Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01 TT MAP 13908 DR 95-42 7-1-96
NO. 1 7-1-96 DATE: JULY 1, 1996 inter-Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJEC~ AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13908 & APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 95-042 (BRAMALEA) SUMMARY:'. Amendment .to :: Vesting TentatiVeTract: 13908'is a requeSt by Bramalea. to update .three Original prodUct tyPes 'and add tWo: new product types..tol be:construCted.On 70~ of the' 97 remaijin g lots within the'existing residential devel°Pment~I:::' The' site is loCated at the southwest corner of: TUStin' Ranch Road and Township:Drive. . On: June .lOi'1996, ii.the: Planning CommiSSion:~ approVed. Design Review 95-042: for':the project and:! i, ecommended that'the Council: approve !.Amer[dment toll Vesting ~entativ-e : T~a~t:':.j3908. :i: :~e San Marino Homeowners' AssOciation has appealed the Planning Commtsstons appro .al :of Design Relview 95,042. . -: APPLICANT: Jeff Roos, Bramalea APPELLANTS: Chris Clark representing the San Marino Homeowners' Association RECOMMENDATION That the City Council take one of the following actions and direc't staff to prepare the appropriate findings and Resolutions: i , Uphold the Planning Commission's action of Design Review 95- 042 and approve Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 13908, as submitted by the applicant, and approve the environmental determination for the project; or, . Modify the Planning Commission's action of Design Review 95- 042 and approve Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 13908, as determined appropriate by the Council, and approve the environmental determination for the project; or, , Overturn the Planning Commission's action and deny Design Review 95-042 and Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 13908. Staff will provide'a resolution ratifying the Council's action at its meeting on July 15, 1996. City Council Rep~ Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The subject project is an applicant initiated project. The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. The appellant has paid an appeal fee to recover the costs related to the appeal hearing. BACKGROUND The following background discussion briefly describes the original approval, the Planning Commission's action on the revised request and the Homeowners Associations' appeal. A more in-depth discussion related to these issues is identified in the body of the report. Oriqinal Approval In February of 1990, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908 which authorized the subdivision of a 28.7-acre site to accommodate 97 single-family detached residential dwellings. Subsequent to that approval, the developer recorded the Final Map and commenced construction of the development. To date, 27 of the 97 dwellings (28 percent of the project) have been completed. The applicant is requesting approval to update three original product types and add two new product types. If approved, the total number of dwelling units for this project will not increase. The original Design Review (DR 89-46) was an integral part of the Vesting Tentative Map approval. Vesting Tentative Tract 13908 was approved subject to all conditions contained in Exhibit "A" of Planning Commission Resolution No 2738 which approved Design Review 89-46. Condition No. 10.6 o~ Vesting Tentative Tract 13908 approval provides: "Prior to release of building permits, all conditions of approval of Design Review 89-46 of the subject project shall be complied with as shown on Exhibit "A" attached to ResolutiOn No. 2738 and incorporated herein by reference." , In part, Condition 1.1 of Design Review 89-46 provides: "The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans date stamped January 8, 1990..." Therefore, the Design Review and the Vesting Tentative Map go hand in hand, and to the extent that there is change in the product type that would trigger a new Design Review, a modification to the map would also be required. The City Attorney has previously provided an opinion related to this issue which is included as Attachment B. City Council Report Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 3 Planninq Commission's Action on the Revised Plan On June 10, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 95-042 for the project (See Attached PC Meeting Minutes and Resolution No. 3432) and recommended approval of the Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 13908. The Planning Commission held its first public hearing on April 8, 1996, and continued the item for two months to encourage the developer and the residents to develop a mutually beneficial solution to address the residents' concerns. San Marino Homeowners' Association Appeal The San Marino Homeowners' Association has filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's action to preserve their rights since the Association would not have had the opportunity to formally meet to consider their position with respect to the applicant's proposal until two days after the end of the appeal period (Attachment A-i) . The San Marino Homeowners' Association has provided additional correspondence discussing their desire to split the development and require the applicant to construct the original product, including exact amenities, north of Lot 85, and construct different products south of Lot 84, with a separate monument sign and development name (Attachment A-2) . DISCUSSION Project Description A summary of the applicant's original proposal and the various revisions in response to the neighborhood workshops has been included in Attachment C. In response to the direction of the Planning Commission and discussions at four neighborhood workshops, the Planning Commission approved the applicant's revised proposal which is highlighted as follows: 1. Construct three updated original plans and two new plans: Updated Plan 1 - New Plan 6 - New Plan 7 - Updated Plan 3 - Updated Plan 4 - 3,184 s.f. (Single-Story) 3,285 s.f. 3,608 s.f. 3,868 s.f. 4,165 s.f. 2. Eliminate the 2,800 s.f. Plan 5 (Single-Story). City Council Report Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 4 3. Identify the anticipated plotting mix for the units: Total No. of Units Percent Plan 1 - 14 14.4 Plan 6 - 9 9.3 Plan 7 - 17 17.5 Plan 2 - 3 3.1 Plan 3 - 24 24.8 Plan 4 - 30 30.9 Total 97 100% (Note - Total Number of Units and Percent Reflect Entire Development) o Ail Plans are proposed to have updated amenity levels as previously indicated with the following changes: Wood Sectional Roll-up Garage Doors Clay or Concrete Roof Tile Options at No Cost Optional Sky Lights (Sky lights will be constructed in the Plan 3 and 4 models). ° The new Model Complex is proposed to be constructed on Lots 81 - 84 with Updated Plans 3, 4, and/or New Plan 7 (three largest plans). No Plan 6 will be constructed in the model complex. In addition, the Planning Commission included several additional conditions in Resolution No. 3432 in response to discussions at the June 10, 1996 public hearing which include: 3.1 "The plotting of Plan 6 shall be limited to Lots 44-80." 3.2 "...The Maximum number of Plan 6s shall not exceed 12 unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission." 3.3 "...No Plan 6 shall be constructed in the model complex." 3.4 sky lights, which are to be offered as options in the Plans 1, 3, and 4, shall be constructed in the Plan 3 and 4 models." 3.10 "No plotting mix change shall be made in Phase 1." In response to the residents comments, the applicant also represented at the June 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting that: City Council Report Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 5 Wood sectional garage doors would be provided; A separate marketing name would be created for the balance of the project; and, The Plan numbers would be revised to avoid confusion with the original Plans 1-4. Desiqn Review Approval The purpose of Design Review is to ensure quality in exterior design, development and maintenance of structures,,and landscaping which affect the desirability of a neighborhood and community as a whole. To approve a Design Review application, Tustin Municipal Code Section 9272 states that the Commission [Council] must find: "...that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. . o Type and pitch of' roofs. . Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. . Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. . Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. . Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. City Council Report Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 6 11. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structure to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 12. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council." PUBLIC CONCERNS The San Marino residents have expressed their desires to plot the original product within all or portions of the development with the same quality, character and amenity level for the proposed residences. In further consideration of the concepts to "integrate" or "segregate" the existing from the new, the applicant has revised the project proposal to "integrate" the development. Site Plan/Unit Plotting The revised proposal approved by the Planning Commission includes constructing an updated version of three of the four original plans (Plans 1, 3 and 4) and constructing two new plans (Plans 6 and 7). The residents expressed their desire at the May 28, 1996 neighborhood meeting for the applicant to eliminate the Plan 6 and to plot the new units within the balance of the development, and establish a minimum threshold for the unit mix to ensure that there is an appropriate distribution of the smaller Plans 1 and 7, and the larger Plans 3 and 4. The applicant has prepared a revised site plan indicating the anticipated plotting of the new units (including nine (9) Plan 6s) which includes all of the 70 remaining lots. A comparison between the original approved unit mix and proposed unit mix is included as follows: Unit Plans Sq. Ft. 0riqinal Quantity Proposed Quantity Plan 1 3,184 17 17.5 14. Plan 6 3,285 0 0.0 9 Plan 7 3,608 0 0.0 17 Plan 2 3,628 23 23.7 3 Plan 3 3,868 24 24.8 24 Plan 4 4,165 33 34.0 30 14.4 9.3 17.5 3.1 24.8 30.9 Totals 97 100% 97 100% Original Averaqe Unit Sq. Ft. PropoSed Averaqe Unit Sq. Ft. 3,792 3,754 City Council Report Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 7 The original development was approved with an average of 3,792 square feet per unit. The revised proposal provides an average of 3,754 square feet per unit which represents a 1 percent decrease compared to the original development. For comparison purposes, the April 1996 proposal would have resulted in an average of 3,416 square feet per unit which represents a 9.9 percent decrease from the original development. Minor changes to the plotting mix can be approved at the staff level provided that a particular plan previously approved by the Planning Commission is not eliminated. However, based upon the concerns of the residents to ensure that a well balanced mix is ultimately developed, the applicant has agreed to locate the Plan 6s south of Lot 84 and limit the number of Plan 6s to a maximum of 12 units (PC Resolution 3432, Conditions 3.1 and 3.2). The revised proposal, to eliminate the 2,800 square foot Plan 5, construct updated Plans 1, 3 and 4, and the proposed plotting mix, is within 38 square feet on average to the original development. The applicant believes this mix will be compatible with and complement the existing residences. The applicant has also agreed to relocate the model complex from Lots 40 - 43 to Lots 80 - 84. It is anticipated that a Plan 3, 4 and/or 7 will be constructed as models. Although the revised site plan identifies a Plan 6 on Lot 83, the applicant has agreed not to construct a Plan'6 in the model complex (PC Resolution, Condition 3.3). Amenity Levels: The San Marino residents expressed concerns about the amenity levels of the proposed residences. At the neighborhood meetings, the applicant presented information to illustrate the interior amenity levels that are proposed for the new residences in an effort to communicate the proposed quality of development. Attachment D includes the applicant's summary comparison distributed to the residents. A comparison was made between the proposed product, the existing residences, the neighboring Standard Pacific development, two Taylor Woodrow developments in Irvine, and the J.~M. Peters development in Fullerton. The applicant has indicated that the intent is to create a product that is equal to or superior to the existing product and competitive developments. A Real Estate Appraiser provided the applicant with information regarding the value of certain amenities and was presented at the May 20, 1996 neighborhood meeting (Attachment E). Based upon this City Council Report Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 8 information, the applicant offered additional changes to the amenity levels for the new residences. The changes are highlighted in bold and underlined text in the chart below: Amenity Existing Proposed Built-In Refrigerator Cabinets Closets Garage Doors Entry Flooring Fire Places Home Theaters N/A Jacuzzi Tub Optional Laundry Room Sinks Cast Iron Master Bedroom Fixtures Harden Roof Tile Clay Security System Optional Sky Lights Standard Toilet Paper Holders Chrome Wardrobe Doors Raised Panel Wet Bars Optional Windows Wood Window Sills Wood Standard Optional Maple Stain/ White Euro Opt. Wht Euro Raised Panel Mirror Bi-Pass Wood Roll Up Wood Roll Up 8"x 8" ceramic 12"x 12" ceramic tile tile Lvg/Fam/Mast. Fam/Mast. ;Optional Lvg. Optional Standard Fiberglass Price Pfister Clay or Concrete Standard Optional Ceramic Mirrored @ Master, Raised Panel secondaries N/A Vinyl Wood, Drywall The San Marino Homeowners' Association is at a difference with the applicant on the following amenities: Clay tile roof should be a standard rather than an optional feature on all plans; Sky lights should be a standard feature in the Plans 1, 3 and 4; Wood windows should be a standard feature on all plans; and, Fireplaces in the living room Should be a standard rather than an optional feature on Plans 1, 3 and 4. In telephone conversations with the representative for the San Marino Homeowners' Association, .it was represented that if these additional amenities are not required, a "segregated" development with a different product south of Lot 84 and the exact product City Council Report Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042 July 1, 1996 Page 9 north of Lot 85 would be the Association's position as discussed in their June 24, 1996 correspondence (Attachment A-2). As represented at the June 10, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing to include sky lights and fire places in the living rooms as optional features. For marketing reasons, the applicant intends to offer these options in a traditional manner and added to the base price of the home. The applicant has agreed to construct sky lights in the Plan 3 and 4 models (PC Resolution, Condition 3.4). The applicant has also agreed to provide wood sectional garage doors and offer clay tile roofs as a no cost option. The City Council has the ability through the Design Review authority to consider alternatives to ensure that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance will not impair the orderly development of the area, the present or future development, or the community as a whole. Staff will be prepared to propose additional conditions or respond to other direction provided by the Council. Radifying resolutions.of the Council's action will be provided at the July 15, 1996 City Council meeting. Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director EAB: DF: br: kbm/TT13 9 0 8 Attachments: Location Map Proposed/Existing Plans PC Minutes; June 10, 1996 PC Resolution No. 3432 A-1 Appeal Correspondence; June 17, 1996 A-2 Subsequent Appeal Correspondence; June 24, 1996 B - City Attorney Opinion; April 7, 1995 C - Neighborhood Meeting Summaries D - Amenity Level Summary E - Applicant Correspondence from Donald L. Jones, Real Estate Appraiser Initial Study ( LOCATION NO SCALE PROPOSED PLANS I :i_4 · I J i I ii' [! t: Ii ~z z~ ' iq[! :i:I: ' [ tz I I , 3,284 TOTAL SQ. FT. RESIDENCE - 651 TOTAL' SQ. FT. GARAGE PLAN 6A SAN MARINO Il · us,,, RA,C.. CA'.,OR",A ...... BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. ~ BAY V~W ~ ~E ~2~0 ..w.o., .,c,. c, i BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL SET , .~. Wil~am Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. ......... SAN MARINO II O~ ~lil S ~,,~ ' TUSTIN RANCH. CALIFORNIA ~ ~ : <~ '~=~ BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. = ~ '! 100 BAY VEW CIRCLE. SUITE t2000 ~, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL SET , .... W~am Hezmalhalch .~. Architects, Inc. REVISIONS ......... SAN MARINO II TUSTIN RANCH, CALIFORNIA BRAUALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. ~O BAY VEW C~CLE, S~TE 12~0 NEWP~T ~AC~ CA .2660 .~. William Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. SAN MARINO II TU~TIN RANCH, CALIFORNIA BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, ~C. ~WP~T ~A~ CA 92660 BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBM/TTAL SET i .~. ~. j W',Jliam Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. PLAN 7A BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL SET , I '- ......... SAN MARINO II '~ BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. · ~ ~ 100 BAY VIEW CIRCLE, SUITE #2000 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 3,608 TOTAL SQ. FT. RESIDENCE - 699 TOTAL SQ. FT. GARAGE [ -x~.~. Wi~am Hezmalhalch Architects, Inc. ¥ PLAN 7A ] i. RE ViSiONS '! ~' .o,......... SAN MARINO II ~ o~l~ i~ .~~ .,"' TUSTIN RANCH. CALIFORNIA ~' ~~.. BRAMALEA OALIFORNIA, INC. ~ ~ :~ ~~1 ! 100 BAY VIEW CIRCLE, SLNTE 12000 · NEWF)O~IT BEACH· CA 925B0 I BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL SET ~ William Hezmalhalch 1 X"x.~. Architects, Ir~. PLAN 7B ~ ~111~'~ RE VISIONS ~ ,~ ~''........... SAN MARINO II · BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. ~~ = 100 BAY VEW C~ ~TE ~ [~ ~WP~T BE AC~ CA9~ DEPARTMENT SUBMITTA~ .~FT .~~. Architects, Inc. PLAN 7C ! ......... SAN MARINO II .= :~> i~i]~ ~ .~,o~,,~ ~o OATE TUSTIN RANCH, CALIFORNIA = BRAMALEA CA~ORNIA, INC. ~ BAY ~W .. ~. ~W~T ~A~ CA g26~ BUILDING DFPARTMFNT .~IlRMITTAI Architects, Inc. EXISTING PLANS :!llll~!!l i-.llilii ' II l! il 11 I ' ' -( ~ t 'Tustin Ranch Estates Tustin Ranch Estates b, o . t llt'.gI I FF ~?. .~J.:lllIL:]ll2 ,lfllll! ;: '- ~'[ . ii,ii i ti 11 '1 ~.'. l!li'I ii.l: Il ,. : ~' I' ..qi'i, ll:Et "l:i,,t :i[ il . ' '~'~-'- '---JI i :~t:.'-..~.'"'. L',, ..: , [....-,, :. ,fl:li:llir,, ~ ~:ii:, [ : ,, .:: .l ,::::. I. I:,: il , .I :,', t I I I ] . .1 i ' I Tustin ~ F, st~ltes d -. ii r" . !D~liiq!!l!i;!lli!!lil~ l'! . - -: . !: .',l tt h,.,,.,.~ .l" ' i 14: I. i J e. I 'i ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 10, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 2 UBLIC HEARINGS: ~n Tentative Tract MaD 13908 And Desi n Review 95-042 (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of May 13, 1996) LOCATION: TRACT 13908, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP DRIVE ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL _ (LOW DENSITY ENVIRONMENTAL RES'IDENTIAL) . EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN STATUS: THIS 'PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION UNITS TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Rec°mmendation~- That the Planning Commission: 1- Approve the .Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3431; 2. Approve Design Review 95-042 by adopting Resolution No 3432 as submitted or revised; and, · , 3. Recommend that the City Council approve Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908 by adopting Resolution No. 3433 as submitted or revised. , Presentation: Daniel Fox, AICP, Senior Planner Commissioner Bon~ inquired if both the builder and the homeowners had agreed to Plans 1, 3 and 4; that Plan 5 has been eliminated and that the residents also want Plan 6 eliminated from the mix. Dan Fox, Senior Planner, affirmed this to be correct. The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m. Christopher Clark] rebresenting the San Marino Homeowners Associa- tion, stated tha~there have been meetings and discussions directly with Bramalea but no common resolutions on the issues, especially the elimination of Plan 6, have been achieved. The Homeowners Association is not scheduled to meet until June 19, 1996, so Mr. Clark stated he would not be able to endorse any proposal until the association members voted. The homeowners do not want ~o see any Plan 6s and agreement has not been met on that issue. The other outstanding issues are the sunken livingrooms, which the builder wants to delete in the new homes, and moving the location of the model complex without the construction of Plan 6. Residents want one of the models to be a Plan 4, phasing to begin closest to the infill lots working back to the construction access point and.for the builder to rename the new phase. There is agreement on Plans 1, 3, 4 & 7 provided amenities can be agreed upon and conditioned on review of the modified Plan 3. Mr. Clark stated he would prefer that the homeowners had a chance .to vote. formally on final agreements with Bramalea and then proceed without any further negotiation to the City Council meeting. To resolve these issues he requested a continuance of the item. ' Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 3 ~ommissioner Kasalek inquired if all 27 homeowners have met during the last two months of discussions. ghristopher Clark stated they had not met as a group but had been given information. The first formal Homeowners Association meeting will be on June 19, 1996. ~ommissioner Kas~lek_ asked if there had been any effort made to move that meeting up to observe the time limits of the Pla'nning Commission hearings. Christopher Clark stated there was no way that could be done, since before this Planning Commission meeting the small homeowners group needed more time to continue discussion.with the builder. Because the homeoWners were not in full agreement with the builder, the smaller homeowners group preferred to narrow all the items down before bringing the matter for a vote at the Homeowners Association meeting on June 19, 1996. ~eff Roos~ representing Bramalea California, stated that there have been a number of meetings and he believes things have moved significantly in a new direction. Originally the product proposed was an elimination of the existing product. Bramalea has come up with a completely new product,~ consisting of three floor plans. Bramalea will build Plan 7 which is the same square footage as the previous Plan 2; the new Plan 6 is larger than the previous smallest home in the existing development. They wish to build a Plan 6 because it is a 2 story home needed in the mix for marketing. Brama~ea also agree to move the model complex and not build a Plan 6 in the models or north of Lot 84. They have agreed to limit Plan 2 to a maximum number. Concerning the amenity levels, they will install wood garage doors,'optional skylights and a choice of clay or concrete roof tile at a no cost option to the buyer. Bramalea appreciates the fact that the homeowners want them to build the large homes so they share a common goal. He wants to have the flexibility to plot the products that sell. Commissioner Kasalek asked what number of Plan 6s would be acceptable to Bramalea. Jeff Roos stated he would agree to 20 ~and agreed to the homeowners phasing request for Bhase 1. Bramalea wishes to del. ay building in Phase 3 (Lots 40-43 where the model complex was originally to be) because he wished to preserve a view to the models. Commissioner Bone asked if homebuyers would be informed that the wood. garage doors need to be painted on a regular basis. He also inquired if the "pick a lot" program would continue. Jeff Roos stated that Bramalea has not 'decided if they will continue with the "piCk a lot" program, where a buyer is allowed to build a particular plan on a particular lot, and if they decide to continue it would be done on a phase basis. Commissioner Kasale~ clarified that the issue of fire places, windows and sunken livingrooms were not agreed upon but that optional fire places and vinyl windows were proposed. She'asked if Mr. Roos was willing to continue this item. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 4 Jeff Roos stated he was not aware that continuation' was an issue until this evening and that~he would like to move ahead. He stated that he will not be in town on June 24, for the next Planning Commission meeting. Ne stated that the homeowners have a chance to voice their opinions at the City Council meeting even if they do not meet formally until June 19th. ~icha¢l Nermon 2460 Kiser, requested that the it'em be continued a bit longer. ~hristopher Clark stated that after the previous Planning Commission meeting they left with a view toward a divided or split development but in the ensuing discussions.~oth sides agreed that if an acceptable product mix could be agreed upon a united development.would be preferred. He stated that it was only since last week that,.the small homeowners group had time to inform the homeowners that a united development would be the optional solution. ~ois Bobak~ Deputy City Attorney, stated that sufficient notice will be given before the City Council hearing since the City is required to give statutory notice for the July 1, 1996 City Council meeting. Also, she reminded everyone that the ~erms of the current Planning Commissioners will expire in July. and if this item was continued, it would be difficult for a reconstituted Planning Commission to give this item the necessary attention. ~hristoDher Clark stated that he was aware of the terms, but believed there will be one more Planning Commission meeting on June 24th before the terms expire. Commissioner Kasale~ stated she has not seen a lot of movement from the homeowners and questioned if Mr. Clark really believed a two week continuance would make a difference. Christopher Clark stated he wOuld request a vote in favor of the homeowners right now if he didn't feel it would make a difference. He stated that up to two weeks ag6 the homeowners were making all the moves. Since then Bramalea has done a good job and has garnered good faith in eliminating a couple of the smaller models but that there is more to discuss and he hopes Bramalea will not pull back now and not finish the process. ~ommissioner Kasalek stated that amenity levels are not within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Christopher Clark stated that although amenity levels are a concern to the hOmeowners, agreement on the Plan 6 model was a key decision as well as plotting of the first Phase and review of what .Plan 3 includes. ~arl Hatterman, President of the Homeowners Association, commended Mr. Roos for making changes and stated that this was a fluid .situation. The homeowners .do have concerns and there is need to delay the vote tonight since the homeowners look to the Planning Commission as their defense. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 5 Jeff Roos stated he was under the impression that a vote would be taken tonight and had not heard of anything different from the homeowners until tonight. He stated that Bramalea has been making concessions all along, and have been receptive to homeowners giving input on plotting for Phase 1 but Bramalea is at the end of their rope and his instructions are to proceed with the vote. He does not wish to have the item continued. Also he stated he will not be in town June 24, 1996 since he has a scheduled vacation planned. Commissioner Kasalek asked what would happen if the first Phase does not sell. The Director stated that the Planning Commission. has the ability to add conditionS to provide a range of Various units. Jeff Roos stated that a big concern of the homeowners was the Plan 6 so, in the first four Phases there will be no Plan 6. It was not proposed as a safety valve since they are already limited to the number of the Plan 6 they can build. Commissioner Bone asked if Bramalea would agree to building 17 Plan 6 units as a compromise between the 20 which the builder Wanted and what the homeowners wanted. Christopher Clark stated that building of only 15 Plan 6 units was already conceded by Bramalea in a phone conversation with Mr. Roos. Mr. Clark believes that 12 would be more acceptable. Me stated that the homeowners would like to approve what is plotted adjacent to the existing residents. The homeowners want a Plan 4 as a mandatory model. Phases 1 and 3 are the closest to the existing homes so homeowners wish to have input and approval. Commissioner Mitzman asked the City attorney if the Planning Commission had the right to condition a project subject to the homeowners approval. ' Lois Bobak stated there was no problem with that if the builder consented to the condition of approval. The Planning Commission is giving approval to subdivide the map and for Design.Review. If the Planning Commission wants to condition that the homeowners approve the plotting, .that is within their authority. The ~ity would be authorizing reasonable concurrence, and if the builder believes that ~he homeowners are unreasonably withholding approval the builder can come back to staff and.the matter can then be resolved administratively. Jeff Roos stated he is concerned that the homeowners will not give approval and this could hold up construction. Me stated that Bramalea is more than willing to work with the homeowners but agreeing to a condition for their approval is not acceptable. ChristoDher Clark stated he did not believe there was a problem in that regard as long as'construction is as plotted and the builder does not make changes. Me stated that the homeowners did not want all Plan 4s because that would not look like a neighborhood. Elain Nermon 2460 Kiser, stated that this decision will also affect all of TRUCCA 3 and she does not understand the rush for a vote this evening. Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 1996 Page 6 Lois Bobak stated that state law precludes the Planning Commission from unilaterally continuing this matter. Streamlining Act the Planning Commission only Under the Permit has a certain amount of time to take action on a matter. That time ran out in March and the builder consented to continuance but the builder is not consenting to any further extensions. If the Planning Commission fails to take action this evening, the matter would be deemed approved. The Public Hearing closed at 8:42 p.m. C~ommissioner Bone asked if it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that t-he Plan 6 units be limited to 15. C_ommissioner Kasalek_ stated she would be more comfortable with limiting the Plan 6 units to 12. Commissioner Vandaveer~ agreed with Commissioner Kasalek C~ommissioner Lunn~ . stated she was comfortable with limiting construction to 12 Plan 6 units as long as the builder can return to the Commission to increase that number if necessary. The Public Hearing opened at 8:50 p.m. Jeff Roos inquired if Condition 3.5 required breaking the median at the construction access point. Staff stated it was understood that construction access has already been approved for that point along La Colina without breaking the median. The Public Hearing closed at 8:51 p.m. Comm. issioner Vandaveer . moved. L,,nn seconded to Environmental Determin-~- ~ ....... approve the 343 Motion prod.c= adopting R.solution Commi sioner Vand e r v ' u eco ded to approve Design Review 95-042 'by adoptin~ Resolution No. 3432 revised as follows: Condition 3.2, last sentence amended to read, "However, the maximum number of Plan 6s' shall not exceed 12 unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission.. Condition 3.3 revised to read, "The Model Complex shall be located on Lots 81-84 and shall include a Plan 4 and Plans 3 and/or 7. No Plan 6 shall he constructed in the model complex.. Condition 3.10 added, to read, "No plotting mix change shall be made in Phase 1." ~otion carried 5-0~ ~eer moved Lunn seconded, to rec .u~=y.coun. cll approve Amendment to Ves~ ........ ,___ o_mmen, d that the D a~ .~,~ ~=A~=U~Ve 'A'rac= map 13908 Y opting Resolution No. 3433 as submitted. _Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: None Scheduled PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3432 RESOLUTION NO. 3432 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 95-042 TO UPDATE THREE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRODUCTS TYPES AND ADD TWO NEW PRODUCT TYPES TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON TRACT 13908. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve 6 as follows: 7 I. The'Planning Commission finds and. determines as follows: 8 A. That a proper application, Design Review 95-042, was submitted and revised by Bramalea California requesting. approval to update three previously approved product types and add two new product types to the buildout of the previously approved development on Tract 13908; o That the said application was considered by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1996, and continued to April 22, 1996, May 13 and 28, 1996, and June 10, 1996; Co D o That neighborhood meetings were conducted on April 15 and 24, 1996 and May 20 and 2'8, 1996 with the applicant, interested residents and City staff-in an effort to resolve outstanding concerns related to the project; That an Environmental Impact Report EIR 85-2, as amended, for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project; and E o Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proPosed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. . Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3432 Page 2 o Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. . Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. . Location, height and standards of exterior illumination.. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed struCture. 10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 11. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structure to existing structures and possible feature structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 12. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 95-04'2 to update three previously approved product types and add two new product types to the buildout of the previously approved development on Tract 13908, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tusti~, at a regular meeting on the 10th day of June, 1996. BARBARA REYES~ Recording Secretary MARJORI ~/KASALEK/,. Chairwoman Resolution No. 3432 Page 3 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 4 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 6 I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording S6cretary of the Planning Commission of the City of 7 Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3432 was duly passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission 8 held on the 10th day of June, 1996. ' 10 BARBARA REYES Recording Secretary 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3432 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DESIGN REVIEW 95-042- GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans date stamped June 10, 1996 on file with the Community Development Department as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development in aCcordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP). (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in the Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued within twenty four (24) months of the date of this Exhibit. (1) 1.4 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of building permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant and property owner shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. 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 -Conditions of Approval DR 95-042 Resolution No. 3432 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL 2.1 At building plan check the following shall be submitted: (3) A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements shall be complied with and approved by the Building Official. (2) (3) Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally, a note on plans shall be included stating that no field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by'the Building Official. (2) c. (3) Final grading and specifications consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans and prepared by a registered' Civil Engineer for approval by the Community Development Department. (2) D. (3) Final street improvement plans consistent with the Site plan and landscaping plans and prepared by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by the Community Development Department. (2) E. (3) Model complex plans identifying all temporary fencing, landscaping, elevations, parking facilities and other temporary model complex facilities. (2) F. A detailed acoustical noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical expert shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department to insure that interior noise levels do not exceed a maximum of 45 dBa's and that the exterior noise levels shall not exceed a maximum of 65 dBa's. (1) 2.2 Submitted construction drawings shall be in conformance with all development standards as applicable in the East Tustin Specific Plan. Conceptual approval of locations of structures shall not constitute final approval. Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 95-042 Resolution No. 3432 Page 3 SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS *** 3.1 The plotting of Plan 6 shall be limited to Lots 44 - 80. (4) *** 3.2 The Community Development Department may make minor (4) subsequent changes, to the plotting mix, except as required by Condition 3.1 above, provided that all applicable development standards and requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan are satisfied. However, the maximum number of Plan 6s shall not exceed 12 unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission. *** 3.3 The Model Complex shall be located on Lots 81 - 84 and (4) shall include a Plan 4 and Plans 3 and/or 7. No Plan 6 shall be constructed in the model complex. *** 3.4 Sky lights, which are to be offered as options in the Plans 1, 3 and 4, shall be constructed in the Plan 3 and 4 models. *** 3.5 Construction access may be provided from the paseo between Lots 74 and 75, subject to final.approval of the 'City Engineer. (1) 3.6 Provide exact details of all exterior door and window (4) types, including but not limited to such information as frame color and glass tint. (1) 3.7 Ail exterior colors to be used shall be consistent with (4) the existing residences and shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments shall be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on submitted construction plans; elevations shall indicate all colors and materials to be used. (1) 3.8 Note on final plans that a six-foot high chain linked fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. (1) 3.9 Exterior elevations of the buildings shall indicate any (4) fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, equipment heights and type of screening. 3.10 No plotting mix change shall be made in Phase 1" Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 95-042 Resolution No. 3432 Page 4 LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (6) 4.1 The applicant shall submit detailed landScaping and irrigation plans for all'new landscaping areas and the model complex on the site consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Guidelines. The plans shall include the following information: Ao A summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plan and table must .list botanical and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials propoSed. Planting. and berming details, soil preparation, staking, etc. C o The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment must be provided. m . Ail property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way area, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. E. Note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping irrigation .materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Community Development Department. (6) 4.2 The Community Development Department may. request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing or quantity materials during plan check. (6) 4.3 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check must reflect the following requirements, either incorporated into the design and/or construction or included as notes: A. Provide a minimum of one 15 gallon size tree for every 30 feet of property line on the property perimeter and five, 5 gallon shrubs. B. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum of 8 feet on center when intended as screen planting. C . Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center. Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 95-042 Resolution No. 3432 Page 5 D o E . When 1 gallon plant sizes are used the spaCing may vary according to materials used. Ail plant materials shall be installed and maintained in a neat and healthy condition typical to the species. This will include but not be limited to trimming, mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement of diseased or dead plants. (1) 4.4 A complete, detailed project sign program including design, location, sizes, colors and materials shall be approved by the Irvine Company then submitted, for review and approval by the Community Development Department. The sign program shall include temporary project identification, model complex, addressing and street signs. All signs shall be in accordance, with the City's Security Code. NOISE (1) 5.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a final (2) acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical (3) 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. Ail 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 dba CNEL in outdoor areas and an interior standard of 45 dba 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. (1) 5.2 Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Use or (3) Occupancy, field testing in accordance with the Title 25 regulations may be required by the Building Official to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 95-042 Resolution No. 3432 Page 6 (1) 5.3 Ail construction operations, including engine warm-up, deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance 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. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. (1) 5.4 Construction hours'shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. FEES (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall (3) be made of all required fees as may be in effect at the (6) time of permit issuance, including but not limited to:. no Major thoroughfare and bridge fees in the amount of $2,501 per unit to the Tustin Public Works Department, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. o Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch Water District. Co Street improvement, grading and landscaping plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. D . Ail apPlicable-Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. E o New development fees in the amount of $350 per unit to the Community Development Department, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. F o School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the Irvine Company. Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 95-042 Resolution No. 3432 Page 7 Go Within. forty-eight (48) hours of aPproval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00 (thirty eight dollars) pursuant to AB 3185, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and 14 California Code of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check,'the ~pproval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. 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. D F: br: pcres0:3432 ATTACHMENTS A-1 APPEAL CORRESPONDENCE JUNE 17, 1996 FINGer.,, FAI-IRNEY & CLARK, 333 BAYSIDE DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92660 TELEPHONE (714) 557-7676 TELECOPIER (714)755-1276 RECEIVED June 17, 1996 COM DEVE[OPM£N'r ElY Daniel Fox, AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Re: San Marino Homeowners Association's Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review, Resolution No. 3432, As Revised Dear Mr. Fox: The San Marino Homeowners Association and its individual members hereby appeal the Gity of Tustin Planning Commission's .approval of Resolution Nos. 3431, 3432 (as revised) and 3433, at the Planning Commission hearing on June 10, 1996. This appeal is necessary because, as we previously discussed, the San Marino Homeowners Association meeting is not scheduled to take place until Wednesday, June 19, 1996 (two days after the end of the appeal period). Consequently, in order to preserve the rights of the Homeowners Association and its individual members until after they have had an opportunity to review all relevant facts pertaining to these Resolutions, it is necessary for me to submit this appeal of all items within these Resolutions, including, but not limited to, whether the San Marino development should be built out as originally planned and approyed; whether the development should be divided into two distinct communities with the north side built out as originally planned and approved; or whether the development should be built out as one community with an agreeable compromise for the design of the remaining homes. Pursuant to our telephone conversation of June 11, 1996, I am submitting a check herewith in the amount of $317.50 for the fee for this appeal. If there is any further information that you require to perfect this appeal or preserve 'the rights of the San Marino Homeowners Association and its individual members, please contact me immediately. 730/letters/fox. 001 Daniel Fox, AICP June 17, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, ~F~RN~Kris topher .mi~ARK' CRC:jj Enclosure LLP cc: San Marino HOA Board of Directors Jeffrey Roos of Bramelea California, Inc. 730/le[ters/fox. 001 FINGAL, FAHRNEY & CLARK, LLP ATTACHMENT A-2 APPEAL CORRESPONDENCE JUNE 24, '1996 F~[NGAL, FAHRNE¥ & CLAP. K, LLP 333 ~AYSIOF_. DRIVE NEW;PORT Dt~ACH. CALIFORN;A TELEDI~ONE [?~4} 557-767(~ TIELECOP~ER (?~4)755-1276 June 24, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714) 573-3113 - Elizabeth Binsack Daniel Fox, AICP City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Re: San Marino Appeal of Design Review 95-042 Dear Ms. Binsack and Mr. Fox: As you know, the San Marino Homeowners Association and the individual homeowners (,,HOmeowners,,) have been attempting to achieve a reasonable compromise with Bramalea California, Inc. ("Bramalea") regarding the San Marino development in Tustin Ranch. 'The Homeowners wanted to see the development built out originally planned and approved by the City of Tustin in 1990. In 1995, Bramalea requested that the City approve three new product types and an "updated" version of the largest of the previously approved product types. The Homeowners have objected to Bramalea's attempt to downgrade the development in terms of both overall square footage and quality of construction materials and amenities ,for a number of reasons. ' First, when each~of the Homeowners purchased their homes in the San Marino development it was represented to them that they were buying into an approved development that would be completed with the executive style homes demonstrated by the models and in the brochures. A number of Homeowners spoke directly t° Jeffery Roos of Bramalea before purchasing their hon]es in order to confirm that the development would be built out as originally designed and approved. The Homeowners did not collectively spend tens of millions of dollars on their homes and improvements to have their neighborhood downgraded with substantially inferior product types. Second, Bramalea"s attempt to build out the remaining seventy lots with substantially nonconforming product types to that originally approved for the development will have an immediate and devastating, impact on the value of the homes of the existing Homeowners. This dire concern of the Homeowners is not based on 730/le[ter~/fo×. Elizabeth Binsack Daniel Fox, AICP June 24, 1996 Page 2 changes in the market or other factors not within Bramalea's control. Rather, based solely on Bramalea's attempt to downgrade the remainder of the development with substantially ~onconforming product types, the homes of the existing Homeowners zn comparison to.the new product types will suffer substantial devaluation. Third, in addition to attempting to downgrade the remainder of the development thereby breaking promises and devaluing the existing homes, Bramalea has demonstrated a callus disregard for the safety and enjoyment of the existing Homeowners and their families. Bramalea's amendment application and statements made by Bramalea representatives early on in this process called for construction access to take place through the main entrance and directly through the existing neighborhood of the Homeowners and their children. Moreover, Bramalea insisted on'placing the models for the downgraded nonconfo~ning new product types on lots 40 to 43, directly across Chandler Drive from some of the existing homes causing traffic, parking and additional safety problems. (Bramalea has since agreed to move th6 ~odels to lots 81-84.) Starting from a desire ~to have the development built out as originally approved, the Homeowners have been sacrificing what was. promised to them by negotiating with Bramalea in these last few months. In contrast, Bramalea has been on a mission to see how much it could take out of the remainder of this development by whatever means possible. Although the Homeowners have negotiated with Bramalea in good faith to reach an amicable compromise, Bramalea has continued to be recalcitrant in its desire to rid the remaining homes in this development of a number of their quality design features. Some of these features that Bramalea still refuses to offer as standard items include living room fireplaces, clay tile roofs, Pella wood windows, sky- lights, and wood garage doors (Bramalea has indicated agreement to wood garage doors but this item has yet to be included as a design review condition). Consequently, in the recent Homeowners Association meeting on June 19, i996, the Homeowners voted to pursue, as the best possible alternauive under the circumstances, a split development as previously discussed in several planning commission meetings. The split development would require Bramalea to build.out the north side of the development with the same product types as originally designed and approved with the same materials and amenities included. The south side of the development would be built out with different product types, a different name for that side of the development, and a monument entrance where the new product types begin on Fairbanks Drive. 7]0/le~terg/fox. JU1'.t-24-98, '~"" .... ~..,~o.,'.~ 1 26 F'!;! Fir~K"' F'ahrne:,, & Clark Elizabeth Binsack Daniel Fox, AICP June 24, 1996 Page 3 A precedent has been set for this tyne of resolution in the San Raphael development approved by the C~y Council last year. A split development would achieve the goals,of both the builder a~d the Homeowners by allowin~ the Homeowners neighborhood to remain as originally designed and allow the builder to downgrade the south half of the development with the product types materials and amenities it so chooses. · Although. we Chink all those involved in this process would have preferred an amicable resolution to the situation through a mutually beneficial compromise, it seems unlikely that one will be achieved before the City Council meeting on July 1, 1996. Thank you both for all your hard work and long hours in this process. CRC: j j Very truly yours, FINGAL, FAHRNEY & CLARK, LLP Christopher R. Clark cc: San Merino HOA Board of Directors 7]O/le[~ers/fox. 00l ATTACHMENT B CITY ATTORNEY OPINION APRIL 7, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL MEMORANDUM TO: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Community Development/Planning City of Tustin FROM: City Attorney DATE: April 7, 1995 RE: Bramalea Letter Dated March 17, 1995 and Attached White Paper i have reviewed the above-referenced documents. ! am comfortable with the process that the City is using to review Bramalea's modification of its single family housing product in Tract 13908. Both the Tentative Map and Desian Review Approvals are Affected Although Bramalea is not purporting to change the number or lots or the footprint of its product, it. is making changes that affect the design of the project. The original Design Review approval was an integral part of the approval of the vesting tentative map, and vice versa. For example, the .vesting tentative map was approved subject to all conditions contained in Exhibit "A" to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2739. Condition No. 10.6 .of that resolution provides: "Prior to release of building permits all conditions of approval of Design Review 89-46 of the subject project shall be complied with.as shown on Exhibit "A" attached to Resolution No. 2738 and incorporated herein by reference." The Design Review approval embodied in Resolution No. 2738 provides in Condition 1.1 that the proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans, in addition, the Design Review approval was specifically based on certain findings as to height, bulk and area of building, exterior materials and colors, type and pitch of roofs, size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings, and the physical relationship of the proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. These conditions must be reviewed again as to the proposed modification of product type. In summary, in our opinion, the Design Review of the project and the Vesting Map go hand in hand, and to the extent that there is a change in the product type that would trigger a new Design Review or a modified Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Community Development/Planning City of Tustin April 7, 1995 Page 2 Design Review, then that also triggers a modification of the map. This does not mean, however, that the City has the discretion to decrease the number of lots, change the footprint of the original Vesting Map, or forbid the construction of single family homes. However, through the Design Review process, the City does have the ability to condition its approval of the product based on design criteria. Design Review is a Discretionary Review Bramalea's argument appears to be predicated on the proposition that the design review process is a "nondiscretionary review." Design review in the City of Tustin is not at all like approval of a final tract map, where the City Engineer advises the City Council as to whether or not the conditions of the tentative map have been fulfilled. While the City does not have the ability under the design review process to decrease or increase the size of the project, i.e., increase the number or units or decrease the number of units, the City does have the discretion to condition the project so as to affect the following: 1. The height, bulk and area of the building; . The set backs and site planning; 3. Exterior materials and colors; 4.- Type and pitch of roofs; . Size and spacing and windows, doors and other openings; o Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flag poles, radio and television antenna; 7. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation; 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination; ° Location and appearance of equipment located structure; and outside an enclosed 10. Other design features that relate to the compatibility of the proposed structures with others in the neighborhood. 11 OO-OOO22 11437_1 Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Community. Developm ent/P lanning City of Tustin April 7, 1995 Page 3 Accordingly, through the Design Review process, the City has the discretion to modify the design of the proposed product. The language in the Specific Plan quoted by Bramalea that refers to nondiscretionary projects and discretionary projects relates to the basic entitlement process, not to design review. We agree with Bramalea that they have "by right" the ability to build single family detached housing in Sector 8. They do not, for example, have to get a conditional use permit. However, how that housing product looks vis-g-vis the rest of the neighborhood is subject to discretionary Design Review. Summary · . Bramalea appears to be taking the position that the City has no discretionary approval authority over their modification of product type, and that the City must simply "rubber stamp" whatever they submit. This would be correct if Bramalea was at the building permit stage and was simply building out the project as originally planned and approved, and it met all the conditions imposed on the final map such as Design Review. However, we have a new proposed pro'duct type with different design features vis-g-vis the neighborhood, and the City is fully within its rights to require City review through the amended vesting map and Design Review process. As stated above, however, the City does not have the right to reduce the number of units in the project or forbid the construction of single family homes. I would be happy to discuss this further with you, or meet with Bramalea if you thought that would be helpful. LOIS E. JEFFREY LEJ:cas cc: William A. Huston, City Manager Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager 1100-00022 11437_1 WHITE PAPER AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO MODIFY PRODUCT SIZE - TUSTIN RANCH Bramalea, in order to respond to market conditions, desires to modify the single family housing product in its Tustin Ranch project. The City of Tustin (#City#) has taken the position that Bramalea must apply for an amended Vesting Tentative Map as well as a new Design Review approval. This White Paper analyzes the procedures available under the law to effectuate a modification of a housing product~ under the facts present in regard to Bramalea's project. The conclusions'of this ~ite Paper are: * the Vesting Tentative Map can not be amended because it has been subsumed in the recorded Final Map; * the Final Map can'not ~e amended because it contains no information nor operative conditions that must be amended in order to make changes Go the product size; and * the only procedure that the City can require· is the Design Review process- a non-discretionary review by the City's ~Bramalea seeks to effectuate a moderate downsizing of the housing product in order to accommodate market conditions. The analysis in this White Paper is equally applicable, however, to a request to increase the product size - provided that the product does not exceed the maximum criteria established by the Specific Plan. Planning Commission.2 The conclusions of this White Paper are based on the following faCts and law. DISCUSSION The development of the Tustin Ranch property is governed by a development agreement, a specific plan, a recorded final map based upon a vesting tentative map with conditions, and the ordinances laws and written policies of the City in effect at the time of the adoption and approval of these entitlements.- At one time, the project had received design review approval. That design review approval, given at the same time as the Vesting Tentative Map, has expired by its~own terms. The Development Aqreement. The Development Agreement,. adopted by Ordinance No. 978 of the City in November 1986, is valid and binding until at least the year 2001 (Section 4.1). The Development Agreement incorporates the Specific Plan as the allowed plan of development (Exhibit C). One of the key assurances given to the developer by the Development Agreement is: Mthat in the city's administration of the Specific 2In general, with discretionary projects, a city has the ability to approve or disapprove a project based upon its judgment regarding the wisdom of the project.. With non- discretionary projects, however, a city is limited to verifying whether or not the submittal meets previously determined criteria. If the submittal meets the criteria, it must be approved - regardless of other considerations. Plan, the Developer will be allowed the flexibility, consistent with the Specific Plan, required for it .t.o respond to the marketplace in terms of housinq types and intensities, the development of mixed uses, and reconfiguration of land uses, so long as in so doing the overall intensity and density of development, and the range of uses within sectors identified in'the specific Plan are not exceeded.# (Page 6, emphasis added.) Thus, the Development Agreement expressly recognizes the market- driven character of product size and provides flexibility to the developer to meet that demand. In keeping with that recognition, the Development Agreement does not mandate minimum product sizes in any residential area, but rather limits the maximum allowable size and heights of building to those set out in Section 3 of the Specific Plan (page 29, ¶ 2.2). Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is a comprehensive document for the development of the various properties in East Tustin, including Bramalea's Tustin Ranch Property.' As with the Development Agreement, one 'of the objectives of the S~ecific Plan is to "provide flexibility to incorporate a variety of housing types to meet housing demands" (page 1-7). The components of the Plan "are to be regarded as general guidelines for development" (page 2-1). And, the Specific Plan is intended "to enable a more efficient and timely approval process for new development" (page 2-6). As' to the Sector of the Specific Plan of which Tustin Ranch is a part, the operative Specific Plan3 limits.density but sets no minimum for product size. Processing of individual projects, such as Bramalea's product modification, are non-discretionary actions-under defined circumstances: #Following approval of a Sector Plan with an initial subdivision map, a subsequent subdivision map with individual #Development Projects# may be processed. Development Projects include but are not limited to subdivision of detached or attached single family homes, multifamily homes (apartments), shopping centers, office complexes, etc. #Ail development projects shall be subject to Planning Commission review as either a non-discretionary pro_~ect if Dermitted by riqht in the specific land use area or discretionary project (public hearing) if subject to a conditional use permit." Pages 3-54, emphasis added. The Specific Plan establishes that single family detached housing is the product permitted by right in Sector 8.~ Bramalea's project, as a single family housing product, is, therefore, permitted by right in Sector 8' Accordingly, it must be reviewed. as a non-discretionary project and must be approved if it meets the standards and policies set out in the Specific Plan. ~The Specific Plan has been amended several times. The Development Agreement, however, ~freezes in time~ the general plan, specific plan, zoning and other laws applicable to the project. Therefore, the amendments to the Specific Plan can not be applied to the project without the consent of Bramalea. This fact is academic, however. Even though one amendment sets a minimum size of 900 square feet for single family homes in Sector 8 (the Sector containing this project), the lowest product size requested by Bramalea is 2819 square feet - far larger than 900 square foot minimum. kin.other words, no conditional use permit is needed in order to obtain approval of that product. Vestinq Tentative Map, Desiqn Review Approval and Final MaD. The Vesting Tentative MaP for the Tustin Ranch was approved in February 1990 with conditions, including: #General 10.6: Prior to release of building permits all conditions of approval of Design Review 89-46 of the' subject project shall be complied with as shown on Exhibit A attached to Resolution No. 2738 and incorporated herein by reference.# Design Review 89-46 contained numerous conditions, including a . condition that the Design Review approval would expire if all building permits were not issued within 18 months of the approval. Design Review 89-46 General Condition 1.3. All building permits had not been issued by that date (August 1991). Therefore, the Design Review approval i's no longer in effect. The City has recognized that this Design Review approval is null and void in its entirety by requiring Bramalea to submit a new design review approval application. In order to implement the product, oBramalea must go through design approval. Pursuant to the terms of the Specific Plan, quoted above, the design review process is a non-discretionary review. Prior to the expiration of the Vesting Tentative Map, a Final Map was approved and recorded. That Final Map is now the governing land use map for the property. That Final Map does not depict any set backs, pad areas, building sizes, curb cuts, or other design features. Those features continue to be.governed by the criteria set out in the operative Specific Plan and Development Agreement. Once a final map has been recorded, the vesting tentative map which proceeded it ceases to be of any effect. The statutory scheme subsumes the vesting tentative map within the recorded final map. See, Government Code §§ 66457, 66458, 66464, 66466. If major changes are to be made in a development - such as numerous lot-size changes or use changes (such as residential to commercial), a new map would be required. If, however, the lot sizes remain constant, construction of the appropriate type product (e.g. single family detached) on those lots is allowed under the law. Although certain conditions of the Vesting Tentative Map may survive the recording of the Final Map, completed or expired conditions do not survive nor do they gain new life because they were attached to a vesting tentative map. The Bramalea Vesting Tentative Map incorporated #all# of the conditions of the Design Review, includinq its expiration dat~. Although, in theory the City could have required that the other design conditions would survive the'expiration of the Design Approval itself, the City did not.do so. Therefore, because by the express conditions of the Design Review approval that Design Review approval expired in August 1991, it would be a non- sequitur, insupportable by under any law, to require a condition which expired of its own volition to be amended after that expiration. Additionally, herein, requiring an amendment to the Vestin~ Tentative Map is directly contrary to the assurance given by the Development Agreement that the developer will have #the flexibility ... to respond to the marketplace in terms of housing types .... " Such-a requirement violates the policy of the Specific Plan to ~provide flexibility" and #to enable a more efficient and timely approval process.# It is also directly contrary to the #law# of the Specific Plan that such development projects ~shall be ... a non-discretionary project if permitted by right.# In short, the City can not require an amendment to this Vesting Tentative Map. Amendment to Final Map not available. Nor could the City require an amendment to the recorded Final Map herein. Under certain limited circumstances, a final map may be amended. Government Code § 66472.1 provides in pertinent part: #[A]fter a final map ... is'filed in the office of the county recorder, such a recorded final map may be modified by a certificate of correction or an amending map, if authorized by local ordinance, if the local agency finds that there are changes in circumstances which make any or all of the conditions of such a map no lOnger appropriate or necessary and that the modificatiOns do not impose ~ny additional burden on the present fee owner of the property, and if the modifications do not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property reflected on the recorded map, and the local agency finds that the map as modified conforms to the provisions of Section 66474 [setting out the reasons tentative maps should be denied]. Any such modification shall be set for public hearing as provided for in Section 66451.3 of this division. The legislative body shall confine the hearing to consideration of and action on the Proposed modification.- This provision is not applicable for at least two independent reasons: 1. The Tustin City Code contains no such authorizing statute.~ 2. Even if Tustin had the proper authorizing local statute, this Government Code section would not be applicable: a. The final map does not depict the building sizes Or other design features. Therefore, there is no change on the final map required to make it accurately depict the proposed product size modification. b. The finding that #changes in circumstances make no longer appropriate or necessary a condition of the map~ only applies to valid and operative conditions found on the final map itself. As discussed above, the Design Review approval, and its conditions, became inoperative of its own volition over three years ago. There is no operative condition of the final map to change. In conclusion, the City can la~fully require a new Design Review approval. In that submittal, Bramalea must comply with the criteria established'by the Development Agreement and the Specific Pian. The City's review of that submittal will be limited to determining whether or not those criteria have been met. The City, however, can not lawfully require an amendment either to the Vesting Tentative Map or to the recorded Final Map. ~The Tustin City Code does provide for amendment of vesting tentative maps prior to their expiration (see, section 9335.07). That provision clearly is not applicable to the facts herein. ATTACHMENT C NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARIES BRAMAL~/HOMEOWNERS MEETING OPTIONS PRESENTED AT THE APRIL 15, 1996 MEETING Construction of. modified Plan 4 on Lots I and 2 and construction of the new product on the remainder of the parcels (option to construct additional modified Plan 4s if the market supports a demand). Old model complex (Lots I & 2) would be constructed in Phase I. · Construction of original' product on all remaining vacant lots · In response, Bramalea offered this option on April 16. Construction of southernmost Lots 44-83 with the proposed product; Model Complex would be constructed on Lots 40-43. Lot 1, 2, 22-26, 30-39, 85-89, and 94-96 will be omitted from the subject application. A separate Design Review will be requested at a future date. · Amenity Level~: Offer same or · equivalent amenities as were provided with'original development. However, some amenities will be optional with the exception of skylights.- Bramalea maintains that the amenities options and construction materials are those in demand by the market. Bramalea offered a comparison among the existing, proposed, Standard Pacific, Taylor Woodrow-Mahogany & Mayfield and JM Peters products. Construction of Modified Plan 4 on Lot 1, 2, 30, 89 and 96. Developer would include a Modified Plan 4 in the model complex so additional construction of the Modified Plan4 could be made. Purpose - to provide a better transition between the existing and proposed products. Amenity levels: Offer/provide the lame or equivalent amenities as were provided in the original development Construc. tion of the original product on the following lots: 1, 2, 22-26, 30- 43, 85-89 and 94-96 (29 homes total to · be constructed with the original product); construction of the new product on the following lots: 44-84 (41 homes total.to be constructed with the new product). Purpose of the option -segregation between the existing product and the proposed product; construction Phasing: Homeowner's mentioned development of the southernmost lots as Phase I; relocate model complex to south side of development BRAMALEA/HOMEOWNERS MEETING OPTIONS PRESENTED AT THE APRIL 24, 1996 MEETING · Would look at relocating model complex; possibility of side agreement · On May 7, Bramalea offered to omit Lots 1, 2, 22-26, 30-39, 85-89 and 94-96 from consideration; rename modified Plan zi to Plan 8; Model a Plan 8 and not Model a Plan 5; create a separate marketing name for the new residences. In response to Bramalea's April 16th offer, would like to resolve all at one time; commit to construct original product on LOts 1, 2, 22-26, 30-43, 85-89 and 94-96 rather than omit; implement side agreement not to apply for any other changes unless acceptable to residents; build model complex adjacent to' La Colina Drive with temporary access from La Colina Drive BRAMALEA/HOMEOWNERS MEETING *' OPTIONS PRESENTED AT THE MAY 20 and MAY 28, 1996 MEETINGS On May 20, 1996, the applicant offered to: · Relocate model complex to Lots 81-84 · Eliminate 2,800 s.f. Plan 5 (Single story) · Build up-dated 3,188 s.f. Plan 1 (Single story) · Build up-dated 3,868 s.f. Plan 3 · Build up-dated 4,165 s.f. Plan 4 · Build new 3,285 s.f. and 3,608 s.f. Plan 6 and Plan 7 · All Plans will have up-dated ameni,ty levels as previously indicated with the following changes: - wood sectional roll up garage doors instead of metal - clay and concrete roof tile options at no cost - optional skylights · On May 28, 1996, the residents responded to the applicant's May 20, 1996 proposal to: · Eliminate the 3,285 s.f. Plan 6 Revise the site plan to identify the plotting mix of Plans 1,3,4 and 7 and establish a minimum threshold for the unit mix (i.e. to ensure all Plan l's are not built on remaining lots). Have an independent architect to evaluate the original construction drawings with the proposed construction drawings to ensure same quality and detailing. Amenity levels should be modified to include: - Sunken living rooms in Plans I & 4 - Add box/bay windows in Plans 1 &4 - Fireplaces and skylights should be offered as standard features as in original plans; if not desired by home buyer, eliminate for credit. · Add curved staircase in Plan 7 ATTACHMENT D AMENITY LEVEL SUMMARY ATTACHMENT E APPLICANT CORRESPONDENCE FROM DONALD L. JONES, REAL ESTATE APPRAISER onald L. Jones Real Estate Appraisal 2S$0! Cabot Road. Suite I05 · Laguna Hills, CA 92653 · (714) 699-3770 · Fax (714) 699-$778 Bramalea 27432 Calle Arroyo San Juan Capistrano Mr. Roos Per our conversation, I have reviewed the proposed changes for the new phases at the San Marino tract in Tustin Ranch. I would like t~'comment that I have extemive appraisal experience in the Tusfin Ranch area and in the individual Corte Villas, Palo Vista, Monterey, Alicante, Almeria, Malaga, San Marino and the other tracts. My experience also covers the new and resale markets of custom constructed residences and estates in other prestigious developments over the last twenty years. Three changes that have been proposed as follows: 1' Concrete "S" tile of the same color as the existing clay tile. · Five local roof'mg contractors were surveyed; they reported that once the concrete or clay tile has been installed on the roofs, not even licensed roofing contractors can easily distinguish between the two different flies. 2: Vinyl windows architecturally comparable to existing wood windows. Three custom home conu'aetors were surveyed and they reported that eighty percent of/.he new custom residences have considered vinyl windows versus wood windows. Sixty percent of them reportedly Chose the vinyl windows ove? the wood windows, which indicates a higher demand for vinyl windows. The continued repainting maintenance for wood windows was deciding factor. 3: A steel sectional garage visually identical to existing wood garage doors. Residential tract home builders are changing to steel doors, custom home builders report that they are still instalIing custom wood doors. Per my extensive appraisal experience and conversations with local appraisers and a number of new home buyers; The clay tile roofs and the vinyl windows would not have a marketable effect. Fifty percent indicated a maximum value difference of up to $2,000. for the garage door differences. ' ,,,~o~d L. Jones Ct-~fied Residentia¥~ppraiser. INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPM'ENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 (7~4) SZS-S~OS INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND Project Titlei AMENDMENT TO VTT 13908 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-042 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 3 00 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Lead Agency Contact Person: DANIEL FOX Phone: (714) 573-3115 Project Location: SOUTHWEST CORNER~ OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP DRIVE · ,. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Project Description: BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA 27432 CALLE ARROYO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CA 92675 ATT: JEFF ROOS PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLgNNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAl ADD THREE NEW RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT.TYPES TO BUILDOUT OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT Surrounding Uses: North South VACANT East SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL West Other public agencies whose approval is required: 123 Orange County Fire Authority I~ Orange County Health Care Agency I~1 South Coast Air Quality Management District [2] Other · . SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL City of Irvine [] City of Santa Ana 12] Orange County EMA .. o. Be ( ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Ak Quality Transportation & CirculatiOn Biological Resources Energy and h,fimeral Resources H,7_~_rds Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [23 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION ,,vili be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be fi significani effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or .mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. [~] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects I) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed p~ - ,r MARCH 29~ 1996 Signature Date DANIEL FOX Printed Name Title SENIOR PLANNER Do ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: [] Earlier analyses used: EIR 85-2, AS AMENDFD Available for review at: City ofTustin C6mmunity Development Department 1. LAND USE & PLANNING- Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plar~q or policies adopted by agencies .with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with ~g land uses in thc vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of aa established community (including a low-income or minority community)7 · 2. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections7 b) Induce substantial gr°vd:h in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)7 c) Displace existing housing, especially affordabIe housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:. a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction7 d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 4. x~VATER - IVould the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or property to water related ha?ards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of',water movements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 f') Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? e ge 5. AIR QUALITY - WouM the proposal: . a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create Objectionable odors? TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION- Wouldthe proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ', b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipmen0? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity onSite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 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? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region? Potentially Sixnificant Impact l'otemtall), Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No I~npact [3 0 0 [3 [3 [3 O. [3 [3 0 0 [3 [3 [3 [3 [3 o 0 0 0 0 [3. 0 0 [3 [3 0 0 © 0 E] 0 0 0 0 [~x 9. HAZARi)S - lffould the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental eXplosion or release of hazardous substances (in.eluding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)7 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? I0. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: 11. 12. 13. a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise le~,els? PUBLIC SERVICE~ - WouM the prOPosal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered g°vernment services in any of the following areas: · a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads.5 e) Other government services? UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - WouM 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? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage7 f) Solid waste disposal? g) Loc21 or regional water supplies? AESTHETICS - Would the proposal: . a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially Signi. ficant bnpact Polentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 ' E] 0 '0 0 0 .. ._ 0 0 0 C] E] E] 0 0 0 ~x 0 E] 0 E~ 0 0 F1 E] 0 0 0 0 .0 E] 0 E] E] 0 0 E] E] 0 0 0 E] E] . 0 E] E] 0 0 E] 0 0 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological, resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources.'? 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 area7 15.. RECREATION - Would the protzosal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?- b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade ihe 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 endahgered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California tristory or prehistory? 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 ora projecrare 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 xvill cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I'o. .tally Significant Potentially Unless Less than Significant A4itigation Significant Impact Incorporated ltnpact No Impact o [~x 0 0 0 []x [3 o o o ~x 0 0 0 0 0 0 E~x me EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. INITSTUD. PM5 3702A ATTACHMENT A TIERED INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13908 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-042 BACKGROUND In February Of 1990, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map.13908 which authorized the subdivision of an approximate 28.7-acre site to accommodate 97 single-family detached residential units. Subsequent to that approval, the developer recorded the Final Map and commenced construction of the development. To date, 27 of the 97 dwellings (28% of the project) have been completed. The applicant is.requesting approval to add three new residential product types to the buildout of the project. The total number of dwelling unitb .for this project wilt not be increased. The improvDment of this property is governed by the regulations adopted' by the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP)-and the City's Grading Ordinance. The subject site is located in Sector 8 of the ETSP and is bordered by Township Drive and Lot 4 of Tract 12870, which is currently vacant, to 'the north, Tustin Ranch Road to the east, La Colina Drive to the south, and unincorporated County territory to the west. 'This is a tiered initial 'stUdy that is based on and incorporates by reference, the environmental analysis included in EIR 85-2 for the ETSP (certified on March 17, 1986) and subsequently amended with supplements and addenda, as it relates to the subject property. In conformance with CEQA, the purpose Of this tiered initial study is to identify and focus the environmental analysis for the project on significant new envirOnmental.impacts that were not previously considered in the Program EIR, as amended. EIR 85-2, as amended, identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City for the entire ETSP area. For the purpose'of this initial study check list, these items have been checked "Potentially Significant Impact" and 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 be sure no new project impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified in the Program EIR, as amended. For the purposes--of this initial study check list, these items have .been checked "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" and the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR, as amended, that would be Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 2 applicable to this project that are included as part of the project have been identified. 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 accordingly to ensure' that the project would not create any additional significant impacts whichwere not considered by EIR 85-2, as amended, and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. LAND USE & PLANNING Items a, b and e --"No Impact": The subject property is · designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community - Residential. The subject property is zoned Planned Community Residential and is identified within the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation of. the ETSP Land Use Plan. The proposed uses.bn the property are consistent with those land use designations. The proposed project would n6t alter existing or future land uses. Item c - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiqation Incorporated": 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, a~ amended, have been incorporated into the -~roject or would be required as conditions of approval which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR, as amended. The project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Item d - "Potentially Siqnificant 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. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Specific Plan. Since the subject property has been identified for residential development, the project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 3 Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiq~tion/Monitorinq Required: Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the ETSP, which address building height, building setbacks, parking requirements, and other site. development standards.and would ensure that the buildout of the existing development complies with the mitigation measures specified-in the certified EIR 85-2, amended. ' as · POPULATION Items a and b - "Potentiallsi nificant ~: The existing development includes a total of 97 dwelling units, 27 of which have been constructed to date. The Low Density deSignation would permit 6p to 114 units pursuant to the ETSP, which allows a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre on the subject site. The existing development was approved at 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, -as amended. The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to population. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to population into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval where applicable for the subject project. ' , Item c - "No Impact'S: Since the project site is currently vacant, no housing units or population' would be displaced. The project would provide new dwellings for the planned population. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 4 Mitiqation/Monit°ring Required: Adherence to and compliance With the guidelines and provisions of the ETSP, which address building height, building setbacks,, parking requirgments, and other site development standards and would'ensure that the buildout of the existing'development complies with mitigation measures specified'in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended. · GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items b, h and i - "Potentially Siqnificant Unless Mitiqation Incorporated": EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the necessary grading activity that would occur in order 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 p~rt of Tract 12870 and subsequently graded to accommodate development of th9 proPerty .consistent With the approved plans.. Minor precise gra~ing will be.required to accommodate the buildout of the existing development. The project has' been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified to the site and topography in the Program EIR, as amended. Item f - "Potentially Significant Impact": EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the necessary, grading activity that would occur in .order to accommodate the various typg~ of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography of the area. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against, the 'project's unavoidable effect. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was prepared to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit of the Specific Plan area and region. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified to the site and topography in the Program EIR, as amended. Items a, c-e, q and i -"No Impact"' The proposed development will not expose people to potential fault ruptures, liquefaction, volcanic hazards or mudflows. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 5 · Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: A detailed soils engineering report and grading plans for the site are required as a condition of approval to ensure'that all-grading activities on the site minimize grading impacts. WATER Items a, b and g - "Potentially Siqnificant 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 City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified, in the Program EIR, as~ amended. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85~2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those' measures related to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water percolation into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable. Items c-f, h and i - "No Impact": The proposed buildout of the existing development is within the Specific Plan area. The certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to water quality. The project has been reviewed and will not worsen or create additional impacts than those previously identified on water quality in the Program EIR, as amended. Applicable mitigation'~measures were 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. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 6 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, including plans to ac6ommodate increase runoff flows associated with the proposed development by incorporating on-site and off-site drainag~ improvements, providing erosion control measures and developing appropriate pollution control plans have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. Erosion control measures will-be developed and incorporated into final grading planJ for the. project to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during the short-ter~ construction phases. · AIR OUALITY Item a - "Potentially Siqnificant Impact": The subject site is within the project ar~a for which the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, determined that the ETSP will result in an incremental degradation of air quality in conjunction with other past, 'present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit of the Specific Plan area and region. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified impacts on Air Quality in the Program EIR as amended. Conditions of approval will be required for the project to meet applicable mitigation measures, as required-by the certified-EIR 85-2, as amended. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2, as amended, related to air quality impacts, such as encouraging the use of alternate transportation modes, and the encouraging of ridesharing will be incorporated as mitigation measures. Items b, c and d - "No Impacts": The proposed buildout of the existing development will not alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause any changes in climate, or create objectional odors. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan (' Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to ~TT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 7 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Construction activity dust generation shall be' 'reduced through regular watering as required ~y the SCAQMD Rule 403. Additionally, mitigation measures encouraging use of alternative transportation methods have been made available to the project as part of Tract'12870 the Sector level map. These measures identified in certified · EIR 85-2, as amended, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated 'as conditions of approval. · TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Item a - "Potentially Significant Impact": The subject single-family residential project is within the density range permitted by the ETSP. .The impacts from the project were previously addressed in certified EIR 85-2, as amended. The program EIR as amended, identified that ETSP will generate increased traffic in the vicinity. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan ~nd balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects and- chose to adopt a Statement of. Overriding Considerations. 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. The project will not 'create additional impacts, than those previously identified on the transportation and circulation in the Program EIR, as amended. This proposal has incorporated applicable measures related to transportation/circulation into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Items b-q - "No Impact": EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects on traffic safety, emergency access, demand for new parking pedestrian circulation,-and alternative modes of transportation. As all required~parking would be provided On site, there would be no demand for additional parking. 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, Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 8 bicyclists or pedestrians would be mitigated. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified 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. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified'EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Conditions of approval require that the private street system and residential development on the site shall meet the requirements of the ETSP, and the Tustin City.Code. Also, a condition of approval requires that a street i~provement plan be provided for all construction within the public right-of-way. Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the ETSP will .ensure that the buildout of the existing development complies with mitigation measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended. · BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a-e - "Potentially Significant UnleSs Mitiqated": ' ~he project site is presently under construction with 27 of 93 units completed. The site is within the ETSP area for which certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to plant and animal life. Applicable mitigation' measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to plant and animal life into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Sources' Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 9 Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures require revegetation on graded and cut-and-fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed, with consideration given to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials, such as the eucalyptus, pinus canariensis, schinus molle, bougainvillea, and pittosporum. These mitigation measures have been- incorporated into the project as submitted, or will be incorporated as.conditions of approval. ~ ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and c - "No Impact": The proposed buildout of the existing development will not create additional impacts 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 - "Potentiall% Siqnificant Unless Mitiqation Incorporated,,: Implementation of this project as well'as the ETSP as a whole, will increase the demand for and consumption of. energy. The project site is.within the Specific Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2', as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to. the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to energy. However, the project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. The City Council considered the benDfits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to energy into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR'85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures identified 'in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, require that building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, that energy conservation techniques be Attachment A - Initial Study 'Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 10 · considered, that insulation of walls, ceiling and floors be required, and that energy efficient lighting be used. These. mitigation measures related to energy, as applicable, have been incorporated into the project as submitted' or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. ~tAZARDS 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. Item c - "Potentially Siqnificant Unless Mitiqated": 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. This'developmeot has previously incorporated those measures related to human health into the project. No additional impacts, would be created beyond those ideJtified in the Program EIR, as amended. Sources: Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: Non~ required. ,iI 10. .NOISE Item a - "Potentially Siqnificant Impacts'.: 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 amended. The City Council considered the benefits of the ETSP original program EIR as amended, and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects' A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Mitigation measures addressing the acoustic.environment were. identified in the program EIR, as amended, and are included in the submitted project, or would be conditions of approval. Attachment A - Initial-Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 11 Item b - "No Impact": The proposed buildout of the existing development will not expose persons to severe noise levels. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as'amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: 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. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a - e - "Potentially Siqnificant Impact": Implementation 6~ 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, schools, parks and recreational facilities. Impacts to~ public services were originally considered as part of EIR 85-2, as amended. The project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended, as the impacts anticipated that the site would be designated as Low Density Residential by the land use plan, allowing up to 4 dwelling units per acre, resulting in a maximum of 114 units. The proposed project would provide 93 single-family residences with a density of 3.5 units per acre. The subjec~ site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85.-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to pUblic services. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 12 balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Additionally, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as- amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related t9 public services into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, such as; stating the project sponsor shall work closely with the Police Department, the Orange County Fire Department and other governmental services. to ensure adequate security, safety and s~rvices for the project; a street improvement plan required for all construction in the public right-of,way; and a parkland dedication for this .project have been incorporated into the project. These measures identified in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, have been incorporated 'into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a-q - "Potentially Significant Impact": The ETSP will increase the demand for utilities. The project will not create additional impacts than those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects on the use of.utilities. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Specific Plan. Sources' Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 13 13. AESTHETICS Items a and b "Potentially Siqnificant Unless Mitiqated": The three additional product types proposed to be added to the buildout of the project include similar architectural features,'detailing, colors and materials consistent with the existing and previously approved units for the development. The project 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 aesthetics. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified through Design Review in conjunction with EIR 85-2, as amended. 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, for the subject project. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified 'in the Program EIR, as amended. Item c ~- "Potentially Significant Impact": The proposed buildout of the ex~sting development will create additional ligh~ 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, and the City Council 'considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits 'against .~e project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan and mitigation measures were identified .in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to light and'glare.into the submitted plans. The mitigation measures would also- be included in the conditions of approval for the project. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 1390.8 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 14 ~itigation/Monitorinq Required: Conditions of approval for the project require that a lighting plan be submitted for the project, and that no lights that create any glare or have a negative impact on adjoining properties shall be permitted. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a, c and d - "No Impact": The subject site is within the Specific Plan area.and the certified EIR' 85~2, as amended iden'~ified impacts to the project site related to the.proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. This project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. Item b - "Potentially Siqnificant Unless Mitigated',: EIR 85- 2, as amended, identified impacts related to archaeological resources related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effect~ to cultural resources. The project has also been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended, as this project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 15. RECREATION Items_~a and b - "~otentiall Si nificant Unless Mi~ 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 0.9894 acres was previously dedicated as part of Tract 12870 to satisfy the parkland required by the ETSP. Furthermore, all parks identified by the ETSP have been reserved for the purpose of providing recreation in the ETSP. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 13908 and DR 95-042 March 29, 1996 Page 15 Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None Required. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a-d - "No Impact": The project in and of itself will n6t cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor limit the achievement of any long-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which are Rotentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. Theprogram EIR 85- 2, as amended, addressed all of these concerns and this. project is fully within the scope of that dischssion. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin city Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East-Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required. DF:br:TT13908oENV