Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA REV D.R. 88-20 06-05-89REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NO. 5 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REVISION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 15642 PASADENA AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 'rgo AND' ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNI.T APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WXTHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOPlqENDATION i It is recommended that the Community Redeve-lopment Agency: le Adopt Resolution No. RDA 89-15, recertifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the revision to Design Review 88-20; and e Adopt Resolution No. RDA 89-16, approving a revised site plan for Design- Review 88-20, subject to the conditions contained in the attached Exhibit 'A', as submi tted or revised. BACKGROUND On March 20, 1989, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) adopted Resolution No. RDA 89-10, approving Design Review 88-20 for the construction of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project to be located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue. In preparing the construction drawings for this project, the applicant discovered the existence of' two easements to the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) on the subject property that necessitates relocating the proposed buildings. Redevelopment Agency Report Design Revle~ 88-20 June 5, ].989 -. Page two' DISCUSSION The approved site plan indicated an 11' - 9" building setback from both side property lines and a 10 foot setback from the rear property line {see attached site plan). The revised site plan indicates the location of a 15 foot wide easement to SCE adjacent and parallel to the south property line and a fi.ve foot wide SCE easement adjacent and parallel to the east property line of the property. To accommodate these easements, the applicant proposes to shift both buildings to the north and west. The following chart compares the approved project with the proposed revised project. APPROVED PROPOSED _ ~ ....... No. of unlts Unit size Parking Lot coverage Landscape area Setbacks Front Sides Rear Clear driveway Width Height 1'1 11 1,280 Sq. Ft. 1,280 Sq. Ft. 22 + 3 Guest, 22 + 3 Guest, all covered al I covered 38% 38% 42% 42% 33' Min. (15' req'd) 11'-9" both (5' req'd) 10' (10.' req'd) 31' Min. 15' -6" So., 8' No. 12' t 20' 20' 2.5 stories 2.~ stories As the above chart illustrates, the proposed revision affects only building setbacks, which continue to exceed the minimum standards of the R-3 zone. The proposed revisions will not alter the grading scheme for the project (garages 5' below grade) or.the archi.tectural design, which consists of a modified cape cod design. All architectural features, colors and materials would also remain the same. The increase in the south side and rear yard setbacks would increase the separation between the proposed buildings and the existing residences on the adjacent- properties. The existing apartments to the north of the subject property are separa'ted from the subject site by a 20 foot driveway and landscaping. The reduced north side setback would therefore have little to no impact on those exi sting uni ts. Community Development Departm'ent Redevelopment Agency Report Destgn Revtew 88-20 June 5, !989 Page three As the revision to the approved site plan is considered a project pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the RDA must recertify the Negative Declaration for Design Review 88-20 as being adequate to address environmental issues associates with the revised project. Staff has attached the original Environmental Initial Study form prepared for Design Review 88-20. The proposed revisions to the site have not altered any of the necessary responses, therefore, the original document requires no alteration. CONCLUSXON The proposed revisions to Design Review 88-20 affect only the site plan; all other aspects of the project, including height and design, remain the same. The revisions to the site plan increase the distances between the proposed buildings and the existing residences to the south and east while exceeding all minimum required setbacks and maintaining a functional design. Staff therefore recommends that the Redevelopment Agency approve the requested revision to Design Review 88-20. Senior Planner SR:CAS:ts Attachments: Site plan and elevations Resolution No. 2575 Negati ye Declaration March 20, 1989 RDA staff 'repo'rt Resolu'tion No's. RDA 89-15 and RDA 89-16 Community Development Department I ' ~_-?) · r4. iL. ;i · I 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 ]3 1.4 16 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2575 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 89-05 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY,' 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT THAT'IS ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO BE LOCATED AT 15642 PASADENA AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. A proper application, Use Permit No. 89-05 has been filed on behalf of Feridoun Rezai to request approval to construct a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project that is adjacent to and within 150 feet of a single family residence, to be located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue. B · A public hearldg was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 13, 1989. Ce Establlshmen.t, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or wcrking in the neighborhood of such proposed use, as evidenced by the following findings: ® The use as applied. for is in conformance with the General Plan and Tustin Zoning Code. ® The use applied for is a conditionally permitted use in the R-3 zoning district. 0 The development of the proposed apartment project on the subject site is compatible with the uses in the surrounding R-3, R-2 and R-1 zoning districts. 4. As designed, the project meets or exceeds all applicable standards of the R-3 zoning district. D. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to- the genera.1 welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. E · A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2 Resolution I~o. 2575 Page two ' II. The P]annlng Commt-sston hereby approves Conditional Use Permtt 89-05 approving construction of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project that ts adjacent to and wtthin 150 feet of a slngle faintly residence, to be located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue subject to the condttlons contained in Exhtbtt "A", attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustln Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of March, 1989. 10 ]0 eyI' 1 20 9.1 9.2 23 2~ -.. 27 28 EXHIBIT A USE PEP3IT 89-05 CONDITIONS. OF APPROYAL RESOLUTION NO. 2575 · GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed.project shall substantially Conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped, February 21, 1989 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. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Conditional Use Permit approval .shall become null and void unless building permits are issued within twelve {12) months of the date on this Exhibit. CUP approval is also subject to Redevelopment Agency approval of the design of the project. Failure to obtain such approval will result in the Conditional Use Permit approval becoming null and vol d. {1) 1.4 The applicant shall obtain right of entry from adjacent property owners for all work adjacent to property lines. Proof of such shall be provided prior to issuance of any permits. 1.5 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of any. permits. PLAN SUI3M II'FAL ii 2.1 At building plan check submittal: (3) A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements shall be complied wi th as approved by the Building Official. (2) (3) B. Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally, a note on plans shall be included stating that no field changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Building Official. (2) (3) C® ~ CE CODES . i i Final grading and specifications and erosion control plans consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans (including berms in the front setbacks) and prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval of the {1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION (3) UNIFOPJN BUILDING CODE/S ('4) DESIGN REVIEW ~** EXCEPTION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT · (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (7) PC/CC POLICY F"-~tbt t A lution No. 2575 I.,~,~e two (2) (3) (1) (2) (5) (2) (5) Community Development Department. Said plan shall clearly indicate all grades and call outs. De A precise soils engineering report provided by a soils engineer within the previous twelve (12) months. E® Information, plans and/or specifications to ensure satisfaction of all Public Works Department requirements including but not limited to: 1) Curb and gutter 2) Sidewalk 3) Domestic water servi ce 4) Sanitary sewer servi ce 5) Street trees 6) Street lights F. Any damage done t'o existing street improvements and utilities shall be repaired before issuance, of a certificate of occupancy for the project. Ge He Prior to any work in the public right-of-way an excavation permit sh.all be issued. Information to ensure compliance with all requirements of th~ Orange' County Fire Chief' including required fireflow and installation, where required, of fire hydrants subject to approval of the Fire Department] City of Tustin Public Works Department and Irvine Ranch Water District and compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction as follows: , ~,~. 1) Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in all units and garage areas as necessary. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS 3.1 The site plan shall be modified as follows' Ae Guest parking spaces shall be labeled as "Guest Parking" spaces (provide details for such marking and labeling) and shall be permanently retained as open guest parking with no garage door installation. Be The trash enclosures shall be moved six (6) feet to the east so as to provide adequate back-up space for the guest parking stall at the east end of Building "A" and shall be modified to provide pedestrian access for trash disposal. C. Building height shall not exceed 35 feet as measured from the average elevation of the site based upon the lowest and highest grades proposed on the subject proper.ry. E~tbit A lution No. g575 three 3.2 Modify building elevations and proposed exterior materials as follows: A. Provide exact, details and exterior door and window types and treatments (i.e., framing color glass tint). B. Change the color of the accent concrete 'and brick pavers from brick red to dark gray so as to be compatible with the building colors. · C. Property line fences/walls shall be designed, painted and stuccoed to match the main buildings. (1) 3.3 All exterior colors to be used shall be subject to review and approval of the (4) Director of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments must be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on submitted construction plans and elevations shall indicate all colors and materials to be used. 3.4 Automatic garage door openers shall be provided on all garages. LANDSCAPIilG, GROUNDS AND IIARDSCAPE ELEMENTS (6) 4.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for all .landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tusttn Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements. Provide summary table applying indexing, identification to plant materials .in..their actual location. The plan an¢ table must list botantical and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and berming details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment must be provided. Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of Community Development may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing or quantity materials during plan check. Note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping irrigation materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community Development. (6) 4.2 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following requirements: A. Turf is unacceptable for grades over 25%. A combination of planting materials must be used, ground cover on large areas alone is not acceptable. B. Provide a minimum of one 15 gallon .size tree for every 30 feet of property line on the property perimeter and five 5 gallon shrubs. ~'-1btt A ~lutton No. ;?57 5 Page four Shrubs shall be a mtnlmum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum of 8 feet on center when'intended as screen planning. D. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 !nches on center. E. When 1 gallon plant sizes are used the spacing may vary according to materials used. F® Up along fences and/or walls and equipment areas, provide landscaping screening with shrubs and/or vines and trees on plan-check drawings. Ge All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy vigorous condition typical to the species and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition; this will include but not be limited to triming, mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement of diseased or dead plants. He Earth mounding is essential and must be provided to applicable heights whenever it is possible in conjunction with the submitted landscaping plan. Earth mounding should be particularly provided along Pasadena Avenue. I. Major points of entry to the project, courtyards and pedestrian internal circulation routes shall receive specimen trees to Create an I denttflcatton theme. J. Landscaping .adjacent to the right-of-way shall be coordinated with parkway landscaping. K® Minimum 24" box trees shall be planted at the north, south and east property lines to provide additional privacy screening 'to the adjacent residences. L. The landscape nodes at the garage separations shall be enlarged to a minimum dimension of 3' by 4', including a six (6) inch curb. Such shall be shown on the grading plan. Shrub/trees shall be planted in said nodes, in addition to ground cover. Irrigation plans shall include said nodes. 4.3 Indicate lighting .scheme for project, note locations of all exterior lights and types of fixtures, lights to be installed on building shall be a decorative design. No lights shall be permitted which may create any glare' or have a negative impact on adjoining properties. The location and types of lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. · r-~'tbl t ^ .~lution No. 2575 Page ftve NOISE ,m (1) 5,1 Construction activity shall be limited 1~o the hours of 7:00-a.m. to 6'00 (2) p.m., Monday through Friday. This shall include engine warm-ups. Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal holidays. FEES , ,, (1) 6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all (3) required fees including: (s) (7) A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department. B. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District. C. Grading plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development Department. D. All applicable Building plan check and permit fees to· the Community Development Department. E . New development fees to the Community Development Department. School facilities fe~ to the Tust.in Unified School District. Ge Parkland dedication in-lieu fees in the amount of $3,300.00 to the Community Services Department. SR'pef · 'STATE OF' CALIFORNIA ) ' ' ' COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; th~t.~ Resolution No. ~.~~--- was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting the~T~stin Planning CommiSsion, held on the /Y~--day of 198~m. ,i ~ . I. CITY OF TUSTIN Community Deve]opment Department EN¥IRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY:FORM' - . · I. · N,3me Propcn .t 2. 30 Address and Phone Number of · i Date of Checklist Submitted (Explanatlam of all "y~s" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Em-f~ Will ~he preposal result lm · a.. Unstable earth eondltlans Or In changes in geologic substructures? b. Dls'~tlm, dlmlacements, compaction or ovefc~vering of the ~ii? c. Cha~je In topography er ground surface relief features? d, The destructlan~ covering or modification of my unique geologic or physical fecrtures? e. Any Increase In wind ar water erosion of soils, .either on or off the site? f. Changes in depasitl~ ar emslan of beach sancls, er chcn~ in siltatlan, depositl~ or eeoslm which may modify the channel of river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bayt Inlet or lake? 2~ 3, g. E~osure' of pec131e or prc~erty fo geolo- gic'hazords such as earthquc~es, Icmcbllc!es, mucblides~ ground 'fa. ilum~ or similar, haza.cb? · Alt. Will the proposal re~ulf Ins e. Substentlal alt emissions or deterioratlon of an-blent ai~ quality? b. The creat, la'i of objectlcrx:ble odom? Aiteratlcn of air movement: molstum: or tempmre, or any cha~e In climate~ either locally or regionally?' · Water. Will the proposal result Ins ~es In oJn-ents~ or the course of dl- rectlm of wate~ movernents~ in eithes' marine or fresh waters? go Chcmge in the quantlfy of ground watets~ either through direct, additions or with- drawab: or through Inte~mtlen of cm aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantlal reductlm In the amaunt of ' water otherwise available fa' public water ~:~lles? i. Exposure of people or property to water lated haza'ds such as floocllr~j or tidal waves? · · e 8~ Plmt. Life. Will the proposal result ~e in th~ dlvemity of mecles, or nurrber of cmy species of plants (Including tre~s, shrubs, gram, crops, a~l'aquatlc plants)?. b. Reductlm of the numbers of my unklue, rare or emlangerecl ~pecles of plants? e.Introductim of new ~ecles of plcnt~ Into an area, or In a barrier to the normal · replenlshme~ of exlsting epecJes? cl. Reductlm In acreage of aT agricultural crap? . Animd Life. .Will the proposal reeult Im Char.~ In the dlvet~it7 of mecles, er numbem of any species of animals (birds, land animals Inclucllng r~-.t~tlles~ flsh crml shellfbh, benthic orgm~, ar Irtsects)? b. Reduetlen of' the numbers of a~y u~klue, rare or endanger~ st~ecle~ of mimals? · Intmductlm of thew ~ecles of mimals into. area, ar r~Jult in a bcrrl~ to the mlgratlcn .er ~ent of' mimals? cL Deterioration to exls'tlng flsh ar wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the p~l result im a. Increases In existing raise levels? b. ~re of peol~le to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will .the prc~esal produce new light ar glare? Lcmd IJ,j~ Wlll the propel result In a sub- stantlal altoratlan of the prese:~t or 'planned Imcl use of an area? ~ Resource. Wlll the prego~al result Im Increase In the rate of use of any natural resources? ' · Yes ii e. b~ e · · Substmtlal 'depletlc~. of a~ nonrenewable natural m~ource? .. I0. F~Id( of ~. WIll the proposal invol~ A risk of an minion or the releaze m,Tea tos Oil, pestlcldest chemicals or racllatlcn) In the eYent of an accl~t or ups~ cct)dltk:m? PomFole Interf~ with an erTmS'g~nc~ r~ pl(m or cn ~ eYaax]tion plm? I1. Pol~latlan. Will the proposal ait~ the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the humm populatlm of cn area? 12. I-k~ing. ~NIII the proposal affect exlstlng hous- Ing, or create a demaxt for additlanal housing? '13. Tranmartati~Cl~lml~ ~/111 the r~ult lm 14. a. Generation of ~ubstantlal additional ~hlcular. movement?.. .. · b. Effects on existing parking faci'li~les, or cletrxmd far new parking?. · , c. Suhstamlal irmact, ugcn. e~Istlng tatlan systems? do Alteratlms to preeent patterns of clrcula- tlen or movement of pec~le and/or goods? eo Alteratlans to wate~~ rail or air traffic? .f.Increaee In traffic hazards to motor v~hicles, bicyclists ar pedestrians? Public 5e~vt~ ~/III the prc~oml have a~ effect u~an, ar reeult In a need far new or. altered governmental services in a~y of the following areasz a. Fire protectlan? b. Police protectlan? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? · e. Maint~ of public facllltles~ Including roads? f:. Other gavernmentol servlces? . · · 15. Emergy. Will the proposal result In, · a. Use of =~bstontlal amounts of fuel or energy? · b. Substantial Increase In ~mxnxt upon exist- lng Sources of energy, or require the · development of new .sources of energy? I~. Utilities. Will the proposal result In a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilitles~ a. Power or nat~ml gas? -' _ b' Com~icatims .~t~? . e. Water? · eL, Sewer ar septic tcr~? ~ · e, Storm water drainage? .. · Solid was~ ~ d l~posal?...... 17. I-tuman I-leaith, Will the preposal result Im Creation of ar~ health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?. b. Expo~m of people to potential ~health hazcz~b? 18. Aesthetics. Will the prepo~l result In the · obstruction of a~, ~c~nl¢ vista or view open to the public, or will the pre~m~l reeult in the a'eatlon of on aesthetically offensive site open to public view? · 19, .Reereatlen, . Will' the pre~l result In an Impoct ~ the qualit~ or quantUy of existlrxj re~e~lanal agPortunltles? 20. Cultural a, Will the ~1 result in the alte~tl~ of ar tt~ destructlan of a prehistaric or hi~tari¢ archaeol~l site? Yes mi · o 21. Ma~ Findings of Does the pro~ect hav~ the potential to degrade the quality of the eflvlranment, substantially mduc~ the habitat of a or wildlife egecles, caum a flsh ar wild- life pegulatlon to ~ below eelf tatnlng lev~is~ threaten to eliminate a plcrrt or animal communtf,/, reduce the number ar restrict the rcr~je of a ram or endangered plant or animal c~ ellmincrte . Important exa .r~le~ of the malor periocls of Callfomla history ar pmhistory? Does the. pm]eot' have the potential to achiev~ short-term, to' the disadvantage of. long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term Imgact On the envlr~nrmnt is one which ec~-um in a rekrtlvely brlef, deflnltiv~ period of time while long-term Imlaccts will endure well Into the fi~tur~.) · IDoes the pro]ecf'hav~ lml~oCts which am Individually limited, but cumulatively slclerable? CA prelect may irmoct on two or more se1~a~e reeourc~s where the in~act on each mmurce is relatively small, but where the effect oft he total of those Irmacts on .the environment Is significant.) Does the prelect have environmentol effects3 which will cauee subsfantlal odveme effects an human, being~, either dlrectly or l.ndirectly? III. IDlsansion of Envl~tal i~aluatlan IV. Oetetmlnatlon (To be corr~letecl by the. Lead Agency) On the basis of this Initial evaluatlanz · · I flnd that the proposed project COUL. D NOT have 'a slgnlfT~nt effect an the envl~t, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared, I' find that although' the proposed project could have. a slgni, flcant effect an the envl~t~ there wil'l not be a signiflcant effect in this case because the mitkjatlan measures deea'il3ed an an attached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL. BE PREPARED, I find the proposed project MAY have a slgniflcont effect on the environ- merits, cncl an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Is required. J e. EXHIBIT A OISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION USE PERMIT 8g-OS/DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 · Projec~ Description Supplement - The proposed' project tnvo'lves the removal of a ~xi.s.ttnd 'one.-s~'ory'~t'n~le family residence on an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential. zoned lot and development of a two and one half stoPy, Z['unit apartment project consisting of two (2) buildings with below grade, tucked' under parktng (two car garages and three guest spaces). Surrounding development includes: existing two-story apartment buildings to the' north and west, existing one-story apartment units to the south, and existing one-story single family residences to the east. i · EARTH - This project would not result in any change to existing geologic conditions; however, grading is proposed that will require excavation $ feet below existing grade for driveway and parking purposes and raise grade levels 3.5 feet above existing grades for the' units themselves, resulting in disruptions, overcovering and compaction of the soil and changes to existing topography. This is proposed to accommodate below grade, tucked under parking and still maintain a two and one half story building design. (Source: Field inspection, June 30, 1988, preliminary grading plans) . Mitigation Monitoring - Appropriate soils reports and. precise grading plans will be required by the Building Division prior to issuance of grading permits to ensure proper drainage, compaction and retention.. AIR - This project would not result in any change to the existing air'quality based on'review of AQMD standards 'for preparing EIR documents. (Source: AQMD R~gulation No. 15, Site and Floor Plan) 3. WATER a,c,d,e,f,~),h,i - This project'would not result in any chahge to the existing wat6r conditions based on review of the site by City staff on June 30, 1988. The site is located in Flood Zone~.~C, which is subject to minimal flooding. (Source' Tustin FIRM, Proposed Site/Grading Plans) WATER b - Improvements are proposed which will add impervious surface area to the p~'operty which could effect drainage and absorption rates. (Source: Site' Inspection, June 30, 1988, Community Development Department). Mitigation Monitoring - Drainage plans for the project for acceptance of water into the public storm drain system will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. PLANT LIFE a~b,c,d - The site is developed with an existing single-family residence a'~d is landscaped with turf in front and fruit trees in the rear. Development of this project will result in removal of existing vegetation and replacement with new turf, shrubs, ground cover and trees that are common species to the area. (Source" Field Inspection, June 30, 1988, submitted landscape plans) . ANIMAL LIFE a,b,c,.d., - Based on review of City records and site inspection COndUcted Ib~' Cl~y. staff, no rare or endangered species are known to inhabit the project site. (Source- Field Observation, .June 30, 1988) · Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Use Permit 89-05 and Design Review 88-20 Page two e NOISE - Adjacent, existing res.idents'~ay experience inCreases in ambient noise levels related to construction.activities, however, this is considered a short term impact. ' Mitigation Monitoring - Construction activities shall be limited between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p,m., Monday through Friday (including engine warm-up). Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal hol i days. LIGHT AND GLARE - The project wile introduce additional lighting into the area I~y means'of exterior fixtures on the future buildings. Mitigation Monitoring - Specific lighting plans and light standards will be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department Which confine direct light rays to the subject property as required by the Zoning Code. 8. ~LAND.USE - The proposed project will alter the existing land use of the site although the proposed number of apartment units (11) is permitted by the R-3 Zoning District standards.. Due to its two and one half story design, the project could impact the adjacent properties to the east which are both developed with one-story buildings. The one-story buildings to the south are located within six feet or less of the common-property line; however, the resulting site line blocks views' into those yards. (Source: Community Development Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code) r4itigation r4onitoring - The proposed building "A" shall maintain a minimum 10 foot rear setback and building "B" shall maintain a minimum 24 foot rear setback. Rear yard grades shall be left natural except for drainage purposes. Specimen size trees 'shall be planted along the north, south and east property lines of the subject site to provide additional screening. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The project would not result in any significant 'increased use of natural'l resources. The site is presently developed, and. is located in an area of. numerous existing multi-family developments as determined by field inspection on June 30, 1988. (Source: Field Inspection, June 30, 1988) 10, RISK..OF. iUPSET -.The proposed project would not result in any increased risk of upset to the property or future residents in that.the proposed use is for an ~1 unit apartment project and no hazardous or flammable materials are associated with this use. Applicable requirements of the Fire Department and Uniform Building Code will be satisfied to significantly reduce any risk of upset (Source' Building Division and Fire Department). · · Discussion of' Environmental Evaluation Use Permit 89-05 and Design Review 88-20' Page three · Il. POPULATION.... - The proposed project will remove an existing single family residence and replace it with 1! apartment units, adding approximately 24 new rest~lents to th& area, based upon the City's average household population of 2.4 persons/household (deducting the residents of the existing dwelling). -The ~roposed density and resulting increase in population in the immediate area will not result in any significant impacts, as the increase in number of dwelling units and population are permitted and anticipated by the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. Comments received from the Community Services, Public Works, Police and Fire Department~ did not note significant impacts to their services as a result of this project.. (Source' State DePartment of Finance Census data- 1/88, Community Development, Police, Fire, Public Works and Community Services Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code. ) 12. HOUSING - See No. 11. 13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - The project will generate approximately seven (?)'~verage'da~ly trips (ADT) per unit, for a total of approximately 77 ADT as compared to approximately 10 ADT for the existing single family residence. Although this is a substantial increase, the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the project would not significantly impact the carrying capacity of existing streets, as they are capable of handling the anticipated additional vehicle trips generated by the project. (Source' Engineering Department/City Traffic Engineer) 14. PUBLIC SERYICES - The project would not result in any significant chan.qe to public services, new families are likely to have children utilizing public schools. All services are in place for the area and development of the site has been anticipated by the Community Development Department. (Source: Fire, Police, Public Works, Community Servlcesl Departments) Mitigation Monitoring - The developer shall pay impact fees to the Tustin Unified School District p~ior to issuance of permits. 15. ENERGY - The project will not result in a substantial change in the use of energy. The project site has existing energy service. (Source' Public Works' Department) 1~. UTILITIES - The project would not result in any increased.need for utilities, as all utilities are exis.ting and presently serve the site and have adequate capacity to .serve the project. (Source: Public Works Department) 17. HUMAN HEALTH - The project would not result in any effects to human health given the nature of the proposed land use. (Source' Community Development Department) Olscusslon of Environmental Evaluation Use Perfntt 89-05 and Design Review 88-20 Page four 18. AESTHETICS - Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a Ose perm~'t to construct a building on an. R-3 lot whose height would be greater than one-story or 20 feet, when the property abuts an R-1 zone and the. but~di, ng would be within 150 feet of a single famt. ly residence; all of these conditions apply to the subject project. To mitigate potential impacts to the single family residences to the east, and one-story apartments to the south, the proposed project has undergone an extensive design review process, resulting in a two and one half story building which incorporates colors and materials that are compatible with'those found on existing structures and building height that 'is consistent wtth existing two-story buildings located to the north and west. Additionally, impacts to the existing developments to the east and south have been further mitigated by proposed side and rear setbacks that meet and exceed mintmum required setbacks and the proposed grading scheme which minimizes grade differences to the extent possible. Additional mitigation could be achieved via the proposed landscaping for the project. Mitigation Monitoring - The landscape plans shall incorporate the use of minimum 24 inch box trees along the north, south and east property lines to provide addi ti onal pti racy screening. · g. RECREATION - Future residents of the project may use existing recreational facilities; however, due to the small scale of the project' (11 units), anticipated impacts are minimal. (Source' Com.munity Development and Services' Departments) .. 20. CULTURAL RESOUCES - The project site is not located in an area known as an archae~l~ica'"l-resource, nor is it located in the City's Cultural Resources District. The site is presently developed with a simple, one-story, stuccoed, single-family residence. There is no evidence that any' cultural resources exist on the subject property. (Source: Tustin Area Historical Survey, Field Inspection, June 30, 1988.) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The environmental evaluation provided herein, ~l~t6mpl~s tOI fully identify, discuss and mitigate any impacts associated with the .proposed development project. Considering the sources used, the proposed level of development and the mitigation and monitoring measures incorporated herein, staff has determined that any project impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. SR:ts:pef DATE: MARCN 2:0, 1989 REDEVELOPMENT NO. 5 AGENCY TO: . FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIYE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 APPLICANT/ OWNER: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 LOCATION' 15642 PASADENA AVEtiUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 REQUEST- APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 {SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. RECOMMENDATION _ It is recommended that the Redevelopment.~Agency. 1) Adopt Resolution No. RDA 89-9, certifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the project. · 2) Approve Design Review-88-20 by adoption of Resolution Ilo. RDA 89-10, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A' of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575. BACKGROUND _ The Community Development Department has completed a review of the site plan and architectural design of the proposed project. The design review process emphasized the following issues' ° Architectural compatibility with surrounding facilities' ° Design of on-site parking and circulation; and ° Conformance with Zoning Code and development standard requirements. · As required by the South Central Redevelopment Plan, the final site plan and i Redevelopment Agency Report Design Review 88-20 March 20, 1989 Page two II III I architectural design is subject to the review and approval of the Redevelopment Agency. At their regular meeting of March 13, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2575, approving Use Permit 89-05 for the project authorizing construction of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project on the subject property within 150 feet of an R-1 zoned property. The subject property is presently developed with a one-story single family residence. Surrounding zoning and land uses consist of two-story apartment buildings to the north and across Pasadena Avenue to the west, one-story apartments on property zoned R-2 (Duplex Residential) to the south, and one-story single family residences on property zoned R-1 to the east. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE PLAN Submitted development plans propose construction of two .separate two and one half story, apartment buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type units. Proposed units will be approximately 1,200 square feet in size and contain three bedrooms and 2-1/2 baths. The overall density of the project would be 23.7 units per acre. The maximum number of units that can be' authorized on the site is 11 units. · Building. coverage on the site will be approximately 38% with setbacks'proposed of approximately 35 feet along the front of the property, 11.75 feet along the side lot lines-and approximately 10 to 24 feet at the rear of the property adjacent to R-1 zoned property. A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are proposed for the project; 11 two-car garages and three open, covered guest spaces. Proposed parking is to be provided under each building and will be partially below existing grade. Access to all parking is proposed from a 27 foot wide central driveway. Entryways to each unit will be provided by concrete walkways located adjacent to the northerly and southerly property lines of the project wibh pedestrian access to parking below grade provided at three proposed stairwells. Private ground level open space/patio areas are also proposed at 'the front of each unit adjacent to entries. Walkways and driveway areas will be accented with special brick pavers or other special pavement treatment. The proposed grading scheme for the project involves excavating approximately five feet below existing grade for the central driveway and tuck under parking. The resulting driveway ramp incorporates 6% blend slopes at each end with an 11.23% slope over the remaining portion. Because the garage leve.1 is only five (5) feet below grade, and an eight '(8) foot ceiling is proposed for the garages, the grade at the front entrances to the units is raised an average of 3.5 feet community Development Department Redevelopment Agency Report Design Review 88-20 March 20, 1989 Page three above existing, grade. Specifically, the grading .concept proposes a two foot grade difference at the side property lines, stepping up 18 inches to the pati.o and front door level. The actual finished floor level of'all 11 units is six inches above the patio level. Adjacent properties to the north and south will face a 6'8" combination wall and fence. The grade level in the front and rear yard 'setbacks will .not change from existing conditions except for landscape berming and drainage. This concept helps preserve privacy between the project and the rear yards of the single family residences at the rear of the subject property. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The proposed architectural design for the project is a modified cape cod design which utilizes a combination of wood lap-siding and stucco with wood trim at building corners and around doors and windows. The project incorporates a variety of i'nsets, projections and cantilevers to achieve relief on all sides of the two buildings. The proposed color scheme includes "silver gray" stucco, "pearl gray" siding, "swiss coffee" trim and "charcoal gray" asphalt composition shingles. Surrounding color and material themes in the general vicinity of, the project include white stucco with blue trim and a white gravel roof immediately to the north, white stucco with blue trim and gray asphalt comp.osition shingle roofs immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, tan stucco and wood siding with brick accents and a shake roof immediately to the south and general earth tone stucco and wood siding with composition shingle, shake and gravel roofs on the single family residences to the east. Overall, staff believes that the proposed color and material scheme is compatible with that of surrounding deve 1 opme nts. CONCLUSION Based on the above discussion, the proposed project has been found to be compatible with surrounding'developments and should be approved.. ~6~e RUbin .............. Senior Planner Christine Shingleton /'/ Director of Community~D~velopment SR-ts Attachments' Site, floor, elevation and grading plans Initial Study/Nega.tive Declaration Resolution No. 2575 Resolution No. RDA 89-9 Resolution No. RDA 89-10 Community Developmen~ DepsrTmen~ NEGATIVE DEi,CLA F{ATION. CITY OF TUSTIN · ;300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 .. . . · . II i I i ii i i , Project. T. ttle: Use ?'emit 89-65/ Ftle NO.Use Pecait'.89"Os/ Design Reviev 88-20 ' Desig~ Review 88-2 Project Location: 15642 Pasadena Avehue -. ._ · ProJect Description:Proposed two-stOry, Il-unit apartment project with b~low grade parking (one 2-car garage/unit plus '3 guest spaces). Project Proponent: Feridoun Rezai Contact Person: I ii Steve Rubin Telephone:714/54~-8890 Ext. 278 · The Community Development Department has conducted an initial, study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California .Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby find: DThat there, is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. · · ~ That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have been included-in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and hereby made a part,.of this N~gattve Declaration. · . Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tusttn, The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review peri od, which begins wi th the public notice of a Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days..Upon review by the Community Oevelopment Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REYIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on Thursday. March 9. 19~.q~ Community Development Olrec 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'. RDA 89-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 AS ADEQUATE FOR A REVISION TO SAID DESIGN REVIEW, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. The revision to Design Review 88-20 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. A Negative Declar. atton was previously p.repared for this project and was distributed for public review. C. Whereby, the Redevelopment Agency' of the City of Tusttn has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and othe~ ..interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. D. The Redevelopment Agency has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and compl ere. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State .guidelines. The Redevelopment Agency, havtng ftnal approval authority over the project, has reviewed and considered the information contained In the Negative Declaratlon for Deslgn Review 88-20 prtor to approving the proposed revisions and found it adequately discussed the envlronmental effects of the proposed revtsed project. On the basis of the tnittal study and comments' received during the publlc revtew process, the Redevelopment Agency has found that there is no substantial evidence that there wi11 be any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the approval of the revised project because mitigation measures identified In the Negative Declaration have been Incorporated lnto the project whtch mttigate any potential significant environmental 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 '12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9.1 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 Resolution No. RDA 89-15 Page t~o effects to a point where clearly no significant effects will occur. The mitigation measures are identified in Exhibit A to the attached Negative Declaration and initial study and are adopted as' conditions of approval of the subject project pursuant to Conditions 2.1 and 5.1 of Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2575, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the L day of ...... .i, , 1989. UrSUla Ej Kennedy Chairman ~ El Wyhn ........... Secretary 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE' CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING A REVISION 'TO THE SITE PLAN FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 15642 PASADENA AVENUE. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustln resolves as fol lows' I. The Community Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows- A® Pursuant to the adopted South/Central Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Agency shall approve all site plans and architectural designs of any project proposed within the Redevelopment Agency Project Area. B. A proper application, (Revision to Design Review 88-20) has been filed on behalf of Feridoun Rezai requesting author,ization to revise the approved site plan for a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, by increas.in~ the south side building setback from t, he 11'-g" to 15'-6" and the rear setback from 10 feet to 12 feet and reducing the north side setback from 11'-9" to 8 feet 'and the front setback from 33. feet to 31 feet. C. The propOsed revisions will not alter the previously approved project in building height or architectural design. D. The Agency has reviewed the proposed project and determines that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. E. A Negative Declaration has-been approved by the Redevelopment Agency in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. F. Final development plans shall require approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of Building Permits. G. The pro ject I s i n conformance wi th the South/Centra 1 Redevelopment Plan. II. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 It; 17 18 19 9.1 22 23 ~5 27 28 Resolution No. RDA 89-16 Page two hereby approves authorization to revlse the slte plan a two and one half story, 11 unlt apartment project at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, subject to the conditions contained tn Exhtbtt A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettng of the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the day of , 1989. U~Sula E. Kennedy Chairman Mary E. Wynn Secretary EXHIBIT A REVISION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-16 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted revised site plan, date stamped May 4, 1989 and the previously approved plans for the project (with the exception of the site plan) date stamped February 21., 1989, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. 1.2 All applicable conditions of approval of Exhibit 'A' to Resolution No. 2575, attached thereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall remain in full force and effect.