Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 DSGN REVIEW 00-024 02-05-01AGENDA MEETING DATE: TO: FEBRUARY 5, 2001 WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER NO. 0,'1 02-05-01 FROM' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-001 AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-024 SUMMARY Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 is a request to install fencing and pedestrian gates at the Tustin Ranch Estates. The Planning Commission approved the project on September 25, 2000 with conditions that required the applicant to maintain unlocked pedestrian gates and relocate one of the fences to minimize visual impacts. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision. In conjunction with this appeal,, it may be .appropriate to consider the broader pedestrian access requirement issue within the East Tustin Specific Planning Area. Applicant: Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Appellant: Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Owner: Standard Pacific Homes and Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association RECOMMENDATION That the. City Council: , Adopt Resolution No. 01-02 upholding or modifying the Planning Commission's decision. , Provide policy direction regarding pedestrian accessibility. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid applicable fees for the appeal of this project. ENVIRONMENTAL The project is Categorically Exempt (Class 1, Section 15301) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission approved installation of wrought iron fencing, pilasters, and pedestrian gates in two locations within the Tustin Ranch City Council Report Appeal Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 February 5, 2001 Page 2 Estates. The project was approved with conditions to maintain unlocked pedestrian gates and relocate one of the fences to reduce visual impacts. On September 29, 2000, the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association appealed the Planning Commission's decision. The following discussion outlines the project description, the Planning Commission's action, and the appeal issues. Project Description The project site is within the Tustin Ranch Estates (Tract 15563) located at the southerly terminus of Pioneer Road within the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) Estate Residential Density land use designation (Attachment A - Location Map). Surrounding properties include El Dorado (Tract 14410) and Peters Canyon Regional Park to the north, Treviso (Tract 15506), the Church at Tustin Ranch and the Ladera Elementary School sites to the south, Pioneer Intermediate School to the east and the County of Orange boundary line to the west. The applicant requested Planning Commission approval to install wrought iron fencing and pedestrian gates to limit access to the site at: 1) the main entrance from Pioneer Road; and 2) north of Township Drive at the southern portion of the tract (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). Since Tract 15563 (Tustin Ranch Estates, Phase I) incorporates a significant amount of open space and landscaping adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road, Peters Canyon Road, Township Drive and adjacent residential tracts, the fencing was proposed to secure the community. Planning Commission's Approval On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the project (Attachment C - Staff Report). Review and approval of the proposed project did not require a public hearing; however, staff received concerns from several residents within the area prior to the meeting. Therefore a notice of the public meeting was provided to the adjacent homeowners' associations within Sector 8 of the ETSP. Eight (8) residents of Treviso spoke in favor of open pedestrian access between Lot F and Township Drive to allow access between the Tustin Ranch Estates and five tracts south of the project. Eight (8) residents of and corporate counsel for the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association spoke in support of locked pedestrian gates to limit access to their development (Attachment D -Minutes of September 25, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting). Considering the rural and open design of the project, the Planning Commission determined that the original intent was to maintain openness with the adjacent tracts and included Finding Q and Condition 2.1 (Attachment E -- Resolution No. 3746) for requiring the open pedestrian access between Lot F and Township Drive' City Council Report Appeal Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 February.5, 2001 Page 3 Finding Q: "The Planning Commission finds that the requirement for the installation of bollards at the base of Lot F as shown on the private street improvement plans for Tract 14396 is the functional equivalent of requiring open access at a secondary access location and that open access at Lot F should be preserved and maintained. Installation of locking devices to limit pedestrian access would require comprehensive analysis of pedestrian circulation of the areas affected by this change and an amendment to the conditions of approval of Resolution 3539 for Tract Map 14396 or the East Tustin Specific Plan would be required." "Condition No. 2.1' Open pedestrian access at the main entrance from Pioneer WaY and across Lots F and S shall be provided at all times. No locking devices may be installed on pedestrian gates." The fencing was proposed at the mid-point slope of Lot F which would be visible from Township Drive and two residences to the west within the Treviso residential tract. No landscaping other than the existing was proposed to screen the fencing and the photosimulation illustrated the fencing as painted black. In accordance with Section 3.5(I) of the East Tustin Specific Plan and Tustin City Code Section 9272, the Commission considered the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed fencing and required the following Condition to minimize the aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties: "Condition No.' 2.8: The wrought iron fence across Lots F and S shall be relocated and painted a natural color to complement landscaping subject to final approval by the Community Development Department." Appeal On September 27, 2000, the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association (TREMA) appealed Conditions 1.5, 2.1, and 2.8, of Resolution No. 3746. In addition, the TREMA submitted detailed letters received October 5, 2000, October 10, 2000, and November 28, 2000, outlining their reasons for the appeal and objections to the process (Attachment F - Submitted Letters). In addition, TREMA submitted a letter received October 10, 2000, regarding the safety of the. street designs within the tract which was raised as an issue at the Planning Commission meeting. Upon learning of the appeal, a board member, of the Treviso Homeowners' Association submitted a comment letter expressing her support of the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment F - Submitted Letters). As part of the appeal, the TREMA is requesting that the City Council remand the appeal issues to the Planning Commission for a second hearing and reconsideration given the TREMA's objections (Attachment F - Letter dated November 20, 2000). City Council Report Appeal Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 February 5, 2001 Page 4 The following discussion analyzes the issues related to the appeal. Open Pedestrian Access (Condition 2.1) Tract 15563 is the first phase of the Tustin Ranch Estates which was approved on August 11, 1997, by the Planning Commission (Design Review 96-054, Hillside Review 96-002, and Tentative Tract Map 14396). Tract 15563 incorporated all of the provisions of Tentative Tract Map 14396 which included Condition 8.1(F)2 that required: " ..... the pedestrian access at the main project entry shall remain open and accessible to the public at all times." This condition originated from a policy recommended by the East Tustin Policy Committee to keep private communities in East Tustin open and accessible with unlocked pedestrian gates. Although no written policy has been documented, staff confirmed the existence of this policy by a reference in City Council staff report and minutes dated October 5, 1992 (Attachment G - Gate Chronology). This policy was implemented through a condition of approval on several residential tracts which prohibited locking devices on pedestrian gates. However, as the October 1992 staff report indicates, the City Council rescinded the policy in conjunction with approval of locking gates for Tract 14584/14447 (Rancho Monterey). Notwithstanding this action, the condition requiring unlocked pedestrian gates was included in the approval of several tracts developed after 1992, including the Tustin Ranch Estates (Tract 15563) as shown in the Gate Chronology provided in Attachment G. Staff surveyed East Tustin tracts and found twenty (20) communities other than the Tustin Ranch Estates are locked. Of those, twelve (12) communities representing approximately 1,256 units appear to be inconsistent with their approvals and have locked pedestrian gates. Eight (8) communities representing approximately 1,506 units are entitled to have locking gates (Attachment H - Gated Communities Survey/Map). Considering that the implementation history of the open pedestrian access policy has varied, it may be appropriate for the City Council to confirm the policy. Enforcement of the original policy would require twelve (12) communities, representing 1,256 units, to unlock their gates. Fence Location (Condition 2.8) Final Tract Map 15563 (Tustin Ranch Estates) defines Lot F as an emergency access and utility easement for the benefit of Tract 15563. The construction landscaping plans 'for the project indicated Lot F as a paved road with removable .bollards to limit access for emergency and maintenance vehicles; however, no boilards were installed. There is a pressure-reducing station and a manhole on Lot F approximately forty feet from Township Drive. These facilities are required to be accessible via paved roads by the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). City Council Report Appeal Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 February 5, 2001 Page 5 The fencing was proposed at the mid-point slope of Lot F which would be visible from Township Drive and two residences to the west within the Treviso residential tract. No landscaping other than the existing was proposed to screen the fencing and the photosimulation illustrated black wrought iron fencing. As part of their appeal of Condition 2.8, the applicant submitted a revised design and location of the fencing across Lot F to address the concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting (Attachment I - Revised Plans). The revised design shows the northern portion of the fence extending along Hoxie Drive with a vehicular gate access over Lot F at the top of slope and continuing along the southern landscaped slope of the site with a radius design. The revised plan would provide landscape screening between th.e fence and Township Drive and the adjacent homes within the Treviso development. In addition, no part of the fence would extend over a drainage swale which was a concern with the original design and location. Hold Harmless (Condition 1.5) Condition 1.5, which requires an applicant to defend and hold the City harmless in challenges arising from City approval of a project, is a standard condition of approval, in their appeal, the TREMA indicates that this condition is being appealed unless the requirement for maintaining open pedestrian access is eliminated (Attachment F - Submitted Letters). The TREMA believes that their risk and potential liability dramatically increases as a result of the City-imposed requirement to maintain open access. COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES Appeal of Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 o Adopt Resolution No. 01-02 with Finding Q and Condition 2.1 (Attachment J Resolution No. 01-02) upholding the Planning Commission's decision. This action would uphold the requirement to maintain open pedestrian access at the main entrance and between Lot F and Township Drive and require the applicant to work with the Community Development Department to determine a suitable location for the fence across Lots F and S. The Council could also provide direction.regarding the proposed revised location of the fence; or, , Adopt a modified Resolution No. 01-02 changing Finding Q and Condition No. 2.1 (Attachment J) thereby modifying the Planning Commission's decision. The'City Council could allow the applicant to lock the pedestrian gates at the main entrance and between Lot F and Township Drive and require the applicant to work with the Community Development Department to determine a suitable location for the fence across Lots F and S. . Remand the project to the Planning Commission. City Council Report Appeal Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 February 5, 2001 Page 6 Policy Direction Regarding Pedestrian Gates o Direct staff to enforce conditions of approval that require specific communities to maintain unlocked pedestrian gates; or, o Direct staff to prepare an amendment to the East Tustin Specific Plan to allow all gated communities to install locking devices on pedestrian gates; or, , Take other actions as deemed appropriate. Minoo Ashabi Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A~ B- C- D- E- F- G- H- I- J- Location Map Submitted Plans and Photosimulations September 25, 2000 Staff Report Minutes of September 25, 2000 Meeting Resolution No. 3746 Submitted Letters Gate Chronology Gated Communities Survey/Map Submitted Revised Plans Resolution No. 01-02 ccreport/estatesappeal.doc ATTACHMENT A Location Map LOCATION MAP i ', I NO SGALE ATTACHMENT B Submitted Plans and Photo Simulations 0O1881/ g9ggt ~V~Z SD~VZSg HDNVM NIZSn~ /I 000 00~ 000 008 ',. \ ". '\/ ./ -f / / / / / / / / / ' / / / / / / / O0/gi~/Z ....... ' ........ ~: 'i¥.L II~t3NS NOIxYMOdUOO [,,-J I-I ~ ~ ~' ~ ~- < 'oo JJ~ndO'lgJ~a ,t. UNn~WO0 gNIAUI .... .. l, '~ t'- · ~ , ,', '-'" · '~ .~ , i~ ii ~ i ....... i ' (,;, ~ ,,':?_ ~.~.,,..~..,.,. ~,~. ~,~, ??. , ~~r...~.,;;..,,..,. " I~- or-.· ' ,,,~ ~ ~, ..¢~...,.,.. :, ,.~.,:, ,=== :~: ",..4 ~'I/~,~ ~ ',,.-..~4. ,"'.,,' t ~" "------'~"'" .... " ~.. .~ li~ ~ ~ ,'.'x5 :;..'!'.. ,*-"--"U~ ~ ,..,,~, ..,,.., , ,,::,...~...,.,, .... !~ ~_~ ~====: [:~.....,.,.: · : I~. 'i .., -.,. · .~_________? ~:.'-j,:..,.,..,.., ,__ I ~ '~-"= I [~- -'Iht :===:::=.. r¢,,-¢~, '~ .... ~ ......... ,.'~i,'~ ...... -~ ~- " "~'~' ' ':: ~:~"~ "'"'"" ~ ~1;'.'~''~,'1:~ _,z,"' · . 4~ : .'A.r..-, :" ',' I ~,,,. a.,, ~~;~.,.;:,.,!;' ,,,: ~_____......, ..... .. " · ,-----! ~.-,.'. '.',:.',:5,i , ~'1 ..... ,,P'..,% ~~-~,,....,.,,, · ' ~'" :g=::::::::~'. '~i'..?'m: ",,,1, ~==',i~,i,,:.:,,' ........ ======i',"'~__~.' ,~, ~i;~[:'.i:::.;,. f ~ ~!~,:,:,,':; ~ji ,,.,, ¥ ~.~ ~~',,,,, ,,5',:"' ~,.- ======~,,~>,,,, ~.~. ~t~'.;'.'!:;,' ...... :,.~:>,',i,? > / ~/~;',,,,;;;,,c' ,, , o. ~ 'I¥111flSRS AON~O¥ *1 ..I lY iii 4'/! IL o I' ~ i1~ l~ lTM /" Ill[ l ~(,~ i~Y ~) l ..~ id] n:. , ~.z::~ -  0 ') I. kJ~~ . ..,i~ . '~ 1 .f~ . , ,', ~i,~,'~, Ii ' i ii' ~ i~, ; , , ~ .... ~ " t~ ' i ! ~ ~ ,,, .,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, ,,.,,.,,,,,,~ ,,.. ~ ! ~t i , I ,t ~ IT - - ~I~. ,~. '"' "'~""';' ::' ~"''"'" i i t.. ,'., , , . ~ , , :~ii ..... ',.-it~m~[~.}lI~:; .i..- ~ ! -~1 : ;~ :] .~-l-]-11-:1! ~.;~, ...... ','~- .,-- -'-- ! .,,,., ,,,,. """"'""""'"" "" ""' · ~:,i ,~, ,, ~,-.-. ,;,- , .,, ,~.~, l~,ll,l,,~ I~ ~ :~ ,~ ,,,t .~.,.,,,,., -, ,.~, ,, , .-, .. ,,,,.. '"'"'"'"'""'" iili,"'"'"' ' ''~ i.t., .,.; BEFORE AFTER 7804 ATTACHMENT C September 25, 2000 Staff Report Report to th e Planning Commission DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 00-024 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-001 APPLICANT: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES 15326 ALTON PARKWAY IRVINE, CA 92618 ATTN: THOMAS OLSON OWNER: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES AND TUSTIN RANCH .ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION 25910 ACERO STREET, 2ND FLOOR MISSION VIE JO, CA 92691 ATTN: CAROLINE GOYKE LOCATION: TRACT 15563 AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE ACROSS LOT L AND K AT HANNAFORD DRIVE AND ACROSS LOTS F AND S 200 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE ZONING: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (ESTATE DENSITY) RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 1). CALIFORNIA REQUEST: 1) 2) TO INSTALL TWO NINE (9) FOOT TALL PILASTERS AND ADD WROUGHT IRON FENCING TO AN EXISTING STONE VENEER WALL FOR AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF NINE (9) FEET, AND TWO PEDESTRIAN GATES AT THE EXISTING MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE PROJECT ON HANNAFORD DRIVE; AND; TO INSTALL A SiX (6) FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE ACROSS AN OPEN PAVED AND LANDSCAPED AREA APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE (LOTS F AND S) RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. Adjustment 00-001. 3746 approving Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Planning Commission Report Design Review 00-024, ~,dmir~i,~trativeAdjustment 00-001 September 25, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUND On August 11, 1997, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 96-054, Hillside Review 96-002 and Tentative Tract Map 14396 (part of Master Tract Map 13627) for the development of 113 custom home sites and a 20 acre intermediate school site at the southerly terminus of Pioneer Road. The project was subsequently divided into two phases. Phase i (Tract 15563 and Design Review 95-015)included forty-six (46) Estate Density (ES) home sites approved on September 14, 1998. Tract 15563 incorporated all of the provisions of Tentative Tract Map 14396. The next phase of the project was. recently submitted for review and will be presented to the Planning Commission in the near future. .' APPROVAL CRITERIA , , in accordance with East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP), fences with a maximum height of seven (7) foot six (6) inches are permitted if constructed of masonry blocks and finished with materials consistent with the design guidelines. An increase of twenty percent (20%) in height can be approved through 'an Administrative Adjustment by the Community Development Director at a public meeting. However, walls and fences dividing common property lines not adjacent to a public right-of-way may be constructed of any material acceptable to the Planning Commission. The Director of Community Development Department is referring Administrative Adjustment 00-001 to the Planning Commission for concurrent consideration with Design Review 00-024. Review and approval of the proposed project does not require a public hearing, however, due to concerns raised, a notice of the meeting was provided to the adjacent homeowner's associations within Sector 8 of the ETSP. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission shall consider the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed fencing. The project may be approved if the Planning Commission can find that installation of the proposed fencing and pilasters will not impair the orderly and harmonious development within the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission should consider at least the following items: · Height, bulk and area of structures. · Setbacksand site planning. · Exterior materials and colors. · Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. · Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. · Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in 'the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. · Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. Surrounding Properties The project is located at the southerly terminus of Pioneer Road within the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) Estate Residential Density land use designation (Attachment A - Location Map). Surrounding properties include El Dorado (Tract 14410) and ~eters Planning Commission Report Design Review 00-024, ~dminisu ~veAdjustment 00-001 September25, 2000 Page 3 o. Canyon Regional Park to the north, Treviso (Tract 15506), a church site and an Elementary School site to the south, Pioneer Intermediate School site to the east and County of Orange boundary line to the west of the site. DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant is proposing to install wrought iron fencing and pedestrian gates to limit access to the site at the main entrance and north of Township Drive at the southern portion of the tract (Attachment B - Submitted Plans, photo simulations). Since Tract 15563 (Tustin Ranch Estates, Phase I) incorporates a significant amount of open space and landscaping adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road, Peters Canyon Road, Township Drive and adjacent residential tracts, the fencing is proposed to secure the community. The discussion of the project is divided into proposed improvements at two access points to Tract 15563: the main gate entrance at Pioneer Way and the'secondary access from Township Drive or Lot F. The two areas and .issues related to architecture, access, maintenance, and resident concerns for each location are described below. Main Entrance Pilasters, Wrought Iron Fencing and Pedestrian Gates Across Lots L and K of Tract ~5563 With the entitlement of Master Tract Map 14396, a main entrance gate to the project was approved which was subsequently revised by Tract 15563 for Phase I. The plans for Tract 14396 included' vehicular gates and a pedestrian gate. The plans also identified wrought iron fencing and four pilasters across Lots L and K at Hannaford Drive, two of which were twelve (12) feet in height. The conceptual plan for Tract 15563 showed only vehicular gates and reduced the .height of the pilasters to six (6) feet. On February 4, 1999, the Community Development approved an Administrative Adjustment. for installation of the two existing nine (9) foot tall stone veneer pilasters. Currently a vehicular gate is installed and operating at the main entrance to the site. The gate is designed with four pilasters. The two pilasters at both sides of the vehicular gates are nine (9) feet in height. Sloped landscaping and a three (3) foot high stone veneer wall at both sides of the access gate separate the project from Pioneer Road. No pedestrian gates are currently installed. The applicant is proposing the following at the main entrance' . · Two pedestrian access gates seven (7) feet ten (10) inches in height with locking devices at both sides of the existing vehicular entrance; · Wrought.iron fencing added to the existing three foot tall stone veneer wall to raise the overall height to a maximum height of nine (9) feet. These walls will connect to the pedestrian gates and extend over the landscaped areas at the main entrance; and, · Two existing pilasters at the project entrance raised to nine (9) feet two (2) inches in height. Planning Commission Report Design 'Review 00-024 ~Administrative Adjustment 00-001 September25, 2000 Page 4 Public Pedestrian Access During planning stages of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the East Tustin Policy Committee was formed that reviewed preliminary plans and recommended various policies to the City Council. One of these policies was that private communities in East Tustin remain open and accessible with unlocked pedestrian gates. Although no written policy has been documented or discovered, staff has confirmed the existence of this policy by a reference in a staff report (Attachment C - Staff Report). This policy was implemented by a condition of approval for residential tracts, many of which were required not to install a locking device on the pedestrian gates. In October 1992, the City Council rescinded the policy by approval of locking gates for Tract 14584114447. However, consistent with the previous policy, Tract 14396 for Tustin Ranch Estates was approved with a condition of approval, Condition 8.1(F)2 of Resolution No. 3539' (Attachment D- Resolutions 3539) that required: " ..... the pedestrian access at the main project entry shall 'remain open and accessible to the public at all times." In adherence with condition of approval for the Tract. Map 14396, Condition 2.1 of Resolution 3746 prohibits any locking device to be installed at the pedestrian access gates at the main project entrance. Limiting pedestrian access to the site at the Pioneer Way entrance would require amendments to the conditions of Tract 14396. If such request is submitted, staff will consider other implications that this revision would have on other tracts within the ETSP. School Access The proposed location of the fencing would be across Lot L of Tract Map 15563 (a landscaped .area south of the vehicular gate extending beyond the gate and along Lot 47 - the Middle School Site) and Lot K of Tract Map 15563 (a landscaped area north of the Vehicular gate). Tract 15563 indicates that Lot L is for ingress and egress for Lot 47 (Pioneer Middle School) and landscape and open space purposes (Attachment E- Final Tract Map 15563). The'access to the frontage of Lot 47 is outside the proposed gated areas. Therefore, no public access to the school site would be restricted with installation of the proposed fencing or gates. Multi-use Trail The Tustin Ranch Estate project .was designed in conjunction with access to an existing county multi-use (equestrian, bike and walk) trail. The pUblic portion of trail runs along Pioneer Way and along the eastern edge of the property to Peters Canyon Road that continues north to the Orange County jurisdiction. Portions of the. trail that run along Hannaford Road and Orchard Road are within the tract boundaries and conneCt to the public portion at two points were approved as a private trail (Attachment F- Trail Map). Planning Commission Report Design Review 00-024¢Admin,....,~tiveAdjustment 00-001 September25, 2000 Page 5 · Architecture Section 3.15.1 of East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) states, "Walls and fences dividing common property lines not adjacent.to a public right-of-way may .be constructed of any material acceptable to the Planning Commission." The proposed materials would match the existing stone veneer wall and capping which complements the neighborhood in its rustic appearance. In addition, the proposed pilasters are in scale with the entrance design and the proposed wrought iron fencing would be consistent with other wrought iron fencing within the ETSP area. The main entrance includes large landscaped areas with a variety of trees and shrubs that accent the project. The proposed fencing across Lots K and L would be constructed of wrought iron and would be painted to match the existing wrought iron fencing of the project (Attachment B). To qualify for an Administrative Adjustment rather than a variance, Condition 3.6 is included to require · the applicant to reduce the height to a maximum of nine (9) feet which 'is an increase of twenty.percent above the permitted fence height of seven (7) feet and six (6) inches · Fencing and Gates Across Lots S and F of Tract ~5563 The applicant is proposing to install wro'ught iron fencing and access gates six feet in height approximately 200 feet north of the terminus of Township Drive on Lots S and F (Attachment B - Submitted Plans, photo simulation). Emergency Access The wrought iron fencing at the terminus of Township Drive would be installed across Lots F and S of Tract 15563. Final Tract Map 15563 defines Lot F as an emergency access and utility easement for the benefit of Tract 15563 (Private Street Improvement Plans). The construction landscaping plans for the project indicated Lot F as a paved road and installation of removable bollards to limit access to Lot F for emergency and maintenance purposes; however, no bollard's were installed. Lot F is currently paved and covers water, sewer and storm drain lines.. The storm drain is maintained by the homeowner's association. AccOrding to correspondence from the Orange County.Fire Authority (OCFA) dated July 25, 2000, Lot F is not considered a fire vehicle emergency access (Attachment G- OCFA Comments). Ali easements (water and sewer and storm drain) for Lot F have been preserved. There is a pressure reducing station to the north of the proposed fencing and a manhole forty feet from Township Drive.' These facilities are required to · be accessible and covered by paved roads by lrvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). The underground piping beneath Lot F is designed with PVC pipes that are not resilient to installation of trees and shrubs. IRWD has indicated that pavement from Township Drive and Hoxie Drive to access these facilities should remain and an easement be recorded to guarantee access and prohibit installation of landscaping in the noted areas (Attachment H -IRWD Comments). Condition 2.4 would 'require the applicant to record the easements within ten (10) days from date of approval to satisfaction of the easement holders. Planning Commission Report Design Review 00-024, &dministrativeAdjustment 00-001 September 25, 2000 Page 6 o~ Maintenance Access Lot F connects to the terminus of Township Drive and is surrounded by a small landscaped area at the southern end which is owned and maintained by Tustin Ranch Maintenance Association (TRA) III. This landscaped area is common to the developments within Sector 8 of the ETSP (San Miguel, San Marino, San Marcos, Treviso and Madrid). The configuration of this landscaped area and Lot F prevents a linear placement of perimeter fencing (Attachment B- submitted plans). As such, the fencing is proposed to be located at the midpoint of Lot F. Since the proposed fencing will' divide Lots S and F, an unusual configuration for maintenance of the site will be created. An access gate is proposed to provide maintenance access for Lot F and S. Landscaped areas within Lot S are the project's natural preservation areas where no irrigation or planting was installed; however, the association is responsible for trash removal and weed abatement on regular basis. On two ocCasions the City received complaints about the overgrown weeds in these areas. Although the weeds were eventually abated, Condition 2.3 is included to ensure maintenance of these areas on continual basis. Drainage There are two V-Ditch drain channels that run parallel to Lot F within the landscaped areas on both sides. The fencing is proposed to be installed at four inches on center above the V-ditches and should not disturb the existing drainage. Condition 2.5 is included to ensure that no portions of the V-ditches are obstructed with installation of the fence to impeded drainage. Architecture The proposed fencing and gates would be constructed of wrought iron. Given the distance of fencing from Township Drive within TRA !11 and Hoxie Drive within the Tustin Ranch Estates and the sloped, landscaped condition of Lot S, the fencing will not be easily visible from areas outside or within the Tract. The fencing is consistent with fencing on the private lots within the Tustin Ranch Estates and will blend in with the natural landscaped areas of Lot'S. Residents' Concerns Staff has received Verbal and e-mail' correspondence from homeowners that would be affected by this project. Lot F is the connecting element between Tustin Ranch Estates project and five other residential tracts (Madrid, San Marion, San Miguel, San Rafael and Treviso). During the past school year students of the Pioneer Middle School who resided south of Lot F used the paved road to walk to school through the Tustin Ranch Estate project. This route is a shorter distance to the school site from these tracts. Residents opposing installation of the fence are concerned that with enclosure of Lot F students would either have to walk south on Rawlings way and north on Tustin Ranch Road which lengthens their walk to school or be driven to school which creates additional vehicular traffic (Attachment i- School Route). However, homeowners within Tustin Ranch Estates Planning Commission Report Design Review 00-024,~,dmin~ ..... dveAdjustment 00-001 September25, 2000 Page 7 , project have expressed concerned about the safety and liability of children walking within a private residential neighborhood. The Estates Maintenance Association believes that they should be allowed the same entitlement as other gated communities within the area. Since Lot F was never designed or intended as the main entrance to the project, enclosure of Lot F would be consistent with approval of the Tract Map 14396. In addition, precedent for requirement of pedestrian access.between two private tracts that are not part of the same homeowner association does not exist within the East Tustin Specific Plan. If reciprocal access is desired, it would be appropriate for the respective homeowners' association to develop a mutually beneficial agreement. ANALYSIS A decision to approve the proposed project may be supported by the following findings' The proposed project will not have a negative effect on the surrounding property owners, or impact the availability of emergency or maintenance access to the residential site. · The proposed fencing is compatible with the existing fencing within the tract. As conditioned, public pedestrian access to the site would be maintained since no locking devices for the pedestrian gates would be installed at the main entrance gate. Limiting pedestrian access to the site at the main gate would require an' amendment of conditions of approval for Tract Map 14396; Estate residential developments typically allocate a.larger area to the main entrance. Considering the width and area of the entrance gate, the proposed nine (9) foot pilasters and wrought iron fencing would complement the scale and size of the vehicular gates; That pursuant to Section 3.13.2 of the East Tustin Specific Plan and Section 9299(C)(3) of the Tustin City Code, there are special circumstances regarding the size, configuration, topography and surroundings of the subject property in that the project site is located within the East Tustin Specific Plan Hillside District and' comprised of steep slopes and grades. The increased height of the entry pilasters and fencing is necessary to ensure their effectiveness in directing access to the gated community given the sloped configuration of the entry area. Granting the adjustment would not be a grant of special privileges in that other properties in the vicinity with similar site constraints have been granted similar adjustments. Public access to Lot 47 (Pioneer Middle School Site) through Lot L would remain unchanged; and, As conditioned, access for maintenance and utility easements would be maintained at Lot F. The applicant would be responsible for recordation of easements for Lot F to , the satisfaction of the easement holders and weed abatement of the natural open space areas on continual basis. Planning Commission Repo..r~, Design Review 00-024, Adrr, Jtive Adjustment 00-001 September25, 2000 ~ Page 8 the satisfaction of the easement hol~lers and weed abatement of the natural open space areas on continual basis. As conditioned, fencing across Lot F would not impede drainage. The applicant would be responsible for inspection and maintenance of the drainage channels. As conditioned, the applicant would be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action. Associate Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments A- Location Map B - Submitted Plans, Photo Simulation (available at the meeting) C - Staff Report Referring City Council Policy D - The Relevant Portion of Resolution No. 3539 E - Final Tract Map 15563 F - Multi-Use Trail Map G - OCFA Comment (7-25-2000) H -IRWD Correspondence (9-14-2000) I - School Route J- Resolution No. 3746 ATTACHMENT D Minutes of September 25, 2000 Meeting Planr~ing Commission Mi~,_.,c.s September 25, 200~ Page 5 responded affirmatively. Com~ sioner Jennings then asked whether there is any chance the City will ever have a cultural k since this design does not include cultural facilities. Mr. responded that the Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing the Capital ! 'Program for parks throughout the City. A cultural arts facility is a part of the . Chairman Kozak draft design review forw; the action from the Planning Commission would be to move the City Council for their consideration. Mr. Sanchez stated that thi~ 'as brought before the Planning Commission as an informational item only. Any tions or ideas should be shared at this time for them .to be included before final adjustm~ are made and the final proposal is presented to the City Council' Chairman K0zak inquired whether there is street for this park. g to be sufficient parking on-site or off Mr. Sanchez responded that the discussion regardin design of this park addressed the parking issue. Specific technical requirements h g to do with the number of parking spaces needed were considered and applied. B Anderson, Transportation Project Manager, and his staff have been involved in thisss. Staff is cognizant of the issues facing Cedar Grove Park and intends to be sure the adequate parking for this new facility. Commissioner Jennings commented that the new restroom at Pe beautiful addition and hoped that an appropriate design will be imple park. Park is a this new Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to receive and fil report. Motion carried 4-0. o Design Review 00-024' and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 for authorization' le 1) to install two nine (9) foot tall pilasters and add wrought iron fencing to an existing stone veneer wall for an overall height of nine (9) feet, and two pedestrian gates at the existing main entrance to the project on Hannaford Drive; and 2) to install a six (6) foot tall wrought iron fence across an open paved and landscaped area approximately 200 feet north of the terminus of Township Drive (Lots F and S). Planning Commission Mi, September 25, 200~ Page 6 APPLICANT: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES OWNER: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES AND TUSTIN RANCH ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION LOCATION' TRACT 15563 AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE ACROSS LOT L AND K AT HANNAFORD DRIVE AND ACROSS LOTS F AND S 200 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE Recommendation' That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3746 approving Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001. The Director presented the report, utilizing overhead visual aides. Chairman Kozak stated that it is the Commission's policy to request that speakers in favor of the recommended action speak first followed by those opposed and requested that speakers' comments remain focused on the item before the Commission, presenting new information wherever possible. Lou Marlin, a resident 'of Tustin Ranch Estates and a member of the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Board of Directors, stated his concerns regarding trespassing at the Estates by pedestrians, motorcyclists, and dogs and the resulting debris and destruction; stated that the' residents of Tustin Estates paid for the right to .gate their community; and asked the Planning Commission to approve the proposal. Richard Neuland, corporate counsel for the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association, stated that this proposal is not an unusual improvement within the residential communities in the City of Tustin, that the proposal meets with the criteria for -. an Administrative Adjustment, and urged the approval of the proposal in keeping with the Planning Commission's standard practices. John Fruehauf, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates but formerly from the adjoining community, stated he has two small children, appreciates the.safety of a gated community, and feels this proposal is reasonable and similar to that of other gated communities in the City. Holly Foster, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated that she has two small children and does not allow them on the streets' due to the safety issue and referred to blind curves; and, emphasized that people from other communities should be more concerned with their' children's safety than. having a quicker route to Pioneer Middle School. Planning Commission Mi~,,,,es September 25, 200~0 Page 7 Pete Grande, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated that he does not allow his son to ride his razor or bike to school due to encounters with construction trucks and a resulting accident in which his son was injured and does not allow his son to walk through the Estates to get to Peters Canyon Elementary School because of the unsafe. environment; related an incident at the front gate in which people were trying to enter the Estates and did not have a valid homeowner name; and, stated there should not be free access to the Estates unless it is provided in other gated communities within Tustin. Christy Marlin, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated her concern that this issue has been presented in the press in a way that suggests the residents of the Estates are anti-chiidre.n; related her concerns are not only the residents of Treviso coming through the Estates but also people from Cedar Grove Park; and, complained that the Estates are being treated like a park rather than private property. Jennifer Hudler, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, stated she is primarily concerned about the lack of privacy and invasion of the Estates by people who are trespassing and showing no respect for the homeowners; stated her resentment that the newspapers suggest the residents are not child-friendly; suggested that the time difference in walking around the Estates is minimal; and, provided the suggestion that parents drop their children at Tustin Ranch Road and Pioneer where there is a crossing guard, making this a safer route than walking through the Estates. Robert Wong, a resident of Tustin Ranch Estates, referred to the cost involved in living in a gated community and the fact that trespassers increase the cost of maintenance and the liability to the homeowners; stated that he and his wife moved to the Estates for the privilege of not being bothered by vendors; and, asked for the same legal rights as any other gated community. Linda Strohbach, a Tustin Estates homeowner who has not yet moved in, stated her belief that the problem lies in the dangerous traffic around Peters Canyon and Pioneer schools as well as the construction traffic within the Estates and the fact that she will not allow her children to walk to school once they are moved in because she does not feel it is Safe for them to do so. , Chairman Kozak asked if that concluded the presentations from those in favor of the recommended or proposed actions and requested presentations from any members of the audience who were in opposition to the proposal. Elizabeth Nadon, a resident of Treviso, stated that she did not have an issue with the children walking through the Estates but wanted to clarify that this was not an entitlement issue but a design issue; stated her understanding when she bought her home in Treviso that there would be bollards to prevent traffic from going up and down and that was not aesthetically displeasing; pointed out the idea of a fence across a fire access road seemed obtrusive; and, suggested putting the fence at the top of the slope. Planning Commissi~)n Mi', September 25, 2000 Page 8' Steve Austin, a future Treviso resident, addressed the safety issue and suggested that when the construction is finished, it will no longer be an issue; noted his daughter's best friend lives in the Estates and asking someone to drive her or have her to walk around to the front entrance seems unreasonable; stated his understanding of the privacy issue; requested a pedestrian access gate as in other communities; stated the characterizatiOn of Treviso residents as thieves and vandals is offensive; and, pointed out that putting up a fence in the proposed location seems unfriendly. Clare Kogler, a resident of Treviso, stated her children are grown so getting them back and forth to middle school is not an issue; the issue is the location and safety regarding the fence in its proposed location, offered the suggestion that a heavy rain could cause debris to clog the V-ditch, which is behind her property, and could result in possible flooding, erosion, and mudslides which would cause serious damage to homes below the fence and V-ditches; stated she will hold the City of Tustin responsible for any such damage; stated her understanding that the Estates probably has the right to erect a fence; and, requested that at least the location be changed. Lou Sansevero, a resident of Treviso, stated his concern is with drainage ditches alongside his property; remarked that he did not buy in Treviso because it is a gated community; and, stated he prefers open access. ' Jack Mitchell, a resident of Treviso, requested that the Commission uphold the underlying condition of unlocked pedestrian gates. John Oetken, a resident of San Miguel, stated that when he bought his home it was his understanding that an unlocked pedestrian gate would be allowed and voiced his concern that traffic is only going to get worse when the elementary school opens. Lou Marlin then requested a chance to respond. Chairman Kozak asked Mr. Marlin to come to the podium and explained to him that this was not a Public Hearing and that the points in support of the proposal had been made. Chairman Kozak asked if there were more speakers. Lauren Austin, a student at Pioneer Middle School, stated that she will be moving into the Treviso homes soon; that all she wants to do is walk to and from school through the Estates; and that she does not understand why that is such a bad thing because no one she knows has done anything destructive. Cynthia Hanna, a Tustin resident and a marathon runner, stated that she has lived all her life in Tustin, attended Tustin schools, and believed that erecting a barrier keeping out runners and school children is anti-community and has no place in Tustin. Chairman Kozak asked for comments from counsel. Planning Commissi~)n Mil,,,,es September 25, 2000 ' Page 9 .. Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney, stated that this process was designed to receive testimony and evidence from various individuals of the community in regard to the strengths, merits, or problems with this proposal and recommended that the Commission stay its course, receive testimony, and make a decision accordingly, confirming that it was not intended to be a debate or a closing argument within a judicial proceeding, but a proceeding whereby the Planning Commission had the opportunity to elicit inPut in regard to the issues. Chairman Kozak brought the matter back to the dais for discussion regarding the entry fencing. Commissioner P°ntious stated her support of the open access. Chairman Kozak asked staff for clarification regarding Condition 2.1 which indicates that there will be a prohibition on installing locks on the gates but stated support for the design with the conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Jennings stated as long as the pedestrian gates are not locked she supPorts the Design Review. Commissioner Bell stated no objections to the proposal with the modifications presented by staff. Chairman Kozak asked staff if the items should be considered separately in terms of making a motion. The Director replied that the decision could be made later, depending on the Commission's consensus at the end of the discusSion by the members of the Commission. · Chairman Kozak suggested relocating the fence because it is' not aesthetically pleasing in its proposed location. Commission Pontious requested that Condition 2.8 be changed to a "natural" color rather than "green" and also expressed support for relocating the fence. Commissioner Jennings stated the design would be a detriment to the community below it and her belief that something more attractive could be proposed; restated her concern about drainage problems; and, affirmed support for an unlocked pedestrian gate. Commissioner Bell stated other locations should be explored and her concern regarding the V-ditch location in regard to the fencing. Chairman Kozak asked staff if a condition could be added to the resolution concerning the location. Planning Commission Mii September 25, 200~ Page 10 The Director responded that staff would need the Commission's direction in that regard. Chairman Kozak.asked if alternative locations were ever proposed, considered, or discussed. The Director pointed out alternatives on the overhead map and stated the fence suggested along the property line was unacceptable because it gave the appearance of a cattle chute. The Director also noted that staff had recommended a fence at the top of the property. That proposal was rejected because it would have resulted in fencing off a rather large portion of the land owned by the Estates. Chairman Kozak asked if relocation would address the drainage issue. The Director answered that storm drains in various locations within the City can fill with debris and clog quickly; therefore, it would be the responsibility of the homeowners' association upslope to insure that those are maintained. Chairman Kozak asked, regarding staff's recommendation with respect to this particular fence, if the pedestrian gate is to remain unlocked. The Director said a iockable device is indicated on the plans. Commissioner Jennings asked if that meant lockable on both front and back and asked what kind of locks. The Director responded that staff is not sure what kind of mechanism would be proposed; locks are identified on the plan. Hence, provisi°n is made in Condition 2.1 which refers to the front gate only. Commissioner Pontious asked the Director for verbiage modifying Condition 2.1 to cover both gates. The Director responded that staff recommends that the Commission consider modifying a finding or adding a finding if the consensus is to do that. Chairman Kozak asked if modifying Condition 2.1 would require an additional finding. The Director answered that staff would recommend the Planning Commission pr°vide support for that decision. Doug Holland interjected that the problem stems from the original condition of approval that did not require secondary access to remain open. This is a fence between two private properties, if the Planning Commission were going to make a finding to provide for access, then an appropriate, finding would be required, to justify that particular modification in the design, prohibiting any kind of locking on this gate. Chairman Kozak inquired whether or not the East Tustin Specific Plan provides any guidance in this area. Planning Commissi~)n Mi~,,.,es September 25, 2000 Page 11 The Assistant City Attorney responded negatively. The Director provided a point of clarification' There are several tracts within the East Tustin Specific planning area that are gated and that are required to remain open or have open secOndary access points. Some of them have been locked. In some instances the condition was not imposed. Chairman Kozak remarked that the City seems to have a mixed bag of secondary access points, some being locked, some not being locked The Director. answered, "That's correct," and added, responding the discussion regarding circulation, that the developer intended to create a rural environment and proposed there be no sidewalks, there be steep slopes to create a rural environment. There'were speed mitigation devices, various signing at multiple locations, rolled curbs versus traditional curb and gutter, and limited fencing in some areas. This was intended to create a pedestrian-friendly or more rural atmosphere; this is perhaps the reason fencing was not included surrounding the Estates. Chairman Kozak expressed an understanding of the need to address the issue of secondary access as well as the policy issue to develop some consistency. Commissioner PontiouS asked if it would it be possible for the Commission to require open access contingent upon an overall review of the entire area. The Director replied that the issue should be addressed on a broader level if the restrictfons are going to be removed on any of them because these were conditions of the various entitlements. -If secondary access is to be proposed, the Commission should identify it as site specific, provide staff with some direction, and allow staff a brief break to prepare the language. Chairman Kozak announced a 10-minute recess. Chairman Kozak called the meeting back to order and returned to the two issues being discussed before the recess, drainage location and access for the pedestrian gate, and asked the Director for a report. The Director responded with a draft finding for the Commission's consideration' Finding Q' "The Planning Commission finds that the requirement for the installation of bollards at the base of Lot F as shown on the private street improvement plans for Tract 14396 is the functional equivalent of requiring open access at a secondary access location and that open access at Lot F should be preserved and maintained. Installation of locking devices .to limit pedestrian access would require comprehensive analysis of the pedestrian circulation of the areaS affected by this change and amendment to the conditions of approval of Resolution 3539 for Tract Map 14396 or the East Tustin Specific Plan would be required." Planning Commission M',. September 25, 200"0 Page 12 ,,S The Director suggested modification of Condition 2.1 to read' "Open pedestrian access at the main entrance from Pioneer Way and across Lot F and S shall be provided at all times"; and, addressing the issue of relocation of the fence and conditioning such a modification, the Director expressed concern regarding the Commission's conditioning something perhaps not anticipated. The Director stressed ~hat the Commission should use caution in mOdifying a condition, which should be approved at the staff level, due to the related public concerns. Chairman Kozak stated his understanding of that caution and asked that staff address the i'ssue of the nexus between the fence location and the drainage. The Director stated that staff would have to see a design before responding with surety. Chairman Kozak questioned whether staff would want to take a look at the actual engineering drawings in terms of making that determination. The Director answered in the affirmative. Chairman Kozak asked if the Commission had any other questions. Commissioner Pontious suggested that Condition 2.5 perhaps covers the drainage issue. The Director replied affirmatively. Chairman Kozak asked the Director to summarize the additions to the actions being considered in order to entertain a motion. The Director summarized as follows' 1) the revision to the findings would be the addition of Item Q as provided earlier; 2) a finding to support your modification to Condition 2.1 which would i.nclude that pedestrian access remain open across Lots F and S; Condition 2.4 be modified at the end to read "landscaping and fencing"; 3) adding Condition 2.7 that would require additional landscaping to the greatest extent feasible after the developer and the City and IRWD work together on that issue; and (4 Condition. 2.8 require that the wrought iron fence across Lots F and S be relocated and painted a natural color to complement the landscaped areas. The Director emphasized that if the Planning Commission is desirous of modifying that condition further regarding relocation, it can be brought back at a staff level. Chairman Kozak then asked that the Commission consider a motion for the adoption of Resolution No. 3746 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 as just summarized. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to adopt Resolution No.. 3746 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001 with the following revisions: Add Item Q to the findings as follows' "The Planning Commission.finds that the requirement for the installation of bollards at the base of Lot F as shown on the private Planning Commission Min,._..s September 25, 200C~ Page 13 street improvement plans for Tract 14396 i's the functional equivalent of requiring open access at a secondary access location and that open access at Lot F should be preserved and maintained. Installation of locking devices to limit pedestrian access would require comprehensive analysis of pedestrian circulation of the areas affected by this change and an amendment to the conditions of approval of Resolution 3539 for Tract Map 14396 or the East Tustin Specific Plan would be required." , Condition 2.1 shall read as follows: "Open pedestrian access at the main entrance from Pioneer Way and across Lots F and S shall be provided at ali times. No locking devices may be installed on pedestrian gates." Add to last sentence of Condition 2.4' "... landscaping and fencing." Add Condition 2.7 to read as follows: "To insure that the proposed fence along Lots S and F is compatible with the surrounding area, the applicant shall coordinate with the Community Development Department and IRWD to remove pavement and install landscaping, to the greatest extent feasible, in the areas that are not required for IRWD accesS. Said plans shall be provided to the Community Development. Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit." Add Condition 2.8 to read as follows' "The wrought iron fence across Lots F and S shall be relocated' and painted a natural color to complement landscaping subject to final approval by the Community Development Department." Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Bell seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3746. Motion carried 4-0. The Director noted that the appeal period ends at 5:30 p.m., October 2, 2000. F CONCERNS' , Actions taken at the September 18, 2000 City Council Meeting Presentation abeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Interviews for Resources Advisory p.m. itions for the Planning Commission and the Cultural ittee are scheduled for October 2, 2000, at 5'30' The Parks and Recreation Cedar Grove parking for Alternative 4. 'n made. a recommendation on Commissioner Jennings inquired whether this was the altern; Council. 0 by City The Director indicated in the affirmative. ATTACHMENT E Resolution No. 3746 tO t3 t6 ]? 20 2! 22 23 2.4 25 2? RESOLUTION NO. 3746 .o A RESOLUTION OF THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-001 .AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-024 TO AUTHORIZE 1) INSTALLATION OF TWO NINE (9)FOOT TALL PILASTERS AND THE ADDITION OF WROUGHT IRON FENCING TO AN EXISTING STONE VENEER WALL FOR AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF NINE (9) FEET, AND TWO PEDESTRIAN GATES AT THE EXISTING MAIN ENTi:~NCE TO THE PROJECT ON HANNAFORD DRIVE ON LOTS L AND K AND 2). INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6) FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND GATE ACROSS AN OPEN PAVED AND LANDSCAPED AREA 200 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE (LOTS F AND S). The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' ke That a proper application for Administrative Adjustment 00- 001 and Design Review 00-024 was filed by Standard Pacific Homes and Tustin Ranch Estate Maintenance Association, requesting authorization 1) to install two (2) nine foot pilasters and add wrought iron fencing to an existing stone veneer wall for overall height of nine (9) feet and 2) to install six (6) foot tall wrought iron fencing and gate across an open paved and landscaped area 200 feet north of the terminus of Township Drive (Lots F and S Tract). e~ That in accordance with (Section 3.5.1) the East Tustin Specific Plan walls and fences dividing common property lines not adjacent to a publ. ic right-of-way may be constructed of any materials acceptable to the Planning Commission. Ce An increase of twenty percent (20%)in the' permitted height of a fence or wall (7'-6" maxi'mum) requires approval of an Administrative Adjustment that may be granted by the Community Development Director. This authority has been deferred to the Planning Commission. Do That the proposed height and materials are compatible with the size, mass and area of the main entrance to the project and the neighborhood. E~ The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan land use designation Planned Community Residential which provides for policies and guidelines for planned residential development. In addition, the proiect has I? 2O 2.4 26 2? 28 Resolution Nc "'~ Adminis~,rative .... ,stment 00-001, Design Review 00-i. September 25, 2000 Page 2 Fo Ge been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub- element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Administrative Adjustment 00-001 and Design Review 00-024, as conditioned, will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: .., I o 2. 3. 4. 5. 6~ To o 10, 11. 12. 13. Height, bulk and area of buildings. Setbacks and site planning. Exterior materials and colors. Type and pitch of roofs. Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpOles, radio and televiSion antennae. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. Location and method of refuse storage. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. Appearance and design relationship .of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. The proposed project will not have a negative effect on the surrounding property owners, or impact the availability of public, emergency or maintenance access to the residential site. He The proposed fencing is compatible with the existing fencing within the tract and will not be a detriment to the public, health, safetY, welfare and aesthetics of the community. As conditioned, public pedestrian .access to the site would be maintained since no locking devices for the pedestrian gates would be 'installed at the main access gate from Pioneer Way. Limiting pedestrian access to the site at the l0 1,4 t9 20 22 24 25 2.? 28 29 Resolution NC $ ," " Administrative '~,4dstment 00-001, Design Review 00~'~ September 25, 2000 Page 3 o. K. b,, Mo No O. P. e. main gate would require an amendment of conditions of approval for Tract Map 14396. Estate residential developments typically allocate a larger area to the main 'entrance. Considering the width and area of the entrance gate, the proposed nine (9) foot pilasters and wrought iron fencing would complement the scale and size of the vehicular, gates. That pursuant to Section 3.13.2 of the East Tustin Specific Plan and Section 9299(C)(3) of the Tustin City Code, there are special circumstances regarding the size, configuration, topography and .surroundings of the subject property in that the project site is located within the East Tustin Specific Plan Hillside District and comprised of steep si.opes and grades. The increased height of the entry pilasters and fencing is necessary to ensure their effectiveness in directing access to the gated community given the sloped configuration of the entry area. In addition, granting the adjustment would not be a grant of special privileges in that other properties in the vicinity with similar site constraints haVe been granted similar adjustments. Public access to Lot 47 (Pioneer Middle School Site) 'through Lot L would remain unchanged. As conditioned, access for maintenance and utility easements would be maintained at Lot F. The applicant would be responsible for recordation of easements for Lot F to the satisfaction of the easement holders and weed abatement of the natural open space areas on continual basis. As conditioned, fencing across Lot F would not impede drainage. The applicant would be responsible for inspection .. and maintenance of the drainage channels. As conditioned, the applicant would be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action. The project is categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Quality Act. The Planning Commission finds that the requirement for the installation of bollards at the base of Lot F as shown on the private street improvement plans for Tract 14396 is the functional equivalent of requiring open access at a 14 l? 2O 23 2~ 26 2? Resolution No. 46 Adminis:l,"ative *'--'-"'..~.stment 00-001, Design Review 00-0'"'-'"" September 2~ .) . i Page 4 ~ " .. · .. .o secondary access Iocation'and that open access at Lot F should be preserved and maintained. Installation of blocking devices to limit pedestrian access would require comprehensive analysis of pedestrian circulation of the areas affected by this Chan~e and an amendment to the conditions of approval of Resolution 3539 for Tract Map 14396 or the East Tustin Specific Plan would be required. !!. The Planning Commission hereby approves Administrative Adjustment 00-001 and Design Review 00-024 authorizing installation of two (2) nine (9) feet tall pilasters, addition of wrought iron fencing to an existing stone veneer wall for an overall height of nine (9) feet and two pedestrian gates at the main entrance to the project on Hannaford Drive and installation of a six (6) foot tall wrought iron fencing across an open paved and landscaped area approximately 200 feet north of the terminus of Township of Drive (Lots F and S), subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A, attached hereto.. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of September, 2000. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary "I'~fCl'I~N V. KOZAK Chairpe'rson \ ! l0 t2 13 t? 2O 22 23 24 26 2'/ 29 Resolution No. Administ~tive Aujustment 00-001, Design Review 00-b,... September 25, 2000 Page 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) · I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that l am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3746 passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September, 2000. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3746 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTF~TIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-001 AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-024 · GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed use shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped September 25, 2000, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code and other applicable codes. (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 permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Administrative Adjustment 00-001 and Design Review 00-024 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. 1.5 The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project. · (1) 1.6 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation and each day the violation exists. (1) 1.7 The applicant shall be responsible and agrees to pay for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action. SOURCE CODES , (2) (3) (4) · STANDARD CONDITION REQUIREMENT CEQA MITIGATION UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW (5) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution 3746 September 25, 2000 Page ~. (1) 1.8 .o All conditions of approval of Tract 14396 and 15563 are incorporated by reforence and shall continue to apply unless herein modified. · USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 2.1 Open pedestrian access at the main entrance from Pioneer Way and across Lots F and S shall be provided at all times. No locking .devices may be installed on pedestrian gates. (1) 2.2 A knox box for emergency and utility access (Orange County Flood Control District, and Irvine Ranch Water District) shall be provided at the gated access across Lot F. , (*) 2.3 The wrought iron fencing across Lots F and S shall not restrict maintenance access to the natural landscaped areas. The applicant shall provide effective weed abatement of natural landscaped areas on a continual and as needed basis without notification from the City of Tustin. (*) 2.4 All easements shall be recorded for Lot F of Tract Map 15563 within ten (10) days from approval of the project. Paved roads to the pressure reducing station and manhole within Lot F shall be provided as required by IRWD. In addition, the easement shall be recorded with provisions regarding acceptable landscaping and paving standards within the easement areas. The applicant shall submit approval of the easement holders prior to issuance of a building permit and installation of any landscaping and fencing. (*) 2..5 Installation of the fence across Lot F shall not interrupt, drainage, utilities access, and or maintenance access from Township Drive and Hoxie Drive. The fence shall be installed as shown on the approved plans and shall not obstruct any portions of the concrete swales. The drainage channels shall be inspected and maintained free 'of debris by the homeowners maintenance association at all times. (*) 2.6 Public information signs (trespassing, security, etc.)installed on fencing or other structure visible from Pioneer Way or Township Drive shall be designed with size, color and materials that complement the design features of Tract 15563 and the neighborhood subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. (4) 2.7 To insure that the proposed fence al0ng.Lots S and F is compatible with the surrounding area, the applicant shall coordinate with the Community Development Department and I RWD to remove pavement and install landscaping, to the greatest extent feasible, in the areas that are not required for IRWD access. Said plans shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Exhibit A Resolution 3746 September 25, 2000 Page 3 (4) 2.8 .. The wrought iron fence across Lots F and S .shall be relocated and painted a natural color to complement landscaping subject to final approval by the Community Development Department. PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 3.1 At plan check, submit seven (7) sets of construction plans, two (2) sets of structural calculations pr. epared by a licensed engineer/architect. No field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. (1) 3.2 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the 1998 California Building Code (CBC), 1998 California Electrical Code, City Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations. ko Building plan check submittal shall include the following' Seven (7) sets of construction plans, including drawings for electrical. · Two (2) copies of structural calculations. Elevations that include ali proposed dimensions, materials, colors, finishes. · Details for the stone wrought iron fencing, pilasters and gates. o (1) 3.3 Indicate on the title sheet the applicable codes, City, state and federal laws and regulations to include' · 1997 Uniform Building Code with California Amendments · 1996 National Electrical Code with California Amendments · California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations · City of Tustin Grading and Security Ordinance · City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines · City of Tustin Private Improvements Standards (1) 3.4 Prior to issuance of any permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to the following: Building Plan Check and Permit Fees' Orange County Fire Authority Plan Check and permit Fees (1) 3.5 The Administrative Adjustment authorizes a twenty percent (20%)increase in the overall height of the pilasters., The applicant shall reduce the height of pilasters to nine (9) feet maximum in height. ,Exhibit A Resolution 3746 September 25, 2000 Page & NOISE (1) 4.1 . Ail construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. . and 6'00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9'00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. (5) (1) 4.2 4.3 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. All requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance shall be met at all times. FEES. (1) (1) 5.t 5.2 Prior to issuance of any building permits or sign permits payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. A,, Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule. B,,· Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $43.00 (forty three dollars) to 'enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered' to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. ATTACHMENT F Submitted Letters NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDR,_, nzS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 22502 AVENIDA EMPRESA .. RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 TELEPHONE (949) 766-4700 FACSIMILE (949) 766-4712 September 26, 2000 HAND DELIVERED AND U. S. MAIL S£p £ 7 2000 OFFICE.TUST~ crry CLERK City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780-3715 Attn: City Clerk Re'. Appeal to City Council from Planning Commission Decision Subject: Appeal from Design Review 00-024 Dear Members of the Tustin City Council' I am the corporate counsel for Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association. In that capacity, I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission at their september 25, 2000 meeting. Attached to this letter you will find the face page of the City Planning Staff's Report to the Planning Commission which details the information which you may need for this appeal. Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association appeals from the Planning Commission's decision on Agenda Item #5, Design Review 00-024 (there is no appeal from the Administrative Adj "'" '"" ) " ~equest ~u.. I and ,,T ustmenl uu-vui , ~u. fegarcung n . ,. ,,,~. In addition, would you please provide me with the date the appeal will be heard before the City Council. If there is anything else that you need in order to perfect this appeal, please let me know by phone or by facsimile as soon as possible. City Council City of Tustin September 26, 2000 Page 2 While I have requested a copy of additional finding "Q" and a copy of Resolution #3746, my office has been told that they are not yet prepared by the City Planning staff. As a result, I cannot be more specific with the specific area of appeal. Yours very truly, RPN:nh Enclosure- Face Page of Staff's Report Check No. 3630 NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDREWS .A-~Co rp~~n RICHARD P. NEULAND · Board of Directors Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Elizabeth Binsack Tustin Ranch Estates\ltr\City Council re Planning Commission Appeal 092600 September 29, 2000 Mr. Jeffery M. Thomas Mayor City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 OCT - 5 2000 ADMINISTRATION Re: Tustin Ranch Estates Gate Proposal Dear Mr. Thomas' As you are aware the homeowners association of Tustin Ranch Estates develoPment have requested city approval for the installation of pedestrian gates at the front entrance as well as a fence along the west perimeter of the development. After staff recommendation of this proposal, the planning commission has severely altered that recommendation'and the Tustin Ranch Estates homeowners association has appealed that decision. The purpose of this letter is twofold; to make you aware of the factual reasons for our request, and to request a private meeting with you to discuss and address any concerns you may have. Unfortunately there has been media coverage of this issue that was not instigated by our homeowners. It has only served to heighten the sensitivity of both neighborhoods to this issue. We are Saddened by this and do not wish further hysteria by the media or deterioration between neighborhoods. We feel we have several factual and legal positions on which our request should be approved. We are asking your consideration on these merits' and not on emotional testimony or political persuasion of a vocal minority. We are confident when you look at the facts you will agree that there is no reason to delay or deny our request. The originai request is based on the residents desire for: · Increased security for our homeowners. · Reduction in potential liability for our residents. · Cost control of homeowners' association dues. · Preservation of property values for our homeowners. Fact 1' Our development is a private community so our homeowners have responsibility for whatever occurs in our neighborhood Our entrance is at the trailhead for the Peter's Canyon horse and pedestrian trail. The mount of foot and bicycle traffic entering our community from the park far exceeds that of a typical private residential community. Because of the proximity to the park entrance, most people entering the development from the main entrance are walking dogs or tiding bicycles. Since there are no sidewalks they must walk and ride in the street or on our lawns. We believe that if a high volume of pedestrian traffic had been Planned, sidewalks would have been required in the original plans. Pedestrians with animals routinely allow their pets to defecate and urinate on our lawns and the walkers, joggers, and riders are a hazard to vehicular traffic of the residents. With open gates we have no control over who enters our community. The development is private property yet the city is mandating open access. In effect this ruling encourages trespassing. People entering the de,~elop~, oecome our responsibility. Our'risk potential liability dramatically increases as a result of open access. The city can not be held responsible for anything that happens in our community yet by .denying our request you will be increasing our liability and risk. The (~ity also does not share any of the costs of maintaining the common areas in the development, yet by denying our residents the control over who enters the development, our common area maintenance costs'are likely to increase. We can not understand how the city expects our residents to incur the complete cost of the liability and maintenance of the development while you deny us any ability to control these costs. At this time Tustin Ranch Estates is the flagship development in the city of Tustin. By denying our request for a gated community you will be severely inhibiting the sale of future homes in the development. It is ludicrous to expect people paying in excess of $1,000,000 for a home to'live in an open community while their neighbors with home prices less than half of theirs enjoy the freedom to live in a gated community. Fact 2: The city has not followed the appropriate legal process. Beyond the four reasons for our original request city officials are acting outside the area of what is common practice and legal. At the planning meeting on September 25, 2000 we believe the commission acted beyond their jurisdiction in two areas' 1. The meeting was not an open forum yet they allowed residents to speak on issues not pertaining to fence design. The commission ultimately based their mlings on these comments instead of the staff recommendation and the'facts. 2. The commission disregarded the staff approval and recommendation and created their own recommendation without any factual evidence or regard to the correct process. Specifically; we believe the commission does not have the fight to require a secondary entrance to the community. In the original plan for the development the road in question between the two developments was never intended to be open for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. If the commission would have checked its facts it would know that by requiring a pedestrian gate in the area in question they are creating a third entrance since a second entrance is being built in the second phase of development. Fact 3: Tustin Ranch Estates residents should not be discriminated against by the city. Furthermore, the decision to require unlocked pedestrian gates between the two developments and at our front entrance is also inconsistent with the fact of what exists in east Tustin.today. The commission knew and willfully ignored the fact that virtually every gated community in the area have locked pedestrian gates and that no enforcement has occurred to keep them unlocked. By deciding that one community must provide access to a neighboring community is the equivalent of requiting neighbors to install gates to allow each access to the others yard. We can not believe that there is any legal precedent providing two private communities the fight to have access to each other's communities. Regarding the issue of ~revei,.. , Students from walking to school, in . .e of what seems to have become the public perception, we are not specifically seeking to r~strict the Treviso children from walking to Pioneer middle school through our neighborhood. Out of the current enrollment of 51'4, there are fewer than 15 studeiits walking through the community each day. The fact is that we can not allow selective groups of people access to the community. It either needs to be open to all or open only to residents. There is no legal in-between. In Closing we are dismayed that we are being denied the same privileges that the residents who are most vocal in their objections already enjoy. We are confident that it is not the intent of the council to discriminate. There should not be a different set of roles for residents based on who complains the most or who has political influence. We should either all have open communities or the council should not deny us of our right to the same privacy and safety as the other communities in east Tustin enjoy. Our position is not that of a few, we stand united. All of our homeowners have read this letter have signed their support. We welcome the oppomm/ty to discuss this matter with you individually before the next council meeting and will present you with the signatures at that time. In summary, the points under which we bring this appeal are summarized as follows: 1. Tustin Ranch Estates is a private community and the city does not have the fight to impose additional maintenance and insurance costs on the residents for the benefits of non-residents. 2. Tustin Ranch Estates is a private community whose residents have the fight to restrict access to the community in a fair and legal manner. 3. The commission does not have the right to require after-.the-fact, a secondary, in this case a tertiary entrance to the community. 4. The city may not mandate open access between two private developments. 5. _Tl,,e city acted inconsistently by requiring our development to have open pedestrian gates when most developments in east Tustin today are not required to keep their gates unlocked. 6. The residents of Tustin Ranch Estates are entitled to the same rights as every other development in the city enjoys. This includes the right to protect our security and property, including our home values. 7. The residents of Tustin Ranch Estates have the right to be heard by our elected officials. 8. The residents of Tustin Ranch Estates have the fight to expect the council will conduct a fair and impartial discussion of the facts which would exclude participation by any council member having a conflict of interest in this matter. Thank you again for your consideration. We look forward meeting with you in private to discuss this issue. · Respectfully, · T R E tates H October 3, 2000 's ' m' xr v,4 vc ,4sso cz,4 RECEIVED OCT 0 000 CO, !A, II !ITY Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Director of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92780 Via First Class US Mail and Facsimile at 714/573-3113 Dear Ms. B insack: We have reviewed your letter of September 28, 2000 which addressed the unique street standards approved for Tustin Ranch Estates and which requested the Association's affirmation that the standards continue to be desired as key ingredients to a successful community plan. As you indicated, your letter was prompted by resident testimony that there are unsafe roadway conditions within this neighborhood, comments which were offered within the context of a contentious community debate on pedestrian access. The Tustin Maintenance Association Board of Directors had never received nor heard of any complaints or concerns relative to illegal parking or excessive speeds prior to the September 25th Planning Commission meeting. To the extent that issues do in fact exist, they are most likely related to temporary on-going homeowner improvement construction activity. We assure you that the Association will enforce as required all parking st~dards and speed limits as approved by the City of Tustin. We are confident that the standards will result in a unique, rural environment and look forward to their continued support from the City. Sincerely, Tustin Ranch Maintenance Association Board of Directors Managed by MERIT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. 25910 Acero Street, 2nd Floor · Mission Viejo, CA 92691 ° 949/465-5555 · 800/428-5588 - FAX 949/595-2300 ~NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDREWS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 22S02 AVENIDA EMPRESA .. R. AN~O SANTA MARGARFTA, CA 92688 TELEPHONE (949) 766-4700 FACSIMILE (949) 766-4712 October 5, 2000 HAND DELIVERED AND U. S. MAIL , City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780-3715 Attn: City Clerk Re:. Appeal to City Council from Plarminq Commission Decision Subject' Narrowing the Scope of the Appeal from Desi~o-n Review 00-024 Dear Members of the Tustin City Council' At the request of Minoo Ashabi I am narrowing the scope of Tustin Ranch Estates appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission at their September 25~ 2000 meeting. Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association appeals fi'om the following conditions of the Planning Commission's decision on Agenda Item #5, Design Review 00-024 (there is no appeal from the Administrative Adjustment 00-001), regarding Request No. 1 and No. 2: 1.) 2.) 3.) Condition 2.1, as it relates to "open pedestrian access"; Condition .2.8, as it related to compelling the proposed fence "be relocated"; and Condition 1.5, unless the decision regarding "open pedestrian access" is removed. Yours very truly, NEULAND, NORDBERG & AND~WS RPN:nh cc: Board of Directors Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Elizabeth Binsack Tustin Ranch Estates\Itt\City Council re Planning Commission Appeal 092600 nal~L~a Corporation RICHARD P. NEULAND //' / October 24, 2000 OCT ADMINIS'r Mr. Jeff Thomas, Mayor Members of the City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re' Tustin Ranch Estates Fencing Dear Mayor Thomas and Members of the City Council, I am writing to urge you to uphold the unanimous recommdndation of the City Planning Comrnission regarding thc fcnce and gate that have been praposed by Tustin Ranch Estates to be placed between them and Tustin Ranch III (TRCA III). As a board member ofboth"the Treviso development in Tustin Ranch and also of the master association of Tustin Ranch III, and as a homeowner whose property abuts the area in question, I am not only very aware of the situation, but directly affected by it. Before my husband and I purchased our home we were assured by the City of Tustin, Standard Pacific, and the Irvine Company that the access road behind us was for the use of emergency and maintenance vehicles only and would remain open for pedestrian traffic with bollards installed at the bottom to prevent unauthorized vehicular use. There was to be no fence. I understand that you have received a letter from the Estates board that ignores and misstates many of the facts regarding the situation. I hope that my attempt to clarify those facts will further underscore the rationale behind the Planning Commission's recommendation that we strongly ask you to support. 1.) Access -- While it is tree that our greater community (TRCA HI) is gated from the public thoroughfare of Tustin Ranch Kd., we are not gated internally. There are acmally six separate communities (San Marino, Madrid, San Rafael, San Miguel, San Marcos .and Treviso --- homes of varying price and design) all ungated within our larger community and all having' total open access to one another. It was logical then that we would assume that the Estates would be but one more community openly connected to ours. The children of our communities have used this pedestrian route to and from Pioneer Middle School since it opened over a year ago. Other than the children (usually only a handful daily) and an occasional .walker or jogger, there is very little traffic on this path (and I see it every day, since I work at home). I suspect that any problems the residems of the Estates may have encountered are most likely due to the fact that its from vehicular gate is open every day to permit ongoing and active construction in the tract, and to allow the public access for model home touring.. 2.) ~-- The Planning Commission, in accordance with its function, rejected the design submitii~d by the Estates that placed an unsightly fence across the middle of the acc~ess road. This unattractive structure would not only be visible directly in the line of sight from every window at the back of my house and those of my neighbors on the north, but visible to every car coming north on Township Drive as well. This fence seemed more appropriate to a penal colony than a nicely landscaped residential area. Commissioner Pontious, who served as Mayor during the time that the Estates were planned, indicated that the development had been designed with rolling curbs, no sidewalks and was to be kept open--- this was the look and feel the developer wanted. I've been told that each Estates resident signed a disclosure statement at the time of purchase informing him or her that this access road existed and was to remain open for pedestrian traffic. 3.) Draina~ ' The proposed fence would cut directly across a V-ditch and sloping drainage channel. This V-ditch connects to a large storm drain, directly behind my property. This ditch is the primary drain for water coming off the hill behind it. The Planning Commission agreed that a fence in this area could impede the drainage by allowing debris to accumulate thus blocking the flow'ofmnoffwater should heavy rains occur. This could lead to flooding, land slippage, even mud slides in the case of severe rain (which as you know does occur on occasion). The City, by approving the permit for such a fence could face liability as a result. I believe the Planning Commission carefully considered the above facts when making its unanimous recommendation. I urge you to adopt these recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Clare Kogler 11.752 Beswick Pl. Tustin, CA 92782 (&14) 832-1180 NE'; ND, NORDBERG & ANDR A PROFESSIONAL. LAW CORPORATIOIq 22502 AVENIDA EMPRESA RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688 TELEPHONE (949) 766-4700 FACSIMILE (949) 766-4712 November'20, 2000 City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780-3715 Attn: CiD' Clerk Re' (1) (2) Waiver of Right to Have Appeal Heard Within Sixty (60) Days From Date of Appeal; and Request by Tustin Ranch Estates that City Council Remand the matter to the Planning Commission' Subject: Appeal from a Portion of the Planning CommissiOn's Decision on September 25, 2000 regarding Design Review 00-024, and' Resolution No. 3746 Dear Members of the Tustin City Council' At the suggestion of the City Planning Staff, Tustin Ranch Estates, as the appellant of the subject Planning Commission decision and Resolution, has waived its right to an appeal hearing before the City Council' within sixty (60) days following the notice of appeal. Tustin Ranch Estates now understands that the appeal hearing will be held on January 15, 2001. Please confirm the rescheduled hearing date following the City COuncil meeting on November 20, 2000. In addition, Tustin Ranch Estates requests that the City Council remand the appellate issues to the Planning Commission for another hearing and reconsideration. Tustin Ranch Estates requests that the remand include instructions to the Planning Commission regarding its reconsideration in light of our objections. Those objections include, but are not limited to the following: (1) The Planning Commission exceeded the scope of its review of the design and aesthetics of the applicant's proposed improvements. The Planning Commission imposed new conditions 'Upon the subdivision, which are unrelated to the criteria for design review. Furthermore, these new conditions are not part of the original subdivision approval; and (b) the pedestrian access condition imposed by the Planning Commission is inconsistent with the City Council City of Tustin November 20, 2000 Page 2 i i ii i condition(s) imposed upon the subdivision when it was originally approved (several years ago). In the original conditions of approval of the subdivision, open pedestrian access was required only at the main entry. The Planning Commission has now added this open access condition to additional locations, in addition to the main entry. Thank you in advance for your consideration and action on this request. RPN:nh cc' Board of Directors Tustin Ranch Estates Yours Very. Truly; NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDREWS LAN PdC} ^ e. 5 u' Counsel for Tristin Ranch Estates /-- Tustin Ranch Estates\Itt\City Council re Appeal 112000 o . ATTACHMENT G Gate Chronology .Timeline. March 1986' 1986-1989 Date Unknown:' August 1989' 1989-1992' East Tustin Pedestrian Gate Chronology Action , East Tustin Specific Plan adopted. The following private tracts are approved with pedestrian pasco requirements' Maricopa; and, · Estancia. East Tustin Policy Committee recommends that private communities in East Tustin be open and accessible with unlocked pedestrian gates. Policy confirmed by City Council (Exhibit A-StaffReport). Tract 12780 is amended to designate Township Drive as private to serve San Marino, San Miguel, San Rafael, Madrid, and Treviso. Vehicular entry gates are approved through Design Review 88-67. Condition 3.6 states, "Pedestrian access at both the main and secondary entries shall not be gated or restricted." The street is vacated by the City Council and assumed by The Irvine Company as part of Tract 12870 in October 1989. In June 1990, construction plans .for the private entries at Township and Rawlings in Tract 12870 are approved with open pedestrian access. The following private tracts that have ga/es are approved and prohibited from locking pedestrian gates: · San Marino; · San Miguel; · San Rafael; · Madrid; · Treviso · Malaga; · Palo Vista; · Montecito; · Alicante; · Emerson; · C01umbiaJWestmont; and, · E1 Dorado. The following private tracts that have gates are approved without any limitation on gates: Miramonte; and, · Cone Villa. Chronlogy Page 2 Timeline October 1992: 1992-2000 Action The City Council, by minute order, modifies previous policy direction to allow locking devices on pedestrian gates within the East Tustin Specific plan area in conjunction with the approval of Tract 14584/14447 (Rancho Santa Fe Apartments) (Exhibit B- Minutes). The following tracts that have gates are approved without gate restrictions' Rancho Monterey; · Valencia; · Vidorra; and, · Rancho Santa Fe. The following private tracts that have gates are approved with gate restrictions: June 2000 August 2000 Exhibits' The Tustin Ranch Estates are approved in August' 1997. Tentative Tract Map 14396 is approved with private streets and pedestrian' and vehicular gates at the main entries. Condition 8.1(F)(2) states, "...In addition, the pedestrian access at the main project entry shall remain open and accessible to the pubic at .all times." Final Tract Map 15563 and Design Review 98-015 (Phase I) amend the entry to eliminate pedestrian gates. Westmont/Columbia is approved with pedestrian gates. Condition 8.i(F)(2) states, "...In addition, the pedestrian access at the main project entry shall remain open and accessible to the pubic at all times." Emerson is approved with pedestrian gates. Condition 8.1(F)(2) states, "...In addition, the pedestrian acc.ess at the main project entry shall remain open and accessible to the pubic at all times." Standard Pacific submits fencing and pedestrian gate plan for Phase I of the Tustin Ranch Estates (Tracts 14396/15563). CDD. surveys East Tustin and finds that twenty-one (21) of forty-seven (47), or 44 percent, of the communities have pedestrian .and vehicular gates. All twenty-one (21) are locked. Of those, nine (9) communities representing approximately 1,369 units appear to be inconsistent with their approvals. Nine (9) communities, representing approximately 1,506 units, are entitled to have locking gates. A- City Council Staff Report dated October 5, 1992 B - City Council Minutes dated October 5, 1992 city Council Report Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14585 October 5, 1992 Page 3 the condominium clusters to accommodate the grade change across the site. While some excavation is necessary, earth quantities on the site will be balanced' to the largest degree possible. The conceptual grading plan identifies no major retention of earth nor slopes in excess of a 2'1 ratio. ~_RCHITECTUP~_L DESIGN/LANDSCAPE/H~fRDSCAPE The product type proposed for the project are a~ached condominium units arranged around a central motor court. There are two building types propcsed, cne building of three condominium units and the other major building of two condcminium units. A statistical summary on the individual units has been included as A~achment B of this repcrt. The two story product types being proposed range from 24 feet in height to approximately 32 feet, which is consist=nt with ~h~ maximum building height permitted of 40 feet. Centrally located within the project is the recreation ~aci!ity and pccl area. The recra~_tion facility color scheme is a !ighn tan field color with a dark green accent color. o PEDESTR!AN GATES As previously noted in the Staff report, the project is proposed to . have a single gated entrance. Two gated pedestrian entrances are also proposed to be located at the entrance to the project. A request has been made which would allow the pedestrian gates to have locking devices. in the past, the City Council has expressed concern that locked pedestrian gates limited the accessibility for campaign volunteers, visiting non-residents, etc. to the gated projects. Based on policy direction of the former Easq Tustin Policy Committee as confirmed by the City Council, the following statement typically has been included as a standard condition cf approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Maps. "Pedestrian gates at the main project entrance access points may not have locking devices, and shall remain open and accessible at all times." & city Councii Report Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14585 October 5, 1992 Page 4 A requirement of an emergency access box for Police and Fire Department access on all locked gates, pedestrian and vehicular, is also a standard condition of approval included in the approv~nc_ ~ Resolutions to ensure emergency services are able to gain access to the project. _ _ ~ laa2 Based on Planning Commission input =~ the September 14, meeting, there appesrs to be the opportunity to reconsider the issue, it would be appropriate for the Council to provide, by separste motion, the ~irection to allow locking devices on pedestrian gates and to authorize staff to eliminate the use of the standard condition from future subdivision proposals. In addition, · ..... City Council may'wish to r~od~fy the conditions of approval for =:~_ project to allow main entrance pedestrian gates to have locking devices by eliminating Condition of Approval 7.1F.4 cf Planning Commission Resolution No. ~084, as proposed in draft Resc!ution No. a2_in ~ E ~V¥ i P. © _~D.~.E .N T AL ~_NALYS I S . =.as=~ upon ~evie'...~' of Vest'nc Tentative Tract MaD ~a585, a= we~] a= Environmental impact Report 85-2 (as supplemented) it has been determined that environmentE! iss'~es relating to this project have previously been addressed. Also, amuroDr~ae= mitigat~nc mea=u~== identified' in E!R 85-2 are included as conditions of auDrova! for the project. With this information in mind, it is reccms, end. ed that the Commission make the finding that requirements of the California Environmental Quality Ac% have been met and that no further environmental review is reuuired. CONCLUSION Given the analysis conducted by the Community Development Department and in consideration of comments from. other agencies and the public, it is concluded that Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14585 meets the requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the Subdivision Map Act, as adopted, and the California Environmental Quality Act. It is recommended that the City Council approve, by Minute Order, modifications to poli.cy direction regarding locking devices on pedestrian gates; and with the inclusion of conditions of approval listed in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 3084, it is CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES P'age 3', 10-5-92 Pat Brown, RGC representative .. There were no other speakers on the subject and the Public Hearing was closed at 7'12 p.m. It was moved by Thomas, seconded bv Puckett, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting the following Resolution No. 92-117' ItESOLUTION lqO. 92-117 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUS TIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING TpLkT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPkCT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2, AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14585 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURE'S HAVE BEEN INCORPOP~XTED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Thomas, seconded bv Puckett, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract' Map No. 1458~ by adopting the following Resolution No. 92-118, as modified- RESOLUTION NO. 92-118 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TP~CT M_~P 14585 TO CREATE 43 NUMBERED LOTS ~_WD 24 LETTERED LOTS FOR AN ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED ON LOTS 18 ~fND BB OF TRACT 12870 . iV. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved bv Puckett, seconded bv Thomas, to approve modifications to previous policy direction by allowing locking devices on pedestrian gates within the East Tustin Specific ~ Plan pro°ject area. . Motion carried 5-0. 600-7 600-60 PROCL~i~_ATIONS (Agenda Order) 1. FORMER PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONER SUSAN WELSH MaYor Pontious read and presented a proclamation for service recognition to former Parks and Recreation Commissioner Susan Welsh. Susan Welsh thanked the Council. 2. FiRE PREVENTION WEEK, OCTOBER 4-10 M~yor Pontious read and presented 'a proclamation declaring October 4-10 as Fire Prevention Week. A representative from the Fire Department thanked the Council for the proclamation and invited everyone to attend their local fire stations for Open House on Saturday, October 10. ISlT- ATTACHMENT H Gated Communities Survey/Map . ,, ,-., C~ O0 0 c~m, o o 6°.`` o c~0O ~ z dg o~ o~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ....... ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 o ~ ~ ~ '' 0 0 0 ~ ~.~ ~_ 0 0 ~ Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z ~ ~ 0 ~ o~= =~~ ~ .~ = . . , ~0~ ~ o o ~ , ..... ~ '~ ~ ~ o~ ~ >o 5~ ~ .- - ~ o o ~ LEGEND Ill' ~11 ~l-'. t,I rIAL NON IIE$1DEN ltAt. '" I"-" "'" ,, Ik,--.--.. i,../~c~. ............. t.."l t. I ......... L,' ~1 L/1 I'~ I ..... "~'""'' NOIES ',.-,,_~!::.- .~: ....... :"' "- jt '"-T I#,lPllAIl. cockED ~J~TH ATTACHMENT I submitted Revised Plans 0 0 / .." ....... t 9¥J..LI~BNS A:)N3t)V "'"""'"'"' '~ ~ /i I ~ ._.a~-~ },ss, · .~v. a.v ~ w.v .o..oo /I Il r~w, og, i.- a~ I~gggl. 10V1:11 I~:JIVJ.~:J HC)N¥1:I NIJ. BrlJ. ~ II '~uo. ~ ',m,~ NO,,Vm>dUO0 ::~t:Wd auvaNv~ /I ' ~._... < OLIJW 'ZZ .< O0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ZZ:Z 000 oooo >. 0 rr' / /' t t '1¥ J..LIm a NS ! mw~ ATTACHMENT J ReSolution No. 01.02 . l0 14 l? 20 ?_4 2'/ RESOLUTION NO. 01-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 00-001 AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-024 TO AUTHORIZE 1) INSTALLATION OF TWO NINE (9) FOOT TALL PILASTERS AND THE ADDITION oF WROUGHT IRON FENCING TO AN EXISTING STONE VENEER WALL FOR AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF NINE (9) FEET, AND TWO PEDESTRIAN GATES AT THE EXISTING MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE PROJECT ON HANNAFORD DRIVE ON LOTS L AND K AND 2) INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6) FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND GATE ACROSS LOTS F AND S NORTH OF' THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE (LOTS F AND S). The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao B, That a proper application for Administrative Adjustment 00-001 and Design review 00-024 was filed by Standard Pacific Homes and Tustin Ranch Estate Maintenance Association requesting authorization 1) to install, two (2) nine foot pilasters and add wrought iron fencing to an existing stone veneer wall for overall height of nine (9) feet and 2) to install six (6) foot tall wrought iron fencing and gate across Lots F and S, an open 'paved and' landscaped area north of the terminus of Township Drive (Lots F and S Tract). That in accordance with Section 3.5.1 of the East Tustin Specific Plan, walls and fences dividing common property lines not adjacent to a public right-of-way may be constructed of any materials acceptable to the Planning Commission. C, That an increase of twenty percent (20%) in the permitted height of a fence or wall (seven foot six inches maximum) requires approval of an Administrative Adjustment that may be granted by the Community Development Director. This authority was deferred to the Planning Commission and City Council, on appeal. D, That public hearings were duly called, noticed and held on said application on September 25, 2000 meeting by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission,approved Administrative Adjustment 00-001 and Design Review 00-024 by adopting Resolution No. 3746. E~ That on September 27, 2000 the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the project. F~ That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appeal on November 20, 2000 by the City Council and continued to Ja'nuary 16, 2001 and subsequently to February 5, 2001, meeting at the applicant's request. l0 14 20 21 24 25 2(; 2'/ 28 City Council Resolution 01 February 5, 2001 Page 2 Jo Ko Go He The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan land use designation "Planned Community Residential" and the East Tustin Specific Plan designation "Estate Density" which provides for residential development and related accessory structures, in addition, the project is consistent with the Air Quality Sub-Element of the Tustin General Plan. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of Administrative Adjustment 00-001 and Design Review 00-024, as conditioned, will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the City Council has considered at least the following items, if applicable: . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. o 10. 11. 12. 13. Height, bulk and area of buildings. Setbacks and site planning. Exterior materials and colors. Type and pitch of roofs. Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. Location and method of refuse storage. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. The proposed project will not have a negative effect on the surrounding property owners, or impact the availability of public, emergency, or maintenance access to the residential site. The proposed fencing is compatible with the existing fencing within the tract and will not be a detriment to the public, health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community. Estate residential developments typically allocate a larger area to the main entrance. Considering the width and area of the entrance gate, the proposed nine (9) foot pilasters and wrought, iron fencing would complement the scale and size of the vehicular gates. l0 14 l? 2O 24 City Council Resolution February 5, 2001 Page 3 Lo That pursuant to Section 3.13.2 of the E'ast Tustin Specific Plan and Section 9299(C)(3) of the Tustin City Code, there are special circumstances regarding the size, configuration, topography and surroundings of the subject property in that the project site is located · within the East Tustin Specific Plan Hillside District and comprised of steep slopes and grades. The 'increased height of the entry pilasters and fencing is necessary to ensure their effectiveness in directing access to the community given the sloped configuration of the gated areas. In addition, granting the adjustment would not be a grant of special privileges in that other properties in the vicinity with similar site constraints have been granted similar adjustments. Mo Public access to Lot 47 (Pioneer Middle School Site) through Lot L ., would remain unchanged. N, As conditioned, access for maintenance and utility easements would be maintained at Lot F. The applicant would be responsible for recordation of easements for Lot F to the satisfaction of the easement holders and weed abatement of the natural open space areas on continual basis. Oo As conditioned, fencing across Lot F would not impede drainage. Po The project is Categorically Exempt (Class 1) pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Quality Act. Qo The City Council finds that the requirement for the installation of bollards at the base of Lot F as shown on the .private street improvement plans for Tract 14396 is the functional equivalent of requiring open access at a secondary access location and that open access at Lot F should be preserved and maintained. Installation of locking devices to limit pedestrian access would require comprehensive analysis of pedestrian circulation of the areas affected by this change and an amendment to the conditions of approval of Resolution 3539 for Tract Map 14396 or the East Tustin Specific Plan would be required. II. The City Council hereby approves Administrative Adjustment 00-001 and Design Review 00-024 authorizing installation of two (2) nine (9) feet tall pilasters, addition of wrought iron fencing to an existing stone veneer wall for an overall height of nine (9) feet and two pedestrian gates at the main entrance to the project on Hannaford Drive and installation of a six (6) foot tall wrought iron fencing across an open paved and landscaped area north of the terminus of Township of Drive (Lots F and S), subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A, attached hereto. l0 11 17. 14 l? 20 ?-2 ?_4 ?-5 26 ?-8 City Council Resolution 0t- February 5, 2001 Page 4 , PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 5th day of February, 2001. TRACY WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 00-02 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council. of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution 01-02 was duly and regularly.introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5t" day of February, 2001. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADMINISTRATIVEADJUSTMENT 00-001 AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-024 February 5, 2001 GENERAL (1) 1.1 (1) 1.2 (1) 1.3 (1) 1.4 (1) 1.5 (1) 1.6 (1) 1.7 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped February 5, 2001, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modification to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code. Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified or prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. The subject project'approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within eighteen (18) months of the date of this Exhibit. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days, prior to expiration. Approval of AdministrativeAdjustment 00-001 and Design Review 00-024 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development Department. The applicant shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin from all claims and liabilities arising out of a challenge of the City's approval of this project. Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the imposition of a civil penalty of $100.00 for each violation and each day the violation exists. The applicant shall be responsible and agrees to pay for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) . CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (4) DESIGN REVIEW (5) (6) (7) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES PC/CC POLICY EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A City Council Resolution 01-02 February 5, 2001 Page 2 (1) 1.8 All conditions of approval of Tentative Tract Map 14396 and Final Tract Map 15563 are incorporated by reference and shall continue to apply unless herein modified. USE RESTRICTIONS (*) 2.1 Open pedestrian access at the main entrance from Pioneer Way and across Lots F and S shall be provided. (1) (1) 2.2 2.3 A knox box for emergency and utility access (Orange County Flood Control District and Irvine Ranch Water District) shall be provided at the gated access across Lot F. , The wrought iron fencing across Lots F and S shall not restrict maintenance access to the natural landscaped areas. The applicant shall provide effective weed abatement of natural landscaped areas on a continual and as needed basis without notification from the City of Tustin. (*) 2.4 All easements shall be recorded for Lot F of Tract 15663 within ten (10) days from approval of the project. Paved roads to the pressure reducing station and manhole within Lot F shall be provided as required by IRWD. In addition, the easements shall be rOcorded with provisions regarding acceptable landscaping and paving standards within the easement areas. The applicant shall submit approval of the easement holders prior to issuance' of a building permit and installation of any landscaping or fencing. (*) 2.5 Installation of the fence across Lot F shall not interrupt drainage, utilities, maintenance access from Township Drive or Hoxie Drive. The fence shall be installed as shown on the approved plans and shall not obstruct any portions of any concrete swale. The drainage channels shall be inspected and maintained free of debris by the Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association at all times. (*) 2.6 Public information signs (trespassing, security, etc.) installed on fencing or another structure which is visible from Pioneer Way or Township Drive shall be designed with size, color, and materials that complement the design features of Tract 15563 and the neighborhood subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. (4) 2.7 To insure that the proposed fence along Lots F and S is compatible with the surrounding area, the applicant shall coordinate with the Community Development Department and IRWD to remove pavement and install Exhibit A City Council Resolution 01-02 February 5, 2001 Page 3 Landscaping, to the greatest extent feasible, in the areas that are not required for IRWD access. Said plans shall be provided to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. (4) 2.8 The wrought iron fence across Lots F and S shall be painted a natural color to complement landscaping subject to final inspection by the community Development Department. PLAN SUBMITTAL At plan check, submit seven (7) sets of construction plans, two (2) sets of structural calculations prepared by a licensed engineer/architect, elevations that include all proposed dimensions, materials, colors, and finishes, and details for the wrought iron fencing, pilasters, and gates. No field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department. 3.2 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the most currently adopted codes, City ordinances, and State and federal laws and regulations. Currently, the City has adopted the 1998 California Building Code and 1998 California electrical Code. Indicate on the title sheet the applicable codes, City, State, federal laws and regulations. (1) 3.3 The applicant shall reduce the height of the pilasters to nine (9) feet in height consistent with Administrative Adjustment 00-001 which authorizes a twenty (20) percent increase in the overall permitted fence height. NOISE 4.1 4.2 4.3 All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9'00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction. of the Building Official. All requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance shall be met at all times. Exhibit A City Council Resolution 01-02 February 5, 2001 Page 4 FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to the issuance of any building 'permit, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change: A, Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. Bo Orange County Fire Authority plan check and' inspection fees to the Community Development Department. 5.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department a cashier's check payable to the County Clerk-Recorder in the amount of $43.00 to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty- eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered the check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the California Environmental Quality Act may be significantly lengthened. Is • • NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDREWS A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 22502 AVENIDA EMPRESA RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA,CA 92688 TELEPHONE (949) 766-4700 FACSIMILE(949) 766-4712 September 26, 2000 HAND DELIVERED AND U. S. MAIL City Council City of Tustin 3.00 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780-3715 Attn: City Clerk Re: Appeal to City Council from Planning Commission Decision Subject: Appeal from Design Review 00-024 - Dear Members of the Tustin City Council: I am the corporate counsel for Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association. In that capacity, I am appealing the decision of the Planning Commission at their September 25, 2000 • meeting. Attached to this letter you will find the face page of the City Planning Staff's Report to the Planning Commission which details the information which you may need for this appeal. Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association appeals from the Planning Commission's decision on Agenda Item #5, Design Review 00-024 (there is no appeal from the Administrative Adjustment 00-001), regarding Request No. I and No. 2. In addition, would you please provide me with the date the appeal will be heard before the City Council. If there is anything else that you need in order to perfect this appeal, please let me know by phone or by facsimile as soon as possible. • • City Council City of Tustin September 26, 2000 Page 2 While I have requested a copy of additional finding "Q" and a copy of Resolution #3746, my office has been told that they are not yet prepared by the City Planning staff As a result, I cannot be more specific with the specific area of appeal. Yours very truly, NEULAND, NORDBERG & ANDREWS c' ysSCorporatii_� .�_ RICHARD P. NE'UL•ND / RPN:nh , Enclosure - Face Page of Staffs Report Check No. 3630 - cc: Board of Directors Tustin Ranch Estates Maintenance Association Elizabeth Binsack Tustin Ranch Estates\Itr\City Council re Planning Commission Appeal 092600 • k • eport to the '' $ lanning Commission DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2000 SUBJECT: DESIGN.REVIEW 00-024 AND • ADMINISTRATIVEADJUSTMENT 00-001 APPLICANT: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES 15326 ALTON PARKWAY IRVINE, CA 92618 ATTN: THOMAS OLSON OWNER: STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES AND TUSTIN RANCH ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION 25910 ACERO STREET, 2ND FLOOR MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 ATTN: CAROLINE GOYKE LOCATION: TRACT 15563 AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE ACROSS LOT L AND K AT HANNAFORD DRIVE AND ACROSS LOTS F AND S 200 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE ZONING: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: 1) TO INSTALL TWO NINE (9) FOOT TALL PILASTERS AND ADD WROUGHT IRON FENCING TO AN EXISTING STONE VENEER WALL FOR AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF NINE (9) FEET, AND TWO PEDESTRIAN GATES AT THE EXISTING MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE PROJECT ON HANNAFORD DRIVE; AND; 2) TO INSTALL A SIX (6) FOOT TALL WROUGHT IRON FENCE ACROSS AN OPEN PAVED AND LANDSCAPED AREA APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET NORTH OF THE TERMINUS OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE (LOTS F AND S) ' RECOMMENDATION t Adopt Resolution No. 3746 approving Design Review 00-024 and Administrative Adjustment 00-001. • •• _, D• zo - o- • 7C 1-i 2 r o in . n r H. p L a rt a oZ • no y0 a ptin- • Z- C D y< o m * 0Z IrO • • • O ID 091Omme 9 • o �> pD Z 1--• m O ru Z IY N I w ru n..; a N r 0 11.J 0 Ca o r o v I J I ' �o • o ` I M $ m y x • I m < n • . m =.o I adz I Da m CO o-• mm • z D. I O o I 0 r I • Ct • CO a I ,b r I n • y I E c • 0 GI H Ln Z 7.. N y N J N N) Z Ln 0 1 O 0 0 . O 0 CA) a-) • C