Tustin council approves housing rezone ordinances after split vote on Enderle Center

The City of Tustin voted to adopt a package of rezoning ordinances intended to implement parts of the city's sixth-cycle (2021—2029) housing element, but a separate, contested vote on ordinance 15 50 — the rezone affecting the Enderle Center — split the council. The council approved the remainder of the package and then adopted ordinance 15 50 by a 3—2 vote, with Council Member Fink dissenting.

The ordinances listed on the second reading and adoption agenda were numbered in the transcript as 15 47, 15 49, 15 50 and 15 51 and implement rezone programs identified in the housing element (programs 1.1a, 1.1b, 1.1f and 1.1g). Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen presided over the item after a recusal, and the council first approved the package excluding ordinance 15 50. The council then voted separately on 15 50.

Council Member Fink pressed the council to slow or condition action on ordinance 15 50 because of concerns that rezoning the Enderle Center site could, if the Burnham Ward revitalization project did not proceed as planned, allow a different developer to build up to what he described as 413 residential units on the property. Fink said he supports the revitalization project in concept but argued the council should "plan for what we want to build and build what we plan for," and offered a resolution (described in the meeting as an amendment) asking staff to seek a one-year extension under state code so the council could "trust but verify" the developer's final plan before allowing the rezoning to take effect.

The City Attorney advised the council that the substitute resolution had not been agendized for immediate adoption and recommended directing staff to bring the resolution back on a future agenda if the council wished to pursue it. With no second to the substitute, the council returned to the original motion on ordinance 15 50.

Other council members and speakers on the dais stressed that the rezoning and the broader housing element reflect multiple years of planning, public outreach and constraints imposed by state RHNA rules. One council member summarized the lengthy prior public process and cautioned that rejecting the rezoning risked triggering legal or procedural consequences. Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen warned that state authorities have "put teeth into" housing enforcement and that protracted disagreement could leave the city exposed to legal challenges or builder's remedy outcomes.

The final vote on ordinance 15 50 passed 3—2, with Council Member Fink as the lone dissenting vote. The council approved the rest of the ordinance package in a separate earlier vote by a 4—0 tally (one member had recused themself).

The City Attorney's guidance that an unagendized substitute resolution should be agendized for a future meeting means the council may consider a resolution or other measures at an upcoming session; the city clerk recorded the council's roll-call votes and the city manager later confirmed staff will follow up on appropriate next steps. The meeting adjourned with the next regular meeting scheduled for Jan. 21, 2025.

Quotes from the meeting capture the council's divide: "We should plan for what we want to build and build what we plan for," Council Member Fink said, adding he was "willing to put out a leap of faith" for the revitalization project but wanted verification of the developer's plan. The City Attorney told the dais the substitute resolution "hasn't been agendized" and recommended directing staff to bring it back for consideration. Mayor Pro Tem Nielsen cautioned that "the state has put teeth into it now," noting enforcement and builder's remedy risks.

What happened next: the council adopted the ordinances as described and returned to other business. The process leaves open the option for the council to direct staff to return a narrowly tailored resolution or item for future consideration if members seek additional procedural protections or deadlines before rezoning takes effect.