HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 4 TT MAP 14381 09-03-91C * % 2 CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 4
P1,11A,
..
9-3-91
L DA
_ IntC:C -COiii J
ATE: SEPTEMBER 31 1991
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14381
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve the environmental determination for the project by
adopting Resolution No. 91-114; and
2. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381 by adopting
Resolution No. 91-115.
BACKGROUND
At their regular meeting on August 12, 1991, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2938 recommending approval of
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381. The Planning Commission, in
conjunction with this action, also adopted Resolution No. 2936
approving Design Review 90-55 and adopted Resolution No. 2937
approving Conditional Use Permit 91-17 authorizing the use of the
Cluster Development standards.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381 proposes the subdivision of
approximately 22.62 acres of currently undeveloped land in the East
Tustin,Specific Plan area into 155 numbered lots and 34 lettered
lots. The project will result in the creation of 155 single-family
detached dwelling units at a density of 6.85 dwelling units to the
acre and will also provide a common recreation facility.
Located in Sector 2 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP), the
site is bordered by Patriot Way on the north, a proposed
condominium development site identified as Lot 4 of Tract 13627 on
the south, Jamboree Road on the east and Pioneer Road on the west.
Anticipated development in the vicinity includes single-family
detached dwellings to the north and west.
DISCUSSION
The ETSP designates the project site as Medium -Low Density
Residential and the applicant's proposal for 6.85 dwelling units to
City Council Report
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381
September 3, 1991
Page 2
the acre is in conformance. The applicant is proposing a
development which is a cluster concept with motor court groupings
of six to 11 units off two main loop roadways.
Access to the site is proposed from three ingress/egress points
along Pioneer Road at approximately 440 feet, 960 feet and 1,380
feet south of Patriot Way. These access points act as the backbone
to a proposed internal private street system and are 36 feet wide,
accommodating parking on both sides of the street. The southern
portion of the tract maintains one straight roadway with three
intersecting secondary roadways leading to six motor court
clusters. The northern portion of the tract maintains a "U-shaped"
roadway with nine intersecting secondary roadways leading to ten
motor court clusters. Motor court clusters propose 28 -foot to 32 -
foot wide private streets for access from the main tract roadway,
and 25 -foot wide private drives internally providing access to
certain dwelling units. Certain modifications to the City's Street
Standards were necessary for this motor court concept.
In conformance with Cluster Development standards, the applicant is
proposing to provide a centralized open space area for the
enjoyment of all the residents of the tract in the form of a
recreation facility combined with a pedestrian trail system linking
the south and north portions of the tract. Each of the clusters
are also linked together via a sidewalk system, combined with a
landscaping theme, beginning within each of the motor -courts and
continuing towards the center of the tract. The slope area will
provide relatively flat pockets of passive open space and a link to
a proposed bus stop along Jamboree Road. The recreation facility
provides an active open space area while providing a vantage point
for view opportunities; both on-site (the slope grove planting) and
off-site (Peter's Canyon Ridgeline and the eucalyptus windrows).
The site is comprised of two relatively flat pads divided by a
sloped area resulting in an approximately 20 -foot change in
elevation between the pads. The site has been rough graded as part
of the grading for Tract 13627. The conceptual grading plans
indicate a grade change of approximately 30 feet for the tract
overall from the northeasterly corner to the southwesterly corner
of the site. Minor grading is proposed to create building pads.
The conceptual grading plan identifies minor retaining walls
ranging in height between two and six feet. These are primarily
located on the western property line and along the mid-section of
the tract at the base of the slope. A combination
blockwa11/wrought-iron fence is proposed adjacent to the eucalyptus
windrow along the site's southern boundary, protecting this natural
feature. Although the limits of grading adjacent to the windrow
City Council Report
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381
September 3, 1991
Page 3
are consistent with the eucalyptus study prepared for Tract 13627,
a condition of approval has been included to require specific
review of the precise grading by an arborist to ensure that the
proposed grading will not adversely affect the eucalyptus windrow.
Mitigation measures or site plan modification recommended by the
arborist would be required to be implemented as applicable.
The site plan also includes a private recreation facility
consisting of a pool, spa, restroom/equipment building and is
located along one of the main access roadways in the middle of the
tract.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Based upon review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381, Design
Review 90-55 and Conditional Use Permit 91-17, as well as
Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (as supplemented) it has been
determined that environmental issues relating to this project have
previously been addressed. Also, appropriate mitigating measures
identified in EIR 85-2 are included as conditions of approval for
the project. With this information in mind, it is recommended that
the City Council make the finding that requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act have been met and that no
further environmental review is required.
CONCLUSION
Given the analysis conducted by the Community Development
Department and in consideration of comments from other agencies and
the public, it is concluded that the proposed project with
conditions will meet the requirements of the East Tustin Specific
Plan, the Subdivision Map Act, as adopted, and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
City Council Report
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381
September 3, 1991
Page 4
With the inclusion of conditions of approval listed in the Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2938, it is recommended that the City
Council approve the environmental determination for the project and
approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381.
. Bonner
Associate Planner
Attachments:
AEB:nm
Christine A. Shingleton
Assistant City Manager
Community Development
Photo Reduction of Vesting Tentative Tract 14381
and Conceptual Plans
Resolution Nos. 91-114 and 91-115
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2938
Planning Commission Staff Report - August 12, 1991
Planning Commission Minutes - August 12, 1991
Q a
7 t1301
• i -
CO 0
0 LL
<
F I
It
:)W .a
r t i <' ( • ��All c till
ll
Ij '
i ILIi !!, } d } t
t• t f t 'I' U
W
t' • � t i � c c •i`f ' c � r -
II ' ;�.,1M 1 —•—e-� � ! � i--. .•--,- �. .}r} (,_}`_'_ t I � ,', iT iSii:tl t
t c t c t ! — tit s=f: ;-a,:, =!.
' •il j j c t t � t 7 � i• i O' I�•yit•��;; `i
� .v " JiJi11 I � �L }�= C �� 1 i •i
'� = j, ;fr� � f ,Rt_ f • � � _ I� fir' 'r, !
�� � t ! i (i � ; �� � •� 1 y= 'r ill t , e{'i� t �'v � 1 } • ._ _ _-_—._
HI
71
It
j.... . ..... ...................... .......... ............
11.
r I I � y�•• • •
I► 171 1 �Il � _ — r
I . i � i• :j�s ii rl �S i i t+3{j i r L 3�.
I I1 � i l i tt 'Z�i fi�'i !i # };��•i .:., = 1 + �— s �
ill
it 2 i f =:t' �j�': �i lj°f�i �' i_;•� ''t{f='Ec�l4iilil}i}4}!� 1~— r
,`�i=?! 1 •4iiir,ltitcges�•i3i
t {
1li;�ffl� �! 'i.tF�i�tritt ji} ;t. j�::• t'!��iNj tt�t!�a i::l� i� ` ! e,' cicrrl ffle,:err�iritir'c
fill j.+,4 llyl
••
�l E' }� ! ''ei }�l{r �•i" ► s �j'.� ai 1 1 i' it f t f t'! t.t f {(! d—`+—..—.r 11•l� � /
j Z'------?i?+r
Fr:riii(�f�i�'}tii�i t� ....
e ,s�
iMl lsiii:iiai� ifisi tA' j' •:t.:t, ;: �.j `� 1
:.,.:i •-
d
Q
W $
• tz
0
U.
CD 0
M 0,
f
( ! 7 f•`• E u a t tib
' '' +t
. ! 1 e I -.3• t ' Q W 0 vt C 'f til
:-I I �, • �, _ , Z ~ iii
U.
IrTr � Q u
�• t I I. , () W
E-+
It
i ! 1
j • + , � • 1 ,t ! �l... ` �� e ' t is I j ! itT l�jit �:i x��<� :e
' t t � � t . F• O .� � � I.�,i Zit !t !, r
I - --�
• � �1 f II� :lit < e .g � t- J f '+ i 1 r Ir = � •'� } ��
ISIiI •
II I .! I t t ;i+ t; t �� a i t :; ` ►• ' t I
�•1 _ j. i ,1 i;;t ,r �j �•i. __ I !
E�1 til �1 1•? 1 ! 2.11 ��i � i +, t i+ � ! 7 !i . �i � _ __ •�
��'� 'j # 1 }' ��;� i��i' iii'! � i �!'ii '... � '.--j^rrw— ,--•f� -- � � •�.._
.11l� j9 ! i•1+ � 1t •1+: i + �� ii ' �- •i i � y
t I-lilt
'#� �� °� t '�_ �� ,lir; •ti;� � •: I ,� <. i /
t►il t► £i 1•t t ��j� t+!;i ii ! ;:�` i' j /
iilli3i—..—
_ t •'t!�!
lilt; i it,•!c,• ! 1! ii�,c '1 F.l, •.1
:�iii:iei� 11 :i ! ::iif ltfe: ii+: I i �''
U-3-92RAM
Ef
.S2
IWO
M ir
RWROWR
trm FC:
"M ;AkLarii 76
Pin:!
i s�l��t��il��� !l�llll� 'i
%wom um.—n- - 4
lim-FAW"al
0 0Xkke
:0 0 0 • 0 • 0 d-wdb OOM
11
In
3
iNo
OvOe 33ypawrr
o
- --�— o
.WIN
�o
Y_
�i
I'
CAI
z
0
W
cn
II
z
0
W
cn
i
Q
I
rN
u U -U -Lr—" au
lei
• —. —. Y • � IW W � ��r i
�jq F ►
Wu
i------------ } i
.I
ev
e
C14
r--
�i
v
e
333333fiii
B�OBQ��fbiis
\
.�rexg"���
�icArr.or.rq 6 � �
\
rl
� e
r
zw
°� r1�
it
333333fiii
B�OBQ��fbiis
iiEEFE�1tit
.�rexg"���
�icArr.or.rq 6 � �
�icR+r.or.rC L
'n
� e
r
zw
°� r1�
it
r
zs
�3 ! s
V
Ii;:IIr
U7
zy
a
CA..
O
N
A
z
V
<
H
�z
a
O
a co�z
�w
Q z
F �r
l N V
<
V zM
V
< Z04
C
V `^
LL)
4
F- F--
;i
' ssssssssss
x '
z W
— �RRrKorR .
r.
88 pp ,c�c
r �icNrr.or.rC !
,. - � •��. 'apo fff9�i�i� � � �RR.......
Ir
r
1HLLi L r
W^O yrs wY ii
W
P
V
.
V ~
Fa- FW-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-114
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST
TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2, AS
MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS
AND ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE
PROGRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
14381 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES
HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381 and
respective development plans are considered
"projects" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act; and
B. That the projects are covered by a previously
certified Final Environmental Impact Report
for the East Tustin Specific Plan which serves
as a Program EIR for the proposed project.
II. The East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report (85-2), previously certified on March
17, 1986 as modified by subsequently adopted
supplements and addenda, was considered prior to
approval of this project. The City Council hereby
finds: this project is within the scope of the
East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the
effects of this project, relating to grading,
drainage, circulation, public services and
utilities, were examined in the Program EIR. All
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-114
Page 2
Applicable mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR have been incorporated into this project
which mitigates any potentially significant
environmental effects thereof. The mitigation
measures are identified as Conditions on Exhibit A
of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2938
recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 14381 and Exhibit A of Planning Commission
Resolution. No. 2936, approving Design Review 90-55.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of
September, 1991.
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 91-114
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 f ive; that the above and
foregoing Resolution No. 91-114 was duly and regularly
introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 5th day of August, 1991 by
the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
AEB:nm
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-115
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14381
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14381 was
submitted to the City Council by The Bren Company,
for consideration.
B. That a public hearing was duly noticed, called and
held for said map on August 12, 1991, before the
Planning Commission.
C. That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2 for
the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been certified
in conformance with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act for the
subject project area.
D. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance
with the Tustin Area General Plan, adopted East
Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and
Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to the
development of single family detached dwellings.
E. The 1.581 acres of parkland required for this
development was previously dedicated with
recordation of Tract 13627.
F. That the City has reviewed the status of the School
Facilities Agreement 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 impacts of Vesting
Tentative Tract 14381 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.
G. That the site is physically suitable for the type
of development proposed.
H. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
211
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 91-115
Page 2
I. 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.
J. That the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements proposed Will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public -at -large, for
access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision.
K. That the design of the subdivision or the types of
improvements proposed are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
II. The City Council hereby approves Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 14381 subject to the conditions contained in
Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2338,
incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin
at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of September, 1991.
Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk
AEB:nm
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2938
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 14381
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as
follows:
A. That Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14381 was
submitted to the Planning Commission by The
Bren Company, for consideration.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed
and held for said map on August 12, 1991.
C. That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2
for the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been
certified in conformance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act
for the -subject project area.
D. That the proposed subdivision is in
conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan,
adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development
Agreement and Subdivision Map Act as it
pertains to the development of single family
detached dwellings.
E. The 1.5810 acres of parkland required for this
development was previously dedicated with
recordation of Tract 13627.
F. That the City has reviewed the status of the
School Facilities Agreement 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 impacts of Vesting Tentative
Tract 14381 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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2938
Page 2
G. That the site is physically suitable for the
type of development proposed.
H. That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
I. 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.
J. That the design of the subdivision or the type
of improvements proposed will not conflict
with easements acquired by the public -at -
large, for access through or use of the
property within the proposed subdivision.
K. That the design of the subdivision or the
types of improvements proposed are not likely
to cause serious public health problems.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the
City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 14381 subject to the conditions attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of August,
1991.
KATHLEEN CLANCY,
Secretary
DONALD LE JEUNE
Chairman
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2938
Page 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
2938 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of
August, 1991.
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
EXHIBIT A
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14381
RESOLUTION NO. 2938
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMEN'I,'S
(1) 1.1 Prior to recordation of f inal map, the Subdivider shall
(2 ) prepare plans for and construct or post security guaranteeing
(3) construction of all public and/or private, infrastructure
(6) improvements within the boundary of said tract map in
conformance with applicable City standards, including but not
limited to the following:
A. Curb and gutter/cross gutters
B. Sidewalks including access facilities for physically
handicapped persons
C. Drive aprons/approach
D. Street paving
E. Street signing and paving
F. Landscaping/irrigation facilities
G. Sanitary sewer service facilities
H. Domestic water service facilities
I. Reclaimed water service -facilities
J. Utility connections (i.e., gas, electric, telephone,
and cable T.V. facilities)
K. Traffic signal systems and other traffic control
devices
L. Street and paseo lighting
M. Storm drains and subdrains (* The private storm drain
facilities within this tract will be maintained by
homeowner's association)
N. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility
distribution lines
0. Lot monumentation
P. Fire hydrants
Q. Bus stops and other facilities such as bus shelters and
benches
(1) The amount of acceptable security for construction of public
(6) 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.
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
(2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY
` DESIGN REVIEW
EXCEPTION
Exhibit A
P elution. No. 2938
F , 2
(1) 1.2 All construction within a public right-of-way and/or public
easement must be shown on a separate 24" X 36" plan with all
construction referenced to applicable City, County, or Irvine
Ranch Water District standard drawing numbers.
(1) 1.3 All changes in existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other
(6) public improvements shall be responsibility of subdivider.
(1) 1.4 Preparation of plans for and construction of:
.(2)
(6) A. All 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.
B. 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
evaluated. 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.
C. 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
(5) following specifications:
(6)
A. All proposed streets shall be designed in
substantially the same width and alignment as shown
on the approved vesting tentative map unless
modified and approved by the Directors of Community
Development and Public Works.
B. All streets and drives shall be constructed in
accordance with City requirements in terms of type
and quality of materials used.
Exhibit A
T _ olution No. 2938
3
C. 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.
D. Parking shall only be permitted on streets as
approved by the Police and Fire Departments.
Signage and red curbing shall be installed where
appropriate.
E. Street names are subject to approval of the Tustin
Street Naming Committee and Community Development
Department.
F. The natural grey concrete banding with light
retardent finish shown within the motor court
intersections shall be a continuous border
treatment within the paved width of the private
drive portion of the motor court.
1.6 Streets, storm drain, water and sewer improvement plans
shall comply with the "City of Tustin" Minimum Design
(8) Standards for On-site Street and Storm Drain
Improvements may have been modified by approval of a cluster
concept.
(5) 1.7 A traffic signal is required at the intersection of Patriot
Way and Pioneer Road. The subdivision shall be responsible
for 25 percent of the cost of that signal. The City will
require a cash deposit in the amount of $37,500 prior to
approval of final map.
DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/EASEMENTS
(1) 2.1 The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or reservation
(2) requirements as applicable, including but not limited to
(5) dedication of all required street and flood control
(6) right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer
(8) easements and water easements defined and approved as to
specific location by the City Engineer and other reasonable
agencies.
(1) 2.2 Lots 69, 89, 90, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
*** and 120 encroach into the 42 -foot -wide storm drain easement.
No permanent structures will be permitted over this easement.
Exhibit A
T -)lution No. 2938
i a 4
*** 2.3 The four private "drives", located along the northeast portion
of the tract, will be required to be upgraded to private
street standards of 28 feet to 32 feet paved street width
dependent upon on -street parking provisions, should these
roadways ever serve additional dwelling units in the event
that the Eastern Transportation Corridor reservation lot is
abandoned. At that time, the 3.5 -foot wide sidewalk easements
measured from back of curb shall be installed and the parallel
"pop -out" parking condition shall be removed.
*** 2.4 Upon determination of the ultimate right-of-way required for
(4) the development of the Eastern Transportation Corridor, the
subdivider shall submit for review and approval by the
Directors of Community Development and Public Works, any
modifications to the approved development plan for Vesting
Tentative Map 14381.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(1) 3.1 Prior to recordation of the final map, subdivider shall post
t21 with the Community Development Department a minimum $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.
(1) 3.2 Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities
(6) 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 Excavation
Permit must be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the
Public Works Department.
GRADING/GENERAL
(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.
Exhibit A
T -)lution
Z ;� 5
No. 2938
B. Preparation and submittal of a grading plan subject to
approval by the Department of Community Development
delineating the following information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Methods of drainage in accordance with all
applicable City standards.
All recommendations submitted
soils engineer and specifically
Compliance with conceptual
tentative tract map.
A drainage plan and necessary
such as hydrology calculations
following requirements:
by geotechnical or
approved by them.
grading shown on
support documents
to comply with the
a. 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.
b. 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.
d. Provision for tributary drainage from
adjoining properties.
5. All flood hazard areas of record.
6. 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.
7. 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
Exhibit A
F Nlution No. 2938
1 6
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.
8. 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.
9. Prior to approval of a rough and precise grading,
said plans shall be reviewed by a certified
arborist to ensure that the proposed grading will
not adversely affect the eucalyptus windrow on the
tract's southern property line. Arborist shall be
employed by City of Tustin and applicant shall
reimburse City for costs of said survey.
Applicable recommendations or changes to the site
plan shall be implemented.
C. Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works.
(1) 4.2 All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the City
(3) of Tustin Municipal Codes and grading requirements.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
(5) 5.1 Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, water
improvement plans shall be submitted to and approved by the
Fire Chief for adequate fire protection and financial security
posted for the installation. The adequacy and reliability of
water system design, location of valves, and the distribution
of fire hydrants will be evaluated and approved by the Chief.
(5) 5.2 Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible
construction, evidence that a water supply for fire protection
is available shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire
Chief. Fire hydrants shall be in place and operational to
meet requirements and fire -flow prior to commencing
construction with combustible materials.
(5� 5.3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a construction
phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire
Chief. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the adequacy
Exhibit A
P lution No. 2938
PC- , ' 7
of emergency vehicle access for the number of dwelling units
served.
(5) 5.4 Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and
occupancy, all street(s) having a curb -to -curb width of less
than 36 feet shall be red curbed and posted No Parking --Fire
Lane" as per 1988 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 in a manner
meeting the approval of the County Fire Chief.
(5) 5.5 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all underground
piping for automatic fire extinguishing systems Ishall be
approved. Plans for an automatic fire extinguishing system
shall be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation.
Such sys s shall be operational prior to the issuance of a
cer i.cate of use and occupancy. The following lots - are
subject to this requirement: 11 31 10-15, 20-26, 28, 30-33,
35, 36-1 381- 40-46, 51-55, 60, 62, 63, 65, 71, 73-77, 81, 83-
88, 92, 94-98, 1001-107, 108, 110, 113-119, 123-127, 131, 133-
136, 140, 141, 144 and•150-155.
NOISE
(1) 6.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
()
3 A final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical
( ) design features of the structures required to satisfy the
exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to
the Tustin Community Development Department for approval along
with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound
attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical
report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the
project. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared by an
expert or authority in the field of acoustics.
All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated
against present and projected noises, which shall be the sum
of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an
exterior standard 65 dBa CNEL in outdoor areas and an interior
standard of 45 dBa CNEL in all habitable rooms is required.
Evidence prepared under the supervision of an acoustical
consultant that these standards will be satisfied in a manner
consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be
provided.
tl) 6.2 Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Use or Occupancy,
field testing in accordance with the Title 25 regulations may
be required by the Building Official to verify compliance with
Ey-hibit A
I ►lution No. 2938
P, -,e 8
STC and IIC design standards.
(1) 6.3 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be
(9) 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 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.
CC&R's
(1) 7.1 Prior to approval of the final map, all organizational
(3) documents for the project including any deed restrictions,
(8) covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be Submitted to
(9) and approved by the Community Development Department and City
Attorney's office. Costs for such review shall be borne by
the subdivider. A copy of the final documents shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department after their
recordation. CC&R's shall include but not be limited to the
following provisions:
A. Since the City is interested in protecting the public
health and safety and ensuring the quality and
maintenance of common areas under control of a
Homeowner's Association, the City shall be included as a
party to the CC&R's for enforcement purposes of those
CC&R provisions in which the City has interest, as
reflected by the following B through N. However, the
City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC&R's.
B. The requirement that association bylaws be established.
C. Provisions for effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common
areas and facilities including landscaped areas and lots,
walls and fences and paseos.
D. Membership in any Homeowner's Association and Master
Association shall be inseparable from ownership in
individual lots.
E. Architectural controls shall be provided and may include
but not be limited to provisions regulating exterior
finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, accessory
structures such as patios, sunshades, trellises, gazebos,
Exhibit A
—solution No. 2938
fe 9
awnings, room additions, exterior mechanical equipment,
television and radio antenna.
F. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable
items listed in Section C above in CC&R's. Examples of
maintenance standards are shown below:
(1) All common area landscaping and private lawn areas
visible from any public way shall be properly
maintained such that they are evenly cut, evenly
edged, free of bare or brown spots, free of debris
and free of weeds above the level of the lawn. All
planted areas other than lawns shall be free of
weeds, dead vegetation and debris. All trees and
shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede
_pedestrian traffic along the walkways. Trees shall
be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring
..property and shall be maintained so they do not
have 'droppings or create other nuisances to
neighboring property. All trees shall also be root
pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and
damage to sidewalks, driveways and structures.
(2) Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner
as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly
authorized official of the City that a public
nuisance has been created by the absence of
adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to
public health, safety, or general welfare, or -that
such a condition of deterioration or disrepair
cause harm or is materially detrimental to property
values or improvements within the boundaries of the
subdivision and Homeowner's Association,' to
surrounding property, or to property or
improvements within three hundred (300) feet of the
property may also be added as alternative language.
G. Homeowner's Association approval of exterior improvements
requiring a building permit shall be.obtained prior to
requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin
Community Development Department. All plans for exterior
improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by
the City and the CC&R' s . All plans submitted to the City
shall bear the Association's stamp and authorized
signature of approval.
Exhibit A
'eY?solution No. 2938
ge 10
H. Residents shall not store or park any non -motorized
vehicles, trailers or motorized vehicles that exceed 7
feet high, 7 feet wide and 19 feet long in any parking or
driveway area except for purpose of loading, unloading,
making deliveries or emergency repairs except that the
Homeowner's Association may adopt rules and regulations
to authorize exceptions.
I. All utility services serving the site shall be installed
and maintained underground.
J. The Association shall be required to file the names,
addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member
of the Association Board and where applicable, a Manager
of the project before January 1st of each year with the
City of Tustin Community Development Department for the
purpose of contacting the association in the case of
emergency or in those cases where the City has an
interest in CC & R violations.
K. Disclosure information related to aircraft noise
impacting the subdivision, as approved by the City of
Tustin Community Development Department.
L. Perimeter project block walls to be constructed on
private property shall be maintained and replaced, if
necessary by a Homeowner's Association., This shall not
preclude a Homeowner's Association from assessing charges
to individual property owners for structural damage to
the wall or fence.
M. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate or change the
Homeowner's Association's obligation to maintain the
common areas and the project perimeter wall or other CC&R
provisions in which the City has an' interest, as noted
above, or to alter, modify, terminate or change the
City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas
and maintenance of the project perimeter wall, shall be
effective without the prior written approval of the City
of Tustin Community Development Department.
N. Provisions shall be made to specifically identify that
street light standards and mailboxes may be located
within the five-foot public utility easement behind the
private street right-of-way. Where such facilities are
located on private property within the utility easement,
notification shall be given to those owners as to the
locations, types and quantities of all facilities as it
Exhibit A
solution No. 2938
je 11
relates to their specific property.
O. Maintenance of all manufactured slopes on individual lots
shall be the responsibility of the individual property
owners.
P. Lots 69, 89, 90, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118,
119, and 120 encroach into the 42 -foot -wide storm drain
easement. No permanent structures will be permitted over
this easement. Block walls will be permitted but the
Property Owners/Homeowners Association will be.
responsible for any replacement cost if the block walls
need to be removed due to any storm drain
reconstruction/repair.
Q. Individual lots maintaining driveway lengths of nine
feet -six inches or less shall prohibit the parking of
vehicles. '.
R. The Homeowners' Association is responsible for monitoring
and enforcing any and all parking and traffic regulations
on private streets. The project CC&R's shall include
provisions to require the Association, to develop and
enact an enforcement program related to enforcement of
parking and traffic regulations within the private
development. Said program may include provisions for
levying fines, collecting fines and
enforcement/monitoring by private security
companies/persons.
To ensure the proper use of parking spaces within the
subdivision, CC&R's shall include the following
acknowledgements and restrictions, which shall also be
signed as a separate notification/acknowledgement, by
each new homeowner in the subdivision:
1. Project has .5 guest spaces per unit; individual
owners shall have no right to use guest spaces for
any vehicle.
2. Individual owners shall park vehicles in garage
space or on driveway area provided vehicles do not
overhang the public right-of-way or sidewalk
easements.
3. Individual owner understands that the subdivision
has strict parking regulations that will be
enforced by the homeowner's association.
Exhibit A
solution No. 2938
le 12
4. Should an individual owner own more than two
vehicles, additional vehicles shall be kept outside
of the subdivision boundaries.
Prior to implementation of such a program, copies of the
approved HOA program shall be forwarded to the City of
Tustin, Police Department and Community Development
Department for review and approval. The Police
Department and Community Development Department shall
also be provided with any amendments or modifications to
the program. All parking regulations shall be enforced
at time of final occupancy of any phase of the project.
S. CC&R's shall include notification to future homeowners
and purchasers of_property that surrounding properties
maybe developed in accordance with City ordinances in a
manner which may partially or totally obstruct views from
the owner(s) unit or purchaser (s) lot, and that the City
of Tustin makes .no claim, warranty or guarantee that
views from any unit or lot will be preserved as
development of surrounding properties occur.
TENANT/HOMEBUYER NOTIFICATION
(1) * 8.1 Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:
(2)
A. 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.
B. The Subdivider 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.
C. The subdivider shall provide the City with a copy of the
approved aircraft/helicopter noise statement which shall
contain a disclosure document on aircraft notification.
Exhibit A
p— olution No. 2938
13
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 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.
E. The Subdivider 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) 8.2 Subdivider shall notify all potential homebuyers of the
(6) following Assessment/Maintenance Districts affecting the
property:
A. Assessment District 86-2
B. City of Tustin 1982 Landscaping and Lighting District as
amended.
FEES
(1) 9.1 Prior to recordation of any final map, Subdivider shall pay
(3) plan check and inspection fees for all public and/or private
(6) infrastructure improvements within City's responsibility
(9) excluding those financed by an Assessment District.
(1) 9.2 Prior to issuance of certificates of use or occupancy, the
(6) 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 any Assessment Districts applicable to the
subdivision.
Exhibit A
-)lution No. 2938
Z ,a 14
(1) 9.3 Prior
to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be
(3) made
of all required fees including:
(9) A.
Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works
Department.
B.
Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation
District.
C.
Grading plan checks and permit fees to the Community
Development Department.
D.
All applicable Building plan check and permit fees to the
Community Development Department.
E.
New development fees to the Community Development
Department.. ..
F.
School facilities fee to the Tustin Unif ied School
District subject to any agreement reached and executed
between the District and the Irvine Company..,
G. Required East Tustin Facility Fees as may be adjusted to
reflect cost of living increases prior to issuance of
building permits:
1) Civic Center Expansion Fee
2) Irvine Boulevard Widening Fee
3) Fire Protection Facility Fee
H. 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.
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
Exhi.bi.t A
olution No. 2938
4e 15
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) 10.1 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) 10.2 Prior to occupancy of units, the Subdivider shall record a
final map in conformance with appropriate tentative map.
(1) 10.3 Prior to final map approval.
A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report.
B. Provision for landscaping maintenance of landscape lots,
paseos and easements adjacent to project private streets
shall be the responsibility of the adjoining property
owners and/or Homeowner's Association of Tract 14381.
C. 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.
(1) 10.4 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,
EIR 85-2, and applicable conditions for Final Map 13627.
(1) 10.5 The cumulative number of residential units for which
(9 ) certificate of occupancy may be issued shall not exceed the
(5 ) cumulative total of square feet of occupied revenue generating
(2 ) uses; or equivalents as shown in the East Tustin Specific Plan
Development Agreement.
*** 10.6 Prior to release of building permits, all conditions of
approval of Design Review 90-55 of the subject project shall
be complied with as shown on Exhibit A attached to Resolution
Exhibit A
solution No. 2938
. ,ge 16
No. 2936 and incorporated herein by reference. However,
applicant will be permitted to obtain building permits for
model unit construction prior to approval of Final Map 14381
provided all Building Code requirements have been met
including Public Works, Fire Department and Community
Development Department requirements and approvals.
*** 10.7 Should the subdivider process multiple final maps, that map
containing the recreation facility shall be recorded first or
concurrently with any other map.
AEB:nm
ITEM #9
.ep ort to the
Planning Commission
DATE: AUGUST 12, 1991
SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14381, DESIGN REVIEW
90-55 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-17
APPLICANT/
OWNER: THE BREN COMPANY
5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
LOCATION:
LOTS 2, 31 "T", "V", "W", "X" AND "Z" OF TRACT
13627
ZONING:
MEDIUM -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN
SPECIFIC PLAN
_. ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED.
REQUEST:
1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 155 NUMBERED LOTS AND
34 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS;
2. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT; AND
3. AUTHORIZATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE "CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT" STANDARDS FOR THIS PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following
actions:
1. Approve the environmental determination for the project by
adopting Resolution No. 2935;
2. Approve Design Review 90-55 by adopting Resolution No. 2936,
as submitted or revised;
Planning Commission Report
Vesting Tentative Tract 14381, DR 90-55 & CUP 91-17
August 12, 1991
Page 2
3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 91-17 by adopting Resolution
No. 2937, as submitted or revised; and
4. Recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 14381 by adopting resolution No. 2937, as -submitted
or revised.
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to subdivide an approximately 22.62 -acre
site into 155 numbered lots and 34 lettered lots for the purposes
of developing 155 single-family detached dwelling units.
Located in Sector 2 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) , the
site is bordered by Patriot Way on the north, a proposed
condominium development site identified as Lot 4 of Tract 13627 on
the south, Jamboree Road on the east and Pioneer Road on the west.
Anticipated development in the vicinity include single-family
detached dwellings to the north and west.
Prior to development, the Planning Commission must recommend
approval of the proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map to the City
Council and approve a Design Review of the project. Additionally,
Section 3.6.3(B) of the ETSP states that the use of Cluster
Development standards requires the approval of a conditional use
permit. The primary intent of cluster development is to utilize a
portion of each lot to create a cohesive, common, open space scheme
that serves a viable purpose for the development. The Planning
Commission is required to make findings that attest to conformance
with the Cluster Development regulations and identify the specific
purpose of the open space scheme. A development utilizing the
Cluster Development standards for a Medium -Low Density Residential
development allows for reductions in the minimum lot area, lot
width and setbacks while retaining the same density standard of ten
dwelling units per acre.
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin
News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City
Hall and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the
availability of a staff report on this project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONjSITE PLAN
The ETSP designates the project site as Medium -Low Density
Planning Commission Report
Vesting Tentative Tract 14381, DR 90-55 & CUP 91-17
August 12, 1991
Page 3
Residential. The maximum allowable density for this land use
designation is ten dwelling units per acre. However, the proposed
density is 6.85 dwelling units per acre, approximately 32 percent
less than the allowable density. The applicant is proposing a
development which is a cluster concept with motor court groupings
of six to 11 units off a main loop roadway.
Access to the site is proposed from three ingress/egress points
along Pioneer Road at approximately 440 feet, 960 feet and 1,380
feet south of Patriot Way. These access points act as the backbone
to a proposed internal private street system and are 36 feet wide,
accommodating parking on both sides of the street. The southern
portion of the tract maintains one straight roadway with three
intersecting secondary roadways leading to six motor court
clusters. The northern portion of the tract maintains a "U-shaped"
roadway with nine intersecting secondary roadways leading to ten
motor court clusters. Motor court clusters propose 28 -foot to 32 -
foot wide private streets for access from the main tract roadway,
and 25 -foot wide private drives internally providing access to
certain dwelling units. Certain modifications to the City's Street
Standards were necessary for this motor court concept.
On March 19, 1991 and April 2, 1991, the East Tustin Policy
Committee reviewed a request to utilize a motor court. design
concept for this tract. At the time, the request proposed a
deviation from the previous overall policy direction concerning all
single-family units having required access on a street and the
City's hierarchy of roadways for East Tustin. The following
deviations were acceptable to the East Tustin Policy Committee and
have been incorporated by the applicant into the design of this
project related to the use of motor courts:
° Primary entrance to a motor court would be considered a
private street with a minimum street width of 28 feet unless
parking is on one side, in which case a minimum street width
of 32 feet is required; no cul-de-sac required.
Perpendicular portion (off A Street) within the motor court
may be considered a private drive with a minimum 25 -foot width
and no sidewalks required.
Sidewalks may 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.
While a policy committee direction was provided, the Planning
Commission does retain discretion over its own actions on the
design of the project. Staff would point out a concern regarding
one of the proposed "end -court" conditions created by the use of
Planning Commission Report
Vesting Tentative Tract 14381, DR 90-55 & CUP 91-17
August 12, 1991
Page 4
90° -angled driveways off of the street with no cul-de-sac, as
demonstrated in Attachment B and found on Lots 3, 31, 60, 71, 94,
95 and 150. This design may result in the use of the individual
lot owner's driveway for turn -around.
Should the Commission concur, a condition of approval
could
be
to
added as Condition No. 3.7 of Exhibit A of Resolution
read:
"The applicant shall modify the end court condition at
the terminus of those private drives.or private streets
by eliminating the 900 -angled driveways and continuing
the street length causing the readjustment of lot lines
for Lots 3, 31, 60, 71, 94, 95 and 150."
The site plan shows 110 guest parking spaces being provided where
78 would be required, resulting in an overage
e of approximately
attached
percent. All resident parking is provided
garages for a total of 310 garage spaces, consistent with the ETSP .
Additionally, since this project proposes some of the driveway
lengths to be nine feet or less, a standard condition of approval
has been included regarding the enforcement of parking regulations
to be included in the project's recorded CC&R's to mitigate any
potential illegal parking problems.
In conformance with Cluster Development standards, the
applicant
ea for the
proposing to provide a centralized open space
enjoyment of all the residents of the tract in the form of a
recreation facility combined with a pedestrian trail system linking
the south and north portions of the tract. Each of the clusters
are also linked together via a sidewalk system, combined with a
landscaping theme, beginning within each of the motor -courts and
continuing towards the center of the tract. The slope area will
provide relatively flat pockets of passive open space and a link to
a proposed bus stop along Jamboree Road. The recreation facility
provides an active open space area while providing a vantage point
for view opportunities; both on-site (the slope grove planting) and
off-site (Peter's Canyon Ridgeline and the eucalyptus windrows).
From a technical standpoint, the amount of open space provided
exceeds the amount required by 68 percent. The ETSP requires that
the difference between the minimum lot area for Standard
Development (31000 -square feet) and the actual size for Cluster
Development (2,400 -square feet) be reserved as common permanent
open space. The site plan indicates that where .12 acres would be
required for this development, .38 acres is actually being
Planning Commission Report
Vesting Tentative Tract 14381, DR 90-55 & CUP 91-17
August 12, 1991
Page 5
provided.
The site is comprised of two relatively flat pads divided by a
sloped area resulting in an approximately 20 -foot change in
elevation between the pads. The site has been rough graded as part
of the grading for Tract 13627. The conceptual grading plans
indicate a grade change of approximately 30 feet for the tract
overall from the northeasterly corner to the southwesterly corner
of the site. Minor grading is proposed to create building pads.
The conceptual grading plan identifies minor retaining walls
ranging in height between two and six feet. These are primarily
located on the western property line and along the mid-section of
the tract at the base of the slope. A combination
blockwal 1 /wrought- iron fence is proposed adjacent to the eucalyptus
windrow along the site's southern boundary, protecting this natural
feature. Although the limits of grading adjacent to the windrow
are consistent with the eucalyptus study prepared for Tract 13627,
a condition of approval has been included to require specific
review of the precise grading by an arborist to ensure that the
proposed grading will not adversely affect the eucalyptus windrow.
Mitigation measures or site plan modification recommended by the
arborist would be required to be implemented as applicable.
The site plan also includes a private recreation facility
consisting of a pool, spa, restroom/equipment building and is
located along one of the main access roadways in the middle of the
tract.
ARCHITECTURE DESIGN
The architectural style of the proposed project is a contemporary
interpretation of the Monterey style. The structure will have "S"
tile roofs, stucco walls and wood trim. Some of the architectural
details include multi -pane windows, wrought -iron balconies, wood
trim, planter boxes and various architectural recesses and pop -outs
to provide a break in the building mass of the long elevations.
The architectural plans propose four building types, each with at
least two variations depending on whether the building will be
located on a corner or interior lot. The buildings are all two-
story and are a maximum of 29 feet tall, including the chimney,
which meets the requirements of the ETSP. The four different floor
plans, providing three and four bedroom units, range in size from
1,645 -square feet to 1,996 -square feet. Please refer to Attachment
A for a statistical summary of the project.
The colors proposed for this project include five base stucco
Planning Commission Report
Vesting Tentative Tract 14381, DR 90-55 & CUP 91-17
August 12, 1991
Page 6
colors (light terra-cotta to deep terra-cotta) with tan to dark
brown accents and dark concrete roof tiles. Steel blue/muted green
shades will provide accent on the wrought -iron balconies and gates.
These colors are consistent with the desire to darken the wall and
roof materials to provide greater compatibility with the
surrounding hillside areas in this section of East Tustin.
Overall, the proposed colors are consistent with the design goals
of the Tustin Ranch Architectural Guidelines.
LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE
The conceptual landscape plan meets the requirements of the ETSP
and is generally consistent with the City's landscape guidelines.
The proposed landscaping consists of a variety of evergreen and
deciduous trees, shrubs, vines and ground covers intended to
enhance the project and minimize visual impacts. The project
entries are highlighted by 36 -inch box minimum Camphor, Carrotwood
and Indian Laurel Fig tree combinations transitioning to 24 -inch
box minimum Camphor, Carrotwood and Brazilian Pepper tree
combinations as the main roadway theme. Each of the motor courts
are defined by a combination of Peppermint, Carrotwood, Rusty Leaf
Fig and Purple -leaf Plum trees. Since the landscaping plan is only
illustrative, actual quantities, species, locations and sizes of
plant materials would be determined during building plan check.
The highlight of the development combines the slope portion with
the recreation facility to provide cohesive open space, including
passive and active areas. The slope portion of the tract will
receive a grove planting treatment of Indian Laurel Fig and the
slope itself will be graded to provide pockets of relatively flat,
open space areas off of a pedestrian trail system that links the
south and north portion of the tract. This feature provides a
simulation of the historical agricultural use of the land while
providing an identifiable focal point to the development.
The conceptual hardscape plan identifies details for the community
wall, project wall and side -yard fencing which meets the criteria
of the ETSP and are consistent with approvals of Tract 13627. The
project's use of a motor court concept will be further defined by
the use of enriched concrete courtyard paving, utilizing colored
concrete banding. Individual unit driveways will also be enhanced
with natural grey concrete to break up the type of project paving.
In order to ensure compliance with the Uniform Building Code to
maintain clear and unobstructed access to each unit, a condition
has been added to require provisions within the CC&R's to prohibit
parking on short driveways, those measuring nine feet or less.
Planning Commission Report
Vesting Tentative Tract 14381, DR 90-55 & CUP 91-17
August 12, 1991
Page 7
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENTS
Section 3.13 of the ETSP provides for the Director of Community
Development to take action on requests for minor modifications or
adjustments to development standards when such requests constitute
a reasonable use of property not permissible under strict literal
interpretation of the regulations. The Director has considered and
approved two adjustments of the allowable 10 percent reduction of
a required setback affecting a total of 22 lots.
Lots 4, 61 17, 29, 37, 48, 59, 70, 79, 90 and 102 will be permitted
to show an encroachment of one foot and allow driveway lengths of
nine feet -six inches in a side -yard setback. This adjustment is
necessitated to accommodate a Plan 3-C, which maintains garage and
driveway access through a side yard.
Lots 14, 25, 45, 56, 87, 100, 103, 109, 135, 144 and 153 will be
permitted to show an encroachment of one foot -six inches into the
front -yard setback. This adjustment is necessitated to accommodate
a Plan 3-I, which maintains pop -outs not considered architectural
projections. Both of these adjustments affect the No. 3 floor
plan, which is providing the longest elevation facing the street,
helping to break up the visual impact of rows of garage doors on a
street.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Based upon review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381, Design
Review 90-55 and Conditional Use Permit 91-17, as well as
Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (as supplemented) it has been
determined that environmental issues relating to this project have
previously been addressed. Also, appropriate mitigating measures
identified in EIR 85-2 are included as conditions of approval for
the project. With this information in mind, it is recommended that
the Commission make the finding that requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act have been met and that no further
environmental review is required.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A list of conditions of approval is included within the attached
resolutions. Outside of specific issues discussed in this report,
conditions of approval are standard conditions required by either
the Specific Plan, other applicable municipal codes, the approved
Development Agreement for the project area, or requirements of City
Departments or outside reviewing agencies. Staff will respond to
Planning Commission Report
Vesting Tentative Tract 14381, DR 90-55 & CUP 91-17
August 12, 1991
Page 8
any questions concerning listed conditions at the August 12, 1991
public hearing.
CONCLUSION
Given the analysis conducted by the Community Development
Department and in consideration of comments from other agencies and
the public, it is concluded that the proposed project with
conditions will meet the requirements of the East Tustin Specific
Plan, the Subdivision Map Act, as adopted, and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
With the inclusion of conditions of approval listed in the
Resolutions, it is recommended that the Planning Commission approve
the environmental determination for the project and approve Design
Review 90-55, Conditional Use Permit 91-17 and recommend approval
of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381 to the City Council.
P)Qk-?j Z -f :::)
E. Bonn
Associate Planner
CAS:AEB:nm
Attachments: Attachment
Attachment
Conceptual
Resolution
Christine A. Shin ton
Assistant City Manager
Community Development
A - Statistical Summary
B - End Court Condition
Plans
Nos. 2935, 2936, 2937, and 2938
Gross Site Area
Building Area
Open Space
Street Area
Landscape Area
Total Units
Density
Lot Coverage
Building Setbacks
Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
.1eight
Resident Parking
Guest Parking
ATTACHMENT A
Statistical Summgjy. .
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381
Cluster Development
Requirement
N/A
N/A
.12 acres
N/A
N/A
N/A
10 du/ac (gross)
100% (minus setbacks)
15 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
35 feet maximum
310 spaces
( 2 garage
per unit)
78 spaces
PLAN NO. OF UNITS PERCENTAGE
1 C
21
14
1 I
20
13
2 C
14
9
2 C ALT
16
10
2 I
8
5
2 IS
10
6
3 C
16
10
3 I
11
8
4 C
16
10
4 I
23
15
TOTAL 155 100
AEB:nm
SOUARE FEET
1645
1645
1777
1777
1777
1777
1864
1864
1996
1996
Proposed
22.62 acres
13.59 acres
.38 acres
5.03 acres
3.62 acres
155 units
6.85 du/ac (gross)
60%
15 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
5 feet minimum
29 feet maximum
310 spaces
(155 Attached
2 car garages)
110 spaces
DESCRIPTION
3 BD,
2.5
BA
3 BD,
2.5
BA
4 BD,
2.5
BA
4 BD,
2.5
BA
4 BD,
2.5
BA
4 BD,
2.5
BA
3 BD,
2.5
BA
3 BD,
2.5
BA
4 BD,
2.5
BA
4 BD,
2.5
BA
END COURT CONDITION
0
cn
ATTACHMENT B
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page 8
REQUEST:
AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO
WITHIN AN EXISTING TENANT SPACE AT THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2600 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITES A AND B.
Recommendation
- It is recommended that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 2934 approving Conditional Use Permit 91-11,
as submitted or revised.
Presentation:
Becky Stone, Assistant Planner
This item was
withdrawn by the applicant.
9. vesting
Tentative Tract Map 14381. Design Review 90-55 and
Conditional
Use Permit 91-17
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
THE BREW COMPANY
5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
LOCATION:
LOTS 2, 31 "T", "V", "W", "X" AND "Z" OF TRACT
13627
ZONING:
MEDIUM -LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN
SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED.
REQUEST:
1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 155 NUMBERED LOTS AND
34 LETTERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS;
2. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN DNA
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT; AND
3. AUTHORIZATION TO UTILIZE THE "CLUSTER
DEVELOPMENT" STANDARDS FOR THIS PROJECT.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
take the following actions: 1. Approve the environmental
determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2935; 2.
Approve Design Review 90-55 by adopting Resolution No. 2936, as
submitted or revised; 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 91-17 by
adopting Resolution No.•2937, as submitted or revised; and 4.
Recommend approval to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map 14381 by adopting resolution No. 2938, as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner
Staff made changes to Item 7.1 A. on page 8, and Item B on Page 15
of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2398, as moved.
Commissioner Kasparian asked who determines if a project will be a
cluster development or not; and asked if this was encouraged to
develop open space.
Staff replied that it was an option of the East Tustin Specific
Plan; and that they could provide conventional development or
cluster development and attribute the remaining area to open space.
Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of open space; and
if it included lot FF.
Staff replied that it could be passive or open; that this applicant
has provided a trail system leading to a bus stop and a flat area
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page 9
for grasslands; and that lot FF is a reservation lot and not
included in the calculation.
Commissioner Kasparian noted that the fencing between the homes
look like they go to the corner of another building; and that it
looks as though there is a backyard against someone's home.
Staff referred to attachment 8 illustrating the fence and property
lines; and that it is a permitted development; that they could
create zero lot lines, but they are creating five (5) foot use
easements to allow for overhang and drainage.
The Director noted that this pattern is already in the field with
very few complaints; that there is a noticing requirement as part
of the CC&R's making the owners aware of the easement; and that it
maximizes their yard area.
Commissioner Kasparign asked if there were any nineteen (19) foot
driveways; and if there were any water saving features imposed on
the design.
Staff affirmed and noted that there is a combination from six (6)
feet to nineteen (19) feet; and that reclaimed water for landscape
irrigation is required by the Irvine Company.
The Director replied that the Uniform Plumbing Code's requirements
would be incorporated into the project; and that certain types of
construction are exempt until the new UPC is published.
Commissioner Kasparian asked for clarification of lot FF.
Staff replied that the reservation of lot FF is for the onramp to
the tollway, if needed; if a different path is taken, the developer
has the right to expand into that area; and that there is a
condition of approval included requiring street modifications.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the end court conditions had been
modified to staff's satisfaction.
Staff replied that they were looking at the end court condition
with the 90 degree angles.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if the exterior wall space of lA/B
could be broken up or mitigated to avoid reflection on the
neighbors.
The Director replied that the layout provides the maximum
opportunity for retaining shade conditions; that the layout of the
majority would be in an east/west pattern to take advantage of the
movement of the sun.
asked if this was adjacent to the lot with
the eucalyptus windrow.
• Staff affirmed and noted that a eucalyptus study is required
because of the location of the roots.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the entire tract is not allowed to
park in the driveways; asked if those at the end of the court would
have to back down the street or use the neighbor's driveway to turn
around; and asked if this was a new concept.
Staff replied that parking would only be allowed in driveways that
are nineteen (19) feet or longer; affirmed that the owner at the
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page 10
end of a court would have to do a three-point turn or use the
neighbor's driveway; and that normally for a single-family
development there would be a cul-de-sac.
Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the method of
trash collection; how wide each private street was; and assumed
that the trucks would have to back out of the streets.
Staff replied that trash pick-up would be in front of each home;
and that the main loop roads are 36 feet wide, the lead-in to the
motor courts are 28 feet with no parking, expanding to 32 feet, and
that the private drives are only 25 feet.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were no objections from the
Fire Department.
Staff replied negatively.
The Public Hearing was opened at 8:01 p.m.
Mr. Bill Moorehous, Director of Project Management for Bren
Company, noted that they have been in the process of this project
for about nine 19) months; that this project is different and
innovative; that their goal was to provide single family detached
housing in a price range that would normally be associated with
attached housing; that they have been creative in their site
design; that they are at a substantially lesser density than
another design could have achieved; that they have found ways to
make the project fit within the guidelines with the help, patience
and diligence of staff.
Commissioner Weil assumed that this project was a transition
between the condominiums to the south and the less dense areas to
the north.
Mr. Moorehous replied that they were allowed ten (10) units per
acre and that they are well below that limit.
Commissioner Weil stated that she realizes that this project
provides some advantages of a condominium project, but that she is
worried about the negatives. She stated that the turnarounds are
not adequate; that parking being allowed on only one side may
create problems; that delivery trucks will have to turn around in
driveways, which might create liability problems for the City as
well as the Irvine Company; and that she would like to see an
attempt to create cul-de-sacs on streets with more than two (2)
houses deep. She continued with stating that with 55% of the
houses having four (4) bedrooms, there will be a problem with
parking, since large families have more than two (2) cars; that she
would like to see the parking increased and the ratio of four (4)
bedrooms to three (3) bedroom houses reversed which will decrease
the potential amount of cars. She also indicated that if the above
cannot be equitably worked out, a note should be included in the
deed restriction restricting people to two (2) cars.
Mr. Moorehous reviewed handouts which he provided to the
Commission; noted that there would be less children of driving age
in this type of project; that they feel that the buyer will not be
someone who has lived in single-family detached housing.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that people with college students at
home will have to park the extra car off-site.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page it
Mr. Moorehous replied that the board will have the ability to
reinforce that; and that they would be discouraging people with
more than two (2) cars from buying.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if these parking restrictions in the
CC&R's are used anywhere; and if they know how the public views the
restrictions.
Mr. Moorehous replied that he does not know of anywhere that these
restrictions are in force; that it will become a problem when
people begin to abuse the guest parking; that they will notify
buyers when they walk into the sales office that these units have
the advantage of a single-family house with the disadvantage of
less parking; and that they expect some buyer resistance.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if those people with nineteen (19 ) foot
driveways would not be able to park their cars in the driveways; or
if they would be permitted to have.a third car.
Mr. Moorehous replied that it will be up to the association to
enforce that; that they will be informed that they have to park in
the garage, and that they will not tell them that they can park in
their driveway.
asked what the handout then meant.
Mr. Moorehous replied that as guest spaces, those would be
available.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked again if an owner could park a third
car on a nineteen foot driveway.
Mr. Moorehous replied that they intend to remain silent on that
issue.
Commissioner Weil asked where the off-site parking is that Mr.
Moorehous is referring to.
Mr. Moorehous suggested that the extra car be left at a relative's
or a friend's; and stated that they have provided an extra .2
spaces than the code requires. He continued with stating that they
would be willing to give up a plan and then provide 75% of the
units as three (3) bedrooms, and 25% as four (4) bedrooms.
Commissioner Kasparian asked how this would solve the parking
problem.
Commissioner Weil replied that she felt it would reduce the amount
of cars; that people buying would realize that these do not have as
much room as the higher priced units. She continued with noting
that it would be buried in the CC&R's; and that the large
percentage of three (3) bedroom units would trigger a question in
the minds of the buyers.
Mr. Moorehous replied that there would be a separate disclosure in
addition to the CC&R's regarding the parking issue.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked the percentage of the mix of units in
the Shadowbrook example.
Mr. Moorehous replied that about 30% are four (4) bedroom units;
that this project would now be less than that. He continued with
stating that they do not feel that there will be a major problem
regarding the backing up of vehicles on the motor courts; that the
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page 12
motor courts were reviewed by the Fire Department and Great Western
with no problems noted.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that other delivery trucks will also
need to back up.
Mr. Moorehous replied that it would be the same as in any other
multi- or single-family project.
Commissioner Weil disagreed and noted that other projects have
full -width streets; that most multi -family projects in Tustin have
a better traffic pattern; that these streets are too long to turn
around in; that delivery drivers are going to use owner's
driveways; that the owners at the'end of the streets will have
cracked driveways from the turn -around traffic; and suggested
reinforcing those driveways.
Mr. Moorehous suggested signage for delivery trucks; noted that
they would be willing to investigate reinforcement of the
driveways; and that they could not install cul-de-sacs without
substantial loss of open space.
Commissioner Kasparian asked if parking was allowed on the motor
courts; and if trash trucks could maneuver with parking on the
streets.
Mr. Moorehous replied that there would be no parking on 28 foot
streets, parking on one side on 32 foot streets, and 36 foot
streets would allow parking on both sides; and affirmed that trash
trucks would have plenty of clearance; and would have to back up
about 100 feet.
Commissioner Kasparian asked about the City's liability in this
matter.
John Shaw, City Attorney, replied that when the City approves a
subdivision design, the law provides that the City cannot be sued
for problems that materialize later; that claims can be made, but
they have immunity from lawsuits involving discretionary approvals
of subdivisions.
Mr. Moorehous stated that they have reviewed some of the clusters
and picked up three (3) additional spaces in Phase 4.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked why they could not provide sidewalks on
both sides of the streets.
Mr. Moorehous stated that they initially had no sidewalks on the
motor courts; that this is a pedestrian court in a village -like
cluster with enhanced paving; that they feel it is safe for
pedestrians to walk in the motor court areas; however, the policy
committee felt they needed a sidewalk on one side; that landscaped
areas are critical to the appearance of the area which would be
lost with additional sidewalks.
Commissioner Weil stated that their presentation to the steering
committee had eighteen (18) more homes and asked what was
eliminated.
- Mr. Moorehous replied that the project would have had all of the
houses lined up in a row instead of the presented approach; that
the number of lots under 3,000 square feet are 20 out of 155; that
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page 13
the majority of the lots are over 3,000 square feet; and that this
layout provides 300-400 square feet of usable yard area. '
Commissioner Baker asked if the parking notes in the handout were
to be included in the CC&R's; and the difference between A & D.
Mr. Moorehous affirmed and noted that they would be improved; and
that there is probably no difference between A & D.
The Public Hearing was closed at 8:50 p.m.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the parking notes could be made a
condition of the CC&R's.
The Director provided language of the parking notes to modify the
language, as moved.
Commissioner Kasparian stated that they did not want to imply that
the owner must keep his car in the garage at all times; that it
could be half in and half out.
The Director stated that many CC&R's acknowledge that vehicles
should be parked in garages.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they should expect more projects
like this; and if anything that happens tonight will not affect
future projects.
_.,. The Director replied that there were none to date that required
such significant modifications to the standards; and that each
project is separate.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Police Department would enforce
the parking requirements.
The Director replied that the Police Department does not enforce
CC&R restrictions on private streets; that it is up to the
homeowner's association to provide their own enforcement device.
Commissioner KasRarian requested a summary of the decisions.
The Director summarized the issues: 1) request for deed
restriction; 2) parking distribution issue; 3) unit mix; and 4) the
end court condition. She then provided language for the
Resolutions, as moved.
Mr. Moorehous stated that the actual percentage of three or four
bedrooms might vary.
The Director replied that they would allow for a 70/30 mix of three
and four bedroom units, respectively.
Commissioner Weil stated that if the company is willing to
reinforce the driveways, she would rather keep the long driveways,
and keep the cluster plan as presented instead of the alternative
plan.
Commissioners Le Jeune. Kasparian and Kasalek agreed; and noted
that it would be more attractive to buyers.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the entire driveway should be
reinforced.
Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page 14
The Director replied that just the curb cut would be reinforced;
and that there should be notification of the owners of the end
units that their driveways might be used for back up and turn
around.
Commissioner Kasnarian asked if they were encouraging the use of
those driveways for turnaround.
Commissioner Weil felt that the heavy bottled water trucks would
cause damage to more than the curb cuts and that part of the
driveway should be reinforced to eliminate liability claims.
The Director responded that the driveways would be used for
turnaround, but that she was not concerned with the breakup of the
curbcuts due to City standards.
Commissioner KasAarian asked how much this would cost and how many
were at issue.
Commissioner Le Jeune suggested that staff should decide how far
back to reinforce these driveways.
Commissioner Baker moved, Zasparian seconded to approve the
environmental determination for the project by adopting Resolution
No. 2935. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Baker moved. Kasalek seconded to approve Design Review
90-55 by adopting Resolution No. 2936 revised as follows:
Exhibit A, add: *** 3.7 The applicant shall submit for review and
approval by the Community Development Department a reinforced
driveway detail for those end court conditions at the terminus of
those private drives or private streets where 900 angled driveways
are provided affecting lots 3, 31, 60, 71, 99, 95 and 150.
Add: *** 3.8 The applicant shall modify the site plan to
accommodate three additional on -street parking spaces in .that
portion of the site plan identified as Phase 4 of the project
widening the southern portion of "B" Street to a paved street width
of 36 feet.
Add: *** 3.9 The applicant shall modify the unit bedroom mix for
the project so that a not to exceed ratio of 70% - three bedroom
and 30% - four bedroom units is achieved. The Community
Development Department shall be permitted to review and approve the
necessary modifications to the plans date stamped August 12, 1991
to accommodate the revised unit mix.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Baker moved. Kasalek seconded to approve Conditional
Use Permit 91-17 by adopting Resolution No. 2937 as submitted.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Baker moved. Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval
to the City Council of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14381 by
adopting Resolution No. 2938 revised as follows:
Exhibit A. No. 7.1(A): remove a colon from the word "provisions"
No. 10.3(B): change "Tract 14295" to "Tract 14381".
` Planning Commission Minutes
August 12, 1991
Page 15
No. 7.1(R) is modified as follows: First paragraph, line 4 -
replace "enable" with "require". Eliminate ",at its discretion,"
Insert new paragraph after first paragraph ending with wording
"companies/persons." "To ensure the proper use of parking spaces
within the subdivision, CC&R's shall include the following
acknowledgements and restrictions, which shall also be signed as a
separate notification/acknowledgement, by each new homeowner in the
subdivision:
1. Project has .5 guest spaces per unit; individual owners
shall have no right to use guest spaces for any vehicle.
2. Individual owners shall park vehicles in garage space or
on driveway area provided vehicles do not overhang the
public right-of-way or sidewalk easements.
3. Individual owner understands that the subdivision has
strict parking regulations that will be enforced by the
homeowner's association.
4. Should an individual owner own more than two vehicles,
additional vehicles shall be kept outside of the
subdivision boundaries."
Add to end of first sentence of second paragraph "and Community
_._ Development Department for review and approval."
Insert in second sentence of second paragraph after "The Police
Department..." and Community Development Department..."
Add sentence to end of second paragraph to read "All parking
regulations shall be enforced at time of final occupancy of any
phase of the project."
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
10. Advertising Displays on Bus Stop Shelters
Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked who determines how many shelters are
placed in the Irvine city limits.
Mr. Gross replied that some cities allocate an indeterminate
amount; that the transit district would like shelters at their bus
stops; that the manufacturer is not in the business of providing a
service to the customers, but to sell advertising space.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the income generated from
benches.
Mr. Gross replied that benches without shelters pay about one
fourth the amount of a shelter; that they have one (1) face instead
of (2) as in a shelter; and that it is quite common to have
different companies in a community to provide shelters.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked who determines who the manufacturers
will be; and how the sites are determined.