Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 GPA 96-003, ZONE CHANGE 96-003, 3RD AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVLEOPMENT AGMT; TRACT MAP 15380—~ NO. 2 )))�' I 7 -21 -97 DATE: JULY 21, 1997 Inter -Com Ie- TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER R(,-� 97 Sri 97 -,f9 97_9„3 FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT��J. SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96 -003, ZONE CHANGE 96 -003, THIRD AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15380 (THE IRVINE COMPANY AND RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES) That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 97 -58 recertifying final EIR 85 -2 as modified by Addendum No. 6 prepared for this project; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 97 -59 approving General Plan Amendment 96 -003; 3. Introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1183 approving Zone Change 96 -003 and set for second reading at the Council's August 4, 1997 meeting; • City Council Report GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, VTT 15380, ETDA #3 July 21, 1997 Page 2' 1J Introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1182 approving the Third Amendment to East Tustin Development Agreement and set for second reading at the Council's August 4, 1997 meeting; and, Adopt Resolution No. 97 -73 approving Vesting Tentative Tract 15380. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid application fees to recover the costs of processing these applications. The proposed General.Plan Amendment and Zone Change will change the land use designation on 12 acres of land from commercial to residential in the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) area. Staff identified a concern with the potential long term loss of revenue resulting from the land use change. The Irvine Company prepared a Comparative Fiscal Impact Analysis (Attachment D) and a Grocery Demand Study (Attachment E) in support of the proposed request. As part of the Development Agreement, The Irvine Company has offered to convert and maintain the citrus grove south of the project site (Lot 23, Tract 12870) on land owned by the City and designated as a future Community Park. The City prepared an Economic Analysis of Citrus Production (Attachment F) which estimates'the cost of maintaining the orchard on Lot 23 at approximately $13,200 per year. In addition, The Irvine Company has offered to contribute $100,000 to the City's Park Improvement Fund. REQUEST 1. General Plan Amendment 96 -003 (The Irvine Company) - A request to change the Land Use Designation on the City's General Plan Land Use Map on a 12 -acre portion of the property located at the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway from Planned Community Commercial Business to Planned Community Residential. 2. Zone Change 96 -003 (The Irvine Company) - A request to: A. Change the Zoning Designation on the City's Zoning Map on a 12 -acre portion of the property located at the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway from Planned Community Commercial to Planned Community Residential; • City Council Report GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, VTT 15380, ETDA #3 July 21, 1997 Page 3 CJ B. Change the Land Use Designation on the East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan on a 19 -acre portion of the property located at the southwest corner of Jamboree and Tustin Ranch Roads from Medium -High Density Residential, and on a 12 -acre portion of the property located at the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway from General Commercial to Medium -Low Density residential which would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre; and, C. Amend the East Tustin Specific Plan text and statistical summaries to reflect the above noted changes to provide consistency between the Land Use Map and the text of the Specific Plan document. 3. Third Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement (The Irvine Company) - A request to amend the East Tustin Development Agreement to: A. Provide that Lot 27 will be developed with a single - family detached residential project; B. Convert the existing grapefruit orchard into a lemon orchard on Lot 23 of Tract 12870; and, C. Maintain the orchard and make a financial contribution to the East Tustin Park Development Fund. 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15380 (Richmond American) - A request to subdivide the 31 -acre site into 162 numbered and 19 lettered lots for the purpose of constructing 162 single - family dwellings. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION In November 1995, the City Council approved General Plan Amendment (CPA) 94 -001, Zone Change (ZC) 94 -004 and the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement. These approvals changed the land use designation on Lot 27 from 100 percent commercial use to 12 acres of commercial and 19 acres of Medium -High density residential uses. • City Council Report GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, VTT 15380, ETDA #3 July 21, 1997 Page 4 • The Irvine Company is now requesting a GPA and ZC to change the commercial designation and to designate the entire site Medium -Low Density Residential to provide for the development of detached single - family homes by Richmond American Homes. The projects are being processed concurrently. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 14, 1997 the Planning Commission approved the Sector 6 Concept Plan, site design and architecture for the entire 31 -acre site, and recommended that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and subdivision applications. Specific conditions of approval for the tentative tract map were included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3529 (Attachment C) . The Commission also considered and supported the provisions of the Development Agreement Amendment. Site and Surrounding Properties The 31 -acre site is located in Sector 6, and is bordered by an unimproved community park site to the south across Portola Parkway and residential land uses and a church to the west and north across Tustin Ranch Road. County unincorporated territory is located to the east of Lot 27, across Jamboree Road. Land Use Changes The existing land use designations would permit approximately 130,000 square feet of commercial development and 350 Medium -High Density Residential units. The proposed change to Medium -Low Density Residential for the entire site would permit a maximum of 310 detached units. The proposed land use will be compatible with the surrounding area, the site can accommodate the proposal and the change in land use will not negatively affect the surrounding area since a portion of the site is currently planned for residential development and residential uses are planned on surrounding parcels. • City Council Report GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, July 21, 1997 Page 5 VTT 15380, ETDA #3 L� The change in land use will result in a decrease in traffic generated in the vicinity of the site due to the elimination of commercial use and reduction in density of residential development. A Traffic Impact Evaluation was prepared for the proposal and is included as Appendix C to Addendum No. 6 to EIR 85 -2. The traffic volumes projected for the existing entitlement is 11,772 Average Daily Trips (ADT). The proposed land use designation is anticipated to generate 2,666 ADT, which is a 77 percent reduction from the projected volumes associated with the current land use designations. Development Agreement Amendment The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Development Agreement Amendment and forwarded a recommendation of approval. The complete Agreement is included as Exhibit A of Ordinance 1182. Generally the Agreement includes the following stipulations: ♦ The above noted requests must be approved for the provisions contained herein to be fulfilled. ♦ Lot 27 will be developed with the plans proposed by Richmond American Homes as part of TT 15380 or a comparable project. ♦ Additional development standards have been included that are more restrictive than the Medium -Low Density standards of the ETSP to ensure that future development on Lot 27 will be similar to the density and design proposed by Richmond American Homes. ♦ A requirement that the side and rear elevations that face Jamboree Road, Tustin Ranch Road and Portola Parkway include architectural variety, design details, staggered building mass and varied roof elements similar to the front elevations to provide relief from a flat wall appearance. • City Council Report GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, VTT 15380, ETDA #3 July 21, 1997 Page 6 • ♦ The existing grapefruit orchard (located south of the subject site, across Portola Parkway, on Lot 23 of Tract 12870) shall be converted to a lemon orchard and maintained by The Irvine Company for a minimum of five years. ♦ The Irvine Company will contribute $100,000 toward the City's Park Improvement Fund, with the goal of using the monies to construct, operate and /or maintain public park improvements in Tustin Ranch. At the July 14 Planning Commission meeting, Richmond American presented architectural modifications to the rear elevation of perimeter lots, including additional window and door surrounds, second story decks on selected units and building projections to address the Development Agreement requirement. The proposed modifications will be on display for public review at the City Council meeting. The Commission reviewed photos of surrounding single family developments representing desirable and undesirable architectural treatments. Ultimately, a condition was included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3528 approving Design Review 96- 050, requiring additional architectural enhancements on perimeter lots, subject to final approval by the Community Development Director. Project Description /Site Plan Richmond American Homes proposes to subdivide the 31 -acre site into 162 numbered lots and 19 lettered lots for the purpose of constructing 162 detached single - family dwellings. The proposed density for this project is 5.24 units per gross acre which is below the maximum allowable density of 10 units per gross acre for the Medium -Low designation. Conventional single family residential lots are proposed with direct access and drainage to the street system. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,750 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot size requirement of 3,000 square feet. Access, Traffic and Circulation Access to the site is proposed via a gated entry from Tustin Ranch Road at Pioneer Way and another from Portola Parkway. Both will be signalized entrances. Both entry drives connect to an internal loop street system which provides access to six cul -de -sacs located . around the perimeter of the site. • • City Council Report GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, VTT 15380, ETDA 43 July 21, 1997 Page 7 Pedestrian sidewalks are proposed adjacent to all of the streets. Each of the interior streets has a 36 -foot wide pavement section to accommodate on- street parking on both sides, excluding cul -de -sac bulbs and curves. The project exceeds the ETSP Medium -Low guest parking requirement of one (1) parking space per unit by providing a total of 242 guest spaces, 102 on- street and 140 on- driveway spaces. Architecture & Floor Plans The proposed plans include six building types, each with three alternative elevations. All six are two -story with heights ranging from 27 feet to 30 feet. The six different floor plans range in size from 2,298 square feet with four bedrooms to 3,155 square feet with up to five bedrooms and a bonus room. The architecture proposed is a contemporary interpretation of early California styles. Elevation "A" of each building type incorporates Craftsman design elements and the "C" versions of each building type will incorporate Mediterranean design features. Landscape / Handscape The perimeter landscape lots provide landscaping consistent with the Landscape Concept Plan for Sector 6. The landscape treatment includes the use of Canary Island Pine trees, informal drifts of Eucalyptus, and a variety of shrubs and groundcovers. Olive trees are proposed at the perimeter of the three corners of the site, consistent with the Tustin Ranch Community theme plantings. Carrotwood, Sycamore, Brisbane Box and Eucalyptus street trees and turf are proposed in the project site's interior parkway system. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of the proposed project in conjunction with EIR 85 -2 as amended, Addendum No. 6 (Attachment G) has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Pursuant to Section 15146 of CEQA, an addendum is required for this project in that: a. Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables of EIR 85 -2, as amended, are required to make the EIR adequate; and, 0 City Council Report GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, VTT 15380, ETDA #3 July 21, 1997 Page 8 • b. Minor text and map changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan and changes to. the development agreement do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment which have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85 -2, as amended. The traffic analysis prepared as part of Addendum No. 6 indicates that the densities permitted under the proposed Land Use Amendment and the proposed Tentative Tract 15380 would generate considerably less traffic from that which could have been anticipated if the site were developed under existing conditions. There would be an 85 percent reduction in traffic volumes if the site is developed with 162 single - family homes. � ar 1 � Sara J Pashalides � Associate Planner SJP:br:8C96003.sjp Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: Location Map A - Statistical Summary B - Proposed Plans C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 3529 D - Comparative Fiscal Impact Analysis E - Grocery Demand Study F - Economic Analysis of Citrus Production G - Addendum No. 6 to EIR 85 -2 Resolution Nos. 97 -58, 97 -59 and 97 -73 Ordinance Nos. 1182 and 1183 LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 A P.O: 502- .52 -01 50Uoc E:Giv OF 1vsrj. GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -0033 G LOCATION VTT 15380, DR 96 -050 .MAP m► • • ATTACHMENT A Statistical Summary Vesting Tentative Tract 15380 and Design Review 96 -050 Gross Site Area Building Area Open Space Street Area Minimum Lot Size Total Units Density Lot Coverage Building Setbacks Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Height Resident Parking Guest Parking Unit Floor Plans Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 Plan 5 Plan 6 Requirement N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,000 square feet 310 maximum 10 du /ac (gross) 70°06 total Sc. Ft. 2,298 2,418 2,589 2,776 2,920 3,155 15 feet minimum 5 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 35 feet 324 spaces (2 -car garage per unit) 162 spaces 162 spaces Plan TvDe 4 BED /3 BATH 3 BED /3 BATH 4 BED /4 BATH 5 BED /3 BATH 4 BED /3 BATH 4 BED /3 BATH TOTAL Proposed 30.9 acres 22.2 acres 1.7 acres 6.3 acres 4,750 square feet 162 units 5.2 du /ac (gross) 47°06 20 feet minimum 5 feet minimum 20 feet minimum 30 feet 464 spaces (3 -car garage per unit,except Plan 4) 102 on- street 140 on- driveway 242 spaces Ouantity Percentag 20 12.2 27 16.7 33 20.4 22 13.6 27 16.7 33 20.4 162 100.0% • < 00 (_) co z < <ZZ it U) w Z) > < F- ct < I z> ------ .......... W P z z U) A • so ow mb, me F-�Tll \-Ao 41kl IATTACHMENT B ry A • so ow mb, me F-�Tll \-Ao 41kl IATTACHMENT B Z a. w. Q cn z a M a wo Ua O U p Fp o 0 Cl) Lo Z7 Qo Z U Za PF- Ll U) �F- ~ z €11 I-- fit ftli ;; ;i It 10 000ItDai10� �� QD;►1ii 0 f� o� a oo�D!D� �t,tl► t +, I C� l! iJ O i ° O G O O Y�. S u 11m J_L t 1 R d I E: g Q CL 'Z VI CL UCl)E � Q O Z U Za cc cn ; pQ HZ W F PCAC:A � o 9 ma 6 yy y Fw @ px A g zQ[y[y iYi , r �L- gg i9i:ai t .0m:I ttie = = s g C-' v �gcz zz v z n > (7 = o D T P o _ O 3 0 •4 imiiN • 3" a A i3 I I: O E m ri la C ILz, u ' i &Z I��z �1 ti r 0 x 4 I n n � ' r k; _ Z to DqA +' L f aL t ' 1 Q • 3" a A i3 I I: O E m ri la C ILz, u ' i &Z I��z �1 ti r 0 x 4 I n n � ' r k; _ Z to DqA • • Is I �y O w6�V 2 Lt t3 SN fi•= fad �CR 922= C Wda F q U Z Q . Ir Z u � F S Q a s I c 7j 8 CJ p 4 l c,l � 1 ONe K Fui a N � U B LL k Q g %z J izr} • r _� __ -4xiaioi le�d&S6 P_ o ; zi 8 Z , • � 3z 1ii1. � a3mV o � s I � I W I o .r Q a k a 0 ° r - < E 1 ~ ° = 0 0 m _ 6 � I O+ LLI LL oa d = o= E 0 U v � V 6 z � Q 5 = N • I I IBI • r� b Y i � f 4[R %R E1� f! Q V/ U� Z Q d F s QJ V O t! Z= - - - - -- • LL �g 4 W a I - --��—j s �S a� d K O u 0 L <p � rc ZS Z V s Z < < U) F F m< F u. V O a m9o� Nu.�n 9 s �S a� d K O u 0 L <p � rc ZS Z V s Z < < U) F • a 411 Jill 8 1p R y i � E Ji "9L s_g fRB Asa R �R %x a d C U Z Q T yy ? S (n FF Fjn F� 3 J N; b E ( ➢3 x I 11 y U) U Z d Q z Z r • a f ■l�rl I I- =�I' Will uses Ie�r i r b r all Olin t� r' un games r i III IM �i a a c IL o () 2 U Z Ir Z �� i �, -1-� 3 • L oL a z N. n ci LL U Z Q S Z 3 a `o ! • W OEM MEN MEN b 6�? (e� b�R a� %R �de y i 2 � I C Hi N u- o W cc = a � Z • • LL: g N" N N 8 d � e U b Z F a 5 z F- � � r 0 • -I r a a a w i �t a Y t G _ nn rr 1 yEEUt �l 9t �. B� b. s p {A� yyg s'� �kk�R I LL QJ V LL: O V/ W ZQ2O U ZV Z a z z �b d F� 11 • 1 RESOLUTION NO. 3529 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL 3 APPROVE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15380 LOCATED ON LOT 27, TRACT 13627. 4 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby 5 resolve as follows: 6 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as 7 follows: 8 A. That Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15380 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Richmond 9 American Homes, Inc. for consideration; 10 B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on July 14, 1997 by the 11 Planning Commission; 12 C. That Environmental Impact Report 85 -2, as modified by Addendum # 6 for the East Tustin 13 Specific Plan, has been recommended for certification in conformance with the 14 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project; 15 D. That General Plan Amendment 96 -003, Zone Change 16 96 -003 and third Amendment to the East Tustin Devleopment Agreement have been recommended for 17 approval so that the proposed. subdivision will be in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan,. 18 adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Subdivision Map Act as it pertains 19 to the development of single - family dwellings; 20 E. The 1.6524 acres of parkland required for this development was previously. dedicated with 21 recordation of Tract 13627; 22 F. That the City has reviewed the status of the School Facilities Agreement between the Irvine 23 Company and the Tustin Unified School District, for the impact of Vesting Tentative Tract 15380 24 on School District facilities, and changes in State law. The impacts associated with this 25 approval on School District Facilities are adequately addressed; 26 G. That the site is physically suitable for the type 27 of development proposed; 28 - - - - -- - ATTACHMENT C 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3529 Page 2 H. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; I. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; J. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easements acquired by the public, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision; K. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems; and, L. The project has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of Measure 'TM" because entitlements specified in the East Tustin Development Agreement entered into in 1985, and the estimated project generated traffic does not cause the roadway system to exceed established levels of service standards. M. That the proposed dedication of additional right - of -way on Jamboree Road is necessary to satisfy the mitigation measures included in EIR 85 -2 as it relates to the required circulation plan. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 15380, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Planning Commission, held BARBARA RE—YES Recording Secretary regular meeting of the Tustin on the 14th da�c of July, 1987. LOU BONE �� Chairman 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 • • Resolution No. 3529 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3529 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of July, 1997. BREYES Recording Secretary • • EXHIBIT A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15380 RESOLUTION NO. 3529 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 Within 24 months from tentative map approval, the Subdivider shall record with appropriate agencies, a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. (1) 1.2 Prior to release of building permits, all conditions of approval of Design Review 96 -050 for the subject project shall be complied with as shown on Exhibit A attached to Resolution No. 3528 and incorporated herein by reference. However, the applicant will be permitted to obtain building permits for model home construction prior to approval of a final map provided approvals have been obtained from the Community Development, Public Works and Fire Departments. (1) 1:3 The subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, in the East Tustin Specific Plan and Development Agreement (and amendments thereto), EIR 85 -2, and applicable conditions for Tentative Tract Map 13627. (1) 1.4 The cumulative number of residential units for which (2) certificates of occupancy may be issued shall not exceed the cumulative total or square feet of occupied revenue generating uses or equivalents as shown in the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. (5) 1.5 The subdivider shall be required to execute Subdivision/ Monumentation Agreements and provide improvement /monu- mentation Bonds to the City prior to recordation of the final map. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE /S (7) PC /CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW * ** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 2 (1) 1.6 Prior to final map approval, the subdivider shall submit A. A current title report; B. A duplicate mylar of the Final Map, or 8% inch by 11 inch transparency of each map sheet prior to final map approval and "as built" grading, landscape and improvement plans prior to Certificate of Acceptance; and C. A list of street names to be approved by the City of Tustin Street Naming Committee. (4) 1.7 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15380 is contingent upon the execution of the Third Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement and approval of General Plan Amendment 96 -003 and Zone Change 96 -003 by the City Council. (1) 1.8 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. PUBLIC /PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (1) 2.1 Prior to recordation of final map, the Subdivider shall (2) prepare plans for and construct or post security (3) guarantying construction of all public and /or private, (6) infrastructure improvements within the boundary of said tract map in conformance with applicable City standards, including but not limited to the following: A. Curb and gutter /cross gutters B. Sidewalks including access facilities for physically handicapped persons C. Drive aprons /approach D. Street paving E. Street signing F. Landscaping /irrigation facilities G. Sanitary sewer service facilities H. Domestic water service facilities I. Reclaimed water service facilities J. Utility connections (i.e., gas, electric, telephone, and cable T.V. facilities) K. Traffic signal systems and other traffic control devices L. Street and paseo lighting u Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 3 E M. Storm drains and subdrains, the storm drain facilities within this tract will be private drains to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. N. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines O. Lot monumentation P. Fire hydrants The above plan shall be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer. In addition, prior to the issuance of any permits, the developer shall submit a 24" x 36" reproducible work area traffic control plan, prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced with this type of plan preparation. (1) 2.2 The amount of acceptable security for construction of (5) public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The amount and acceptable security for private improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. (1) 2.3 A separate 24" X 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, will be required for all construction within the public right -of -way. All construction shall be referenced to applicable City, County, or Irvine Ranch Water District standard drawing numbers. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Curb and gutter 2. Sidewalks, including curb ramps for the physically disabled 3. Drive aprons 4. All signing /striping modifications S. Street paving 6. Street lights 7. Catch basins /storm drain laterals /connection to existing storm drain system. In addition, a 24" X 36" reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation, will be required. (5) 2.4 The street improvement plan shall also include striping and signing plans to modify existing striping'on Tustin Ranch Road, Portola Parkway and Jamboree Road. • Exhibit A Resolution No, 3529 Page 4 • (1) 2.5 All changes in existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks (5) and other public improvements shall be the responsibility of subdivider. (1) 2.6 Preparation of plans for and construction of: (2) (5) A. All sanitary sewer facilities must be submitted as required by the City Engineer and local sewering agency. These facilities shall include a gravity flow system per standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. B. A domestic water system must be designed and installed to the standards of the Irvine Ranch water District or City of Tustin Water Department, whichever is applicable at the time of plan preparation. Improvement plans shall also be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Department for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated. The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water systems shall meet the standards as required by the Irvine Ranch Water District. C. Sewer and water facilities shall be clearly indicated as publicly maintained_ Maintenance access to water facilities shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association, and accommodations for such access shall be established prior to building permit issuance. (1) 2.7 Proposed streets shall be designed to the following (5) specifications: (6) A. All proposed streets and drives shall be designed in substantially the same width and alignment as shown on the approved vesting tentative map unless modified and approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. B. All streets shall be constructed in accordance with City requirements in terms of type and 'quality of materials used where practical. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 5 C. Parking shall be • prohibited within cul -de -sacs, curves and, along entry Streets "A" and "G". Signage and /or red curbing shall be installed where appropriate. (1) 2.8 Existing sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water and storm drain service laterals shall be utilized. (5) 2.9 In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including, but not limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right -of -way maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans are also required to be submitted to the Public Works Department /Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The acceptable formats shall be Integraph DGN or AutoCad. DWG file format, but in no case less than DXF file format. The City of Tustin CADD conventions shall be followed in preparing plans in CADD, and these guidelines are available from the Engineering Division. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. (5) 2.10 The Subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of the Notice of Intent for the NPDES construction permit, as submitted to the State of California Water Resources Control Board (one copy to Community Development Department /Building Division and one to the Public Works Department/Engineer- ing Division). (5) 2.11 An additional typical section for Jamboree Road will need to be shown on the tentative map for the area of the street widening. (5) 2.12 Existing utility /storm drain service laterals will need to be utilized for this development The proposed storm drain lateral from the end of the cul -de -sac of Street "C" to the existing 18" storm drain on Jamboree Road will not be permitted. The proposed storm drain will need to be located in the lettered lots "E" and "F" and connected to the proposed storm drain in Lot "E" from the end of the cul -de -sac of Street "B". • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 6 • (5) 2.13 Additional detail is needed with respect to the drainage through the intersection of Street "A" at Portola Parkway. It appears that execution of a drainage agreement may be required. (5) 2.14 The entry area detail shown on the conceptual landscape plan needs to be modified as follows: • The median nose needs to be located 15' behind the % delta of the curb returns. • The call box needs to be relocated to provide a minimum 60' of stacking distance between the call box and the crosswalk at the intersection. • Identify if this detail is typical for both entry areas. DEDICATIONS /RESERVATIONS /EASEMENTS (1) 3.1 The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and /or (2) reservation requirements as applicable, including but not (5) limited to dedication of all required street and flood control right -of -way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements and water easements defined and approved as to specific location by the City Engineer and other agencies. (1) 3.2 Landscape maintenance of all perimeter lots shall be the (5) responsibility of the Homeowners Association. (5) 3.3 Dedication of an additional five feet of street right -of- way along the Jamboree Road frontage from Portola Parkway to approximately 650 feet northerly of Portola Parkway and tapering from that point and joining the existing right -of way line at approximately 950 feet northerly of Portola Parkway. This dedication is required in order to provide for a consistent three 12' wide southbound travel lanes, an 8' wide bike lane and a 9' wide parkway along this frontage. • • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 7 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY (1) 4.1 Prior to recordation of the final map, subdivider shall (2) post with the Community Development Department a minimum (5) $2,500 cash deposit or letter of credit to guarantee the sweeping of streets and clean -up of streets affected by construction activities. In the event this deposit is depleted prior to completion of development or City appearance of public streets, an additional incremental .deposit will be required. (1) 4.2 Any damage done to existing street improvements and (5) utilities shall be repaired before acceptance of the tract and /or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development on any parcel within the subdivision. (1) 4.3 Prior to any work in the public right -of -way, an Encroachment Permit must be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (5) 4.4 The developer will be required to construct the following improvements along the Jamboree Road frontage: a) Widen the westerly side of Jamboree Road to provide for a consistent three 12 foot wide southbound travel lanes, 8 foot wide bike lane, 9 foot wide parkway including sidewalk within the limits stated in Item No. 3.3 above. b) All traffic signal, signing and striping modifications, median nose modification on Portola Parkway at Jamboree Road, as well as storm drain, street lights, and utilities modification required along Jamboree Road as a result of the Jamboree Road street widening. (5) 4.5 The developer will be responsible for all costs associated with modifications to the traffic signal/ interconnect at Tustin Ranch Road and Pioneer Way along with all signing /striping modifications and any required intersection modifications. (5) 4.6 If this development occurs after the Assessment District installs the traffic signal at Portola Parkway and the entrance to the parksite, the developer will be responsible for all costs associated with modifications to the traffic signal /interconnect along' with all signing /striping modifications and any required intersection modifications. • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 8 GRADING /GENERAL • (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of grading permits: (2) (5) A. A detailed soils engineering report shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official conforming to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, City grading requirements, and all other applicable State and local laws, regulations and requirements. B. The applicant shall submit a grading plan subject to approval by the Department of Community Development delineating the following information: 1. Methods of drainage in accordance with all applicable City standards. 2. Recommendations submitted and approved by a geotechnical or soils engineer. 3. Compliance with conceptual grading shown on tentative tract map. 4. A drainage plan and necessary support documents, such as hydrology calculations, to comply with the following requirements: a. Provision of drainage facilities to remove any flood hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rain fall which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 year storm and dedication of any necessary easements on the final map as required. b. Elimination of any sheet flow and ponding. c. Provision of drainage facilities to protect the lots from any high velocity scouring action. d. Provision for tributary drainage from adjoining properties. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 9 5. All flood hazard areas of record. 6. A note shall be placed on the grading plan requiring Community Development Department approval of rough grading prior to final clearance for foundations. The Department will inspect the site for accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may require certification of any grading related matter. 7. A note shall be placed on the plans that a qualified paleontologist /archaeologist, as appropriate shall be present during rough grading operations. If resources shall be excavated or preserved as deemed appropriate or as recommended by the paleontologist/ archaeologist subject to review and approval by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Department of Community Development. The paleontologist/ archaeologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting to ensure that this condition and necessary procedures in the event of a "find" are explained. C. The applicant shall prepare a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all construction work related to the subject Tract including a method of control to prevent dust and windblown earth problems. Said plan shall be.reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. D. Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. All construction access shall be through either Street "A" or Street 11G11 as no other temporary construction access will be permitted. E. The applicant shall prepare a hydrology and hydraulic calculations for this subject tract. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.' (1) 5.2 All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the (3) City of Tustin Municipal codes and grading requirements. • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 10 • (1) 5.3 Prior to the recordation of a final map, the applicant (5) shall submit for approval. by the Community. Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that identifies the application and incorporation of those routine structural and non- structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and detailing implementation of the BMPs not dependent on specific land uses. (1) 5.4 Prior to issuance of grading, grubbing and clearing or (5) paving permits, the applicant shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Storm water Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. FIRE DEPARTMENT (5) 6.1 Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, the subdivider shall submit water improvement plans to the Fire Chief for review and approval to ensure adequate fire protection and financial security is posted for the installation. The water system design, location of valves, and the distribution of the fire hydrants will be evaluated and approved by the Fire Chief. (5) 6.2 Prior to the recordation of any subdivision map or the issuance of any building permits, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief evidence of the on -site fire hydrant system and indicate whether it is public or private. If the system is private, the system shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief prior to issuance of building permits. Provisions shall be made by the applicant for the repair and maintenance of the system, in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (5) 6.3 Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map, the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Chief of all fire protection access easements and shall dedicate them to the City. The deed restrictions shall contain provisions which prohibit obstructions within the fire protection access easement. The approval of the Fire Chief is required for any modifications, such as speed bumps, control gates or other changes within said easement. • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 11 • (5) 6.4 Prior to issuance of any grading. permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of preliminary plans for all streets and courts, public or private, from the Fire Chief in consultation with the Manager and Traffic Engineering. The plans shall include the plan view, sectional view and indicate the width of the street or court measured from flow line to flow line. All proposed fire apparatus turnarounds shall be clearly marked when dead -end street exceeds 150 feet or when other conditions require it. (5) 6.5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for street improvement plans with fire lanes shown. The plans shall indicate the location of red curbing and signage. A drawing of the proposed signage with the height, stroke and color of lettering and the contrasting background color shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. (5) 6.6 Prior to the issuance of the certificate of use and occupancy, the approved fire lane marking plan shall be. installed. The CC &R's shall contain a fire lane map and provisions which prohibit parking in the fire lanes. A method of enforcement shall be included. (5) 6.7 Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, the developer shall submit and obtain the Fire Chief's approval of a letter and plan stating that water for fire fighting purposes will be placed on the site. An all weather fire access road shall be in place and operational as required by the Uniform Fire Code before any combustible materials are placed on the site. (5) 6.8 Prior to the issuance of building permits, an Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability form shall be submitted to and approved by the Plan Review Section of the Orange County Fire Authority. If sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system shall be installed in each structure, in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. • • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 12 (5) 6.9 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a Fire Safety Site Plan for the review and approval of the Fire Chief. The applicant shall include information on the plans required by the Fire Chief. Contact the Orange County Fire Authority Plans Review Section at (714) 744 -0403 for the Fire Safety Site /Architectural notes to be placed on the plans. (5) 6.10 Prior to the issuance of any building permits on those lots(s) /parcel(s) determined applicable by the Fire Chief, plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. This system shall be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy. (5) 6.11 Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating their locations on the street or drive, per the Orange County Fire Authority Standard, and approved by the Fire Chief. On private property these pavement markers are to be maintained in good condition by the property owner. (5) 6.12 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall submit and obtain the Fire Chief's approval of the construction details for any access gate. Contact the Orange County Fire Authority Plan Review Section at (714) 744 -0403 for a copy of the "Guidelines for Fire Authority Emergency Access." NOISE (1) 7.1 Prior to the.issuance of any building permits: (2) (3) A. A final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Tustin Community Development Department for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared by an expert or authority in the field of acoustics. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 13 All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noises, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms is required. Evidence prepared under the supervision of an acoustical consultant that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be provided. B. Due to the project's close proximity to the Browning Corridor, said study shall provide information on single event noise measurements as generated by helicopter flyovers for information purposes only. (1) 7.2 Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Use or (2) Occupancy, field testing in accordance with the Title 25 (3) regulations may be required by the Building Official to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. (1) 7.3 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, and shall take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. (1) 7.4 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. CC &R'S (1) 8.1 Prior to approval of the final map, all organizational (3) documents for the project including any deed restrictions, covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department and City Attorneys Office. Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department after recordation. CC &R's shall include but not be limited to the following provisions: • • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 14 A. The City shall be included as a party to the CC &R's for enforcement purposes of those CC &R provisions in which the City has interest, as reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC &R's. B. The requirement that association bylaws be established. C. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including landscaped areas and lots, walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walks, sidewalks, trails) and paseos. D. Membership in any Homeowner's Association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual lots. E. Architectural controls shall be provided and may include but not be limited to provisions regulating exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, accessory structures such as patios, sunshades, trellises, gazebos, awnings, room additions, exterior mechanical equipment, television and radio antenna. F. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section C above in CC &R's. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below: 1. All common area landscaping and private areas visible from any public way shall be properly maintained such that they are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, debris and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede pedestrian traffic along the walkways. Trees shall be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and damage to sidewalks, driveways and structures. • • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 15 2. All private roadways, sidewalks and paseos shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. significant pavement cracks, pavement distress, excessive slab settlement, abrupt vertical variations and debris on travel ways should be removed or repaired promptly. In addition, the pedestrian access at the main project entry shall remain open and accessible to the public at all times. 3. Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare, or that such a condition of deterioration or disrepair cause harm or is materially detrimental to property values or improvements within three hundred (300) feet of the property may also be added as alternative language. G. Homeowner's Association approval of exterior improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin Community Development Department. All plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC &R's. H. Residents shall not store or park any non - motorized vehicles, trailers or motorized vehicles that exceed 7 feet high, 7 feet wide and 19 feet long in any parking space, driveway or private street area except for purpose of loading, unloading, making deliveries or emergency repairs except that the Homeowner's Association may adopt. rules and regulations to authorize exceptions. There shall be no parking of any kind on driveways that are less than 19 feet in length. I. A total of 324 parking spaces shall be permanently maintained at a rate of two garage spaces per each dwelling unit. An additional minimum of 162 unassigned guest spaces (on- street or on third -car driveway area) shall also be permanently provided. • • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 16 J. Individual units shall not have separate external television and radio antennas. Either a central antenna shall be provided with connections to each unit via underground or internal wall wiring, or each unit shall be prewired and served by an underground cable antenna service provided by a company licensed to provide such service within the city. K. All utility services serving the site shall be installed and maintained underground. L. The Association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member of the Association Board and where applicable, a Manager of the project before January 1st of each year with the City of Tustin Community Development Department for the purpose of contacting the association in the case of emergency or in those cases where the City has an interest in CC &R violations. M. Disclosure information related to aircraft noise impacting the subdivision, as approved by the City of Tustin Community Development.Department. N. The Association shall be responsible for establishing and following procedures for providing entry gate access to the public utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area, subject to those agencies' approval. O. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate or change the Homeowner's Association's obligation to maintain the common areas and the project perimeter wall (include if the wall is located on private property) or other CC &R provisions in which the City has an ihterest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate or change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas and maintenance of the project perimeter wall, shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the City of Tustin Community Development Department. P. Maintenance of Lots A through JJ shall be by the Homeowners Association. Exhibit A Resolution No, 3529 Page 17' (1) • Q. Disclosure tc of property developed in manner which views from ti Tustin makes views from development c • all future homeowners and purchasers that surrounding properties may be accordance with City ordinances in a may partially or totally obstruct e owner's unit, and that the City of no claim, warranty or guarantee that any unit will be preserved as E surrounding properties occurs. R. Maintenance of all slopes and drainage devices on individual lots within fenced yard areas shall be the responsibility of the individual property owner. S. Disclosure to all future homeowners of the specific location and type of structures which will be located within the public utility easement. T. Individual property owners shall park vehicles in garage spaces. Storage of personal items may occur in the garages only to the extent that vehicles may still be able to be parked within the required garage spaces. U. Disclosure.to all future homeowners and purchasers of property that El Toro Marine Base may be developed with a commercial airport which may effect the project with aircraft overflights. V. Disclosure to all future homeowners and purchasers of property that any use of the individual residences for a business shall be subject to the City's requirements for a Home Occupation Permit. HOMEBUYER NOTIFICATION 9.1 Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy: A. A document separate from the deed shall be prepared which will be an information notice to future homebuyers of aircraft noise impacting the subdivision. The notice shall further indicate that additional building upgrades may be necessary for noise attenuation This determinat' b ion is to e made as architectural drawings become available and /or where field testing determines inadequate noise insulation. Exhibit A Resolution No, 3529 Page 18 B. The developer shall provide the City with a schools notification statement which shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and participation by the governing school district which shall indicate: (1) The location of existing and proposed elementary, middle and high schools which will serve the subdivision (text and map). (2) Advice to homebuyers that proposed school sites may never be constructed. C. The Subdivider shall provide the City with a statement which must be signed by each homebuyer which shall contain a comprehensive description of all private and public improvements and developments adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed development, including the Eastern Transportation Corridor. D. The developer shall provide the City with an information notice to future homeowners of lots that have above ground utilities or structures (such as light standards and fire hydrants) located within a public utility easement identifying the type of structure and their locations. E. The developer shall provide the City with an information notice, as approved by the City Attorney, indicating that E1 Toro Marine Base may be developed with a commercial airport which may effect the project with aircraft overflights. F. The developer shall provide the City with an informational notice, as approved by the City Attorney, indicating that any use of the individual residences for a business shall be subject to the City's requirements for a Home Occupation Permit. (1) 9.2 Subdivider shall notify all potential homebuyers of the (5) following liens and Assessment /Maintenance Districts affecting the property: A. Reassessment District No. 95 -2 B. City of Tustin Landscaping and Lighting District as amended. Q. That the project is located within a Mello Roos District. • Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 19 FEES E (1) 10.1 Prior to recordation of any final map, Subdivider shall pay plan check and inspection fees for all public and /or private infrastructure improvements within the City's responsibility excluding those financed by an Assessment District. (1) 10.2 Prior to recordation of the final map, the Subdivider shall pay all costs related to the calculation of the revised parcel assessments, the preparation of the revised assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to Reassessment District No. 95 -2. (1) 10.3 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall (5) 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. Grading plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. C. New development fees to the Community Development Department. D. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the applicant. E. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to the Tustin Public Works Department. F. Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. Exhibit A Resolution No. 3529 Page 20 is (1) 10.4 All properties within the subject map will be subject to Reassessment District. 95 -2 fees to be determined as a result of land use change. The subdivider shall pay all costs related to the calculation of the revised parcel assessments, the preparation of the revised assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to Reassessment District 95 -2 as a result of the subdivision. (1) 10.5 Within forty -eight (48) hours of approval of the subject (5) project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00 (thirty -eight 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. In addition, should the Department of Fish and Game reject the Certificate of Fee Exemption filed with the Notice of Determination and require payment of fees, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, within forty -eight (48) hours of notification, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $850 (eight hundred fifty dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. If this fee is imposed, the subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. COMPARATIVE- FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS NWC JAMBOREE AND PORTOLA PARKWAY • • Section 1: Introduction This report presents the fiscal impacts for a 31 acre site located at the NWC of Jamboree Road and Poriola Parkway in the City of Tustin. A present discounted value calculation has been prepared for each scenario for the recurring revenues only and for the overall fiscal impacts. Analysis is presented for the following three scenarios: • The site develops under the existing entitlement which includes a neighborhood commercial center and single family attached for sale housing. • The site develops under the existing entitlement but due to market conditions such as location and accessibility of other existing and proposed neighborhood centers, only the single family attached for sale housing is developed. No development of the shopping center occurs. • The entire site develops under the proposed entitlement which includes single family detached housing only. Section 2: Project Description Existing Entitlement The current land use designation for this site is comprised of a neighborhood retail center on 12 acres and multi - family residential on the remaining 19 acres. The neighborhood retail center is assumed to have an FAR of about 0.23, the equivalent of 120,000 building square feet. Secured valuation for property tax purposes is estimated at $100.00 per building square foot and unsecured valuation for furnishings and fixtures is estimated at $20.00 per square foot. Taxable sales are estimated at an annual average of $135 per square foot, as provided by the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1995, by the Urban Land Institute. As shown in Table 1, phasing of the shopping center in this analysis is assumed for the year 2006. Employment is estimated at 216 and assumes 500 square feet per employee. The residential uses, under the existing entitlement, are assumed to be an attached for sale product. The density allows for a maximum of 350 units, or about 18.4 units per acre. Phasing of these units are assumed to begin in the year 2000 with 104 units and continuing through project buildout in the year 2003 with some 38 units. Valuation of this product type is estimated at $140,000 per unit. Both the phasing and valuation assumptions are based on similar developments in the Tustin Ranch area. - Population is estimated at 974 persons and assumes 2.78 persons per dwelling unit. Estimates of persons per household is based on information from the California Department of Finance, May 1996. Proposed Entitlement The alternative land use designation assumes the development of single family detached residential units only. It is estimated that a total of 162 units could be developed on this site, a density of about 523 units per acre. As presented in Table 1 • > o L U ry�0 G cr 'N m N 5 > O O O. OI L G L N� I °ol rn W Z o O O O of O > o L U G cr m N 5 > O `c L W r o < L G L I °ol rn W Z o Y Q � a ° a o w ° Q Z 0 W N• W � a O J7 2 7 Q O H C7 N U Z N __ W d rni z Z W U J O!O T W Z V) o I m. D rnI m o r� in c� 0 M Q m 0 0 N v c O O m G N" = O � � o L U G cr m N 5 > O `c L W T E N E E L G L O d V O c U rn W Z o o o i- - N O (p O Ni V O N O' N; I � ' O O o. I, NI 1 o, o ° � O N; O ' O O N rn: i 0) O b O) �i rte' 0 0 rnl a V L 4.) @ d O U E � E m E o co c O O a N Y � N U ry 3 L U O CL C 0 N .0 C C U 3 0 m O O U � � N fD t9 Q N N T cc f9 9 9 O O aNi aNi = U E E fr" > > T VI N N Q Q C N I9 N N F V1 U o j 0 Z in E • • 1, phasing of these units is assumed to begin in 1998 with 78 units and continues through 2000 with the remaining 8 units. Valuation of this product type is estimated at $303,000 per dwelling unit and is based on comparable single family detached development in the area. For this analysis, it is assumed that the local streets are to be privately maintained. Existing single family detached developments in the Tustin. Ranch include a mix of projects that have privately and publicly maintained local streets. Population is estimated at 450 persons and assumes 2.78 persons per dwelling unit. Section 3: Results Ana Table 2 shows the present discounted values of the recurring revenues only and for the net revenues and costs by scenario. The present discounted value is calculated using a real discount rate of 4.0 percent. Present Discounted Value Recurring Revenues Only. The present discounted value for recurring revenues under the proposed entitlement are projected at $816.5 thousand for the period from 1997 - 2006. This is more beneficial than the existing entitlement both with and without the shopping center at $726.0 thousand and $723.2 thousand respectively. Over the period from 1997 - 2016, the present discounted value of the proposed entitlement is estimated at $1.49 million. This compares to the existing entitlement of $1.64 million for the existing entitlement without the shopping center and $2.53 million with the shopping center. With the phasing of the shopping center estimated in the year 2006, the existing entitlement is more positive when analyzed using the presented discounted value approach. Net Revenues and Costs Applying the present discount rate to the overall fiscal impacts, recurring revenues less recurring costs, the proposed entitlement is positive at some $53.7 thousand from 1997 - 2006. Analysis for the existing entitlement shows the present discounted value of the fiscal impacts to be negative at some $133.1 thousand assuming the development of the center and a negative $92.7 thousand without the center. For the period from 1996 - 2016, the present discounted value of the fiscal impacts under the proposed entitlement is estimated at about $98.0 thousand. This compares to $281.2 thousand for the existing entitlement with the shopping center and a negative $210.5 thousand for the existing entitlement without the shopping center. If only the residential uses were to be developed under the existing entitlement conditions, on a site specific basis, the project is estimated to have a net recurring deficit each year. Recurring Fiscal Impacts at Buildout Existing Entitlement With Retail As shown in Table 3, the net recurring surplus at buildout is projected at some $75.6 thousand: This surplus is based on recurring revenues of 3 • • TABLE 2 TUSTIN RETAIL CENTER: NWC JAMBOREE AND PORTOLA PARKWAY PRESENT DISCOUNTED VALUE' i j1997 - 2006 1997 -2016 Recurring Revenues Only Existing Entitlement With Center With Retail Center $725,965 $2,526,094 Without Retail Center' $723,246 $1,641,510 Proposed Entitlement $816,524 $1,490,634 Net Revenues and Costs Existing Entitlement With Retail Center ($133,146) $281,169 Without Retail Center' ($92,738) ($210,481) Proposed Entitlement $53,669 $97,977 Notes: 1. The present discounted value is calculated using a rate of 4.0 %. 2. This assumes that the existing entitlement does not change but due to locational and market factors, the proposed center is not developed. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. r TABLE 3 TUSTIN RETAIL CENTER: NWC JAMBOREE AND PORTOLA PARKWAY SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACTS AT BUILDOUT Recurring Costs Existing Entitlement Proposed j With Retail Without Retail Entitlement Recurring Revenues 546,529 Public works 1,257 Property tax 565,398 $51,719 $51,810 Real property transfer tax 1,078 1,078 1,080 Sales and use tax 160,595 27,489 27,568 Public safety augmentation 2,211 378 379 Franchises 11,551 9,453 4,375 Business license tax 1,305 .0 0 Licenses and permits 5,979 4,893 2,265 Fines and forfeitures 4,977 4,073 1,885 Motor vehicle in -lieu 31,130 31,130 14,409 Charges for current services 10,690 10,690 4,948 State gasoline taxes 16,781 16,781 7,767 Other revenues 2,683 2,683 1,242 Interest 14147 7217 5.298 Total 5328,525 5167,584 5123,025 Recurring Costs Police protection 5144,763 S100,525 546,529 Public works 1,257 1,257 582 Community services 19,556 19,556 9,052 Citywide overhead 22,983 16,842 7,796 Fire protection 64353 0-M 8 5098 Total 5252,912 $189,072 $114,939 Recurring Surplus /(Deficit) 575,613 ($21,488) $8,086 Recurring Revenue /Cost Ratio 1.30 0,89 1.07 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc 5 $328.5 thousand and recurring costs of $252.9 thousand. The largest share of revenues is from sales and use tax at some $160.6 thousand, or about 48.9 percent of total recurring revenues. For this analysis a 10.0 percent reduction factor has been applied to the retail building square footage to account for common areas and store vacancies. Other major revenue sources are property tax and motor vehicle in -lieu. Police protection costs are estimated at $144.8 thousand, or 57.2 percent of total recurring costs. Existing Entitlement Without Retail The net recurring deficit at buildout is projected at some $21.5 thousand with a corresponding revenue /cost.ratio of 0.89. The deficit is based on recurring revenues of $167.6 thousand and recurring costs of $189.1 thousand. The largest share of revenues is from property tax at some $51.7 thousand, or about 30.9 percent of total recurring revenues. Other revenues include motor vehicle in -lieu and sales and use tax based on a purchasing power capture of 50.0 percent for the new residents. Police protection costs are estimated at $100.5 thousand, or 53.2 percent of total recurring costs. Proposed Entitlement As presented in Table 2, the net recurring surplus for the proposed entitlement at buildout is projected, at about $80 thousand with a corresponding revenue /cost ratio of 1.07. The surplus is based on recurring revenues of $123.0 thousand and recurring costs of $114.9 thousand. The largest share of revenues is from property tax at some $51.8 thousand, or about 42.1 percent of total recurring revenues. Other revenues include motor vehicle in -lieu and sales and use tax based on purchasing power of the residents. The purchasing power capture rate for the City of Tustin is estimated at 50.0 percent for the new residents. Fire protection and police protection costs are estimated at a total of $97.5 thousand. Section 4: Fiscal Factors The fiscal factors used in preparing this analysis are based on the City of Tustin, Program and Financial Plan 1996 -1997. Derivation of the factors, while based on the latest fiscal year, are as closely approximated as possible to the fiscal analysis prepared in the Tustin Fiscal Model. Recurring Revenues Table 4 summarizes the recurring revenues and their respective factors used in this analysis. Major changes from the previous analysis prepared for the Tustin model include the following: Property Tax. The allocation rate for the City of Tustin has decreased from about 13.0 percent of the basic levy to about 10.6 percent. This reduction is based on the state mandated shifts in property tax from local government to schools. Q < CL 0 Z 00 CL ;- Z. 0- 1 0- � Z 0 0� < :D I I- Lli LU < M I r g j 0 0 U, LLJ CO =) QIQ LL, < > o LLI, ifL C; O LL. 0 < D uj af z P, W • • a. m' W. I w w -C i E I O'l Q, --E 0 0 -io CDC ti T .2' . -iw! E. w: w; w, 2!3! 2i ':O ;-;R !.la ! -21 m :�' . I It '. '2! I t J: 75, J. -5; co! > '! E .. -i 1 0, I Di , ol.�i 0! W10 oi. 18 81 'mo C; -j$1§1§1§ lolff: cc, Iwl 0 ;" �ln 0 > -1(0 N t7 NIP II 11 wn. !C? 0 Zj I gyp E A 0 0 0 0 C, 12 > 6 rn LL 7;6 E -E 0 . 2- Z5 U • • Public Safetv Auamentation. This is a relatively new revenue source and is based on Proposition 172 one -half cent sales tax. While the majority of the revenues from this source are allocated to counties, the cities do receive some share. State Gasoline Tax - Section 2105 Revenues from this source are based on the nine cent per gallon tax which was not in effect when the Tustin Fiscal Model was prepared. Derivation of Taxable Sales Per Square Foot Annual taxable sales per square foot for the retail center is estimated at about $135 per square foot. This factor is based on analysis of neighborhood shopping characteristics as provided by Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1995 prepared by Urban Land Institute (ULI). As shown in Table 5, assumptions include average square footage by store type and the corresponding sales per square foot. In the case of food stores and drug stores, adjustments have been made to account for those sales that are non - taxable. It is estimated that 40.0 percent of food stores sales are taxable; for drug stores, the percentage is about 63.0 percent. The result is an estimate of taxable sales of about $151 per square foot for grocery stores as shown in Table 5. As noted in the September 5, 1996 memo from Greggory Stoffel and Associates, grocery stores on a citywide basis for the City of Irvine are about $443 per square foot. This translates to estimated taxable sales per square foot of about $177, somewhat higher than the $151 per square foot used in the analysis. This lower taxable sales per square foot is considered appropriate for this analysis and could actual be lower given the location and accessibility of the site as well as the competition from other existing and proposed neighborhood centers. Residential Purchasing Power. For the proposed entitlement and the existing entitlement without the shopping center, an estimation of the purchasing power of the residents has been prepared. This purchasing power is based on the estimated household income using the average product value. The analysis assumes that the City of Tustin will capture 50.0 - percent of the taxable sales generated by the residents. Under the existing entitlement, the sales and use tax factor is $78.54 per unit ; for the proposed entitlement the factor is $170.17 per unit. The average factor foe the proposed entitlement is higher due to the higher valuation of the single family detached units. Recurring Costs Table 6 summarizes the recurring cost factors applied in this analysis. No major changes from the previous analysis prepared for the Tustin model are noted. Table 7 shows the calculation of the general government overhead, 11.6 percent of the department costs. Tables 8, 9 and 10 show the detailed recurring revenues and costs for each of the scenarios from 1997 through 2006, the last year of assumed development phasing. These tables also present the present discounted value for the recurring revenues only and for the net revenues and costs for the period from 1997 through 2006 and for the period from 1997 through 2016. M I TABLE 5 - TUSTIN RETAIL CENTER: NWC JAMBOREE AND PORTOLA PARKWAY AVERAGE TOTAL AND TAXABLE SALES PER SQUARE FOOT: WESTERN ADJUSTED NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Total I Median Sales l i i I Median Taxable Store Description I Median I GLA I Per Total Sales Per I Taxable Square Foot Sales Square Foot I Sales Food, Supermarket Superstore 24,448 378.71 59,258,702 $151.48 $3.703,481 36,975 412.70 15.259,583 165.08 6,1 03.833 Food c> Restaurant (without liquor) 2.230 153.32 341,904 153.32 341,904 Restaurant (with liquor) 3.4DO 196.09 666,706 - 196.09 666,706 Sandwich shop 1,289 - 193.45 249,357 . . 193.45 249,357 Pizza 1,720 155.76 267,907 155.76 267,907 Qft pegalty Cards and sifts 2,600 100.78 262,028 100.76 262,028 w Ir Jewelry 1.250 270.07 337,588 270.07 337,588 LS11/Df Liquor wine . 2 800 226.85 - 635,780 226.85 635,180 Drugs Superdrugs Drugs 15.000 167.63 2.514,450 104.77 1.571531 8,125 208.63 1,695,119 130.39 1.059,449 Oth___-r Bail Flowers /plant store 1,281 91.17 116,789 91.77 716,789 Personal Serv]cgu Beauty 1.200 148.69 178,428 0.00 0 Cleaner and d er Y 1,500 171.43 767,745 0.00 Laundry 1,8D0 65.46 777,828 0.00 0 0 Travel agent 1,050 ODD 0 . Unisex hair 1,200 126.29 151,548 0.00 0.00 0 Video tape rentals 2.500 96:45 241,725 96.45 0 241,125 n n i Banks 3.200 0 0 Offices (other than financial) 1,574 0 0'00 0 0 ODD 0 Total_ 115,082 $32,461,365 $15,556,877 Sales Per Square Foot $28207 $135.18 Notes: 1. To estimate taxable sales for the categories of Food and Drugs, median factored by a ratio of 25 and 1.6 respectively. sales per square fool have been Source: Stanley R. Hoff man Associates. Inc. Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 1995, Urban Land Institute I i Y a O H N O z 0-0 z F.. za < g W Z) W (n m N ° O < W M F co <¢O a O Z >- z z W N U J < ui W z H M F- F- • • - i 1 1 1 I'0 I I I l I N I �I� IN T� INI T Id d yl aI N u° uI c m dl u al p N d iol� d >, [ di a d NI EI Idl > >. IG N yO d I dl d tLl U vl d ° jI dl Ul I= OI ` NI d °I c c —° 0 E gl'c E,,g'i t o u ; ml I I m v = IE EI v Elgl do al I� E- j I�i�I �l I Io dI E oil oil d El of I�I�i O m INI° JI I I d al m I m�m ° gml8i d, OI N. to d AI 8 w d N m!_mlmlE- n N N = IO N = NI o 61n1 n p.; N O!O; yVylr dI NI WWdI y2y'dI lyVy dl yUy' ^yy'wy_i INI UI yU 10 UI yUI NI rl a N I m nl 6l N I l 6 V I nl nl 61 I U 6 KI nI o.I gl d IOImOwlm l{�Oj O. Im 0: 0: IQIQiA�AIONII N� l�p!U. m'N.U. :r? 'O'O); 'ry�P:Q!p;l.j•ry; o I 1 I i i 1 I !p CI °' 1 1 j�I I idl N� 1 IdI :Nl 1 9c+ If �Ic o. IEi E_ lwn�aj vl E. ai °!° a -1pw a. n m dl m ml m: i o NI di E t Ui 0: o! m 'vi uO: (V11°'o 1 1 d o :0laiz:z io IZ .Z; -: v.2 n' a: I : d;a I izl z d' :a: I I 1 1 °' 1 101, 6!7 j _T°J o ° I j o o f S mo ' mJp 'll" 73M o ° Iml 1W m n.c: 10 N O T m °1 > d d L O N a o d v N d C 9 O U = U g'v � c o A d m N L N T C d a Ip N f' J U 0 C � cO m d `o m m _ .c a n = C N � R O C N g rn d C O N N y c d � E � v n a M N P N U _w N y d O O L d C r v o m c u 0 v m d c 0 o U O U f N U C d = N n N = m E! .N o a o o F ° u EF � cv° N O T d c N � d d O d N E y d E Z d p C d y U U O' T d T C m U o o E m 0 N ._ L C o c N C C d d O N m 0 U N V d m d a y d.�N N t N c O d j O p C N 02 0 v N E EOM cJ N Z _rn m m rn m d } n U N E .1 ti C � . N N C �LL x C N m N a ry c N Ea O S N � F T c `o C T in U d U 0 • • TABLE 7 TUSTIN RETAIL CENTER: NWC JAMBOREE AND PORT6L4 PARKWAY GENERAL GOVERNMENT OVERHEAD ESTIMATION General Fund Operating Expenditures Less: General Government Costs Equals: Adjusted General Fund Operating Expenditures General Government costs as a percent of adjusted General Fund Operating Expenditures Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Tustin, Program and Financial Plan, Fisc: II S26,197,454 S2,726,949 523,470,505 11.62% it Year 1996 -1997 Budget General Government Category ! Amount Category: Legislation City Council $86,118 City Clerk 260,625 City Attorney 185300 Subtotal $532,043 Administration City Manager 5412,659 Finanace 604,437 Personnel Services 295,310 Subtotal $1,312,406 Non - departmental S882,500 General Fund Operating Expenditures Less: General Government Costs Equals: Adjusted General Fund Operating Expenditures General Government costs as a percent of adjusted General Fund Operating Expenditures Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Tustin, Program and Financial Plan, Fisc: II S26,197,454 S2,726,949 523,470,505 11.62% it Year 1996 -1997 i 8 � I 0 I � I I ff gl W N z Z W U J ' F I Kl LIJ F Q W g i OJ W J � F o a z 0: O W p. Z aF W N W — x X O m p W S W m J g N m<� F p U U -- Z m �. Z _ Q LLJ H I Z Z LJ U W m J w mi ^I Q W U ' cr Z n Lo I rn D U W � I Q I c QQ cC G V% y C d O _U = m L d N c% E o O d d N N f7 d It N J IL U N O u c: • • m m M t- O '_ J - m w w N w w W m O O n 0 n^ 0 o- (ppppryryryry(yyyyyyyy n_ o v m n m m m N N m - n q O tU' tJ O C N N N m p m p w w w w n n l� I� O 0 .i N ry N N N m P n N^ a� O O� m O O 17 O n n O O ^ n N m ry IN � (n V O 7 I� O N P ai r ^ O m N P 1(` O m O IN N IN N m 0 m w w w w al tD m m P O) I� O� R -fV t7 10 O OI � r f N N m Ilj O w w ^ w v S C O O m O m N p N^ S P O N Op ONi N m m P IO n al N N p �vy� I� n m O In0 r r Nm n O O N ^ O N p w m o 0 o m o P 0 o m m n n O N m n n n p N m C N N m I� O p N N f m n m LI w w w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 o q w ow o 0 o q Ow 0 wo w Z Ow O O O O O O O O O O O q O O O g 0 O Q w0 w0 w w Z wo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q Ow o 0 o g o 0 a wo w w Z N d N C 1- y, U y N d O N d Y T O O V U n 3 E S a d E a00 u. 12 O o P. N d U O J x ry Y J d G m K a ` OI Ni c g � c w � a. U di d al � P ml m of r iN a^, N I ml w i_ m � N f` m' w m O d OI C J c w n t7 w 1, U N N d J C d c Z N d N Q m E T d rn V J N I � oNi 8i I W Z N W U J Q nl W � gl H � O Y Q 3; Ni a- < 8 Z W O 2 W J O t IL 8; N; W Z W Z W F K co 0) O X O W m W - J � QQ vi i N U N � O a, Z OU m. � Z W a i Z W U E J W � O1 Q LLJ W W Z Z • rn m pi m n o n^ 0 0- n m O m U f A Oi - w A 0 m P m U Am U N ^ A 0 OI P C- O fJ N A p N n m w rn m rn m m rn p O n N 0 0 0_ N P rn ` m 0 m m j m M 0 n mn`i� N O m rn m m m n o � M o gi m m P A O p Q rnm AO U A U N N N w n m p O m O t7 N 01 m Cj P � P m pP N O N O O) rn ry rn m n YI N m OI m N m A m rn n n P 1'1.ry CI P N O) V P m 10 N m O N O N A Op Crygl O� rn C N n O U N O IC 4t5 N IV OJ C7 OI O1 p. W m O m N m O P O O D U A U N m N A A w p O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g o p p Op 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 w pO 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O g 0 L) � U W LL O } Q N N C a X � _U N c b N. C X E d E w x J � y F L 6 C J N ci a = a p C a T 000.• C ryN N y N C y y N> q y� 2 N U V d y N> d w d N C O 6 b d C N d a O N d d d m0 L iC 0 U y p c v . 0 Ll N l7 N N m Q� In N C7 g -rn� m N N A ip N ry � rn N N In P A �O m m N m m O P m N m n m ry ry N �O^ rn b N N m tSgY] O P O OI - m N w p N N N m O V 0 m m m _ m N p y ^ f7 P P p U p w -- O P P N 8 m A A m ry A rn _ O N ry O m _ _ p W p m n m O ^ O OI n N m m O N mp. p p Ow O O O g 0 O p p Z 13 c N a N O N Q E 0 T a rn U O m a w p p Z O Q C N O j Ni V O N i y a co) N d a O O m; w is u a H U >1 > d n N A 41 C Ni a Y T> O fn W D O- O p �I 13 c N a N O N Q E 0 T a rn U O m a O Q C N O N i y a co) N d a O O is u a H U >1 > d n C a 41 C Ni a Y T> O fn W D O- O U LL � j a v a 13 c N a N O N Q E 0 T a rn U O m 14 O rn A C q ml q g� N IOp A y � � N C O 0 x U C C > d d H J O C C d d � Z U C d A O N Q E K T d rn U O N O O O rn^ N O O O 7 n N N OO. rn � N O !!lVVV N (C(C(CyyyJJJ O O . ''"'YYYYY Iw N O A w rn O p Iq o o p N P W � w {Op NI [D O �O t7 17 N m O (OO1 N O O 1� Cl w N Q tttllllll111111 p I p Z jN5 `3' A A O O P 1p C ry I t9 V^ f7 17 N� P OI A N O rn m N 4 N� O 10 � Q � (((�QQyyyjjy OI O A M p 0 cW C A N Q N .-. P C A .-• Q OI A O�j �v =.�1) C m ^ } W p ^ w w > > F 1 w q Y H C Z Q W 8 O O A A O O O P Ip P C N p� (`I N N tpj n O N Ip O OA Ol O uj N P N - P C A N O Ol A Q ^ Ji N w w O p w a O IL pp p mm O^ m tD m n O O O O O O Q N O O N t0 N N rn O A a. N N O C rn A N Of N �- C P A Zp N N N C rn Q F w �y w (n ' w w 0 U O: O O O rn N O N rn O n Z OOII 0i O O N t7 N g O �1 N N O rn W© p �''YY11 O N N O rn p ...I Q p^ N N Q Ol A C_ O a q q Q W w q F U Z Z LU rn' ^ O M. OI P C O^ Ol: V) O O A N A A O O N f7 W P Q^ N N - fO Q A O Q tD A pY O A W p Z _Z W O' N 0 m m A- 0 0 P O O J Orni OI N ^ O rn t7 A N !�y' N Q O N u{ N .- N M^ 1'] a U N l0 N 17 N rn N C t7 N 17 ^ F LL, p N w N p t0 p W K w Z O I �! p0 O O o o O O O O o O O q O owoo o qw° a 7Q ^I w Z F E N y O C X O V C m' � x O d N C 6 0 C J N O O Z d p j C Q >> U N d 3i d a p d N U u C C vi > OP C. O d N J g O V C O L N d d' lA Q. Y. Q] J LL U (n O= rJ O J O o V u. d V' d V OJ 14 O rn A C q ml q g� N IOp A y � � N C O 0 x U C C > d d H J O C C d d � Z U C d A O N Q E K T d rn U O N I Grocery Demand In Tustin- Ranch/ Lower Peters Canyon/North Irvine December, 1996 gg ag MIN A TT A CUMV IVrr V GSS !:i:GUIt1 STOPPLI, S ,ASSOCIATES Grocery Demand In Tustin Ranch/ Lower Peters Canyon /North Irvine December, 1996 INVESTMENT PROPERTIES MARKETING MARKET PLANNING SITE ANALYSIS RETAIL STRATEGIES 43 Curpomie I'ark, Sui[e 203 Irnine, California 92606 -51i- I?14) 250 -9480 Fax 250 -9481 December 3, 1996 Mr. Michael Le Blanc The Irvine Company 550 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700 Newport Beach, California 92660 Re: Grocery Demand In Tustin Ranch/Lower Peters Canyon /North Irvine Area Dear Mike: Per your request, we have revisited the issue of grocery store demand in the Tustin Ranch /Lower Peters Canyon /North Irvine area, with expansion of issues related to store performance, long term store projection of demand, location, access and marketability issues. The market area analyzed includes Tustin Ranch, Lower Peters Canyon and existing Northwood including Northwood Point. We have specifically focused on grocery store demand as the primary indicator of neighborhood shopping center demand. Simply put, there would be no point in developing a neighborhood shopping center unless there was demonstrable unmet demand for the primary anchor - a grocery store. At present, there are two grocery stores open within this market area; the Ralph's at Jamboree Road and ;-vine Boulevard and the Vons at Irvine Boulevard and Yale Avenue. Combined, North Irvine and Tustin Ranch are currently under - supplied with grocery retail. However, closer analysis reveals that Tustin Ranch is at balance and North Irvine is presently undersupplied. This under - supply in North Irvine will be remedied when the neighborhood site at the southwest corner of Jeffrey and Trabuco comes on line. At that point, demand and supply will be at balance in the market area. If developed, the remaining planned neighborhood - serving retail sites in the market area would create an oversupply of neighborhood - serving retail in the face of declining retail performance. 43 Co, porare Park, Suire 203 (nine, California 92606 -5137 (7 141250 -9450 Fax 250 -9455 &&-GORY JTOI =FEL ,�, ASSOCIATES Mr. Michael Le Blanc - Page Two Tustin Ranch Demand: The ultimate 7,400 dwelling units in Tustin Ranch will create demand for less than 80,000 square feet of grocery store space. This provides adequate support for approximately one and one -half large grocery stores similar to the existing Ralph's store at Irvine Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The approximate 50,000 square foot existing Ralph's store has not yet reached its desired sales potential, and due to its central location and less- than - optimal current sales, satisfies the grocery store demand for the entire Tustin Ranch community. This store has the capacity, and location, to fully support the Tustin Ranch residents. There is insufficient remaining grocery demand between now and buildout to support an additional grocery store in the Tustin Ranch community. More importantly, there are no remaining sites in Tustin Ranch which would be acceptable to the retail community. Lower Peters Canyon Demand: Lower Peters Canyon is currently programmed for almost 8,000 dwelling units. These units will create demand for 86,000 square feet of grocery store development at buildout. Combined with the future unmet demand in North Irvine, there will be demand for two additional full -size stores in the North Irvine /Lower Peters Canyon area. One of these stores will need to be located along or near Culver Drive to adequately serve North Irvine residents. The other site will need to be more centrally located with respect to Lower Peters Canyon residential. Number of Retail Sites• The combined demand figures for the area do not support the total number of potential retail sites within the market area which are identified for possible grocery- anchored center development. The Irvine Company should reconsider at least one and perhaps two of the centers planned for North Irvine /Lower Peters Canyon. In the face of increasingly competitive.retail sales in this market area, it is prudent to re- examine the retail program for this area to ensure the existing and future grocery- anchored sites have sufficient market support. Gi:L- co;Ll- ST0FFi:L & Assoc i-Es Mr. Michael Le Blanc - Page Three Historical Store Performance: Sales performance of grocery stores in the Irvine/Tustin market area has not fared well during the past six years. Sales per square foot have declined throughout the period, a reflection of the increasingly acute competitive situation. Sales per square foot have declined in contrast to increasing population and stable competitive environment since 1992. When adjusted for inflation, sales per store and per square foot have declined an average of almost 4 percent per year since 1990 with only a slight hesitation in the trend during 1993. These figures dramatically illustrate the competitive environment and suggest current and future shopping center development should be considered carefully. The Irvine/Tustin Ranch area used to experience retail sales rates which exceeded the highest national norms. Today grocery sales are approaching very typical averages with a number of under - performing stores reported throughout the market area. Most of these under - performing stores have one consistent quality, they are poorly located in relation to other centers within their market areas. HISTORICAL SALES PERFORMANCE GROCERY STORES IN IRVINE[TUSTIN RANCH AREA 1990-1996 Avg. Est. Ann Total Grocery Sales 000 CPI LA/Anaheim 1990 $158,074 135.9 k$1665,1 1992 $175,744 146.5 1993 $185,204 150.3 1994 $185,204 1523 1995 $186,134 154.5 Chan e 3.32% CPI Adjustment Factor Sales in 1995 $ 000 1.1368653 $179,709 . $180,407 1.0546075 $185,341 1.0279441 $190,379 1.0144452 $187,879 1 $186,134 0.71% Square Footage of Grocery 341,539 386,539 423,965 423,965 423,965 423,965 4.42% Average sales Per Sq. Ft. Expressed in 1995 S $526 $467 $437 $449 $445 $439 -3.56% GiLLG01.'f 7TUFFLL ' ASSOCIAFLS Mr. Michael Le Blanc - Page Four Given that the overall market support and resulting sales are declining, in order to enhance the market potential for existing retailers and develop the best possible market environment for future retail development, reduction of the amount of future retail planned is merited. Competitive Environment Tustin Ranch and Lower Peters Canyon 1995 to 2000: New and planned residential development between 1995 and 2000 will generate approximately $30 million in grocery store sales potential. This residential growth will create 63,400 square feet of grocery store space demand, bringing the total undersupply by 2000 to 74,900 square feet. 2000 to Build -out: Between 2000 and buildout, an additional $19.5 million in grocery store sales potential will be generated by planned residential developments. This residential growth will create 41,100 square feet of grocery store space demand, bringing the total unmet demand by buildout to 116,000 square feet if no stores are developed within the market area. Site Access Issues: Convenient access to the trade area is of the utmost importance. to assure market potential for new shopping center sites. Access to the existing Ralphs at Jamboree and Irvine Boulevard, and the sites at Jeffrey and Trabuco Boulevard and elsewhere is equally available in all cardinal directions for future households in Lower Peters Canyon and North Irvine. The site at Jamboree and Portola, however, does not enjoy the same access and immediate proximity of market support. This is due to the Tustin Ranch Golf Course, the athletic fields and the hills northeast of Portola Boulevard. The trade area for the Portola /Jamboree site was originally thought to include meaningful market support from the Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights neighborhoods. However, without the connection of Pioneer Drive through Tustin Ranch to these high income areas, it is not likely that this portion of the trade area will patronize the site with any regularity. GREGO!"Y STOtTLL & Assoa:,rL =s Mr. Michael Le Blanc - Page Five This diminishment of the trade area, and the presence of better - located retail sites, serves to reduce the demand for the Portola /Jamboree site in particular. Different from the other planned retail locations in the Lower Peters Canyon area, the Jamboree /Portola location does not benefit from being adjacent to a large retail concentration (The Marketplace) nor does it benefit from freeway proximity and the patronage patterns which are reinforced by these weli- located sites. The site is somewhat remote relative to the balance of the market support which would need to come from Tustin Ranch and Lower Peters Canyon. Tenant Interest: An additional issue which, although tactical in nature, relates to the questionable advisability of moving forward with this site. This issue is the lack of interest from potential tenants for this location. With freeway accessible sites proposed elsewhere in the market area, tenants have more attractive alternatives to the subject site. The site at Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway has been marketed for years with little or no interest from the retail community. Most retailers feel the site is located too far out of the mainstream of shopping activity to adequately serve Tustin Ranch residents. Retailers want to be located closer to population density and closer to existing shopping patterns. Even with the development of Lower Peters Canyon residential, this site would produce marginal retail sales due to its location and lack of convenient accessibility to the market area. Reassessment of the Portola /Jamboree Location: Therefore, based on the declining sales trends, insufficient market demand, reduced access to the trade area and poor access from the freeway and balance of the trade area, it is prudent to consider the elimination of the Porto la /Jamboree retail project. G :!-coin- STO FFF _ & Associ.m-i_s Mr. Michael Le Blanc - Page Six Sales Increment: Little, if any, market sales potential will be lost with the elimination of the Portola /Jamboree site. The reduced total square footage of neighborhood- serving centers will result in higher sales performance for the balance of retail development in the Tustin Ranch /Lower Peters Canyon market area. This will apply to both existing and proposed centers. Reduction of the total competitive grocery development will enhance the remaining development's penetration and sales. In particular, the existing retail center at Irvine Boulevard and Jamboree Road will receive significant sales revenue increases from the housing developed in Lower Peters Canyon. This will happen as a result of its tenant mix, its central location and good access. i i &i.c.oin S FOFFEL C AS50Ct,%iES Grocery Store Potential By Sub -Area Tustin Lower Combined North Ranch Peters Cyn Tustin Rnch Irvine Only Only Peters Cyn 92720 Existing Population: 1995 17,100 0 17,100 21,344 Average Sales Per Capita $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 Grocery Sales Potential (000's) $29,241 so $29,241 $36,498. Average Sales Per Square Foot 5475 $475 $475 $475 Supportable Square Footage At 1995 61,560 0 61,560 76,838 Existing Square Footage - 1995 50,000 0 50,000 40,000 1995 Under /(Over) Supplied 11,560 0 11,560 36,838 Population Gain: 1995 to 2000 5,100 12,500 17,600 13,455 Average Sales Per Capita $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 Grocery Sales Potential (000's) $8,721 $21,375 530,096 523,008 Average Sales Per Square Foot $475 $475 5475 $475 Supportable S.F. Created 1995 -2000 18,360 45,000 63,360 48,438 Supportable S.F. As Of 2000 79,920 45,000 124,920 125,276 Existing Square Footage - 1995 50,000 0 50,000 40,000 Under /(Over) Supplied At 2000 - w/1995 SF 29,920 45,000 74,920 85,276 Population Gain: 2000 to Buildout 0 11,413 11,413 22,956 Average Sales Per Capita $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 Grocery Sales Potential (000's) SO $19,516 519,516 $39,255 Average Sales Per Square Foot 5475 $475 5475 5475 Supportable S.F. Created 2000 - Buildout 0 41,087 41,087 82,642 Supportable S.F. At Buildout 79,920 86,087 166,007 207,918 Existing Square Footage - 1995 50,000 0 50,000 40,000 Under /(Over) Supplied At Buildout- w/1995 SF 29,920 86,087 116,007 167,918 Population Gain: 1995 to Buildout 5,100 23,913 29,013 36,411 Average Sales Per Capita $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 $1,710 Grocery Sales Potential (000's) $8,721 $40,891 $49,612 $62,263 Average Sales Per Square Foot $475 $475 5475 5475 Supportable S.F. Created 95- Buildout 18,360 86,087 104,447 131,080 Supportable S.F. As Of 1995 61,560 0 61,560 76,838 Supportable S.F. At Buildout 79,920 86,087 166,007 207,918 Existing Square Footage - 1995 50,000 0 50,000 40,000 Under /(Over) Supplied - w/1995 SF 29,920 86,087 116,007 167,918 GSA, GROCERYP.XLS, 12/4196, Page 1 GRECOkY STOiTEL & Assoa,vrn =s TUSTI,N' RA,NCIi PLAZA Ralphs Cleaners Shoe Repair Fantastic Sams Pick Up Stix Chinese Food Awear Clothing -- Levis Bagels Jewelry Optometry Beauty Supply Luxury Nails Saci (Open ?) Vacuums Juice Connection One Hour Moto Photo Farrs Hallmark $3 Tan TCBY Pizza Donut Star Payless Drug Subway Boston Market Pads: Shell Burger King Blockbuster Video Comments: Average access -- No left from Irvine Boulevard. Left onto Jamboree from one driveway, four access points total. Poor intemal circulation. `Blockbuster cut off'. Drive ends into parking behind BB and cars use parking area to circulate. Good traffic Friday night. Families, after work customers. No anterior access. Sight lines through the center are good. Obtuse angular design but not too severe, so Sight lines include all major tenants from all areas of the center. &EGOItI' J 1 O FLL & ASSOC IAITS NORT[iWOOD TOWN CENTER Vacant Bank Blockbuster Video La Mode Salon Vacant Perkins Music Center Irvine School of Dance Karate Northwood Pizza Medical Offices Old World Liquor Vacant (Irvine School of Dance II) Vacant (Big Dan's Donuts) Early Years Toys Longs Drugs Shoe Repair Fantastic Sams Allstate (u) Vacancy Nails Paradise Chiropractor (u) Book Rack Vacancy Vacancy Learning Trails (coming) Northwood Flowers Ritz Camera Vons Cleaners Beauty Supply Sushi Riki Small Planet Health Food Mail Boxes Etc Northwood China Garden rest. Coffee Beans Pads: Cocos Downey Savings Carls Jr. Unocal Del Taco Bank of America Far West Bank Offices Currently trimming trees improving Sight lines. Acute obtuse design which obscures Sight lines throughout the center. Circulation good. Good Friday Traffic. Signage weak, dated. Access very good. Eight drives, two signalized one on Yale one on Irvine Blvd. Anterior access. Poor street presentation. Center is set down with small signs. 4EPl t[,�O r..n.r•.n. r.CA 5891 C.0.31 IrIfi C.n sr. r;un r. LIC. 5998a1 1gBO P,54 #163 • • — RECEIVED DAVE MATUS PLAN'I' & PEST CONSULTANT AGRICULTURAL. & ORNAMEN7'Al, Long Term Outlook- for Citrus Production in the City Of Tustin April 25,1997 MAY 1 2 1997 COMMUNITY DEMO' 1174 Bridgeport Corona, California 91720 (909) 371 -7446 The economical outlook for the continued production of citrus continues to decline in Southern California. The high cost of water, land, taxes, and maintenance continues to rise on top of poor to moderate citrus fruit prices. In fact, the price of citrus has not kept up with rising costs and has not really changed since the turn of the century. When Orange County began its massive urbanization after World War II, land values and water cost made citrus uneconomical to many small growers. Only existing landowners such as The Irvine Company (TIC) that owned water sources, the land, and had a farming operation in place could continue to expand and economically grow citrus. This is why only high cash crops such as strawberries and ornamental nurseries continue to thrive in Orange County. Many growers that continue to farm citrus sold their land to developers for high prices and moved to the San Joaquin Valley where cheaper land and water can still support economical citrus production today. The City of Tustin owns an existing 8 acre Star Ruby Grapefruit Orchard that is currently being farmed by TIC. As mentioned above TIC has a farming operation in place, but even with this the existing and future of Star ruby Grapefruit is questionable. Citrus must meet fresh market standards to be economical. The orchard as of this date still has the current crop on it, and demand for this fruit is flat and probably will not improve. In addition, the crop continues to mature and harvesting this crop for the fresh market diminishes each day- Grapefruit in recent years has also been plagued with various rind disorders that further diminishes it value for the fresh market. This is why the TIC has proposed that this orchard is top worked (grafted) to lemons that stills have a bright future. When Star Ruby Grapefruit was extensively planted in.the 1980's, California had a unique market window that provided good prices. .Since this time Florida and Texas (Texas developed this variety) have planted massive acreage of this variety and other red grapefruit varieties. Their climates and geographic variations have closed the California marketing gap. Production costs in these states are generally less and these states have long enjoyed market recognition of growing superior grapefruit. Changing varieties by top working has long been a practice citrus growers use to meet changing citrus markets. Of the citrus varieties grown in California, lemons probably have been the most profitable especially when grown in coastal regions. The current Irvine Valencia Growers budget for this orchard in grapefruit, is typical of what it cost to farm. Lemon production costs usually run $200 to $300 more per acre per year for pruning and pest control. Top working this orchard to lemons, depending on tfie method I ATTACHMENT F used, will reduce or eliminate the grapefruit production for one or more growing seasons. Once top worked, lemons quickly grow and return production will probably begin within 18 months. Production, small at first, will take about seven years to reach maximum production. It makes economical sense to covert this orchard for the TIC, again because TIC has the resources to make this work. If TIC discontinues farming this property for the City Of Tustin, the maintenance costs to the City would certainly increase. Finding another farm manager may be difficult. The nearest citrus farm management companies are in Riverside County. It may not be cost effective, because of the distance, and small acreage, to move equipment and labor to this orchard from another area. This is where TIC has an advantage. Another factor that must be considered is the aesthetic value the trees provide at this time to the residents of Tustin. Top working if done to maximize returned production would remove all of the top of these trees to force the lemon buds. However the proposed method is to bud into the scaffold branches. This method often leaves a portion of the top in place until buds have healed and obtain some growth. When a portion or all of the tree's top is removed for top working, the standard practice is to white wash trunks and scaffold limbs to protect them from sun scald. This would give the appearance of white sticks on the hill. It would take at least a season before any substantial growth returns. If the .TIC continues to farm this property it would make sense for years to come to maintain it in this state. However, it would be questionable if it would be economical to continue farming, . It may be questionable, if TIC were to leave, if another farm manager could continue economically farm this site. If the site is no longer farmed by TIC or another farm manager, removal would be the financially optimal solution. Part of the site is now vacant and annual weed abatement must be made for fire prevention. Adding the additional orchard acreage to the a vacant condition would then probably be the most economical maintenance method for this site. Lemon produces multiple crops per year, grapefruit produce one crop per year. Because of this production differences, lemons have a wide marketing advantage. Yearly lemon production also is usually greater because of mutible crops. Summer lemons, have always received good prices. Grapefruit prices as of this date have been flat and there has been very little movement. The remaining grapefruit on trees will most likely go to juice and will receive very little money. It does seem to make sense to convert this orchard to lemons at this time and continue farming in the near future. ave Matias \ �n CD Z Y 7 0 a� a N n a N a0 N ,n o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T [0 vt C V1 O h O ,n O ,n vl N O vl O ,n O vl vl ,n O vl O h N O r v1 N O �o a N 7 O M v1 00 vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:> C) 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y ,n o0 O V1 00 O M w ,n C,n O'n O,n M To d R C Cl vl O ,n O In Y1 0 N I^ n N 0 ,n O ,n o vl o o vN l O M v O C r ^n M VO N 00 n O N O V �o W cc L .-. .O - C14 N . - i N N N N U. cl > C O L O O O O O O O = 0 0 0 0 L v� ,n ,n ,n ,n ,n vl I� a I'n al L v„n vni h v �' a � 2 L � 4f w N rr ,n CD ,n o ,n o ,n o ,n ,n o ,n o ,n o CL N O l` N GS ,n (` O t` Vt N o l� N 0 [� V1 H M 7 V JO O ^~-. ,,,, N .-. N 7 V' 7C 1 M vl V' 70 m O h O cA o0 O y O S o E 0 u r c7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vl C ,n v 0 O p w O c ,n O ,n O O N— N M ,n 00 ,ljJj OC -�- yO j C voi V M .. .-. .- E E CD - m O O 'n n O N ,n O vl C ,n vl O vt O � C N �. M N O n vt N O N n O N ,n W) 4) TIP z N v „ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ,n vl O ,n O ,n ,n 0 0 0 0 0 o c o O o r U - V ,n !n V' V' l� !` 00 O n C vl C n 0 ,n f V' ,n V0 V O fl. �I r ��• N �J Addendum #6 to Final EIR 85 -2 For: i GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 96 -003 ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 96 -003 3RD AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TENTATIVE TRACT 15380 AND DESIGN REVIEW 96 -050 Prepared By: City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 JULY 1997 ATTACHMENT--.G TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I PURPOSE/PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......... ..............................1 SECTION II ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM .... ..............................8 SECTION III DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ................15 FIGURE 1 -1 LOCATION MAP .............................. ..............................2 FIGURE 1 -2 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION .......................4 FIGURE 1 -3 PROPOSED ZONING ......................... ..............................5 FIGURE 1 -4 PROPOSED ETSP LAND USE DESIGNATION .......................6 FIGURE 1 -5 ETSP LAND USE MAP ....................... ..............................7 APPENDIX A East Tustin Specific Plan Text Modifications APPENDIX B Proposed Third Amendment to East Tustin Development Agreement APPENDIX C Traffic Impact Evaluation • 1.1 PURPOSE SECTION I • According to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 (a), the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. This addendum evaluates land use revisions that were originally considered in the East Tustin Specific Plan Final EIR 85 -2, prepared by Michael Brandman Associates in 1985 and as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. EIR 85 -2, as amended, is currently available at the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Given that the proposed changes do not raise new issues about significant impacts on the environment, this environmental assessment has been prepared as an addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 85 -2. An addendum to the previous EIR need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. The City Council should consider the addendum with the previous final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Together, Final EIR 85 -2, as amended, and this addendum are intended to serve as documents that will generally inform decision makers and the general public of any significant environmental effects of proposed project changes and subsequent mitigation measures. Final EIR 85 -2, as amended, is hereby incorporated by reference into this addendum. Listed below is a discussion of the project location and description of the proposed changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan, East Tustin Development Agreement, City's Zoning Map, and General Plan Land Use Map and text. Section II includes the environmental checklist outlining potential impacts that may or may not contribute to significant environmental effects. Section III provides discussion of the environmental checklist and identifies any differences between land use modifications and that discussed in Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in Sector 6 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) area of the City of Tustin and also referred to as Lot 27 of Tract 13627 (see Figure 1 -1). Lot 27 is bounded by Tustin Ranch Road on the north and west, Portola Parkway on the south and Jamboree Road on the east. -1- • • 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, The Irvine Company, is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA 96 -003), Zone Change (ZC 96 -003), East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment. In addition, if the above applications are approved, a secondary application is proposed by Richmond American Homes to subdivide the entire 31 acre site (TT 15380 and DR 96 -050) to accommodate the construction of 162 single - family homes. GPA 96 -003 includes a change to the Land Use Designation on the City's General Plan Land Use Map on a 12 acre portion of the property located at the northwest corner of Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway from Planned Community Commercial Business to Planned Community Residential (Figure 1 -2). ZC 96 -003 includes a request to change the zoning designation on the City's Zoning Map on a 12 acre portion of the property located at the northwest comer of Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway from Planned Community Commercial to Planned Community Residential (Figure 1 -3). ZC 96 -003 also includes a change to the Land Use Designation on the East Tustin Land Use Plan on a 19 acre portion of property at the southwest corner of Jamboree and Tustin Ranch Roads from Medium -High Density Residential, and on a 12 acre portion of the property at the northwest corner of the property from General Commercial, to Medium -Low Density Residential which would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre (Figure 1 -4). A variety of amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan text and statistical summaries are also proposed to provide consistency between the proposed land use changes and the ETSP text (Appendix A). The Third Amendment to the East Tustin development Agreement would provide that Lot 27 be developed with a single - family detached project, and that The Irvine Company convert the existing grapefruit orchard on Lot 23 of Tract 12870 at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway to a lemon orchard, and make a financial contribution to the East Tustin Park Development Fund (Appendix B). -2- PROJECT SITE _ s { fr G 4 �C F� [ 10 '•�\ LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AP-0: 502- +52 -01 FIGURE 1 -1 o Location Map G� -3- m� z ti J c, 0 L3 W WET- 01 m Q( t w z e C 0 0 F� 2 0 U EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 A.P_0: 502, +52 -0 I +OURCE:CIiY OF TUSTIN FIGURE 1 -2 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation -4- R O P� = Q 0 PC RESIDENTIAL - E. -- - -- - - _ _ o 0 ------ . U W . O R - -.- e EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL PC COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 A P.O: 502- +52 -01 -1 OF �ISTI. FIGURE 1 -3 Proposed Zoning Designation O G -5- - R G a 0 ----- --_ ----- -- _ _ o G) - ML (MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) : ° ?- _ _ W i OR EXISTING EAST TUST7N SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MH (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) PROPOSED EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: ML (MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) i LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 A -P ./: 502 - 452 -01 FIGURE 1 -4 Proposed East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Designation -6- m E , a, M LEGEND RE a ,, r• � NEDIW °ENMfY s c... l WSTrTU 4! CP TI ONAUREFREASIONAL , O ES POTEMWL kID" 6pq°L r TkSCHOOL '_ k� � \ ® POTENTIAL NEi°IB°Rlp,°° WRIt e 1..� .,_. N -. ,� _ _ AIL E�KICOMKHTT PARK j $ - - Ar r^ REGIONLL TRAI % . N M I� W M REGIwLL ✓� .� _ L M ^• COMMEiiCIAUBUSINESS ti. W - NC I X1000 COAYEACIAL j 4 T ` .. GENERALOMaIERCIAI . _ .... - 1 M W XtD a MN 1 i _ I Lg, M CP MH HS INC AIN c ES g 1 L . IL MH ES M M� ES I Mu mu . -may 1 AY P AL E!B�i1 H I .. I FIGURE 1 -5 Proposed East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan -7- SECTION II ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 2.1 Backeround The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and East Tustin Specific Plan and Development Agreement Amendments are reconfigurations of previously approved land uses. The total number of residential dwelling units proposed by TT 15380 will not exceed the residential totals discussed and analyzed in Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. The following analysis will identify the changes and document the magnitude of the changes to determine impacts of the project proposal. 2.2 Environmental Checklist Form Differences in environmental impacts between the proposed land use revisions and the land uses that were proposed in Final EIR 85 -2, as amended, have been summarized in Section III of this Addendum to EIR 85 -2. Determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment and the subsequent completion of the checklist form is critical to the CEQA process. Section 15064(b) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states that "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgement on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting." This initial study is based on and incorporates by reference, the environmental analysis included in EIR 85 -2 for the ETSP, which was previously certified on March 17, 1986, and subsequently amended with supplements and addenda. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the purpose of this addendum initial study is to identify and focus the environmental analysis of the project on significant new environmental impacts that were not previously considered in the Program EIR. EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified several impact categories where Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City for the entire ETSP area. An evaluation has been made to ensure that impacts previously identified have not been intensified. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to minimize the impacts that would be applicable to this project have been identified. EIR 85 -2, as amended, also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. Staff has reviewed each of these impact categories to ensure that no new impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified in the Program EIR. -8 �J �J Impact categories not identified to have a potential impact in EIR 85 -2, as amended, have been reviewed and identified in the initial study check list appropriately to ensure that the project would not create any additional significant impacts which were not considered by EIR 85 -2 and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In INITIAL STUDY • • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3105 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: GPA 96 -003, ZC 96 -003, THIRD AMENDMENT TO ETSP DEVELOPMENT AGR _ Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: SARA PASHALIDES Phone: (714) 573 -3122 Project Location: LOT 27 TRACT 13627 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: THE IRVINE CO. RICHMOND AMERICA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92652 IRVINE CA 9271a4320 DAVE CONLEY MEL MERCADO General Plan Designation: PC COMMERCIAL BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL Zoning Designation: Project Description: PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP1ZONING MAP, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE 12 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USE AND CHANGE THE USE TO MEDIUM -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO ERMIT THE DEVEL North VACANT RESIDENTIAL /SCHOOL South VACANT PARKLAND Other public agencies whose approval is required: ❑ Orange County Fire Authority ❑ Orange County Health Care Agency ❑ South Coast Air Quality Management District ❑ Other East VACANT West H ❑ City of Irvine ❑ City of Santa Ana ❑ Orange County EMA -10- • • ❑ Earlier analyses used: Potentially Significant Avmlable Jor review at: City of Tustin Community Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less than Significant Development Department Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1. LAND USE & PLANNING - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ® Cl d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? ❑ ❑ ® Cl e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. POPULATION & HOUSING -Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking? Cl ® ❑ ❑ C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ Cl Cl d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? 0 0 ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ❑ ❑ g) Subsidence of land? ❑ ❑ 0 h) Expansive soils? ❑ i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ 0 4. WATER - Mould the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ Cl ® Cl b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Cl Cl ❑ d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ❑ ❑ -11 5. AIR QUALITY -Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ Potentially Cl ❑ Cl .Significant c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause Potentially Unless Less than any change in climate? ❑ Significant Mitigation Significant farm equipment)? d) Create objectionable odors? Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception d) Insufficient parting capacity onsite or offsite? of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through ❑ Cl ❑ substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ Cl g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ El i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ otherwise available for public water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 5. AIR QUALITY -Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ Cl ❑ ❑ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Cl ❑ Cl c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., Cl any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ farm equipment)? d) Create objectionable odors? Cl Cl Cl c) 6. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION -Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Cl Cl Cl KI b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., Cl ❑ ® ❑ b) farm equipment)? Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Insufficient parting capacity onsite or offsite? ❑ ❑ Cl ❑ e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ Cl Cl Cl f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ® ❑ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ [X] g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Cl ❑ ❑ 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Cl ❑ ® ❑ b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ❑ Cl ® ❑ d) Welland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ® Cl e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 8. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ Cl ® ❑ C) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region? ❑ ❑ ❑ -12- • �ten(ially Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Possible interference with emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 11. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ Cl El c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other government services? ❑ Cl ❑ 12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ El d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ Ej f) Solid waste disposal? Cl ❑ ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal'. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ® ❑ Cl b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ Cl ❑ c) Create light or glare? ❑. ❑ ® ❑ -13 • kentiolly Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the proposal' a) Disturb paleontological resources? C1 C1 n 0 b) Disturb archaeological resources? Cl ❑ c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. RECREATION - Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Cl (XJ ❑ ❑ b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ UX b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ C) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ -14- • • SECTION III DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Explanation of all Answers 1. LAND USE & PLANNING Items b and e - "No Impact ": The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, East Tustin Development Agreement Amendment and residential development on this site will not conflict with any applicable environmental .plans or policies nor will it disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community in that the site is vacant and is surrounded by other vacant sites. Since a portion of the site has been planned for residential development, a change to lower density housing will not significantly alter the character of the area. Item a - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ": The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community - Commercial Business and Planned Community - Residential. The subject property is zoned both Planned Community Commercial and Residential and is identified within the General Commercial and Medium High Density Land Use Designation of the ETSP Land Use Map. The project proposes to eliminate the commercial designations on the site and reduce the density of residential uses. The entire 31 acre site is proposed to be designated Medium -Low Density Residential with a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre. There are no significant land use conflicts anticipated with the elimination of commercial and reduction of density for the residential. Additionally, circulation impacts and light and glare impacts would be reduced in the vicinity of the project as a result of this amendment which will reduce the intensity of development. Please see subsections 6- Transportation and Circulation and 13- Aesthetics for further discussion of these issues. A statistical analysis demonstrating changes from the presently approved ETSP to the proposed modifications are included in Table 2.4 of the proposed ETSP Text Amendments contained within Appendix A. The proposed Third Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement is included in Appendix B. Table 2.4 reveals the total allowable unit count changes for Sectors 2 and 6. The total number of units permitted for Sector 6 is reduced by 40 units. The 40 units are proposed to be transferred to Sector 2, pursuant to Section 3.4.3 of the ETSP which provides that if a sector is developed with less than the maximum number of units permitted within a sector, then a transfer of units will be permitted from sector to sector. The changes to these sectors do not change the overall total buildout permitted by the ETSP land use densities. -15- • • EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects of residential land uses to ensure compatibility with existing land uses. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85 -2, as subsequently amended, have been incorporated into the project or would be required as conditions of approval which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. The project will not incrementally or cumulatively increase impacts previously identified in the Program EIR. Items c and d - "Less than Significant Impact ": EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified that the development of the project site would result in the gradual conversion of existing open space and agricultural uses into urban use. Since the subject property has been rough graded and identified for commercial and higher density residential development, the project will not incrementally or cumulatively increase impacts previously identified in the Program EIR. Statement of Findings and Facts Land use impacts will remain similar to those outlined in the Final EIR 85 -2. A statement of overriding considerations for conversion of open space to urban uses was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 82 -5. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impact of conversion of open space to urban uses nor will it be incompatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan East Tustin Development Agreement, Third Amendment 2. POPULATION & HOUSIN G Item b - "Less than Significant Impact ": The proposed project would provide 162 single - family dwelling units on the site. The Medium -Low Density designation would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre accommodating a maximum of 310 units. The proposed residential project includes single- family detached dwellings at a density of 5.2 dwelling units per acre. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Items a and c - "No Impact ": Since the project site is currently vacant, no housing units or population would be displaced. In addition, the amendment will result in fewer units than currently permitted and will therefore not exceed population projections. The project would provide new dwellings for the planned population. -16- • • Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed project will not exceed the previously estimated population nor will it result in an increase in the total number of residential units at buildout of the ETSP area. Impacts associated with this project will remain similar to those outlined in the Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan East Tustin Development Agreement, Third Amendment 3. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items b and h - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated ": EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the necessary grading activity that would occur to accommodate the various types of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography of the area. The site has been mass graded as part of Tract 13627. Precise grading is proposed to accommodate the development. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified to the site and topography in the Program EIR, as amended. Items a and c -g and i - "No Impact ": The proposed project is a request to eliminate commercial land use designation and subdivide a 31 acre site previously graded as part of Tract 13627. The project site has been mass graded as part of Tract 13627 and will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified to the site and topography in EIR 85 -2, as amended. The proposed subdivision will not expose people to potential fault ruptures, liquefaction, volcanic hazards or mudflows. Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed land use modifications will not introduce the project site to geological related hazards not previously addressed in Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. Each significant impact can be reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. A statement of overriding considerations for landform alteration and geology was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of landform alterations or geologic considerations, and therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Sid • 4. WATER • Items a, b and g - "Less than Significant Impact" • The subject project site is within the ETSP area for which the certified EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water percolation. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified on water quality in the Program EIR, as amended. Items c -f, h and i - "No Impact ": The proposed elimination of commercial land use designation and construction of a 162 single - family dwelling development is within the Specific Plan area. The project will not worsen or create additional impacts other than those previously identified on water quality in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85 -2, as amended, related to changes to water course direction, amount of surface water, discharge into surface waters, ground waters, reduction of amount of water, and exposure to water hazards would also be implemented at the time subsequent specific development plans are considered. Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed project will be similar or less in impact and scope to that of approved land uses for the site. The proposed project will not introduce any water related hazards or issues not previously addressed in Final EIR 85 -2. Water related impacts associated with development of the site can be reduced by implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for decreasing recharge to groundwater basins and the increase of surface runoff to on -site and downstream drainage facilities was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85 -2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of decreased recharge to groundwater basin or increase surface water runoff, therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 5. AIR QUALITY . Items a through d - "No Impacts ": EIR 85 72, as amended, identified impacts that will result in an incremental degradation of air quality in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The project has been reviewed and will not worsen previously identified impacts on Air Quality in the Program EIR. Conditions of approval will be required for the project to meet applicable mitigation measures, as required by EIR 85 -2, such as minimizing construction activity dust generated as part of this project. The proposal to eliminate commercial land use designation and construct 162 single - family dwellings would not alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause any changes in climate, or create objectional odors. • • Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed land use modifications will not introduce new air quality impacts to the site not previously addressed in Final EIR 85 -2. Impacts to air quality conditions can be reduced by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in the final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for the generation of mobile and stationary air pollutants was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85 -2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of airborne pollutants, therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as subsequently amended East Tustin Specific Plan 6. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Items a through e - "No Impact ": The subject single - family residential project is less than the density range permitted by the current land use designation of the ETSP, and as such, the impacts from such a project were previously addressed in certified EIR 85 -2, as amended. A traffic study for the proposed changes to the ETSP land uses was prepared by Austin -Foust Associates dated June 19, 1997, (Appendix C) to address the potential impacts associated with the elimination of commercial uses on the site and development of 162 single - family dwellings. A Level One Traffic Impact Evaluation seeks to determine how the proposed land use revisions impact the original traffic analysis included in Final EIR 85 -2. The Study indicates that the proposed amendment will result in less average daily trips for Lot 27 (2,666 ADT) as compared to 11,772 ADT discussed in EIR 85 -2, as amended. This reduction is primarily due to the elimination of commercial uses and, to a lesser degree, a reduction in density for the residential component of the site. Another part of the study evaluated the overall impacts to the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) included within the entire Specific Plan area. The project site is located within TAZ 37. The existing planned traffic volume for TAZ 37 is 13,158 ADT. With the proposed amendments, the total traffic volume at buildout for TAZ 37 will be 4,239. This is a 68 percent reduction in traffic volumes, which is a direct result of the elimination of commercial uses. Development of the proposed Tract 15380 will further reduce traffic volumes in the vicinity since the project is proposed at a lower density than provided for in the Medium -Low Density designation. The site could accommodate a total of 310 dwelling units at a density of 10 units per acre. The proposed Tract 15380 is designed with a density of 5.2 units per acre, with a total of 162 units. The traffic volume generated by the 162 residences'is 1,397 ADT, which is 10,375 ADT less than the volume anticipated by the current entitlement for Lot 27. -19- • • EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects on traffic volumes, traffic safety, emergency access, demand for new parking, pedestrian circulation, and alternative modes of transportation. Applicable mitigation measures were incorporated into the ETSP, including a circulation plan intended to provide an adequate circulation system for specific plan traffic, and mitigate impacts on the existing circulation system. As the surrounding roads have been designed to accommodate peak traffic demands the proposed project would not have a substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, as discussed above, nor would it impact the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods. As the site plan is designed to the specifications of the ETSP, and the Tustin City Code, traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians would be mitigated. Based on review of project and program EIR, the project will not worsen previously identified impacts on the transportation & circulation in the Program EIR, as amended. Mitigation` measures were identified in EIR, 85 -2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to transportation and circulation into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Statement of Findings and Facts Land use modifications will reduce traffic volumes within the ETSP. In addition, said volumes will be reduced in the location of land use modifications, because of the elimination of the General Commercial land use and existing buildout conditions throughout the majority of the ETSP area. Please refer to the complete traffic study found in Final EIR 85 -2 and the traffic impact evaluation study prepared for this project found in Appendix C. A statement of overriding considerations for increased traffic generation and distribution to local roadways was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85 -2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impact of traffic generation and distribution, therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Austin Foust Traffic Impact Analysis, June 19, 1997 Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a -e - "Less than Significant Impact ": The project site has been rough graded, and is presently vacant. EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to biological resources. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85 -2, as amended, and recommended for implementation. The project proposes to eliminate the commercial land use designation to permit construction of 162 single- family dwellings. Based on review of project and program EIR, the project will not incrementally or cumulatively increase previously identified impacts on the biological resources in the Program EIR. Conditions of approval will be required for the project to meet applicable mitigation measures, as required by EIR 85 -2, as subsequently amended with supplements and addenda, such as providing landscaping in accordance with City guidelines. -20- • • Statement of Findings and Facts All land use areas under consideration with the proposed project have been previously rough graded. Therefore, all native vegetation and habitat has been removed. The proposed project will not impose new. impacts to existing on -site vegetation. A statement of overriding considerations for the elimination of all on -site agricultural vegetation and removal of various vegetation associations was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85 -2. The proposed project will not worsen environmental impacts of elimination of agricultural vegetation and removal of various vegetative associations, as all of the project areas have been previously rough graded and are consequently no longer on -site. Therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as subsequently amended East Tustin Specific Plan 8. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and c - "No Impact ": The proposed project is a request to eliminate the commercial land use designation and to subdivide a 31 acre site into 162 numbered lots to accommodate development of single - family dwellings. Based on review of project, the project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified on energy conservation or mineral resources with respect to adopted energy conservation plans or loss of available known mineral resources. Item b - "Less than Significant Impact ": EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to the ETSP related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to nonrenewable resources. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85 -2, as amended, and recommended for implementation. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to nonrenewable resources into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. Statement of Findings and Facts Impacts to energy requirements would remain as outlined in Final EIR 85 -2. Project impacts can be reduced to a level below significance through the implementation of mitigation measures as set forth in Final EIR 85 -2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan -21- • • 9. HAZARDS Items a, b.d and e - "No Impact ": EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified no impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects from hazards. Construction of the proposed 162 single- family dwellings would be subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Item c - "Less than Significant Impact ": EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to human health. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85 -2, as amended, and recommended for implementation. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to human health into . either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. Statement of Findings and Facts Proposed residential uses would have similar impacts to those analyzed in Final EIR 85 -2. Project impacts can be reduced to a level below significance through implementation of mitigation measures as discussed in Final EIR 85 -2. Sources: Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 10. NOISE items a ana o - Fotentiaiiy Sr mtrcant Unless Mitigation Inco orated ": Development of the site would result in short-term construction noise impacts, and a long -term increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site. These impacts were originally considered as part of certified EIR 85 -2, as subsequently amended with supplements and addenda. The project has been reviewed and will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures identified by the program EIR, as amended, include measures to mitigate exterior noise levels with the use of berms, walls or a combination of both. Landscaping materials and setbacks from the roadway are also included in the site design as mitigation measures. Interior noise impacts where determined to be greater than the level permitted by the Noise Ordinance will be mitigated by providing improved noise rated windows. In addition, the City's Noise Ordinance No. 828 has specific requirements in regard to construction noise. Those measures identified in certified EIR 85 -2, as amended, and. the City of Tustin Ordinance No. 828, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or would be incorporated as conditions of approval. -22- 0 • Statement of Findings and Facts Proposed land uses are less intensive than original land uses analyzed in Final EIR 85 -2. Environmental impacts can be reduced by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in Final EIR 85 -2. A statement of overriding considerations for incremental increases in ambient noise levels was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85 -2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of an increase in ambient noise levels, therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a, b, d, and e, - "No Impact": Implementation of this project will result in an increase in the demand for and utilization of public services, such as fire protection, police protection, infrastructure maintenance and other governmental services. However, impacts to public services were originally considered as part of EIR 85 -2, as amended. The project will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR. Additionally, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85 -2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to public services into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Item c - "Less than Significant Impact": EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified. impacts from the proposed development on school facilities. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85 -2, as amended, and recommended for implementation where applicable. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed land use modifications will not significantly change the impacts outlined in Final EIR 85 -2. School impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in the Final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for increased demand of public services and facilities was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85 -2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impact of providing public service and facilities, therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan -23- • 0 12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a -g - "No Impacts ": The ETSP will increase the demand for utilities. However, the project will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR. EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to utilities. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85 -2, as subsequently amended with supplements and addenda, and recommended for implementation where feasible. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to utilities into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Statement of Findings and Facts The elimination of commercial land use designation and subsequent development of 162 single - family dwellings will not significantly alter the utility and service systems approved in Final EIR 85 -2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 13. AESTHETICS Items a and b "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated" • The proposed development of 162 single - family dwellings would consist of 2 story residences with red S -tile roofs, stucco siding in light beige and cream tones with details such a boxed soffits and pot shelves. Design Review of the project has been completed by the Community Development Department, and has been recommended for approval with conditions. Based on review of the project, the project will not worsen previously identified impacts on aesthetics. The project is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85 -2, as amended, identifies impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to aesthetics. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified through design review in conjunction with EIR 85 -2, as amended, and recommended for implementation. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to aesthetics into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. -24 • • Item c - "Less than Significant Impact The proposed development of 162 single - family dwellings would create additional light at the presently undeveloped site. Lighting from pedestrian and street lights, decorative wall lights and outdoor private area lights will have a significant impact. The project site is within the Specific Plan area in which the program EIR addresses the impact of development and the resultant negative effects from light and glare. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85 -2, as amended, and recommended for implementation. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to light and glare into the submitted plans. Mitigation measures would also be included in the conditions of approval for the project. The project has also been reviewed and will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program.EIR. Statement of Findings and Facts Light and glare impacts will not introduce the project site to impacts not previously addressed in Final EIR 85 -2. Each significant impact can be reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in the Final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for aesthetics was adopted concurrent with the certification of Final EIR 85 -2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of aesthetics and light and glare, therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 14. CULTURAL Item a, c and d - "No Impact ": EIR 85 -2, as amended, with supplements and addenda, identified impacts related to cultural resources related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. The project has also been reviewed and will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR. Item b - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts related to archaeological resources related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. The project has also been reviewed and will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR as this project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed land use modifications and subsequent planned residential development will not have a significant impact on cultural resources, as outlined in Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. -25- • • Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. 15. RECREATION Items a and b - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated": The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85 -2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to recreation. Parkland dedication of 1.6524 acres was previously dedicated as part of Tract 13627 to satisfy the parkland required by the ETSP. Furthermore, The applicant has proposed to financially contribute to the City's Parkland Development Fund which would be used to help construct park facilities to benefit the future residents of this project. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed land use modifications and subsequent planned development of 162 single- family homes will have insignificant impacts to recreational facilities, beyond those identified in Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan East Tustin Development Agreement, Third Amendment 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a -d - "No Impact ": The project in and of itself will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat nor achieve any short-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. The program EIR 85 -2, as amended, addressed all of these concerns and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. The proposed land use modifications and related development plans will not result in any new long -term impacts or cumulative impacts not already considered in Final EIR 85 -2, as amended. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85 -2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan East Tustin Development Agreement, Third Amendment -26- • �J Based upon the above discussion, it can be concluded that none of the situations identified in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR exist in that: A. The proposed changes would not require important revisions of EIR 85 -2, as amended, as no new significant environmental impacts have been identified which have not been previously covered in EIR 85 -2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda; B. There are no substantial changes that would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken; and, C. No new information of substantial importance has become available that could have been known at the time EIR. 85 -2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, was certified related to this project. Therefore, Addendum #6 to EIR 85 -2, as amended, and has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act in that: A. Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables of EIR 85 -2, as amended, are required to make the EIR adequate and shall be revised to read as follows: 1. Traffic Zone 37 identified in the Trip Generation Table in the technical appendices of EIR 85 -2 shall be revised as identified in Appendix C. B. Minor text and map changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan and changes to the East Tustin Development Agreement do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment which have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85 -2, as amended. Prepared by Sara J. Pashalides Associate Planner Tide City of Tustin -27- Date: June 26. 1997 0 0 APPENDIX A EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT MODIFICATIONS Proposed Amendment to EastOn Specific Plan • December 12, 1996 • The Plan should consider Peters Canyon Wash as both a potential recreational amenity as well as a flood control and drainage facility. • If feasible, locate a park site as part of the Regional Park System, for passive recreational activities at Lower Peters Canyon Reservoir once other higher park priorities can be achieved within the overall park allocation for the planning area. • Equestrian trails should not intrude into existing and proposed residential areas. • If there is a choice in number and types of community parks, the following is an order of priority related to park uses: 1) active; 2) cultural; and, 3) passive. Goal Develop a traffic circulation system which serves both existing and new development. Goal Provide for school facilities that meet the needs of the new community. Objectives o Work with the School District to determine the number, size, and location of elementary schools, intermediate schools and high school. o Combine school and public park sites where appropriate to optimize play area efficiency and minimize maintenance costs. 1.5 Review Procedure The Specific Plan consists of two major divisions which separate policy direction from standards and regulations Section 2.0 identifies programs, policies and procedures for each component of the Specific Plan, including Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Infrastructure, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, Urban Design and Hillside District Guidelines as well as those programs, policies and procedures unique to each sector. This section provides a broad overview of the various physical characteristics of the plan and their interrelationships; it also focuses on the characteristics of each sector that make it distinct from the rest and must be incorporated into development design. This section is adopted by resolution. In order to implement the policies contained within Section 2.0, subdivision maps for the development of the property shall be submitted for approval as follows: o Initial subdivision maps for residential sectors (Sectors 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) are to encompass one or more whole sectors as defined in this Specific Plan; subdivision maps for the commercial sectors (6 and 12) may encompass less than the whole sector. However, the conceptual site plans shall be done for the whole of eaeh 0 the commercial sectors, illustrating the overall internal circulation concept for the sector, the drainage concept, sector vehicular access points within the sector and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 1 -8 Rev. 12 -12.96 Proposed Amendment to East Tustin Specific Plan December 12, 1996 Table 2.1 Statistical Summary Land Use Designation Acreage Residential Estate (up to 2 du/ac) 409 Low (up to 5 du/ac) 243 Medium Low (up to 10 du/ac) 84' X115. Medium (up to 18 du/ac) 254 Medium High (up to 25 du/ac) 2-12 193 Open Space Private Parks 4 Public Neighborhood Parks 10 Community Parks 46 Golf Course 158 Commercial/Business Neighborhood Commercial 13 General Commer-eia 1-2 Mixed Use 121 Institutional Elementary Schools 30 Intermediate Schools 20 Other Uses Roads (arterial and major only *) 124 * Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major roads, has been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses. Residential Land Use: The Land Use Plan designates five residential categories each of which has maximum density. Residential densities are controlled in all of the following: land use areas; sectors and the Specific Plan Area. For any residential subdivision map the maximum density range cannot be exceeded for a particular land use area. Lower densities will be permitted in any area. The boundaries and acreages of the land use areas shown on the Land Use Plan are approximate and will be precisely determined in the future when subdivision Maps are reviewed. The land use areas described within each sector are subject to the policies specific to a given sector. These policies are outlined in Section 2.14. 2 -2 Rev. 6- 19 -89, 11- 20 -95, 12 -12 -96 Amendment to East 7R m Specific Plan • December 12. 1996 The total number of dwelling units for the overall Specific Plan Area may not exceed 7,950 units. However, if the total allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unbuilt units may be transferred to the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraphs. The total number of dwelling units in each Sector may not exceed the figures specified Table 2.4. If a sector is developed with less than the maximum number of units permitted within the sector, then a transfer of units will be permitted from sector to sector within the Specific Plan Area. These transfers will be closely monitored. When proposing unit transfers, compatibility with adjacent land uses areas must be considered. Specific requirements for allowing unit transfers and maximum unit increases in Sectors are outlined in the Development Standards in Section 3.0. Also, in Section 3.0 there are more definitive standards for development of each residential density category. Mixed Use Designation: The Land Use Plan designates 121 acres in the southeast comer of the site, in Sector 12 between Bryan Avenue and the I -5 Freeway, as a mixed use area. A 70 -acre commercial center and hotel/motel will be developed in this area. Additional commercial uses or office and research and development uses may also be developed within this area. The Mixed Use designation permits flexibility for location and configuration of these uses. It also creates the opportunity for development to respond to future changes in economic and market forces. The Development Standards for the Mixed Use Area are defined in Section 3.0. Non- Residential Land Uses: The Land Use Plan (LUP) includes a number of non - residential uses such as: (1) Schools, (2) Parks, (3) Open Space and Recreation Facilities, and (4) Commercial Land Use designations. These are summarized in the following table: Table 2.2 Land Uses Integral to the LUP Ouantity Approximate Total Acreage Institutional Use Intermediate School 1 20 Community Park 3 46 Golf Course 1 158 Commercial/Business Use General Commer" i2 Neighborhood Commercial 13 2 -3 Rev. 6- 19 -89, 11- 20 -95, 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to East Tustin Specific Plan December 12, 1996 o Incorporate planting in new develop- ment areas to be compatible with the character and quality of the natural surrounding environment. 2.14 Sector Plans, Policies and Programs The Specific Plan Area has been divided into twelve geographical areas referred to as "Sectors ". A variety of physical, jurisdictional and planning considerations exist which vary among the different sectors. This sectorization has been done in order to provide a more detailed level of information concerning the intent of the Specific Plan and a means to implement the provisions of the Specific Plan in a systematic and comprehensive manner. In this manner the desired character that has been determined suitable for each sector relative to its surrounding environs and the established planning objectives will be achieved. Sector boundaries are defined by physical edges that include arterial roads and natural features such as ridgelines and Peters Canyon Wash. The sectors are numbered sequentially from 1 to 12 from north to south. 2.14.1 Sector Submittal Requirements Subdivision maps will be required for each residential sector in accordance with review procedures established in section 1.5 (page 1 -8) of this Specific Plan. These subdivision maps shall include the total sector and may include more than one sector. Density transfer requirements applicable to sector development are discussed on page 2 -3. Concurrent with any subdivision map for any portion of commercial sectors 6 an 12, a conceptual site plan for the commercial sectors will also be submitted for the whole sector. The conceptual site plan will illustrate the overall internal circulation concept for the sector, the drainage concept, sector vehicular access points and sub - parcels within the sector, and shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. Also, in addition to the sector subdivision maps, other submittal information may be required for individual sectors and will be submitted with the subdivision maps. This supplemental information is identified within the policies established in Subsection 2.14.3 for each sector. The purpose of these map submittals is to assure that the sector policies identified in Subsection 2.14.3 are implemented. 2.14.2 Total Units Table 2.4 identifies the total number of units permitted within each sector. The total number of units for the overall Specific Plan may not exceed 7,950 units unless a transfer of units from Tentative Tract No. 12345 occurs. The total maximum number of units allocated to each sector may not exceed the figures specified in Table 2.4 unless a transfer of units from one sector to another occurs. Refer to section 2.1 for policies related to units transfer. Table 2.4 also indicates a maximum density for each residential land use area designation. For any residential subdivision map the maximum density cannot be exceeded for a particular land use area. Lower densities will be permitted within any area. 2 -23 Rev. 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to East *,n Specific Plan 0 December 12, 1996 Table 2.4 Statistical Analysis Acreage Land Use Total Maximum Allowable Density Units SECTOR 1 SECTOR 2 125 Estate Densitv Residential 11S 74 Estate Density Residential 51 Low Density Residential 68 Medium Low Density Residential 41 Medium Density Residential 20 ** Junior High School 3 Neighborhood Park 9 ** Community Park Subtotal 266 SECTOR 3 2 du/ac 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 10 du/ac 18 du/ac**** 0 1080 ± 1120 ± 12 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 0 10 ** Elementary School Subtotal 22 68± SECTOR 4 112 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 112 21± SECTOR 5 98 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac 18 Low Densitv Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 116 116± SECTOR 6 49 , _ 31; Medium -High Lvw Density Residential 25du/ae l0 di1/ac 12 General Commereial Subtotal 31 ± 350± L310±, 2 -24 Rev. 5-24-93, 11- 20 -95, 12 -12 -96 Amendment to Eastin Specific Plan December 12, 1996 Sector 6 This triangular configured sector contains 31 acres of flatland and has the potential to be circumscribed by arterial roadways. It is situated along the eastern edge of the site, bounded by the proposed Future Road extension on the west, Portola Parkway on the south and the Specific Plan boundary on the east. Twelve ne _„ in the south.....,. pei4ion of the seetor are to be developed o, e—,e t t J b� Medium high __ Medii low_ ;density residential development is planned for the remainder ei } the,_entire` sector aleeg Future Read. The following policies apply to Sector 6: A. The maximum number of residential units permitted within this sector are as shown on Table 2.4. B. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this Sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12, Implementation for specific requirements. B: -C Concurrent with the submission of the Sector Subdivision Map as required under Section 1.5, the precise location of the El Modena Fault will be determined by a detailed geological investigation conducted by the landowner and appropriate building setbacks should be established in conformance with current State Standards. 2 -36 Rev. 11- 20 -95, 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to East *Specific Plan 0 December 12, 1996 EAST TUSTIN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Acreage Land Use Maximum Density Total Allowable Units SECTOR 1 125 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 125 0 SECTOR 2 74 Estate Density Residential 51 Low Density Residential 68 Medium Low Density Residential 41 Medium Density Residential 20 ** Junior High School 3 Neighborhood Park 9 ** Community Park 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 10 du/ac 18 du/ac**** Subtotal 266 1080 ± 1120 ± SECTOR 3 12 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 0 10 ** Elementary School Subtotal 22 68± SECTOR 4 112 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 112 21± SECTOR 5 98 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac 18 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 116 116± SECTOR 6 -19 31 Medium High yLo"w,:Density Residential 25d" _.10 dullac i-2 General Commer-eial Subtotal 31 ± 350± ! 310±1 3 -13 Rev. 5-24-93, 11- 20 -95, 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to Easotin Specific Plan 0 December 12, 1996 Stree Min. Landscape Area Interstate 5 from Mixed Use (ROW) 30 Myford Road North of Bryan to Portola 76 ' Adjoining Mixed Use 76 ' North of Portola 62 Bryan Avenue • Adjoining ELMO Channel 57 • Adjoining Mixed Use 67 Browning Avenue 63.5 Irvine Boulevard Between Browning and Ft. Road 71 Future to Myford 76 Portola Parkway 62 El Camino Road 52 Min. Building Setback 30 81 95 67 85 78.5 76 81 67 57 La Colina Avenue 52 57 Future Road ' Bryan t0 Porte' a ,M:yford, `. 76 81 South of Bryan 76 96 ' Adjoining Gen Commercial 7 2 —a 7 Lower Lake Drive /Foothill Blvd. 40 45 o Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 5 -feet from tract walls o Sideyard setbacks in Low District shall maintain 5 -feet for one -story and 10 -feet for two -story adjoining tract wall. H. Private Street Standards When private streets, drives and courts are constructed, they shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: 1. Private Streets a Private streets for attached and detached residential dwellings with no parallel parking within the travel way Shall have a minimum paved width of 28 feet. 3 -17 Rev: 5- 24 -93, 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to East *n Specific Plan • December 12, 1996 H. A certificate of compliance with applicable property CC&R's (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) will be issued by the homeowners association and will be required by the city Planning and Building divisions prior to permit issuance for accessory structures, building additions or major structural alterations subsequent to original building construction. 3.7 Commercial Use Regulations 3.7.1 Purpose In addition to the objectives outlined in Section 3.1 (Purposes and Scope), the Commercial Use Regulations'are included in this Planned Community Zone to achieve the following purposes: • To regulate the design and development of neighborhood and community level commercial shopping centers in East Tustin. • To provide for a range of goods and services supportive of the general community as well as establishments which generate their own business and clientele. • To provide for high standards of development to insure commercial projects can take advantage of highway access and visibility yet are compatible with adjacent development. • To provide for appropriately located areas within shopping centers for both retail stores, service businesses and office uses. Neighborhood Commercial (NC) This land use designation is intended for a neighborhood shopping center providing limited retail business service and office facilities for the convenience of residents of the immediate area. This center is intended to be compatible with adjoining residential development. General Commercial ^^ Road. This land use designation is intended for development of a eomfAun4t-y4evel shopping center with support services and effiees utilizing the--rn*or--madway Permitted and Conditional Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" appears and may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit where the symbol "C" appears in the column beneath each land use category: 3 -35 Rev. 5.24 -93, 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to EAn Specific Plan 0 December 12, 1996 A. Commercial Uses NC GC 1 . Retail businesses conducted within a building: a. Antique shops P P b. Apparel stores P P C. Appliance and hardware stores P P d. Automobile parts and supplies C P e. Bakeries, retail only P P f. Books, gifts and stationary P P g. Convenience markets C G h. Department stores C P i. Drug stores, pharmacies P P j . Florist P P k. Furniture stores P P I. General retail stores P P M. Hobby stores P P n. Hotels and motels G o. Jewelry stores P P P. Laundry and dry cleaners P P q. Liquor stores C G r . Nurseries and garden supply P P S. Pet stores and supply P P t. Print shops P P U. Service stations C G V. Skating rinks G W. Sporting goods P P X. Supermarkets, grocery stores P P Y. Theaters C P Z. Tire Sales and Service C P 2. Service Business including retail sales incidental thereto: a. Banks and financial institutions P P b. Barber, beauty salons P P C. Car washes C C d. Cocktail lounges and bars when not an integral part of a restaurant C e. Locksmith P P f. Restaurants with /without alcoholic beverage sales P P g. Restaurant with drive thru service C P h. Service stations C P i . Travel agencies P P j . Real estate sales P P 3 -36 Rev. 12 -12 -96 Amendment to East Ion Specific Plan December 12, 1996 B. Office Uses NC GG 1. Professional offices, exemplified C C b. Fraternal organizations & lodges by the following list, including C. Animal hospitals and clinics. C P retail sales incidental thereto: including tennis, racquetball, a Accountants P P b. Architects P P C. Attorneys P P d. Chiropractors P P e. Dentists P P f. Doctors P P g. Optometrist P P h. Others, licensed by Calif. P P 2. General offices, exemplified by the following list: a Advertising agencies P P b. Contractors and building consultants P P not including the parking of commercial vehicles or equipment C. Escrow companies P P d. Insurance companies P P e. Public utility offices P P C. Community Facilities NC GC a Churches, convents, monasteries and other religious institutions C C b. Fraternal organizations & lodges P P C. Animal hospitals and clinics. C P d. Commercial recreation facilities including tennis, racquetball, bowling, ice skating, athletic clubs and similar uses C P e. Post office branch P P f. Public utility offices C C D. Temporary Uses NC GC a Temporary uses shall be regulated pursuant to the applicable section of the municipal code. E. Unlisted Uses NC GG 3 -37 Rev. 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to East tin Specific Plan O December 12, 1996 Those uses not specifically listed in this section 3.7.2 are subject to Community Development Department determination to be either permitted, conditional or prohibited uses pursuant to the objectives of this zoning regulatory document and the purposes of the individual land use category. Decisions of the Community Development Department may be appealed to the City Planning Commission. 3.7.3 Site Development Standards A. Building site area: no minimum requirement B. Building Height limit: 35 feet in the Neighborhood CommeFOwal aFea; 46 feet—IM C. Building setbacks: 1 . Front and corner side yard setbacks, with the Building and Landscape Standards detailed in section 3.5G of the East Tustin Specific Plan. 2. Interior side yard: zero (0) feet from all interior property lines abutting nonresidential uses. 3. Rear yard setbacks: zero (0) feet from property lines abutting nonresidential uses. 4. Setbacks abutting residential areas: Thirty -five (35) feet from all property lines abutting residential areas. D. Landscaping_ A minimum fifteen (15) percent of the building site area shall be landscaped. E Parking: Compliance with parking regulations detailed in Section 3.10. F. Sianina: Compliance with signing regulation detailed in Section 3.11. G Lighting_ All lighting, exterior and interior shall be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the premises. H. Enclosed uses: All allowable uses, together with their resulting products, shall be contained entirely within an enclosed structure, except for off - street parking and loading areas, areas for display nursery stock, automobile washing areas and outdoor dining. 1. Abutting Residential Areas: An opaque screen consisting of plant material and masonry wall a minimum of seven feet six inches (7'6 ") in height shall be installed along all site boundaries where the commercial property abuts areas designated for residential. Pedestrian access gates may be provided between commercial properties and abutting common open area within residential developments. 2. Parking Areas Abutting Arterial Highways: An opaque screen shall be installed along all parking areas abutting arterial highways. Except as otherwise 3 -38 Rev: 12 -12 -96 Proposed Amendment to East On Specific Plan December 12, 1996 designated N Offlee Develooment In General Commereffial Arew. Floor area designated for professional OF geneFal offices shall not e*oeed twenty five (26)-� of the floor aFea of the eRtiFe General GemmeMial site 3.7.4 Performance Standards A. All onsite landscaping shall be properly maintained in a weed free condition and provided with an automatic irrigation system to insure the proper growth of said landscaping. B. Business located within bet h the Neighborhood —oaf Commercial center shall not be operated or maintained in a fashion detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the immediate area. C. Satellite dish antenna may only be erected in conformance with municipal code Section 9270. D. Public nuisance abatement procedures to Section 5507 et seq of the municipal code shall apply to all commercial properties in this planned community district. E. A certificate of compliance with applicable property CC &Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) will be required by the City Planning and Building Divisions to permit issuance for accessory structures, building additions or major structural alterations subsequent to original building construction. 3.8 Mixed Use Regulations 3.8.1 Purpose In addition to the objectives outlined in Section 3.1 (Purposes and Scope), the Mixed Use Regulations are included in this Planned Community Zone to achieve the following purposes: • To regulate the design and development of the mixed use area in East Tustin. • To ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and the overall character of the East Tustin Planned Community. • To provide for a range of non - residential uses including commercial business, services, offices and industries engaged in primarily research and development with limited product assembly. • To provide for goods and services that are supportive of a district or sub - regional area as well as establishments which generate their own business and clientele. Mixed Use (MU) This land use designation is intended for development of planned retail commercial, office and industrial /research and development land uses of an intensity compatible with neighboring residential and Auto Center land uses. 3 -40 Rev. 12 -12 -96 • • APPENDIX B THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • ! .0 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Att: Community Development The undersigned declares that this dog ment is recorded at the request of and for the benefit of the City of Tustin and is therefore exempt from payment of the recording ke pursuant to Govemment Code section 6103. Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS THIRD AMENDMENT (the "THIRD AMENDMENT ") to the East Tustin Development Agreement (the "ETDA ") is made effective 1997 by and between the Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation ( "Developer "), and the City of Tustin, a California municipal corporation ( "City"), with respect to the following: RECITALS A. This THIRD AMENDMENT amends the ETDA entered into by and between City and Developer effective December 3, 1986, and approved by City by Ordinance No. 978 (Recorder Doc. #87- 011675, 1- 8 -87). The ETDA concerns all of that real property (the "Property ") described in Exhibit "A" to the ETDA and delineated on Exhibit "B" thereto, which description and delineation are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time of its entry into the ETDA, Developer was the fee owner of the Property, and is the fee owner of the Property specifically involved in this THIRD AMENDMENT. The ETDA has been amended twice previously, first on March 16, 1992, (Ordinance No. 1082), (`First Amendment') (Recorder Doc. 19960099333, 2- 29 -96), and a second time on December 4, 1995, (Ordinance No. 1148) ( "Second Amendment ") (Recorder Doc. 19960118432, 3 -11- 96). The term "ETDA" is used herein to refer to the ETDA as amended by the Second Amendment. B. The ETDA provides for the development of the Property in accordance with the East Tustin Specific Plan adopted by the City on March 17, 1986, (the "Specific Plan"). Developer has applied for approval of an amendment to the Specific Plan rezoning a 31 acre site bounded by Jamboree Road, Tustin Ranch Road, and Portola Parkway ( "Lot 27 "). Under the Specific Plan, Lot 27 is currently zoned for 12 acres of General Commercial and 19 acres of Medium -High Density Residential. Developer has applied to rezone the entire Lot 27 to Medium -Low Density Residential to accommodate a single family detached residential project. 9 AGREEMENT E NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual promises and covenants herein, and for the purposes stated above, City and Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Amendments to Specific Plan Exhibit "C" to the ETDA, as amended, which is the Specific Plan, is hereby amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit "C ". Among other things, the amendment to the Specific Plan accomplishes the following: a) The Land Use designation of the East Tustin Land Use Plan for Lot 27 of Tract 13627 is changed from 12 acres of General Commercial and 19 acres of Medium -High Density Residential, to 31 acres of Medium -Low Density Residential as generally depicted in Exhibit C -1. b) The Specific Plan text is changed to eliminate references to commercial development of Lot 27 and to modify the statistical summary for residential uses. 2. Residential Development. a) Lot 27 shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site design, lot layout and architectural elevations of Tentative Tract Map 15380 and Design Review 96 -050 (Exhibit D) as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council and including any conditions imposed thereon. b) In the event that Lot 27 is not developed in substantial conformance with the plans identified in Paragraph 2(a) above, an alternative single family detached product may be proposed subject to the City's full entitlement process (i.e. subdivision, Design Review), including action by the Planning Commission and City Council. Any alternative plans considered under the provision of this paragraph shall be designed to meet the minimum development standards included in the Specific Plan and Exhibit E. Where development standards in the Specific Plan and Exhibit E conflict, Exhibit E shall prevail. 3. Developer Contributions to City Park Improvements In consideration for the foregoing, and contingent upon City's approval of the pending application for Tentative Tract Map ( "TTM") No. 15380 covering Lot 27: a) At its expense, beginning no later than July 31, 1997, Developer shall commence to graft lemon buds to the branches of the existing grapefruit trees on Tustin Ranch Lot 23, Tract 12870, with the goal of converting the grapefruit orchard into a lemon orchard, and maintain the converted orchard through at least September 1, 2002; and, i b) Developer shall contribute a total of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) toward the City's Park Improvement Fund, in four Twenty Five Thousand Dollar ($25,000) installments, due and payable to City on or prior to the ninetieth (90'x), one hundred eightieth (180' ), two hundred seventieth (270w), and three hundred sixtieth (360'0 days, respectively, following City's approval of TTM No. 15380. . 4. City Use of Developer Payment. To the extent feasible, City shall use the funds paid by Developer, in accordance with paragraph 3(b) above, to construct, and/or operate and maintain public park improvements in East Tustin. 5. Extended Maintenance of Converted Lemon Orchard At the City's request, the Developer will reasonably consider extending its maintenance of the converted lemon orchard beyond September 1, 2002, on terms agreeable to the City and Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer has each executed this THIRD AMENDMENT, effective as of the date first written above. CITY OF TUSTIN By Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk M� THE IRVINE COMPANY C C APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney • • EXHIBIT E ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LOT 27, TRACT 13627 Development of Lot 27 shall be in compliance with the applicable development standards included in the East Tustin Specific Plan, as amended, and the development standards contained in this Exhibit. Where development standards in the East Tustin Specific Plan, as amended, and this Exhibit conflict, this Exhibit shall prevail. STANDARD REQUIREMENT GROSS SITE AREA, MIN. 30.9 ACRES TOTAL UNITS, MAX. 185 DENSITY, MAX 600 LOT AREA SUM 4,500 SQ. Fr. AVERAGE NIA LOT COVERAGE, MAX 50 PERCENT LOT WIDTH NIINRIIUM 35 FEET AVERAGE 50 FEET BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT -LIVING AREA 20 FEET MINIMUM GARAGES 19 FEET MINIMUM (NO SHORT DRIVE -WAYS) SIDE 5 FEET MINIMUM CORNER 10 FEET MIIgRvI1JM REAR MAIN 25 FEET MBJMUM (ADJACENT TO JAMBOREE, TUSTIN RANCH AND PORTOLA) 15 FEET MINTIMUM OTHER LOTS DETACHED ACCESSORY 5 FEET MINIMUM TRACT BOUNDARY 10 FEET MTNIMUM PARKING, GUEST TOTAL 185 SPACES UNIT SIZE M1NiMUM 2,250 SQ. FT. AVERAGE 2-550 SQ FC ARCHITECTURAL CONSIDERATIONS IN ADDITION TO CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, AT MINIMUK THE SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS THAT FACE JAMBOREE ROAD, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND PORTOLA PARKWAY SHALL INCLUDE ARCHITECTURAL VARIETY, DESIGN DETAILS, STAGGERED BUILDING MASS AND VARIED ROOF ELEMENTS SIMILAR TO THE FRONT ELEVATIONS TO PROVIDE RELIEF FROM THE FLAT WALL APPEARANCE. APPENDIX C TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • • EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN SECTOR SIX - CHANGE OF USE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND MEDIUM -HIGH RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM -LOW RESIDENTIAL Technical Notes Prepared For: The Irvine Company Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 June 19, 1997 u EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction • A change is proposed in Sector Six of the ETSP to construct 162 single- family dwellings compared to the approved land use which includes both medium high density residential and commercial retail on this 31 acre parcel. A Level One traffic analysis of these changes to the ETSP have been evaluated. Conclusion The proposed change in land use in Sector Six results in a net reduction of traffic of 9,106 ADT. This reduction occurs due to the conversion of 12 acres of general commercial use to medium - low residential. The proposed development of TT 15350 with 162 single- family dwellings . at a density of 5.2 DU /AC will result in a further net reduction of 1,269 ADT. An overall reduction of 10,379 ADT will be the net result of developing 162 dwelling units rather than the maximum permitted under existing entitlements. All of the changes are within the allowable provisions of the existing Development Agreement. These proposed changes are exempt from further analysis by the countywide CMP based on an existing development agreement and by the fact the changes actually reflect a reduction in traffic. 0 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED SECTOR SIX CHANGE IN LAND USE TECHNICAL NOTES INTRODUCTION The Irvine Company has applied for a change of land use in Sector Six of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) and Development Agreement. In effect, 162 medium -low density single - family dwelling units (DUs) will be constructed on this 31 acre site rather than 19 acres of medium high residential (i.e., 350 DUs at maximum density) and 12 acres of general commercial. ANALYSIS A Level One traffic impact evaluation was performed for the proposed changes to the ETSP. A Level One impact analysis seeks to determine how the project's overall trip generation compares with the original EIR analysis. Consistent with the original EIR traffic study, the proposed land use is contained within a single traffic analysis zone (TAZ 37). The attached Table 1 shows entitled and proposed land use and the corresponding trip generation. Table 1 also shows the corresponding trip generation for proposed TT 15380. The overall trip generation for the East Tustin area decreases 10,379 ADT (5.7 percent) from the original 181,579 ADT due to the proposed changes in land use and density. Sector Six is the 31 acre triangular parcel situated between Jamboree Road, Tustin Ranch Road and Portola Parkway which was the subject of an earlier zone change, ZC 94 -004. This change reduced the entire site from 302,000 square feet of commercial to 130,000 square feet of general commercial and 19 acres of medium -high residential use.. Sector Six makes up a portion of TAZ 37 in the original ETSP traffic study. CMP Impact The ETSP is covered by a 1986 Development Agreement between the City of Tustin and The Irvine Company. The ETSP Development Agreement pre -dates the Orange County CMP created East Tustin Specific Plan 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Proposed Sector Sir Change in Lind Use 010217.tn • 9 Table 1 TRIP GENERATION TRIP RATES [and Use Unit ADT Trio Rate General Commercial AC 700 Residential - Med High (25 DU /Ac) DU 7.10 Residential - Med Low (10 DU /Ac) DU 8.6 NET CHANGE 10,379 DECREASEINADT East Tustin Specific Plan 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Proposed Sector Six Change in Lind Use 010217.tn TRIP GENERATION Land Use Units R=te ADT I. Entitled General Commercial 12 Ac 700 8,400 Residential - Med High Density 19 Ac (7.10 x 25) 3.372 TOTAL 11,772 11. Proposed Designation Res - Medium -Low Density (10 DU /AC) 31 Ac (8.6 x 10) 2,666 III. Proposed TT 15380 162 DU 8.6 1,393 NET CHANGE 10,379 DECREASEINADT East Tustin Specific Plan 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Proposed Sector Six Change in Lind Use 010217.tn 9 0 in July, 1959 and since the changes proposed are all within the allowable provisions of that agreement, the proposed changes are exempt from the CMP. In addition, since the proposed changes produce an actual decrease in trips (i.e., a reduction of over 10,000 ADT), the project would qualify for an exemption from the CMP on that basis as well. CONCLUSION Since the effect of this project is to reduce daily traffic by over 10,000 ADT, it negates the need for a more detailed Level Two traffic analysis. The project in effect reduces traffic, through a reduction in commercial land use, by 130,000 square feet, while, at the same time retaining the same total residential units allowed within the ETSP area. This project is exempt from further analysis of the countywide CMP program. East Tustin Specific Plan 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Proposed Sector Six Change in land Use 010217.tn • :e TABLE 2 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE TRIP GENERATION BUILDOUT ZONE LAND USE UNIT AMOUNT ADT 37 Res - Estate DU 79 79 853 853 Res -Low DU 72 72 720 720 Res,: rw DU 0 310 0 2 666 Res Med High b DU 33 9 0 X 483 0 T-SF 4-39 0 19-}99 0 3;239 Source EIR 85 -2, Addendums 5