HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 TT MAP 13908 08-05-96DATE:
AUGUST 5, 1996
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13908 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 95-042 (BRAMALEA)
APPLICANT:
APPELLANTS:
RECOMMENDATION
Jeff Roos, Bramalea
Chris Clark representing the San Marino Homeowners'
Association
That the City Council ratify its decision of July 1, 1996 to:
1. Approve the environmental determination for the project by
adopting Resolution No. 96-78;
2. Modify the Planning Commission's action and approve Design
Review 95-042 by adopting Resolution No. 96-79; and,
3. Approve Amendment to Tentative Tract 13908 by adopting
Resolution No. 96-80.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On July 1, 1996, the City Council considered a request by the
applicant to update three original product types and add two new
product types to the build out of the existing development and an
appeal of the Planning Commission's action filed by the San Marino
Homeowners' Association. A copy of the City Council meeting
minutes has been included as Attachment A. The applicant agreed to
a number of additional conditions of approval at the July 1, 1996
City Council Report
Amend TT 13908, Appeal of DR 95-042
August 5, 1996
Page 2
City Council meeting to address the outstanding concerns of the San
Marino Homeowners' Association which include:
Sky lights shall be provided as standard features in the
Updated Plans 1, 3 and 4 consistent with the original
product.
Clay tile roofs shall.be provided on all plans consistent
with the original product.
Wood sectional roll-up garage doors shall be provided on
all plans as a standard feature consistent with the
original product.
Fire places in the living room of all plans shall be
provided as a standard feature.
Premium brand vinyl frame windows shall be provided as
standard features on all plans. Premium brand wood frame
window shall be offered as an optional feature at
builder's cost.
A different marketing name shall be provided for the
build out of the project.
Separate plan numbers shall be provided for th~ updated
Plans 1, 3 and 4.
These items are included as Conditions 3.5 through 3.11 in Exhibit
A of Resolution No. 96-79. All other conditions included as part
of the Planning Commission's aCtion on the Design Review have also
been included in the City Council's Resolution of approval.
Daniel Fo ,~Ai
Senior Planner
Elizabeth A. Bihsack
Community Development Director
EAB: DF: br: kbm/TT13 9 0 8. RES
Attachments: Attachment A - City Council Meeting Minutes;
July 1, 1996
.~ Resolution N6s. 96-78, 96-79, and 96-80
..
ATTACHMENT A
JULY 1, 1996
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 2, 7-1-96
4e
le
Mayor Worley opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. There were
speakers on the subject and the public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Saltarelli, to adopt ~e
following Resolution No. 96-72 ordering the annexatio] of
additional territory to Tustin Landscape and Lighting Distri and
confirming the annual levy of assessments:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-72 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF ,DITIONAL
TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING DISTRICT AND CONFIRMING THE 1996-
97 FISCAL YEAR LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE T,
MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC LANDSCAPING LIGHTING
FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY ILUDED IN THE
TUSTIN LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT
Motion carried 4-0, Potts absent.
ADOPTING THE CITY BUDGET AND WATER ENTER
FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 (Agenda Order)
E BUDGET FOR THE
William Huston, City Manager, reported ~t staff recommended
including in the budget $20,000.00 in 01ice overtime for a
special enforcement detail; stated t~ ical Society had
requested $7,500.00, the same amount C¢ :il granted last year for
facility rent;'a non-departmental disc fund for various
non-profit funding requests coUld be ~cluded in the budget upon
Council approval; staff recommende, $11,000.00 reduction in
Community Development Block Grant due to final entitlement
from the Department of Housing and Development; and he noted
a computer needs.assessment and ~erred maintenance account for
'capital facilities would be pre~ ~ted to Council in October.
Council/staff discussion follc ~d regarding that a discretionary
fund had been included in budget in the past but had been
discontinued; continue revi, ing funding requests on a case-by-
case basis; Tustin Communit tion objective was to raise and
disperse funds to the cc Historical Society's funding
request was the same as year; a fundraising event had been
delayed; and the reque ed amount would benefit the Historical
Society.
It was moved seconded bV Doyle, to approve a
$7,500.00 allocati, to the Historical Society in the 1996/97
budget.
Motion carried Potts absent.
Mayor Worley ~ned the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. There were no
speakers on subject and the public hearing was closed.
·
It was seconded by Thomas, to adopt the following
Resolutic No. 96-76 appropriating the City's Governmental Funds
of $36,( 985.00; Special Revenue Funds of $8,824,002.00; and the
City's Enterprise Budget of $15,488,389.00:
NO. 96-76 -'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY BUDGET AND
FROM THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES OF THE CITY FOR THE
;CAL YEAR 1996-97
iL__-_/ : i, i_t': ...... , ,, ,,,:
AMENDMENT TO~ VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13908 AND APPEAL OF
DESIGN REVI~ 95-042 (BRAMALEA)
Dan Fox, Senior Planner, reported that the San Marino development
had been approved in 1990 for 97 single family detached dwellings;
the site was located at the southWest corner of Tustin Ranch Road
and Township Drive; to date, 27 units had been completed; the
Planning Commission had recently approved a revised project
presented by the applicant; the revised project included
construction of three updated original units, the addition of two
CITY COUNCIL MINUTE:
Page 3, 7-1--96
new dwelling units and a number of other specific elements; noted
that the San Marino Homeowners Association's appeal of the
Planning Commission action; a variety of amenity levels and
elevation details had been under discussion; and the applicant and
appellant had reached a compromise prior to the Council meeting.
Mayor Worley opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
The following members of the audience spoke in favor of a
compromise reached between Bramalea and the San Marino HomeOwners
Association agreeing to condition modifications including
skylights would be standard in certain plans; a separate marketing
name used for the balance of the development; new plan numbers for
the new product line; wood sectional garage doors standard
throughout the remainder of the development; 'living room
fireplaces standard in all plans; standard clay roof tiles;
standard premium quality vinyl windows with an option at builder's
cost for premium wood windows; and future review of proposed plan
~3:
Christopher Clark, San Marino Homeowners Association
representative
Jeff Roos, Bramalea California, Inc.
Council/speakers discussion followed regarding that the residents
had compromised on north/south separation of the complex; and the
proposed agreement was final.
The following member of the audience voiced concern regarding
Bramalea requesting future modifications on the project; requested
the City remain firm in agreements with developers to prevent
modifications subsequent to project approval; and requested
investigation into Lennar Corporation, the company acquiring
Bramalea, for ~reported inferior construction in Dade County,
Florida:
Carl Hatterman
There were no other speakers on the subject and the public hearing
was closed at 7:48 p.m.
Councilmember Saltarelli stated his displeasure that the San
Marino residents were subjected to negotiate a compromise with the
developer; the original plan depicted high quality homes and a
homogeneous neighborhood; the 27 homeowners' belief upon purchase
of their homes that the remaining homes would be constructed to
standards set forth in a Council-approved Design Review; the
City's reputation of cooperating with developers during the
recession; and questioned whether the homeowners would prefer to
have the lots remain vacant rather than compromise on the proposed
new home prrduct.
Mr. Clark responded that the homeowners would prefer construction
of the original proposed development, but feared what future
development would bring if the compromise was voided.
Coun¢ilmember Saltarelli stated he was reluctant to approve the
project, believed the residents felt forced to approve the
compromise rather than leave the land vacant, and this was a major
Council policy decision that would impact future developments.
Mayor Worley stated her opposition to questioning the compromise
that had been reached after difficult and lengthy negotiations.
Mayor Pro Tem Thomas stated that the homeowners should meet for
additional discussion of the proposed options; said he was
hesitant about voting on this issue without a full Council
present; and the importance of Council representing the residents
on this issue.
Mayor Worley reopened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m.
·
The foll6wing member of the audience spoke regarding the
homeowners' wish to leave the land vacant rather than construct
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 4, 7-1-96
the proposed product; supported the original proposed development;
the homeowners were forced to compromise on this issue; and stated
that Council should remain firm .regarding past approved
developments:
Mark Franzen, San Marino resident
The following member of the audience stated that the original
product had been approved in 1989; the product had not sold well;
Bramalea had planned.to build the project as originally proposed;
changing market conditions must be addressed; Bramalea had worked
with the.homeowners for an acceptable new product line; described
the new product and its modifications; and supported the proposed
modifications:
Jeff Roos, Bramalea California, Inc.
Council/speaker Roos discussion followed regarding proposed roof
and window design modifications; architectural similarities
between the existing plans and proposed plans; modification of the
product line had'been based upon market analysis; and Bramalea had
lost $20 million on the San Marino development.
The following member' of the audience commended Councilmember
Saltarelli for stating his concerns on this matter; and requested
the remaining Councilmembers state their position regarding future
developers requesting product modifications after Council
approval:
Michael Nermon, 2460 Kiser, Tustin
·
The following member of the audience spoke regarding the
homeowners voting on whether to accept the compromise; homeowners,
fear that a Council' tie vote would result in approval of the
Planning Commission recommendation without homeowner-approved
project modifications; San Marino Homeowners Association,s
preference that Council deny the proposed compromise
modifications; and the homeowners believed there was no
alternative other than accepting the proposed compromise:
Christopher Clark, San Marino Homeowners Association
representative
Mayor Worley closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Mayor Worley noted that the majority of people who purchased homes
in the past 5 years had lost money; developers should not be
penalized because of the poor housing market; she opposed product
downsizing in this project; the proposed density remained the same
as the original project; commented on the custom homes in 'Newport
Coast installing vinyl windows; maintenance was easier with wooden
garage doors; the developer would have built the original design
if the product had sold; the proposed product line looked almost
identical tc the original homes; noted the developer,s compromise
of constructing three fireplaces; Council's objective was to
approve a quality product for the development; the compromise
reached was reasonable; and she commended both parties for
attaining a quality solution.
Council/speaker Roos discussion followed regarding the developer,s.
wish for immediate resolution of the issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Thomas stated he was concerned that all Council was
not present to vote on the subject; noted the number of developer
requests occurring in Tustin Ranch to modify projects subsequent
to Council approval; requested assurance-that the homeowners
accepted the proposed product compromise; and opposed the proposed
modifications.
Councilmember Doyle stated that the housing market had changed;
remarked on the homogeneity of the housing projects in Tustin
Ranch; opposed requirements for certain interior amenities;
questioned ~f a compromise had been reached; said that Bramalea
could not complete Project build-out using the original plans; and
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Page 5, 7-1-96
stated concern that vacant lots would remain for years if the
proposed preject was not approved.
Council/staff/speakers discussion followed regarding San Marino
homeowners were unhappy agreeing to the compromise; Bramalea did
not want to delay action on the item in order to have all Council
present to vote on the issue; compromise was the best solution;
and clarification of the recommendations.
Councilmember Saltarelli stated that the proposed home design was
different from the original; th~ lack of homogeneity between the
two product lines; the proposed change in materials and amenities;
potential confusion to future brokers selling the new products;
opposed the Planning Commission's recommendation; the importance
of homogeneity in Tustin Ranch; voiced concern with the developer
changing design after one phase had been constructed; and opposed
modifying the San Marino development.
Council/staff discussion followed regarding resolutions would be
submitted to Council for ratification in 30 days because of
Councilmember Saltarelli's absence from the July 15,' 1996 meeting;
three votes were required for approving amendments to the
Tentative Tract Map; and a Council tie vote would negate all
compromises agreed to by both parties.
It was moved by Doyle, seconded by Worley, to modify the Planning
Commission's action of Design Review 95-042 and approve Am~endment
to Tentative Tract Map 13908, with the following conditions:
skylights would be standard in certain plans, a separate marketing
name used for the balance of the development, new plan numbers
would, be used for the new product line, wood sectional garage
doors standard throughout the remainder of the development, living
room fireplaces standard in all plans, standard clay roof tiles,
and standard premium quality, vinyl windows with an option at
builder's cost for premium wood windows; and approve the
environmental determination for the project.
Mayor Worley recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
9:18 p.m.
Motion carried 3-1, Saltarelli opposed, Potts absent.
Mayor Pro Tem Thomas Stated that the attending San Marino
residents ~ad ~oted to accept the Planning Commission's
GROUP, INC., 17821 E. 17TH STREET, SUITE 250
. ~Mayor Worley stated the appellant had withdrawn the appeal on this
It was moved by Thomas, seconded by Saltare ~__ to apProve the Consent
Calendar as recommerded by staff. Motion carrie~-0, Ports absent.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 17, 1996 REGULAR~NG
Recommendation: Approve the City Council Minu~of June 17,
1996. ' ~
6. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS AND RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL ~
Recommendation: Approve Demands'in the amount of $922,725.9~d
ratify Payroll in the amQunt of $329,980.28. ' ~
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 96-78
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, RATIFYING ITS ACTION OF JULY 1, 1996
FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR
85-2, AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED
SUPPLEMENTS AND'ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS
THE PROGRAM EIR FOR AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 13908 AND DESIGN REVIEW 95-042 AND ALL
APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
a.
That Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908
and Design Review 95-042 and respective development
plans are considered "projects" pursuant to the
terms of the California Environmental Quality Act;
and
.
That the projects are covered by a previously
certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the
East Tustin Specific Plan which serves as a Program
EIR for the proposed project.
II. The East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report (85-2), previously certified on March 17, 1986 as
modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda,
was considered prior to approval of this project. The
City Council hereby finds: this project is within the
scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously
approved; the effects of this project, relating to
grading, drainage, circulation, public services and
utilities, were examined in the Program EIR. All
applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed
in the Program EIR are incorporated into this project.
The Final EIR, is therefore determined to be adequate to
serve as a Program EIR for this project and satisfied all
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Further, the City Council finds the project involves no
potential for any adverse effect, either individually or
cumulatively, on wildlife resources; and, therefore,
makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution N~. 96-78
Page 2
Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR have been incorporated into this project which
mitigates any potential significant environmental effects
thereof. The mitigation measures are identified as
Conditions on Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No.
96-79 approving Design Review 95-042.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 5th day of August, 1996.
TRACY WILLS WORLEY
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TOSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify
that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 96-78 was duly passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of
August, 1996, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 96-79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
RATIFYING ITS DECISION OF JULY 1, 1996 TO MODIFY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION AND APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW
95-042 TO UPDATE THREE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRODUCT TYPES
AND ADD TWO NEW PRODUCT TYPES TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON TRACT 13908.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I .
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
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;
B .
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 at which
time the Planning Commission approved Design Review 95-
042 and recommended approval of the Amendment to
Tentative Tract 13908 by adopting Resolution Nos. 3432
and 3433 respectively;
C .
That neighborhood meetings were conducted.onApril 15 and
24, 1996 and May 20 and 28, 1996 with the applicant,
interested residents and City staff in an effort to
resolve outstanding concerns related to the project;
D .
That the San Marino Homeowners' Association filed an
appeal of the Planning Commission's action to approve
Design Reveiw 95-042 on June 17, 1996;
E .
That on July 1, 1996 the City Council took action to
modify the Planning Commission's action and approve
Design Review 95-042 with additional conditions;
F .
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
G.
Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code,
the Council 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 o'r future
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 96-7~
Page 2
development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In
making such findings, the Council has considered at least
the following items:
I .
.
.
,
,
o
Height, bulk and area of buildings.
Setbacks and site planning.
Exterior materials and colors.
Type and pitch of roofs.
Size and spacing of windows, doors and other
openings.
Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio
and television antennae.
Landscaping, parking area design and traffic
circulation.
Location, height and standards of exterior
illumination.
o
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
future structures in the neighborhood and public
thoroughfares.
12. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by
the City Council.
II. The City Council hereby ratifies its decision of July 1, 1996
to modify the Planning Commission's action and approve Design
Review 95-042 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.
Resolution No. 96-77
Page 3
4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a
regular meeting on the 5th day of August, 1996.
TRACY WILLS WORLEY
8 Mayor
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of
Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 96-79
was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the 5th day of August, 1996, by the following
vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 96-79
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DESIGN REVIEW 95-042
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the
submitted plans date stamped July 1, 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
Resolution No. 96-79
Conditions of Approval
Design Review 95-042
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) B.
(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
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 96-79
Conditions of Approval
Design Review 95-042
Page 3
Tustin Specific Plan. Conceptual approval of locations
of structures shall not constitute final approval.
SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS
*** 3.1 The plotting of Plan 6 shall be limited to Lots 44 - 80.
*** 3.2 No plotting mix change shall be made in Phase 1.
*** 3.3 The Community Development'Department may make minor
(4) subsequent changes to the plotting mix, except as
required by Condition 3.1 and 3.2 above, provided that
all applicable development standards and requirements of
the East Tustin Specific Plan are satisfied. However,
the maximum number of Plan 6 units shall not exceed 12
unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission.
*** 3.4 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.
*** 3.5 Sky lights shall be provided as standard features in the
updated Plans 1, 3 and 4 consistent with the original
Plans 1, 3 and 4.
*** 3.6 Clay tile roof material shall be provided on all plans as
a standard feature consistent with the original plans.
*** 3.7 Wood sectional roll-up garage doors shall be provided on
all plans as a standard feature consistent with the
original plans.
*** 3.8 Fireplaces in the living room of all plans shall be
provided as a standard feature.
*** 3.9 Premium brand vinyl frame windows shall be provided as
standard features on all plans. Premium brand wood frame
windows shall be offered as an optional feature at
builder's cost.
*** 3.10 A different marketing name for the buildout of the
project shall be provided. Evidence of the separate
marketing name shall be provided to the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of building
permits for the project.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 96-79
Conditions of Approval
Design Review 95-042
Page 4
*** 3.11 Separate plan numbers shall be provided for the updated
Plans 1, 3 and 4. which are' separate and distinct from the
original Plans 1, 3 and 4.' Evidence of the separate plan
numbers shall be provided to the Community Development
Department prior to issuance of building permits for the
project.
*** 3.12 Construction access may be provided from the paseo
between Lots 74 and 75, subject to final approval of the
City Engineer.
'(1) 3.13 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) 3.14 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 ~oordinated
with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted
on submitted construction plans; elevations shall
indicate all colors and materials to be used.
(1) 3.15 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) 3.16 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.
LANDSCAPING, GROUNDS AND F~RDSCAPE 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:
a.
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.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 96-79
Conditions of Approval
Design Review 95-042
Page 5
B ,
Planting and berming details, soil preparation,
staking, etc.
C .
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.
D .
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.
,
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.
D .
When 1 gallon plant sizes are used the spacing may
vary according to materials used.
E .
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
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 96-79
Conditions of Approval
Design Review 95-042
Page 6
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.
(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.
Exhibit A
Resolution No. 96-79
Conditions of Approval
Design Review 95-042
Page 7
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:
A,
Major thoroughfare and bridge fees in the amount of
$2,556 per unit to the Tustin Public Works
Department, or as may be amended prior to permit
issuance.
Water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch
Water District.
C o
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 .
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 .
School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School
District subject to any agreement reached and
executed between the District and the Irvine
Company.
G.
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.
DF:br:
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 96-80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, RATIFYING ITS DECISION OF JULY 1, 1996 TO
APPROVE AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
13908.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A,
That Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13908
was submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council by Bramalea California for consideration;
B ·
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
held for said Amendment by the Planning Commission
on April 8, 1996 and continued to April 22, 1996,
May 13 and 28~ 1996, and June 10, 1996; and by the
City Council on July 1, 1996.
C .
That neighborhood meetings were conducted on April
15 and 24, 1996 and May 20 and 28, 1996 with the
applicant, interested residents and City staff in
an effort to resolve outstanding concerns related
to the project;
D .
That on July 1, 1996, the City Council took action
to approve Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract
13908;
E .
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;
F .
That the proposed subdivision is in conformance
with the Tustin General Plan, adopted East Tustin
Specific Plan, Development Agreement and
Subdivision Map Act;
G.
The .9894 acres of parkland required for this
development was previously dedicated with
recordation of Tract 12870;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2¸4
25
26
27
28
Resolutio .... o. 96-80
Page 2
H.
That the City has reviewed the status of the School
Facilities Agreements between the Irvine Company
and the Tustin Unified School District for the
impact of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract
13908 on'School District facilities, and changes in
State law. Impacts associated with this approval
on School District facilities are adequately
addressed;
I .
That the site is physically suitable for the type
of development proposed;
J.
That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development;
K,
That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife in their habitat;
n ·
That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements proposed will not conflict with
easement acquired by the public at large, for
access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision; and
M·
That the design of the subdivision or the types of
improvements proposed are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
II. The City COuncil hereby ratifies its decision of July 1,
1996 to approve Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map
13908 to update three original 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.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolutio~ No. 96-80
Page 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin,
at a regular meeting on the 5th day of August, 1996.
TRACY WILLS WORLEY
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify
that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 96-80 was duly passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of
August, 1996, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 13908
RESOLUTION NO. 96-80
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
*** 1.1 Condition 10.6 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2739
is hereby revised to read as follows:
"Prior to the release of building permits, all
conditions of approval of Design Review 89-46 and
Design Review 95-042 for the subject project shall
be complied with as shown in Exhibit A attached to
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2738 and City
Council Resolution No. 96-79".
Ail other conditions of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2739 remain in full force and effect.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in
this 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 The subject project approval shall become null and void
unless permits for the proposed project are issued within
twenty four (24) months of the date of this Exhibit and
substantial construction is underway. Time extensions
may .be granted if a written request is received by the
Community Development Department within thirty (30) days
prior to expiration.
(1) 1.4 Approval of Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract 13908 is
contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing
and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form
as established by the Director of Community Development.
(1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin
harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of
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