Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 Z.C. 92-001&2 02-01-93PUBIC HEARING N0. 1 2-1-93 AA Inter -Com ATE: FEBRUARY 11 1993 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 92-002 & DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 92-001 (LYON) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Certify Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 by adopting Resolution No.:93-05; 2. Have first reading by title only and introduction of Ordinance No. 1102 approving Zone Change 92-002; and 3. Approve Development adopting Resolution or revised. BACKGROUND Agreement 92-001 by No. 93-06, as submitted The applicant is proposing to amend the Land Use Plan of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) to change the land use designation on Lot 12 of Tract 12870 from Medium Density Residential (M) to Medium -High Density Residential (MH). This,change would increase the allowable density from 18 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre resulting -in the potential for 354 dwelling units on the property, 100 more than would currently be authorized. The applicant has proposed in conjunction with the amendment, a Development Agreement which would be a mechanism for the applicant to contribute $2,000 per dwelling unit for each unit constructed over 254 (18 dwelling units per acre) which would be used for construction of park improvements in East Tustin. To accommodate the amendment, revisions to the Sector 7 description, the Land Use Plan, as well as the Statistical Summary of the East Tustin Specific Plan are required. City Council Report Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 2 At their meeting on January 11, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3113 recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001. No specific development plans have been proposed with the amendment at this time. If approval is granted, the applicant has indicated the desire to move forward and develop a specific development proposal which the Planning Commission and City Council would have the opportunity to review and approve in the future through the tentative map and design review process. The subject site is located within Sector 7 of the ETSP on the southeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Greenway Drive. Surrounding uses include condominiums and a private park to the north across Greenway Drive, Tustin Ranch Golf Club on the east and south, and detached single-family residential uses on the west across Tustin Ranch Road. At the City Council second reading of Ordinance No. 1102 on December 21, 1992, a number of residents claimed that they had not received notification of the November 10, 1992 Planning Commission and/or the December 7, 1992 City Council public hearing on Zone Change 92-002. They also questioned information contained in the CC&R's for the Tustin Ranch Community Association I. After review of the public notice mailing list, it was determined that not all property owners were sent the required notice of the original hearing on November 10, 1992. This was the result of updated Assessor's information being provided to the City after the applicant's submittal of the application and public notice mailing lists to the City. Based on advice of the City Attorney, the project has been renoticed using the 1992/1993 assessor's rolls. Information related to the Tustin Ranch Community Association I CC&R's is discussed below. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing for the project was published in the Tustin News. Pursuant to Section 3.14 of the ETSP, property owners within Sector 7 and within 300 feet of Sector 7 were City Council Report Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 3 notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, Tustin City Hall and Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. DISCUSSION Land Use The Statistical Summary of the ETSP would permit a maximum of 3,605 dwelling units to be developed within Sector 7. In accordance with Section 3.4.3 of the ETSP, 15 dwelling units have previously been transferred to other sectors, leaving an available balance of 3,590 dwelling units that could be built within Sector 7. Existing and proposed development within Sector 7 has only accounted for 2,305 dwelling units to date, resulting in an actual balance of 1,285 units that would still be permitted to be built. All residential builder sites with the exception of Lot 20, Tract 12870 (412 unit maximum potential) and the subject lot (354 unit maximum potential after the zone change), have been accounted for. Assuming the maximum potential for Lot 20 and the subject lot after the zone change, and considering the existing development within Sector 7 which has been constructed or approved, an available balance of 519 units would remain. The proposed amendment would, therefore, be within the maximum dwelling unit limits previously anticipated for Sector 7. The site is located within the vicinity of Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard which are considered major arterial highways. Although a variety of residential product types have been constructed along major arterials within Tustin Ranch, higher density products typically have greater flexibility to minimize roadway noise impacts associated with arterial highways. Higher density products adjacent to arterials are also better able to disperse traffic, reducing traffic impacts of local collector streets. City Council Report Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 4 To accommodate the proposed amendment, several revisions to the ETSP are proposed. The Land Use Plan would be amended to include a "Medium -High" designation in the vicinity of the subject site (Exhibit 3 of Addendum to EIR 85-2). Minor text changes to the Sector 7 description contained in the ETSP are also necessary to provide consistency with the land use map change. Additional housekeeping changes related to current street names are also included with the revisions. And finally, modifications to the statistical summaries related to total acreage of the land use categories are provided to maintain consistency with the increase in the "MH" designation and the corresponding decrease in the "M" designation. Both the proposed changes to the text and statistical summary are included in Appendix A of Addendum to EIR 85-2. Traf f is One important consideration with the proposed increase in density is related to traffic generation. EIR 85-2 established trip generation rates for various land categories. Medium Density Residential properties were determined to generate 8.6 Average Daily Trips (ADT) per unit and Medium - High Density Residential properties would generate 7.1 ADT. With its current Medium Density designation, Lot 12 could generate 2,184 ADT based upon a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. The land use change on the site to medium- high density would permit density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre generating 2,513 ADT. Although there would be an increase in ADT for this particular lot, the entire Traffic Zone (TZ) in which this property is located must be considered. TZ 39 in which this project is located is generally bounded by Irvine Boulevard on the south, Jamboree Road on the east, City Limits on the west and La Colina on the north. The EIR established certain TZ's for which to analyze traffic generation within the ETSP. The Technical Appendices to EIR 85-2 identified a total of 15,749 ADT within TZ 39. Based upon City Council Report L,Y Zone Change 92-002 and Development:Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 5 current subdivision submittals and construction within TZ 39, revised dwelling unit totals, which are now site specific in accordance with Tract 12870 and subsequent builder subdivisions, indicate a potential total ADT of 13,628. This would include the proposed increased density of the subject site (Lot 12), and would total approximately 13 percent less than originally anticipated for this area of East Tustin (Appendix B of Addendum to EIR 85-2). Development Agreement The Development Agreement provides a mechanism for the applicant to provide a financial contribution to be used for construction of needed park facilities in East Tustin. Since no specific development or tract map proposals are being considered at this time, the Development Agreement has been determined to be the most appropriate tool to implement such a contribution. Provisions of state law also require annual monitoring for compliance with the terms of the Agreement. The Agreement provides for $2,000 per unit to be paid to the City for each dwelling unit constructed over 18 dwelling units per acre. This is a voluntary contribution provided by the applicant, over and above the parkland credits which have already been dedicated to the City for Tract 12870. The Agreement is structured to run with the land regardless of owner or developer. The term of the Agreement would remain in affect until all contributions have been collected. The proposed Development Agreement is included in Appendix C of Addendum to EIR 85-2. CCR'S Tustin Ranch Community Association I (TRCA I) is a Master Association comprised of the subject lot (Lot 12), Tract 13734 (Lots 9 & 10), Tract 14110 (Lot 11) and a private park (Lot 31). Several residents from Tract 14110 expressed concern to the City Council related to language in the TRCA I CC&R's which describes the approximate number of City Council Report Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 6 dwelling units within the Master Association which now would be exceeded should the density on Lot 12 be increased. The existing land use designation of the ETSP on these lots anticipated a maximum of 865 dwelling units. Based on current conditions, including the proposed density change on Lot 12, a maximum of 601 dwelling units could be established which is 264 units less than originally anticipated by the ETSP. Provisions of the Master Association CC&R's for TRCA I included a narrative in Article II, Section I, describing in general terms the nature of the project, types of homes contemplated to be built, the relationship between the Master Association and any sub -association, etc. Thomas L. Powell, Attorney at Law, who was the author of the Master Declaration, has provided clarification to the intent of Article II, Section I which discussed the "approximate" number of units (Attachment A). In summary, language contained in Section I are provisions, not covenants that run with the land, and as such, do not limit or otherwise restrict either the Declarant's or any Merchant Builder's right to modify the original development plan for TRCA I. Issues At the January 11, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, a total of 10 people, including the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. The majority of comments received focused on property value, density, traffic and CC&R's which are summarized below. Planning Commission Minutes of January 11, 1993 are included as Attachment B. 1. Property Value Comment: Concern was expressed that the proposed increase in density would have a disproportionate impact related to property values on units that do not have golf course frontage (Ventana) compared to City Council Report Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 7 those to be constructed by the applicant with golf course frontage property. Response: Commission Butler indicated that Ventana was developed at a lower density which would be a positive selling point. Staff and the Deputy City Attorney indicated that economics of a project were not a factor in development of the recommendation for the project. 2. Density Comment: Concern was expressed related to the proposed increase in density being in this portion of East Tustin and that it is unfair that the burden of the zone change be shifted to the adjacent neighbors. Response: The proposed increase in density would not place an undue burden on this portion of the subject Lot 12, Tract 13734 (Lots 9 and 10), Tract 14410, (Lot 11) and a private park (Lot 31). As discussed earlier in this report, an available balance of 519 units within Sector 7 would remain to be built on other lots. Also as previously noted this neighborhood was originally planned for up to 865 units. Even with the proposed increase in density, the total unit count for the three residential projects in this neighborhood would be 264 units less than originally anticipated. City Council Report Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 8 3. Traf f is Comment: Concern was expressed that additional vehicles would be added to the already busy street system and this particular neiqhborhood. Response: As discussed earlier in this report, traffic generation for the Traffic Zone in which this project is located would be approximately 13 percent less than originally analyzed in EIR 85-2. The street system in the vicinity of this project was designed and constructed to accommodate maximum density (865 dwelling units for this neighborhood). As noted in the report, a maximum of 601 dwelling units could now be built in the neighborhood based on current subdivision approvals which is 264 less than originally anticipated. 4. CC&R's Comment: Concern was expressed that the home purchases were made based on the original CC&R's for the Master Association in which the subject property is located. Response: As discussed earlier in this report, the language in the CC&R's in question are provisions and not covenants that run with the land. City Council Report Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 (Lyon) February 1, 1993 Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of the proposed project, as well as EIR 85-2 (as supplemented), an Addendum to EIR 85-2 is necessary to make the EIR adequate (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 93-05). Pursuant to Section 15146 of the California Environmental Quality Act, as addendum is required for this project in that: a. Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables in the Technical Appendices of EIR 85-2 are necessary to make the EIR adequate; and b. The changes do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment as traffic issues have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85-2. With this information in mind, it is recommended that should the Council take a positive action on the request, an additional action to certify the Addendum as adequate would be required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, it is recommended that the City Council approve Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 and certify the A dum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 as adequate. Daniel Fo Christine A.Shingl on Senior Planner Assistant City Manter Attachments:Resolution Nos. 93-05 and 93-06 Ordinance No. 1102 Attachment A - Thomas L. Powell correspondence Attachment B - PC Minutes, January 11, 1993 ccrpts/zc92002.co3 J, `Y \'7// �'+y*'° A •� �� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 93-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 85-2 WITH ADDENDUM NO. 4 FOR* REVISIONS TO THE TRIP GENERATION RATE SUMMARY RELATED TO ZONE CHANGE 92-002 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 92-001, 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 an application has been filed by The William Lyon Company, requesting approval of Zone Change 92-002 to change a land use category on Lot 12 of Tract 12870 from Medium.. Density to Medium -High Density Residential, to make minor textural changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan, and Development Agreement 92- 001 establishing a mechanism for acceptance by the City of the applicant's agreement to provide a financial contribution for construction of park facilities. B. That an Initial Study was prepared during the review process which determined that no significant environmental impacts beyond that previously considered would occur as a result of the proposed project and that an addendum to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 85-2 would be required for this project. C. That Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 was prepared by the City of Tustin in compliance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). D. That pursuant to CEQA, EIR 85-2 has previously been prepared and certified and adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the project, significant environmental impacts, and the alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant environmental effect and that no additional environmental impacts or mitigation measures were identified in Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 93-05 Page 2 E. That Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 prepared for the project addresses only minor technical changes or additipns and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred. 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 the City Council 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, particularly in the traffic analysis contained in the Technical Appendices of said EIR, and an Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 addressing traffic and the development agreement contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All feasible 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 satisfies 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. 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 of Ordinance No. 1102 approving Zone Change 92-002 and Resolution No. 93-05 approving Development Agreement 92-001. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 93-05 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of February, 1993. LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS Mayor MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO.93-05 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No.93-05 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of February, 1993. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER:ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN City Clerk ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 85-2 (SCH NO. 85052217) ZONE CHANGE 92-002 (LYON) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 92-001 (LYON) Prepared by: City of Tustin Community Development Department 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 544-8890 Contact: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner October 1.992 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION Exhibit 1 - Project Site Map Exhibit 2 - Approved East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan Exhibit 3 - Proposed East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SECTION 3 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Appendix A - Proposed East Tustin'Specific Plan Text Revisions Appendix B - East Tustin Specific Plan Traffic Analysis Appendix C - Proposed Development Agreement SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION PURPOSE In conformance with the California Environmental Quality c (CEQA), this environmental assessment has been prepared as a addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 85-2. This addendum, in conjunction with final EIR 85-2, is intended to fully address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed zone change and development agreement in an Initial Study format. The proposed discretionary actions covered by this addendum include: 1. A Zone Change to modify the Land Use Designation within the East Tustin Specific Plan in the vicinity of Lot 12, Tract 12870 from Medium Density Residential to Medium -High Density Residential; and 2. A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City of Tustin to provide a mechanism for the applicant to make contributions for use in parkland development within the East Tu*tin Specific Plan area. Section 15164 of CEQA allows the preparation of an addendum to an EIR when only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR adequate under CEQA, and when the changed or additions do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. This addendum evaluates the proposed zone change and development agreement for the project that was considered in EIR 85-2. No new significant environmental issues other than those raised in Final EIR 85-2 have been raised by the proposed zone change and development agreement. An addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in, or attached to, the Final EIR. CEQA requires that a local decision-making body consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Final EIR 85-2 was certified by the City Council on March 17, 1986. In conformance with CEQA Section 15121, Final EIR 85-2 and this addendum are intended to serve as documents that will generally inform the decision ?rakers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of the proposed project and the potential mitigation measures for the proposed project. Final EIR 85-2 is hereby incorporated by reference into this addendum. Following is a description of the project vocation and the characteristics of the proposed project. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation. Section 3 elaborates on the information contained in the environmental checklist and identifies any differences in environmental impacts between the proposed zone change and development agreement and the approved land uses that were analyzed in Final EIR 85-2. 2ction 1 - Introduction ,*age 2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located within Sector 7 of the East Tustin Specific Plan and is situated in a developing residential area at the southeast corner of Greenway Drive, and Tustin Ranch Road (Exhibit 1) . Surrounding uses ,include the Tustin Ranch golf course immediately adjacent to,the south and east, condominiums and a private park to the north across Greenway Drive, and single family detached dwellings to the west across Tustin Ranch Road. Regional access is provided to the site by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) and local access is provided by Tustin Ranch Road and Greenway Drive. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes revisions to the approved land use designations (land uses that were proposed in Final EIR 85-2) in the East Tustin Specific Plan area. The approved and proposed land uses for_ Sector 7 are illustrated in Exhibits 2 and 3. The proposed amendment would change the land use designation on Lot 12 of Tract 12870 from Medium Density Residential (18 dwelling units per acre) to Medium -High Density Residential (25 dwelling units per acre). A Development Agreement between the applicant and the City -if Tustin is also proposed which would provide a mechanism for the pplicant to make contributions for use in parkland development within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The proposed project consists of the following discretionary actions, all of -which are the subject of this addendum. Zone Change 92-002 (LYON) Amend the Land Use Plan of the East Tustin Specific Plan in the vicinity of Lot 12, Tract 12870 from Medium Density Residential to Medium -High Density Residential (Exhibit 3). Amend the Sectc:r 7 land use descriptions of the East Tustin Specific Plan to acconunodate the land use designation change (Appendix A) . Amend the Statistical Summaries of the East Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate the land use designation changes (Appendix A) . Development Agreement (LYON) Provide a mechanism to make contributions for use in parkland development within the East Tustin Specific Plan area (Appendix C). OF:br/zc92002.add �.L.dr. YfYa rY.XYi •a s . _.....i...-. -..... _ _ ... _. - ..-...--.. .. �... ....uw�.Uw.www•�.�IwY-.._-. •�^•+wvv.....-+rte-.•�..+rr�•J•/.w/`•.• • ll � 91 7 # - SECTOR NUMBER 0 Project Site 10 g LL CAa.. aEAl t2 _ L z a • �1 - I ..�T'lw3Ta� Ll ofect Site Map 92-002 (LYON) "ty of Tustin 1 a I N -Th 0 1400 2600 FEET +t 111.�:; .-J:•^♦ M- ~ �� �i.?tits;+j Y` �a' 4,;Li�IL�F`,Dif _ •c •t `` j i ,,, .tel•' �. _ .'S , _ _< ;' (( ' RES IDEWTfAisw : 1 i "F? -'Jt'' • \� :: r - '::/, :� \: ' j 'f,' : _•EST ATEOEkSt71('G� 7. qt DENSITY. •.., a• j tolls 49j"ar— I. :: - •.: - es \\! • ,: L-'.nNsmvrwnAaR oHdt• ' :; ulv L -p • - +�N . �: L �: - , - `'7 _ F - POTET?J�r1LdRAiiZ .`: ;� � • -:,i :,_ •, :. `ice �c. - l- - .. -. �. .�• � :, . ./ : -1 MUWrY PARK ' ! y 7-rw� , �. - �� _ t l• � - ,.-_.. REGIONAL ` . • , ••. a . • : • , �. z• G aotF � 01, +' i' -d •++ `- : �� ` IREGNIONAL. ARKIPA ' , _ '�- _c' _ ` _ COM ER COMMERCIAL GENERAL sjo�-� MIXED G M CP •aa r K.1 Yw ,rte a a WH Yy, _ L• .• " tel L MH MH ES ES Mu Ei�i EL' f.A6MN itEAl •gt o 11 cr +; L' 8i Mu ZC 92-002 (LYON) 'ROVED Land Use flan EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN . , 1.T• � ., •\ •. - -'i'. � : 1 ��-'. Ems%` �. - i � l ' Y '�,_ •-' _ i� �� �• 1'--l-~•-r'- .--._�i� ,' _\ .-1`1: tJ �1a,;`y '`�• E• L$lp!?2. L6OAP �r _ • '- :,.: _ ; • Mmlt4Aw $l0loExsrr7r fJP 40 14 dAL/&l �'� i' .•�•r t> - . t DENSITY, � '.w fr• _.r - r a. ONAL' • 1- �_ --::: ' l4•'�"�. ` r J/� y , - ,\ ` M • SOT .. \ •SCFpOI.'+ ' " � 1 t%- .�..i .. ;- �_ / �'H,f - C` ` .- ,1• -•fes � � , , TE OL •,� `ii - _ HIGH SCHOOL ' '� •� � �'; :' . + » T--= r :r40U1larRJraiT PARK dOLF 'fir �.(�,tr•{/ . • . + • + �%i'(,•. � �•/ � � - � �. _ - (- • . ►.:1 - RMH E ARK ' -ALM r Imo';+ /' •7 w \ .i- \,• . ... NC S • . � �� - !�`• ` { ' - - L ERCiAf`/6falSli!IESS� •�� 'i. _ irk-. , -_ L M• _ � � �. - - •. � � G • +.GEWERAl_ OMMERCL » 'n- •.?(i:, •/. _ _ MUS _MIXED - r\�' •.7 : r yl '.:. -:}..moi.: Fit f+c:! J,ts r. .•11X:�q',. , �;rr • r.V ��a M 1_ p. CP Wqs �....y� .1. w"` iiCi:i'K':!!•t + MM - ES . a� _ i. ,til y{� r•}},� � a/i:! - MM � - � - � _ � -. FAR 1p ES L f t ' J. ^..y� .�i••a •ter, _ . - tt _ —.- _ - - cif -�1�!' • EL-�.J_�' -{� � ••' mu� 1 r �- � •, • L � %T._rl, EL AMW A Al 1 0 ., �L 1 ZC 92-002 (LYON) O S E D Land Use Plan EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN_ (-If-\/ of Ti ictirl �_) F x h i h i t 3 I. Backgr 1. N 2. N SECTION 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST CITY OF ,TUSTIN, Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM of Proponent LYON COMMUNITIES, INC. ss and Phone Number of Proponent 4490 VON KARMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-7520 714-476-5222 3. Date of Checklist Submitted OCTOBER 1, 1992 4. Agency Requiring Checklist CITY OF TUSTIN 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable zC 92-002 (LYON) Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth.. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or Uhys_cai features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion Of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean -or any ban, inlet or lake? Yes Maybe- No X 9- 2. Air. a. b. c. 3. Yes Maybe No Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - will the proposal result in: Substantial air emission or alit deterioration of ambient air quality? - The creation of objectionable odors? _ Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ water. Will the proposal result in: h. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? Changes in absorption rates, .drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? 4. S. 0 \ 7. Yes Maybe No i'. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a',. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) ? % b,. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? G. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? c . Reduction in - acreage of any agricultural crop? 2�nimal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in.the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, . land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? 3�. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? id. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? poise. Will the proposal result in: a . Increases i_n existing noise levels'. _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce L�. new light or glare? MP M 10. 11. 12. 13. Yes Maybe No Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Mw /K Yes Maybe No e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or / air traffic? I f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result.in a need for new or filtered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. PoliceP rotection? C. Schools? x d. Parks or other recreational facilities? •. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? i g f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or 7� energy?. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. uta'lities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following, utilities: a.1 Power or natural gas? ' b.' Communications systems? ' c . ! Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage. f. Solid waste and disposal. Yes Maybe No 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? % 18. solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result -in the creation of.an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of ' existing recreational opportunities? 21. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? -- d. Will the _proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe No 22. Mandatory Findings of significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rarIge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one • which ocdurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). _._ c.Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d.l Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? �C SECTION 3 - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 3ROJECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT - The proposed project is a Zone `.hange to modify the Land Use Designation within the East Tustin ,pecific Plan on Lot 12 of Tract 12870 from Medium Density Zesidential to Medium -High Density Residential. The proposed resignation would increase the maximum allowed residential density -rom 18 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre. A )evelopment Agreement between the applicant and the City is also )roposed which would provide a mechanism for the applicant to >rovide contributions for use in parkland,development within the .'ast Tustin Specific Plan. The discussion in this Initial Study is limited to the proposed levelopment agreement, change in land use designation and ;omparison to the previously certified EIR 85-2 for the entire East -'ustin Specific Plan to determine whether a Subsequent EIR or addendum to EIR 85-2 should be prepared pursuant to Sections 15162 end 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act. All aitigation measures previously identified in EIR 85-2 -would remain applicable unless otherwise noted in the discussion below. The project site -is situated in a developing residential area at :he southeast corner of Greenway Drive and Tustin Ranch Road. Surrounding uses include the Tustin Ranch golf course immediately adjacent to the south and east, condominiums and a private park to :he north across Greenway Drive, and single family detached swellings to the west across Tustin Ranch Road. EARTH - The proposed project would not result in any significant disruption, displacement, compaction or overcrowding of the soil which was not previously considered in EIR 85-2. The change would still permit residential development. Sources: City of Tustin.Building Division EIR 85-2 Mitigation MeasuresiMonitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. _ AIR - The proposed project would not result in any degradation of existing air quality based upon S�AQMD guidelines for preparation of EIRs which was not previously considered in EIR 85-2 as the total number of units considered would not be altered. Sources: SCAQMD standards for preparing EIR documents. EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 'tion 3 - Zone Change Page 2 Environmental 92-002 (Lyon) Evaluation 3. WATER -t The proposed project would not result. in any additional change to absorption rates, water movement, flood waters, ,discharge into surface waters, flow of groundwater, quantity of ground water, water consumption not previously considered by EIR 85-2 as the total number of units considered would not be altered. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division City of Tustin Public Works Department EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 4. PLANT LIFE - The proposed project would not result in any additional change to plant life not previously considered by EIR 85-2''. Sources: Field Observations EIR 85-2 Mitigatilon Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 5. ANIMAL I�IFE - The proposed � pr p ed project would not result in any additional change to population of animals, fish or wildlife not previously considered by EIR 85-2. M. Sources: Field Observations EIR 85-2 Mitigatipn Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. NOISE -I! The proposedproject would not result in any additional change to noise levels not previously considered by EIR 85-2I. Sources:'City of Tustin Zoning City of Tustin Genera EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring mitigation required. Code Plan Noise Element Required: No additional LIGHT AND GLARE - The proposed project would not result in any additional change to light and glare not previously considered by EIR 85-2. ;ection 3 - Environmental Evaluation ,one Change 92-'002 (Lyon) ,age 3 Sources: City of Tustin Security Ordinance EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. LAND USE - The proposal would not result in any substantial alterations to the planned land uses for the East Specific Plan, particularly within Sector 7. The site currently would accommodate a maximum 18dwelling i 25 dwelling er acre. The proposed change would accommoda p units per acre. Both the existing and proposed designation would accommodate residential development. Sector 7 is currently permitted a maximum of 3,590 dwelling units (5 units transferred to Sector 9and 10 authorization lts os transferred to Sector 4 from the original authorization 2,305 3,605 units per the ETSP). To date, approximately dwelling units have been proposed, approved or constructed. With the maximum anticipated additional 354 dwelling units associated .with the subject change, the total ld increase anticipate to 2,659 units, approximately 26 percent below development for Sector 7. In no event, could the number of units within Sector-? exceed 3,590 as currently established ized unless a transfer of units between sector pursuant to the East Tustin Specific Plan. Sources: East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. a. NATURAL RESOURCES - The proposed prcject would not result in any additional cnange to natural resources not previously considered by EIR 85-2. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department .;tion 3 - one Change Page 4 Environmental Evaluation 9',2-002 (Lyon) Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation measures required. 10. RISK OF UPSET - The proposed proj ect would result in a greater potential for upset from that previously considered in EIR 85- 2 Sources:, City of Tustin Building Division Orange County Fire Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 11. POPULATIION - There would. be no significant change to anticipated population for the East Tustin Specific Plan project 'area associated with the proposed project. The East Tustin Specific Plan assumes 3.4 persons for Low and Medium - Low Density, 2.8 persons per unit for Medium Density and 2.2 persons per unit for Medium -High Density dwellings. Based upon these rates and assuming maximum development of the subject site; 68 more persons than anticipated potentially could reside on the site. However, this represents an overall 25 percent reduction in population for the sector when considering the 26 percent reduction in dwelling unit construction within the sector as discussed in item 8 above. Therefore, there would not be a significant impact on population from that previously discussed in EIR 85-2. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 12. HOUSINs - The proposed change would still accommodate residenwial development as evaluated by EIR 85-2. Although the specific site would accommodate a maximum of 100 additional dwelling units than previously designated, the overall sector totals of 3,590 dwellings and specific plan totals of 7,950 dwelling would not be exceeded. Therefore, there would not be a significant impact on housing from that previously discussed in EIR 85-2. Sources; City of Tustin Community Development Department EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. Section 3 - Environmental Evaluation ,one Change 92-002 (Lyon) Wage 5 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - There would be no significant change to anticipated traffic conditions for the East Tustin Specific Plan, particularly Sector 7. The Technical Appendices of EIR 85-2 identified trip generation rates by lot and residential density. The subject property is located within Traffic Zone 39 identified ,,.,in EIR 85-2 Technical Appendices. Traffic Zone 39 totals have been reviewed against original figures and assumptions and compared with specific proposals and approved development plans for specific lots in Traffic Zone 39. This review indicates that there will be a reduction of trips from that previously anticipated for this Traffic Zone by approximately 13 percent, even with the proposed increase in density on Lot 12 (Appendix B). When considering all Traffic Zones in the Technical Appendices for the.East Tustin Specific Plan area, this is approximately a 1 percent reduction in anticipated trips. Therefore, the proposed project would not be a significant impact from that previously considered in EIR 85-2. TZ 39 as identified on page 325 of EIR 85-2 Technical Appendices would need to be revised as shown in Appendix B. Source: City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Community Development Department EIR 85-2 Technical Appendices Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - The proposed project -would not result in any additional need for public services not previously considered by EIR 85-2. Source: City of Tustin Community Development Department City of Tustin Public Works Department City of Tustin Police Department Orange County Fire Department EIR 85-le- Mitigation 5-2Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 15. ENERGY - The proposed project would not result in any additional need for energy not previously considered by EIR 85-2. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department EIR-85-2 .ction 3 - Environmental Evaluation Z.one Change '92-002 (Lyon) Page 6 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 16. UTILITIES - The proposed project would not result in any additional need for utilities not previously considered by EIR 85-2. K• Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 17. HUMAN HEALTH - The proposed project would not result in any inpreasied conditions that negatively effect human health not previously considered by EIR 85-2. Sources: City of Tustin Building Division Orange County Fire Department EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 18. AESTHETICS - The proposed project would not result in any aesthetic impacts not previously considered by EIR 85-2. Any future development proposals would be subject to the City's Design Review process which takes into consideration site .layout, architecture, landscaping and other project amenities which relate to the physical appearance of the site. Sources: City of Tustin Design Review Board EIR 85-2 Mitigation 'Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. 19. RECREATION - The proposed project would not result in any additional recreational impacts not previously considered by FIR 85-2. Actual Parkland Dedication requirements are based upon persons per unit within the project. Since the proposed change would result in a greater number of persons on this site than originally anticipated (item 11 above), additional parkland would be required. This required parkland has -- already been credited based on dedicated parkland within East Tustin. Therefore, no significant impact would exist or modification to the original EIR be required. As a voluntary contribution for consideration of the Zone Change, the ,ection 3 - Environmental Evaluation .one Change 92-002 (Lyon) 'age 7 developer has agreed to provide additional contributions which would be used to provide parkland improvements within the East Tustin Specific Plan area through entering into a Development Agreement with the City. Sources: City of Tustin Community Sf-rvices Department City of Tustin Community Development Department EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. :0. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The proposed project would not have any effect of the cultural resources not previously considered by EIR 8.5-2. Sources: EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. _1. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - Based upon the above discussion it can be concluded that none of the situations identified in Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act requiring the preparation of a Subsequent EIR exist in that: a. The proposed changes would not require important revisions of EIR 85-2 as no new significant environmental impacts have been identified which have not been previously covered in EIR 85-2; b. There are no substantial changes that would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken; and C. No new information of substantial importance has become available that could "not have been known at the time EIR 85-2 was certified related to this project. Therefore, an Addendum to EIR 85-2 will be prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act in that: a. Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables in the technical appendices of EIR 85-2 are required to make the EIR adequate; and ,tion 3 - Environmental Evaluation u,jne Change 92-002 (Lyon) Page 8 b. The minor text and map changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate the project and proposed development agreement do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment as traffic related issues have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85-2. Sources: As Previously Noted. California Environmental Quality Act Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: No additional mitigation required. ZC92002.ENV E ; USTIN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS * Total Maximum Allowable Acreage Land Use Density Units OR 1 125 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 125 188 SECTOR 2 74 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac 76.65 Low Dcnsity Residential 5 du/ac 50 Medium Low Density Residential 10 du/ac 37.35 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac **** o 10 ** Elementary School 15 ** Junior High School ,. Elementary School 8 ** Community Park Subtotal 271 1,010 t SECTOR 3 6 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac o8 `* Elementary School 03 ** Neighborhood Park Subtotal 17 68 t SECTOR 4 118 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac )tal 118 177 SECTOR 5 98 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac 18* Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 116 219 SECTION 6 31 General Commercial Subtotal 31 SECTOR 7 97 4-}-1- Medium Density Residential l8 du/ac 14-C� 43�- IvMediura Hi th Density Residential 25 du/ac o 10 ** Elementary School 33 ** Community Park 150 Golf Course Subtotal 436 3,605 t SECTOR 8 77 Low Density Residential 4 du/ac 349 - 26 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac 233 o 10 #* Elementary School o 4 ** Neighborhood Park Subtotal 117 582 t EAST TUSTIV rISTICAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)' Total Maximum Allowable Acreage Land Usc Density Units CTO R 9 39 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 156 btotal 39 :CTOR 10 46 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 15 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac o 10 ** Elementary School btota l 71 405 t =OR 11 57 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac 56 Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac 40 High School o 10 ** Elementary School o 4 ** Neighborhood Park 10 Neighborhood Commercial 1,540 ibtotal 177 t ACTOR 12 121 Mixed Use 7,950 lbtotai 121 *** Total allowable number of permitted units within a given sector may be increased if a sector unit transfer occurs as described in Subsection 2.1. The precise acreage and locations of private and public neighborhood parks, elementary schools and intermediate schools will be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Maps as identified under Review Procedure Subsection 1.5 and consistent with policies established in Subsections 2.9 and 2.10 of the Specific Plan. �* If the maximum allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unconstructed units may be transferred to the Specific Plan area. *** Maximum density on Lot 11 of Tract 13627 shall be ten (10) dwelling units per acre. allocation for this land use. If it changes. other land use This acreage figure is an estimated acreage allocations in the sector nay change. However, the total allowable units for the sector wn] remain the same. Total Allowable Units assumes that if a school and/or a park currently designated for this sector are not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities are constructed, the land use area density limitation may preclude construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. .: ctor 7 This is the largest of the 12 sectors in terms of acreage. The site is virtually flat and encompasses 436 acres. It is situated along the eastern boundary of the site and is bounded by Portola Parkway on the north, Hy-€erd a aY`ee Road on the east, the Future ij :Y:•:.:. !�uis��tz;�z�cY Road on the west; ���' anc��� Irvine .Boulevard on the sou The site includes a hillside knoll located south of Portola Parkway, a visually prominent landform feature which contrasts with the flat topography within the rest of the Sector. Eucalyptus windrows occur along Peters Canyon Wash apd in the easterly portion of the Sector. This area is planned to encompass a variety of residential densities to be developed around an 18 -hole privately owned and operated golf course which is to be open for public play. Residential uses including medium and medium high densities are planned for this Sector. Densities generally decrease from east to west with the medium-high areas located along Hy -few : ; Road Also planned for this area is an elementary school which has not ween precisely located at .this time, however,. it is currently tlocated for the southwest quadrant of this sector. The precise _ocation and size of this school shall be determined as per Subsection 2.10 of this Specific Plan. A regional riding/hiking trail, and bikeway are planned in accordance with County Master Plans ( Class I ) . The trail may be located away from Peters Canyon Wash in order to avoid conflicts with the golf course. The trail location in Sector 7 shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit C) following along arterial highways is conceptual and may be adjusted to meet specific site conditions and to ensure trail continuation in the adjoining City of Irvine. A neighborhood park has also been generally allocated for this same quadrant. The size and location of this park will be precisely determined as per Subsection 2.8. Finally, a 13 -acre community park has been precisely located to encompass the knoll at the northern most end of the sector. An additional 20 acre community park will be provided near the southeast corner of the sector. The following policies apply to Sector 7: A. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted within this sector are as shown in Table 2.4. 2-37 3 . The golf course as shown on the Land Use Plan illustrates a conceptual boundary. The precise edges of the golf course may vary as long as the area of the other residential land uses remain generally consistent with the Statistical Summary and that the relative location of residential land use are consistent with Exhibit C. There may be an adjustment of increased acreage from the minimum acreage of 150 to the golf course from that shown on the statistical summary. Any adjustment, however, shall be at the discretion of the landowner, and can encroach on the residential land use parcels -vithtn this sector. Such an adjustment would change acreages within those land use parcels, however, the total maximum number of units allowed within the sector will not be exceeded. The golf course provides a strong visual image within the sector as well as the whole community and visibility shall be provided from the arterial roadways, therefore the golf course shall directly front on a Road, and Irvine f,. 7Li5Y..tiY}N[4}' • �Mnrf :S:- the Future am• � � . � r n Boulevard, and shall have at least two frontages on usaRoad. A minimum of 250 -feet of lineal frontage s aIr"Si provided at each of these points. Incorporation of existing eucalyptus windrows shall be considered within the golf course. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways adjoining this Sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12 Implementation, for specific requirements. D. A community park shall be located along the edge south of Portola Parkway and shall include the north side of the knoll located south of this road. Development policies related to this knoll are established in Section 2.13, Hillside District Guidelines, Landform Modification. An additional '20 acre Community Park shall be provided adjacent to Jamboree Road and north of Irvine Boulevard. E. Where feasible and consistent with flood control requirements, he treatment of Peters Canyon Wash (Exhibit L) should retain a natural appearance by (1) minimizing concrete channelization such as vertical walls and concrete channel or trapezoidal soil cement; (2) retaining or replanting indigenous vegetation along the drainage course, and/or (3) locating the drainage course within open space areas. 2-38 Subtotal 117 Rcv: 6-19-89 582 t Acreage ;T TUSTIN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Land Use Maximum Density * Total Allowable Units " --TO R 1 125 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 125 188 SECTOR 2 74 Estatc Density Residential 2 du/ac 76.65 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 50 Medium Low Density Residential 10 du/ac . 37.35 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac **** o 10 ** Elementary School 15 ** Junior High School _ 8 ** Community Park Subtotal 271 1,010 t SECTOR 3 6 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac o8 ** Elementary School o3 ** Neighborhood Park Subtotal 17 68 t SECTOR 4 118 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac "�`�total 118 177 SECTOR 5 98 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac 18 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 116 219 SECTION 6 31 General Commercial Subtotal 31 SECTOR 7 Medium Density Residential 7 18 du/ac I4(o -;-3-2- Medium `High Density Residential 25 du/ac. o 10 ** E!cmcntary School 33 ** Community Park 150 Golf Course Subtotal 436 3,605 SECTOR 8 77 Low D--nsity Rcsidcntial 4 du/ac 349 26 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac 233 o 10 ** Elementary School o 4 ** Ncight•orhood Park Subtotal 117 Rcv: 6-19-89 582 t Total allowable number of permitted units within a given sector may be increased if a sector unit transfer occurs as described in Subsection 2.1. The precise acreage and locations of private and public neighborhood parks, elementary schools and intermediate schools will be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Maps as identified under Review Procedure Subsection 1.5 and consistent with policies established in Subsections 2.9 and 2.10 of the Specific Plan. * I£ the maximum allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unconstructed units may be transferred to the Specific Plan area. ** Maximum density on Lot 1 1 of Tract 13627 shall be ten (10) dwelling units per acre. This a%reagc figure is an estimated aiiocation for this 'land use. If it changes, other !and use acreage allocations ir. the sector may change. However, t. a total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. T otal Allowab!c Units assumes that if a school and/or a park currently designated for this sector are not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities arc constructed, the land use arca density lirnitation may preclude construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. 0 -1Q -S9 Acreage EAST TUST ATISTICAL ANALYSIS (CONTINUED) Maximum Land Usc Density Total Allowable Units --TOR 9 39 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 156 total 39 --TOR 10 46 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 15 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac o 10 ** Elementary School )total 71 405 t ZTO R 11 - ••-• 57 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac 56 Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac . 40 High School o 10 ** Elementary School o 4 ** Neighborhood Park 10 Neighborhood Commercial ototal 177 1,540 CTOR 12 121 Mixed Use 7,950 *** btotal 121 Total allowable number of permitted units within a given sector may be increased if a sector unit transfer occurs as described in Subsection 2.1. The precise acreage and locations of private and public neighborhood parks, elementary schools and intermediate schools will be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Maps as identified under Review Procedure Subsection 1.5 and consistent with policies established in Subsections 2.9 and 2.10 of the Specific Plan. * I£ the maximum allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unconstructed units may be transferred to the Specific Plan area. ** Maximum density on Lot 1 1 of Tract 13627 shall be ten (10) dwelling units per acre. This a%reagc figure is an estimated aiiocation for this 'land use. If it changes, other !and use acreage allocations ir. the sector may change. However, t. a total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. T otal Allowab!c Units assumes that if a school and/or a park currently designated for this sector are not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities arc constructed, the land use arca density lirnitation may preclude construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. 0 -1Q -S9 I O t- CG N O O 00 O` to O' N H ` 0 ' Co i,- 1!s O N J 1O t' I V .J 140 'O O !J •!1 • - M CO NI Ln M •U • r- O• O Co O 10 W MM N • Q �O 1!1 r M M 10 M .p M • ►- r' M CO • O • • �t O O O O N co co N J Vl Ln co Ln U1 10 Y tZ f tL • teO O O W Ln � ~ ~ ' • P r-- � tio t Lf% • N �t ti O• . r O O O 0 0 CO ti r J N0. O O � 0. O O Lf%NO r ►a- r N CO r ✓ O b.- d • co I.- ►- tf % M 0 0 0 L^ PI- J _ O• � CO P I` N t!1 CO O � O C `' • L L Y N O a � U Q H • N N N1 O• Co O 10 ~ O 0 M ti `O O J C> Pe) M W N O 1� r • L O U C d m N 7 � L cn � _0 co a 0 D cn O O O O O ^ ✓ r - N M O 6r •N > a sc L O d ` L w � ✓ C C # O ✓ m O U U • • U L N CL co g R w' O O O _ Z J W O d d 10 L- ✓ J S i Q •� CL .J.. • r r Q1 N N j lD N E_ N O U U W _ Vf N H Q1 Q► T7 c L O _ ri O W 6/ 0 N -+ OC C1C W Z U O U co Q 4l ►i cn O U Z G Q L U cn n^ W .-+ 2 2 cnO N M �1 In n. N W O 1+) .- r- N N N Q co Q ✓ W Y- 0. Y- a- j ✓ o 0 r- ✓ o Z Q Q a ►0- m z > ► Q N W P P P P P P N < O X Q W cn Z M M M M M M ' O v O 1-- O O O = 2 N W r- La- x P o N = Q co d w ¢ v Q of uw U < = ¢ ac L- c7 c7 s( W r-- ►-- rJ -� RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE 6103 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement is made this day of 1992, by and between The William Lyon Company, a California corporation, formerly known as Lyon Communities Inc. hereinafter referred to as ("Developer") and the City of Tustin, a municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as ("City"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of approximately 14.14 acres of real property (the "Property") within the City of Tustin,* which Property is 'more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Developer has proposed, and City agrees to the payment of funds to construct the public park improvements ("the funds") in anticipation of proposed rezoning of the Property from medium density residential to medium-high density residential; and WHEREAS, this Development Agreement is adopted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 et. seq.; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, between Developer and City as follows: 1. Proposed Rezoning. Developer has proposed a rezoning of its property and an amendment to the East Tustin Specific Plan under which the Developer proposes to increase the existing allowable density from 18 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre on Lot 12 of Tract 12870. Developer agrees and understands that Developer must submit appropriate rezoning and specific 1 plan amendment entitlement applications which shall be subject to the full and unrestricted right of the City to grant, deny or conditionally approve said proposed rezoning without restriction. Developer further acknowledges that the existing zoning for the Property does not allow the construction of dwelling units in excess of 18 dwelling units per acre, as the existing zoning for the Property is medium density residential. 2. Agreement to Pay Park Funds. Developer hereby agrees to pay to City a contribution in the amount of $2,000 for each excess dwelling unit (that is each unit over and above units constructed in excess of 18 units per acre) up to, but not to exceed a maximum. of $200,000. s As used herein, the term excess dwelling unit" shall mean each excess dwelling unit constructed by the Developer on the Property in excess of 254 dwelling units. In the event Developer does not receive zoning and specific plan approvals from City to build excess dwelling units, Developer shall have no obligation to pay the above stated funds to City. •3• Timing of Payment. To implement paragraph 2 above, Developer shall begin paying a "Prorata Per Unit Contribution" per excess dwelling unit at the initial start-up of construction of the project; that is, when the first building permit is obtained for the construction of a dwelling unit on the Property, Developer shall pay a Prorata Per Unit Contribution, and for' each building permit thereafter issued to Developer by City. As used in the foregoing sentence, the term "Prorata Per Unit Contribution" shall mean an amount equal to the product of (a) $210001 multiplied by (b) a fraction, the numerator of which is the total number of dwelling units in excess of 254 for which Developer receives tentative map approval from the City, and the denominator of which is the total number of dwelling units for which Developer receives tentative map approval from the City. If, for any reason, Developer and/or any and all successors -in -interest are unable or fails to build all of the excess dwelling units used in calculating the Prorata Per Unit Contributions, after completion of the project.. City shall reimburse Developer, within thirty (30) days of demand therefore, an amount equal to the difference between (y) the actual amount paid by Developer to City in Prorata Per Unit Contributions, minus ( z ) the product of $2,000 multiplied by the actual number of excess dwelling units constructed by Developer and/or any and all successors -in - interest on the Property. 2 4. Use of Funds. City agrees to use all of the funds solely for construction of public park improvements within the East Tustin Specific Plan area in the City of Tustin. 5. Agreement Running with the Land. Developer's contingent obligation to Paned by the C funds within the benefit of City and all real property o the the City of Tustin, and is intended to and shall run with the Property and inure to the benefit of and be b g P parties hereto and their respective successors and gnin including without limitation Developer's successors ownership of the Property. An owner of the Property shall only be obligated for payment of said funds during its period of ownership of the Property, and upon any transfer of ownership of the Property to a new owner or owners andt e obligations ations prescribed herein running with the land,.the shall be automatically released from all liability hereunder. •6-. Liens and Encumbrances. The Property and each parcel and dwelling unit thereof shall be subject to a lien for the obligations aprescribedain this Agreement. Upon PaYmeawellin t of the units the City shall, Contribution to City for each g upon request, deliver to Developer a duly executed releasehe the lien prescribed herein suchdwelling and specific plan event Developer does not receive approvals from City to build excess dwelling units, Developer shall have no obligation to pay. 7. Mortgage or Deed of Trust. The breach or the attempt to breach any tof he covenants or other provisions contained herein, shallot defeaffect or render invalid the lien or charge of any mortgageconsideration;or deed eof trust made in good faith and for valuable provided, however, that all such covenants and other provisions shall remain in full force and effec, notwithstandirg the t foreclosure and subsequent foreclosure sale of any mortgage or deed of trust which shall hereafter constitute an encumbrance on the Property. 8. Periodic Review.- This eview_ This Agreement shall be subject least every 12 months, pursuant to 65865.1. 3 to periodic review at Government Code Section 9. Term. This agreement shall remain in effect until all contributions have been paid in accordance with paragraph 3 above. 10.. Hold Harmless and Defense. Developer agrees to and shall indemnify, save, defend and hold City, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from any liability arising from claims from the City's approval or execution of this Agreement. This foregoing provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this section, regardless of whether or not City preferred, supplied, or approved plans or specifications, or both, or all, for the project. 11. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be given to the following representatives of the parties, at the addresses indicated below by personal service, or by registered certified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: If to City: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Attn: City Clerk Copy to: City Attorney If to Developer: The William Lyon Company 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: Mr. Chris Hawke 12. Assignment. Developer may, at its discretion, join and associate with other entities into joint -ventures, partnerships, or otherwise for the purpose of performing under this Agreement•. The rights under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned in whole by Developer by written notice to the City within thirty ( 3 0 ) days after the effective date of such assignment. 4 Time is of the �`Se!l1vCi C r► of Whish time is an elzrrerl"' 1N W�';`!`:ESS . WHE 4E0F', :.:e �: �! c `_ ..3s 'h a-0--� ::X •�Lt:�tj �i19 �S r�ement a s a: tice �Zc L� of : ruT acv �- c,•rl* t=:: . city: City of Tustin Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Jazes E. Rourke City Attorney Lyon.dev DEVELOPER: he W ill i.bm Lynn Company BY!. Title �1 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ZONE CHANGE 92-002 (LYON) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 12, "L" and "N" of Tract 12870 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 93-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT 92-001 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That an application has been filed by The William Lyon Company, requesting approval of Development Agreement 92-001 establishing a mechanism for acceptance by the City of the applicant's agreement to provide a financial contribution for construction of park facilities. B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on said application by the Planning Commission on January 111 1993 and the City Council on February 1, 1993. C. That an Environmental Impact Report (has 8been for the East Tustin Specif certified with Addendum No. 4 in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project. D. Development Agreement 92-001 is consistent with uses authorized in the East Tustin Specific Plan, as amended by Zone Change 92- 002. E. Development Agreement 92-001 is in conformity with the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good land use practices in that it would provide a mechanism for financial contributions to be made by the applicant to the City for development of park facilities. F. Development Agreement 92-001 would not affect orderly development of the property in that any future development proposal for the property would be subject to the City's Design Review and subdivision process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 93-06 Page 2 G. Development Agreement 92-001 would have a positive fiscal impact on the City in that voluntary contributions would be made by the applicant to the City which would be used for development of park facilities. II. The City Council hereby approves Development Agreement 92-001 in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, and approval of the City Attorney. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of February, 1993. LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS Mayor MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF TUSTIN 1 CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 93-06 MARY E. WYNN.. City Clerk and ex -of f icio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 93-06 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the lst day of February, 1993. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER:ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN City Clerk RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City Clerk City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PURSUANT TO GovERNMENT CODE 6103 N' ". DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement is made this day of 1992, by and between The William Lyon Company, a California corporation, formerly known as Lyon Communities Inc. hereinafter referred to as ("Developer") and the City of Tustin, a municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as ( "City") . RECITALS WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of approximately 14.14 acres of real property (the "Property") within the City of Tustin,* which Property is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, ,Developer has proposed, and City agrees to the payment of funds to construct the public park improvements ("the funds") in anticipation of proposed rezoning of the Property from medium density residential to medium-high density residential; and WHEREAS, this Development Agreement is adopted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 et. seq.; and THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, between Developer and Clty as follows: 1. Proposed Rezoning. Developer has proposed a rezoning of its property and an amendment to the East Tustin Specific Plan under which the Developer proposes to increase the existing allowable density from 18 dwelling units per acre to 25 dwelling units per acre on Lot 12 of Tract 12870. Developer agrees and understands that Developer must submit appropriate rezoning and specific 1 EXHIBIT A clan amendment entitlement applications which shall be subject co the full and unrestricted right of the City to grant, deny or conditionally approve said proposed rezoning without restriction. Developer further acknowledges that the existing zoning for the Property does not allow the construction of dwelling units in excess of 18 dwelling units per acre, as the existing zoning for the Property is medium density residential. 2. Agreement to Pay Park Funds. Developer hereby agrees to pay to City a contribution in the amount of $2,000 for each excess dwelling unit (that is each unit over and above units constructed in excess of 18 units per acre) up to, but not to exceed a maximdm of $200, 000. As used herein, the term "excess dwelling unit" shall mean each excess dwelling unit constructed by the Developer on the Property in excess of 254 dwelling units. In the event Developer does not receive zoning and specific plan approvals from City to build excess dwelling units, Developer shall have no obligation to pay the above stated funds to City. 3.• Timing of Payment. To implement paragraph 2 above, Developer shall begin paying a "Prorata Per Unit Contribution" per excess dwelling unit at the initial start-up of construction of the project; `.hat is, when the first building permit is obtained for the -onstruction of a dwelling unit on the Property, Developer shall pay a Prorata Per Unit Contribution, and for each building permit thereafter issued to Developer by City. As used in the foregoing sentence, the term "Prorata Per Unit Contribution" shall mean an amount equal to the product of (a) $2,000, multiplied by (b) a fraction, the numerator of which is the total number of dwelling units in excess of 254 for which Developer receives tentative map approval from the City, and the denominator of which is the total number of dwelling units for which Developer receives tentative map approval from the City. If, for any reason, Developer and/or any and all successors -in -interest are unable or fails to build all of the excess dwelling units used in calculating the Prorata Per Unit Contributions, after completion of the project, City shall reimburse Developer, within thirty (30) days of demand therefore, an amount Equal to the difference between (y) the actual amount paid by Developer to City in Prorata Per Unit Contributions, minus (z) the product of $2,000 multiplied by the actual number of excess dwelling units constructed by Developer and/or any and all successors -in - interest on the Property. 2 4. Use of Funds. City agrees to use all of the funds solely for construction of public park improvements within the East Tustin Specific Plan area in the City of Tustin. 5. Agreement Running with the Land. Developer's contingent obligation to pay the funds is for the benefit of City and all real property owned by City within the City of Tustin, and'is intended to and shall run with the Property and inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective sddtessors and assigns, including without limitation Developer's successors in ownership of the Property. An owner of the Property shall only be obligated for payment of said funds during its period of ownership of the Property, and upon any transfer of ownership of the Property to a new owner or owners and the obligations prescribed herein running with the land, the transferor shall be automatically released from all liability hereunder. 6. Liens and Encumbrances. The Property and each parcel and dwelling unit thereof shall be subject to a lien for. the obligations prescribed in this Agreement. Upon payment of the Prorata Per Unit Contribution to City for each dwelling unit, the City shall, upon request, deliver to Developer a duly executed release of the lien prescribed herein as to such dwelling unit. In the event Developer does not receive zoning and specific plan approvals from City to build excess dwelling units, Developer shall have no obligation to pay. 7. Mortgage or Deed of Trust. The breach or the attempt to breach any of the covenants or other provisions contained herein, shall not defeat, affect or render invalid the lien or charge of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for valuable consideration; provided, however, that all such covenants and other provisions shall rennin in full force and effect, notwithstanding the foreclosure and subsequent foreclosure sale of any mortgage or deed of trust which shall hereafter constitute an encumbrance on the Property. 8. Periodic Review. This Agreement shall be subject to periodic review at least every 12 months, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1. 3 9. Term. This agreement shall remain in effect until all contributions have been paid in accordance with paragraph 3 above. 10. Hold Harmless and Defense. Developer agrees to and shall indemnify, save, defend and hold City, its officers, agents and employees, harmless from any liability arising from claims from the City's approval or execution of this Agreement. N• N. This foregoing provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this section, regardless of whether or not City preferred, supplied, or approved plans or specifications, or both, or all, for the project. 11. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be given to the following representatives of the parties, at the addresses indicated below by personal service, or by registered certified United States mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: If to City: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Attn: City Clerk Copy to: City Attorney If to Developer: The William Lyon Company 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: Mr. Chris Hawke 12. Assignment. Developer may, at its discretion, jcin and associate with other entities into joint -ventures, partnerships, or otherwise for the purpose of performing under this Agreement. The rights under this Agreement may be transferred or assigned in whole by Developer by written notice to the City within thirty ( 3 0 ) days after the effective date of such assignment. 4 1 3. 'Tire i a f Time, is of the ��se�r,;.� c : �:.•r. r �. , of wh:.-h tine is an ela ent. 1N � ��a;�i � S WHEREOF, a� s � a-0 a .► X f: •� :� t :_' V �.. •'•� 1 � �S reement a s a: V110ti is f f rut abcV = Wri'! to . city: of Tustin N• N. Mayor APPROVED h5 TO FORM: Jaren E. Rourke City Attorney lyan.ory DEVELOPER: hz V i ll yam Lynn company By: Title,_�___�__. - - 5 EXHIBIT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ZONE CHANGE 92-002 (LYON) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 12, "L" and "N" of Tract 12870 M. N. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11' 12I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 1102 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 92-002 TO AMEND THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE CATEGORY IN THE VICINITY OF LOT 12 OF TRACT 12870 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH MINOR TEXTURAL REVISIONS The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That an application has been filed by The William Lyon Company, requesting approval of Zone Change 92-002 to change a land use category in the vicinity of Lot 12 of Tract 12870 from Medium Density to Medium -High Density Residential and to make minor textural changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan. B. That a public hearing was duly notice, called and held on said application by the Planning Commission on January 11, 1993 and the City Council on February 1, 1993. C. That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2) for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified with Addendum No. 4 in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project. D. Proposed Zone Change 92-002 would be consistent with good land use design placing higher density residential products adjacent to major arterials minimizing traffic and noise impacts. E. Proposed Zone Change 92-002 would be consistent with the policies of the General Plan. Land Use and Housing Elements with placement and encouragement of owner occupied dwellings. 1 2 Ordinance 1102 Page 2 3 II. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 92-002 4 as follows: 5 A. The East Tustin Specific Plan land use map in the vicinity of Lot 12 of Tract 12870 shall be 6 changed from Medium Density to Medium High Density Residential as shown in Exhibit A 7 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. g B. The Sector 7 descriptions identified on pages 9 2-37 and 2-38 of the East Tustin Specific Plan shall be revised as shown in Exhibit B 10 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 11 C. The East Tustin Statistical Analysis 12 identified on pages 2-24, 2-25, 3-13 and 3-14 of the East Tustin Specific Plan shall be 13 revised as shown in Exhibit C attached hereto 14 and incorporated herein by reference. III. In order to implement the above changes, the 15 applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the following materials within 30 days 16 of approval: 17 A. Fifteen (15) copies and one (1) reproducible copy of the East Tustin Specific Plan with 18 revisions required in Section II above. 19 B. Fifteen (15) copies of a large scale Land Use Map of the East Tustin Specific Plan with 20 revisions required in Section IIA above. 21 C. A revised Statistical Summary of Tract 12870 to reflect the Medium -High Density Residential 22 land use category on Lot 12 of Tract 12870. 23 The Assumed Unit column shall also be revised based upon current subdivision approvals and applications to not exceed the 3,590 dwellings 24 authorized within Sector 7. 25 D. An executed Development Agreement to be 26 recorded on the property as approved by Resolution No. 93-06. 27 E. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of 28 the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance 1102 Page 3 COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $25.00 (twenty- five dollars) pursuant to AB 3185, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, enabling the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the approval 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of February, 1993. MARY E. WYNN City Clerk LESLIE ANNE PONTIOUS Mayor a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance 1102 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1102 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1102 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 1st day of February, 1993. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER:ABSENT: MARY E. WYNN City Clerk �IYI f�i�r'I & .J .. _..- --r �L=<.�-.7L r •L�---. IIrwi&L.4V#% o .:n�•..��..i� 1 *,L Q i i rw THOMAS L. POWELL ATTORNEY AT LAa 100 B yvmw Coltec, Surn 6000 Nawon BaACH. CA.1rowcA 92660 Pxom (714) 721-7287 • FAx (714) 721-7400 December 29, 1992 Mr, Norm Smith Proj act Director TH IRVINE COMPANY 55 Newport canter Drive No art Beach, CA 92660 RE: =gtin n Ran h Comm , ity Association I De r Norm: In furtherance of our telephone conversation last week reIarding the interpretation of the provisions of Section 1 of icle II in the "Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Re trictions and Reservation of- Easements for Tustin Ranch Co unity Association I," and as the author of the Master De laration, I have briefly summarize below the intent of these pa icular provisions* As indicated in the Recitals to the Master Declaration, th} Master Declaration contains a variety of provisions, including "cp�venants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, easements, egtitable servitudes, liens and charges." In addition to these ra or legalistic concepts, to assist owners in TRCA Iin un erstanding the basic development plan for TRCA I in keeping with my, customary practice, I included a narrative in the Master De lavation describing in general terms the nature of the project, th types of homes contemplated to be built, the relationship be ween the Master Association and any sub -associations, etc. Ad itionally, I want the owners to receive full disclosure about an unique or unusual matter's affecting the project. This is pr cicely what Article II is all about. Specifically, Section 1 pr vides an overall introduction into TRCA I; Section 2 discloses th t the Declarant has reserved extensive rights to modify the or ginal development plan for the Project; Section 3 is very e licit that they purpose of Article II is "- .. merely to describe th legal relationship between the first and any subsequent Phases of; the Project in the event all or any of such Phases shall be constructed and annexed into the Project"; and Sections 4 through 8 dare very specialized disclosure provisions relevant to the Prpjact. r.023-1TICCORM1000.031-12124/92 ATTACHMENT A _ ... _ �r..—r-I�.ir✓�..�wr�l�i.[K����'lO-'•fMilV.f.'Y�anu•�.w. �.Iw�l.��r•aAAYP(�.A/rrVfwJ��v�.�.. �. ... ......_ .. ....... .. ��� .� ,... .JVI�I U •fl LX J I..L.-..��-�L I I •L� nr%1%A. 1-I VI4 G> Mr. Norm Smith December 29, 1992 Page 2 The aRproxiinate number of Residences is set forth in Segtion 1, for two reasons: (11 the DRE needs an approximate number of Residences in order to calculate the Assessments to be levied if th Project is built out as proposed; and (Z ) FNMA prof ars that the Mater Declaration identifyan estimated number of Residences to be included in the project. ince the Master Declaration is recorded at ;the outset of the Project, the estimated number of Residences cannot be anything more than a good faith Projection based upon the original development plan. The current economic climate in Orange Co-4nty is a classic example of how circumstances which are beyond the Declarant's control can not only adversely impact the time freime for completing the Project, but also spur a request to modify thi original development plan. For these reasons,_ section l is subject to extensive "qualifying language" (e.g. "as presently planned", flif", • etc. ). In short, the provisions of Section 1 of Article II are i8ut that - - - provisions; they Are not covenants. A "covenant" .a promise or pledge by a person or entity.to another to do or refrain from doing some act. Covenants are characterised by using certain types of words( e.g. agree, must , shall, promise, etc.). Fuithermore, in order for a provision to rise to the level of a covenant which tuns with the land, certain strict legal requirements must be met pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1468. In light of the facts that there was no intent to create covenants, that the language is not reflective of covenants, the provisions in Section 1 of Article II of the Master Declaration do not constitute covenants (and thus cannot constitute covenants Which run with the land) , and as such do not limit or otherwise reitrict either the Declarant's or any Merchant Builder's right to modify the original development plan for TRCA I. I trust the foregoing has helped clarify the intent of section 1. If you kava any further questions, please give Mme a call. Peat regards, THOMAS L. POWELL TLP:dmw ' A23-1nC%CCnU\1000.033-12119/92 and to any supplements or amendments hereto filed or recorded pursuant to the provisions of this Master Declaration, and to any Notica of Annexation Zor a subsequent Phases, unless otherwise indicated ov thee context shall prohibit such application. ARTICLE 11 p►a aoc i"Ion s .. .. .. . - .... - (a) General Plan of Develonment. Tustin Ranch Community Association I has been designed as a residential master planned de`ralopment, and will be developed in substantial con- formance. With the Development Plan. As presently planned, the Project will be developed by Merchant Builders in a series of Phases over several years, and if the Pro j act is built out as presently planned, it will include approximately four hundred fifty (4 5 0) Reside aces . The Property constitutes the first phase of the Project. All or any portions of the Annexation Property may be developed by Merchant Buildeva as additional Phases and annexed to the Property and made subject to this Mastar Declaration and to the' jurisdiction of the Master Association as provided in the Article herein entitled "Annexation of Additional Property". This Master Declaration (and the other Master Association Documants) impose Protective Covenants and other terms, provisions and regulations Mich catablish the geneval•plan for the develop=ent, maintenance, care, J-mprove:ment, use, occupancy and management of the Project . '(b) Types of _Residences_ The Residences within the project may include, but are not limited to, attached and detached single family homes, and Condominiums. Each Owner •rill raeeive title to his respective Residence, all easemants appurtonant thereto and an appurtenant membarsh.ip in the Master Association. The Owners of any Residence located within a portion of the: Pro j sect which constitutes a Pl annftd Development or Condominium Prosect so as to be subject to a Sub -Association, shall also receive an appurtenant meabarship In the Sub -Association, shall be subject to the 5u2;0 -- Association Documents establishing such Planned Development or Condominium Project, and shall receive an appurtenant easo=ent and/ or an undivided ownership interest in any Co==on Area within such Sub -Association. (c) The Master Assoc- iat_ on_ The Master Association will be the management body for the Project, and in furtharanca thereof, will be responsible for owning, maintaining and administering the Master Association Property and admini- 1(D V7.v 3--9"-TXY 0420" -10- stering and enforcing -he Protective Covenants, terms, provisions and regulations set forth in the Master Association Documents. The Master Association Property located in .this rirst Phaza of the Project is more particularly described in Exhlbit "E" attached hereto_ Additional Master Association Property may be annexed as part of any additlonal.Phase and Shall be de=ignattd in the Notice. of Annexation as additional Mastar Association Property. Each sub -Association may provide additional amenities which shall be solely Por the use and anjvy=aerit-�o�.�tia: mcrsr-.,off'• $uchSub-�Assods;ation and' not -=or the Members of the Master Association at large. (d) Membership in the Master Association. Each ownar of a Rte 1dance in the Project shall automatically become a mCmbar Of the Master Association, and 'shall be obligated for the P&YMent of Assessments to the Master Association. In addi- tion, each owner, his family members, lessees, tenants and their respective quests and invitees, will be.entitled to thaw use and enjoyment of the Master Association Property within h te Project, in accordance with the Master *Association Documents. Only those owners whose Residences are located w thin a Planned Development or a Condomini.u=n Project so as to be subject to a Sub -Association will also -automatically be a member of such sub -Association, and obligated for the paymezat of assessments to such Sub -Association. such Owners, their fainly me= ens, lessees, tenants and their respective guests and invitees will also be entitled to the use and onjoyment of any Common Area located in such Sub --Association in accordance with the sub -Associations Documents. zac,V-4 on 2. Deve 1 ommant, control. Subject only to the Prior approval of the Public Agencies, nothing in this Article or elsewhere in this Master Declaration shall limit the right of Declarant (and/or any Merchant Builder with Deelarant•s consent) to: (a) install, construct, modify, altar or remove any Improve - =onto in any portion of the Project- *owncd by Declarant and/or any Merchant Builder; (b) redesign or otherwise altar the style, aize, color or appearance of any Improvements in any portion of the Project owned by Declarant and/or any Merchant Builder; (c) construct such additional Improvements on any portions of the Project owned by Declarant and/or Merchant Builder; (d) subdivide, re. -subdivide, grade or regrade any portion of the Proparty and/or Annexation Property owned by Declarant and/or a Merchant Builder; and/or (e) otherwise control all aspects of designing and constructing the Improvements in the Project, and of regulating the marketing of Residences in the Project_ In furtharance thereof, Declarant hereby reserves, unto itself, its Merchant Builders and .eir respective successors and assigns, a nonexcluaive easement -ov ingress and egress on, over and across the Project as necessary SarYn.o2�Aso.ii.>• os2s�i - i 1- to construct Improvements, and further reserves for itself and all Merchant Builders the right: (i) until all Residences in the Project have bean sold by Declarant or tha Merchant Builders; or (11) saVen (7) years from the first close of Escrow for tha sale of a Ras idance in the Pro j act , :: h 1chaver occurs first , to maintain an information office, to cam- on_. normal sales activity, including. tha operation of model complexes and sales offices, and to display reasonable signs on any port ion of the Pro j eot owned by or con- trolled by Declarant or a Merchant Builder and a nonexclusive right to -Asae►ci�t'nn---P.sap"i n' ' co{�ncezton' with the sale or leasing of Residences in the Pro]ect. Section 3. Non-Littbil tv. Nothing in thia Article or, elsewhere in this Master Declaration shall be understood or con- strued to compel Declarant and/or any Merchant Builder to cause any subsequent Phase of tha Project to be constructed or annexed into the Project. The purpose of this Articla is merely to describe the legal relationship betwee-zz the fi=at and any subsaqucnt Phases of the Project in tha event all or, any, of such Phases shall be con- structed and annexed into the Project. Section 4. LandsCaning and Lighting District. Each owner acknowledges that his respective Residence is within the Tustin Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District which was formed to maintain, among other things, various landscaped areas (and related irrigation systems) , natuva 1 areas and slopes, as generally depicted on Exhibit "D," and to provide street lighting within the Maintenance District. The- annual assessment ("Maintenance Assessment") 1Qvied by the Maintenance District will be collected through the real property tax bill issued by the county of orange to= each Residance (and other properties) within the Maintenance District. The Tustin city Council will review the budget for the Maintenance District annually and the amount of the Maintenance Assessment will depend, among other things, upon the nature of the landscaping and slated improvements, the cost of performing such maintananca, and the cost of providing street lighting sarvicas. The Maintenance Assessment is subject to annual adjustments as the City Council deems appropriate. Section 5. Assessment Distr_ ict. Each owner acknowl- edges that the Project is located within the boundaries of City of Tustin Assessment District No. 86-2 ("Assessment District"), which was formed under the authority of the Municipal 1=provement Act of 1913 and the Bond' Act- of 1915. The purpose of the Assessment District is to pay for, among other things, the design and con- str•uctivn of major infrastructure improvements such as streets, bvidgec, sewers and utilities be.nef sting the Tustin Ranch Community Association I and other lands. - The portion of the improvement costs allocated to an Owner's ResidencQ constitutes a lien upon the owner's ResidancG_ 1aW7_au-9o.Tu 042691 "12- The assessment lien will be paid off in installments which Will be added to such Owner's annual real property tax bill issued by the County of Orange. Based upon current projections, the assess=ment lien should ba fully simonized by the and of the year 2013. In the event an Owner shall fail to pay any annual instalI=ent of his assassment Ilan when due, California law permits the City to foreclose on the Owner's Residence. An Owner may have the option to pay of= the total amount of the assessment lien at any tima, Plus a bond redemption fee. An Owner may contact the City for further~'info �r �e.: A' - . r' I� Section 6. Community Facilities District. Each Owner acknowledges that the Project is located within the boundaries at Com=munity Facilities District No. 88-1 ("CFD 88-1"), which was formed by the Tustin Unif led School District, to finance, among otbtar th4mgs, the acquisition of land and the design and construe - tion and/or refurbishment of several school racilities. CFD 88-3- is 8-1is authorized to issue -up to $103 million in bonds. The amount of bonds which are sold are repaid through special taxes laviaQ againat'the Residences in the Project and other propQrtias s+ithin CFD 88-1. The special taxes constitute a continuing Ilan on each Owner's Residence and are charged to each Owners Residence as a PDX-1--ion of such Owner's real estate tax bill issued by the County ')�f Orange. The lien of the special taxes shall continue its =once .seed e=rect until the special tax obligation is permanantly satistiQd and canceled or.otherwise ceases to bee levied in accordance with applicable law. in the event an Owner shall fail to pay his special taxes when due, the School District may exercise its legal remedy to foreclose on such Owner's Residence. A Notice of Special Tax Authorization ( `*Notice•' ) for CFD ss -1 was r-acordad on May 23, 1988, as Instrument No_ 88-239891 in the Official Records of Orange County. In addition to the above, the Notice contains additional specific information regarding each Ownem4s obligations. Each Owner should review a copy of tha. Notice to understand the arfact of CFD 88-1 on the Owners Residence. Section 7. Overflights. Each owner acknowledges the Project is within the overflight patterns for aircraft departing and/or arriving from John Wayne Airport, the Marina Corps AiX Station in Tustin and/or in El Toro, and accordingly, can expect airplane, jet and/or helicopter noise from such overflights. A copy of the overflight noise disclosure statement prepared by the United States Marine Corps is attached hereto as Exhibit "F." section 8. Proximity to Golf Course. Each Owner acknowledges that some Reaidences in the Project may be located within close proximity to a public golf course (the "Golf Course") , -and are subject to that certain "Amended and Restated Agreement of asement for Golf Balls," recorded April 2, 1991, as Instrument No. -41-151402, of the Official Records of Orange County, California, as 1G3V?.Ca3_VW_Zz.t 042"t -1-3- ' d -10101 same may be amended or supplemented from time -o time. While owning a Reaidcnca adjacent to or in close proxiiaity of the Golf course may bn dasirable, each owner also understands, acknowledges and agrees that as a result of such location an Owner's Residence (and occupants) are subject to the risk of damage, injury and/or disturbance from events and activities inherent in the maintenance and use of thn Golf Course, including, but not limited to: (1) the flight and i:apact of errant golf balls;. ( 2 ) the unauthorized entry by golfers onto an owner's Residence to rgtriave errant golf balls; and ( 3 ) golf.:caurse--iaaint Z.at_�nw(e. g. , pruning, moving grass, re -planting and use of loud nachin�ry) which might be conductad during early morning or, late afternoon hours. Additionally, each owner further acknowledges and understands that the Golf Course will be irrigated with reclaimed watar. Tha standards 'for reclaimed water and its suitability for irrigation purposes are determined by applicable governmental agencies, which standards may vary from time to time. "Overspray" from said irrigation eyate:as onto an Owner's Residence may adversely impact such owner's Residence, and any personal property or improvemants located tharein_ ARTSCLE IIS PROPERTY QTC_HTS REGARDING THE 14AS-rER ASSOCTATION ---PROPERTY AND RESERVATTON OF EASEMENTS Section 1. owners' Easaments. Every owner shall have a nonexclusive right and easement of access, use and enjoyment in and to the Master Association Property. said right and easement shall ba appurtenant to and shall pass with title to every Rasi.- dence, subject to thm limitations set forth in Section 2 below. Section 2- Limitations on Owners' Easement Ricthts. The rights and easements or access -, use and enjoyment set- f Orth in Section 1 herainabove shall be subject to the provisions of this Master Declaration, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) The right of the Master Association to rea- sonab'Ly limit the number of guests of Owners using tt:e Mostar Assocta.tlon Property and facilities located thereon; (b) The right of the Master AssOciation to estab- lish and enforce reasonable Rules and Regulations pertaining to the use of the Master Association Property and all fa- cilities located thereon; (c) The right of the Master Association to suspend the voting rights and rights and easements or use and enjoyment of the Master Association Property of any Member, and all persons derlving such rights and easements from any Member (as provided herein) for any period during which any Assessment against such Member's Residence remains unpaid and 1a397.o23-990.T7_P o*'b"i -14- Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 4 The Public Hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Weil noted that Don Le Jeune stated t the whole downtown area is concerned; and thinks that they s d be required to screen the equipment. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she h eceived calls from the area residents complaining about the e; and stated that they owe it to the residents to require sc.., ing. Commissioner Weil moved Ba seconded to approve Temporary Use Permit Extension 92-009 b inute Order subject to correction of sentence No. 2 of Co ion 2, Exhibit A to read as follows, "Should additional e be necessary to drill the well, small equipment, sand ba scrap material and pipe shall be stored below window levels o the adjacent retirement home and if storage is needed for 1 er than 30 days, said storage shall be screened along Pros t Avenue by using slats or other screening material subject approval of the Community Development Department", and the a ion of Item No. 7 to read, "Large rigs, tanks and trailers on site shall be moved off the site within 14 days from the 3. Zone Change 92-002 & Development Agreement 92-001 (Lvon APPLICANT/ THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY OWNER 4490 VON KARMAN NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTENTION: CHRIS HAWKE LOCATION: LOT 12 OF TRACT 12870 ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: 1. AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY ON LOT 12 OF TRACT 12870 FROM 18 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 25 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; AND 2. APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Certify Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 5 by adopting Resolution No. 3112; and 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3113, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Butler asked for a clarification of the timing of the payment of the $2,000 per unit contribution. Staff replied that payment of the $2,000 contribution would be required for units over 18 units per acre; but would be amortized over the entire project upon issuance of building permits. The Director stated that if the zone change is approved, the developer must return for a Public Hearing for the subdivision map with design review for the project; that the project will not exceed the authorization that the zone change would provide. Commissioner Weil asked if the $200,000 would fund East Tustin Parks. Staff affirmed. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m. Pal A. Lengvel-Leahu, 12695 Doral, Ventana resident, stated that he was opposed to the Resolution; that the Commission should consider the rationale behind the master plan, behind the changes and the impact of the changes on the community; that Ventana residents were motivated to purchase by the original plan assuming they would see an increase in equity; that the placement of a development on golf frontage property will have a disproportionate impact on similar units that do not have golf frontage; that they are assuming William Lyon will sell the property upon approval of the zone change for profit; read from Attorney Tom Powell's letter; that homeowners feel that CC&R's provide an agreement to rely on for purchase; that the City Council should serve to protect the citizens; that the changes will have an adverse effect on the community; that William Lyon Company says there will only be an increase of 68 people with 100 extra units; that Irvine Blvd. is very busy now; that Tustin Ranch Road will be a major artery; that 100 units actually represents 200 more cars and asked who would pay for the wear and tear on the streets as well as extra signals which should not be borne by the community. He continued with question- ing the accuracy of the EIR; that William Lyon indicates there is no market for the current project; but that there will be no market for his unit if the change occurs; that Lyon may make $2,000,000 extra on 300 units, but 350 units will provide $9,500,000; and are - Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 _ Page 6 offering $2,000 per unit to the City which is unfair; that he does not feel William Lyon intends to build on this property; suggested a covenant could be included requiring William Lyon to be the builder; that adding another medium-high density project to this region adds risks to the area; that they do not need additional money for the parklands, but money for the increased density which will be generated causing a negative impact; that the Commission must preserve the integrity of the community as detailed in the CC&R's; and that a master plan is needed so that their purchasing decisions can reflect a commitment to their welfare. Merle Ogle, 2326 Dunes, stated that he was concerned about the matter and that he moved to Tustin for the well-planned area; that he did not know that the CC&R's could be changed after purchase; that he plans to retire here; and was against the item and suggested the Commission drop the issue. Richard Baznik, 12691 Doral, Ventana homeowner, stated that he was not interested in the area average, only that which affects his immediate area; that the additional residents would dump on his neighbors and the intersection; suggested that the $200,000 was a payoff; that most of the CC&R language was written on the assump- tion that it would not be read by the residents; that either William Lyon will develop the land or look for a better price; that he retired here and made a decision to purchase based on the CC&R's which they had to sign for as understood; and that the developer should have realized that the people living there are smart lawyers and sophisticated financial people who read. Mike Natelson, 2240 Huntley Drive, resident of Alacante, that his decision to invest in his purchase was based on the consideration of the adjacent units being marketed as a luxury executive develop- ment with other custom homes and a prestigious golf course nearby; but is now looking at a very different community being planned; requested that the plan be left as is without increase in density, since the people relied on the original zone in good faith. Ron Babo, 2310 Dunes, resident of Ventana, agreed with previous speakers; stated that upon looking at other cities, he wanted to live in Tustin in a planned community; but that it is unfair that the burden of the zone change be shifted to the adjacent neighbors. Paul Hass, 2320 Cascade, resident of Ventana, noted that the City Council recently supported William Lyon's high quality building standards, who was determined to be providing shoddy developments by the LA Times; that they will not build on this property since they are financially strapped; that this is a 40o increase in Planning Commission Minutes 6anuary 11, 1993 Page 7 density; and that the City will never see the $2,000 per unit. Chris Hawke, William Lyon Company, 4490 Von Karman, Newport Beach, stated that the public documents for the three tracts allowed 865 units for the planned area; that with the increase in density proposed, there will only be 601 units which will be 264 units below proposed for the area, and 519 below planned for the sector; that the roads, parks, police and fire facilities were planned at an increased density; that first speaker's comments are inaccurate; and apologized for the inadvertent mailing error. Lynn Blashford, 12706 Doral, Ventana resident, stated that she hoped that the remainder of the units for the East Tustin area would not be placed in this tract; and noted that all traf f is would be going onto Greenway. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked for staff affirmation that the Commission is not allowed to make their decision based on economics; and that the East Tustin Specific Plan allowed for shifting of densities within sectors. Staff affirmed that economics cannot be a factor; and that densi- ties may be shifted, but that was not the consideration here; that densities cannot be exceeded for individual lots; that this change is for medium to medium-high; and that the project would still be lower than 3,600 units authorized in Sector 7. Commissioner Baker asked if William Lyon Company could be required to be the builder. John Shaw, City Attorney, replied that the agreement could be limited to the Lyon Company; but that in the course of the negotiations, that was not the devel--per's position, who wished to be able to transfer their rights to another developer. Staff stated that irregardless of the developer, the City would still receive the contribution; that the development agreement runs with the land, not the developer. Commissioner Weil asked how many units would have been developed in Ventana if it had been built at 18 units per acre instead of the actual 13.9 units per acre. Staff replied that there would have been 168 units instead of 129. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Weil continued with noting that 37 were transferred to this project; that each sector was not built to the maximum allowed; that this project may not be built to maximum, but cannot consider that; that the capacity was addressed in all environmental documents; that the roads were built to absorb more traffic than has been generated; that the golf course and Tustin Ranch Road provide more open space than normal; that 25 units per acre will fit on the land; that it will not have that much impact on the current residents; that trips are spread over a 24-hour period; that the original documents are still in affect; and is in favor of the project. Commissioner Stracker stated that medium-high density should be located on Jamboree, not Tustin Ranch Road; that he could not rationalize regional traffic and local; that it involves Greenway Drive and La Colina; that this adds additional traffic that would not have been there; that this increases density 380-. and traffic 330; that he does not agree with the traffic engineer on this matter. Commissioner Kasalek agreed with Commissioner Weil; that the traffic issue had been looked at heavily; that the roads were made to handle much more traffic; that there will be 500-600 less homes than originally approved; that the lower amount of homes in that area will make less traffic there; that they are not cramming what was saved from all areas into this area; that she is opposed to high density and would not make a decision that would create problems; and that the City's staff will ensure a well-built product. The Public Hearing was re -opened at 8:14 p.m. Rick Regazzo, 2315 Cascade, Ventana resident, stated that the numbers could be bent anyway that was advantageous; asked what right it gives the Planning Commission .to compensate moving leftover units to other developments; that the area may be able to compensate for the traffic, but they are concerned about their area; that they agreed to buy under the original CC&R's which have been changed; and suggested that it was rumored that the proposed number may increase further. Commissioner Weil stated that part of the Specific Plan allows for movement of units from one sector or part of a sector to another; and that they are following a long-standing agreement. Ann Gnadt, 2316' Cascade, stated that she was concerned that the Planning Commission represent the residents; that her family Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 9 expects her to take care of them and she expects the Commission to take care of the residents, not just the builders. Mr. Lengvel-Leahu stated that the issue is not just traffic, but the impact on property values; that Lyon does not need this change and has provided no reason; that the Commission has the power to make the change, but should they; that if the reason William Lyon wants to make the change is for a greater profit, the Commission is not here to protect those interests, but the Community which does not want the change; that the traffic reports are not holding up now, and will not when fully built; that they can still make a profit at 250 units; that they need to provide a reason; that there will be a definite negative impact on Ventana if William Lyon is allowed to build an identical project on golf front property. Mr. Hawke reiterated that there are three projects in this area that were planned for 865 units to be developed; that with their increased density there will be 601 units with 264 less than planned; that only about 6600 units will be developed in all of East Tustin instead of 9,000; and that all of the planning documents were available to the residents before they purchased. Mr. Ogle stated that when he came to Ventana he received a large package of CC&R's; that they bought in good faith; that a buyer should not be required to go to City Hall and check the documents; that this is double talk and is unfair to the purchasers. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 P.M. Commissioner Baker stated that much of the traffic along Irvine Boulevard was due to people avoiding the freeway; that their homes were once cornfields; that everything is changing in Tustin; that he understands about the congestion, changes and construction; that he worked on the Specific Plan and the Environmental document which were good documents; and approves of the change. Commissioner Butler stated that unfortunately for the new residents, the Specific Plan was agreed upon with the possibility of this change; that the golf course provides open space around this development; that they still need the flexibility allowed with the Specific Plan; and supports the zone change as proposed. Commissioner Stracker noted that it does not make any difference whether there are 264 units less in the vicinity than originally planned; that this is looking at an increase of 100 units; and that it is not necessary to have medium-high density along Tustin Ranch Road. Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 1993 Page 10 Commissioner Kasalek stated that each Commissioner takes this job of taking care of the residents seriously; that she believes that their decisions are based on whether they live there or for the good of everyone in the city; and that there is capacity for change or she would not vote for the change. Commissioner Weil related a story about the original residents who did not want these new neighbors to have new homes; they wanted their vistas and fields; they were afraid their housing values would be destroyed; that the Commission was correct in approving the development; that the market is down, but not due to poor planning; and stated that the Commission has the good of the City at heart. Commissioner Butler noted that he sells real estate and feels that the low density of Ventana will be a positive selling point; that the $200,000 is not required as part of the proposal; -and even if the contribution was not being made, the Commission would still consider that they have the right to request this density for this development; and that there will be about 50 more families that will be able to enjoy East Tustin. Commissioner Baker asked if it could be requested that the applicant be required to be the developer, due to the possibility of profit taking. John Shaw stated that the language in the development agreement says that it runs with the land and is binding upon their successors; that it could be limited to one developer with a vote. The Director stated that the recommendation would have been the same no matter who the developer was. Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded to Certify Addendum No. 4 to EIR 85-2 by adopting Resolution No. 3112. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker was opposed Commissioner Weil moved, Butler seconded approved recommendation to the City Council approval of Zone Change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 by adopting Resolution No. 3113 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1. Commissioner Stracker was opposed January 26, 1993 • ✓ f u- V r Council Member Charles Puckett city of Tustin ���,j 15222 Del Arno Avenue Tustin CA 92880 i JAN 2 81993 1 write to you today to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-003 and Development Agreement 92-001, as proposed by the William Lyon Company 1 ask you to vote against these issues. I feel, no, I know that the proposed zone change will liave a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood. The increas"I density will result in greater traffic problems on a local level, greater burdens on City roads and services, and a negative impact on property values for surrounding areas. At the last Planning Commission hearing, some of the commission members tried to deny that this was the case Well, I just happen to be in the business of writing technical studies for EIR's (mainly relating to air qualitv and noise) Unfortunately, my wife and I live directly across the street (Greenwav Drive) frutri the propose,.) Lyon project. Su I know the. differerice between a regional impact anis a lural impact, and I can tell you that the proposed zone. change hili affect the local area. Noise levels ]LvjU be higher outside our windows, and we will get more traffic and air quality problems than we would with the current zoning limits. The curreIlt zoning was in place when my wife and I purchased our unit, aIld we relied upon this developmeIlt plan in making Our decision to live here I du not feel that we should suffer simply becai_ibe the William Lyon Company dices riot feel thev can make an adequate return on the land as currently zoned. The fact that exis'tiIlg developments in Sector i were built below the authorized density is not a rational reason for the Lyon Company to be allowed to exceed their own current authorized density �s one of the Planning Commission members pointed out, the higher density developments are supposed to go over on Jamboree Boulevard, not on Tustin Ranch Road. That s why we moved where we did. If we wanted to be in a higher density neighburhuud, we would liave lnuved there Try to put yourself iIl IIIv place Would you care to swap propertieson Lastly, there is an issue of fairness here. Our neighbors agree, that this is starting to look like David vs. Goliath. If I or one of my neighbors decided to erect an oil derrick In our back vard, we would rightly be told to take it down. It would be pointed out that we had read and signed documents acknowledging that we could not erect oil derricks in our back yards. if we persisted, we could (and would) be taken to court and ultimately be forced to comply with the rules. BUT, if you're a big shot developer, and you wish to change the rules (rules which you had previously agreed to) of what you will ultimately build, all yuu have to do is talk the right talk ai ents ease the right wheels. This pt ion may be false, but it is definite.]S e perception of the residin community It is very disappointing Whose interests are you really supposed to represent, anvwav ? In short, the whole scheme is a bad idea. I say again, please vote against the Lyon Company s proposed zone change. Sincerely, Mike acid Sandy Greene 12735 Doral, Tustin, CA 92680 JAN 2 81993 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am 116 %C aSa._e 2 and I am a resident of Tustin I live at [7 't.ic'S I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to lave here. I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density. William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed. In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval of the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development." The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change. Sincerely, JAN 2 81993 c.� — t DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am Sharyl Hughes and I am a resident of Tustin I live at 12700 Doral, Tustin I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company. I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood. The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned. Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counse], vote against this zoning change C -L -L - Sincerely, /1^ Sh y Hugh JAN L y 1993 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am t,,)piL 3HNC,1?,YP1" and I am a resident of Tustin I live at 127z•i peAc I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, C� JAN 2 91993 i DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN J r I ami �/�O�LA�� and I am a resident of Tustin I live at _i�5-5 r I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas. The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density. William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have en3oyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change. Sincerely, C 1 W DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN JAN 2 9199,3 I am Z'o14 and I am a resident of Tustin I live at 2,1IS GitSr,,gpe I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, 1�4?7� JAN 2 91993 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am 15yr- ili A &o and I am a resident of Tustin I live at P3,10 rA F I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood. The .increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas. The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed. In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change. Sincerely, •) JAN 2 9199^ DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am 6A 1Z y 1_0 /✓R 4 and I am a resident of Tustin I live at / 7x. 75 GV 4 c�X I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer. The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, C��ez 7 / 2 5 2;�� SAN 2 91993 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am C�C,- Mot_—, and I am a resident of Tustin I live at 12 - t c> I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, 41-1 W L� c' DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN 9/I 9- I amand I am a resident of Tustin I live at /7— I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here. I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enDoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change. 'JANZ DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN �f9 I amf %/sz�s and I am a resident of Tustin I live at'�_Ta� 1 Jam., I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, JAN 2 9199: DEAR MEMBE/ROOF— THE CITY COUNS , CIT OF TUSTIN w9m nd I am a resident of Tustin I live at I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, JAN 2 91993 DEAR MEMBER OF THECITYCOUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am lY U and I am a resident of Tustin I live at I am sending this letter to register my oppo itio to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, IVIL i IAN 2 91093 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN. Vic A 1u: we AXE a=M-ROSAGa t kACCa C, 00 1/A and 1=am a residents of Tustin I live at I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here. I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density. William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea. I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, g DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am SANDRA N SOF T6tSPl and I am a resident of Tustin I live at ),7V9 POAAL- Ncnnl 6492b`)q I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, v(n+pnO Nomeocdner FEB 7-, ' SS's/7�/ i' DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am ��/j/(� and I am a resident of Tustin I live at / DSI I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not fee.'_ my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given ar assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, \J i �i FEB 199 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN- I am ✓M^ t Miles V)Rsyn-wo�,,and I am a resident of Tustin I live at I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas' The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density. William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development." The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change. Sincerely, FEB _ 21993 i DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN ti� ��I/`Z a/Zo MUYA Ji ad I am a resident of Tustin I live at 6X I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, �/ 1) 0 • FEB _ 21993 . i DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am -�W MAS and I am a resident of Tustin I live at Zz3(. ,Jo�S1A�Q n �. I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in,the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, FEB 21993 DEAR MEM OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I amGa L' and I am a resident of Tustin I live atI am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, FEB - 21993 DEAR MEMBER OF THECITYCOUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN. _. I am ,, 1J�5'llgO� and I am a resident of Tustin I live at la7e)4i I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas. The current zoning was sr, pl:?ce when I purchased my u -it and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here. I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer. The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea. I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, t FEB DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I "KRZY kUES and I am a resident of Tustin I live at IL�7 S I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, L In,?r 0 • FEB 21903 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am C(yx�e M U SU ✓K (,(0 and I am a resident of Tustin I live at oi�3� Nw�tley _1�Y. I am sending this letter to register my opposition o the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely,, FEB 2100-1 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am �,,,` 2P and I am a resident of Tustin I live at 7.3Ko 17vv�zs t f .,ham I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here. I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density. William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property'is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, = 4• FEB _ 21993 DEAR MEMBER OF TH��E// CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I am 4vk&L BbfG' 0 and I am a resident of `Tustin I live atZ-6 D I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, 414 I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, �j�� FEB DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN I a '— �� J and I am a resident of Tustin I live I am sending this letter to register m opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, �j�� FEB DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY//COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN L_ I amand I am a resident of Tustin I live at C_JpC.p,,.f ID4 I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, Y •\1 • 1 1 1 3 FEB _ 31993 DEAR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNSEL, CITY OF TUSTIN ,r',;�tGTRA-E I am Peter J. Porter and I am a resident of Tustin I live at 12765 Crawford Drive I am sending this letter to register my opposition to the Zone change 92-002 and Development Agreement 92-001 proposed by the William Lyon Company I feel the proposed change will have a disproportionate, adverse impact on my neighborhood The increased density will necessitate greater traffic problems, greater burdens on city roads and services, and negative impact on property values for surrounding areas The current zoning was in place when I purchased my unit and I relied upon this development plan in making my decision to live here I do not feel my property value should suffer simply because the people at William Lyon feel they cannot make a profit on the land as currently zoned Nor do I feel that the William Lyon company should benefit by the fact that other builders in Sector 7 have chosen to build below their authorized density William Lyon has not given an assurance as to how the land will ultimately be developed In fact, they have specifically excluded language in the development agreement that would entitle the City to prior approval if the land was to be transferred to another developer The money offered as an inducement is tied to the issuance of building permits which means, if the property is later transferred to another developer, William Lyon will have enjoyed the benefit of the increased value of the land, by virtue of the increased density, and avoided the payment of so-called "voluntary contributions for parkland development " The whole scheme is a bad idea I am hereby requesting that you and every member of the City Counsel vote against this zoning change Sincerely, I v PJ,- • PAL A LENGYEL-LEAHU 12695 DORAL TUSTIN, CA 92680 Jim Potts City of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 C, �J JAN 2 819903' 1, o � 26 JAN 931�t,'. RE OPPOSITION TO ZONE CHANGE 92-002 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 92-001 (LYON) Dear qtr Potts I am writing to express my opposition to zone change 92- 002 and development agreement 92-001 as proposed by the William Lyon Company I am a resident in the Ventana project which is across Greenway from the subject property For the reasons outlined herein, I request that you vote against the zone change A year ago when I was a prospective buyer, the sales team at Ventana was, quite knowledgeable concerning the Master Plan for Tustin Ranch and explained this plan in detail of special concern for me was the planned development of not only Ventana, but also that of the surrounding projects Ventana was a good investment because all of the adjacent properties were larger, more expensive units which would have a beneficial effect on my property value when all areas were built out I have come to learn that many other buyers in this area were motivated by the same rationale The original design of Sector 7 positioned the greater density properties closest to Jamboree while the lower density properties were near Tustin Ranch Road In compliance with the Master Plan, most of the projects in Sector 7 have been started Now, the current proposal seeks to set the planning aside for the exclusive benefit of one of the last vacant lots in this Sector Living in a planned community has certain restrictions but these are outweighed by the attraction of not having to deal with the uncertainty of how the neighborhood will develop The zoning for population density instills confidence in pur- chasing in a particular area The builders recognize this and consequently zoning and planning is always discussed with poten- tial buyers Because there is such a great emphasis placed on the value of a planned community, and the buyers invariably rely upon these representations in the purchase of the single largest investment of their lives, there should be a compelling reason before the plan is discarded William Lyon has not come forth with any reason why the current zoning requirements should be changed They have stated that their experts do not feel that the current real estate market will support a project as currently approved for the site Presumably, they are optimistic about the market for smaller units They feel they need the zoning change so they can build more of these smaller units and hopefully sell them at a profit But I am suspicious of their true intentions based upon the information they have given me The land is currently zoned to accommodate 250 units The current plan is to build only 200 If the zone change is approved, Chris Hawke has indicated William Lyon plans on build- ing only 300 units on the site The original plan calls for 50 units each at a selling price of $238x, $240K, $335K, and $345K for a total of $57,900,000 Based on figures submitted by Mr Hawke last year, the new project will be comprised of 60 units at $180K, 48 at $190K, 60 at $195K, 56 at $215x, and 76 at $230K for a total of $60,140,000 Of course these are last year's figures, and the actual price may vary, but there should be no over looking the fact that William Lyon entered into this whole proposition under the premise they stood to make an additional $2 million But if they were to build the project out at the limit of the changed density, 350 units, and the average price per unit was only $180K, they would gross $63 million Mr Hawke will undoubtedly argue that the market is not as strong as when he first came up with the figures last year But that is not to say the market will remain where it is next year when the new project begins to sell Of course any improvement in the market will be a wind fall to William Lyon Profits would generally not be considered in deciding a zoning change but William Lyon has not put forth any reason to justify the change in the first place Tustin Ranch does not need another medium high density zone In fact, placing a medium high density zone on this site would have a long term, detrimental impact on the city and the community Greater density means more traffic More traffic on Green- way, more traffic on Tustin Ranch Road and more traffic on Irvine Boulevard Of significant concern is the close proximity of the proposed elementary schools and of great concern is the proposed high school right across the street Surrounding properties will suffer in value if the density is changed and the new project built This will be especially true for the residents of Ventana The new project will be in direct competition with Ventana in size of unit and price per unit While Ventana will be somewhat more "open", the new project will enjoy golf frontage Prospective buyers will be 7, much more likely to purchase a unit looking out over the back nine than our units where the view is obstructed This will force Ventana owners to either reduce the price of their units when they sell, or worse, rent them until the market is sufficiently strong. While Ventana has already experienced some depreciation, I feel the proposed project will exacerbate our situation and keep our values lower for a longer period of time This will necessarily effect our property taxes which will impact our city To say I am disappointed with the Planning Commission's recommendation would be an understatement While not all, cer- tainly a majority seems to have ignored the desires and needs of the community they serve We are not against growth We are simply against unwarranted change that disproportionately injures our reasonable interests Especially when this change will hurt us individually, impact our community collectively, and serve the sole interests of a single, non resident, builder For all of these reasons, I request you vote against the proposed zone change and development agreement Sincerely, P�AA'el-'� 0-) PAL A LENGYEL-LEAHU 12695 DORAL TUSTIN, CA 92680 Jim Potts City of Tustin 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 JAN 2 81993 26 JAN 93LA' -- _=— RE OPPOSITION TO ZONE CHANGE 92-002 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 92-001 (LYON) Dear Mr Potts I am writing to express my opposition to zone change 92- 002 and development agreement 92-001 as proposed by the William Lyon Company I am a resident in the Ventana project which is across Greenway from the subject property For the reasons outlined herein, I request that you vote against the zone change A year ago when I was a prospective buyer, the sales team at Ventana was, quite knowledgeable concerning the Master Plan for Tustin Ranch and explained this plan in detail Of special concern for me was the planned development of not only Ventana, but also that of the surrounding projects Ventana was a good investment because all of the adjacent properties were larger, more expensive units which would have a beneficial effect on my property value when all areas were built out I have come to learn that many other buyers in this area were motivated by the same rationale The original design of Sector 7 positioned the greater density properties closest to Jamboree while the lower density properties were near Tustin Ranch Road In compliance with the Master Plan, most of the projects in Sector 7 have been started Now, the current proposal seeks to set the planning aside for the exclusive benefit of one of the last vacant lots in this Sector Living in a planned community has certain restrictions but these are outweighed by the attraction of not having to deal with the uncertainty of how the neighborhood will develop The zoning for population density instills confidence in pur- chasing in a particular area The builders recognize this and consequently zoning and planning is always discussed with poten- tial buyers Because there is such a great emphasis placed on the value of a planned community, and the buyers invariably rely upon these representations in the purchase of the single largest investment of their lives, there should be a compelling • reason before the plan is discarded William Lyon has not come forth with any reason why the current zoning requirements should be changed They have stated that their experts do not feel that the current real estate market will support a project as currently approved for the site Presumably, they are optimistic about the market for smaller units They feel they need the zoning change so they can build more of these smaller units and hopefully sell them at a profit But I am suspicious of their true intentions based upon the information they have given me The land is currently zoned to accommodate 250 units The current plan is to build only 200 If the zone change is approved, Chris Hawke has indicated William Lyon plans on build- ing only 300 units on the site The original plan calls for 50 units each at a selling price of $238K, $240K, $335K, and $345K for a total of $57,900,000 Based on figures submitted by Mr Hawke last year, the new project will be comprised of 60 units at $180K, 48 at $190K, 60 at $195x, 56 at $215K, and 76 at $230K for a total of $60,140,000 Of course these are last year's figures, and the actual price may vary, but there should be no over looking the fact that William Lyon entered into this whole proposition under the premise they stood to make an additional $2 million But if they were to build the project out at the limit of the changed density, 350 units, and the average price per unit was only $180K, they would gross $63 million Mr Hawke will undoubtedly argue that the market is not as strong as when he first came up with the figures last year But that is not to say the market will remain where it is next year when the new project begins to sell Of course any improvement in the market will be a wind fall to William Lyon Profits would generally not be considered in deciding a zoning change but William Lyon has not put forth any reason to justify the change in the first place Tustin Ranch does not need another medium high density zone In fact, placing a medium high density zone on this site would have a long term, detrimental impact on the city and the community Greater density means more traffic More traffic on Green- way, more traffic on Tustin Ranch Road and more traffic on Irvine Boulevard Of significant concern is the close proximity of the proposed elementary schools and of great concern is the proposed high school right across the street Surrounding properties will suffer in value if the density is changed and the new project built This will be especially true for the residents of Ventana The new project will be in direct competition with Ventana in size of unit and price per unit While Ventana will be somewhat more "open", the new project will enjoy golf frontage Prospective buyers will be much more likely to purchase a unit looking out over the back nine than our units where the view is obstructed This will force Ventana owners to either reduce the price of their units when they sell, or worse, rent them until the market is sufficiently strong. While Ventana has already experienced some depreciation, I feel the proposed project will exacerbate our situation and keep our values lower for a longer period of time This will necessarily effect our property taxes which will impact our city To say I am disappointed with the Planning Commission's recommendation would be an understatement While not all, cer- tainly a majority seems to have ignored the desires and needs of the community they serve We are not against growth We are simply against unwarranted change that disproportionately injures our reasonable interests Especially when this change will hurt us individually, impact our community collectively, and serve the sole interests of a single, non resident, builder For all of these reasons, I request you vote against the proposed zone change and development agreement Sincerely, Pie PA Len�� el -Led