Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004 - AMEND EAST TUSTIN DEV AGRMT & TENT TRACT MAP 15055 (IRVINE CO.) 06-05-95.AGEt IDA JUNE 5, 1995 NO. 1 6-5-95 Inter_Com DATE: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FROM: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001, ZONE CHANGE 94-004, SECOND SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15055 (IRVINE COMPANY) RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and City staff have recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 95-44 re-certifying Final EIR 85-2 with Addendum No. 5 for the project; 2. Have first reading by title only and introduction of Ordinance No. 1148 approving the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement; 3. Have first reading by title only and introduction of Ordinance No. 1149 approving General Plan Amendment 94-001; 4. Have first reading by title only and introduction of Ordinance No. 1150 approving Zone Change 94-004; and 5. Adopt Resolution No. 95-45 approving Tentative Tract Map No. 15055. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project, as this is an applicant initiated project. The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 June 5, 1995 Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to make several amendments to the Land Use Plan and text of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) related primarily to three separate vacant parcels within the ETSP area. The changes would result in a transfer of dwelling units from one sector to another within the ETSP area without increasing the overall number of 7,950 dwelling units currently permitted by the ETSP. On March 27, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the project which includes 'several discretionary actions listed below. A copy of the March 13, 1995 and March 27, 1995 Planning Commission staff reports include detailed discussion on the various elements of the proposed project and have been included in Attachments A and B respectively for Council consideration. . · General Plan Amendment 94-001 A. Lot 27 of Tract 13627 (Tustin Ranch Road/Jamboree Road/Portola Parkway) - To change a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from PC Community Business to PC Residential. · Lot 6 of Tract 12870 (NW corner of Rawlings Way/Township Drive) - To change a 10 acre property from Public & Institutional to PC Residential. Zone Chanqe 94-004 A· Lot 27 of Tract 13627 - To change a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from PC Commercial to PC Residential. S · Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 (SE corner of Irvine Boulevard/Tustin Ranch Road) - To change a 40 acre property from PC Community Facility to PC Residential. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 June 5, 1995 Page 3 · · Amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan A· Lot 27 of Tract 13627 - To change a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from General Commercial to Medium- High Density Residential which would allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 399 apartment units.. B · Lot 6 of Tract 12870 - To redesignate a 10 acre property which is currently designated for an Elementary School with an underlying Medium-Low ETSP Land Use Designation. The underlying designation would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 100 single-family detached units in the event that an elementary school is not constructed on this site. Ce Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 - To change a 40 acre parcel from High School as follows: 16.7 net acres to Medium-High Density Residential which would allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 350 family- oriented apartment units; 16.3 net acres to Medium-Low Density Residential which would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 163 single-family detached units; and 5 net acres to Neighborhood Park. D · A variety of amendments to the ETSP text and statistical summaries are proposed to reflect the above noted changes to provide consistency between the Land Use Map and the text of the Specific Plan-document. SeCond Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement A· LOt 27 of Tract 13627 - To increase the maximum number of apartments within the ETSP area from 25% to 28.4% with a maximum of 399 apartment units on the subject site, eliminate the requirement for a 250 room hotel including a non-competitive clause between the City limits, Portola Parkway, Curver Drive and Myford Road, and modify the phasing schedule to reflect the elimination of the hotel. B . Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 - To increase the maximum number of apartments within the ETSP area from 25% to 28.4% and require the Developer to dedicate and construct a 5 acre Neighborhood Park. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 June 5, 1995 Page 4 . Tentative Tract Map 15055 - To subdivide a 40 acre site (Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315) at the southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road into three (3) numbered lots and seven (7) lettered lots to accommodate the future development consistent with items 1 - 4 above. The map would create developable parcels only. No specific development plans have been proposed with the amendments at this time. Pursuant to provisions of the ETSP, the~ Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review and approve the specific development plans through the City's tentative °map and/or design review process, as applicable. A 1/8 page display ad public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing for the project was published in the Tustin News. In addition and pursuant to Section 3.14 of the ETSP, all property owners within Sectors 6, 8 and 11, as well as, within 300 feet of Sectors 6, 8 and 11 were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the sites, Tustin City Hall and Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. DISCUSSION HIGH SCHOOL SITE Much of the discussion related to the proposed project with the Planning Commission and the public has focused on the 40 acre High School site (Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315). As currently proposed by the applicant, the proposed project approvals requested would result in: A. maximum of 513 dwelling units (350 apartments/163 single-family detached units). A 5-acre neighborhood park. An average density of 12.8 dwelling units per acre for the entire 40 acre site. City Council Report GPA 94~001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 June 5, 1995 Page 5 In comparison, there are a number of alternative land use densities and combinations that could be designated on the property, some of which are identified below. . . Medium-Hiqh Density development · A maximum of 1,000 dwelling units · An average density of 25 dwelling units/acre · No neighborhood park A combination of Medium-High/Medium Density development A maximum of 860 units - 20 acres @ Medium-High density (500 attached units @ 25 dwelling units/acre) - 20 acres @ Medium density (360 single-family detached or attached units @ 18 dwelling units/acre) - An average density of 21.5 dwelling units/acre - No neighborhood park Medium Density development A maximum of 720 single-family detached or attached dwelling units @ 18 dwelling units/acre An average density of 18 dwelling units per acre for the entire 40 acre site · No neighborhood park Medium/Medium-Low Density development A maximum of 560 single-family detached or attached units - 20 acres @ Medium Density (360 units @ 18 dwelling units/acre) - 20 acres @ Medium-Low Density (200 units @ 10 dwelling units/acre) An average density of 14 dwelling units/acre for the entire 40 acre site · No neighborhood park City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 June 5, 1995 Page 6 5. Medium/Medium-Low Density development A maximum of '510 single-family detached or attached units - 20 acres @ Medium Density (200 units @ 18 dwelling units/acre) - 15 acres @ MediUm-Low Density (150 units @ 10 dwelling units/acre) An average density of 12.75 dwelling units/acre for the entire 40 acre site · 5 acre neighborhood park 6. Medium-Low Density development · A maximum of 400 single-family detached units An average density of 10 dwelling units/acre for the entire 40 acre site · No neighborhood park The Irvine Company does not believe that a Low Density development alternative is realistic given the adjacent land use patterns on the east side of Tustin Ranch Road, south of Irvine Boulevard. PARKING STANDARDS The Planning Commission has had several discussions over the past two years in response to the Patio Home Amendments in 1993 related to modifications to the residential parking' requirements, particularly related to the amount of guest parking. As part of the proposed ETSP text amendments, revisions to the residential parking rates have been included to primarily increase the number of guest parking for multiple-family projects. The amended parking rates would only apply to those projects which have not yet been approved.. Ail projects which have been approved and/or are under construction, would not be required to comply with these new standards. The proposed revisions are included on Page 19 of Exhibit D attached to Ordinance 1150. Since the Planning Commission action on this item, staff is recommending minor revisions to the parking rate table to better clarify the ability to provide guest spaces on-street. The "Guest On-Street Parking" column (far right) is proposed to be eliminated entirely. A new footnote 3, is proposed to clarify that guest City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 June 5, 1995 Page 7 parking may be provided on public or privates streets, except in the case of attached and multiple-family development where guest parking would not be permitted on public streets. These changes would not alter the intent of the Planning Commission recommendation to require additional guest parking for certain development types. The applicant has expressed concern related to the proposed revision by the Planning Commission to require a 3-car garage in the Estate District (Attachment C). The applicant believes that while a three-car garage would likely be proposed with development in the Estate District, there are.examples where a two-car garage would be preferred by an individual lot owner or possibly in a cluster single-family development also 'allowed in the Estate District. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of the proposed project, as well as EIR 85~2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2 has been prepared to make the EIR adequate and has been included as Exhibit A attached to Resolution No. 95-44. Pursuant to Section 15146 of the California Environmental Quality Act, an addendum is required for this project in that: a . Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables of EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda are required to make the EIR adequate; and· b , Minor text and map changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan and changes to the Development Agreement do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment which have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. City Council Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 June 5, 1995 Page 8 Should the City Council modify the proposed project scope, the addendum would need to be revised prior to final certification to reflect any changes to the project made by the Council. With this information in mind, should the Council take a positive action on the request, an additional action to certify Addendum #5 to EIR 85- 2 as adequate would be required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, with direction to make revisions as appropriate. CONCLUSION Should the City Council wish to approve the project, appropriate Ordinances and Resolutions consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation have been attached. In the event the Council wishes to provide any alternate direction, staff will be prepared to provide Ordinances and Resolutions as requested. Senior Planner Christine ~. Shinglet6n Assistant City Manager Attachments: Attachment 1 - Site Maps Attachment A - March 13, 1995 Planning Commission Report Attachment B - March 27, 1995 Planning Commission Report Attachment C - Applicant Correspondence Attachment D - Resident Correspondence TT 15055/Landscape Concept Plan Ordinance Nos. 1148, 1149, and 1150 Resolution Nos. 95-44, and 95-45 CAS:DF :GPA94001 ATTACHMENT 1 SITE MAPS TOWNSHIP DRIVE RE81C RAWLINGS SITE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL LOT 6 OF TRACT 12870 A.P.#: 501-093-16 SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 1-3 RE'8-1DEN EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL.,~ PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 A.P.#: 502-452-01 SOURCE:CITY OF TIJSTIN EAST' TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 1-4 13211 SITE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: PC COMMUNITY FACILITY PROPOSED DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315 A.P.#: 500-221-02 A.P.#: 500-221.-03 SOURCE: CITY OF ?USTIN ! EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 1-5 ATTACH M 'E N T A MARCH 13, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT NO. 4 Report to the' " Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ OWNER .. LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARCH 13, 1995 GEN~ PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001, ZONE CHANGE 94-004, SECOND /~MENDMENT TO THE F~ST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP' 15055 (IRVINE COMPANY) THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 ~'8 SECTORS 2, 6, AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED COMMUNITY~ EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM #5 TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). · GENERAL PLAN ANENDMENT 94-001 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND LOT 6 OF TRACT 12870. · ZONE CHANGE 94-004 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL I~AP 88-315. · SECOND AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO LOTS 16/17 AND 27 OF TRACT 13627, AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88- 315· · EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE L~ND USE MAP, SECTOR DESCRIPTIONS TEXT AND STATISTICAL SUMMARIES TO REFLECT REQUESTS 1, 2 AND 3 ABOVE. · AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTOR 11 TO REFLECT REQUESTS" 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE· ATTACHMENT A Planning Comn%ission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 2 · . TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15055 TO SUBDIVIDE A 40 ACRE SITE (PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IRVINE BOULEVARD TUSTINRANCH ROAD INTO THREE (3) NUMBERED LOTS AND SEVEN (7) LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 350 FAMILY- ORIENTED APARTMENT UNITS, UP TO 163 SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND A 5 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONSISTENT WITH REQUESTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE. RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Commission. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to make several amendments to the Land Use Plan and text of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) related primarilY to three seRarate vacant parcels within the ETSP area. The changes would result in a transfer of dwelling units from one sector to another within the ETSP area without increasing the overall number of 7,950 dwelling units currently permitted by the ETSP. i. In order to accomplish the proposed changes, several discretionary actions are requested which include: lo General Plan Amendment-94-001 - A request to change the Land Use Designations of the City's General Plan Land Use Map on the following properties: ae Lot 27 of Tract 13627 (property bounded by Tustin Ranch Road, Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway) - To change the Land Use Designation on a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from PC Community Business to PC Residential. Be Lot 6 of Tract 12870 (northeast corner of Rawlinqs Way and ToWnship Drive) - To change the Land Use Designation on a 10 acre property from Public & Insfitutional to PC Residential. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 3 · · .. Zone Change 94-004 - A request to change the Zoning Designations of the .City's Zoning Map on the following properties: A. Lot 27 of Tract 13627 (property bounded by~Tustin Ranch Road, Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway) - To change the Zoning Designation on a 19 acre portion of the 31 acre property from PC Commercial to PC Residential. Be Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 (southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and'Tustin Ranch Road) - To change the Zoning Designation on a .40 acre property from PC Community Facility to PC Residential. Amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan - A request to change the Land Use Designations of the ETSP Land Use Plan on the following properties: Lot 27 of Tract 13627 (property bounded by Tustin Ranch Road, Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway) - To change the ETSP Land Use Designation on a 19 acre portion-of the 31 acre property from General Commercial to Medium-High Density Residential which would allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 399 apartment units. Be Lot 6 of Tract 12870 (northeast corner of Rawlings Way and Township Drive) - To redesignate a 10 acre property which is currently designated for an Elementary School with an underlying'Medium-Low ETSP Land Use Designation. The underlying designation would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 100 single-family detached units in the event that an elementary school is not constructed on this site. Ce Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 (southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road) - To change the ETSP Land Use Designation on a 40 acre parcel from High School as follows: 16.7 net acres to.be changed to Medium-High Density Residential which would allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 350 family oriented apartment units;'16.3 net acres to be changed to Medium- Low Density Residential which would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre, or not to exceed 163 single- family detached units; and 5 net acres to be changed to Neighborhood Park. Planning Conngission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 4 · De A variety of amendments to the ETSP text and statistical summaries are proposed to reflect the above noted changes to provide consistency between the Land Use Map and the text of the Specific Plan document. Second ~men~ment to the East Tustin Development ~qreement - A request to.amend the East Tustin Development Agreement related to the following: A· B· 'Lots 16/17 of Tract 13627 (Pioneer Road south of Jamboree Road) -- To require the Developer to dedicate approximately .18 acres of land area on Lot 17 to accommodate a parking lot for the future neighborhood park on Lot 16. Lot 27 of Tract 13627 (property bounded by Tustin Ranch Road,. Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway) -'To increase the maximum number of apartments within the ETSP area from 25% to 28.4% with a maximum of 399 apartment units on the.subject site, eliminate the requirement for a 250 room hotel including a non competitive clause between the City. limits, Portola Parkway, Culver Drive and Myford Road, and modify the phasing schedule to reflect the elimination of the hotel. Ce Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 (southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road) - To increase the maximum number of apartments within the ETSP area from 25% to 28.4% and require the Developer to dedicate and construct a 5 acre Neighborhood Park. · _Am__endment to Sector 11 Land Use Concept Plan - A request to amend the Sector 11 Land Use Concept Plan for Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 consistent with items 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, including establishment of conceptual perimeter and intersection landscape treatments. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, '1995 Page 5 · Tentative Tract Map 15055 - To subdivide, a 40 acre site (Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315) at the southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road into three (3) numbered lots and seven (7) lettered lots to accommodate the future development of up to 350 family-oriented apartment units, up to 163 single-family detached units and a 5 acr~ Neighborhood Park consistent with items 1 - 5 above. The map would create developable parcels only. On February 27, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop on the above items at which time the applicant provided an introduction on the various elements of the proposed project to the Commissioners and members of the public. No specific development ~ans have been proposed with the amendments at this time. Pursuant to provisions of the ETSP, the Commission would have the opportunity to review and approve the specific development plans through the City's tentative map and/or design review process, as applicable. A 1/8 page display ad public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing for the project was published in the Tustin News. In addition and pursuant to Section 3.14 of the ETSP, all property owners within Sectors 6, 8 and 11, as well as, within 300 feet of Sectors 6, 8 and 11 were notified of the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the sites, Tustin City Hall and Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. : · DISCUSSION LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 Lot 27 is an approximate 31 acre, triangular shaped, site located exclusively within Sector 6 of the ETSP and bounded by Tustin Ranch Road, Jamboree Road and Portola Parkway. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, ETSP Amendment and Development Agreement Amendment would change approximately 19 acres on the northwest portion of the' site along Tustin Ranch Road from commercial to residential land use designations to accommodate future residential development. The proposed amendments would accommodate residential development up to 25 dwelling units per acre with*~ maximum of 399 apartment units. The existing General Plan, Zoning and ETSP Land Use Designation on approximately 12 acres located in the southeast portion of the site would remain unchanged to accommodate future commercial development. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed land use designations affecting Lot 27. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 6 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (LOT 27tTRACT 13627) city's General Plan City's Zoning Map ETSP Land Use Map PCCB PCCB/.PCR pcc' CG CD/MH LEGEND CG MH~ PCC' PCCB PCR Commercial General Medium-High Density Residential Planned Community Commercial Planned Community Commercial Business Planned Community Residential Other related discretionary actions related to this property include amendment to the ETSP Sector 6 descriptions and statistical summaries, as well as, .the Development Agreement Amendment which are discussed in more detail below. Pursuant to provisions of the ETSP, a Sector Level Land Use Concpet Plan would be required at the time any subdivision or development project is proposed for any property within Sector 6. LOT 6 OF TRACT 12870 Lot 6 is an. approximate 10 acre site located within Sector 8 of the ETSP at the corner of Township Drive and Rawlings Way. The proposed amendments would change the City's General Plan Land Use Designation from-Public and Institutional to PC Residential. The subject site was originally designated as PC Residential. The sector~level map (Tract 12870) and the Sector Land Use Concept Plan identify this site as a potential elementary school site. It has been a policy to designate all elementary school sites with a residential designation since elementary schools are permitted in the residential land use designations of the ETSP. The General Plan land use designation on this property was cha~ged to Public & Institutional when the City recently adopted the new General Plan in anticipation that the Tustin Unified School District would ultimately build an elementary'school at this location since the School District actually purchased the site.' Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 7 Pursuant to Section 2.10 of the ETSP, the ETSP Land Use Plan identified a maximum number of school sites based on the number of students that could be-generated from the residential areas within the ETSP area. The demand from schools may vary depending on the actual type and number of units constructed within the various land use designations. It is unclear at the present time %f the School District will build an elementary school on this property based' upon their current student' generation projections. The ETSP recognizes that the precise locations and numbers of schools would vary throughout the ETSP area and provides that residential development would be permitted on unused school sites. Amendments to the ETSP Land Use Map propose designating the site with an underlying Land Use Designation of Medium-Low (ML) Residential. The ML designation would allow single-family detached development up to 10 dwelling units per acre on the site in the event that the School District'does not build an elementary school at this location. Pursuant to the School District's Financing Plan, the property would not be used for residential development unless it is released by the School District. Amendments to the ETSP related to this property also include changes to the Sector 8 descriptions and statistical summaries to accommodate the proposed' underlying residential designation. The following table summaries existing and proposed land use designation affecting Lot 6. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (LOT 6, TRACT 12870) City's General Plan City's Zoning Map City's Land Use Map Existing Proposed P & I PCR PCR PCR ES / L ES / ML LEGEND ES L ML P&I PCR Elementary School Low Density Residential Medium-Low Density Residential Public and Institutional Planned Community Residential Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 8 PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315 Parcel 2 is an approximate 40 acre, rectangular shaped site located within Sector 11 bounded by Tustin Ranch Road on the west, Irvine Boulevard on the'north and Heritage Way on the south. Theproposed amendments would eliminate the current designation' for a High School at this location. The School District has indicated that · they do not desire to build a high school at this locatiOn and will not be~purchasing the site. Proposed amendments would accommodate residential development up to 25 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 350 family-oriented apartment units to be located on the northern 16.7 acres of the site along Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road; up to 10 dwelling units per acre for single-family detached development to be lo~ated on the southern 16.3 acres along Heritage Way; and a 5 acr~ neighborhood park located at the northeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Heritage Way. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed land use designations affeCting Parcel 2. LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315) City's General Plan City's Zoning Map ETSP Land Use Map TR 12763 Land Use Concept Plan Existing Proposed PCR PCR PCCF PCR as MHIMLINP LEGEND HS MH ML NP PCCF PCR High School Medium-High Density Residential Medium-Low Density Residential Neighborhood Park Planned Community Community Facility Planned Community Residential " Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page9 Other discretionary actions related to this ~property include amendment to the ETSP Sector 11 descriptions and Statistical Summaries, the Development Agreement Amendment, as well as, Tentative Tract 15055 and modification to the Sector 11 Land Use Concept Plan fOr a sector level map on' the proper~y which are discussed in more detail below. EAST TUSTIN'SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS In order to accommodate the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change ~and Development Agreement Amendment, several Land Use Map and text.amendments to the ETSP are proposed. The Land Use Map changes are identified in Attachment C and the proposed text amendments are included in Attachment D. For ease of review by the Planning Commission, the narrative portions of the ETSP proposed to be deleted are marked with strikeouts and the portions proposed to be added are highlighted as shaded areas. In summary, the Land Use Map changes reflect the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes and define the maximum residential density designations on the various properties as previously discussed. The proposed text amendments include changes to the individual Sector descriptions, as well as, statistical summaries to provide consistency between the ETSP and the proposed amendments. Changes to the ETSP Statistical Summary also includes the redistribution of the maximum number of dwelling units-by Sector without exceeding the current approval for 7,950 dwellings within the ETSP area. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT In order to accommodate some of the proposed changes, the applicant is proposing to amend the East Tustin Development Agreement. A copy of the proposed Development Agreement Amendments is included in Attachment E. The Development Agreement presently includes provisions that.up to 25% of~the allowed units within the ETSP area (7,950) and the Phase I residential area (1,228) may be developed as apartments. Based upon this provision and a total of 9,178 units, a maximum of 2,294 apartment units could be constructed under the current terms of the Development Agreement. To date, there are 1,854 apartment units in East Tustin, including those currently under construction on Robinson Drive (TR 14447). The applicant presently has the ability to propose an additional 440 apartment units under the current provisions of the Development Agreement with no amendment to the Development Agreement needed. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 10 As part of the Development Agreement Amendments,..the applicant is requesting to increase the maximum number of apartments permitted within East Tustin from 25% to 28.4%. The proposed Change would result in an increase in the maximum number of apartments that could be considered from 2,294 units to 2,606 units which represents a 312 unit increase over the current provisions of the Development Agreement. As previously mentioned, the applicant intends to construct 350 family-oriented apartments at the southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road (Parcel 2 of PM 88-315) and 399 apartment units at the southwest corner of Tustin Ranch and Jamboree Roads(Lot 27 of Tract 13627). With the addition of the two proposed projects, the apartment total within the ETSP area could reach 2,603 units.. Another significant provision'of the proposed Development Agreement Amendments requires the Developer to dedicate, design and construct a 5 aCre neighborhood park to be located at the northeas-t corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Heritage Way. The park would be required to be complete prior to the first occupancies of either the apartment project or.the single-family detached project proposed for the ~property whichever .occurs first. Provisions of the Development AgreementAmendments identify the level of amenities that the park is expected to include and identifies that the actual design of the park would be subj~ect to the City's Design Review process. 'However, the master plan process would be omitted which would be typical in this case based upon the size and type of improvements proposed 'for the 'park.- Under the proposed provisions of the Development Agreement Amendments, The Irvine Company would receive parkland dedication credit in the East Tustin Parkland Dedication Summary for the land dedication of 5 acres. In addition, The Irvine-Company would also receive parkland dedication credit for the value of the improvements provided in the park which would be determined based upon actual construction costs and the appraised value of land. The pro.posed Development AgreementAmendments would also eliminate the Developer's obligation to provide a 250 room hotel site on Lot 27 of Tract 13627 as market conditions indicate that there is not support for a major hotel· user within this vicinity of the community. In consideration to eliminate the hotel requirements, the Development Agreement Amendments include ~a hon competition clause which indicates that the Developer would not, for a period of ten years, construct a hotel on property located south of Portola Parkway, west of Culver Drive, north of the AT&SF Railroad, east of Jamboree Road (North of I-5) and east of Myford Road (south of I-5). Proposed changes to the phasing schedule contained in the Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 11 Development Agreement reflect the elimination of the hotel and conversion of the hotel rooms to retail square footage as prescribed by the Development Agreement. Other provisions of the proposed Development Agreement Amendments include the requirement for the Developer to dedicate approximately .18 acres of land area on Lot 17 of Tract 13627 to accommodate a parking lot .for the future neighborhood park on Lot 16 of Tract 13627 (Pioneer Road south of Jamboree Road). As part of the Tract 13627 Sector level map, Lot 16 was identified as a 3 acre neighborhood park which has'been dedicated to the City. Lot 17 was identified as a 2.7 acre site reserved for a possible neighborhood park if needed to satisfy parkland dedication requirements based upon the total number of units actually constructed within the ETSP area. Based upon the actua~ unit count of existing and proposed developments, parkland dedication requirements would be satisfied by existing and proposed parks, including the proposed 5 acre neighborhood park discussed above, without the need for Lot 17 to be dedicated as a park site. However, due to the size of the Lot 16 park site 'and the current Council policy~direction to provide parking at neighborhood park facilities, The Irvine Company is proposing to dedicate approximately .18 acres of land on Lot 17 to accommodate parking for the Lot 16 park site. The balance of Lot 17 would be available for residential development consistent with provisions of the ETSP. TENTATIVE TRACT 15055/SECTOR 11 CONCEPT PLAN MODIFICATIONS Should the Planning Commission and City Council take a positive action on the proposed amendments related to Parcel' 2 of Parcel Map 88-315, the applicant has proposed to process concurrently a sector level Land Use Concept Plan and subdivision map for a 40 acre site bounded by Irvine Boulevard on the north, Tustin Ranch Road on the west and Heritage Way on the south. The proposed subdivision would create three (3) numbered lots and seven (7) lettered lots. A new public cul-de-sac street (Street A) is proposed along Tustin Ranch Road midway between Irvine Boulevard and Heritage Way to provide access to Lots 1 and 2 and would be approximately 400 feet in length. Street "A" is proposed to include a 60 foot overall right- of-way with a 40 foot curb-to-curb pavement section, 6 foot wide curb adjacent sidewalks and a 4 foot landscape parkway on each side. Lot 1 is proposed to be approximately 16.7 acres in size-and located on the northern half of the site and is intended to accommodate up t° 350 family-oriented apartments. Lot 2 is proposed to be approximately 16.3 acres in size and located in the Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 12 southeastern portion of the site along Heritage Way. As previously discussed, Lot 2 is intended to accommodate up to 163 single-family detached dwelling units. Lot 3 is proposed to be 5'acres in size and located at the northeast corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Heritage Way and is intended to be developed as a neighborhood park and dedicated to the City. Access to Lot 1 is proposed from Irvine Boulevard opposite the existing signalized intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Robinson Drive, and at the easterly terminus of the proposed "A" Street. Access to Lot 2 is proposed from Heritage Way with pedestrian and emergency'access to the easterly terminus of "A" Street. Access to Lot 3 is proposed from "A" Street. Despite strong concerns expressed by the City of Tustin, the County Board of Supervisors deleted La Colina Drive from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways in April of 1993. In conjunction with this action, traffic which was previously planned to utilize La Colina Drive was reassigned to Irvine Boulevard in the City. The County's traffic study also indicated a need to add a second northbound left-turn lane on Tustin -Ranch Road at Irvine Boulevard to accommodate the traffic that would be prevented from making left turns in the northbound direction on Tustin Ranch Road at La Colina Drive. The County proposed that the additional left-turn lane at Tustin Ranch Road/Irvine Boulevard could be accomplished by simply restriping which represented a significant departure from the City's major arterial street design standard. Since Tus~in Ranch Road was constructed with Assessment District funds, to vary from applicable design standards could preclude the ability of the street to function as a major arterial, placing the City in non compliance with the Master Plan of Arterial Highways and possibly jeopardizing future funding opportunities for other roadway projects. The proposed tentative map identifies a 10 foot wide Irrevocable Offer of Dedication to the City for additional right-oflway along Tustin'Ranch Road between Irvine Boulevard and the proposed "A" Street. The additional right-of-way would accommodate physical modifications to northbound Tustin Ranch Road to maintain a major arterial status and accommodate a second left-turh lane when the corresponding traffic demand occurs. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 13 The La~d Use Concept Plan for the property identifies the ETSP Land Use Designation on Lot 1 as Medium-High (MH) Density Residential which would allow up to 25 dwelling units per acre; Lot 2 as Medium-Low (ML) Density Residential which would allow up to 10 dwelling units per acre; and Lot 3 as Neighborhood Pa~k (NP) which would accommodate the proposed neighborhood park. A preliminary landscape concept plan has been proposed to identify the streetscape along the perimeter of the project. The streetscape and intersection treatments would be consistent with that already existing within sector 11 and in the immediate vicinity. In addition, the applicant proposes to provide a 50 foot landscape setback along Tustin Ranch Road adjacent to Lot 1 to provide additional buffering ~f the proposed apartment project from the existing single family homes to the west across Tustin Ranch Road. Since this is a sector level subdivision, no specific development plans have been proposed with the tentative map-at this time. Pursuant to provisions of the ETSP, the Commission would have the opportunity to review and approve the specific development plans through the City's tentative map and/or design review process. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP QUESTIONS · On February 27, 1995, a special informal Planning Commission workshop was held to discuss the project. At this meeting, the following issues and concerns were raised by members of the Commission or audience. 1. Comment/Response: Commissioner Weil questioned and asked if parking rates for apartment projects could be amended at this time. In particular, Commission Weil asked that additional parking for 3 bedrooms or more be examined. The Planning Commission has had several discussions over the past two years in response to the Patio Home Amendments in 1993 related to modifications to the residential parking requirements, particularly related to the amount of guest parking. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the parking standards for residential projects. However, the following revisions identify suggested changes to the ETSP discussed in June of 1994 by the Planning Commission. Should Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 14 the Planning Commission desire to include, changes to the parking, the table below includes changes to the ETSP text previously requested. Revisions to the environmental documentation (Addendum ~5 to EIR 85-2) would also be necessary prior to certification by the City Cguncil to reflect these changes. section 3.10.1.c entitled "Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements" would need to be amended to read as follows:· District Number of Spaces Required Assigned Guest/ Spaces/Unit Unassigned :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Estate ~i! ~ ~i ~ Car Garage 2 per unit 0% Low 1. Sector 8, 9, 10 2 2 Car Garage 2 per unit 0% 2. Sector 2 2 2 Car Garage 2 per unit ~ 50% Medium Low 2 2 Car Garage i~ .5 per unit 50% :.:.:.: Medium &'Medium High 1. Detached 2 2 Car Garage i~ .5 per unit 50% 2. Attached Studio 1.0 ~.1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports i~ii~iiiS~-l-~ :~:~:+:.:.:.:.:.:.:. 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports ~!'"~1-~ 3. Multiple Family (apartments) Studio 1.0 1 Carport 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport 2 Bedroom 2.0 i~i ~ Carport 3 Bedroom 2.0 2' Carports 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) (1) " (1) Planning Co~mission Report GPA 94-001, ~C 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 15 4. Patio Homes(2) 1-3 Bedrooms .2.0 2 Car Garage 4 Bedrooms 2.5 2 Car Garage 5 per unit 50% per unit 50% (1) (2) Attached single family.and multiple family 'developments shall provide a minimum of ~i .25 per · 'unit open unassigned parking spaces for :~':':':'='or more dwelling units. If a two car enclosed private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of ~ .5 open unassigned spaces per unit shall apply. Required guest par~ing for Patio Home products must. be located within a 200 foot radius measured from the nearest building frontage facing a street, drive or court of the designated unit which the parking space is intended to serve. · · Comment/Response: Adjacent residents raised a question whether the future development of Lot 6 of Tract 12870 would be accessed from the private portion of Township Drive within the master association created for this portion of the community. Staff has reviewed'records and found that Lot 6 is not part of the Master Association. Access to Lot 6 would be limited to the public portion of Rawlings Way. Access to the private portion of Rawlings Way and/or Township Drive could be provided if the Master Association were to grant such permission or Annex Lot 6 into the Master Association at some point in the future. Comment/Response: Commissioner ~Kasalek questioned if the proposed apartments adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard would be two stories in height. .o The Irvine Company indicated that they propose that the apartment buildings adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road would be two stories in height. However, at this time, no specific development plans are proposed, and no provisions have been proposed in the Development Agreement Amendments related to Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, Z~ 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 16 the issue. Should the Planning Commission believe that it would~ be appropriate to limit the height of the buildings adjacent to not only Tustin Ranch Road, but-also Irvine B6ulevard, to two stories, it· would be appropriate to incorporate the following changes into the Development Agreement Amendments (Attachment E). Revisions to the environmental documentation (Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2).would also be necessary prior to certification by the City Council to reflect these changes. A new paragraph 8 would need to be added to read as follows: 8. Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium Hiqh Density Site, Buildinq Heiqht Limitation. The building height of any future development on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be limited to a maximum two stories, including garage level and lofts, for those buildings located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road or Irvine Boulevard. · Other major comments and concerns received at the Planning Commission workshop from the audience included: Future uses on the High School site should be single- 'family detached dwellings at densities to complement the single-family homes across Tustin Ranch Road to the west (south and north side of ~Irvine Boulevard). Support was expressed for maintaining the 25% apartment limit. Potential parking concerns were expressed with higher density projects and concern about the potential for apartment users proposed for the High School site to park on the proposed neighborhood park parking lot at night. The High School was considered open space and the proposed 50 foot landscape setback along Tustin Ranch Road and the 5 acre park was not a comparable replacement. " ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of the proposed project, as well as EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2 has been prepared to make the EIR adequate and has been included in Attachment G. Pursuant to Section 15146 of the Planning COmmission Report GPA 94-001, JC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 13, 1995 Page 17 California Environmental Quality Act, an addendum is required for this project in that: ae Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables of EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda are required to make the EIR adequate; ~nd be Minor text and map changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan and changes to the Development Agreement do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment which have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85-2, as m6dified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. Should the Planning Commission modify the proposed project scope, the addendum would need to b~'revised prior to final certification by the City Council to reflect any changes to the project made by the Commission. With this information in mind, should the Commission take a positive action on the request, an additional action to certify Addendum #5 to EIR .85-2 as adequate would be required pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, with direction to make revisions as appropriate. CONCLUSION Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the project, appropriate resolutions will be provided and will be available on March 13, 1995 at the meeting for consideration. Outside of specific issues discussed in this report, conditions of approval would be standard conditions required by either the East Tustin Specific Plan, City Municipal Code, California Environmental Quality Act, Subdivision Map Act or requirements of City Departments or outside reviewing agencies. In the event the Commission wishes to provide any alternate direction, staff will be prepared to provide resolutions as requested. Daniel Fox, kICP Senior Planner Attachments: Attachment A - General Plan Amendment Exhibits Attachment B - Zone Change Exhibits Attachment C - ETSP Land Use Map Revisions Attachment D - ETSP Text Revisions Attachment E - Development Agreement Amendment Attachment F - TT 15055 Attachment G - Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2 CAS :DF: GPA94001 ATTACHMENT B MARCH 27, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Report to the' ITEM NO. 5 Planning Commission III DATE: SUBJECT : APPLICANT/ OWNER LOCATION.' ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MARCH 27, 1995 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001, ZONE CHANGE 94-004, SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15055 (IRVINE COMPANY) THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 SECTORS 2, 6, 8 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNED COMMUNITY; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ADDENDUM #5 TO EiR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15164 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). i · GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND LOT 6 OF TRACT 12870. · ZONE CHANGE 94-004 RELATED TO LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315. · SECOND AMENDMENT TO EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO LOTS 16/17 AND 27 OF TRACT 13627, AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88- 315. · EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE LAND USE MAP, SECTOR DESCRIPTIONS TEXT AND STATISTICAL SUMMARIES TO REFLECT REQUESTS 1, 2 AND 3 ABOVE. · AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTOR 11 TO REFLECT REQUESTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE. ATTACHMENT B Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 2 · TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15055 TO SUBDIVIDE A 40 ACRE SITE (PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315) AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD INTO THREE (3) ~NUMBERED LOTS AND SEVEN (7) LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 350 FAMILY- ORIENTED APARTMENT UNITS, UP TO 163 SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND A 5 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK CONSISTENT WITH REQUESTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 ABOVE. REcoMMENDATION Pleasure of the Commission. BACKGROUND This item was continued from the March 13, 1995 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to respond to specific concerns expressed by the Commission related to the proposed project, including specific issues as follows: · The increase in the percentage of apartments proposed from 25% to 28.4% as part of the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement; · The need to accommodate additional residential parking as part of the amendment to the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP), primarily related to the amount of guest parking for multiple family projects with three or more bedrooms; · Concern about building heights along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard; and · The need to respond to concerns expressed by residents at the meeting'. This report is intended to identify the applicant's response to the Commission's concerns on the subject project (Attachment A). Please refer to the March 13, 1995 Planning Commission report for a complete detailed discussion on all aspects of the proposed project (Attachment B). Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 3 This item. is a continued public hearing from the March 13, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Since this item was continued to a date certain, no additional notification was required. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report for this item. , DISCUSSION For purposes of facilitating discussion of the project by the Commission, it might be helpful for the Commission to organize their discussion into three parts: · A discussion and affirmation of what the appropriate land uses should be for those sites included in the applicant's request. · A discussion of any specific development standards that the Commission might want to see on any land uses that they decide are appropriate. This discussion should also include direction as to whether Amendments to the ETSP are desired to implement any direction provided by the Commission or whether implementation would be more appropriate by Development Agreement Amendments. · A discussion of the issue of the percentage of apartments proposed by the applicant's project. The applicant's responses to each of the above issues, as well as, additional staff information is organized in accordance with the above outline. PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES The original staff report contains a more thorough discussion of the applicant's request related to land use changes which is also summarized below by individual parcels. The applicant is.not proposing at this time to modify any of the proposed land uses or densities as submitted in the original project presented to the Commission on March 13, 1995. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-00'4, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 4 TABLE 1 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (LOT 27,TRACT 13627) General Plan Zoning Map ETSP Land Use Map Existing Proposed PCCB PCCB/PCR PCC PCC/PCR CG CG/MH LEGEND CG ETSP MH PCC PCCB PCR Commercial General East Tustin Specific Plan. Medium-High Density Residential Planned Community Commercial Planned Community Commercial Business Planned Community Residential TABLE 2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (LOT 6, TRACT'12870) General Plan Zoning Map . ETSP Land Use Map Existing Proposed P & I PCR PCR PCR ES/L ES/ML LEGEND ES ETSP L ML P&I PCR Elementary'School East Tustin Specific PLan Low Density Residential Medium-Low Density Residential Public and Institutional Planned Community Residential Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 5 TABLE 3 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS (PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL'MAP 88-315) General Plan Zoning Map ETSP Land Use Map TR 12763 Land Use Concept Plan Existing Proposed PCR PCR PCCF PCR HS MH/ML/NP HS M~/ML/NP LEGEND ETSP HS MH ML NP PCCF PCR East Tustin Specific Plan High School Medium-High Density Residential Medium-Low Density Residential Neighborhood Park Planned Community Community Facility Planned Community Residential DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1. Parking The applicant has indicated that they would support additional guest spaces for three and four bedroom units in the two apartment projects. It has also been suggested by the applicant that the specific provisions to accommodate the additional parking for the two apartment projects (proposed as Part of the applicant's request) should be included in DeVelopment Agreement Amendments rather than by amending Section 3.10.1.C of the ETSP related to parking requirements. They believe that changes to the ETSP parking requirements would render many of the existing developments nonconforming with respect to parking. The applicant is proposing to provide .5 guest spaces for each three and four bedroom unit in lieu of .25 guests spaces per unit currently required by the ETSP and .75 guest spaces for Planning Com~ission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement.Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 6 each three and four bedroom unit in lieu of .5 guest spaces per unit where a two-car garage is provided. Since the March 13, 1995 meeting, Commissioner Weil contacted staff and identified some desired corrections tp the parking revisions previously requested· and discussed by the Commission. These corrections have been incorporated into the revised .Table 5 on Page 7 for Commission consideration. Changes to the amount of required guest spaces for multiple- family projects would be consistent with parking standards now proposed by the applicant. However, Commissioner Weil has requested that additional guest spaces still be required for Patio Home projects and single-family detached projects in the Medium-Low, Medium and ,Medium-High Land Use Designations of the ETSP. ~ Based on the additional guest parking that the a~plicant has agreed to· provide, the following analysis is offered to identify the amount of unassigned guest parking that would be required for a potential 350 unit apartment compleX, assuming 60% or 245 2-bedroom units and 30% or 105 3-bedroom units. The analysis includes guests spaces which would be required by the existing ETSP and revisions suggested by the applicant, with and without two-car garages. · TABLE 4 EXISTING ETSP Ass.igned Spaces 700 Guest Spaces 2-BDRM (245 UNITS) 61.25 3-BDRM (105 UNITS) 26.25 Total Guest 87.5 GRAND TOTAL REQUIRED PARK[NG 787.5 ** Without 2-car Garages EXISTING ETSP Assigned Spaces 700 Guest Spa~es 2-BDRM (245 UNITS) 122.5 3-BDRM (105 UNITS) 52.5 175.0 GRAND TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 875.5 ** ~/ith 2-car Garages APPLICANT REVISIONS 700 61.25 52.5 113.75 813.75 APPLICANT REVISIONS 7OO 122.5 78.75 201.25 901.25 Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT March 27, '1995 Page 7 15055 TABLE 5 Section 3.10.1.C entitled "Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements,, wou[d need to be amended to read as fo[tows: District Number of i~ iii~ :.:.;.:.:.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.: Spaces Covered Requi red Ass i gned Spaces/Uni t Estate ~ 2 ~ 2 Car Garage Low Guest/ ~!~ ................. Unass i 9ned On- St feet 2 per unit 0% 1. Sector 8, 9, 10 2 2 Car Garage 2 per unit 2. Sector 2 2 2 Car~Garage 2 per unit Medium Low 2 2 Car Garage ~i ~-5 per unit 50% .. Medium & Medium High 1. Detached 2 2 Car Garage :~i --5 per unit 50% 2. Attached Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 3 Bedroom Z.O 2 Carports (1) 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) 3. MuLtiple Family (apartments) Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 ~ ~ Carport (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1). 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) 4. Patio Homes(2) 1-3 Bedrooms 2.0 2 Car Garage ~i~ ~-5 per unit 50% 4 Bedrooms 2.5 2 Car Garage !~i"~-5 per unit 50% (1) (2) Attached singte famity and muttipte famity devetopments shatt provide a minimum of i~ ~ per unit open unassigned parking spaces for 4 or more dwetting units. If a two ca~'""enc[osed private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of ~!i~-~open unassigned spaces per unit shat[ apply. ' ........... Required guest parking for Patio Home products must be [ocated within a 200 foot radius measured from the nearest building frontage facing a street, drive or court of the designated unit which the parking space is intended to serve. .. Should the Planning Commission desire to include changes to the parking requirements, as represented in Table 5 above, or as proposed by the applicant, staff believes that it would be appropriate to implement those changes' as part of the Amendments to the ETSP rather than as amendments to the Planning CommiSsion Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 8 Development Agreement. This would insure that the applicable parking rates would not be over looked by future Community Development Department staff during any future Design Review process since the Development Agreement would specify a more restrictive standard than the provisions of the ETSP. Revisions to the environmental documentation (Addendum #5~to EIR 85-2) would also be necessary prior to certification by the City Council to reflect these changes. The amended parking rates would only apply to those projects which have yet to be approved. All projects which have been approved and/or are under construction, would not be required to comply with these new standards. However, should the Planning Commission believe that it would .be appropriate to impiement the above, or other, revised parking rates as part of the Development Agreement Amendments, appropriate language could be added to th~ proposed Development Agreement Amendments. Based upon the applicant's request related to providing additional parking, the following new Paragraph 8 is provided as an example of what could be added to the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement: 8. Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium Hiqh Density Site, and Lot 27 of Tract 13627 Medium High Density Site, Parking Requirements. Should the Medium High Density Sites on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 or Lot 27 of Tract 13627 be developed as an apartment project, the following parking rates shall be applied to each project and shall supersede Section 3.10.1.C of the East Tustin Specific Plan: Apartments Required Required Required Number of Spaces Covered Guest Bedrooms per Unit Spaces Spaces per Unit per Unit Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 1 Carport (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (2) 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (2) (1) A minimum of .25 open unassigned parking spaces per unit shall be provided. If a two 'car enclosed private garage is- proVided, a guest parking standard of .5 open unassigned spaces per unit shall.apply. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 9 (2) A minimum of .5 open unassigned parking spaces per unit shall be provided. If a two car enclosed private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of .75 open unassigned spaces per unit shall apply. In addition, it would be appropriate .to add a condition to Tentative Tract Map 15055 which could read: "Parking requirements for any future development on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract Map 15005 shall be consistent with the rates specified in the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement and shall supersede Section 3.10.1.C of the East Tustin Specific Plan" · Building Heiqhts The' applicant has indicated that they would be Willing to commit to providing a two-story appearance for the apartment project along Tustin Ranch Road and 50% of the buildings adjacent to the street frontage along Irvine Boulevard. It. has been represented to the Commission by the applicant that the two-story appearance would likely be achieved by utilizing berming to raise the finish grade on the street elevation side of the buildings. The interior elevation of the perimeter buildings, as well as, other buildings within the development, would be three-story in height with the~majority of the first floOr devoted to tuck-under parking. The applicant is not proposing at this time to predefine the arrangement or designate which 50% of the buildings along Irvine Boulevard would receive the required two-story treatment. The applicant believes there are a number of design options and arrangements which could be considered at the Design Review stage (i.e every other building, random spacing, clustering at the east and west ends of the site) .to achieve the intent of the limitation which is to provide variation in building height and an attractive streetscape along Irvine Boulevard. Should the Planning Commission belieVe that it would be appropriate to provide such a two-story appearance, it would be appropriate to incorporate the following changes into the Development Agreement Amendments. Revisions to the environmental, documentation (Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2) would also be necessary prior to certification by the City Council to reflect these changes. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ~C 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 10 The following new Paragraph 9 is provided .as an example of what could be added to the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement: 9. Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium, Hiqh Density Site, Buildinq Height Limitation. The building height of any future development provided on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be limited to provide a two-story appearance for those buildings located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road and 50% of those buildings located adjacent to Irvine Boulevard. · In addition, it would be appropriate to add a condition to Tentative Tract Map 150~5 which could read: "The building height of any future developmeht on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract Map 15005 shall be consistent with the height limitations specified in the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement." ' Perimeter Landscaping Commissioner Weil-has also contacted staff and identified the need for heavy landscaping along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard for any development on Lot 1 of TT 15055, the Medium-High Density Site. The proposed Landscape Concept Plan for TT 15055 identifies the use of Eucalyptus and Canary Island Pine trees along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard to be consistent with the streetscape planting theme already established in this portion of East Tustin. Current City landscape standards would required street frontage perimeter landscaping as follows: Trees: Shrubs One (1) 24"-box tree for each 30 linear feet of street frontage. Six (6) 5-gallon shrubs for each 25 linear feet of street frontage. Commissioner Weil suggested that staff review the amount of landscaping required at K-Mart and would r~commend that a condition be added to double the amount and sizes of perimeter planting along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard. Conditions were included in the approval of K-Mart to provide a minimum of 46 trees along Tustin Ranch Road between E1 Camino Real and the entrance drive on Tustin Ranch Road. This distance equates to a ratio of approximately one tree for each Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 11 10 linear feet of street frontage. In .additions specific ratios for tree sizes were required as follows: 45% shall be 15 .galloon trees 40% shall be 24" box trees 15% shall be 36" box trees Should the Planning Commission believe that it 'would be appropriate to provide enhanced perimeter planting, staff would suggest that any required tree plantings be box type sizes only and at a ratio of: 45% 24"-Box trees 40% 36"-Box trees 15% 48"-Box trees · The applicant may also plant additional 15-gall6n trees as they desire. The following new Paragraph 10 is provided as an example of what could be added to the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement: 10. Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium Hiqh Density Site, Perimeter Landscaping. The perimeter landscaping along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard of any future development provided on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be at minimum provided in accordance with the following: Trees: One tree for each (ten) 10- linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be provided. Said trees 'shall be provided in the following ratios: Shrubs: 45% 24"-Box trees 40% 36"-Box trees 15% 48"-Box trees Twelve (12) 5-Gallon shrub for each 25 linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be provided. Ail other landscaping on the subject site shall comply with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. Planning Commission Report 'GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 12 In addition, it would be appropriate to add a condition to Tentative Tract Map 15055 which could read: "The perimeter landscaping of any future development on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract'Map 15005 al0ng,Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be consistent with the perimeter landscaping requirements specified in the Second Amendment to the 'East Tustin Development Agreement." APARTMENTS The Development Agreement presently includes provisions that up to 25% of the allowed units within the ETSP area (7,950) and the Phase I residential area (1,228) may be developed as apartments. Based upon this provision and a total of 9,178 units permitted in the ETSP area and Phase I area, a maximum of 2,294 apartment units could be-constructed under the current terms of the Development Agreement. To date, there are 1,854 apartment units in East Tustin,. including those currently under construction on Robinson Drive (TR i4447). The applicant presently has the ability to propose an additional 440 apartment units under the current provisions of the Development Agreement with no amendment to the Development Agreement needed. However, since the 25% apartment limit specified in the Development Agreement is based upon "total allowed units", the actual percentage of apartments compared to the total units completed upon the final buildout of the residential properties within the ETSP area may be higher since many properties will not be developed to their maximum densities permitted by the ETSP. As part of the Development Agreement Amendments, the applicant is requesting to increase the maximum number of apartments permitted within East Tustin from 25% to 28.4%. The.proposed change would result in an increase in the maximum number of apartments that could be considered from 2,294 units to 2,606 units which represents a 312 unit increase over the current provisions of the Development Agreement. As previously mentioned, the applicant intends to construct 350 family-oriented apartments at the southeast corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road (Parcel 2 of PM 88-315) and 399 apartment units at the southwest corner of Tustin Ranch and Jamboree Roads (Lot 27 of Tract 13627). With the addition of the two proposed projects, the apartment total within the ETSP area could reach 2,603 units. The applicant has indicated that they still desire to propose an increase in the percentage of apartments from 25% to 28.4%. As Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 13 discussed above, the subject project proposes several changes to the land use designations on Lot 27 of Tract 13627 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315. The proposed changes include designating a portion of these two properties for Medium-High (MH) Density Residential which would accommodate up to 25 dwell%ng units per acre. However, the applicant has asked that the Commission be aware that the proposed Development Agreement Amendment also includes provisions to set a dwelling unit cap on these properties which would result in actual densities less than the maximum 25 dwelling units per acre if built as apartments as summarized below: LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 MAXIMUM DU/AC PER ETSP MH DESIGNATION MAXIMUM UNITS ON 1% ACRES 25 DU/AC 475 UNITS ASSUMED APARTMENT DENSITY PER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS MAXIMUM APARTMENT UNITS ON 19 ACRES 21 DU/AC 399 UNITS PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315 MAXIMUM DU/AC PER ETSP MH DESIGNATION MAXIMUM UNITS ON 16.7 ACRES 25 DU/AC 417 UNITS ASSUMED APARTMENT DENSITY PER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS MAXIMUM APARTMENT UNITS ON 16.7 ACRES 2'1 DU/AC 350 UNITS With the 'proposed ETSP Land Use Designations of MH on a portion of these two sites, the ability to construct apartments in accordance with the proposed Development Agreement Amendment could potentially result in an approximate 19% reduction in units compared to a condominium project built at maximum authorized density. However, the individual parking requirements suggested for the subject properties may neutralize this reduction. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS .o At the March 13, 1995 public .hearing, a total of 11 persons addressed the Commission related to the subjeCt project. Those comments and concerns expressed at the meeting by the public are summarized below: Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ZC 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 14 Future Uses on the High School site should be single- family detacheddwellings at densities to complement the single-family homes across Tustin Ranch Road to the west (south and north side of Irvine Boulevard). Support was expressed for maintaining the 25% apartment limit. Potential parking concerns were expressed with higher density projects and concern about the potential for apartment users proposed for the High School site to park on the proposed neighborhood park parking lot at night. The High School was considered open space and the proposed 50 foot landscape setback along Tustin Ranch' Road and the 5 acre park was not a comparable replacement. The 5-acre park site could be reoriented to be a linear park along Tustin Ranch Road creating a larger landscape buffer from the residents across Tustin Ranch Road. Concerns were expressed related to increased traffic in the vicinity and the need for a dual left turn lane on Tustin Ranch Road at Irvine Boulevard. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Based upon review of the proposed project, as well as EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2 has been prepared to make the EIR adequate-and has been included in Attachment G of the March 13, 1995 staff report. 'Pursuant to Section 15146 of the California Environmental Quality Act, an addendum is required for this project in that: ae Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables of EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda are required to make the EIR adequate; and be Minor text and map changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan and changes to the Development Agreement do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment which have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. Planning Commission Report GPA 94-001, ~C 94-004, Development Agreement Amendment & TT 15055 March 27, 1995 Page 15 Should the Planning Commission'modify the proposed project scope, the addendum would need to be revised prior to final certification by the City Council to reflect any changes to the project made by the Commission. With this information in mind, should the Commission take a positive action on the request, 9n additional action to certify Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2 as adequate should include a condition to require modification of the Addendum to reflect the changes to the project made by the Commission and would be required .pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, with direction~ to make revisions as appropriate. CONCLUSION Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the project, appropriate resolutions will be provided and will be a~;ailable on March 27, 1995 at the meeting for consideration. Outside of specific issues discussed in this report, conditions of approval would be standard conditions required by either the East Tustin Specific Plan, City Municipal Code, California Environmental Quality Act, Subdivision Map Act or requirements of city Departments or outside reviewing agencies. In the event the Commission wishes to provide any alternate direction, staff will be prepared to provide resolutions as requested. Dafiiel Fo~/, AICP Senior Planner Attachments:- Attachment A - Applicant Correspondence Attachment B- March 13, 1995 Planning Commission Report CAS :DF: GPA94001. CON ATTACHMENT C APPLICANT CORRESPONDENCE IRVINE COMMUNITY BUILDERS April 27, 1995 Mr. Dan Fox City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Dan: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Planning Commission resolutions regarding the East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment and our recent meeting to discuss, in particular, the revised parking standards. Your proposed modification to clarify the satisfaction of guest parking on street is quite helpful. With the inclusion of your suggested footnote number 3, The Irvine Company except for one matter, supports the changes to the residential parking standards in the East Tustin Specific Plan. The matter of concern for us is the proposed increase in the parking requirement for the estate district. Instead of requiring a 3 car garage for this district, we believe the existing standard of a 2 car garage should be retained. While it is very likely that a 3 car garage would in most instances be proposed with development in the estate category, there are examples where a 2 car garage would be preferred by an individual lot owner or appropriate in a single-family detached cluster development allowed in this residential district. Rather than forcing a 3 car requirement for the estate district where, given the lot sizes we cannot foresee any parking problem, we respectfully request that the existing standard be maintained to accommodate design preferences of custom lot owners and/or cluster development allowed in this district. With this one exception, we support the revised parking standards including the proposed footnote no. 3 suggested by staff. Please include this letter in the City Council agenda report for this item scheduled for the May 15, 1995 meeting. Your cooperation and assistance is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Michael J. L[,~ Blanc Vice President, Entitlement Irvine Community Builders c: Kathy Weil Christine Shingleton prkgetsp.itr/kdb ATTACHMENT O 550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box 6370, Newport Beach, California 92658-6370 · (714) 720-2715 A Division of The Irvine Company ATTACHMENT D RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Mike Doyle Council Member 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Christa J. Lockard 2448 Paseo Circulo Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 832-9588 Re: General Plan Amendment 94-001 Zone Change 94-004 Amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement Tentative Tract Map 15055 Dear Mr. Doyle, Attached you will find copies of two letters I sent to the City Planning Commission in March and Apdl. I was truly disappointed to find out that one of them was too late to make an impact. I am forwarding them to you with the assumption that you will give them careful attention. Like many of my neighbors I am very angry and am extremely concerned with the Irvine Company's proposal to build more apartments in the Tustin Ranch Area. I moved to this area because the area seemed designed for an upper middle class type of area. The vision I had was of a new high school and more single family homes. Clearly, the proposal by the Irvine Company directly impacts this vision. Further, the Irvine Company stated in the public headng i attended that the economy would not support the type of housing that those of us in the community would like to see which is single family homes with large yards. I feel that the real issue here is how much money the lrvine Company would like to make now as opposed to what we would like to see this area look like in the future. I am also appalled at the Irvine Company's attempt to threatened the community by intimating that they could build condominiums dght to the curb if they wanted to. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY NO to any proposal they make if it will negatively affect the area. Tustin has the right to say we do not want any more apartment buildings in this area. The 16 acres on the comer of Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Blvd. would seem the perfect place to build decent size homes for single family residents that would also include yards and encourage families to move to our area. Transient or apartment type housing will not increase the property values of Tustin Ranch or help the city of Tustin. Additionally, the need for reasonably priced single family homes in Tustin Ranch will always encourage a family oriented community, I know many people that have moved from this area - they have moved to Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel to single family homes. Eventually I would like to move into a single family home in this area, but with these types of changes taking place, the increases 'in traffic and the lack of concern for the complexion of this community I will probably be looking in other cities to make this transition. Sincerely, Christa J. Lockard Chdsta J. Lockard 2448 Paseo Circulo Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 832-9588 March 7, 1995 Mr. Dan Fox City Planning Office 300 Centennial Way. P.O.' Box 3539 Tustin, CA 92681-3539' Re: . General Plan Amendment 94-001 Zone Change 94-004 Amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement Tentative Tract Map 15055 Dear Mr. Fox: ! have received and reviewed the "Official Notice" that outlines the above. I want to voice my vehement opposition to all of the proposed changes. First, I am required to pay excelleratecLtaxes..on my property because the City of Tustin had proposed to put a new high school on Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315. The city has already deleted one proposed primary school, now they intend to dispose of plans for a high school, if the proposal Proceeds, I want it noted that all residents that have been inflicted with these taxes should .be entitled to not only an explanation from the school district, but retroactive refunds, including interest With ali of the new residents i would surmise that the need for more schools will be increased, certainly not decreased. SeCOndly, all of the proposed changes indicate high density, apartment type housing. This type of housing will decrease property values for all residents in the area. This type of housing will also increase the number of cars on Jamboree, Culver and Tustin Ranch Road. The impact on the current residents will be severe. My personal commute time (5 miles) is 35 minutes. I have attempted several different mutes and this is the best route and the quickest time. Additionally, with the finish of interchange from the 5 north to the 55 south indefinite, all of the new residents will be forced to use these streets. These areas are all ready very densely populated. I view these changes as blatant disregard to the residents and the area. The city has encroached enough on what is left of a beautiful natural environment Progress is certainly necessary, but these proposed changes will simply destroy our community and increase traffic. Most of all, the people who have chosen this area to live in, will have to suffer the eyesore of more apartment complexes. I have spoken to many of my neighbors in the area, to this date I have yet to find anyone in my neighborhood who endorses these proposals. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my viewpoint, i would hope that this cry for re- evaluation will not go unheeded. Sincerely, Christa J. Lockard Apdl 12, 1995 Ms. Marjode Kasalek City Planning Commission City Planning Office 300 Centennial Way. P.O. Box 3539 Tustin, CA 92681-3539 Christa J. Lockard 2448 Paseo Circulo Tustin, CA 92680 (714) 832-9588 Re: General Plan Amendment 94-001 Zone Change 94-004 Amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement · Tentative Tract Map 15055 Dear Ms. ~Kaselek: While I am somewhat encouraged by some of the remarks made by both you and Kathy Well in the meeting on March 13, I feel it necessary to reiterate how I feekabout.the-lrvine Company's proposed changes, i previously sent a similar letter to Dan Fox. Having lived in and know of others who have lived in apartments built and then converted to condominiums, i am horrified at the prospect to add this type of housing to our community. In fact, Tustin has allowed this before. This type of housing should be considered Iow income housing. The truth is they have terrible noise problems, parking problems, and do not promote the type of clientele that we who live in the community would want. Tenant housing of any kind does not promote pride of ownership or pride' of community. Also, consider the residents of Mandevilla who'were duped into renting what they thought, were apartments, allowed a 6 month lease and within months were served notices that they had a purchase option or they had to move. This complex was designed for and intended to be condominiums from the beginning, i am suspicious that the Irvine Company has an agenda for the complex to be condominiums when they have finished their first phase of development. The' rouse of apartments is simply a tactic to generate income during the building process. Further, in my complex we have seen that many owners have leased their properties and moved from the community already. This is mainly due to the economy and .the depressed values of our properties. If the Irvine Company would like to build condominiums, then let them build a Iow density condominium complex. The proposal leaves the community vulnerable to squatters and facing the possibility of high vacancy percentages. · Additionally, I am not sure who determines what is acceptable traffic, but I would challenge that the bias demonstrated at the meeting allows that the proposed traffic or anticipated traffic is perfectly acceptable, i believe it is not. ! believe that this proposal is an effort by the Irvine Company to overpopulate the area with little or no respect for its residents. I do not believe that their "Master Planned Community" proposal should be viewed lightly. In fact, I believe that the City of Tustin should take exception to this proposal and bar them from building anything but single family homes with more than reasonable yards, not patio homes. I would urge you to remember that the irvine Company as well as many other firms, profited heavily from the quick construction of the 80's. These same individuals have raped the areas that we live in with blatant disregard to the existing residents, their property values and their commute times. VVhile it might take time to review neighboring cities, Laguna Niguel has a development April 12, 1995 Page 2 Ms. Kaselek called Marina Hills that is composed of single family homes that is beautifully designed and they did not have the difficulty selling that the Irvine Company would lead us to believe is the sad state of our economy. No 'COmmunity can boast of increase property values when'they have been placed in juxtaposition to an apartment complex. I would urge you not to let the Irvine Company insult this community's intelligence. We all know what the proposals will do to this area. It will diminish the complexion of the Tustin Ranch area. Sincerely, Christa J. Lockard Douglas & Susa~ Kirschke 12490 Hazeltine Drive TusQn CA 92680 Phone/FAX (714) 832-7587 .. . .. Mayor Pro Tem Tracy Worley % City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mayor Pro Tem Worley, Requested Zoning changes, Tustin Ranch May 4, 1995 . . .. We are concerned homeowners in Tustin Ranch and very much opposed to the request by the Irvine Company to increase the number of permitted apartments in Tustin Ranch. Of particular concern is in the area at the comer of Irvine Blvd. and Tustin Ranch Road. It is our opinion that the increased population density and proposed three story structures will have a very negative impact on the community and is not in keeping with the gOod standards that we perceived to be a hallmark of this dty. When we purchased our residence late last year, we were under the impression that the area concerned was to be dedicated for schooling. We understand the reasons for not developing a new high school there at this time. Reverting the' area to single family, detached housing would be in keeping with the spirit of what we were led to believe would be the ultimate population density of the area we selected to invest in and raise our family. Is it possible this increased density would result in severe overcrowding of the existing schools that are now considered adequate, and thus the present situation? Frankly the proliferation of apartments, and three story structures in the area has us very concerned about the impact to our property value and quality of life for our family in a city we once held in high regards. We respectfully request you give this issue do consideration in this regard and move to continue to maintain the area as a residential community we can appreciate and be proud of. RAYMOND SUN 12420 Woodhall Way Tustin, CA 92680 May 5, 1995 Mayor Jim Potts~ ~~ouOr Pro Tem Tracy Worly ncilman Jeff Thomas Counsilman Jeff Doyle Councilman Thomas Saltarelli c/o City of Tustin 300 Cente~%nial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: Zoning Changes Requested by the Irvine Company Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am writing in response to a zoning change requested by the Irvine Company and approved by the City Planning Commission. Specifically, this zoning request would allow the Irvine Company to increase the number of permitted apartments in the Tustin Ranch' Phase I area from 2,294 apartment units to 2,606 apartment units. More specifically, the Irvine Company is planning to build up to 350 "family-oriented" (possibly three or more bedrooms) apartment units on the parcel of land at the corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road, formerly a planned high school site. The Irvine Company plans to build a portion of these apartment units as three- storey structures. This request was approved by the City Planning Commission and will be reviewed by the City Council. I recently bought a home in a single-family development called Palo Vista near the junction of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road. I chose this ~area because of the nice neighborhood (in particular, .the golf course, the park-like setting, and the large number of surrounding single-family residences) and because I felt that these factors would help maintain and enhance my prOperty value. I also chose this area having relied on the original Master Plan for Tustin Ranch Phase I. I am deeply opposed to the zoninq chanqe requested by the Irvine Company for the following reasons: There are already a large number of apartment units on Robinson Road and near the Tustin Market Place, so the additional apartment units proposed by the Irvine Company are unnecessary and will also significantly impact the value of my property, as well as the property values of all my neighbors in the Palo Vista, Malaga and Alicante developments. In fact, having too many apartment units in Tustin Ranch may render the area more undesirable to future homeowners and investors. A good example of this happened recently. A friend of mine was considering purchasing a home at the Travilla development, but after realizing that there were so many apartment complexes surrounding the development, he decided against it. I am concerned that the same effect will occur near the corner of Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road. · The three-storey structures will create a "concrete-wall,, feeling that will destroy the fresh and open environment that attracted me and my neighbors to this part of Tustin Ranch. 3. The "family-oriented" approach (3 bedrooms-or more) will lead to a significant increase'in population. The increased population in the area will.also destroy the fresh and open environment described above.. It will also create more traffic and social problems, since I doubt if the current Master'Plan' for Tustin Ranch Phase I has the sufficient infrastructure to accomodate this population increase. 4. Most importantly, it is especially unfair to single-family home owners such as myself, because we are paying more property taxes and Mello-Roos than the others. We do so because we want to continue to benefit from the pleasant environment that we currently have. However, we stand to lose the most if the zoning change is approved. Let me ask you the following question: Will the County allow me to reduce my property taxes and Mello-Roos if the zoninq chanqe were to bc approved? I sincerely hope that you will seriously consider my opposition to this request and will vote against this request. I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to oppose this request. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do' Please do not hesitate to call me at my office 714-440-5343 if you wish to discuss this with me. Very truly~,ours, 12480 Hazeltine Drive Tustin, CA 92680 May 8, 1995 Mayor Jim Potts c/o City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mayor Potts: Recently I learned of the-Irvine Company's request for zoning changes on two parcels of land near our home, specifically the area at Irvine Blvd. and Tustin Ranch Road. We learned that the intention of these changes is to allow for increased population density and additional multi-storied structures. We are adamantly opposed to the adoption of this proposal! VVhen we purchased our new home last year on the golf course, we were not properly informed about the proposed construction of three-story apartment buildings directly across the golf course from our home, After paying.a premium for this lot, we were very disappointed when the new construction continued to reach skyward! We are extremely concerned that any increase in the amount of population density will drastically affect our property values and firmly contend that the numbers now are as high as they should go. May we Urge you to give this issue thorough consideration and keep in mind that those of us who have already purchased homes in the area have a valid voice in the final decision. Respectfully, Kay S. Snyder Terry R. Snyder DAWN E. WEST May 10, 1995 Councilman Mike Doyle c/o City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Councilman Doyle: This is to voice my concern and opposition to the Irvine Company's request for zoning changes in the Tustin Ranch area. I am a Tustin Ranch resident and homeowner who is concerned that the plan to increase the number of apartments, and specifically, three-story and family-oriented (3 or more bedrooms) apartment structures, will have a negative imp. act on the quality of life and property values in our Tustin Ranch neighborhood, make the population too dense in this area and have a negative impact on our surrounding schools. I urge you to vote against the Irvine Company request for zoning changes concerning the Tustin Ranch area. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Dawn E. West John C. Bouyen Co. LICENSE NQ 539858 May 10, 1995 Councilman Thomas Saltarelli C/O City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attn' Councilman Saltarelli Please vote no on the request by the Irvine Company to change the zoning that would permit the building of more apartments in the Tustin Ranch area. As a member of the Palo Vista Home Owners Association, I will be on hand to see how you vote on this issue. Sincerely, John uyer Presid~ent JCB:jh 1080 North Batavia, Suite B, Orange, California 92667 (714) 771-1573 Mayor Jim Potts c/o City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 May 9, 1995 Dear Mayor Potts: We are writing to you as concerned residents of Tustin Ranch. We are strongly opposed to what the hvine Company intends to do with two particular parcels of land. Adding more apartment complexes is not what Tustin Ranch needs. This will have a very disfavorable impact on our property value, it will impact schools and the choices our children have, it will create an even greater traffic problem on Tustin Ranch Road and Jamboree, as well as change the quality of life we thought we were going to have. The Irvine Company is notorious for only wanting to increase apartment complexes by a small percentage. A few more apartments here and there is a big deal for us. As Mayor of Tustin, you have a responsibility to the homeowners. WE DO NOT NEED MORE APARTMENTS! Calling them "family-oriented" is simply an attempt to camouflage the issue. It is imperative that you car~ consider the impact this could have on Tustin. Please see to it that this does not pass. Sincerely, Jim and Elizabeth Stevens 2350 Pinehurst Drive Tustin, CA 92680 05/15/95 11:34 May 15, 1995 Tustin City Cmmcik B=~t L. B~h= 12010 N. P,~er~ Tus~-;,~, Ca_ 92680 AS a citizen'ofTustig I would 1~¢ to voice my oppositiou to the proposed omcndmcnt to the Tustiu General plan to re-zone the property at Irv/no BlvcL and Tustin Ranch Road from a H/gh School to mod/Urn-high density residential. .Fh's~ I based the dec/sion to purchase of my house/n Tustha Ranch on the prox4m;ty to ~chools that wonld be constructed in Tus~ Ranch. If Tustin Ranch did not have a high ~chool, I would not have moved here. Second, the City council must havo a long-term perspec~e in dealing with this issue. Consider not only what is needed today, ,but what is needed 5 or 10 years from now. Consider thc possible demographio changes that will occur within Tustin Ranch as thc community matures. We must set-aside this land for the possibility of needing it 5 to 10 years from now. Simply compare the cost to the city of acquiring raw land vorsus tho enormous cost and clieruption of having to condemn improved propexty in the future to make room for schools. Consider the lessons learned/n neighboring cities such as Santa Ana. Thc city condemned over 250 propcr~cs and built 9 schools in the last 9 years at enormous cost to taxpayers. Can we afford to make that mis'take in T~? Third, the construction of over 500 dwellin~ (350 apartment and 163 detached ,mits) on the subject site will place even more pressure on the school system in the Forth, the cost of busing ch,'Icken to. schools in other sections of the city must bo factored into the equation. In snmmory, consider why residents moved to Tusrin Ranch Also consider thc long range demands on the educational system w/thin the city. Vote against a change to the general plan Sincerely, Brad L. Balen MULFORD & ASSOCIATES 1630 S. Sunkist St., Ste. K, Anaheim, CA 92806-5816 714-935-0694 FAX 714-935-0794 May17,1995 Mr. Mayor Jim Potts Tustin City Counsil 300 Centennial Way L ADi¥'IT IgT R' Ti 0 N Tusfin, Ca. - Dear Mr. Mayor: It has been brought to my attention that thc City planning commission approved thc Irvinc Company's . request to zoning changes on two parcels of land within Tustin Ranch. This proposed zoning change will have a negative impact on the area in which I live. I am against this proposal for the following reasons: Building three story rental properties in an area that has a high concentration of townhomes and condominiums will drastically lower the value of my property and the property values of others in my complex. . Construction of family oriented apartments that will have 3 or more bedrooms on the comer of Irvine Blvd and Tusfin Ranch Road will cause a dramatic increase in the already high traffic level for this area. . Constmctiofi of the proposed apartments will cause the area to be too densely populated. I moved to Tustin because of the lack of population. There are too many apartments in Tustin (Tustin Ranch) as it is! . The new zoning will also have an impact on the schools in the area. The student teacher ratio will be that of thc inner city schools. I will not raise my children in a community that does not look at the long term consequences of their actions. If I had been notified by the Irvine Company that this zoning change was being proposed, I would not have bought my home in the City of Tustin. In fact, if this zoning change is approved, I will be relocating to a city that is less populated with apartment dwellings. Moreover, Mayor Ports you have a personal responsibility to make sure that this proposal does not pass. Otherwise, you will suffer the repercussions as a public servant in our community. ~-. Tax Payer CJM/jah RECEIPT FOR PUBLIC REPORT ..~' .... .... I ~~" The Law and Regulations of the Real Estate Commissioner require that you as a prospective purchaser or essee be afforded an opportunity to read the public report for this subdivision before you make any wdtten offer I purchase or lease a subdivision interest or before any money or other consideration toward purchase or ease. of. a s~Jbdivision interest is accepted from you. .....:~,...:.:......~. -. ;i:..'.;'~t~'-T re ' "~" In the case of a preliminary subdivision public report, you must be afforded an opportunity to read the port before a wdtten reservation or any deposit in connection therewith is accepted from you. .. DO NOT SIGN THIS RECEIPT UNTIL YOU HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE REPORT AND HAVE READ IT. ! have read the commissioner's public report on (File No.) (Tract No. of Name) ,derstand the report is not a recommendation or endorsement of the subdivision, but is for information only, The date of the public report which I received and read is: Address Date Subdivider is Required to Retain this Receipt for Three Years · '.' !0, - OFFICE Canan/ - BUYER Pink - SALES · cc.' Fog THOMAS J. PRENOVOST, JR. TOM RODDY NORMANDIN STEVEN L. BERGH MICHAEL G. DAWE BRUCE T. BAUER ERIC P. FRANCISCONI KIMIaERLY D. TAYLOR NANCY R. TRAGARZ PRENOVOST, NORMANDIN, BEROH & ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2020 EA.~T FIRST STREET. SUITE 500 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 9~.705-4015 TELEPHONE 17141 547-:::>444 FAX (714) 835-2889 Councilman Mike Doyle c/o City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Dear Councilman Doyle: May 18, 1995 WHEN REPLYING REFER TO FILE NO. As 10 year reSidents of Tustin, and as new residents of Tustin Ranch, my wife and I Oppose the proposal by the Irvine Company to develop up to 350 apartments on the site loCated on the corner of Irvine Blvd and Tustin .Ranch Road. During the last 10 years, we observed how the apartments located in the area between Red Hill and the freeway have contributed to the decline of the surrounding neighborhoods, and the demise of the pUblic schools. We know 8 families that sold their homes in Tustin Meadows based on the impact of the apartments on Thorman Elementary School. We sold our Tustin Meadows house for the same reason. We shall take note as to how you vote on this matter at the June 5, 1995 city council meeting. We will vote against you in future elections if unless you vote aqains.t this project. Sincerely, Steven L. Bergh SLB/jw lO/ltrstr.slb TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1 5055 & ,LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN _ ( L. r-O,, I ! CON'STRUC~ON/~AN-~ R~_~ Z~_ .'.-~ ~--~-~ TUSTIN RANCH TENT. TRACT 15055 Prepared for: lrvine Community Builden 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 ! ]ii 0 TUSTIN RANCH TENT. TRACT 15055 Prepared for: Irvine Communily Builders 550 Ne~l~o~-I Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Z m m-- TUSTIN RANCH TENT. TRACT 1.5055 Prepared for: ir,'ine C'ommunitv Builder, 550 Newporl Cenier I)rive New.ri Beach. (:.& 92660 RESOLUTION 95-44' ORDINANCE1148 ORDINANCE1149 ORDINANCE1150 RESOLUTION 95-45 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 95-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 85-2, AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA, WITH ADDENDUM NO. 5 RELATED TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001, ZONE CHANGE 94- '004, AMENDMENTS TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN, SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15055, 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: ae That an application has been filed by The Irvine Company, requesting approval of General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004, Amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan, Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Map 15055. Be 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. 5 to EIR 85-2 was prepared 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. 5 to EIR 85-2. E · That Addendum No. 5 to EIR 85-2 prepared for the project ~addresses only minor technical changes or additions and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-44 Page 2 II. The Irvine Company shall pay City's defense costs (including attorneys' fees) and indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any claims, losses, liabilities, or damages assessed or awarded against City by way of judgement, settlement or stipulation (including awards for costs, attorneys' fees, and expert witness fees), arising from actions filed against the City challenging the City's approval of Addendum No. 5 to EIR 85-2. III. 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 scop~ 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, as modified by subsequently approved supplements and addenda, and Addendum No. 5 to EIR 85-2 addressing the proposed amendments 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 Approval related to General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004, the East Tustin specific Plan Amendments, the Second Amendment to the East tustin Development Agreement and Tentative Tract Map 15055. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 95-44 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 5th day of June, 1995. JIM POTTS MAYOR Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certif~ that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 95-44 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk INITIAL STUDY AND ADDENDUM EIR #5 FOR: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 94-001 ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 94-004, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Prepared for: City of Tus~n 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA. 92680 Prepared By: The Keith Companies 2955 Red Hill Avenue Costa Mesa, CA. 92626 April 1995 EXHIBIT A RESO 95-44 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I · 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE .......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................... 1-1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................... 1-2 SECTION H ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ................ 2-1 SECTION HI DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION3-1 APPENDIX A East Tustin Specific Plan Text Modifications APPE. NDIX B Traffic Impact Evaluation, Tustin Unified School District Correspondence APPENDIX C Proposed Second Amendment to East Tustin Development Agreement 12557.mstin 4/12~95 -i- LIST OF FIGURES DESCRIPTION PAGE Figure 1-1 Existing Land Use Plan ............................................................................. 1-4 Figure 1-2 Proposed Land Use Plan & Location Map ....................................................... 1-5 Figure 1-3 GPA 94-001, Exhibit A ............................................................................. 1-6 Figure 1-4 GPA 94-001, Exhibit B ............................................................................. 1-7 Figure 1-5 ZC 94-004, Exhibit A ............................................................................... 1-8 Figure 1-6 ZC 94-004, Exhibit B ............................................................................... 1-9 12557.tustin 4/12/95 -ii- LIST OF TABLES DESCRIVI'ION PAGE Table 1-1 Entitlement Modifications ........................................................................... 1-3 Table A-2 East Tustin Phase H Land Use ..................................................................... 3-18 12557.tustin 4112/95 ooo -111- SECTION I 1.1 PURPOSE According to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164 (a), the Lead Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. This addendum evaluates land use revisions that were originally considered in the East Tustin Specific Plan Final EIR 85-2, prepared by Michael Brandman Associates in 1985 and as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. FEIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, is currently available at the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Given that the proposed changes do not raise new issues about significant impacts on the environment, this environmental assessment has been prepared as an addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 85-2. An addendum to the previous EIR need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the f'mal EIR. The City Council should consider the addendum with the previous final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Together, Final EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, and this addendum are intended to serve as documents that will generally inform decision makers and the general public of any significant environmental effects of proposed project changes and subsequent mitigation measures. Final EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, is hereby incorporated by reference into this addendum. Listed below is a discussion of the project location and description of the proposed changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan, East Tustin Development Agreement, City's Zoning Map, and I_and Use Map of the City's General Plan. Section II includes the environmental checklist outlining potential impacts that may or may not contribute to significant environmental effects. Section III provides discussion of the environmental checklist and identifies any differences between land use modifications and that discussed in Final EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. 12557.tustin 4/12~95 1-1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located in Sectors 2,6,8, and 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) area of the City of Tustin (see Figure 1-1). Sector 2 is located at northermnost portion of the specific plan area and is bounded by Peters Canyon Regional Park on the west and Jamboree Road to the east. Sector 6 is bounded by Tustin Ranch Road on the north and west, Portola parkway to the south and Jamboree Road to the east. Sector 8 is bounded by the City Limits to the west and north, Tustin Ranch Road to the east and La Colina Drive to the south. Sector 11 is bounded by Bryan Avenue to the south, Jamboree Road to the east, Irvine Boulevard to the north and Tustin Ranch Road to the west. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 94-001), Zone Change (ZC 94-004) and the second Amendment to the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement for a variety of land use modifications throughout the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) area. These proposed Specific Plan Text changes are specified in detail in Appendix A. The proposed second amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement is included as Appendix C. The proposed land use modifications are depicted on Figure 1-2. Proposed entitlement modifications are outlined in Table 1-1 and are depicted in Figures 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6. These entitlements will result in a transfer of dwelling units from one sector to another and therefore, will not alter the overall number of dwelling units permitted by the East Tustin Specific Plan (7,950 total units). In effect, three sites which currently permit the construction of a high school, one elementary school and 72,000 square feet of general commercial use are proposed to be designated for residential use without changing the total dwelling unit counts currently allowed by the ETSP. 12557.tustin 4/I 2~95 1-2 Irvine Ave. ! I Barranca Rd. LEGEND EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING LAND USE PLAN Figure 1-1 . REFER TO FIGURE 1-4 & 1-6 ;REFER TO . FIGURE REFER TOm -.. EAST ,lEGEND ? - -. i' TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN & LOCATION MAP Figure 1-2 .t;- REFER TO FIGURE 1-4 & 1-6 i .REFER TO FIC-dJRE 1-3 .. ~., REFER TO _.. .. GURE 1-5 ~.;:. ,lEGEND 1-' . ! EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN & LOCATION MAP Figure 1-2 I RE81C TOWNSHIP DRIVE. RAWLINGS SITE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL LOT 6 OF TRACT 12870 A.P.#: 501-093-16 SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN GPA 94-001 EXHIBIT A Figure 1-3 ~ ~IESI'DEN .. PC ~',C Oi~MER~IA, N E 8 8 '~'-~-.'-~ EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL.,~ PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 A.P.#: 502-452-01 SOURCE:CITY OF TUSTIN [ EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN GPA 94-001 EXHIBIT B Figure I-4 IRVINE SITE EXISTING ZONING* DESIGNATION: PC COMMUNITY FACILITY PROPOSED DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315 A.P.#: 500-221-02 A.P.#: 500-221.-09 SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN I ZC 94-004' EXHIBIT A EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN UJ EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: PC COMMERCIAL PROPOSED DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL)PC COMMERCIAL Lot 27 of Tract 13627 A.P. 502-452-01 ii SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTtN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZC 94-004 EXHIBIT B Figure 1-6 SECTION II ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 2.1 Background The proposed General Plan Amendments, Zone Change, East Tustin Specific Plan Amendments and East Tustin Development Agreement Amendment are a reconfiguration of previously approved land uses for the project site. Proposed residential dwelling units will not exceed residential unit totals discussed and analyzed in Final EIR 85-2 as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. The proposed elimination of some public institutional and commercial type uses are not expected to result in any new significant environmental impacts to the site that were not considered in EIR 85-2 as subsequently modified by adopted supplements and addenda. Following is an analysis which will document the additions and the magnitude of additions to determine impacts of the project proposal. 2.2 Environmental Checklist Form Differences in environmental impacts between the proposed land use revisions and the land uses that were proposed in Final EIR 85-2 as subsequently modified by adopted supplements and addenda have been summarized in Section HI of this Addendum EIR. Determining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment and the subsequent checking of a "yes", "no", or "maybe" on the checklist form is critical to the CEQA process. Section 15064 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states that "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting." In the case of the proposed project a considerable amount of technical data was available (Final EIR 85-2 as subsequently modified by adopted supplements and addenda) to determine potential environmental impacts. In those cases where considerable technical and factual data was available to determine that the project will not create an adverse impact to the environment a "no" determination was given. In those cases, such as land use, when there was no question the projects intent was to modify land uses, a "yes" determination was given. In those cases where additional study or research was necessary (such as transportation/circulation) the item was checked "maybe". A conservative approach was taken in the preparation of the checklist insofar as if there was any question of a "no" or "maybe" determination the preparers of the study determined that there may be a possibility of an impact and selected "maybe". 12557.tustin 4/12~95 2-1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECklIST FORM PROJECT LOCATION: PROJECT ADDRESS: Tustin Orange City County East Tustin Specific Plan Area DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project proposes to amend existing general plan and zone designations for a variety of properties throughout the East Tustin Specific Plan Area, including text and map amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan and modifications to the East Tustin Development Agreement. This project will not increase the number of dwelling units permitted to be built by the specific plan, but will provide more land area for those units by modifying other land uses and densities. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Yes Maybe No a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ _ X d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? __ __ __X e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beachsands, 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? x g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X II. AIR X a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ b) The creation of objectionable odors? __ __ _~X c) Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any X change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ __ _ 9999-VMV-911-IS CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CON'T) yes Maybe No IH. WATER a) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or freshwaters? b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 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? c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 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)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species or animals? c) Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? VI. NOISE a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? VII. LIGHT AND GLARE a) Produce new light or glare? X X X X X X X 9999-VMV-91 I-IS CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CON'T) VIII. LAND USE Yes Maybe No a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? IX. NATURAL RESOURCES a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X. RISK OF UPSET 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? XI. POPULATION a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area? XII. HOUSING a) Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additiOnal housing? XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCUI~TION 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? e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks or other recreational facilities? e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f) Other governmental services? X X X X X X X X X X 9999-VMV-91 I-IS CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (CON'T) Yes Maybe No XV. ENERGY a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Water? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? 0 Solid waste and disposal? a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? XVIII.AESTHETICS a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b) The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? XIX. RECREATION a) Impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potemial impact area? X X X X -X X X X X 9999-VMV-91 l-IS CHECKLIST ENVIRO~AL IMPACTS (CON"I) Yes Maybe No XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enviroment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? .. b) Short-term: Does the project have the pot'emial to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively, brief, definitive period of time. Long- term impacts will endure well into the furore.? c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X 9999-VMV-91 l-IS CHECKLIST SECTION III DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Explanation of ali Answers Items A-D - "No": The majority of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSp) area is relatively flat (over 70% of the site is at 0 to 5 percent slope). Slopes in the northeastern area of the site consists of moderate hills and a small valley bottom. All properties identified in the subject modifications have previously been rough graded as part of the rough grading operations associated with the sector level maps. No significant geologic substructures are known to exist on the subject sites. No unique geologic or physical features are located in the project site modification areas. Item Eo "No": Proposed land uses would add impervious surfaces to the project area but the amount of impervious surfaces would not be significantly different than what would be created by land uses proposed in EIR 85-2. Given that the amount of impervious surfaces would generally remain the same, it is expected that water runoff quantities would remain the same as well. Item F- "No": Project implementation will not modify or impact beachsands or fiver or stream channels or lake beds. Item G- "No": Exposure of people and/or property to earthquakes is inherent with living in Southern California. This project does not subject people or property to geologic hazards in any additional manner than previously addressed. Statement of Findings and Fact The proposed land use modifications will not introduce the project site to earth related hazards not previously addressed in Final EIR 85-2. Each significant impact can be reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in the Final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for landform alteration and geology was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of landform alterations or geologic considerations (seismic) therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan 12557.tustin 41I 2/95 3-1 II. Air Item A- "No": Short-term temporary impacts would result from construction activities. Long-term impacts would result from automobile emissions. Both long and short-term impacts would be similar to impacts created by the uses proposed for the site in Final EIR 85-2. Construction activities would remain similar and the proposed project would not create additional vehicular usage not previously addressed in Final EIR 85-2. Item B- "No": The construction of residential uses will not create objectionable odors. Residential uses are not associated with objectionable odors. Item C- "No": The construction of the proposed project will not significantly alter air movement, or result in any change in temperature or climate either locally regionally. Statement of Findings and Fact The proposed land use modifications will not introduce new air quality impacts to the site not previously addressed in Final EIR 85-2. Impacts to air conditions can be reduced by implementation of mitigation measures as outlines in the final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for the generation of mobile and stati°nary air pollutants was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of airborne pollutants, therefore no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan III. Water Items A,C and D- "No": The project sites are not located in either a marine or freshwater environment and no water bodies exist on any of the sites. Portions of the ETSP area are located in both the 100 year and 500 year flood zones. Specifically, the 500 year flood zone area are areas of 500 year floods; areas of 100 year floods with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100 year floods. Standard mitigation measures required by the City of Tustin ensure that all structures meet all construction standards established by the National Flood Insurance Program. Items B and E- "No": Urban land uses will affect runoff pollutants. Storm runoff from the site will result in runoff such as pesticides and herbicides (commonly the result of landscaping activities) and oil, grease and debris commonly associated with auto- related pollutants. 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-2 Item F- "No": Direction or rate of water flow would not be affected by the proposed land use modifications. Item G- "No": EIR 85-2 noted that increases in impervious surfaces and the provision of storm drain improvements will result in less runoff percolating into the groundwater basin. In addition to reducing the volume of water recharge, project implementation will alter the character of water percolating through the soils. Ultimately the change in landscaping irrigation return water is anticipated to result in an improvement in the water quality of the groundwater basin. The proposed land use revisions will not change the quantity of groundwater nor will they impact through additions or withdrawals, or through the interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation change the quantity of groundwater. Item H- "No": The proposed project will use water Supplies for domestic and irrigation uses, similar to those discussed in Final EIR 85-2. Item I- "No": The project site is not located in close proximity to any large body of water that could subject the site to water-related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves. Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed project will be similar in impact and scope to that of approved land uses for the site. The proposed project will not introduce and water related hazards Or issues not previously addressed in Final EIR 85-2. Water related impacts associated with development of the site can be reduced by implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for decreasing recharge to groundwater basins and the increase of surface runoff to onsite and downstream drainage facilities was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of decreased recharge to groundwater basins or increase surface water runoff, therefore no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan IV. Plant Life Items A,B and D- "No": All areas under project consideration have been previously rough graded. Consequently, there is no sensitive vegetation on any of the subject sites, including coastal sage scrub. Additionally, no agricultural crops remain on any of the sites. 12557.tustin 4112/95 3-3 Item C- "No": New on site plant species will be introduced to the project site, however, these species would be similar to those discussed in Final EIR 85-2. Statement of Findings and Facts All land use areas under consideration with the proposed project have been previously rough graded. Therefore, all native vegetation and habitat has been removed. The proposed project will not impose new impacts to existing on site vegetation. A statement of overriding considerations for the elimination of all onsite agricultural vegetation and removal of various vegetation associations was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen environmental impacts of elimination of agricultural vegetation and removal of various vegetative associations, as all of the project areas have been previously rough graded and are consequently no longer onsite. Therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan V. Animal Life Items A,B and D- "No": EIR 85-2 did not identify significant animal life residing on the project site. Modifications to land uses proposed would generate similar impacts as those land uses proposed for the site in Final EIR 85-2. Item C- "No": Because land use modifications are residential in nature, it can be anticipated that domestic species of animals such as dogs and cats, will be introduced to the area. However, given existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project, domesticated animals are already present in the immediate vicinity. Statement of Findings and Facts There is no known fish or'wildlife habitat existing on the project site. Habitat for the site has been previously rough graded and would not support significant wildlife except for domesticated animals associated with residential units. Environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in Final EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-4 - VI. Noise Item A- "No": Construction activities will temporarily increase existing noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Construction activities are however, considered short- term in nature. These increase would be similar to short-term noise impacts as discussed in Final EIR 85-2. Item B- "No": Long-term noise impacts Will be decreased based upon a reduction in traffic levels originally considered with Final EIR 85-2. High school facilities generally have playing fields which can generate a significant amount of player and spectator noise from such sports as baseball, track meets, soccer, and softball. Football activities also generate loud speaker noises at events that can be annoying and obtrusive. The traffic study indicates that the proposed modification to land uses substantially reduces daily traffic anticipated to be generated by the East Tustin Specific Plan and said modifications are not considered severe. Statement of Findings and Facts Proposed land uses are less intensive than original land uses analyzed in FEIR 85-2. Noise associated with sporting activities at the school will be eliminated thereby eliminating loud speaker and spectator noise which can be very obtrusive given that many of these activities are played in the evening hours. Traffic levels are consequently less and subsequently noise impacts are reduced. Environmental impacts can be reduced by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in Final EIR 85-2. A statement of overriding considerations for incremental increases in ambient noise levels was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of an increase in ambient noise levels, therefore no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan VII. Light and Glare Item A' "No": Similar to existing land uses and those approved for the sites, light and glare would be generate from proposed land uses. In some instances, such as the removal of schools, light and glare impacts may be less due to the removal of associated high intensity lighting necessary for nighttime athletics such as football and baseball. 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-5 Statement of Findings and Facts Light and glare impacts will not introduce the project site to impacts not previously addressed in Final EIR 85-2. Each significant impact can be reduced to a level of insignificance by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in the Final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for aesthetics was adopted concurrent with the certification of Final EIR 85-2., The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impacts of light and glare therefore, no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan VIII. Land Use Item A- "Yes": The proposed land use modifications will alter the present land uses approved as part of the ETSP. These modifications are described in Section I, Table 1-1 of this Addendum to the EIR. The intent of the proposed land uses is not to increase the number of dwelling units permitted to be built in East Tustin, but to modify land uses and transfer units from one sector to another. The results will be an overall lower residential density for the community than is currently planned. Modifications to land uses will not alter the overall allowable dwelling unit count of 7,950 units.. The potential for land use conflict may arise within the ETSP between Sectors 10 and 11. Sector 10 consists of occupied low density dwelling units. The current ETSP designates a High School (HS) and Medium Density Residential (M) within the central and western portion of Sector 11, adjacent to Sector 10 and the occupied dwelling units (see Figure 1-1). The proposed land use modifications will delete the HS designation and change the Land Use Plan to Medium High (MH), Medium Low (ML) land uses, and a 5.0 acre neighborhood park (NP) (see Figure 1-2). The apartment uses and neighborhood park site may appear to be a significant departure for the elimination of the high school site. However, the ETSP and Development Agreement have acknowledged that school sites would be developed upon need, with flexible siting locations, and that the underlying land use to schools would be residential. Provisions in the Development Agreement amendments would require the applicant to provide an additional 50 foot landscaped buffer on Tustin Ranch Road adjacent to the future apartment site within Sector 11. Additional provisions of the Development Agreement specify the minimum number and sizes of trees and shrubs which are to be used for perimeter landscaping along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard, exceeding City standards. Additional provisions also require that the buildings along Tustin Ranch Road and 50 percent of the buildings along Irvine Boulevard provide a two-story appearance. 12557.tustin 4/12195 3-6 The MH land use designation is proposed in this area of Sector 11 which would consist of a maximum of 350 "family oriented" apartments. Family oriented apartments generally consist of larger 2 and 3 bedroom units with greater amenities. Apartments are allowed within the ETSP subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. In addition, apartment projects are also typically processed with Condominium maps, therefore, future conversion into condos for home ownership is not precluded. Please see Section 12-Housing for additional discussion on this issue. Additionally, circulation impacts and light and glare impacts would be reduced to these areas with the removal of the high school site. Please see Sections 13-Traffic and Circulation and 7- Light and Glare for further discussion of these issues. The proposed project also requests to remove the obligation in the Development Agreement of the applicant to construct a minimum 250 room hotel in Sector 6. The removal of this use from commercial uses will allow the construction of 399 apartment units. Apartment units at this location will be a continuation of residential uses in nearby sectors and generate less traffic and circulation impacts than a hotel and retail uses. See Section 13- Traffic and Circulation for additional discussion of impacts. A statistical analysis demonstrating changes from the presently approved ETSP to the proposed project modifications are included in Table 2.4 of the proposed ETSP Text Amendments contained in Appendix A. The proposed Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement is included in Appendix C. A review of the table reveals total allowable unit changes to Sectors 3,4,5,7 and 10. The total unit number changes to these sectors are reduced from the existing plan and will therefore require a specific plan text change only. The overall changes to these sector areas reflect existing densities and do not change the overall ETSP land use densities. The proposed project increases the number of residential units in Sectors 2,6 and 11. In summary, the intermediate school site and neighborhood park site are proposed to be shifted in location, and the high school site, one elementary school site, and 60% of the general commercial site are proposed to be converted to residential use. Although these sector areas propose an increase in the number of residential units, the overall total number of units for the ETSP area remains the same. The ETSP specifically allows that if a school and/or park currently designated for a sector is not built in this sector, that the acreage goes into residential use. Additionally, Section 3.4.3 of ETSP provides that if a sector is developed with less than the maximum number of units permitted within, the sector, then a transfer of units will be permitted from sector to sector within the Specific Plan area provided that: 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-7 . The basic character and intensity of development in both the losing and gaining sector is not significantly altered; e The maximum number of dwelling units in each land use area, as determined by the density factor times gross acres, shall not be exceeded; and 3. The resulting development pattern is compatible with land use areas adjacent to both the losing and gaining sectors. With removal of the HS site in Sector 11 and the reasons cited above, no significant land use conflicts within Sectors 2,6, 8, and 11 will occur. Statement of Finding and Facts Land use, impacts will remain similar to those outlined in the Final EIR 85-2. A statement of overriding considerations for conversion of open space to urban uses was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impact of conversion of open space to urban uses, therefore no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources.' Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan IX. Natural Resources Item .A- "No": EIR 85-2 analyzed natural gas consumption and noted that although there was an increase in usage, there would be no significant impacts associated with providing the site with natural gas. Although the proposed project is requesting residential uses at sites designated as public institutional (schools) and commercial, the number of residential units is below that of the original project. Statement of Findings and Facts A reduced number of residential units located over the entire specific plan area will result in less natural gas consumption. Project impacts can be reduced to a level below significance through the implementation of mitigation measures as set forth in Final EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East TUstin Specific Plan 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-8 X. Risk of Upset Items A and B- "No": Proposed residential land uses would not result in hazardous activities that would pose a risk of upset. Residential activities typically do not involve the .use of significant amounts of hazardous materials such as oils, pesticides, chemicals or radiation. Additionally~ proposed land use siting locations would not impede or interfere with established emergency response or evacuation plans. Statement of Findings and Facts Proposed residential uses would have similar impacts to those analyzed in Final EIR 85-2. Project impacts can be reduced to a level below significance through implementation of mitigation measures as discussed in FEIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan XI. Population Item A- "Maybe": The proposed project would result in a reconfiguration of land uses. Although the project proposes residential units on previously designated public and institutional and commercial sites, the total number of units planned in the ETSP areas is less than the total number analyzed in Final EIR 85-2. Therefore, the total estimated population at buildout is not expected to exceed levels estimated in Final EIR 85-2. Statement of Findings and Facts The proposed project will not exceed the previously estimated population at buildout for the ETSP, because total residential units requested are below the total unit figure of the original ETSP project. The proposed project will result in reduced ETSP population as compared to the ETSP project analyzed in Final EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan 12557.tustin 4112195 3-9 XII. Housing Item A- "Maybe": The proposed land use modifications Will affect existing housing within the ETSP area. While the proposed project would not increase the total number of allowed units in the ETSP area, p.roposed amendments to the Development Agreement would increase the maximum number of apartments. The current ETSP Development Agreement specifies that twenty-five (25) percent of the total dwelling units within the ETSP and Phase I residential area (9,178 total units), would allow a maximum of 2,294 apartments to be constructed. The proposed amendment to the ETSP Development Agreement includes a 3.4 percent increase in the maximum number of apartments to 28.4 percent. Such an increase would result in a potential maximum of 2,606 apartments within the ETSP area and Phase I residential area which represents 312 additional apartments from that which is currently allowed. Apartment projects are typically processed with Condominium maps, therefore, future conversion into condos for home ownership is not precluded. This practice would be consistent with recently adopted goals within the City's Housing Element. Goal 3 of the Housing Element is to "[I]ncrease the percentage of ownership housing to ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing within the City." Apartment unit conversions to condominiums typically provide for more affordable opportunities for housing ownership. Should any of these apartment units or other existing apartment projects, be converted to condominiums the percentage of apartment units within the ETSP area would consequently be reduced. However, it is unknown as to when, and if, any of these units will be converted to condominiums. The 3.4 percent increase in apartments is not considered a significant impact because the total number of dwelling units approved in the original ETSP will not increase and there is still the potential for some or all of these apartment units to be converted to condominiums in the future. In addition, as indicated in the Section 8- Land Use, the MH land use designations proposed as part of the modification to the specific plan are proposed to consist of "family oriented" apartments which is reinforced in the Amendments to the Development Agreement. For the previously outlined reasons, no additional significant impacts to housing will occur. Statement of Finding and Facts The increase in apartments will not result in an increase in the total number of residential units located within the ETSP site. However, impacts will remain similar to those outlined in the Final EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-10 Transportation/Circulation Items A,B and C- "Maybe;': A traffic study for the proposed alterations to the land uses was prepared by Pirzadeh and Associates, titled "East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment-Traffic Generation Analysis, October 24, 1994. An independent review of this study was performed by Austin-Foust Associates on 'December 6, 1994 with comparison of the requirements for a Level One Traffic Impact Evaluation. Refer to Appendix B for reports. A Level One Traffic Impact Evaluation seeks to determine how the proposed land use revisions impact the original traffic analysis identified in EIR 85-2. The Pirzadeh study indicates that the proposed amendment will result in significantly less average daily trips (33,585 ADT) as compared to 49,501 ADT discussed in EIR 85-2. This reduction in trips is due mainly to the reduction in General Commercial (GC) acreage, and to a lesser degree, to the buildout conditions throughout the majority of the ETSP area. Three Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) were studied under the Level One Traffic Impact Evaluation. Within the three zones, the number of residential units increased by 424 as a result of the transferring of units from other areas of the specific plan. For this reason, the analyzed traffic zones may increase without increasing the overall number of previously approved units at 7,950 d.u. The revised land use designations will result in a reduction of 15,916 ADT. Additionally, other planning sector areas from which the 424 units were originally designated will also have a reduction in ADT. The study indicates that the actual "additional trip reduction" figures will be dependent upon fmal housing mix but it is estimated that the reduction will range from 3,646 ADT to 4,240 ADT. The City's Transportation Engineer has also reviewed the subject proposed amendment with consideration of the proposed Lower Peter Canyon Specific Plan EIR (LPCSP) circulation plan, dated November 18, 1994. While the LPCSP project substantially impacts various roadways within the City of Tustin, a mitigation program has been prepared by the County of Orange to address and mitigate the project traffic impacts generated by the LPCSP Project. Overlapping impacts are of a concern and were initially anticipated to occur on Jamboree Road south of Tustin Ranch Road to Barranca Parkway, Bryan Avenue between Jamboree Road and Newport Avenue, and most severely on Irvine Boulevard between Jamboree Road and the SR- 55 Freeway. However, analysis of the proposed ETSP amendment traffic study indicates that the modified land uses reduce average daily trips generated within the three aforementioned TAZ's from 49,501 vehicles per day (vpd) to 33,585 vpd; a reduction of nearly 16,000 vpd or 32 %. Within TAZ 40, which directly impac~ Irvine Boulevard, traffic will be reduced from the previously approved 10,432 vpd to 5,602 vpd. These reductions would result in improved traffic flow on affected Tustin roadways and therefore, the proposed amendment would not adversely impact the City's planned circulation system. 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-11 The LPCSP project is identified as adding 11,000 vehicles per day on Izvine Boulevard at project buildout in the area of TAZ 40. The additional traffic generated by the LPCSP project onto Irvine Boulevard, does not offset the traffic reduction from the ETSP amendment. However, the LPCSP project has been conditioned by the County of Orange to mitigate their project traffic impacts on all roadways to a level of acceptable conditions. These conditions were imposed prior to consideration of the reduction in traffic associated with the ETSP amendment, since neither proposal has been approved as of this date. As part of the ETSP text amendments, the amount of guest parking spaces required by Section 3.10.1.C of the ETSP, for multiple family projects, is proposed to be increased from 0.25 spaces per units to 0.5 spaces per unit. In the event that a two-car garage is included, the guest rates would be increased from 0.5 spaces per unit to 0.75 spaces per unit. Additional guest rate increases are also proposed for patio home projects and developments within the "Medium-Low" land use designations of the ETSP. Proposed changes to the parking requirements are included in Appendix A. Item D- "Maybe": Alterations to present patterns of circulation and movement may be modified due to development of sites. However, changes to movement patterns will not be considered significant, as traffic generated will be significantly less than that analyzed in EIR 85-2. Item E- "No": The proposed project will not alter waterborne, rail or air traffic. Item F- "Maybe": Development inherently brings increased hazards and risks to motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Given the reduction in traffic volumes these impacts are considered less than those analyzed in EIR 85-2. Statement of Findings and Fact Land use modifications will redistribute traffic volumes within the ETSP. In addition, said volumes will be reduced in the location of land use modifications, because of the decrease in GC and existing buildout conditions throughout the majority of the ETSP area. Please refer to the complete traffic study found in Final EIR 85-2 and the traffic impact evaluation study prepared for this project found in Appendix B. A statement of overriding considerations for increased traffic generation and distribution to local roadways was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. 'The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impact of traffic generation and distribution, therefore no additional statements of overriding. considerations are required. 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-12 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment Traffic Generation Analysis, October 24, 1994. East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment Level One Traffic Impact Evaluation, December 6, 1994. Lower Peters Canyon Specific Plan EIR Circulation Plan, November 18, 1994. XIV. Public Services Item A- "No": The Orange County Fire Department currently provides service to the ETSP area. The land use modifications proposed would result in slightly less impacts to the fire department due to the decrease in overall dwelling units within the planning area and the corresponding decrease in emergency calls. Item B- "No": The Tustin pOlice Department currently provides police protection to the ETSP area. Similar to fire protection services, police protection services would decrease when compared to impacts outlined in Final EIR 85-2. Item C- "Maybe": The Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) has indicated that the proposed land use modifications will not significantly change impacts as outlined in Final EIR 85-2, nor will the modifications affect existing school requirements previously negotiated between the project proponent and the TUSD. Please refer to Appendix B for the most recent school district correspondence. Item D- "Maybe": Proposed land use modifications would alter the location of planned community parks within the ETSP area. As a part of the proposed project the Development Agreement would be amended to dedicate and construct a 5 acre neighborhood park. All other parkland dedications have occurred consistent with the Specific Plan at the time of recording of the sector level maps. No significant impacts would result with implementation of the mitigation measure outlined in Final EIR 85-2. Item E- "No": Project' implementation will not modify or impact the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Item F- "No": The proposed project will not impacts other governmental services not previously addressed in Final EIR 85-2. 12557. tustin 4/! 2~95 3-13 Statement of Findings and Fact The proposed land use modifications will not significantly change the impacts outlined in Final EIR 85-2. School impact have been mitigated to level of insignificance by implementation of mitigation measures as outlined in the final EIR. A statement of overriding considerations for increased demand of public services and facilities was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impact of providing public services and facilities, therefore no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code · Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan XV. Energy Items A and B- "No": EIR 85-2 analyzed energy requirements and noted that although there was a cumulative increase in usage, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the project to reduce demands on energy resources. The land use modifications proposed would not significantly alter the impacts outlined in Final EIR 85-2. Statement of Findings and Facts Impacts to energy requirements would remain as outlined in Final EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan XVI. Utilities and Services Systems Items A,B,C,D,E and F- "No": The proposed land use modifications will not alter the impacts to the usage of natural gas, the local telephone system or solid waste disposal. The City of Tustin Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed land use modification for possible changes to the approved water, sewer and drainage systems. Impacts as a result of the proposed project will remain as outlined in Final EIR 85-2. Statement of Findings and Fact The redistribution and overall decrease in dwelling units will not significantly alter the utilities and services approved in Final EIR 85-2. 12557.tustin 4112195 3-14 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan XVH. Human Health Items A and B- "No": The proposed land use modifications would not create a health hazard or potential hazards,' or exposure of people to potential health hazards. Statement of Findings and Fact Similar to the land USes proposed in Final EIR 85-2, the land use modifications would not create significant human health hazards. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan XVIH. Aesthetics Items A and B- "No": The aesthetic impacts associated with the original project were found to be unavoidable and adverse. As the proposed land use modifications will decrease overall dwelling units within the specific plan, impact would not significantly be altered. Other aesthetic alterations from the original project include the addition of a 5-acre neighborhood park, in the western portion of Sector 11 adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road. Additional provisions have been included within the proposed Second Amendment to the Development Agreement to: a) provide a 50 foot landscape setback along Tustin Ranch Road, b) specify the minimum number and size of trees and shrubs which are to be used for perimeter landscaping along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard, and c) require that the future buildings along Tustin Ranch Road and 50 percent of the building along h'vine Boulevard provide a two-story appearance. Statement of Findings and Fact A statement of overriding considerations for altering a previously open space/undeveloped area was adopted concurrent with certification of Final EIR 85-2. The proposed project will not worsen the environmental impact of introducing land uses into an open space area, therefore no additional statements of overriding considerations are required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan 3-15 12557.tustin XIX. Recreation The original recreational needs outlined in Final FAR 85-2 anticipated approximately 66 acres of new neighborhood and community parks would be needed to support increased recreation needs. The proposed land use modifications would reconfigure the park sites within the specific plan but would not impact the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. The Development Agreement Amendment will provide for the Developer to dedicate and construct a 5 acre neighborhood park within Section 11 of the ETSP area. All other parkland dedications have occurred consistent with the Specific Plan at the time of recording of sector level maps. With the construction of the proposed 5 acre neighborhood park, a total of 65 acres of public and private parkland will ultimately be provided within the ETSP area. Statement of Findings and Fact Land use modifications to recreational facilities will have insignificant impacts as outlined in Final EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan XX. Cultural Resources Item A- "No"- The proposed land use modifications would not result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site. Item B- "No"' No adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object would occur with implementation of the proposed land use modifications. Items C and D- "No"- Implementation of the proposed changes would not cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values, nor would it restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. Statements of Findings and Fact The proposed land use modifications would not have a significant impact on cultural resources. Sources' Field Verification Submitted Land Use Plans Tustin City Code Certified Final EIR 85-2, its supplements and addendum East Tustin Specific Plan 12557.tustin 4/12/95 3-16 - XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance The proposed location of the land use modifications have recently been graded. Therefore, the land uses proposed will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining level, threaten to eliminate a plant or a~imal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods .of California history or prehistory. The proposed land use modifications will not result in any new long-term impacts not already outlined in Final EIR 85-2. The proposed land use modifications will not result in any new cumulative impacts not already considered in Final EIR 85-2. Final EIR-85-2 outlines all environmental effects which may cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly. The proposed land use modifications do not alter these conclusions. 12557.tustin 4/! 2/95 3-17 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: The proposed changes would not require important revisions of EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, as no new Significant environmental impacts have been identified which have not been previously covered in EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda; Be 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, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, was certified related to this project. Therefore, Addendum//5 to EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, has been prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act in that: ho Bo Only minor technical changes to the trip generation tables of EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda are required to make the EIR adequate and shall be revised to read as follows: The Trip Generation Table A-2, as identified in Appendix A of the Supplement to EIR related to the East Tustin Development Agreement, for Traffic Zones 37, 40 and 46 shall be revised as shown on the following pages. Minor text and map changes to the East Tustin Specific Plan and changes to the development agreement do not raise new issues about significant effects on the environment which have previously been discussed and mitigated in EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda. Prepared By: ~/! Sa~n~lra F. Jacobs Senior Environmental Planner Title The Keith Companies Firm April 12, 1995 12557.tustin 4112/95 3-18 Zone 37 41 42 TABLE A-2 EAST TUSTIN PHASE II LAND USE Land Use Res - Low Res - Yediu~ Elementary ,School Total Residential TOTAL Unit BUILDOUT Amount (Orig .aunt) ADT DU 225.00 22~ DU 180.00 1548 STU 690.00 518 DU 40~.00 379~ 4316 Res - Med-Low DU 260.00 2236 Res - Mediu~ DU 258.00 2219 Res - Med-High DU 532.00 377/ Park ACRE 4.00 20 Total Residential DU 1050.00 8232 TOTAL 8252 DU DU DU ~F STU DU Res - Med-High Res - Low General Commercial Intermediate School Total Residential TOTAL 147.00 1588 -:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.: Res - Low DU 349.00 3490 Res - Medium DU 580.00 4988 Res - Med-High DU 1505.00 10686 Golf Course ACRE 150.00 900 Eletnentaty School STU 690.00 518 Parks ACRE 17.00 85 Total Residential DU ?434.00 19164 TOTAL 20667 Res - Low DU 156.00 1560 Res - Medium DU 803.00 6906 Res - Med-High DU 950.00 6745 Elementary School STU 690.00 518 Parks ACRE 4.00 20 Total Residential DU 1909.00 15211 TOTAL 15749 Res - Medium High School Res - Med-High Parlm Total Residential TOTAL DU STU DU ACRE DU DU 856.00 6078 TSF 145.00 10150 STU 690.00 518 DU 856.00 6078 16746 Rea - Med-High General Commercial Elementary School. Total Residential TOTAL Retail Commercial TSF 272.00 13736 · Land Use Data (Orig Amt) 3-18 TABLE A-2 (continued) Land Use Dam F_.AST TUSTIN pHASE II LAND USE Zone 43 45 Land Use Retail Commercial Auto Center Retail Commercial Ho~el TOTAL Rm - Estate Re~ - Low Rm - Med-Low Rm - Median Elemema~] School Intermediate School Park~ Total Residential TOTAL Unit TSF ACRE TSF Room DU DU DU DU STU STU ACRE DU BU~OUT Amount (Odg Amt) ADT 4S0.00 22T25 3?.OO 7263 388.00 19594 250.00 3000 22594 (Orig Amt) 3-19 APPENDIX A EAST ~STIN SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT MODIFICATIONS ZONE CHANGE 94-004 EXHIBIT D EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT REVISIONS 2.1 Land Use (ETSP Pages 2-1 through 2-4) The Land Use Plan, illustrated in Exhibit C, incorporates the planning goals and objectives in designating a variety of residential and non-residential land uses circumscribed and linked by an appropriate arterial circulation system. Each of the parcels within the plan having a specific land use designation is referred to as a "land use area". These areas have been aggregated into 12 easily identifiable zones called "Sectors". The sector boundaries are defined by major roadways and topographical features; each sector contains one or more land use area. Table 2.1 summarizes the land use statistics. More detailed statistics for each sector are provided in thc Section 2.14. Gross acres have been used for computing acreages and residential densities on the following tables. Gross acres include all land within a sector or land use area exclusive of arterial street rights-of-way. Land Use Designation Table 2.1 Statistical Summary Acreage Residential Estate (up to 2 du/ac) Low (up to 5 du/ac) Medium Low (up to 10 du/ac) Medium (up to 18 du/ac) Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac) :.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:. = ~ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:. ........... · ~ o o :~::~:o: .,1,.,,. i,.,~ ~.,~ ::::::::::::::::::::: Open Space Community Parks ~ Golf Course 150 Commercial/Business Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Mixed Use 121 Institutional Elementary SchoolsA Intermediate Schools Other Uses Roads (arterial and major only ** ~) ~ i~i~ !i!~!!} "~ ~ ~ ===================== Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 2 Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major roads, has been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses. Residential Land Use: The Land ~se Plan designates five residential categories, each of which has maximum density. Residential densities are controlled in all of the following: land use areas, sectors and the Specific Plan Area. For any residential subdivision map the maximum density range cannot be exceeded for a particular land use area. Lower densities will be permitted in any area. The boundaries and acreages of the land use areas shown on the Land Use Plan are approximate and will be precisely determined in the future when subdivision Maps are reviewed. The land use areas described within each sector are subject to the policies specific to a given sector. These policies are outlines in Section 2.14. The total number of dwelling units for the overall Specific Plan Area may not exceed 7950 units. However, if the total allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unbuilt units may be transferred to the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraphs. ' The total number of dwelling units in each Sector may not exceed the figures specified Table 2.4. If a sector is developed with less than the maximum number of units permitted within the sector, then a transfer of units.will be permitted from sector to sector within the Specific Plan Area. These transfers will be closely monitored. When proposing unit transfers, compatibility with adjacent land uses areas must be considered. Specific requirements for allowing unit transfers and maximum unit increases in Sectors are outlined in the Development Standards in Section 3.0. Also, in Section 3.0 there are more definitive standards for development of each residential density category. Mixed Use Designation: The Land Use Plan designates 121 acres in the southeast corner of the site, in Sector 12 between Bryan Avenue and the I-5 Freeway, as a mixed use area. A 70-acre commercial center...~ ~~'-~'..v~,.,,v~ will be developed in this area. Additional commercial uses or office and research and development uses may also be developed within this area. The Mixed Use designation permits flexibility for location and configuration of these uses. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 3 It also creates the opportunity .for development to respond to future changes in economic and market forces. The Development Standards for the Mixed Use Area are defined in Section 3.0. Non-Residential Land Uses: The Land Use Plan (LUP) includes a number of non-residential uses such as: (1) Schools, (2) Parks, (3) Open Space and Recreation Facilities, and (4) Commercial Land Use Designations. These are summarized in the following table: Table 2.2 Land Uses Inteqral to the LUP Institutional Use Quantity Intermediate School ,,~,, School Community Park Golf Course Commercial/Business Use Approximate Total Acreaqe General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Table 2.3 Land Uses Anticipated in LUP ,. Institutional Use Quantity Approximate Total Acreaqe Elementary School Public Neighborhood Parks Private Neighborhood Parks The exact number, location and size of private neighborhood parks will be established with subdivision maps. ------ --.,~- ..--,--,,.,.,...,.,. ,.-. .,...,r,..., .......... ' ~--~ ....... '"~': -" ,.,~.,.~v-.,.~~-"l ~,..~ -,,,,~'"~ ~1~.~ T~T~ ~ · ~ ~-~4- A ~ ~ ~ ~_- " '"+:':'::: ;':':':':':':':':*:':':':':':':':':':~;':':':": ........ '":-'*:':':':':-'":':':-:':':':-:-:-:':-:-:-:-".:-:.:-:-:-:.:.-:-'".: ...... :---:-~::':::: .............. " ..........................~[~:~i~i elementary school sites ~ ~'3~ :~:~:'::~::~:~:~"'~:~::~:a::::::~:h~:~:~:~:~:~: cific Plan area, ................... ~ .............-~ -~.. d ,eT ..m, ~, && -~ ..... ':''-~ '~ ~"~ ~'~- $ .................. other ....... / q-- ~-- ~.& ~& ~. ~.~ 'b. ~,,L&,&'~S ,.,,~ ,,.L ~.,,. q.4 ~,d~ ~. 'q,.,. ~,,S q,.; ,L&~ ~ ~~ · ~-v~ .... ~'~[~ .................. neighborhood parks are generally located in various se~=~'~'~~ of the Plan. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 4 Three (3) community parks are more specifically located; they include an ~~~ ............................................ -*~..-~iiiiiii~9 acre site near the junior high school, a 20-acre site, and a"13"i~i-acre site incorporating 'a knoll situated south of Portola Parkway. Elementary and Intermediate schools and public neighborhood parks are symbolically illustrated on the Land Use Plan. The specific sizes, locations and numbers of these facilities will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 2.8. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 5 2.10 Schools (ETSP Paqes 2-13 and 2-14) The Specific Plan area is within the boundaries of the Tustin Unified School District. The school district expects that the completion of the development in the East Tustin Specific Plan Area will require new facilities as well as the use of some of the existing facilities. The Specific Plan symbolically identifies a 'maximum number of school sites to serve the largest estimated population growth. These schools have all been generally located in areas that are central to estimated student population growth. One intermediate school site has been identified for the Specific Plan area. This The ultimate requirement for the precise number of schools is based on the number of students that are to be generated from the residential areas within the Specific Plan area. The demand for schools may vary depending on the actual type and number of units built in each land use category. The size of school sites may vary depending on specific school district needs and joint school/park programs. Also phasing and precise locations of sites are dependent on timing of development and more precise planning within sectors. The number, location, and size of schools illustrated symbolically on the~=f~~-'~ PI...--~ .~ ..... ~..~~~ ~!i!iiii~i~i~ii!i!ii~!~should be considered as a general guide, subject'to~:~~:~~%ation. As development plans are prepared for each sector the land owner and school district will make specific, provision for school facilities. These provisions should be accomplished prior to final development. The actual size and number of sites may cause an .adjustment to acreage within the land use areas. If any school that is shown on the Land Use Plan is not needed or if the site acreage is less than estimated then the acreage that has been allocated to the school site will be reallocated to the underlying residential use. However, the maximum number of units permitted within the sector where the acreage adjustment is made will not be changed except as provided in Section 3.0. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 6 Acreage ETSP Paqes 2-25 and 2-25 Table 2.4 Statistical Analysis Maximum Land Use Density Total Allowable Units SECTOR i 125 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 125 SECTOR 2 74 Estate Density Residential ~ i~!~i Low Density Residential 50 i~i~! ............ Medium Low Density Residential 37.35 i~i~ Medium Density Residential ~ ~ ~ ~^-entary S~~ :::::5 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 10 du/ac 18 du/ac**** Subtotal 271 ~i~i!~ :::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: SECTOR 3 6 ~i~! Low Density Residential o 8. }~ii~ ** Elementary School 5 du/ac Subtotal 17 i~i~i SECTOR 4 1'o*~ Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal SECTOR 5 98 18 Estate Density Residential Low Density Residential 2 du/ac 5 du/ac Subtotal 116 SECTOR 6 219 + Subtotal 31 i~igi~i~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 7 SECTOR 7 97 Medium Density Residential ~4~,,........,....,.i~i~i~ ........... Medium High Density Residential o 10 ** Elementary School 150 i~i~ii~ Golf Course 18 du/ac 25 du/ac Subtotal SECTOR 8 77 26 o 10 ** Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Elementary School .... ~ .......... Park 4 du/ac ~4~ 18 du/ac ~ Subtotal 117 ::::::::::: SECTOR 9 39 Subtotal 39 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac SECTOR '10 46 15 ::::::::::::;:. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 5 du/ac 18 du/ac Subtotal 71 SECTOR 11 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... :..:.....-.-...:.:.:.:.:..::.......... ............ :~ . :::.:.:.:........ ........ ,~. ...... :~..... ..-.... ...... . ...... ~6 ~i~ Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac n_ ~ ~ .... Elcmcntary School 4 ~ ** Neighborhood Park ;::::::.-... v ~ i~::~i Neighborhood Commercial ....?.....:. Subtotal 177 SECTOR 12 121 Mixed Use Subtotal 121 7,950*** Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 8 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 school and intermediate school 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 ll-'of Tract 13627 shall be ten (10) dwelling units per acre. o This acreage figure is an estimated allocation for this land use. If it changes, other land uses acreage allocations in this sector may change. However, the total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. Total Allowable Units assumes that if a school and/or park currently designated for this sector is not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities are constructed, the land use area density limitation precludes construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 9 Sector 2 (ETSP Paqes 2-28 and 2-29) This sector consists of approximately ",71 ~i~i~i acres and extends ::::::::::: from the northernmost tip of the site south ~6'-the proposed future road. The sector is bounded on the .west by the crest of the north/south Peters Canyon ridge, Peters Canyon Wash, and Lower Lake Drive; on the north and east by the City boundary; and on the south by the Future Road. The land beyond the eastern edge of the Sector is in the County's jurisdiction and is currently planted with orchards. The Sector encompasses a broad valley which contains the west tributary of Peters Canyon Wash. Much of the valley is relatively flat. This sector is planned to include a variety of land uses. The residential uses will range from the estate density to medium h~ density. Estate density residential is located in the western and northern hillsides; low density is located in the upper valley and on a low knoll extending south from the north/south ridge; medium low and medium density occur in the central and upper portions of the valley; and medium h~lh i~i~ density is located at the southerly end of the valley adjacent 't© the Future Road. These various residential densities have been organized relative to the topography access and visibility from existing development to the ,~ .... ~ ..... ~ Ac ~ .... ~,~.. An intermediate school has been ~A~- ~~~ ~!~S~i~i~i~&C!~i~ shall be determined as described in ~&&~ ~~ ~ ........................................~................................................ .. . ....................... Subsection 2.10 "~'~ ............ {~'~'~ ............ ~'~ific Plan. ~&&'- .-~~~&&. ~iliiiiiiii~i~-acre ......................... community park is planned just south of the ' '----~-~':':'~:::?'?¥~:?::~¥"::~"~:'"'"~":':':~ ....... school site i~iliiii~!~f~i~iiiiiii~:, along the wash. A regional ridf~/h'f'~'f'~ trail and :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: are planned in proximity to Peters Canyon Wash reflecting Orange County General Plan· The following policies apply to Sector 2: a. The maximum number of units permitted within this sector are as shown on Table 2.4. Be Policies and guidelines related to the Hillside District apply to the portion~ of this sector that are located within the Hillside District. See Subsection 2.13. Ce In order to minimize the impacts of landform modifications and grading within the Hillside District, in areas designated for estate density, housing may be clustered. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 10 De Eo Fe Ge He Concurrent with submission of the sector subdivision as required under Subsection 1.5, the precise location of the E1 Modena Fault shall be determined through a detailed geological investigation conducted by the landowner and appropriate building setbacks should be established in conformance with current State Standards. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the subdivision map of this sector (refer to Subsection 1.5), a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this Sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for review by the Director of Community Development, refer to Subsection 2.12 Implementation, for specific requirements. Where feasible and consistent with flood control requirements, the treatment of Peters Canyon Wash (Exhibit L) should retain a natural appearance by (1) minimizing concrete channelization such as vertical-walled 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. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the subdivision map of this Sector, a conceptual design of Peters Canyon Wash for the portion that occurs within this Sector,- shall also be submitted for approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer. This conceptual design shall illustrate the basic design concept for improvements to the wash including a proposed location for the regional riding/hiking and bicycle trail. Objectives for the character of Peters Canyon Wash are included in Subsection 2.13, Drainage Guidelines. The City of Tustin and the Tustin Unified School District should attempt to locate both the propOsed community park and the proposed intermediate school adjacent to Peters Canyon Wash trail and within the main viewshed of the existing community to the west, so as to minimize visual impacts. The maximum density on Lot 11 of Tract 13627 shall'be limited to ten dwelling units per gross acre. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 11 Sector 6: (ETSP Paqes 2-36) This triangular configured sector contains 31 acres of flatland and has the potential to be circumscribed by arterial roadways. It is situated along Ithe eastern edge of the site, bounded by the proposed Future Road extension on the west, Portola Parkway on the south and the Specific Plan boundary on the east ~ ~ ..... ~~iii~iii~i~ in the ~~~ili!iiiii~~~ii~iii~iii!iiiii~ sector are to be ~:~~~~ a variet~'~'~"~'~'~'~'~~'~'~':'~'~'~'~'~'~'~es. .~o =c=i~cnti=l ~ .... ~ ..... ~ ~- -~ .... ~ ~- ~: .... ~-- Medium high density residential development is planned for the remainder of this sector The following policies apply to Sector 6: :::2 ;: ;: ::;;:;:: :::;:: ::: ::::::::: :::::: :::;:;:;:: ::::::;:: ::::: ;:::::;:;::: ::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::::1:: ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::; :::::::::::::::::::::::: ;;:: ::;;:;;; ::::;::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: A ~. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this Sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12, Implementation-for specific requirements. B ~. Concurrent with a Subdivision Map submittal for any portion of -.~.:.:. this Sector, a Conceptual Site Plan shall also be submitted for the entire sector as identified in section 2.14.1. Concurrent with the submission of the Sector Subdivision Map as required under Section 1.5, the precise location of the E1 Modena Fault will be determined by a detailed geological investigation conducted by the' landowner and appropriate building setbacks should be established in conformance with current State Standards. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 12 Sector 8 (ETSP Paqes 2-39 and 2-40) This sector consists of ~ !~!~ acres and is virtually flat. It is situated adjacent to the eX":~::~ing community on the west, and is bounded by the La Colina extension on the south, the Future Road extension on the east and the Racquet Hill Drive extension on the north. Most of the sector has been designated for low density residential development along the western boundary so as to be compatible with the adjacent residential development. Approximately 26 acres along Future Road have been allocated for Medium Density Residential. Also planned for this area is an elementary school, the precise location and size will be determined as identified in Subsection The following polices apply to Sector 8: A· The maximum number of units permitted within this sector are as shown on Table 2.4. Be' Residential development within this sector shall be subject to the following requirements to maintain compatibility with residential areas located immediately adjacent and to the west of the sector. i · Residential development that adjoins the existing homes of the specific plan boundary and includes the first row of residential lots will be limited to single story structures. In all remaining low density designated areas of Sector 8, residential units shall be restricted to a maximum height of two stories. · Residential development that adjoins the existing homes of the specific plan boundary and includes the first row of residential lots will have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. In all remaining areas of Sector 8, the regulations and standards of the low density land use areas will apply.. · The use of cluster development as described in Section 3.6.3 C of the specific plan will not be permitted in low density land use areas in Sector 8. Cluster development will be allowed in medium density land use areas. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 13 Ce De Ee · Within the low density designation, the maximum allowable dwelling units per gross acre has been defined as 5.0, Within Sector 8, this standard will be limited to 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre maximum, in lieu'of the 5.0 standard. Additionally, no units may be transferred into Sector $ for low density, which is shown in Table 2.4 and the East Tustin Statistical analysis in Section 3.0 as 349 units. There is no limitation on transferring dwelling units out of Sector 8 into another sector, in accordance with Specific Plan requirements. If a school is to be located within this sector it shall be located to conveniently serve the students residing in the new community and be designed to minimize visual and noise impacts to existing adjacent residential areas on the west. · If feasible, a school should not be located immediately adjacent to existing residential lots which occur along the west boundary of this sector. · · If it is necessary to locate a school immediately adjacent to existing residential lots then outdoor playground areas should be visually buffered or located away from those residential lots. No direct access for any of the schools shall be taken off of Future Road. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12 Implementation, for specific requirements. The distance between the edge of the western right-of-way of the "Future Road" and the closest point of the foundation of the closest residence of Pavillion/Saltair shall be a minimum of 1,000 feet plus or minus 100 feet measured on a horizontal plane. The noise impacts of the Future Road on the existing residences to the west of the Specific Plan area shall be further mitigated by a continuous noise barrier consisting of a combination of berm, soundwall, and residences adjacent to the Future Road. This requirement for a continuous noise barrier applies along the western side of Future Road adjacent to the medium density residential development in Sector 8 and the low density .development in between. The noise barrier line-of-sight from the residences along Saltair and Pavillion Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 14 F. to vehicles traveling along the Future Road behind such noise barrier. In addition, in. designing and orienting the residences in the two medium-density residential areas in Sector 8 and the low-density development in between, the developer shall, to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with other sound planning practices, construct multi-story structures which further mitigate the noise impacts of the Future Road on the eXisting residences to the west of the Specific Plan. A design goal impact of 55 or less CNEL for the existing residences at the foundation is hereby established. At such time that further noise analysis is done in this area (at the Tentative Tract stage), this analysis will model the projected CNEL level at these existing residences to confirm that the noise of level of 55 CNEL will be met. It .is the explicit intent of the East Tustin ~!~i~i~ Plan that La Colina Road in the Specific Plan area c~~:~:~:{o the existing La colina Road and 'to the major arterial known as "Future Road." this road shall consist of a four lane residential street, and should be incrementally improved, beginning with a two lane road. The roadway should not exceed a total right-of-way of 80 feet, and the first two lanes should be built at the edge of the right-of-way, with a raised landscape median making up the rest of. the potential right-of- way. The precise alignment of La Colina Road will be determined at the Tentative Tract stage. The City and County will prepare a joint study, examining the impacts and mitigation measures of the connection, and recommending specific measures to deter through traffic. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 15 Sector 11 (ETSP Paqes 2-43) This sector consists of approximately 183 acres. It is bounded by the Future Road alignment on the west, Irvine Boulevard on the north, Myford Road on the east, and Bryan Avenue on the south. Several land uses are proposed within this sector. The residential me!~'~ .~i~::~i~o~ medium density which :~ ~ ...................... uses include ............ ' ................................ ' ................... and .,.... ~e to be :~:~:~:i:!:i:{:~:i:i:! located in th6:~:~:~:::~:8:~:~:~; quadrant of the sector. Medium high residential development is to be situated along the eastern i~:.~!iiiiii~!~:h~i~ boundary of the site encompassing the entire ~.~~~.~~~.~~~.~.~.:.~.:.~.~.:.~.~~~.:~~.~.:+~~:~~~:.~.:::~~.~.:~~.:.:.:::~:~:~:~:.:.:~:~ area bet~'~'n BrY~'~ ~Venue and Irvine Boulevard ~-~~ At the northeast corner of the sector, a 10 ::~-acre ....... neighborhood commercial site has been Planned at the inter'~ction of I~ine Boulevard and Myford Road, an important entry point into the City from the east An Cl .... ~ ...... ~----1 ~.-- ~ ......... 11.. - ....................~ neighborhood parks has ~ been generally located in the area"'~'~'~"~ the ~~???~T/~?~'~ med~'~'~ ......... density residential development. The ..... . ..................... s ~ to be determined as described in Sub~ection 2. ~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~this ~'~ecif'~6~'~'~Plan. The following polices apply to Sector 11: a. The maximum number of residential units permitted in this sector are as shown on Table 2.4. Bo Co In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this Sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12, Implementation for specific requirements. A buffer for the E1 Modena Channel shall be provided. The methods for buffering shall include but not be limited to fencing and landscaping. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 16 SECTOR I Acreage ETSP Paqes 3-13 and 3-14 EAST TUSTIN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Maximum Land Use Density Total Allowable Units 125 Subtotal 125 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac SECTOR 2 74 Estate Density Residential ~ ~'~!~ Low Density Residential 50 i~i~! ............... Medium Low Density Residential 37.3'5 i~i~ Medium Density Residential 15 !~i~ ** Junior High School 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 10 du/ac 18 du/ac**** Subtotal 271 ~ii~ii~ SECTOR 3 6 i~i.-'2.! Low Density Residential o ~ i~i~ ** Elementary School 5 du/ac Subtotal 17 -+~.~.:...... SECTOR 4 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 118 !~ii~!~ SECTOR 5 98 18 Subtotal 116 Estate Density Residential Low Density Residential 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 219 + SECTOR 6 General Commerclai Subtotal 31 Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 17 SECTOR 7 97 Medium Density Residential ~ i~ Medium High Density Residential 0 1.0......'.'.*.'.',.'.'.'.'.'. ............... ..E.!_..e.m....e...n..t.o.a...ry.....S. cho o 1 .-.. ,,..,......,.,........,..,.....,.,,.-..,...,..-.:.:......,..... · · ............~-,.~..:.:.... · :.:.:.:...-.:.:.:.:.. ,.>........:,.,...... 150 i~i~ Golf Course 18 du/ac 25 du/ac Subtotal 'SECTOR 8 77 26 o 10 ** 4 ** Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Elementary School .... ~ .......... Park 4 du/ac ~4~ 18 du/ac 233 Subtotal 117 ~ SECTOR 9 39 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac . Subtotal 39 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 5 du/ac 18 du/ac Subtotal 71 SECTOR 11 ~6 ~i~i Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac ~v ~v~ ~ .... ~amantary~ School ~ ~ ** NeighbOrhood Park ¥::::........ i0 i~i~! Neighborhood Commercial Subtotal 177 SECTOR '12 121 Mixed Use Subtotal 121 7,950*** Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 18 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 school and intermediate school 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. .o This acreage figure is an estimated allocation for this land use. If it changes, other land uses acreage allocations in this sector may change. However, the total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. Total Allowable Units assumes that if a school and/or park currently designated for this sector is not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities are constructed, the land use area density limitation precludes construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. Zone Change Exhibit D Page 19 94-004 (ETSP Paqe 3-47) Ce District Residential Off-Street Parking Estate ~ 2 Low i. Sector 8, 9, 10 2 Number of Spaces Required Covered Cr-e~ Assigned Guest/ Spaces/Unit Unassigned ~ 2 Car Garage 2 per unit 2 Car Garage 2 per unit On-Strcct Pcrk~ng 2. Sector 2 2 2 Car Garage 2 per unit Medium Low 2 2 Car Garage i~i ~-5 per unit Medium& Medium High 1. Detached 2 2 Car Garage ~! ,-~ per unit 2. Attached Studio 1.0 I Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) ~ Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) 3. Multiple Family (apartments) Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 ~ · Carport (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 4 Bedroom . 2.5 2 Carports (1) 4. Patio Homes(2) i-3 Bedrooms 2.0 2 Car Garage i~i~ ,-5 per unit ~0~ 4 Bedrooms 2.5 2 Car Garage i~i'"~L5 per unit ~ (1) Attached single family and multipte family developments shall provide a minimum of i~i~L~ per unit open unassigned parking spaces for 4 or more dwelling units. If a two car enclosed ...... private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of ~-5openunassigned spaces per unit shall apply. (2) Required guest parking for Patio Home products must be located within a 200 foot radius measured from the nearest building frontage facing a street, drive or court of the designated unit which the parking space is intended to serve. APPENDIX B TRAFFIC IMPACT EVALUATION TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CORRESPONDENCE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Traffic Generation Analysis Prepared for: irvine Community Builders 550 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Prepared by: Pirzadeh & Associates 17801 Cartwright Road, Suite D lrvine, CA 92714 ,~ ~. ~ S' '~,-% ·. ,,~, '.".. October 24, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS II. II!. IV. INTRODUCTION .................................... Page 1 METHODOLOGY .................................... Page 1 ANALYSIS ........................................ Page 2 CONCLUSION ...................................... Page 6 I. INTRODUCTION Irvine Community Builders has proposed an amendment to the land use plan for the East Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed changes occur in three different zones of the Specific Plan area. This report will analyze the impacts of these proposed changes by comparing the trip generation of the new land uses to the previous assumptions of the Tustin Specific Plan. II. METHODOLOGY The East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement between The Irvine Company and the City of Tustin was analyzed by a Supplemental EIR to the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR. A traffic study was conducted as part of the EIR process which assessed the impacts of the development and identified related mitigation measures. The analysis presented in this report will follow the same procedure as contained in the Development Agreement traffic study. Specifically, the traffic generation of the proposed land uses will be compared to the project trip generation data contained in the Development Agreement. If the trip generation for the proposed land uses in each Zone is less than or equal to the previous level of traffic generation, then the previous mitigation measures will be sufficient. Should the new trip generation exceed the previous levels, then additional analysis and measures may be necessary to mitigate the potential impacts of the new land uses. III. ANALYSIS The East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement traffic study projected land use trip generation by project zones. The Development Agreement Zone Map is shown on Figure 1. The corresponding land use assumptions for each zone is shown in Table 1. The proposed land use changes occur in zone.numbers 46, 37, and 40. These changes consist of changing the land use for some of the previously reserved school sites to residential uses in Zones 46 and 40. Also, the land use assumptions in Zone 37 have been modified to allow the implementation of an Intermediate school and a different residential/commercial development plan. Additionally, the residential land uses for each zone have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect the actual level of development consistent with the current zoning for each parcel. Table 2 reflects the Development Agreement and the proposed land use assumptions and trip generation for each zone. As shown in this table, the trip generation for the new land use plan is lower in. all three zones. Page 2 FIGURE 1 57 Zone Map TABLE 1 Land Use Data ZONE ~NO USE 32 Res - Lov Res - [le"entar7 School Tot~l I Res - Pitt Total Restdentt~! ToCa! 37 Res - Genorl I ~ctll Tot41 Res - Lov PIr~s Total ~stO~tlal Toti I Omn~ ~ooi ~rks To~l 1 N~gh ~ool To~l i ~erli To~i ~~i To~l i Tota ! hs - ~tar7 ~i [nCe~tatt ~ooi Pitts Total Toti i Plan F.4$T TUSTZN PHASE ZX I~ANO USE ~HO TRIP GENERATZON UXlT ou ou ou ou 2:6o. GQ OU 258.00 ou 53~. GQ AC~ 4.GQ OU t OSO. GQ OU t47.GQ · DU 72. GQ TSF 302. GQ Ou ZIg. GQ ou 349. GQ Ou 580. GQ DU tSOS.GQ AC~.E tSO.GQ STU 690.00 ACRE 17.00 OU 2434. GQ Ou t 56. GQ Ou 803.00 ou 9so. GQ STU 690. GQ AC~[ 4. GQ OU 1909. GQ STU 1400. GQ AC~t£ ZZ. GQ OU 684.00 OU 856. GQ TSF t4S. GQ bTU 690. GQ OU 8Sa. GQ 272. GQ 450. GQ 37. GQ ROQ# 2:50. GQ OU 47&.GQ OU 473.00 OU 338. O0 OU IS6.GQ STU tZSO. GQ STU 650. O0 ACRE Z!. OQ OU Z443.GQ "--6WILD-OUT--- ~HASE AJaQUNT AOT AJqQUNT P~RCF. NT ADT PERCENT ZZS. GQ ZZ50 225. GQ IOOS 2250 180. GQ IS48 180. GQ 1002' tS48 6go. GQ 518 690. GQ 40S. GQ 3798 40S. O0 ~002' 3798 43~6 4316 3.002' 223& 260.0O 1.00~ 2236 221.9 2S8.~0 1007, 2219 3777 532. GQ ~002' 3377 2:0 4. GQ lOO& 20 8232 IOSO.GQ ~002' .8232 825Z IZSZ 10o2' tS88 ZOO.G0 720 O. GQ O~ ZXX40 O. GQ 02' 0 2308 t 00. GQ 46Z Z080 Z34~8 t08O 3490 40.00 tX7. 400 4988 O. GQ O~ o 10686 O.GQ O~ 0 ~QO IS0.00 1007, ~O0 S1.8 O. GQ 05 0 8S 13. O0 767. 65 19164 4Q.OO '22 400 2:0667 1365 72 tS60 120. GQ 772' ~00 6906 730.00 912' 674S 686. GQ 722' 4871 518 0.00 OS 0 ZO 4. Oo 1.0o2' ZO XSZ!X 1536. O0 60Z IZ34g 15749 ~2369 588Z S84.~Q 1007. S88~ 4444 Z4OO. GQ 1007. 4440 IlO 22. (30 lOOS 110 SS&Z 684. GQ 1002' 5882 1043Z 1O432 1002' 607~ 856. 10150* 14S. GQ 1002, 10150 SI8 690.00 1007. Sla 6078 8S6. GQ l&74& 16746 100~ 1373~ 227ZS 4SO. GQ 7263 37. O0 1002' 7263 1002' 19S94 388. O0 100~ 19S94 3000 Z$O. GQ 1,002' 3000 ZZ594 ZZS94 1002 S14t 0.00 02 0 4730 Q. GQ 02 0 2907 O. GQ 02 0 1342: O. GQ O2' 0 938 O. GQ 02' 0 488 O.GQ O~ O lOS O. GQ 02 0 141ZO O.~Q 02 0 1S651 0 02 TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION ZONE DEV AGMT LAND USE UNITS DEV AGMT ADT NEW LAND USE UNITS NEW ADT 46 Res-Estate 476 DU 5,141 Res-Estate 117 DU 1,264 Res-LOw 473 DU 4,730 Res-Low 259 DU 2,590 Res-Med Low 388 DU 2,907 Res-Med Low 817 DU 7,026 Res-Med 156 DU 1,342 Res-Med 208 DU 1,789 Elementary School 1250 Stu 938 Elementary School 6'50 Stu 520 Intermediate School 650 Stu 488 Intermediate School 0 Parks 21 Acres 105 Parks 13 Acre 65 37 Res-Estate 147 DU 1,588 Res-Low 72 DU 720 Gen Corem 302 TSF 21,140 Res-Estate 147 DU 1,588 Res-Low 72 DU 720 Res-Med High 399 DU 2,833 Gen Corem 130 TSF 9,100 Intermediate School 650 Stu 488 40 Res-Med 684 DU 5,882 High School 2400 Stu 4,440 Parks 22 Acre 110 Res-Med Low 163 DU 1,402 Res-Med High 588 DU 4,175 Parks 5 Acre 25 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the data presented in Table 2, the new land use plan results in a lower level of trip generation when compared to the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. The infrastructure improvements assumed in the Development Agreement are not proposed to be reduced or modified. Therefore, the new land use plan can be developed and can be accommodated by the 'previously planned circulation system capacity. Page 6 2020 NORTH TUSTIN AVENUE · SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 · TELEPHONE (714) 667-0496 FAX (714) 667-7952 TO: Mr. Daniel Fox, City of Tustin Via Ms. Catrina Bryant, The Keith Companies FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E. ETSP AMENDMENT LEVEL ONE TRAFFIC IMPACT EVALUATION Ref: GPA 94-001 ZC 94-004 (The Irvine Company) DATE: December 6, 1994 INTRODUCTION The Irvine C. ompany has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to the Eazt Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) and Development Agreement to modi~! land use in seven parcel This change doe= net alter the cverall number of dv:elling unix permitted which remains limited to 7,950 total units. In effect, three sit~ which currently pe_-'mit the construction of a _high ~hool, one elementary school and 72,000 squexe feet of general commercial me ore converted to residential use, but without any corresponding increase in the total dwelling units allowed by the ETSP. ANALYSIS A traffic study that analyzm the impact of the proposed changes to the ETSP was prepared by Pirzadeh and Associates, titled "East 'Tustin Specific Plan Amendment - Traffic Generation Ana ./ys/s," dated October 24, 1994 and submitted along with the project application. AFA examined this traffic in light of the requirements tbr a Level One Traffic Impact Evaluation. A Level .")ne Impact access seeks to determine how the project's overall trip generation compares with the original EIR analysis. The original EIR traffic study subdivided the ]="I'SP area into several traffic analysis zon~ (TAZs). The. Pu-,~leh study illustrates both the original planned land use and deosities in each of these zones, and the proposed revised land uses and densities. The attached Table 2, reproduced here from the Pirzadeh Report, accurately reports that the proposed amendment will result in significantly less (33,585 ADT compared to 49,501 ADT) daily txaffic in the three TAZs than would have produced despite the number of r~idential units from a previous total of 2,346 to Z770 unite,. However, despite the increar, e of 424 dwe!ling~ in those seven parcels of the ETSP, the overall cap of 7,950 units is not changed. Therefore, in effect, this project reduces the overall dwellings permitted in the remainder of the ETSP in exchange for the right to develop City of Tustin December 6, 1994 Page 2 housing on site~ previously zoned for school or commercial use. Therefore, while this analysis indicates there will be a reduction of 15,916 ADT generated within the seven parcels directly effected, there will also be an additional reduction in traffic due to the 424 housing units eliminated from the remainder of the specific plan area. The extent of this 'additional" trip reduction will depend upon the final housing mix but will range from about 3,646 ADT up to as much as 4,240 ADT. Finally, it should be recognized that this amendment eliminates 72,000 square feet of"entitled" commercial development rights. CONCLUSION Ill summary, it is concluded that the proposed amendment substantially reduces daily traffic anticipated to be generated by the ETSP and thereby negate~ the need for a more detailed Level Two traffic analysis. Attachment: Table 2 TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION ZONE DEV AGMT LAND USE UNITS DEV AGMT AD%' NEW LANO USE Ut%tITS NEW ADT 46 Res-Estata 476 DU 5,14 ! Res-Estate 117 DU 1,264 Res:Low 473 DU 4.730 Res-Low 259 DU 2.590 Res-Med Low ~ 388-DU 2.907 Res-Med Low 817 DU 7,026 Res-Med 156 DU 1,342 Res-Meal 208 DU 1.789 Bememary School 1250 Stu 938 Elementary School 650 Stu 520 Intermediate School 650 Stu ~88 Intermediate School 0 Parks 21 Acres 105 Park.,. 13 Acre 65 37 Res-Estata 147 DU 1,588 Res-Low 72 DU 720 Gen Corem 302 TSF 21,140 Res-Estate 147 DU 1,588 Res-Low 72 DU 720 Res-Meal High 399 DU 2.833 Gert Comm 130 TSF 9,100 Intermediate School 650 Stu 488 4O Res-Med 684 DU 5,882 High School 2400 Stu 4,440 Parks 22 Acre 110 Res-Med Low 163 DU 1,402 Res-Meal High 588 DU 4,175 Parks 5 Acre 25 urce: Pirzadeh & Associates Zone 46, Res-Med Low should be 338 DU not 388 DU) THE KEITH COMPANIES December 13, 1994 FILE COPY Ms. Donna Burt Tustin Unified School District 300 South C Street Tustin, California 92680 Subject: East Tustin Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment 94-001 and Zone Change 94-004 Dear Ms. Burt: The Keith Companies (TKC) is currently under contract with the City of Tustin to prepare the environmental documentation necessary for the City to process the subject General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Based on our discussion this afternoon, The Keith Companies-would like to confu'm our understanding of the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) issues within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. -The City originally approved the following school sites_within the East Tustin Speci~..c .Plan: Reservation of five (5) elementary school sites, Reservation of one (1) middle school site, and Reservation of one (1) high school site. Since the original Specific Plan approval, the TUSD has agreed to the following number of school sites within the Specific Plan area: TUSD has purchased two (2) elementary school sites, Reservation of one (1) elementary school site, Reservation of one (1) middle school site, and Release of one (1) high school site. If the TUSD concurs with our understanding, please do so in writing as soon as possible. 9998-SF3-12557-L (714) 540-0800 P.O. Box 25127, Santa Aha. CA 92799 2955 Red Hill Avenue. Costa Mesa.' CA 92(~26 Ms. Donna Burt December 13, 1994 Page 2 of 2 Should you have any other questions on this matter, please don't hesitate to contacts me at (714) 668-7113. Let me thank you in advance for your timely response in this matter. Sincerely, TilE KEITH COMPANIES cobs, REA Sr. Environmental Planner SFJ/sg 9998-SFJ- 12557-L '%,. December 19, 1994 The Keith Companies Post Office Box 25127 santa Ana, California 92799 Attention: Saundra F. Jacobs, R.E.A. Senior Environmental Planner Re ' East Tustin specific Plan General Plan Amendment 94-001 and Zone Change 94-004 Dear Ms. Jacobs: In response to your letter of December 13, 1994, this will confirm that- the status of the Tustin Unified School District school sites within the East Tustin Specific Plan is correctly set forth in your letter. Specifically, the Specific Plan originally provided for reservation of five elementary school sites, one middle school site and one high school site. Currently, the status of the school sites is that the District has purchased two elementary school sites, has reservations of one additional elementary school site and one middle school site, and has released the reservation of the high school site. The District currently believes that the remaining school sites which it has either purchased or reserved, together with available capacity in existing schools of the District outside the Specific Plan area, will be sufficient to provide school facilities for the anticipated maximum number of dwelling units at buildout in the Specific Plan area. However, if the impact of General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004,. or any other related City approvals is to significantly increase the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the Specific Plan area, then the District will need to re-evaluate whether the remaining purchased and reserved sites, together with capacity in existing schools, will still be sufficient to provide capacity for all the students to be generated from the Specific Plan area. 500 south C street o tustin, california 9]f~O o 714-750-7501 .~.' Saundra F. Jacobs, R.E.A. December 19, 1994 Page 2 Accordingly, the District hereby reserves all rights to comment on General Plan Amendment 94-001, Zone Change 94-004, and any related environmental impact report or negative declaration, once those documents are completed in draft form and circulated for review and comment. Very truly yours, Donna Burt, Facilitator Administrative Services DB/pg cc: The Irvine Company APPENDIX C PROPOSED 2ND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AG~EMENT SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (the "SECOND AMENDMENT'') to the East Tustin Development Agreement (the "ETDA") is made effective ,1995, by and between the Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation ("Developer"), and the City of Tustin, a California municipal corporation ("City"), with respect to the following: RECITALS This SECOND AMENDMENT amends the ETDA entered into by and between City and Developer effective December 3, 1986, and approved by City by Ordinance No. 978. The ETDA concerns all of that real property (the "Property") described in Exhibit 'W' to the ETDA and delineated on Exhibit "B" thereto, which description and delineation are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time of its entry into the ETDA, Developer was the fee ~wner of the Property, and is the fee owner of the areas of the Property specifically involved in this SECOND AMENDMENT. The ETDA has been amended once previously, effective March 16, 1992, and approved by City by Ordinance No. 1082 ("First Amendment"). The term "ETDA" is used herein to refer to the ETDA as amended by the First Amendment. Be C. The ETDA provides for the development of the Property in accordance with the East Tustin Specific Plan adopted by City on March 17, 1988 (the "Specific Plan"). . The Specific Plan and ETDA provided for the reservation of school and park sites anticipated to be needed to serve the future residents and occupants of the Property. As the Property has been developed, however, certain sites reserved for schOol or park purposes are no longer needed for those purposes, and should be redesignated for residential development subject to the dedication and development of new neighborhood park, and parking for a future neighborhood park. City and Developer have also considered the feasibility of development of hotel uses on the Property, and have determined that hotel construction is unlikely within the next ten years, and the ETDA should be amended accordingly. D. Amendments to the Specific Plan, approved by the City Council on , 1995, provide for changes in the Land Use Designations of the East Tustin Land ..Use Plan relating to the release of certain school and park sites. Eo In light of the foregoing, City and Developer desire to furthe, r amend the ETDA to accomplish the foregoing purposes and to provide for the development of'the PropertY in accordance with the Specific Plan, as amended. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereafter contained, and for the purposes stated above, City and Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Amendments to Specific Plan. Exhibit "C" to the ETDA, as amended, which is the Specific Plan, is hereby amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit "C". Among other minor changes, the amendments to the Specific Plan accomplish the following: .~ , The Land Use Designation of the East Tustin Land Use Plan for Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 is changed from HS (High School) to ML (Medium Low Density), MH (Medium High Density) and NP (Neighborhood Park) to accommodate a maximum of 163.single family detached units, a maximum of 350 family odented apartments, and a minimum 5 acre neighborhood park respectively. Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 is also referred to herein as Tentative Tract Map 15(~55; Be The Land Use Designation of the East Tustin Land Use Plan for Lot 27 of Tract Map 13627 is changed from GC (General Commercial) to MH (Medium High Density) and GC (General Commercial) to accommodate a maximum of 399 apartments and approximately 12 acres of retail commercial property, respectively. 2. Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site Access and Landscaping ~;etback. As set forth in Exhibit "C-1", vehicular access to the Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site from Irvine Boulevard shall be at its signalized intersection with Robinson Road. VehiCUlar Access from Tustin Ranch Road shall be from the intersection of Palermo and Tustin Ranch Road. An expanded fifty (50)- foot setback along Tustin Ranch Road from the edge of the curb to the residential improvements shall be provided, consisting of nine (9) feet of landscaped right-of-way and an additional forty-one (41) feet of landscaped area as illustrated on Exhibit "G," all ~ty (50) feet of which is to be annexed for maintenance purposes to the Tustin Ranch Landscape and Lighting District (the "Lighting District"). the Lighting District shall be responsible for. maintenance of the landscaping in all landscape setback areas around the Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site and in dedicated right-of-way. 3. New Park Improvement. Developer shall design and' construct and dedicate to City, pdor to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first residential unit developed on either Lots 1 or 3 of Tentative Tract Map 15055, a minimum 5 ave neighborhood park to be located on Lot 2 of said Tract Map. (hereinafter the "New Park"). The New Park shall generally be designed and constructed as depicted in Exhibit H-1 and improved, as 1100-00013 9783 I 2 itemized in Exhibit H-2. The design of New Park shall be subject to the City's Design Review process as provided for in the Specific Plan, as amended. City agrees that the Design Review of New Park shall be expedited to the greatest extent possible so that there will be no delay in Developer obtaining Certificates of Occupancy for residential units on proposed Lots 1 or 3 of Tract Map 15055. The Developer shall receive land credit in the East Tustin Parkland Dedication Summary maintained by the City's Community Services Department for the amount of land area dedicated to the City for the New Park. The Developer shall receive an additional land credit in the Parkland Dedication Summary based upon the value of the improvements provided in the New Park by the Developer. The value of the improvements shall be based upon actual construction costs, as verified by the City, and Developer agrees to provide true and correct supportirtg documentation. The amount of land credit that will be given for the improvements shall be calculated by dividing the actual construction costs by the value of one (1) buildable acre of residential land with typical urban infrastructure services to accommodate .development at the densities s~ on Tentative Tract Map 15055, as determined by an appraiser selected by the City, with the appraisal costs borne by the Developer (i.e.: If the value of improvements equals $500,0(X) and the value of one acre of land is appraised at $800,000, the land credit would equal $500,000 divided'by $800,000 or .6250 acres). 4. Release of Reserved Park Site. In order to satisfy Condition 5.1.B of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2603 approving Tentative Tract Map 13627, City has determined in the Specific Plan, as amended, to release Lot 17 of Tract 13627 for residential development provided that the Developer dedicates to the City an approximate · 18 acre portion of Lot 17 of Tract 13627, as generally depicted in Exhibit I, to provide parking for the future neighborhood park site located on Lot 16 of Tract 13627. Said dedication shall occur as part of any future subdivision or development of Lot 17 of Tract 13627. 5. Adjustment in Apartment Development. The second sentence of paragraph 2.1~ ("Permitted Uses") of the ETDA is amended to read as follows: As a standard governing the exercise of the City's discretion to issue conditional use permits for the construction of apartment projects under the Specific Plan, the City agrees that the Developer will be allowed to construct apartment projects in the medium high and medium density areas of the Property totalling 28.4% of the total allowable number of dwelling units in the Specific Plan and Tract No. 12345. The purpose of this amendment is to permit the development of apartment units on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site as shown in Exhibit "C-1," in conjunction with-'~he proposed apartments on Lot 27 of Tract Map 13627. It is understood, however, that notwithstanding anything in this SECOND AMENDMENT to the contrary, Developer is not required to develop either site with apartments, and that Developer may elect in its discretion to develop either or both of those sites with other residential uses (such as condominiums or townhomes) consistent with the Specific Plan, as amended. 1100-(X)013 9783_4 3 6. Hotels. Paragraph 1.4.1, added by the First Amendment is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following is substituted therefor:. 1.4.1 Hotels. Developer agrees that, for a period of ten (10) years following the effective date of this SECOND AMENDMENT, it shall not construct a hotel on its property located between Portola Parkway on the north, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad right-of-way to the south, Myford Road to the west, and Cuiver Drive to the east. 7. East Tustin PhaSing Plan. The East Tustin Phasing Plan identified in Section 1.9 of the ETDA, and amended by the First Amendment, shall be amended to read as follows: EAST TUSTIN PHASING PLAN CUM. CUM. AUTO DWELLING DWELLING SQ. FT. SQ. FT. CENTER UNITS UNITS RETAIL RETAIL DEALERS* 955 955 0 0 3 · 740 1,695 0 . 0 4 1,095 2,790 0 0 2 1,303 4,093 400,000 400,000 1 1,273 5,366 663,000 1,063,000 0 1,192 6,558 0 1,063,000 0 1,212 7,770 0 1,063,000 0 339 8,108 80,000 1,143,000 0 336 8,445 0 1,143,000 0 187 8,632 220,000 1,363,000 0 188 8,820 0 1,363,000 0 180 9,000 258,500 1,621,500 0 9,000 9,000 1,621,500 1,621,500 10 8. Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site, Building Height Limitation. The building height of any future development provided on Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be limited to provide a two-story appearance for those buildings located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road and 50% of those buildings located adjacent to Irvine Boulevard. 9. Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site, Perimeter Landscaping. The perimeter landscaping along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard 1100-(X)013 9783 1 4 of any future development provided on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 shall, at a minimum, be provided in accordance with the following: Trees: One tree for each ten (10) linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be provided. Said trees shall be provided in the following ratios: Shrubs: 45% 24" - Box trees 40% 36"- Box trees 15% 48" - Box trees Twelve (12) 5-gallon shrub for each twenty-five (25) linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard. In addition to the Eucalyptus and Canary Island Pine trees identified on the Landscape Concept Plan, an additional tree with a broad canopy shall be included in the perimeter tree planting palette along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard to provide effective landscape screening, subject to final approval of the Community Development and Public Works Departments. All other landscaping on the subject site shall comply with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have each executed this SECOND AMENDMENT effective as of the date first written above. CITY OF TUSTIN THE IRVINE COMPANY By By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 1100-00013 9783_1 EXHIBIT C ~PLACE HOLDER~ ORDINANCE RE~OLUTION AMENDING E.T.S.P. Z 0 ~ Z 6:Z3' 0 · \ · ' EXHIBIT H-1 For illusi~ative purposes only EXHIBIT H-2 TUSTIN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IMPROVEMENTS. Parking Lot Restrooms Shade Structure Basketball Couris Tot Lot Walls/Fencing Sand volleyball Lighting Concrete Walks Grading and Drainage Automatic Irrigation Planting 90-Day Maintenance General Contractor Overhead/Profit (20%) General Contractor OverheadfProfit (20%) ESTIMATED COST $ 45,000 145,000 45,000 65,000 65,000 ° 25.000 25,000 75,000 65,000 100,000 75,000 137,000 12,000 175,000 $1,054,800 // TR 13627 3.OO0 ACRES FUTUEE D~-'I~ICATION TO 'I-HE C. ITY' OF TusTIN FOR 'IR 13627 2.-/00 ACi~E5 4'~0 C~,'~ ' 87'.4 8' 90"~ FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY kC~F~S ~.1~ W 7' 2'2.80' / 16 - I N 87°/48' CX~" 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1148 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 65865.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE IRVINE COMPANY PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC-PLAN AREA The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: ae That on April 7, 1986, the East Tustin Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council. Bo That as a required element of the East Tustin Specific Plan, a Development Agreement was adopted by the City on November 3, 1986, prior to authorization of any development within the project area. Ce That the proposed Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement has been submitted by The Irvine Company pursuant to applicable provisions of state law and local ordinances and with the concurrence of the City of Tustin. De That Addendum #5 to EIR 85-2 has been prepared in conjunction with the proposed project in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Eo That a public hearing, was duly noticed, called and held by the Planning Commission on March 13, 1995 and continued to March 27, 1995, and by the citY Council on June 5, 1995. F® The Second Amendment would be consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses 'and programs specified in the General Plan, as amendment by General Plan' Amendment 94-001, particularly the Land Use Element which encourages well balanced land us~s and while maintaining a healthy diversified economy. The Second Amendment would be compatible with the uses authorized by the East Tustin Specific Plan, as amended by Zone Change 94-004. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1148 Page 2 He The Second Amendment would be in conformity with public necessity, public convenience, general welfare and good land use practices in that the Second Amendment would provide, for dedication and improvement of additional land devoted for park purposes, while still providing for the overall residential and commercial development anticipated by the East ~Tustin Specific Plan. The Second Amendment would not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community in that the amendment would not increase the overall number of allowed dwelling units within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. J · The Second· Amendment would not affect the orderly development of the property in that the land use patterns, as amendment by General Plan Amendment 94-001 and Zone Change 94-004 would provide for potential commercial and residential development consistent with the capacity of the supporting infrastructure and street improvements. K· The Second Amendment would have a positive fiscal impact on the City which is required to be monitored through the East Tustin Fiscal Monitor as the elimination of the hotel from the phasing schedule as a revenue generator would be replaced by an equivalent amount of retail space in the phasing schedule. II. The Irvine Company shall pay City's defense costs (including attorneys' fees) and indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any claims, losses, liabilities, or damages assessed or awarded against City by way of judgement, settlement or stipulation (including awards for costs, attorneys' fees, and expert witness fees), arising from actions filed against the City challenging the City's approval of the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement. III. The City council hereby approves the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement as included in Exhibit A attached hereto and subject to final approval of the City Attorney. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1148 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 5th day of June, 1995. JIM POTTS MAYOR Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1148 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 five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1148 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of June, 1995 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City ~Council held on the 19th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EAST TUSTIN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (the "SECOND AMENDMENT") to the East Tustin Development Agreement (the "ETDA") is made effective ,1995, by and between the Irvine Company, a Michigan corporation ("Developer"), and the City of Tustin, a California municipal corporation ("City"), .with respect to the following: RECITALS This SECOND AMENDMENT amends the ETDA entered into by and between City and Developer effective December 3, 1986,-and approved by City by Ordinance No. 978. The ETDA concerns all of that real property (the "Property") described in Exhibit 'W'to the ETDA and delineated on Exhibit "B" thereto, which description and delineation are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time of its entry into the ETDA, Developer was the fee ~wner of the Property, and is the fee owner of the areas of the Property specifically involved in this SECOND AMENDMENT. The ETDA has been amended once previously, effective March 16, 1992, and approved by City by Ordinance No. 1082 ("First Amendment"). The term "ETDA" is used herein to refer to the ETDA as amended by the First Amendment. a. The ETDA provides for the development of the Property in accordance with the East Tustin Specific Plan adopted by City on March 17, 1986 (the "Specific Plan"). C. The Specific Plan and ETDA provided for the reservation of school and park sites anticipated to be needed to serve the future residents and occupants of the Property. As the Property has been developed, however, certain sites reserved for school or park purposes are no longer needed for those purposes, and should be redesignated for residential development subject to the dedication and development of new neighborhood Park, and parking for a future neighborhood park. City and Developer have also considered the feasibility of development of hotel uses on the Property, and have determined that hotel construction is unlikely within the next ten years, and the ETDA should be amended accordingly. D. Amendments to the Specific Plan, approved by the City Council on , 1995, provide for changes in the Land Use Designations of the East Tustin Land Use Plan relating to the release of certain school and park sites. Eo In light of the foregoing, City and Developer desire to further amend the ETDA to accomplish the foregoing purposes and to provide for the development of the Property in accordance with the Specific Plan, as amended. EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE 1148 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants hereafter contained, and for the purposes stated above, City and Developer hereby agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Amendments to Specific Plan. Exhibit "C" to the ETDA, as amended, which is the Specific Plan, is hereby amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit "C". Among other minor changes, the amendmentS to the Specific Plan accomplish the following: , The Land Use Designation of the East Tustin Land Use Plan for Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 is changed from HS (High SChool) to .ML (Medium Low Density), MH (Medium High Density) and NP (Neighborhood Park) to accommodate a maximum of 163 single family detached units, a maximum of 350 family oriented apartments, and a minimum 5 acre neighborhood park respectively. Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 is also referred to herein as Tentative Tract Map 15055. a. The Land Use Designation of the East Tustin Land Use Plan for Lot 27 of Tract Map 13627 is changed from GC (General Commercial) to MH (Medium High Density) and GC (General Commercial)to accommodate a maximum of 399 apartments and approximately 12 acres of retail commercial property, respectively. 2. Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site Access and Landscaping Setback. As set forth in Exhibit "C-1", vehicular access to the Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site from Irvine Boulevard shall be at its signalized intersection with Robinson Road. Vehicular Access from Tustin Ranch Road shall be from the intersection of Palermo and Tustin Ranch Road. An expanded fifty (50) foot setback along Tustin Ranch Road from the edge of the curb to the residential improvements shall be provided, consisting of nine (9) feet of landscaped right-of-way and an additional forty-one (41) feet of landscaped area as illustrated on Exhibit "G," all fifty (50) feet of which is to be annexed for maintenance purposes to the Tustin Ranch Landscape and Lighting District (the "Lighting District"). the Lighting District shall be responsible for maintenance of the landscaping in all landscape setback areas around the Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site and in dedicated right-of-way. 3. New Park Improvement. Developer shall design and construct and dedicate to City, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for thefirst residential unit developed on either Lots I or 3 of Tentative Tract Map 15055, a minimum 5 ave neighborhood park to be located on Lot 2 of said Tract Map. (hereinafter the "New Park"). The New Park shall generally be designed and constructed as depicted in Exhibit H-1 and improved, as 1100-00013 9783_1 2 itemized in Exhibit H-2. The design of New Park shall be subject to the City's Design Review process as provided for in the Specific Plan, as amended. City agrees that the Design Review of New Park shall be expedited to the greatest extent possible so that there will be no delay in Developer obtaining Certificates of Occupancy for residential units on proposed Lots 1 or 3 of Tract Map 15055. The Developer shall receive land credit in the East Tustin Parkland Dedication Summary maintained by the City's Community Services Department for the amount of land area dedicated to the City for the New Park. The Developer shall receive an additional land credit in the Parkland' Dedication Summary based .upon the value of the improvements provided in the New Park by the Developer. The value of the improvements shall be based upon .actual construction costs, as verified by the City, and Developer agrees to provide true and correct supporting documentation. The amount of land credit that will be given for the improvements shall be calculated by dividing the actual construction costs by the value of one (1) buildable acre of residential land with typical urban infrastructure services to accommodate development at the densities shown on Tentative Tract Map 15055, as determined by an appraiser selected by the City, with the appraisal costs borne by the Developer (i.e.: If the value of improvements equals $500,(XX) and the value of one acre of land is appraised at $800,000, the land credit would equal $500,000 divided by $800,000 or .6250 acres). 4. Release of Reserved Park Site. in order to satisfy Condition 5.1.B of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2603 approving Tentative Tract Map 13627, City has determined in the Specific Plan, as amended, to release Lot 17 of Tract 13627 for residential development provided that the Developer dedicates to the City an approximate · 18 acre portion of Lot 17 of Tract 13627, as generally depicted in Exhibit I, to provide parking for the future neighborhood park site located on Lot 16 of Tract 13627. Said dedication shall occur as part of any future subdivision or development of Lot 17 of Tract 13627. 5. Adjustment in/~oartment Development. The second sentence of paragraph 2.1 ("Permitted Uses") of the ETDA is amended to read as follows: As a standard governing the exercise of the city's discretion to issue conditional use permits for the construction of apartment projects under the Specific Plan, the City agrees that the Developer will be allowed to construct apartment projects in the medium high and medium density areas of the Property totalling 28.4% of the total allowable number of dwelling units in the Specific Plan and Tract No. 12345. The purpose of this amendment is to permit the development of apartment units on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site as shown in Exhibit "C-1," in conjunction with the proposed apartments on Lot 27 of Tract Map 13627. It is understood, however, that notwithstanding anything in this SECOND AMENDMENT to the contrary, Developer is not required to develop either site with apartments, and that Developer may elect in its discretion to develop either or both of those sites with other residential uses (such as condominiums or townhomes) consistent with the Specific Plan, as amended. 1100-(X)013 9783_1 3 6. Ho{els. Paragraph 1.4.1, added by the First Amendment is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following is substituted therefor:. 1.4.1 Hotels. Developer agrees that, for a period of ten (10) years following the effective date of this SECOND AMENDMENT, it shall not construct a hotel on its property.located between Portola Parkway on the north, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe railroad right-of-way to the south, Myford Road to the west, and Culver Drive to the east. 7. East Tustin Phasing Plan. The East Tustin Phasing Plan identified in Section 1.9 of the ETDA, and amended by the First Amendment, shall be amended to read as follows: .. EAST TUSTIN PHASING PLAN CUM. CUM. AUTO DWELLING DWELLING SQ. FT. SQ. FT. CENTER UNITS UNITS RETAIL RETAIL DEALERS* 955 955 0 0 3 740 1,695 0 0 4 1,095 '2,790 0 0 2 1,303 4,093 400,000 400, 000 1 1,273 5,366 663,000 1,063,000 0 1,192 6,558 0 1,063,000 0 1,212 7,770 0 1,063,000 0 339 8,108 80,000 1,143,000 0 336 8,445 0 1,143,000 0 187 8,632 220,000 1,363,000 0 188 8,820 0 1,363,000 0 180 9,000 258,500 1,621,500 0 9,000 9,000 1,621,500 1,621,500 10 8.~ Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site, Building Height Limitation. The building height of any future development provided on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract 15055 shall be limited to provide a two-story appearance for those buildings located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road and 50% of those buildings located adjacent to lrvine Boulevard. 9. Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 Medium High Density Site, Perimeter Landscaping. The perimeter landscaping along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard 1100-00013 9783_1 4 of any future development provided on Lot I of Tentative Tract 15055 shall, at a minimum, be provided in accordance with the following: Trees: One tree for each ten (10) linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be provided. Said trees shall be provided in the following ratios: Shrubs: 45% 24"- Box trees 40% 36" - Box trees 15% 48"- Box trees Twelve (12) 5-gallon shrub for each twenty-five (25) linear feet of street frontage along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard. In addition to the Eucalyptus and Canary Island Pine trees identified on the Landscape Concept Plan, an additional tree with a broad canopy shall be included in the perimeter tree planting palette along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard to provide effective landscape screening, subject to final approval of the Community Development and Public Works Departments. All other landscaping on the subject site shall comply with the City's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have each executed this SECOND AMENDMENT effective as of the date first written above. CITY OF TUSTIN THE IRVINE COMPANY By By Mayor A'I-I'EST: By City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 1100-00013 9783 I EXHIBIT C 'PLACE HOLDER' ORDINANCE RESOLUTION AMENDING E.T.S.P. i Z C EXHIBIT H-1 For illustrative purposes only EXX~IB IT H-2 TUSTIN RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IMPROVEMENTS- I ESTIMATED COST Parking Lot $ 45,000 145,000 Shade Structure Basketball COurts Tot Lot Walls/Fencing Sand volleyball Lighting Concrete Walks Grading find Drainage Automatic Irrigation Planting 45,000 65,000 65,000 25,000 75,000 65,000 100,000 75,000 137,000 90-Day Maintenance 12,000 General Contractor Overhead/Profit (20%) 175,000 · General Contractor Overhead/Profit (20%) $1,054,800 /. S TR 13627 3.000 ACRES J~,F_$E KVE P HEREON FUTURE D~'=E)ICATION TO THE CITY' OF TuSTIN FOR t TR 13627 I.I- f'-l, r'-: ¢ 2 -/00 ~j - ~CRE5 ., 450 87'48' Oo" A C. I~.F---..$ FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1149 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 94-001 TQ CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as followS: ae That an application has been filed by The Irvine Company, requesting approval of General Plan Amendment 94-001 to change the land use designation of the City's General Plan Land Use Map on certain properties within the East Tustin Specific Plan area. Be That a public hearing was duly notice, called and held on said application by the Planning Commission on March 13, 1995 and continued to March 27, 1995, and by the City Council on June 5,· 1995. Ce That an Environmental Impact Report EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently approved supplements and addenda, for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified with Addendum No. 5 in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project. De Proposed General Plan Amendment 94-001 would be consistent with good land use design placing higher density residential products adjacent to major arterials minimizing traffic and noise impacts. E. Proposed General Plan Amendment 94-001 would provide consistency with existing and proposed zoning and provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan related to allowed uses and number of allowed units within the Specific Plan area. F. Proposed General Plan Amendment 94-004 would be consistent with the~policies of the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements with balanced land uses and not precluding owner occupied dwellings. 10 11 ¸12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 Ordinance No. 1149 Page 2 II. The Irvine Company shall pay City's defense costs (including attorneys' fees) and indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any claims, losses, liabilities, or damages assessed or awarded against City by way of judgement, settlement or stipulation (including awards for costs, attorneys' fees, and expert witness fees), arising from actions filed against the city challenging the City's approval of General Plan Amendment 94-001. III. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 94-001 as follows: ae The Land Use Designation on the City's General Plan Land Use Map shall be changed as follows: · Lot 6 of Tract 12870 shall be changed from Public & Institutional (P&I) to Planned Community Residential (PCR) as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. · A portion of Lot 27 of Tra6t 13627 located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road along the entire Tustin Ranch Road street frontage and includes approximately 19 acres shall be changed from Planned Community Commercial Business (PCCB) to Planned Community Residential (PCR) as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto. Be The changes to the City's Land Use Map identified in subsection A above are contingent upon the execution of the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement as adopted by Ordinance No. 1148. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 5th day of June, 1995. JIM POTTS MAYOR Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1149 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY oF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1149 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 five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1149 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th of June, 1995 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk ~C RE8 TOWNSHIP DRIVE RAWLINGS SITE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL .OT 6 OF TRACT 12870 A.P.#: 501-093-16 SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN GPA 94-001 EXHIBIT A Figure 1-3 \ / '-COMMERCIAL/.~ EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: PC RESlDENTIAL~ PC COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 A.P.#: 502-452-01 _ SOURCE:CITY OF TUSTIN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN GPA 94-001 EXHIBIT B Figure 1-4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. 1150 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 94-004 TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION AND THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE EAST TUSTIN "SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, INCLUDING TEXTURAL AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY REVISIONS TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: ae That an application has been filed by The Irvine Company, requesting approval of Zone Change 94-004 to change the zoning and the East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan on certain properties within, the East Tustin Specific Plan area, including textual and statistical summary revisions to the East Tustin Specific Plan. Be That a public hearing was duly notice, called and held on said application by the Planning Commission on March 13, 1995 and continued to March 27, 1995, and by the City Council on June 5, 1995. Ce That an Environmental Impact Report EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently approved supplements and addenda, for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified with Addendum No. 5 in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project. Do Proposed Zone Change 94-004 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 94-004 would be consistent with the policies of the General Plan Land Use and Housing Elements with balanced land uses and not precluding owner occupied dwellings. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1150 Page 2 II. The Irvine Company shall pay City's defense costs (including attorneys' fees) and indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any claims, losses, liabilities, or damages assessed or awarded against City by way of judgement, settlement or stipulation (including awards for costs, attorneys' fees, and expert witness fees), arising from actions filed against the City challenging the City's approval of Zone Change 94-004. III. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 94-004 as follows: ae The Zoning Designation on the City's Zoning Map shall be changed as follows: · Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 shall be changed from Planned Community Community Facility (PCCF) to Planned Community Residential (PCR) as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. · A portion of Lot 27 of Tract 13627 located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road along the entire Tustin Ranch Road street frontage and includes approximately 19 acres shall be changed from Planned Community Commercial (PCC) to Planned Community Residential (PCR) as shown in Exhibit B attached hereto. Be The East Tustin Land Use Plan shall be changed as follows: · A portion of Lot 27 of Tract 13627 located adjacent to Tustin Ranch Road along the entire Tustin Ranch Road street frontage and includes approximately 19 acres shall be changed from General Commercial (GC) to Medium High Density (MH) as shown in Exhibit C attached hereto. · The underlying land use designation related to the Elementary School designation located on Lot 6 of Tract 12870 shall be Medium Low Density (ML) as shown in Exhibit C attached hereto. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1150 Page 3 · Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 88-315 shall be changed from High School (HS) to Medium High Density (MH), Medium Low Density (ML) and Neighborhood Park (NP) as shown in Exhibit C attached hereto. Ce The East Tustin Specific Plan document shall be changed to read as shown in Exhibit D attached hereto. D. The changes to the City's Zoning Map and the East Tustin Specific Plan identified in subsections A, B and C above are contingent upon the execution of the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement and General Plan Amendment 94-001 as adopted by Ordinance No.s 1148 and 1149. IV. In order to implement the above changes, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the following materials within 30 days of final approval by the City Council: ae Twenty (20) copies and one (1) reproducible copy of the East Tustin Specific Plan with revisions required in Sections II.B and II.C above. $~ Twenty (20) copies and one (1) reproducible copy of a large scale Land Use Plan of the East Tustin Specific Plan with revisions required in Section II.B above. C. An executed Development Agreement to be recorded on the property as approved by the City Council and City Attorney. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 5th day of June, 1995. JIM POTTS MAYOR Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ordinance No. 1150 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1150 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 five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1150 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of June, 1995 and passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on-the 19th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk IRVINE SITE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: PC COMMUNITY FACILITY PROPOSED DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 88-315 A.P.#: 500-221-02 A.P.#: 500-221.-03 SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZC 94-004' EXHIBIT A Figure 1-5 EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION: PC COMMERCIAL PROPOSED DESIGNATION: PC RESIDENTIAL)PC COMMERCIAL Lot 27 of Tract 13627 A.P. 502-452-01 SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN ! EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZC 94-004 EXHIBIT B Figure 1-6 E REFER TO FIGURE 1-4 & 1-6 .:: .FEFER TO FIGURE REFER TO "'~ -.. 1o5 ,lEGEND F'~ LO~. DEN~ffY EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC ZONE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN PLAN & LOCATION MAP CHANGE 94-004 Figure 1-2 EXHIBIT C L~ ZONE CHANGE 94-004 EXHIBIT D EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT REVISIONS 2.1 Land Use (ETSP Paqes 2-1 throuqh 2-4) The Land Use Plan, illustrated in Exhibit C, incorporates the planning goals and objectives in designating a variety of residential and non-residential land uses circumscribed and linked by an appropriate arterial circulation system. Each of the parcels within the plan having a specific land use designation is referred to as a "land use area". These areas have been aggregated into 12 easily identifiable zones called "Sectors". The sector boundaries are defined by major roadways and topographical features; each sector contains one or more land use area. Table 2.1 summarizes the land use statistics. More detailed statistics for each sector are provided in t-he Section 2.14. Gross acres have been used for computing acreages and residential densities on the following tables. Gross acres include all land within a sector or land use area exclusive of arterial street rights-of-way. Table 2.1 Statistical Summary Land Use Desiqnation Acreage Residential Estate (up to 2 du/ac) Low (up to 5 du/ac) Medium Low (up to 10 du/ac) Medium (up to 18 du/ac) Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac) Open Space Community Parks 4-~ Golf Course 150 Commercial/Business Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Mixed Use 121 Institutional Elementary Schools~ Intermediate Schools ....... ....... 4O Other 'Uses Roads (arterial and major only :.:.:.: :::::::::::::::::::::: Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 2 Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major roads, has been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses. Residential Land .Use: The Land ~se...... Plan designates five residential categories, each of wh'ich has maximum density. Residential densities are controlled in all of the following: land use areas, sectors and the Specific Plan Area. For any residential subdivision map the maximum density range cannot be exceeded for a particular land use area. Lower densities will be permitted in any area. The boundaries andlacreages of the land use areas shown on the Land Use Plan are approximate and will be precisely determined in the future when subdivision Maps are reviewed. The land use areas described within each sector are subject to the policies specific to a given sector. These policies are outlines in Section 2.14. The total number of dwelling units for the overall Specific Plan Area may not exceed 7950 units. However, if the total allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unbuilt units may be transferred to the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraphs. The total number of dwelling units in each Sector may not exceed the figures specified Table 2.4. If a sector is developed with less than the maximum number of units permitted within the sector, then a transfer of units will-be permitted from sector to sector within the Specific Plan Area. These transfers will be closely monitored. When proposing unit'transfers, compatibility with adjacent land uses areas must be considered. Specific requirements for allowing unit transfers and maximum unit increases in Sectors are outlined in the Development Standards in Section 3.0. Also, in Section 3.0 there are more definitive standards for development of each residential density category. Mixed Use Designation: The Land Use Plan designates 121 acres in the southeast corner of the site, in Sector 12 between Bryan Avenue and the I-5 Freeway, as a mixed use area. A 70-acre commercial center and hotcl/motcl will be developed in this~area. Additional commercial uses or office and researCh and 'development uses may also be developed within this area. The Mixed Use designation permits flexibility for location and configuration of these uses. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 3 It also creates the opportunity for development to respond to future changes in economic and market forces. The Development Standards for the Mixed Use Area are defined in Section 3.0. Non-Residential Land Uses: The Land Use Plan (LUP) includes a number of non-residential uses such as: (1) Schools, (2) Parks, (3) Open Space and Recreation Facilities, and (4) Commercial Land Use Designations. These are summarized in the following table: Table 2.2 Land Uses Inteqral to the LUP Institutional Use Quantity Intermediate School AA~AA ~AA~ Community Park Golf Course Commercial/Business Use' Approximate Total Acreage ::::::::::!:::: 4O .............. :::::::::::::::::::::: General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial ¢::::::::::.: Table 2.3 Land Uses Anticipated in LUP Institutional Use Quantity Approximate Total Acreaqe Elementary School Public Neighborhood Parks Private Neighborhood Parks The exact number, location and size of private neighborhood parks will be established with subdivision maps. ~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4. - '"'"':':':':P:'::~E:~"*?'?"F:':':~:*~P:':::;:':'::~:~:E:F "::F'P:':':" ===================================================== ======================= .:::' ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ': ~..:..~::e~a~I:: elementary school sites ::::::::::::::::::::::::: c Plan area, ..... n~ neighborhood parks are generally located in various se6~'~'~'' of the Plan. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 4 Three (3) community parks are more specifically located; they include ~ ~~~ i~iiiiiiii~ acre site near the junior high school, a ~.& ~&A~ ............................................~ 20-acre site, and ......... ~"~'" a -~'i~i-acre site incorporating a knoll situated south of Portola Parkw~'i Elementary and Intermediate-schools and public neighborhood parks are symbolically illustrated on the Land Use Plan. The specific sizes, location~ and numbers of these facilities will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 2.8. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 5 2.10 Schools .(ETSP Paqes 2-13 and 2-14) The Specific Plan area is within the boundaries of the Tustin Unified School District. The school district expects that the completion of the development in the East Tustin Specific Plan Area will require new facilities as well as the use of some of the existing facilities. The Specific Plan symbolically identifies a maximum number of school sites to serve the largest estimated population growth. These schools have all been generally located in areas that are central to estimated student population growth. One intermediate school site has been identified for the Specific Plan area. This The ultimate requirement for the precise number of schools is based on the number of students that are to be generated from the residential areas within the Specific Plan area. The demand for schools may vary depending on the actual type and number of units built in each land use category. The size of school sites may vary depending on specific school district needs and joint school/park programs. Also phasing and precise locations of sites are dependent on timing of development and more precise planning within sectors. The number, location, and size of schools illustrated symbolically on the~~°-~-~ Pi-.. ........ -~ ~..~~~ ~iiiii~i~iiiiiii~i~ should be considered as a general guide, subject to"'~~:~~ation. As development'plans are prepared for each sector the land owner and school district will make specific provision for school facilities. These provisions should be accomplished prior to final development. The actual size and number of sites may cause an adjustment to acreage within the land use areas. If any school that is shown on the Land Use Plan is not needed or if the site acreage is less than estimated then the acreage that has been allocated to the school site will be reallocated to the underlying residential use. However, the maximum number of units permitted within the sector where the acreage adjustment is made will not be changed except as provided in Section 3.0. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 6 Acreage ETSP Paqes 2-25'and 2-25 Table 2.4 Statistical Analysis Maximum Land Use Density Total Allowable Units SECTOR I 125 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 125 SECTOR 2 74 Estate Density Residential ~ i~ii~i Low Density Residential 50 ~i81 ........ Medium Low Density Residential :::¥::::::::: .-...-.-.-.-... 37.3'5. i~::~ Medium Density Residential 15 ~i::0i ** Junior High School 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 10 du/ac 18 du/ac**** Subtotal 271 ~ii~i~ SECTOR 3 6 !~i~i LOW Density Residential 0 ~ i~iigi ** Elementary School :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 5 du/ac Subtotal 17 :i.'2.: ::::::::i:::::: SECTOR 4 .m.. -,..; :::::::::::::::::::::: Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac SECTOR 5 98 18 Estate Density Residential Low Density Residential 2 du/ac 5 du/ac :::::::::::::::::::::: Subtotal 116 SECTOR 6 219 + Subtotal 31 :]::~::~:~ Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 7 sECTO 7 97 Medium Density Residential ~4~ i~i~i~ Medium High Density Residential o 10 ** Elementary School 150 i~i~ Golf Course x+x.:+x.x. 18 du/ac 25 du/ac Subtotal SECTOR 8 77 26 .0 10 ** · -x Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Elementary School 4 du/ac ~ 18 du/ac ~ ~ ~ Subtotal 117 ~i~i~i SECTOR 9 39 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 39 SECTOR 10' 46 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 15 ~}~ Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac Subtotal 71 582 i~i~i~i + ::::::::::::::::::::::: SECTOR 11 ~6 g~i Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac 4-....,.~ ** Neighborhood Park I0 }~i~} Neighborhood Commercial -x-:.x-x. Subtotal.177 SECTOR 12 121 Mixed Use Subtotal 121 7,950*** Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 8 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 school and intermediate school 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. o This acreage figure is an estimated allocation for this land use. If it changes, other land uses acreage allocations in this sector may change. However, the total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. Total Allowable Units assumes that if a school and/or park currently designated for this sector is not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities are constructed, the land use area density limitation precludes construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 9 Sector 2 (ETSP Paqes 2-28 and 2-29) This sector consists of approximately~,.~-~ ~i~i~! acres and extends from the northernmost tip of the site south ~:~¥:~he proposed future road. The sector is bounded on the west by the crest of the north/south Peters Canyon ridge, Peters Canyon Wash, and Lower Lake Drive; on the north and east by the City boundary; and on the south by'the Future Road. The land beyond the eaStern edge of the Sector is in the County's jurisdiction and is currently planted with orchards. The Sector encompasses a broad valley which contains the west tributary of Peters Canyon Wash. Much of the valley is relatively flat. This sector is planned to inclUde a variety of land uses. The residential uses will range from the estate density to medium hA~lh density. Estate density residential is located in the western and northern hillsides; low density is located in the upper valley and on a low knoll extending south from the north/south ridge; medium low and medium density occur in the central and upper portions of the valley; and medium h&elh i~i~~ density is located at the southerly end of the valley adjacen~ ....... T© the Future Road. These various residential densities have been organized relative to the topography access and visibility frOm existing development to the west. Al~a pi .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 *~a,.a--~~&.~ -&~.~&.~.· ..... ~.&--~ ~^~ ~a~..~ vallcy~ An intermediate school has been sited along Peters Canyon Wash. The precise location and size of ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~ ~ 4 I ~ ~ A a :" :':!' ":':!:*~i/%i~i~:" '-!':':':::':':':::*!:i.!"i:i" ':i::":'i':':':': · . . ....... T ....... s ~i~i~iiiiiii~i~i~i~ shall be determined as described ~n Subsection 2.10 of thi's ...... S'~*~ific Pla- community pa~ ~s planned ]ust south of the school site !~iiiiii~i~i~!~iiiiii~i, along the wash. A regional trail and Cl~:~:~::::¥~::¥:~:~:~Q~ay are planned in proximity to Peters Canyon Wash reflecting Orange County General Plan. The following policies apply to. Sector 2: a. The maximum number of units, permitted within this sector are as shown on Table 2.4. Be Policies and guidelines related to the Hillside District apply to the portions of this sector that are located within the Hillside District. See Subsection 2.13. C. In order to minimize the impacts of landform modifications and grading within the Hillside District, in areas designated for estate density, housing may be clustered. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 10 Do Eo Fe Ge He Concurrent with submission of the sector subdivision as required under Subsection 1.5, the precise location of the E1 Modena Fault shall be determined through a detailed geological investigation conducted by the landowner and appropriate building setbacks should be established in conformance with current State Standards. · In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the subdivision map of this sector (refer to Subsection 1.5), a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this Sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for review by the Director of Community Development, refer to Subsection 2.12 Implementation, for specific requirements. Where feasible and consistent with flood control requirements, the treatment of Peters Canyon Wash (Exhibit L) should retain a natural appearance by (1) minimizing concrete channelization such as vertical-walled 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. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the subdivision map of this Sector, a conceptual design of Peters Canyon Wash for the portion that occurs within this Sector, shall also be submitted for approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Engineer. This conceptual design shall illustrate the basic design concept for improvements to the wash including a proposed location for the regional riding/hiking and bicycle trail. Objectives for the character of Peters Canyon Wash are included in Subsection 2.13, Drainage Guidelines. The City of Tustin and the Tustin Unified School District should attempt to locate both the proposed community park and the proposed intermediate school adjacent to Peters Canyon Wash trail and within the main viewshed of the existing community to the west, so as to minimize visual impacts. The maximum density on Lot 11 of Tract 13627 shall be limited to ten dwelling units per gross acrel Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 11 Sector 6: (ETSP Paqes 2-36) This triangular configured sector contains 31 acres of flatland and has the potential to be circumscribed by arterial roadways. It is situated along the eastern edge of the site, bounded by the proposed Future Road extension on the west, Portola Parkway on the south and the Specific' Plan boundary on the east. ~ ~ ..... ~ .... ~ ..... ~ ~- -~ .... ~ ~- ~ .... ~"- Medium high density residential development is planned for the remainder of this sector The following policies apply'to Sector 6: ::s~e.'.-~::~:~::i::~::~::~::i~:h~i::::~:~i ~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ............................................................................................................... ":::'"'"': ........................................................................... ::::::::::::::::::::: 8 :::: :::}~ii~iii:i!iii :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 8 ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A ~i' In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this Sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12, Implementation for specific requirements. ~ ~.. Concurrent with a Subdivision Map submittal for any portion of this Sector, a Conceptual Site Plan shall also be submitted for the entire sector as identified in Section 2.14.1. Concurrent with the submission of the Sector Subdivision Map as required under Section 1.5, the precise location of the E1 Modena Fault will be determined by a detailed geological investigation conducted by the landowner and appropriate building setbacks should be established in conformance with current State Standards. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 12 Sector 8 (ETSP Paqes 2-39 and 2-40) This sector consists of 117 ~i~.~ acres and is virtually flat· It is situated adjacent to the e~i'~'~ing community on the west, and is bounded by the La Colina extension on the south, the Future Road extension on the east and the Racquet Hill Drive extension on the north· Most of the sector has been designated for low density residential development along the western boundary so as to be compatible with the adjacent residential development. Approximately 26 acres along Future Road have been allocated for Medium Density Residential. Also planned for this area is an elementary school, the precise location and size will be determined as identified in Subsection .................. on The following polices apply to Sector 8: A· The maximum number of units permitted within this sector are ~s shown on Table 2.4. Be Residential development within this sector shall be subject to the following requirements to maintain compatibility with residential areas located immediately adjacent and to the west of the sector. Residential development that adjoins the existing homes of the specific plan boundary and includes the first row .of residential lots will be limited to single story structures. In all remaining low density designated areas of Sector 8, residential units shall be restricted to a maximum height of two stories. · Residential development that adjoins the existing homes of the specific plan boundary and includes the first row of residential lots will have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. In all remaining areas of Sector 8, the regulations and standards of the low density land use areas will apply. · The use of cluster development .as described in Section 3.6.3 C of the specific plan will not be permitted in low density land use areas in Sector 8. Cluster development will be allowed in medium density land use areas. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 13 C· D· E· · Within the low density designation, the maximum allowable dwelling units per gross acre has been defined as 5.0. Within Sector 8, this standard will be limited to 4.0 dwelling units per gross acre maximum, in lieu of the 5.0 standard. Additionally, no units may be transferred into Sector 8 for low density, which is shown in Table 2.4 and the East Tustin Statistical analysis in Section 3.0 as 349 units. There is no limitation on transferring dwelling units out of Sector 8 into another sector, in accordance with Specific Plan requirements. If a school is to be located within this seCtor it shall be located to conveniently serve the students residing in the new community and be designed to minimize visual and noise impacts to existing adjacent residential areas on' the west. · If feasible, a school should not be located immediately adjacent to existing residential lots which occur along the west boundary of this sector. · If it is necessary to locate a school immediately adjacent to existing residential lots then outdoor playground areas should be visually buffered or located away from those residential lots. · No direct access for any of the schools shall be taken off of Future Road. In addition t© the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this · sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12 Implementation, for specific requirements. The distance between the edge of the western right-of-way of the "Future Road" and the closest point of the foundation of the closest residence of Pavillion/Saltair shall be a minimum of 1,000 feet plus or minus 100 feet measured'on a horizontal plane. The noise impacts of the Future Road on the existing residences to the west of the Specific Plan area shall be further mitigated by a continuous noise barrier consisting of a combination of berm, soundwall, and residences adjacent to the' Future Road. This requirement for a continuous noise barrier applies along the western side of FutUre Road adjacent to the medium density residential development in Sector 8 and the low density development in between. The noise barrier line-of-sight from the residences along Saltair and Pavillion Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 14 F. to vehicles traveling along the Future Road behind such'noise barrier. In addition, in designing and orienting the residences in the two medium-density residential areas in Sector 8 and the low-density development in between, the developer shall, to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with other sound planning practices, construct multi-story structures which further mitigate the noise impacts of the Future Road on.the existing residences to the west of the Specific Plan. A design goal impact of 55 or less CNEL for the existing residences at the foundation is hereby established. At such time that further noise analysis is done in this area (at the Tentative Tract stage), this analysis will model the projected CNEL level at these existing residences to confirm that the.noise of level of 55 CNEL will be met. It is the explicit intent of the East Tustin !~~.~ Plan .that La Colina Road in the Specific Plan area C~~'~'"'"'~o the existing La colina Road and to the major arterial known as "Future Road." this road shall consist of a four lane residential street, and should be incrementally improved, beginning with a two lane road. The roadway should not exceed a total right-of-way of 80 feet, and the first two lanes should be built at the edge of the right-of-way, with a raised landscape median making up the rest of the potential right-of- way. The precise alignment of La Colina Road will be determined at the Tentative Tract stage. The City and County will prepare a joint study, examining the impacts and mitigation measures of the connection, and recommending specific measures to deter through traffic. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 15 Sector 11 (ETSP Paqes 2-43) This sector consists of approximately 183 acres. It is bounded by the Future Road alignment on the west, Irvine Boulevard on the north, Myford Road on the east, and Bryan Avenue on the south. Several land uses are proposed within this sector. The residential uses include ~~iiiiiiii~ and medium density which i= ~ to be located in the"~¥~:~'~'~' quadrant of the sector. ' ................. ~:~:~ Medium high residential development is to be situated along the eastern ~ii!iiiii~~:~ boundary of the site encompassing the entire :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: area betWeen'"'Bryan Avenue and Irvine Boulevard uxtunuion. At the northeast corner of the sector, a 10 ~-acre neighborhood'commercial site has been Planned at the inter:~:ction of Irvino Boulovard and ~yford Road, an important ontry point into the City from the east. ~. --1.----.~ ...... ~--.1 dc of ....................... neighborhood parks ~=o ::~} been 9enerally located in the area=':':':'~'~' tho ~$~~i~0~~ mod~':~'~ ......... density residential development· The prec~:~:~:~:~:~:~T~3:¢:~:~:3:~::::::::~f this ~j~ ar~ ~ ~ to be .................... P .. ....... ~'..~:~ ..... determined as described in Sub~'ection :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: The following polices apply to Sector 11: A® The maximum number of residential units permitted in this sector are as shown on Table 2.4. Be In addition to the specific submittal requirements 'for the Subdivision Map of this Sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within this sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12, Implementation for specific requirements. Ce A buffer for the E1 Modena channel shall be provided. The methods for buffering shall include but not be limited to fencing and landscaping. Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 16 Acreage ETSP Paqes 3-13 and 3-14 EAST TUSTIN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Maximum Land Use Density Total Allowable Units SECTOR i 125 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal 125 SECTOR 2 74 Estate Density Residential ~ i~i~i Low Density Residential 50 ~i~i Medium Low Density Residential 37.35 i~!!~ Medium Density Residential ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .... School 15 ~?~ ....... ** Junior High School --- -:::::; U:¥:::.:.:-'--.'.-.-.'. · .'.....-.'... ......... ~ ...................... ...-...-.....-.-.-... ............. 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 10 du/ac 18 du/ac**** Subtotal SECTOR,3 6 !~!~! Low Density Residential o ~. i~i~ ** Elementary School 5 du/ac Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Subtotal :::::::::::::::::::::: SECTOR 5 98 18 · Estate Density Residential Low Density Residential 2 du/ac 5 du/ac Subtotal 116 SECTOR 6 219 + Subtotal 31 Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 17 SECTOR 7 97 Medium Density Residential ~4~ i~i~ Medium High Density Residential o 10 '~'~ .... Elementary School .~0 i~i~i~ Golf Course 18 du/ac 25 du/ac Subtotal SECTOR 8 77 26 o 10 ** 4 ** Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Elementary School 4 du/ac 18 du/ac 582 i~i~i~+ ::::::::::::::::::::::: Subtotal ~, SECTOR 9 39 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 39 .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: SECTOR 10 . 46 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac 15 ~ii~i Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac Subtotal 71 582 !~!~i~. + SECTOR 11 :'"": ~ :':':+:':':':':':<':':':':':'>:':':':':+:':':':':':':'" .... ...... · ...~ ............. ......:.:.:.:.:.:.:< .;.:..:...... ........... ~ ......... ~.....~.................. ....... ~ .......... . .......... 5~ ~!~! Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac ~ 40 u~ ..... el .-.-.., ~ ~ ** Neighborhood Park :::::::........ I0 }~i~i Neighborhood Commercial Subtotal 177 SECTOR 12 121 Mixed Use Subtotal 121 7,950*** Zone Change 94-004 Exhibit D Page 18 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 school and intermediate school 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. o This acreage figure is an estimated allocation for this land use. If it changes, other land.uses acreage allocations in this sector may change. However, the total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. Total Allowable Units assumes that if a school and/or park currently designated for this sectOr is not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities are constructed, the land use area density limitation precludes construction o~ the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. Zone Change Exhibit D Page 19 94-004 (ETSP Paqe 3-47) Co District Estate Low Residential Off-Street Parking Spaces Covered Crcd~t fcr Required Assigned Guest/ Spaces/Unit Unassigned -:.:-:.:-:-:.::+:-:-:-:-:-....x-...-.-.~.. ~ 2 ~ 2 Car Garage 2 per unit -.:.~ 1. Sector 8, 9, 10 2 '2 Car Garage 2 per unit 2. Sector 2 2 2 Car Garage 2 per unit Medium Low 2 2 Car Garage i~I ,-~ per unit Medium& Medium High 1. Detached 2 2 Car Garage i~i ~-5 per unit 2. Attached Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) 3. Multiple Family (apartments) Studio 1.0 1 Carport (1) 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 Carport (1) 2 Bedroom 2.0 ~ ~ Carport (1) 3 Bedroom 2.0 2 Carports (1) 4 Bedroom 2.5 2 Carports (1) 4. Patio Homes(2) 1-3 Bedrooms 2.0 2 Car Garage i~i~ ....... ~-~ per unit ~ 4 Bedrooms 2.5 2 Car Garage !~i"'~L~ per unit ~ (1) Attached single family and multiple ramify developments shall provide a minimum of i~i~2-~per unit open unassigned parking spaces for 4 or more dwelling units, if a two caF"~nc[osed private garage is provided~ a guest parking standard of !ii~-5 open unassigned spaces per unit shall apply. (2) Required guest parking for Patio Rome products must be located within a 200 foot radius measured from the nearest building frontage facing a street, drive or court of the designated unit which the parking space is intended to serve. 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 95-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15055. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resOlve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: ae That Tentative Tract Map No. 15055 was submitted to the Planning Commission by The trvine Company for consideration. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said application by the Planning Commission on March 13, 1995 and continued to March 27, 1995, and by the City Council on June 5, 1995. Ce That an Environmental Impact Report EIR 85-2, as modified by subsequently approved supplements and addenda, for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified with Addendum No. 5 in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project. De That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan (as amended by ZC 94-004), Development Agreement (as amended by the Second Amendment), and Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to the development. Ee That the City has.reviewed the status of the School Facilities Agreements between the Irvine Company and the Tustin Unified School District. The East Tustin Specific Plan, EIR 85-2 with subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, the impact of Tentative Tract 15055 on School District facilities, and reviewed changes in State law, and finds and determines that the impacts on School District facilities by approval of this map are adequately addressed. Fe .That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. Ge That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. He That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Resolution No. 95-45 Page 2 I · That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easement acquired by the public' at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Je That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvement proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. K· The project has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of Measure "M" in that it has entitlement specified in a development agreement entered into in 1985, and the estimated project generated traffic does not cause the roadway system to exceed established level of service standards. II. The City Council hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map 15055, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 5th day of June, 1995. JIM POTTS MAYOR Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS 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 five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 95-45 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 5th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: 28 Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk EXHIBIT A TENTATIVE TI~CT I~P 15055 RESOLUTION NO. 95-45 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (1) 1.1 Prior to recordation of final map, the Subdivider shall (2) prepare plans for and construction or post security (3) guaranteeing construction of all public and/or private, (5) infrastructure improvements within the boundary of said tract map in conformance with applicable City standards, including but not limited to the following: Ae Ce D. E. F. G. Curb and gutter. Sidewalks including access facilities for the physically disabled. Drive aprons All signing/striping modifications Street paving Street lights Catch basins/ storm drain laterals/connections to existing storm drain systems (5) The amount of acceptable security for'conduction of. public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The amount and acceptable security for private improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. In addition, a 24"x36" reproducible construction area traffic control .plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation, will be required. (1) 1.2 Ail construction within a public right-of-way and/or public easement must be shown on a separate 24" x 36" plan as prepared by a California Registered Engineer with all construction referenced to applicable City, County or Irvine Ranch Water District standards drawing numbers. (1) 1.3 Ail changes in existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and (6) other public improvements shall be responsibility of subdivider. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6). LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Tentative Tract'Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 2 (1) 1.4 Preparation of plans for and construction of: ae Ail sanitary sewer .facilities must be submitted as required by the City Engineer and local sewering agency. These facilities shall include ~a gravity flow system per standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Be · A domestic water system must be to the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District/City of Tustin Water service, whichever is applicable at the time of plan preparation. Improvement plans shall also be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Department for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluate. ~The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water systems shall be to the standards as required by the Irvine Ranch Water District. Ce Sewer and water facilities shall be clearly indicated as publicly maintained. Maintenance access to water facilities shall be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association and accommodations for such access shall be established prior to building permit issuance. (1) 1.5 Proposed streets shall be designed to the following (5) specifications: (6) A. All proposed streets shall be designed in substantially the same width and alignment as shown on the approved tentative map unless modified and approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. Be Ail streets and drives shall be constructed in accordance with City requirements in terms of type and quality of material used. Ce Sidewalk areas shall flare around the placement of all above ground facilities, such as signing, street lights and fire hydrants unless located outside of sidewalk widths within public utility easement areas. De Parking shall be prohibited on "A" Street. Signage and red curbing shall be installed where appropriate. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 3 (1) ~.6 A complete hydrology study and hydraulic calculations (5) for the entire area within the tentative map shall be submitted for review and approval by the City prior to permit issuance. (5) ~.7 In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including but not limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps,, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, and final grading plans are also required to be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in compute aided drafting and design (CADD) format. The acceptable formats shall be Intergraph DGN or AutoCad DWG file format, but in no case less than DXF file format. The City of Tustin, CADD conventions shall be followed in preparing plans in CADD, and these guidelines are available from the Engineering Division. An option, the applicant may submit manually prepared plans and in lieu of CADD files pay a "processing fee" to the City to have the drawings converted into CADD format. This fee will cover the City's costs to transfer the information from the above noted plans to CADD so that it can be integrated into the City's infrastructure base map. The processing fee will be determined on a case by case basis after the plans have been submitted for review. (1) ~.8 The developer of Lot 1 will be required to design and (5) construct improvements and modifications of the traffic signal at Irvine Boulevard/Robinson Drive in conjunction with the development of Lot 1. In addition, a traffic signal equipment and maintenance easement will be required. (1) ~.9 Catch basins will need to be provided at Tustin Ranch (5) Road and "A" Street with connection to the existing 48" RCP storm drain in Tustin Ranch Road to eliminate the need for a cross gutter. (1) ~.~0 Catch basins will need to be provided at Irvine Boulevard (5) and the drive entrance opposite Robinson Drive with connection to the existing 54" RCP storm drain in Irvine Boulevard, to eliminate the need for a cross gutter. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 4 (1) 1.11 Lots 3, A, B and G shall be maintained by the Landscape (5) and Lighting District and shall be equipped with a computerized irrigation system fully compatible with the existing systems currently utilized in other areas of Tustin Ranch, subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/~AS~M~NTS (1) 2.1 The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or (2) reservation requirements as applicable, including but not (5) limited to dedication of all required street and flood (6) control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements and water easements defined and approved as to specific location by the City Engineer and .other reasonable agencies. (1) 2.2 The subdivider shall provide an Irrevocable Offer of (5) Dedication of 10 feet along Tustin Ranch Road between "A" Street and Irvine Boulevard, subject to final approval of the Director of Public Works and the City Attorney. (1) 2.3 The subdivider shall design, construct and dedicate a neighborhood park on Lot 3 to the City, subject to the terms of the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement. Final dedications documents shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and City Attorney prior acceptance of the park site. (1) 2.4 "A" Street shall be restricted.to right-turn in/right- (5) turn movements only. (1) Z.5 Access to Lot 3 from "A" Street shall be restricted to pedestrians and emergency vehicle access only. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (1) 3.1 Prior to recordation of the final map, subdivider shall (2) post with the Community Development Department a minimum (6) $2,500 cash deposit or letter of credit to guarantee the Sweeping of streets and clean-up of streets affected by construction activities. In the event this deposit is depleted prior to completion of development or City appearance of public streets, an additional incremental deposit will be required~ Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 5 (1) 3.Z Any damage done to existing street improvements and (6) utilities shall be repaired before acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development on any parcel within the subdivision. (1) ~3.3 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit must be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of grading permits: (2) (6) A. A detailed soils engineering report shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official conforming to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Requirements, and all other applicable State and local laws, regulations and requirements. Be Preparation and submittal of a grading plan subject to approval by the Department of Community Development delineating the following information: · · Methods of drainage in accordance with all applicable City standards. All recommendations submitted by geotechnical or soils engineer and specifically approved by them. Compliance with conceptual grading shown on tentative tract map. · A drainage plan and necessary support documents such as hydrology calculations to comply with the following requirements: a. b. Provision of drainage facilities to remove any flood 'hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rain fall which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 year storm and dedication of any necessary easements on the final map as required. Elimination of any sheet flow and ponding across lot lines. C· Provision of drainage facilities to protect the lots from any high velocity scouring action. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 6 · · *** 7. de Provision for tributary drainage from adjoining properties. Ail flood hazard areas of record. A note shall be placed on the grading plan requiring community Development Department approval of rough grading prior to final clearance for foundations. The Department will inspect the site for accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may require certification of any grading related 'matter. Note on plans that a qualified paleontologist/ archeologist, as appropriate, shall be present during rough grading operations. If resources are found, work shall stop in the affected area and all resources shall be excavated or preserved as deemed appropriate or as recommended by the paleontologist/archeologist subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Community Development. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Department of Community Development. The paleontologist/archeologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting to ensure that this condition and necessary procedures in the event of a "find" are explained. · Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all construction work related to the subject tract including a method of control to prevent: dust and windblown earth problems. (1) 4.2 Ail earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the (3) City of Tustin Municipal Codes and grading requirements. (1) 4.3 Prior to the recordation of the tract map, the applicant (5) shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that identifies the application and incorporation of those routine structural and non- structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and detailing implementation of the BMPs not dependent on specific land uses. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 7 (1) 4.4 Prior to issuance of grading, grubbing and clearing or (5) paving permits, the applicant shall obtain coverage under the NPDES Statewide Industrial Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained shall be submitted.to the Building Official of the City of Tustin. FIRE DEPARTHENT (5) 5.~ Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, water improvement plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief to ensure adequate fire protection and financial security is posted for the installation. The water system design, location of valves, and the distribution for the fire hydrants will be evaluated and approved by the Chief. (5) 5.2 Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, a letter and plan from the developer shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. This letter and plan shall state that water for fire fighting purposes and an all weather fire access road shall be in place before any combustible materials are placed on the'site. (5) 5.3 Prior to the issuance of any final map, submit to the Fire Chief evidence of the on site fire hydrant system, indicate public or private. If the system is private, provision shall be placed in the CC&R's .for the repair and maintenance of the system. (5) 5.4 Prior to the issuance of any. certificates of use and occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating its location on the street or drive per the Orange County Fire Department Standard. On private property these markers are to be maintained, in goOd condition by the property owner. (5) 5.5 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, plans for all streets and courts, public or private, shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. The plans shall include sectional views, and indicate the width measured flow line to flow line. All proposed fire apparatus turnarounds shall be clearly marked. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 8 (5) 5.6 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, street improvement plans with fire lanes shown shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Indicate the locations of red curbing and signage. Provide a drawing of the proposed signage with the height, stroke and color of lettering and the contrasting background color. The CC&R's shall contain a fire lane map and provisions which prohibit parking in the fire lanes, a method of enforcement shall be included. NOISE (1) 6.1 Ail construction operations including engine warm up (5) shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. (1) 6.2 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the site to (5) the satisfaction of the Building Official. BUYER NOTIFICATION (1) 7.1 Subdivider shall notify potential buyers of their (2) obligations to notify future tenants and homeowners related to the following: ae A document separate from the deed, which will be an information notice to future tenants/homebuyers of aircraft noise impacting the subdivision, shall be recorded. The notice shall further indicate that additional building Upgrades may be necessary for noise attenuation. This determination to be made as architectural drawings become available and/or where field testing determines inadequate noise insulation. Be The future developer shall submit for review and approval of content by the Director of Community Development, a copy of rental/sales literature for the residential project with the approved aircraft/helicopter noise statement and the approved schools notification statement, printed on it. Any changes to the rental/sales literature after initial City approval shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 9 C® The future developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved aircraft/heliCopter noise statement which shall contain a disclosure document on aircraft notification. Said document must be signed by each tenant/homeowner prior to occupancy of any unit. The content of the statement shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to circulation. D~ The future developer shall provide the City with a schools notification statement which shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development and participation by the governing school district which shall indicate: (1) The location of existing and proposed elementary, middle'and high schools which will serve the subdivision (text and map). (2) Advice to homebuyers that proposed school sites may never be constructed. Ee The future developer shall provide the City with a statement, signed by each tenant/homebuyer, containing a comprehensive description of all private and public improvements and developments adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed development. (1) 7.Z Subdivider shall notify all potential buyers of (5) subdivided lots aware of potential liens/assessments against the subdivided properties as follows: A. Assessment District 85-1 Bo City of Tustin Landscaping and Lighting District as amended. FEES (1) S.1 Ail properties within the subject map will be subject to AssesSment District 85-1 fees to be determined as a result of land use change. The subdivider shall pay all costs related to the calculation of the revised parcel assessments, the preparation of the revised assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to Assessment District 85-1 as a result of the subdivision. (1) 8.2 Prior to issuance of any permits, payment shall be made of all required fees, including but not limited to those' Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 10 identified below. Payment will be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change: ae Bo Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department: Single-Family Detached @ $2,501/unit; Multiple-Family @~ $1,455/unit. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Irvine Ranch Water District. Co Grading plan cheCks and permit fees to the Community Development Department to be determined at building plan check. D, Ail applicable Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department to be determined at building plan check. Eo New development fees to the Community Development Department: Single-Family Detached @ $350/unit;~ Multiple-Family @ $350/unit + $100 for each bedroom over 1 bedroom. Fo School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the Irvine Company. *** S.3 Prior to recordation of the Final Map, a revised fee program applicable to Lots~l and 3 for payment of East Tustin Facility Fees for the Civic Center Expansion, Irvine Boulevard Widening and Fire protection Facility and Equipment shall be approved by the City Council. (1) 8.4 Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $25.00 (twenty-five dollars) pursuant to AB 3185, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources code Section 21151 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. If within such forty- eight (48) hour period that the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically null and void. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 11 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. GENERAL (1) 9.1 Within 24 months from tentative map approval, the Subdivider shall file with appropriate agencies, a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an~ extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. (1) 9.Z Prior to final map approval. A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report. Bo Subdivider shall submit a duplicate mylar of the Final Map, or 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch transparency of each map sheet prior to final map approval and "as built" grading, landscape and improvement plans prior to Certificate of Acceptance. Ce Street names shall be approved by the City of Tustin Street Naming Committee. (1) 9.3 Subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the ~State Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, in the East Tustin Specific Plan and Development Agreement, and EIR 85-2. (1) 9.4 Building permits may not occur upon 'any lot create by Tract 15055 until such time that subsequent, project level, subdivision maps, or other required entitlements are.approved for individual lots. (1) 9.5 Each access point is conceptually identified, but exact location must be reviewed individually as development occurs at either the subsequent filing of a subdivision map or as part of a site plan'review when a subdivision map is not required. Exhibit A Tentative Tract Map 15055 Resolution 95-45 Page 12 (1) 9.6 The cumulative number of residential units for which (2). certificate of occupancy may be issued shall not exceed (5) the cumulative total of square feet of occupied revenue generating uses; or equivalents as shown in the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. *** 9.7 The building height of any future development on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract Map 15005 shall be consistent with the height limitations specified in the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement. *** 9.8 The perimeter landscaping of any future development on Lot 1 of Tentative Tract Map 15005 along Tustin Ranch Road and Irvine Boulevard shall be consistent with the perimeter landscaping requirements specified in the Second Amendment to the East Tustin Development Agreement. *** 9.9 The Irvine Company shall pay City's defense costs (including attorneys' fees) and indemnify and hold City harmless from and against any claims, .losses, liabilities, or damages assessed or awarded against City by way of judgement, settlement or stipulation (including awards for costs, attorneys' fees, and expert witness fees), arising from actions filed against the City challenging the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 15055. DF:br