Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 3 E. TUSTIN POLICY 07-15-91OLD BUSINESS NO. 3 AGE N DA 7-15-91 _ I Inter -Com ,)ATE: JULY 15, 1991 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: EAST TUSTIN POLICY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of City Council. BACKGROUND The City Council during a workshop session on July 2, 1991 requested that staff agendize for discussion the role of the East Tustin Policy Committee and the process for informing the entire City Council of Policy Committee decisions. More specifically, staff was asked to respond to the following questions: 1. What type of decisions has the Policy Committee historically got involved in? 2. Does inclusion of a Planning Commission member on the Policy Committee result in meetings being subject to the Brown Act? 3. Should the Policy Committee be reformatted or what mechanisms would keep the entire City Council apprised of Committee's directions and provide opportunities for public review? DISCUSSION Staff have reviewed meeting agendas of the East Policy Committee since adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan. Exhibit A chronologically summarizes the date of each meeting, the general topic and direction provided by the Committee. As can be seen from the chronological record, Committee decisions began as very broad policy issues and have seemed to progress to decisions related specifically to development standards. This is of some concern since Section 3.2 of the Specific Plan specifically defines the Planning Commission as the primary body responsible for interpretations stated as following: William A. Huston Re: East Tustin Policy Committee July 91 1991 Page 2 "If ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification or a particular use within the meaning and intent of this section, or if ambiguity exists with respect to matters of height, yard requirements, area requirements or other development standards, it shall be the duty of the Planning Commission to ascertain all pertinent facts and by resolution of record set forth the findings and the interpretations and thereafter such interpretation shall govern." Section 312.3 would provide for an appeal of any decision of the Planning Commission. In reviewing the above East Tustin Specific Plan provisions, specific development standard interpretations should be first reviewed by the Planning Commission. Short of reformatting or redef ining the role of the Committee, the Council as an option could instruct the Committee to agendize at subsequent Council meetings all East Tustin Policy Committee discussions for a consensus action by the Council. This would be similar to the procedure currently utilized for the Commission and provide an opportunity for the City Council to be provided with information as well as provide for public participation. At the request of the Council, the City Attorney has determined that inclusion of a Planning Commissioner as an addition to two members of the City Council on an Advisory Committee would require all Committee meetings to be subject to the Brown Act. Staff will look to discussion and direction from the City Council on the above issues. Christine Shirig"letopy Assistant City Mana er CS:kd\etplcy.ccr SUMMARY OF EAST TUSTIN POLICY COMMITTEE ACTIONS January 26, 1987 and April 20, 1987 1. Affordable Housing The East Tustin Plan EIR requires that 600 units within the (affordable to moderate income) range be provided. Staff was directed to require 10% of the units within Sectors 7, 10 and 11 to be within these price ranges. With the exception of a project for Seniors, staff was also directed to ensure that units were not concentrated but intermingled with market rate ownership housing. 2. Private recreation Areas for Single Family Subdivision The East Tustin Plan and Recreation Element of the General Plan recommends as guidelines the provision of private recreation areas for single family subdivisions similar to what is provided throughout Irvine by The Irvine Company. Given the small minimum lot sizes of many of the single family subdivisions to be proposed in the East Tustin project area, staff was directed to negotiate with The Irvine Company for provisions of these areas. 3. Open Space within Development Projects Although 400 square feet per unit is required as open space in multi -family projects, the East Tustin Plan does not provide standards which would ensure the usability of these open space areas. Staff was directed to prepare design guidelines to be used in project review of open space areas (such as minimum dimensions on open space and maximum slope gradient). 4. Latitude in Architectural Review Staff were directed to mandate the highest quality possible and to pay special attention to ensure quality on Bren projects. 5. Retention of Mature Trees The East Tustin Plan recommends retention of mature trees, where possible. The Council felt trees offered opportunities for separation of uses and as corridors so that project area did not appear stark upon completion of construction. Staff was directed to informally survey project area and to determine what trees should remain. Irvine Company to justify those circumstances necessitating removal of groves or wind breaks. 6. 7. 8. a 10. 11. Multi -use Trails and corridors While the East Tustin Plan requires a regional trail, the Recreation Element of the General Plan goes a step further in recommending establishment in new developments of local multi- use trails and corridors as a connection to support services and facilities and as a link between projects (Example given was Woodbridge). Staff directed to review projects for inclusion of these facilities with emphasis on a desire to see a trail system around perimeters of Gold Course. Councilwoman Kennedy only expressed her desire to see overpass pedestrian bridges considered so that pedestrians do not have to cross major arterials. Driveway Lengths Concern with short driveways was expressed particularly on cul-de-sacs. Staff to develop policy guidelines to ensure that short driveways will not occur in problem areas and that safety issues are identified and resolved. Use of Private Streets at less than Public Standards Although the Specific Plan identifies some minimum standards for private streets, staff to identify safety issues associated with narrower widths. Public Transit Facilities and Amenities along Major Arterials Staff to meet with the Orange County Transit District to identify potential bus stop or turnout locations. School Locations Concern expressed about location of schools along arterials. Staff directed to ensure orientation of schools on local streets and also in conjunction with potential trail systems. Concern with joint use of neighborhood park and elementary school also expressed. Staff directed to require maximum park acreage with no joint use on elementary school sites until an agreement is reached with School District. Location of Sidewalks at Street Curb Staff directed to encourage meandering sidewalks (like those along Culver, Jamboree) wherever possible to improve aesthetics of streetscape and to provide greater protection for pedestrians. 12. Golf Course - Restaurant Site Staff directed to negotiate on Golf Course site for a quality dinner house/lunch restaurant with banquet facilities. 13. Child Care Centers Staff directed to request identification during project review of potential child care sites including their inclusion in private recreational areas. Staff to check with Irvine for their requirements. June 15, 1989 1. Interpretation of the definition of a private drive and a driveway. 2. Interpretation regarding building schools from a private drive and/or street in an attached multi -family condominium project. 3. Interpretation of what qualifies as a similar architectural feature as it relates to permitted projections into required setbacks in all residential land use categories. 4. Interpretation as to appropriate setback criteria between a principal building and an accessory building in an attached/multi-family apartment and/or condominium project. 5. Refuse Service to Multi -family Projects The Committee established specific criteria under which a multi -family project could have curb service instead of bin service. 6. Abandonment of Public Streets Information provided on proposed conversion of Fargate (township) Drive.to a private street. December 11, 1990 Additional "For Rent" Apartments In Ea$t Tustin In Lieu Of "For Sale" Condominiums /Townhouses. The East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement limits apartments in East Tustin to 25% or the allowable number of dwelling units. The Irvine Company wished the Committee to determine that the Development Agreement was vague and subject to interpretation and that no amendment to the Development Agreement was necessary for additional apartments. The Committee determined that an amendment was necessary for approval by the entire City Council but that such an amendment might be considered if limited to an additional apartment development of 403 apartment units on Lot 17. August 9, 1990 Shared Driveways For Single Family Detached Products. During preparation of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the Planning Commission and City Council rejected the concept of shared driveways and instructed staff to require single family units to have their own driveway access to a street. The Irvine Company asked to utilize five basic motor court concepts or shared driveway concepts. The Committee instructed staff to accept only three motor court or shared driveway concepts for a very limited application to the Lewis Homes Project on Lot 7 and 8. March 19, 1991 Stub Street Motor Court Concept - Single Family Detached Products. The Committee was asked to revise the two motor court concepts denied on August 9, 1990 for application on Lots 2 and 3 of Phase IV. The Committee continued their discussion and requested The Irvine Company and Bren Company address certain issues. Avril 2, 1991 Stub Street Motor Court Concept - Single Family Detached Products. The Committee reviewed a number of modifications of the proposals - discussed on March 19, 1991 and approved the following deviations from city -street standards to accommodate a motor court concept on Lots 2 and 3 of Tract 13127. Primary entrance to court would be considered a private street with minimum street 'width of 28 feet unless parking is on one side, in which case a minimum street width of 32 feet required; no cul-de-sac required. Perpendicular portion within motor court considered a private drive with a 25 -foot width with no sidewalks required. C Sidewalks to be provided on only one side of motor court private streets; sidewalks allowed to be on individually owned lots outside of street right-of-way. CAS:etplcy.ccr