The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC 8 T.T. MAP 13627 06-05-89DATE: JUNE 5, 1989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAI~ A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAITIIIENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13627 (IRVINE COMPANY) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions- ® Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 89-67; and 2'. Approve Tentative Tract 13627 by adoption of Resolution No. 89-68. · BACKGROUND At their regular meeting on May 22, 1989 the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2603 recommending approval to the~City Council of Tentative Tract Map 13627. The Planning Commission in conjunction with their action also adopted Resolution No. 2606 approving '"the Sector Development Plan and Landscaping Concept for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and adopted Resolution No. 2608 approving Hillside Review 89-01, the grading concept for Tract 13627. Tentative Tract will subdivide approximately 599 acres of currently undeveloped land in the East Tustin Specific Plan area into 27 numbered lots and numerous lettered lots. The project is a Sector level subdivision of Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being processed pursuant to the East Tustin Specific Plan. The map formally establishes defined land use areas within each of the above sectors. Land uses proposed would ultimately result in development of approximately 1,463 dwelling units, a community park, a neighborhood park, two elementary schools, an intermediate school, a fire station and other community facilities. The site is roughly bounded by the City of Tustin eastern boundary and the future expansion of Jamboree Road on the east, portions of the western boundary of the Tustin Ranch area and future eastern boundary proposed for the Peter's Canyon Regional Park on the. west, future Portola Parkway and the northern boundary of Tract 12870 on the south and a ~ortion of the northerly boundary of the City and Peter's Canyon Regional Park boundary on the north. With the exception of lots which may be developed for apartment projects, future development within Tract 13627 cannot occur prior to processing of subsequent, City Council Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 June 5, 1989 Page two · . ,. builder level maps. Additionally, each project must receive design review approval prior to any actual development. Therefore, final approval of any development project will' be withheld pending subsequent approvals. _ . PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tentative Tract 13627 is unique from other parts of Tustin Ranch.. It is an area containing a combination of hillside building sites with commanding views and level sites adjacent to arterial roadways. For reference purposes and to set a focal point for review of the project, a brief general descriptiOn of the Sectors follows' Sectors 2 and 3 - Sectors 2 and 3 with a combined acreage of' 286 acres (not inCiud~g~°adw~ys) are generally bounded by proposed Tustin Ranch Road (a major arterial) and "C" Street (a local collector) on the south, proposed Jamboree Road (a major arterial) on the east, a portion of the northerly boundary of the City and the Peter's Canyon Regional Park on the north and the eastern boundary of the' Peter's Canyon Regional Park and Sector 1 on the west. The entry to Sectors 2 and 3.is framed by community facility and.open space uses 4~t or near l~he inters~tions of Tustin Ranch Road, 'C' Street and Jamboree Road including a 1.25 acre Fire Station/City Ma'intenance Facility site (lot 21), a 19.7 acre intermediate school (lot 19), a*10 acre elementary school (lot 23), a church site (lot 20), and a 9.8 acre community park (lot 22). The entry to Sectors 2 and 3 is also enhanced along 'C' Street with an expanded 20 foot landscape median. From 'C' Street, the entry opens onto the community.park which is set against the backdrop of the foothills of Sector 4. This park as a major open space element of the project will preserve the redwood and cedar groves which were planted over 50 years ago. The other major entry .to Sector 2 from Jamboree Road will be identified by community entry planting and signage. Additional open space and community facilities proposed in Sector 2 include a 10 acre elementary school (lot 18)' and a 5.7 acre neighborhood park site (lots 16 and 17). 0nly a 3 acre portion of the northerly 5.7 acre site, however, is required to be dedicated with the remaining 2.7 acre portion of the site to be reserved. Whether the 2.7 acre site will have to be dedicated or not in the future will depend on the final dwelling unit coonts in all phases of the East Tustin project and the requirements of City's parkland dedication requirements. Open space el'ements' in Sectors 2 and 3 will be further enhanced by a paseo planned between lots 5 and 6 to provide pedestrian access to Jamboree Road. This paseo will be enhanced by an existing eucalyptus tree row. Additional paseo opportunities and their potential locations on or adjacent to builder lots have been identified'as well as provision of .a regional hiking/biking/equestrian trail. 0nly a portion .of this regional trail is located in Sectors 2 and 3 {the Community Development Department City Council Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 June .5, 1989 Page four .. exceed 2 dwelling units per acre ts proposed for most of Sectors 4 and 5. There is, however, a small 14 acre site (lot 26} where hillsides begin to flatten out that has been designated a low density site not to-exceed 5 dwelling units-per acre. Staff have been informed that residents to the west of lot 26 would like to see the development of any future residential lots immediately adjacent to them limited to single story structures, minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet with a maximum allowable dwelling unit density per gross acre of 4 dwelling units per acre instead of the 5 dwelling units per acre permitted by the Specific Plan (See Attachment VI). Residents have argued that lot 26 relates more to Sector 8 and the recommended standards they would like to see are similar to requirements in Sector 8. Residents also do not want a future cul-de-sac or street extension of Racquet Hill Drive. The Irvine Company is apparently agreeable to residents requests and have made written commitments that they feel they can achieve with at future builder land maps. Since future development in 'lot 26 cannot occur prior to processing of subsequent builder level subdivision maps and lot 26 is a sector level parcelization only tvhich complies with provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan, ~staff does not believe that a modi.fication of Tract 13627 is needed at this time. Concerns about such items as individual lot sizes is a more appropriate discussion at a point in the future when a Builder Level Subdivision map is reviewed for Lot 26. Residents have seemed amenable to the recommeded approach. ' ~s in th~ case of lots 9 and 10 in Sectors-2 and 3, Sectors 4 and 5 will largely remain ungraded and unimproved except for roadway improvements until grading concepts and final builder site plans are approved. A large portion of Sectors ~'~' 4 and 5 consist of Eucalyptus groves dispersed throughout the hilly terrain. Prior to any future grading or tree removal in these areas, the Specific Plan requires preparation of a Eucalyptus Grove Preservation Plan which will identify where preservation of trees is feasible and techniques or concepts for revegetation of Eucalyptus groves. Roadway i~provements planned in Sectors 4 and 5 include an extension of 'B' Street which will. cul-de-sac and an extension of Fairgate Drive in Tract 12870 to the south to utlimately connect with 'A' Street on the northerly boundary of Sector 4 (identified as 'D' Street and 'E' Street'). While a vacation request is currently being processed to reclassify Fairgate Drive as a private instead of public street, 'D' Street and 'E' Street will be required to be public streets until a City Council decision is reached on the status of Fairgate Drive. Sector 6 - Sector 6, approximately 30 acres of flatland is 'bounded. by three major arterials - Portola Parkway on the south, Jamboree Road on the east and Tustin Ranch Road on the west. The entire sector is to be developed with a variety of general commercial uses. Community Devel'opment Department City.Council Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 June 5, 1989 P~ge three- major portion of the trail is located in Sectors 4 and .5). The.regional trail will link upper Peter's Canyon Regional Park with the rest of the Tustin Ranch Community, as well as providing only a portion of a regionally significant trailfacility planned to ultimately link Irvine Regional Park to the back bay in Newport Beach. · Primary circulation improvements for access to individual lots in Sectors 2 and 3 will be provided by 'B' Street {a 70 foot local collector which basically functions as a secondary highway). The Sector is also transected by two additional local collector streets: 'A' Street which provides access to the southerly entrance to the Peter's Canyon Regional Park and 'F' Street which provides an additional access and connection point between 'B' Street and Jamboree Road. The streetscapes on 'B' Street have been designed to enhance the pedestrian experience by providing for a 6 foot meandering walk within a 25 foot setback area. This condition will vary from the east to west side of 'B' Street to accommodate pedestrian access to parks and schools. As contemplated in the East Tustin Specific Plan, residential densities permitted in Sectors 2' and 3 reflect the terrain. Estate density not to exceed 2 dwelling units per acre will be required on lots 9 and 10. These lots will largely remain i'n an ungraded and 'unimproved condition until a final builder site plan is processed ~nd approved in the future. This allows more sensitivity tl~ the existing terrai6 and hillside standards by providing an opportunity for more detailed planning and attention to individual lot design rather than creating large flat pads. The balance of residential densities surrounding estate sites and bordering Jamboree Road and 'B' Street will be low and medium-low density sites with the exception of lot 4 which is proposed as a medium density site. Permitted densities on designated low density sites would be up to 5 dwelling units per acre, on medium-low density sites up to 10 dwelling units per acre and on the medium density site up to 18 dwelling units per acre. Detached housing is required on all estate, low and medium-low density sites with attached housing permitted on the medium density site. Sectors 4 and 5 - Sectors 4 and 5 with a combined acreage of over 228 acres {not including roadways) and located almost completely within the East Tustin Hillside District are generally bounded by northerly boundary of. Tract 12870 {Phase III of East Tustin) on the south, Tustin Ranch Road, 'C' Street and the community park site on the west, 'A' Street and Sector 1 on the north, the westerly boundary of the East Tustin Specific P)an on the west. Along this westerly location, Sectors 4 and 5 are situated adjacent to the existing North Tustin hillside communities of Cowan Heights/Lemon Heights. Because of its hillside character and the relationship of each 'sector to existing hillside residential areas located to the west, estate density not to Community Developme,nt Department City Council Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 June 5, 1989 Page five ENVI RONMEK[AL ANALYSIS Based upon the review of the subject map as well 'as Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (as supplemented) it has been determined that .environmental issues relating to this project have been addressed previously. Also, appropriate mitigating measures identified in EIR 85-2 are conditions of approval for this and all subsequent subdivision maps. 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 i s required. CONCLUSION i i Given the analysis conducted by staff and consideration of comments from other agencies and the public, it is concluded that Tentative 'Tract Map 13627 meets the requikements of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the Subdivision r4ap Act as adopted, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the City's Grading and Excavation Code.. , ' With the inclusion of conditions of approval listed in the Planning Commission's 'Resolution for the project, it is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No's. 89-67 and 89-68. Christine~A. S~hthglet~ - t_ Director of Community'Development CAS 'ts Attachments: Attachment I - Planning Commission staff report for May 22, 1989 Attachment II - Photo Reduction of Tract 13627 Attachn~nt III - Letter from Racquet Hill 'Homeowner's Association Attachment IV - Draft minutes Resolution No's. 89-67 and 89-68 Community Development Depa:rtmpn__t- ATTACHMENT I Report to the .. Planning Commission ITEM NO. 7 DATE: HAY 22, 1989 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13627/SECTOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6) AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 89-01 APPLICANT: THE IRVINE COMPANY · 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 LOCATION: SECTOR 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ROIIGHLY BOUNDED BY THE CITY OF TUSTIN EASTERN BOUNDARY AND THE FUTURE , EXPANSION OF JAMBOREE ROAD ON THE EAST, PORTIONS OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE TusTiN RANCH AREA AND FUTURE EASTERN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FOR THE PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK ON THE WEST,.FUTURE PORTOLA PARKWAY AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TRACT 12870 ON THE SOUTH AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE THE CITY AND PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ON THE NORTH. LEGAL OISCRIPTION: A PORTION OF BLOCKS 40; 41, 42 ANO 66 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, 'PAGE 88 OF RI SCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. REQUEST: 1) A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EAST TUSTIN SECTOR. LEVEL SUBDIVISION CREATING 27 NUMBERED LOTS AND NUMEROUS LETTERED LOTS. 2) APPROVAL OF A LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 3) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MASS -'GRADING CONCEPT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 WITHIN THE HILLSIDE DISTRICTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ~J~,,__ ~ _ , i, Community r~,v~.,lonm*nt r~elg~rtrr~,~t'lt Plannlng Commission Report · Tentative Tract Hap 13627 May 22, 1989 Page two RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: ® Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2612; . Approve the Sector Development Plan and Landscaping Concept Plan for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5,~ and 6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2606, as submitted or revised; · Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 13627 b.v the adoption of Resolution No. 2603, as submitted or revised; and ~ 4. Approve Hillside Review 89-01 by adoption of .Resolution No. 2608, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND Applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 599 acres of currently undeveloped )and in the East Tustin Specific Plan area into 27 numbered lots and numerous lettered lots. With the East Tustin Speci'fic Plan having been divided into 12 geographical areas referred to as "Sectors", Tentative Tract Map 13627 is a sector level subdivision of Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 being processed pursuant to the East Tustin Specific Plan (Sections 2.14.1, 3.5 and 3.12.2). Prior to submitting builder level subdivision maps within individual Sectors' identified in the East Tustin Specific Plan, a Sector Level Tentative Tract Map and Sector Development Concept Plan and Landscaping Concept Plan must be approved. If approved, the map and concept plan will formally establish defined land use areas within Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5.and 6 of the East Tustin Specific Plan. Land uses proposed would ultimately, result in development of approximately 1,463 dwelling units, a community park, two neighborhood parks, two elementary schools, an intermediate school, a fire station and other community facilities. Since portions of the proposed project are within boundaries of the Hillside District as shown in the East Tustin Specific Plan, the Planning Commission must concurrently review the grading concept proposed for. hillside areas within Tract 13627 pursuant to the City's recently adopted Grading and Excavation Code.. With the exception of Tots which may be developed for apartment projects, future development within Tract 13627 cannot occur prior to processing of subsequent, builder level subdivision maps. Additionally, each project must receive design review approval prior to any 'actual development. Therefo6e, final approval for any development project will be withheld pending subsequent approvals. Community Development Department Planning Commission RepOrt Tentative Tract Map 13627 May 22, 1989 Page three. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proje'ct area is unique from other parts of Tustin Ranch: It is an area containing a combination of hillside building sites-' with commanding views a-nd level sites adjacent to arterial roadways. In designing the proposed subdivision, there were a number of specific design objectives' ® Incorporate and implement the policies and goals of the East Tustin -Specific Plan (see attached Policies for Sectors 2, 3, 4, and 5, Attachment I }. ® Provide a sense of arrival for this portion of Tustin Ranch by locating community facilities such as schools, parks and other community open space at or near the intersection of Tustin Ranch Road and Jamboree Road. ® .® Locate the community park adjacent to slopes in Sector 4 to maximize the sense of open space and incorporate the redwood~ and. cedar groves planted over 50 years ago. 'Provide easy access and a.centralized location for a fire station site. ® . e Incorporate eucalyptus windrows where feasible into the project. Design a land use plan which works wi'th the existing landform. Incor'porate the regional trail into the land use plan as a positive design el emen t. Be Design the circulation system so that Foothill and Lower Lake connections would not be necessary at this time. ge Locate land use categories with an abundance of open space or parking over a major water easement at the northeast position of the project. 10. Design parcels to maximize the future residential design potential. For reference purposes and to set a focal point for review Of the project, a brief general description of the Sectors is provided. Sectors 2 and 3 - Sector 2 and 3 with a combined acreage of 286 acres (not ih~lu'~ing~o~a-ys) are generally bounded by proposed Tustin Ranch Road (a major arterial) and "C" street (a local collector) on the south, proposed Jamboree Road (a major arterial) on the east, a portion of the northerly boundary of the C)ty and the Peter's Canyon Regional Park on the north and the eastern boundary of the Peter's. Canyon Regional Park and Sector i on the west. Planning Commission Report Tentatlve Tract Map 13627 May 22, 1989 Page four* The entry to Sectors 2 and 3 is framed by.community facility and open space uses at'or near the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road, 'C' Street and Jamboree Road including a 1.25 acre Fire Station/City Maintenance Facility site (lot 21), a 19.7 acre intermediate school {lot 19), a 10 acre elementary school (lot 23}, a church site (lot 20), and a 9.8 acre community park (lot 22). The entry to Sectors 2 and 3 is also enhanced along 'C' Street with an expanded 20 foot landscape median. From 'C' St.reet, the entry opens onto the community park which is set against the backdrop of the foothills of Se~tor 4. This park as a major open space element of the project will preserve the redwood and cedar groves which were planted over 50 years-ago. The other major entry to Sector 2 from Jamboree Road will be identified by community entry planting and signage. Additional open space and community facilities proposed in Sector 2 include a 10 acre elementary school (lot 18)' and a 5.7 acre neighborhood park site (lots 16 and 17). Only a portion of the northerly 5.7 acre site, however, may actually need to be dedicated, depending on the actual dwelling unit counts that result in East Tustin and the requirements of City's parkland dedication requirements. Open space elements in Sectors 2 and 3 will be further enhanced by a paseo planned between lots 5 and 6 to provide pedestrian access to Jamboree Road. This paseo will §e enhanced by-an existing eucalyptus tree row. Additional paseo opportunities and their potential locations on or adjacent to builder lots have been identified as well as provision of a re.g~onal hiking/biking/equestrian trail. Only a portion of this regional trail is located in Sectors 2 and 3 {the major portion of the trail is located in Sectors 4 and 5). The regional trail will link upper Peter's C~nyon Regional Park with the rest o¢'~the Tustin Ranch Community, as well as providing only a portion of a regionally significant trail facility planned to ultimately link Irvine Regional Park to the back bay in Newport Beach. Primary circulation improvements for-access to individual lots in Sectors 2 and 3 will be provided by 'B' Street {a 70 foot local collector which basically. functions as a secondary highway). The Sector is also transected by two additional local collector streets: 'A' street which provides access to the southerly entrance to the Peter's Canyon Regional Park and 'F' Street which provides an additional access and connection point between 'B' Street and Jamboree Road. The streetscapes on 'B' Street have been designed to enhance the pedestrian experience by providing for a 6 foot meandering walk within a 25 foot setback area. This condition will vary from the east to west side of 'B' Street to accommodate pedestrian access to parks and schools. As contemplated in the East Tustin Specific Plan, residential densities permitted in Sectors 2 and 3 reflect the terrain. Estate density not to exceed 2 dwelling units per acre will be' required on lots 9 and 10. These lots will largely remain in an ungraded and-unimproved condition until a final builder .site plan is processed and approved in the future. This allows more sensitivity , i iCommunity Development Department . ,, Planntng .Commi ssion Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 May 22, 1989 Page fi ve to the existing terrain and hillside standards by providing an opportunity for more detailed planning and attention to individual lot design rather than creating large flat pads. The balance of residential densities surrounding estate sites and bordering Jamboree Road and 'B' Street will be l'ow and medium-low density sites with the exception of lot 4 which is proposed as a medium density site. Permitted densities on designated low density sites would be up to 5 dwelling units per acre, on medium-low density sites up. to 10 dwelling units per acre and on the medium density site up to 18 dwelling units per acre. Detached housing is required on all estate, low and medium-low density sites with attached housing permitted on the medium density site. Sectors 4 and 5 - Sectors 4 and 5 with a combined acreage of over 228 acres (not including ro~d-ways) and located, almost completely within the East Tustin Hillside District are generally bounded by northerly boundary of Tract 12870 {Phase III of East Tustin) on the south, Tustin Ranch Road, 'C' Street and the community park site on the west, iA' Street and Sector.. 1 on the north, the westerly boundary of the East Tustin Specific Plan on the west. Along this westerly location, Sectors 4 and 5 are situated adjacent to the existing North. Tustin hillside communities of Cowan Heights/Lemon Heights. · Because of its hillside character and .'the relationship of each sector to existing hillside residential areas located to the west, estate density not to exceed 2 dwell.lng units per acre is proposed for most of Sectors 4 and 5. There is, however, a small 14 acre site (lot 26) where hillsides begin to flatten out that has been designated a low density site not to exceed 5 dwelling units per acre. Staff have been informed that residents to the west of lot 26 would like to see the development of any future residential lots immediately adjacent to them limited to single story .structures, minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet with a maximum allowable dwelling unit density per gross acre of 4 dwelling units per acre instead of the 5 dwelling units per acre permitted bY the Specific Plan (See Attachment VI). Residents have argued that. lot 26 rela.tes. more to Sector 8 a~d the recommended standards they wou.ld like to see are similar to requirements in Sector 8. Residents also do not want a future cul-de-sac or street extension of Racquet Hill Drive. The Irvine Company is apparently agreeable to residents requests. Since future development in lot 26 cannot occur prior to 'processing of subsequent builder level subdivision maps and lot 26 is a sector level parcellzati'on only.which complies with provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan, staff does not believe that a modification of Tract 13627 is needed at this time. Concerns about such items as individual lot sizes is a more appropriate discussion at a point, in the future when a Builder Level Subdivision map is reviewed for.Lot 26. As in-the case of lots 9 and 10 in Sectors 2 and 3, Sectors 4 and 5 will largely remain ungraded and unimproved except for roadway improvements until grading concepts and final builder site plans are approved. As shown on the features Community Development Department , , Planning Commlsslon Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 May 22, 1989 Page six plan'(Attachment IV), a large portlon'of Sectors 4 and 5 consist of Eucalyptus gro.ves dispersed throughout the hilly terrain. Prior to any future grading or tree removal in these areas, the Specific Plan -requires preparation of- a Eucalyptus' Grove Preservation Plan which will identify where preservation df trees is feasible and techniques or concepts for revegetation of Eucalyptus groves. Roadway improvements planned in Sectors 4 and 5 include an extension of 'B' Street which will cul-de-sac and an extension of Fairgate Drive in Tract 12870 to the south to utltmately connect with 'A"' Street on the northerly boundary of Sector 4 (identified as 'D' Street and '£' Street). While a vacation request is currently being processed to reclassify Fairgate Drive as a private instead of public street, 'D' Street and 'E' Street will be required to be public streets until a City Council decision is reached on the status of Fairgate Drive. Sector 6- Sector 6, approximately 30 acres of flatland is bounded by three major arterials '- Portola Parkway on the south, Jamb. oree Road on the east and Tustin Ranch Road on the west. Thq' entire sector is to be developed with a variety of general commercial uses. Since provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan require, submittal 'of a conceptual site plan concurrently with a subdivision submittal for any portion of Sector 6, the applicant has provided a submittal' of' their proposed development concept for the .site (attached}. PROJECT ANALYSIS In addition to the general description of the project provided above, there are several areas of additional discussion staff believe would be warranted as follows: Ae Proposed Drainage Facilities - The existing drainage facilities that , convey storm runoff through Tentative Tract 13627 consist of Lower Peters. Canyon Reservoi'r and the natural channel known as Peters Canyon Wash. The storm runoff from a drainage area northwest of Tract 13627 is retarded by the Lower Peters Canyon Reservoir. This runoff is then outletted and conveyed through Tract 13627 by the natural channel known as Peters Canyon Wash. At a point .approximately 2000 feet below Lower Peters Canyon · Reservoir the wash intersects with a stream which conveys runoff from an easterly drainage area. This runoff is l~Iien conveyed via Peters Canyon Wash through the proposed tract to its confluence wil~h San Diego Creek. The proposed drainage system with Tract 13627 will replace Peters Canyon Wash and Lower Peters Canyon Reservoir with a new retarding basin and an 'underground conduit system. The 100 year runoff from the easterly drainage area northerly of Lots 4 and 9 is to be diverted to the retarding basin located north of Lot 8 and adjacent to '.A' Street. The alignment of Com'munity Development Department ...... nning Commission Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 May 22, 1989 Page seven the underground outlet conduit will be within 'A' Street until its exit · through an easement between lot 13 and lots 21. and 22 to. 'B' Street, where it will be .aligned within 'C' Street to Tustin Ranch Road, where it will be aligned with Tustin Ranch Road to its outlet at the golf course in Tract 12870. The proposed drainage system has been designed to retain storm flows up to and including a 100-year storm above'the retarding basin. The spillway overflow that will occur during a lO00-year storm will not negatively impact the downstream flooding condition. The outlet conduit has been designed to convey a 300 cfs discharge from the retarding basin and to accommodate a lO-year storm runoff in flowby conditions and 25 or 100-year storm runoff for sump conditions within the drainage area below the basin. The excess 100-year storm flows below the basin will be accommodated as surface flows within the proposed streets. All property Within Tract 13627 will be protected from the 100-year storm event. B.. Gradin~ Review - The proposed project area is characterized by a flat Jllelviated ~ailey located in the southwesterly portion of the site with north-south trending ridges and canyons. Elevations range from approximately 220 feet in 'the southerly portion of the project to approa6hing 600 feet along the ridges to the northeast. The topography in the northeastern portions of, the project site consisting of moderate hills and a small valley bottom wlll ~e. generally subject to typical, minor to moderate cut and fill grading operations. Within steeper portions of the project site, lots will remain largely upgraded with the exception of roadway improvements along their boundaries (see Hillside Grading Concepts and Sections). Submittal of detailed grading plans and supplemental information in conformance with City's grading standards will be required prior to issuance of grading permits. When viewed comprehensively, the mass grading concept for most of Tract 13627 has been designed to minimize excavation and site preparation costs as much as~ po, ssible. While some additional fill is proposed, earth. quantities generally in non-hillside areas are balanced to the degree possible to produce large builder pads' generally not exceeding 2% in grade. This balancing condition will require construction of a number of retaining walls designed largely to protect cuts. Landform modifications proposed at this time within the Hi)lside District are relatively limited as previously discussed and indicated on the Hillside Concept Plans and Hillside Section Details provided by the applicant. The most significant alteration proposed within the Hillside District area will occur on lot 11, where a minor ridge or hill is proposed to be cut (Section I). This landform currently provides some visual buffering to. the Jamboree Road future right-of-way. Water transmission lines currently cross this site {Orange County Municipal Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract Map 13627 May 22, 1989 Page eight Ce De E. Water District waterline, Irvine Ranch Water D~strict waterline, and Los Olives, E1 Toro Water District Water line)... In order to balance grades proposed south of 'B' Street without lowering the waterlines, the applicant has indicated that significant grade alterations on lot 11 are needed. While previous grading work around waterlines should have been properly backfilled and compacted to industry standard, there is no record of these operations based on information provided by the applicant's Soil Engineer. This requires that the lines be located, identified and protective measures implemented-to create a buildable site such as removal of unsuitable soils and provision of structural support while protecting the integrity of existing utilities. Even with this one significant landform modification, staff believes that applicable provision of the East Tustin Specific Plan Hillside District Guidelines, the City's Grading and Excavation Code and Draft Grading Manual have been applied or conditioned in order to achieve a grading design concept for those portions of Tract 13627 to be graded at this time consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan. Landscape Concept - The landscape concept proposed .~or Tract 1362.7 is a continuation of the landscape theme approved in the Phase II resident.iai area. The concept is-character.ized by meandering, walks within large landscape setbacks on major arterials. Plantings within the landscape' area will include new EucalYPtus plantings 'to strenghten to Early California theme, with the introduction of an Evergreen tree (the Canary Island pine). Major community entries and intersections will be highlighted with ul~ilization of the Olive tree. Neighborhood entries will · incorporate Cottonwood trees. A project theme wall is also proposed throughout the project where needed for retention, as sound barriers and for privacy and aesthetic reasons. The wall will be installed along arterials and collector streets adjacent to landscape lots. Walls will be slump block, painted a creme color with mortar joints tooled to emphasize the rustic character of the wall. A brick cap on the wall will be utilized. ! Environmental Analysis - Based upon the review ~f the subject map as well ~s"EhV~ronmental Impact Report 85-2 (as supplemented) it has been determined that environmental issues relating to this project have been addressed previously. Also, appropriate mitigating measures identified in EIR 85-2 will be conditions of approval for this and all subsequent subdivision maps. 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 Approva__l - A substantial list of conditions of approval is included within the attached Resolutions. Outside of specific issues Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract Map [3627 May 22, 1989 Page ni ne · 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 and reviewing agencies. Staff will respond to any questions concerning listed conditions at the May 22, 1989 public hearing. CONCLUSION i Given the analysis conducted by staff and consideration of comments from other agencies and the public, it is concluded that Tentative Tract Map 13627 and Hillside Review 89-01 meet the requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the Subdivision Map Act as adopted, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the City's Grading and Excavation Code. With the inclusion of conditions of approval listed in the attached Resolutions, it is recommended that the Commission adopt Resolutions )4o. 2612, 2606, 2603 and 2608. · chris,(ne A. Shi nglet~4t Director of Community Development CAS:ts Attachments: Attachment I - East Tustin Policies for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Attachment II - Photo Reduction of .Tract 13627 Attachment III - Sector and Land Use Concept Plans for Tract 13627 Attachment IV - Existing Features Plan Attachment V - Concept Site Plan for Sector 6 Attachment VI - Letter from Racquet Hil.1 Homeowner's Association Resolution No's. 2612, 2606, 2603, and 2608 Full size plans for Tract 13627 Community Development Department -- 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2608 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF' THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING HILLSIDE REVIEW 89-01 IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT 13627. .. I.. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: A. The Planning COmmission hereby finds and determines as follows: ® That Tentative Tract Map 13627 was submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Irvine Company for the purpose of subdividing approximately 599 acres of land legally described as a portion of Blocks 40, 41, 42 and 66 of Irvine's Subdivision as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, Page 8'8 of Miscellaneous Record Maps in the office of the County Recorder. In conjunction with review of Tract Map 13627, the Irvine Company has submitted an application for Hillside Review pursuant to Section 8914.A of the Tustin City Code for areas within Tract 13627 which are located in the Hillside District as identified in the East Tustin Specific Plan. B. That the Planning commtss'ion discussed said application at a regular meeting on May' 22, 1989. C, That in conjunction with said hillside review application, the applicant sub~)itted the following information. o o 1. A complete site analysis map identifying site features of hillside areas in Tract 13627 and an open space plan. 2. A concept landscaping plan for planting temporary and permanent 'slopes. 0 A conceptual grading plan that included areas of proposed cut and fill, location of pads and slope analysis of hillside areas in Tract 13627 including pertinent cross-sections of hill side areas i n Tract 13627. 4. A preliminary geological investigation and soils report for Tract 13627. De Pursuant to Section 8914 of the Tustin City Code, the Planning Commission has considered and ensured through conditions the attainment of the following: le Compliance with the Draft Grading Manual and Hillside Guidelines contained in the manual. 2. Compliance with guidelines established in the September, 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 2i 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2608 Page two . 1976 Fire Protection Planning Task Force Report adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and entitled "Fire Hazard Background Report and Recommendations For The Reduction of Fire Hazard At The Natural Open Space/Urban II Development Interface Orange County, California. Provision of fire resistant roofing materials, Class A minimum. Visual, drainage, and slope, erosion impacts from any proposed parcelization resulting from slope conditions are within either the property owners management and control or the Homeowner's Association, whichever is applicable. . . Sites are planned l'n such a way so as to preserve or enhance important vistas and maintain the overall landform character of the land use area, particularly those seen from public places. . Preservation of the open spa~e values of the central Peters Canyon ridge as identified in the East Tustin Specific Plan by excluding buildings and overhead utility lines from being developed, on the top of the rtdgeline and by careful siting .of structdres and:..landscaping adjacent to the ridgeline. e Where feasible, grading and siting reflects the natural topography of the land, drainage patterns and minimizes creation of excessively large leveled areas by grading. . . Grading on hillside areas will soften hard edges left by cut and fill operations. Where an adverse visual impact may occur, rounded finished contours have been required. Grading slopes (cut or fill), including roadsides, will undergo permanent revegetatton in a timely manner to minimize change of erosion and siltation. 10. Provision for drainage and erosion control made to avoid any damage to existing landforms. 11. Provision and approval of an independent engineering study concerning the potential impacts of slope instability, liquefaction, landslide and seismic potential for proposed development within a Geologic Hazard Special Study Zone. 12. 'The natural profile and landform character, of the Knoll identified in the East Tustin Specific Plan is maintained. 1 2 Resolutlon No. 2608 Page three 3 . 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 13. Roadway alignment and grading impacts in htllstde areas are minimized and h~llstde roadways are designed consistent with guidelines contained in the Grading Manual.- 14. Slope gradients will vary when adjacent to roadways to create open areas to be planted, thus softening the appearance of man-made slopes. 15. Preparation anU recordation of a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions providing for the development and maintenance of slopes and drainage devices will be a condition of approval on Tract 13627. II. The Planning Commission conditionally approves Hillside Review 89-01 subject to conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 :23 25 25 27 2t PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regul~eEng of the.Tustin Planning Commission~ held on the ~ day of , 1989 Chairman -P~6ni Foley Secretary EXHIBZT A COttDZT[O#S OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION HO. 2608 GENERAL -- 1.1 Hillside grading shall' substantially conform with the submitted plans on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the. Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit. Hillside Review is only for rough grading within Tract 13627 of hillside areas as defined in the Tustin Grading and Excavation Code as shown on submitted plans. Future hillside review by the Planning Commission will be to or concurrently with approval of a Tentative Map or' for required prio_r .... here rading will be not be r level ro3ec%s witht, hillside areas w .. g . . ...... butlde P raoln ermlts for spec~ considered mi_nor, .or .p.r.i.or._to___t_s_s_ua.n.c~t.~°*.,gadin" gwilPl not be considered sltes in II111slae ar=~= -,,=-= ~- de. velopme, n~ __ ,,.,,_,~A o~,,;=, shall, not be specifically required_ on_ Lo~ts,l~, ~l,n~' an~dU~U2r,e n~~=,~;;~e Review will be required on Lots 11, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 26. 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of a grading permit for rough grading for Tract 13627 subject to review and approval by the Community Development _ Department. - · ,.3 Hillside review approval shall become null and .void unless a grading permit is issued within 24 months of the date of this resolution or upon expiration of Tentative Tract Map 13627, whichever occurs first. 1.4 All requirements of Condition 7.3..o..f Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2603 shall be met. 1.5 All requirements of the Grading Ordinance aq~ Grading Manual shall be met and any grading shall be consistent wi th provisions contained in the Grading Manual. .. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) . · I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the P.lann~ng Commission of the Ctty of Tust~n, California; that Resolution No. ~q.~O o~ was duly passed and a~opted at a r_egular meeting of the T,l~sttn Planntng Commission, held.on the~~( day of ../~)~/ , y. PENNI FOLEY Record1 ng Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 gO 21 ' 22 25 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2612 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ALL SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUMS IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR_ TENTATIVE TRACT 13627 AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 89-0i AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as fo1 lows: I. The Planning CommisSion finds and determines as follows: Ae Tentative T~act Map '13627 and Hillside Review 89-01 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Qual i ty Act; and II. B. The projects is 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 and; · The East Tustin Specific Plan final Environmental Impact Report previously certified on March 17, 1986 and all subsequent, ly adopted- supplements and addendums was considered prior to approval of these projects. The Planning' Commission hereby finds: 'the project is within' the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of the project were examined in the Program EIR as amended with subsequently adopted supplements and addendums; and all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into the project. The Final EIR as amended is therefore determined to be adequate to serve as a Program EIR for the project and satisfies all requirements of CEQA.' P~nni Foley Secretary STATE'OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY oF TUSTIN ) I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that ! am the Recordlng Secre~,ary of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tustin, California; that Resolul:ton N.o. ~/o~- ~va, duly passed and ad, opted at ~meel:Jng ot= the T~sttn Planntng Commission, held on the~~'day of ~ , , 19" yo f -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 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2606 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING *THE SECTOR LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13627 FOR SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN I. The Planning Commission does hereby re~olve as follows: A. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. That pursuant to the East Tustin Specific Plan in conjunction with a subdivision map creating buildable parcels for subsequent development projects within the East. Tusttn Project Area a Sector Development ~Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; and . . That in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map No. 13627 a Sector Development Plan for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the East Tustin Speci'fic Plan has been submitted for review and approval; and That the subject Sector Development Plan includes the following required information. a. A concept perimeter landscape plan for the entire project area. b. The type -and . density ranges of proj~ects that are planned for the project area. c. A regional bike/pedestrian/equestrian trail. d. -A plan showing disposition of existing eucalyptus wind rows. e. Two (2) potential elementary-.school sites and one (1) intermediate school site are shown. f. A complete sector vehicular circulation system is shown. g. A concept drainage plan for the subject area. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves the Sector Plan and Concept Landscaping Plan submitted for Tract 13627 including the Conceptual Site Plan for Section 6, subject to the conditions shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular'meeting of the Tustln Planning commission held on the 22nd day of.May, 1989. Penni Foley , Secretary Chairman RESOLUTIO# IlO. 2606 EXH];BXT A TENTATIVE TRACT IqAP 13627.. .- .. Actual construction plans shall substantially conform with the submitted concept Land Use Plan (identified as Land Use Plan and L-l) and Landscape Concept Plan (L-2 through L-14) on flle with the Community Development Department-, as herein modified, or as modlfted by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this exhibit. The Director may also make minor modifications consistent with provisions of the East Tustin Spectfic Plan and the Tustin Municipal Code. 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, conditions contained herein shall be complied with prior to issuance of building permits for individual installations proposed within Tract 13627 (i.e. walls, security fencing, irrigation and guard gates, landscaping and irrigation). 1.3 Prior to issuance of building permits for community wall or security fencing tnstallation~, construction plans and structural calculations .for the walls shall be submitted along with information, plans and specifications to ensure satisfaction of conditions No. 1.7 and 9.1 of Exhibit A of Planning Commission Re_solution No. 2603. .4 At building plan check, a completely detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall 'be submitted at whatever scale necessary to depict adequately what is occurring. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plan and table shall l'ist · botantic~ and common names, sizes,, s.P. acing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and berming details, soil preparation,* staking, etc. The irrigation, plan shall indicate location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment shall be provided. Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalks widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of Community Development may request minor subsititutions of* plant materials or request additional sizing or quantity of materials during *plan check. Please note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping and irrigation materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community Development. The submitted landscaping plans shall reflect the following requirements' ~'xhibt t A ' P, esOlutton No. 2606 Page two In irrigation areas controllers should be enclosed in lockable housing. Design irrigation systems to provide sufficient coverage while avoiding water overspray on buildings, and sidewalks. B. All requirements of Condition No. 7.1D of Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No..2603 shall be met. 1.5 Prior to issuance of building permits for guard gates at private street entries, Design Review of actual improvements shall be completed at which time specific additional conditions by the City related to installation of said improvements may be imposed.. CAS:pef STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) C[TY OF TUSTIN ) I, PENN[ FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that [ am the 'Recording Secretary of the_Planning Commission of the Ctty of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. ~dG was duly passed and adopted at a _regular mee:tng of the T.~usttn Planntng Commission, held on the ~'day of 7'~~ . , 198_.~. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 :26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2603 A RESOLUTION OF THE'PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13627 The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve' I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows- A. That Tentative Tract Map 13627 was submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company for the purpose of creating 27 numbered lots and numerous lettered lots on property legally described as a subdivision of a portion of Blocks 40, ' 4.1, 42 and 66 of Irvine's subdivision as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous maps in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange, State of Ca 1 i forni a. B. That a ~publlc hearing was duly called, noticed and held considering said map on May 22, 1989. C. .That Environmental Impact Report 85-2 as supplemented including addendums has previously been prepared, considered, approved and certified which adequately addresses the project, impacts. De The proposed subdivision is in conformance with applicable. ordinances, policies.'and standards of. the City of Tustin, evidenced by the following findings- · · . .o. 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the Tustin Area General P1 an i n that' a.. Proposed densities and land uses are identified in accordance with the Land Use Element; be Parkland has been identified and allocated in accordance with the Recreation Element; Ce Necessary actions to mitigate noise impacts will be required pursuant to the Noise Element, including an analysis of the Browning Corridor. 2. That the proposed map is consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan in that: me Provi st ons of sector processing requirements concerning circulation, grading, geological investigation, hillside district review, drainage and median and parkway landscape plans relative to Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been met. (Section 3.5) be The number of residential units proposed is within the established limits stated in the East Tustin Specific Plan (Section 3.4.3.) 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1'(; 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2603 Page Ce .. The Identified land uses upon the subject map are consistent wtth. permitted land uses outlined in the East Tustln Spectftc Plan (Section 3.4) d. The school and park sites have been identified in accordance with the Specific Plan (Section 3.4) e. A conceptual site plan for Sector 6 has been submttted. · 3. That the project as submitted is consistent with the adopted Development Agreement between the City of Tustin and The Irvine Company dated January 27, 1987. 4. That approval and recordation of Tract 13627 is not the final discretionary approval for development within the subdivision. Subsequent subdivision maps will be required in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. 5. That the Ctty -has reviewed the status of the School Facilities Agreement between the Irvine Company and the Tustin Unified School District and the Facilities Agreement is' consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan. That the site is ph~si'~ally suitable for the type of development proposed. F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Ge 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. H. 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 wi thin the proposed Subdi vi si on. I. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed'are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 1 2 '3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution. No. 2603 Page three II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13627 subject to the conditions 11steal In Exhlbtt A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of May, 1989. '-Penni "Foley" U Secretary EXHIBIT A ~ATTVE TRACT HAP 13627 RESOLIJTION NO. 2603 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL · PUBLIC/PRIVATE. INFRASTRUCTURE ZHPROYEHENTS (1) 1.1 Prior to approval of a final map, the Subdivider shall prepare plans for and (2) construct and post security guaranteeing construction of full public and/or (3) private, infrastructure improvements within the boundary of said tract map in (6) conformance with applicable City standar, ds.- Many of the facilities will be constructed as part of Assessment District 86-2 but are still intended to be conditioned to this Map. The amount of acceptable security for construction of public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department based on the status of any Assessment District designation and the extent of any work included in Assessment District 86-2. The amount and acceptable security for' private improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. Improvements shall include but shall not be limited to the fol lowing: 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 striping F. Landscaping/irrigation facilities G. Sanitary sewer service faciltties H. Domestic water service facilities I. Reclaimed water service facilities J. Utility connections (i.e., gas, electric, telephone, and cable T.V. facilities) K. Traffi£ ~signal~systems and other traffic control devices L. Street and paseo .11 ghting '. *'.'. M. Storm drains, subdrains and connections to public facilities. N. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines O. Lot monumentati on P. Fi re hydrants Q- Regional trai 1 R. Bus stop and other facilities such as bus shelters/benches in accordance with Orange County Transit Turnout Design Guidelines, subject to approval of City Engine&r. The subdivider' shall comply wi th the Orange County Transit District requirements that three far-side bus stops be installed along both Sides of Jamboree Road at Tustin Ranch Road, lot "K" and at "F" Street. Access to.the bus stops shall be ensured by paved, lighted SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) EIR HITIGATION (3) UNIFORH BUILDING CODES DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTION · (5) SPECIFIC PLAN (6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREHENT (7) LANDSCAPING (~UIDELINES (8) PC/CC POLICY (9) OTHER PlUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREHENT Resolution No. 2603 Exhibit A Page ~o and handicapped accessible walkways from the various builder sites to the nearest bus stop. The area adjacent to each stop shall include a paved waiting pad and shall be lit by adjacent public street lights or lights within the proposed development. Approval from the Department of Community Development shall also be required on the actual architectural design on any installed bus stop improvement (shelter or benches). (1) 1,2 All construction within a public right-of-way and/or public easement must be (6) 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 public (6) improvements shall be responsibility of subdivider, but subject to approva] of City Engineer. (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 sys. tem per standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Bo A domestic water system must be to the standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District/City of Tust, ifi Water Service, whichever is applicable at the tfme of plan preparation. Improvement plans shall also be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Departm. ent 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 a~d adopted regulations enforced b~ the Orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water systems shall be to the standards as required by the Irvine Ranch Water Distri. ct and City Engineer. C · Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall prepare a hydrology and hydraulic study of the tributary area to Tract 13627 and within said tract and the preparation of plans and construction of a storm drain system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. Prior to issuance of any building permits for any residential/commercial project within the tract down stream of the Peter's Canyon Retarding Basin, all retention 'bas(n facilities must be constructed and operational unless protection and liability concerns are adequately addressed as approved in writing by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Resolution No. 2603 Exhibit A Page three -- (1) 1.5 Proposed public streets shall be designed 1:o the following specifications: (6) A. All proposed streets shall l~e '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 Publtc Works. B · All public streets shall be constructed i'n accordance with'City requirements in terms of type and quality of materials used. Placement of all above ground facilities, such as signing, street lights ,and fire hydrants shall be behind the sidewalk when said sidewalks are constructed .adjacent to the curb within the public right-of-way. When street lights or other above ground facilities are installed adjacent to the curb the sidewalk shall be widened in the immediate vicinity of the street light. Prior to final map approval, a list of proposed street names shall be submitted for approval of the Street Name Committee. E® *** F· Subdivider shall postpone the final wearing course of asphaltic concrete pavement until substructure Work has been completed in conjunction.with development of adjacent lots.. Subdivider will be required to post a cash bond in-lieu of other bonds in effect for. said wearing course overlay work to obtat.n clearance/acceptance on all street work.' - All on-street parking on all public .street rights'of-way shown within Tract' 13627 and the same str. e~ts'.'shown on subsequent subdivisions within the Tract shall' be prohibited. (1) 1.6 Private streets, storm drain, water & sewer improvement plans shall comply {6) with the "City of Tustin" Minimum Design Standards for on-site Private' Street (8) and Storm Drain Improvements. (1) 1.7 Builder site plans and interior street systems shall consider pedestrian and {2) bicycle circulation, linkages to neighborhood activity centers and citywide {4) and sector wide street and pedestrian links. Another purpose for these (6) linkages is provision of secondary emergency access points to builder sites (8) for additional access as desired by the Fire Department. Before wall plans are approved for each sector, the subdivider shall ensure provision of.paseo linkages shown on their concept plan for Tract 13627 and identify additional external paseo access points to "B" Street or as an alternative subdivider or their designee will accept r'esponsibility for future changes in the wall' program necessitated by additional paseo access points requested by City subject to approval of the Commdnity Development Department as to location. Additional paseo llnkages within each builder level tract may also be required by the Community Development Department. Resolution No. 2603 ~xhtbtt A Page four -- DED!CAT!ONS!RESERVAT!O#S!EASE]qENTS ., (1) 2.'1 The Subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or reservation requi'rements as (2) appltcab*le, including but not limited to dedication of all required street and (5) flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements (6) and water easements defined and approved as to specific location by the City (8) Engineer and other responsible agencies. . *** 2.2 Prior to approval of a final map, the subdivider shall provide traffic engineering analysis of all intersections involving one or more arterial streets to determine need for additional right-of-way to accommodate dual left turn improvements, free right turn movements and the need for traffic signals. Subdivider may be required to dedicate additional right-of-way not shown on Tentative Tract 13627. *** 2.3 If "D" and "E" remain as private streets, modified street sections for flaring of roadway right-of-way to accommodate gates and entries may be needed subject to the approval of the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. · *** 2.4 A reservior site and booster pump-station site shall be noted and reserved in -~ concept on Final Map 13627 for future acquisition subject to approval of general location by the City Engineer. The location of the reservoir site shall be on either lot 13 or 24 at an elevation of between 320*-350 feet and the location of the booster pump station shall be on lot 26. All locations will be finalized *with subsequent builder level maps. Additional easements for transmis¶ion pipelines will 'be .... required if public streets are not available. *** 2.5 Provision shall be made to dedicate any required easements for sani*tary sewer {6) purposes within Tract 13627 that may be required by the County of Orange Sanitation Districts. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGtlT-OF-WAY (1) 3.1 Prior to approval of a final map, subdivider shall post with the Public Works {2) Department a minimum $2,500 cash.deposit or letter of credit to guarantee the {6) 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 acceptance of public streets, an additional incremental deposit will be required. (1) 3.2 Any damage done to existing .street improvements and utilities shall be (6) repaired before acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of a Certificate of · ~ Occupancy for the--development on any parcel within the subdivision. 3.3 Prior to any work. in the public right-of-way, an Excavation Permit must*be obtained and applicable fees paid from the Public Works Department. *Resolution :No. 2603 Exhtbtt A Page five TREE PRESERVATZO# (2) 4.1 The subdivider shall 'pr'ovlde'adequate maintenance for the preservati.on Of the (5) redwood and cedar stands within Tract 13627 until such time as the City has {8) access to 'said sites for maintenance purposes. ProteCtion and preservation of the cedar and redwood grove in the community park site shall be-required according to recommendation of the City's horttculturalist consultant da'ted March 9, 1989 as determined applicable by the Community Services Department. (2) 4.2 The subdivider shall provide adequate maintenance and preservation of (5) Eucalyptus rows planned to be retained in conjunction with said subdivision as {8) identified on the features plan until said maintenance and preservation is assigned to another maintenance entity. In addition, windrows 18, the westerly portion of windrow I2 and 14, the easterly portion of windrow 20 and the westerly portion of windrow 21 shall not be removed until future grading activities impact them in conjunction with approval of a grading concept and hillside review since these areas are not currently proposed for grading' in Tract 13627. Review and approval of the Community Development Department shall be required for removal. (2) 4.3 Concurrent with submission of any future concept grading proposals or hillside {5) review applications in Sectors 4 and 5 and more specifically lots 12, 13, 24, 25 and 26 a Eucalyptus Grove. Preservation. Plan is needed prior to even j selective tree removal identifying where preservation is feasible and tech'niques for revegetation of Eucalyptus Groves. A consul.rant subject to approval of the City of Tustin shall be hired to survey the sector, tree by tree prior Tto authorization of any tree removal by the Community Development' Department. Until such time as'. tree removals may be authorized, subdivider shall preserve trees in these sectors. PARKS/RECREATION (5) 5.1 THe subdivider shall dedicate by separate written instruments at the time of (6) recordation of a final map unless otherwise noted, land for park purposes according to all applicable provisions of Ordinance 921 and the East Tustin Specific Plan as follows: Dedication of lot 22 shall be a minimum of 9.7 acres for a public community park site with .8 acres reserved for storm drain easement which the subdivider will not be given initial credit for. Credit for the .8 acres shall be given in the event the subdivider secures consent to construct City park over the easement from the Orange County Flood Control District wi th agreement that the District will not require a paved road over the easement, there will be no unreasonable restrictions on the City's use of the .8 acres, the City elects to improve the easement area for park purposes. Resolution No. 2603 Exhibit A Page six B · .. Dedl.cation of lot t6 shall be a minimum of 3 acres anC reservation of lot 17 shal-1 be a minimum of 2.7 acres for public neighborhood park sites. If 'the final Unit counts in Tracts 12763, 12870 and 13627 indicates that dedication of lot 16 and 22 will not be sufficient to satisfy park dedications of Ordinance 921 and the East Tustin Specific Plan for all three tracts combined based on the City's review and monitoring of individual builder projects against their necessary park requirements and assigned parkland credits, then portions or all of lot 17 shall be dedicated by separate written instrument promptly after the determination of the amount of such parkland deficiency ~y the Community Services Department. e o If the final unit count (including any residential units proposed for lot 17) in Tract 13627, 12763 and 12870 will be sufficient to satisfy park dedication requirements of Ordinance 921 and the East Tustin Specific Plan based on the City's review and monitor, ng of individual builder projects against their necessary park requirements and assigned parkland credits as determined by the Community Services Department, then the subdivider may develop lot 17 for residential purposes subject to provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan and lot 17-shall not be encumbered by the reservation. · Reservation of lot 17 shall not be terminated or released unless approved by the City of Tusttn Community Development Department and shall not require termination pursuant to Section 66480 and 66481 of the~Subdivi~ion Map Act. . T If the final unit count of Tract 13627, 12763 and 12870 indicates that the dedication of lots 16, 17 and 22 is not sufficient to satisfy requirements of Ordinance 921 and?the Eas't Tustin Specific Plan as determined by the Community Services Department for all tracts combined based on the City's review and monitoring of individual builder projects against their' necessary park requirements and assigned parkland credits, then the subdivider shall satisfy the remaining parkland deficiency by .dedicating additional land for public or private park purposes, or contributing to the City of Tustin fees in-lieu of dedication in an.amount equivalent to the value of a land dedication as shall be determined by an independent market appraisal at the time said determination is made. The decision as to whether to dedicate land or pay fees in-lieu of land dedication shall be made by the City's Community Servtces Department. R. esolutt'on No. 2603 Exhibit A~ Page seven Prior to Issuance of building permits on lot ].4 or initiation of design for park tmprovemen.ts on lot ].6, ~tchever occurs first, and provided subdivider has not dedicated lot 17 to the City pursuant, to proCedures contained tn this Exhibit, the subdivider shall prepare a parking covenant, and reCiprocal access agreement which will guarantee that a minimum of 10 parking spaces and necessary access on lot 14 Is provided for use by the park subject to review and approval of such document by the City Attorney and Community Development, Director. This condition shall be of no effect, if the subdivider dedicates lot ].7 to the City as a.park. · C. Unless othe~tse noted, the following items shall be provided and conditions met subject to approval of the Community Services Department. prtor to acceptance o.f any public park site by the City. ® Submittal and approval by the Department of Community Development and Department of Community Services of a soils report and rough grading plans specific to lots 16, 17 (if dedicated) and 22, submitted by subdivider's registered soil and civil engineer. In addition to. a standard soil report, subdivider shall also provide lot specific soil testing for fertility/agronomy, with any recommendations for soil amendments. Each lot to be dedicated for park purposes shall be rough graded to two percent (2~) or bonded for per .an approved, rough grading plan,. free of obvious rock and construction by-p'roduct material with the exception of lots 16 and 17 {if dedicated), which shall be r~)ugh graded to a 3~ slope. '-Grades shall be certified and must incqude fi eld notes. 3. Full public improvements must be installed or bonded for by the developer around the perimeter of each park site, subject to approval o.f the City Engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to full street improvements: curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and signing. e Public utility laterals of a sufficient size including water, electricity, sewer, storm drain, natural gas and telephone communication shall, be installed or bonded for each~ park .site's property line with actual designated locations subject to approval of the City £ngineer. ® Construction type fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the park sites on lot 16, 17 (if dedicated) and 22 if required by the City of Tustin Community Services Department. Installation of said fencing shall be tied into the road development. Between the time the site is dedicated and the time the site is .fenced, any materials dumped on site will be removed to restore site to original grades at subdivider's expense. Resolution No. 2603 Exhibit A ' Page eight -- · Permanent fencing shall be installed by the developer of adjacent bordering properties that abut each park site if required by the City of Tustin Community Services Department prior to release of certificates of occupancy for development of said properties. The design materials of the fences are subject to Design Review approval by the City. D. The private storm drains currently shown between lot 16 and 17 shall be relocated to ensure full useability of lots 16 and 17 subject to approval of the Community Services Department as to final relocation with the understanding that the easement will be on lot 17. (5) 5.2 Subdivider shall prepare plans for construction or be' responsible for the (6) fol lowing: A. Regional Trail as shown on Tract 13627. Prior to construction, plan concepts and working drawings must be submitted to the County of Orange for review because of the regional nature of the facility and shall also , be subject to review and approval by the City of Tustin Design Review Commi tree. B · Regional Trail plans ,shall provide ac'cess points when trail is adjacent to community level parks. C· Regional Trail plans shall reflect the location of pedestrian and bicycle paseos and secondary emergency access points conditioned on individual builder level projects to ensure that trail .improvements do not obstruct access, to these facilities. Any.. agreement between the subdivider and the County of Orange should reflect the concept of unobstructed access for the mentioned facilities. D. The costs of any special traffic signal hardware or intersection pavement improvements or treatment needed for horse street crossings to provide a safe at-grade horse crossing without a rider having to dismount. E. Appropriate signs advising vehicular traffic of trail crossing. (6) 5.3 Subdivider shall'be responsible for entering into an agreement for maintenance of the. actual trail paths within the regional trail right-of-way with the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency. The City of Tustin or other maintenance entity under the control of the City of Tus.tin shall be responsible for maintaining any landscaping strips within the regional trail right-of-way. Any agreement between the subdivider and County of Orange shall ensure access to City of Tustin for maintenance of these areas. Resolution No. 2603 Exh~Ibi t: A Page nl ne SCHOOLS (5) 6.1 Subdivider shall reserve lo_t 18 and 23 tdentift'ed as elementary school sites (6) and lot 19 Identified as an Intermediate school site for future acquisition by the Tustin Unified School District. In~ the event that lots reserved for school sites are not required by the Tustfn Unified-School District, said lots will be permitted to be developed as residential sites. In such cases, subdivider shall submit a revised statistical summary and Sector Development Plan for Tract 13627 which would identify the residential land use category p~oposed for the site subject to approval by the Planning Commission. GRADING/HILLSIDE GRADING (1) 7.1 Prior to issuance of grading permits: (2) (6) A. A detailed soll engineering report shall be submitted to and approved by the Butldlng Official conforming to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Requirements, and all Other applicable State and local laws, regulations and requirements. The report shall contain definitive recommendations for design of locatton of terraces/toe drains. B. A grading plan consistent wi~h the City's Grading Ordinance and M~nual and the City's permitted mylar formats shall be prepared and-submitted subject to approval of the Department of Community Development delineating the following Information: 1. Methods of~drainage in accordance with all 'applicable City standards including identification of temporary drainage devices. Please note, however, that review of more specific rough or precise grading plans may necessitate revisions to cut and fill slopes as defined* by the Community Development Department. Surface drainage will also not be allowed across lots. 2. All recommendations submitted by geotechnical or soils engineer and speci fical ly approved by them. 3. Compliance with conceptual grading shown on tentative tract map. 4. A drainage plan and necessary support documents such as hydrology calculations, to comply with the following requirements: a. Provision of drainage faciqities 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. Resolution No. 2603 Exhibit A Page ten Ce b. Provision of dralnage facilitles to protect the lots from any high velocity scouring action. c. Provision for tributary drainage from adjoining propertie, s' 5. Final street elevations at key locations. 6. Final pad/finish floor elevation and key elevations for all site grading. , 7. All flood hazard areas of record. 8. 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 may inspect the site for accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and will require certification and field survey notes of any grading related matter. 9. Note on plans that a qualified paleontologist/archealogist, 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/archealologist subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works and Community Development. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Department of Community Development. The paleontologist/archealogist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting to ensure that this condition and necessary-procedu.res in. the event of a "find" are explained. All- additional testing of recorded.archealogical .sil~es l'ocated.~ithin Tract 13627 shall be completed and spQcific recommendations and mitigation measures recommended by each testing repor,t shall be implemented by subdivider condu-~ting mitigation measures for Cultuf%l Resources contained in Final EIR 85-2. Grading of hillside areas shall be consistent with the Tustin Grading Ordinance and' Grading Manual including, but not limited to the following requirements. 1. Landscape setbacks proposed adjacent to "D", "B" and "E" Streets cannot be validated as to exact dimension until submittal of detailed grading plans'and information. 2. While temporary planting bays are'proposed on the Hillside/Grading Concept Plan, the subdivider has indicated that their locations are temporary pending the designation of builders access points to individual sites. Slope configurations controlled by design of a roadway plan after a final determination of access points on adjacent builder sites, however, shall be screened by use of permanent planting bays at toe of slope and adjacent to road right-of-way. A variety of slope ratios and horizontal radii shall be used to blend into adjoining slopes. Bay widths should be a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum of 100 feet with 250 feet maximum Resolution'No. 2603 Exh'tbt t A Page eleven -- . e e . . spacing between openings subject 'to variation's consistent with Hills'ide Guidelines as may be approved' by the Community Development Department. Planting bays should be' further contained and planted with a combination of tree sizes subject to approval of the Community Development Department {Refer to Appendix C, Standard B136 in Grading Manual). Cut and fill slopes in excess of 200 feet in length should have curvilinear configurations consistent with recommendations of the soil enginer and engineering geologist. The bank and/or top of slope shall be curved in a convex or concave manner to provide a variety of slope ratios. The radius at the toe of slope shall be no greater than 300 feet subject to variations consistent with Hillside Guidelines as may be approved by the Community Development Department. A variety of slope ratios and horizontal radii shall be used to blend manufactured glopes into the adjoining natural terrain to provide adequate transition and to' avoid abrupt changes- between manufactured and-natural slope banks. At intersections of manufacturdd and natural-slopes, a gradual transition of rounding or contours with a minimum radius compatible with the existing natural terrain shall- be provided. Manufactured slope banks intersecting at or near right angles should be rounded with a radius at an)~ corner location of .no less than 25 feet subject to variations .consistent with Hillside Guidelines as may be approved by the Community Development Department (R&fer to Appendix C, Standards B138 and B137 in the Grading Manual).- Where~manufactured slope banks approach roadways at or near right angles above the elevations of the roadway, the slope should be flattened at the point of' intersections to a slope ratio'of 3:1 or flatter thru the curb returns {Refer to Appendix C, Standard B139 in the Grading Manual). Prior to issuance of a grading permit in h.illside areas, the subdivider shall implement a slope warranty program as provided in the Grading Manual. Submittal of detailed landscaping and irrigation plan for planting of all temporary and permanent slopes. The plan should include a summary table with all necessary details required in the adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements as well as the following requirements: a) All permanent cut slopes over 5 feet and fill slopes over 3 feet including roadsides shall be protected from erosion by planting' of a combination of plant materials including grasses and ground cover, shrubs and trees. Resolution No. 2603 Exhibit A Page twe 1 ve -- b) Special Erosion Control measures which may include such items as revegetation mats shall be in place, on all slopes steeper. than 4'1 ..prior to planting as recommended by a soil engineer and landscape architect and approved by the Community Development Department. Plants selected and planting methods shall be suitable for soil and climatic conditions and validated by a landscape architect and soil engineer. c) Slopes required to be planted'shall have a system of irrigation designed to cover all portions of slope after rough grading while automatic irrigation is not required for temporary slope codttions, where water service is available, an established temporary irrigation system shall be required. d) Prior to final approval of grading and before release of grading bond, planting shall be established and growing on slopes with evidence of effective rodent control to minimize erosion and si 1 tati on. e) Prior to approval of the final map or issuance of a precise grading Permit for builder level subdivisions and projects whichever occurs fi.rst, a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions provided for the development and maintenance of slopes and drainage shall be' submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney's office. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to · the Community Development Department after recordation. CC&R's shall i~tclude notiffca..t.ion to future homeowners and purchase~rs of property that surrounding properties may be 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. Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all construction work related to the subject Tract including a method of control to prevent unreasonable dust and windblown earth problems. Erosion control methods acceptable to' the City' shall be required for conditions prior to and after construction of proposed storm drains. F. Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to be reviewed and 'approved. by the Director of Public Works. Ge Written approval must be obtained from adjacent property owners for rights-of-entry for construction activity across lot lines. H · A precise grading permit shall b'e issued prior to issuance of any building permits within the subject t. ract. Resolution No. 2603 ~xhi bi t A Page thirteen --_ (1) 7.2 All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the City of Tustin (3) Muni ci pal Codes and grading requirements. (2) 7.:) Precise grading permits for builder level projects or subdivision maps shall {6) not be issued prior to completion of the lower Peter's Canyon Retarding Basin and outlet pipe between the Basin and the golf course. · FIRE DEPART~EBT (1) 8.1 The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Orange County Fire (6) Marshal, including required fire flow, installation where required of fire {2) hydrants subject to approval as to location by the Fire Department, City of Tustin Public Works Department and Irvine Ranch Water Dis'trict, and compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction. (1) 8.2 Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence (6) that adequate water supply and operational fire hydrants are available for (2) fire protection shall be submitted and approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal. The subdivider shall also submit water improvement plans for approval of the Fire Marshal. {1) 8.3 A minimum 1.25 acre fi're facility/maintenan'ce site shall be dedicated to the (F'~- City of Tustin shown.as Lot 21 on Tract 13627 by' separate, written instrument. Said instrument shall be submitted to the City for recordation as deemed appropriate by the City. Exclusive use of 1 acre of the site shall be devoted to fire protection services in a size and configuration as determined by the City and the .25 acre portion of the site will be devoted to a City maintenance facility. The City s~al'.l-, prohibit obstructions within the fire protection portion' of the site as determined by the City and Fire Department approval Will be needed for any site modification on this portion of the site ~'such as Speed bumps, control gates or changes in parking plans. BOISE (1) 9.! Prior to the issuance of any building permits: (2) {3) A. A acoustical analysis report describing the necessary height of community walls and-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 attenua.tion 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 living 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. P~esolutton No. 2603 Exhibit A Page fourteen -- B.' For any project that falls under the Browntng Corridor, a complete noise s~udy shall be conducted and submitted to the City for revtew. In addttton to Community Notse Equivalency Levels (CNEL) said study provides Information on stngle event noise measurements as generated by helicopter flyovers for Information purposes only. . (1) 9.2 Prior to tssuance of any Certificates of Use or Occupancy, field testtng tn (3) accordance wtth the Title 25 regulations may be required by the Building (2) Offtctal to vertfy compliance wtth STC and IIC destgn standards. (1) 9.3 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the (9) 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 during progress of the work. TENANT/HOMEBUYER NOTIFICATION i i · i (1) 10.1 Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy the subdivider shall: A® (2). Record a document separate from the deed which will be an information notice to future tenants/homebuyers of aircraft noise and roadway related noise impacting the subdivision. In the case of roadway related noise impacts, the notice shall further indicate that additional building upgrades may be ,, ,necess~ry for roadway noise attenuation. This determination to '§e made as'-a~.chitectural drawings become available and/or where field testing determines inadequate noise insulation on residential units. B · Submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval', a copy of the approved aircraft/helicopter noise letter supplied by the Marine Corps. The noise letter shall contain, at minimum: , 1. The location of any TET or helicopter flight paths over or in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision. 2. The distance of the project from runways in the vicinity. (1) 10.2 Subdivider shall notify all potential buyers of property within the tentative map limits of the following Assessment/Maintenance Districts affecting the property: Ae Be Assessment District 86-2. City of Tustin 1982 Landscaping and Lighting District as amended. 'Resolution No. 2603 Exht bit A P-"~'~ fi fteen FEES (1) 11.1 Prior to recordation of any final map, Subdivider shall pay plan check and (3) inspection fees for all public and/or private infrastructure improvements (6) within .City's responsibility excluding those financed by an Assessment (g) District. Where an Assessment District will only finance a portion of an improvement, the balance of the improvement plan check and inspection fees shall be paid by the subdivider. (1) 11.2 Prior to recordation of any final tract map, the Subdivider shall pay all {6) cos.ts related to the calculation of the reapportioned parcel assessments, the preparation of the reapportionment assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to Assessment District 86-2. (1) 11.3 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all required fees including: (3) (6) (9) A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department. B. Grading plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development Department. - , C. All applicable Building plan ·check and permit fees to the .Community Development Department. D. New development fees to the Community Development Department. · E. School 'facilities' fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the Irvine Company. F. Civic Center, Fire Facility Equipment and Irvine Boulevard Development fees to the Community Development Department. G. Irvtne Ranch Water District fees prior to approval of .improvement plans. GENERAL . (1) 12.1 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. Resolution No. 2603 Exhtbtt A Page -sixteen ,. (1) 12.2 Prior to issuance of building permits, the Subdivider shall record a final map in conformance with appropriate tentative map. '(1) 12.3 Prior to final map approval· -A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report. B. Subdivider shall be responsible for landscaping maintenance and ownership of all landscape lots until the responsibility for said lots is transferred to the adjoining property owners and/or Homeowner's Association. C · Subdivider shall submit a duplicate mylar of the Final Map, or 8 1/2 inch by 1! inch transparency' of each map sheet prior to final map approval. De Any well sites located within the tract boundaries that are to be removed shall be abandoned and removed per the standards of the State Health Department and all other applicable agencies (eg. Division of Oil and Gas). E · Annexation of the entire land area within Tract 13627 to the 1972 Lighting and Landscaping District. {1 Z.4 Subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State (9) Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the East Tustin Specifc (5) Plan and Development Agreement, EIR 85-2 (including its supplements and addendum), 'and applicable conditions for Final Map 13627. · . (1) 12.5 Building permits for development projects in Tract 13627 shall be issued only {5) in conformance with the approved development phasing plan outlined in the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. The cumulative number of residential units for which certificates of occupancy may be issued shall not exceed the number of units permitted by the cumulative total of square feet of occupied revenue generating uses or equivalents as shown in the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. 12.6 The Browning Corridor Aviation Easement and G.C.A. Easement as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding dated July, 1985 between the United States Marine Corps, the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin, shall be indicated on Tract 13627 and all subsequent builder subdivision maps. 12.7 "As Built" grading, landscaping and improvement plans shall be submitted prior to Certificate of Acceptance of said improvements. 12.8 Building permits for development may not be issued upon any lot created by Tract 13627 until such time as subsequent project level subdivision maps are approved for individual l~ts as applicable unless no additional subdivision is desired or required pursuant to requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code ',e. solutlon No. 2603 :xhtbl~ A 'age seventeen -- and/or State Subdivision Map Act. Lots established by Tract 13627 may be further subdivided independent of each other. Building permi, ts for uses on lots not' to be further subdivided shall not be issued until design review of- the facilities is'dompleted. All subsequent subdtvi, sions shall comply with conditions imposed on Tract 13627. 12.9 Prior to issuance of project level building permits or recordation of. project level final maps, whichever occurs first, the subdivider shall provide for landscape maintenance and ownership of all lots to be responsiblity of adjoining property owners and/or homeowners association and any other lots on said Tract 13627 that are not to be maintained by the City of Tustin Maintenance District. 12.10 Prior to occupancy of units within future builder level projects, the subdivider shall complete all public and private improvements conditioned by Tract 13627 as determined by the City Engineer and Community Development Department to be necessary for the public health and safety and construction which ls'a prerequisite to the orderly 'development of the project and the surrounding area. ;AS:pef STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certtfy that ! am the Recording Secretary of the Planntng Commission of the City of TustJn, California; that Resolution No. c~__~ was duly passed and a. dopted at a regular meeting of the T.~ustln Planning CommJsslon' held on the ..~~ 'day of ~ . 198_.t~._. PENNI FOLEY~ Record1 ng Secretary A'Fi'ACHHENT I I .. TUSTIN T.T. 13627 RANCH , . _~ ~ 4,1 r, ATTAC~ENT _ May 15, 1989 Mr. Al Baker, Chairperson City of Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: Tentative Tract Map No. 13627, Phase 4 of Tustin Ranch Dear Mr. Baker: As you may recall, the Racquet Hill Area Homeowners' Association came before your Board and the City Council about three years ago requesting that Racquet'Hill be deleted as a through commuter/collector road to the East Tustin Project. Your body was receptive to our request and the extension of our road was deleted from the plan. The homeowners in this area were very grateful for this and also were most appreciative of the willingness of the irvine Company personnel to meet with us during the course of the public hearings. We have maintained contact with the Irvine company the past several years and they have kept us informed of the progress of the Tustin Ranch development. We have had several meetings with Jay Pierce, the Director for the Tustin Ranch project, and reviewed those portions of the above referenced 'map that impact our area: We have discussed three areas of concern with him. First, we do not want a cul-de-sac or street abutting to* the end of Racquet Hill in orderato prevent either the County and/or.~he City.bf Tustin from deciding to make a connection in the future. This remains our*top priority. Please refer to Exhibit "A" attached. Mr. Pierce assures us that the street layout within Lots 24 and 26 will be .designed so as not to have a cul-de-sac or street backing up to the easterly terminus of Racquet Hill Drive and that there will be no dedicated land or easements which could become a future street abutting Racquet Hill Drive to the east. Our second concern has to do with the density of the housing that will be located .adjacent to the east of the Racquet Hill area. The East Tustin Specific Plan contains a 10,000 sq. ft. lot restriction along the westerly line of Tract No. 12870, which is ~ located directly adjacent to Lot 26 to the south, .and also provides that the houses built on. these lots shall be single, story. In addition, the density for Tract No. 12870 allows four units to the acre. The density for Lot 26 is five units to the acre and the · density for Lot 24 is two units to the acre. We feel that the density for Lot 26 should be no more than for Tract 12870 and that the 10,000 sq. ft. lot and single story restrictions should also applyto Lot 26 adjacent to existing development. The Irvine Company also agrees with these changes and has indicated a willingness to modify* the plan accordingly. However, they wish to retain the flexibility to build two story houses on the 10,000 sq. ft. lots adjacent to the Tustin Hills Racquet Club. III RACQUET HILL AREA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Mr. Al Baker May 15, 1989 Page Two ' Our third concern relates to the way the hill located in Lot 13 is treated when developed. This hill is the location of Viewpoint C as described on Page 196 of Environmental Impact Report 85-2. Please refer to Exhibit "B". Many of our homeowners look out at this hill from their back yards. In .addition, we believe that it is the focal point of the Tustin Ranch development. It is what catches your eye as ou drive along Irvine Boulevard, Tustin Ranch Road and Jamboree Road. It is the ackdrop for the golf course. We would like to see this hill developed so as to preserve the natural look of the Tustin Hills area as much as possible. Mr. Pierce has assured us that the Irvine Company intends to develop this hill in accordance with regulations'and policies in the East Tustin Specific Plan and in a manner that will be sensitive to our concerns. We want to make you aware of our concern now in order that you might be thinking about the importance of the aesthetics of this hill when the detaileddevelopment plans are submitted in the future. It is our understanding that Tentative Tract Map No. 13627 will be coming before your body for approval on May 22nd. We respectively request that you take these concerns into consideration at that time. · o Thank y~u. , Sincerely yours, Car~enWoocl Geol'g e~__~.,.a rl(i n Racquet Hill Area Homeowners' Association 2102 Racquet Hill Santa Ana, CA 92705 C. ha es Rol~y ,, / Attachments RACQUET HILL AREA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ,o o , .. EUCALYPTUS ROW TO BE REMOVi · . 'LOT' 26' - 14.0 AC. NEt · . ! / Mr. Al Baker May 15, 1989. Page Three C: · Ed Shaheen Leslie Pontius Don LeJeune Casper Kasparian Ursula Kennedy Ron Hoesterey Dick Edgar John Kelly Earl Prescott Kim Lute Jay Pierce Christine Shingleton RACQUET HILL AREA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION ATTACHMENT IV MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~4ISSION REGULAR MEETING NAY 22, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council 'Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: Present- Baker, Pontious, Le Jeune, Shaheen, Kasperian · (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR' ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED By ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) · Minutes of the,May 8, 1989 Plannin9 Commission Meeting Modification to Design Revie'w 87-13 (Tract 13038) APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 IRVINE PACIFIC 13202,04,06,08 MYFORD ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM HIGH THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1). TO AUTHORIZE THE DELETION OF 64 TWO FOOT WIDE BY THREE FOOT LONG, DRIVEWAY PLANTERS FROM THE PROJECT'S APPROVED SITE PLAN. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the modifica- tion to Design Review 87-13 by adopl~ing Resolution No. 2607, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minu~ May 22, 1989 Pa ge 'two Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the effect of removing the 64 planters'~nd replacing with potted plants. The Director replied that the planters were originally conceived to provide relief to the garage areas. However, since the slab on the garages is abnormal, the applicant has suggested replacing planters with potted plants. Staff has determined that the separations between garages are too narrow and that plantings would be an impedi- ment and recommends removal of the planters without replacement. o ..D~si~n Review 89-24 APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92714 PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2)FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 1) MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL SECTOR PLAN FOR SECTOR 7 2) MODIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR TRACT 12870 Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planni.ng Commission' ' 1 ) Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2613; and 2) Approve Design Review 89-24 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2614. Commissioner Baker asked if moving of the sidewalk to the curb was in order to. create a larger front yard for the units. .. The Director replied that on the local collectors, staff agrees with the design review committee and Public Works .Department that the sidewalks should be moved to curb level due to problems with grade variations and inefficiency of design. . Exposed Neon Signs APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WANDA HAWKINS - DIGITAL EAR 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 BURNETT EHLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2050 SOUTH SANTA CRUZ; SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 13011 NEWPORT AVENUE, PLAZA LA FAYETTE C-2, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11 TO INSTALL ONE (1) 25 SQUARE FOOT SIGN WITH EXPOSED NEON TUBING Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested sign by Minute Order. Commissioner Le Jeune mo~ed, Pontious seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion Car~d 5-0. ' Planning Commission Minu'~ - May 22, 1989 Page three PUBLIC HEARINGS . Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 81-20, Design.. Review 89-15 (Mobil) ....... APPLICANT: PROPERTY/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS REQUEST: MS. RHONDA DAVIS G & H PERMITS 2915 E. LA JOLLA ANAHEIM, CA 921306 MOBIL OIL CORPORATION 3800 W. ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 700 BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91506-4001 171 E. FIRST STREET CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGOR I CALL Y EXEMPT ( CLASS 1 ) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-20 (MOBIL) TO ACCOMMODATE A 250 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING SNACK SHOP. 2) AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE CERTAIN SITE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO LANDSCAPING, SIGNS, LIGHTING, AND FUEL PUMPS. Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 81-20 and Design Review 89-15 by adopting Resolution No. 2604 as submitted or revised. ~ ·. Presentation- Daniel Fox, Associate Planner ,Commissioner Kasperian, asked if any underground work was to be anticipated. Commissioner Baker inquired as to when it the station was last tested for leaks. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the alleyway at the rear of the. station connecting it to the Big 0 Tire St6re would remain open. Staff. replied that there would only be mi nor replacment of fuel lines at the pump islands; and that the alleyway would remain open, as it was actually an easement for access to Mullin Lumber Company which is located further down the alley. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Commissioner Kasperian asked which department would conduct a traffic study on the ei~t-ect of the additional traffic from the larger snack shop. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this would be'a sit-down or take-out shop. . Commissioner Baker replied that it was strictly a take-out store, a mini-mart. He asked if the applicant would be considering application for the sale of beer and wine with the addition. Planning Commission Minu-~ - May 22 "1.989 Page four ..Mr. Ken Malf, authorized agent for Mobil, stated that the shop currently sells beer and wine. .The expansion is to provide extra floor space and Health Department- required storage areas; the tanks were replaced in 1985. For safety reasons, would like to request waiving the required 10 foot setbacks for lighting as defined in Item 4 of the Staff Report. Staff replied that the applicant would be willing to utilize 36 inch lights at the corner of the lot allowing them to locate the lights within the setback area as proposed. If the applicant intended to utilize the 14 foot high lights as proposed, a variance to deviate from the development standard woul'd be required, or there could be an amendment to change the height of the lights to 36 inches. Commissioner Baker noted that the applicant would be adding quite a bit of additional iandscaping and was concerned about continued maintenance. Mr. Malf replied that Mobil Oil has an outside firm contracted to provide landscaping m~inl;enance, and felt that there would be no problem maintaining the lot effectively. Commissioner Le Juene noted that visibility was limited when exiting from the rear of the lot onto Prospect Avenue; trees may need to be removed and was cQncerned about traffic safety. The Director noted that without recommendation from the Public Works Director, she would not suggest traffic signs to be installed (i.e. Right Turn Only). She felt, though, that upon site inspection prior to finalizing the site, the applicant would be willing to trim trees, etc., as required to insure visibility. Respono~ing to Commissioner Kasperian's question regardi.n.g the traffic impact study: due to the scale and nature of this project, a'study was not required by the Engineering Department. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le.Jeune seconded to approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 81-20 and Design Review 89-15' by the adoption of Resolution No. 2604 revised as follows: "Exhibit A, Item 3.3 add an additional sentence "Fixtures less than 36 inches in height may be located in the setback area." Motion carried 5-0. e Use Permi.t 89-17 and Temporary, Use Permit APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONINg- ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 12442 TUSTIN RANCH ROAD - TUSTIN RANCH. GOLF CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL-GOLF COURSE, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303(c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) APPROVAL TO OPERATE TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE, STARTER'S BOOTH AND GOLF CART STORAGE FACILITIES WHILE PERMANENT FACILITIES ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION; AND 2) AUTHORIZATION FOR ON-SITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (TYPE 40 AND TYPE 47 STATE ABC LICENSE). Planning Commi ssion Mi nu~. - May Z2, 1989 Page five Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1)_ Approve a. Temporary Use Permit for a clubhouse, star.ter's boc~thl'and golf cart storage facilities by adopting Resolution No. 2609 as submitted or revlsed; and 2) Approve Use Permit-89-17 authorizing on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages (Type 40 and Type 47 Alcoholic Beverage License) by adopting Resolution No. 2610 attached thereto; as submitted or revised. Presentation' Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Staff made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2609. Condition 5 should read: "A chain link fence with vinyl mesh shall be installed to enclose and screen the storage area housing the driving range retrieval, washing and distribution equipment prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the temporary clubhouse." Condition 9 should read: "Hours of operation of the temporary clubhouse and golf course shall be dawn to 10'00 p.m. Hours of operation of the driving range shall be 7'00 a.m. to 10'00 p.m." Condition 13 shoul'd have additional wording at the end of the sentence: "unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Department." Corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2610 were' deletion of Item 5; Item 7 should be changed to read' "Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages in the clubhouse shall be 6-00 a.m. to closing. Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages ~from 'the golf course shall be from Il 6'00 a.m. to closing .... Commissioner Pontlous inquired if, regarding, item 6'of Exhibit A of Resolution 2610, there could be a requirement that persons operating the beverage carts must be at least 21 years of age. Staff replied that "Operation of the mo§ile beverage carts shall be by'persons of a minimum of 21 years of age." be added to the end of item 6. Commissioner Kasperian noted that on page 5, paragraph 5 of the Staff Report, it states "'During tournaments or special events, two or more such carts could be operated." He asked if there was any limit imposed as to how many mobile beverage carts the applicant could have, and if there were no limits, did that make the definition of "tournaments or special events" immaterial. He also inquired as to the amount of fencing enclosing the driving range. Staff replied t~at no limits were imposed by ABC, and that several mobile carts would be acceptable.. The fencing proposed for the driving range will only be along the northerly edge, adjacent to an access road. There is no other fencing proposed, however, there are a large number of trees planted along its edges and the location of the range within the course will provide for additional protection. Commissioner Shaheen asked if it was to be presumed that there will be no future request for permanent use of the temporary facilities. Staff replied that a condition could be imposed prohibiting the retention of the temporary fixtures for future permanent use. The Director noted that Condition 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2609 states that this Use Permit is for one ~{1) year and can only be extended upon approval.of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minu~_~ May 22, 1989 Page si x Commissioner Baker asked if patrons were permitted to bring their own alcoholic beverages onto the premises. . . Staff replied that patrons were not' prohibite'd by State law, but could be prohibited by the rules of the golf course. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions and Changes to the Exhibits, excepting the fence. He also inquired as to whether they would be agreeable to the age requirement for sale from the mobile beverage carts. Mr. Tosh Neminsk~, Irvine Company, affirmed agreement to the conditions. Mr. Butch~Fol)ler, employee of the course operator, assured the Commission that it would be possible to require only 21 year-olds to service the mobile beverage carts; the driving range has a curve-T which forces the golfers to aim toward the middle of the driving range, and the targets are positioned such that the golfers must direct their shots toward that area; so that the operator can maintain control over the over-consumption of alocohol, they intend to maintain strict control over its sale versus bringing it onto the premises. Commissioner Baker referenced a letter from Foothill Community Builders stating that the "ma'intenance operation shall §egin 15 minu'tes before sunrise, and asked for a clarification. Mr. Fo~le~r noted that they like to m.'ow.,the greens before people are using the course, requiring very small equipment operating 15 minutes before sunrise, which should not bother the neighbors. The public hearing was closed at 7:58 p.m. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Temporary Use Permit by ~)~ adoption of Resolution NO. 2609 with the following revisions to Exhibit A: Replace 5 wi th: ~'5."A'chain link fence with vinyl mesh shall be installed to enclose and screen the storage area housing the driving range retrieval, washing and distribution equipment prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the temporary clubhouse." Replace 9 with: "9. Hours of operation of the temporary clubhouse and golf course shall be dawn to 10:00 p.m. Hours of operation of the driving range shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m." Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use~ Permit 89-17 by the ~doption of F~'esolution No. 2610 With th~ following revisions to Exhibit A: Delete Item 5; renumber the remainder of conditions Add to new item # 5: "Operation of mobile beverage carts shall be by persons of a minimum of 21 years of age." Chan~te new item 6 to read as follows: "6. Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages for .the type 40 and 47 licenses shall be 6:00 a.m. to ,closi. ng. Under no circumstances shall alcoholic beverages be sold after 2:00 a.m." Motion carried 5-0. ! Planning Commission Minu'~:s May 22, 1989 Page seven e Tentative Tract Ma~ No. 13627/Sector Development Plan (Sectors 2, 3. .4,;.,,5 and'6) and HiJi'~id~,,Review 89-0! ......... APPLICANT: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 LOCATION' SECTOR 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF THE EAST TusTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY THE CITY OF TUSTIN EASTERN BOUNDARY AND THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF JAMBOREE ROAD ON THE EAST, PORTIONS OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE TUSTIN RANCH AREA AND FUTURE EASTERN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FOR THE PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK ON THE WEST, FUTURE PORTOLA PARKWAY AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TRACT 12870 ON THE SOUTH AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE THE CITY AND PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ON THE NORTH. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A PORTION OF BLOCKS 40, 41, 42 AND 66 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN 'BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 1) A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ~F AN EAST TUSTIN ~ECTOR LEVEL SUBDIVISION CREATING 27 NUMBERED LOTS AND NUMEROUS LETTERED LOTS. 2) APPROVAL OF A LAND USE CONCE~T PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTORS .2,.. 3, 4,'5, AND 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 3) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MASS GRADING CONCEPT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 WITHIN THE HILLSIDE DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2612; 2. Approve the Sector Development Plan ~nd Landscaping Concept Plan for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2606, as submitted or revised; 3. Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 13627 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2603, as submitted or revised; and 4. Approve Hillside Review 89-01 by adoption of Resolution No. 2608, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minu~o May 22, 1989 Page eight Commissioner Baker asked for a definition of a Tentative..Tract, and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. The Director replied that a Tentative Tract Map is defined under State Subdivision Map Act as the preliminary submittal for a proposed subdivision. At this point th~ Commission can impose conditions; once the conditions are met a final map can be recorded as the legal lot. A Sector Level Map is required to define large parceliza- tions that are proposed by the company that a general land use concept can be applied agai-nst. The Builder Level Maps provide for the actual unit and lot layout for the builders. If a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is requested the applicant would be pro- vided with a vesting right to build under the requirements that were in place at the time that Tentative Tract Map was approved. In the case of a Vesting Tentative Map, the final map must be recorded within twelve months and there must be a full develop- ment plan submitted insuring compliance with all zoning requirements. The public hearing was opened at 9:00 p.m. Mr. J. Pierce,.the Irvine Company, noted that they have been planning this last phase with the Planning Staff over the past year, and appreciate the efforts and profes- sionalism of the staff. They are in agreement with the majority of the conditions of approval, excepting the park dedication. Mr. Mike McC!a~v, resident with property adjacent to lots 5 and 26, noted that over the past six (6) months, the developers have been working in the. area moving dirt and cutting 'down hundreds of eucalyptus trees. He could not understand how the City could issue a notice of public hearing, his first-qegal d~cument of the work to be · . done, when all of this work has been going on for the last six (6) months. He wanted to know, on the maps, where Lower Lake Drive was in conjunction with the work being per fo rmed. The Director replied that there has been a number of ~ctivities occuring in this vicinity that relates to the retarding basin, north of A Street; construction of the outlet that will drop into the golf course for drainage; grading activities for Tustin Ranch Road and Tract 12870; diseased eucalyptus wind, rows have been removed; trees in conjunction with the retarding basin had to be removed; re-vegetation will be provided along the retarding basin. Mr. William Collins, 2261 Pavilion Drive, Santa Ana, commented that he lived in the w, area adjacent to lots 5 and 26;-he wanted to thank the Irvine 'Company for working with the neighbors and for establishing good communications. He felt the neighbors were in general agreement with the Tentative Tract Map, except for: two-story homes adjacent to the tennis club will interrupt their views, and wil'l be incompatible with the area; there is a berm present on lots 5 and 26 at the property line between the Irvine Company and the homes, which they hoped to have reduced overall; and they invited the Commission to view the area. Mr.. Pierce poin'ted' out'on the map for Mr. McClay that Lower Lake Drive construction is due to development of the retarding basin; and regarding Mr. Collins' comments about the berm, the slope is approximately at grade at their property line and increases 15-20 feet in height as it moves away from the property line. Planning Commission-Minu~ May 22, 1989 Page nine Commissioner Baker clarified for the recording that the retarding basin was at the south ekd of the regional park, where the eucalyptus trees have been removed, at the end of Lower Lake Drive; there are no plans for connection of a street with Lower Lake or Foothill. Glen Almquist, M.D., 2281 Pavillion Drive, Santa Ana, noted that the 20'foot berm was their greatest concern at .this point', due to the way it bisects the neighborhOod and distrupts the natural flow of the surrounding area. Mr. Pierce commented that they have met with the concerned parties and have committed to returning to them with a plan outlining a particular grading plan. How to deal with the grading will be determined at time of starting of development. Lot 26 will not go above its present height.' Commissioner Baker clarified that there would be two additional opportunities for the 6~i~bors"to ~p"ea'k and additional time to negotiate with Irvine Company, and that this was not part of the agenda. The Director noted that the Commission was not dealing with grading issues of specific lots, at that time, only actual lot configuration. There would be two additional opportunities for the homeowners to review the precise issues pertaining · to each of the lo'ts in question. Lot 5 is rough graded; precise grading will be proposed in conjunction· with the Development Design Review. Lot ~26 h~s Tract Map Process for individual builders, and also a Hillside Review of Grading Concepts. The applicant is willing to meet with the residents to hear their concerns, which will be addressed in the planning process. She noted that the mass grading plan for Tract 12870 was completed and .approved in conjunction with the sector level map. This evening's meeting is to look at the lot .patterns for Sectors 4 and 5, and whether they meet the Specific Plan. The Commission was not being asked on Lot 26 to decide on the grading grading concept or future lot patterns for specific developments, at this time. , Judy Almquist, 2281 ~Pavillion Drive, Santa Ana, noted that as President of the Committee for Compatibility, representing 120 homes and 500+ members, she needed to assure compatibility between the old and the new; they are not part of Tustin, but feel as though they are residents of the City; they take a lot of pride in Tustin. The objective this evening was to make the Commission aware of the 20 foot berm in Sector 8; they are afraid it will reduce their land values; and feel that when it is in place, they will be unable to change it. She objects to the way Lots 5 and 26 line up, producing a 20-foot difference in height on the property adjacent to her home and Mr. Collins' home; if a two-story house were built on the 20 foot high lot, the residents would look directly down into her backyard. The Irvine Company has agreed to cooperate and make plans compatible, and has agreed to hold their mass grading plans until further review by the homeowners. Carl Greenwood, 2102 Racquet Hill, Santa Ana, represented the Racquet Hill neighbor- hood; as ~ group they were concerned with Racquet Hill Drive remaining a dead-end. They have been informed by the Irvine Company that the street will not go through, but they are concerned that in 15 years, decision-makers may. change, and decide to put it through if there was a cul-de-sac in place. Lot 26 density was approved higher than on Lot 5, but the Irvine Company agreed to make changes. They are concerned with the hillside east of the Racquet Hill area being a focal Point for the golf course and the entire East Tustin area. They, too, encouraged the Commission to make a field trip to the area. Planning Commission Minu~-v~ May 22, 1989 Page ten Mr. Donald Williams, 2032 Lower Lake Drive, Santa Ana, noted that he is a recent · i resident to the area, with property adjacent to the- construction site. He inquired as to whether Lower Lake Drive would go through. His concern was that the new area would generate a lot of traffic with no exit to the north; the new area to the east of his home would be more greatly populated than his area and would possibly provide a majority vote if they wanted to extend the street; He felt that opening up Lower Lake Drive as an arterial would be disappointing, and would like the Commission to provide guarantees that it will remain a cul-de-sac. He also asked regarding the Regional Park: if the park land was dedicated but not accepted by the county, could the land be used for future home sites. Mr. Pierce repli'ed that the Board of Supervisors is adopting a document regarding the aedication of this park, however, the dedication is being slowed by technical issues which are currently being taken care of. It is anticipated that it will be a Regional Park. The Director noted that the Regional Park is located on the East. Tustin Specific Plan, so any submittal against compliance would be reviewed. Regarding the extension of Lower Lake Drive and Foothill Blvd., the original Environment Impact Report contained more than adequate protections for the residents in the area. Prior to any connection of either roadway, a very comprehensive study would-be completed by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, and the City of Tustin to address whether that need existed. If the need was to exist, a variety of mitigation aspects would be explored. She noted that Lower Lake Drive was currently to be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Williams commented that the grading work currently being performed is obviously for streets, which he wonders whether or no.t has been approved. Mr. Pierce replied that there is an access road for the retarding basin which has been de'~igned to coincide with Street A. The Director noted that there will be a 25 foot right of way for the regional trail that will also be graded, almost to the westerly boundary of the tract. Commissioner Baker asked what the time frame on approval would be for the Regional Park; and if the Director was aware of any problems associated with the Board of Su pervi sors. The Director stated that the only problems were the technical ones noted by Mr. Pierce which related to the deed documents. The City is not a party to the actual Mr. Collins again invited the Commission to view the sites with the neighbors as the tentative grading plans begin on Lots 5, 26, and Racquet Hill. Commissioner Baker replied that that was an excellent suggestion, but it would be coordinated through Staff, fairly soon. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it was standard procedure for the Commission to view the sites in question. Planning'Commission Minu.~s May 22, 1989 Page eleven Mr. McClay wanted further clarification as to whether constructibn has started or not on the lots that were be.lng reviewed this evening. He found it hard to believe- that the construction was just for the retarding basin; and that it was ironic that the Commission is making decisions on allowing Plans that millions of dollars have already been spent on. Brad Olson, Irvine Company, replied that work is underway for the retention basin and Ehe required major storm drain lines, as permitted as part of the prior major tenta- tive tract map in connection with the remainder of Tustin Ranch. The work that is being performed is an Assessment District project that the City is managing. All of the immediately adjoining property owners were noticed by the City of the work being per.formed. Commissioner Baker asked if any work has been done in a~ldition to the retarding basin ~nd storm ~lrain construction. Mr. Greenwood noted that the construction site has cut back into the Camp Myford are~", andI wondered how this section related to the retarding basin. Mr. Pierce replied that there is no work being done in regards to Tentative Tract Map 13627, which was before the Commission this evening; they have had to construct a storm drain line from the retarding basin to the golf course, running through Tract 12870. The alignment required soil removal, creating new slopes, and removal of trees. The Director replied that'all of the work being conducted has been per City approved plans that relate to the Assessment .District activity on the retarding basin, Jamboree Road, or the extension of Tustin Ranch Road. All work has been fully approved with permits issued. Commissioner Baker felt that there may be a need for better communications. The public hearing was closed at 9-50 p.m. The public hearing was re-opened at 9-51 p.m. Mr. Pierce voiced his concerns regarding the conditions "imposed relating t~ the park. It was important to the Irvine Company to maintain their good working relations with the Staff. Their intent was not to take park land from'the Ci. ty, it was to keep-conditions flexible so that they can perform under the dedication requirements of the Tustin Specific Plan. The Specific Plan clearly states that the actual parkland dedicated will be based on the actual number of units contructed. With this being the final phase, they need flexibility to dedicate less acreage if they acutally build fewer units than planned. If they do build fewer units, it would be practically impossible to retrieve any parkland that has been dedicated. Commissioner Baker asked' if the park in question would ~6 a three (3) acre park, out 6f 529,000 acres. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he felt that the City needs more parks in the ~tegelopment; the City of Irvine does a magnificent job on their parks, large and beautiful; he could see no reason for eliminating any parkland in this area, and asked where the closest park was, and how big it was. Planning Commission Minu'~ May 22, 1989 Page twelve The Director replied that there was an 8.9 acre. community park approximately I mile south of the neighborhood park in the location of the Redwoods,. with the City boundary to the north. Mr. Olson commented that they respected Commissioner Shaheen's concerns, but that the Irvine Company is proposing to meet the terms of the SpeCific` Plan. They do 'not intend to shortchange the City of any.park dedication, but upon reaching the fourth phase of the project, they would like to have some flexibil'ity in the amount required to be dedicated. They believe that there may very possibly be considerably fewer units built than the 9,000 contemplated. The dedication of this park land may never be a requirement under the City's Park Ordinance, the Specific Plan, or an entitle- ment of the City under this development. If the units are built, the park land deserves to be dedicated. This area is rich in parkland with the Regional Park's 300 · . acres immediately adjoining this sector. The public hearing was closed at 9:58 p.m. The Director made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2603, as moved. The Director commented on the requirements of the neighborhoOd park site as recom- mended by Staff noting that' there be a dedication of lot 16, which shall be a mini- mum of three (3) acres, with a 2.7 acre site being reserved; the location and size were to be determined with the Park Dedication Ordinance; four (4) neighborhood parks were proposed in the Specific Plan; this would be the fourth park, with no other opportunities to obtain one; three (3) acres is the most eff.icient and smallest.size necessary for the construction of a neighborhood park, as established by City Council policy; provisions of t'he Specific Plan state, "the precise acreage and locations of private and public neighborhood parks shall be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Map as addended ahd defined under the review procedures" (Section 1.5 of the Specific Plan); the 2.7 acre reservation supplies the flexibility for the builder if their unit counts fall below estimates; Staff recommends that no less than three (3) acres be dedicated at this time, with full dedication being required in conjunction with this tract. She noted that this was located on page six of Resolution 2603, item B and E. D commented that this item has also been discussed with the Community Services Department and the City Manager's Office, as well as the City Attorney's office, with unanimous consensus as to what was intended by the Specific Plan. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if once the dedication was finalized, if there was no chance of" re~ers'al'. Lois Jeffrey affirmed, but that tonight's dedication proposal was only for three (3) acres. The Staff and the City Attorney's office disagree with the Irvine Company's interpretation of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan very clearly requires four (4) parks, with th,is being the fourth. The Plan also clearly states that the amount of acreage is to be determined by the number of units, so Staff has proposed the min- imum park size of three (3) acres, with 2.7 to be reserved. If the number of units ' is reduced, the 2.7 acres could return to the Irvine Company for some other use. Commissioner Kasperian asked if the three acres and the 2.7 acres were taken as indiviOual numbers, could they be considered as providing five parks in total; and does the Public-works Department actually determine the adequacy and rel'iability of the water system design, as noted in Exhibit A, page 2, 1.4b. He also asked what "Slope warranty Program" meant. -Planning Commission Minu~o May. 22, 1989 Page thirteen' The Director replied that the 5.7 acre site will be one site. Until Thursday, there was no problem, and the company had agreed in writing to the three (3} acre dedica- tion. She noted that the Specific Plan identifies a water system concept, requiring full improvement plans that would be submitted and checked by the Public Works Department. Also, that the City's Grading and Excavation Code required that with approval of any tentative tract map in a hillside district area, that the builder or subdivider enter into a Slope Warranty Program. The actual terms and provisions will be reviewed by the Commission for determination of appropriateness in individual circumstances. Lois Jeffrey, responded by stating that the water system design will be prepared by Che developer, and then evaluated by the Irvine Ranch Water District as to their meeting of the District's standards, for the eventual takeover of the retail water system by the City of Tustin. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the Specific Plan provisions would be if the County of Orange does'not accept the Regional Park area; there would be very little upkeep, considering its acreage. The Director replied that a regional park site was provided for in Sector 1; to modify that use, there would have to be a modification to the Specific Plan; this is a passive site, or nature oriented. The public hearing was re-opened at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Pierce noted that they are in agreement with all of ~he changes made to the resolutions. Regarding the park issue,, t. hough, they requested Staff to inform them as to where it states in the Specific Plan the number of parks required. He requested Staff to provide the Irvine Company with their information to assist them in this matter. The Director replied that on page 2-4, Public Parks--noted four (4)*; stating that "only the exact number, location, and size of private neighborhood parks will be established with subdivision maps." The materials are available, but it has been reviewed in detail at Staff level, with concurrence on the 'requirements of the Specific Plan. Mr. Olson noted that he became aware of the total units being provided last Thursday, and wo'uld like to review the information. If the requirement is as Ms. Jeffrey states, there is no argument left. The Director noted that there is a fifteen (15} day appeal to the City Council on the decision. The public 'hearing was closed at 10:20 p.m. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Environmental Determination for this project by the adoption o'f Resolution No. 2612 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. i i Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Sector Development Plan and Landscaping Concept Plan for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2606 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0 Planning Commission Minu May 22, 1989 Page fourteen Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tra~t 13627' by"th6 adoption of Resolution No. 2603 with the following revisions: Chan~ie title to Resolution 2603, page three, to read "Resolution No. 2603" Exhibit'A, Item 1.1 E replace "stripping" with "striping" Exhibit A, Item 1.1 R delete "In the event the material used to construct Jamboree Road is insufficient to support continued transit use of the stops, the subdivider will be responsible for constructing a concrete pad at the bus stop to support the weight of a bus." Change 2.4 to read as follows: "2.4 A reservior site and booster pump station site shall be noted and reserved in *** concept on Final Map 13627 for future acquisition subject to approval of general location by the City Engineer. The location of the reservoir site shall be on either lot 13 o'r 24 at an elevation of between 320-350 feet and the location of the booster pump station shall be on lot 26. All locations will be finalized with- subsequent builder level maps. Additional easements for transmission pipelines will be required if public streets are not available." Exhibit, A Item 4.3 last line delete "and" EXhibit A' Item 5.1 C-5, at the end of the first sentence add "of Tustin Community Services Department" Exhibit A, Item 5.1 C-6 change first sentence to read: ""Permanent fencing shall be installed by the developer of adjacent bordering properties that abut each park site if required by the City of Tustin Community Services Department prior to release of certificates of ocC'upancy for development of said properties. Exhibit A, Item 7.1 B-lfirst sentence delete: "to prevent drainage on streets" ~h-f~t'~-)~, Item 7.1 D-2 line 9 "in to" change to "into" Exhibit A, Item 7.1 D-7e.line one add "precise" before grading and delel~e sentence 2 beginning w'~th "Costs for such .... " · Exhibit A, Item 12.3 D line 1, delete "not"' Exhibit A, Item 12.5, line 5 should read" exceed the number of units permitted by the cumulative total of square..." Motion carried 5-0. i Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Hillside Review 89-01 by the adoption of Resolution No' 2608 as 'submit'ted. Motion carried 5-0. ~ m ii i OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 8. APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Use Determination 89-01 (Cullivan) MR. BRUCE E. CRANE NORRIS, BEGGS AND SIMPSON 18400 VON KARMEN AVENUE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 275 CENTENNIAL WAY C-2 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL}/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (OFFICE} THIS ITEM IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA EN(YIRON- MENTAL QUALITY ACT AND IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. A DETERMINATION OF. USE TO CONSIDER WHETHER A DENTAL LAB SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT. Recommendation: Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation- Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minu May 22, 1989 Page fifteen Commissioner Kasperian noted that the Commission needed to know the answers to the issues to be discussed prior to making a determination for the project, regardless of what a "C2" district is. .. Staff replied that the C2 district is a retail/commercial district allowing for a wide range of retail activity, service/commercial uses, and general office uses. The building that the applicant is ~'equesting the use for is an office building. The Director noted that despite the representations of this user at this location, if a determination is made, it would be made without standards and would be allowed on all C2 zoned lots. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many people would be employed on the premises. The public hearing was opened at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Bruce Crane, real estate agent representing the tenant, reviewed some of the issues: - There are presently two employees, and with the possibility of an aditional two persons they would still fall within the parking requirements; -Counter-top equipment used (no intended additions)- burn-out oven, casting machine, ultrasonic cleaners, polishing lathe, dust collectors, and porcelain furnace; Other inventory' porcelain, plasters, gold, wax, tools; - FaCility used for crowns and bridges; 'Presently has ten (10) accounts, intends to increase to 15-20, while maintain- ing a Tustin address. Commissioner Shaheen commented that some dentists do the same work in their own dental offices, and that this did not const'itute heavy industry. Commissioner Pontious asked where this !ab was currently located; and inquired into the feasibility' of' "t'he heat venting system as mentioned in the letter of May 9 from Mr. Crane to the Community Development Department. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a strong odor from the wax that would require venting~ and if t)~ere would be any problems with parking or delivery vehicles. Commissioner Kasperian asked if the current facility required any special venting for fumes; and if there would be venting of toxic fumes in the pedestrian area outside the building; if the ovens were gas or electric; if Mr. Crane had any idea of the power demand at any given time; and is Larwin Square on a central power grid that might be impacted by this tenant; he was unsatisfied by the equipment usage. Mr. Crane. replied that the lab required more room and'the applicant wanted the move to be in conjunction with a dentist that he is currently working with who was also moving; as per the equipment supplier for the dentist's office, with drilling a hole to the outside of the building for venting, the lab should not have a problem dissi- pating the heat from the ovens. He could operate as such without a venting system, but would require extra air conditioning to maintain a comfortable temperature in the room; and commented that he had heard no complaints at the current location. This location has sufficient parking, and deliveries are done bjv the applicant via his own car. The venting system at his current location was coordinated with his present landlord; and that this building is part of Larwin Square, but that the venting would be at the back of the building where there is no foot traffic. Based on the current location, there seems to be adequate power. Planning Commission Minu~o May 22, 1989 Page sixteen Commissioner Shaheen asked if the Fire Department was involved in inspecting the site and equipment to determine if there was a fire hazard. The Director replied that the Fire Department does not look at power demands of individual pieces 'of equipment, only exiting, the use of flammable materials, etc. The Uniform Plumbing Code and Mechanical Code regulates the voltage and heating demand of plumbing and electrical fixtures through submittal of technical plans to the Building Department. She was not prepared, at this meeting, to provide the information regarding the gas lines and mechanical servicing for the building. Commissioner Baker asked if the four (4) issues presented involve power sources, or ~e~ting. ' The'Director noted that the issues offer alternatives for the-Commission. If it is determined that the use is permitted there would then be no ability to impose condi- tions on that particular use of a C2 zone. Items would be handled through the submittal of tentative improvement plans, with any uniform building, plumbing, or electrical code requirements being handled, as usual. The other issues may be more appropr.iate to address, because this type of use could recur. The current location is in another district; each district has its own list of permitted uses; and if this case it would then be permitted in a C2 district and a CG zone. Commissioner Pontious felt that there was not enough information presented. She had 6o problem with the use of this facility other than the questions, raised about equip- ment and odors, but would rather have a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Shaheen felt that since t. his was a legitimate ~usiness in operation, with similar uses in office buildings elsewhere, it was a waste of time to require this individual to return to the Commission for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He also inquired as .to when it would be scheduled. The Director commented that requiring of a Conditional Use Permit would identify to the applicant that this is a use in a particular business that the Commission would be receptive to. However, the issue, as presented by Commissioner Pontious, is that allowing a dental lab to be permitted in a C2 zone would then allow it to.be located anywhere in the retail district, including service strips, commercial districts, the CG zone, and any other C2 zones where there are shopping centers. The matter could be agenized to the next meeting in three (3) weeks, and at the risk of the tenant, processing of Tentative Approvement Plans could begin. Commissioner Kasperian noted that he agreed with the position that if there is a cOde, then the CommisSion should review the code for the particular area. If there is a precedent, then there is still the option of proceeding with the idea of granting the permit. He asked if items 2 and 4 could be combined. The Director replied that although the applicant would like direction this evening, the Staff is implying that they do not believe that'the operation is inconsistent with a Commercial District, but are qualifying that to'state that there are other variables on any operation that may or may not make that use consistent with the commercial character of the district. Each application must be reviewed individually and decide whether ~it is an appropriate use for that district, the ability of which is provided by the Conditional Use Permit process. Planning Commission Minu~=~ May 22, 1989 .... Page seventeen Commissioner Baker noted that if the Commiss. ion is giving, a blanket authority to an applicant, there can be a dental lab in a retail location. In regards to the dental office in a retail center which was denied two weeks ago, he felt that this was the same type of location, and wondered if they should exert that type of control. Commissioner Shaheen dissagreed with the relationship to the last issue of dental office in a retail center. He felt that the Commission makes life difficult for people investing in professions. Commissioner Pontious clarified that even though the center in question was a retail center, it still fell under the C2 district and would have allowed a dentist office. If the Commission approved this item, it would allow a dental lab in any C2 district, including retail. The Director noted that applicant of two weeks ago was under a Community Commercial District, which was regulated by a different set of development guidelines, and was not related to this issue. Mike McClay, a dentist in the audience, commented that the wax was put in the oven until it vaporized; the pieces were approximately 1/10 ounce; the ovens are usua.lly electric; a-bunson burner may be required for creating wax patterns; there is an odor which requires venting, but is not very abusive to the surrounding neighbors. The public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen felt that this should be an allowable use within the C2 zone. Commissioner Le Jeune had no problem with t'he lab,' since all work is done on a small custom basis. However, he did not agree that this was the best way to get into use. Commissioner Kasperian felt that he should be inherently cautious and proceed slowly; it was incumbant upon the Commission to determine if the use was permitted within the zone, whether or not it is a legitimate business. Commissioner Pontious changed her opinion and noted that, with the clarifications of the issues "~nd information received during the public hearing, she would not be opposed to allowing the dental lab in a C2 district. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to determine, by Minute Order, that a dental laboratory is similar to the permitted ~uses within the C-2 district and should be permitted. Motion carried 4-1 (Kasperi.an.). STAFF (CONCERNS 9. Action Agenda of May 15, 1989 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minu~:s May 22, 1989 Page eighteen · COI~ISS ION 'CONCERNS Commissioner Pontious noted concerns with- 1} Market Place window signs; 2} the Sign ~ode status; and 3)'the deterioration of the Fashion Club sign in Tustin Plaza. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the City's new Sign Ordinance will require that existing sign's b'e brought into conformance. Commissioner Baker asked if cold air balloons were allowed in the City and the status i · of the property on Garland and Red Hill. ADJOURNMENT At' 10-30 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next meeting of the Planning Commiss"ion on""ju'ne 1"2, 1989 "at 7.00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0. ii 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. 89-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13627 The Ctty Counctl of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Tract Map 13627 was submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company for the purpose of creating 27 numbered lots and numerous lettered lots on property legally described as a subdivision of a Portion of Blocks 40, 41, 42 and 66 of Irvine's subdivision as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous maps in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange, State of Ca 1 i forni a. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held -considering said map on May 22, 1989 and the map was also reviewed by the City Council at a regular meeting on June 5, 1989. Ce That Environmental .Impact Report 85-2 as supplemented including addendums has previously been prepared, . considered, approved and certified which adequately addresses the project impacts. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with applicable ordinances, policies and standards of Tthe City of Tustin, evidenced by the fo'llowing findings: 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the Tustin Area General Plant'in that: a® Proposed densities and land uses are identified in accordance with the Land Use Element; Parkland has been identified and allocated in accordance with the Recreation Element; Ce Necessary actions to mitigate noise impacts will be required pursuant to the Noise Element, including an analysis of the Browning Corridor. 2. That the proposed map is consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan in that: me Provisions of sector processing requirements concerning circulation, grading, geological investigation, hillside district review, drainage and median and parkway landscape plans relative to Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been met. (Section 3.5) b. The number of residential units proposed is within the 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 89-68 Page two established limits stated in the East Tustln Specific Plan (Section 3.4.3.) Ce The Identified land uses upon the subject map are ~conststent with permitted land uses outlined in the East Tustin Specific Plan (Sectton 3.4) d. The school and park sites have been identified in accordance with the Specific Plan (Section 3.4) e. A conceptual site plan for Sector 6 has been subml tted. 3. That the project as submitted is consistent with the adopted Development Agreement between the City of Tustin .and The Irvine Company dated January 27, 1987. 4. That approval and recordation of Tract 13627 is not the final discretionary approval for development within the subdivision. Subsequent subdivision maps will be required in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act: 5. That the City has reviewed the status of the School Facilities Agreement between the I. rvine Cempany and the Tustin Unified School District and the Facilities Agreement is .consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan. E. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Ge 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 habi tat. He 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. I. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements propo'sed' are-not likely to cause serious public health problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. ~9-68 Page three II.. The Ctty Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 13627 subject to all condlttons contained in Exhtbtt A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2603 .incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettng of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of 1989. Mary wYnn City Clerk O~uia E~'- Kenne'~ly ...... Mayor