Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA D.R. 88-20 07-16-90AGENDA -1b .ATE: JULY 161 1990 EVELOPMENT AGENCY NO. 6 i-16-90 Inter - Com TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: REVISION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 APPLICANT/ OWNER: FERIDOUN REZAI 203 TROJAN STREET ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804 LOCATION: 15642 PASADENA AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A REVISED BUILDING DESIGN FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APARTMENT PROJECT, REDUCING BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT FROM TWO AND A HALF STORIES AND 2 9.5 FEET TO A MAXIMUM OF ONE STORY AND 20 FEET. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Community Redevelopment Agency: 1. Adopt Resolution No. RDA 90-10 recertifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the revision to Design Review 88-20; and 2. Adopt RDA Resolution No. RDA 90-11, approving revised architectural design and site plan for Design Review 88- 20 as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND On July 2, 1990, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 90-73(A) (copy attached), approving Conditional Use Permit 90-08, reducing the height of four (4) units from 21-2 stories to one story, resulting in a revised architectural design. Pursuant to the provisions of the South/Central Redevelopment Plan, Design Reviews within the project area requires the approval of the Agency. Redevelopment Agency Report Revision to DR 88-20 July 16, 1990 Page 2 Consequently, the revised architectural design stipulated by Conditional Use Permit 90-08 requires Agency approval. This action does not require a public hearing. DISCUSSION As approved by Resolution No. 90-73(A), CUP 90-08 requires the following revisions be made to the project: 1. Removal of the second floor from the two end units of Buildings A and B (units 5, 61 10 and 11); 2. Incorporation of pitched roofs on the one story portions of the buildings with a hop roof at the ends of the roofs; 3. Relocation of the trash enclosure to the front of the driveway; 4. Deletion of the spa/jacuzzi in the southwest corner of the site; 5. Planting of closely spaced, 24" box evergreen trees along the side and rear property lines of the subject site; and at least one major specimen size tree in the southeast corner; 6. Raising the height of the wall along the rear property line from 6' - 8" to 8' - 0"; and 7. Installation of vision cutoff screens on privacy sensitive windows. The footprints of both buildings, as well as setbacks to property lines will not change as a result of these revisions. Likewise, there will be no change to project parking which presently provides a two -car garage for each unit with automatic openers, plus three (3) guest parking spaces tucked under the buildings. CONCLUSION The revisions to Design Review 88-20 are consistent with the modifications required by CUP 90-08. Staff therefore recommends Community Development Department Redevelopment Agency Report Revision to DR 88-20 July 16, 1990 Page 3 that the Redevelopment Agency approve the requested revision to Design Review 88-20. Steve Rubin Christine A. Shingleto Associate Planner Director of Community evelopment SR:CAS:kbc Attachments: Resolution No. 90-73(A) Resolution No.'s RDA 90-10 and RDA 90-11 Community Development Department 1 3 4 J G 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 li IS 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 90-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, 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 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. Design Review 88-20 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. C. Whereby, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other 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 complete. II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Redevelopment Agency, having final approval authority over Design Review 88-20, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approving the proposed project and found it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the Redevelopment Agency has found that there is no substantial evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the approval of the project because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no significant effects will occur. The mitigation 1 V 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Z 24' 24 2r 21 2' 2 Resolution No. RDA 90-10 Page 2 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 2.11 3.11 4.1 and 5.1 of Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 90-73A, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency held on the 16th day of July, 1990. MARY WYNN Secretary RICHARD B. EDGAR Redevelopment Chairman NEGATIVE DECLARAT[ON CITY OF TUSTIN 300 ,CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN , CA. 92680 Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 90-08 File No. CUP 90-08 Project Location: 15642 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin Project Description: An 11 unit apartment project with seven (7). units having a maximum height of 2J stories (29.5') & four (4) units having a Project Proponent: Feridoun Rezai maximum height of 1 story (20'). Contact Person: Steve Rubin Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 252 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: That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. X That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have been included in theP roject 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 Negative 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 Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins -with the public notice of a Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on June 13, 1990. DATED: May 24, 1990 Community Development D recto l CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM I. Boc;cground I. Name of Proponent FERIDOUN REZAI 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent _203 TROJAN STREET _ ANAHEIM9 CA 92804 (714) 220-2893 _ I Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist CITY OF TUSTIN S. Name of Proposal, if applicable CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08 II. Environrrmntal impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) yes M No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in; a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The des gruel ion, covering or modification of any unique geologic o. physical features? X C. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any boy, inlet or lake? X ti I I Yes • M No g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, • mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: d._ Substantial air emissions or deterioration _ of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? e. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 'U. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in ._X._ `_ any water body? X e. Discharge into svrfoce waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or ratc of Now of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drowols, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h.:. Substantial reduction in the amount of . water otherwise available for public water svpp lies? .. X i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X i ' ,rr • Yes Maybe No 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b.= Reduction of the numbers of any unique, ' rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ' a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species• of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Oeteriorafion to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stontiol alteration of the prese:it or planned land use of an area? X 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any notvral resources? X i b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: .a. A risk of an axplosion or the releo9e of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset. conditions? b. Pon ible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evocuot ion Plan? 11. Popu IQt ion. Will the proposal alter the I oca t i on, distribution, density, or growth rate of the' human population of on- area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular. movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial in -pact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waserborn?, roil or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. • Will the proposal have on effect upon, or result in a need for new or '.Itered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. • Police protection? `. Schools? Yes Arbe 1�b . _X .. X X --i X -- -- --_ __X J X X X J . I Yes No d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X , e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X f. �: Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substontiol amounts of fuel or energy? X . b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? X 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: .,. Power or natural gas? • X b.. Communications systems? X c. Water? X d. Sewer or septic tonks? X e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the • creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreartion, Will the proposal result in on / impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. o. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destnoction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _X -- YtS iM0'ybe No b. Wi I I ther ►, -_ p oposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical charge which would affect _ unique ethnic cultural values? X_ -- d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? : X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to,drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project' have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) X c. Does the Project , have impoc••s which are individually limited, but cumulative!y con- siderable? (A prciect may impact on two or more separate : esour:as where the hmpoct on each resource is re lct ive ly sme I I, bvt where the c`fect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have'a significant effect*1 on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed Project could on the environment, there will no be asignificant l fe significant thiscasexx effect because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet haveI I . been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY hove a significant effect on the environ- ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I�I MARCH 16, 1990 ignoture ASSOCIATE PLANNER 6 s EXHIBIT A DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION USE PERMIT 90-08 Project Description Supplement - The project involves the removal of an existing one-story single family residence on an R-3 (Multiple Family.Residential) zoned lot and development of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project consisting of two ( 2 ) buildings with below grade, tucked under parking (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. 1. EARTH - This project would not result in any change to existing geologic conditions; however, grading is proposed that will require excavation 5 feet below existing grade for dri%reway 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 isproposed to accommodate below grade, tucked under parking and still maj,ntain a two and one half story building design. (Source: Field inspection, June 30, 1988, precise 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. 2. AIR ac - 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 Regulation No. 15, Site and Floor Plan) Air b - The proposed trash enclosure is located four feet from the rear yards of the adjacent single family properties. Odors from open bins may adversely affect those residents (Source: Submitted site plan). Mitigation/Monitoring - The trash enclosure shall be relocated towards the front of the site at the base of the drive ramp subject to approval by the Community Development Department. 3. WATER a, c., d, e, f, g, h, i - This project would not result in any change to the existing water 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 property which could effect drainage and I Exhibit-, A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Use Permit 90-08 Page 2 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. 4. PLANT LIFE a, b, c. d - The site was developed with an existing single-family residence and landscaped with turf in front and fruit trees in the rear. Development of this project resulted in removal of existing vegetation and eventual 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) 5. ANIMAL LIFE a, b, c. d. - Based on review of City records and site inspection conducted by City staff, no rare or endangered species are known to inhabit the project site. (Source: Field Observation, June 30, 1988) 6. NOISE - Adjacent, existing residents may 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) and will be monitored by the Community Development Department. Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal holidays. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE The project will introduce additional lighting into the area by 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 originally proposed two and one half story design, Exhibit A Discussion Use Permit Page 3 of Environmental Evaluation 90-08 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. For the single family properties to the east, the elimination of the 2nd floor from the two (2) end units of Buildings A and B, or as an alternative to the elimination of unit #6 along with the 2nd floor of units l0'and . 11, planting of mature trees is recommended to reduce privacy impacts. (Source: Community Development Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code). Mitigation/Monitoring - Rear yard grades shall be left natural and landscaped except. for drainage purposes. Minimum 24" box Melaleuca and Brisbane Box or another evergreen species of tree shall be densely planted at approximately 10 foot intervals along the north, south and east property lines of the subject site within 150 feet of the rear property line. At least one major specimen size evergreen tree shall also be planted in the southeast corner of the site. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The project would not result in any significant increased use of natural 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) 4 10. RISK OF UPSET - 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 11 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 red `ice any risk of upset (Source: Building Division and Fire Department). 11. POPULATION - The proposed project will remove an existing single family residence and replace it with 11 apartment units, adding approximately 24 new residents to the area, based upon the City's average household population of 2.4 persons/household (deducting the residents of the existing dwelling). The proposed density and resulting increase in Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Use Permit 90-08 Page 4 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 Departments did not note significant impacts to their services as ;i 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. T%"NSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a b c d e - The project will generateapproximately seven (7) average daily 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; however, the subject property is located in area B of the Tustin -Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), whose purpose is to implement a program for transportation system improvements in the two cities. (Source: Engineering Department/City Traffic Engineer TSIP) Mitigation/Monitoring - Should the City's TSIP Fee Ordinance be in place prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, the developer shall pay development fees as established by said ordinance to be calculated by the Community Development Department. Transportation f - Vehicles exiting the site may create a potential hazard to passing motorists/pedestrians due to the upward grade of,the driveway. (Source: submitted grading, site plans). Mitigation/Monitoring - The developer shall install a speed bump in the driveway ramp to reduce vehicle speeds and a stop sign at the drive exit subject to verification by the Community Development Department prior to an issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Use Permit 90-08 Page 5 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - The project would not result in any significant change 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 Services Departments) Mitigation/Monitoring - The developer shall pay impact fees to the Tustin Unified School District prior 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) 16. UTILITIES - The project would not result in any increased need for utilities, as all utilities are existing 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) 18. AESTHETICS - Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a Use Permit 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 building would be within 150 feet of a single family 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 buildingheight that is consistent with 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 minimum required setbacks and the proposed grading scheme which minimizes grade differences to the extent possible. To minimize potential privacy impacts on the two single family residences immediately to the east of the subject property. Use of specimen size trees (minimum 24" box) will also provide Exhibit A Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Use Permit 90-08 Page 6 privacy screening. Mitigation/Monitoring - The landscape plans shall incorporate the use of minimum 24 inch box trees another evergreen tree along the north, south and east property lines to provide additional privacy screening. 19. 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: Community Development and Services Departments) 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The project site is not located in an area known as an archaeological resource, nor is it located in the City's Cultural Resources District. The site is presently developed with a simply, one-story, stuccoed, single-family rdsidence. There is no evidence that any cultural resources exist on the subject property. (Source: Tustin Area Historical Survey, Field Inspection, June 30, 1988.) 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The environmental evaluation provided herein, attempts to 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 will be mitigated to a level of ins4gnificance. SR:kbc ,. 1 3 4! 5 G i 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 90-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING A REVISION TO THE ARCHITECTURE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-20, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 15642 PASADENA AVENUE. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin resolves as follows: 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 authorization to revise the approved architecture for a combined two and one half story and one story, 11 unit apartment project at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, by removing the second floor of units 5, 61 10 and 11 of Buildings A and B and incorporating pitched and hip roofs onto the one story portions of the buildings. C. The proposed revision significantly reduces the height and mass of the previously approved project and mitigates impacts on privacy of adjacent single family residents. 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 project is in conformance with the South/Central Redevelopment Plan. II. The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, hereby approves authorization 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23' 241 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. RDA 90-11 Page 2 to revise the architecture of the combined two and one half story and one story, 11 unit apartment project at 15642 Pasadena Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency held on the 16th day of July, 1990. MARY WYNN Secretary RICHARD EDGAR Chairman EXHIBIT A REVISION TO DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 RESOLUTION NO. RDA 90-11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1.1 Construction plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department reflecting all revisions required by City Council Resolution No. 90-73(A). 1.2 All conditions of City Council Resolution No. 90-73(A) attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall remain in full force and effect.