;sc -?=w -- ED o c�t a�`m CoMw «m m m yo v..2'c- c,,.E Tm3€ •p!L) L m 5==tr-ot=0V n � L 'W 0 C� 2— C U_ y N 'M , .- 0 O N •p C C T y m C W O O) N- 0 N N C y2 'C (0 �Q C U E N o Co .OD 3 = T 0 O) 'O N L a N M CO C O O l0 Z 0) � L C yOUN«.� y CLL O t 5 `(S N O T :Y J7 UCNL NC C Oa+-� aO O.0 U N N y 2 O1 A a'O fa O1 G y O= y'.$ a c O• N O C 'O da'O U a. y.. �'C�C '". N '= N c C 0 0 "' -cvWoymL -u E•- YCad y€;5 E' y«dOaDa•Oao0 15 t >> S .9U cj m a y� 9 E C u> m w ME 2p N n O. N O] W« (gi(pp T TL 0 w w a Of N� N«� -9 .O C O T C O c. O a T C 3: U U C y y 0 OLL � N 0 t0 (Q � U a- a C O a>> C C C) VN9EmrnmBc�E 4) N d j w—=�NC.a�oo8�3dmm LoE�a^��•'amm �m.9�Ucc 6 `o m• co°o9mrnM0cc`�•o dap; �a�.�O.0 f0�M 2«"�3@ yo�ov'aui�`mE�m`m`o�a�`imrcioyvaoiZT�c•y ,c d e c� c a e z •c O= L� m g m m m O � o o Fa dNm om NNL.0 .L. Fc a LL m H N`o 2 m�`«C7 rnmom_ 8,-N� c c 0 o c d �'c N C 0- F m y O r G y G N 0) C .° G O •'pp W "� O 0 0) F �{ € NON �1 m �y M •0p) m N O) O -0 �+ O W �. . j O N y N 1 O1 ..0. N 8 m p C V a d2 °a ami a U U c U G 9 2c! E:2Lo`° � 4 O- U C 9�8ie2:s2 G W H Oi �' p od N U) U.2 lLL [V 7 li N c¢ E .- m000`o U Q U y ._ N y UOUo��o fq O LL p G 0 . .0 ca c yd6Upoo om��Ec`Ecor�U¢� ���m•Eco) jOUH'Eca V n°°0a0.0 ` d) C', (b UO n°ncpOv .� nvnmo°a XOL lCM.) 0 N N NUOp C.) �Q-- UA�UAFU O OO) O W N O ALLUCOM 0 c'w}n 0 V 7. .2 N 07 C 10 0) 9� °) E _ 0 C L° °a y () 3 c 3 c c 0K 0y t3��mo.•E 0,Mpa2waNi �yc oy�� m m m p p 0«�c-o��a S€c$0c2 �dSx•oEo dynymyc UP 2- M oak 2- "'vw m ma« oa�i°�EoUom Za« L m at E2r- J6JOU8E) N j E ` o o v ° ra 3 •- � ,. J y m�Ja e / aj C O 'a m C•m zoN a Cm c� Ch mv o o U m o a E EEy�m=EO«=«>�6,ZS,m'cm m°d« 'i LIC O 0 Ud C CD 2CCON� O C NE.0 dmECcN uMm Cd - GDm cmm._3J ,N.S OVoEmd Ndcp p0 m M.- c aEc L� mpN a 0 C N m Co r y O OYO 32 W O N 3 _O m a EE mmLaN m o J 8 c .„ J L m Y m O 7 c '51 co m m N« N m o c 6 t` c m C >` LL Ol .0 N N O m° a m d !_• « �° Sc T Y$ E m E E E 3 .� y v —M •N y w c 2 U m T°woEt.oamc as E ca N v °' O a m w C S p• mr- -`n o m? 'm" Ol N O) « N E C a�j m (0 m m N •O d 3:o'c 3: E c`mc°umi E mU 'om°�-c 0.0 ::��oaa0 m y�ca) ow—waE `o amia°iaE�'9 ami CL r 'O WO« C m E— U J E N Ev•�Ncm n«� y O u m C N O bi y0 N J C J% y a J m 'ate„a; pOJi 9-2K� ti�Ev C �yE C aJ E) �.1 ac)w )Lm cco.3�° O.O Emm'EU¢OfmN OO d3 NSC wOlomC c c>v°�-f0oami�cEoE.3`o d��La°.`aaL�momv'L mL�aE°- �mm000 r �'a�aci •yd �gy';o v J�v moim«v aEv oa �y .. W d Nm o N 33N N m o SOV �p-ami3m. tam C CN3 aE N� �mm',0 am N m m E O. ^c O J m m E a L .. _ O)L F-vi�im a 46 2 d« c 9 E a i, m E~ m¢ m m vo .°� L m T c C? aNN aU «.. wv o m ' m L •E = m °' •E m c m `o •�-� m U c ° yOFvc.o°3E.° co) Y aci rn`ocJrno.m•°c'°mn�vv`MCL rnv3mL 0•��j'�c�`m=a�aciayE.RS •oc°jo0av�cvvodE2 of a«mn�`o si.E V 'E c mL m.�J m m y T c E m 'O « 9: N 'O O C J m m (D 52 O y m m a m m J m 'E V> J Q $ m U E •- N U ••• L— c p m.. p v J c a- �-- W m U a15 U 'Y m N m m m .m. ,,CC o c 3L g c c c m m' m a� °�•c c c m o'c F Z J « 3- O ._ .- m N Z N «. J N a J .- L C J ° y Q N Z N N O m �Q c�• C o� .,m. C N j m m N N� OIC v m .0 m E CL 2J N a ' p o caw ci m rnmoa m v om i avcm¢va-,.'mc uNiaWa 79 CL v ¢auj me 8=0 �aJywa0>sEci Cl) �E2HNmo.moo v U �m mU¢l °+Jc mcuic�0 N'SvUov & 0000 °oUUI- U E $25U� EY yam U•- [VU•�g NJN NU F- E �i.-F-a N� v -c ° cco a wmpo n+ �Mom mm vo c_ « m cm8==cUa-•-E _cm c v."N v� oqE' 2mc�v'0 am o 3:mm ov Cl co 'Ed dxo EEO6==y oc N °E«cEomo'Jo aJm� E YLgo�cmm a°E m{p Utcme �•�' m3 imaa c�OE w c Em. CO-00— Lm actmmm yj:rw Nmm�om C-0C 2 C O U C 'i O y m CN„, m _ m pCNd Q -6 J O:E 0 m y SmE na C aCj l0 S m C= V a U c N N N (942 9 •m 2 °.'C.. J O m v EJC O j A 'QN � u � m c c 'G -moi C Co E IF E o C � v O a+ M v W w CL N A CL CL ga m V C O _N O U ` N m M O N O v O t V Y C NM � C N N O H C u N L Nu o a o M u L N OMrs c d N N c 0 c i N o v o ° a N N a F 0 Y N N O) d O C N N C o Co 0 N 3y 0NoU m M 3 a) .fwN 0NI c C O a N pN(OptYl `tel Cpt 0 Co O�m V -'L2 ;2 0 W— c0NCN La ..Q 'gym Ny om r N N C O C m O$ N N w' -y 3 N �j L> p y C N L 0I t N= N c x o v ayi w d=` 0 N �- m 3 o NNNNr. f�a NzF°'5.c«yoo ... N n,G vi -- N N N 2 N;$ L v� 0Co�mwE�R�aocv d�ma o.'y c L 3 d: a 8 m .� 3« m o m p 0° v m �_ N - N N m y ow.coacioNN omP:ccocc N 8°-�Emn388m�Ly€ C� N M N N O L N N =• T3 ... N L •O N U) L) m�5ts a3FE �5 °ct 3 m$ a N ro --W()80 300 c m o am Io Co c¢ E 00 ca0), m Otnwo N �-ppNL r C� U I-- N a1 ° � N v u€ a L �a�3=MV 'ma°oY�3r 0 n« UE� D Oy a- 0 y 8 3 rm � M D.Q 0 N N 2 n S o c 31 N NCN (Dm =O:ELNn L..owC a3E `0='N�c�L8 c€o'93N0c o°=r an= 0 y 3 w o N U N c mvEja'-$0 c `c8'ccNv� E $m in�'�'r'$•23� O) y r ` p C M CQ Nr�a ��pnma Ea°iEw�vpO� n ULLU p¢ Evi p U m�U on=o =CjiCjQ (bmC o m Co 0 V o UU V��O Fo NU a Z N N CJ2T N N N M O d C nN. no 'oam. d np c Foot ° 0 c) c Nnram ° a) C N E I -w a« t Q c O 2 c y C = 4=p0 c 3v0c�° vL 3o m aci« o -Z W o - $ o'�mv cRc `3cacom_I`m� U •r N la al Cp L w 6 ]LI 0) M'ci - Na c c 'O C', a) E.d.. o N o c N d N o d € c y a0 mLa'0 'd2EaLy0 ca N 802 gNE l yaNm = y iaN •o N=oNoZ c2«v EE ooc asmyN�a�oooyNE?..cM E cNE ELo ao:cdoo %m98o8aeFm0oLoGoN LL mzMicc a6eJe6 anoge jlun tiols puooas n v i c � j Y� 0 1 3 N w 0 O L O m o L w ma _ p° c a w m W a x_"L°oiddL3 c O w 9 0 m N «° G cap w a € w m a a c m w N w M o:. �c a y d 2 m w w 0 3 c 0M.0 T '�•I a y ,.w-• m C O O) > w c L y c O N O O N O. `E C N C L U �.L M - .2 N a w L m a O• � a N- c N M y y O 'Qq a lyj U N L L L A Y c y c C 'y O .L- L E N L N ­0`E N N N O •y O O w a- N N N a Y a m U - L L_C O a N O a {ap c 0) C a"> lO m C N c c -O y 0aE oV'c3M-''yy�wa dacQ 'o 'v'�E�c-:9 cNa a°'i °'gyp CO •� L _ ( C E C N w N « L N 2, o€€ O N w E•E OM._ c o" m o °a$ w N .w. C 3° U O m e os E w. w N.S MmoUmV C m 3'yrn c�d0ENoW, �`�L°,-a'nmym�'a0�4 3: t.EWmw rn0 �NwmE r°�o.cacw c°�y viiW `.. F aci�a� , ° w w a E$ `° r. c'o E� ° EFor �oE•°a aci U�-- c o p w c p on°uNtic�Qo6�mpEv'o1 2 aaEE��mm3��a UUaZ`3 Q °I m y :p •� - O O a ° L `� € C L y .-� '.� E O a �] QH L C c N N (Dd c p �.wo`� ao-ouio�>Ewoww�ao '20to `V12c� cO0 w�n> w vOnc -pt0�>. 0ZL as cd ai �'g2L Mr�pz mEw3(,Dm mayOwd0cw•€wm `o M paEc.cm.wOlmG�L•GGN�MrLil(jo'E wQ. w l-E. amec`w3: ,, w c- O L N O CL N E D C ro d iJ O O •_--' C j C. L n N h a TJ d2« .N. �� C 3 m y C: c a °• .4 :Y w w �i w 2 °.� •c p N U_ 2 c w C N w •E U .-� m-°oc°c�.Dma�avrc0.2 2 E 12,,i'p wc-3�rnN3o �`g.NHvEE?'m� . covoi �5 >v v�N=dw��g or,cao-Z6 �E°0 Esvc>>>>�C c a�°2 03 d mON Z r wpp wEppw rLU m 2 ZL.5 C tMy O]y m L C E a. adE oCa du� d z°d=O'w 010 42 -a D m Z) m �UQB M U N V V (.'1 CD CU Oa O N 2N V vUry O pO MUUF U aFV-NU �Q�UU~NCi F2 w C p C M w Y N 0 O N C O O a L° M q O E CL D C d o y 2S y 'p N C A m Y E w° q� •- E 3 a .° m (D y a p1 w �i 9 a E c p N N .� c$ a o'cm•-wOQ. Oac'Ow ;o c v2�m w10j0 8 N A N o! N m N .. C O 2 L: w. wa-C-� -cOO C € l0 .m2 E L°. V rn E € ° 0 � ? _E2 E N M N w o- m w N d m Y 4° 5 a5 a �_°yaa5�ca L •caw D>? m u�o2aw oa3 0 m aBeieB anoge 3lun tuols puooag v a i ry UU y « O Q. C C w ii Z� � � 2 ° ` m O � P � m a� �` V w a T m C m C m •c L m mU�m,Cd3yo� E d=O 'pew °�my3otam - ai Q ei y�� m N l� F Ol Q� c U L y_ l0 U �F � � L y N O O F y •O wy« C� •� C (J M 'yp 3 C >. LU L m p 2 C c O O F.1 >3. > >'C ° C O c c0 C •G O N as m C zcn=a'mtrndim�oc8e 8 `O m m M °« O .° - 0 c m C .°C a 2 L 'i] m O i° N vOi 'S c aci L.. m =o'ec'a y3mw��m coa��L2 ° moo maamt my�pN c Momyaa m c0W000 €oy a� m v•O w o y�'mU am E m u U'j'Ui>..-cw Lllc cm m�c3�Qq) 0Ep 3.c•ccm m8aci ONE aTc'pc Q>. E7 FmOtVmCN�C'0=Lm-O W O amp O E m O ym.O1N `m cCm 'CLOZZw>mr �E� OL mr C8'f.0 2m�O->. cCOOL w'F6c0 C 'rnmc.y CM ZC-O Cm mt a� n 0 C.�.�-N mw w>•O ma.. pma Aa�m�a oUm�o« o m�E gqc`mrn>;dtm >>ai�m�m°w�o2 mrn�EUm ctlm°nma�d�Ec�oyac Q a ,G -2 8 w m .N . m m m 0 «� E C w«=« Q -0 a��mn.2 W d °mrnm�3md�oi°i$y�° c •ar>'O omE'«yA._�m'o�$ Ow M Q'&v N0 m'0 =°:��o�m °o GL'pm Ocw3•�«L °cmoT`3ccy d) 3m (.imcn=em m'iU =am m 'QO 0 m y '9 w Y c ra m o n'y c a m i._ y e 0 o 3 D c •cl c m .-I m �•5voa•aEyoEc_?�L vFoma�•ycmi°>� m"-N°`�-°O cccmb Ncammao'a m000a two de�mm•-m w 2 V; 3: c°a.'3_roa�$.yrv"m ��inarn� c'o mraamnoGrmnemZc�� 'tnUCD w F��°c=3:m�3 �«La v m « c = tM y M M -0 `o °'v m y 3 1 a? c d o o•g € 0.5•'�a-"p' o•Mlw� N m a m J m V = m C o� O1 N c m 0� Qa V j� o m m E m m c t p• c m c :. .G C7 �p a7u�E� `7 ago a a c a m U L O O- I O- m •= O O �E' �E2c <EU o '- U 9-0�� a �ia„2 owmwo�; ,.w,• w T U m'�momwmEm yaUOU amain o°o ooze oo� mmrn UwU'-x mmM 0 M, mcaJop`mm0ci U•_U=c3U e 'p ON om'-ao_mo HTO mo 7m]o��U< U�mm2-U� m M c Ze000 mm,Nn :)ZM mem m• -mm I DQU".y0Uaw ci r Win: m�°nma9Onm N CNcf..lom °•UOm c._Up 01 COImUO° Ua 0 m:?00 �HNUL n mrvi Nn$N� O O r mU w Np• �m Of U t— r- c €roi Ng$O'�000 0I O V �"Q��F•NU wHNU I C-4 0 c .-OFO_ r .-�N�vin Nn V C C C C C `a L O'S t°a >. O c .. m >� •O. d w m m m H T= a a w m w L O O J e O$ Y w E `00 O a N a� G a c�c«ya�i�yE arms �c` 0 2 w E o U a N m C 3 0 a 0 0 Lvmco-cym°� m H `- cc o (,�pn_�c'�iya>i' c c w p U m«m ems:={5{ppi�cm c m Qd C€ 2a N N U N N d 'C m �. w`� �.' a d y 0` C Ol m L C m 'M.2 y U .0 'm ET�$tw� Lcym mmrnSo.mcvim'mEEm'cS'L m5«c�Uy3g.2 F=ate F>O6�maF�«wEmm�mc3c c 0 t« O J i J yO w cu M (C yw y -w O N = 0 L i a o u c m CL M c vy.ri U m E (co t N O o a. O o u a m r N O L E .La L w d C 0 Z' .fa a1 .O y G a7 C O03 im 'p N S m m a� H c U Va cc c V =U N' 30 C a) C ,,,. ._ O N M.0 N (0 V rr 2N~Cal 11; 0 w i..,0. >> r,0NaN 2 c MF—w0N-�fi Cin 0 .? m E 0 OD aJ c c O cmxiiuy c c ocom�SdE 9 V y O N N ppn��7ycyyy� U Q« E 7,C a N w 0= O co yLL�ia N~>€L�pm�= E 7 �.~m°yvt0o U w O O y 0 a1 .0 = L E gm= N L d U 3 wOna E 0 M C m rn o W d�Oo•c'-��m c` 0 C�N«a0t C aN Ea«0w ycy p LS 2L °ma w0, M UU= «w 0 c 0'8'C tO `om c« O •N N O« am C •.O w a0a a a) L O •00 (.7 a/ •0 H 0 m :ov om�� Q.m adLa2° c. P N o 'O O 0 08E>0a� a 3 N a) 0 m€ L2 = c 0 y �' y = 0 'C N N r w L I -W 0m2 '3w� 46 a s O1 N y 0 M .w •00 La a C j E v C a M C G O C= L N a v L Maoa E cw 2oc,='-g .p? N N C 'O y9a O N E m 0Ew.��008w w N N 0 IE 9MaBaH 0 .0 0 E c N« FL-UL�31L-ac��0a 12 « `o `o _ y 0.-.- m 9 OC cd o€ �cac�aci U` R0 0M?g SM'' Smz t v N€ 8� ate€ m0. 0 aoi`o0aEm�` 5U v w �W`LOq) Ed d)MCo go E U) m�"N (n Q EUN� fn�N E MrL iiN ;._NO7 vp10I cn W a Q E 0a `a (.10Ci ca UOCi_Cy-0 Nal O��' a7�O ��>>0.2w UOUC pr!� �MU V Z) cm E `Eos •� n n U (. N Q. C4N .a N U N Ny �O •t�_;i O 0.2 cc •ap) 1p� •p0 � tr V. �C) $tO❑ �Q�(nU UU>U0 t� CM) U) �Q.�UF NCo) l V C 6 •O O 0 w cm 'O 0 C 0 0 c L= Ol c X V 0 w �0., O 00 A? 0 mw E E {p 0 j U •0 W 'O L d .c (�C C m rF,L' or 0 0 a 0 `z�Lm 0n ,o mmw 0 C « w T rN a� C 0��00� N W N d- V N O N N M N E N N C C N t0 V y U y T 0 O a y N« w 0 a1 C •00 O O iJ E2t0ii w � M M C O 0O.. a7Y Ow .0- C n U a) ~ Ol 0 E 0 '0 0 N a1L.ma1 U O• E0 Q 2 .. a E v w ad•V ,qw� m a v v o ._ v= v € =A w 0 = E« 0 w N (T7°co E�m FL3mmE� vmmmoo3°?�Eac°v8�am c O i7 of 0 Nodieo i a 'c d E ` o i 0, �r a L .3 X a 14, c O %1 C y Z4 « m 0 y N N 0 N~� Z``� C O� « m«y5m ° CJcdm�m— N y 'Gp d C o p. C y JO• N O •a •= m a N N a >` N N N y N 07 N N C_ V y '� t�3 F a f0 Vpp O 'C J y N(D mi ° Q ` S'mm j a N N VNl > �«a�$ Li l0 N C a 3 4l y L O !p a N L m L°"L° a°i aci c m 3 U m z.o a •3' m �3oatmw ymt`dycam o c L tO c o � m m y c Jynd�ma Co c t c m > oc•mU o° o o .°crn m� o- 3 m �•aci°=3y°' tG .c U'Q '`c°deo. vc -yyddmc«�'a$m� L'a��OmNE° mJTid¢ w voco E € ww m ov o.m NLoo�O k 0) 'm O y3Ti�yW cL ai N m 3 � ma •��; mm>moc•cco €=— eC m =1--=M Ol j N m Co mN O N 0 d=NUaE• .0 a >. ` o�0=0 L C E.`L-' N� �aN 'dam E.Hm �«omoow Eo 10€`oc�o°`°mm 'cZom 3�°)yomoym w o^ �? d y c dn�'c y�� n«mu�2i«aoc 0Lm. �'rL°U Lo. w o>r N�jS 9 V rn c )c v o.c m g� rn'v c'v m m ° oc= jcwE o:v JwmEc o cv LWoamm rn m$c O >m 'y v c am2i 0)--5 « •_ O t0 'N A m yoa�i�c��o`m «rQ. C °' > >'O N ya00)- omaca ac "o2 « N .L. « N'O V N U 3 c'3 t0 � C W m° m L .y.. m '° U, c 0 m a 2 12 C ° `-' N U w� L 3� pN O m MW X m N m •N N y J U Noo�46 CL m N o N c J o.cLd.mo. CNa m m oo>>3vtiaai� N= Cd mE m Nt0G O CL. m °caci�=2�.mc3mcv3m =L o J c N '^m o o �'E"L° ai E m rna`m °Lm„ ° J'O —OmtNd'�owa ;�v"°"o�€mt0 000'c'°y.°mo`ooco°ma3 mr_oo3'=�ym`mcocdot'' m v15 c_ d o a cap= w. mam a0oo� mL Ycc2'c5`m y U- iL o!-'mmy��L � cav yvr U m= o to m> n F m m`3€Lm,dar T C d o g N m m ow_ m CJ t o ° n Fc 3 m «t 3 y« .a c FL- lL ar`i 3 3 _ rn C ey gQ m °� m Uc o€8c v •ca N •� w OW mW Uc EIn o [L c N m•ca y c y dE m iL cP^•Em tT oy Wa aoia�EYoc ovamxoya�imE� �vorny°'N°��i 0 CCUrcv rn`OWa ¢°cte(nzg r - Em°mcFjv m mamyEmo D•c V d m �p mm ma°Oma III m V m V w m J mom j c U m` m 10= t_ m U N QO d) CL N� NO.N-gO dV'ON m opppn(bQm p.N NUm �ON IL MU CD UU�Q UUN WQ m�O NE in 'o) w m m rn °) > m F °i m v m v Ti m m m o a to m m C m c W.8 O m J m 5 "'«SIM — n O m mot o3o is d)i .. 4) d 'O amie=CL'cpma E O. s J O N a «'O m °Ji3oory`mry� C C J m y V* C `;c`oa8`°'uo)mJ O m •K N m C c•�'''�cm`o-m UH OI O) m m U 'O N V 3 0 v m CID N O' N D) o U fid•_>->-o1(D(Di (DaE Emca-° yp 'm �o 021.2NcE °m c x cam« Z m m m35 av m o«'v wm aX m m-5 c8 m 'E«Sot tONc � L°. o Lam c a m 0 a8e�e� 3iun leiyuapisaj jean i m a) U)s ° t a N E m i crn Lo U r c E ° ° c rn m ° Njd d to c�'° adv ti inG`' �m Oa 0LdU'v:�iicy0 � E —, d 2= 8 moa m'm w a tri c cioo°�3cm a M CD Vic_ °�cr >.o 0 d °°cV-6 o� ao�s'�o °mmMm- •� �C+ m N; m O w L N N 0.1 .j « N N M N N O w= 2 C 72 C y F• U5 j>> m N N `o w M a d E c`« 8 m .Z`'E v t'N v° d dv m3 ° c6 r 2 m N U? tV d N d tM n m V m« 2).0 d° N 3 L C c m T C •k V ; d a C M O �• F o •- t°a 46 12 C° 'OO � C A 0 d Y c w E E'S �+ m a:0 c ymd n« •O d G r NCmL C 'O m N� dL O)o QN N E N'o `0C=.C- m '° C LU W «+ n C'4dN°'rn3c M c o E c `d •y m �--�°•d o c E•-�•vo m'ao a0-'cc•ocd «N €gym •EaciE«`m°cT°cHdaa. .ti mmv Eodm0 `vYma�dy ratio w CD � VEaaim�ccc E2dm«t3 Ndm'o LEL rnm2> 22 >d 'Co. to m'o m o 1-« 3.2« y o N C A O nN F �p o C •(C, LD CO N tm N C a ((�� m as ma v da N c d o 5X? � ya vE-7 m 5g ma '$ �w ¢ 0m E UOU° o-0 0cr� nQU) m m UUd m mam o 0-6,0 °•E iAU¢ m• mU E UoL)C N CrryvvUroE•�a«°'�c5€ ° r�rao._ a ac oo 0Qm UUF NU �tA 5 E a C) CA. C•E d m • •D � m C m L d •O m m d N E° C ad E v5N�a a00 d 0 0; o t w 'dE S t y Vm 2.0 ;c d c�A•yu �o ttic t E N o 2 =En'3cd'y co= U mm•m E-wM.2 2 rnz' 3 Eo E -crn Uv°.dc c� 0 O a v 3 m m o L IL e C 07 � (0 'p 0 U N oNo X C N W 7 S O O N j � 0— N C �p N tU w rn oym�Lo- coo« �oaDi€3�m v rl U M m o 5 m'vL m y« N N« '�+ "O 0 Um m m 0 E E N a C� c 00 d y al O O C m 0 `- L N C C ,.y, E v &zwmy•o3ti� _cc'aamm c o_ m o p a 3 c€ 3 U �c a y d y N N O - ( {yp L O N > (D (O(JJ .= C t0 > E 0«O U r-0 MV a`)y•corn �0Ua•Oi>S�iLL..c- OlN O N O'C �Liac�O� —02S=0) C �«omo=ca)ma) d 8U 3 m d'x Lo.. " y � �omm0)mt� U c 0 0 L G a� o,•- o 0 CIJacUm~acivo '°rnc•c�3o« 10cmdta W mooa.c ado a7 N O C, .0 y V G Ev N.0 C L F N Y n N ,� Ufa«M0 Z 0NN 0—m0(D my am— 010Em$ -.2M—N cr= . 0)'Ecc3L ~ uMi iS �•-corn t M aoi L`m Mao c O m E « C 5 0 O U O m o m a 2 2 W °p: a L a) F a¢L c� 35 3 ~U o y 35 am C m p m C € c� m 0 C 0 C N a d C-4 M O y j ID N a O. m a 0 0 N� O� C N N CCa1l U L (D U Pwa vaN � Gt l O I Z= € l m� m 'g 0 [n(CD Uoci� U Uc n]::m m m LL. O m'QQ o� a Uo$=p 0 ma N�SN C ��fn m� UOU= m+7�f0 U Cyi� yU•N :).Cu N mUQ �1� N« JT 7 10 p07 nor al 0n 0I� C rn am o o m S o n (D m aU QFp NFCA �Q cj m C L of y 9 O q O w y •� N N QV 0 O ='C gC a y Ew v 0 0 3r v of c c 0 oic m a1 "'y Oy iii m�GMYm N M=-, _ a ,) 0 C� C N aI 0 �V N._N01 m c 3 'w c E w c E c a dO m d $.m « y�r�dc 0.2c3°�5 E�€ :C O m O mNo.� « O. a ti C M t E O m 0 _w3: d- 0.a o. l2 d CO 70)3 ani 0 a m o ;!un lelluaplsai jeaa m f1' Q 6 i o m 0 N ° W ° 'c 3 L o 0) I m m E 4 2 .@D E a L o E 0 (O O N Ol C N E U 5 _ c_ 0 UvE _r j dN a 01 N °I = V 0 "' c 9 N C �:cE�'0mc �Ema V M' a? c E c 9'� c d c�i O N v. c do d m�°�Mo(D 4) ° 'MR v-�.dc.m.oEoc3� raFc'°'aci C N N 0) CO C >. � .0 .y.. ayL O V N — C 0 m QL OC)L �� rntu dy�ca (D 10y Mc'� E� E O4' Ua)L333L°am ym co AM= C OlHNU.'S�C Uy"°v mNCe w_. o vim 03c N m U t`L°drad�'y0c.v `m °' ^�vdo �cc°•U oaYavSa°�ior aci IM c�'c mM� mM MM rn—!s y ��m 0> m m H m= c Ycrn�� o W 0 n aoy>go oi C L cc (0 aa >i C N> C O cm01—.5)E C M N a '_ 0a'Uom '00 VE y NM (7 '^ O d U t0 L� Q N N C 'O mECOM Ec.cortyoa�i O N N o`o4Niow 30 or 'v12S.atFm°c3mc�m0 a 'min°$ N _ O `� p -Or -.O oEy° o to ,G oe ym'°c=rnU o€vM Z i0 cis od a s vM COOand Bey g.2 N mmMM 52 a .2 5WLZc E s aic�cE( a ci o 88 a' 2 .2? i CL0.00 � E CD 'S �r� m d � E v�'iQ�n= crC (D CF m o�m cc' -c-' ai U� •� N N m in (D.0 C y C N 7 U� m E U N V .0 O tp0 taro y W n 0 0 N t>0 V O N I�f1 L m C m z N ta0 d d> SS o N pp N N U L$« N d $ M v o 0 c �Lof m'S c 0 :QQ N aL _ C V� [1 0 M G y Ea O v mM 3 a� d) t.o co y M t0 N N y > Ot E °� � '' m � 0 o o3 a v E.=_ y .°c E U EL°E 0 cmE caM m�r Um -E O [ I ;iun dei;uapisai jeaa (payOe;ap) woos uoi;eaJaaa J Q 6 ATTACHMENT B January 7, 1929, Notice of Completion Recorded at request of Grantee Tor -3, 1926 at 30 Nln. past 6 A.L., to took 216t al, Official Records of Orange County. Custine Tbltney, County Reoomor. Ruty Ovmsroct Adele Lute COYPARLL Llan Oonliffe __ _ oO t - - - 35054 CORPORATION GRANT OM SANT Or ITALY NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINOS ASSOCIATION, a national banking ....."VIOr , in aonoideratlon of Ten and no/100 Dollars, to it in hand paid, the xeoslpt oI watch Is herwty acknewled3ed, does hereby grant to OLOROL GAYLORD and ALICN H. GAYLORD, husband and wife, as joint tonantg, with right of survirovahip, all that real property sltastea Sn the County of Orange, State of Omllfornles deearlbad an follOws, That portion of Lot -Te of the Stafford A Tustin Tract, as Shown on A Nay reaozdadaz Book 2, page 619 of NSmoellaneous Record@ of Lae Angeles Otemty, Oallfamlat described as beCinning at a paint an the test line of amid Lot, 410 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot; running thence South slang the Leet Line of cold Lot 93 feet; thence taut parallal to the North line of said Lot, 200 feet; Laevoa North parallel to the Leet line of amid Lot, 50 feet; thence Leet parallel to the North line of amid Lot, 200 feet to the point of beglanlm Am an appurtenance to the above described property s right of way for ingroas mad agrees and for gas and waterpipe lines and for electric, light poles and wires over the follow - lag deeoribed portion of Lot -T@ of Stafford A Tustin Tract, an shown on a Nap recorded In Bao[ 2, page 616 of LleealLaneoue Records of Los Angeles County, California, aesarlbed as beginning at a point an the North It.. of Bald Lot e9s, 196.56 feat test of the gortheawt corner of maid Lott running thence Southerly parallel en the test line of said Lot, 666.97 fact to a paint an the South line of maid Lot, which paint Ss 200.61 fast Test of the South- east cornerof maid Lot; thence Lost along the South line of nald Lot, 60 fact, mora or leas, to a point mn rnid South line, which is 200 feet Last of the Southwest corner of said Lot; thence Northerly along a It,. parallel to and '200 feet each of tae test line of said Lot, 667.02 feet, to m point on the North lies of maid Lot; theme@ Last 60 feats mare or levo, to the polot of beglnaing, This conveyance to made upon the following expressed conditions, let. That no portion of Bald property shall be at any tlma leveed to or ocoupie by a member of may rasa other then the Caucasian race, Nerlcanm not permitted. 2nd. That no structfre shall be ereot,d upon said property except a dwelling house for the habitation of human beings and the otdinary outbuildings usually constructed for use of said prape Otis an a dwelling plane, 3rd. That no dwelling or atrucurn for use as a dwelling shall be erected watch shall coat lees than 63000.00. 4th. That no dwelling or structura eholl be areat"n said lot, the front part of which is nearme the front line of sold property than twenty feat. All of the foregoing eandltions to declared to be oowenm to running with the lead am the eme are made for the bermfit of the remaining property in the wubdivteion of which said property to a port, and In the event of a violation of any of mold oovanantm or nondltlou, than the title to said property shall mwert to the Grantor. With reservation evrove said property fox water pipe lino for irrigating adjoining lade. TO RAYL AND TO HOLD to the said gr meas, as joint taut• with right of 5 j. IN WITNESS WHTREC7, the BAD[ ON ITALY NATIONAL TRUST An SA9IW00 ASSobillt0l�'�t� hereunto aft ueed It- vorporat. name to be Signed a Sn hl Its 91Osfsevldent and Ag.latadt Officer, tbervunto duly author Led by resolution of its Board of DSrootosq We day of October, 190.! BANK OF ITALY IATIOnAL TROUT Alla SAYINGS ASB7014i By C. L. Ootent Viaa-Prealdant. lad R. D. Fuller Assistant 7.t Office State of California � County of Orange, On this 16tb day of October. 1926, before me, R.L. estarYi<e�^', a Notary Public In and for Said OOuaty and State, regfalNs'. therein, auly ceent1e810ned and sworn, PereOmlly appeared C. L. Optent, knows to me to be toe V10s-President, and R. D. Fuller, known to re to be the Assistant Trust Officer, of '14 corporation described In and that eaeouted the within instrument, and known to se to be the pere0.e who or ... ted She within instrument .n behalf of the corporation therein nand, and acknowledged to me that Such corporation executed the ease, Ie WITNESS WH RSOF, I bare hereunto set W band and affixed my official nal, the dsj and year In thls Certificate first State written. ((MAW) R. L: SIIMUN Notary Public In and for Baia Ou:tF and State. Filed for R ... Id at the reaueet of Grantee 1oe_3, 192d est 30 Win. past S o'clock A.N Kl and Recorded in Book 216, Page 66, of Official Records, Orange Oounty, California. Juatlni ' Knitney, Recorder. By Ruby Cameron, Deputy. Adele Luta CCHFAM Elea Coallffe sac _ 35055 'i. CORPO.RATICN GRANT DMD TITLI GUARANTEE AND TRUST OONPANY, a acrpa..tic. org,,iaed under the lee, of the State of California, and having Ste principal plane of business In the City of Lod Angeles, County of We Angeles, State of California, in consideration of Ten Dollars (#10.00) to it In hand paid, the receipt of which Is hereby -acknowledged, done hereby GRANT TOI RALPH P. NASM and IRIHL NASM, huaband and wife, as joint tenants, all that reel property Situate in tba County of Orange, State of California, and particularly described as foliage, Lot Twenty-eight (25) of Tract Do, 747, ae per map recorded In Book 22, Pegs 29 of DleOelleneoua Napa, Records of Orange 00unty, California, in the office of the County Recorder of Bald County, Subject to OCndltione, Restrictions. Reservations and Rights of Way of Record. Reserving an aeeemcut over the reu throe feet of said premises for poles and ling. fur thr distribution of electrical .oergy, and other public utility lines, t , I Subject to taxes for the fiscal Year 1926-29. Subject to County liens and Aaaaesnnts, if any, Provided. honv.r, net this tonmyan0e is made and acceplei upon each of the fc1301141 conditions, which Shall apply to and be binding upon the Grantees, their halt., devivaa, , g.v0utcrs, eds1010tratore and assigns; rlrst, That veld premises .hall not be Vold, ....eyed, lagged or rented t0, or 000upl by any Person of Afrlose, Iaxloan or Asiatic descent. Second; That Laigtteml.es shall be used for residence purposes only, and in tL. Kan anon. purposes shall be designated as Ioaldvnos prtpovee, .wh purposes shall be ooni>gs '�a %F i) V � I �rL i.•I L; .� kpumted thla 3rd day of July, A.O. 1929. t, J. Marks The Presl oa charged for this good Judge of the Suostior Court of the Oouat� Of yu y. -4..' In !10.00 for Its tars. orange, State of Callfurmla. State of California, )) ee Count t 7 of Loolege la e. ) On tole 2M rev of Jul), In the year One ,thousand mina IR'NStw4 end twenty-nine, before me, B. S. gedpeth, a Notary Public, Am Bad tar veld Occaty, residing tbarab„ duly .oslul.ned end sora, personally appeared Z. L. Cole, known to me to be the person *Mae Base is enheorlbed to the wtthla and annexed inwtrment, ae the Attorney in foot of the Royal ladw.Ity Company, and acknwladged to am that he subooribed the none of the Royal Indemnity Company thereto as Barely and Us own.maem , as Attorany in foot. , IN TITNEe8 t8sRE0P, I tete hereunto at my band end affixed my official nal, at w office, 1n amid Count) of 'Ie A*Olea, the day and year last above written. (ISEAL)) S. H. Redpotb Nmary public, in and for Bald County of ins Angeles, State of California. My Cameiealon ymlree Aug. Ed, 1932. State of CallforaLa, u. Canty of Orange, I do ealamnly Motor (or afflre) that I will aupoart the Cauetitutlotpf the Bmtad States, std the Canal of Lae State of California, and that I Will faithfully discharge the duties at Notary public Sn and far the amid County eaaordlng tokhe beat :f vy ability. Be. B. Patton. Submorlbed and learn to before ms, thin 3rd day of July, A.B. 1929• (fODORT 9LL)) J. N. Books County Clark By A. L. Hitchcock Deputy. Tiled Jul 3,1929.J. M. Boake, County Clerk. By H. Deputy. Racordad at reauest Of Ben 8.Pattcn, Jul 3, 1929, at 53 gin. put 10 A.M. to Book 290, Page 311 Official Records of Orange Chanty. Justlna Mbltney,Count) Recorder, Money Hosmalbelch Deputy. Elsa 0oal1(fe COYPARBD Adele Late - 0 0 0 - - - 20760 NOTICE OF cO0IETION STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Or MWOt, f so. OECROE OATIDRD em ALICE S. OATDORD, husband and wife, being first duly naso, dope e end rayl that tiny are hews and were upon the 7th day of January, 1929, the owner@ 1n fes MIMI of that certain Mehl property allotted in the City of Tuetla, County of Orange, State Of Catfornla, and particularly described as follows, to -wits That corals of Lot '@ of the 'Stafford and Tustin Treote, ee shown On a Cap recorded Sn Book 2, Pages 61S end 619 of Mlacsllanoue Records of Los Angeles County, California, ewerl ON q tatlnnlMX at a point on the Pest lips of wale lot 410 feet South oT the Northwest .*roes of reaching veld lot;. thence depth slang the reef line of Bald int 5D feet: thence Eaat parallel to the North line Of Laid Lot 200 feet; Inches Neth parallel to the Neat line .f said Lot 50 feet theca test parellet to tow North line of Bald tat DOC task 10 the point of loWiumal. Yk y ti vy. THAT le Noh owners of amid lead, affiants, about the 7th day If 7auary, 1919, ' meoenOod the erection and cepa%Mail ou, upun the lend We. described, of certain b411d11♦1`a',: );A, t o-wl it '..`Y A dwalllughousa and garage. THAT Said buildings have bolo dull amatruoted, and the rima were annually complW •�� as the 3rd day of July, 1929, and edesated by the underalgeed an the awe Gaye THIS notice to given in ournuanoo of the pro Amioas of aeotiop 1107 of the code of Civil Prooedura of this State. George Gaylord Aline H. OaYLOM i 37158CHIZED AND BfORS to before me Shin, 3rd day of Ju17,1929. ((BLL)) F. L. Andra" Lotery Public In and for Wald GOY%Lr and state. ( State .f Oallforaia, an. 1 County of Orange, iii iGeorge Gaylord and Alice H. Gaylord, being first duly sworn, dopase and say, that tbey are the oanere of the property described in tote fdregolvg notice: that they ban read tim Mme and know the contacts thereof, and that the mama lm true of thalr on�kmwledga: i George Gaylord Aline H. CeyLard 808808ISLD AND SWORE to befara as thin 3rd day of July, 1929. ((SUL)I P. L. Andrew. Eatery Publio In mod for said Oomty and State. Rsau ded at raausat of Owner Jul 3,1929. at 55 Yln.pesi 10 A.Y. in Book 290, Page 312 Official Renard. of Orange Sao". Juatine Whitney, County Remtdsr. Yenay Hakeelhalab, Deputy. Llee Oopllffe OOI@AIRO ♦deL WC• o O o - - - 20761 Banta Ann, 0s11fotnia, July 2, 1929. The Board net 1. regular nee.leo. Present Buoenioar Willard Smith, Chairman. 0. H. Ohepman, John 0. Yltohall, Va. S.hueaoher, George Jeffrey and the Olart. In Re: head of Right of way. Go matted of Saan"I.or Cbepanm, duly aeomded wad married, Med far Bight of far fro% The Irvine Ooeasny, a corporation, In the Fourth Rand District, wet accepted and declared a public highway. which sofa road is more emrticilarly described a fallow., to -wits A atria of land elrty (60) feat 1n .Idth and bal mit thirty (30) feet an each aid* of the following described canter linal •Beginning at Engineer's Station 139-34,52 of that certain nubile highway commonly knoll nv Ducaty Park Rued In laid out and Improved by Orange County 1. 1921 and 1922, and ruanlag thence from said paint of beglmiug, V. 26 deg. 191 f., 1423.00 feet to the beginning Of a curve taogant having a radius of 2000 feat em being concern, ruterly: thane, Yortherly, along amid mina through a central angle of 3 dog. 551. 136.72 fat to • llna twe".t; than" Y. 22 deg, 241 w., along said tangent line. 160.34 feet to M Intersection with the Yortb- lysterly line of Irvine's Subdivision a ebo" on a Yap tbareof recorded In book 1, Peva M. Miscellaneous Record Yaps, Records of Stan" Comty, Oslifornis. At the inter.eotian of the linea of this right-af-asy with than. of county Part Rod, the earners srp to be cnt ugIQ the radii as •bowµ an the eQmwpaprlvg Yap,• F.1% x_[91:IIT, I:11kiHID October 25, 2010, Letter submitted at Planning Commission Meeting from Bret Fairbanks October 25, 2010 Planning Commission Board of Appeals From: Bret Fairbanks Subject: Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street My name is Bret Fairbanks and I live at 520 Pacific Street with my wife and four daughters. We have lived at this house for over ten years. I grew up in old town Tustin on Myrtle and 1 st. My great grandmother lived in Tustin, my parents lived in Tustin, and now my family lives here. My daughters go to Tustin High, Hughes, and TMA. We have been heavily involved in the athletic community for over 8 years playing Tustin Girls softball, AYSO, NJB, and Tustin United club soccer. Our home has a main house with a unit above the garage and one unit behind the garage. These units were there when we purchased the house and have been there for over 60 years. SUMMARY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO APPEAL I'll make this as brief as possible but I think it is important for you all to understand how this all came about. In December of last year we put our house on the market. We love our home and old town but with four girls, one in junior high and another in highschool, we are running out of room. We were planning on moving to another home here in Tustin. In July we finally secured an offer on the home and started packing. The buyer's appraiser phoned the city to see if the units burnt down if they could be rebuilt. They were told there was no permits for the units and therefore could not be rebuilt. The appraiser then gave zero value to the units making the home undervalued and the buyer unable to get a loan. I went down to the city and requested a burn down letter (attached July 27, 2010). 1 later met with Dana (Assistant Director) and Justin (Principal Planner) who gave me a letter (attached August 4) saying basically that there was no permits. I later met with Elizabeth (Director) to speak with her regarding the letter. A few days after our meeting she sent a letter (attached August 13) saying due to unpermitted structures I needed to schedule an appointment for an inspector to come out to the house. It was at that time the buyer could not wait any longer and we lost the sale of our home. After receiving the letter I returned to speak with Justin who suggested I apply for a conditional use permit (CUP). I got the application and had initial plans drawn up for review and the inspection was put on hold (attached August 20). The week of August 30th I went down to speak with Justin regarding the initial site plans I had submitted for the CUP. She explained the changes that needed to be done and other documents that needed to be submitted as well. I expressed my concern regarding spending money on the CUP applications, making all these changes, and still getting turned down for the CUP. I do not have that kind of money. I asked her regarding the California Historical Building Code and when did the city recognize the units were built and she explained that it might be better to talk with Henry (Building Official) and Dennis (Principal Engineer) at the building department and gave me their cards. I went over and spoke with Dennis and Henry who were very friendly and helpful and they suggested they come out to the house, not for an inpection but to give their opinion on when the house was built. They said they would call me soon for a time to meet at the house. On September 10, I received a call from Justin saying that they would be at the house in an hour. I asked who was coming out and she said Dennis, Henry, Elizabeth, and herself. I expressed my strong concern with Elizabeth coming out because of our disagreements in the past. I asked specifically what they were coming out for and she reassured me that it was to observe the units to determine when they were built and not a code inspection. With some reluctance and showing some good faith I met them at the house. Dennis, Elizabeth, and Justin met me at the home. Henry, who was the one person who I wanted and who suggested the meeting, was not there. They went through the units and we briefly discussed the age of the units but they did not give me any specifics. I wanted Dennis to give me his thoughts on when he thought the units were built, since that was the purpose of the meeting, and he said he would get back to me. On Wednesday September 15a', a few days after our meeting, I phoned and spoke with Justin asking for any updates and she said they are working on it and would get back to me. On Friday the 17th I received the Notice and Order / Declaration of Public Nuisance (attached Sept. 16). The following Monday September 20`s, I went down to speak with Henry regarding our original conversation of determining when the home was built. I also spoke with Justin about our conversation on the phone and her reassuring me that was the purpose of the visit. They both seemed surprised by the letter I received. Henry said he had briefly looked at the pictures and had not spoken with Dennis in depth about what he saw. I expressed my disappointment with the whole visit because it was not what we had agreed upon. Henry said he would speak with Dennis and get back to me and Justina was going to look into when the fust permits were issued in Tustin. I wrote the letter of appeal which is attached and here we are I went down to the city in good faith seeking assistance with the sale of my home and it has turned out to be a giant nightmare. This has been an extremely trying and stressful time for my family and me, financially and emotionally. We were excited and looking forward to moving and now we are trying to save the home we live in. QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY There are several questions I have asked the city on numerous occasions that no one has an answer to that are critical to my home and many other homes in old town. When does the city recognize the units were built? When was the first residential permit issued in Tustin and who issued it? Why do many homes (not guest houses) in old town built between 1927 and 1950 have no permits? How does the city determine if a structure can remain if it has no permits? For example my home and all other historic homes. What documents are necessary to determine if something is historic and can remain? If a structure is deemed historical on the survey and has no permits, what is it legally? APPEAL OF CODE VIOLATIONS In regards to the code violations. Code A105.1 Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. I have no intentions of rebuilding or reconstructing any portion of the said structures. I am just trying to sell my house. I purchased the home over 10 years ago and the structures already existed when I purchased the property. I have provided evidence to the city showing that the structures have existed for over 60 years and I will provide that evidence again tonight. I understand the city has no records of permits of the structures on my property but that is true for most homes built in old town prior to 1950. Most if not all of the homes would be in violation of this code. Amy mentioned in her agenda report that "the city has responded to complaints that have arisen in old town area of construction beine done without permits". These are situations where construction had started without permits. If I were rebuilding or constructing something I would get a permit but the units are existing structures and I am not and have no intention to build. With regards to permits in Tustin. After doing much research and speaking with OC Archives, Chi Tran the county building official, and numerous people at the county and city, there is a big gray area with the city of Tustin regarding permits between 1927 and 1950. I understand we were a growing city and trying to get established and organized but who issued permits, the county or the city? Did they issue permits? Who kept the records? When were they transferred to the city? Where are they? I pulled permits on homes (not guest houses) along main street in old town built in 1930, 1944, 1945 and 1950. Not one of them had a building permit from when it was built and these are homes along main street of old town. In regards to violation 9223(b)(2) and 9223 (b)(2)(d). Both of these codes are part of Ordinance 157 which was adopted on November 6, 1961. Both units on my property existed prior to this ordinance. According to Tustin City Code 9273 (a) of that same chapter: Non -Conforming Structures and Uses: EXISTING AT THE TIME of the adoption of this Chapter may be continued although the particular use, or the buildintz or structure does not conform to the regulations specified by this Chapter for the district in which the particular building or structure is located or use is made provided, however, no nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned, any subsequent use of such land or building shall conform to the regulations specified for the district in which such land or building is located. If no structural alterations are made therein, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restrictive classification upon the securing of a use permit. If the nonconforming use is replaced by a more restrictive nonconforming use, the occupancy thereafter may not revert to a less restrictive use. If any use is wholly discontinue for any reason except pursuant to a valid order of a court of law for a period of one (1) year, it shall be conclusively presumed that such use has been abandoned within the meaning of this Chapter, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the particular district in which the land or building is located. (Ord. No. 157, Sec.6.1) Both of the units on my property existed at the time of the adoption of this Chapter and should be considered nonconforming structures. 9273 (c) A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty of act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. (Ord. No. 310, Sec 2) In Amy's report she talks about nonconforming structures and states that "Provisions for reconstruction of nonconforming buildings do not apply to structures or additions which have been constructed without the benefit of permits." Where in the code does it say this? There is a difference between legal nonconforming and nonconforming structures and the city of Tustin has adopted nonconforming structures and uses according to ordinance 157, Sec. 6.1, which I have read above. HISTORY OF THE HOUSE A few good things that have come about with this whole situation is that I have met a lot of nice people in the neighborhood and community and I have found out a lot about the history of Tustin and the history of my home. On several occasions I have had the pleasure to speak with John Gaylord and Robert Gaylord who are the sons of George Gaylord, the original owner of the property and the man who built the structures. I appreciate the effort that went into the historical assessment of my home done by Thirtieth Street Architects. There are some points that he got right but some discrepancies. Attached is a letter written by Robert Gaylord, one of the sons who actually grew up in the house and would know the history better than anyone of us. October 25, 2010 To whom it may concern, My name is Robert Stephen Gaylord, one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord. I grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave. (now 520 Pacific St.) in Tustin, CA. My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above the garage all in the time and with the processes it takes for a single individual to do all that. The best that I can recall is the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base in EI Segundo. We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion and saw the search lights and anti-aircraft guns. Dad finished the apartment for him and his new wife to stay near us while he was serving in Southern California. Later, the apartment was rented to Marines stationed at EI Toro Marine Base. I recall the stairs to the entrance as a child. In my memory they were always there on the side of the garage where my parents would catch rainwater. We were not allowed to go up those stairs. The unit behind the garage was built by my father roughly between 1945 and 1950. 1 judge this based on the fact I was born in 1933 and when my brother John and I were young teenagers my father built the two rooms and bathroom for us to occupy. After we moved away from our old home, the rooms were made available to others. The only person I remember was, (I believe the spelling is) Ms. Grennan, who helped take care of my parents to the very end. In fact, she called me about health problems my father was having when we moved him out and sold the house. My father worked at the grammar school as a woodshop, boys' athletics and natural science teacher. He was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and a Deacon with the Presbyterian Church in Tustin. He was often involved in construction work in and around Tustin. He was in every way a faithful law-abiding citizen. Sincerely, Robert S. Gaylord (See attached letter) I would also like to point out that city records show that George Gaylord, the man who built the structures, was the city building inspector for Tustin between 1956 and 1958. Also attached are numerous documents that prove the units have existed for some time and have been recognized by the county as multifamily dwelling units. - A copy of the Historical survey of my home which discusses the two story garage. -Tax assessment records dating back to 1952 which have two addresses and a map of the main house and both rental units. -There is also a copy of Luskeys Santa Ana & Central Orange County Criss Cross City directory from August of 1952 with two addresses with the name of the person who is living in one of the units. -A property detail report from the County building department with a land use description of multi -family dwelling with 3 units. -A public service information form from when we purchased the property showing multi family residential dated May 5, 2000. -A letter from the Orange County Sanitation District charging multi -unit residential rates. - A permit from the city of Tustin for a second electrical meter for the units in the back. - A permit from the city of Tustin allowing a new roof on the back units as well as other permits for my property. HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE The following is a copy of the purpose of the California Historical Building Code which the city of Tustin adopted in 2007. Section 8-1011 Purpose. The purpose of the CHBC is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation or reconstruction of buildings or properties designated as qualified historical buildings or properties. Chapter 8-2 of the CHBC defines Qualified Historical Building or Property. As defined in the Health and Safety Code Section 18955. Any building, site, object, place, location, district or collection of structures, and their associated sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture or culture of an area by an appropriate local, state or federal governmental jurisdiction. This shall include historical buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for, national, state or local historical registers or inventories, such as the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical resources, State Historical Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and city or county registers, inventories or surveys of historical or architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks. My property is listed in the city of Tustin Historical Resources Survey which satisfies the requirement of CHBC Chapter 8-2 as a qualified historical property. Attached is a copy of the historical survey of my home. In the description in talks about the two story garage and shows a picture of it. According to the CHBC and the Cultural Resource Overlay District my home and property are historic. We should want to keep these structures because they have a great history behind them, it adds to the culture of old town, and there is no distinct danger to anybody. Section 8-102.1 Application. The CHBC is applicable to all issues regarding code compliance for qualified historical buildings or properties. Paragraph 1. The state or local enforcing agency shall apply the provisions of the CHBC in permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, restoration, reconstructions, rehabilitation, relocation or continued use of qualified historical building or property when so elected by the private property owner. I have asked the city on numerous occasions why are we not going by these codes. This again demonstrates that the code has not been accurately applied to my property. CHBC Section 8-303 Residential Occupancies 8-303.1 Purpose The purpose of this section is to provide regulations for those buildings designated as qualified historical buildings or properties and classified as occupancies. The CHBC requires enforcing agencies to accept any reasonable equivalent to the regular code when dealing with qualified historical building and properties. 8-303.2 Intent The intent of the CHBC is to preserve the integrity of qualified historical buildings and properties while maintaining a reasonable degree of protection of life, health and safety for the occupants. The units have been there for decades and they have been rented for decades. The last thing I want is for somebody to get hurt or be in danger living in the units. According to the CHBC Section 8-201 the definition of a Distinct Hazard is: Any clear and evident condition that exists as an immediate dancer to the safety of the occupants or public right of way. Conditions that do not meet the requirements of current regular codes and ordinances do not. of themselves, constitute a distinct hazard. Again the purpose of this code (CNBC) and the Cultural Overlay is to preserve old structures and make sure they are safe and I have done both. SITUATIONS SIMII.AR TO MINE Lastly, I do feel like I am being treated differently because there are other properties just like mine, and the city has responded differently. Precedence has already been set. For example: There is a property on B street that is a duplex with another unit above the garage with stairs and entrance just like mine (see attached photo). This property is zoned RI and has no permits from when it was built. There are a few permits given in the 60's -80's but no original building permits and no conditional use permit. In 2006 the city thoroughly inspected the property in response to an application made for the Mills act. In the city's report they stated the importance and historical significance of the property and did not mention anything about current zoning or building violations and the structures remain. There are numerous other examples where the city has given permits to existing structures that have no original building permits. There are examples of people in old 7 town who wanted to tear down unpermitted structures and were stopped by the city because they were historic. The last example is more directly related to my original problem. All I needed was a letter from the city. On 6'h street there is a SFR with a duplex behind the house. Very similar to mine. Attached is a letter the owner received in 1998 regarding his property. It reads: The subject property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which permits single family residences. Second single family dwellings may be considered in the R-1 District on properties with more than 12,000 square feet of lot area, compliance with several other development standards, and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (TCC Sec. 9233(B)(1). Our records indicate that the main residence was constructed in 1929. We also have on file various building permits for the duplex on the rear of the property, dating back to 1964. However, there is no record of an approved Conditional Use Permit for the use. As such, the duplex is considered to be a nonconforming use. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(C), nonconforming buildings destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its value by a catastrophic event may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. For my property, I have a permit for a second electrical meter that the city inspected and permitted that goes directly to the back units. I also have a permit for the roof on the rear structure that the city inspected and permitted. According to Section 9273 of TCC my structures should be considered nonconforming use. I relied on the city when issuing the permits and would not have purchased the property or spent money on the roof if not allowed. To summarize: • Code Al 05.1 — An owner who intends to construct. I don't have any intentions of building. • Codes 9223 (b)(2) and 9223 (b)(2)(d) were written in 1961. The structures existed prior to this ordinance. • The property is historic and we should want to preserve the history. • The structures should be nonconforming. I want to thank the commission for your time and consideration. I am not trying to get away with anything or build anything without permits. All I am asking for is the city to do what they have done with other properties similar to mine, to follow code 9273, and to recognize the structures as nonconforming. I am asking the planning commission for help and to see that the code violations have not been accurately applied to my property and to simply recognize the structures as nonconforming as the city has appropriately done in the past. July 27, 2010 City of Tustin Community Development Department Justin Wilkom, Principal Planner Dear Ms. Wilkom, My name is Bret Fairbanks and I am the owner of the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780. We are currently selling our home and are in escrow. Our property has a single family residence in front with 2 guest homes in the back. According to the attached county records we have 2 addresses 520 and 520 '/2, we have and pay for 2 separate electric meters, and have various city permits for improvements we have done on the home since we purchased it in 2000. The buyers lender is requiring a letter from the city stating in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, the city would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. Attached are documents from the county tax assessors office showing the guest houses have been here long before we purchased the property. Thank you for your time and consideration. This letter is all we need to close escrow. If there is anything I could do to help speed up this process please let me know. Bret Fairbanks C.P. (949) 933-6886 1 Community Development Department TU S T I N Z August 4, 2010 Brett Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 HIno0.Y BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mr. Fairbanks: Thank you for your letter, received July 27, 2010, requesting zoning confirmation for the property located at 520 Pacific Street. In your letter, you indicated that the property has a single family residence in the front with two guest homes in the back. You have also included copies of tax assessor information related to your property for the City's review. In the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, you inquired if the City would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. The subject property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained. A guest house is defined in the Tustin City Code as detached living quarters of a permanent type of construction and without kitchens or cooking facilities and where no compensation in any form is received or paid. No permits exist for guest houses at the subject property and no conditional use permit is on file to establish guest houses at the subject property. In your letter you indicated that there are two addresses at the subject property, 520 and 520 1/2 Pacific Street. The City has not assigned a 1/2 address to the subject property. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(c), "A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located." The provisions for reconstruction of a nonconforming building does not apply to structures or additions which have been illegally constructed or constructed without the benefit of permits. Should you wish to establish guest houses at the subject property, approval of conditional use permits and obtaining necessary building permits would be required. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 573-3123. Sincerely, Rya wicn: Associate Planner Attachments: A. Single Family Residential (R-1) standards B. Cultural Resources District (CR) standards C. Guest House Definition 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 8 www.tustinca.org Community Development Department Sear# by first Mass mail August 13. 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 SUBJECT: 520 PACIFIC STREET APN # 401-371-07 Dear Mr. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Or. August 4, 2010, you were advised by City staff that no permits exist for your two guest houses and that no conditional use permit exists to allow guest houses at 520 Pacific Street. As such, City staff hereby requests to inspect your property. Please contact me at (714) 573-3 i35 by no later than Tuesday August 24. 2010 to schedule an onsite inspection of your property. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely BVdSteen Code Enforcement Officer Attachment: Letter, dated August 4, 2010 Cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org Community Development Department Sent by first class mail August 20, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 SUBJECT: 520 PACIFIC STREET APN # 401-371-07 Dear Mr. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for meeting with City staff yesterday afternoon to discuss your two guest houses. During the meeting, you stated that you would start developing plans to submit to the City soon, along with a completed conditional use permit (CUP) application to attempt to legalize both guest houses. As such, the recent request to inspect your property will be put on hold. However, you understand that an inspection of your property may be necessary during the approval process and that if approved, both guest houses would not be permitted to be rented, nor could they be provided with kitchen facilities. You also agreed to contact Amy Thomas within ten days to provide a status on the submittal of your plans and CUP application. Therefore, please contact Amy Thomas at (714) 573-3126 or athomas-tustinca.org on (or) before Tuesday September 7, 2010 with an update on your pending submittal. Once again, thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely kta., d Steen Code Enforcement Officer Cc: Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Justina Willkom, Principal Planner Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3100 9 F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Community Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address: Assessor Parcel Number: Case Number: Dear Mr. Fairbanks, 520 Pacific Street 401-371-07 V10-0312 TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore. please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday. October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 9 www.tustinca.org Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street September 10, 2010 Case # V10-0312 Page 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincere' BIJ Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: Exhibit A— Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Notiu"Ordw at 520 PWA. Str.M Sapt.0 16.2010 Caw 0 V10 12 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest roams, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) —Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Comer lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. Community Development Department EXHIBIT A Administrative Citation Process TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Cede (TCC) 1182(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first :iolstlon; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sea 8100 — 89W) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation, $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City• may also take further legal action including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the viciation(s) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding "a). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding flne(s), and contact the City to request a re- inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding flne(s) and request an extension of time in writing pursuant to TCC 1185(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1188 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative station, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing forms and other information on Administrative Citations May be obtained on the City's website at www.tustince.ora. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 • R(714)573-31113 • www.tustinca.arg September 22, 2010 Brad Steen, Code Enforcement officer Community Development Department City of Tustin Letter of Appeal for: Notice and Order/ Pre -Citation Notice Declaration of Public Nuisance Address: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780 Assessor parcel number: 401-371-07 Case Number: V 10-0312 Dear Mr. Steen, This letter is to appeal and request consideration on the recent notice I received regarding unpermitted units. The code violation reads any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. I have no intentions of rebuilding or reconstructing any portion of the said structures. I purchased the home over 10 years ago and the structures already existed when I purchased the property. I have provided evidence to show that the structures have existed for over 50 years. I understand the city has no permits of the structures on my property but that is true for most homes built in old town prior to 1950. Most if not all of the homes would be in violation and considered a public nuisance. With regards to the other violations regarding conditional use permits and lot lines, I am not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to issuing of conditional use permits and the fust zoning ordinance of Tustin. In response the letter, it is my intent to apply for a conditional use permit and progress accordingly however I do not feel I have violated any code and am not in any way a public nuisance. Sincerely, Bret Fairbanks Community Development Department October 13, 2010 Bret Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST SUBJECT: APPEAL HEARING FOR NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (APN 401-371-07) Dear Mr. Fairbanks: The City of Tustin has received your request for hearing to appeal the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at your property located at 520 Pacific Street. In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 9294 and 8101, the Planning Commission will act as the appeal hearing body and act in its capacity as the Board of Appeals respectively to consider the appeal. A public hearing has been scheduled on October 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. As the appellant contesting the Notice and Order, you will be provided the opportunity to testify and present evidence concerning the Notice and Order at the public hearing. A written report concerning the appeal for consideration at the hearing will be provided to you by mail prior to the date of the hearing. Should you have any questions regarding the appeal hearing, please contact me at (714) 573- 3126 or athomas(cDtustinca.oro. Sincerely, Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner cc: Y. Henry Huang, Building Official File 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org CITY OF TUSTIN OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, California Appellant: Bret Fairbanks, current property owner of 520 Pacific Street Project Address: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin (APN 401-371-07) Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals (per Section 8101 of the TCC) of the City of Tustin, California, will conduct a public hearing on October 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, to consider the following: On September 16, 2010, and pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street providing written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requiring the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructed in violation of the Tustin Building Code and Zoning Codes. In part, Section 5502(b) states a public nuisance exists when "any condition... exists upon any premises that is dangerous to human life or is detrimental to health as determined by an appropriate city official.' The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07) has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order filed on his property. Pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission will act in its capacity as Board of Appeals in considering evidence supporting the City's determination that a dangerous condition exists at the subject property due to the present violation of the following Building Code section: 1. California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission will also consider the evidence supporting the City's determination that a dangerous condition exists at the subject property due the present violation of the following Zoning Code sections: 2_ Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) — Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit 3. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) — Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses — Comer lot line 10 feet, interior lot line: 5 feet. If you challenge the subject item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Tustin at or prior to the public hearing. If you require special accommodations, please contact the Planning Commission Recording Secretary at (714)573-3106. Information relative to this item is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the information above may call the Community Development Department at (714) 573-3126. Pamela Stoker Puhlich• Tncfin Nawc nrfnhar 1d 9n1n If you require special accommodations, z please contact Tustin City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin 92780 714-573-3000 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST DATE: 29 STYLE: CALIFORNIA BUNGALOW SOURCE: RATING: T C ALTERATIONS: F HISTORICAL DISTRICT: YES COMMENT: DESCRIPTION: iC= OF 7CQJSTH4 HIIS'II ORUCAL SNS' The single -storied house at 520 is topped with a front facing gabled roof and matching centered porch. A small louvered vent is centered below the peak Shiplap siding, in a style made in the 40's and 50's, covers the gables, indicating that the roof is not original. Narrow clapboard siding covets the Fust floor exterior. Square posts, testing on tapered clapboard -clad piers, support the roof The concrete porch extends to each side, topped with pergolas. The front door features a mullioned border and is flanked by large plate glass windows. Double -hung windows are used .throughout the rest of the hoose. A red brick chimney on the south side is flanked by windows. A carport and a two-story clapboard -clad garage are located on the south side, behind the house. The garage, which appears to be original, is topped with a gabled roof with a hip at the peak. The siding is narrow clapboard, which seems to indicate that the house once was also all clapboard -sided with a hip at the peak of the front -facing gabled roof. SIGNIFICANCE: This California Bungalow was built on one of the lots along South Pacific Street which were subdivided by Harry Marple. He was the son of Richard and Edna Marple, fruit growers, who owned an orchard on this property from 1903 until the property passed to Harry in 1924. He dedicated a strip down the center, from Main to Sixth Streets, for the extension of Pale Street. He sold this lot to George Gaylord in 1929. The Gaylords received a completion notice an their borne that same year. George was a well -liked wood shop and physical education instructor at the Tustin Grammer School for several years. After he retired in the 1950's, he became a carpenter. The Gaylords were still living in the house in 1965. This bungalow fits well into the streetscape of the Tustin Historic District and contributes to the tree -lined street because it is of an appropriate size and scale. ffmm F t . ■�i��f 2'�� :-"�■w■m ■-t_t_�_■t_ 'r t ■YFAM ■ ���®® tri■G■ ■tom—tom®®■ tdi■rn�� ■rr,�■nwrm ■mttttttt�ttttta®�■ ttttt■�t�tttt■t■■NEM!Mmrwrv:l ■�ttttttt�tttt��■o■ . tt�ar�i� mmm mm ■ tttttttt ■ tttt� m ■ ■a•tttttttt.tttt�tsm m ■�ttttttt�■■��■ut m =s0 ' s s r� s � r „' � h +rye. Y dPIDIf! MLYKR •rwYYYt an ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL uTaT APPRAISAL RLCa a AOOREBB ��ni. Fn:LIT r TRACT DISTRICT • . _. r . T / _.—__ LOT OWNER BLOCK PROJECT NO. KwIT LAM VALUE COMPUTATIONS LAW OA IMT ATTRMRME CAtf YEAR UNR ma VN v YN.CE , "a" LITE. 'J !iJ0y:J ! COM lad On Kw IT UTV E RE}RprITATM Yp ❑ . . 11111EAYlJ1R .o a i1O® •epolpT SUMMARY , euL.a•ue .._._. .rs � - .RMI ,. a -,r I� ..--- E TaRREII _[� rEA ArnMIAAR _ :.E +- ,clv Re ssY✓ JL —�- Yawn, av 'EAR - . 7/ r -10-7 t ALLn +p 0� III vim Re.u.0. tAIO VIYYE � Is A I . ATTN.W 10 t ❑ T E1 Mr11Tg11 IYOI MR ..�f(bLQ e, D It CMT eal101r,10 .. 20 30 GCA 14 ORLMM %r1 1�T0 IE La.R.Y.INDICAIaII IE LOT VTILT ,❑tL❑.E❑ UYR YULT. IYCITwTa1 n LVATEII PRCFIf IAOI4Tp tAW KIq �6 00o �—� usTm r,Rc[ _ ,E oa1LIYa RIa1rtE.. to SOMI"° TOTAL F110FrRY vLtw,. O r Ea1Rls Ca1�M1. M . + VWIRM i 0!cl HAPROVVA" It YlP m IV _.._ -W m f3 w T1 FlIIsa11LL FROrYTTY VALVE —.. _.. YL T1r SUIT , f'! t T rl • Y - r. t .. _ r ... M YIYE1Yl RIYNi _ • OT patWVE T1YR1C m �' b ❑ '71 fS OK /1 7Z a tFIWT cN tft 102 V4,7, 79 -BO G<A.P..is r, I Pw.� 03 -- -- --.—_ . -` —.i -_..P_ s..�ac s.Y�jj.�syzz _—._— s mP„I,cr ---. .. _... _. TiIIi %A.. s Lu: eme rer«w Am- Z-4 .'t Nwi nlyl w:eT 6La .°Art:e AD:f dZR{�atza >• iiMa.0.'PY+i1A: S7•V_ SGMPrCL6 $ /�;_ __ _._.— —_. r w OK TO No qn TUVrAF r NElAFp'to I FORMERLYS9 ----- ET .. _..— .—.. _ _ _._.. _ . -- 1111HUMBORHOW ArnUNUM ...—._...... r rAAL[ FAY. SUE Vp IA) _ s LRRT. FAIL USE Tp Ip w ear. USE •. Ya Ye r 0.wTG TYK Yp Ya .. M RATFIIN 1 i 1 um M ILMI — M sOC1AL sARYKp �, t E KANJC ANrrp TRK RGLY.a, YIaN Y,C RCLR,a. _.n.Az1 b. LEI w... r _ __..__. MJ• MARKET MULTIPL" REOTOR 1 aLR CAr nYs IICYM rl /EA rIR L L a r Irrc umur. r .. r COMCLULWM YR -- •n T --P. V—`RE e — APPRMEOP11a011 YYs r " aaE Rr, TCML IIIL uaY. MM eErc rat IIPI Daae d ZZ w _. dPIDIf! MLYKR •rwYYYt an Room AP MT IN Ne 74 NOR TU �"w ROL ora NO_ I AS now MAMMMW e. at"" If AT L .-I FFF Nr A C DaSMP"ON WHA COW MAL="Im OWN I� HIM cm IFUR -4 01 MOMMEMATOM �TVM -- RR0 mAi. dL u Tm amm NNOMMOMP I tri pri BANC COR DATA WASCRUNIOUS sTMUcnma OPM11ML _MM SLAS �4r 3L in F.L. . N4.Q umon OR GA. COxT.mm! pm ...... ..... .. .. ..... Almmm. IAmvro .M"M ...... ... IN ma m mm" 10 R AMU IN MIT MICYK'Ns 70 4:m- S a a GMT... .. .. ......... HGAT NO 0 .7 EX QT .......... 1-12 COV. PAr I 114 CONSPIWATPONS 14 I's "A. AMU In PIMP. AREA, In mobt CxT IN 121 accx omm In =K wn in MUNN CONT -FLin 1100. mmm in COR we TRACr PW. DIST. _ Lar _ DATE OWNER BLOCK AMT. AOOF BWL ROOM AND FINISH DETAIL UN . ...__ Dooms rtmll nNnN - a l I wNaML oR. lvAlu C[KNIG At/Alves "- M SON-- M ver N - — w ac oAM Y IN x111 _.. Its Eloolom 7o. SHINdILIE- I�YNq — - _ M1NM -- -4 " IIwM N A . _ laill n }maw-- wr so _ 07/ Rat— MAN LLi _.__ ..__ ._ - n vnnrv[nu ..` - n oLrR[CIAMMI TML[ . OO] IN-� -- IOOIYI .-. _.— )t NNRIONAL rlAN 102030 W. YRK q MM' 6N1 NYL W R. M CONOfIION 1 Oi�3� illff�_ r.NFAT . w A m. nr nl[ LIM .L. 1rlAiM� iA�s tAM R. _ _._ wloqcm )3 NOIIIIYANW lr i ❑ ] ❑ j itt6 - "_ BATH DETAIL __.._._ ... ..__. n vrAL RaaMl ,- -rLOORl MAILS Ae u rn nNlaN "JIM IuIIYAM n LMM Run � yr rh n MNxw Ml _ _ _._. -- -. a rAMo.r IiYa lZl All -far Ailift ._ 1-1111 _... _ .. iii__... M. "sea wl K MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES _ M io. a Gnl RM )wea _ KN RIIYR. rlli, eaN. GT. ROOT Il IMT ila M OTNq - •YQ 1 I ." M CerrtRAt NGT Ya ❑ "Ea OM NOOO `fi/iFll (•�: J SO COOLING Rio M® t) COsf L[Y6 L11tC - - - =�--. • h3L . COST FACTORS puAurr cias �S:' c • - ..._ - w Al1G 1011 MOO. . _ _ w 1Y r111 AR[A - )l M 3r+ I111 ARG . N 34 FFAROII .. - A ATM MLR w ATM rACTM --.__ A TIN pMT Ai[A --- . N IN LIMT IAOf011 w OMAN iwlT ANG Iw um" LwT FA 1, OI AOpT10M W ADOTDM IAE}OII' - - 1m MIICN TOTAL CO3T --�, - b coY rAno Cwt IOi ONLVY MTIO CWT - _ R) AC IaT w GT R3T COLT li aAR coli O[f 11 W culw ATr - n wMG --- IDI IA M COST COMPUTATIONS APPIF. DATE _ —, -- is 6 �coa COMM[ RIM FACT Av OOET is MIC 17 IKKILI� 1s FOOL 0111[ `E'.•:' - n oou wri ever .. OOCA Illnl OATt ' . �'','•.. - a ocreawo MAlwr na � M � a s¢ will .I^ a NRIa1p Comm a P. c Coors aCM a6 w .: IOI IUND � BH rr a e.s 20 4LLwt Q -.... DING 4: _ TOfX 'Ir Laserfiche WebLink LaserfichW WebLink scowls seeerh T.vAc;N PAGIpTB FILE NUOASER ME Wi DAM WALm CONTWX Y. MM RANGE 2�MIO REPORT WhlE HIT REG PONWM7RON 515 P�ttT R�OH 2011 Page 1 of I HAP L-9" PAP pa, 14 ,!(W, PSA 017 LAMA AM KIND AlW11110 XlXClC)lT (:Alls cmu PA®LQ =Nrlalm �rAwh ...... a W71 O*ww on W f ....... 74". rA{AD AA W .... Kim tY Y ..a 149 .......... INJ A ...... :1 ...... W. w . ...... IM a �15 xd W wIRA PHOHlDia •Y N 9g�Av�mmw4b! 20 clunrIepir AV. llffl'F WCANOG K 0—.—M ....... U. Owl I.W=w t Z RURAL STR= ADDRESS DIRECTORY Lclsm (� .ISH iaa�va.� 0==ftN,am,cW m�.T.-Wnw IaRjz;�-, -G.!Kbrm G jai;= 0=11 ................. . SEE',. aewplas EF 3 ........ M� "�CC Ap MV! 1t11rV E �=C W ....... M 7AW c w I 54911 AIY NY! v 7 Jr Ed 1109tJAvtr Save Lux* thawkI '64 4 cp-" -ir Gess 6i7ll /47 V.3 r /952 htt-n-//www hiqhnra orcy/weblink[DoeView-a.qnx?id=106201&.searchhandle=31574 8/4/2010 Property Detail Report Property Detail Report for: 520 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN CA, 92780-4329 Owner Information: Owner Name: FAIRBANKS,BRETS Mailing Address: 520 PACIFIC ST, TUSTIN, CA, 92780- 4329 Vesting Code: Page 1 of 1 1 DIGITAL MAP sgmdpta o q 1PGCLFrT5 Phone Number: Location Information: Legal Description: STAFFORD & TUSTIN TR LOT V S 50 FT OF N 460 FT OF THE W 200 FT County: ORANGE FIPS Code: 06059 Census Trct/Bik: APN: 40137107 Alternative APN: 40137107 Map Ret Twnshp-Rnge-Sect -- Legal Book/Page: 401-37/ Tract No: Legal Lot: V Legal Block: Subdivison: STAFFORD 8 TUSTIN TR Last Market Sale Information: Sale Date: 01/03/2005 Sale Price: Sale Doc No: 0000002609 Price Per SgFt Transfer Doc No: 0000161105 Price Per Acre: Multi/Split Sale: 1 s'Mtg Doc No: Sale Type: FULL CONSIDERATION Deed Type: Quality: Title Company: FIRST SOUTHWESTERN TITLE Lender: WASHINGTON MUTUAL FSB Seller Name: LOUIS METRO INTER R E PROPERTI Property Characteristics: Building Area: 1,749 Total Rooms: Living Area: 1,749 Bedrooms Garage Area: Baths: Basement Area: Fireplace: Parking Type: No of Stories: Yr Built/Effective: 1928/ Quality: Pool Code: 39.47 Tax and Value Information: 337621 15t Mtg Amount 1st Mtg Int Type: 2nd Mtg Amount 2nd Mtg Int Type: Construction: Heat Type: Air Cond: Roof Type: Roof Material: Style: Assessed Value: $453,539 Assessed Year. 2009 Est Market Val: Land Value: $274,512 Property Tax: $5,046 Assessor Appd Val: Improvement Value: $179,027 Improvement%: 39.47 Total Taxable Value: $446,539 Tax Exemption: HOMEOWNER Site Information: Assessor Acres: 0.2296 Zoning: Land Use: Assessor Lot Sq Ft: 10,000 No of Buildings: Land Use Des¢ Assessor Lot W/D: / Res/Comm Units: 3 County Use Code: Calculated Acres: 0.2296 Sewer Type: Calculated Lot SgFt Water Type: Not in Seismic Liquefaction Hazard Not in Seismic Landslide Hazard Not in Fault Zone Hazard In One Mile Industrial Commercial Zone Not in 100yr. FEMA Flood Zone In Dam Inundation Hazard Not in Wildland Fire Hazard Not in Severe Fire Hazard 0755053/3 A4-830 $341,900 $56,800 $556,033 133 MULTI FAMILY DWELLING http://maps.digitalmapcentral.com/production/CityGIS/vO7_O2_003/index.html 8/10/2010 Design Type Codes 001 - Single Family Residence 002,i4ulti Family 999 - Misc. Improvements Requested By Address dao )A,'lF'id Phone ( ) Signature PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION FORM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 APN 1 - -� 2 BLDG# 3 CONST YEAR 4 USE CODE ZESIGNE 8 BLDG SIZE 3RD FL 9 BLDG SIZE 4TH FL 10 BLDG SIZE 5TH/UP 11 UNIT MIX 12 13 GARAGE/ CRPRT POOL SISIZE 36 C 14 LAND .0,(z� x LL c m F (V2 li _ 4X79 L ` .✓ f m v+= J - C. C r O O A 99 OUATTROpRO Check Amount $ Cash Amount $ Mailed Date By ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT We protect public health and the environment by providing effective wastewater collection, treatment, and recycling. June 30, 2010 FAIRBANKS, BRET S 520 PACIFIC ST TUSTIN,CA 92780-4329 �'r'�ulTl �CLM. !btu S To the Owner of Record of Parcel Number: 40137107 Situs Address: 520 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET TUSTIN During the past year, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has conducted a review of a portion of parcels in its service area. Prior to the review, the OCSD data represented the parcel as non-residential. You are receiving this notice because a parcel review was performed and it was determined that there should be a correction to the OCSD's data. An adjustment in either the property use code and/or number of residential units will result in a change in the annual sewer service fee effective Fiscal Year 2010-11. Your property is provided sewerage services by OCSD. OCSD is part of a large regional sewerage system serving 23 cities and unincorporated areas within Orange County. Wastewater is collected first by your local sewering agency, such as your city, and then transported by OCSD's large trunk sewers to one of two regional treatment plants. These facilities treat and dispose of nearly 230 million gallons of wastewater each day. The cost of the regional sewerage system of residential properties is assessed based upon the number of dwelling units. The sewer user fee is for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. Although the OCSD's sewer user fee is not a tax, it is collected as a separate line item on the property tax bill. Using the services of the County Tax Collector - Treasurer significantly reduces the OCSD's administrative and collection costs. The sewer fee charge rate for fiscal year 2010-11 for a single family residence is $20.33 per month ($244 per year). The multi -unit residential rate is $14.23 per month ($170.80 per year) per dwelling unit. If you have questions regarding this information or would like specific information regarding your parcel, please call the OCSD "Rate Line" at (714) 593-7281 between 7:30 am and 4:00 pm Monday through Friday. Inquiries may also be made by email at rates(n-)ocsd.com, or writing to the OCSD Financial Management Division, 10844 Ellis Ave, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. Please include your name, telephone number, and Parcel Number with any correspondence to help us promptly respond. 10844 Ellis Avenue • Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 • (714) 962-2411 • vvvvvv.ocsd.com SEWER CONNECTION APPLICATION AND PERMIT (AREA DEVELOPMENT—SINGLE OWNERSHIP) CITY OF TUSTIN 13S W. Third St. Tustin, California � e7` � v_ APPLICATION To be completed by owner or agent and submitted in quin- fuplicale with required feet and plans — see reverse tido Applicant.. C> G/2GsE'. 1 �is.Y er ---- following connections) to City's sewerage facitities: Location Lot Nos. )See ravens side for instructions). Tract No.. To_ To_.._.— _- ---_, hereby requests the Sae Type F'vr s.0� CcalaJz+�fy0u) TO— Total lots_ — .._ _ ---Estimated date of occupancy --.--- if commercial or industrial property, total acreage served_---.—• The waste to be discharged to City's sewerage facilities, if other thenpurely domestic sewage will have the follcwinq general characteristics as to estimated quantities, time of peak discharge and principal source or sources: In making this application, applicant acknowledges that any permit issued will constitute a contract, if accepted by applicant, aid may a enforced by civil action at law and/or injunction. Data; t% //t! 7/. _ .. — � ------ -— ---- SIGNATURE PERMIT No• -moo_- f For Connection to City Sewerage Facifltiss end far Discharge of Domestic Sewage Only Permission to construct connaction(s) to the sewerage facilities of the Cityy is hereby granted to applicant providing ,urh connectwnjs) is made in accordance with plans and specifications hareby approved, and attached hereto: further providing that request for inspection must be given to the Tustin City Hell )544-7820) at least 24 hours prior to the commencinq of any construction work. This permit also gives the applicant permission to discharge only purely domestic sewage through the con - This racsion)s) hereinabove authorized into the sewerage system of the City. The discharge of any industrial or commar- .. cinl w,sstc is not authorized without a further and separate permit from the City. Recmpt of required foes and charges as specified by Orange County Sanitation District No. 7, Ordlrance No. 705,4V'l . is hereby ackn wled ad. ^;•'•-/. I1 Date_.. � ..._ ._... _ .._ CITYOF STIN_ law, 00S Amount Paid �� APPLICATION FOR PLUMBING PERMIT APIOANT: PLEASE FILL IN SHADED AONLY -- !ISF I^;F)FI_IBLE PENCIL, BALI- POINT PEN t OTHER NON_ERASAQLESUBSTANCF CITY OF APPLICANT FI! L IN THIS SHAPED AREA TUSTIN '�"���' „ ' � ,,:. , „ ONLY — FILL INCOMPLETELY 7rJ ; "" 614 5 "I •u �r. PERMIT FEES - �'-S.fFFt-- .. - ��/N� ._-.��. t>t.]']•5.,....--.__.. WA tERCLUSETItO1LE7l_---_... .. _. ---_ HATHTUH TST�I I NO SMUNEH51 r_ -- l'ilrnY .41, KIICNkN 1'J1R OANH4 Gi. O1SPU tI, .)GSA 7— :r/t( .-- l.t. UgORY TV .TUTU WA::H 11447" OISIAWASHLH . .. .. ,." u w.tt �, SE Pb -17E S",. „ ... L:. ._.-..... FLUUN :IN Y. ' "r •i6 ...;,."')mxu: ,n.•.mi •n,r'�'x�anr�m llw, m. u,v xr nl F.JOH DNAIry may UR,NKINt) FOUNTAIN)•'"} I If 1 — xr-?`/1•-"�---• -- ---' URINAL -•.---... iJ---- -- ,. -- SWIMNIINO POOL . WAl'ER HF.A fER ---- WATER SOFik NEH5 LAWN SPRINKLERS HES.O COMM.G FT AILERNOOK UPS --- '.Winlmu.a. , 1 wl u 'd•IIINKI 1 II '. • . f l St I INAI I11I 111 Y Cr) I')HMII VAIJOAJ 11)11 WHEN PROPERLY VALIOATEU I f I HOUSE SEWER IVALUATIONI I PERMIT ISSUING FEE ALU CASH SPACE.) THIS IS YOUR PERMIT. TOTAL FEE 5 5 APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT > ADPUCA 4T '-LEASE FILL IN SHADEDAPEA ONLY -a-- LKE hJLFLi P.IE PENCIL BALL POINT PEN OR OTHER NON — FDASABLESLIBSTANCE., APPLICANT FILL IN THIS SHADED AREA ONLY •- FILL IN CQMPLETELY ADON E55/3i1JL- ✓fSF.CJ��I ��34.p� CI�T�Y�/�.j�. TEL ENGINEER NIEERT O NO. [���vp a �u(;ijdN-._01G,L/_fCa.'_".`3.>d_•FlL� Xa`�REf•; L circ I Y LI LIC NO LIC. NO. „DESCRIPTION 7F -W-'-"' USE TOF I ENISTIN a RIO.. R PERFORMED RFRMEO L 12745 N('H rIDD r=lrlY- ili✓�- TMOV'�Q y_ LiMD1M A; ,,Ar. :wa '•rl. nar tri ;nNl %6-5 -----WOO.OF Sq. FT. , STORIES FAMILIES ! ua ;Oril 'ln�+irl�. . !nBlnnvnr. Stull! r/ye[TIVENy A; ,,Ar. :wa '•rl. nar tri ;nNl %6-5 -----WOO.OF Sq. FT. , STORIES FAMILIES �NEI9_O ADOTER �flEPAIfl ODEMOLISH I barmy Ace nowled9e thel I have read thisavG9catlon and 91416!h.1 me mora IntormNlnn R comic: and a91.e to wthpli, wIth dl APP40'JAL DATE INSPECTOR I... reNlallnrl madding, cpnrhYGlldn. And 1 :ni0 not employ iIV 0—INC1LDN AND 1 perioo In rlolillpn of tn. workman'. compemFtlan leve of the ,Ocl'G% Sul. of Calllmnb. Cf %,CDC'w I hereby certify that 1 am proP.rlV licensed a. a contractor sms, ----�-�--- NCEQ a'r%'%G — ----- me Slave of Callfpml. EYalnaN and Professions Coda, ON 'Cm 7, IIA9 ChePin 9, and fret Bich Ilnnw ass Ir. Iw, force end dfaal, .,i. �N_Ea _ Of1 am old, ry.m the orovulo s of 'a State Of C.IIIordle 1001 p.q E'•NG SWI.eN end ProfaWon. Coda. DlvlRan ], Chesser 9. SIGNATURE Sx F P RMI T Der wet. elAfrEa aaCwN '1., i�°) x"74 CITY OF TUSTIN ComRuadly Developroeut DCPNURcnt— Building Division 300 Canonici Way Tustin CA 92780 Building Counter (714) 573-3131- Inspection Rtxarder (714) 573-3141 nbMDING PERMIT NUMBHR:H01-0-999 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST TUST SUITE ASSESSOR'S PAR CELNUM9ER:*401.371-07 SUITE NUMBER-.: LO'FNUMBML ................ .-....,..... : TRACT NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT AREA .......:....:::: TUSTIN ISSUED BY ..... ....... : . I :.. ^ , .. DATE ISSUED.......: PROPERTY OWNER L ...... __.v;:.�: LOUIS METRO BfM R E PROP ERT 1091''WINDSOR LN .. .. TUSTB'1 CA92780.4329 CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT A -I ALL AMERICAN ROOFING 1824 E. CARNEGIE AVE. SANTA ANA, CA92705 (949)250.1221 JOB DESCRIPTION: TIO RF, REP W/ 25 YR OAF, 3Dk FELT, 3.5M -REAR " O.CF.A. Number ........ : OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: RESIDENTIAL SQ.F7': D COMMERCIAL SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ Fr: 0 GARAGE SQ FT: 0 OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: 0 TENANT IMPIL SQ FT: 0 OTHER SQ. FT: 0 NUMBER OF UNITS: I NUMBER OF STORIES: 0 UBC EDITION: 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS: .0 VALUATION...: $0.D0 BUILDER VALUATION: $0.00 PLAN CHECK '50.00 FEESUMMARY BUILDING PERMIT. V $0,00 MECH PERMIT. $0,00 PLUMBING PERMIT.' 50.00 FTECPERMIT: 50.00 SIGN PERMIT: 50.00 GRADING PERMIT: $0.00 PRIVATE IMPR' SO.00 NEW DEV. TAX: $0.00 TSB- ZONE A FEE: 50.00 TSIP ZONE B FEE: $0.00 SMIP FEE: 50.00 MICROFILM FEE: 50.00 OCFA FEE' 50.00 PENALTY FEE: 50.00 REFUNDABLE BOND: 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS: 50.00 TOTAL IBES: $0.00 UCENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I hembyafiirm rhat I am • Iimsd Contra ouraarderthe pvruiwofdaspe r 9 (emmecbg with Soctioo ]000) o(nivbion J of the Brobas & Profmbro Cod, and in, liccem is b full fora and coact LICENSE NUMBER 621922 LICENSE CLASS: C39 NIC ExpiresDATE:0S012W OWNER BUILDER DECLARATION: 1 heeeby editm ehae l am raanp from We Contracta's Gceuse law for the folleeps reason (Section 70.313, Bvdncss Rofevimse Code: Any City memory which mquim a penh to cerstruct, alta, improve, demolish, ortgir any summer, prior in in ismatmv, rle requires the applicant fee such permit in flle a signed mtemet that he mr,he is Ilenwd Pmnanl o Ne eam iuina-fine Contescmh U. law (Chapter 9 (cmnmomcing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of die Buiam & Profesbro wile] or the hem she's mmye mme6nm and the bust for the alleged nsnpdon. Any viob ice ofSectbn 7030 by cmY aPplkarm for • Permit subjects the VPikn, o • civil peaty nf.1 more than five hmdwd dollars ($500.00). I u ownerofthe property, ormy employes with wage as Ineireek coepamtice, will do the work and the memm is mol conceded monad fm uk (Section 7044, Businms & Profession, Con: the Commicues Li. Lw dere rim apply m an owner of a roperty who bulls or impuve, theac-n, and who docs such work himulfm haaelfor through his mho own employees, pruvidvl that such improvements am rot intaded oroRaed for see, If. however. The huitimme,m hoprrweneas is sold within oro year of campkdoo, Ow...Wilda will have the burde of r ovi.g that he or aha did oro buil or improve fm purposes ofse.). I, u owner ofd. property, asst exclusively coutr ustm, wiN d licam imetacon o comer act the project (Section 7014, Dwi & Prefmtoan Cade: The Ceaecbe ra Licens Law does mol apply to an owner .(property who belts or impmwm there, ad who ammic s for such pojeda with a muse .(a) lieem person, m the Conn alve. Lkeme Law). Ian cacmpt order Section ,Business &Pmfmbm Code fs, the fallowing reasor(s) Owner Sigromre Date: WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hereby tfrrm under Perolty ofPajuly mss aftl a folkwing dmleatime: 1 have and will maintain is ccnifica¢ of comet o sIf-i. fee Workers Cmtp mencin, as provided far by Soction 3700 ofnco Labor Code, fm the perfarmnm ofthe work Sir which this pamn is bncd. _ I have ad will mafimtain Werkert Cma peuetiao musrsocs, as requited by Sme on 37M ofibc labor Ced , for d -Performance of the work for which this permit b iasrd. MY W opera Co rimeadan inaurame carrier ami Policy Number art: POLICY NUMBER wn24MO437 COMPANY: WASRINfTON INT INS (This a t mr need oat be compMad ifthe pnnit b for one hundred dullyyjiigg) or Iec). Ind% that hr thepcifi= or the wen for whi out b wt is issued, I seen vemploy ary pNcamper per so u b subject o ci become subject Wontrs Cme,cmammlawaofCefRf d and]agrce mat' cal becoeasubjeelmda Worker] Compessdoepr simsof Soc6m37Wo(Ne LaborCd,landlfoMwtmcomply wiN timeP�btu ,/ Sigmnue I— i{a t , Datc /Q — s' — L( WARNING: Fall some Wckefs Compensation coverage is unlawful, and del subject n employer in timirol pealmas and civil Docs up to on: hundred immoral dollars (S I00.0W)m ddr mNe cant ofeempmsatrm.dnuges as provided for m Seem. (3700) of dm Labor Code, income cadwormy Iia IMPORTANT: Appliciumn is Ineby crude to the Building Official fora permit subject to be canditbm moll restrictions an forth on this applicanes. Each person open whom k,9airthis application is made send each person a whoa request and fm whom beard won Is performed wader or purFunt In any permit issue as alerou ofthi, applicatiom agree, W. and shill, indemm f% and hold hamkss the City .(Tustin, in ofliicsn, -gen ami employ. in accordance with the providoan of Chgder2 of the Uniform Adrobkintive Cade I spm not to mcupy or -lbw aecupauy ofny building audmtixed by,his permit milli final inspection bac Sem received 1 mrd%due IItvr Ird dtis aPWiWion W ms use the above infomutimn i, erred. l agree ft, comply wild d City and Sun I.m1mirg m the buildlq camtuctias, and hemby suthodm ver of the City b nkr upon the above c mmimod property for humction puquacs, �%/ Sigvene ofOwue, Contraum, or Authcisd A '^' Oen '•BUILDING PERMITS ARE SUBJECT TO 1 TION IF WORK IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN IN DAYS AFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR 130 DAYS... CITY OF TUSTIN ,j Community Development Depl nineot- Building Division d 300 Centennial Way, Tuelin CA 92780 Building Counter (714) 573.3131- Inspection Recorder (714) 573-3141 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER:1301-0487 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST TUST SUITE ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 401-371-07 LOT NUMBER ................. ......... .: DEVELOPMENT AREA ................: TUSTIN PROPERTY OWNER...........-.-...-: BRETT FAIRBANKS 520 S PACIFIC STREET TUSTIN CA92780-4329 CONTRACTOR A4 ALL AMERICAN ROOFING 1824 E. CARNEGIE AVE. SANTA ANA, CA92705 (949)250.1221 SUITE NUMBER...: TRACT NUMBER: ISSUED BY .............: DATE ISSUED.......: 10130/2001 f ::m(Lp.,-I- 4--�eoL-a-la" JOB DESCRIPTION: T/O RF, REP W/ 25 YR OAF, 30N FELT, 3.5N - MAIN O.C.FA Number.........: OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP; R3. _ CONSTRUCTION TYPE.: 5N RESIDENTIAL SQ.Ff: 0 COMMERCIAL SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ FT: 0 GARAGE SQ FT- 0 OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: 2900 TENANT IMPIL SQ FT: 0 OTHER SQ. FT: 0 NUMBER OF UNITS: 1 NUMBER OF STORIES: 0 UBC EDITION: 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS: 0 VALUATION...: $7,250.00 BUILDER VALUATION: S6,000.00 PLAN CHECK 50.00 FFP RI IMMARY BUILDING PERMIT: 5175.00 MECH PERMIT: $0.00 PLUMBING PERMIT: SO.00 ELEC PERMIT: $0.00 SIGN PERMIT: SO.00 GRADING PERMIT: SO.00 PRIVATE MOR.' 50.00 NEW DEV. TAX: 50.00 TSIP ZONE A FEE $0.00 TSIP ZONE B FEE: $0.00 SMIP FEE: $0.50 MICROFILM FEE: $0.00 OCFA FEE: 50.00 PENALTY FEE.: $0.00 REFUNDABLE BOND: SUM MISCELLANEOUS: $0.00 TOTAL FEES: $175.50 LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I hateley elfun tied I me boosted Contractor andeom pmvedma of c1ytec9 (commncmg with Section 70th) of Divi,imn 3 eltis Business A Rofcd.sa Code, W my license is in NE Fart. W e fact LICENSENUMBER: 421431 LICENSE CLASS: C39 NIC Expires DATE.Ml/2003 OWNER BUILDER DECLARATION: 1 hereby affirm Ma I am cement from Me Connector, Li. law fee the following reason!Section 7031.5, Business Pmfmioat Code: Any Gay or county which mquimm a permit so .=4 seer, impmvc, demolish, cr epurany structure, prior W its lutwxx, sln recut. the applicants fprsuch permit to file • signed amrmmt that he or the 61icnW punont be the pmvbimn efthe Cmtrcroe, U.se law [Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of Ne Business A Profmione code] ended he orsbc is nenpt thachprn and the basis fm the alleged ecenrytim. Am vWmon of Seabee 7031.5 by arty applicstt fer• pmoit mbjecu the applicant to • civil penalty ofnd men. than Bae hundred dolW(SSM(IDDI I. owner of We property, or my, empl,.with coag. as dctrsore emnprmatiem, will do the weat and Mementoes is m1 intended croRered for sets(Satin 7064, Businesses A Pmfmions Code: the Coonacufa Limue Law don m1 apply to an owner of property who builds or improves maroon, ant who dose such work Wmaeurce lummues through hie. hermere employees, povidd mY such irepmvemnu art not hummed er.lfaed for We. If, hawevar, me building orinspemm.4 is sold within.. ym of mmpmtice, on ower -builder will have the bunln ofpmving that he m she did not build. improve fp purposes of use). 1. as oweerof the paperty, un.clu,lvely contracting with Isvavd common to comtrucl the pmjca (Section 7D44. BuainnaA Pmfmtona Code: The Connector, Lraenn Taw don we apply to an owner ofpopeny, who Wilda or imptavn Mormon. and who contracts for such projects with a canmctm(O ncaau p n sent to the Cmroacme, Liceac Lew). I un exempt rod. Section , Businm A Pmfmkm Code for the following rmoo(a): Owner Signature: Deter WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION: 1 bemby amrm under ..Ity cfp d y ort c fthe following deela Morse: I have and win —,,a. • Certificate, of cameo[ to self -Mane fm Warlselt Compensation. as provided for by Section 3700 of the labor Code, fm the pefoemom ofum work fon whicb Mit poorest it intend I lave W will maintain Workers Compctuainn Insistence, as required by Section 3700 ofthe Labor Code, for the perfmmenu ofthe work for which this permit it issued My Wmhrt Compensation her. certi. and Policy Number rte•. POLICY NUMBER: we7n159117 COMPANY: XINf:I'ON INT. INF. (Tbts aeetimnedaotbe ®yldd ifthvpww k_erom Ilan lilm) Imall I .tri laws of thepefmwsc ofthewrnk eh Ibis sujecis isnhd. ewoolretemployen soo pen become LiMor subject WorkeA Compensation het of Glifomie, W I erg. 1 should haeme nbJm M the Wmtrra Compensation govtsbu ofgmim 7700 of Me Labor Code, I siWl forthwith comply with them isiam, we mvmge is urdawfu4 and Own subject an employee. criminal penalties epd,tivil fu. up W men hundred thousand dolha (If W,000) Io daii inci bliss mX ofcompemetiom damages u pmvidcd for in Section (37W) of the Labor Code, Intent W mnmry foo¢ IWORTANT.- Application is herby made to me Building Official Ter a permit mbj,.t to Me, conditions and restrictions set font on this application. Each person upon whose behalf dors application ts made W nub person at whom request and for whose benefit work is performed underor Pursuant to soy permit hatsum as a rcnit of" application ape to. and AAL iodvmi fy and hold harm!. the City of Tum., its of i.a, ¢gnu ad employ. in. I with the provision; ofChapm 2 of the Uniform Admioinative Code.I agem not to occupy or alba arcupanry of soy balding authored by Mia pvmnt mud! fuW inspecnm hu been reavd.I arhfy Mat I have rod then appirmtm W cote then the sbavc infornudm a on, I agree M comply with all City W Sum Isco relating In the Wilding conaudon, W heebyJutYpiss representative of the City to enter upon one some mentioned Ptolemy for impation Purposes Sigrutttm afOwrer, Contractor, orAuWpiaml ••• BUILDING PERMITS ARE SUBJECT OF ISSUANCE IMDAYS••• CITY OF TUSTIN Community Devclop=nL Department - Building Division Construction Permit Ie 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Building Counter (714) 573-3131 or 573-3132 Inspection Recorder (714) 573.3141 ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 4#137107 ADDRESS: 520 S PACIFIC ST SUITE OR UNIT NO: LOT: TRACT: BLOCK: Census Treat Number: Redevelopment Area: Property Owner: FAIRRAI 500 S C ST TUSTIILCA 92780 Archinoct/Engine.: BERNARD ADARS 714/636-2294 Contractor: OAKLAND 488 BLAINE 909/737-8850 CORONA CA 91719 JOB DESCRIPTION: REPLACE EXISTING NASORRY FIREPLACE Occupancy Group: Industrial 59uwa Feat: 0 Occupant Land: Office Spurt. Fen: 0 Typo of Construction: Wrinouee Square Feat. B R.eklemel Sgu.r. Fut: 0 Gang. Sq.. Fast: N Mumbo of U.K.: 0 Other Sque. Met; B Number e1 Starlsr. 0 R.n.urint S.Gna: Number of Bedrooms: 0 Parking SPaar. Comm ,cW Square Fest: N Accol Parking: V.Iwtbn: 5 9000.00 UBC Edition: 199A FEE SUMMARY Ran Check: S 93- AO TSIP Zone A Fee: S 0.00 Wilding P.mrk: 9 168.54 TSIP Zone B Fee: S 0.00 Electrical Permit: B 0.00 SMTP Fes: S 0.90 Mechanical Permit: = 0.00 MIcr.Ill. Fee: `' 1.06 Plumbing Permit 9 0- 91 OCM Fee: S 0.00 Sign Permit: 9 0.00 RelYMabN Bond: S 0.00 Grading Psrmlt: S 0.00 BOM Procne Fee 9 0.00 Private Improve. Permit: S 0. N W.c. Fee: S 0.00 N.w Owebpment Tea: S 0. NPenehy Fee: S 9. IN Total Fe.: 9 263.92 perces laaued By+ INS Data: 08/67/N8 PERMITIS) ISSUED AND PERMIT NUMSERISI HU -8561 LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION I hereby eHirm that I am a Ibmsed Convenor nor under the pramime of aunt. 9 laomm.rtc.g with Be.". 70001 at ONlsbn 3 Of to Saint. S Po.esb dy AM my Ilcare. Met NII lam. and tf W. Ucsn.. Number: ,� (. Cy 1i� — Unme Metal SL. C.Uatwo Sl.ature Data: Is Igo DM OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY KRMO MRT flG=N The Celifoml. Health 404 Salary Coda I.W. • dimicn of industrial .let, parml, .. mr.,uWms la cement lee... weac The apmc[nt sgMOof the umlcan. oaow. 1 .artily ted, no .mesad. 5 is, or mw. indnlh. at. winch a person IS round to deac.nd. we, be rade in comacnlont mth wort mtad.d by the pool.. and In., no With.,, atructum, &cot aldin, bbawork, or decalloan Or command to ef, will be ma. In. 3a fns Nen. OWNEWWILDER mE MMN 1 hereby .ffirre that I am exempt Imm,M Coetnaor'. Uceme Law lot the Ialb.ng mos. ISaal 3631.5, Su e... A Pw1aWp. cans: Am Of, or County whi nnicha eta pimp I.copul aha, Improve, demtlhh. a, .,a any etmatva. paw TD Na leadkmd: also mount the applicant for Such pimp 1e fga . elpned atafamm{put a pr art a liunntl Dureumt m are pmatbm of Ne Com.cter'a Uanu Law lCheptn B Icommensrrg with Sssu. )OWI of Dhmem 3 of the Buser E Plofss..m cpael er Inn he ar She is ....of t mine. ens that base Her a. aftaged examptlm. Any wall of Section 7031.5 by any apallunt for a urmn eubjecaa the app5um to a ted pmey of not tan than five hundred doll,nl 65W.Wl. ❑ ba owner of the Sporty. ormyempbyet with wages as tMbapb mwme mm. Sal do the work and the true. IS at command and w o".,ad 1, .aWSectron 7044, Sunnesa 5 Nolnuen. Coda: to Contractors's ❑.era. Law Ib. not apply . an owner Of wowny who build, .,,Mr... Human, and who d....hSoh himself arru nif Or through MS or Nmwn empbyte. W.Madshat such imi,myl rams ere not Intended ser offered for Mels. IC however• the building or imemys n.. a eons Indianan. cant of Ce"Innoc, ted pnbuildw will Mv. he burden al n o ins Nn he .1 She tlb at bulb to supra. I., Wra... al W. I ❑ Lasa.., of the MapnY. am ... IW.afyO.Mung wish tic ... W contractor to construct the project (acct Ida. BIM.. 6 Pmfassb Cana: The Committal's Uci ne Law dassnoupalyn anownwal Sapny who builds or improve match; and She cinerts for sUcl Selects wit a commkopltl loan. onnpnt to that Conpamw'e Ucem. Lawl. ❑ fare ..man M. stake, Buam.e A Professions Code for the lopowag r.wms: Owner Sgn.ture: Data: WORKERS' COMPENSATM DECLAMTKIN 1 h.6eHirm under nation, ser Family nM of the lolb.a decWacan L -f 1 hate and will re imsxr . caMSun a mmem to .Win... lou Worker'& Commmaoon. a provided los bvS Wl. 37W cf the Lahr Cons.lar the war... of IDS work 1. winch thin perch I, lssued. ❑ 1 hat. and wll manOln Waukee. Ccmpmcatbn I..Saa...c r.auked by S.ctbn DW of to Labor Coda. Or the parlarmmoe of the .,it lar wxch the pant N b.ued. My Work.,'. Compmsetl. im. .. cannot POLICY Panay, qr.r.: z'�.9^-9 u6 COMPANY: illi i -C �EaNA IT. Sspen w. era a mmpYwa d sec pmmx n rS s+rurom ddxn l.pm w M.I. ❑ I nap n Inst n Ma y "m n in m M work Int 1. became pnmh I cawed, I SME ass empin my parson in army mmem ep an tp,. the Snake a .. Wurbry Compan.,bn lave of CoMlpme, and spree the H I shoub uumv subject to 104 Wprnr's Compenutbn pmasam d S.ar. 37M of the Labor Cada, I sh II I M It comply wilh Ina. PE eK. Manatee: ��/ Oara V,�l ICY% WARP G F .mesas Wteler'. Com.na.We contra" he unl.wfld, and .hall .ubwa an employer to cdmba penalties and chit final up les on. hundred thou ..na Oven. 111 W,0001, at .adman is the con of comp ... tbn, demist . prnb.d for b S.M. 37M a to ober Cade, rnl.... t art anwNY is.. CONSTAU LENDING AGENCY I hemby MHkm that ted. e . cwatnalan Maning.ncy Int the pM.makh. of the it Int which the pemrir 1. issued Section 3097 Dal Cada. LENDER'S MME: LENDER'S ADDRESS: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND EMISSIONS STATEMENT FILED ❑A.O.M.D. Date: ❑O.C.F.D. Dere: ❑ Not .Wned T. U.S.D. Fats pup Yea ❑ NM ❑ .40RTANT Appecsd. M MMy sued.. the BWdbg OlHwal far a perch subject to the c.au.s and mnam.e sat form On ,Ns ."human. an We.. upon whose batl.M that .pidic.11. 1. suede sed sans Anon at whose r.ouot and fou wmaa benefit work le padwlpd uM.s w pra.nt I.." "mat e.ued as recruit or nle.ppllcarwn toren to, and snap. IMarmely and Mid l.mNas the Of, of Tustin. era plhrna. egamm and .topbcan In tccwdam..t to Droitimu of Chapter Z of the Uniform Adminuuniye can.. I ago. raw to pm V w Ilbw accupanry of mY bdNing autodced by any pesMtTnrd final inn.Nonappr.af hes been pdc.w. 1cM aytuttM.erad thin sudieatlon ens .care tat the .bow information b coact. I Spiv to comply with .e CRY and Stere levo amts, 1D the Whit., comtructbn, and mw.bY.urhodu nprtmutwn of in. Of, to anter up.. tabor. namlonad property Int xupectlpn mepmu. 5lpmtwe.l Owner, C/arlrJGto,w Authtund Agent A. ormwnr ibis I IN at atopic, art.. In do work whkh /J &/� woaoube e..reit franc the teln Iyon of Indury. l Safety, ad nC ' Moet. urdese such pemory he.. Permit bpm Inst dMabn. SIGNATURE DATE Diatela of tduotoof lately Perrot Number: In .plim..Rh Fedent mgTTlatiwn, the Citynfratin data not decriminamOn the Weeafnq ata, national mign, seg. dubilRy. Whit.. On. Canty - Permitice Pink -Auditor GollbprM-Automation October 25, 2010 To whom it may concern, My name is Robert Stephen Gaylord, one of three sons of George and Alice Gaylord. I grew up at 480 South Pacific Ave. (now 520 Pacific St.) in Tustin, CA. My father built our house, the garage, and the apartment above the garage all in the time and with the processes it takes for a single individual to do all that. The best that I can recall is the unit above the garage was built roughly between 1938 and 1942. The first tenant was my uncle who was stationed at an anti-aircraft defense base in El Segundo. We visited him several times at his Army air defense battalion and saw the search lights and anti-aircraft guns. Dad finished the apartment for him and his new wife to stay near us while he was serving in Southern California. Later, the apartment was rented to Marines stationed at El Toro Marine Base. I recall the stairs to the entrance as a child. In my memory they were always there on the side of the garage where my parents would catch rainwater. We were not allowed to go up those stairs. The unit behind the garage was built by my father roughly between 1945 and 1950. 1 judge this based on the fact I was born in 1933 and when my brother John and I were young teenagers my father built the two rooms and bathroom for us to occupy. After we moved away from our old home, the rooms were made available to others. The only person I remember was, (I believe the spelling is) Ms. Grennan, who helped take care of my parents to the very end. In fact, she called me about health problems my father was having when we moved him out and sold the house. My father worked at the grammar school as a woodshop, boys' athletics and natural science teacher. He was an Eagle Scout, a Scout Master and a Deacon with the Presbyterian Church in Tustin. He was often involved in construction work in and around Tustin. He was in every way a faithful law-abiding citizen. Sincerely, Robert S. Gaylord ' � r I10 ' 0 •,. ,� Iy'-'dd ij . IL I. ///• i0 fT, i� Thy GOt Community Development Department City of Tustin July 23, 1998 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 Mr. Nathan Menard 345 West 6th Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: 345 WEST 6TH STREET Dear Mr. Menard: On July 21, 1998 we received your request for a zoning compliance letter for 345 West 6th Street, Tustin. The subject property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (R-1), which permits single family residences. Second single family dwellings may be considered in the R-1 District on properties with more than 12,000 square feet of lot area, compliance with several other development standards, and the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (TCC Sec. 9233(B)(1)). Our records indicate that the main residence was constructed in 1929. We also have on file various building permits for the duplex on the rear of the property, dating back to 1964. However, there is no record of an approved Conditional Use Permit for the use. As such, the duplex is considered to be a non -conforming use. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(C), non -conforming buildings destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its value by a catastrophic event may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. See attached Code sections. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 573-3118. Sincerely, Bradley J Assistant Attachment: Tustin City Code Sections 9223 and 9273 BE:345West6th.doc ATTACHMENT D PC Staff Report and Attachments from October 26, 2010 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK REFERENCE ATTACHMENT_ AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 26, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Pro Tem Thompson ROLL CALL: Commissioners Kasalek, Kozak, Puckett, and Thompson PUBLIC (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) CONCERNS: At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken on off -agenda items unless authorized by law). If you wish to address the Commission on any matter, please fill out one of the forms located at the speaker's table so that your remarks on the tape recording of the meeting can be attributed to you. When you start to address the Commission, please state your full name and address for the record. p� In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk at (714) 573-3025. Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to this meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: All matters listed under the 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — OCTOBER 12, 2010, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 2. APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURES REGARDING NOTICE AND ORDER Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, during normal business hours. Agenda — Planning Commission October 26, 2010 — Page 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code (see Attachment A). The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order (see Attachment B). In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as: a. The Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations; and, b. The appeal hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. 1.400110905 MA W "platmill That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 affirming the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code. That the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals order the property owner(s) to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. Presentation: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner REGULAR BUSINESS: None Agenda —Planning Commission October 26, 2010— Page 2 STAFF CONCERNS: 4. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE OCTOBER 19, 2010, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director COMMISSION CONCERNS: ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, November 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Agenda —Planning Commission October 26, 2010 —Page 3 NOTICE OF CONSENT We, the undersigned Planning Commissioners for the City of Tustin, acknowledge that we were given at least three days notice of the Board of Appeals Hearing scheduled for October 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. Executed this 26`h day of October, 2010, at Tustin, California. eve < a , Planning Commissioner Marge Kasalek, Planning Commissioner /l /Od ning Commissioner DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: ITEM #2 OCTOBER 26, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION/BOARD OF APPEALS TUSTIN 2 uuro.l BUILDING OUR FUTURE IIONORINU OUR PAST ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURES REGARDING NOTICE AND ORDER RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: An appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at 7:00 p.m. to consider an appeal of a Notice and Order issued regarding violations of the California Building Code (adopted per Tustin City Code) and the Tustin Zoning Code. The purpose of this report is to familiarize the Planning Commission with the appeal hearing process and its role in considering an appeal of a Notice an Order involving the Building Code and Zoning Code. A separate staff report and two separate resolutions with findings are provided to address the specific issues and code sections involved in the appeal. The appeal has been filed by the property owner for reconsideration of the Notice and Order which was filed on his property at 520 Pacific Street by the Enforcement Officer. The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin Building Code and Zoning Codes. The Building Code violations were determined by the Building Official who applies and interprets the technical codes. The Enforcement Officer is defined in the Tustin City Code as "the Community Development Director or any other person or City officer as designated by the City Manager to enforce property maintenance, zoning and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City". Therefore, in this report, the Enforcement Officer is the Community Development Director and/or designee. The Planning Commission has two roles in considering the appeal of both the Building Code and Zoning Code Sections indicated in the Notice and Order. The Planning Commission will act as: Planning Commission Report Building Board of Appeals October 26, 2010 Page 2 A. The Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations identified in the Notice and Order; and, B. The appeal hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were identified in the Notice and Order. The following report provides a brief description of the composition and purpose of the Board of Appeals and of the Planning Commission as the appeal hearing body; the scope of authority of the Commission to affirm, reverse, or modify appealable items in their respective roles; and the hearing procedures for appeal. A. BOARD OF APPEALS Composition and Purpose The members of the Planning Commission hold membership on the Board of Appeals concurrently with their terms of service as Planning Commissioners (see Attachment A, Tustin City Ordinance No. 1344). The purpose of the Board of Appeals is to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretations of the technical codes (i.e. the California Building, Housing, Electrical codes, etc.). Scope of Authority The Board of Appeals will consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted or if the provision of such code does not fully apply. Pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code (TCC Sec. 8101), the Board of Appeals may consider evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance exists. The Board of Appeals shall not have authority to interpret the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code nor to waive requirements of such code. After consideration of the appeal and the evidence provided by the Enforcement Officer, the Board shall make a determination and issue an order either affirming, reversing, or modifying the Notice and Order. The Board of Appeals can consider the use of materials or methods of construction which may be different from those specified in the California Building Code and can render determination that the code was incorrectly interpreted. However, the Board should be aware that the codes are legal instruments governing the construction, use, and maintenance of buildings and structures. These codes contain certain provisions which are somewhat flexible and in which discretion is given or implied; therefore, in the absence of such discretion, the code must be followed to the letter. Granting relief from Planning Commission Report Building Board of Appeals October 26, 2010 Page 3 code requirements would constitute an exception, which is not within the scope of authority of the Board of Appeals. As noted, the Board may superimpose its judgment over the Building Official's actions only in a limited number of ways. The following examples are situations where the Board would and would not have authority to overturn a decision. Example 1: The Building Official has exercised his/her discretion and has imposed a requirement that a permit applicant feels is unwarranted. In this situation, the applicant may ask for the matter to be referred to the Appeals Board for adjudication. The Board of Appeals may review the claim and, after considering all evidence presented by staff and the appellant, the Board may determine that the interpretation of the Building Code section that was applied may have been incorrect or, if proposed by the appellant, that an alternative form of construction that is equal to or better than that required by the Building Code may be used in its place. Example 2: CBC Section 106.3 Phased approval, states: "The Building Official is authorized to issue a permit for the construction of foundations or any part of a building or structure before the construction documents for the whole building or structure have been submitted ..." If the Building Official refused to issue a permit under the provisions of this section, this "discretionary" decision could be appealed to the Board. However, where there is no discretion, the question of appeal is very different. See Example 3. Example 3 CBC Section 505.1.1 of the U.B.C. states: "Thresholds at doorways shall not exceed 0.75 inch (19.1 mm) in height for sliding doors serving dwelling units or 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) for other doors..." In this example, the Board of Appeals has no authority to modify this section because it is a specific requirement of the code. Exceptions to the codes cannot be granted by the Board of Appeals. Planning Commission Report Building Board of Appeals October 26, 2010 Page 4 B. PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE APPEAL HEARING BODY Composition and Purpose Pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, any decision of the Community Development Director (or Enforcement Officer as defined as the Community Development Director) may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any person. The applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and provide reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed. Upon receipt of an appeal, a public hearing is set before the Planning Commission in their role as the appeal hearing body for consideration of the matter (see Attachment B, TCC 9294 Appeals) Scope of Authority The Planning Commission, as the appeal hearing body, may consider evidence supporting the City's determination that a dangerous condition exists at the subject property due to the present violation of the Zoning Code. After consideration of such evidence, the Commission shall make a determination and issue an order affirming or reversing the matter in accordance with the Tustin City Code, or modifying the Notice and Order in accordance with or direction of the Planning Commission. APPEAL HEARING PROCEDURE The appeal hearing is conducted in a manner similar to a public hearing before the Planning Commission. The meeting is called to order by the Chairperson. The Chairperson states, "The Planning Commission and Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin is now in session." The recording secretary then conducts roll call by calling each Planning Commissioner/Board of Appeals member by name. Roll call is followed by the announcement of all members present or the acknowledgement of the member(s) absent. Following roll call, the Chairperson instructs the Community Development Director or other staff member to provide a report. The Community Development Director or a staff member will then present information to the Board regarding the action of the Building Official or Enforcement Officer which is the subject of the appeal. Staff may provide the Board with copies of relevant code sections or other technical data. The Building Official, Community Development Director, or other staff person will then respond to any questions from the Board. The appellant will be introduced to the Board and may present testimony. The Board may then ask the appellant questions. Planning Commission Report Building Board of Appeals October 26, 2010 Page 5 The Chairperson shall ask if there are any persons in the audience who wish to speak at the public hearing regarding the appeal. When the evidence has been presented and testimony taken, the Chairperson should close the hearing, and the matter should be given to the Commission/Board for discussion and resolution. If necessary, the Chairperson may reopen the hearing, with the concurrence of the Commission/Board. In its deliberations, the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals should make "findings," which are based on the evidence presented and the sworn testimony given, that support affirmation, reversal, or any modification of the appeal. The results of the Planning Commission/Board of Appeals' decision and findings shall be rendered in writing to the Community Development Director with a duplicate copy provided to the appellant. The Board of Appeals action is final and the Planning Commission is appealable to City Council pursuant to TCC 9294. Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner lY. Henry Huang, Pit., C.B.O. uilding Official 1 FA Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Tustin City Ordinance No. 1344 (in part) B. Tustin City Code Sec. 9294, Appeals SACdd\PCREP0RT\E010\Board of Appeals Memo.doc ATTACHMENT A Tustin City Ordinance No. 1344 (in part) Ordinance No. 1344 Page 15 required by the building permit is completed." (t) Section A110.1 of Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code is amended by the addition of the second paragraph to read: "A change in the use or occupancy of any existing building or structure shall comply with the provisions of Section 3406 of the Building Code." (u) Section A112.1 of Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code is deleted and amended to read: "A112.1 General. The Board of Appeals for the City of Tustin shall consist of five members, comprised of members of the Planning Commission. Said members shall hold their respective membership on said Board of Appeals by reason of, and concurrently with their terms of service as Planning Commissioners and shall cease to be such members upon their ceasing to be such Commissioners. The Building Official shall be the Secretary of the Board. The Board of Appeals may adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conducting its investigations and shall render its decisions and findings on contested matters, in writing to the Building Official, with a duplicate copy thereof to any appellant or contestant affected by any such decision or findings, and may recommend to the City Council such new legislation, if any, as is consistent therewith. Three members of the Board of Appeals shall constitute a quorum. The Chairperson of the Planning Commission shall be the presiding officer of the Board and in the Chairpersons' absence the Vice Chairperson of the Commission shall serve as the presiding officer. Notices of meetings of the Board of Appeals shall be given by at least three days notice delivered to each member personally or by registered mail; provided, however, that any meeting of the Board of Appeals shall be legal for any purpose if the written consent of all of the members of the Board of Appeals to such meeting is executed and filed in the records of the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals shall hold meetings at its pleasure. The Board of Appeals shall have the right, subject to such limits as the Building Official may prescribe, to employ at the cost and expense of the City, such qualified individuals as the Board of Appeals, in its discretion, may deem reasonably necessary to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions." The Board of Appeals shall render decisions by majority vote in response to city staff reports. Minutes of all proceedings shall be maintained by City staff. All Board of Appeals decisions and findings shall be transmitted in writing to the appellant. The Building Official shall maintain a full set of records for each case. 1 Al 12.1.1 Application. Applicants for a hearing before the Board of Appeals shall pay a fee in the amount set by City Council resolution prior to administrative Ordinance No. 1344 Page 16 processing for any proceedings. The applicant shall complete the established City application form for an appeals hearing along with submittal of required fees. Applicants for a Board of Appeals hearing shall be notified at least one (1) week prior to any hearing or proceedings concerning their case. The applicant shall be given the opportunity to present his/her case at any proceedings involving their applications." (v) Section A112.2 of Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code is deleted and amended to read: "A112.2 Limitations on authority. An application for appeal shall be based on a claim that the true intent of this code or rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of this code do not fully apply or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. The board shall have no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of this code or to waive requirements of this code." (w) Section A113.1 of Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code is deleted and amended to read: "A113.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish or occupy any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of the codes and ordinances adopted by the City of Tustin." (x) Section A113.4 of Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code is deleted and amended to read: "A113.4 Violation Penalties. No person, firm, or corporation shall violate any provision, or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Code, or of any Code adopted herein by reference. Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this Code, or any Code adopted by reference herein, unless otherwise specified in this Code, shall be guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as set forth in Part 2 of Chapter 1 of Article 1 of the Tustin City Code, entitled Penalty Provisions. Each such person, firm, or corporation violating any provision or failing to comply with any of the requirements shall be guilty of a separate offense, and each day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of this Code, or any Code adopted by reference herein, is committed, continued or permitted by such person, shall constitute a separate offense, and shall be punishable accordingly. Provided further that each such person violating a provision which limits the time an act may be permitted or continued, each such period or portion thereof of which any violation of such provision is committed, continued or permitted by such person shall constitute a separate offense, and shall be punishable accordingly. Ordinance No. 1344 Page 17 In addition to the penalties hereinabove provided, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Code, or of any Code adopted by reference herein, may be deemed a public nuisance and may be summarily abated as such by the City, and each day such condition continues shall be regarded as a new and separate nuisance and offense." (y) Sections A115.1, A115.2, A115.3, A115.4 and A115.5 of Appendix Chapter 1 of the 2007 California Building Code are deleted and amended, and Sections 115.6 through 115.11 are added to read: "A115.1 Unsafe buildings, structures, equipment and nuisances. All buildings, structures or existing equipment which are structurally unsafe, unsanitary or deficient because of inadequate means of egress facilities, inadequate light and ventilation, or which constitute a fire hazard, or are otherwise dangerous to human life or the public welfare, or that involve illegal or improper occupancy or inadequate maintenance, constitute a hazard to safety or health, or public welfare, by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, specified in statute, are, obsolescence, fire hazard or abandonment, as this division or in any other effective ordinance or for the purpose of this section, unsafe buildings, structures or equipment and constitute an unsafe condition. All such unsafe conditions or buildings or structures or equipment are hereby declared to be public nuisances and may be abated by repair, rehabilitation, improvement, removal, demolition, in whole or part, in accordance with the procedures specified in this section or by any other legal means. A115.2 Inspection. The Building Official shall examine or cause to be examined every building or structure or equipment or portion thereof or other condition reported as unsafe, dangerous, damaged or otherwise constituting a hazard as set forth in the Tustin City Code enforced by the Building Division. Said inspection shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Tustin City Code, other applicable statutes, and the ordinances, rules and regulations of State of California and City of Tustin. A115.3 Notice of defects; time and place of hearing. In any case where this section is made applicable by reference, or if any building or structure or equipment, in whole or part, is found to be an unsafe building, structure or equipment as defined in this section, the Building Official shall give notice setting forth the defects found to the owner, other responsible person or authorized representative, hereinafter referred to as "owner," of such building or structure or equipment. The notice shall set forth the right of the owner to be present at the hearing, at the owner's option, and introduce such relevant evidence on the issues as the owner desires. The notice shall also set forth the requirements of commencement and completion of work and the effect of failure to do so as set forth in this Code. ATTACHMENT B Tustin City Code Sec. 9294, Appeals PART 9 - ADMINISTRATION 9294 -APPEALS Page 1 of 1 a Appeal of Decisions of the Director of Community Development or Zoning Administrator Any decision of the Director of Community Development or the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission by any person. All appeals shall be filed with the City Clerk during normal business hours within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision and be accompanied by a deposit or fee as required by City Council resolution or ordinance. All appeals shall be made in writing and shall specify the decision appealed from, the specific action or relief sought by the appellant in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Director of Community Development or the Zoning Administrator should be modified or reversed. Timely filing of a written appeal shall automatically stay all actions and put in abeyance all approvals or permits which may have been granted; and neither the applicant nor any enforcing agency may rely upon the decision, approval, or denial or other action appealed from, until the appeal has been resolved. A public hearing date shall be set within sixty (60) calendar days of filing of the appeal for Planning Commission consideration of the matter. The hearing shall be de novo and the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter in accordance with this Code or remand the matter to the Director of Community Development or the Zoning Administrator for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the Planning Commission. b Appeal of Planning Commission Any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by any person. All appeals shall be filed with the City Clerk during normal business hours within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the decision and accompanied by a deposit or fee as required by City Council resolution or ordinance. All appeals shall be made in writing and shall specify the decision appealed from, the specific action or relief sought by the appellant in the appeal, and the reasons why the action taken by the Planning Commission should be modified or reversed. Timely filing of a written appeal shall automatically stay all actions and put in abeyance all approvals or permits which may have been granted; and neither the applicant nor any enforcing agency may rely upon the decision, approval, or denial or other action appealed from, until the appeal has been resolved. A public hearing date shall be set within sixty (60) calendar days of filing of the appeal for City Council consideration of the matter. The hearing shall be de nova and the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter In accordance with this Code or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the City Council. A decision of the City Council on such appeal shall be final. c Request for Hearing by a Member of the City Council In lieu of the provisions of subsection b of this Section, any decision of the Planning Commission may be set for public hearing at the request of a member of the City Council. A Request for Hearing shall be filed with the City Clerk during normal business hours within the (10) calendar days of the dale of the decision. The Request for Hearing shall be made in writing and shall specify the affected decision and the reason for the Request for a Hearing. Timely filing of a Request for Hearing shall automatically stay all actions and put in abeyance all approvals or permits which may have been granted; and neither the applicant nor any enforcing agency may rely upon the decision, approval, or denial or other action appealed from, until the hearing has been conducted and the City Council takes action on the matter. The City Clerk shall set a public hearing date within sixty (60) calendar days of filing the Request for Hearing. The hearing shall be de novo and the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter in accordance with this Code or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the City Council. A decision of the City Council at the conclusion of hearing pursuant to this subsection shall be final. (Ord. No. 157, Secs. 8.1, 8.3; Ord. No. 201; Ord. No. 451, Sec. 10; Ord. No. 874, Sec. 2,11-1-82; Ord. No.1366, Sec. 20, 11.17- 09) http://library.municode.com/HTML/11307/level3/ART9LAUS_CH2Z0_PT9AD.htm1 10/19/2010 ITEM #3 APPEAL HEARING AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2010 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF APPEALS FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Y. HENRY HUANG, BUILDING OFFICIAL PREPARED BY: AMY THOMAS, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: APPEAL OF NOTICE AND ORDER AT 520 PACIFIC STREET SUMMARY: Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property and required the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code (see Attachment A). The current property owner of 520 Pacific Street (APN 401-371-07), Bret Fairbanks, has filed an appeal of the Notice and Order (see Attachment B). In accordance with Tustin City Code Sections 8101 and 9294, the Planning Commission will consider the appeal of the Notice and Order for public nuisance as determined by the Enforcement Officer for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission will act in its capacity as: A. The Board of Appeals in considering Building Code violations and B. The appeal hearing body for consideration of the Zoning Code violations that were applied in the Notice and Order. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission (acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals per TCC Section 8101 and acting as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242) adopt Resolution Nos. 4161 and 4162 affirming the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 2 requires the correction of code violations related to structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code. That the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals order the property owner(s) to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Code enforcement action at 520 Pacific Street originated when the property owner, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, initiated contact by sending a written request indicating that he wanted the City to allow the unpermitted units on his property to be rebuilt if they were destroyed by natural causes. This request initiated meetings between Mr. Fairbanks and City staff and ultimately led to code enforcement action at the property to abate the life safety issues caused by building and zoning code violations that are present on the site. A Notice and Order was filed on the property based on violation of several Building Code and Zoning Code violations (see Attachment A). Details of the code enforcement action are provided in the report (Section titled Code Enforcement at 520 Pacific Street). The Planning Commission has two roles in considering the appeal of both the Building Code and Zoning Code Sections indicated in the Notice and Order. The roles for consideration are as follows: A. Board of Appeals Pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code (Sec. 8101), the Board of Appeals may consider evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance exists at the subject property due to the dangerous conditions present at 520 Pacific Street which originate from violation of the following Building Code section: California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit. B. Appeal Hearing Body Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission may consider the evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance exists at the subject property due to the dangerous conditions Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 3 present at 520 Pacific Street which originate from violation of the following Zoning Code sections: Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) — Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards — Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses. Corner lot line 10 feet; interior lot line: 5 feet. SITE DESCRIPTION The property at 520 Pacific Street is located at the south end of Pacific Street north of West 6th Street. The property is located within the Single Family Residential District (R- 1) and is within the Cultural Resources Overlay District (CR). The R-1 District allows for single family dwellings and accessory buildings and uses including, but not limited to, accessory buildings and second residential units (subject to specific site development standards; i.e. minimum 12,000 sq. ft. building site; must provide two additional garage parking spaces; etc.). Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and are subject to specific site development and use restrictions (i.e. no cooking facility may be installed or maintained; they shall not be rented; etc.). Aerial photo of 520 Pacific Street Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 4 The lot size of the property at 520 Pacific Street is approximately 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre) and contains the following structures: I Single story main house (1,342 sq. ft.) Two-story garage (16'5" x 18') with a studio apartment (309 sq. ft.) above 3 Third unit (325 sq. ft.) located at ground level to the rear (west) of the garage Detached storagelrecreation room (298 sq. ft.) located directly behind the main house along the north property line Small detached storage unit located along the rear west property line (approx. 150 sq. ft.) (not to scale on plan) 6 Covered parking structure (which is attached to the main house and the garage) (Numbers correspond to site plan and site photos below) Site Plan submitted 8/30/10 (Also refer to Attachment C site plan dated 8/30/10) / 21'.4 / / JT / �I SITE PLAN NTS Site Photos at 620 Pacific Street (Additional site photos in Attachment D) View from Pacific Street: Main house, carport, and two-story garage MUM S RUWA F w wn \ % MAIN xlwlwuYA ). / ��•aY RESII)ENCE .wY.lmre w �Aawn vnnvvY, »I \ / M / Irt 3 2 \ L•il I�,NIMo V.L [TYIAFlI i� [f(T'YI.VII I�mL1.T 11 u.![[Lyl/) y �I SITE PLAN NTS Site Photos at 620 Pacific Street (Additional site photos in Attachment D) View from Pacific Street: Main house, carport, and two-story garage Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 5 Staircase to second level unit over garage View from front driveway of carport and two-story garage View looking east in rear yard: third unit and second story studio apartment above garage (shown beyond) View looking south in rear yard: Third unit entrance View looking east toward second story unit (note: multiple roof lines) View looking north in rear yard: storagellaundry/recreation room Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 6 Historical Background: View looking west in rear yard: storage unit at rear property line The City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927. The subject property at 520 Pacific Street is located within the original City boundaries. The single story home was built in approximately 1928 or 1929. The first published building code, the 1927 edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. Historical Timeline 1928 or 29- House 1926 constructed 1930 1925 1927 City 1929 Building 1931 Incorporation Code Adopted The earliest zoning map on file, from 1961, identifies the property as R-1 Single Family Residential and the current zoning for the property is R-1 Single Family Residential. Based on the City of Tustin Historical Survey and annexation records, this property was part of a subdivision of farmland to build single family homes prior to the City's incorporation. According to the Historical survey, the subdivider dedicated Main Street and Pacific Street while subdividing the lots for single family homes; then sold individual lots, including the property at 520 Pacific Street. Historically, the R-1 District has allowed guest house or guest unit uses within this district, however, the guest unit use has been restricted to "temporary guests" and no kitchen or cooking facilities were permitted. The use of a second residential unit was first established in the City's Zoning Code in 1961. This use differentiated a guest unit from a second residential unit which allowed kitchen facilities for more permanent tenancy. However, the second residential unit has historically been permitted based on specific site development standards including: minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet; additional garage parking; etc. 520 Pacific Street is listed on the 1990 City of Tustin Historical Survey which noted the California bungalow architectural style and a brief history of how the area was developed (see Attachment E). The survey noted that the shiplap siding on the house, which was made in the 40's and 50's, covers the gables, which might indicate that the roof of the main house was not original. It also notes a carport and garage located on the south side behind the house. The survey further noted that the [two story] garage appeared to be original based on the roof and siding that was consistent with the original building period. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 7 Some permits have been issued on the subject property; however, there are no permits that authorize the construction or use of additional residential units at 520 Pacific Street. Over the past several decades, the City has addressed residential conversions that have been done without benefit of permits. For example, code enforcement officers have responded to complaints that have arisen in the Old Town area of Tustin of construction being done without permits or of multiple rental units in the R-1 Single Family District. Several recent cases, including two cases located on Pacific Street are currently working through or have completed the permit process to bring their property and unpermitted accessory units into compliance with the Tustin City Code. Historically, the City has considered several proposals to increase the density of properties located in this area of Pacific Street; however, each time the community has been outspoken against any increased density and the Planning Commission has denied such requests. Records indicate that, in 1955, The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a variance to add a second dwelling unit at the rear of 530 Pacific Street and to add two additional dwelling units at the back of the property at 540 Pacific Street. However, after discussion with applicants and objectors, the request was denied. Other requests to increase density in the Old Town area were denied, including a Zone Change request in 1969 to rezone a parcel at the corner of Pacific and Main from R-1 Single Family Residential to the Planned Community Residential District in order to accommodate an increase in density to 34 dwelling units (DU) per acre (more than eight times the 4 DU per acre allowed by Tustin General Plan). Code Enforcement at 520 Pacific Street On July 27, 2010, Mr. Bret Fairbanks, the property owner of 520 Pacific Street, initiated contact and sent a letter to the Planning Division. The letter stated that he was selling his property and the home was in escrow. Mr. Fairbanks further stated that the property has a single family residence in front, with two guest homes in the back. Mr. Fairbanks requested a confirmation letter from the City stating that, in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, the City would allow the guest units to be rebuilt (see Aftachment F). On August 4, 2010, Planning Division staff did a preliminary search of City records and sent a zoning confirmation letter to Mr. Fairbanks informing him that no permits were issued for the two guest units which were noted in his letter and that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (which is required to a establish non -rentable guest units within his (R-1) zoning district) had not been issued for the use. Mr. Fairbanks was also informed that, based on Tustin City Code, a non -conforming building destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent of its reasonable value may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located. Provisions for reconstruction of non -conforming buildings do not apply to structures or additions which have been constructed without the benefit of permits. To legalize the existing guest units (without a kitchen), approval of a CUP would be required (Attachment G). Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 8 Shortly after the zoning confirmation letter was sent by Planning Division staff, the case was forwarded to Code Enforcement for follow up. Code enforcement officers conducted a thorough search of city records and requested a search of County records for any documentation associated with 520 Pacific Street. However, no permits for the guest units were found. Code enforcement officers also found the subject property advertised online and located two "for sale" postings. Both postings identified a "studio guest house with kitchenette' over the detached two car garage and a "second guest house with one bedroom, living room, and kitchen behind the garage". On September 10, 2010, the property owner allowed City staff to do a cursory on-site assessment of the Online posting for 520 Pacific property (see photos in Attachment D). Several life street safety code violations and other issues were noted by Planning and Building Division staff (A detailed list of the main concerns/code compliance issues and the related code violations are shown in Table 1 of the Analysis section of this report). On September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin recorded a Notice and Order Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503 for the property at 520 Pacific Avenue. The Notice and Order provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructed in violation of the Tustin Building Code and Zoning Codes. In part, Section 5502(b) states a public nuisance exists when "any condition... exists upon any premises that is dangerous to human life or is detrimental to health as determined by an appropriate city official' (see Attachment A). The Notice and Order provision is set forth in Chapter 5 of the Tustin City Code for Property Maintenance and Nuisance Abatement Regulations and Standards. The purpose of this chapter is to "provide for the abatement of conditions which are offensive or annoying to the senses, detrimental to property values and community appearance, an obstruction to or interference with the comfortable enjoyment of adjacent property, or hazardous or injurious to the health, safety or welfare of the general public in such ways as to constitute a nuisance". ANALYSIS: During the cursory on-site assessment of the property on September 10, 2010, City staff noted several code compliance issues at the property. The following table outlines the code compliance issues and concerns; code sections applicable (including California Building Code as adopted by Tustin, California Fire Code, and Tustin City Zoning Code); and photos taken during the assessment. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 9 TABLE 1 CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable Photos The use of the property California Fire Code as a triplex (with 3 Section 102.3 Change of , units) changes the use or occupancy; ,^ building occupancy California Fire Code from R3 (single family Section 102 Unsafe residential) to R1 Building or Structures (multiple family)=-_ It could not be California Fire Code - determined If Section 102 Unsafe footing/foundations Building or Structures exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures Multiple residential No fire separation walls Building Code Tabled between units; 503; California Fire Code units built after therefore not in Section 110.1 Unsafe original structures compliance with one Conditions w/o permits hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants Mechanical, electrical, TCC 8100 Adoption of and plumbing (including 2007 California Building HVAC) installation Code At 05.1 -Permits work done without required) Bathroom m permits in upper Permits are required to unit w! no c7 insure that life safety permits protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Pursuant to the zoning TCC 9223a7(b)- code; the property does minimum building site for : b, not have sufficient lot second residential unit is size to accommodate a 12,000 square feet Second and second or third unit TCC 9223b2 Accessory third residential (Requires min. 12,000 buildings used as guest sq. ft. lot; however this roams, providing no �� units lot is 10,000 sq, fl) cooking facility is Guest unit (no kitchen installed or maintained, _ facilities) requires CUP. subject to Conditional This number of units Use Permit would need to be located in an R-2 or R-3 district and would require a minimum of 7 parking stalls to support the added residential use. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 10 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable Photos The second story wall Section 1403 of TCC construction and 8100 Adaption of 2007 �fk windows adjacent to the California Building Code property line do not comply with fire protection Insufficient requirements. setback to The opening is not- PL permitted as shown; y�,, exterior wall is not fire rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency. Furnace installed TCC 8100 Adoption of without required permits 2007 California Building does not meet Cade At 0&1 — Permits clearance requirements required and creates a potential � fire hazard. Exposed electrical next TCC 8100 Adoption of rn to unpermilted furnace 2007 California Building which causes potential Code Al 05.1 —Permits fire hazard. required Z 0 N 'O C O u ) Electrical device next to healer Kitchen cooking TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities not permitted facilities permitted in in guest unit. guest unit Kitchen in Plumbing and electrical TCC 8100 Adoption of upper unit installed without 2007 California Building permits. Permits are Code At 05.1 — Permits I required to insure that required life safety protocol is k followed and installation 4 is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 11 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Shower added on to TCC 8100 Adoption of - - - original structure. This 2007 California Building requires a building Code Al 05.1 —Permits permit to add additional required) square footage (pop - out) and permits for plumbing, and waterproofing. Shower added w/o permits Railing has no TCC 8100 Adoption of - intermediary posts and 2007 California Building - No inner the run and rise are not Code A105.1 — Permits compliant with Building required r posts Code requirements nor TCC 8100 Adoption of is the unprotected back 2007 California Building which is open. This Code 1012 Handrails—'il poses a potential falling handrails required for hazard for small stairways children. TCC 8100 Adoption of m 2007 California Building Code 1013 Guards— - rn guards shall be located - along open -sided walking surfaces '+ ,$ 0 including stairways c located more than 30 inches above the grade c below There is no property 2007 CBC Section M line firewall separation 1024.3 Exit discharge between staircase and location Window at PL rn the property line. requires 5ft setback The staircase is built TCC 9223b2(e) requires over the property line 5 ft. setback to property A guest unit requires a line 5 foot setback to " property line (PL). There are several Built over PL issues associated with the location of this staircase; most Imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. Roof drains onto 2007 CBC Section neighboring property 1101.1 all roofs shall be which may cause drained Into a separate flooding. storm sewer system 2007 CBC Section 2007 CBC Section J109.4 — Drainage across property line Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 12 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Structural supports do 2007 CBC Section " not provide sufficient 1604.1, 2301.2 General supporting rafters Roof Design Requirements. are Floor joist supported ucturaundersized to provide along block fence ratheradequate !adeua:temembers support than cantilevered from ports the two story structure :. a The carport is attached Change in occupancy to both the main house constitutes a multitude of Carport and the 2 -story garage CBC and Fire Code attached to and attached rear units; violations: making this a tri-plex California Fire Code main house unit pursuant to building Section 102.3 Change of and garage code fire rating. These use or occupancy; deficiencies create California Fire Code access hazards for fire Section 102 Unsafe access and may pose Building or Structuress+ - Y additional hazards to 4 occupants since the m occupancy changes with a tri-plex (common terminolo Unsupported electrical TCC 8100 Adoption of metal conduit (EMT) 2007 California Building Unsupported pp between garage and house. The potential for Code A105.1 — Permits required line over damage and failure due ' to the exposure of the line is increased and _ — poses a potential fire hazard. No rating separation 2007 CBC Table 602 between walls of garage Fire -Resistance Rating and living units; thus Requirements for Exterior - Romex wiring is exposing tenants above Walls Based on Fire unprotected and exposed and next to the garage Separation Distance to fire hazard originating in the garage.\ Electrical wiring: 2007 CEC Article 334.15 � B Romex cannot be Exposed Work and 0 exposed or unprotected Article 330.30 Securing and must be and Supporting attached/secured. (Ramex was first used in the 1850's. Color New junction box without coding (yellow) wasn't Permits talo 9 Tu available until 2001) Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 13 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Unit does not meet fire 2007 CBC Table 602 rating requirement; 5 Fire -Resistance Rating foot setback required to Requirements for Exterior property line to protect Walls Based on Fire 1 occupants from fire Separation Distance hazards; or safely (1927 UBC Section 1403, personnel responding to less than 3 feel) an emergency. TCC 9223b2 minimum side yard setback 5 feel Min. 5 ft setback required (zero - 4 ft provided) Heater installed with a TCC 8100 Adoption of gas line without permits 2007 California Building It is installed on a Code Al 05.1 —Permits — - =1 combustible wood sided required - a wall which poses a Subject to manufacture's Heater potential fire hazard due installation standards and +' installed v to the combustible mechanical/plumbing material permit _. permit m m D: Ceiling heights vary and 2007 CMC Section j do not meet the 7'6" 1208.2 Ceiling height height requirement minimum Ceiling height does not meet min. 7'6" Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 14 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Improper and 2007 CFC Section 605.5 substandard electrical Extension Cords wiring without permit - Power strip next to < + kitchen sink where a range might have been previously i Plumbing added without TCC 8100 Adoption of permit 2007 California Building j Code At 05.1 — Permits L require Kitchen is not permitted TCC 9223b2 No cooking Kitchen in rear unit- not permitted (per zoning) facilities permitted in (i.e. plumbing, electrical, guest unit v etc.) N Ib Unsecured and exposed 2007 CMC Section gas line on the interior 1311.2.6 Hangers, - which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors gas leak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Outlets within the rear unit Exposed and unsecured gas line inside unit Insulation Is nonrated Well and opening and is combustible protection 2007 CBC (appears to be straw Table 602 Fire - bale) Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior c Walls Based on Fire � Separation Distance and c Table 704.8 Maximum v Area of Exterior Wail '2 Openings `m v Combustible material installed between walls um e m Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 15 Location Code Compliance Issue Code Sections applicable photos The room is considered Habitable space as "habitable space" and defined by CBC is a appears to not provide space in a building for sufficient, ventilation, living, sleeping, eating or heat and light cooking. Therefore, it requires sufficient light, ventilation heat, etc Ceiling height is too low 2007 CMC Section E and should be a 1208.2 minimum 7'6" g minimum T6" c 0 Ceiling height does not meet minimum (Note: Code compliance issues noted in Table 1 based on cursory observations by City station September 10, 2010. The full extent of violations is unknown due to the limited ability to conduct a thorough assessment.) Building Code Appeal The appellant is requesting reconsideration of the Notice and Order for the determination of a public nuisance filed for the property at 520 Pacific Street. The appellant has indicated, in part, in his letter of appeal (Attachment B) that the Building Code section which requires permits would not apply to his property because he purchased the home over 10 years ago and the structures already existed. However, the current property owner is ultimately the responsible person for maintaining the property. "Responsible Person", as defined by the Tustin City Code is "the owner of property upon which a violation of the Tustin City Code occurs or continues to occur. This term also includes any owner, occupant, or other person or entity in control of the property who is creating, causing, or maintaining any condition in violation of the Tustin City Code". The current property owner may have purchased the property in the current condition with multiple units that are not permitted, however, he has also, knowingly or not, maintained the structures and collected income from tenants who live in numerous substandard building conditions. Zoning Code Appeal The appellant is also requesting consideration of the Zoning Code requirement for a Conditional Use Permit and lot line [setback]. His letter indicates, in part, that the property is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first zoning of Tustin (see Attachment B). Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 16 The Notice and Order indicated violation of Tustin City Code sections that require a CUP to establish accessory buildings used as guest rooms (provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained)(TCC 9223(b)(2) and that a minimum 5 foot side yard setback be provided for accessory buildings used as guest houses (TCC 9223(b)(2)(d)). Although the two story garage structure was probably original to the site, the use of the second story apartment above the garage was not permitted. In the R-1 Single Family District, guest houses or guest units were historically intended for "temporary guests" and the use has been permitted accessory to the main house. Kitchen facilities were not permitted in guest units nor are they permitted to be rented out for compensation. Further second units require additional garage parking and a minimum lot size, of which this property does not meet. Appeal Findings Pursuant to Tustin City Cade Section 9294, the Planning Commission should consider the evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination (as shown in Table 1) that a public nuisance exists at the subject property due to the dangerous conditions present. As the hearing body, the Commission should determine whether or not the two accessory buildings that are currently being utilized as rentable residential units (with kitchen facilities) should: • Be brought into conformance with Tustin City Code requirements as indicated in the Notice and Order; or • Determine whether the code sections were accurately applied to the property; or • Modify the Notice and Order Independent Evaluation In considering appeals, the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The firm specializes in historic and older buildings and was able to provide professional judgment as to which structures may have been original and which had been added and/or modified over time. The architect provided a report that concluded that "the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site [main house] in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII" (See Attachment H). CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals deny the appeal; affirm the Notice and Order; and direct the property owner(s) to comply with the Appeal 520 Pacific Street October 26, 2010 Page 17 requirements of the Notice and Order identified in Attachment A of the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. Amy Thomas, AICP Senior Planner Y Y enry Huang, P.V-, C.B.O. wilding Official Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Notice and Order B. Letter of Appeal Received Sept. 23, 2010 C. Site Plan dated 8/30/10 D. Photos taken during Sept 10, 2010 assessment E. City of Tustin Historical Survey for 520 Pacific Street F. July 27, 2010, letter from Mr. Bret Fairbanks G. August 4, 2010, zoning confirmation letter from City staff H. Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. I. PC Resolution No. 4161 J. PC Resolution No. 4162 S:%CddWmy\Code Enforcement%520 PacifickPC. Agenda AppealHearing 520 Pacific.doc ATTACHMENT A Notice and Order Community Development Department Sent via first ciass and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address: 520 Pacific Street Assessor Parcel Number: 401-371-07 Case Number: V10-0312 Dear Mr. Fairbanks, TUSTIN HISTORY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which Include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore, please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday. October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92790 0 P. (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street September 16, 2010 Case a V1 0.0312 Page 2 M 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit Issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result In (1) the Issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material Involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincere/ er8d Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: Exhibit A — Administrative Citation Information Exhibit 8 — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Department T U S T I N EXHIBIT A Administrative Citation Process BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Code (TCC) 1182(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or 3500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8899) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $800.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City may also take further legal action Including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the violations) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible parson(s), the property owner(a), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding fine(s). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding fine(s), and contact the City to request a re - Inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time in writing pursuant to TCC 1185(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1188 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(e). Request for Hearing fors and other information on Administrative Citations may be obtained on the City's website at www.tus8nca.orD. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 0 www.tu5tinca.org Notice a.SUsw.al 10 CAMO,VI Is 12 I:eN M V IO�U112 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, Install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is Installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. Ly i CITS]7LJ I:I ki<i -3 Letter of Appeal Received Sept. 23, 2010 September 22, 2010 RECEIVED Brad Steen, Code Enforcement officer SEP 23 2010 Community Development Department City of Tustin t:01LAtUNnY DEVELOPMENT DEPT Letter of Appeal for: Notice and Order/ Pre -Citation Notice Declaration of Public Nuisance Address: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92790 Assessor parcel number: 401-371-07 Case Number: V10-0312 Dear Mr. Steen, This letter is to appeal and request consideration on the recent notice I received regarding unpermitted units. The code violation reads any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall fust make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. I have no intentions of rebuilding or reconstructing any portion of the said structures. I purchased the home over 10 years ago and the structures already existed when I purchased the property. I have provided evidence to show that the structures have existed for over 50 years. I understand the city has no permits of the structures on my property but that is true for most homes built in old town prior to 1950. Most if not all of the homes would be in violation and considered a public nuisance. With regards to the other violations regarding conditional use permits and lot lines, I am not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to issuing of conditional use permits and the first zoning ordinance of Tustin. In response the letter, it is my intent to apply for a conditional use permit and progress accordingly however I do not feel I have violated any code and am not in any way a public nuisance. Sincerely, ,� ) ,� Bret Fairbanks ATTACHMENT C Site Plan dated 8/30/10 � «� \ j R n , . , � §�2 ; ---— k — � tj � PACFCSTMET r»mG 28»72 STREET 3• 7PACIFIC 9 «� | R ATTACHMENT D Photos taken during Sept 10, 2010 inspection .1 'A iA s I it d w ■■t f L!qw` ��7 'Y9111111 .: `11111 ilu ::� \��� . � 1 X5:4 � \\�i . �, 1 \ ,, ;� \} � . 1 ` \ l\ � ' >M r ATTACHMENT E City of Tustin Historical Survey for 520 Pacific Street ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST DATE: 1929 STYLE: CALIFDRNIABUNGALOW SOURCE: RATING: T C ALTERATIONS: P HISTORICAL DISTRICT: YES COMMENT: DESCRIPTION: 'CITY OF 7i'USTIIN HISTORICAL SURVEY 'Me single -storied he= at 520 is topped with a front facing gabled roof and matching centered patch. A small louvered vent is centered below the peak Shiplap siding, in a style made in the 40's and 50's, covers the gables, indicating that the roofs not twiginal. Narrow clapboard siding coven the first Boor exterior. Square posts, resting on tapered clapboard -clad pian, support the roof. The concrete porch extends to each side, topped with pergolas. The front door featums a mullioned border and is flanked by huge plate glass windows. Double -hung windows are used throughout the rest of the house. A red brick chimney on the south side is flanked by windows. A carport and a two-story clapboard -clad garage are located on the south side, behind the house. The garage, which appears to be original, is topped with a gabled mor with a hip at die peak The siding is narrow clapboard, which scams to indicate that the house once was also all clapboard -sided with a hip at the peak of the trout -facing gabled roof. l Rin WAe AIV L W This California Bungalow was built on one of the lots along South Pacific Sheet which were subdivided by Harry Maple. He was the son of Richard and Edna Marple, fruit growers, who owned an orchard on this property from 1903 until the property passed to Harry in 1924. He dedicated a strip down the center, from Main to Sixth Sheets, for the extension of Pacifc Street. Ia sold this lot an George Gaylord in 1929. The Gaylords received a completion notice on their home that same year. George was a well -liked wood shop and physical education instructor at the Tustin Grammer School for several years. After he retired in the 1950'x, he beurx a carpenter. The Gaylards were still living in the house in 1965. This bungalow fits well into the su=tsmpe of the Tustin Historic District and contributes to the hee-lined sheet because it is of an appropriate sin and scale. ATTACHMENT F July 27, 2010, letter from Mr. Bret Fairbanks July 27, 2010 City of Tustin Community Development Department Justin Wilkom, Principal Planner Dear Ms. Wilkom, My name is Bret Fairbanks and I am the owner of the property located at 520 Pacific Street, Tustin, CA 92780. We are currently selling our home and are in escrow. Our property has a single family residence in front with 2 guest homes in the back. According to the attached county records we have 2 addresses 520 and 520 %, we have and pay for 2 separate electric meters, and have various city permits for improvements we have done on the home since we purchased it in 2000. The buyers lender is requiring a letter from the city stating in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, the city would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. Attached are documents from the county tax assessors office showing the guest houses have been here long before we purchased the property. Thank you for your time and consideration. This letter is all we need to close escrow. If there is anything I could do to help speed up this process please let me know. Bret Fairbanks C.P.(949) 933-6886 isign Type Codes i01 - Single Family Residence 102 - Multi Family 199 - Misc. Improvements 11 _ tested By Address j� i9U,F-1c. , Phone ( Signature PUBLIC SERVICE INFORMATION FORM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL QUA TTROpRO Check Amount $ Cash Amount S Mailed Date By M.S. MOR�*M�A�A���©© 111 111111110111 ee�� e111 0 MEMO ME www I QUA TTROpRO Check Amount $ Cash Amount S Mailed Date By M.S. mm�OEI�OOI -- _ iQ/.-". +.7�f®1"YIY�®U� f 42P �.l�aL�® �i�•���i� RE Ems® NEON es® OSOs®®®®'�fisi iR: C.•II L.t : y� B dll ry .moi-_ MISCELLANEOUS STRUCT 4.1 1 SfrNf-"d +o� A.P. ...'Ip". Ye. Roar I DI.Ya.Im, An. • Cal �• 4e . Tnef 4.aS. m C.n.n.R WW RpRmS�IDI.RNCR NNITR Y M�WNpb faaR. WALLS D. J . Y ! G WI. Ill. ab Stmw IOF1,/, 2 I STUCCO .• MatiI LFIR WignY SIDINi VaNbd Sh1.gI.L. ny yWppd F{`F T�"i° an A Wtd. 1""A off Al :.. IIOOR HI Lw'SRad 5�ikSI6Lp�..1.yL�a.P nCan�I.MNea I.cY Caw. has Alam. ,1,00 Almu NR v FWNr D W.D.. N, IIf 2Ad / rlw.. 97 ,... _Wl N a clic. i xs f, . 3G $iz F�1 R)UNDATION - . CIBtl11l. -. IJ HOOT.;- S�S�qgl�a� d Oou6L Or: JiT A. , O Nam 1 i 7". 4.4 .. /S !M xr PTS% 3t 7 Ay% a71e /G/ pW . '20d FLOOR'.' JOS• 1 a- (L 'HlPd' ie -- D"W..1— Or: L141N611M— FiMariw, h1S • KITCHEN MTCNw — — _.- - — Y 1 L -- .. 04 r ;PAiAOHROOII > f)a• !•� slx NnnlT flue,.. : f _ W. Cort o.. .W.Us iG- - .. ".. U. _. Tub _ .. its 0.-S '.: .3 EDS REM ARK{ u -ea. .e . 7a62' $:. _ ..' e p ,id L .... 960d• CLASI ( Up SC' flla .v.. HF1►F / �'9 'NRi Ir /o %o„d.`.... Had i4.Af F_ . Siee _ a. flea - �w.".a- Rot. Cent — - - C ✓ 6D 7l 3y aae -7.*- _ Flit. RMR pI »8 "if ' '. Ci.a.I!RRr GUI dire Rr ' A. 19. IOYY YII•I IYF]CYI ..RO. 1...1 YR RCLNO A4 e28O' %NeedAn io 3 vV-1:" IGo� U 7 0 0 wl..Mba 3.7eJ- I. 4a� /��O 9SSO I'�O J 772 - 4 4T i 4 -r OP SE COUNTY ASSESSOR MULTIPLE RZODENTIAL UNIT APPRAISAL RECC HO T%IA<I A.P. NO. tl0l X371 X07 T- .-- :LT -EMIT LAND VALUE COMPUTATIONS LAND OR U .ull uwr unrc r.w< uw< I I WIDTII Tn O ND E'1 Is » z"MI ZOnINO!:cwaw. TOTAL MWgrY VAW( O IVT" rMurc 1 &'�_ !.CF9J rla. n. "T, teteDll.K FlI?61T/ VALY! 1. 4 cn<[ 1 1_ I--1 1 s!- T!f 1-'I N01�1 L P. \ TM4h 'f--/_�: - .. LI N<PNlIfNtAt1Y! SUMMARY ''79 II InNWDLM La0.aaMVa }11AMIC VEa r- m r, — i'LIYSFrt /2—LT:. ita%tii�r�Y.Z. _ » -- I c:T 1a 4e1TN_ AY_ YOM ./ 'j � 0 7( II vim ROM. NMwuo If -2 1� FSSOT ll YIlW » wtMl61 �'-<7� - .:iI LAIN V"lf. / 1 �a1'.10 Z s eN Lel—Ebr1160.WA 440 7d JE I<; AMM. ,IM.CT WM111TIp11NDIG}DIIILI"IT .JA%j_ .dM _!9K rA f.-"...-'a•.rwG S7Jtrrz_ _ /G�Na3 Cg1IOM/ C.I.A. I .... .. — IU UTLRIIt 7e JFVt: 0rWIW. 7 eW. / UO 411,70SPNS T N< A A7 .7Cs\wJnLe.1 .Y -/t Jb \, E 0. N. N. I010N;ATe1 27 _ UNIT 4uLT. MDItlTDII 962-090-00 ' It LOT IINLIn r'14 CO Y!] r ND e^ oCND� Its C NO q �Iu ZW, n r. INT 20 113 t�IO TAT IMIIfAIW MlN MµR C. OO 111 WATM IMMI UaTee Mltl 1[I ='I" Miami Tn O ND E'1 Is » z"MI ZOnINO!:cwaw. TOTAL MWgrY VAW( O 31 » usa NllnAcm IW Yea ra NO teteDll.K FlI?61T/ VALY! b N TNa VNIT MNENAL NIDNn I--1 1 s!- T!f 1-'I N01�1 L P. \ TM4h 'f--/_�: - .. ''79 La0.aaMVa }11AMIC VEa r- m r, — i'LIYSFrt /2—LT:. ita%tii�r�Y.Z. _ » MW PAW14 I c:T 1a - rtWart NMwuo If -2 1� FSSOT » wtMl61 rs r K dae�_�14rt 41!131,71aTi � A. .:iI » Ua[ Opt . -- 0.78. Z s eN Lel—Ebr1160.WA 440 7d JE .. � - .JA%j_ .dM _!9K rA f.-"...-'a•.rwG S7Jtrrz_ _ /G�Na3 al v .... .. — 7e JFVt: 0rWIW. 7 eW. / UO 411,70SPNS T N< A A7 .7Cs\wJnLe.1 .Y -/t Jb \, _, FOpMEpLYBO 27 Nem moRNow ArrmouTu 962-090-00 N RKLI 1AY, uN ... m 1--I NO �I » W&T FAV. M 14�d1_ .1 INW]T uw Y I CLutTZN i♦he Yas _n ND C -_- Yb 1^ NOT'I _ .�.. _ �.. ._.._.-. .,' iNMO I r- l l . — - . tOMIN6 Lpb1DNY Id ISI N, -__ ui lanluuulY r-Jn T1, .1I phTa 01 IYM • .. Y' =,m <INYIDtl 11 Z. ! s r8 JNT •- - - NWC »IIV1Caf w� 173 I TTAL RLLN.D. 41Wt411G R0.4M0. MARKET NULTIRUMI rNio"TOM Nn CYN TINA INCOY[' t_ mMir I E.c 144 I VNITNIIr CONCLwroM Yw B _ Y.wa J+ IAN& O --I ,_, Yl•`� i 2 D V APMIUSER'S OPINION NR Min WII INC. rD1A WG LLa 4. GN.IXOILA114 UNIT 4VII 'Ihn�•� ._. .__.. 1e IW ' Leo OEM. Tue..11r 2 J No - o PlRSOMAL Pg0►®ITT VALUE IMDIGATOR trot Trm�mff OAR 411r1 It, 1N. NR IMt141N crhN 1[R fNl1 inYlt ..._ Elf .t L. .. ...— _ . F 1• ewLDYlA hweM . 7GSen 0 'a "CC IMPS. I - NprfL ]nGMl1q in gFll. lm!EEMI PA mi Cwm lROINa lEII - L., ..ALL UINT ROOGRAIL - - — M •)' AY I r _ CCMYYNITY fn.R! I I I R L u XC I U tl'M IAN )1 PIEI CI RAN M11EL A141T0 eAe f 1 . I - J��.,_- y dI1011C IIY —_ IC ALUYIMIIY ��-) to a CANFKA I I L ^' I4 MICR YG _ I O11WP CCNx.',iwco .N I 6rOMt VW _ "I R1LfCi YI: . .. L n'n wfkw))w, � .... _. �. .._'^� a I nAx TO, "fu Irl" YIIX.w1' �s" 'C.• A C OBSCRIPTION LIBRA COST OITAK 'I ' "Jokst mrE CYT.uO - -ECI COW L IAL IC: NiMAP.b I IitM w _CCE ^.wl 'V I "FecIluk mY RAVR 0 6UE LV 1 1 CMTI I AI OEPW.Allax 7- Axis A � "AL. INNCTIwAL GOYPO ININCIf_ Ip10.1aL !S l•LH. L M! P,f11101 _ ,. - .. Ti L OMVR - a r. - - . _� 1- A! CCNOrtIw WE RAYeVAI' �- I I RANN11r NOPNY ! 1 I AVm�-Yp.,• A I• - Gaa ' •. - _.._. '- _ f BASIC COR DATA Pm_, tm I MISCELLAREO B I UCTESSES M r11Aii�. _:: _ [%[ a1R11C1 :IElCPIPi"W ANE ar101Nu Iw. Cox W. 81,131111181,1311111N6 iRwi7— - .. Il - __ x eERT cwRfaTTa. _ 1. ---CCM 9 I a a x DESIGN IIP, ag• x OYAL "Im PL AREA •�� !1 N0. OF, aNli! �l --- -�C x OA. CCNx IAW, n No, a rLa N ILCO11 % M FL MM n Na CT, o"lrl vE rLWN K .. .. x R ARM 1R NO 01 VNIK I _ l01 RmR K _ _ P•.�, - Ix rL ARG In NO. q YNLrw _ Ix rm roACN A - Ex IN "ANI1 4G .. Ml AC EWT. Its J�)NO }mll. . - NI NGr CWT, la �rEl A.0 mer /DC' 1—L la IF carr Im I{ Iz Kit cwt III I ER, nw. Cwt m cm MC. 1 1-3 aPLN RAL ! 111;LNOAn1m I -730 COMPUTATION!nrY uAl Rcc uqu I w! 11E4 : IAC AREA IIMIT M... I:NIT I MI Ma CMII CCET Ca!)'IR--� 11lIOEEf,fO PY 1 — 1 CANNA I u! CAR AIIFA 1 I OOp _ Ix GMPOAT eC R �)1 • _ lu'rw AREA - _ In P N owl ' '-- m; POCL cast - -- _ .. .. :n'•ow mre ?a DECK cm -- la I Omh DAM • pO IPILIIIOE falx � 'a "CC IMPS. I - w016N tYPE IC{I, L TeCY in 10 C.Cw ��. lm!EEMI PA mi _ - _.. •Y O[E!n 4AIN1 rER 1- Np F, AIM YL. rACTC)A -• _- I - - )N_: - • CAWR CONil fACIO. A,:A .MY' 1'U .. • .'M C Cwi •Boli_. CCOC _ 'K Maw AAM A . fAETM O11WP CCNx.',iwco __ u n..:F. a• �'.. __ - -Y ADDRESS DIST CWNER _ COMPUTATIONS PMT I DTM DATE _ ... BLOCKAMT ROOM AND MOR! FLOOR PILI FINISH DETAIL INTOIIOII IM[ON f UNIT A.P. !: • r �" � �! Rooms ALL R 1 YITRIu an. __.._ WLLII CDLIROi R[YARRi M Sici d RAT[ fff' RYL llVliq I DRUM I '— Y C011fT. CAT[ iYMIY[ -- 10 R[iWN T'R it is vrtttlr[ fKAR ' 4 n armclA[lon TAeL[ t7 %W. I,a d NW - I RR' WALLW R. 15 CRNOITON I❑i�[� .... . ler TILL Y LI'ID IILASN GY CAB R. WMKMANrMl1 1 C3213-13 To 'r. BATH DETAIL No.fTNMN FlA'TIIRE6 rT - IDEM RDOMl -� ROOIIt WALLS RC 4 Me T n Y Fl1Ne11 6RAtX IYLLYAN! Y LIVRIO RMs r cr—R. r is nm"g Ru! ' Y fA14LV AMf It DG la. der* MR No, of sFTN RM[" Y [[ MISCELLANEOUS T ANEOUS S_ RUCTURES '. s'TRYtt. i IM CRN. - Cil ROOT R IM sY[ u Y QTIiiA oAR _ _—. __ [s am AL MGT •n� ME .,I_ .. . COST FACTORS 1 .. l —r-1 Y W.LLIT' CLMs L ~-' r ' [[ "up" MRD. M IYMARG _ It [M ILII ARG 4 1M Illl IACTOII � — ss 14 ILR AM sf A fu�ACTOR O IACrd1 - i[YT ARCA e[MT FACTOR M FACTOR TOTAL CIIeT nY C RATIO Can %.�O Ib M FLIT can Id LAT rLeO cos' ItsW CLAY ULT 111 GR ClAfi ATT T RAREAAA AA Ts rw AREA 11 •w COST Is IlNCL COfT 04 COST to MIRC — II) POOL COST Is Pint. OAT[ I If DttcR IMA can Ism T.CNTR, C COSTS ATTACHMENT G August 4, 2010, zoning confirmation letter from City staff Community Development Department August 4, 2010 Brett Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mr. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for your letter, received July 27, 2010, requesting zoning confirmation for the property located at 520 Pacific Street. In your letter, you indicated that the property has a single family residence in the front with two guest homes in the back. You have also included copies of tax assessor information related to your property for the City's review. In the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, you inquired if the City would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. The subject property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained. A guest house is defined in the Tustin City Code as detached living quarters of a permanent type of construction and without kitchens or cooking facilities and where no compensation in any form is received or paid. No permits exist for guest houses at the subject property and no conditional use permit is on file to establish guest houses at the subject property. In your letter you indicated that there are two addresses at the subject property, 520 and 520 tfz Pacific Street. The City has not assigned a 'fz address to the subject property. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(c), "A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only In compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located." The provisions for reconstruction of a nonconforming building does not apply to structures or additions which have been illegally constructed or constructed without the benefit of permits. Should you wish to establish guest houses at the subject property, approval of conditional use permits and obtaining necessary building permits would be required. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 573-3123. Sincerely, ya wiontek Associate Planner Attachments: A. Single Family Residential (R-1) standards B. Cultural Resources District (CR) standards C. 4Guest House Definition 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 0 F: (714) 573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org CC: Elizabeth A. Binsack Dana L. Ogdon Justine Willkom S:\Cdd\Ryan\Zoning Confirmation\520 Pacific St.doc ATTACHMENT H Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john C. loomis, architect jamas C. Wilson, architect principal clwood I, galley, architect Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front', the two sides as the "left and right' based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newpott boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 9491673-2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage bam structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevanl — newport beach, ca 92663 —9491673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Ai✓— John Loomis Principal 2821 newport boulevard — newpurt beach, ea 92663 — 949/673-2643 ATTACHMENT PC Resolution No. 4161 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice of recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street to Mr. Fairbanks. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Director of Community Development or any other person or City officer or employee as may be designated by the City Manager to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; G. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to the appeal and, at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street; That, pursuant to Section 112 Board of Appeals of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, the hearing was held to consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; the provision of such code do not fully apply; or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. That, pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, shall not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code or to waive requirements of such code. Further, the hearing shall be de novo and the Board of Appeals may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter in accordance with the Tustin City Code or remand the matter to the Community Development Director or the Zoning Administrator for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the Board of Appeals. K. That, the Board of Appeals considered evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance condition exists at the subject property due to the present violations of the following Building Code section: California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 L. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exists as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 provided hereto in Exhibit A. M. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; N. That the extent of repairs ordered by the Enforcement Officer are appropriate for the property; O. That the time limitations for starting and completing the repairs are reasonable; P. That the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that concluded that "the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site (main house] in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and -third living units were added much later, post WWII' (attached hereto in Exhibit C). It. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby affirms the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code subject to the following condition: The property owner(s) is/are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, as attached hereto Exhibit B and incorporated herein with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 26th day of October, 2010. Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 Jeff R. Thompson Chair Pro Tem Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Y. Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Board of Appeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4161 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 26th day of October, 2010. Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Building Official SACdd)Amy\Code Enforcement1520 PadfickPC resolution Appeal 520 Padfic.docx EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable The use of the property as a triplex (with 3 California Fire Code Section 102.3 Change of r units) changes the use or occupancy; building occupancy California Fire Code t from R3 (single family Section 102 Unsafe residential) to R1 Building or Structures (multiple family)== It could not be California Fire Code determined if Section 102 Unsafe fooling/foundations Building or Structures exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures R Multiple residential No fire separation walls Building Code Table between units; 503; California Fire Code units built after therefore not in Section 110.1 Unsafe original structures compliance with one Conditions w/o permits hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants Mechanical, electrical, TCC 8100 Adoption of and plumbing (including 2007 California Building HVAC) installation Code All 05.1 —Permits Bathroom work done without required) In upper c permits Permits are required to unit w/no insure that life safety permits protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Pursuant to the zoning TCC 9223a7(b)- code; the property does minimum building site for not have sufficient lot second residential unit is size to accommodate a 12,000 square feel second and second or third unit TCC 9223b2 Accessary (Requires min. 12,000 buildings used as guest third residential sq. ft. lot; however this rooms, providing no units lot is 10,000 sq. ft) cooking facility is Guest unit (no kitchen installed or maintained, _ facilities) requires CUP. subject to Conditional This number of units Use Permit would need to be located in an R-2 or R-3 district and would require a minimum of 7 parking stalls to support the added residential use. 11 Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable The second story wall Section 1403 of TCC construction and 8100 Adoption of 2007 windows adjacent to the California Building Code properly line do not comply with fire protection Insufficient requirements. setback to The opening is not n permitted as shown; PL exterior wall is not fire t. rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts Ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency. Furnace Installed TCC 8100 Adoption of without required permits 2007 California Building does not meet Code A105.1— Permits clearance requirements required and creates a potential F e fire hazard. f, $� Exposed electrical next TCC 8100 Adoption of to unpermilted furnace 2007 California Building which causes potential Code A105.1 — Permits fire hazard, required c s N 'O C O u U) trical device naxtto heater Kitchen cooking TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities not permitted facilities permitted in in guest unit. guest unit Kitchen in Plumbing and electrical TCC 8100 Adoption of upper unit installed without 2007 California Building permits. Permits are Code At 05.1 —Permits — required to Insure that required life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and inspection, Installation may create fire hazard, water dame e, etc. 2 1 P a g e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable Photos Shower added on to TCC 8100 Adoption of original structure. This 2007 California Building requires a building Code Al 05.1 — Permits permit to add additional required) square footage (pop - out) and permits for h plumbing, and waterproofing. Shower added wto — its Railing has no TCC 8100 Adoption of intermediary posts and 2007 California Building — No inner the run and rise are not Code A105.1— Permits compliant with Building required r posts Code requirements nor TCC 8100 Adoption of Is the unprotected back 2007 California Building which is open. This Code 1012 Handrails — poses a potential falling handrails required for hazard for small stairways children. TCC 8100 Adoption of m 2007 California Building °' Code 1013 Guards — ` guards shall be located y y along open -sided �! 'o walking surfaces including stairways located more than 30 inches above the grade Z below a There Is no property 2007 CBC Section v line firewall separation 1024.3 Exit discharge C between staircase and location Window at PL m the property line. requires 5ft setback The staircase Is built TCC 9223b2(e) requires over the property line 5 fl. setback to property A guest unit requires a line, 5 foot setback to property line (PL). Built over PL y There are several Issues associated with the location of thls staircase; most . s imminent is the lack of emergency access and safe egress from the unit. Roof drains onto 2007 CBC Section neighboring property 1101.1 all roofs shall be -•- which may cause drained into a separate .--,-_-: Flooding. storm sewer system -- -- -- - 2007 CBC Section 2007 CBC Section J109.4 — Drainage across property line 3 1 P a g e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable Structural supports do 2007 CBC Section not provide sufficient 1604.1, 2301.2 General supporting rafters Roof Design Requirements. members are Floorjoist supported undersized to provide along block fence rather EInade,te adequate support than cantilevered from the two story structure The carport Is attached Change in occupancy to both the main house constitutes a multitude of Carport and the 2 -story garage CBC and Fire Code attached to and attached rear units; violations: making [his a tri-plex California Fire Code ' r main house unit pursuant to building Section 102.3 Change of and garage code fire rating. These use or occupancy; deficiencies create California Fire Cade access hazards for fire Section 102 Unsafe access and may pose Building or Structures additional hazards to a occupants since the `m occupancy changes with a tri-plex (common terminology). Unsupported electrical metal conduit (EMT) TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building" Unsupported between garage and Code Al 05.1 — Permits house. The potential for required line over carport damage and failure due to the exposure of the line is increased and poses a potential fire hazard. 41 Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable No rating separation 2007 CBC Table 602 between walls of garage Fire -Resistance Rating - and living units; thus Requirements for Exterior Romex wiring is exposing tenants above Walls Based on Fire unprotected and exposed and next to the garage Separation Distance to fire hazard originating in the garage. , m New junction box without m r, penults 'Palo 9 In Electrical wiring: 2007 CEC Article 334.15 Romex cannot be Exposed Work and exposed or unprotected Article 330.30 Securing and must be and Supporting attached/secured. (Romex was first used in the 1950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001 Unit does not meet fire 2007 CBC Table 502 rating requirement; 5 Fire -Resistance Rating foot setback required to Requirements for Exterior h property line to protect Walls Based on Fire } occupants from fire Separation Distance _ It hazards; or safety (1927 UBC Section 1403, personnel responding to less than 3 feet) m an emergency. TCC 9223b2 minimum a side yard setback 5 feet v .w m Min. 5 it setback required (zero - 4 fl provided) 51 Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable Heater installed with a TCC 8100 Adoption of 4 1I gas line without permits 2007 California Building It is installed on a Code Al 05.1 — Permits combustible woad sided required ' s wall which poses a Subject to manufacture's ` Heater potential fire hazard due installation standards and��"..,_n installed to the combustible mechanical/plumbing w/o material permit Ceiling heights vary and 2007 CMC Section do not meet the T8" 1208.2 Ceiling height height requirement minimum 1� i Ceiling height does not meet min. 7'8" Improper and 2007 CFC Section 605.5 substandard electrical Extension Cords wiring without permit - Power strip next to kitchen sink where a , range might have been previously r c m c v ` Plumbing added without TCC 8100 Adoption of permit 2007 California Building Code Al 05.1 — Permits •` required) TCC 9223b2 No cooking Kitchen in rear unit- not permitted Kitchen is not permitted (per zoning) facilities permitted in (I.e. plumbing, electrical, guest unit etc.) 61 Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOS. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Unsecured and exposed 2007 CMC Section gas line on the interior 1311.2.6 Hangers, which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors gas leak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Outlets within the rear unit i. Exposed and unsecured gas line inside unit Insulation is nonrated Wall and opening and Is combustible protection 2007 CBC (appears to be straw Table 602 Fire - bale) Resistance Rating Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire' Separation Distance and Table 704.8 Maximum v Area of Exterior Wall Openings i" m Combustible material installed between walls zoio � m The room Is considered Habitable space as "habitable space" and defined by CBC Is a appears to not provide space in a building for sufficient, ventilation, living, sleeping, eating or heat and light cooking. Therefore, it requires sufficient light, 0 ventilation heat etc Ceiling height is too low 2007 CMC Section ,$ E and should be a 1208.2 minimum 7'6' g minimum 7'6" e 0 A d Ceiling height does not meet minimum Building Code observations are based on a 30 minute cursory and visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 5:\Cdd\Amy\Code Enforcement\520 Padflc\Code violatWnsAm 71 Page EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Notice and Order Conununity Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address: 520 Pacific Street Assessor Parcel Number: 401-371-07 Case Number: V10-0312 Dear Mr. Fairbanks, TUSTIN I IIS TORY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore. please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday, October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P: (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Netke and Order at 520 Pacific Street September 16, 2010 Case K V10-0012 Page 2 MB 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincerer Br d Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: Exhibit A — Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Department EXHIBIT A Administrative ClItadon Process TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Code (TCC) 1162(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation: Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8999) vlolatlans may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City may also take further legal action including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the violation(s) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding fine(&). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding fine(s), and contact the City to request a re- inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time in writing pursuant to TCC 1165(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1188 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing fortes and other information on Administrative Citations may be obtained on the City's website at www.tustinca.ora. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P, (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573.31 13 0 www.tustinca.org NW"aMON at 520 Paa street S.,R" ar 16, 2010 Casa 0 v10-0712 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john c. loomis, architect jamas C. Wilson, architect principal elwood 1. gulley, architect Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 9491673-2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard — newport bench, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage bam are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, &-I— John Loomis Principal 2821 newpon boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 ATTACHMENT J PC Resolution No. 4162 RESOLUTION NO. 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Community Development Director or any other person or City officer or employee as may be designated by the City Manager to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; Resolution No. 4162 Page 2 F. That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed; G. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; H. That the appellant is requesting consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; I. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; J. That on October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street; K. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission will act in its capacity as the appeal hearing body to consider appeal of any decisions of the Community Development Director, L. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed in approximately 1929 and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. Construction may have commenced prior to adoption of the 1927 Uniform Building Code, consequently, there are no building permit records for the original construction of the original buildings. The earliest zoning map on file, from 1961, identifies the property as R-1 single family residential and the current zoning for the property is R-1 Single Family Residential; M. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exists as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 provided hereto in Exhibit A; Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 N. That the third unit located behind the garage structure appears to have been constructed in phases several decades after the original structures. The varying roof heights visible from the interior and exterior of the unit and the different siding indicate that the unit was added in sections at different times. O. That no permits to construct and/or convert the units are on file and there are several code violations which indicate that the unit was not built to City Code requirements. P. That the third unit building was constructed approximately four feet from the property line, which is not consistent with the minimum five foot setback required for accessory structures used as guest units. Additionally, several issues exist, including the improper and substandard electrical wiring, installation of a newer unpermitted heating unit, lack of required firewall and combustible insulation between walls separating units; all of which may cause a fire hazard to occupants. Q. That the Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that concluded that "the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site [main house] in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII" (attached hereto in Exhibit C). R. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the appeal is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines; The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242, hereby affirms the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code subject to the following condition: The property owner(s) is/are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, as attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010. Resolution No. 4162 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 26th day of October, 2010. Jeff R. Thompson Chair Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4162 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of October, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary S:%Cdd%Amy%Code Enforcemenl1520 PaciricVC resolution Appeal 520 PadSc.doc EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable photos The use of the property California Fire Code l as a triplex (with 3 Section 102.3 Change of units) changes the use or occupancy; building occupancy California Fire Code .r from R3 (single family Section 102 Unsafe residential) to R1 Building or Structures (multiple family)- -_ It could not be California Fire Code - determined if Section 102 Unsafe fooling/foundations Building or Structures exist to provide adequate structural bracing and support to the structures Multiple residential No fire separation walls Building Code Table between units; 503; California Fire Code units built after therefore not In Section 110.1 Unsafe original structures compliance with one Conditions w/o permits hour separation requirements which poses a potential fire hazard to occupants Mechanical, electrical, TCC 8100 Adoption of and plumbing (Including 2007 California Building HVAC) Installation Code At 05.1 — Permits work done without required) Bathroom permits (n upper Permits are required to unit w/ no 4:9 Insure that life safely permits protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits end inspection, installation may create fire hazard, water damage, etc. Pursuant to the zoning TCC 9223a7(b)- code; the property does minimum building site for c,l not have sufficient lot second residential unit is size to accommodate a 12,000 square feet Second and second or third unit TCC 9223b2 Accessory (Requires min. 12,000 buildings used as guest third residential sq. ft. lot; however this rooms, providing no units lot is 10,000 sq. ft) cooking facility is Guest unit (no kitchen Installed or maintained, facilities) requires CUP. subject to Conditional This number of units Use Permit would need to be located In an R-2 or R-3 district and would require a minimum of 7 parking stalls to support the added residential use. 1I Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable The second story wall Section 1403 of TCC..- construction and 8100 Adoption of 2007 windows adjacent to the California Building Code .. property line do not comply with fire protection Insufficient requirements. setback to The opening Is not ; permitted as shown; PL exterior wall is not fire rated; primary (and only) stairway restricts ingress egress in case of fire or other emergency. Furnace Installed TCC 8100 Adoption of without required permits 2007 California Building does not meet Code At 05.1 —Permits clearance requirements required and creates a potential fire hazard. Exposed electrical next TCC 8100 Adoption of w to unpermitted furnace 2007 California Building g which causes potential Code A105.1— Permits fire hazard. required „1 Z N 9 O U N Electrical device next to heater Kitchen cooking TCC 9223b2 No cooking facilities not permitted facilities permitted in In guest unit. guest unit Kitchen in Plumbing and electrical TCC 8100 Adoption of upper unit installed without 2007 California Building permits. Permits are Code A105.1 — Permits ' I required to insure that required life safety protocol is followed and installation is done according to plan. Without such permits and Inspection, Installation may create fire hazard, water dams a etc. 2 1 P a g e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Issue applicable photos Shower added on to TCC 8100 Adoption of { original structure. This 2007 California Building requires a building Code Al 05.1 —Permits permit to add additional required) square footage (pop. out) and permits for plumbing, and waterproofing. I� ° Shower added w/o permIts Railing has no TCC 8100 Adoption of intermediary posts and 2007 California Building No inner the run and rise are not Code At 05.1 —Permits compliant with Building required r posts Code requirements nor TCC 8100 Adoption of _ Is the unprotected back 2007 California Building which is open. This Code 1012 Handralls — poses a potential falling handrails required for hazard for small stairways ' children. TCC 8100 Adoption of 2007 California Building h Code 1013 Guards — guards shall be located along open sided $ walking surfaces including stairways located more than 30 * inches above the grade Z below .°.. There is no property 2007 CBC Section v line firewall separation 1024.3 Exit discharge o between staircase and location Window at PL Nthe property line. requires Sft setback The staircase is built TCC 9223b2(e) requires over the property line 5 R. setback to property A guest unit requires a line 5 foot setback to proThere are Built over PL hsevene ral issues associated with _ the location of this s staircase; most ep') imminent is the lack of 1. emergency access and safe egress from the unit. Roof drains onto 2007 CBC Section neighboring property 1101.1 all roofs shall be which may cause drained into a separate flooding. storm sewer system 2007 CBC Section 2007 CBC Section J109.4— Drainage across property line 31 Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable Structural supports do 2007 CBC Section _rl not provide sufficient 1604.1, 2301.2 General supporting rafters Roof Design Requirements. Inadequate .� members are Floor joist supported undersized to provide along block fence rather structural adequate support than cantilevered from i supports the two story structure The carport is attached Change in occupancy to both the main house constitutes a multitude of Carport and the 2 -story garage CBC and Fire Code and attached rear units; violations: attached to r making this a td-plex California Fire Code ',} main house unit pursuant to building Section 102.3 Change of I - and garage code fire rating. These use or occupancy,- ccupancy;deficiencies deficienciescreate California Fire Code access hazards for fire Section 102 Unsafe access and may pose Building or Structures V additional hazards to 0 occupants since the M occupancy changes with a tri-plex (common terminology). Unsupported electrical TCC 8100 Adaption of metal conduit (EMT) 2007 California Building between garage and Code A105.1 — Permits Unsupported pp house. The potential for required line over carport damage and failure due to the exposure of the line Is Increased and poses a potential fire hazard. 4 1 P a g e EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable No rating separation 2007 CBC Table 602 between walls of garage Fire -Resistance Rating and living units; thus Requirements for Exterior Romex wiring is exposing tenants above Walls Based on Fire unprotected and exposed and next to the garage Separation Distance to fire hazard originating - in the garage. \ , 0 O1 Y New junction box without Q)permits On) -4 17 Electrical wiring: 2007 CEC Article 334.15 Romex cannot be Exposed Work and exposed or unprotected Article 330.30 Securing and must be and Supporting attached/secured. (Romex was first used in the 1950's. Color coding (yellow) wasn't available until 2001 Unit does not meet fire 2007 CBC Table 602 rating requirement; 5 Fire -Resistance Rating foot setback required to Requirements for Exterior property line to protect Walls Based on Fire occupants from fire Separation Distance hazards; or safety (1927 UBC Section 1403, personnel responding to less than 3 feet) an emergency. TCC 9223b2 minimum side yard setback 5 feet 9 d A Min. 5 ft setback required (zero - 4 it provided) 51 Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections photos Issue applicable Healer installed with a TCC 8100 Adoption of gas line without permits 2007 California Building .� It is installed on a Code A105.1- Permits - combustible wood sided required` wall which poses a Subject to manufacture's S Heater potential fire hazard due installation standards and - installed to the combustible mechanical/plumbing sa- material permitpermit a Ceiling heights vary and 2007 CMC Section _ do not meet the 7'6" 1208.2 Ceiling height height requirement minimum i f f Ceiling height does not as min. 7'6" Improper and 2007 CFC Section 605.5 --- substandard electrical Extension Cords wiring without permit - Power strip next to kitchen sink where a range might have been previously 'c m a m v_ Plumbing added without TCC 8100 Adoption of permit 2007 California Building am, Code A105.1 - Permits _ required) TCC 9223b2 No cooking Kitchen in rear Unit- not permitted Kitchen is not permitted (per zoning) facilities permitted In (Le. plumbing, electrical, guest unit etc.) 61 Page EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NOs. 4161 AND 4162 Location Code Compliance Code Sections Photos Issue applicable Unsecured and exposed 2007 CMC Section gas line on the Interior 1311.2.6 Hangers, which poses a potential Supports, and Anchors gas leak and fire hazard and 1311.7 Outlets within the rear unit Exposed and unsecured gas line inside unit Insulation is nonrated Wall and opening and is combustible protection 2007 CBC (appears to be straw Table 602 Fire - bale) Resistance Rating Me Requirements for Exterior Walls Based on Fire Separation Distance and Table 704.8 Maximum Area of Exterior Wall Openings d z Combustible material installed between walls zam � m The room is considered Habitable space as "habitable space" and defined by CBC is a appears to not provide space in a building for sufficient, ventilation, living, sleeping, eating or i o ro heat and light cooking. Therefore, It I — requires sufficient light, ig ventilation heat etc Ceiling height Is too low 2007 CMC Section $ E and should be a 1208.2 minimum 7'6- 0 minimum 7'6" 0 G O d K Ceiling height does not meet minimum Building Code observations are based on a 30 minute cursory and visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 5:\Cdd\Amy\Code Enforcement\520 Pacific\Code violationsAm 71 Page EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Notice and Order Community Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address: Assessor Parcel Number: Case Number: Dear Mr. Fairbanks, 520 Pacific Street 401-371-07 V10-0312 TUSTI N 1 WORY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for -meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore. please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday. October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. , 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92790 0 P: (714) 573-3100 • F: (714) 573-3113 • ww ,tustinca.org Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street September 15. 2010 Cane N V10.0012 Page 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincere/ Bred Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: Exhibit A — Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Department TUSTIN EXHIBIT A Administrative Citation Process BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Cede (TCC) 1182(d), Ones may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8999) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City may also take further legal action Including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation andlor abating the viclation(s) with the coat of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as alien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding fine(s). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding fine(s), and contact the City to request a re- inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time In writing pursuant to TCC 1185(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1188 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of thio corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing forme and other information on Administrative Citations may be obtained an the City's website at www.tu*Unca.orc. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org Notk o Or e1 520 P.ft sheet sept.T 18.2010 Cu.0 V10-0 12 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, Install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) - Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is Installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d)- Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john c. loomis, architect jams c. wilson, architect principal dwood h guilty, architect Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 9491673.2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. HIstoric Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newportboulevard —newportbeach, ea92663-949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 —949/673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, 4E, John Loomis Principal 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 —9491673-2643 ATTACHMENT E 440 Pacific Street opposition petition REF: 440 S. PACIFIC, TUSTIN PERMIT FOR GUEST HOUSE WE ARE AGAINEST the variance permit to build a guest house located at 440 S. Pacific Street, Tustin, California. Owner of record: Jose L. Martinez & Evelyn Leong Martinez James F. Gominsky Sr. Eleanor A. Gominsky 530 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California Doris V. Smith 470 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California Bret S. Fairbanks Stephanie A. Fairbanks 520 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California Steven A. Flores Grace Flores 560 Pacific St. Tustin, California Don H. Matsubayashi Kiyoko Matsubayashi Signature Date D 435 S. Pacific St. stip Tustin, California Pci�Sd /nl�ayni���Q�kS �w dJ �- Michael T. O'Brien Nathalie Neary O'Brien 545 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California •I Minting Maureen Li Douglas A. Schaller 535 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California R. Michael Smith 455 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California (S.healan Spencer mes Spencer S. Pacific St.stin, California Patrick C. Harris 445 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California Stephen C. Jones Sharon A. Jones 520 S. Main St. Tustin, California Sianature Date i '9w-1 -;:,A,) SAWZ-'7 -' 1aynnen&?&nfdes 410 S. Pacific St. Tustin, California 4L Tse C,-1 9z7&(2 ATTACHMENT F PC Resolution No. 4161 RESOLUTION NO. 4161 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Board of Appeals hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice of recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street to Mr. Fairbanks. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Director of Community Development or any other person or City officer or employee as may be designated by the City Manager to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; Resolution No. 4161 Page 2 F. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; G. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; H. That on October 26, 2010, a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to the appeal and, at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010 meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal. I. That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. J. That, pursuant to Section 112 Board of Appeals of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, the hearing was held to consider evidence that is relevant to whether the true intent of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code or the rules legally adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted; the provision of such code do not fully apply; or an equally good or better form of construction is proposed. K. That, pursuant to Section 112 of the City of Tustin's adopted California Building Code, the Planning Commission, acting as Board of Appeals, shall not have authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the Tustin Building Code or to waive requirements of such code. Further, the hearing shall be de novo and the Board of Appeals may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the matter in accordance with the Tustin City Code or remand the matter to the Community Development Director or the Zoning Administrator for further proceedings in accordance with directions of the Board of Appeals. L. That, the Board of Appeals considered evidence supporting the Enforcement Officer's determination that a public nuisance condition exists at the subject property due to the present violations of the following Building Code section: Resolution No. 4161 Page 3 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) - Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. M. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exists as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 provided hereto in Exhibit A. N. That the violations identified herein and in the Notice and Order demonstrate that substandard housing and property maintenance conditions exist which create a dangerous condition at the subject property due to the present violations of the California Building Code as adopted per Tustin City Code 8100; O. That the extent of repairs ordered by the Enforcement Officer are appropriate for the property; P. That the time limitations for starting and completing the repairs are reasonable; Q. That the Board of Appeals has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that concluded that "the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site [main house] in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII' (attached hereto in Exhibit C). The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 112 of the Building Code as adopted by the City of Tustin, hereby affirms the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code subject to the following condition: Resolution No. 4161 Page 4 The property owner(s) is/are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, as attached hereto Exhibit B and incorporated herein with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010, to permit the owner additional time to hire a professional to prepare plans and process and obtain the necessary permits for compliance with the Tustin City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 9th day of November, 2010. Jeff R. Thompson Chair Pro Tem Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Board of Appeals Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Y. Henry Huang, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Board of Appeals Secretary of the Board of Appeals of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4161 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Board of Appeals, held on the 9th day of November, 2010. Y. Henry Huang, P.E., C.B.O. Building Official S:\Cdd\Amy\Code Enforcement\520 Pacific\PC resolution Appeal 520 Pacifc.docx EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Revised (11/9/10) O 7 h u c f0 c U O L U 9 O n F�- O p1 hl U ..,�. D C a , �• c X003 ��. a 'ny,'1AI �i m m cy� Ho E 2T ti cW . N L a Fdp- o vcc2w �OccUCp ''=mnDdOCC- CNC DO 3UL�M"OOL LOO a O m L, 0 >Lma) U ° maN L� y mm�ona � ma''�3pOp0GNe C3 rn C°c 0 Z vi0 0 c O O N � U m- U-O a O C ON 2U= M 2 2w":2 0 2j u am O 2m�ccpmc0CHmL� C «•L�OO-OW�Of• m0Ma,M cm � V >V Uo° mnO0NE p L�N?C„ cc3U- rOLO OT A C O O M--- !-E=) yO2 'mrE c N : m - G 5 VC c_ c VpL•v 'c O 2 U C3 0°0 0 O O . N pm NdN M M` ym OOO•- N 3 O° oO EL Gm O•- 0 OomL.=U O- O .« O=M C 5 .OZ , -. Ga 0 O )OULM«C�m 0' Cc�0' N O•p CTam O �:2O�.O v m- ?o«�oano«>yacyd> Hp Cn m" m >E = �m«3m aC0T 0 E5m LLaCmOQ Naures O N aC^ O ° E pa >N d CUr Omr N�m .i �ONl U"O L sCV O m Om ° N - 12 NO md`«'2 3 .y0N•U7�.?�.1.. O"O O O OppZ-Oo°>d2O 0oE O D O O O a c ° °" O gOO C Omt m O 0 M N m O m M OvM«F- MLLO N O- a m OL3 CO 2 cCOOi O 0 `o rn y c N _ .F 0 0 O 0O 7 _ •F a s rn N Z .m O p m 0- O C •p M '2 O O O .G U o N U �' an d O C •� pO '� N O N O O y U tOi1 U) V m G ) tf0i �0000M WZ2v° ° �oa°22 g a°ic°Euoid_� N O. U) V LL��a OIn m GN CLLC� U OLL �oUom� GLLO m�oo_oa UOUom�o y Uo'aam. c L) jmEc�'Ece�L) CO �M=*mEca UFmEco r ° o°° a r O P NQ- O -U OT� r� r c°= L No.N-mG r d p m u e Nx �QUf/J 7UfnmF-NU aQMULU MM NUUN V O V C aE O N O L 2 N O M O p ry_ C La p C O U c O C 0 =' W a -CM �'E « 3 m o a- v a 2 w y yLa .s 3° vi c'a 012 52 __ m as mm oa 2an m as V N U y ar MC N°O` aULaN 'EcNca=�m wmo mF'mmE U t�o'p y25 0 Ogw o'F0 "6 -0 2 3Q 0 0 W 00 FL Z F°- mar-. -�� m d ac L c 0 m D J j6JeU0E) / d N Y CU'N c 0 0 E v •�N, g N� N y L C N N C m L IL jr T c y C O m m a W O C C C N a OFm -m O NmC'O'- CD M m O E O UNCC N Ly ?N�• Nmp. m M N NmO r C . Ny0 N0m. €j ccyLaym Z Ey -i aiy3o mL) EW.- 71C.�C` m c ai ON m 0 0 m- uN- am 0 p D o• -c L aLOpp .U C daE UCo N N mm' NyNW U LMO C�U w ~m€ m COo C E S�g.wcEO m N mc>LEcaa °rm �co O0N mdc2Uc mE 3NNc - M�c�� `o Em 'oo�� mm �FNmU._ooa ot�`a�a�aa dcoE ow E -V a)a(D O m c_oNN O = L N y E m L 01 pC dN = O r3 X m U m CD ,� U E�yam -NN N B=M(D amm .o orn cuaa�adm"E`oa'-o c a cg�c3m 0CNmaaram�2 m-�.o�cvti =mo 0)MonN oM>>- Nm m a cam m C m 'N N .N.. d •N N 2 cm -a- Z M N N L 'o a m a N >: N E O a UV m~ O �o£(DI w y Nmcam3acim mo COU 2atc�aci3a E a.'3 rnrnNc�oo I� a°amo �oE.°�,_,atM H O U m m 'O a C HEI-mQmmc�LN rm�y��c a.:5cav N= D U . m 0 C '2 N C N O L 02cm"`'co`�EaT m 0 L .U... O .L.. N mU=crmcmo�eaci �om•�_ao= mc•- m° O « H >' y L N U N f90 N T N° F 'NO Q c O E C- N m N 'Q m E M Q. 'DO pl'° �`°'i.FCFC'Omscia�aa °v°�av�cccymaEi',pc-poUo�.-.E��--�yV `o L C C 9 t O C 3 t 0 72 .2 0) O N 0 N 'C r R 'C w N O C F W m U a N U Y m N N m m I- Z z v =- 3- 0.9.9'a N Z U N .. O m O. =.s L C O tM w ',_, N N C N Ol c o€ ON d (0 O y U p C C 0 m U C O N C3 Q. N m °i C .m O a���acNcv CD C1 E m ° m = q m m Q _T't0 G U) O.Wa Qoiri Ma HaaEU.. a ° m C O .� U m cml. E y N m a `'r° 0.2 C14M U (J Q N m 41 O 9 O C N c= U d a. N -p a N U O'p o O O O U O O nOn�' U E CD EY m� m U •- m N U� O N O N 0) U U F N U C F E V W 0 Cm O 0 0 jp a a T . N C 5 .€ CD C O am U o- L.d M.2 T .0 ° M t=i 0 m N m o C am N m c- N C -p E N c N o 0-> O N>> a d E d L" ° Q N O a tcC O T d m m m o v g n o m 3 y N Y d d L o� E 2 3 H 0 E.2:2 UH a aym a'9 0 i M--mcoa0c'dmoaN0�E,aymvE'3v C C m O O N m 0 m U p N O C .-. m C C m N m �p O N.N.. L.. p "' C `. a `. N m O C mN l9 '2co �cp > m L d 0 0 O N j C m O m O C fl:2'5 U 0 _. C N C m O N mo -5((pp N N O 'U U N 01 H i O� N U N G m 023 aa5$ m m cvaNcNN U C O Q.. L O g w8U:9 F -3°v .. B. c 0 m O J a F- m_ 2 X W M C O U U N yn 0 0 > 0- p J y N d 0 L .0 U 0 N U X N N U c u m 0 O w71 y m CL c o = N � 0 a0• O 0 F u O G L C .0C 01 N 0 N y 0 y M O) N Cb N d O > d C N N N f0 m L 0 C a Z N N o 0 Ol O N d=`O O L 0 0 O. N 0 3° N 0 d_ 0 F- 0 0 C r pp 'p V O N C o -00 N p O 0 c 6-02.9 3 y .c m m H c c U t0 0 L N F- d= O 0 '- 0 U vi u€° .c E C V O .9 12 9 c v0i U m 0 0 0 p U m 0 o,30¢LONiw 2T3JQaci m 0a0 U C w•`-m$3=�V 01 0.1 €�=a�'L o,0 ba c�0a;.3�rn m0cE0ym'00'G �o"ia`od'3N3� 0, V5;0M •p -Oi .0.. 01 0 >` N o 0. in U "' L 2 N 2 u inL N �1 Z' �_ C (0,1 0 C 0 O. 0 = 0 C m N N U C0 0 3 a. N a_ 0 L L U N C €Ac2`..°c 01 � C L 0 C N 3y�m'c3aLo. L 0 0 _N. 0 0 ME�ui m 'y^ E F E 3c 01mU °:a c°+c° o_, Ecy?02..a 'omNym�� U�oE�'aEL mM.� rm'vw:co°°�� t °`n.000 C IO .- O C` w C a •- .. ? O 0 oo mm«N m O T C 0 !� O r U w C 0 cHc3d�i�ut°U,1 j c cv acig'H 33 T� L' '- ° L O L o c- N,? = d .0 = ��°��°aim 0 N d d= O C 0LOO V L p° C V O 'N d 0 0 N N 0 3 ry N U O N O CD 3 0 O« 0 C l0 ,� Q O{-{pp L U N E- 'O O ° Ta0.. C �l U E U N N« L O 0 w �p L xo 0_ �o0occ3E m-{p'Sm _a .O V c o��=. m3 °L`0 c "_ N O Al 0 •....0. L O �'j a= 0 0 O .. O r 0 a 0 0 `m 0 d c '- O O= •O L U o°mom C U U U 0 c O' O N C N C d d N 0° W r L C L O = N p c 2 N 3- L C w E = 0 O N 0 a C€ «O 3 y V C O' O- L N U d U C N 0 O 0 0 •- 07 N C L N M N 0 O c p= t0 N N =... c03�TV QTc 3dy N C TN p a-' Ey'33•- .` F-W om�3�°0 N M 0 0 0 0 0 ° �a�m m ��•ov-0 N .tn 'OO 0°= y p 0 0 0 N C N Em¢. go O .° C= 3 .d U N �`m� F> O. N U t,1 m r eco 00 V 0 0 'C 0 ,0 0 E N a 3 V o N C L b 0 N •O [0.1 C W N 0 N p ..a„ 0 0= :p N L 0 0 vJU H�•0 a3FL--�05 ct3m�a`iq C O' N E �m�gy? � 0 N 0 FU ��0 da N c p °'NU ooU l0 O, mrn pm v€ ° C r mrn C!€ OO m ��UN 3� oc UC �; �i o'j0 '�a M u o•amC Uc O•�0 - E -oma Nu 0a °a•° d� mE�'y0. M v0 i •d UD W N Gm 0 W O. NDN �¢ 0117 wFL ¢ OII] '00 0.0 M N�OO m a iiC C)�U X000=0 m m'-m ar pm UC 0=0 ,,-0 U v•- Dco¢E �t0 m¢�yWU¢E'�10 co L) N 0 UO_ °'OainmU NT�T�N O1NL OC 0) L0''UU�coN0 C4'8*9 „)O600�'S O. E' L) 0 �F y -_ ac) N U c c� c 3 0„ v 03ocy� m c o. m� c m E y Cm �� Z''py a0cM d) E 7 N W N 'OO V a C.2 5.5 4)X10 10 E p10 c�i 3 .a c y E CD2 y 'O o U tll T 0 E N N 3 '3- yG' `o OCi 023'C T:=ma>rO N E' •C 0` C N N Nuc 0 N m U N O O U N y a a .� O E C N 0 0 T 0 O N U r C V L G FF u3'MuCLMt--amE`a.Ga0 ii3'OocoiM= w°3w c 0 A U GBeJe6 enoge Ilun ljols puooeg M a C I , G � o o ryyy�r ° o J N �o o °pg���; LAN oo°o a 'O O OJ C C N c `O-•.. Ur C« 0) 0 05;5:9'd OENCC�Ct=ML O�='� O `l m= y o E E w � Y c c °L lO N�«CN�yyO U� p L O� N O N M Oq 0 « •pp0 j t°.l c IQ N a E � U L 3 c >, d p rn D '" N N L c _ c N aci p- Urn 3:.N a m 0 c� m C c o .c y =---'6 O .0 O M y y M c y ` « y c Q ii G E S rn$ y° Z°€ E° o cD L M E r c N N O a O 0 •Opl m e> N E C 3 C ° E 0 y y p I`•p4)ac�c y'mon"iV m y oES4 IML°�L%O'nmNma°.ua�io N p w M �+ N N 0 L c f0 N 3 U ONI E G a° L ..' W e E7 ~F�- M c « c y N •- O i0 c O N> N t 2 N N a 1 E-�cvE� EI- m� O U •- N C G 4l N C y ? 046 O -4 LL ° Y0i�ayiEm-cv;5(Do5 p N N O) 4f 01 N o0«o30aUo- wc�E-ddz3c�u01i ._ c��o•�ma;o��C°"'-oa'�=a>idEw ZO EEm?'�'�syr:vr�o cuU 2.3 ccrow-'S•.a-o�iE omc~ao moS.M °2 aE a°O1°dd~=Em a Mrn0= c .c.� HEapi3mam c O d N t N'- d m'DC0 r aE= Z y��a�cE�m°aZs�oy��yU6E aaNF0 c _ aM.t 3 >>1L0 W a+cO.O..ON N a ov E �'{� m.ac-r rnia .0. j= cv °1 NNOdi CU a«� H�u my'3.M rn3 my °> am3Y�mo�acicf CD -2, 2Ea��'oo� ani 602crN�cdiU .•1 m.o 0-,m EawDa �v-m�m•3 «Nap °'p0ffivc�a �m F.vEE°'SMC . mai cav°EEacid O .- c p N IO d j M 71 Tf ._ N ^' Yp L m« U'S c°�o=v2gdoaa" U > U E c •O O N Q O Q L c OMj L O 'C 9 y 0 E 2 N 'E L d C 0 01 (L«p UI «ILl pE N °d« rnOC.0 NZ Eh'N� m O O m N U OY 2 O h W W U a0 2a.L..L C 01 Cc, c° C F N M M4 0--- p M c 0 5 r+ .G O c ._(.ci. a O y N O. CO a G c c._ N( V a p. cn d D V U) `CI' Z C O O 12 1 aU�¢E� ci L m E QED C) Q. MO•-oao rn nawa Ucf.)� oho M °vaS o U m rn��UQa m �Mco rai -pmUxpCD ,UUUN ror Nc.l- NUo F V a U O C d O 5 D 'U N L N tC O N C O C O ICO L .� t9 � Of •- G O c' C a 'O C ."N_" y O C oc 0- a 6 O� y a 0N�'e y .:c�EC °po�E3� 8« N d) mu�vmEcc v2EmSaO` U °°cEm3d°�m�ccc'c«m NO NCy MS E3da��m9 NW 3MN n,woLEm ;•g OOo LAU M Na ° N •2 €Owdm,n° >a_ O y N Q> A c O a+ :1 GBBJe6 j aE-noge lIun tiols puooag a 1 17 o WIM LO H Z a I T m w� IVa p^ I � d C m r C m .° C W C N= m — rg CD OM M E C m m O .0 L a N CLO v�mNytm0mN YL *8 w O3 ao:E0 La"NO « um«3 'Do T`�armn cc« rn°m mo2�c ;oca'mm ma)o`om°�°�ouD_ocCc, cLH 2 'ud >°du01i m 5cOci�m C' m N V m N m T o ... 00 O` mc�°�o mtpopm 2.9 L m> cc a 2 L O L U" 9c- ooyc- 2€a m.Yy '° 3 � O •� -O c� �Lmo � my �E OU m O Q y N U U mo p O N °' l0 .0 r U c m 0 N m ej N m y E o -m N O N a'=O w N U U'g `N>««vy tic _ cm m O m 'C N� 'f0 - L N—S O Y 3 cc U .m.. COl c N 0Ep ,_, •pcp-c m drn 'C C N Q T C c R>. 2m L° °w�apo°Emoyyrn�.m L C V C C m O° jar U'Ea cLa� c C m•-Qcm 2 C C L_ 3 m U a ,`Q'' NO y C .� « ONI t` Uy`l N N O N L� C O = u rn rn= o ° N N d N E Y N a j E N N m ° m p o m« O U 2 =(D L U N N OI ..... C a m C c m C V 'O d .N �„ m m y p m ° y E C N E« L O m L C y •5 C r ,v T N 'O p m L O« Nv r Qom• C J« m y L OC"' W p O `om•E�omm3�YLop Nd d m m m w m a cmrnmp3mm�0U m 0 ..L. N« °..'C. O W C C m P 3 Lym°•o CD m '� C n N O '0 ° N Y m o y j G�j N f0 'j m L O C Q T C N m m T a m m c T 3 m �N` Hca C.-- mom_ U am 7 c Z rn m pcm pl ~ 0 m m�i Nca-o.•o'a m tT0 �`��°•oOp 2moEaoy9.775 d U mF�o�ay�cmio�� O '� N O` N O C L ° 0 2 L V N N N "T' - 3 m N w 0 m c M U T a,'3_ y °' V m N m m p« c mL a O.W.5O> 5 H 2 N Z ci« NLD v7U NE h.L..9ct3m�3 tp Fv m=cE .° C G m r O O M 0 o c Ty N m an d m U m C 0. d a O g 2' N c m O. O a 7 Q O m W N a M Q y c m G Cl) O O .O a M c m O M V I 'OO m 0 .0 N O L U 3 U N � a fJ 3 m N m N OK U U �pp y T U C m O U) . m dJ C M Q O Q O Q O fn c N 0 U C N Y N fQ m O m N m M2 N mc.UOU 'O a 1i/ N t.7 o -o o=r o= m �m m U yU map U yN m !°0 c gd U•�U- C 3U Q Om�mU y0 rnTUQ U�Amx Ur �Or m O mD m mrnmt c CUIo p mrn"a GO y D.8 (n M m�-mm I �pU r NU V y GOA NCN=Uc o•Uo c.�Uo rnarnmUo� Uo�m«Uo� h... �aoo� rnCU r���C€�Oi yO rngo,�Eo�v ,Q��F-N U �f-NUL NI -NU � m �QN�- SOF-t0_ �IxN �M yN"'f CD U C C C C o m L O C m C a N m= y w N N N m m C 3 U N L T r m O C a L— N N•'m0 a • • O 0 MMmEoCm v N O a U.0NNE OOL�O N opa Q° O C m NN 2-m C O E 'N NCCC Np8 C=m ` m 0Om TmLa C OO) Q` CLcaGm C Lm _tr mpIma mO LLNpNE m E"U 100 x c y«Um Lp oQF-tl 3c c O m 0 J a m Z W l0 N o N m N 0 m Q tn. CL u m v c CL E u m m f� O - � t 0 a v Cl u u PIP.—i a) > a o J N I -4 N T .L. O Em cov0 o N N m L U U J �m N mC M - C N N2yuN dopp m N T 39E 5 a>> O 2 0 c c L € N N E m c •O oaci m 0 2 2 N 1 E u 0 � ami 3� c` c U .0 N p N N J 3 U 2.9 n E t 3 N c u• m Y jC 01 Z`OIL 10y000�c CLLC N N y0.-mE hF >•FL N N C7)M EF-V`o--Nom �- '"' t� NCm m3U�0 Tic" ° w wo m C 'O 0 E m a n 01 .G �po y I-0 �r > y J o y o« c�i m C �N«O �ur' S. pL am Ea- , =D y3N0 0 4) 55a y N Ua U QonmoN��0 aw�'mvJio°:Lm° Mc>°�=0 apV mvCHamiW- ;, :C 'O O'L Nwmm a m ->>•.. L -p J IM N=mm'Z— n6=75 D 1 m—p F -9O TL2 c U� y N c cu W P 6 C S E 0 0 N m 3 N U 2 `• m CN - N "' W C .� O) m `• m N o U>— N a3pi2 mmEuy2 �c4) w I- amcN;gNN w NvL'•caa.5; �anm_c� 2ocr' TCatdccn= L°NLCY and«ncooN C. N NON E'S mN«oy° o� Uyccm=Nmc C N N« N L�.d. SC N•S NL_.t E cC-4 'v1Emo«ccc�m tL-°�accOiv0 HU�3HaH°'$. N cm _ m C C o€ _ O U j y N C N N o€ m O C'O °m0 L 0CNN NEL oU E 0M-8 $'u N Q. Q O-JU = U� N U Na«L G EL m� V1 aui`�md�`� V) N N 0' aui`oumim"Em �rUimm�A w N S Cc Rliz �ioEJ •opm i fn W d Q 047 C 41 6 Co E p U O U U N N co C E L LL N U O U C a7 C ili m O` U m 0� U nM=) C U o U C 0= 0 �mD t0 Um tm==mo Ea�Eo� mL) N CN U 0 0 N N CN U S C U N O •U N O %1 N O.N p p U OpOOOp J rr CD Q.Q�U) �� Q�CnU oM.0 m 7UNm a) 0) E S N N N.N. C m 0 C O 0 U u A C ` > j C x$ N 4= Emil 0 N L N J a J H N O S. N LN. N E C C« C d E F A � A U C o non OCc � �2m2ucc mW rn" m�dm E E J CL n N` N O G N N m N = n p m« C U 2 E C L x CR 1° NCL T m J y 0 N .p m N C U Of C NN N N L m 2 m T— CL"N S«Ln `�CNNCNmCc C C Q `t p Cm p p .J_. Y N'CL U e 0 a J U L N C a V= N N N O. C. l0 C '.`0 N~N u J— N N N N fn N 2 U 2 0 CL 0 C� u L S L ' m U v C O m SE—OWN m `L c N m 9 �nao EJm Cama U 0 H.2 m m E J u v m m mo`o 3P:m o EaLC °_S.L r 0 A $ liodjeo J l0 0 y O a N a Cu � o n /{ � �I 0 L a� I '" ° yj s I j i � U C y 3 .E 'S m CD N y T 0 C m L y y V N E N~c'y0 C ° 0, 2 am LC O 'D Np a ti .^o O C .m SC FCEm0N •mm -r y O Oyy SC E am CdU U m . mNLy .N UdO CA W U m 12 ` OLd S a 9a«NCO C3"_Ny :E y UW mEam E laccTa aiN c -m 9m03:.gT> 0� v° C01 M. cc y Eoc02NEo co CDQ3ayi° vom°�Em€a m V U 0 V y C 0 p, y N O N O >i m 3 em E °' = C C t` L L y g a m E W O O m- a) C-4 G E u a' -NU CE•-� m€ T L« ONLO °� C E. Nr �- CN �mmm3dr'yCUCm° Fci m� c m C a N N �_00�Cm O ``= 0 D y C m 2 N °• N O m ° C p� O p % m U C a Ln N CU .O C NN�N.L.�NO)m EO°NU�CCU.L.� N'O CCNaa cU.?sc�O mNN u�' �U aci rnD c:o (D Q afv�u-HEcc'`o •NUc0'oL2ayCLONL0 'ate-+a«aDv L_.m9c Lo.L-m�3vd av°3m�c � o 16 y 'y N H Ol j 3 m° ma10 n m> Ho NOpN o�m�3maim� O O V N ooyoao cL�a °�m�`-''�>.°3ro3acica3m •c°Ecm�J`o aoi��co�Lrn €mac v°�_'°g;CL a a=°°�o°'0��3 m m m c B.E ° a� c��TOuycO0) m ',C„ O ° co`o-- 0�mtcTC°c2�`m° O L .0 v E N m y a L C E N m m O m (U C�V•�OCN CL'C0 CO O m C m> y F O m LN�:LNj�pN F -._d OF NIL O.a C'-JNCTCG O�L3C�NOCO NLL U) O mr a3F...m . .1 , C m r C O C y E N eo-y0mw�cm, _ _ C c� o€c`gc mac ����u'S�c01ic E i E- LL' LL C '.C„ d N N '� 0 C m mU m Q-' � E C C Y uA Nv ci�a$ oy �Gmct o F c 'o �'E ciadE 11J- m,OW 'C ooc LL to d Q �'? 03.c$`00�'=:=..GEm )c pywNM tq F c v m 9m mrnmmEm? m� mam= WvN °m amwEm°m cniv V D eL) ] ° U cU ° U y» eU� �m L°�rrn m N QOd Qryd pmCp/� N�Ta N C N Ta T�O atE yaN C ON �ip cN yUm �Ocli CK U) 1UU �QnrnUUN W Q CCO r'ONLLLL'�Cf1.r...dF H °) > m C N 'O « •y y rO U V C C y m OofYmm U N` .-. OO m l.. N c1 NG. Od o � 0 ..- °�•c a) o—N m0 a x` 0 E a) c•a= m o E E y N N C C V N C c U Vi O m y. O •3coaymo�� N `) r0 C y y V V� y3°::off °�rnrmm i4 31°Ty c'9mcyo-aci mcg= --..m2) y a m CCCC%LCT%�z�%W....- m'> Odr TCNC� O r m ON U •- m m_ ypa C N m t` d rna •.C. m ypp, E L N •p c O« y v c '0 0) y 71 a O E O� ° N C X C '. Zammm3� m°% C O> W�mmm�5um C" O (0,1 N N C 7L°...aOLam c O $ BBeJeE) ;fun feguopfsej jeea J 0 co I o IL 11111111 m � E r = rn o c CD U L c E O v 01 m 0 C N N m •� d j m N C` m° d m 01 N y m° O =0 U C 'm' U C N O L U fYl !=• N N C C �u! O '01 U= L> W C 0a C `• N» C m 's ° O N C> 0 0 O) «O 5 3 ° a° m o5a mq ma nom« c y� H c m M-2 mm mt 3 w y m N m o mL 2 C m F� N>>> m d y 7 E F.Uao N mQ 3 mm m. N.L.. OL ° m c a c°E° C i+ N 4 m y o m a L C V ty N C O r 3 �Urn3wzcrn° CZ - mLoomo�m'€� y O m « =� •p `. m N m L C N y m m L «O O m O] O � a o y y o m 3 ' a m o m c 0-:515 == c N O a«,r.0 m C "' cL. 12 O d m €c m E °1 '0 ~ 0- C C O C ••pp mpp m m° m m C% H m >. m m H m a O m d d 2 r 3 m O rn O m W m t 2 m 5 m d° 'v5��i/i nmo FE3?�Hc°�cmaHn N ° m G _ C 42 d m °.- F O w m F U Cl C ._ [ U E C OOm _ L € 01 02 a NQ)—.o �m ma d u E ' L 5 E N p•N C: L d V W.2 L m O O M I C O (n QED a V L U O CL L to Ew t�,Emc '0oM mem= CM��$pu mQmUE �j7��m yUQ E"m_m« Nm N G N •pmp •C pD O m_ d •� V€ O U p• r mi E N C1O O 'C O �Q�UUH nmiU eU) C E N. °'QNB E N N N m 7 3 CLMS m`N°a Z't0 >rd E 7 2° O 23S p L oCD LE2 o ��ca3cto coc U dA�cc mem •�crn 2rn_u3R8E Uv°r c 0 .c U O J co a m R W rn A O L r A IL N r. M O'O o d O O N C CL C W >3 aci o S ow o0om ° y y L a M c m 0 0 N y N U N> MY M N N y 01 d N o« c M rn o€ 3 m v ti° y c c M UN= 4l y m H O. o E c arwmy�3du °S�va�io v -� a°1c« aco�a3 .y .a etrn� m'��N M 3 m S N MoLhN d N ro O mN o•m� cLy )>ULLm a'maU)(D L2CC� °@ 2 y�U 3myai•K co Em �EQ �Ha�oC. �dM(ON uc`o60 LV L O CD00--CD W d w M L p y� N Y a Mcaio°�co- y a CLF- N N P CL co ..0 H? ryr0� NL M c,.n.I o yE >o> TjM dMUu_rn tCmNO vmNM t=aoo rn -LN YLro O .>.`dv'rnpCpO. NNO'07C j N U M E« G9`o.r.0 MO N V U Wo 0 U OC L O N N dN F n¢L U 355 3 d F-a M N Lo (p rn O 03 U c rn 0 '0 YQ C O� O F O O C CO y 2 -a O m C N .O c] O y a — Co �j N 0] as o y c N C y a d¢ d u y'a `o —�'? ayi aui o m `o Dom I z= € Eo0 u `o y av d 0. 9 M VJ CWd V7 U) U O U'0 U U C m �. 03 c 00 LL O NC¢ M U o pp •_ O M d!.' 0] � o W � �O N C cn mMOn U p U= 00 U (M.1= M yU N cMimUQ d.=. � (Mi0cv (+7 N GN'� O N>02 N CLU O 78 OO.0 = N N a0 0.-O rn am rn `. o xx UU.- yN W rn aU o U = r-QFNU rn rn ao m= c Nln M C O (pp L M C N E M U c U •= M N O N € > CL, C c N d M � d aTcz oa m c �L.0 m CL m o m m 0 �'y Mw U N M c M L C E Ol 7. M Ocla C y N d .o `m c.3 w y.E N m m._� y .c E co> N N YL >daM.. o aM c 2y U Cdt rn>E• E c ;c o c y .c`a� Y. n ai ti N — y 3aY L° $a a cm c 0 liun jeiluepisai jeam J rn m 0 N f y y y = ^ Qc O La. c 3 rte► M m E E am" L C E O w CM y E U c d c UvE d d y r y `p L L o O 0 N N N C O NC~ELEc,.=EC d a) 'O d00 3, a.d >>�N aEda N V M c m j- O t O d O Q 0 M N- D a m d d 0 E O 0 d d C Q y. C C M 0i C T N c N a)adooEocc O` L .a FgEyr �tmcy= 0 rn� m y 12 O L U O0 MOV ) d d d C 07 a c E :3 M0'a WEdoa 0 Uadimd� wco 0 �'QL d aE 3 c" 12 c =)CD E's ? Y d a 'o y EE E O T c C MU C 0 M d.0OL4 y a�acc OLEM m d> wO vud �0m' OnN3c Eo 009 CL c L N> 0 a C Od D v 0C ' c o3 . a0t ccn c rl N '00c 0�d '0 M r+ M 0)aLcLor d as d d 0 d .E_>� m>•ao 0;m o= 0 n3N "_o U0 c- U0 icncm°mm dCo a U=L0Nc 59'Eymct c N - d o__�o1Lnm Edo 0 oe - SO O d 0) c0 N d Y d ym�c=rno N 0) d vl t M 4.7 N d V ov N C N 0 a o0 N 'T N N V O N m= E N N_ N 2 p M to ctn C d 0 O C) N°-(�=� aUa•- motm�cc' 10 co cocloc�E�~yo mE pm ad 7 C U m d N C >_ 10 y y t= a) Ip O N U W U d K N O N dO G>>dc>O Q A d 1�'� h �" c U Oly j'- NtlN'CGa1cdC0�C r c0 00 O N 8.s L c- 4 •d0 V Q Z A 2 V 0 UCU Q > N d O O N O d O v d 01 d y _� 6L 0 o a O N t0 a d O V L L tp O y U y 01 190 c L d y y c d d 0> OI Ea .� LoE 41 o o3�- 0'O g 9 m U ��ayi y Ed M L a!E m cwE -a'c maM IL-•t m mt UmE 0 0 0 0 3lun lepueplsai jeaa (payoe;ap) wow uo13eaJoaa J EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Notice and Order Community Development Department Sent via first ciass and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address: Assessor Parcel Number: Case Number: Dear Mr. Fairbanks, 520 Pacific Street 401-371-07 V10-0312 TUSTIN 111WORY BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for -meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore, please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday, October 29 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. . 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P,(714)573-3100 0 F:(714)573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org Notice and Order at 520 Pacific Street September 18, 2010 Case N VIM= Page 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincere/ 1*7 Br d Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: ExhibitA—Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Department TU S T I N EXHIBIT A Administradve Cltadon Process BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Code (TCC) 1182(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 81399) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City may also take further legal action Including issuing the responsible parson(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the violation(s) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of the adminief We citation to pay the corresponding fine(s). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding fine(s), and contact the City to request a to. Inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time In writing pursuant to TCC 1185(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1188 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing forms and other information on Administrative Citations may be obtained on the City's website at www.tustincs.oro. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Nolim erW Order at 520 Pac . SUeN Saplx 18, 2010 Cat' 0 VIDW12 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 4161 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc. October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john c. Ioomis, architect james c, wilson, architect principal elwood 1. galley, archilcet Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 9491673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John Loomis Principal 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 ATTACHMENT G PC Resolution No. 4162 RESOLUTION NO. 4162 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AFFIRMING THE NOTICE AND ORDER FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE AS DETERMINED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR THE PROPERTY AT 520 PACIFIC STREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 401-371-07) The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That, on July 27, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, sent a letter requesting that City staff provide written verification that the two guest homes located at the rear of the single family residence at 520 Pacific Street could be rebuilt in the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster; B. That, on August 4, 2010, City staff provided a written zoning confirmation letter informing Mr. Fairbanks that the property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District and that accessory buildings used as guest rooms are only allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained and that no compensation in any form is received. The letter further informed the property owner that no permits or entitlement exist for the guest houses at the subject property; C. That, on September 10, 2010, City staff conducted an on-site assessment of the property at 520 Pacific Street. The assessment revealed that several unpermitted modifications and additions had been made to the rear units that were not in compliance with Tustin City Code requirements; D. That Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, on September 16, 2010, the City of Tustin sent notice for recordation of a Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street. Said Notice and Order provided written notice of the existence of a public nuisance on the property as determined by the Enforcement Officer and required the correction of code violations related to unpermitted structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code including the City of Tustin Building Code and Zoning Code; E. That, pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 5503, the Enforcement Officer is defined as the Community Development Director or any other person or City officer or employee as may be designated by the City Manager to enforce property maintenance, zoning, and other nuisance abatement regulations and standards of the City; Resolution No. 4162 Page 2 F. That, pursuant to Section 9294 of the Tustin City Code, the applicant may appeal the specific action or seek relief in the appeal, and reasons why the action taken by the Community Development Director should be modified or reversed; G. That, on September 22, 2010, Bret Fairbanks, the current property owner of 520 Pacific Street, filed an appeal of the Notice and Order for the declaration of public nuisance at his property; H. That the appellant is requesting consideration regarding the Conditional Use Permit(s) and lot lines, indicating, in part, that he is not in violation of these codes because the structures existed prior to Conditional Use Permits and the first Zoning of Tustin; I. That on October 14, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site of the holding of a public hearing at which the appeal would be considered; J. That on October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, the appeal, and at which the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. The Planning Commission continued the item to November 9, 2010 meeting and directed staff to do additional research on the property and to meet with Mr. Fairbanks to discuss possible alternatives to resolve the appeal. K. That on November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Appeals, considered the appeal of the Notice and Order filed at 520 Pacific Street. L. That pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9294, the Planning Commission will act in its capacity as the appeal hearing body to consider appeal of any decisions of the Community Development Director; M. That the City of Tustin was incorporated on September 19, 1927, and the subject property is located within the original City boundaries. The house and detached two story garage were constructed in approximately 1929 and the first published building code, the 1927 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, was adopted by the City of Tustin on June 3, 1929. Construction may have commenced prior to adoption of the 1927 Uniform Building Code, consequently, there are no building permit records for the original construction of the original buildings. The earliest zoning map on Resolution No. 4162 Page 3 file, from 1961, identifies the property as R-1 single family residential and the current zoning for the property is R-1 Single Family Residential; N. That there is substantial evidence that the violations identified in the Notice and Order exists as evidenced by the Building Code violations observed on a cursory and visual observation of a site visit on September 10, 2010 provided hereto in Exhibit A; O. That the third unit located behind the garage structure appears to have been constructed in phases several decades after the original structures. The varying roof heights visible from the interior and exterior of the unit and the different siding indicate that the unit was added in sections at different times. P. That no permits to construct and/or convert the units are on file and there are several' code violations which indicate that the unit was not built to City Code requirements. Q. That the third unit building was constructed approximately four feet from the property line, which is not consistent with the minimum five foot setback required for accessory structures used as guest units. Additionally, several issues exist, including the improper and substandard electrical wiring, installation of a newer unpermitted heating unit, lack of required firewall and combustible insulation between walls separating units; all of which may cause a fire hazard to occupants. R. That the Planning Commission has the right to employ qualified individuals to assist in its investigations and in making findings and decisions. Staff commissioned a third party survey and evaluation provided by Licensed Architect John C. Loomis from Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. The architect provided a report that concluded that "the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site [main house] in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII' (attached hereto in Exhibit C). S. That the appeal is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that the appeal is not considered a project under CEQA Guidelines; II. The Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the appeal hearing body Per TCC Section 9242, hereby affirms the Notice and Order for the property at 520 Pacific Street which provides written notice of the existence of a public nuisance and requires the correction of code violations related to illegal structures constructed in violation of the Tustin City Code subject to the following condition: Resolution No. 4162 Page 4 The property owner(s) is/are hereby ordered to comply with the requirements of the Notice and Order identified in the related staff report dated October 26, 2010, as attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein with the exception of the date of compliance which is hereby established as November 30, 2010, to permit the owner additional time to hire a professional to prepare plans and process and obtain the necessary permits for compliance with the Tustin City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the gth day of November, 2010. Jeff R. Thompson Chair Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4162 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the gth day of November, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary S:\Cdd\Amy\Code Enforcemenl\520 Pacifc\PC resolution Appeal 520 Pacifc.docx EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Table 1: Code Compliance Issues Revised (11/9/10) N a J 22 -an -Fu € a.. ,J ,.. 01 o46 o 0 0 3 t � 41 m °n au m cmc Hv E a 0mo �$am=yE2 .0Mc. tu NUi L �¢ M dU at om =N M=C C ° C `Om�O L «N w C` = m CU 0E Om Cr m «mJ �°VE °UCWt CU D m M. , O. C m m M O. Ol C ° y S C~ Cma �m I CL 0dC4f OmO e. •� U N (Up NN O' CN U •CmpE�� OC, NU2 Y t,23•5`g2m o^v'� �U�32 n2am m�-�v�EoaUma m �m EF-. °E:E �oa�0 `mCm �EJ°a 2°m0maa Nm��2?U=... mcOcy�3U m,�«Etv ° 5 ° cNcmi$ m�`�rnyyc°�« ram >. O' U L C '°O H C m C C 3 N C r Im m y« N-- m E cN�,TG�€rd mD'ym = Q U t C 0 U m m _? 0J�-Nm a«2;c-Nm.° we T U N CO .j m H N C= 3 y a° N 'C •C m Z O 'a gym•- m r (m N C m2 C C 0 V d O C la m m Z)m 0 O d 'O E m 9 O C O C--- •p- m 'C L O= C C 0 0, m O1 L O° •- U N C N O :. a 3 T> m« O' N L a1 O m '.' .° E L ° .. C N G C m a ° m C m m N L .0 O C 'C ° .ovmoN m rn N �. C U O fa •.« CLC ata >` m N .C.0 'O i.= y a 0 m m" m L 0 c �E- COEooE'-m mLo>mc..2 'L" N -5.f2 C ,.• N L J J w a1 « m .- 3 W m J 'O 'O m- C L m m"- rl CL N O0.2 M ma Nm���..y>TL EJm NmM'E fT1Cy.N O0)N9L«CO2 C .-. >� C O CE 2 '° T C 3 U d O m ammUO.°. O. C Ol C C C m° C m r M m U U n-$ E m 3° y c o p r a m a S m 5 3 m c T m_> ° m c N` ~ N 04 Ol m U C C W O m y C O O m m ONE J(�. C 0) U O m 3 m m m m m 9 N m ?' J ( m O J 0 a y y [0 E 9 m O N m U p N :0 d Z >. E Y 'N m 0 or J U J Jt .O m UmU J Cz 0 F D N m O V7 N N 'O m« f- O.IL N H N O 2 fm F- « U m N O L > N 2 O« I- m C J O N O 67 O rn N Q N O C O m W N �ry O 0 y c CO ("j M m amm`.- N a U U° U N U O.m d N m a °'f..1 N U �m m C G m fh U Z) NO C O. N~LLN �ILN�¢ OI[i N C� GIR LLN� UoUom�o �% m UU•Mam c 'CO o.Uomoomo m oo=oa o U �QE0�EoemU¢� �M=). o ]�UF-Eco r:�:c.°°•-"cUrma N C- U m- U 0 r�re�:..v N C R S= rmamO�e N �c O g l0 m 0 �QUy z U M L) �IQQ L)VJm r'�NUUfnU d O O W O C N mm 0 N a O U C Ey (i L C a«.-mm�� ? C °m�J ° c c3mJ ~L°�`.3°mdm ° H.Lm-3rnu�oE .00 2Ny L) aa)m�'�m`'�a .6 �o$dm� 0 QmEC' •C C N a C C C 2 m y O n y d N V V c o C m 2 o m o L m E F -m Dn 0E ' g x v L =v�mMME t o a 2L m zmm UL L c 0 0 � Le�aua� R. 1� � C O m it � �;�� C "O •N m O CU C E o 0'0,J $ L o. 3 •E to a+ 7 N m O'C d O m •� a C O N d c f ., C .aa).i 'mOm Nm c Ncm wm 0m 0o �d po _ N d5 v o vO E8N= 'p m wN� LU NC d NN d 01 p dO LA N N O$m 2C C O O d •CN •v- UC 3 0 OOOm -W 'D•- -'5 n�m =vm ID ac° oNrnS�dEa.-m amV O O m- N aN d E c o o m 22 �'L0 0=- c c an c mT°d_ aw 0 Lwdal rC 'YO C LL OONm 0�am E E •z N N m a y Co U>LEdd^cm O - rnvdmC LN am vC N m O m p mo ��rn c��N aN =3 a $a 62o=aw .- UO O.0 O m mE Oc da o�aEmOF" acod.0) c�E pNd0) mO aL - �«N6V—N0 Q) 0cE� a) tea °H y -0 3 wL= a 00N`°' -a0 E (D 1 M MM o�Eo,c_=` o a =vEna N`0°maEc cm a � d m N m Ucx�Va`m O� C m E .0 O ' C mO1.0° =WnN0 c N m O d3dmm OU m C'vECmcL3. ^Uc NC cQU E OL Fim'•qU0o ammc 0E E Lo O=a°O �443 C^c -c C CNO 2LcGwo . �arn cy>c0 m m:o mNm° ID 43 CL 43 m o�EarnU ud� N~ �E daC •coa`c om moE.0m co mY vda _WmU9O ' >>>0 CD E m UO v2UD da NN 0 uYN m m zCCTC Z 9?5 O CC '0 N Z U �m E LN�m My -0O f N C _ O C Vpp N OC! C '0 .d. C O al a1 N •w p O O C d v G O O m E amd N y m C 'gip O ' m u N c= dC1 d� °� Lc m° avymQ•°��'mc CL 9 CL C5.0 mm mO '0 U S�vC W ' NNN a'o E d 0jO L pm mD UN NCUmc0�: 0UO EYB 'S^ aLNUo ow UL) 00 m 4 I"• E C U C NS 7 r C p03 Ct •° d T m N d C 0 C d O L a C 9 O `O 0UQ CJ4 E v E jo �� m0oca E�yooERMmm= =auE N cNC , .,2 m_o� 0.; mE'mp ° ES Ea U<i aOd] o=mam � c M -0= OC aaC Ly mCL.G O OG CN mmMULMLw Om ELUN um - Nd GwCL 6O'Oma«mSa N C O w O 0 J R. m C O U UEE a m y `m o U y a>i L C N d m \ Ia L O X ❑ N `m C yam, N ° N W p L — mco w m m u m a. /// o N u P _.. c a c m N a CL U O C L C m - i -iw— lF m ZCN IC° S 0 m•m L^y3°2 m u0UW ° m m ,0 C :m , 2 p Cc >Cm1i C mUmy M UU M 0I 3 0— U y m U maLmy 2 m m0-COD_Oo 'a.0mm. n�..]. ddC _aammo o0 Ct cmT> .0 �cau -mO`m0 .E3_ym: �vcI�.mEoc_amc'•Ncom ' 3oC am C.'m2r •w•77_fiEaca 2HV mYN rt L m Om U m — —ymUmCC> r^FmcY-l 0 2eaNm €a N � ° 3Nr YC3NL ~ NNCLE n Ca G9 oE3U.>Cyy.. Um> 'c° °�-mc"E �E mG_amcc v>�C mte> 0'E �p 0CN�ndan - 0p mC mQy mO °y ama2cp y M m:ENN rn= °vOtocrn> � I, mYL aC m m`mm=oc m o 0c00 dmL=aimva W. .g—Vd{Np ° TCE d N3mL X *5.o2 =N aa)da iNC 0 a00 ,E c W mN.L O€ C O 0N C2 3m O m E> —0 OM y O mC €> O ° Oa Nm US = m C mr—o •�N="• LV•0 NO. c^TVA y o0CTw'ac CIO mo - y= m 3 F- —O WCUmO ° •C n m mU y OeLin'o O CC_, fa N d C • Nc WAR `vVm'f L0 _a)°L m y_ m > r U E —C0mma "Cym3C' ULy rmUm AN 'a Q"m LC a O N R Cmm LyL=.5La C OOS O m mvU U) m o W OL) O � rn oy�ami�`�€ O O nx °i ca '.°_.3 Ca c a m cmc °ma ,coca m o.ma U) a 2, �Eam vpt0 i Wa �<0m ami= •°off i Wa ao�ri Ca �p°m (q �Ly Ua Ua y O.0 Nom U�U �o-o oho may,m �OmmU mOOpNjmpNj4(UjooO L) L) -OI-NU �01UUF"NU pNsL) o L m m L �m N 3a C Temp a • za�c 03: cmm._ y°: `Q'' �E:; 7 EU mm yONam 2mN Omis' Umy NOyCCD Uy C> OC'mE m cE dfU0 vL o N m nOm UC 2C p O a_OO N W m G mFCCj •3VN y ccEQm€am.. cd EL m m Hm CL-aaO.Go °C`am i °mmc t3vc uu3L c 0 m ca J a6We6 anoqu llun tiols puooag m FF �� O t All Mi11W a 1 pP �E L Y- MIN.' N O O O m m O ° o �F N o O T o° v N0) N..m,.mcj€a01�;Sal COQ U v« c 060I Nd cnON •c L N >i O)L C ��dm m N -OO O a y T No 0~ E E m m m d m L V C y •pp C U . Y (� « O a as m N m a E N L) L 3 C T O ONj Y a Y N N «� m..Ld E Q' C N d y Im 3 N N y ("� fa v�E cc..mm c c v- o o- cc-cmmmaci •�°'«mdao E0N im EE-°=°v"-v Z €mOO '9�m0a a;c3a°cm m«crd°EN°m=La�:S-6 dym°-oHo mc>mEm._ Nmo.cact0=odV �'y�i3u'c_m- m0«0Nmm'Lecca� rn�E°�c�y�.ouW aci E F °�=.m =to aOyomL0�Em r aE «cvE ErcLLa vo �U'=yc°�m�m ° mmo•om o3oaU a O.T. .r f� N O o Y ••pp N a:= f0 m c m E a N 0 C m C uU dplN 0O`� O C V...EOd L"_•>N�N Z`3 a owgcw Ed`o€mF€o aEmc��mN3, I`? 0'� •- ^0 mF=•Em i. O T m O E •0 O c V S O O m > o=m a°i a s m 2 N N c v v oamicZzEcyaci�L��E O N m m Smmcmm-`°a€«`o W .°. c o�°)wHMa ncr W z5 EyU°c� -:5E-c'O•ai in0om;3c��n.,.L.m °D Tcmm ao'o• N Oa �.. gym•-r 2, m OY N^. mtUc Wim UOa V._O m�mm°rnc�i2L cmrn;O rOUmm«C'�.«CmU oU2cLNmN'�'c° mvOm� ''4 E .mooc m0) m awav cLia me-3mtm �cc'�rm Eg°mo- `r�cc�a°i`maEi�:2mt0•OmTm�C�=Yat•C y .U'Sc>=v�'�Eo'aaV CC «U NO"O QL O OC M'om' as SC=NcL CO m.m. °•Nm 0 m m Q C C V N Z �' r N m 0 0 m m U S Y O r W m U a N E D«= U 0« c m y c 0 9 .CFF -cmi rn y c .FF 0 F 9 m C1 O C - G U c G Na u m E ° N am o_ z m= �•o ama U m O t) y o m 1 wa �" mQ'E� L N o m i Nowa a'E� CD a Cm�m U N S C -° O U O U 0 O p O^ LUQ U rn°f=$U QL ?'D?m LD raiW02y c)rm� rn'S�U S yUo-S °' r S °1rNU N�r�aimUrm rn arn��Uo� o' O C 0 U O 0 d 'c m N N O m N m O L O G m F 0 y0 ° `1 @ U j a U a1 p c r 01.0 Oy C'O E� C N N C �� am°�a0cmo O N N v��mm'-v V a gc'=`°•p3ao°'c0>L_cc'oV o �•O c2M�,Q8a O •r C O 'O c N N r y m> _ N N M m [0 S C LX mM.0 - m y N m m L •O um ? m m C- c 1 m._ a ._ a a= ° o a a5 = v O' m o d a N o a 3 c 0 r a6eJe6 J anoge pun tiols puooag y look Milo, M OC L \ a. z CL0 d O d u > ° 1 -z Y v W � v m _r cm tm A ° C ° C « N cc o m ' cu cu0)y 0La� -8 u me°YN mmLac U.�°m u� � o-� 2 StmC •iaEvm�mrnti CM m Ha cL m >-� m 2 m mc�o m 0 •9Udw _Qd0mg C c= O U 0.0 E . y IUD 3: M O p N 0 m° a 0 mL0CN O NU U U N Oy m ° Q SN m>m C•OU wD Cm m m 101 m °�0 m m E m 0yL.0 NrUE NDm�0 'Om Lm ?C raO� a 0cm =mo V.m mO oc=3 �tOO0 nyam9oma=c OmU OE 2 O $C NE U 2 yyj OE-�"°mo m m 0 r«mw c _mvc 'O y.♦y.+. O.jL__ yv Oy- m m N 05O C LC O>`Lym��N L>�` .L$OC w m amrnm3mmmo Lm« mm Oa> a Y> OamU a 1 a ; y U cy N O' O 0 -' mL m m0ymO O _.o_ O Ty m 2mN >'y y0C U-m �aNN �Id� l cn 'ClNNmE mv'9am m . 0 9 `-' OU mm O O mN 0 N 'L;-` CmoO C0 NEmCT .9 L0p �? oao 2 2 /1 . d m O C y wm - -0 L7m0E6, •C N a0 0 0 S 2 U N 5 Z3 C;NULDaynO c$O1 0 E3 EfN € C 9 m 'U N .O .m.. N p m C y o€ C'sa om�� omE 6 o 0 0 m 0 «m a c� 0 m �mc� oL ammo a ado coN c.c aycoe oymyow= CDL) cj 0 0.0 o°l`oo �I 0E=o $EUo (q $aa°lH 6 `yy°er rn in@ID COI Qmui Q,OrNa) QOM UCUL3 UCNY co cn 'O O• m mZco 0 m�'m0 m0 y TO m0 !''m0 U 0U'X mx100W U yN m maNa U•-Ue C;U E mm m�Wm I CA O U 7m�ol'"UQ U� ��rSOO r� m.�,'°�n m� �°°r m C cmc? 0 c°' w t-pUr m Uv h N O.N .�U o,Uo�c.u5Uo� olo.rn L) Uo m«UO rmrV -' C'4 MON mU rnaU�c h I-�C€r0) C-4 �$000•�O000Q KF -NU LhNUL yF-NU �O N',,,- �O�-Ln- ��NrO N N"'f m m >7 0 O] O U Cl C L L 'U mm C m •C. 0:2 N C 0 L ca m m n >C Up N m m y m m �F- tG- m 6m m m 2 ° N L O'O J d� m E •m a>f0 `o O c umi y O y ocHLEyc c m« m E y �>7 ; -` O a 0 0 a y 0= a(D ow°0 ° m 0 m O O C m C y O C E N T y o am y 01 U U- m m QnO ao y m c m y m y ° o,�.°_ m uyi (0 i a m m 0 oco m E W m Ca V m `m m m 0 m$ a= y y� y U m 0I s� 'O L C o U c€ 2 a m m 0 M m a) 0 y $ o m 0.9 c� - 'gx-g C w$Uy 3$.t c'ci H a« FL -oQ$nF y«wEm mo c 3C c 0 m O 0 J y UD y° � m to m m a O N O O t rm a a m , 't tm c i'n u m E N O L IL - p L a u ® m u 0 cu iw c O O m = D m m 2 `m m c o p E m Ntpp O (T N C 2 L 9 L O L cc o O F m� m C N 0 m O� N N 9 C 4I C { fa 02 U O M CO O O �... 2 N C` N N >.� O O O 2 U U 2 D7 C C a Com — N Q O— E d N E m N c e -O �0 .0.. cm�c°� mm°22rmn m�ocE coEomm C ocydoc_mE 'c' m3E• gc •''UN°NNO J2 aE =a NN c D'0 m m c >O — m "— O QL3 EFOON y«' 0 m m o E aO0L O d - mmo omP,mrnCoo CCad3 CMa cM° OOt N«Q C." L N O -C °y 0 m U(9E O aO4) 0 o CD C 0 O OmV O a O O U'CC .O 'O N O rn TLE y m r C F m W O aaNtOO'OO« O ,p T �j O' O m m ?� N U d O my U -6 W N m N W �0 �0)L C= CD ~ 3 tT 'O .ti m.° G Ti p tM 2 O m 4) -6 O C O M« N °�amc� W d V C o=0 4) m mamt cmiQ20 m°aci �QQ€0 �,c U•pOpcc2=F" — C N 2 T c =" E° O N pNj a.O.. F O p O« O C C N C 05 E Vgg :E °i m F � a c� v m FL- L) c c°i , ci F N.N. 0 0 •F T'OO m tm •a�' G O O G C N N -gyp O G 9 •p t�OO 7 = N c p '� _ uA C%lc� d�oEmNE O t O NaoE'iEd �V mm 2 m a 2 = om i U) G N C N E m .- O O Q LO u fQ N E O y LL 1L N 7 11 N N G W d Q O to 9 a m 0 0 0 U N O in G U ca O U C d 9 N m° m O^ ° _ U O U C O_ O co ca 7 V U U C nen 01 7 V 7 pt.'O-' m Q E C E C C NDN U O.0 O O.U� ca 5) I��f` O OUn O•� i2co a) 0) c°tod m co 0)10 =om°m0) mmo 0 Cc,) cmm �Q—N�O Qto UU'->UW CUfdm -.11Z -NU V °Uc N �—'O C: xCO OyE °°Lo0L E~A cu,wcd cc 0 0 v 0. m L m C OCy V m m m W O qm E a 12m 2 mm 0 N NV NTT CD M a�9 oU W C mO 'VO C r . Q ~OC>r U mmy CL E N Na v NO OE NNmai m N2.c H3mmEB°iv m m m m D =V5wEmm 2ZS— mc0$ liodjeo J UD d o n C Y a? v O' N O E.N..d Oxo n 0 Y N 0 L / / A a 0 1/ 0 E o Z n q OE oa�•u1i•y=•ii°+� > c drNci v°dCdN° ��G. -m u 2ENEt1cOO00ii' cu M 0 2 p• ID MO 0NCy0 C33Ea U, EOa° ra_»° C:�y. — LUNy� Oi �0N�=LL_yCEdCcU3d3V U fY10EOyUW W_COCOyUc NCC 0>0NC EN» CO LNEm CUNc6 0 y3.LUy-'L$`N8^`• C y 01 3: CL ca cp pOCo> NL EC OOiEp v.wDmCO (D cc V V m C 01 a) 3: N E m N VLC>E�m.. LFN- 0LaOL°N aN�C LLCNNN. aC a3 m U C N � OOdo 5 a= — U C E O€ C 01 1 E�E `L EF 0 Ec ` ma = pt p0 = -aL) a'• ° °Ny°N �3O .NU� NE0� �� UCN>CyEEOoc0� C>NEN=«C C MM E° EU M CC Ur = y eO UC N 0 N - OS EC .0 N d C N dCm D y SNN- N � Y a5 O C d 0 C .o•j O > N O9NOL Lp=>a.—V - 3 m U p mp O mv_0' 's dv W a L.�a>v0.% cc u 2) c 0 C a ONOm00L N E p CL.N E ° 3.=3:Om N � c c pCO a°L °a' ao M° N U 0 ` �—- �L cCNNFGCdCC`mEy 0 _ °ti .o.0 mNd ��`d � �2o0 �CKc5O d .y. LrNpy L N E 2L ��o� v. . m> M ao~m%Las >> 0L°O�m /) ° v pc o cCA CS 0 vma�Wjic o ��� vM 0: E,� oy cc ,c`Qcc Z a C0 c m Vl � °- m cv� CO cF6 W d. U) C. c) c` -4.U^'- E rn m C��fdwN y 9R EM Q V- ° C N'O U mam.0 UcU mC m mC W"O �m Z) Z) Uay»cUa. m Mm'u,Em?m �m E=LrnM a. SCO N O O' �. N N --p Np N C N O �� p O V N d O N O' N a N WO N �ON0 IDIL Q.'�(/7 xa 0)0 CJ�Q�UU ON W Q N MON IL d'�[qo d OI > N C 10 p p� d w E O V O 10 U C N D t` N N N N 4. y O C dm M,°ng�00 �..a � U,•.N EE�OEmaia 0 y° cy Lo m a 3 c= a m o° c ` c Q N E c u O O y •p C C C j� N 0 N L OI p ° 9 N%� v d O x N O U1 L d N N 0 T C N C O r O c U _ j ._ y E ,0 a'cowLo. y M uEaamo«c'ppia 01 v �cwa�°N°�nm z M M N m 9 5 W 2° N M N C U N E g c O L a m c O p a6e�e� 3!un leguapisai aeaa 0 I c - IL r� I' 0, M:! iEc� cE Ut„p Cd f L:muC�d '1u O�CJ M`a�OCN U=N O Md) �=LUJNC. •pCfN0 a�°�C°p.J N .O pO0 ;pESd a aEcoEC N�c0 2o ' m ID 3 a m0 EFm CpE >jcmoaifo3E; N C =E n d N U C y N U y` N N = 3 cur'3d�'-_cc° N N N N M= O- C C N G °L�OmEo -00 Er >°mcmmoa �Yoa E'E o m'N'�movad �i C «_ 'muy M -3N F, ap N O' o• n.�w.cyC m0;000 cE•-=� c ��`0 m€a E N 1�0 0 l0 N Cp p N C o a m ni a m m a d c .-. 0. ` N N m -.6 > Np d .. U)Ficnmmo FL-E3�t16 wc°�M==a N � N�p O) C 'O € V N cn COL Oa NaE Qma ?CE Na U).2 U) FE ¢E Ewa �°m 0MOU�O°U 9A U6 mamma Co mm 0 E NCN��UG-'HSN 0 C_ r'QT'UUHNU LW.- E 0 °'QNB E N ID E' 200 mmm LLo2 ° N mL••78 N amd Ol y.= =. v 0 E00 ��Et 3c M'y rnE� c6 U mN•N E_0)=M Srn-c°i3a�E Pc0) U0t c 0 U 0 J m_ 2 W d 0 O L p IL y r m c :3 M y .O Em s m M 'y C m CL X C c W m 0 0 H o m j y y L a ..m.. cu 0 c `D'- , 3yc NE 'G 0) cnN LL> 0 C =o E Ummt" m. W—y >1 E 0 c O bato r—00 M 3du cmv rnmm c�dc°3 ° .cam Ems° Ca �' "' 0 m N N8� N~Gj > E r0 V U �:.. U r 'o p� N L N N N E 0U) d C O W m 2 m C w O citm0a N u 0 V 00 mtc� am am°L� c $.Cv c mU m CNa CN~m O o �W � CD 0 uj d.9mmorcrno�s rn _ o c m m E5a=F- " • a._L I� C. C m w C O. m l0 r y°j m > j y 0 y L N N O CA -0 — LOdma L C m 0 Em-- F–m dc'cL aaccoc ~ a) a>oo>`o 0-o'Cmmoam umi ����mr a•-tm Yo2 cmamdDa �m CLao c L) > p > L L= y L m�y a) •p N d yp y p L•O C j m VlmO. 00"°OC 355 3 F -U o y 35 am U') {{pp p O C rn0 c 0.- •F �,Q[ m C .0 E U y o m ._a I� G ON C Na E t� O m V N) O.{L4 O 0 O m N D o 0<= o (0_i y. (p.1� N O ? 0 0 0 0 O 0.!nI Z= Er N Q y C O CU ma U) CO Uoci� U Uc u) < Uop°o cam !n'�(0 m C.) U VZ) D yUN V mUQ �j O) N� D V V N ooM N O.N m �pm N> O d N yU o �pm 7 U N N 0.0 a'O �Qrn L)L) NN W �QI{�-pQNU EF'w m �QN�M m L O m U- m m 'c€oma �•C m m y� .° m m C C E v m c 3z v a o �r m e Uw cmL_ L Z m m o^ cola mc0)cd v cc3ycE�5 Fy Y L_ O U O vi «OI `mm moa= cc> 0 C.CL ^ om y�LdC -0, E na 3 a° �e d :3 m 3 0)"§ 0 m o FJc ;!un jeguapisai jeaa d Q F m S W m 0 ti I d a c m m d 7 dL o E ESo E c w — N " .— m d c 1 U v° E O N r N C OL Lou 002 0 9H0'ti '> > cn V ti C~ j L E m= N C a.�d .— N ayym o U M— c�po.�3. c Cpm—-oo•m d 0 0 CymC3N O om(,1 E N y C O"CT=O Ca dyr M 0 N EE CL aacoc .- l-ce10E oaL i+ M 0M�a.102 O .-O CL E E R L OOc N N y 0 C O U d m w O N Oa l0 a= C .E N� `° O' •G O E a C.) O C EE•pN 0NO NCCa� 6/ y OI: C o t" N N :C D M L U oaya��doLp•'5t°m a T� yCCD CD �� E v o> a a E~ MZ'3 P= COL O O. C 0 N m'� E O C a •_ 'a'�°ct N o.c °,d°Uoa Co•cd O N U E Q Vf N' -'O ° -O O U7 y N N 10 c0 m E m C Oa C t O C m y m o N 3 O .... N= a— N W o L :. N 3 a> .. U •— N 9 N u v 5 E c N O O• U .— y a.. L O C m U)01 `d' M= m c3 m c°� m U C N O O .5 OW N — N °D O O -L M=' CM ymO mN�rnm NCL cUDm•oEod rE �N ��O dN E 4l 'ONN�p oN oom"' mm'9C c+m d U) -0o CL cnomeEmrn'°c mo�m�cc"mEm U) co NUa'ct�L m°mdo0).0 (D 0 yc mE V = C V N N E N O co 7 �_ i9 caro � •y N C d •lp U N N N O O c>> N C> O N O. N 'C C m c` N C Y8 O C CLO M Co p o C, mOaN U CL C.L.'00� �Q�CO=L N•= u E> N y O p 9 d O C Ey Ol C N> O N �N 8 N N L L� a N O N l0 EN m�v 0aa0 ta° Um o p> cm E c L m o 3 y 1mr90) m c E "y � p= c0E U mo N E ? N a aE: io -v c cac HL mw.O0 CD c 0 m c pun piluapisai Keay (popelap) wool u011eaJOa8 J EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Notice and Order Community Development Department TU S T I N Q.l TI, F t U� .Kf Sent via first ciass and certified mail {!"� HISTORY September 16, 2010 BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Property Address: 520 Pacific Street Assessor Parcel Number: 401-371-07 Case Number: V10-0312 Dear Mr. Fairbanks, Thank you for meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore, please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday. October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P. (714) 573-3100 0 F: (714) 573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org Notice and Order at 520 Paciric Street September 16, 2010 Case # V10.0312 Page 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincerel� Br9d Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: Exhibit A — Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Department TU S T I N EXHIBIT A Administradve Citation Process BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Clyde (TCC) 1182(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8999) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The City may also take further legal action including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the violation(s) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding fine(s). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Correct the violation, pay the corresponding tine(s), and contact the City to request a re- inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time in writing pursuant to TCC 1185(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrative citation pursuant to TCC 1188 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing forms and other information on Administrative Citations may be obtained on the City's website at www.tustinca.oro. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org Nonce and IXtler at 520 Peak Street September 16. 2010 Case a V10-0012 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 4162 Report prepared by Thirtieth Street Architects, Inc. thirtieth street architects inc . October 20, 2010 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: 520 Pacific Street, Tustin Dear Elizabeth: founding principals john c. loonnis, architect jannes c. wilson, architect principal clwood I. galley, architect Pursuant to our letter agreement, we have conducted a cursory review of the photographs of structures provided by staff of the existing structures at 520 Pacific Street. The following is a summary of our findings: Terminology We will refer to the street facing side of the complex as the "front", the two sides as the "left and right" based on looking at the site from the street and the structures built behind the carriage barn as the "middle" and "rear" structures. Zoning Zoning issues are not part of our Scope of Work and are not addressed. Building Sequence It appears that the main front house and two-story or loft type carriage barn may have been originally built on the site in 1928. Both of these structures exhibit the same type of exterior siding and window and door trim. The historical survey indicates that there is evidence that the original front gable of the residence may have originally had a modified hip roof at its roof peak, but was later modified. It appears that the original development probably involved one living unit in the main house. 2921 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 At some point later in time, it appears that the upper portion of the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit with the addition of the stairway at the left side of the property. The carport and rear one-story middle addition may also have been added at this time or later, subsequent to the original construction of the residence. Both the enclosed entry and one-story addition have vertical siding and no carpenter cuts on the window trim that distinguishes these alterations from the original construction. The deepened fascia detail at the rear elevation of the enclosed entry is a clear indication of a later alteration. The date of these alterations is unknown, but they were likely constructed much later than the original residence, probably during the late 1940's or early 1950's. Later, another rear addition was constructed that may have initially been used as a garden shed or children's playhouse (because of the very low ceiling height). The building has vertical board and batt siding and different detailing than the original structures and a vintage TM Cobb front door. This was probably converted into a third living unit some time in the early 1960's, based on the knotty pine interior. This is a very substandard structure in terms of ceiling height and construction methods. Additional alterations to the middle addition were made later, including a rooftop shed structure with a skylight that is apparently over a shower. There is evidence of fairly recent electrical work based on the yellow Romex that is visible in many of the building cavities. Changes in Use The original development of the site in 1928 included the construction of a single- family residence with one living unit and a two-story carriage barn that was apparently used as a garage and agricultural storage. At some time after WWII, the carriage barn was converted into a second living unit, with the addition of the front stair, carport and middle addition at the rear. Another rear addition was added behind the middle addition during the late 1950's or early 1960's. This very substandard structure was probably originally used as a storage shed or kids playhouse. It was later converted into a third living unit. Historic Significance The original building has been noted in the Tustin Historic Survey as "one of a variety of California Bungalow buildings that contributes to Tustin". Although substantially modified when the second living unit was added, the middle, two story carriage barn structure appears to retain enough of it's original architectural integrity and detailing (horizontal redwood siding, carpenter cuts at window trim, 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 modified hip roofs, etc.) to also be considered historic as part of the original development of the property. The mid -addition and rear additions were later alterations that are inconsistent with the architecture of the original structure and are, therefore, not considered historically significant. Building Code Issues There appear to be a number of serious building hazards and code violations in the current development. The most significant is the construction of the enclosed stairway to the upper unit that actually encroaches across the side yard property line. This addition is illegal and constitutes as hazard, in our opinion, by blocking access in the side yards for fire fighting, as required by the CBC. This stair addition should be removed and a new stairway/entry constructed elsewhere. The rear living unit structure is very non -conforming to Building Codes and it does not appear to be economically viable to bring this structure up to current codes. Further Study Further research using Sanborn and Building Survey Maps could confirm the construction sequence and provide proof of construction dates. There also could be information relating to the use of these structures at the time of mapping. The cost of retaining an Architectural Historian to research this property would probably be about $1,000. Conclusion We feel that the front house and two-story carriage barn are both historically significant. It is apparent that there was only one living unit on-site in 1929 when the City of Tustin was incorporated. There is strong physical evidence that the second and third living units were added much later, post WWII. Recommendations We would recommend that the illegal stairway be removed and that code violations be corrected at the carriage barn ASAP, if the continued use of this space as a second living unit is allowed by the City of Tustin. We would hope that future improvements could include the reversal of some of the inappropriate alterations to the carriage barn to help restore the architectural integrity of this resource. 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 We do not recommend the occupancy for habitation of the substandard, rear addition. If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, John Loomis Principal 2821 newport boulevard — newport beach, ca 92663 — 949/673-2643 RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Tustin AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Tustin City Clerk's Office 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 rCONFOtt.MELD COPY Recorded in CYficial Records, orange County Tom Dal , Clerk -Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINrIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNIIIIIIIIIIII NO FEE 2010000557700 9:03 am 10/25/10 163 416 NO3 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RECORDING FEES EXEMPT PER GCS 6103 Space Above This Une for Recorders Use NOTICE AND ORDER DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE CERTIFICATE California State Government Code 38773.5(e) COPYand Tustin City Code 5503(c) Pursuant to the provisions of the California State Subdivision Map Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that the following described property, situated in the County of Orange, State of California, is currently being maintained in a public nuisance condition and the owner has been notified. Deed Recorded: 01/03/2005 / 12/27/2004 (Sale Date), Document # 2609 and 2610 Tract #: 737 Map Reference (Map/Pg/Grid): 23-E2 / 830-A3 Name of Owner or fee interest in property: Bret S. Fairbanks Description of real property: 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 Parcel #: 401-371-07 Dated: October 19, 2010 Local Agency Official: Bradford William Steen Code Enforcement Officer City Case* V10-0312 (714) 573-3135 4i**— Signature: Attachments: Notice and Order, dated September 16, 2010 Exhibit A – Administrative Citation Process Exhibit B – Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street Fee for Recording exempt per Gov. Code 6103 Community Development Department Sent via first class and certified mail September 16, 2010 Bret S. Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780-4329 Property Address: TUSTIN NOTICE AND ORDER/PRE-CITATION NOTICE DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE Assessor Parcel Number: Case Number: Dear Mr. Fairbanks, 520 Pacific Street 401-371-07 V10-0312 I I is rorty BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAS"r Thank you for meeting with City staff at 520 Pacific Street on September 10, 2010. During the inspection, two detached structures were observed within the rear yard, in addition to a guest house above the garage and a second guest house behind the garage; all of which are unpermitted. A preliminary search of City records also indicates that no conditional use permit (CUP) is on file to establish guest houses at the property. Other noncompliant issues were also noted during the inspection; which include, but are not limited to the staircase on the south side of the garage which does not provide the appropriate setback to the side property line and the guest house above the garage currently contains cooking facilities, which is prohibited. Several violations currently exist at your property, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Tustin City Code 1122(a), any violation of the Tustin City Code is a public nuisance. Therefore. please be advised that the City has determined that a public nuisance is being maintained at 520 Pacific Street due in that the necessary permits and entitlement were not obtained for the two detached structures in the rear yard or the two guest houses. You are hereby directed to do one of the following by no later than Friday, October 29, 2010: 1) Submit a complete CUP application with the appropriate plans and all other necessary entitlement applications to the Planning and Building Division for the two guest houses and the two detached structures within the rear yard. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P: (714) 573-3100 • F. (714) 573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org Nance and Order at 520 Pacific Street September 16, 2010 Case # V10-0312 Page 2 OR 2) Obtain a permit from the Planning and Building Division and physically commence with the demolition and removal of all unpermitted structures and improvements on the property; which include, but are not limited to the two guest houses, the staircase attached to the garage and the two detached structures within the rear yard. NOTE: For information on obtaining permits, please contact the Building Division at (714) 573- 3120 and/or the Planning Division at (714) 573-3140. Additionally, all permits related to this matter are to be finaled within ninety calendar days of permit issuance pursuant to 2007 California Building Code A105.5. This letter constitutes your Notice and Order to abate all public nuisance conditions and violations at 520 Pacific Street. You (or) any person having any record title or legal interest in the property may request consideration of this Notice and Order or any action of the enforcement within ten calendar days from the date of service of this Notice and Order. All appeals shall be made in writing. Failure to comply with this notice within the time limit specified above may result in (1) the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Tustin City Code 1162(a) (reference Exhibit A attached hereto for further information), and/or (2) all necessary work being completed by City personnel or private contractor, with all abatement costs being billed against you and/or assessed against the property and/or (3) the referral of this matter to our City Attorney for further legal action. Please note that the disposal of any material involved in public nuisances shall be carried forth in a legal manner. Additionally, this notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Office of the County Recorder. If you need further clarification or assistance with this matter, please contact me directly at (714) 573-3135. Sincere Blrd�k Steen Code Enforcement Officer Attachments: Exhibit A — Administrative Citation Information Exhibit B — Code Violations cc: Amy Thomas, Senior Planner/Code Enforcement Supervisor Community Development Department EXHIBIT A Administrative Citation Process TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST In accordance with Tustin City Code (TCC) 1182(d), fines may be assessed by means of an administrative citation as follows: $100.00 for a first violation; $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $500.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. Building and Safety Code (TCC Sec. 8100 — 8999) violations may be assessed at $100.00 for a first violation; $500.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation; or $1,000.00 for a third or any further violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year of the first violation. The Citymay also take further legal action including issuing the responsible person(s) a criminal citation and/or abating the violation(s) with the cost of such abatement and/or prosecution assessed against the responsible person(s), the property owner(s), and/or the property as a lien. Should an administrative citation be issued, the responsible person has ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation to pay the corresponding fine(s). Additionally, the responsible person must take one of the following actions to avoid additional penalties prior to the compliance date specified in the administrative citation: 1) Cored the violation, pay the corresponding fine(s), and contact the City to request a re- inspection, or 2) Pay the corresponding fine(s) and request an extension of time in writing pursuant to TCC 1185(b), which shows a reasonable hardship; or 3) Request a hearing to appeal the administrable citation pursuant to TCC 1188 within ten (10) days from the date of the administrative citation, together with an advanced deposit of the corresponding fine(s). Request for Hearing forms and other information on Administrative Citations may be obtained on the City's website at www.tustinca.orv. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 • www.tustinca.org Native enE al 520 Peember St,. r 16 ifl 2010 Sept Ceee M V10d91212 Exhibit B Code Violations at 520 Pacific Street 2007 California Building Code A105.1 (Adopted per Tustin City Code 8100) — Permits Required. Any owner or authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Conditionally Permitted Uses and Development Standards - Accessory buildings used as guest rooms, provided no cooking facility is installed or maintained are subject to a conditional use permit. Tustin City Code 9223(b)(2)(d) — Single Family Residential District (R-1) Minimum side yard setback for accessory buildings used as guest houses - Corner lot line: 10 feet; Interior lot line: 5 feet. NOTE: Please be advised that there may be additional code compliance requirements. Community Development Department August 4, 2010 Brett Fairbanks 520 Pacific Street Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: ZONING CONFIRMATION FOR 520 PACIFIC STREET Dear Mr. Fairbanks: TUSTIN BUILDING OUR FUTURE HONORING OUR PAST Thank you for your letter, received July 27, 2010, requesting zoning confirmation for the property located at 520 Pacific Street. In your letter, you indicated that the property has a single family residence in the front with two guest homes in the back. You have also included copies of tax assessor information related to your property for the City's review. In the event of a fire, earthquake, or disaster, you inquired if the City would allow the guest houses to be rebuilt. The subject property is zoned as Single Family Residential (R-1) and located within the Cultural Resources Overlay (CR) District. Accessory buildings used as guest rooms are allowed as conditionally permitted uses within the R-1 zoning district, provided that no cooking facilities are installed or maintained. A guest house is defined in the Tustin City Code as detached living quarters of a permanent type of construction and without kitchens or cooking facilities and where no compensation in any form is received or paid. No permits exist for guest houses at the subject property and no conditional use permit is on file to establish guest houses at the subject property. In your letter you indicated that there are two addresses at the subject property, 520 and 520 Yz Pacific Street. The City has not assigned a 1h address to the subject property. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9273(c), "A nonconforming building, destroyed to the extent of more than fifty (50) percent of its reasonable value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or act of God, may be restored or used only in compliance with the regulations existing in the district wherein it is located." The provisions for reconstruction of a nonconforming building does not apply to structures or additions which have been illegally constructed or constructed without the benefit of permits. Should you wish to establish guest houses at the subject property, approval of conditional use permits and obtaining necessary building permits would be required. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 573-3123. Sincerely, Rya wi Associate Planner Attachments: A. Single Family Residential (R-1) standards B. Cultural Resources District (CR) standards C. Guest House Definition 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 0 P:(714)573-3100 • F:(714)573-3113 0 www.tustinca.org CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department— Building Division 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 Building Counter (714) 573-3131— Inspection Recorder (714) 573-3141 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER:1101-0487 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST TUST SUITE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 401-371-07 SUITE NUMBER...: LOT NUMBER............... _.............. : TRACT NUMBER.: DEVELOPMENT AREA ................: TUSTIN ISSUED BY............: DATE ISSUED.......: 10/30/2001 PROPERTY OWNER, ............ _... _.: BRETT FAIRBANKS 520 S PACIFIC STREET TUSTIN CA927804329 f CONTRACTOR ABCHITEQ ` �I A -I ALL AMERICAN ROOFING 1824 E. CARNEGIE AVE. SANTA ANA, CA92705 (949) 2504221 :Fn o r-vr— JOB DESCRIPTION: T/O RF, REP W/ 25 YR GAF, 30# FELT, 3.5# - MAIN O.C.F.A. Number.........: OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE.: 5N RESIDENTIAL SQ.FP: 0 COMMERCIAL SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ FT: 0 GARAGE SQ FT: 0 OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: 2900 TENANT IMPR. SQ FT: 0 OTHER SQ. FT. 0 NUMBER OF UNITS: 1 NUMBER OF STORIES: 0 UBC EDITION: 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS: 0 VALUATION...: 57,250.00 BUILDER VALUATION: $6,000.00 PLAN CHECK $0.00 FEE SUMMARY BUILDING PERMIT: $175.00 MECH PERMIT: $0.00 PLUMBING PERMIT: $0.00 ELEC PERMIT: SO.00 SIGN PERMIT: $0.00 GRADING PERMIT: $0.00 PRIVATE IMPR $0.00 NEW DEV. TAX: 50.00 TSIP ZONE A FEE: 50.00 TSIP ZONE B FEE: $0.00 SMIP FEE: $0.50 MICROFILM FEE: $0.00 OCFA FEE: $0.00 PENALTY FEE.: $0.00 REFUNDABLE BOND: $0.00 MISCELLANEOUS: $0.00 TOTALFEES: $175.50 1 hereby affina asst I ann • limned Coar.aor, under the provisions ofchapser 9 (commencing with Section 7000) ofDivislan 3 ofthe Business At Rofenioro Code, and my license is in fill form and effect. LICENSENUMBER: 671W LiCENSECLASS:C39 BIC Expires DATEASOIR003 OWNER BUILDER DECLARATION: I hereby M. that i am exempt from the Connectors License Law firs the following own (SMion 7031.5, Business Professions Code: Any City or county which mquim a permit W contract, alter, improve, dmnolish, or reparmy structure, prior o its Issuance, also requires the applicant ser each pervelt o Ble a algned easement that he or she n licensed parsons to the provisions ofthe Contractors License Law (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 ofthe Business & Professons ondej or that be or she is exempt therefrom and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation ofSeetion 7031.5 by my applicant for a parent aubjcts the applicant on a civil penalty ofnot mare than five hundred dollars (5300A0). 1 u owner of the property, at my employees with was. u Dau sole compression, will do the work and The mudus, is rust intended or offcecel for sale (Sediun 7044, Business d Pmf ngdoou Code: the Contractors License Law does not apply to an owner ofpropmy who build. or improves thereon, and who does such work himelfor heselfor through Ma or her awn emplaycss, provided that such improvements art not intended or oRertd for sale. If, however, the building or ImFmvemed is sold within one year of completion, the owner -builder will have the la edn ofpwving that he or she did not build or improve for purposes ofsale). I, as ownerofft property, am exclusively contracting with licensed cmoacon la creams the project (Section 7044, Business Ar Professions Code: The Contractors License Law does net apply to an owner afpropery who builds or improves thereon, ad who connects for such projects with a comeactor(s) license pursuers M the ContractorLLkmac Law). 1 am cxernpl under Smilers , Businsss & Pmfnalous Cade for the following muse(.): Ownersig alure: Date orthe following dedarsdons: of consent to self-interest for Workers Compensation, . provided for by Section 3700 order labor Code, for the perfonnnm ofthe work nmpenution hoomeae, as required by Section 3700 ofthe Labor Code, for the parfurem on, ofthe work for which this permit Is tuned. watch this pennit is owed, I shall sol employ my person in my mnner so as to become robjeal to the WarkcA should become subject to the Workers Compensation provisions of Section 3700 ofthe Labor Code, I "I forthwith comply damage u provided for In Section (3700)of the Labor Cade, Interest W momey Pors. Application is hereby made o the Building Official for a permit subject to the conditions and resbictiom set forth on this application. Each person upon whose behalfthis application is mode and each person at whom request and for whose benefit work I. perfomad under or putauant to my Parrott users u a result of this application aper on, sol shall, indemnity and hold hornless the City or Tustin, in offices, agenda and employees, in accordance with the provisions ufChopla 2 of the Unifom Adminimuive Code.I spm trot he occupy or allow occupancy ofany Wilding authorized by this person unfit fiml inspection has ben received. ) =try that I have read this application and sole that the above infomation ie cortecc l epee to comply with all City and Show laws missing to the building construction, and hamyyuhmize representative of the City to enter upon the above motioned popery for inspection Imposer. am..,.... ,,ren....... n ............. . —M . AAVU4 // n-.- /) — 1;,—c PERMITS ARE SUBJECT TO EXPIRATION IF WORK IS NOT COMMENC OF ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR 190 DAYS... • CITY OF TUSTIN Catrtmunity Development Department— Build]ng Division 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92750 Building Counter (714) 573-3131 — Inspection Recorder (714) 573-3141 BUILDING PERMIT NIUMBER:801-0499 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST TUST SUITE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 401.371.07 SUITE NUMBER..: LOT NUMBER............... _............... : TRACT NUMBER: DEVELOPMENTAREA ................: TUSTIN ISSUED BY ............. DATE ISSUED,......: PROPERTY OWNER . ..................... : LOUIS METRO INTER R E PROP ERT 1091 WINDSOR LN TUSTIN CA927804329 CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT A-1 ALL AMERICAN ROOFING 1824 E. CARNEGIE AVE. SANTA ANA, CA92705 (949)250-1221 JOB DESCRIPTION: T/O RF, REP W/ 25 YR OAF, 30M FELT, 3.571 -REAR O.C.FA. Number.........: OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE.: RESIDENTW. SQ.FT: 0 COMMERCIAL SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ FT. 0 GARAGE SQ FT: 0 OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: 0 TENANT IMPR. SQ FT: 0 OTIIER SQ. FF: 0 NUMBER OF UNITS; I NUMBER OF STORIES: 0 UBC EDITION: 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS: 0 VALUATION...: 50.00 BUILDER VALUATION: $0,00 FEE SUMMARY PLAN CHC•CK $0.00 BUILDING PERMIT: $0.00 MECH PERMIT: $0.00 PLUMBING PERMIT; $0.00 ELEC PERMIT: 50.00 SIGN PERMIT: $0,00 GRADING PERMIT: 50.00 PRIVATE IMPR: 50.00 NEW DEV. TAX: 50.00 TSIPZONEAFEE: $0.00 TSIP ZONE FEE: $0,00 SMTP FEE: 50.00 MICROFILM FEE: SOHO OCFA FEE: $0.00 PENALTY FEE.: $0.00 REFUNDABLE BOND: SO.OD MISCELLANEOUS: 50.00 TOTAL FEES: SO.00 UCENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION, I hereby arm Nm 1 me Ikmsd Cmlr.ror under dan provinces archon" 9(commmring with SeNm 7") of Dwhim 3 of0e Business A Professions Cdc, and my licmae It in PoII fmmeaul chat LICENSE NUMBER: 671922 LICENSE CLASS: C39 RIC UpimuATenef31nw3 OWNER BUILDER DECLARATION: 1 hereby aRr the, I am amtpl Grum Ne Convectors License Law for the following won ISecdon 7011.5. Business Pmfnsiom Cade: Arty City commory which npuires• permit us mnard site; Improv-. demolish, or repairmy mucosae, prior In its issuance, site requim the applicant far ON permit o pie uiged 0temenl met he urshe h li.emed pura.nl m site P avimen, of dee ConlncmM1 Lkeme Law (Cluster 9 (commencing with Semon 7000)of Dlvhkn 3 of th Business A Pmfcui.. odej or dot he orsh h serest IhertOum and Ne took Nr she mitred .,do.. MY Nohtkn of Session 7031.5 by my tiepikent fans pertnubjesu the mpiianue• civil, malty ofnol nom then five hundred "Does (5300,00). I u.wnn ordrc progeny, army c rmi yen with waene a their mk compm.don, will de the ..it and Ne mtmcmrt is not ulmded or.abd for tele (Salim 7aw, B.I. A ItOlOslona Code: the Committee, Lkm. Uw does not apply to m owner.rpmeorry who builds err torp orm Immo ..0 who dos such work hinuelfor herself or thmugle his or Mown smpivyaa,pmvided that such mostunemenls are not intended or offered for wk. it, hawser, Ili building or improvement is Old within one year of coWlelun, the ownserbudder will have site bud" orpmving out h or she did not build or improve Impatron orsele). _ I, a morerofdw pn,my, am aclusively cemmoina with lkmeed mtnrsecum to cummu the project (Secdm 70a1, BOOM A Pmfcutons Ccic: The Cmo.rrs Limn. Law dues ort apply to sec owmen ofproseny, who builds or improve Ihrmn, ad who ... mace for such projects wide • merriment.) Ikonss, p..I to the Cmtruwf, Lkcme Law). I um tempt vola Shim ,Business®Prof duns Cde fm the following mumu.. Owner SiMme:.__ Oat.. WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hereby anion oder intensity .f*u y not athe folkwles dechmetwo: I hoc and w in mommin a omliette orerrml to mll-immor to W.AW,C'omprnulion, u provided for by Somme37DO of the Labor Cde, for the put.. aft wok for which this peril Is lasses. I hoe and will mahout. We,k . Compensation i.e., u m(otred by Section 37W of the Labor Cuk. for Ns palm., of 0s work fee which due writ u iuunl. My W mkers Co emmoos kn insuraue carie and Policy Number tee: POLICY NUMBER: we24709A37 COMPANY: WASRINr.TGN INT. INR. (This action mmol not h completd if nor pent is our one hundred doll or Due). I cavity the in six resomunce ofdee worts for wh a 1isiarud. I shall not employ my pensem in my mmm. we to baomttubjat t. the Wmtefs Compmudan Yva mic.11ifenla,md l agm low u become Object W Don WorkcfsCompaustim provisima of S�ian37M ufNe Labor Code, I eIWI RvNwlth comply Rodeos ey 1.m. 6F-'-•1 slptaolre WARNING: Felt 'secure Workers Compensation revenge it cehwful.ad IWI subjatmomployer to remind ptndtlo ad civil Mea up to one hudrd Nousmd MI= (SI00,000)Inaddd Otho con.fc.mpmutbtu damgns upervldd forin Sectic.D7001ofthe Labor Code. inkme ad alkmcy fans IMPORTANT: Applicdm Is hereby made Oft Building Omelet fora pumh Object I. Ne condition. ad lefmidom as front on Nis oneli Wian. Each pawn upon who. behalf Nie a rIketion e nude he eachpeteC ywhere4be andfor whoa benefnworkIsn secor ecederorpunumtto mypermitt 2 orde•mull Ad appliatimgrcn one to i upy or and bid humlrn de Ciry ofTumin iu olfnes, agab and empbym in vccatdarce with the Provisioru.(Chagn 2 order Uniform Adminkwive Cdo.l agm rl la occupy or allow oaupmey ofmy building audedrd by Nis worm. udl find tmpmltun hu been m and ho I «defy dot I be malow, ve red Ni�pllwkn ad nate that Ne above Inf.mmi.n is rlymmamply wide all City anu sa d Suws .).ties g ObulWg mmmor. d h uedrtby mthodu .(Na City on sense upon the abovemmtiomd mopmy to, impale. putpous. Slgnamn of Owner. Counxtor, or AuderiudA Dau 114— •••BUILDING. PERMITSARESUBJECTTO EXPIRATION IPWORK ISNOTCOMMENCEO WITHIN IN DAYSAFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR IN DAYS... 0 Tv� , POST THIS SIDE OUT AT JOB SITE '� CITY OFTUSTIN Communtly Dcvclopmcm Depsnmcnl - Building Division INSPECTION RECORD S,bM.Ic inmpcnion one mod Jar m advance. To mhedul. inmpmiop,. all (714) 93-7141. Pmuide the fulloxing infnrmminm I)Pamir suo,kr'-1job ml4ram .11 TNP of mmpxlhm 4) Day and dam y ri.d do..%Palin JOB ADDRESS: PERMIT NUMBER: "BUILDING PERMITS ARE SUBJECT TO EXPIRATION IF WORK IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS AFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR 100 DAYS - BUILDING INSPECTIONS COMMENTS FIXTURE COUNTS INSPECTOR DATE UNDERGROUND GAS PIPE UNDERGROUND SOIL PIPE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC d GROUND FOOTINGS S REINFORCEMENTS CONVENTIONAL SLAB POST TENSIONED SLAB MASONRY WALL FOOTINGS MASONRY PRE -GROUT ROOF NAIUNG ( O EXTERIOR SHEAR WALLS INTERIOR SHEAR WALLS ROUGH PLUMBING ROUGH MECHANICAL ROUGH ELECTRICAL ROUGH FRAMING ROUGH FIRE INSPECTION INSULATION EXTERIOR LATH DRYWALL SCRATCH COAT T -BAR CEILING GAS TEST GAS METER RELEASE ELECTRIC METER RELEASE FIRE DEPARTMENT FINAL PUBLIC WORKS FINAL PLANNING FINAL REROOF FINAL SIGN FINAL WATER SERVICE FINAL SEWER FINAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT FINAL ELECTRIC FINAL PLUMBING FINAL MECHANICAL FINAL ENERGY FINAL BLDG FINAL 6 OCCUPANCYAPPHVD POOL AND SPA INSPECTOR DATE EXCAVATIONSISETBACKS MAIN DRAIN REINFORCING STEEL 6 BONDING UNDERGROUND PLUMB UNDERGROUND GAB TEST UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PRE•PLASTER POOL FINAL NATURE OF WORK: T o� POST THIS SIDE OUT AT JOB SITE CITY OF TUSTIN G,mmunny DeCITY nl Depe US • Building Division Jr INSPECTION RECORD S Schdulc mrpcce1J a 14 II Imij mnsra lnhaMm,,l17,Mof tmryslm q) PaT 2m MItym n=dIM l"%N0lnImwnq mfnrmmm Ma PERMIT NUMBER: —BUILDING PERMITS ARE SUBJECT TO EXPIRATION IF WORK IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 18D DAYS AFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR 180 DAYS - BUILDING INSPECTIONS COMMENTS FIXTURE COUNTS INSPECTOR DATE , UNDERGROUND GAS PIPE UNOERGPOUND SOIL PIPE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 8 GROUND FOOTINGS A REINFORCEMENTS CONVENTIONAL SLAB POST TENSIONED SLAS MASONRY WALL FOOTINGS MASONRY PRE4RCUT ROOF NAILING EXTERIOR SHEAR WALLB INTERIOR SHEAR WALLS ROUGH PLUMBING ROUGH MECHANICAL ROUGH ELECTRICAL ROUGH FRAMING ROUGH FIRE INSPECTION INSULATION EXTERIOR LATH DRYWALL SCRATCH COAT T-SAR CMUNG GAS TEST GAS METER RELEASE ELECTRIC METER RELEASE FIRE DEPARTMENT FINAL PUBLIC WORKS FINAL PLANNING FINAL RERDDF FINAL If LIILI( SIGN FINAL WATER SERVICE FINAL SEWER FINAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT FINAL ELECTRIC FINAL PLUMBING FINAL MECHANICAL FINAL ENERGY FINAL SLOG FINAL A OCCUPANCYAPPRVD POOL AND SPA INSPECTOR DATE EXCAVATION&SEIBACKS MAIN DRAIN REINFORCING STEEL A BONDING UNDERGROUND PLUMB UNDERGROUND GAS TEST UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC PRE•PLABTER POOLFINAL NATURE OF WORK: CITY OF TUSTIN Community Devciop;mnt Department - Building Division CnnRmClian Perm11 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. CA 92780 Building Counter (714) 573-3111 or 573-3132 Inspection Recorder (714) 573-3141 ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 48137167 ADDRESS: 528 5 PACIFIC ST SUITE OR UNIT NO: LOT: TRACT: BLOCK: Cenw$ Tract Numnm: Redevelopment Area: P ss erty OwrMr: FAIRBANKS 5841 moa C ST TUSTIN,CA 92780 Alchh,tfEnglR.M: BERNARD ADAMS 714/636-0294 Contract.. DAN -LAND 480 BL419E 909/737-8858 CORONA CA 91719 JOB DESCRIPTION: REPLACE EXISTING MASONRY FIREPLACE Capupm., Gra,: Innwuial Saudis Fast 0 Occupant Load: Off.. So.... Fee, 0 Top. at Ctumm uctlon: W ... he... Be,.,. Fast. 0 R,IdonNl Sao.,. Fsa; 0 C-nw Sown Poet: 0 Number at Unna: 0 other Sawn. Fe-; 0 NANN, of grantee. 8 Reamext 9attpnq: Number aI Sacrament 0 Penang swa,: CSnhRoold sawn Fast 0 Accesable Parking: V.homn: a 9000.00 UBC Eddirm: 1941 FEE SUMMARY Pon Cheek: s 93.48 TSIP Zone A Fen: 9 0.00 Bugding Permet: 8 160.54 TSIP Zone s Fee: 5 0.00 EI,Nicd PanmR; 0 6- Of SMIP Fee: 9 0.90 Miathim l P-mb: 9 0.09 Mltntfil n Fee 0 1.00 Rua lnO North; 6 0.00 OCFD Fn: 6 0.00 Sign Nrmi; 9 8, ON RalorMable Bond: 0 6.00 Goolmg Nrml;S 0.00 gond Pnsa Far. 6 6.06 m . Rlae larva RomM 0 0.00 that. Fas: 9 0.00 Naw Devebfanam Tu; 0 B.NPamlty Fea: S 0.00 Total hes: 9 2E3.92 Pat" refuse RY: 3KS arlu 08/87/88 PERMITISI ISSUED AND PERMIT NUMBERISI SWAMI LICENSED CONTnACTOR6 DTCLARATION I hx-Y Ifma that I am. IumHd Counters, u -It the pmxfmn. al Christie S homme..Ing wpm gam..loom al mwden T of In. diameter S Par ...i dp no theN m Y (Items he Inrt. and e11ed License NYmme1: riJ Y. E3�'-7 L� ;came Clan. 4. CameW. glbMm: Da.: / DIVISION OF IN STRAL SAFETY PERMIT CERTIFICATION TN CNJOme HHIm and Safety Cape adults . dvinpm at indvgrul HIn, axm, H. xmdNlplt to alrmm atHml Ynhe Ve laps[.. algin of the Caltica-Yale.. I..oil, INI he unymmn 5 La err mon rrldepth, Amo wheh . Ham 1. ,..ad 1. art fc.no, war H mane m ta... drm wan work a phomm" be lee o mmpl, em INI moa brMdo g, .umxm. IHllaldng, bbFwOn, of ddmpllllnY in onmmlkn0 ax -1, ill be marl than 38 feet NDh OWNER.BUADMI DE"UVON I Nook, afhm that I am -.mo, from in. Comnemr'f ke game Law In the lVlbwmE rosea IUCp /031.6. business A Rolwuone Code Any City of County wmph move.- a palma In em.Yad, he, h ammi. d.mper m alar .my ellutl e., pax Ib 11[ IOrMn[e. Oho loans. In. apploolI, I., Cuch PYrmh n.lea . cbned x.onwne R.I he de one 1. It do Dunwna nme ,.Asia,, al ma Comma". Ueda- Law Ichow., B loon mdme won Semen 10001 PI onuumn 301 ant Ruxn-e t RObmmE Carel or net he Or the I. manor thnarern nb In. bash Ix the .U.Hd ,.Verde. Any vinwrm at Arthur 3031,Abym1.101danl fire• Prime .Imbnethe apNlHn, 1.• oW peon. al n- memo men try. funded r anm114on GO1. ❑ IH ownn allbprepmly, err mY ampbY.-rnlfmpudrhen ad. HmPen.mon. wrl Susan... me work and ma.mdlm. n ant Conan er onupe -* doy. y >Dee. Brun .. n Retirement1"A...Corp.: me bemoaxi. h,upends. Law tlna.....pdv 1. m ownn al Fepdi'Y he lured or.aA,.f 1Nr-n, and mnHIteumn well nlm,uf xn.r,ll x mmlabmn or h.rvwn ,mea . IC Pvuged Item ,Hct Impmvemenb sae nal ry him. or olferod for safe K ntyrumb IM building nIn. burden 01 WM within one Veere did mitdn.Ib Dynar,u um wM ... me bw-n of xfvinp ran he or one ere rot boon or imVrp.e lel PIrOP-e of fold r ❑ I,-awnx vllN pvwnV..m,duafvdyeme.dmp wan llnnn.d r aabmle- In mm"ama the for ISealm TOCe, },PTI,. A P rho'en. Cotler: ID.Cfnlr-Iwl4em-Uw doom, Hp,ylo.nownx of Popdih wN .to. .1 Imxewl rMem, and wap pour I., drum x mask, Vo h misraeto lx 1-nf. Purauent to me CmlraClar'd Lasmo Lewy ❑ 1.m,.am,, mrd s.ann ammwes A PmauOna Cade Ipr In. trading r-,mldi: owHm WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION 1 nx�apy gLrm lard H-IlY al enly ant al and hlerme deegsturm.. LJ 1 nrve .nn will mint'......'a tet. mol enol., or aAl-.... tx We're". ComHm.fm, sa amwend lar by 5.10. 3700.1 In. Ybol Code, Ix In. Ferfemanp. of be wmY Int winch 01. wree d I.fud. ❑ 1 have am re mamum WambM1 Compensation insurance. reduied by section TGG of the Labor code, lot in* Intolerance cr - IN. wark me winch this poster o wed. My Workermimvna $ Comaeebam FnCarrier Int Al nurmx a.: POLICY NUMBER' COMPANY: - SAnK nmol No. nes me be YMWIMdIle mmtn hr dr twWM.1... 111 hit ow Ven. ❑ 1 cn111V the, to be Hr10ral .1 itm work Ido Auto Ind Pamh red. I aNE nM employ any proton In say m.ner $o a. to became subnct m m. Walby, Compensation low$ dr Cna nla, and -b. that Il I should be..m. aubnn m the WalNh Dampen -urn pmwdrdm of Sscllm 310001 ma Labor Code, I,n%ell I Ill In cfmp,V with In-. brgovi ant. slmaurs // /lam D. e O An% �a w"Neop foR ori 1 ucuu Wprbr', Compan.xbn mvmbe ke uNewlW, and shall summer an fmolovn to enmxel pmahies and CIA Ix, up to are exrd.d thousand dollars IL 100,0001, A .ddPon m the coat of ampawati n. damages at provided fan in Sacum 37th of the Label Caw, ntla-1.ad etMmwy, boa. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY I hereby Whom that ,Md ed . construction tem." i gmcY here. wnm men, al In. ..,it far when tan proal awed 1Sunke. 3057 CIN, Caudill. LENDER'S NAME: ¢NOER'8 ADDRESS: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANO EMISSIONS STATEMENT FILED ❑ A.O.M.D. Ova. 17 Nor sewed T.UA D. Fere. pod V- ❑ NM ❑ IMPORTANT AnRe.om it Made made to the PYe1ng ofunel lot a Damn subject to In. cmp t and earepms tel room m IN. lPolRtllan. Each Damn uHn AmN behalf mil 1D01H014m it made and aaN Omm at wnwt normal and Ix whose beneln wmr it Darlamed Yodel O, our ... or 1. say Htmil.Wed al Y Wll el and last.. apt-. ID. IM.aR. YeemNIV and held nxavir lh t Or, at TuNn, ib affair,...Hens and amONye- pctcords--s AIR IM xn owaos of Chapter g or In. Uniform Admdaarrye toe. I .gild .1 to flavor or draw OC[.p.row .1 any bmil whore be his .. I, In .4 and .mb'NIIN .bow nlam.b building N Cana I tar, la eomNv who aA GIeV rund Staff Nm nlakl t la the Alumina candmm nti .m phollel ekes ompv, of the DIYtf anlu uppntN ebH. nronrbn.d DmPmv Idr meprttim pxw,e. SOMtw. of German. Cant lob err Autmnud Again. em0aAa nwnxmWea 1 ..It ml emOeV..vena10 40 emY ,hmh Hln a Hlmn horn the Omaha of lmusttiel gJaty. ea Mled3- .mya umas. sunt Far... has a pnmt bornm n meant. SIGNATURE amore Divilan at Im,t-1 let." Permit Number. IncamnmAm wilh Indent replaim,, dN City of 1 -din don Are diulim NkA mane Nm arm-, raid, notional mlgin, Ha or dial White. Ofrr¢ Condi, - Fill Pink AYdilae Detemind- Absorb, 0 CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department - Building Division INSPECTION RECORD (Post Conspicuously on Job) Schedule eupec6m ane Workday in Rdvanu. To ehedule inspections. cad (114) 573114 1. Provide the following mrmmaton. 1) Permit number I) lob address 3)Type or inspection 4) Day and date you need the inspcetioo. lob Md cru Nature of Wmk _ Pend) Numbarys), Building Ekanco CkAding gipr Plumbing M..lmlDo4alnenl Bt1IMM0 INSPECTIONS ORADINGMRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS MITER mspE ]ONS IYNfOnFIWCRCINn • / roo 1' a n An x uNwaoRaMo n ow...eunmAn a n. wRwwun -cmc• 4n sro Irn uvs i.17 -0 0, A • 00 NVFNININAL SV.n MXW DulX PV[uMES aG m v4AM nwausa a 'a s nu ANDMIICKA vxs IUIDsurrm.ANau nRECDPA4WN0 r01 P NAIUND f DAR DPA IIIInN rL D LI•ASMAIT aMXIVMFCIIMIxfA tMASPHALT MA,nW,.0 E n 'no! iMAt L..I.T YT4N iMA 1. An. naItjMA' NAlL IMAR .OvF.AL ICU AMMn ..'MAL 1 MBMO Isn,,Al MAL POOL43PA INSPECT10N5 n4L uPR PMA,AM MA oulu evo AL •NN nM'mN4 MAL 4fAltX nlMpMp 4r rrMAI MN IfiAi AnUSFWFIPMAI. PIE nrm 4 I .RAMI WF CLIRFR eNiIFIVALAIN6 BW.p ANCY { n AopLlDvcv P/Mr. OA/ / 3•(JO np LnNAL CORRECTION NOTICE CITY OF TUSTIN BUILDING DIVISION TEL. 714-573-3131 300 CENTENNIAL WAY or 714-573-3132 TUSTIN, CA 92780 Job Address: 52 O Pac� Permit Number: O SL / Post Correction Notice at bb Site notify Building Div. when corrections have been mode. 3DD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK/PERMIT APPLICATION 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Building Counter (714)573.3131 or 573.3132 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS SZo SUITE or UNIT NO. ASSFSSOWS PARCEL NUMBER LOT TRACT BLOCK__. - Property Owner (hMC,= �Atrt&wk, Addrese Ciry Siale.KA. Zip Plwne ArchileWEngincer Address I City 4aL4Q-"- Contractor Address _ Ciry -c-'�'d SlatceA Zip Phone state 01 Zip -11-119 Phone T 7 o Classification al Job Description RcFLice Ekr6+6..9 i'1,L4AoejAM4yill" 4" Proposed Use CunstmcuoNlob Valuation 9000= Occupancy Group Occupant Load Type of Consinrcliun Residential Square Feet Number of Units Number of Stories Number of Bedrooms Commercial Square Feet SIGNATURE Industrial Square Feet Office Square Feel R 1p D Square Feel Garage Square Feet Other Square Feet Restaurant Scaling Parking Spaces Arxossible Parking S1:/tee DATE VALIDATION BY CASBIER(DATE RECEIVED Y./0o ��� (�V( �ur�D M1cG,� /• Du In mieph.. wrh Fcdcndggabnwr.W. naft.1 anNn etc or dhcarhy. a L� Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 August 2, 2000 714.573.3100 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 520 PACIFIC STREET A C -RATED STRUCTURE In accordance with Ordinance No. 1001 which was adopted June 20, 1988 by the Tustin City Council, the Community Development Director has the authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny Certificates of Appropriateness for improvements requiring a City building permit for property located within a Cultural Resource District. The proposed project includes replacement of an existing red brick chimney at the south side of the house for structural stability. The structure is a "C -rated" California Bungalow structure per the Tustin Historical Resources Survey. The Community Development Department finds and determines as follows: A. The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of the District or Designated Cultural Resources within the District in that the new chimnev will be finished with the same red brick and at the B. The proposed work is harmonious with existing surroundings in that the proposed chimney is consistent with the style of the existing house. The proposed work is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: Prior to the start of any work, the applicant shall obtain a building permit and pay all applicable plan check and permit fees. 2. Any replacement or repair of any existing features surrounding the chimney shall match the existing materials, finish and colors of the existing structure. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director -1 01 esand it i- nj;j�e any Changes 13 11 or 0! ANY City AUG 0 L2000 '(:& CITY OF TUSTIN Cnmmunlly Ikvcln4m nt Ikplulmcnl - Building Dividon Cnnetmctlnn Pernlil 300 Centennial Wq, Tustin, CA 92750 Building Counter (714) 571.3111 or 571-3112 Intpectinn RccordeF(714) 571.1141 ANE•OR'S PARCEL NUMBER- N1371Q ADDRESS: 6 PACIFIC4BT SUITE OR UNIT 7R5� LOT: TRACT: BLOCK Chem TIM Namba Rledevebp.enl AAIB Property, Owns: 71IIIANS 35 S.-D-emw P4w.- TI6TIgy Cf 927N L701 714/ AlWbcvEllPMeFr: Corholklow DSO/NILDER JOB ONCRSTgN: —_ pR1CT M MICU IN71PiSP055 O[cawle[y Drwin: 13 IMwtrial Soar. Feet : OboerA Leet: g ClIke Sown Net • Ty,M el Ch.INolbn: W.rehaaye Spee Net: • m , wIInI� Neu I IiwFM Sider, FMt: ; i Other Saw. Fnt: _ of 84awM.: • Seetre: • N�,ber N • Pekin Spoon biting o CbiewcW •poll Fnl: • Attoekb Nrkihp. VAelfon: a tAw�yjL UBC Edkkm BM �E).JT¢fiRY Peen Ch I Shy bred: V LN T51P 2a. ANe: 1 LN 4a11oN M1rn,IU 1 L N TSIP ZoM S Ne; I •.N AleNwroRl Mme: 1 1. ••SMTP Fee: 1 LN Ph -6101 Phyne:Klein • LbE Afcrafft Fee: L]TL • LN 1M,e,R: 1 99. OCFn N.: I LM R•IaMee4 Blvd: Dehim, Fe"'hRI Mere lrnproo. Fem,N: 1 •. Sed NMee Ne: • LN M4.. Fee: ! 1 7.N 1.M Neth D ..khe.nt The; 1 LNFeMby Fee: i •.N • 1.N Tay, Few: • 99.37 Ferree, N.,w the: Dew N/2GIN PEAWISI ISSUED AND PERMIT NUMBERISI 4N-1=2 I h•rWy.Nr,n IM,NI M . {cer.ddCedrela U he, the p,orbmn. m henth 4MF B Ire. kn 70001 01 Obbnn 0 Or the CaOe � tywy : my, k. N If Not I... end ofik, lk•n. 0...: fanbMM low.: OIy,1110te M SS7USl1Rl1L SlF[TY MMT CERTIFICATION Tlr. CdlwNe 1 e, W NIeW CoM reply. I Wvl.nn of nernom IaY Pemll he le ewypYNy to pro" ne a.. uNey. the ewk.rh N 1M wINIMIr bYew. LJ IevaY Neel rn eeuryt1pn 51M wmyeMWpM.M. eller, PMMNI"dtd. kped Mt N M M1r44Com.Inn WIIn hqe eoaeMal a rk, oyrml,, elk A.1 M ark" '.M. Id m>e dMe the IMI Wk, a dwneY110n w a.mymbp IM.pI, urn M OWN[RMrIlO[A SEeLAlATION I Mnby [Ilam In., I lem ...rept Iron IM Cork..... Ucel.e Aw Ie M. lonaw:N rutin 11.0:on 7011,5. Vann. E Net ... rm. Cede: Any Chy of Coaly," Ichr.rNr. MhyVI le[M.rMet,.Ma,bp•W, INMWII.w r.W •rtI .vuduu, Prmr m :n amas...Mp,puke IM holik[nt I...h w"to la[ ..Ipr,y.41•m.n11M1n M w.M b Ikw. "Uhhh, to In. MU.iawy of t1. Con1.[Ito" Ucm. Lew ICIUMer S toornrhenor,p aid Shotbn 7" Of alvbbn ] of the Ilu[NN. A Nafn[M• [UNI w ded M w WI lieryorth Ibw.lrom.M IM1e bee for the .l.Pyd.y.:nalr, A,ar C, Ihol 7011 5 by .1, 1w. Mrorl Woho a the leM hoop to a [M p ... by el Fee,.Ly.l.o.dUUJll Men, r.rdhd deb.ob00.pM. ceMoen.etbn, wNl do the work UN, U .ed hot1 deM.iyal«W I. .:WSOnion Bodin...4, Iw.... S N.4.Yord Cello the CMdrotwe'1 Whree :.w &I'MI'W' N m ewM( N wo.wty urn. bulk, w UyNhNI i,NUN Fed wM Opry.u<r, wwY Mmll uorn..eNw INNUIh M. w W.. e.*,, pmrld.d the, .dCh U br...oen. IN MI Iod.the w albred lw n4. M, h.,..'. 1M bdedrd er i:.rwym.ntU loll CMhN w Yew olrah,pb(mn, IM wMr Wider -1 here IM burden el wimp IMt M or •M Old her bald of rrow.,l. for pu..nd of heel E3LrW aNr of lid Chilleo r.FyMly[m•[K bp wMarva"" ith Mra cetle: ConvntoIp epnn.cl the eoleet (Sect. 7014, W Wu i NOIL.kN Tn. cMu•nw•. u[enM t.w hold Cho .I . r dlon W.y MMrwM ewde IC impr.vn PU". .to he [wl.ct. ra .IrNr w.pON elle e cenbRtortel Ycmn pur.mM to the Cwxredw•. LkenM 4w1. ❑ 11. li.-Nol aide S.ncn Sed, 14 flol..eko. Codp for ae IMotrnp r.eo w _ -­ 0 , Sip.. Msf__V wmrE '"04w "Them ft=""N.: I M elI he,. e antler Mn.lit Mr Cl mere et tM f.,1 ytlw.lien.: I Mv..M e' orbyk•ty., cwne,l to Mpi,.we I. Wa:1erY Cpnpen.eiihe lowovad Iw bY,hello, 0e a dof ed. Miller Code, ph tM pntwmmn 01 IM wort I. wycp aye prep 4 Y.utl. ❑ 1 berry Md -1 merrt.n Ww[My Cwpwrrdwt Irnv.nCe..e likuked by n.,tnn 3700 N IM Lebw Code. I. they prlormnra M the wNY I. whr[I, tA. Mrmp 4 dWed. My wwYw'e Comprh.uh, Fewwh. e[nuv •red pM+y nwrow ay; t'aIICY NUNSEp; nla •w-.Im wvr ml by CwmMMitIM- IS III mew.." Ir 1. ❑ 1 MmN IN, Ul the pead,oUl e, N aha work I. hfhikh tel. pwmn I. luu•d, 1 rMP hill .mp4Y my, M.M n e1Y mplrw .1.1. ory. UWNw 1.1. W.I... C.IIpn{•Inn 4w..11JRnr{, .rid ethey deet ii I Mould M[ome {abed to the Work... choloehietM wolloth a el sechnn 77M 01 the Lel., Code. I eM1e IorMwk, col py, whh Oepe pe ey plw.wr.: NAIV/la. Fe41. to Bowe W~. CMglelbn [.were...Or uL WW. :N Me. eubiyn •n empbyer Ip nlnhYhN pe.Illr elhk [wy pyye tq. pM ,u,a.d M.wmd del.,. IIl00.OWH, n.ddhlon to t. cMl 01 umpn..l4n Mmya.• .. werNM In r, sy[don nm e1 the, IYIn Cede. ,ur.uM .IwMr!ye•. CONSTIRIC ANOMD AOINCY 1 helyby yllrm Me their, b. CCNUN Non lerhde b ePrer In to "N'lexno N IM —k Iw wNL'h Nur Mand 4 bred IHetlen 30{> Irl Code). ENOER's NAL : ENDIA'S ADDRESS: �— HAZARDOUS W TFM4A AAO u RMRoNK STATE RAW j ❑A.O. M. D. D.,c O D.C.F.D. a..: L3 Nor 1•1W.d U.S.U. N.. pea n. ❑ NIA ❑ Nn7pTANT .Munn 4 belie, mode 1 the Burd, orke, 1. • yemil .ubjef, to IM Neek"{ meth.•trkeon. ea loan mer the. •ppre.IM. Leon Mrp, Upon r bell'" MN looeeknbn i1 -41M ..Ch wean.1 rrhocy ready., end r wMre ben11i1 work i1 ohrooled d'Iae w ouywnt 10 •Fey wm,l Wwd n .,ah of tNuoplimor •Prone,.M.Me, rr4mylY r0 hoNhwar. Phe :Y of TUIUn, he ollke...paid. lend enWYN. N ncweyM. em, IM owmn{ of CMPin 2.1 the UNlorm AM:i:binlin Codi. pre nol le occupy or .Pew Iy., V Of i nY bWMp wrtn.k•d W Ove Irl --d"..: YCNh.PwwNn•1Men.CNwd. IceltNY M.tI Mreretl .PMCApw ohl IN, IM Wwn Ww,..4 cw•C4 I qr tp mp1Y WIli A Dl Id sea lye, rN.Nq m IM buloinp cru.clbn. W 'ICY Whe .p1nln.IN.1 al the QN IP 1M.Ppwl ,he lector• hhnMe,, Perry Id, IN, efoo Pwpon•. Iw. A lhWed Awnt. Y a•Irel/reA4r 1 we MI ymplpY .nYme Ie M we. wNch reaeere • eernA Fan fid behol, N. hy,NN •s.e'Piler 4NII, etlew, h.e a PyrmN I ye: IMI dMlbh. reeMN drlylln N KMY M.W Fina Nwbl; NANRR OATC be eaMlpv wbh FdeJ.ylri.e bee chy FT"in dome the dx7.dhCtmIle bpd. Nle.,, wI.,IwiaW Mp0.heir . dhol will. -W. Cwery- Poryink Milk •AWllor ColdewOd. ANawr CITY OF'!'USTIN CommwJly Develapmenl Depetngm . BWldln` p)P14)on INSPECTION RECORD (Pog ConPP)oanapy on fab) SOW'LW imPwuon am wwkday in idvnme. 'fo chadule intpemlonr, ad (714) 773-3141. ProriL nr Ulamns Infamumn: 1) Pm ll number 3) Job &Wt., 3)Ty, of inlPWWII 4) L),.W yln yqr g� ntl Impr�gog, Jab Abtr N.wrof Work P. N.M.yr): -- —__ owmial B __ NMuvnl Ekaw e --- Pluabnk a.&a o ----�--- hinle ln'PruwM PI APPLICATION FOR ELECTRICAL PERMIT :V Pi Ica.PI I YI I v! I u I IN!'.IIAUI Il Atli A IINI Y II111 1.1 0. II , r '1 1 1'11111 I pill Im II I III II ql PAIN 1 k.1:'.gi. I !,IJii!.I ANOI I CITY OF U .U'VLIf.ANI'FII I. IN iMIS RIIA1BO A HEA _ ONLV -PILL INCOMPLEI'LLY T/—rT'..:01. q 1E,'1 �1 ,/f !�''I�f� L/ .J I 6 DESCRIPTION OFWOIIC Pl G2 oJifelL 5cc�aw CC t lI 1f 41. � .?s26�yy I1T }Yn Irnrin - 1 rrnY .r •r:nu! . . ' . nyrr 1pn .nY :�.. rub •'yil x«uL N:I Ia rLY wurlur Inrn.xurluu r nnrtr rn:l mr'Nn r r Ie:.Irl:xy.un.Ye.xwr.uw.11.I1W 1:xr:wrl:IxY wnY rgrN.n :. 'rn i.. Y: nr .nr rn.rM rrr.nwuN l 1 1 4Y IINII . rlrnr'Y +r IY r"rl 1 I r.l.wl.... r r:u irxrx .rlrJr'Yrn....x lY I IF'11 I Y..1' =1070115 R MI St. `N.P _ •••• � ••�• •. •.••. ... _/ �Y __ I ...... .. .. �.... •. 1� -• li ....__.�..� APPLICATION FOR OUILDING PERMIT 11 114 SHACEI, A PEA Of I, V 4 EL'. t i,i OR r, rp.f; tiOt, CITY Of j. TTUSTIN -PrWIM I APPi.irA-N7F FILL. 7N7;115 SHADED AREA ONLYFILL IN COMPLETELY C74 5 iPPMe, A TdL NO. NEL 'ITY LLIC NV "It WOAK To RE NS-tf I.. e -XT ,T. �NGW Ano .).LTE. h. A L70A T , APPROVAL DATE 45P CT ,A .. ........ . rPPIOV 11c Z C... omm.n ]mw., P. 14AV %G a ST . PL. .... a F", 1 —IT— v 0 116� 0 0 d !:,, I - hL7 --,7,7 2 APPUCA'TION FOR PLUMBING PERMIT rq'I '.nNI I'I I A',' III I I'1!:I In L• II ,1 .44. ! r. •I IP UI 11011 ptNI.11 • hM ! 1'I1N11 1'I !Y 41111 E NUN I IW ANI 16111CiIAN!;1 I Elly OF II IN PUC.ANI' KII L IN MIS SHAMI, AREA `�( UNLLY�ILLL IN CI M'LI TELY . ...L.aJJ 4E•'� �. KP Ger�.en -�uy 1 I (A ••i I�r..... Leel r I' IN .1 ,, "7kSTiiU L �p C4mc 7 Tsly , 1 71 JII � UI.N I r.I 111•{li 1 Nn :u rl i I:I _._ ... 1 •` .. I'. "" WNren XErT«w • '� "" WNTR KURTFNF Re 1 LWN eMFINY.LLflO MES. fJ CfM A. t N+V 111 : n _ TNMLiR XUgK-0I! SEWER CONNECTION APPLICATION AND PERMIT IARfA DsO Oy MIN!—SIN41a 9W149111/I CITY OF TUSTIN - US W. Third 51, Tustin. GIlfmnlr APPLICATIOw Ta 6e wmpinlyd by owner.m agent aid submitted in quiet / IupScala wltil reyuired loos and plum_ ne .verse setsAppliranl. C54, -1f -r %. C=t ✓4,ggp . hereby requests IM tnllowing [mmNFaels] In City's •.worar a farilitias: L ... firm Lel Nos. Stu Type (Sae reverse side for im+ruefioesl Ic— /i fd.... 4.. To...— --�-- (00C • 114 -1 1, 4.r for rx. 7. in Tract Na. .... ...._ ... ...Tafel loh ._ If mmms:inl m industdd property, total acreage served_...._ ..... _. _. Tim waste to be discharged to City's sewerage facilities, n1har than purely domadfe sewage will have the following 5'll..11 charaelorist6-s ns to esfimated quanfiVen, time ,f pock discharge and o.indpal source or sources: In meling Ili, ,mplicetion, applicant acknowledges the, any preen bawd .;It consfilufa a confra.f. V accepted t: applicant,, .,I ,..y . an ..ad by civil action at law and/or iyundion. Data; 61m 7L mc: PERMIT Far Connection to City Sewmege Facilities and ter Discharge of Densesfie Sewage Only permission to combust comeclionlsl to the cowerage facilities of the C!is hereby granted to applicant providing such mm@rflmlal is made in ncerodance with plans and specificeiions hers6y eppmvad• ad attached burst.;; further providing that nquasl for Impe,ion roust be given to the Tulin City Hell 154448301 of lead 34 hours prior le fhe cammm,Orq of any combustion work. : This ppeermit also gives the applicant permission to discharge only ppuurely dom eiic sewage through the toes rrc cols Fmemebova eutho/oed into the swa,sq. system al the City. Ths discharge of any i�w}del or commer• tial wosfa 6 not Authorised without a further end sapamto permit from the City. P.oceipt of required fees and charges as specified by Orance Cmmfy 5aniletien"Disfdd No. 7, Ordinance No. 705' is hereby ask I ed. .... .....__ .. Uafe:..Pt� 7/, T^I, . _ .__.. _.. . .... _._ CITY OF STIN ,^� co r Amount Paid S "7T'c/� ._ .. By..f/LJG�-W Aft CITY OF TUSTIN Continually Development Department— Building Division 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 1W Building Counter (714) 573-3131— Inspection Recorder (714) 573-3141 BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER.BM-0499 ADDRESS: 520 PACIFIC ST TUST SUITE ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 401-371-07 SUITE NUMBER...: LOT NUMBER .............. ........... ..... : TRACT NUMBER: DEVELOPMENT AREA ................: TUSTIN ISSUED BY............: DATE ISSUED......: PROPERTY OWNER........_._........: LOUIS METRO INTER RE PROP EAT 1091 WINDSOR LN TUS77N CA92780-4329 CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT A-1 ALL AMERICAN ROOFING 1824 E. CARNEGIE AVE. SANTA ANA, CA92705 (949)250.1221 JOB DESCRIPTION: T/O RF, REP W/ 25 YR OAF, 30# FELT, 3.5# -REAR O.CF.A. Number.........: OCCUPANT LOAD: 0 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE.: RESIDENTIAL SQ.FT: 0 COMMERCIAL SQ FT: 0 INDUSTRIAL SQ FT: 0 GARAGE SQ FT: 0 OFFICE SQ FT: 0 WAREHOUSE SQ FT: 0 ROOF SQ FT: 0 TENANT IMPR. SQ FT: 0 OTHER SQ. FT: 0 NUMBER OF UNITS: I NUMBER OF STORIES: 0 UBC EDITION: 1997 NUMBER OF SEATS: 0 VALUATION...: SO.00 BUILDER VALUATION: 50.00 PLAN CHECK $0.00 FEE CI BUILDING PERMIT: IMMARY $0.00 MECH PERMIT: $0.00 PLUMBING PERMIT: SO.DO ELEC PERMIT: 50.00 SIGN PERMIT: $0.00 GRADING PERMIT: $0.00 PRIVATE IMPR: $0,00 NEW DEV. TAX: $0.00 TSH' ZONE A FEE: 50.00 TSIP ZONE B FEE: 50.00 SMTP FEE: $0.00 MICROFILM FEE: 50.00 OCFA FEE: SO.O() PENALTY FEE.: SO.00 REFUNDABLE BOND: 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS: 50,00 TOTAL FEES: $0.00 LICENSED CONTRACTOR DECLARATION: I hereby affirm dant i un • Ilamsel Contractor under the provisions afah.pler 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Div don 3 ofthe Busimsa & Professions Code, and my license Is in PoII form W Coat LICENSE NUMBER 671932 LICENSE CLASS: C39 HIC Expires DATE:05/31/I003 OWNER BUILDER DECLARATION: 1 hereby affirm that 1 em exanpt from the Connectors License law for We following consent (Section 7031.5, Business Profession, Cade: Any City or county which requires a permit to comuuct, than, improve, demolish, or repair my struclme, prim to Its usumm, also requires the applicant fm such permit to file a signed statement that he at she is limned p . . . I to the provision. of the Contrmtar. Lt. Law (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) arGivlsim 3 of the Business At Prafessioon code] or that he at aha is exempt Neefrom.M the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation ofSectien 7031.5 by my spplicam for s permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty ofnet mom than five hundred dollars (I5woo). I as owner ofthe property, army employees with wage as their sole compensation, will do the wart and the souctue I. not intended or offered fm sale (Section 7044, Business A Professions Code: the Contractor. License law doe con apply to an owner ofproperty who builds or improves therem, and who does such work himseifor henelfar through his or hon own employee, Providd that such improvements are num intended mof sacd Are We. If, however, the building or Improvement is sold within one year of completion, the awns -builder unit have the burden ofpmving that he or she did not build or improve forpurpoaa watts). 1, u ownaafthe property, Nn exclusively contracting with licensed contractor ha construct the project (Section 7044, Business & Profealaas Code: The Com mines License Law does ocl apply to an ownerofpmperty who builds or improve themon,end who contracts for such projects withseo =to,(.) liernsepunoant to the Cannanore. License Law). I as, exempt under Section_ Bacenes; A Pmfeesiona Code fm the following rason(s): 1 hereby air= under penalty ofperjury ora or the following decimations: 1 have and will assistant t • cconsentificate of consent In elf insue for Worker, Compensation, as provided fm by Salton mm 3700 of the Labor Cade, for the perfamtofthe work fes which this permit is issued. I have and will maintain Workers Compensation in nounm, u required by Seton 3700 ofthe Labor Cede, for she perfomtwae or the work far which this permit is issued. My Worker, Compensation insurance curler and Policy Number sac: POLICY NUMBER: wd47959437 COMPANY: WASHINGTON INT. INS. o become subject to the Workds arrive Labor Code, l shall forthwith comply -% the cast ofcompenation, damages as provided for in Sedco (3700) of the labor Code, interest and attorney fen. Appliusdon is hereby rode to the Building Official for a permit subject to the conditions W mtrictlam act forth on this application. Each person upon whoa behalfthis application is made and each person u whom request and fm whom benefit work Is perfomad under orpunuml to my permit issues u a wall ofthis application agree, to, and shall, indemnify and hold launches, the City ofTurtin, its oRma, agents and employees in accordance with the provisions ofChmur 7 ofthe Uniform Administrative Code I agree nm to occupy or allow occupancy army building authorized by this permit until final inspection has been received. I certify that 1 have red this 9pliution and state tht the shove information is correct l agrm m comply with all City W Sam, laws relating coda building coontrudon, W bet authdm ve ofthe City to mar upon the above mentioned property fin impcctime pm,mm. O / Signature oDINGP PERMContracITS ARE AuthoriSURRI T Due ••• BUILDING PERMI7S ARESUBJECf TO E% TION IF WORK IS NOT COMMENCED WTTHD4 IN DAYS AFTER DATE OF ISSUANCE OR IF WORK IS SUSPENDED FOR IN DAYS... CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department - Building Division Construction Permit 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Building Counter (714) 573-3131 or 573-3132 Inspection Recorder (714) 573.3141 ASSESOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 40137107 ADDRESS: 526 S PACIFIC ST SUITE OR UNIT NO: LOT: TRACT: BLOCK: Census Tract Number: Redevelopment Area: Property Owner: FAIRBAOKS 500 S C ST TUSTIOr CA 92780 Archin ctlEnTr acv BERNARD ADAMS 714/636-6294 Contractor: OAK -LAND 4150 BLAINE 909/737-8850 CORONA CA 91719 JOB DESCRIPTION: REPLACE EXISTING MASONRY FIREPLACE Occupancy Group: Industrial Sgl.rs Feet: B Occupant Load: Office Square Feet: 0 Type of Construction: Warehoues Square Fast: 0 Residential Square Fast: 0 Garage Square Feet: 0 Number of Unite B Other Square Feet: 0 Number of Storks: 0 Restaurant Seating: Number of Bedrooms'. 0 Parking Spaces: COIArtwrdlsl Squat Fast: 0 Accessible Parking: Veluatil F 9000.00 UBC Edition: 1994 FEE SUMMARY flan Check: 0 93.40 TSIP Zane A Fee: S 0.00 Building Permit: 0 160.54 TSIP Zone B Far: S 0.00 Electrical Pomft • 11- SMIP Fee: 9 0.90 Mechanical Permit: III I. Mi ... 10. Fee: 5 1.00 Plumbing Permit: 0 8.00 OCFD Fee: S 0.00 Sign P@rn t: B 0.06 Refundable Bond: S 0.00 Grading Permit: S 0.00 Bond Prones Fee; S 0.00 Private Improve. Is 1 6 0.00 Min. Fee: 9 0.00 New Development Tax: S 0.00 PeneltY Far: S 0, 00 Total Fees: 9 263.92 Permit Issued By: INS ca.: WYE) 08 PERIV ISI ISSUED AND PERMIT NUMBERS) 11111111l LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION I herby alafm that I am t II..nesd Contractor under Cha prowdom of crap., B Ioommencin, with Section 700d1 of Division 3 01 the Budnn B PmbnbyJrotly Aid m`'y Ilcone is in IWI faro and allot. UP.... Number: .j'A. tl S � _ — Liana. C.n: Q. Carhop's ShOrnun D.fe: IC/.. Ih MVIBION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PERMIT CERTIRGTON The CHilomis Health and Safety Cotluequirss a dwskn of industrial esfet,'mdt as • prerequMte to permit Issu.Or Imlees Me eqpkcant signs of the ra intoe beiow. I ceorly that nn ....wi S last W mere indeplh, Int. which a person k reau'sed to Peesend. will to made in Connection arm work sull"i by this Permit. and that no building, structure, acsMalding, blsewad, or demolition or dismantling thereof, wlll b mos than 311 fan high. OWNER -BUILDER DECLARATION I hash, affirm that I @m ....of from eM C.mn.W.". Ueanse Law for the following rxeson ISacVon?WT .5. Bualneea B Pmf Aslan Cade: Any Of, or County which requires. permit ro construct. altar, Improve, dinar or repair any MOUstufa, p"m to It. Innum b; N. .We. the applicant for such permit le 1p ... Is arl atatemantdnst he or ane s flows., ani to Iha PravoAcho of the Crmtncmr's Ucanu Law IChepbr 9lcommeming with Section 70001 at Division 3 of the Business B Preessions 1 or that he or she is exempt thnefrom and IN bash to The alleged exemption. Any violation of Secilon 7031.5 by any.PPl IWI for • permit autI.. the applicant. a Two Pensny of net mama that five hundred doll ... ILS00.001. ❑ I.a.m flh.,ril ty,.....mplenes with..,,a es Nei.ole comomn.n. will do the work and the Nuctwe Is stat Intended or offend IT H ols.com 7044, Business B Professions Code: the Contraotors's License Lew aloe. not apply to W, no, of property who builds or improvn thereon, and who don such work himself whi or through his or herown empbyeae, Provitl i that such improvements are not intended or offered for sds. If, mace ,the bu'dnng .improvement., rold wit No one yssr of camplalmn. me mr.builnr villi Mve ins burden of Moving met he n she did .1 build or .prove for purposes PI sell ❑ I,.1 owner of the Ancroxi smeaclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the Protect IS.Ilo n 7044, Burni B Profsssiens Coda: The [.mater's U ianaelaw don not epplyto W owner of prapnty who build. or Improyn th@roh'...it who minhei far such propck with s .OIMtortd loans. pursuant to iha Coniragpr's been.. U.J. ❑ 1 am enmM under Section Business B Prolessions Code for the fallowing fesannlU: Owner Slgntme. Date: WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION 1 Iran ."am under penalty of peri one of the following declssi I haws and will maintain a conditions of consent to self -insure IM Wri Compensation, as provided lar by Section 37M a1 the Labor COM, lot its Womsnce of the walk for which this Permit Is saved. ❑ 1 have arra will maintain Work.,'. Cmmpenssfill. into rsn... as .puked by Section 3700 01 the Labor Code, for the part....... of the walk for wbbh This "mi s Issued. My Worker'. Cimomma don Inswsne carrier and policy Immber a.: n POLICY NUMBER: COMPANY: SI -/14c 57,vi This sanbn M. no As canpleed 11 rile pmmh Is Tor W hsmxe pollen le 100) of knl. ❑ 1 certify that in the Pedomance of Th. work for witch that permit is Issued. I shop not employ any person In airy manner sW, as to become subject to the Wader's Compensation laws of California, and save@ that It I should boom., @ubHct to the Walker's ComPennlon downturns of Section 3700 Si9i l M. Lobar Cotl4 s/at II 1 nhwifh comply with Than pQmvvi ons. gr� WARMNO: F.�o secure work.'. C."... Plan ..'shows s udawlW, en, and, sublatl an employer to crimbd penalties and dnl lines UP to one hundred thousand do11W. 14100,0001, in addition id the cost of comp.m.tl.n, damage. as provided Ior On Section 3700 of the LRMr Code, Interest and attorney lees. CONSTRUCTION LENDING AGENCY 1 hereby dorm that then s • ...asst or lending ap i lar the Performance o1 the work fail arli this game, is issued (Straub. 3097 Civil Codel. LENDER'S NAME. LENDER'S ADDRESS: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND EMISSIONS STATEMENT HUD ❑AO.M.O. Dotal ❑O.C, F.D. Dell. [3 Net squired T-U.S.O. Fen Ped vee ❑ NIA ❑ p.IPoRTANT Application is history made to iha Swilding Offloial lot a perm" &ublact to the conditions end hisholitns at unit on IN. Walbalion. Each person upon whi behalf this application Is made and each Person at whose request and Ior whose benefit walk is pedmm Under Mpusuont to enY nrMt sue des a result of Ms applbi erg.... P. andshall, IMe ormly and hard harmles. the City of Tustin, Ito ri onto and Wri... 4. In Wuladance with the Provkimu of Chapin g of the Uniform Adeamol llve code. I agree act to OCCUPY or Allow occupancy of any building authorized by this Permit units final inspection approval has been ucaiwed. I certify that I Nva read this applknbn and Con that the Ridge Inlammlan s correct. I agree to comply with Re City and State laws rnit'rOg to the building construction, and hnabysuiMdn representatives of the City to atter upon pee above m rmbrsd property lar mspocaon Pompous. As mwnerfbdlder I will not employ anyone to da wart wherh wool suln • pmmh from the Owssum of IMuatrhl Sala., n..,ad &have union such person he. a permit from that division. SIGNATURE Wore Division of Industrial Belly Parrot Rumor: In mmplimmwith Fedml.gulalimd, do iIy of'ludin dao not dammunde cat the buffs of.., mum, nstlmul migin, age or disahil"y. While -ORia Canary- Permian Pink - Auditor Goldnrad -AMWi CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department - Building Division INSPECTION RECORD (Pon Conspicuously on Job) Schedule inspectian one wmkday in advance. To schedule inspxnons, ed (714) 573.3141. Provide the following infatmatm: 1) Pemtit number 2) Jab address 3)Typc of inspecdon 4) Day and date you need the inspection. Jab Addrt NRbaa of WNk P.Nt NINIbLn(s): Building B Wd nlcl Elcaria OrWisg Sign Plumbing G PdvaM Mpovcmmt BUILDING INSPECTIONS ORADINOMRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS OTHER INSPECTIONS vRBNoeMREm+c DA"NABrANC11Mc / OQ {• IA aN i. nYEENf.a I aaOIXNa GMa1Na CERTIIGTF I a I aha M-..CXND v s ^ p AtT V� I'II•i301 tanxosa .00 NVEMWNAL EIAB LIa0.MiNlA1N p11LLME! roar aroxm wuL onmras AL ala Am w w WALK. AU ALK.W eAG[Pal v LaGM. DUREBSM3 MRasCAPE TW'aRR mRErRAagmc Lor A. NAnNo A.IEaATS eASE aaAOE MXCH FUMBNO ml Lvr Asrxu.T W IINALGMa1Na 1 WN ERE NS =w MAL K IVRgaaT V=AJORLAWmFRIW LiN WNANINA PRIVATE 1 M PP. BLOCEL A'a w E A IN- POOLSISPAINSPECTIONS EKCAVAPQ FlPBDEPT.FNAL MAN n IN AIB CW0"$ ..LL W6N Na ."Pw LMMNa ENAL R=W?UN91Na R 1 MAL dmNaAL A�FWTXPNAL %IE DECK SMMR LR6PIALItR ELI cMERR BM0.1i15/NwLMS I LFMAL House constructed Certificate of Completion Issued Adoption of 1927 UBC 1927 1927 City Incorporation 1927 UBC adopted by State Ord. 71 Ord. 310 1940 UBC New ZoningZoning Code Owner requested a Adopted Code Adopted ni drebuild letter Update 1'142 1947 pat 21 M 66 1938-1942 1945-1950 1961 1989 Unit above Unit behind Zoning Code Ord. 1013 garage was garage was Updated Zoning Code built built Ord. 157 Update CORRECTION NOTICE CITY OF TUSTIN BUILDING DIVISION TEL. 714-573-3131 300 CENTENNIAL WAY or 714-573-3132 TUSTIN, CA 92780 Job Address: S2 O &�- Permit Number: O SL / Post Correction Notice of Job Site notify Building Div. when corrections have been 20D— COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN CHECK/PERMIT APPLICATION 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Building Counter (714)573-3131 or 573-3132 PROJECT STREET ADDRESS S'Z.0 Poe- L Fit, SUITE or UNIT NO. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER LOT TRACT BLOCK Census Tract Number Property Owner NA1Lk rAlrt& k4 Address—_— City -In g4e ra State e*L Zip Phone Address1271.3 lspn ILBuasr City _f7IVJ11evG - sumeA Zip Phone Contractor (nilt' - C! Address 46u Iea�uL e City f&R-aNA Store-S'L_ Zip 1-7/) Phone Controetor's License No. 57 -.q, -3-;a Classification (� 1 Job Description RtFLAce Ek Ii L;!9 YIV1AnN13wj V(111 n.r Proposed Use Construction/lob Valuation ° CO02 Occupancy Group O=pwu Load Type of Construction Residential Square Feet Number of Units Number or Stories Number of Bedrooms Commercial Square Feet SIGNATURE Industrial Square Feet Office Square Fal R A D Square Feet Gamge Square Feet Other Square Feet Restaurant Seafing Parking Spates Amssible Parking 8/Z/,.o DATE VALEDATION BY CASHIERJDATE RECEIVED 600 -(/`'Y" l �U�LD Ste/ s in corn➢Uamv wrh Frdanl RaaWanont. rM 01y n/Tumn dw nae dlxrimmaH on rM Gana afran, eobr, nanond M'Im agr n+tllxGiliry. G�Tv .�® S Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 August 2, 2000 714.573.3100 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 520 PACIFIC STREET A C -RATED STRUCTURE In accordance with Ordinance No. 1001 which was adopted June 20, 1988 by the Tustin City Council, the Community Development Director has the authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny Certificates of Appropriateness for improvements requiring a City building permit for property located within a Cultural Resource District. The proposed project includes replacement of an existing red brick chimney at the south side of the house for structural stability. The structure is a "C -rated" California Bungalow structure per the Tustin Historical Resources Survey. The Community Development Department finds and determines as follows: A. The proposed work does not adversely affect the character of the District or Designated Cultural Resources within the District in that the new chimney will be finished with the same red brick and at the with the B. The proposed work is harmonious with existing surroundings in that the proposed chimney is consistent with the style of the existing house. The proposed work is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: Prior to the start of any work, the applicant shall obtain a building permit and pay all applicable plan check and permit fees. 2. Any replacement or repair of any existing features surrounding the chimney shall match the existing materials, finish and colors of the existing structure. J Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director '(S CITY OF TUSTIN Caminunlly I30velnpment Ikephronent - Building Division ConstruclInn Pemtit 300 Cenlenniul WRY, Tustin, CA 92790 Building Counter (714) 57.1-3 1.11 or 573.3172 Ilnpeclinn Rcvnrdcr (714) 573.3141 AUESOA'S PARCEL NUMBER: 4#137197 ARSUITE OOR UNIT ��7MB 9 PICIFIC ST NlS.� LOT: TRACT: BLOCK: CK ' TIM Number: RhdOvebpmhnl Am. ROpxty Ow1IM: F/IIYQS p Sit S.-e-gvw 1 KL�,^� 7119721, CA 977M 711/ AIchnomm.,PM.r: CDiNPI.ta: OmmilLOEI 3N t UMFTTON: .- COPMSYS7 TOI ISCFIELD I6PSC2f0116 OcamxKY whop: �3 IneuctlNl SEUw. Fire 00rlPot Load: CIIIM SRU.. Not 1 Typo of Cmrb[oon: w.r.h... SOUP. F..1: 1 fWYMrNW Shun hr: 1 Gwep. Swwh R.Flukabot 1 Il�o.r •1 •: I Durk, Saler. Felt: 1 SSVMm .r 1 A.unnt Somir, S Pn.aboh, of ho.: 1 Policing Spurr CBier..rcW [pU.n Fm: 1 ACO.ribN Prknp: VWKbn:1 IW UBC Eenion: FLe�..l�i�Y P,.11 Cn Y u'rq Phlml: I: 1,NTSIPZOMAh.: • 1.N 111hmNothIPh1111B: B LN TSIP ZCW BhO: M.mkowhat • 1, 1111 SMP F..: 1 1•N PMal: rale g LrMkrflon i".: FIT, 1 S• M ai ONNIt: A: •y P.md: w.ay P.nrrA: 1 1 99, h.: 1. SS R.Ibrld.by Baa: Pryer 1horayw. PYrme: / 1 6 N SOrr Prot.O. h.: 1.00 Mal F • 1. N Kw0.Rbprottl Tr: 1 LM hvNY Fr: • 1,N Total Few: • 99.53 Pant N.rmd BY: 7[C Ulm S6/16/M PEAMITIS) ISSUED ANO PERMIT NUMBERISI 1 C NoOk" -f" Ton I Pro .4xr.A Chat ... w wat, �M prq:.lon, of mr"hlx B keren..rNnp MM SrCtlen 70001.1 olNtion ] PI mt I.xM. • IYelr.bly COM, W ray Kxr.k k Or No Iwo "ml mlrl LkwNr MMb o, Lk.ar 0 .. Cp.rUMa. gig .: bwPMy OI BB]UB1RMl LVET" PERMT C[RIgTCAIgN TW CWMy NWr ala Glary ChM Nou"Of . dM.nn of yaw.l.l I.tY PMyI r . wwepMht M prrM L.W rl[v wYn. tM.Pak.nl M�a�y r IW pmxa.tr bMew. SI S IM w .. nfrrM h. o Mtar N r.ayN la fr[aa• .7 W 00"00 n fon -inn wIM .ark xrdlpr4h0ptrmt, ora Plot PC b, Iti:.p. Kructat. r+Nalby, IYrwph. a Makrlon or Mm.nNq mrrl. y fl b. mal. Prost M Ir, mp. As Pw.Knl Oh" 1 wM — rmplar x — r- eo --to which throe . P.rmA Northdw u1Wl.n pl n kohlo $.IFW... nide pew ahh� M P.mM h... plays, Iran thot dlmrlOn. INrWM 0 bob." dorm FwIWI Nthhhrl: ow R.I "A ot"UT10N I Wuby H.U.rMK I ray ."Npl Lem IW CpnWrw'" Lmxn. W.r Iw m. I.R.YoU p rr... I1"Imn )OILS, •Pmnr" a habrYn. GM: MY CHY Or e^w:q wLknnpuiru a permne coMvutl. NIK, Nwev., MngYlb, a rr.. .Ov nruclm", prmr m n. U.rrN4 .yo I, kc. M 1rmk.M Iw .Wnythys Ip ftle . npnW ll[bmenl INt nl w YM , YCNYM pWFW than SOC PPI 7" 01 Inv kUm 3 olaN Lyrr Low ICs. oh O IaMMxNYp P, WClmrl 70001 al Olvkkn ] of lb BU"Yur L hN pd .. cowl . Mr yk w o, IF .alma 7031 5 b FM IhF bprl far, IM Nt.0 vu,ryI1M, MV YICLrIM M Eewlen 10]1.6 by mY.pdinm Iw v grmt vublFwF tM vpplkvnl lu v [Ni pvMhY vl mlL�m]7w./.'mr, 07"00000 eow:. •Fsao.am. -hoor tomovnw bn, xW eu in. vnt Ph It... . viol Ino MW n a1..d Iv 1:N SwOn 7Wr 4, B+tln. A Roh,P th, CWI' t,. CMll.claf. L Cork. LFw for MI .oily to [n .vw.x P, a.."Uty N. bade. a Irnwev.t IMnm. .Nd wh. dor "I " NN WU bl hM NI pr I NwSn M. a nor own Fn pla", PI.Yidrn ma .u[b NhrP,. Mm..n nit or, Meld .1 W.Od la u4. H. nocrvrr, alb bu icko,.r rmpmYFmrntiudd halah wr YFx plcwrpl.pon, 1. mnboidrr wR bvr III bwdM OI U.,lo Ihot M or Pro f4.1 build w rmaov. sur puporr OI Frlr,) ❑ LupwrhllW aOgm/. Fm rplwlwpcMb.cryo.mnYaa,.e c..anon le [MnM1XI lht wejkal ISKIIM ]014, ByFlryr L hvlrrgnr CeM: Thr eMlnchh'. UCMS. Low do."mlrygyto MarmxolprOpNlYwlm bulls, or imgowr....a..ra YNO Phroall. Iw ILN polFclr wim cpnllKbd,l Lcen.. P.N.ra Ic Mr CmlrKla'r I:cwrr Low,' ❑ I.m...ma rias S.,NP But I. b Palo.... COM la thF bbwnE owns ]roan � a..: /r /Dil w01QLA' ON, "Tons OEGAMTIdI I M tllirrn undr ' p^ywy om M Mr foYOMnS dKNIpiM.., IN. -Pah, -r..CMHkM1 OI CenenT TO rR-Mr.wr la Wan WrItIornrIll. ol.wpwreIDI oth ph N,]) 000m.Frbw cah,Iry rW gdamura of alb wwY Iw w1Yc1. md. Dam. 4 YyuW. ❑ 1 N". and v 4 malro. wChr"' CaryxuFnM Yyw.nc.. r IrmiW by RKlgn 3700 o1 lM L.bw COM, Ia dw Mwmxc. Or IM wwb so .w. N.J.wIN. Dani is yM. my yhoo." ".tlM Mwarrc. rknur -Nd hal" anon .1.: mtlC NUMBER: MMPIIIV: _- n:.r M.rm aNrima[nn[Y1r 11100>MIYry WI.Ntlrtix.lrlPa v:xrl ❑ l rndY out an IM Wfa,a nal of no wv, IN vh iclr IM pwmd Ir NYU.d• I .br nos "Tilly MY Pr.M On Mr rrxmor so u M boc. .UbKr IO No Wakx. Cnrrpm.Hpn 4w. o1 LSNmYF, Plot PON, MK H I "Mum POCONO moot 7o mal Wrkx'" CONUPPOP. ;:-;;z 01 S«Ign 3700 0f IM LOW Coal. I .b1 ("You,rnawr will. Mor. aoyyoho sy ray.: NAFrkn lO .eca. W.N.". Cwt --I— cpvxN, or wy. W W. om.lu, rWRcI rn .""prim, Io wnrLyl pxry.iy and Ciyll IY:F" Up to w -.1.4 mau"md COYn. it 100.000). or OMmM to nor Carl of Omhrro"I P, Mm"Ir" ." aoymrd Iw n Wwlpll 37M Of ON, L.ba ChM, ,lrrnM.nwvr!rr. I nr.bY Of .N thopiFRas . N.Poollhar, A IICY erlamMat m IW wak Ia wNcn Prof 3011 ""P,,B Op la Hr. :IM CaMf. y I,F:lyd Ie.etien JIr) ENOER'S NAME: ENOFpI'S ADDRESS: _ NAZAA B M TEIIW.E AM ENtIpNB STATFAL9Ir FB.EO 5 ❑ AAM.O. On.: po.c.F.o. or.: C] Nor r.acu.d U.S.O. F... NIP Y.. ❑ N A ❑ IMNTMT Ihot.lkh 1. h.r.bv mrM m oto Biting of,,U,j at . .... OIK, to ,N indNaw Me nrlrrcuM" cal lean M IN..pp4F,bn, EKn , UPP, rr Wbll Mi. rhpFcnbn i. T.M OM ..Ch POUPM ., Y ohOrw Phh Pho whPc. WWII walk is y.eam.d rumx or punuMl to —Y PxrrA y.u.d.. rW Of INrpPlicrlon.Er--' M Md.NE, iN.mNIV.nd hold Awry" IM Ir PI TUlah. Us ollknb alp N. pad rNP yU. n ¢Mrdrrm. h,h lW l""—' OI Chloro" 2 pl no UnroW MILAN O.I.,. CCW. pn. NCI r OCCUPY Pr.PPw o[cupmcY of mY buYOYq wthay.d no Ihy rmnwllY ly.:' �clbn "Ppgrl W.Wwr..d. Icxchmot. oPhoo e Wallo4vy'10,Ih.l dy.Ww Mwm.,pn k cp.... 1 .pr, Ip oblyhah .k Clt .d...rNI.vn.QiY Ip,WBiU,'h c OP.PoNthW tbY, I.,k npr.remnbr rllm.UlYto.mxOpwl,n. WpY.rMrrtkMd �PMY Ipr ny.tllM WNPr.. GATE WNk-Once cOak.y. hrmilla Ank h Auldhor OnlMave-A[Noor CITY OF TUSTIN CammwJty Development DePmintent-BWldia` Division INSPEC770N RECORD (Pon Conppiminly an Job) Sohedu" Impmbon nnc ..wkd.y in dvmoc. 'fa a:hodule impmtlon., 14 (714) !733141. Novids In. fdioainj Infann : 1) Pamir Amba 2) Jab -ddton 3)Typ. of in.ponioo 4) D,- end dne you npd tfa impm ion, lob,vd*� Na1nv .f Work Pamk NuMaK.); —_ [ UL, a __ 4lahudoal EL.&iw e a.Me a Maet�.ewna4 PI 9iP 9 . .. .. v.%u.r.V•fi•'� dif1pl.Q.u. ,..wwK� ... �. • w.,. a.I 1�.1-.111n1......"-... I APPLICATION F0I1 ELECTRICAL PERMIT All', It VNI I'll .c'. 1111 IN1:u.AUI UAIOI AIINI Y Ir.l U,a 11l Ila l 1.1 I'Iu . I lnllil 111 rl UII UIIII II i PAIN I I:.V %I I 'JI 11:`.I AIVCI CITY OF TUGTIN APPUCArFFILLINTHISSIIAIIFOAIIFA ONI.V I I I.I. IN COMPLF. It LV 'i n• •1/ '�7 0- A G.1G NC6CIHPTION OF WORK rICB ' sy JA///��� 1l l ! I v ',9"�L�OX Y 3'y,110lC.6!'L�r. Li[. eo. i uc wl .- C -40I •n rcH / rf7 URRG 4Ni1Nf FKR JIILS -- , nu. IYL 1 ,I I 14 .1 1 n, In I I I 1 YY• 1 1 In M' 1 .......dJ ] I M.1. 11 11 I I I 1 I,axnl ��y • rL L, I,1 J,n I I IIY(J,xl� L r 1 JITRR UMISI NI •� � .. �. � ....... ... ... ............... ...�. ,� _ APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT 1 « .' 4•'.-II I IN SHAM, AREA OF R( 4 o•nP1Y Mln tll Irwr rrpubNnl LuutllnD mna .nlen. nJ wn eor NmPlev my I:/•". I'Fi:hf Nl''1 GR f/i Y.IR AInN DA]T� ------$PE.T R Pxun n .ml•non PI mA woam.n'. eemtlxxnlan om PI nA 'DJiO"'D° �'•: ._ __ CITY OF APPLICAN'' FIU. IN Tt115 SHAOEO AREA �' -'T'R TUSTIN ONLY-FILLIIVCOMPLETELY ,[rL. f _ -�� ;.j745 ,p r L ",�/ ♦. rc ua.. -. ✓~�U L'J}:L', J.�i•c'T TiigY/.EJ_.._ .,•I • m Nn unp entl NIRL I I • • :DI Ilem In[ DIPYINOn[ 01 In. • el CIIIIPmI. OI •NLl�k4 ._.1i2,��j)A• ;pOL '�.IA;.ac •�.;'t:• pl.; ,; �uE..;.•.-. .-.. lraiNiiiir I• ... -. Tai ..-...�.._ a /�31 ��/� �" G1�e v..OrGyL'.2.".$/9r]Ay./�1G6..•. '.�H6Glr, 'oS I•. LIC.1L H; %�I�y_ .. ..:.He .r[n•:. fYi.::'•: CYNO DFSCFIIPTION qF WUNK""" ' % Palls Sr rlHu xl nr. 1ia J/ dr c e WONk TOtil-_•- Penvnnlnrn F` .. /TF IO.IT. ST6.1 flTURIIA rAS11L1E6 ^NEW ` IAf10, C�bLTEPAIN( _�pEAgLI6N I noLL rtYnewlWq rnrr 1 Mruuu rmr wDlbnlnn wJ uN :bl IN .Lou. InlPrmulan b e w. wtl rpu r 1 o•nP1Y Mln tll Irwr rrpubNnl LuutllnD mna .nlen. nJ wn eor NmPlev my ADDROVE AL DA]T� ------$PE.T R Pxun n .ml•non PI mA woam.n'. eemtlxxnlan om PI nA 'DJiO"'D° �'•: ._ __ cos. DI ccnlgnl.. .D;n D� I no.ey unur snn I .m wegRy u[vm•tl q . mmrwar .rmx re va• a. in. 6sn. el ld 11.1. CMPm R. ma mt loan Ilnmrn • m Nn unp entl NIRL I I • • :DI Ilem In[ DIPYINOn[ 01 In. • el CIIIIPmI. OI •NLl�k4 -' luxn.x mtl relmlam Cab. DIu1rNn ]. Dn.prDW p. bn'!'IF'••D a /�31 ��/� % : :x 1 J:.IIIIIIDWw C' �' / i'n 1 u C awn "•.•• Ti.u2� 7�—�— u APA!; -CATION FOR PLUMBING PERMIT "VI ,tkI I'I 1 A' 1 11 1 1111:11✓•I,• Il de .1116 r ul.l lit I)I IIIt,11'I il-ii,IIAI! PUINI l+I !•l Oft UIIII II 1111JP1 I IWAHI f!d Ib61!UR:I j u rl n nN l 1 n I. IN ❑IIS Rl Ilt I. IN I:OMI'UTEL LI:TELY G0r1 1. ,r'e`�yfi�Nr�,yy G31 WIMMIM�: 1'1 •.11 -I1 Y (W U I Uf PIN 61.46 � 11. � - .It •I 11:1- � 1+• i 1.. I mr i 1 Nu lr r)1'..nlNl � � _Iil.l It M1tlU T11pM � � I � I • W NMINU M^L - WgfFO Nk TNX • Wn1Ffl fiOfTFNFRB ���� 1LWb 8KRINYLkRB flES fl LCM'1 I ! jI. TH/.ILFR NRIIK�MIF -- 1 .1. I. ... ., .., SEWER CONNECTION APPLICATION AND PERMIT Is (AREA UlVkIOIMIHb_fRIWf OWNERSHIP) CITY OF TUSTIN 175 W. Third SI. Tustin, C,llfanie APPLICATIOw To be compinled by owner m agent and wbmlH Yd in quiet y IvpGcn�l'n with nyulnd tum and Plan+—vee re au dde Applirool. C>G¢/.af!+L /. (;AV140 P , i:eraby rnquesh the fnhewmg cnnneeflonlsl In Cly'+•.xw.,ngo Ncilifias: Lxdion Let Nor. SIR Type (See remise ride for in:+rudionQ (PX•P4+-a ri a.r rnr2 Treat No. .... ___.. _..Total lots. ._ ....._..._._.W.Mnd dnin of occupancy__.. .._.... _..._. _._. _... If coranerciel nr induHdsl property, total acreage wryod_....._ ...... _._. Tim waste to ba discharged to City's sewerage facilities. ;+ . thor than ppuurely domestic sewage wiH here the fallowing yano-u.l characimisHcr ns to eWre.f.d quantities. fime A peak discharge and o:indpel source or musses: In making ihls application, applicanf acknowledges fhe- any prrn,i. I;mod w:ll conshfute a conirecl, it ecceofed b: applicant, nm. forced by civil action at law nndyor innmdicn. Data..//s! 7/ .� set• , .... _ __....._. PERMIT Far Connection to City Sewerage Fa iliNer and for Discharge of Domerfrc Sewage Only Permission to canfirucf connacfionfsl to fhe >oworaga faciNios of the Cily is hereby granted to applicant providing such corr*r ionlsl is made in accordance with plans and spedficafiom banby approved, and affnehed hanfa; ? further pro.iding That ngmsf far inspection rnud be given to she Tustin City Hall (5+1.7820) el leesf 2e hours prior to fhe commencing of any condrudion work. d- This pmit erabo gives she applicant permission to d'ucherge only pum rely deertic sewage 16.9h she cam nedionlQ henhnkmre eufhuriced into the ...,age system al the City. The discharge of any industrial or commer `, Nal waste n not nulhorited without a further and nparefe permit from the City. :c' P.ecoipt of required fee, end charges as specified by Oranoe County 5anlelion"Dsfrid Ne. 7, Ordirmnee No. 705 "�'" is hereby ack/nywI d ad. :4:- -- /'.�/�,�f CITY OF STIN ` 'T'� ..... _.. _ ... By Amount Paid 5.... _ .. _ .. 1P 1L,/7170 -. PAL RECONVEYANCr; 2�5� 9116 THIS INDENTURE, Made ......................... 7ebnurY.�S.,..1SSS._....._.........._................................................... ....... WITNESSETH: That, Whereas the indebtedness secured by that certain Deed of Trust made by hAL"^s.A K. CALLAMD and LPCILL3 H. C.AMAND, husband unci wife, and D. r.. CALLAMO and PARMA AFM CALLAND, husband load wife, to SANTA ANA ESCROW COMPANY, a corporation, Trustee, of Santa Ana, California, dated....Au:usA-.:1•, icsq recorded.......... Sep Lelober 1-t .1954_,.__-_,,.._ 5 ...., as document number..6933�...., (n Book._n!:.....8o6 ....... Page..... -95 ....., of Official Records, in the office of the County Retarder of Orange County, California, hos been fully paid and satisfied. NOW.THEREFORE, in consideration of such payment, and also the sum of One Dollar, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the said SANTA ANA ESCROW COMPANY, Trustee, does hereby remise, release and re. convey, without warranty,unto the person or persons legally entitled thereto, ali the estate in the premises described to said Deed of Trust now held by said SANTA ANA ESCROW COMPANY, Trustee, reference being hereby made tc said Deed of Trust and the said record thereof for a particular description of said premises. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said SANTA ANA ESCROW COMPANY Trustee, has caused these presents to be .A duly signed by its duly authorized officers, under its corporate seal, the day and year first above mehyorted: STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 4 n. SANTA ANVESC Oyy COMPANY, TPUST96 COUNTY OF ORANGE /,l.!'J beforOn ...........the By ............!r'�IceJltt»iderit ..................._..................................., . . .......:..... heron me, the unci nlpted, a Notary Public In cr,d far bid Cush and State, uridine thenM, duly ca,er.iWn.ed ord ,warn, Attest : ..... ..... ... ................ .t.... wlary Pereor.ally........ _...... PAG htnow Fee IItaa0IIeR7tJi�IR'Sed known tai ^'1.Je•AY. theV1. President, and.........._...............r..__. r...n�..:;.....•...:.•....:..................... ............ RECORDED AT REQUEST OF }nodi. ee .m."lo.'M'.Ilwtecnlary of the corporatbn dnvibW In and that Ve&uted wvrltNn inrr . and known to - 0RAMG! CO. TIT,.! CO. rrtV,b ly the Mhory Miweaeo,eeM ft.Within Irstrunnt an behalf d 4Iis, pprparatidn i and..ocknowlelloed re me thatlOOA.M. "� YAR `.L • 1955 ' rntpelatwn�e fawn a such Trustee. Mf *'rr, 1.6Md ; feol '• socIS 2979 e�c:149 See t,ac OFFK`e ORAS �a�.. alai Count pgeCountyCalifornia d rott WHEN aeCOIIOED. AIL TO y.' may,/ �. - � Vol Ni. F. 11101 ►elewie .IIiMI...11111 el.:.._... ............. _ ..... - �" County Recorder FULL RECONVEYANCE 25n5„ THIS IDENTURE, Made...... .1°55 WITNESSETH: That, Whereas the indebtedness secured by that certain Deed of Trust made by GEORGE GAYLORD and ALICE F. GAYLORD, husband and wife to the ORANGE COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, a corporation, Trustee, of Santa Ana, California, datockTjE.ID?Af!S'1C...7 recorded ... ...c�$!ulrY... 1�a... 192-9........................... as document number ..... �.SZQ..., in Book....nRaW......5.�..... , of Official Records, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California, has boom Id art.utisfiad. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of such payment, and also the sum of One Dollar, rticeipt;IINFtR%Qf is hereby acknowledged, the said ORANGE COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, Trustee, does hereby rpolla r rilene and re ov;iif i without warranty, unto the person or persona legally entitled thereto, all the estate, in the preml»�-deacribedl in said (dead of Trust now held by said ORANGE COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, Trustee, reference being hereby mide to said Deed of -Trust and the said record thereof for a particular description of said premises. to IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said ORANGE COUNTY TITLE COMPANY, Trustee, has cwted tHjtl presenia to, be duly , signed by its duly authorized officers, under Its corporate seal, the day and year a6164 m first a6164intbnted. m 011 STATE OF CALINJRNIA, � n. ORANGE COU TITLFF L� Y, T YEE' COUNTY OF OaAM6E, ...... . T .- . Z"arch 7_nd 19 - By........ ....._' '...... ..."-_.. ....-bef...President Stam, rmid t♦„ a Notary Public In and fm mid county -arid Stan, at;' !W Ian.d and 5w , non IzA1'ry M.11y appeared Attest:...... ........ Asst. Secretary 6n @;* to M iA1 .. Iinsatt n-•ma)Ig is N» ANI. ary a the cx�brallan dawlw In and MW�eimitu'tbb ani inewt to m• N be On a wrr.'!a*',//.egrN�.the' htbetrmwnt ung of th. 0,.t.n ee+n�npd:dwlsy.d twPereeett .a.evnd wlTnaea my "Ate Mldd waL Pab14 M end M raid Cnaoy ati 1tn.. WHEN IuCOMM MAI" To SPACE atOW FOR "CoaMl7 Wa ONty M=ROED AT REQUEST OF ORANGE CCL TITLA CO. .is 9.00KI1. eoa«t► pm O ipC6W*yCWvWnt2 24588 asauis dda.... let .......... day of_...HYPoh ............................., 19...p�.. ........_mcl..and.................. wife herein called TRUSTOR, BURROW ESCROW 00, i earloraHw, of Seats Aa, California, herein called TRUSTEE, and ...................... Orange County Teachers Credit Union .. _,.......... _... .._...._-._........_—_... ........... - ............ _............................. _........... herein called BENEFICIARY, That Trualar GRANTS to TRUSTEE IN TRUST, WITH POWER OF SALE, that property in the ........................... _ i�oP Tuet1. County of Orap. ............ _.__._..___.�.._�......................................Stale of California, described as: That portion of Lot V of the Stafford and ';uetin Tract, are s+own on a Aap recorded in look d, pa;;es old .end 619 of biiscell_neoue Records of Loa Ingeles Jounty Crllfornia, described as betinning at a point on the West line of eald Lot, 410 feet South of the Lorthwest corner of said Lot; running thence South along the }fest line of said Lot Sorest; thence.East parallel to the Porth line of said Lot 200 feet; thence Horth osrallel to the Fest line of said Lot 50 feet; thence West uara- llel to the North line of said Lot 200 feet to the point of beginning. Including all hoildiwp and improvemeata now or hereafter erected thereon, together with all and aingu- lot the Investments, hsn%Hbm b and apparlsnes, water, water stock and water rights, pipes, flumes and ditches thereunto belonging car in anywise appertaining, aid the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, inues and profits thereof, SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to tion right, power and authority hereinafter given to and con. ferred upon Beneficiary to colled and apply such rets, imum and profits. ID! * p11111rPM Of 01=114 payment of the indebtedness evidenced by a promissory note substantially in the following term and parfovmance of cub agroameat of Trustor herein contained: . 3twtalltnerit Notr a.l.wl Iwlwdo,, S,. 450,011) Santa Ana, Wif... iu._.. Hara11 lat In in.mllnI and at the timed hereinafter stated, for value mcdved-._ .... 16. -. .. .. .. ............._...............,............ ..... ,. .,... pnimi.e._, m wr In.. Orange Cooney. Tt1alahRre Ca1f).d1Ta_ 0.H1an ............................. . ..r cooled. .1. Santa Ana. W06.rn a _ w lar principal Nlm of . � ^� N1A Huta1hd ind no/100 od — .—' -- — — —' ad ' „ Uullars. with internal frmn..... data • 11 the ammmt. of prindicai rwnalninp fwm line to limr ,,.paid, nnlil dahl principal nim it p il, at 1W rate of Bg.H per cent per annum. Principal and intrr.l Hl4 ace o 7woI$. m nnimra . 48u.�_ .1 •Inn in mnnlhlr in+mllmenta of ../�>�... ARA — do d : ! �""' . arh..n Ihr .let do, oat eaeir M." month. Wigging nn III lot April . 14. Hal 0�Barga f}P.rdrlard ....... ....... ........._..... ......... ... .._....__....... ... .... ............ ,..._. Alice !1. r7sylord eA. to Fretted the serwritp of this Lvtth Of Tnlst, iumstar aarrec M .did W= In ado, MWIIIM a lain age Y Tn.lwl aw to ray al YY dw al.n.... e.mlm. YY.d 1.W.n.. vgood NYII W dna Yf w Inpnr.nwt IMravvl b nna1". nl Illl1 aW I.n�n.T v In. In a I.viubM .um. Iv .N YM1 ulnas a. IimennYn or Tr1Wd mar .Fido Iw1Y pm.1ul dad I. a^dd d.d wMaLnn4 YeY door Eo 116 YI b ra.aln. M of dnd mw lnlIE.N 1n inn wW nMNW pneaddlN In .1.h0 pN nMn dw all eYIY M. Waar' fl.r1amN W YWIW WalaMl Cpl To Ml,' t .1 len an. Mpm Nllwlunn�l a1pW.r add or laid al olio pl-1.111. haNdlN a Y pour Wminl b n.pir dib all Yd. a Iwllna Md Madrid w ground u1 allmllnw w Impw..n4 b b Ydd IMmnl rid Y m.mlt IYnI pled nor vt . do.. JI Im+mYnna rIoLr nal IYw. draw •ppur Y b par�1. nub tMrwll an b lawn, nIM V_ nap ut vwv M. yn do 0 In'lagan N Yq Y nnIYY. Ln11W. fY4 MY InlaYl. w aaL Forlorn w .N woo thnnL arlw dr da or Mn{vl nl meld. Ln ml nprnr. M I6Y'Iwn. M1mM laid. pY..vd M all non . wp4a Irvm Ib enannv w vw of MImuW Trvatnr fall In naFr .N MIm1n1w In .la aN an u T d. WI w11M1na[ ..WIMW w In .Y aW bdpnV m.n M nrw Yn..w. IW addille dvYYtlas hml. nnl 1.elWlna IM arvenh. •I.W. b. WnWleldn w _ud wl!..ml neon In x dm.nl .inn V, w .nl Jlnwt riln.l 1 To Imvly YYMY .N 411rn b nY141.ra 11. 1.-.— aul theYra Y aW ails good languid In IWneYn. 7"..mwt Col.ere .2' W: n w MM1n IYnvd lul r MIapp11N 4 IMveMltn upon N MYMMrw gge.tN Mb �vl n M wW gal 9.wlkWr YI NMrrdlw. w at ntis .l 7 the son t o ealWYd er W }n Nnwl W W nWW to TYIw. ,u, palWllw 1. YII M nn or dein . NMYI der ".Irr tool d1Y.lt IwmnMr -1 1m0111IM glad an allot pannnt W ark dnW. In itwo IF.""nirewlll MrM n-11Aih rauld w p runs at loos 11[Yre w N. elt fe matuitug agrteA that: Irl To wt InooNYlpll goal .Ilium IrmgrW UI sm u papndnl moa pv vel MYI.with hurts Wn ring nl ndgwlllut 1 I {I o thione WW law nrdnld a WA NOW -t Mtn4 TtY law, MnI11aMa11.1.d Ix�hv nl W. N awn Muir, q I'd, .ml, a1Yul dg.rl on Tnug doll .11 gots puponr .t 1W IIY .ml It. o' sW nam uI It Id W conn ul W. ItW u . wh.l..r In anaggin, wmY .ad In wpl rM .. It I Warring. t ryW MY W b. hl.p.t nodular too cough, In IawN Yn�pya laid n.nou but.. nM. t Iml nidi^ 10 WbTI al �e.d.WinYllll .l sad tlo�r anmY"Y.or of d Y. dual Ira. IRr b lIY WrnWr YtNN W.1. W rblla 1 .t Ih. Un"I'd"W IW Vna.dlna pnlrywdw TruY. J..11 dNlnr In wrh purnuw IL dmf dwrwlna tM .wmr u gold. WI wIndon . n ah, ..dam. n P pnad. n. on 1.n�'rr^IM w � o ';Mice.It b. Y:nT�v of Mor YI p.lru. al add Man. Ann Ndwllee tll YI, food dl -0 .1 Tm1n ave ul ILI. id ..w T.M. Lnl..lY.{ r 1 W 1 1 arg Iv r—adg IIh oar. : .mall, *" L : R � not �. coag Iu :mow w : IIH" Pad, R'' v..n n,, .Idd.lis°t m p:..;.:"41p1p nlllla"rrrd Am'v IA 4Y dM. IW In, YaY good. I...lu.1. ah, ulnar .0 our• IIw IWIr b.l Y..Yw, drng.4 M.YWnYM1 lard. WaWevarSrl farm 9.dnMMn.11 WI.N aM�W Ml�.n u.a.rWrn LlaaaNa Wt aW w Y.a ..Y ah, aalNr. Iml.0 'IayY, W IW duras ..d ��''''kid,� * In laid IWd..W..a a our m/i� gi, ..fur alWdr .. Tvclud.Ww agent I..Inr ara191 lan4sW aidYor too. 'Proadaudd la rd. ad.Try whs l thlo I000k,a" rYwat aid id III . loggia, — do iden M aYls N Traiel vlsaAlsm� a°r>wf' m L Mira T1.= aYmaid, w Tfaba rWl W a MrV. slid plw.N b' Trslw. W5 Q.. tfp sittielpd gnows. Fasit mte that •copy of any notice of default and of any notice of sale he e. vder be aaailed to his at his mailing addrsa apposite his eign.l, a hereto. Mailing Address For Nelms Street nod Anmber City State Signature of Trmtor ,t 020 raolflcst...,........._^uatilta.—Calif...... ................... 1, 61 520 Faetfto St..a......... 2ujgtjaa....Ott111.—................. ................ ..... .... ..... ....__—....._..— MIMI] aha REQUESZ.OF........... ......... ...... ...... uuAhett ca. Tin E co. m 2 1959 9:OO A. M. ooGK2.97 9 i,AGA44 OFFICNL RECORDS 0111111111111111 County California z iTACo OF f0,..CALIFORNIA,1 County Recorder f'.nunly n( Orange, s' 0. this ......._let ..... ......... day of ..... ...... ;:rsoh....... _................................. 19.5....... Were me, the ondenigned. a Notary Public In and for sold County and State, parounaliy appeared. ......... _.._... Georp;e 11.3mylord and Allo. H. (T rd •n known to use to be tho ponan.e.... whose name..P._f!?'.t7......... ......... subscribed to the • a •.., within Instrument and aekeowledgd.... 5 that they e:auted the same. • I (�dk4t� WITNESS my hand and official sal. 01 _ N r41 Ibnlr W m. , i • 4 If esecomd by Cospntkm the corporate Form of Adm IWpment must he owl. I t. lflth d—. December ........................... —..—..,19 ... 61 3sibumdIF Time, Whave" tie WW*ANem aee.aed by in catsist Deed of Trust made by...._..._... G'EOHrjE GATLORD and ALICE 7 H. GAYLORD. husband and ......................................................... Ase BURROW ESCROW CC), & corlwaties. Trustee, of Santa Ana, California . ...... IIIFi*rc'h 1:3t, 1955 March 2ndo 1 55 dated.-_...-_.. . ..... ... recorded_... . ... . .. ............ ............. ... .. 2_'� ....... ................ as Document No__14'2T .. . .... i, Book...—M-9-YE-V • 144 of Official Records, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange Cows, califwaia, has " fully, paid .'�4* f4trrfarr, in consideration of mch payment, the said BURROW ESCROW CO., Trustee does hereby xsa .3 "'j and recoovey, without warranty, undo the pervom or persons legally entitled thereto, all the estate in rc.rL 'bed in said Deed of Trust now held by mid BURROW ESCROW CO., as Trustee, reference being 'i"A44irp Aid Deed of Trust and the rid reeved thereof foc a particular description of said premises. eared dscoe presenss to be duly signed by its w4wwf, said BURROW ESCROW 00. has Y. steers, .,I, *a corporals seal, the day aid year first above nsentioned. B ISU4 �*J�U&A�FA URNOW FSCROW CO4 Trussm ._PmaidenL By...... STATE OF CALIFORNIA, cbmsty of Orange, I— Decotiber ........ day of .. ....... ........... 19-61., Wore me, the undersipwd, a Public in and for said County and Stas residing t1sevein, duty commissioned and sworn, personally appakred C� C. 3. Burrow ...... -.1 known to me to be the . ............ President, and . ... .............................. ........ , known to me to be the .... .............Socretwy of emcuW the within instrument, and knownto me to be the persons who cmDcuted the within ':kj&ps"* v' bshitlf of the corporation them -in named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed. the )Iihum my hand and official seal. tc Nd6sry Public in uA for said Comity and Std& 0 krq. May B. Pritchard AQI 7 14, s d ai(�t , w tip •'. . I, k .t �, `�t r4•y X41: t � ' c fro iY g z r tv i y x Y' E�EsrpF = io re r__ t '?•� � >� 4 IN OFFICIAL NE%..n VS Qr OFFICIAL i• _ :r i taai t ORANGE COYNTY, CALIF, 9*0 DM'19 1961 jO O a i �,' �.� >Cf it !t9 !• P� CP C ; F6 Iv c cn c n �1 ,^ VI CA In 1. 7 • ai(�t , w tip •'. . I, k .t �, `�t r4•y X41: t � ' r , • y Y' re r__ � :.tar '?•� � �..,/41u� 4 ; EanoW.No _ WHEN REGOROET) M; UL TO [IRLT A in0 ➢T��i ` 1. I . rna 9,MEMC 4r` Mr '.M'wv Ceiit Tr` 9svohort : drv�l� cY eaa 1i E9Wt N I!v 191;4 Anx,h Cart A=diA - �.t1 An., c. r.,ttornt: 02791 _ 2PIA .lUN,16 197W.:. •.- p[Rb f { � - I r _ n7 rlgn N iW.;w w otR lRyrsrw lu ' � v.cT u a m. s • v4w i u tyLa M I MAIL ,Ai(. ST AVEMPNt9-;TO i OOGE!�QIIwY 7A�alt 7Aw L_ ',1-�+be •• -' i c.^wrfw Mwswawrrwwratw.a[iNaFtr rr:i„aW W .., 9AK MOwOBq Aa A90�SK� Ww}a,- Mw vtrV.sna.y�,.-..�w� ' ""'�w rr MT , At!i.'1MM.1!�Y `►FiYW� Ow " -6RANT DEED. f� OLz^09CF 0$ t ," tVa A Y. Acv TRt ON1fliLHATIUN nt v.L,J... l Lv w:vlp1yi11: - v � ° C>tn116t >l` >Alt7way, r LdwK � . �--• C..+Ip+. ? ,B>;.UC11aR and ARL{{M'i, �bCN01f huYb na. and 'v LEe' Y Jotar cinavka � �" iY�YIaL�LA`pl rahit�}� 4 t( li'1 ,.r i , ♦ :::4 r `• a��tr b� t, , �•- Oaent. 1 ani 1�(,t�4'Y Ji ..` �:v .9mE iCYuornW aan�+ird .t 'L R' AL1-'thdt oar[aln land ltb*tad la_tha. Clty C Tuic la rCpoivty nit QrA/ato t. bi-te of Ca1LYp?a[a. "iextbed u' Eollws;. be+lt: 1 r Th.0 Reeelen y! r*' N al tha 9tAfEvid .nd 2 itLo Sraai .w ilMlt »b'. CiotYdftrd74d ' AaLn1{]Eda�kal.a2 dadeµra69N}w asW fil"1�WP bql ZMeµAsaeli. ON r at s "Lnc an ch..YYt! }Zar.&E.0 1. - - lot 41A-hte mutd e( ehf pthwR:[Croat of .aid lap ruwwlnR rthanea agytdht alona'"tM Wai' 1{tia 6['uW at sd (��5 th n p Ea.t pas,Yjld,co aha 'woetD ikni j o[ yi�•19r 29q 'Ea7t:, khpnea'_Nortl} pdiall*1 to the Naet llnY e['difd','lot•, 5a faet1 kheaea.,Yµ4para 11e4'tp. tha wdr.th ]paw vE. ea Ld lot 200 [aer. re- Lh. of polo[- , then.* w I 9V9]6CII YO . 'ALC�R¢�-�yw TIbGI 7RAwj 1979 -Te. "�^ 50' . _ 9JRCC S eap 1� p.. awrNe ana i'o c cLtdAT. "L Mane,!--- , aljg,ta:,µa afaht►'of. 1IAy•df:.Rwkocd. <I any. AMP. WSy S 1079 _' T r •"4t 'i�'.. .. �c y is .`. :t _ - � 'WM cewccE •r. 7ct71oll"9 i .,.. . „I"„ • . ,.. wTt Aw t•.a.,.�) 71war fuw 1� L.e . 1 '+% 4 •,�nrr I ,wN.�i1MJ.nHr �iF7w AEw�'N •..�' _ _ _ _ iweHiy s ,!l:. a"! !iwl _ iM s.l st•rilYlp ora ' ..: I win . c :•i � 1 �.. •�. wart :fir:'. `h<, z. _ , -„/I�tV:•Y!rww�arwalhr!lfra As•vlw[cfl4 Aaovc- :•. y.;.• .+-:�/ �1faz ORANGE,CA Document: DD 12718.47 Page 1 of I Printed on 11/16/2010 1:46:47 PM Provided by Data Trace System p.dRNo Eatrow.Nu _ � , WHfN RESOROFSlMAlL rD Ir ' 1330 satelh C It I Sr 5auoHOlr`'. .MV"a, R.w,hCre ki.t'l.r. .., - �L�Lel xmt C. Li�oglti 92705.. - MAIL iAX. srnrementt, -.•.�. ! . 3AK AppaIDtq AR AOOfR+' + QOCU WUANV"Ttyr Est ,w w,r.i.w.ir �r ow •'. .orC. t� Cgp.Rv / 3- ' -GRANT DEED N QLz age= e(tN q ♦L1>QI{(F,�ON�IUiYNAiIUN 1IDIIC9 ; "VLORy. c vidwik 6 nLrb�d"`Afi..4ss1..31 (O L V..• . :' �, 1 Y [ f r CRIROR ? RLUCIICIt and ARLiRaY�, LCHrN ti.Ab+di1..M wiE�' a. JotwC i�((k1fat 1 � .. r.'-� IW i:dn:.iM Id,.th..4hd w .+sfi., fi'.� . _. .,:K ,._ , �_ ..' �'.►.. *.a'i..: (- _. '. � y •' , 1 ALI'thAt aart l.>W it4t.4 {n eht. by eL.7i ie to Cropej. ac .at aE Qury1j ae or CAttfatafar diixtb d }r'followa ba. r That Reeeton. y! xpe 'V ad.Rha StAfford and $uWcln Srattr.a& on'a K p .. r.kdr�M In lfonk:] ray.a. iZR and 619�Mt'rCell+n.oya. R.estda or,'Lw AgRa lra t Cadrter: Ca l4forala d.aorA a beat Mj at r point M 'the. 0a,j 11ne .br .gid lot • 6.1¢.fit! Rauh or Chd Irq{Rlm+['karmr aE +aid lbp ' iuwnins'.th.nca Roy ttY. I`It .lan1''eM wa!'llna .or t s0•fi th.nR. e..x pa.jt'1.1 to cn' RoreLain."'- of .a1�4o�' iOG cart eh.nen' Hort¢,'pft1*1 to the Yaa(t Mina of dety'lob so. feet: thkna+(Vbt. pa011el!to tha NDith 11p. uL. old lot 200 pet'': Co' M. Pa/n[ a{ _ IVCLnoinR . - 9vsasp '[ap xtt •{'Ajl{a.S�R:l3yw1 YP�A;,1978 7!i' ''L �� " Orr N ( R]{ mP . ►. aa.v+ ane '�OR7�':7Catflaanr>--' ( ; Rtfhxa aae 9aRbta ,¢r'M1Yf of R+�ord if .hy'. 0-- .r w - :.', .w "F4.PL�.: l'f1.14"y^4:,i •': +� a �• 41 .V �y „M!�rt:,Yot'sr+catt{lNr3 aa•etRRcrrA A.ovs. ,>'"' _ ' '`''"'q'1_•�"'� t ", r Jill :t :i.., .'?tiJ�r '!'+•;L Gift 7j f`+1t dais .ty. i:'N.. A- ryi �K'• ORANGE,CA Document: DD 12718.47 Page I of I Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:00 PM Provided by Data Trace System Ore. No. Escrow No. 5618 Leen No. Order No. 73854-23 A.P-H. 062•-090-08 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: rAUL D. PLOW®8 500 SOUTH "C" BTREET, TUSTIN. CA 91680 MAIL TAX •.A PAUL D. rLowwRa 500 SOUTH "C" STREET, TUSTIN, CA 97680 90=394714 $7.011 C12 �y sal. RIM RIO W Reanded M the raalest M CAUFOIEJIA COUKnEs TITLE C(L E:ao JULE 7 1990 A.M. OEldd R/rordS yy Dage Calnty. CINIJORIft o(rc Q•RBwrdef OODaaperARY TRMNgA TAX R co ...ir I eMtl1...INNr.rIw,.YYY. OI pfN.r1Y iCnwY.Ct On ...... Cureuap an et....lew.eq, «e.wr rt_ N.Isw .mumbwt• relneNlOa et tlmr. r. k GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, ret:eipt of ♦yhiclt le hereby a noWlrt6ee GIDEON T. SZUCHON and ARLEEN L. SZUCHON, HUSBAND AND EIDE, ^'l I- heratnr GRANTISI to PAUL D. rLONERB, A HARRIED RAN AS HIB HOLE AND SEPARATa PROPERTY, the reel tt. er in the City of Tustin COUM, of Orange Sun of CMI#.role, drerawd ce Portions of Lot '•V" of the Stafford and Tustin Tract, as shown on e HaDa recorded in Book 3, Pages 618 and 619 of tliscellaneous Rs of eeord LOS Angeles County. COMPLETE LZGAL DZSCAIPTION IS ATTACHED RecordENZTO Aof RADE A PART HEREOF AS EXHIBIT "A CORNONLY SHOWS AS: 520 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET, TUSTIN, CA 92680. ADM: 062-090-08. Oemd JAlV- la- 1990 arwlt OF CwUw(fYYMCF 33. —_ xtu m oY o�—Ju1,1t_Pa 1960 Me,e meL tlw OnellwVlea • Nary P11Nn M rte b rN eteta p.- rmeW f.FOYOC T CZUcH0I and penpnlly Ivnw, l0 m. lq omvM n mr m w EeW O/ YIWe,.ygy MMro) eo s m. oaleuNe rns Irmee Iwr weoleee n Y.r w1Wn FWumenl enJ Wmw1eOO.e b m. tlyt heM1lw/Nsy evm,lPe mP.rns a aSzUCe �Ql AELERN L. SZUCEOII WRH[B8 mY haM P111de wLL "It lres STATEMENTB AS OFFICIAL SEAL SAUNDRA J GARIOW NOT1 PU9UC-CYVO4NIn N/ �IIw NllltlN 11, lase ITm .,q q eNbbl naWrY �,1 6/17/93 +are (WOO DIRECTED ABOVE ORANGE,CA Document: DD 1990.394714 Page I of 2 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:01 PM Provided by Data Trace System EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL: DtaCRIPTiDN All. that• cettain .land situated In tb*, City Of. Tustin' Cou ntY. ot: Orange; atete-Ol. Calif Ornla,-described. as lollois, GO_te That POrtlOn Of: Lot "V" or. tne. Stafford and Tustin Tract, as ahGWn'on' a map recorded In booa:' 4:pages GIN and 1519'oi'. Hiseellaneoui Records'09. LOS ArigelQi'COOrit$,Csl1lornla, described. as beginning at' -a Pppint' dn• the. Neet'llhe of iaid _lot. 410 feet 56Uth Ol the'NGrtnM`at corner of Aald'-1,0t, runifing thence South along the West line•ol: said Lot 50"leeCP thence East'parellel to the North line ol:sald Lot 400 feetr tnanee North parallel to the Nest 11ne of. sald Got' SO feet? Chance West parallgl t the North line of said Lot 200 Lest to the point of beginning. - - ORANGE,CA Document: DD 1990.394714 Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:02 PM Provided by Data Trace System Order No. Ea1.lgrll N0. Lau) No. .o-.amn nwu5Tmxr WHEN RECORDED NAIL TO: LOUIS HEM INTER R. E. PROPERTIES 1091 MINDRNI LANE TUSTIN, CA 92680 DOC 8 95-0365584 23-AU13-1995 03x59 PM Aeoerded In OMdal box of Gras Crib. Wifenia gam L. Grawillr, ClarkaNw&r Pae I of I Fen$ 1 27.00 Tau 1 0.00 MAUL TAX STATEMENTS TO: uN I -a .NONE_,..110.CONSIDERATION SAME AS AMVE .__ Cw,rpMean awroartlrw4,s,Mrar pypwwy w>Q•wrae:aN D w�ieN�gye �araw�Mrlu.>vM�Mw $n s�u.nbrper I Tho undersigned declarant .5 GRANT DEED FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, recaps 01 which IS Mrby aWwwledped, PAUL B. FLOWERS. A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SOLE AM SEPARATE PROPERTY hereby G"0(8) to LOUIS HEM INTER R.E. PROPERTIES, A NEVADA CORPORATION dN realprnpniy h eer Cay al Tustin Count' of Orange . Stem of CWdorrda, descHbed an That portion of Lot 'V' of the Stafford and Tustin Tract, as shown on a wap recorded in Book 2. Pages 618 and 619, of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County. California, described as: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Lot. 410 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot, running thence South along the Most line of said Lot, 50 feats Thence East parallel to the North line of said Lot, 200 feet; Thence North parallel . to the West line of said Lot, 50 feet; Thence West parallel to the North line of said Lot, 200 feet to the point of beginning. COMMONLY IVA AS: 520 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET, TUSTIN. CA 92680 A.P.N.: 401-371-07 .oaerd August 22, 1996 COONSTAN Y F Ur4n COUNTY DANM OF 22. 19 jY-�-U-P�3. ) On August 22, 1996 panty n,a Saundra J. Garlow. Notary Public. sm-wiy.wer.a *aPAIIL D. FLOYERS ++►M• o.rawr rw.n a n» nr Per n n. a ave ye. a y.Wr.nar -I..aa¢s)nwwarwnwfLwwoeir.+M.w...uws,s.awoarw+n _ YYFnW wwwwreere n m. wl.r rrr,Yyywa�we wM W.1 wm M rra'Ir.M►awdaw epslyOM. w M wry Iw�lwww�.. aew rya ' GMwY '. a..lA)maw.r..�wr. P.aayO w ft JUN jiver Clec /.wa.utyQ�'aY�G. m-...s.dt.,mr«w MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE rooz nM) ORANGE,CA Document: DD 1995.365584 Page I of 1 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:03 PM Provided by Data Trace System #RjR9WAffRUy0GWAW, AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL 7V: MARK D. FAIRBANKS JANICE S. FAIRBANKS 3123 E. LA VETA AVENUE ORANGE, CA 92869 .:062-090-08 Recorded in Official Records,County of Orange Ga L. Granville Clerk -Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 29.00 20000337620 03:45pm 06/27/00 100 49 G02 2 209.00 209.00 20.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ahnvc Thu Line for Itser Y Use Only Escrow No.: 20728 -SG GRANT DEED THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTORO) DECLAREW THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS! COUNTY1S4 8.00 j X 1 computed on full Value of p�olx�y conveyed, or [j jl computed on full value less value of (tens or encumbrances remaining al time of sale, unincorporated area: I X 1 City of Tustin , and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, LOUIS METRO INTER R.E. PROPERTIES, A NEVADA CORPORATION hereby GRANT(S) to MARK D. FAIRBANKS and JANICE S. FAIRBANKS, Husband and Wife a Joint Tenants the following described prepeny in the City of Tustin, County of Orange State of California; Portions of Lot "V" of the Stafford and Tustin Tract, as shown on a map recorded In Bank 1, Pages 618 and 619 of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County. COMPLETE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AS EXHIBIT "A". COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 520 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET, TUSTIN, CA 92780. INTER R.E. PROPERTIES, A Document Date: May 31. 2000 ' ?; 1NDRA�OW It l31 COMM. K7145847 F NottPuWeCaYforrYa 30 3 ORANGE COUNTY W Comm. rrP.Jury 5.20at STATE OF CALIFORNIA ?SS COUNTYOF Orange ) on___jUne_L 7nnn bcfurc me. qaundra .1 rArIcua Notary�ublie rcnonelly appciaW pcnorally known in one, (or pmved in me on the buu of athhcmry evidence) to be da perhonsp whosename tu. sumenbot to We within imnurncm d s taeknowlM N cdBed m rat h-111 is j -1 execuad die hm oe a In hhdhis aothnnsed celacity(irand ve mm by hislMsaWn sigramrcof on the Inmumem d:e penontp or the crvlty upon beha f of which da penun(1) umal, 0ccoted the I:uwmrns. WITNESS my had hod amdn seal. — _ Sigmo c�P This arta for official mtui-I seal Mail Tax Statements to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below ORANGE,CA Document: DD 2000.337620 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:04 PM Provided by Data Trace System Page I of 2 File No.: 6105441. EXHIBIT "B" THAT PORTION OF "LOT V" OF THE STAFFORD AND TUSTIN TRACT, IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, 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, DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT, 410 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT, RUNNING THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 50 FEET; THENCE EAST PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 200 FEET; THENCE NORTH PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 50 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 200 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ORANGE,CA Document: DD 2000.337620 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:05 PM Provided by Data Trace System Page 2 of 2 d�a,� F: LaUe�,Ovt A -a-10., 4P ft eb l LFI98CA-a Recorded in Official ReeordeC Tom 041Y, Clark -Recorder , ounty o/ Oranpe IIIIdIIIMIIIIIINIG�MIIII�NIlud1119111ML�IIIMa.00 ,eco e, Opj 30014MO901:51PM 12110/03 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2.00 0.00 000 0.00 QUITCLAIM DEED r THIS QUITCLAIM DEED, executed this 3►d day of bee e.t b M . 20 ° 1, by first Party. Grantor. M4 r,( /,. 1aJ rAd nkr 4n f/ T4"1e.4Jr: / n, n6e a 4s, Nuc bs na., o/ W,fe CIG Y°,y�-Adnas4j d whose post office address address's -36.3 ,5. GaVe At ✓e ansa C� 9.2869 to second Party, Grantee,/�,�nCa �a^49em erre-S"6i`U/ftS L 'A L C. whose post office address is 3/,13 F. G4 ve 14 Aid earet-1 G G9 g ea�69 WITNESSETH, That the said first party, for good consideration and for the sum of Paid by the said second Z aro Dollars (S '0- ) se, mime and quitclaim unto the sated second party forrever, all the eright acknowledged, , interest and claim which tthe sed first Ply has in and to the following described parcel of land, and improvements and appurtenances thereto in the County of Oran 9e. , State of d 4 /, fai'rt rp to wit: S;t �661F,e. iY� rGf><.Y C,Q -JA 71'0 T7h/arLpa���un o F 'LV „^oYt�e .5r/1 A44 o/,'/7W, ,e rao� th e GiYV sF �5",V, l/i OW,+Y,%� vT 9 e rt9 C, i><a 0i'G4��°rnl4r 4S /de/YN9� ?oyes #,/04 -rd d/9 to p's; e//lNeoUs rt�o�df o `ot �%nyt�Pl Gov, U I-/�efn/o C�PGCh l°Pq%4t 4c°��tin�n� q�et /normo.r�I'Avtowi�, o 7'?e Na�l,ur/Ps� CO/.eP�e-�SQ,ffa/I07<I'4nnrn�7tfrfnfL' tON.7-i, 4%onq' 4614-e-fAI,ne oT Slrra /o�l"o'7ref" �Qnoe eag�/°a�a//e�fo l�i�v�n/'�-/, /,ng Af'Sat.y� ?offl doo/�Iea•__7���rnce >7°%1 papa//G/fod,Ns�/.n�. �c�'S'a-r-r[f)//' Thrnc& We9fP4-/`4/1Gl /'ao �lrf "O"A /inPF a )o% 2 eco iP �'�'o 4'-Ze Pa,n>j-oyC 41 ry'rl1 rl1 /19 . 01W2.2a1.1 E-ZhoJe: 1, Pert � L- mmmh1042 ��ppt2 (a WVjaWunf. ,, w o'm"UN*iN 1'W PeWmr h e pvmn liae„d m teem¢ 4w' ie Yar are, 72A113 - RISO ORANGE,CA Document: QD 2003.1468609 Printed on 11/16/2010 1.49:06 PM Provided by Data Trace System Page I of2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said first party has signed and sealed these presents the day and ycar fast above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in presence of: Signature of Witness name of Witness � AMUF MIM -4,111 M74 km%� of First Signature of WiNessSi of F rst Party Print name of Witness Print name of First Party Signature of Prepamr Print Name of Preparer Address of Preparer State of ChN-XjT _rkt h Countyof oa.rrN 6 E On otCtr++rS c -ti 3 , aou3 befomme, Wuk�rn-r1 su, rts'ctrtuS ens6te appeared hl hull. D- irMr-5"ki �I�ICC- 5. 'fR�V.rS Rvl1t,( (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) N be the person(s) whose name(s).fare subscribed to the within instrument and ackoewledged to me that haSheithey executed the same in hialher/Iheir authorized capacity(im), and that by hWher/their signature(s) on the instrument the peva n(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my h d and official seaL Signature )m ignatu of Notary Atfiant_Knowrt_Produced ID tatteruwao CgnnWbn/1]7aMa is nsr NWary Pubae • GlaernY T OWN CauNy IQMVCantF I A419,20011 Type of ID (Seal) ORANGE,CA Document: QD 2003.1468609 Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:07 PM Provided by Data Trace System RECORDING RE RY AND MAli, Tp ,i,,k. Ax Recorded in Official Records, County of Orange Tom Daly, Clark -Recorder P,IIIIIIIUIIIIfluflIIIDIIIIIIINIIflIIINIIIIIIPd111119,00 Tt,hA ` 9 z-? JrD 200400016110404:30pm 03101104 100 31 010 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 L1r298CA-04 QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QMCLA1M DXZD, eseculed this 24 day of February, 2001, by first party, Greater, Favbenks Co. Managemrnt R Services LLC. whose poet o1T¢e address is 3123 Fast LaVem Ave. Orange CA 92869 to steood party, Granite, Mark D. Fahben ce and Jenice S. Faid mlot kuth a l and wife as joint tenants whose post office address is 3123 Fast LaVda Ave. Orange CA 92869 W ITIYFSSETH, That the said fust party, for good consideration and for the sum of Zero Dollen (f0) paid by the said second party, the receipt whereof is hereby aclmmvledgd, dao hereby r®use, release and quitclaim unto the said second party forever, a0 the right, tie, interest and claw which the said fust {arty has in and to the following described parcel of lard, and inprovernents and appurtenances thereto in the County of Orange, State of California to wit: 520 So Pacific St. Tustin CA 92780 That portion of "Lot V" of the staff nd and Tulin not, in the city of Tusi* county of OrNIM state of California, as Per map recorded in book 2, pages 618 and 619, of mLmllaseaa records of Los Angeles county, California, described as beginning at a Point on the west Lim of said tat, 410 feet south of the northwest comer of said lot, naming thence south along the west line of said lot 30 fees; thence east parallel to the north line of said lot 200 ftet; therm with parallel to the west line of said lot 50 feet; thence west parallel to the north line of said lot 200 feet to the point of beginning. 70c.- I- • I.e. AtNL TAR aTATEtENTS AS 011" ED ADM 01991IOe1Mtle &Z Pearn lnc. Peel ORANGE,CA Document: QD 2004.161104 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:08 PM Provided by Data Trace System DocunEWARY 7RANWen Tea y_Me—x& ti+ Computed m fie voila of pmpary mmmi ed, or ❑ Computed on U value lees Item 8 Montserrat, ✓ War" at a of sale. slwa.a a aeaaaa r was a.r.wn� m. mn "... Page 1 of 2 IN WITNESS W9EREOF, The add fust party las dped and sealed these poseurs de day and year fust above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in practice of: Sigeaturt of Witnew �— of First Party �gr,)tJ- A �-)4C0(ti'e Prim anew of Witom /§igataop0 witnew TIA t h N r-1 INt A`r k m up Prim Dame of Witness Signatane of Prepry Print Name of Prepeaer Address of Preparer Stare ofrro be filled out by a notary) �R,,;,ti y {ntrb,nKS County of rro be filledno by oa notaryJ00 rlta_ A. r1y�a6'#e Marne 7. 'i=a.rhanYJ On rro be filled out by a notary) before me, rf a''� • �m1, appeal personally Imown to me (or pawed to =on the basis of satufegoay evidence) to be the per�aZwhow Dano s istare subecd1W to the within ioranurnmit and admmvkdged to me that hdebOW= executed the same to hieThes/ cautherized apesltvtia), and then by his/her(t lr signanmfel an the inmuamft the Pasoan. oc the entity upon beha orwhirh the pawmIOacted: esmdo'the butnmem. WITNESS my hand and official nal. '7 LZ Sigtmme of Notary �— Nsant KK0000yyp� ,/� ID Type oflD WI c:n-Z anvy3 14un9- (sal) BRUCE A. NYPOLITE COnn.f1301119 1^ N QTW PMK. UMM1 =l Yt hiw. E.ean JR, 1.2001 ORANGE,CA Document: QD 2004.161104 Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:09 PM Provided by Data Trace System RECORDING REQUESTID BY AND MAIL TO Ijnt fes.+-� Fu.rlh..k5 f-7r4M1Li Xe. 57` r,'$/,A, c.4 91-7 g,0 A *;1Is/.Ci�! Recorded In Official Records, County of Orange Tom Daly, Clerk -Recorder IIII�IIINIIIII�IIIIIINN111111111110111311111119.00 2004000161105 04:30pm 03101/04 130 91 010 2 o.00 o.oa o.00 o.00 a.00 a.aa moo non QUITCLAIM DEED THIS QUITCLAIM DIED, executed this 24 dry of Febnsry, 2004, by first party, Grantor, Mark D. Fairbanks and Janice S. Fairbanks, husband and wife m joint tenants whore post ot6ce address is 3123 Fast LaVoie Ave. Orange CA 92869 to seemed Parry, Caanta, Made D. Fairbanks and Janice S. Fairbanks, husband and wife as joint tenants and Bra S. Fairbanks and Stephanie A Fiirbmlrs, husband and wife as joint tenants whose past office address is 3123 East La Veta Ave. Orange CA 92869 WITNESSETH, That the raid first Pasty, for good consideration and for the cont of Zero Dollars (SO) paid by the said second party, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby remise, release and quitclaim man the said second Party forever, a0 the right true, interest and claim which the said first party Its m and to the following described parcel of lend, and improvements and appmtemnccs thereto in the County of Orange, State of California to wit: 520 So Pacific SL Tustin CA 92780 That portion of "Lot V" of the staffbol and Tustin tract, in do city of To" county of Om1gC slate of California, as per map recorded in book 2, pages 619 and 619, of miscellaneous records of I.oa Angeles county, California, described as beginning at a point on the west time of said ol, 419 feet south of the northwest comer of said Id, running Wilke south along the west Ilse of sold lot 50 feet; threes eat parallel to the mnh lino of said lot 200 fat; div¢ With Pars9el to the west line of said Id 30 fel; thence west Parallel to the north lint of said la 200 feet to the point of beginning. clv 1001.._. firn"J,n" DM MMA0 Tit AMRA Tell ❑ Computed on toil vMrs of property conveyed, or LJ re�kq theMI erian la sofa Hera ennmhMeae ai9�nn a rr.n .'"W 111 MAL TAX SrATEAENT9 AS DIRECTED ABOVE Peel I ORANGE,CA Document: QD 2004.161105 . Page I of 2 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:10 PM Provided by Data Trace System IN W 1TNYSS W9ZRIC.OF, The said fuss party has signed and scaled these prescecs the day and year fins above written. Sigxd, scaled and delivered in presence of. Sigoetre of WIUM Hoo 0-C Print name of Wimaa goal of Wine 9A `a A -m Mia. �. ids✓ l� Print name of Wifim Sigmltae of Prepry Print Name of Prtparer Address of Preparer -Fa:rb ^lei State of(TobwfiHadvorbr ootaryl i fur •+- S. County of[TebcStlW'oofllyia YCWRy�.`r�N.t P> rt•14nIAR fA,CY- 'J. +a•rbG.•v, On [To be filled out by a notary] before mmff., flrij,�l, appeared paaoodly "Mn to use (or orovedJame on the beds of uWaaory uviderce) to be the pason�s whose nroe�s istur-subscribed to the mthin imbumets and acknowledged to me dial bctsbc/_dMj-aucutcd the sax ie his/hefAbdLaudwrized capacitiliol and that by hivbec/lb& signaturcU) on the instrument the person(!_). Of the entity upon behalf of which the peraoq(E?_actod, ueadod the i�Tmem_^ W1INFSS my hand and official scat. Sig mtore of Notary ORANGE,CA Document: QD 2004.161105 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:11 PM Provided by Data Tmce System Affiant Kropu ✓PrWuced lO Type of ID al•iurr%i� O^gef)1"4t"4- (Seal) BRUCE A. RYPOWE Can'.1130811A in NOTARY PURIr.e.4aeanl mop Cra Y 1Y cna. [son W 1. ma Page 2 of 2 el_ w_lal �: -�. C1 RECORDING REQUMW BY CALIFORNIA COUNTIES TITLE AND WHEN RECORDED MALL TRIB DUE AND TAE STATBMFJYI3 T0: Mr. & MIs Mark D, Feirbwk; cul 520 South Paine Street Tustin, CA 92780 Recondad In ONlclal R"Oten. Orange County Tom Daly, C14M41acorder VIIIIIIIIIOIIf31101111I101111tlIIl B�lgll 9.00 2005000002609 03:50pm 01/03/05 203 51 G02 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Assessor'sParcel No. 401-37147 .'AL" Tide Order No. 70/5403 GRANT DEED Escrow No. 941643200 THE UNDERSIGNED GRAN UR(S) DECLARE(S) THAT We docummury trim{ ex is: COUNTY: "-& CrTy: tete-tin of: Tustin VM Total transfer �.ewtar No Consideration, This is OrWmIMeer oronmer4 oenmaas. we rdm nrlMsn waR,e,a,,,�„e„�,sals,. ofwe a bonafide gift and the a Daentbsvenpr Sams.nwAdbwi,ry,re,ea: grantors received nothing FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION receipt Of which LLC is hereby acknowledged, Fairbanks Cc MaBgermu & Seryleea in hereby GRANTsb S) to Mark D. Fairbanks AND Janice S. Fairbanks, husband and wife as Joint tenant, AND Brret turn S Fairbanks AND Stephanie A. Fairbanks, Husband And Wife As Jurat Tensaw the following described IC81 property in the Connty of ORANGE, State of CALIFORNIA; **EXACT LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS PER EXHIBIT 'A' ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.-* ALSO KNOWN AS: 520 SOUTH PACIFIC STREET, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA DATE: December 27, 2004 STATE OF CALIFOR IA COUNTY OF . I"/J/1 AO )SS 1 On ��f1Ph)%7Ar 47 i/y tk for. a, �3on. /'eTa P perm �/t�h7e uandd f cdd No P de i— p e] Far da Fail-111 ir/�� Lir to be whose N mve4 w m son the ed to io ah withintery evideRa) /(l acknowedgean(gwhhat n”-WISvewbacnheoune i wiainithti, teM i Y.�t7 acknowledged m me that kehkNM eulhod"du Yeaavld the •,mein lHaon the els L Petitea-fityui,onbbykWwhich teplanoe(e)m the iMR,ed the Vera(•) a the entlry upon behalfaf which the IRneon(e) acre,, ,,tared the inehunrn4 WITNESS my hand and official Beal. Sip,awre 2iL-tilaLR,!/ ✓%q� f ORANGE,CA Document: DD 2005.2609 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:12 PM Provided by Data Trace System FAIRBANKS CO. MANAGEMENT & SERVICES LLC or. MARK O. FA B KS ` r L•{ (P 9d-2�..14( by: NICH S. FAIRBANKS FOR IIUTARYWAL DR STAMP BOWE MLA Cammbelal • 1421434 -ei Notary PlmBc-Calfomla Orange Canty MY Carrun. F14s/esMayJ1, ROOT Pagel oft Exhibit "A" ESCROW ORDER # 9416432 -OG That portion of "Lot V" of the Stafford and Tustin Tract, in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, as par map recorded in Book 2, pages 618 and 619, of mixellaaeous records of Los Angeles County, California described u beginning at a point on the West line of said lot, 410 feet South of the Northwest comer of said lot, running thence South along the West lino of said 50 feet, thence Ent paralled to the North line of said lot 200 fact; thence North pamucl to the West line of said lot 50 feet; thence West parallel to the North line of said lot 200 feel to the point of beginning. ORANGE,CA Document: DD 2005.2609 Page 2 of 2 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:13 PM Provided by Data Trace System 1 Rtrcrding Roglraty 0Y �� istrvrer ve Recording requested by and when recorded return to: 1111 E. Katells Ave. Ste 110 Orange, CA 92867 Attn: Tlcor Title NLS SSUe�c�l�o3 ®Washington Mutual Recorded In Official Raeorde, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk -Recorder INIINBIIIIINIIIIIYGYIINIINIYIIYGI 27.00 2005000140084 11:45am 02/24/05 10913 D11 9 0.900.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT DEED OF TRUST Loan Number: 0680580396 THIS DEED OF TRUST is between: MARK D. FAIRBANKS AND JANICE S. FAIRBANKS AND BRET S. FAIRBANKS AND STEPHANIE A. FAIRBANKS whose address Is: I"Trustor"); _ corporation, the NLS 1111 E. Karelia Ave. Ste 110 Orange CA 92887 and its successors in trust and assigns ("Trustee.); and Washington Mutual Bank, FA, a federal association, which isoraanlzed and existing under the laws of the United States of America, and whose address is 400 E. Main Street, Stockton, CA 95290 ("Beneficiary") and its successors or assigns. 1. Granting Clause. Trustor hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys to Trustee in trust, with power of sale, the real property in GRANGE County, California, described below and all Interest in It Trustor ever gets: PORTION OF LT: V SO: STAFFORD AND TUSTIN TRACT BK: 2 PG: 618-619, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CA 6" '^4NDA"n., ITLY: TI"c ,I"11 '.:.:a:t.ui i. :!: +;I RECORD IT HAS NOT TF XCUTION U:, ,. •. iu iiJ E. FLC15 UeOil TITLE. Tex Parcel Number: 401-371-07 together with all Insurance and condemnation proceeds related to It; all plumbing, lighting, air conditioning and heating apparatus and equipment; and all fencing, blinds, drapes, floor coverings, built-in appliances and other fixtures at any time installed on or in or used in connection with such real property. All of the property described above will be celled the "Property." As used herein 4380110/211041 wee BANK Page t of 1 ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Page 1 of 8 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:14 PM Provided by Data Trace System 0680580396 State" shall refer to the state of California. 2. Obligation Secured. This Deed of Trust is given to secure performance of each promise of Trustor contained herein and in a Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure with Beneficiary of even date herewith with a maximum credit limit of _ $100 000 00 the I"Credit Agreement"), including any extensions, renewals or modifications thereof, and repayment of all sums borrowed by Trustor under the Credit Agreement, with Interest from the date of each advance until paid at the rates provided therein. The Credit Agreement provides for variable and fixed rates of interest. Under the Credit Agreement, the Trustor may borrow, repay and re -borrow from time to time, up to the maximum credit limit stated above, and all such advances shell be secured by the lien of this Deed of Trust. This Deed of Trust also secures payment of certain fees and charges payable by Trustor under the Credit Agreement, certain fees and costs of Beneficiary as provided in Section 9 of this Deed of Trust, and repayment of money advanced by Beneficiary to protect the Property or Beneficiary's interest In the Property, including advances made pursuant to Section 6 below. The Credlt Agreement provides that unless sooner repaid, all amounts due under the Credit Agreement are due and payable in full thirty (30) years from the date of this Deed of Trust (the "Maturity Date"). All amounts due under the Credit Agreement and this Deed of Trust are called the "Debt". 3. Representations of Trustor. Trustor represents that: (a) Trustor is the owner of the Property, which is unencumbered except by: easements, reservations, and restrictions of record not inconsistent with the intended use of the Property and any existing first mortgage or deed of trust given in good faith and for value, the existence of which has been disclosed in writing to Beneficiary; and (b) The Property is not presently and will not during the term of this Deed of Trust be used for any agricultural purposes. 4. Promises of Trustor. Trustor promises: (a) To keep the Property in good repair and not to remove, alter or demolish any of the improvements on the Property, without first obtaining Beneficiary's written consent; (b) To allow representatives of Beneficiary to inspect the Property at any reasonable hour, and to comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, covenants, conditions and restrictions affecting the Property; (c) To pay on time all lawful taxes and assessments an the Property; (d) To perform on time all terms, covenants and conditions of any prior mortgage or deed of trust covering the Property or any part of it and pay all amounts due and owing thereunder in a timely manner; (e) To see to it that this Deed of Trust remains a valid lien on the Property superior to all liens except those described in Section 3(a), and to keep the Property free of all encumbrances which may impair Beneficiary's security; (f) To keep the improvements an the Property Insured by a company satisfactory to Beneficiary against fire and extended coverage perils, and against such other risks as Beneficiary may reasonably require, in an amount equal to the full Insurable value of the improvements, and to deliver evidence of such Insurance coverage to Beneficiary. Subject to the rights of the holder of any lien described In 3(a), Beneficiary shell be named as the loss payee on all such policies pursuant to a standard lender's loss payable clause. The amount collected under any Insurance policy shell be applied to the repair of such Improvements, unless doing so would Impair Beneficiary's security, in which event such proceeds may be applied upon any indebtedness hereby secured. In the event of foreclosure or sale of the Property pursuant to the Trustee's power of sale, all rights of the Trustor in insurance policies than In force shall pass to the purchaser at the Sheriff's or Trustee's sale. 438011012llO41 Wa.1 BANK Payr 3 01 ] ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Page 2 of 8 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:15 PM Provided by Data Trace System 0680580396 (g) To sign all financing statements and other documents that Beneficiary may request from time to time to perfect, protect and continue Beneficiary's security interest in the Property. Trustor irrevocably appoints Beneficiary as Grantor's attorney-in-fact to execute, file and record any financing statements or similar documents in Trustor's name and to execute all documents necessary to transfer title if there is a default; and (h) To advise Beneficiary immediately in writing of any change in Trustor's name, address or employment. 5. Sale, Transfer or Further Encumbrance of Property. Subject to applicable law, the entire Debt shall become Immediately due and payable in full upon sale or other transfer of the Property or any interest therein by Trustor by contract of sale or otherwise including, without limit, any further encumbrance of the Property. 6. Curing of Defaults. If Trustor fails to comply with any of the covenants in Section 4, including all the terms of any prior mortgage or deed of trust, Beneficiary may take any action required to comply with any such covenants without waiving any other right or remedy it may have for Trustor's failure to comply. Repayment to Beneficiary of all the money spent by Beneficiary on behalf of Trustor shall be secured by this Deed of Trust; at Beneficiaries option, advance may be made against the Credit Agreement to pay amounts due hereunder; such shall not relieve Beneficiary from liability for failure to fulfill the covenants in Section 4. The amount spent shall bear interest at the rates from time to time applicable under the Credit Agreement and be repayable by Trustor on demand. Although Beneficiary may take action under this paragraph, Beneficiary is not obligated to do so. 7. Remedies For Default. Is) Prompt performance under this Deed of Trust is essential. If Trustor does not pay any installment of the Debt or other amount due hereunder an time, or any other event occurs that entitles Beneficiary to declare the unpaid balance of the Debt due and payable in full under the Credit Agreement, or if Trustor fails to comply with any other term, condition, obligation or covenant contained in the Credit Agreement or this Deed of Trust or any rider thereto, or any other deed of trust, mortgage, trust indenture or security agreement or other Instrument having priority over this Deed of Trust, or if any representation of Trustor herein was false or misleading, the Debt and any other money whose repayment is secured by this Deed of Trust shall immediately become due and payable in full, at the option of Beneficiary, and the total amount owed by Trustor shall thereafter bear Interest at the rate(s) stated in the Credit Agreement. Beneficiary may then or thereafter advise Trustee of the default and of Beneficiary's election to have the Property sold pursuant to Trustee's power of sale in accordance with applicable law and deliver to Trustee any documentation as may be required by law. After giving any notices and the time required by applicable law, Trustee shall sell the Property, either in whole or in separate parcels or other part, and in such order as Trustee may choose, at public auction to the highest bidder for cash in lawful money of the United States which will be payable at the time of sale all in accordance with applicable law. Anything in the preceding sentence to the contrary notwithstanding, Beneficiary may providing such nply the oebt towards tice tice as may beybid at any r required by law.h sale. Trustee Unless prohibitedabyPlaw, any any such sale by the Trustor, Beneficiary or Trustee, mae.y y PsTrustee hall Including y the proceeds of the sale as follows: (i) to the expenses of he sale, including a reasonable atrusteel's fee and lawyer's fee; fill to the obligations secured by this Deed of Trust; and, (til) the surplus, If any, shall go to the persons) legally entitled thereto. (b) Trustee shall deliver to the purchaser at the sale its dead, without warranty, which 43W normrwt ws.t BANK Papp ] at l ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Page 3 of 8 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:16 PM Provided by Data Trace System 0680580396 shall convey to the purchaser the interest in the Property which Trustor had or had the power to convey at the time of execution of this Deed of Trust and any interest which Trustor subsequently acquired. The Trustee's deed shall recite the facts showing that the sale was conducted in compliance with all the requirements of law and of this Deed of Trust. This recital shall be prima facie evidence of such compliance and conclusive evidence of such compliance in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value. (c) To the extent permitted by law the power of sale conferred by this Deed of Trust is not an exclusive remedy. In connection with any portion of the Property which is personal property, Beneficiary shall further be entitled to exercise the rights of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code as then in effect in the state of California. Idl By accepting payment of any sum secured by this Deed of Trust after its due date, Beneficiary does not waive its right to require prompt payment when due of all other sums so secured or to declare default for failure to so pay. 8. Condemnation; Eminent Domain. In the event any portion of the Property is taken or damaged In an eminent domain proceeding, the entire amount of the award, or such portion as may be necessary to fully satisfy the Debt, shall, except as required by applicable low, be paid to the Debt. 9. Fen and Costs. Trustor shall pay Beneficiary's and Trustee's reasonable cost of searching records, other reasonable expenses as allowed by law, and reasonable attorney's fees, in any lawsuit or other proceeding to foreclose this Deed of Trust; in any lawsuit or proceeding which Beneficiary or Trustee prosecutes or defends to protect the lien of this Deed of Trust; and, in any other action taken by Beneficiary to collect the Debt, including without limitation any disposition of the Property under the State Uniform Commercial Code; and, any action taken in bankruptcy proceedings as well as any appellate proceedings. 10, Reconvsyence, Trustee shall reconvey the Property to the person entitled thereto, on written request of Beneficiary, or following satisfaction of the obligations secured hereby and Beneficiary and Trustee shall be entitled to charge Trustor a reconveyance fee together with fees for the recordation of the reconveyance documents unless prohibited by law. If your Credit Line is cancelled or terminated, subject to applicable law, we may delay the cancellation or reconveyance of your security instrument for a reasonable period of time to enable us to post to your Credit Line Account any advances that you have received. 11. Trustee; Successor Trustee. Beneficiary may, unless prohibited by law, appoint e successor Trustee from time to time In the manner provided by law. The successor Trustee shall be vested with all powers of the original trustee. The Trustee is not obligated to notify any party hereto of a pending sale under any other deed of trust or of any action or proceeding in which Trustor, Trustee or Beneficiary shall be a party unless such action or proceeding is brought by the Trustee. 12. Savings Clause. If a law, which applies to this Deed of Trust or the Credit Agreement and which seta maximum loan charges, Is finally Interpreted by a court having jurisdiction so that the interest or other loan charges collected or to be collected in connection with this Deed of Trust or the Credit Agreement exceed the permitted limits, then: (f) any such loan charge shall be reduced by the amount necessary to reduce the charge to the permitted limit; and (ii) any sums already collected from Trustor which exceeded permitted limits will be refunded to Trustor. Beneficiary may choose to make this refund by reducing the prindpal owed or by making a direct payment. If e refund reduces the principal, the reduction will be treated as a partial prepayment. 4360 1103110/I we.r BANK Papa 4.17 ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Page 4 of 8 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:17 PM Provided by Data Trace System 0680580398 13. Miscellaneous. This Deed of Trust shall benefit and obligate the heirs, devisees, legatees, administrators, executors, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto. The term 'Beneficiary' shall mean the holder and owner of the Credit Agreement secured by this Deed of Trust, whether or not that person is named as Beneficlary herein. The words used in this Deed of Trust referring to one person shall be read to refer to more then one person if two or more have signed this Deed of Trust or become responsible for doing the things this Deed of Trust requires. This Deed of Trust shell be governed by and construed in accordance with federal law and, to the extent federal law doesn't apply, the laws of the state of California. If any provision of this Deed of Trust is determined to be invalid under law, the remaining provisions of this Deed of Trust shall nonetheless remain in full force and affect. 14. Baneffciary and Similar 8tetemsnfs. Beneficiary may collect a fee in the maximum amount allowed by law for furnishing any beneficiary statement, payoff demand statement or similar statement. 15. Riders. If one or more riders are executed by Grantor and recorded together with this Security Instrument, the covenants and agreements of each such rider shall be incorporated into and shell amend and supplement the covenants and agreements of this Security Instrument as if the riderls) were a part of this Security Instrument. !Check applicable box(es)l ❑ Condominium Rider ❑ Other: ❑ Planned Unit Development Rider i°aecavi 43150 nafxvwf we, BANK Prpe 6 of OR.ANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:18 PM Provided by Data Trace System Page 5 of 8 0680580396 ey signing below Trustor accepts and agrees to the provisions of this Deed of Trust end of any rider(s) executed by Trustor concurrently therewith. DATED at Sf n , � t ,' day of YC his ///�Lt4/G( �9pJ TRUSTORIS): J ,4vs�4z�, HRHT S. FAIRBANKS Ia:D. 1PAZRHANKS S 136011021/091 We.1 ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 STEP A. PAIRHANR J I B e. FAIRBAN S BANK Pap. e m 7 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:19 PM Provided by Data Trace System Page 6 of 8 personally known to me for proved to me on the basis of satisfactory eviden el to be the pereon(e) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/Mr/their signaturels) an the Instrument the person(s), or the amity upon behalf of which the Person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official sAenal. / I ENA CDgMACIt Notary Public • California Public m and for rite tet of Celifw{+ 1, j =F it County MY Commission expires: ) � is MYComm.Erfn:..a.n f. �`-E REQUEST FOR FULL RECONVEYANCE TO: TRUSTEE (Do not record. To be used onfy when note has been paid.) The undersigned Is the legal owner and holder of the Note and ell other Indebtedness secured by the within Deed of Trust. Said Note, together with all other indebtedness secured by this Dead of Trust, has been fully Paid and satisfied and you are hereby requested and directed, on payment to you of any sums owing to you under the terms of this Deed of Trust to cancel the Note above mentioned and all other evidences of indebtedness secured by this Dead of Trust together with the Deed of Trust and to convey, without warranty, to the patties designated by the terms of this Deed of Trust all the estate now held by you thereunder. DATED Mail reconveyance to neo Oorztrwl we,t BANK Pear 7 of 7 ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Page 7 of 8 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:19 PM Provided by Data Trace System KPIMEENA C K 0680580396 STATE OF CALIFORNIA I@Ncl'=!= Orange County I1,�A �� yy�� COUNTY OF Jf f�lA�l S MVCom it EabA 200N On 14k WOO before me�IUn FWf III Public in and for the State of California, a Notary personally appeared personally known to me for proved to me on the basis of satisfactory eviden el to be the pereon(e) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/Mr/their signaturels) an the Instrument the person(s), or the amity upon behalf of which the Person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official sAenal. / I ENA CDgMACIt Notary Public • California Public m and for rite tet of Celifw{+ 1, j =F it County MY Commission expires: ) � is MYComm.Erfn:..a.n f. �`-E REQUEST FOR FULL RECONVEYANCE TO: TRUSTEE (Do not record. To be used onfy when note has been paid.) The undersigned Is the legal owner and holder of the Note and ell other Indebtedness secured by the within Deed of Trust. Said Note, together with all other indebtedness secured by this Dead of Trust, has been fully Paid and satisfied and you are hereby requested and directed, on payment to you of any sums owing to you under the terms of this Deed of Trust to cancel the Note above mentioned and all other evidences of indebtedness secured by this Dead of Trust together with the Deed of Trust and to convey, without warranty, to the patties designated by the terms of this Deed of Trust all the estate now held by you thereunder. DATED Mail reconveyance to neo Oorztrwl we,t BANK Pear 7 of 7 ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Page 7 of 8 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:19 PM Provided by Data Trace System OOYERNMENT CODE 27361 ,7 I certify under penalty of perjury that the Notary Seal on the document to which this statement is attached reads as follows: NAME OF THE NOTARY: K R t S'P-.Q. N A> CM M K < - DATE COMMISSION EXPIRES: 2-I G I OQ COUNTY WHERE BOND IS FILED:_ Owa-LN . COMMISSION NUMBER: I (7$ 3C�VENDOR# rUti''q I certify under penalty and the laws of the State of California that the illegible portion of this document to which this statement is attached reads as follows: ACCOMMODATION ONLY: THIS INSTRUMENT FILEDFOR RECORD BY TICOR TITLE COMPANY IS AN ACCOMMODATION ONLY. IT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED AS TO ITS EXECUTION, OR AS TO ITS EFFECTS UPON TITLE PAGE OF EXECUTION: Santa Ann DATE: 2 T SIGNATURE: ORANGE,CA Document: TD 2005.140084 Page 8 of 8 Printed on 11/16/2010 1:49:20 PM Provided by Data Trace System 6 r�- / Block No. If"j, I A ' a r ., r x 1 1 I. :I 11 M I+ Itl ar PkTfMF• t .:J 1 : C ...... r_ .. ._.4. r.. �. -... e.IP d� f..( 1 .! .: •. d'. N„� f `n/' a FtS2 � /_. �...h': i e n.•y L•.{..r r r s;, f _ /Z/ — — -----Block No._--- i u� - ¢11 NM LY ew Fl11AFX] ' fiANfNe W�MrAN ' 1 tJ MI N o r 1 z I T. f 1' e ro p. 11 U: MI 11 4411- me a l yn -__..__.__�Y�l'.L'v �%¢.L..(..B..w4.��:.'~ f— ', �,N1�.�[Q /4 _.1., __-- r v ,w...• /:.J,. A tl � r 9/��/ ..:.bsr.iO�43'✓L .%"J2,4_.-.- I I _..-._--�+ ...�. y ._-!3 .-.-✓!4'r... X[y/Zi. ....f `.- +1 --� .d.�l� S1'f'// A. ✓lbs; 11j � __L?_. _:._P.La,Ftrvu Y!a/ (o °!�-�L_r ll .1:. Y%: �%l, r -_rte i5,L✓%2/�,'_ '}-_ -�—r--. ...._ ..c .._ —r(yy'u•�..9aT.Si'1.ri -. _ -...__ .._ .. ,,����e�[� 1^, I � ! .•=----_ r', .- ,sulyi.s >f� � r. -.ill � �'� '_.. �Jt__.-..y. ^�� _tY a.G. r✓iYimhSG-.y--.Jd;Jl•:lt �.L"- _2le"Yarr ._IJ _._ .y __.s�Caa'T.wy?.rYi Y.. I tr/f -... 1 _�.�4iL /� �Ii `.Y�/` L6Y_Y J -l.. •F%lL? + --i'L } —_fA � •. � � 1 �-4— I.Q[4 ��L.awYG .QL _L!! _LiG r/h��C = r� �-rrI/.l1/ 1� .. sr�.... �''z w i� ._ —4_._ . - i - 1 r3'.. -- .Li�if'22@�6t{ Yle1'%aflYF% __—. .✓ ` !1, .JT l L rsy :tfl'-:-_ 4 -_ - �_ Y-.Xas-'. L. i.a.m.+ zLdC3YL J 1LLJt v _t _, i ,r., ...rC.._atlnf4.� _-.lL.arr._a�b.SLB..f r'cx._._. ._ ✓li.._ - _�."`2°SF ' Q i r LL, .la. 7S6.f°'l �> 4 51 a! _ ' tet..•_ 1 k wuszc» ,Uls y- _..< _1 1 _ i � .� u ✓ ' t�Y[%!Y3 s a raNc- jx. I c..ry<.G.- �. �, I _ - 1 - .. +1,4�.�.... .� -. _--.�_ r.,:.-..�..� —_—i-$Yt�t�.LrrG11c"J-. '_`YF / ?y✓ _ L. .liF4 •ivL(.M'u'T-t_i-•-'�� _r -Y-'-.- •..•�1!!! �-_.__ - B- i Vr.� �,/iO!..y- -- �� 1 rr'�-� I I tc,�. .� Op � -_-^- � IW J Ir.N � YwJN4� WtI PYNM[Y _•.� P._ 2 3 4 5 8 7 f f 1. �I� R 11 11 U N1111 WF PM�fkf I ._ter.__•'__--.-_ 7 _4241 3.l 4.41ez"X. _V s.9rldt7. l.�unr. 4�.._�'1r.�c+.._!/ke�t".G.f yu7 gs.,it 1✓3iriP.-. � � I .. � _..._� � /.,R'�ail�,:.6_ • .�iraxcr uc/!et i3 ,��• sz FA A-3?H11..- Zrri.re¢ 7�u.. raysa7 r rz.y rz .. , _ W.Y -...— lac�rai, ._A. }f2PrtzQClf,. , 'I &"drl, `r {�P✓ilUaGiavlt/c2lc. ysa /JG(Y��. °nA•J, ,, ak 9 1:3357 z .7/y/f t^�. e4� ! ri ! 1 c ___ ...t•.,sa_IL_ ai _ J39pyva •, v i , z i I 1 i<��u�.-,u,.,t„<y vsd �' x e1 '..t.,. / __-_•r+l i1£?rl". r .rel _ .. .. aid 11ilf Ft`!7 'tta�af ,"<+>•+ae..Ge .F,.k. ' 6.8. J_acnn7rre�_G ..zM.M eY 6 •__� _.._- . f 7 1.47 32i /7rt^,.. --`""--"i'-/o..r .a•'_ ..se..l yrs w'eQir' .`.. `,. .�y++a.,�,�t3ct: "4: _.dam' ::7.0 fb '1.J...,�.., , . .....s ai rlrJ ... � .... . • ' �, va •.��t.i .. -_ ((� F� .%...rr.E� 1 rr11�� I J r J:elH7- 8,BN.f pri r a J , [�<[1L<P..L.<firw..` „t�ee�<d/rG7✓a-. _ .3 .�rPW' C. . f - _ _ 'Y" .fA'f7✓, 1eH*a•Cl..r.<.. [l' a:`I...J. .. � '„�ar:t. 3 a• 1918 I � e•/ (L r .an ii/a,wz f� ✓ .<_ AJfs,.e..., ttr: pe.x+.�w rry 3 F 2+iv/L.2 : rvol aij't,'Ya l- gg_�� .%.1.dtYye/L,f.t�...'G�.. d�� /?.7try 9+'1HaA .. _ r3• rl _ - .it<'aea.r..+ -.Qv_ ;ln lNe _ 41„r.1a„>!q.e✓BL.:.J...+er..��rirt:rrr f./r.nr 7y,,.�,,,. .�e1iL ZLi �{<� 7 n'�/ v 9 nO+r:Jia. r , f!F•, ,? .: }L. y:,..: � LZ. �r70 SE TtX.'ecJu 4iAat�.4N7r;2rs 42 RA.A...s�79.7•.x4.f6..-a=a...a�1...X+,....Yl`y-..3.,; ar;., rsr: r7,+c:f � �4 <:r .t_,w�9 , Block No. 3424 RVJ I {A JeJ IU. IPY �TIt�IS \t OLCNI'U RLNM0. LGNTY6 I� �� ] . 5 ]I. s 10 IJ 4 IS I I T Nl NPIIYPNS r ..�,.b.:�,.c r �',' •/ � ..f f• adaL .f a. r '} r, 8t.�u..i � {-.. c..�Jj/`+' / f R.. - / w✓ I I f 1 4JIf /> / .r7S � I {� l�nfar t � w...t rr u- . �4rrrs/. c ts., M /n a Yfii '.:{ � i. i.✓ )sN.I-r � � �i .:� , l�.i� 377a'. s << �•nJ>, .a ac .;' j1c. ¢...., ,. _._ n E.....,�' A a7 .w f' < c s .>is rrres/; o,yf rrl�l lJ ! �.sr_••tz I .. Fcl"ryti �i tv..f r f•_f.. � �/a�,o /�a /i�,r � �'/.2 nvic� %'/• _ SGry-ff r tl/+.2u �{/L-" ,�tJ.y�e'..w✓. (l�.. w.p N�naew...l°n/.,.,..r;1i .,°v� a i.! /i ,9v+d'.7 �'. I "F �y'taG �>Jyv,' 'L�IY.{PAa+In�.�d. M.Y9o. ✓�/14f f4. D T L,ID7 ///F��/rZ . �.xr.•w<-.. .�da-...e_ � s L.das ,a a,rnir z i '. u s t a'o�i 1 ✓/fI+Y� tf �i 1i _efo `ze- .. ... �awr.•J. � tl..fG.. C�} '. Ev 44 a >� 9'ie >r�..•,...qs t'.« Y'f� 9 ln4 yr�3, ffaiEtJLr✓,".(�n�u'/'w .{` � L is � �' oj91 e/swF! SI'�Ylki l w' j.�t�s�7ir7> /y,wv1.0 ��arLvkwf.Nr�Y�acrt Dy3T %fy'°0 �1Y%��'! �' i.rur71�YCFlY ��'. .. •....^.i+^.reK .ie&&az"'�s%H J�+La "^.t.:. '0�r�3sa//,>8 r�alY .3 I � '. - 'c� � a/%r> ' IU:,.uN, ./w... ° i.......7 .:...:.-y p L• .:• 1P ! 'j ! {n,.Q�.,. as;/t, _ ��, �� f. G. �-�...+.�,✓ b, i''/%J r.�lJ ....M vL I �' � � g G ,� �Y9� pg l�toc.,4�.I�7,YD,: Lie { AKitI a7f/ilp� / >- I I _ I ul� def s 1 ' ..ir..w,� -.6 w yr.e ,v,.:. U..fy G.i... E u '� rf v 17 ri y � I � .T yrr/'r�i c ✓r/)�UCI p _ � nf -.... %;' 1.1 • l�,/Ae vX' 1.;;f1. � � }1{q _"'3 I � I � V6.LtJ/Y � ?APCA9 ✓$7 PX. ! y,. Art aril ylY I (� 9 ( -F79L6 J I,iiA6l Y �ftu�l'L.LR)i P-J+La '� ,Ows(tt.4..)V.Unwliw Ncr; dddlll ,I 1 }i , �Cvw.um.ew+dJYe.. 7a 67 � S'1715 e Y I i - j /e7rD�r77t r. ` r�.es. yrre t 1 K.efloAdt tl aMd.1> �4aYaN• v e ;° 1f7 y. �77l rq14 A ' r�3etr Y 7e e c tYn 4tstl/yp ,hra N'GG•r6.t6'4,ayi• I' I s�,�.,f.;..{t, s(I{axc. FiF�(r ✓ 37ar<f S1r tlx '{wwi, Wrn2V 4TWr^w R/.u... N yuc�C 'l i�iH�lO'Lt(L 4� 7> It, a < D fj• ixrn .a"n^.e /.j&ft us / 77r to .A 3424 Block No.. kINT1N 'N\NTi.R KI^Mod NnoHN M Ni IR _'cme xi uR l -. ... _. �y '{ I �• v RMARKS y. I Ips s �s sel '�'^�+..rAw..n.. /.f � r'+rl...-., u!M R. yQa•/ sr7� 7.arr _ � i �3 I _...__� - _-'k FbltCira/.,'k.{.s NL. I..1 R•y 0..1Q..... L 96 , ld r'� I trip v6yro p71/I h •�iq-Tef�sl�c7.ifL "%��a)�. � %s I ` ,. I '� 'Q /"\„ff /s1 /e llaa ! 41571 I I o .%�Jlitib W/ Y�f zs . _ .iw-.,,. 4a ku . J.+++.. V. rr r I V, I .,G.✓....., J;' (wis N `..0 G:y., a/.et.,.. 1W 71 h/1 I 4 �Yl/r t�sYls ws.➢A.,'7,4.,b,..E-.dd sg4L,i a rttnr ft I yl ! 6 +wtar iN...Co {C. a Yi4i 7 nV7 fS a [ ilr9.rr 1 c!$ I `Zt 3.H+.G Y(a tLe �w,rs 7�&'Yf /O'1 I I IS' 1. Dyr acr. r,✓. �1 �r[u..t.f.Y; 3JVYHL ted l�.eG»•u,.; Ly.:x.T w 14 YS m a/011 �7e rij f-2. r19t7 �r .r.r.i ovrt3�,�.Ij°:w1 �n7r 7f�Yb lallli _ r' .N/µVee •,� � ie,f '9e i1w14CJlf✓.zifsr D,lNY.e.�at aJf.L.s. /.Jn«M +Djr 7114`/1,7 I It r I 'I iI Ir! fi,: ;,:" Glib t7rdlart riN made this............._1Eith._..__..._..d.y of.__.__Decemher Witatma *. That, Wherein the indebtedness secured by that. certain Used of Trust made by. _„C'r3...._.._.... �.... .•,___. URGE AY GLORD and ALICE N. Gr1YLORDa_huehanrl and ,pifei.__.• ._..... _........ _..._._........ _._...._.._......._....__..._..__.._._._.__...__...__._.__...._.._..__.._.... ................... _.... ..._...._._........—to the BURROW ESCROW CO., a corporation, Trustee, of Santa Am, California 'torch 13t, 195$ ffarch 2nd 19 deted........._._...._.... _.... ............. _.._._...... ....... _...... ., recorded ........ _ ..........................._.......L..._..:.55 ......... ..... _........ as Document Nn.._..!!LJr•M,,,,_,,. W Back ....... L?LL.,Pege,... __Y4 ........ ...... of Official Records, in the ogee of the County Recorder of Orange County, California, has been fully paid and satisfied. Wgfo Milarefun, in consideration of such payment, the said BURROW ESCROW CO., Trustee does hereby .hel0(¢:.'r4ose and reconvey, without warranty, unto the pence or persons legally entitled thereto, all the estate in �. t�hepRremi64Qouribed in mid Used of Trust now held by said BURROW ESCROW CO., as Trustee, reference being h4eby m/dd:te skid Used of Trust and the said record thereof for a particular description of said premien. Hileraaf, said BURROW ESCROW CO. has caused these presents to be duly signed by W r'{''f�ylYyaltjb'ri}"ogieers, under its corporate sed, the day and year first above mentioned. ''�••"'^'BURROW ESCROW CO. Trustee i i `.. • •. ~., p...President. Hy...... :.../..1+.._...Seeretary. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. County of Orange, x' On this _..... lgth........ day of .... _..... _._.. . DCC r±RbOr ........, 19._51., before me, the undersigned, a ......._._..._...._...._............_....._. Notary Public in and for Bald Comly and Slate, residing therein, duly commissioned and warn, personally AM ed C, 9, Hilrrjgh known to me to be the... ... _.....Presiden4 and .... _r .....:........ .... ..._V£k.'t?..'t_'a.nh........................................ .................... known to me to be the .... .............Secretary of dp corporation that earcuted the within instrument, and known to me to he the persons who eucuted the within icWtrdmtat on hehalf.of the corporation therein named, and acknowledged to me that such corporation Assumed the ekhue an Trustee.. 01111156 my hand and official seat, h.,. N41ary Public in and For said County and Smm, f May B. Pritchard la j2j' cyyj�Yf �i N RECORDED AT REQUESTOF MJRRC',': ESCROW CO. IN OFFICIAL RIZO ,nLS OO ORANGF COUNTY, CALIF. 9:05 AM DEC 19 1961 RUBY WACLAND, County Recordn $2.00 cC / r s � x o ymIn F M1 '9� C) a c p >� Io m In cC / r x o ymIn F M1 '9� C) a c p on / r F M1 '9� r, 21IT". a Thomas, Amy From: Woolery, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 9:29 AM To: CITY OF TUSTIN Subject: Tues March 1 Clippings OC Register Tustin may extend moratorium on tattoo shops BY ELYSSE JAMES 201 1-U2 23 10 20 25 7 TUSTIN — The City Council on Tuesday night will vote on whether to extend a moratorium on tattoo businesses. The council unanimously approved the 45 -day moratorium on Feb. 1. The extension will give city staff more time to create regulations and amend city codes to allow tattoo businesses to set up shop in Tustin. The city can extend the moratorium for up to 10 months and 15 days, staff reports state The city has no tattoo parlors now, and the city's zoning code does not list tattoo businesses as a permitted use. Tustin's current code is similar to the city of Hermosa Beach, which lost a lawsuit in September 2010 when an appeals court ruled that the tattoo business is protected by the First Amendment, documents state. No one has turned in applications to establish tattoo businesses in Tustin, said city spokeswoman Lisa Woolery. The city has given out four permits for permanent makeup, but none are operating, she said. The Tustin Council approved a moratorium last spring on massage businesses while staff members developed new rules regulating massage work. Tustin takes up appeal on code issues for 2 guest homes TUSTIN The fate of two guest homes on an Old Town Tustin lot could be decided by the City Council tonight. An appeal has been scheduled for 7 p.m. at council chambers, 300 Centennial Way in Tustin. The Old Town homeowner has been working with the city since the fall regarding his historic home and two guest houses on the property. City employees in September found the guest houses to not be up to code, and a public nuisance, staff reports state. Also, permits were not on file for the construction of the two guest homes. Homeowner Bret Fairbanks appealed the decision and proved that the guest areas above and behind the garage were in place before Fairbanks bought the home and that the permits had been lost at the county level. The main home and garage were built in 1929 and are listed as historic buildings, city documents stated. But the residences above and behind the garage were not listed as historic, and the city had no permits on file for the buildings. The units were built from 1938 to 1950, documents show. A letter from previous resident Robert Stephen Gaylord stated that the guest areas had been built by the previous owner, his father and a city building inspector, George Gaylord. In December, the Planning Commission decided the guest units comply with the building code and gave them 'legal nonconforming status." Mayor Jerry Amante has asked staff members to explain nonconforming uses and structures tonight. The council tonight could add the terms to the city code, along with an explanation that nonconforming uses and structures means the buildings were constructed legally and had been maintained. The council also could require Fairbanks to correct code violations at the guest homes on Pacific Street in Old Town Tustin. Information: tustinca.org or 714-573-3000. CONTACT THE WRITER: 7 14-796-7949 or PHOTOS: COURTESY OF TUSTIN In a presentation, Tustin staff members noted that permits were not on file for the guest units on the same property as this historic home and garage on Pacific Street in Tustin. Tustin staff members said that permits were not listed for the uncovered wiring. ELYSSE JAMES Lisa Woolery Communications Manager City of Tustin (714)573-3330 % lcityoftustin @cityoftustin Biggs had lived in Tustin after graduating college, and grew up in Orange with a master's of business and public administration from UC Irvine and political science from Cal State Fullerton. Contact the writer: 714-796-7949 or eiames(cDocregister.com Tustin extends moratorium on tattoo shops BY ELYSSE JAMES 2011-0.3-02 OG 10 ;:56 QTSML i 1t � County. Biggs graduated a bachelor's degree in TUSTIN — The City Council on Tuesday night voted to extend a moratorium on tattoo businesses. The Council approved the extension of the 45 -day moratorium that was approved Feb. 1. The extension gives city staff members more time to create regulations and amend city codes to allow tattoo businesses to set up shop in Tustin. Councilwoman Deborah Gavello asked that city staff members bring the issue back to the Council in three months instead of the 10 months and 15 days allowed. The city is denying the business because it has no ordinance for tattoo parlors, Gavello said. The city has no tattoo parlors now, and the city's zoning code does not list tattoo businesses as a permitted use. Tustin's current code is similar to the city of Hermosa Beach, which lost a lawsuit in September 2010 when an appeals court ruled that the tattoo business is protected by the First Amendment, documents state. The Tustin council approved a moratorium last spring on massage businesses while staff members developed new rules regulating massage work. Contact the writer: 714-796-7949 or eiames(a-)ocregister.com Tustin council backs owner of Old Town home By ELYSSE JAMES 2011-03-02 06:29:28 TUSTIN —The City Council on Tuesday night upheld a Planning Commission decision approving guest homes on a property in Old Town Tustin. After more than four hours of discussion and presentations by homeowner Bret Fairbanks, neighbors and city staff members, the council voted 4-1 to deny the appeal. Mayor Jerry Amante dissented. The Planning Commission in December approved two rear guest units at 520 Pacific St. in Old Town as "legal nonconforming structures/uses." Amante brought the issue before the council to clarify the definition of nonconforming uses and structures, agenda reports state. Fairbanks had been in escrow to sell his California bungalow when the buyer's lender asked for a letter from the city confirming that two guest homes behind the main house could be rebuilt in case of a fire or other emergency. City employees told him the units had not been approved and did an inspection of the property in September. During the inspection, city employees found that the buildings were not up to current city building and zoning codes. City staff said they would not have visited the home or discovered the violations had Fairbanks not contacted the city for the letter. "I have 20 minutes to save my house, I feel like. It's been crazy," Fairbanks said, crying. "I apologize for getting emotional." The Pacific Street lot is 10,000 square feet, with a historic home and garage, carport, residence above the garage and a detached storage and recreation room. Staff members said the property would not have qualified for a second unit because of its size, and said that regardless of when the units were built they would have violated codes in 1927, 1947, 1961 or 2010. The Tustin native told the council that he's lived in the house for 10 years and needs to move to a larger house with his wife and four daughters. He said he has spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours researching the property and reading building codes. Linda Jennings of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy said that the term "lawfully erected" makes the city's statute unclear. At one point, Amante asked the audience to leave Council Chambers after a woman who lives on Clarissa Lane stood and said Amante shouldn't be mayor. Most of the audience relocated to the foyer. "We just can't have rude outbursts and we can't have people speaking out of order," he said. "Nor can people pop up and say they want to address something that was raised after the fact." Councilman John Nielsen said he was not comfortable with the gap in records and said too many questions were left unanswered. "It's in our best interest to do things the right way, but also to do what's in the best interest for this family," said Councilman AI Murray. Amante said the council at a future meeting will take a look at the statute to clarify nonconforming status. Information: tustinca.org or 714-573-3000. Contact the writer: 714-796-7949 or eiames(@,ocregister.com Lisa Woolery Communications Manager City of Tustin (714)573-3330 10 Ocityoftustin @cityoftustin 4 The Tustin Police Department is using a service called Nixle that sends emergency messages to residents by phone, text message and e-mail. Enrollment is free at tustinpd.org . Safe driving seminar for teens planned The Tustin Community Foundation is holding a seminar called "Mindless Driving — Keep It Out of Cars" at 7:30 p.m. Friday, March 18 at the Tustin Area Senior Center, 200 S. C St. Roy Bavaro, the director of corporate marketing for Acura, will be speaking at the free teen -parent safe driving seminar. The seminar is being put on by DCH Tustin Acura and Students Against Destructive Decisions clubs at Tustin and Beckman High Schools. For more information, visit tustincommunityfoundation.org . Sign up now for Tustin youth track meet The City of Tustin Youth Track Meet will be held at 9 a.m. Saturday, April 2 at the Tustin High School Stadium, 1171 EI Camino Real. Athletes born between 1996 and 2006 are eligible to participate. The top four finishers in the 1996 through 2004 divisions will be eligible to compete in the Southern California Municipal Athletic Federation Orange County regional track meet in May. Cost is $5. Registration is required by Friday, March 25. Information: tustinca.org using bar code #18812 or 714-573-3326. — Items written by Elysse James Tustin council opposes appeal on Old Town home BY ELYSSE JAMES STAFF WRITER The City Council recently upheld a Planning Commission decision approving guest homes on a property in Old Town Tustin. After more than four hours of discussion and presentations by homeowner Bret Fairbanks, neighbors and city staff members, the council voted 4-1 on March 1 to deny the appeal. Mayor Jerry Amante dissented. The Planning Commission in December approved two rear guest units at 520 Pacific St. in Old Town as "legal nonconforming structures/uses." Amante brought the issue before the council to clarify the definition of nonconforming uses and structures. Fairbanks had been In escrow to sell his California bungalow when the buyer's lender asked for a letter from the city confirming that two guest homes behind the main house could be rebuilt in case of a fire or other emergency. City employees told him the units had not been approved and did an inspection of the property in September. During the inspection, city employees found that the buildings were not up to current city building and zoning codes. City staff said they would not have visited the home or discovered the violations had Fairbanks not contacted the city for the letter. "I have 20 minutes to save my house, I feel like. It's been crazy," Fairbanks said, crying. "I apologize for getting emotional." The Pacific Street lot is 10,000 square feet, with a historic home and garage, carport, residence above the garage and a detached storage and recreation room. Staff members said the property would not have qualified for a second unit because of its size, and said that regardless of when the units were built they would have violated codes in 1927, 1947, 1961 or 2010. The Tustin native told the council that he's lived in the house for 10 years and needs to move to a larger house with his wife and four daughters. He said he has spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours researching the property and reading building codes. Linda Jennings of the Tustin Preservation Conservancy said that the term "lawfully erected" makes the city's statute unclear. At one point, Amante asked the audience to leave council chambers after a woman who lives on Clarissa Lane stood and said Amante shouldn't be mayor. Most of the audience relocated to the foyer. "We just can't have rude outbursts and we can't have people speaking out of order," he said. "Nor can people pop up and say they want to address something that was raised after the fact." Councilman John Nielsen said he was not comfortable with the gap in records and said too many questions were left unanswered. "It's in our best interest to do things the right way, but also to do what's in the best interest for this family," said Councilman At Murray. Amante said the council at a future meeting will take a look at the statute to clarify nonconforming status. Information: tustince•or9 or 714-573-3000. In a presentation, Tustin staff members noted that permits were not on file for the guest units at this historic home. By ELYSSE JAMES 0 i I -05-25 15: : hi TUSTIN - A hearing on a historic property in Old Town Tustin has been postponed to Aug. 30. The Fairbanks family is appealing after the city posted red notices on two rental units on their Pacific Street property in June, declaring the buildings unsafe. The hearing has been rescheduled for 10 a.m. Aug. 30 in the large conference room at the Tustin Library, 345 East Main St., said Tustin spokeswoman Lisa Woolery. The existence of the guest units was approved by elected officials in March, but safety concerns still exist, city officials said. Director of Community Development Elizabeth Binsack said safety concerns demand the city take action. Fairbanks said he asked the city for an extension in June, and when he returned home he saw the notice. Part of the dilemma, he said, is that if the repair costs are higher than 50 percent of the value of the units, the family loses city approval to have the nonconforming guest rooms. Among required changes are the location of the second story stairway, missing stairway guards, fire resistant walls, repair to wood posts at the canopy of a recreation room and a north wall that is too close to a property line, city documents state. Fairbanks said he has fixed the gas pipe, a heater and unsupported electrical conductors, and added a circuit interrupter to protect from electrical shock near the sink. Fairbanks had been selling his California bungalow when the buyer's lender asked for a letter from the city confirming that two guesthouses behind the main house could be rebuilt in case of a fire or other disaster. City employees told him the units had not been approved and inspected the property in September. During the inspection, the city found the buildings did not meet building and zoning codes. The City Council in March upheld a decision approving the zoning status of the guest homes, but said safety issues needed to be resolved. Contact the writer: 714-796-7949 or eiamesPocregister.com Lisa "Woofer Communications Manager City of Tustin (714) 573-3330 www.tustinca.ore r,A fr . Y Thomas, Amy From: Woolery, Lisa Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:20 PM To: CITY OF TUSTIN Subject: Fri Dec 17 Clippings Tustin News Online Old Town home given OK on guest homes By ELYSSE JAMES Tustin resident Bret Fairbanks can finally sell his home after months of back -and -forth with the city over guest homes at his historic Old Town home. At a meeting on Tuesday, the Tustin Planning Commission approved the two guest houses on the Pacific Street property. Fairbanks told the commissioners he lost the sale of his home while he was working to get approval from the city. Though the guest areas above and behind the garage were in place before Fairbanks bought the home, permits were not on file. The main home and garage were built in 1929 and are listed as historic buildings, city documents stated. But the residences above and behind the garage were not listed as historic and the city had no permits on file for the buildings. The units were built from 1938 to 1950, documents show. A letter from previous resident Robert Stephen Gaylord stated that the guest areas had been built by the previous owner, his father and a city building inspector, George Gaylord. The guest homes had been rented out in previous years to family members and to Marines stationed at the former EI Toro Marine base. "This has been a challenging process for the Fairbanks'," said Planning Commissioner Steve Kozak. Fairbanks appealed after the city cited safety and code violations. A furnace and exposed electrical wiring, and a heater and gas line next to a wood -sided wall were among the city's concerns, staff members said at a previous meeting. "Nobody should have to go through this. Nobody," Fairbanks said during an emotional appeal to the planning commission. Information: tustinca.ore or 714-573-3000. Contact the writer: 714-796-7949 or ejamesCcbocregister.com Supervisor Bill Campbell's Newsletter Tustin Christmas Tree Collection- CUR is hosting a tree collection after Christmas from December 27 through January 7, 2011. For more information, please click here. Lisa Woolery Communications Manager City of Tustin (714)573-3330 %!cityoftustin @cityoftustin 520 PACIFIC St, Tustin, CA 927801 MLS# P778239 REDFIN For Sale (MLS -listed) $649,000 520 PACIFIC St Tustin, CA 92780 BEDS: 5 BATHS: 126 SO. FT.: 1,800 LSO. FT.: $342 LOT SIZE: 10,000 Sq. FL PROPERTY Residential, Single TYPE: Family STYLE: One Level, Bungalow VIEW: Faces East YEAR BUILT: 1928 COMMUNITY: Tustin COUNTY: Orange MLS#: P778239 SOURCE: SaCaIMLS STATUS: Active ON REDFIN: 21 days r. J. At Bt. r nS 5"!ic 111o,44 i ..2' Hiriarb California Bungalow with two rear units. This is a unique opportunity to live In a historic e(.�� house and gain income from on-site rentals. Fully WW renovated three bed, two beth main house with formal living and dining rooms, fireplace and Listing Provdad Counesy of: Markus Brawn, First Team Real Estate abundant natural light. Remodeled kitchen with center Island, vintage style cabinets and adjacent breakfast nock. Upgraded plumbing, electrical, and HVAC. Studio second unit with kitchenette above the Me car garage. Additional third unit behind the garage with one bedroom, living roam, and kitchen. Bath rear units are on a separate electric meter from the main house. Detached game room perfect for billiards or a kids playmom. The enormous backyard feels like a park with a vast lawn and mature avocado trees. May be eligible for the Mills Act historic property tae reduction program. Old Town Tustin Is centrally located - walk to summer Concerts In Me Park, Me weekly organic fanners market, and many fine family-owned restaurants. Equity seller. ' Open House Information Sunday, May 15, 2011 1:00 PM -4:00 PM (Source: MLS) Bathroom Information Kitchen Information Additional Rooms # of Baths (Full): 1 Granite Counters Breakfast Nook # of Bathe (314):3 Island Kitchen Island Double Vanlly(s) Remodeled LlvirglDining Room Combination Remodeled Recreational Room Interior Features Laundry Information Carpet (Partial) Hearing 6 Cooling Laundry Area Laminated Floors Central Furnace Central Air Conditioning Utility Information Parking Information Sewer In, Connected S Paid # of Garage Spaces: 2 Natural Gas Water Heater DistricVPubllo Water # of Carport Spaces: 1 Building Information of Other Spaces: 3 Year Buik Source: Assessor Property Property Features Carport Carport Ground Level Entry (With Steps) Two A Lot Garage Is Detached Wood Exterior Partial Copper Plumbing Listing last changed April 27, 2011, 2:53 PM Pagel of 5 http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tustin/520-Pacific-St-92780/home/4483630 05/10/2011 520 PACIFIC St, Tustin, CA 92780 1 MLS# P778239 Accessory Buildings Guest Ouarters (Separate Entrance) Front Spnnklers Rear Sprinklers Property Information Detached/No Common Wells UpdaletllRemodeled Land Lease Type: Fee Square Footage Source: Estimated No Mello -Roos Tax Tax Forest Number: 40137107 Listing Co -Agent First Name: Heidi Last Name: Brown Driveway(Concrete) Lot Information Lot Size (Sq. Ft.): 70,000 Lot Size (Acres): 0.23 Dimensions: 50.200 Lot Size Source: Public Records Fully Fenced School Information Elementary School: Helen Estock Middle School: Columbus Tustin High School: Tustin School District: Tulin Unified Listing Co -Office Name: First Team Real Estate, Inc. Composition Shingle Roof Builders Tract Name: Custom Builders TrectCode: CUST Location Information Cross Streets: Pacific between Main and 6th Driving Directions: 55N - Exit Fourth St - Tum Right (East) -Tum Right (South) on Yorba/Pacifc - Tum Left (East) on Main St - Immediately Right (South) on Pacific - 5th house on Right Side Legal Tract#: 737 Legal Lot #:V Listing Information Special Conditions: Standard Sale Listing Tons: Cash To New Loan Notice: The local MLS requires that we register you before displaying all available listing information Why?). Registering does not require you to work with us and we promise not to spam you, ever. Recister or Sian In Now Views of 520 PACIFIC St, Tustin, CA 92780 Tip: BN What the Markers Like Near ThisHome Scroll down the pop to gN prior for homes in nearby ke nNploodnode. See more acs. Sites Linking to 520 PACIFIC St Bloggers, have you written about this property? Add your cost to this pane. Property History for 520 PACIFIC St oat. Event Apr 27, 2011 Price Changed price Appreciation Source 5649,000 — SoCeIMLS#P776239 Page 2 of 5 http://www.redfin.com/CA/Tustin/520-Pacific-St-92780/home/4483630 05/10/2011 SIT ATA LOT SIZE 50'x 200'= 10,000 SF (.23 ACRE) BILJILIPIN-G--S�l MAIN RESIDENCE 1�,342 GARAGE UNIT 309 SECOND UNIT 325 EXISTING STORAGE 298 GARAGE (not included) 309 * 21274 LOT COVERAGE .......... ........................................................... -- 2,274 / 101,000 SF = 23% --- --- --- --- ................. . ..... .............. ........ / . .......... . 7 4 ................ 1 31-6ft SECOND UNIT 325 SQ FT ............ 7'77 23' 01 MAIN RESIDENCE ,1,342 SQ FT 4f-6" GARAGE & COVERED UPPER UNIT PARKING 309 SQ FT 322 SQFT .................... .......... -------------- q .................... . ....... ............ .. ---,231 ........ ..... ... .............. .. f-111 I 10 .......... ........... .................. 0 3. 11.111, - 20f - ......................... VACINITY M 1 CUP 08/30 1 2010 Revision/issue Date irm Name and Address Proj6d Normo Barad Addross Sheet Dot* 08/30/10 �9�sAs Noted 1111 11.111111.1m1111111,