Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 02-18-86ACT'ION AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING ~J)I~ISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1986 REPORTS NO. 1 2-18-86 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy White {resigned to run for election to Council) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. (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.) Puckett moved, Baker second to approve the Consent Calendar. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY B. C. D. Applicant: Minutes from Planning Commission meeting January 27, 1986. Motion carried 4-0. DRAFT EIR 85-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company. Action Agenda February 10, 1986 page two Location: Request: An area bounded by the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line {Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use {which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2300. Motion carried 3-1, McCarthy opposed. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2294 with amendments by Wetl... Ftotion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2295. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2296 with 14ell amendments... Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2299. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2297. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. 2298 with Wetl amendments. (Puckett opposed to one amendment) . . Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicant: Location: Request: USE PERMIT 86-1 Thomas Caudill 17361 Norwood Park Place Authorization to retain an unauthorized installation of a ten (10) foot diameter satellite dish antenna. Presentation: McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to receive and file. Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Motion carried 4-0. Action Agenda February 10, 1986 page three Applicant: Locati on: Request: USE PERMIT 86-2 Setsuko Takayagi 14460 Newport Avenue, Suite F Authorization to obtain an on-site liquor license in conjunction with a restaurant. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Puckettmoved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 86-2 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2301. Motion carried 4-0. 5. USE PERMIT 86-5 AND VARIANCE 86-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Lincoln Properties southerly terminus of Newport Avenue. Authorization to develop 160 multi-family residential rental units and a request to vary with the required amount of parking spaces to reduce the number of guest spaces. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 86-5 and Variance 86-1 by the adoption of Resolution 2302 w~th amendments. Motion carried 4-0. AI)~INISTRATIVE I,~TTERS Old Business None. New Business 6. Tentative Tract 11370, Subdivision map for Use Permit 86-5 Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner McCarthy moved, Puckett seconded to approve by the adoption of Resolution 2304. Motion carried 4-0. 7. Request for General Plan Amendment, 6th Street west of "B" Street Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to direct staff to advertise for a public hearing to include lots in Alternative 1. Motion carried 4-0. Action Agenda February 10, 1986 page four STAFF CONCERNS 8. Oral Report on Council actions of February 3, 1986. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Commission commended the Community Development staff for their handling of the entire East Tustin Specific Plan process. ADJOURNMENT McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to adjourn at 10:15 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. AGENDA llJSTIN PLANNING COIOIISSION REGULAR METING FEBRUARY 10, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Weil, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. (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 from Planning Commission meeting January 27, 1986. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS e EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company. Agenda February 10, 1986 page two Location: An area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-S) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. Request: To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use {which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. USE PERMIT 86-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Thomas Caudill 17361 Norwood Park Place Authorization to retain an unauthorized installation of a ten (10) foot diameter satellite dish antenna. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner 4. USE PERMIT 86-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Setsuko Takayagi 14460 Newport Avenue, Suite F Authorization to obtain an on-site liquor license in conjunction with a restaurant. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner 5. USE PERMIT 86-5 AND VARIANCE 86-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Lincoln Properties southerly terminus of Newport Avenue. Authorization to develop 160 multi-family residential rental units and a request to vary with the required amount of parking spaces to reduce the number of guest spaces. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Agenda February 10, 1986 page three ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Business None. New Business 6. Tentative Tract 11370, Subdivision map for Use Permit 86-5 Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 7. Request for General Plan Amendment, 6th Street west of "B" Street Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner STAFF CONCERNS 8. Oral Report on Council actions of February 3, 1986. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: ?:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Also Present: Don Lamm, Ed Knight, the consultant team, Suzanne Atkins, Donna Orr and approximately 200 citizens PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting January 13, 1986. 2. Approve Final Tract 8451 by the adoRtion of Resolution No. 2293. Puckett moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company. Location: An area bounded by the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line {Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued): Request: To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use {which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Don Lamm, after presenting the staff report, introduced the following letters received for the record: Foothills Community Association dated January 22, 1986 Tustin Chamber of Commerce dated January 24, 1986 Elinor and Roger Tompkins dated January 24, 1986 Janet Hart dated January 25, 1986 County of Orange dated January 27, 1986 Petition opposed to La Colina as a connector with approximately 46 signatures. Ed Knight, Senior Planner, gave an overview of the present status of the project. Larry Webb, consultant, explained the density transfer through a slide presentation. Monica Florian, The Irvine Company, made herself and the other team members available for questions. She commented they envision approximately 7 church sites and will sell sites at a reduced value of about 75% of the market rate. They have negotiated an agreement with TUSD to ensure the provision of school facilities. Don Lamm recommended that the Planning Commission delete Racquet Hill as a connector in the specific plan. Commissioner White clarified that assessment districts will burden the land being developed and not any other tax payer outside that area. He further clarified that if a default occurs it will be dealt with by the value of the land burdened and not any other tax base. Ed Knight responded that is correct. White further questioned if elevations and other details of the specific products in a project area will be reviewed by the Commission or in some other manner. Ed Knight responded they will be reviewed by the Commission; non discretionary review by design review. The discretionary review would be through the CUP process. Chairman Well opened the public hearing: Neil Harkleroad, 2252 Lichen Lane, questioned if property taxes would be increased to pay some or all of the costs of East Tustin, namely public facilities such as schools and IRWD services. He further explained in detail how the fiscal impact reports are inadequate; revenue sources are not in dispute but the amount of sales, property billed and sold and new people are speculative; and, asked that action on the specific plan and EIR be delayed until the financial aspects can be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page three Stan Hoffman, consultant, addressed some of Mr. Harkleroad's concerns with specific revenue sums and explained that assumptions in the report were arrived at by group decision with either the city staff or The Irvine Company. He agreed that the report does not show capital costs, however, the city has researched assessment districts and other forms of capital facility financing. Larry Webb, consultant, added that this is not a static projection; the project will be evaluated periodically. Commissioner White asked that they expound on the phasing plan of fiscal impact with each sector or map that is submitted. How is that requirement incorporated specifically into this approval? Stan Hoffman responded that a development agreement will deal more with performance standards. Don Lamm explained that the development agreement will lay out a system to look at the long term fiscal impacts on a short term basis. The development agreement has always been a requirement of the project. It had been published to be considered tonight unfortunately it is not in its final form. The developer cannot proceed until the agreement is received and approved by the City Council. Staff Hoffman, responding to Commissioner White's concern, explained that they did not take int6 account any increase of taxes in other parts of the city; East Tustin was examined in it's own entirety. Harkleroad, further expressed his concern over the possibility of losing 1/3 million dollars by the loss of revenue sharing; the city will then be in worse shape with a potential red ink position in East Tustin. If revenue sharing wasn't included in the fiscal report, it should be, especially with major improvements on Browning, Red Hill, etc., outside of the East Tustin area. Marshal Krupp, 1891 Beverly Glen Drive, pleased with the recommendation that Racquet Hill not be included as a connector. He expressed concern with the lack of current traffic counts in the EIR to assume what the new counts would be, there is no justification for the increase in traffic counts and there is no discussion of the impact in the county area. He wondered who will pay for the needed improvements in the county area to accommodate the new traffic generated by the East Tustin area. The EIR discusses mitigation measures for the impact on schools; temporary facilities, double sessions, busing, etc. But, the EIR does not define what the impacts of those mitigation measures are on the residents of the area presently using the system. In addressing density, he related the tax rates applied to the properties in the area to the number of units; the more units allowed in the area the lower the rate applied to one particular unit. So, if there is a multitude of capital projects the more units out there means the less rates the trvine Company has to impose on the new buyers of properties. If the buyers want the amenities that go along with a new area such as East Tustin, they should pay for those no matter how many units are there. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page four Although capital assessment districts using a Mello Roos Facilities Act cannot be voted out by the owners of properties that would be buying property in that area, operation and maintenance assessments can be voted out by a 2/3 vote. Meaning that, if the Irvine Company agrees to an assessment district for operation and maintenance both for capital and operation and maintenance, and the assessment district is applied on their property as a whole, those assessments will be passed on to new buyers of property. Although those new buyers of properties may not have the ability to vote out a capital assessment cost imposed upon their property, they may by a 2/3 vote determine that their property taxes are too high, i.e., the assessments are too high and therefore by a 2/3 vote may vote out those assessments. Therefore, he recommends that the Commission try to restrain in the development agreement the ability for any 2/3rds body of property owners to vote out the O&M if you don't want it to fall back to the city as a cost in the future. His final comment was that any agreement between the school district and the Irvine Company should be a three party agreement holding the city just as liable as the Irvine Company. Jeffrey Oderman, attorney representing residents in the Lemon Heights area, addressed four concerns: 1} Density and compatibility of the residential adjacent to existing property; the specific plan fails to implement the goal of compatibility in two respects a) the existing residential development is mostly on 1/2 acre minimum lots, the adjacent development can be on lots as small as 5,000 sq. ft. (8 units per acre) and if clustered as permitted can be on lots as small as 3,000 sq. ft. (12-14 units per acre). 2) Traffic impacts: a) location of the future extension of Jamboree Road jogs to the left and comes within 600 ft. of existing residences, b) east west connectors from the project through north Tustin area. By eliminating Racquet Hill you solve only 1/4 of the problem because there are three connectors left which will be forced to accept the spill over from what would have dumped onto Racquet Hill. The EIR admits that these connectors, "do not serve any vital circulation needs as far as East Tustin is concerned". 3) School impacts: TUSD and the Company agreement; the EIR is totally inadequate on the issue of schools in terms of informing the Commission and public on the impacts and in terms of committing prevention of impacts. The MOU should be reviewed and publicly aired and analyzed by way of the EIR process so that inadequacies can be dealt with. 4) Overall density and intensity of use of the project: the development calls for about 1,000 more dwelling units than permitted under the city's general plan. Low density residential has the most positive fiscal affect; high density has the worst revenue impact. Yet, the specific plan cuts the lowest density in half and the high density is increased to over 6,000 units. The rationale for the project is contradictory to the proposal. He implored the Commission to take their time and thoroughly review all the information submitted on the plan. Requested the Commission defer action; it is premature to act tonight because the project itself is so vaguely defined it is hard to determine what the impacts are. Secondly, he requested they revise the densities on the western border of the project adjoining existing residential development to make the project compatible. There is not one location in the EIR where there is a comparison of proposed and existing. Requested they not permit any clustering at the boundary. Planning Commission Minutes January 2?, 1986 page five Bill Tucker, 2012 La Colina, FCA, he's attended several information meetings involving the East Tustin plan. Throughout all the meetings, it was made clear that there was no need to use La Colina as anything more than a connector. With this 12th hour request to amend the plan to make La Colina a secondary road, it contradicts what has been intended. One of the ways to mitigate impacts on existing north Tustin areas is to keep the east west connectors at a commuter level. Janet Sanders, 10962 Lake Court Rd., submitted a petition signed by 249 residents of the Lemon Height, Lower Lake, Skyline area opposed to making Lower Lake a through street. Judy Malueg, 10962 Bent Tree Rd., opposed to making Lower Lake a through street which would create traffic on streets that are inadequate to handle the impact. John Owen, 9726 Willow Glen, commented the proposed improvements provide much needed relief to the existing congestion, provide a regional park and golf course. These land uses are critical regional amenities which will be used by the county and Tustin residents. His concern is with transfer of density and wants to ensure compatible densities are preserved. He supports the plan with implementation of careful review processes in connection with transfer of densities. Carl Greenwood, 2102 Racquet Hill, Racquet Hill Homeowners Association, pleased with staff's support to delete Racquet Hill as a connector. If the Commission endorses staff recommendation for deletion, they will support the plan. Gerald Feldman, 13191 Wickshire Lane, Bellewick Community Association, after meeting with The Irvine Company, they support the plan. John Butler, 17431 Parker Drive, supported the plan and expressed confidence in The Irvine Company's effort to do the best job for the community. William Durkin, 1451 Sycamore, requested the Commission take into account the community's cultural arts needs. Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres Association, questioned the traffic volumes going north into East Orange. Terry Austin, consultant, estimates approximately 25% of East Tustin residents traveling into Orange and 25% from Orange traveling into Tustin. The estimated volume on that portion of North Myford Road is about 20,000 vehicles per day. Larry Sutherland, TUSD, explained that at a special meeting on January 27th the TUS~ approved an agreement with The Irvine Company regarding the provision of school facilities in East Tustin. Both parties agree that a condition be included in the specific plan to require that final residential maps shall not be approved by the city until such time as TUSD and the Company have entered into the necessary agreements to enable the school district to obtain financing. Planning Commission Minu%es January 27, 1986 page six Commissioner Weil questioned if the Commission can condition the approval process of the agreement. Mr. Lamm responded that the city can place a condition stating that no development can occur or a subdivision map cannot be finalized or recorded without the approval of the school district on the financing for public schools, or it could be included in the development agreement. Commissioner McCarthy questioned if this agreement would have any affect on the children presently in the district. Mr. Sutherland responded that facilities will be maintained for current students and no. hours would be changed. The specifics are ~ot in the agreement; it states that as the planning process proceeds such matters will be resolved. Mr. McCarthy questioned if this would be through a public process. Mr. Sutherland said, "either or both". Commissioner White clarified the concept of the agreement is to deal on a map by map basis. He further clarified that the district's intent would be that those facilities would be provided in accordance with the district's ability .to secure alternative funding whether private, state or federal. Sutherland responded that flexibility is the goal. Tom Tracey, 2232 Racquet Hill, member of the finance committee of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange, focused on the lack of church site availability due to cost and, lack of security now and during construction of the land. A 25% discount, as the Company tonight proposed, is inadequate for a non profit organization and he challenged the Company to produce evidence regarding purchase and existence of church sites in Irvine. He further stated there would not be a Catholic Church among the Company's newly proposed seven in East Tustin because of the cost of land. Stephen Johnson, 420 W. Main St., recommended the Commission not make a decision until the public review period expires on January 31st and wondered who will bear the capital improvement costs. He further discussed bonding procedures and negative financial impacts. He suggested the new TUSD and Company agreement concerning school facilities be incorporated into the EIR. He further informed that an offer to enter into a development agreement at sometime in the future is not a contract itself; unless it is incorporated into the plan, it has no binding affect. Stan Hoffman explained the fiscal analysis will become a part of the development agreement. Regarding capital improvement costs, he explained that the city has been undertaking with the Company a series of studies to look at the burden that would be placed on the land owners through various techniques such as Mello Roos or special assessments. Stephen Johnson continued by pointing out that the city is at the height of its bargaining power to ensure improvements are made by the developer. If conditions are not incorporated into the EIR and Specific Plan in writing, the city will lose this bargaining power. Don Lamm explained at the specific plan level we are not detailing how capital costs will be funded. Under subdivision laws the city has the power to condition/exact improvements at the cost of the developer which could include the widening of Irvine Blvd., Browning Avenue, the Jamboree Road extension, the widening of Myford, all the internal local sewers that go within the residential development, all the regional Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page seven sewer and water delivery systems (IRWD). Regional improvements will be funded by an assessment district on the land. The first assessment district will fund nearly $50,000,000 in costs for the E1 Modena channel, E1 Camino Real new road, traffic signals and 60% of the interchange at Jamboree and I-5. Overall, the residents of East Tustin will pay for every single expense involved for every single improvement done. Stephen Johnson, questioned the impact of Government Code Section 65915 on this plan should the developer request 25% more units be permitted for affordable housing. Don Lamm, the developer is forsaking that right to the increase via the development agreement that sets the cap of 7950 units. Stephen Johnson, asked to submit that to the attorney for an opinion because it doesn't appear to be something that can be waived by the city as a requirement of development. He further emphasized that these types of conditions should be set ot~t in writing. Bill Ordway, 2042 Inwood, requested the Commission not make a decision until the public input period expires on January 31st. The neighborhood continuity is challenged by the future road. The EIR has not adequately addressed the impacts on existing neighborhoods. He strongly encouraged the Commission not rush into a project of this magnitude. Further, he would like to see the city stay with the original density established in the General Plan; no benefit to the city to increase the density. Density has a direct relationship to traffic. Ida Dickenson, 1429 Bryan Ave., Tustin Gold Key Association, concerned with the Company's ability to build a density far in excess of what presently exists and the impacts on the existing residents. She further expressed concern with the number of apartment and low income developments in Tustin. Less traffic with less building. Don Lamm explained gross vs. net acres (density). The density transfer issue is nothing more than a mechanism whereby each sector has a fixed number of units, but if for some reason that sector cannot be built in that fashion the Company may ask to move some of these units around. The overall 7950 cap cannot be exceeded. Regarding low income housing, the City Council will have to address this issue. The Company has the right to build single family detached homes, town homes and condominiums; CUPs {public hearings) would be required for all apartments. To accommodate the traffic volume on Bryan Avenue, the City Engineer is proposing to restripe it from its present two lanes to four lanes to increase the flow. Doris Allen, 2232 Salt Air Dr., concerned with Sector 8 and Future Road; the six lane highway 600 feet from her property. Would like the road moved closer to Irvine Blvd. Two schools less than a mile from her home seems excessive. Also concerned with night lights in the park near her home. Chairman Weil recessed at 10:15 p.m. Reconvened at 10:30 p.m. Jim Scott, (no address given), Challenged the Commission to represent the people of Tustin, not themselves and special interests. The majority of people are not in favor of this project. He questioned who is paying for the project. Bren should pay for the schools, roads, etc. up front in writing, no speculation, no theory, no possibilities for later action; too high density; overload of existing system (roads, schools); quality of life will be adversely affected; 25% low income housing above what is proposed. Planning Commission Minutes January 2?, 1986 page eight Jeffrey McElderry, 10351 Mira Vista Dr., introduced a letter from the Tustin Chamber of Commerce dated January 24, 1986 (on file in the Tustin Community Development Department)," . .approving the concept of the East Tustin Specific Plan, reserving the right to address each section as it progresses..." He personally is in favor of the project. Judy Almquist, 2281 Pavillion Dr., Committee for Compatibility, addressed the issue of four connector roads; specifically, the impacts of traffic. Foothill is a most unlikely commuter due to winding, curving, narrow nature of the road. Secondly, pollution or air quality is not addressed adequately in the EIR. Tom Smith, consultant, explained air quality looked at the total emissions from the project (?,950 units). They monitored existing intersections with high traffic volumes. The figures are all projections because there is nothing in the project to monitor. Judy Almquist, the roads studied are two to four lanes, Future Road is going to be six lanes and' that specifically should be addressed in the EIR. The Commission directed Tom'Smith pursue including an analysis of air pollution/air quality caused by Future Road in the EIR. Commissioner White pointed out that they are not certifying the EIR tonight. This is a preliminary hearing and the testimony will be referred to the City Council to take action on the EIR. Janine Harmon, 12232 Ranchwood Road, FCA, urged Commissioner White not lose the opportunity t~ study the EIR by making specific recommendations to the City Council and adequately honor the responsibility as a Commissioner to take advantage of additional comments raised this evening. Mrs. Harmon addressed the following issues: 1) Need for additional fire stations if connectors are put through. 2) Sector 3, Designations of Land Use, page 3-13, should be neighborhood park, and pointed out the EIR is short a specific number of acres for parks. Requested clarification of what the park ordinance mandates for the number of dwelling units indicated as the cap. If each sector map goes before the Director, you ultimately take the responsibility of sanctioning the parks or fees and that is the responsibility of the Planning Commission. In summary, she is concerned with the Commission forfeiting their review of sector maps relating to parks. She requested the workings of park approval be spelled out in the EIR. 3) Wondered if the 1.4% tax base based on assessment district includes an assessment for the schools and if the TUSD and Company agreement would become a three way joint party agreement. Referred to Sutherland's recommendation to be included in the EIR that sector map approval not be given before a financial package is set up. 4) Questioned if La Colina should be a two lane or four lane; county recommended a four lane, she wondered if the public will know before action is taken on the EIR. 5) Why was consideration given to a higher volume on Racquet Hill and that same consideration was not given to Foothill or Lower Lake at a lower volume. Questioned if the amendment should be honored to dead end those streets and change the Master Plan of Highways. How will the city circulation be consistent with the county map. She asked decisions be delayed until County information is received. 6) Referring to Page 2-21, asked if the knoll could be restricted to not allow development on the ridgeline. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page nine Don Lamm explained that OCFD spaces its stations geographically to serve its area. Depending upon the phasing in this area, OCFD does plan to build more stations. The phasing of when these stations come on line is unknown. OCFD has addressed in the EIR that they can serve East Tustin with the present station at Cowan and Newport. In order to utilize that one station, a connection is needed. So, until the County builds its East Orange or Northwest Irvine station an interim or permanent station would have to come on line. He did not recall a third station being proposed but he offered to research the issue. Don Lamm clarified the city of Tustin implements state law allowing the city to require or take from the developer three acres of park land per 1,O00 population; at the time a subdivision map is processed through the city. This Plan anticipates that the overall acreage {66 acres) would be required based on the total population. What is included in the Plan are only the designations for public park land; a community park and a neighborhood park. It does not show on the Plan private neighborhood parks. Under the parkland ordinance East Tustin may have up to 25% of its parklands built out as private neighborhood which includes community associations, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. There is a variation that allows for this 25% figure. The park sites symbolically indicated on the Plan may be expanded or reduced in size. It is quite flexible because it will actually occur at the subdivision map level. Staff intends to get every single acre of the 3/1000 possible. Don Lamm explained that parks are taken by the city when developers submit subdivision maps. A subdivision map outlines an entire sector and a basic generalized plan for that sector. Don Lamm is designated to review the generalized plan in conjunction with this Plan, but the subdivision map and actual plan go to the Commission. The Commission and ultimately the Council are the bodies who are empowered to require park acres or fees in lieu of those acres or a little of both. The city's parkland dedication ordinance is very precise, has exact formulas and procedures. Also a recreation element of the general plan has all the policies on precisely what sizes of parks, what should be included in the parks, and how to get them. The Commnity Services Director ultimately makes the recommendations to the City Council. The Council says exactly the final size, shape, location and how it will be improved. Don Lamm clarified Section 2.14 in the EIR. The Company must submit the conceptual site plan which will outline the location of a school, park, streets, etc., and also submit the overall subdivision map. The way this Section reads it sounds like the Director of Community Development is responsible for approving both of them. That is not the case. This position is responsible for approving the conceptual site plan for that area and sending it on to the Commission with the subdivision map. City staff cannot approve at any time subdivision maps; it requires a public hearing. He will have this section clarified. Don Lamm explained the present assessment on the property is approximately 1.4%. !% Prop 13 - .4% to retire the debt service on the IRWD bonds on the property. Staff is trying to keep the property tax level under 2% with the capital assessment districts placed against the property. If there is an assessment district or a Mello Roos Community Facilities District, which is an assessment on property to build schools, it could go above 2%. Stan Hoffman explained that the IRWD tax is only on land value. The other assessments do apply to the total value. Planning Commission Min~es January 27, 1986 page ten Referring to the school district agreement, Don Lamm stated the agreement is between the school district and the Company. The two bodies are asking for the City Council to implement this agreement through the development agreement. So, the city will probably not be a signature to the agreement but will be a consenting party if the Council approves it. As far as a financing package, no, this agreement does nothing more than give the district authority of yes or no over projects in the future until there is a way of financing them. Under subdivision law, the city is only involved in the school process when subdivision maps come through. In the agreement between the district and the company, Don referred to the statement," . . the two agree that until such time the district and the company have entered necessary agreements that the city shall not allow a final- subdivision map to be approved or recorded." City staff concurs with this and would recommend that this be included as part of the package that goes on to the Council. The Council has the jurisdiction to do as they choose. They do not have to follow this unless they actually implement it into the Plan. The Commission could recommend to the Council that this agreement be a condition of the project. Don Lamm explained the confusion over either a two lane or a four lane arterial on La Colina. There is some confusion between what the county wants and what the city is intending. Either way, the county has indicated there is supposed to be a connection. The actual right-of-way width and number of lanes is unclear. The county's input will be in response to the EIR. It is the city's impression the county intends that connection to be made. If the county says no, staff will advise the Council the county objects. Don Lamm explained the city felt Racquet Hill is the third of the least necessary in the upper area. It is not in the county Master Plan of Arterial Highways for connection. The city sees it as a lesser of a vital link across the hills as that of Lower Lake and Foothill. Lower Lake and Foothill are shown on the master plan as connections into the area. If ultimately the Council objects to connecting any of these roads, another conflict with the county master plan arises. FCA has requested that the county amend its master plan to delete these connections. That particular move would take up to one year. If and when the county does so, and it is after East Tustin is acted upon and East Tustin does indicate connections, the county will have to request to sever those connections. The city would then have to amend the plan to do so. Don Lamm explained that the knoll is half a community park site and the other half is the residential development facing the golf course. The issue is adequately covered in the specific plan. It is a dual zone. The knoll is predominately in the CP (community park) zone; the southwesterly face is the medium high {condo/apartment} zone. Staff feels it adequately addresses the protection of the knoll for what it is intended for. The ridgeline development policies are part of the sector plans. As each sector is proposed, if it has a ridgeline in it, a plan has to be submitted that says how this ridgeline will be treated. In this particular case, it would be within sector 7. At that point in time a treatment of this knoll would be submitted. Staff does not concur with total abolition on this knoll because it is unknown if it will be partially used for private development or for a community center. The knoll is split for public and private use. To totally preclude its use may totally preclude development of a public building on the park site. ~lanning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page eleven Janine Harmon admonished the Commission on why public testimony is being taken at this point if each and every tract map is going to have to be bird-dogged due to the indefinites in the guidelines of the specific plan and EIR. Janine Harmon continued as follows: 7) The EIR specifically needs to pin down capitalization or funding or responsible agents for things such as flood control and wants to know why has that not been done for one of the channels. Urged the Commission to delay decision on approval of the plan until figures are available on who will be responsible. 8) Asked for justification in the EIR and Zone Change for the increase in density from 6950 to 7950. 9) Eastern Transportation Corridor is considered as a proposed possible alignment through Peters Canyon along Myford. [.lhy in the circulation plans a traffic volume on Myford is considered and yet in the ETC alignment the noise studies are not considered. She encouraged the Commission to wait for the county's comments on this alignment and then further study the noise impact in conjunction with Jamboree. Questioned if the Noise map in the EIR is a noise summary for all hours, for all impacts with the exception of the Corridor. Does that take into account the Browning Corridor and the traffic of the roads and the John Wayne Airport flight pattern (CNEL 60-65)? Isn't it the responsibility of this Noise study to address both the helicopter, the air traffic and the noise within the Jamboree area even if the transportation corridor isn't considered? Don Lamm explained that the draft EIR did not include consideration of the financing of capital costs for channel improvement. A new law that took effect January 1, 1986 now requires that be covered. In the final EIR, the environmental consultants will address where the commitments will come from for the flood control improvements and the other infrastrucutre improvements in the East Tustin area. The information is not available for the Commission's review tonight. Regarding justification for the increase in density of 1,000 units, Don Lamm stated it is not required by law to be in the EIR. It was a policy decision of the Steering Committee and there is no reason to justify. Unless the Steering Committee decides to issue a policy statement, it is doubtful a justificatin would come forward. At the Council level, the two Council members who sat on the Steering Committee may wish to give their personal opinions but, it is not required by law. Don Lamm explained that Terry Austin, the traffic consultant, has estimated the Eastern Transportation corridor will be outside the boundary area, east of Myford Road. It is unknown if the consultants could come up with a noise analysis not knowing exactly where the road would be. Tom Smith explained that the exhibit in the EIR takes into account only traffic noise from the arterial network within the specific plan boundary. Environmental documentation that will accompany the Eastern Transportation Corridor will analyze the noise impacts of that facility and will make recommendations regarding the types of mitigation measures that are specific wherever noise standards are exceeded including the East Tustin Specific Plan. His opinion is that the Eastern Transportation Corridor EIR is the appropriate vehicle to do that level of analysis. To do it at this point in time for this project would basically get the city involved in determining impacts that are within the purview of the county and other regional transportation agencies. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1986 page twelve Dolores Niven, 2112 Salt Air Dr., opposed to opening the connector roads; build a new fire station. Nell Harkleroad, 10562 Mira Vista, NTMAC, submitted a letter dated January 27, 1986. Issues highlighted: opposed to connections on La Colina, Racquet Hill, Foothill or Lower Lake Roads; public services appear to be inadequate for the projected population; additional fire station needed; if the school district were forced to proceed to additional bonded indebtedness which would result in tax bill additions there is no distinguishing way it could now act to have those bond issues only addressed to the East Tustin area. The bond issues would be spread throughout th~ area including the city of Tustin tax payers as well as the county tax payers within the district. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Commission discussin ensued: Baker questioned when the figures on the financing of the channel improvement be available. He further questioned how the Commission feels about the letter request from the EMA to continue consideration of the plan. Don Lamm responded the figures are available now; borne by the assessment district.' Puckett is in favor of the plan and wants to proceed recommending it to the Council. McCarthy commented that there have been two meetings on the EIR; people have come in to speak with a lot of thought. Since the County hasn't answered on the EIR or specific plan the hearing should be continued to review the comments still not received. McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to continue the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commission discussed ensued regarding the correct procedure for the next meeting. Motion carried 5-0. White recommended the comments and answers from tonights meeting be answered; gather the balance of the comments on the EIR; and, lastly the staff should reduce the concerns to a check list of issues to help format the discussion. ADMINISTRATIVE MAI'FERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 4. Oral Report on Council actions of January 20, 1986. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Direct6r of Community Development Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1996 page thirteen COMMISSIOH CONCERNS None. ADJOURNMENT Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Motion carried 5-0. KATHY W£IL, CHAIRMAN - DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: FEBRUARY 10, 1986 EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COF~4UNITY (TUSTIN RANCH) (CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROM 1/27/86) THE IRVINE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF llJSTIN AND THE UNINCORPOILRTED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGIFrs AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST. (PC) PLANNED COHMUNITY A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMIl-rED FOR THIS PROJECT. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Upon the closure of the public hearing, staff recommends the adoption of the following resolutions in order to allow the East Tustin Specific Plan to be considered by the City Council: 1. Resolution No. 2300 2. Resolution No. 2294 3. Resolution No. 2295 4. Resolution No. 2296 5. Resolution No. 2299 6. Resolution No. 2297 7. Resolution No. 2298 EIR 85-2 GPA 86-1a GPA 86-1b GPA 86-1c ZC 86-1 Specific Pl.an No. 8 Specific Plan No. 8 BACKGROUND: The public hearing for the East Tustin Specific Plan was continued until the February 10, 1986 meeting, primarily to allow the Commission to receive and review comments submitted by the public during the EIR review period. The review period for the EIR ended January 31, 1986. DISCUSSION: All comments received by the January 31 deadline have been reviewed and responses are enclosed for Commission review. In some cases, a response may be further elaborated on for the City Council, but the responses as currently submitted provide enough information for Commission consideration and recommendation of the plan to the Council. These responses provide a framework for further Council consideration. Community Development Depariment East Tustin February 10, 1986 page two As an advisory body, the Planning Commission does not certify the EIR as a final document. The Commission will be making a recommendation on the draft EIR, but ultimately it is the City Council that must review the total record, make findings and certify the draft EIR as a final EIR. Enclosed in this staff .report are comments from the city of Irvine, which arrived at the city of Wednesday, February 5, 1986. In accordance with CEQA, these comments are considered late, and the city has no legal requirement to address them. The city of Irvine is an adjoining public agency to Tustin, and therefore the comments will be addressed for final Council consideration of the EIR. Due to the lateness of the comments, a comprehensive review and response cannot be prepared, but a preliminary review of the comments show that most of Irvine's issues are similar to other comments that have been addressed for Commission consideration. The comments are enclosed for Commission review and consideration. SPECIFIC PLAN: In keeping with a Commission request, a list of issues raised by the public has been categorized and enclosed for Commission review. The format identifies the issue, a city staff response, a response from The Irvine Company and a recommended action. It is the intent of this issues list to provide the Commission with a concise description of all concerns and how the specific plan does or could respond to that concern. The MOU between the Tustin Unified School District and The Irvine Company is enclosed for Commission review. In accordance with this agreement, the following condition is recommending for inclusion into Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan: letter S, under General Development Standards; Final residential maps shall not be approved by the city until such time as Tustin Unified School District and The Irvine Company have entered into the necessary agreements to enable TUSD to obtain financing for the acquisition, construction or use of the necessary school facilities to accommodate students generated by residential development of that map. In regard to the Racquet Hill Drive connection, staff has included a condition in the draft resolutions for the specific plan that would delete Racquet Hill Drive from the land use plan. Additionally, concerning the status of the La Colina connection into the proposed "Future Road", the EIR states that no more than two lanes of roadway is required on La Colina as a result of this project. In accordance with this recommendation, the following language has been added to the draft resolution for the Circulation Element amendment: "Although La Colina road is designated as a secondary highway from Browning Avenue to Future Road, the roadway will be restricted to the improvement of only two lanes of traffic within the city of Tustin. This condition will remain in effect until such time that the county of Orange or other Community Development Department East Tusttn February 10, 1986 page three appropriate public entity improves the roadway from Newport Avenue to Browning Avenue to secondary standards. If the county removes the secondary status for La Coltna from Newport Avenue to the city boundary, the city will consider this amendment in its circulation element and diagram. This section will also be added to the Sector 8 and 9 policies, located in Section 2.14.3 of the East Tustin Specific Plan." This language has been added in order to minimize thru traffic on La Colina and limit the roadway to two lanes. Also included in this staff report is a letter from The Irvine Company, and each member of the Commission has been given a copy of a petition of north Tustin residents opposing the Lower Lake connection. Senior Planner EK:do Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 10 20 21 23 24 25 2~ 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2294 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND DIAGRAM OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST: UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH: AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST: ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO) The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and Montca Flortan on behalf of The Irvine Company requesting amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan. That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of amending the Land Use Element text and diagram concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A. Specially, the following changes will be made: 1. Exhibit A will be incorporated in the Tustin Area General Plan diagram as the land use plan for the East Tustin area. The following text will be added to the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. Under General Concerns and Considerations, letter C. East Tustin Area. The land use element currently provides for a use designation known as Planned Community. The P.C. use is a method to assure the compatibility of land uses with the character of surrounding developments and provide for a vehicle to ensure precise development plans are reviewed and approved prior to development. One of the purposes of the land use element is to provide for flexibility and integration of land use for transitional properties by classification as Planned Community. 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. 2294 page two It is the intent in- the East Tustin area to utilize Planned Community as a land use tool in general and specific planning. The majority of the area is divided into three Planned Community designations: P.C. Residential; P.C. Commercial; and P.C. Mixed Use. The Planned Community Residential area is anticipated to have a density range from two dwelling units per gross acre to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. It is anticipated that the subject area will support a total residential dwelling unit count of 8,000 units for the 1,740 acre site. At the city of Tustin's current population rate per unit {1980 census) of 2.43 person/unit, the population density of the East Tustin area may be approximately 19,440 people, a 47.63 percent increase over the 1985 population of 40,815. Dwelling unit types shall range from single family detached to multiple family apartments. Portions of East Tustin located in hillside areas shall maintain a maximum density not to exceed two dwelling units per gross acre. Portions of East Tustin on level terrain and adjacent to existing residential areas shall be single family detached and maintain a character of development compatible with existing development. Outside of these requirements, remaining areas may have residential densities ranging from two dwelling units per gross acre to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. While residential unit limitations are imposed, the location, designation and density range of residential units will be determined at such time that the area undergoes specific planning. The location of planned community residential areas are consistent with the goals of the land use element and internally consistent with other elements of the general plan. To ensure that density ranges are internally consistent, specific planning will allow these densities to be studied against the goals and objectives of the other elements. To ensure that the entire subject area is considered, one specific plan for the entire area will be prepared. The land use diagram will serve as the base to determine location of residential units and the entire project area will not exceed approximately 8,000 dwelling units. Both the specific plan, and the general plan, will be used in future consistency findings in the East Tustin area. Planned Community Commercial will support all retail commercial uses with support office uses. Planned Community Mixed Use can support retail commercial uses or office/research and development uses. The recreational use shown on the diagram is designated as exclusively for a golf course. 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. 2294 page three That a draft enviro6mental impact report (DEIR 85-2) for the subject general plan amendment has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. That General Plan Amendment 86-1a would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners based upon the following: 1) That the requirement of specific planning insures internal consistency with other general plan elements. 2) That the use of the Planned Community designation will provide flexibility while ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential areas. 3) The land use diagram will provide for sufficient school and park sites in accordance with the city of Tustin ordinances and Tustin Unified School District requirements. 4) The plan shows commercial locations to provide support to the future population and existing surrounding residential areas. s) The plan will expand the employment opportunities within the city of Tustin by providing' for office/research and development uses in the Mixed Use area. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 86-1a be approved thereby amending the land use element text and diagram of the Tustin Area General Plan for properties within the East Tustin Specific Plan Project area identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on the day of , 1986. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary V ," PUBLIC AND, INS'FITU,'FIONAL LAND USE DIAGRAM Tustin Area General Plan EXHIBIT A '1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2295 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1b, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR T~E ~REA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON NEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO). The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan. That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of amending the Circulation Element of the Tustin Area General Plan concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A. Specifically, the following changes are to be made: The extension of La Colina, from Browning Avenue east to Future Road as a secondary road. Included in the Circulation Element text: Although La Colina road is designated as a secondary highway from Browning Avenue to Future Road, the roadway will be restricted to the improvement of only two lanes of traffic within the city of Tustin. This condition will remain in effect until such time that the county of Orange or other appropriate public entity improves the roadway from Newport Avenue to Browning Avenue to secondary standards. If the county removes the .secondary status for La Colina from Newport Avenue to the city boundary, the city will consider this amendment in its circulation element and diagram. This section will also be added to the Sector 8 and 9 policies, located in Section 2.14.3 of the East Tustin Specific Plan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2295 Page two Do Fe The inclusion'-OF Myford Road, north of the I-5 Freeway as a , major highway to Portola Parkway, and as a primary highway from Portola Parkway to the northern city boundary. e The upgrading of the status of E1 Camino Real/Laguna Road from a commuter highway to a secondary highway from Red Hill Avenue east to Myford Road. 4. The inclusion of a full directional interchange on the I-5 Freeway at Jamboree. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) for the subject general plan amendment has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed amendments to the circulation element shall be submitted to the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency in order to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways to reflect the city's amendments. That General Plan Amendment No. 86-1b would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners based upon the following: The proposed amendments to the circulation system along with other planned improvements will support East Tustin development, will provide capacity for other traffic, and will also provide traffic relief for other existing city streets. Costs of construction of improvements permitted by General Plan Amendment 86-1b will be provided wholly or in fair-share proportion by development projects approved within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area. Adequate right-of-way areas will be reserved within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area prior to development, ensuring availability of land for construction of circulation systems. All projects within the East Tustin Specific Plan area shall meet air quality requirements in compliance with "reasonable available control measures" of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Such measures include but are not limited to increased use of bicycle/pedestrian facilities and traffic signal synchronization. 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. 2295 Page three Noise generated' in association with newly constructed circulation systems will be mitigated by the use of barrier walls. Such walls will be berm, wall or a combination of berm and wall, the final type and configuration of which will be determined when final grading plans showing lot locations, structure setbacks and precise building pad elevations are developed. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 86-1b be approved thereby amending the circulation element of the Tustin Area General Plan for properties within the East Tustin Specific Plan Project Area identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary E MU MU LEGEND CIRCULATION DIAGRAM Tustin Area General Plan EXHIBIT A 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. 2296 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1c, AMENDING THE SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN F~R THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE {MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO). The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. Be That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan. That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was duly called, noticed and held for the purposes of amending the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General Plan concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A. Specifically, the following changes are to be made: Chapter 3 of the adopted Seismic Safety Element, as it pertains to the Norwalk and E1Modena Faults (pages 24 and 25) is hereby amended to read as follows: Norwalk and E1 Modena Faults The Norwalk Fault is suggested to be a high-angle reserve fault dipping to the north. The fault is approximately 16 miles long, roughly trending northwest, and has been thought to be an accurate trace between Buena Park and the unincorporated area to the northeast of Tustin. There is much speculation regarding the exact location of the Norwalk Fault. Its exact location easterly of the intersection of Commonwealth and Euclid in Fullerton is unknown, although several locations have been postulated. 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 i6 17 18 19 20 25 27 28 Resolution No. 2296 Page two J A number of petroleum geologists have expressed doubt as to its location east of Fullerton since their attempt at drilling to find oil trapped on such a fault has revealed no good evidence. The County has stated that some surface exposures led them to believe that the fault exists and may form a ground water barrier, but again evidence is not good. Field work in a cooperative program between Orange County and the State to be undertaken during the coming year might shed more definitive information. As noted in Draft Environmental Impact Report 85-2 prepared in conjunction with development of the East Tustin Specific Plan, a portion of the E1 Modena Fault is located within the Peter's Canyon area of the city of Tustin. (See Exhibit A.) Based upon information presented in DEIR 85-2, the E1 Modena Fault has characteristics that indicate the fault was at one time active. However, based upon preliminary findings of a geotechnical analysis, the fault may not be active at this time {see DEIR 85-2, Appendix C). Should additional study reveal that the E1 Modena Fault is active, development occurring near the fault could be exposed to the potential for surface rupture. Such potential for adverse impact could be reduced by the establishment of a structural setback zone on either side of the mapped trace of the fault. Future development could also be exposed to secondary impacts associated with seismic activity including: expansive soils, weakened rock materials which perform poorly in cut slopes, and perched groundwater which can cause seepage in graded areas adjacent to faults. However, such impacts can be controlled by special foundation design or overexcavation, buttressing or laying back cut slopes, and subdrainage, respectively {DEIR 85-2). That the attached Exhibit 'mA" be included as exhibit in the Seismic Safety Element. That a Chapter 8 be added to the Seismic Safety Element establishing policies to be observed in conjunction with development within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area. The additional text shall read as follows: 1 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. 2296 Page three Chapter 8 Policies To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to development in the East Tustin Specific Plan area resulting from various seismic activities, the following policies are hereby established as a part of the Seismic Safety Element: ao ce Detailed geotechnical and soils engineering reports shall be prepared subsequent to development of preliminary design layouts and final grading plans (e.g., at the tentative tract map preparation stages). This report will provide further, more detailed measures for treatment of excavational (ripping) difficulties, surficial material removals, cut and fill slopes, expansive soils, faults and liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of roadway stream crossings). Prior to development in the Upper Peter's Canyon area a geotechnical analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact status of the E1 Modena fault. If it is concluded that the fault can be considered active, additional detailed analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact location and extent of the fault. This study will serve to define the location and width of any structural setback zone made necessary by the fault. All structures to be constructed in the project area shall be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes adopted by the city to maximize safety in the event of an earthquake. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) for the subject general Plan amendment has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. That General Plan Amendment 86-1c would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners based upon the following: 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.-2296 Page four The proposed amendment provides information not presently contained within the Seismic Safety Element that further identifies and appraises potential seismic hazards in the East Tustin Area as required by Section 65302(f) of the Government Code of the State of California. That policies established by the proposed amendment ensure that maximum effort be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of seismic activity. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 86-1c be approved thereby amending the Seismic Safety Element of the Tusttn Area General Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary LEGEND Geology EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN City of Tustin EXHIBIT A 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. 2299 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE REZONING FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES COMMERCIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY'OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN {EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO). The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper application (Zone Change No. 86-1) has been filed upon direction of the City Council and by Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine company for the purposes of changing the zoning designation for the property shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto from Planned Community to: Planned Community/Residential (PCR); Planned Community/Commercial (PCC); Planned Community/Mixed Use (PCMU); and Planned Community/Community Facilities {PCCF) as delineated on the same Exhibit A. B. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider Zone Change 86-1 was duly called, noticed and held. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) was prepared for this project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons: This comprehensive zone change would be consistent with goals and objectives of the city of Tustin calling for a balance of residential, commercial, employment, educational and recreational land uses. This comprehensive zone change will provide a mechanism by which the East Tustin Specific Plan can be implemented. As proposed the East Tustin Specific Plan is more consistent with the Housing Element of the Tustin Area General Plan than existing zoning in that a variety of housing types would be permitted and owner occupied housing will be encouraged. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2299 Page two Under existing Zoning, residential development would be in direct conflict with agreements between the city and the United State Marine Corps as they pertain to air corridor easements. These agreements specifically prohibit residential uses in the corridor areas south of Bryan Avenue. 5. The adoption of this comprehensive zone change would be consistent with the Tustin ARea General Plan as amended. 6. That no development will be allowed within the project area prior to the adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 86-1 changing the zone designation for the property shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto from Planned Communtiy to: Planned Community/Residential (PCR); Planned Community/Commercial (PCC); Planned Community/Mixed Use (PCMU); and Planned Community/Community Facilities (PCCF) as delineated on the same Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary C{3MMI:~IITY ~FAC~.}TIES ~'cc~ ZONING EXHIBIT A 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. 2297 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS 1.0 AND 2.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8). The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company for the purposes of adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the property indicated in Exhibit A attached hereto, commonly known as East Tustin. That a comprehensive land use study covering the subject property was commissioned and completed. That as a result of the land use study, a Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit B attached. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held. Eo That a draft environmental impact report {DEIR 85-2) has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Fo That establishment and implementation of the plan as submitted, under the circumstances of this case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: The proposed residential and commercial development is consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan as amended and adopted. Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications have been considered. The scope and depth of plan analysis are commensurate with the level of detail contained in the plan and the specificity of land use entitlement its adoption authorizes. The various components of the plan as well as the plan in its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public policy impacts of the proposed development. 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. 2297 Page two Appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated in the plan to ensure that concerns identified at this level of planning are resolved as part of the more detailed site plan review which must be completed before private development may proceed. 6. Administration of the plan is thoroughly integrated into the city's development processing system. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable city ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered. Adequate time and opportunities have been afforded interested organizations and members of the public to comment on or propose changes to the plan if they so desired. Go That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the plan as submitted will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the city of Tustin, and should be approved. That Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as prepared (Exhibit B) are intended to be informational in nature, tO provide conformance with specific plan regulations, yet also establish policy guidelines by which the project area should be developed. As such Sections 1.0 and 2.0 should be adopted by Resolution of the City Council, subject to the recommended changes enclosed as Attachment "A". II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit "B" attached hereto be approved as policy documents and adopted by a Resolution of the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Attachment "A" EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS AS REQUESTED BY TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION e Page 1-6, Second ~"bullet" under Seismic Safety. Change fire retardant to fire resistant roofing, as defined by the Underwriter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois. Page 2-16, Change "stucco or woodensiding" to read "off-white or earthtone stucco and/or woodensiding." Page 2-16, Letter B Change to read "Fire resistant roofing materials must be used on structures occurring within the Hillside District." "Class A minimum as rated by the Underwriter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois." Page 2-19, Add to second "bullet" which begins "Include only ..." "fire resistant plant materials, where feasible." Page 2-43, Add to Letter C, "The Planning Commission should prepare a plan stipulating and regulating the hours when sports lights can be used." That the Planning Commission recommends that no sector plans, tentative tract maps, or building permits be issued in the East Tustin Specific Plan area until a Development Agreement for said area is considered and adopted by the city of Tustin. That Racquet Hill Drive shall be deleted from the Land Use Map for the East Tustin Specific Plan. 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. 2298 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION, BY ORDINANCE, OF SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIF~C"PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) AND EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN. The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve follows: as The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company for the purposes of adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the property indicated in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, commonly known as East Tustin. B. That a comprehensive land use study covering the subject property was commissioned and completed. Ce That as a result of the land use study, a Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit "B" attached, along with Exhibit "C". D. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Fe That establishment and implementation of the plan as submitted, under the circumstances of this case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: The proposed residential and commercial development is consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan as amended and adopted. 2. Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications have been considered. The scope and depth of plan analysis are commensurate with the level of detail contained in the plan and the specificity of land use entitlement its adoption authorizes. The various components of the plan as well as the plan in its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public policy impacts of the proposed development. 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. 2298 Page two Appropriate m~%~gation measures are incorporated in the plan to ensure that concerns identified at this level of planning are resolved as part of the more detailed site plan review which must be completed before private development may proceed. 6. Administration of the plan is thoroughly integrated into the city's development processing system. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable city ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered. Adequate time and opportunities have been afforded interested organizations and members of the public to comment on or propose changes to the plan if they so desired. Ge That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the plan as submitted will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the city of Tustin, and should be approved. He That Section 3.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as prepared is intended to establish land use regulations and development standards, as well as administrative procedures necessary to implement said regulations and standards for residential and commercial development within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area. Further, that said regulations, standards and procedures should be adopted by Ordinance of the City Council. Further, Exhibit "C" is established as the land use plan~ by Ordinance, and' shall present the development guide for the East Tustin Area. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Section 3.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto 'be approved as the regulatory documents for the East Tustin Area and that it be adopted by an Ordinance of the City Council, subject to the recommended changes enclosed. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary KATHY WEIL, Chairman 10. 11. 12. 13. ATTACHMENT "A" EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS AS REQUESTED BY TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Page 3-6, Change Lot, Width to read "the width of the front of the lot measured at the setback of the main structure." Page 3-12, Change 4 to read "any revision to increase the number of dwelling units by a total of 15 percent or less .... " Page 3-22, Section A-l, Change to read "permitted density, maximum dwelling units per gross acre." Page 3-26, Section B2, letter C5, Change to read "garages that have rear access from a private drive or alley shall maintain a minimum 3 foot setback from property line and include an automatic garage door opener; and" Page 3-29, Change C1. to "Table C1." Page 3-30, Under open space, Change the last sentence to read "areas retained as permanent open space shall be maintained by a mandatory private homeowners association." Page 3-34 Letter "H", Change to read "A certificate of compliance with applicable . . ." ". · · will be insured by the homeowners association and will be required .... " Page 3-35 letter h. Department stores, change to permitted in General Commercial, letter q. Liquor stores, change to use permit in General Commercial. Page 3-39 Letter 3.7.4.E. Change to read "A certification of compliance with applicable . . ." Page 3-19, add letter R. The use of outdoor speakers, buzzers, music, or other devices with noise amplification outside of the interior of the structure is strictly forbidden in the entire planning area. That the Planning Commission recommends that no sector plans, tentative tract maps, or building permits be issued in the East Tustin Specific Plan area until a Development Agreement for said area is considered, and adopted by the city of Tustin. That Racquet Hill Drive shall be deleted from the Land Use Map for the East Tustin Specific Plan. Page 3-19, add letter S. Final residential maps shall not be approved by the city until such time as Tustin Unified School Distrfct and The Irvine Company have entered into the necessary agreements to enable TUSD to obtain financing for the acquisition, construction, or use of the necessary school facilities to accommodate students generatd by residential development of that map. Community Development Department Z ~U O< U U ZZ © r~ Z Z ~' li.] LU .Ucc ... IRVIN COMPANY February 7, 1986 Mrs. Kathy Weil, Chairperson Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Dear Chairperson Weil: On Monday evening, you will be considering action on the East Tustin Specific Plan. Considerable consultant and community testimony has been received regarding this plan over the past eight weeks, and as a participant in the formulation of the plan, we would like to comment on several subjects that have been raised during the hearing process. We offer these comments in writing in recognition of the Commission's desire to focus attention at the next meeting on Commission discussion and action. It is our hope that the Commission will be able at that time to conclude its deliberations and act on the Specific Plan. As you weigh the wealth of evidence you have received, we believe you will conclude that a tremendous amount of thought has been given to the formulation of this plan by the City, the consultant team, the community and The Irvine Company. We believe you will see a sensitive, cohesive, balanced plan in which all the pieces fit together in their proper places. We hope you will conclude that this plan fulfills the challenge originally set forth by the City Council and that you will recommend it to them for adoption. Benefits of the Plan Some people have questioned what benefit is received by the City from approval and implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan. The answer to this question, we believe, lies with the primary objectives for the plan originally established by the City Council three years ago and how well the Specific Plan now meets those objectives. 550 Newport Center Drive, BO. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 · (714) 720-2000 Page Two When we began this joint process, the City Council clearly stated its directives for the East Tustin area: to ensure development of a quality community which would reinforce the desirable image of the City; to improve the City's tax base and ensure that East Tustin development was self supporting; to provide for a circulation system that not only met the needs of new development but benefitted the existing community, as well; to provide a first-class golf course and other recreation opportunities that could be enjoyed by the entire community; and to create a plan that was economically feasible to develop so that these objectives could indeed become realities, not just plans. We believe the plan before you measures up well to these high standards and in doing so, provides a host of benefits to the existing community, both City and County residents: 18-hole high-quality golf course open to the community. . 66 acres of neighborhood and community parkland. A provision for 360 acre Peters Canyon Regional Park and connecting biking, hiking and equestrian trails. (125 acres of the park will be in East Tustin.) A mix of retail uses which provide services to the whole community while generating sufficient revenues to make the new community pay for itself. A major circulation system providing additional arterial capacity and freeway interchanges and overcrossings that alleviate traffic generated by new development and help reduce traffic congestion on existing streets. Improved flood control facilities to implement important segments of a much needed regional drainage system. A compatible interface with adjacent residents in which new housing is limited to single-family detached homes ranging in density from 2 to 5 units per acre. Reservation of school sites to meet the needs of new students. Page Three Why vary from the General Plan The question has also been asked, why is the Specific Plan different from the current General Plan. Though most attention has been focussed on the addition of 1,000 units over the existing General Plan, there are several other important differences including the addition of a golf course, a regional park, and the retail and hotel program. The reason for these changes stems in major part from the Council directed objectives for the plan. It also stems from our mutual objective that the plan be economically feasible to implement so that those objectives can be met. To be economically feasible to develop, the plan must provide development opportunities that match market demand, it must be flexible enough to respond to changing market and economic forces over time, it must be financeable, and it must provide adequate financial return to justify our major commitments to the significant road, flood control, recreational, park and development standards reflected in the plan. Looking at the plan as a whole, we believe it achieves the City's objectives, while also being realistic and feasible from a developers point of view. Infrastructure Phasinq and Fiscal Impact The suggestion has been made by some that in approving this Specific Plan, the Planning Commission is acting with less than the traditional amount of information regarding infrastructure phasing and fiscal impact. It has also been suggested that in approving the Specific Plan, the Commission is abandoning any further control over infrastructure development and fiscal balance in East Tustin. Neither of these concerns are valid. First, significantly more comprehensive information exists regarding infrastructure adequacy, capital improvement requirements and fiscal impact for the build out of the Specific Plan than the Commission would normally see if it acted incrementally over time on smaller parts of the area. The fiscal impact analysis shows that the plan generates a positive revenue to the City. Capital financing analysis shows that there are significant ways to fund capital improvements at no cost to existing residents. The EIR traffic study shows that the proposed circulation system is adequate to handle traffic generated. Page Four Secondly, under the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission still retains its traditional rights of review. At the time of subdivision map approval, the Planning Commission is empowered by City and State law to specify exact infrastructure requirements from the project ana consider the fiscal impacts of the actual development. Under the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission will also be reviewing Conditional Use Permits for several types of use, including apartments, cluster development and some types of retail uses. Thirdly, the City will gain added assurances through the Development Agreement process already underway. Recognizing the importance early on of infrastructure phasing and fiscal balance, the City Council requested that a Development Agreement be formulated to govern implementation of the Specific Plan. This Development Agreement adds to the traditional powers of the City to regulate infrastructure phasing and fiscal balance by securing a comprehensive agreement with the developer regarding both funding responsibilities and phasing. The Irvine Company has supported the idea of pursuing a Development Agreement since it was first suggested by the City Council many months ago. An agreement which identifies mutual objectives and cements specific commitments from each party will greatly facilitate coordinated implementation of the Specific Plan. The Development Agreement will help assure the City that its goals will be achieved as planned and assure the developer that the approved plan can be built. ResDondinq to Community Needs During the hearing process, we have heard some people ask the Commission not to approve the plan until it is modified to respond to community concerns. We believe that a tremendous effort has been made over the three year planning process to respond to community concerns. In addition to addressing the specific objectives established by the city Council, which in our view reflect community concerns, the plan has undergone many changes: A lid of 7950 units was established. Densities in Sector 10 were reduced to low. Restriction of housing type to single family detached homes in Sectors 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and the low density area of Sector 10. Page Five And several staff recommended changes -- which we endorse -- are pending in response to more recent public input: Deletion of Racquet Hill. Requirement for a Development Agreement prior to Subdivision Map approval. Requirement for Specific School facilities and financing plan prior to final Subdivision Map approval for residential development. Additionally, independent of the Specific Plan but in pursuit of its objectives, The Irvine Company has executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Tustin Unified School District outlining a joint program for providing necessary school facilities to meet the needs created by East Tustin Development. Also, the City working with the Irvine Company, the City of Orange, and the County of Orange has concluded a joint agreement to establish a 360 acre regional park in Peters Canyon, as envisioned by the Specific Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the joint' planning process for East Tustin. We hope our comments are of benefit to you as you review the Specific Plan. We believe this plan meets both the City's and Company's goals and provides a comprehensive plan for East Tustin development. We recommend you approve the proposed plan with modifications recommended by staff on Racquethill, school facilities, and the development agreement. ~incerely, ~ Monica Florian Vice President Policy Management and Entitlement MF:ta January 31, 1986 ; ~ -. The Honorable Frank'Greinke, M~yor and City Council Members CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR Thank you for the opportunity to review the East Tustin Specific Plan draft EIR. Our comments on the document are included in the enclosed attachment. Considering the regional significance of the proposed development and the magnitude of potential impact on the City of Irvine, we have some concerns regarding the project's implementation. It is important that the Specific Plan document be accurate and detailed and that the EIR adequately address all potential environmental impacts. I look forward to your prompt response to our concerns. It is hoped that our respective staff can get together immediately to resolve the issues identified. All contact for the City of Irvine should be coordinated through Ed Moore, Principal Planner of Environmental Services (660-3784). Sincerely, C. DAVID BAKER Mayor CDB:MR:jh Attachment cc: Ed Moore, Principal Planner Transportation Commission Planning Commission EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR City of Irvine Comments 1. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 3.1 Landforms/ToDo~raDhv None 3.2 Geoloqy 3.3 None Hydrology/Water Quality The City of TuStin, City of Irvine, and The Irvine Company are proposing to enter into an agreement for the development of a Master Plan of Drainage for the San Diego Creek watershed, which includes Peters Canyon Wash. Any proposed improvements should be compatible with the proposed master plan. Due to the downstream effect of any increased flows from the proposed improvements, the City of !rvine should have the opportunity to review drainage proposals and mitigation measures at the tentative tract-map level. Due to downstream constrictions, an~proposed drainage improvements should include retention facilities such that there is no increase in flows south of the I-5 Freeway. The drainage studies should include an analysis of the entire reach of Peters Canyon Wash and to include Santiago Creek downstream to the San Diego Freeway (I-405), The calculated discharges flowing into Peters Canyon Wash Channel (page 113, Technical Appendices) did not take into consideration the time of concentration differences between the main channel flow and the side channel flows, therefore, side channel flows are understated. The Technical Appendices needs an exhibit showing the location of the facilities referenced (F07, F07P08, F07P35, FO7S04 and F07S02). The EIR should discuss the proposed new Hydrology Manual being prepared by EMA. Ail drainage studies should be based on or revised when the new manual is approved. 3.6 Land Use The Jurisdictional land use map on page 83 shows land uses in City of Irvine's sphere of influence correctly. However, the discussion on page 88 omits the rural and estate density, and on page 93, omits the rural classification. (Planning Co~mission) Acreage, dwelling unit and population counts vary throughout the report. o Total dwelling units for the existing general plan are listed as 6,700 (page 223) and 6,960 (page 11). Approved allowable DU's for the East Tustin Residential Project are listed as 1,218 (page 212) and as 1,050 (page 215 and 75). o Population estimates for the project range from 19,053 (page 170) to 19,319 (page 215). Current population of Tustin is listed approximately 9,000 to high at 49,815 (page 109) (Planning Commission). The unlimited flexibility to transfer DU densities generates concern that the transporation system is inadequate. Shifting the dwelling units could have a significant impact on road design requirements (Planning Commission). 3.7 3.8 Relevant Planning The 208 Water Quality Program should be expanded to discuss local 208 program and Upper New-port Bay. AGricultural Resources None 3.9 $ocioeconomics Page 118 of the EIR indicates that the project proposal does not include specific provisions for the development of affordable housing. Page 120 further states that the Tustin Housing Element includes an objective for the construction of 600 affordable units in East Tustin. Is this nunfoer of units, representing less than 8% of the total units in the project area, an adequate supply of affordable units? Will the proposed employment opportunities in the project area create a demand for more affordable units? The specific plan includes 121 acre mixed uses area at the northwest corner of the Santa Ana Freeway and Myford Road. The EIR should describe in more detail the types of uses proposed for this area. 3.10 TransDortation/Circulation Tustin General Plan versus Proposed East Tustin Specific Plan The circulation element of the General Plan analyzed in this report is incorrect because it includes an additional arterial between the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) and Jamboree (Tustin) that is not in the circulation element of Tustin, Irvine, or the Orange County Master's Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH)-. This would suggest that the comparison being made is not valid. The assumption of the second arterial greatly distorts the true relationships between the two plans and minimizes the true impact of the proposed Specific Plan. Area of Analysis The analysis area should be extended eastward from the Tustin City line to and including Culver. This should include intersection analyses for the extended area to show impacts of the proposal on the circulation system in Irvine. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis The document uses 1.0 as a basis for ICU calculations rather than 0.9. However, 0.9 should be used as it is the accepted Orange County standard and it provides for the uncertainties in traffic forecasting. In addition, past observations of the ICU methodology used in this report have shown inconsistencies as compared to the generally accepted practice. Until specific intersection diagrams are provided, it is not possible to determine the extent of such concerns. Arterial Highway Capacity Analysis As compared to the Tustin General Plan Post-2000 ADT volumes, the Specific Plan ADT volumes put several arterial highways in Irvine over the capacity threshold. These include Portola, Irvine Boulevard, and Bryan. Further analysis indicates a Level of Service (LOS) "E" has been used in the traffic analysis., This is a deviation from the residential standard for the City of Irvine planning which uses LOS' "D". It is suggested that the traffic analysis be modified to use LOS "D". The volumes projected on Red Hill and Myford at I-5 show these both being over capacity even at LOS "E". Of the ADT shown, the report has 41,000 of the Red Hill vehicles and 31,000 of the Myford vehicles generated by the analysis area. The V/C is not a satisfactory service level for any of these five highways and requires futher mitigation. Trip Generation Rates There appears to be a major discrepancy between trip generation summaries as presented in Table 17 (page 127) and Tables II-4 and $ (pages 237-8 of the Technical Appendices). When compared to data in the Technical Appendices, the General Plan ADT shown in Table 17 appears to be in error. Using the land use and trip generation data found in Appendix A, it is possible to replicate only Table II-5 and approximate Table II-4. Table II-4 contains apparent errors pertaining to the Residential - Medium/Low and Community Park entries. In addition, the Auto Center rate is 50% of the rate used by Irvine and documented in the San Diego Traffic Generators Report. This difference accounts for roughly 7,500 ADT, or a 6% addition to traffic. City of Irvine Impact Analysis The analysis for the impact on the City of Irvine does not show nor discuss the differences in volumes between the General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan although the same is provided for the City of Tustin. Irvine volumes should be included in Figure IV-1 and IV-2 of the Technical Appendices. Mitiqation Measures The document lacks adequate mitigation measures to address capacity problems on Portola, !trine Boulevard, Bryan, Myford, and Red Hill. This report indicates the East Tustin traffic share on the Myford/Jamboree Extension is 14%. Partial funding for this facility should also be included as a mitigation measure based on fair share allocation. Eastern Transportation Corridor The placement of this facility is of great concern to the City of Irvine. The conceptual alignment of the ETC should be consistent with discussions underway between Tustin and Irvine. Specifically, the City is concerned that the plan under review would preclude alignments F-1 and G-1 and would reduce the likelihood of the ETC being the mutual city line. Bottleneck Study Due to the location of East Tustin within the Bottleneck Study area, provisions should be made so that the proposed Specific Plan does not preclude alternatives currently under review by the Orange County Transportation Commission. The report's assumption that the Bottleneck traffic demands would be satisfied with an expanded I-5 of 12 lanes is flawed since a 12 lane freeway at LOS of "E" reaches capacity at 240,000 vehicles per day, far less than the 284,000 vehicles shown in the report for POST-2000. Since the "Direct Connector" concept would transverse East Tustin, the proposed Specific Plan should address the need to reserve a potential corridor until the Bottleneck issue is resolved. The same concern is held for arterial alternatives through the same area (i.e., La Colina). circulation System Phasinq With a project of this scope, there is a need during interim stages of the project, to balance local land use with the circulation system. A mechanism which relates development phasing to a circulation improvement strategy would be an appropriate way to ensure such a balance. Although the 1990 time frame is used "for convenience", this horizon is only four years away and does not provide much insight to the circulation needs and impacts over the next 20 years. Other Comments o ADT Volume Maps - "Moulton should be labeled "Walnut" o Exhibit 36/Figure IV-10 - Does not include nor discuss Red Hill - "Moulton" should be labeled "Irvine Center Drive" - Location of volume on Myford above Irvine Center Drive is probably not correct. There is a need to expand in greater detail the traffic study for the project to include analysis of ADT, Volume/Capacity, and intersection capacity utilization for the following points in time: 1. Existing conditions (ADT, V/C, and ICU analysis). 2. Buildout of existing zoning (ADT, V/C, and ICU analysis). 3. Buildout existing zoning plus project (ADT, V/C, and ICU analysis). 4. Buildout of existing general plan (ADT and V/C analysis). 5. Buildout existing general plan (ADT and A/C analysis). Diagrmms and tables summarizing the V/C and ICU analysis should be included in the body of the EIR. Land use assumptions utilized for the traffic analysis should be based on the City of Irvine General Plan in the Irvine Planning Area, not on the Orange County General Plan (page 127-8). The project traffic could significantly impact existing residential areas in the City of Irvine. Exhibit 36 indicates that the project will contribute 15% of the traffic on Harvard Avenue, 13% on Bryan Avenue, 8% on Irvine Boulevard, 7% on Trabuco Road, 4% on Culver Drive, and 4% on Walnut Avenue. However, the EIR does not address the impacts of this traffic. o On Page 235 of the Technical Appendix, Table 2-2, in the note at the bottom of the Table, a reference is made to District 3. Please identify what area ~s included in District 3. (Transportation ~omm±ssion) o What happens if the Bryan, Portola Parkway, and Jamboree interchanges with the Eastern Transportation Corridor do not occur? The traffic study should analyze the impact on the circulation system if these links are not included in the study. Also, the EIR needs to discuss the spacing and configuration of the interchanges necessary to accommodate those three roadways, as shown on Figure 4-2 of the Technical Traffic Study, interchanging with the Eastern Transportation Corridor. (Transportation commission) o The Specific Plan should not foreclose any of the options currently under consideration as part of the Bottleneck Study. More specifically, the Specific Plan should make allowances for a direct connection from the Foothill Corridor to the existing freeway system at a location north of the Santa Aha Freeway. (Transportation Commission) 3.11 On page 19 of the Summary under the level of significance after mitigation "may have a significant impact on regional air quail%y,, should be changed to will have to be consistant with Unavoidable Adverse Impacts statements on page 246. 3.12 Acoustical Environment The EIR does not adequately address the impacts of roadway noise on Irvine. Although the Technical Appendix does indicate that some roadways in Irvine were studied, key roadways adjacent to residential areas, such as Harvard and Culver, were not studied. 3.13 Public Services and Utilities Page 10 mentions that the County's Master Plan for Regional Parks shows a regional park in the vicinity of Peters Canyon. There is no mention of this park in the Relevant Planning or Public Services and Facilities Sections. In addition, the DU density for the area should be adjusted accordingly. No mention is made of the Open Space corridor along Peters Canyon Wash. IRWD Master Plan projections reflect demand for current general plan which is less than specific plan. If this need is met here, where will the shortage surface? The EIR does not adequately address the mitigation of the impact on the school system. Although the specific plan allocates acreage for seven school sites, the more important aspect of financing these schools is left open as possible alternatives with no in-depth analysis. This is a matter of serious concern to the City of Irvine, because areas of our City's sphere of influence are in the TUSD and the students would be impacted by school facility shortages (Planning Commission). Alternative 6.2, Existing General Plan, is summarily rejected, based on its creating an "unbalanced,, community. The EIR goes on to state, "...the public revenues/cost ratio associated with this alternative could well be negative.,' Where is the data supporting this contention? page 4 states that Stanley R. Hoffman Associates was responsible for fiscal impact analysis and financing. Where is his report? There is a q~/estion of adequacy reIative to the cummulative impact section given a recent court decision (San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth vs. City/County of San Francisco). Analysis should include surrounding projects in Irvine and County which also impact this area and vice-versa. Section 1 of the EIR should summarize, in tabular form, allowable development (acres, sq. ft., du's) existing GP/zoning and proposal for all uses. 2. THE EIR, AS CIRCULATED, IS INCOMPLETE A very serious problem with the completeness of the EIR relates to the omission of the relevant documents for the proposed discretionary actions. The EIR states on page 1 that the EIR is intended to address the potential impacts of the following proposed discretionary actions: ' (1) General Plan Amendment, (2) Zone Change, (3) adoption of a Specific Plan, and (4) approval of a Development Agreement. However, none of these documents appear in the EIR or in the Technical Appendices, nor were they furnished or available as part of the review process. Section 15147 of the CEQA Guidelines states that while the EIR should summarize technical data, in this case the General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Specific Plan and Development Agreement, this information should be included in the technical appendix of the EIR thereby making it readily available for public examination. (Note: The draft EIR (10 copies) were received by the Environmental Services Section the afternoon of December 18, 1985. A single copy of the specific plan was received by the Current Planning Section on January 9, 1986.) 3. THE EIR IS INAPPROPRIATELY DESIGNATED AS A PROGRAM EIR. The designation of a program EIR for the Tustin Specific Plan, appears to be premature at this time as the , necessary supporting technical studies are not presently available. Consequently, any conclusions reached concerning the nature and magnitude of the impacts are highly speculative making the proposed mitigation measures of questionable value. Consequently, the validity of the document as a program EIR is in doubt. As stated on page 1 of the Draft EIR, the program EIR is intended to serve as the sole environmental document for the proposed Specific Plan and all the individual projects which are undertaken pursuant to, and in conformance with, the proposed Specific Plan. No subsequent environmental documents are proposed for individual site and building development plans which conform to the standards and guidelines contained in the proposed specific plan. Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the level of specificity in the EIR should relate to the degree of specificity required for the underlying activity. With this EIR, it is the City of Tustin's intent to prepare no additional environmental documents during the implementation of the project. Given the lack of detailed analysis in the EIR, we feel that the use of the existing draft Program EIR is inappropriate. A list of technical studies in process or necessary for adequate evaluation of impacts is contained in Exhibit 1. Should the City of Tustin desire to continue development planning prior to completion of these studies, a tiered EIR would be more appropriate. This class of EIR would allow concept approval by requiring environmental review downstream after technical studies have been completed and detailed plans are available for analysis. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Technical Studies in Process or Necessary for Impact Analysis Flood Control System Master Plan and Implementation Program Cities of Irvine and Tustin and the Irvine Company The Bottleneck Study (Impact of the termination of the Foothills Corridor at the Eastern Transporation Corridor) Eastern Transportation Corridor alignment Schedule of Development Program and Infrastructure installation Review and evaluation of Historic District documentation relative to the Irvine Ranch Headquarters Geologic Study of the Modena Fault Dedication for Regional Park Biotic studies of the reqional siqnificance of the Riparian habitat. (1603_permit process) Strean~bed Alteration Agreement - State Department of Fish and Game Archaeological Studies EXHIBIT 1 TABL~ 1 LAMD USE S~MMARY Total 1 AnoweDle L~nd Use '~eximum Density Un,ts ~tat~Oe~ity R~i~nti~ 2.0 alu/ia ~i~le femBy detached t88 ~tat~De~ity E~defltl~ ~ du/ec family de~sched on~y) ~w-De~ity Re~deflfl~ 5 du/ec ~um-~w-De~ity R~identl~ ~0 du/ae ~edlum-De~ty Re~den~ 18 du/a~ Dem~t~y ~1 J~ior High ~mmmity ~ ~w-Oensity R~den~ 5 du/ae Nel~ P~k ~at~De~ity ~esiden~lal 3 du/ae family ~teched only) ~tat~De~ity R~iden~ ~ du/ae ~incte ~am~y detaa~ed ~w-De~tty E~den~ 5 du/e~ family detached Gen~ Comm~ci~ M~tum-D~ity R~t~flti~ la du/te M~um-~b Deity ~e~den~ ~5 du/~c Dem~t~7 ~1 Comm~it~ Nei~r~ ~k Golf Co~e 3,838 ~w-De~ity Bemdenti~ 5 du/ae (~nKle f~m~y detached o~y) ~ement~ ~h~l 349 ~w-De~ty Re~den~ 5 du/ae faery detached o~y) ~w-D~ity R~i~nti~ 5 du/ae Medium=Oe~it~ R~identi~ ~8 du/ac ~ement~y Men,m-Dewily R~denU~ 18 du/ac ~lum=Ri~-D~ity R~i~nti~ 25 du/ae ~em~t~y ~h~l Comm~ity Nei~fi~ Commer~i~ ~lxed ~se 1 Total allowable number of permitted ~mita within a ~ven se~t~ may ~ i~re~ed ~owebie ~a ~ the sector w~ ~em~n t~ same. 3 Tot~ ~owable unt~ ~um~ sc~l ~d/~ p~ ~en~y de~mted foe this ~=~_o LEGEND This School Facilities Agreement is entered into as of January 27, 1986, by and between The Irvine Company (TIC) a Michigan corporation, and the Tustin Unified School District {TUSD) a public unified school district. Recitals TIC proposes to develop property in the East Tusttn s~ecific Plan (ETSP) area shown as Exhibit A and within the jurisdiction of TUSD. TUSD and TlC desire to maintain the quality of school facilities throughout the TUSD. It is of mutual benefit to TIC and TUSD that the reputation of excellence in education and facilities continue, and that the ETSP area develop into a highly successful community for adults and children. C. TIC acknowledges that providing TUSD early information regarding the 'development is necessary to facilitate TUSD decision-making process. D. TUSD and TlC desire to establish a method of financing school -i-- facilities necessary to serve the student population generated by development. E. TIC and TUSD acknowledge and agree that school facilities plan~ and mitigation agreement or agreements are necessary and should be based - upon sound demographic data, consideration of a number of financing options, studies of current facilities, and projected development phasing. Agreement In consideration of the above premises and the following terms and conditions, TlC and TUSD agree a~ follows: Agreement to Provide Necessary Facilities a. TUSD and TIC will provide for necessary school facilities in time to meet the demands created by the development as outlined he~ein. A~reement to Seek Funding a. TIC and TUSD acknowledge that at the current time state funding may not be available to fund school facilities when they are be needed for projected growth, however, all sources of revenue including state funding will be explored to fund the acquisition of land and facilities. Notwithstanding the present uncertainty regarding State funding, TUSD will pursue State funding. TUSD and TIC will coop,rat's in preparing applications for grant funding from the State of California, TIC will, st its cost retain consultants satisfactory to TUSD as necessary to assist with grant applications. TOSD will provide appropriate expertise from the educational perspective. -~age Two TUSD and TIC agree to ex?lore other source~ of revenue to fund the refurbishment of existing schools, acquisition of land and construction of facilities if 8tare funding is not available. Financial alternatives including but not limited to lease-purchase agreements, ~ello-~oos community facilities districts, and builder fees shall be considered.~ o ~greement to Prepare School Facilities Plan ao TOSD agrees to prepare a school facilities plan ($chool Facilities Plan or Plan) to house students generated by resident/al development which shall be an exhibit to the Eitigatton Agreement, as that term is defined in Section 5a below, or agreements as necessary. The Plan aha1! be based on assumptions of growth in existing schools as well as projected growth in the ETSP area. The Plan shall also be based on the use of existing facilities as we1! as new fac/lit/es to house the student population generated by developmento The School Facilities Plan shall consider those matters set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto. bo ?USD and TIC will work together developing demographic and other data to be used for the development.of the $choo! Fac/lit/es Plan and grant appltcattonso These data will include, but not be 1/m/ted to, facility capacities, fiscal data concerning capital outlay, deferred maintenance and leasing programs. c. TIC will provide to TUSD information on planned residential product types and related development phasing schedules for use by TUSD in preparing the School FaciIities Plan and grant applications. e° TUSD and TlC agree to review the School Facilities Plan at least annually for the housing of students generated by the ETSB a=ea development. After the School Facilities Plan has been developed, TUSD wil! consult w/th TIC regarding the design of facilities financed by any assessment or fee. TlC shall have the opportunt,ty to review and comment upon plans for auch facilittes~ however, final design responsibility and decisions will remain with ~USD. ?USD and TIC agree to the student generation rates set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto as initial assumptions for school facility planning. TIC and ?USD agree to further refine studen~ generation rates to be used in development of the 6chool Facilities Plano TIC and TUSD acknowledge that certain assumptions may change due to unforseen circumstances. ~hen this occurs the generation rates will be adjusted accordingly by ~IC and TUSD. ~egarding those facilities for which state funding is specifically ~ought or develop, er financed, TUSD agree~ to maintain compliance with the State building progra~ in term~ of a~chttectua} guidelines, cost and student loading factors. -~age Three g. In the development of the School Facilities Plan, TIC and ?USP agree to consider a mix of permanent, modular, and portable facilities as well as refurbishment of existing facilities while maintaining existing TUSD standards of 9ualtty, to meet the student housing needs. : 4. ~eservation of sites a. TIC and TUSD agree that eight school sites shall be reserved in the £TSP as shown on Exhibit A. The number, location and size of school sites sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed student population shall be agreed upon in the Mitigation Agreement, or agreements as necessary and reviewed annually. ~f TIC and TUSD mutually agree that any of the reserved sites are unnecessary as determined by the School Facilities Plan, such sites shall be released to TIC for disposition or use as determined by TIC. The Mitigation Agreement will also address the provision of additional sites if necessary. The method of acquiring school sites and facilities, including but not limited to leasing, lease purchases, or other public or private '~> mechanisms will be agreed upon by TlC and TUSD in the Mitigation Agreement or agreements as necessary. b. TIC and TUSD agree that if school facilities funded by TlC serve areas or students beyond the demands of the ETSP area TIC shall receive credit for purposes of satisfying student housing requirements for future TIC residential development. The method of determining that credit will be established in the Mitigation Agreement or agreements as necessary. Mitigation A~reement a. TIC and TUSD will cooperate in the expeditious completion of a mitigation agreement which shall provide for housing of students generated by the ETSP area (Mitigation Agreement). Should this Mitigation Agreement not be completed prior to the first tentative tract map approval, TUSD and TIC agree to cooperate in developing a .separate mitigation agreement covering the development which is the subject of the fizst tentative tract map which will satisfy the condition as outlined in Sc below. be Should the Mitigation Agreement not cover all areas of the £TSP, TlC and TUSD will cooperate to develop subsequent mitigation agreements as necessary. Ce ?IC and TUSD agree that a condition be included fn the ~TSP by approved by the City until such time as TUSD and TIC have entered into the necessary agreements to enable TUSD to obtain financtn9 for the acqutatton, construction or use of the necessary school facilities to accommodate students 9enerated by residentia! development of that map. TUSD agrees: that its approva! vil! not be unreasonably withheld. TUST~N UNiFiED SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ~ Title: Clerk~ Board of January 27, 1986 Title: · .- ..$ :....: LAND USE PLAN cn-Y OF TUSTIN ?he School Facilities Plan will include but not be limited to the following: ESTP Area Schools Assumptions of student growth including new dwelling units, utilization of transportation programs, 'student generation factors, projected increases in student population; School capacities, including permanent and temporary; Size of schools, square footage allowances Construction costs per square foot and total construction costs: School facilities required; Estimated schedule for school construction. '-Existing Schools Identification and evaluation of current facility utilization Including existing and surplus schools; - Identification and evaluation of current facility capacity; Identification and evaluation of existing conditions and needed improvements of current and surplus school facilities; Cost estimates to make improvements of existing facilities; - Projections of student growth or decline; Identification of existing schools with potential for use by students generated by the new development; Identification and value of properties that are underutilized and could potentially provide capital resources. o.)o-o.s5 e.oa-0, ta o.ta-o.6so.56-3.~8 o.2a=o.so o.o3-0.&s 0.05-0.20 o.~o=o.6o e.o~-0.,o.05-0.20o.x,-G.~2 Ucc Schoo& My operate os a K-8 ochoo&, Bud booed upon tbs roprammntatlou b~ Tho ls-v&ua C4~pauy that on~y 8,000 dvalltus ~Lta ~I! bo developed ~dtr Element&t'y: 5 luter~tdLace: I Report to Pl nnin Commission ITEM NO. 3 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: JANUARY 27, 1986 EAST ll~IN PLANNED COMMUNII~ (TUSTIN RANCH) (Continued public hearing from 1/13/86) DRAF-r ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1A, B, C ZONE CHANGE 86-1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE IRVINE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF llJSTIN THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF lUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD RO~J)) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE'EAST. (PC) PLANNED COMMUNITY A DRAF'F ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMII-~ED FOR THIS PROJECT. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Upon the closure of the public hearing, staff recommends the adoption of the following resolutions in order to allow the East Tustin Specific Plan to be considered by the City Council: 1. Resolution No. 2300 2. Resolution No. 2293 3. Resolution No. 2295 4. Resolution No. 2296 5. Resolution No. 2299 6. Resolution No. 2297 7. Resolution No. 2298 EIR 85-2 GPA 86-1a. GPA, 86-1b. GPA 86-1c. ZC 86-1 Specific Plan No. 8 Specific Plan No. 8 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held its first public hearing regarding the East Tustin Specific Plan on January 13, 1986, at which time staff and consultants presented a comprehensive report on this plan. After this presentation, the public hearing was opened for public and Commission input. Since many speakers requested a response to their comment, staff and the consultant team have attempted to answer each of the inquiries and enclose it as a part of this staff report. Community Development Depariment Planning Commission East Tustin page two DISCUSSION: Answers to various written questions or inquiries have been enclosed, and have been broken down to either the draft Environmental Impact Report or Specific Plan text. Responses were given to those questions that had sufficient detail or focus to allow staff' to analyze and prepare a valid response. Comments directed to the draft Environmental Impact Report can still be sent to the city until January 31, 1986, at which point the review period will expire. Comments can still be expressed beyond this deadline as a part of the City Council public hearing process. Some Commissioners submitted comments regarding the content of the Specific Plan, with recommendations for change. Some of these comments have been incorporated into the draft resolutions for the Specific Plan with a recommendation to either include or replace portions of the Specific Plan. Additional comments will .be presented to the Commission as a part of staff's presentation at the January 27th meeting. The mechanism to finance, public facilities and infrastructure in the East Tustin plan will be reviewed. Additionally, staff should have more information regarding the status of Racquet Hill Road, and some preliminary comments regarding phasing of improvements and fiscal balance. Several comments presented by both the Commission and the public questioned the limitation and review processes of the Planned Community. Although covered in the attachments, staff feels some regulatory portions should be covered in this staff report. These include: 1. What limitations are imposed on the number of residential units: a) There is a maximum ceiling of 7,950 units for the total East Tustin area. With the exception of units transferred from Tentative Tract 12345, this number is an absolute maximum. b) There is a maximum number of units for each sector. c) Each land use district sets a maximum number of dwelling units per acre. As shown on pages 2-23, 3-22, and 3-29, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is established. d) Units may be transferred from sector to sector in keeping with Section 3.4.3. of the Specific Plan {pg. 3-11). This transfer does not increase the unit cap of 7,950 units, any transfer of units into a sector must be decreased in another sector. Community Development Department Planning Commission East Tustin page three 2. Further regulatory aspects: a) Hillside District Guidelines, Special guidelines designed to regulate development in hillsides, includes preservation of ridgelines, vegetation, drainage, and land form. b) Sector Policies, each sector has established policies related to specific requirements, such as vegetation {Eucalyptus groves, Redwood grove), drainage (Peters Canyon and E1Modena), golf course, etc. c) Section 3.0 establishes specific setback, height, density restrictions and allowable uses for residential district. Special restrictions apply to areas adjacent to existing residential. Hillside areas, Sectors 1, 2, 4, and 5 Hillside areas located in these sectors are limited to Estate density, a maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre. Although Section 3.0 may allow lots as small as 8,000 square feet, the density limit cannot exceed this 2 du maximum. There must be either larger lots or common open space in order to achieve the density limitation. The 8,000 square foot lot allows flexibility in a hillside situation, and cannot be used to allow a greater density than allowed. Review Process: Subsequent to this Planned Community process, the Planning Commission will be receiving development plans and subdivision maps at several separate stages until the buildout of the East Tustin area. These include: a) Sector Processing, initial plans for an entire sector will be submitted to the Planning Commission. This includes: 1) Initial subdivision map for the entire sector, which is a discretionary item by Commission. 2) Sector Plan; includes circulation, grading, drainage, geology, trail design, and median and parkway landscape. A non-discretionary review by Commission. As part of the subdivision map, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the map and sector plan are in conformance with policies in Section 2.0, and the means to implement these policies has been identified. b) Development Plan Processing Individual projects within a sector that has an approved sector plan and subdivision map. This includes: 1) May have another subdivision map to further divide land use areas. Community Development Department Planning Commission East Tustin page four 2) Could be a discretionary project, such as CUP for apartments, or the project could be non-discretionary, such as design review for a single family home project. Applicants must submit a site plan, elevations, signing, and landscape plans. The Planning Commission may ask for further information as deemed necessary. The program EIR requires that at each discretionary step (subdivision maps, CUP's) staff will examine the program to determine whether the action is covered in the EIR or additional environmental documents must be prepared. Senior Planner EK:do attach: Answer sheets Resolutions Staff report Jan. 13, 1986 Community Development Department F~esponse-To-Comments of 1/13/86 Planning Commission Hearing EAST TUSTIN Job No. 3NI02.0~t Will this Specific Plan proposal correct this existing imbalance of renter to owner availability? (F.C.A.) It is expected that the Specific Plan will have significantly less renter units as a percentage than the existing city. Any apartments that are proposed within the Specific Plan are subject to a conditional use permit and must be approved by the Planning Commission through a public hearing process which provides a vehicle through which the percentage of rental units can be controlled. How ere residential land use acreages adjusted to allow for the actual community and public neighborhood park acreages that will be required? (Refer to page 2-12 in Specific Plan) (Kathy Well) The acreage of community and neighborhood publ'ic parks will be determined when the tract maps are submitted for approval of each sector. If the actual number of units and their corresponding population establish either more or less parkland is required from that which is shown on the Specific Plan, then this difference in acre- age will either be added to or taken away from the land use designation that immediately surrounds the park as shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Map. Such an adjustment in acreage may result in an increase or decrease in units for that land use area, however, such a change will still have to correspond with the controls that are stipulated in the Specific Plan. The controls include: (I) the distribution of the number of dwelling units permitted within a sector; (2) the maximum number of dwelling units permitted for the overall plan; and (3) the maximum density within a land use area. Changes could include shifting locations or acreage of public neighborhood parks within the sector from one land use area to another or between sectors or the actual elimination of a public neighborhood park. Changes cannot include altering the locations that are shown for community parks on the Land Use Plan nor can such changes decrease individual parks below the minimum site size standards established in the city's park ordinance. 3. What are the policies regulating the sectors? (Ran White) There are a series of policies which apply to the various sectors within the Specific Plan. Develoment rhust be consistent with these policies. This consistency will be determined at all levels of review including Sector Plan Review/Initial Sector Sub- division Review, Commercial Sector Conceptual Site Plan Review, Development Project/Subdivision Map Review, and Design Review. The specific policies are iden- tiffed for each sector within Section 2.1.4.3. The policies are intended to provide guidance for the development within each sector in order to assure that the devel- opment will be consistent with the individual sector characteristics as well as indi- vidual sector development objectives. The policies specifically deal with intensity of development compatibility with adjacent uses, development compatibility with the sector's natural physical characteristics, and specific sector processing require- ments. Policies for Sectors I, 2, ~t, and $ are also directly tied to the Hillside Dis- trict Guidelines in Section 2.13 which deal with landform modification and natural feature protection within the hillside areas. The policies regarding density transfer are explained in the answer to Question #$. What is the development package that will be provided to the Planning Commis- sion? (Ran White and F'.C.A.) Per the development regulations in Section 3.0 the Planning Commission is to review the Sector Plans, including plans for the Hillside District, Subdivision Maps with individual "Development Projects", Conceptual Site Plans for the Commercial areas, and general design proposals determined significant enough by Community Develop- ment Staff to warrant Planning Commission Review. Further, all development projects shall be subject to Planning Commission review as either a non-discretionary project if permitted by right in the specific land use area or discretionary project (public hearing) if subject to a conditional use permit. Planning Department should not approve any increase in dwelling units~ all requests should come to the Planning Commission and City Council. (John McCarthy) Transfers of dwelling units between sectors are not an increase in units or density. Sector unit maximums found in the Statistical Analysis are intended to be a means to account for all allowable units and to ensure that the maximum of 7,950 is not exceeded. Thus, the sector units are not a regulatory maximum; density categories within the sector serve that function. Each time a unit transfer is made, the Statis- tical Analysis will be revised to sl~w how all 7,950 units are allocated to sectors. This system was deemed to be more useful than the practice of allocating a range of units to each sector. How does density transfer occur and how is it accounted for? (Ran White, Kathy Well, and F.C.A.) The Specific Plan stipulates a maximum number of dwelling units that can be devel- oped within each sector. If a sector is not developed to its maximum, than the dif- ference between the maximum number permitted and the actual number developed can be allocated to other sectors as credit for the loss. The amount of proposed transfers will be reviewed and determined when individual tentative subdivision maps or site plans are submitted for projects within each sector. If a transfer to a sector is proposed and if the transfer is 15 percent or less than the total units assigned to the sector, then such a transfer will be approved by the Director of Community Development. If the proposed transfer is greater than 15 percent, then the transfer must be approved by the. Planning Commission (see also #$ above). All increases to be allowed must result in conformity with the criteria established on pages 3-11 and 3-12, Section 3.~,.3, paragraph 3. Also, density transfers are res- tricted overall to the maximum 7,950 units allowed in the Specific Plan. The only way that the 7,950 units may be exceeded is by transferring units from Tentative Tract 123~,$ or by amending the Specific Plan. Aim proposed unit transfers will be accounted for in o revision to the East Tustin Sta- tistical Analysis. Upon approval of o unit transfer the Director of Community Development will amend the Statistical Analysis found on page 3-13 to reflect the new allocation of units to each sector caused by those transfers. Is the wording on Page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph /t inaccurate? (Kathy Weil) Yes, the wording on page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph 4 is inaccurate and should be changed to the following: "Any revision to increase the number of dwelling units by 15 percent or less in any sector shall be approved by the Director of Community Development." 8. What is meant by inclining acess roads on page 2-20? (Kathy Weil) Any access roads climbing slopes ore to vary in gradient so as not to create a con- stant monotonous incline. What happens to development surrounding the geologic faults? 10. II. As determined by the Alquist-Priolo Act, no structures will be permitted within 50- feet of the centerline of on active fault. As part of the Sector Review Process, o detailed geologic investigation is required to determine fault activity and precise location. As detailed project development plans ore proposed for each sector the land uses will be specifically sited relative to active faults. It is not anticipated that the active fault will hove any impacts on density within the sector. How do existing densities match proposed Specific Plan densities along the edge of the Specific Plan Area? (Ran White) Along the western edge of the project the existing densities vary. Between Bryan and Irvine the density is approximately 4.5 du/oc. Between Irvine and La Colina the density is approximately 3.32 du/ac. Between Lo Colino and Racquet Hill the density is approximately 2.77 du/ac, in the flatland and 1.25 to 1.5 du/ac, in the hillside. Between Racquet Hill and Foothill the density is approximately 1.85 du/ac. Between Foothill and Lower Lake Drive the density is 1.47 du/oc. (This does not include one large lot just south of Lower Lake Drive which has o density of .23 du/ac.). From Lower Lake north the density is approximately 1.40 du/ac. How are proposed 8,(~00 square feet (5 du/ac.) lots compatible with the area adjacent to Red Hill Ridge where lots are 23,000 square feet (2 alu/ac.). The Red Hill Ridge Area with o density of two du/oc, has larger lot sizes because it is part of the hillside' area. It is adjacent to and overlooks existing residential lots in the flatland area along Browning where the density is higher and the lots are smaller. Sector 8 is also in the flatland oreo. The development proposed for this area is compatible with the existing flatlond development as it includes only Single Family Detached (SFD) units with similar setback restrictions and height limitations. 12. 13. There is reference to noise abatement procedures applying to all residential proper- ties o~ page 3-3~ paragraph 3.7.q D. Isn't this a typo that should change residential to commercial? (KathyWeil) Yes -- the text should be changed to read commercial not residential. Unlike the existing General Plan, there is no maximum density for gross project acres as an absolute ceiling. Therefore, what ore the maximum ceilings or limita- tions on density proposed for the plan? (F.C.A.) The proposed Specific Plan has the following limitations which affect density: a. It establishes a total ceiling of 7,950 units; b. It distributes the number of units within each sector; c. It establishes specific residential density maximums for each land use area throughout the plan; d. It establishes specific development policies for the various sectors and specific development standards and controls for each land use type in order to assure that development is compatible with existing adjacent uses and is compatible internally within the plan area. The combination of the above provides for a much greater level of control than is provided by the existing General Plan. To insure that the plan goals and objectives are achieved. Why is there no number designation for the table on page 3-29? (Kathy Well) 15. None of the tables in Section 3.0 have numeric designations as they are considered part of the text of the regulations. Why was the number of allowable housing units raised from 8,000 to 9,000 dwelling unit? The increase of units is part of the balance achieved by the proposed plan in meeting a wide variety of public and private goals. For example, the proposed units ensure that the costs of major public improvements, such as roads, a freeway interchange, flood control channels, etc., can be reasonably born by the new development. In most cases, such major infrastructure is needed regardless of the number of units built in East Tustin and serves larger regional needs in addition to local needs. The proposed units also help to make new open space, such as the golf course, possible. Why, if you multiply'each the total across of residential category by its gross density do the total number of units in the plen add to 11,517 whereas the maximum ceiling is suppased to be 7,950? (John McCarthy) The maximum allowable units the Specific Plan will be permitted to generate is 7,950. The density categories ore designated by o maximum number of units. The proposed development projects con generate a number of units less than or equal to that maximum. Because there is a ceiling on the number of units for the whole site area, we established on overage density for each category, enabling the plan to encompass the maximum allowable 7,950 units. When this density average was determined, we used it to establish the distribution of units among sectors, which totals 7,950 units. The proposed project cannot exceed the density category maxi- mum nor can the total number of projects proposed for each sector exceed the total number of units allowed for that sector unless a density transfer occurs as described in the Specific Plan. 17. Where is Table 2.5? (J. McCarthy) 18. 19. 20. 21. This is a typographical error, it should be referred to os Table 2.4. There is no Table 2.5. If density transfers between sectors are proposed in the development review process why, in all cases, are they not subject to review by the Planning Commission? (J. McCarthy) A transfer, if less than 15 percent above the designation in any sector was proposed, would not signicontly alter the basic character of development nor would it alter the basic introstructure requirements for any sector. Therefore, it is proposed that increases of less than 15 percent would be approved by the Director of Community Development, so long os the increases met the criteria established on pages 3-I1 and 3-12, Section 3.4.3, paragraph 30, b, and c. In the estate area why is the average lot size stated as 10,000 square feet when at 2 d.u./ac, lots should be I/2-acre or 21,780 square feet? (John McCarthy) Overall gross density of two dwelling units per acre does equate to 21,780 square foot per unit. Gross density consists of several factors such as local streets, flood control devices, porks and open space elements, slopes, trails, and other permitted uses. Net residential lot area excludes these elements, therefore the net lot size will be less than 21,780 square foot. The 10,000 square foot average lot size established for the estate areas is o minimum average size. Due to hillside slope areas, variation in terrain and preservation of natural features the sizes of the lots will vary. There may be lots as Iow os 8,000 square feet and lots that are greater than I/2-ocre in size due to these various factors. The minimum overage 10,000 net square footage is established os an overall average control for the estate density areas. If an increase is approved in the allowable number of units in one sector, then a like decrease will be required from another sector to conform to the maximum allowable units of 7,950 as stated on page 7. (John McArthy) Yes. This would be accomplished by the method of density transfer described in Sections 2.1 and 3.4.'3 of the Specific Plan. In the Specific PI~ why are there discrepancies far the total project acreage between the Specific Plan and EIR? (F.C.A.) The discrepancies regarding site acreage ore a result of changing data. These figures are close approximations. The site is currently comprised of approximately 1,740 acres. The Phase I Area consists of approximately 170 acres and the Myford interchange is planned to cover approximately 20-acres. Together this totals approximately 1,930-acres that were annexed to the City. The 1,988-acres addressed on page 83 of the EIR, is a figure from a 2-1/2 year old study; the new figures ore more accurate. The 1,820-ocres addressed on page I of the Specific Plan is o typographical error, it should read as 1,740-acres. 23. Given the flexibility to change Sector boundaries, density transfer unknowns, the Browning corridor stipulation, the unknown size and location for the regional park, (md others, then why aren't all sector plans subject to review by the Planning Com- mission? (F.C.A.) All Sector plans are subject to review by the Planning Commission as established on pages 3-15 and 3-1~;, Section 3.5, paragraph C, "Sector Plan Processing." Any changes in boundaries or other changes are all subject to the controls and limitations that have been established for the sectors under sector policies in Section 2.0 and Development Standards in Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan, and all changes found must be found consistent with those policies and standards. When specific sector site plans are proposed with permanent sector boundaries why aren't the maximum dwelling units for the sector established at that time? (F.C.A.) Sectors are bounded by fixed property lines established by the Specific Plan area boundary, arterial roads and defineable physical features of the land. Adjustments to those boundaries would occur through specific detailed alignments of the arterial roads. These adjustments would be minor in nature. Such adjustments will not affect the maximum number of units allowed in the Sector, the Sector Land Use Area Densities, Sector Policies nor the Development Standards. Why haven't church sites bccn provided for in this plan? (M. Brooks and I. Tracy) The Specific Plan Regulations allow churches to occur in all of the residential land use areas as well as in the neighborhood and general commercial land use areas sub- ject to a conditional use permit. Zoning of property typically and appropriately plans for locations of broader categories of land use such as residential, commercial and industrial. Zoning does not typically regulate site specific locations for the variety of the many types of uses that might occur within the city. Individual uses are normally identified as specific uses which are permitted within certain zoning categories, or in the case of East Tustin Specific Plan, a land use area. Individual uses such as church organizations normally find locations and acquire sites based on their own individual needs and requirements such as number of facilities, size, loca- tional preference and cost of land. To predetermine and regulate specific sites for all of this individual uses that may occur within the plan would not be practical nor will it guarantee that the individual needs and requirements of these organizations will be met. An important consideration in planning for these uses is to provide the broadest possible opportunity for them to occur and not to specifically regulate their size and location. This opportunity has been provided in the East Tustin Specific Plan by allowing chu.rches to occur within almost all of the land use areas. Irvine and Orange developments shauJd pay for circulation improvements in Tustin which benefit them, e.g. N-S arterial. (John McCarthy) New developments in East Tustin, os well as ma]or new developments in most other cities, fund roads to serve their traffic. In addition, they fund a part of the regional circulation system which provide traffic capacity to residents from other cities. However, there is no exact accounting system to balance the contribution to the regional system among cities. In the case of the N-S arterial, it is anticipated that Tustin, Orange and Irvine development will all contribute to construction. For that portion abuting the Irvine- Tustin boundary, the costs will be shared equally. In the canyon portion of Tustin, Irvine will have no direct access to the N-$ arterial. Orange development will eon- struct the entire roadway through its area. 26. Plons for noise attenuation of units located within the Browning Corridor should be required in the Specific Plan. (Kathy Weil) Noise levels in the Browning Corridor do not exceed the City of Tustin noise ordinance or any established noise standards. BD 2/16n34 EAST TUSTIN ~.~ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS On Page 117 of the Rrl~ the phase H of the 17-~.~t Tustin development of 1,050 homes appears not to be eonsidered in the over~ll figures. (John J. McCarthy) It is assumed that this comment is referring to Phase I of the East Tustin development area which consists of 1,050 dwelling units and was processed as a seperate project in 1985. The population and housing figures for the Phase I development are not included with the discussion on page 117 of the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR because this section pertains only to the Specific Plan. However, the population and housing characteristics of Phase I are included in Section 4.0, "Cumulative Impacts," of the EIRo e Will aircraft noise levels actually be tested to determine any impacts after construction? At what point in the approval process do we assure that the development under the corridor is sufficiently protected? Are the noise level readings "one event" or cumulative? How high above the ground will the helicopters be over the residential? (Kathy Weil) The City of Tustin currently does not require aircraft noise levels to be tested after Development under the corridor is considered to be sufficiently protected when indoor noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL and outdoor noise levels do not exceed 65 CNEL (These standards are consistent with the noise guidelines of the Marine Corps Air Station, Department of Aeronautics, and Federal Aviation Administration.) As discussed on page 154 of the EIR, the East Tustin area is definitely outside the 65 CNEL impact are for helicopter operations. The helicopter noise levels delineated within the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR reflect cumulative noise levels based on the daily average number of flights. The guidelines of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (AICUZ) indicates that outbound aircrafts are to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above sea level and the inbound aircrafts maintain a minimum altitude of 2,500 feet above sea level. However, under special circumstances such as heavy fog or heavy rain, inbound aircrafts may be permitted to reduce their elevations to 1,500 feet above Elevations within the study area range from approximately 715 feet above sea level in the northeast corner to 75 feet above sea level where the E1 Modena Channel crosses under the Santa Ana Freeway. Therefore, outbound helicopters would be permitted to fly approximately 1,285 to 1,925 feet above the project site depending on the topography while inbound aircrafts would be permitted to fly approximately 1,785 to 2,425 feet above the project area. 3. Because the ETSP project will place further burden on ex'i.~ting Hbrary facilities (psge 167), mitigation measures should be required. (FAC) The additional use of existing library facilities does not necessarily constitute a significant impact. The County of Orange is responsible for library facilities and services within the City of Tustin, and was provided copies of the Draft EIR for the project. The discussion of library impacts has been or will be reviewed by the County and specific mitigation measures may be recommended as appropriate. Inadequate compliance with CEQA Guidelines to furnish the public and officials with complete documentation. Over 80 copies of the EIR and technical appendices were distributed to agencies, local officials and the general public during the week of December 18, 1985. This distribution included forwarding copies of the EIR and appendices to local homeowners associations, via certified mail. Also, copies were forwarded to local libraries and are available for public review. Similarly, copies are available for public review at Tustin City Hall. Additional copies of the EIR and appendices were forwarded to local libraries on January 14, 1986 to further facilitate public review. CEQA does not require that documentation associated with an EIR (i.e., a specific plan) be circulated along with the EIR during the public review period. However, copies of the East Tustin Specific Plan were made available for public review at Tustin City Hall, and were forwarded to local officials, at the time of the Draft EIR distribution. How does the faet that drainage/flooding mitigations will not be addressed until later in the approval process affect the legality and finality of this ErR? Will the mitigations be just as binding? Without those studies/findings, how complete is this F. rR? (Kathy Weft) The program EIR for the East Tustin Specific Plan provides mitigation measures based on the level of project planning currently being considered. The mitigation measure on page 52 of the EIR acknowledges that at future more precise levels of planning, detailed hydrology/drainage studies will be prepared and will serve to mitigate the potential for flooding hazards. The mitigation measure in the program EIR is not intended to preclude the project from future environmental review to ensure that such studies and accompanying mitigation does occur. (See response to comment No. 9--). This approach is in accordance with the letter and intent of CEQA. Consideration should also be given to using fire-resistant plants in the natural h,~].qide areas, particularly near dwellings. (Kathy Weft) As stated in Section 3.13.2 of the DEIR, development in the Hillside District shall be subject to the guidelines of the 1976 Fire Protection Planning Task Force Report. This report provides for several measures for fire protection landscape treatments at open space/urban development interface areas. Would increasing the water s~pply to the onsite freshwater marsh present a greater potential for health and safety hazards than currently exists? (Kathy Weft) Such potential health and safety hazards as well as measures to mitigate such potential hazards are issues which would be assessed in detail at more precise levels of project planning. 8. Insufficient specific detail to be a Specific Plan. Therefore inappropriate designation as a Program RTR with no subsequent public review. (Bob Break) The level of detail required for a specific plan is at the discretion of the affected jurisdiction. A specific plan serves as a guide for development, and is intended to provide for the systematic implemention of general plan policies. A program EIR evaluates the overall impacts of a series of interrelated actions which comprise a "project", as in the case of a specific plan (see additional discussion below). As such it is appropriate to catagorize the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR as a program EIR. The East Tustin Specific Plan ]~]R is a Program ~ defined on page 1 as "intended to serve as the sole environmental document for the proposed specific plato No environmental impact report or negative declaration need be filed pursuant to Division 13 for any subsequent individual site and building development plans which conform to the standards and guidelines contained in proposed specific plan.~ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a minimum of 45 days review. The FCA respectfully requests that this period be extended a minimum of 90 days from today and that additional sets of the three volumes be made available at the public library as a real opportunity for review and comment. Section 15165 of the Guidelines also states that: "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprise a project with a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. As noted in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared in a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: geographically; as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; in connection with issuance of rules regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Although a program EIR may be appropriate for projects meeting only one of the criteria noted above, the "project" as addressed in the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR basically reflects aU of the criteria. The advantage of a program EIR, as described in the Guidelines, is that is allows a more comprehensive analysis of the overall impacts associated with a series of actions than would otherwise not occur with individeual EIRs for each project action. A program EIR does not, however, preclude subsequent individual activities within a project from the requirement for additional environmental analysis, if appropriate. As specifically stated in Section 15168(c) of the Guidelines; "Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either and EIR or a Negative Declaration." As such, CEQA specifically provides for additional environmental analysis and subsequent puiblic review following a program EIR, if and as appropriate. CEQA Guidelines stipulate a minimum 30 days review period for all EIRs, a minimum 45 day review period for projects involving state agencies and a maximum review period of 90 days for all EIRs. The length of the review period, aside from meeting minimum requirements, is at the discretion of the lead agency. The City of Tustin is the lead agency for the East Tustin Specific Plan project and considers a 45 day review period to be appropriate for the subject EIR. Additional copies of the EIR and appendices were forwarded to local libraries on January 14, 1986; and additional copies have been provided to interested parties, including local homeowners associations. It should be noted that this additional distribution follows the extensive original distribution which occurred in December 1985 (see response to comment no. 4). 10. The ErR reflects inconsistencies and subjectivity inn?propriate for a research document. Example: Air q,,Ality "may have a significant impact on regional quslity" (psge 19) but it is ~1.~ stated of Air Q, mllty, ~Projeet implementation will result in the generation of air pollutants...that will contribute to the cumulative degradation of the ambient air q, mlity~ (page 246). Second example: It is stated that ETSP is aesthetically consistent nwith exi.~ting and planned surrounding land uses,n but for the same City of Irvine General Plan area it nwould be highly speculativeu (page 212) to try to assess cumulative impacts. Nevertheless, the transportation data indicates a 50 percent increase in population and 70 percent increase in traffic volume with this General Plan development just east of the ETSP Project. (FCA) With respect to the first example, it is hereby noted that the subject statement on page 19 of the DEIR is ineorrect, and should reflect the fact that the project will have a significant impact on regional air quality. Regarding the second point, the discussion of cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources which occurs on page 220 of the DEIR refers to the fact that development of the project site and surrounding areas will change the visual character from open space to urban uses. This change in land use and accompanying change in visual/aesthetic character is anticipated in the existing local general plans, and is therefore not considered to be significant. The statement on page 212 of the EIR refers to the speculative nature of attempting to identify specific uses east of the project, at a similar level of deatil to the projects listed in Table 40. The two subject discussions (page 212 and page 220) deal with completely different levels of analysis, are not analogous. Part of the intent of the cumulative impacts analysis is to quantify impacts to the extent possible. Such quantification can be provided for projects with some delineation of the specific nature and extent of uses, as in the case of the projects identified in Table 40. Although the general nature of uses east of the project site is known, a clear understanding of the actual uses to occur would be very difficult at this time, especially considering that this area will not even begin development for several years. For this reason, it was considered that a cumulative assessment would be speculative. As for the traffic and population data which is cited for the area east of the project site, this data is based on city and county regional projections and may not actually be specific to the subject area. 11. ~ne approved allowable dwel~ngs for the F~st Tustin Residential Project are listed as 1218 (p. 212) and as 1050 (p. 215 and 75). Which figure was used for cumulative impact study? Generated population figures for the project range from 19,053 (p. 170) to 19,319 (p. 215) and current po[relation of Tustin at 49,815 (p. 109) is listed 9,000 too high. (FAC) The delineation of 1218 units for the East Tustin Residential Project as shown on page 212 is a typographical error. The correct number is 1050 units, which was utilized in the cumulative impacts analysis. The population figure at 19,319 on page 215 is based on an average population density of 2.43 as indicated by the City Planning Department. The population figure of 19,053 on page 170 is b~sed on population factors delineaqted in the City's park ordinance which are specific to housing density categories (also shown on page 170). The population factor of 49,815 as shown on page 109 is a typographical error and the correct number is 40,815. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS EAST TUSTIN HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS All development should have mandatory membership in a homeowner's association. (Kathy Weil) It is anticipated that many of the residential developments will have homeowner associations as needed for maintenance of common landscaped, open space, or recreational areas. Membership will be mandatory for those residents living in developments with homeowner associations. PRIVATE STREETS Do the private street standards eliminate guest parking? (Kathy Weil) Parking requirements are determined according to the district (i.e., low, medium-low, etc.) and will not be affected by private or public street designation. If private street standards eliminate required parking, it will need to be provided elsewhere in the development. PARKING REQUIREMENTS A two-bedroom apartment should have two spaces required. (Kathy Weil) The Specific Plan requirement of 1.8 spaces, plus .25 guest spaces, for a two-bedroom apartment is consistent with the Phase I - Residential. Adequacy of parking is as much a function of good site planning as it is of the number of spaces. All multiple family developments in East Tustin will require a conditional use permit as part of the approval process. The planning commission will have an opportunity to evaluate the parking solution for each development at that time. GOLF COURSE How does the plan assure that the 9olf course will remain open to the public? (Kathy Weil) The Specific Plan states on Page 2 - 37 that the golf course will be privately owned and managed but be open to the public. As a privately owned and managed course, it is not a municipal course and thus the liability will not be the city's. SET-BACKS The medium density attached residential front set-back should be modified to be consistent with the Phase I Residential standards. (Kathy Weil) The medium density front set-back standards are consistent with or greater than the Phase I Residential standards. DEFINITIONS How is lot width defined if there is no garage in front? (Kathy Weil) The definition as written applies to cul-de-sac or unevenly shaped lots. The intent is to assure that there is an acceptable width at that point where a structure is built. It is recommended that the definition of lot width be modified to read: "The width at the front of the lot measured at the set-back of the building." FIRE HAZARD GUIDELINES Change "fire retardant" to "fire resistant" and add after class "A" minimum, "as rated by the Underwriter's Lab, Chicago, IL." (Kathy Weil) It is recommended that the above change be made as suggested. MCE:wb 1/22/86 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Response to written comments, 1/22/86 SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: SOURCE: SUBJECTS: RESPONSES: SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: Tustin Gold Key Association Letter, Jan. 10, 1986 Bryan Avenue The East Tustin Specific Plan does not propose any change to Bryan Avenue. FCA, comment #4 North-south route, La Colina, ADT, construction traffic - The north-south route is already on Arterial Highway Plans and no change is proposed. - La Colina extends beyond Browning in the City of Tustin Arterial Highway Plan. - The 122,977 ADT for the east Tustin area under the General Plan is correct and a check is being made on the portion of this in the East Tustin Specific Plan area (the Auto Center and Residential Phase I need to be deducted from the 122,977 ADT). - At the subdivision level, an access plan for construction traffic is approved by the City Engineer. FCA, comment #8 Western Connections This is a County issue, and apart from Racquet Hill, the connections are included so as to be in conformance with City or County arterial highway plans. Ron White East/West Road Connections Benefits of these roads can be summarized as follows: 1. Goods and services available in East Tustin can be more easily accessed by adjacent residential areas. 2. Fire access to parts of east Tustin will be from the adjacent area. 3. Neighborhood continuity provides more flexibility for the school district. 4. Traffic is diverted from other streets such as Newport Avenue, Red Hill, Browning, and Irvine Blvd. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Response to written comments, 1/22/86 Page Two SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: FCA Lack of Compliance with MPAH Plan does comply with City and County Arterial Highway Plans. Inclusion of collector roads such as Racquet Hill connection does not imply non-conformance, since collector roads are not normally included on the MPAH. FCA ETC Alignment The generalized conceptual alignment shown in the traffic study conforms with the current MPAH as modified by the Memorandum of Understanding between the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. If the eventual corridor alignment differs significantly from this, it will not affect the East Tustin Specific Plan. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RESPONSE TO ISSUES AND QUESTIONS JANUARY 21, 1986 The following are responses to questions generated by the Tustin Planning Commission as outlined in the attached letter dated January 17, 1986. o Will all construction in the East Tustin Development be on City sewers? (John J. McCarthy). The development area will ultimately be served by a gravity sewerage system, however, interim use of leach fields and septic tanks may be considered in estate areas to a limited extent until trunk facilities are extended into the northern portions of the development area. Development within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area is currently master planned to be served by wastewater facilities provided by Irvine Ranch Water District. Will the ultimate flood control improvements take care of a lO0-year frequency flood? (Kathy Weil) Regional flood control facilities, those owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District including the E1Modena Channel, will be designed to convey the discharge from a lO0-year storm. Local facilities, those facilities operated by the City of Tustin which typically are found on the interior of the residential subdivisions, will be designed to carry discharges from 10-year and 25-year storms depending on their location in the watershed. This level of flood protection is typical of that required of developments throughout Orange County. Does the Orange County Flood Control District have money for upstream improvements? (John J. McCarthy) The Orange County Flood Control District has currently allocated funds for the design of a portion of the E1 Modena-Irvine Channel from Bryan Avenue to the Redhill-La Colima Channel during the calendar year 1986. These efforts will also include design of the Redhill Channel (Fl3) and La Colima-Redhill Channel (F07SO1) from the E1 Modena Channel to Irvine Boulevard. No funds are currently allocated for construction of these facilities. When will the box culvert crossing of Bryan Avenue be constructed? (John J. McCarthy) The construction of the box culvert bridge crossing of Bryan Avenue will commence upon completion of the bypass channel and tie-in facilities, which is scheduled for mid-February, 1986. It is anticipated that the bridge will take approximately two to three months to construct. BELLEWICK COMMUNITY AssoCIATION Post Office Box 861 Tustin, California 92681 Ms. Kathy Weil Chairman City of Tustin Planning Commission City Center 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 December 24, 1985 Dear Commissioner Weil; On behalf of the Board of Governors of the Bellewick Community Association, I wish to inform you of our Board's approval and support of the Proposed Land Use Plan of the East Tustin Specific Plan. Our support of the Plan derives in large part from the interest, cooperation, and flexibility exhibited by the Irvine Company. As originally presented, there were several items in the Plan (especially those relating to housing densities), with which members of our 80 home community took exception. Representatives of the Irvine Company met several times with representatives from our community, listened to their comments and suggestions, and were flexible enough to modify the Plan to accommodate their concerns. The coop- eration of the Irvine Company with our and other involved homeowners associa- tions has resulted in a land use plan which exhibits an orderly, attractive, and functional development which is, at the same time, compatable with the existing residential areas which it borders. It is inevitable that the East Tustin area will be developed. We are pleased that the Irvine Company has listened to our requests, and has acted in a conscientious and cooperative manner to insure the compatability of the East Tustin development with the existing neighborhoods and community. Sincerely, Gerald Feldman Chairman, Board of Governors Bellewick Community Association cc: Members of Tustin City Council Members of Tustin Planning Commission Chairman, The Irvine Company Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIROI~4ENTAL STATUS: JANUARY 13, 1986 F_~LST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNI~ (TUSTIN RANCH) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1A, B, C ZONE CHANGE 86-1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST THSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE IRYINE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;EXISTING RESIOENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF THSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CIl~ OF IRVINE TO THE EAST. (PC) PLANNED COMMUNITY A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMITTEO FOR THIS PROJECT. RECO~ENDEO ACTION: Staff recommends the following actions: 1. Accept staff report presentation. 2. Accept project manager and consultant presentation. 3. Conduct the public hearing and receive public testimony. 4. Continue the subject applications to the Commission's next meeting on January 27, 1986, thereby allowing staff and project consultants adequate time to research and answer questions raised by the Commission and community. BACKGROUND: The area known as East Tustin geographically located east of Browning Avenue and north of I-5 was annexed to the city in the late 1970's. The property is owned by The Irvine Company and while annexed under agricultural preserve status was originally planned and zoned to be developed for residential and support commercial, public and service facilities. Community Development Department ~Planning Commission East Tusttn page two Since the agricultural preserve status on the majority of property expired in 1984 and January, 1986, the property owner has requested permission to commence development. Responding to The Irvine Company request, it is the city's intention that East Tustin be planned from its inception and not permitted to develop in a piecemeal unplanned fashion. To implement this policy, a public-private partnership was formed by establishment of a Steering Committee to direct preparation of the East Tustin plan. The East Tustin Steering Committee was formed in March 1983 and originally compris-ed of the following members: Don Saltarelli, Councilman; Richard Edgar, Councilman; Jim Sharp, Planning Commission Chairman; Bill Huston, City Manager; Don Lamm, Director of Community Development; Monica Florian, Vice President, The Irvine Company; Rick Cermack, Director, The Irvine Company; and, Coralee Newman, Manager, The Irvine Company. The Steering Committee retained a consultant team under direction of Larry Webb, J.L. Webb Planning, project manager, and monitored ongoing preparation of the land plan and support documents. The city Community Development staff provided a secondary overview of the consultant team and implemented Steering Committee direction. After 2-1/2 years of preparation, a concept land use plan was brought forth to the public in a "Town Hall Meeting" on March 27, 1985. Responding where possible to community concerns, the land use plan has been modified over that viewed at the Town Hall Meeting. Secondly, the specific plan text has now been prepared along with the necessary draft Environmental Impact Report and its support technical studies. Lastly, a development agreement contractually binding Irvine Company commitments and city approvals, while not submitted at this time, will ultimately be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration. During the month of December, 1985, Planning Commission study sessions were conducted to review the background and substance of the East Tustin plan. The purpose of the Commission's meeting on January 13th is to receive staff, consultant and public testimony and eventually formulate a recommended position to the City Council. While draft EIR #85-2 is submitted for Commission consideration, the public review period remains open until January 31, 1986. Therefore, the Commission will not make a final recommendation concerning the EIR but refer it to Council with opinions concerning it's ultimate certification. Any member of the community still wishing to address the adequacy of the environmental document may do so prior to January 31, 1986. PLAN ANALYSIS: The processing of the East Tustin Specific Plan is actually composed of several individual procedures. Attached to this staff report is a copy of the public hearing notice outlining General Plan Amendment 86-1 A, B, and C which proposes amendments to the Land Use, Circulation and Seismic Safety Elements. These ~ Corn munity Development Depart ment J Planning Commission East Tustin page three amendments are necessary to ensure consistancy between the city's General Plan and ultimate zoning and development of the property. Secondly, Zone Change 86-1 is proposed incorporating minor changes to the property zoning from its present designation of (PC) Planned Community to Planned Community-Residential, Commercial, Community Facilities and Mixed Use. The Zone Change is simply a refinement of the present Planned Community zoning. Specific Plan No. 8 is the actual land use regulatory document containing policy statements of the city in Section 2 of said document and zoning development standards in Section 3. It is this plan that more definitively indicates types and density of residential development and approximate locations of community parks, schools, an 18 hole golf course, support commercial shopping centers and office complexes. Lastly, draft EIR 85-2 provides the environmental analysis for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan applications. Due to the extensive detail presented in the specific plan and environmental documents, a comprehensive presentation will be made at the Commission's meeting on January 13th. Staff and consultants will be prepared to address the Commission's questions at that time. Hopefully to address as many advance questions as possible, members of the consultant team and Steering Committee met with community groups that expressed interest in the project. Meetings were conducted with the Foothill Community Association of North Tustin, the North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council, the Tustin Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee, the Belwick Homeowners Association and additional meetings are planned with other homeowner associations adjoining the East Tustin area. In addition, 340 public hearing notices were mailed in accordance with State law to all property owners within 300 feet adjoining the East Tustin project area. Newspaper artioles have been published announcing the meeting on January 13th and the availability of the Specific Plan and environmental documents at the Tustin Branch Library, City Hall and Police Department. While the plan may be purchased at City Hall, a summary report is available free of charge. CONCLUSIONS: Development of East Tustin will obviously impact surrounding communities in both Tustin and the County area of north Tustin. However, the subject area has had an urban designation status since 1973, and the expiration of the agricultural preserve would mean the ultimate conversion of the land to urban uses in accordance with a master plan. Reacting to this fate, the city/Steering Committee has strived to produce a plan with the proper balance of land uses and one whose fiscal impact will not be detrimental to Tustin. The balanced land use plan includes public and private parks whose acreage is nearly double that existing in Tustin. Sites are also being reserved for public Community Development Department Planning Commission East Tustin page four schools and commercial shopping centers to provide convenient services to those new residents of our community. The majority of heavier commercial and employment based businesses (research and development) are located adjoining the I-5 freeway. This balanced plan, therefore, provides both local employment and a variety of housing opportunities from rental apartments to estate size homes in the foothills. The East Tustin plan represents countless hours of staff, property owner and consultant time over the past three years. While it cannot address every single concern raised by the community, hopefully it is the best and most practical alternative. Therefore, the East Tustin Steering Committee recommends adoption of this plan by both the Planning Commission and City Council subject to substantial mitigation measures and contractual obligations between the city and The Irvine Company. Director of Community Development Senior Planner DDL:do attach: land use map project summary public hearing notice DEIR with appendices ETSP Community Development Department ~A~? ?L~?~ ~DE~©~EF~© DEL~E~ LAND USE PLAN PRO&ECT SUI,~q,ARY The proposed land use plan encompasses approximately 1,740 acres of level and hilly terrain. Over 70 percent of the site is relatively flat (0 to 5 percent slope) or 1,218 acres, with the remaining 522 acres made up of hillside terrain with slopes ranging from 5 to over 30 percent slope. Level portions are situated in the southern acres, with hilly terrain in the northern acres. The east and west branch of the Peters Canyon Wash extend from the northern reaches of the area, exiting into the City of Irvine sphere of influence northerly of Irvine Boulevard. At this time, the area is completely undeveloped, primarily supporting agricultural uses. The statistical summary of the proposed plan includes: Land Use Designation Acreage Residential Estate (up to 2 du/ac) Low (upto 5 du/ac) Medium Low (up to 10 du/ac) Medium (up to 18 du/ac) Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac) 415 287 50 239 178 Open Space Public Neighborhood Parks* Community Parks Golf Course 14 37 150 Commercial/Business Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Mixed Use 10 31 121 Insti tutional Elementary Schools* 58 Intermediate Schools 15 High School 40 Other Uses Roads (arterial and major only**) 101 Certain park and school site acreages have not been established. Such acreage will be taken from residential land use area. ** Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major roads, has been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses. The proposed plan would permit a maximum of 7,950 dwelling units divided among twelve separate sectors. Ten of the sectors permit residential development, and each is divided into land use types with a maximum density allowable for each type. Additionally, each sector is given a total number of dwelling units, although units may be transferred from sector to sector, subject to certain criteria. With the exception of units transferred by Tentative Tract 12345, the maximum number of dwelling units for the specific plan area can not exceed 7,950 units. OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC 'HEARING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California, will conduct a public hearing on January 13, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, to consider the following: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a,b,c An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company, requesting an amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tustin area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south; existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west; unincorporated land to the north; and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Rd.) for the city of Irvine to the east encompassing approximately 1,740 acres. a) 86-1a: An amendment to the Land Use Map, to change the current designation of Residential Single Family, Commercial, Public and Institutional, and Planned Community, to Planned Community/Residential, Planned Community/Commercial, Golf Course, and Public and Institutional, which can have a suffix of open space, school, community park, neighborhood park or regional park. The Planned Community designation requires the submission of detailed development regulations. b) 86-1b: An amendment to the circulation element of the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tustin area, described above. Amendments to the current circulation element include: extension of La Collna from Browning Ave. east to Future Road as a secondary road; inclusion of Myford Road north of the I-5 Freeway to the northern city boundary as a major highway to Portola Parkway, and as a primary highway from that point to the city boundary; extension of Portola Parkway to Future Road as a primary highway; and upgrading the status of E1 Camino Real/Laguna Road to a secondary highway from Red Hill Avenue east to Myford Road. c) 86-1c: An amendment to the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tustln area, described above. The amendment incorporates language and policies regarding the status of the E1Modena Fault. The subject fault has been identified in EIR 85-2, and may be active, based upon further investigation. General Plan policies in this regard will require these further studies prior to construction. If it is concluded that the fault can be considered active, additional detailed analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact location and extent of the fault. This investigation will serve to define the location and width of a structural setback zone for the fault, in keeping with state law requirements. 2. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Montca Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company requesting an amendment to the zone designation for the East Tustin area, bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway {I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the January 13, 1986 notice page two unincorporated community of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west; unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line {Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east, encompassing approximately 1,740 acres from Planned Community to Planned Community/Residential, Planned Community/Commercial, Planned Community/Community Facilities, and Planned Community/Mixed Use. These zone designations require the submission of detailed development regulations, and will be governed by the East Tustin Specific Plan text and land use maps. 3. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN An application filed Jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvlne Company, requesting the implementation of a specific plan; prepared in accordance with Government Code 65450 et.seq, for the East Tusttn area, bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (1-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tusttn and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Neights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. The area encompasses approximately 1,740 acres. The specific plan will permit the construction of 7,950 dwelling units over 1,169 acres in density ranges including Estate (2.0 du/ac), Low (5.0 du/ac), Medium Low (10 du/ac), Medium (18 du/ac), Medium High (25 du/ac). Supporting these dwelling units will be a public parks system including 37 acres of community parks and 14 acres of public neighborhood parks, including approximately five elementary school sites, an intermediate school site, and a high school site. The Peters Canyon trail system is included, along with the possibility of a regional park in the northern part of the plan. The plan also includes a 10 acre neighborhood commercial site, a 31 acre general commercial site, and a 121 acre mixed use area, which encompasses retail commercial uses. a hotel/motel, and office/reSearch and development uses. A 150 acre golf course is also included within the planning area. The plan includes the planning and improvements for the areas circulation system, water, sewer, utilities and drainage. Development within the specific plan area will be governed by the East Tusttn Specific Plan text and related exhibits. The text includes policies and guidelines, as well as development standards, regulations and administrative procedures. The land use plan and text are on file with the city, and may be reviewed either at the Community Development Department or the Tustin Branch Library, adjoining the civic center. A draft Environmental Impact Report (85-2) has been prepared for the actions noted above, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A copy of this document is on file in both the Community Developn.~nt Department and the Tustln Branch Library, 345 East Main Street. Information relative to these items is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the above hearings may appear and be heard at the time and place noted above or may call the Community Development Department at (714) 544-8890 ext. 260. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Publish: Tustin News January 2, lg86 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUB4ECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONHENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FEBRUARY 10, 1986 USE PER~IT 86-1 THOMAS CAUDILL 17361 NORWO00 PARK PLACE ~STIN, ~ 92680 17361 NORWOOD PARK PLACE R-1 SINGLE FARILY RESIDENTIAL ITEM NO. 3 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (15301-1) TO AUTHORIZE RETAINI4ENT OF A PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED SATELLITE ANTENNA IN THE REAR YARD OF 17361 NORWOOD PARK PLACE RECOI~ENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: Currently this ten (10) foot diameter dish is ground mounted in the rear yard at 17361 Norwood Park Place. The total height is ten feet eight inches (10'8") and only a small portion of the antenna can be seen from the public right of way. Staff has conferred with the applicant on the possibilities of lowering the antenna eight inches (8") and moving the antenna three (3) feet to the east. The new height and location will bring the antenna into conformance with the conditions of Ordinance No. 926. The applicant has agreed to lower and move the antenna, therefore, this application has been withdrawn at the applicant's request. LAURA PICKUP, Assistant Planner LP:do ~ .... Community Development Deparlment Exhibit ~ ._~ c~;. Plot Plan f, WO.OD Exhibit \ / JAN. 31, 1986 Laura Pickup Assistant Planner Tustin, California SUBJECT: SATELLITE DISH IN REAR YARD OF 17361 NORWOOD PARK PLACE, TUSTIN. Dear Laura, As per our telephone conversation on Wednesday,I am in full agreement in making the following modifications to my current satellite dish installation. The pole mount will be lowered not less than 8 inches (reducing the total height of the dish.) The pole mount will also be moved not less than 36 inches east of current location, making it further away from the west property line. Ail re-alinment and re-installation cost will be at my expense exclusively. Although these changes are expensive and will result in a 20% loss of viewing performance and viewing channels, I am still in complete agreement in making these modifications to conform to the new code requirments. If any additional information is needed, please contact me. Thank you for your help Laura. Tom Caudill 17361 Norwood Park Place Tustin, Calif. 92680 714 669-1387 Report to Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIROI~ENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FEBRUARY 10, 1986 USE PERMIT NO. 86-2 SETSUKO TAKAYAGI 2402 E. Karan Lane Orange, CA INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY INC. ON BEHALF OF WHITTIER INCOME INVESTORS, 2727 NEWPORT BLVD., SUITE 200, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 14460 NEWPORT AVENUE, SUITE F CENTRAL COFI4ERCIAL (C-2) DISTRICT THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A BUSINESS WITH AN ON-SITE BEER AND WINE LICENSE AT THE SUBJECT ADDRESS RECO~ENDEO ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 86-2 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2301. BACKGROUND: It is the intention of the applicant to open a Japanese Sushi restaurant within the recently completed shopping center located on the northeast corner of Newport and Walnut Avenues. Assuming all improvements required by the building and health departments are made and based upon a maximum seating capacity of 18 seats, the applicant may operate a restaurant at the subject location by right. The 18 seat limit is based upon code requirements that a restaurant be limited to three seats for each parking space allotted. The subject suite has been allotted six spaces. However, since the applicant wishes to sell alcoholic beverages (beer and wine) for on-site consumption, a conditional use permit is required. Community Development Department UP 86-2 February 10, 1986 page two DISCUSSION: The proposed restaurant is to be operated in a multi-tenant strip center which is the middle of a predominately commercial area. The site abuts multi-family apartment buildings to the north and east and is across the street from shopping centers to the south and west. Proximity to schools is usually an issue raised any time a new application for alcoholic beverage sales is considered. In this instance, the nearest schools are in the Curry/Thorman complex and St. Cecilia's private school located over a half mile away from the subject site. CONCLUSION: Given that the primary use of the suite in question will be a restaurant, and when the type and location of the center in which the applicant intends to operate are considered, it is concluded that Use Permit 86-2 should be approved by adoption of Resolution No. 2301 as drafted. ~ss~i ate Planner JD:do attach: Reduced site plan Full size floor plan Location map Resolution No. 2301 Community Development Department 1 2 3 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. 230i A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14460 NEWPORT AVENUE SUITE F The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae De Fe That a proper application (Use Permit 86-2) has been filed by Setsuko Takayagi requesting authorization for an ABC license to sell beer and wine on-site at 14460 Newport Avenue, Suite F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. That establishment, 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 working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The sale of beer and wine is on-site only. 2. No schools are located in the immediate area therefore the use should not have any detrimental effect on children. 3. That the total number of seats in the establishment shall not exceed 18. That 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 general welfare of the city of Tustin, and should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal, and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class 21. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 2 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. 230l page two II. The Planning Commisston-h~reby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 86-2 to authorize the issuance of an on-site beer and wine license at 14460 Newport Avenue, Suite F subject to the following condition: A. That the total number of seats in the proposed restaurant shall not exceed 18. That authorization for an on-site beer and wine license is contingent upon the use in the subject suite remaining a restaurant. At such time that the restaurant use is discontinued, authorization for the beer and wine license will be rescinded. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , lg86. KATHY WEIL, CHAIRMAN DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY ~ ? ~7777 [ 1¢884. tn. 89o 14896 t489~ t49oo t4 9o~ 14~04 ~ 9to t491Z t49t6 )EL AMO AY L~..__. m CARFAX ! I01 DEL AMO NE, WPORT / AVE LANGDAL E LANE,., ATH£RTON L,aNE... I1 DENBIGH LANE TEHBY LAN /Z Ol HAM BES¥ GREE Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZON I NG: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FEBRUARY 10, 1986 USE PERMIT 86-5 AND VARIANCE 86-1 LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY VACANT PARCELS AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF NEWPORT AVENUE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PO) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THIS PROJECT. AUTHORIZATION TO DEVELOP 160 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUILT TO CONDOMINIUM SPECIFICATIONS AND TO VARY WITH THE NUMBER OF GUEST PARKING SPACES FROM .25 PER UNIT TO .11 PER UNIT. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Use 'Permit 86-5 and Variance 86-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2302. BACKGROUND: Three separate projects were previously approved for this site, however, none have been constructed. In February 1981 a 208 unit condominium project was approved which was 3 story units over underground parking. In September 1983 a scaled down 161 condominium unit was approved. In March 1984 a 156 unit condominium unit was approved with at-grade parking. In July of 1985 Lincoln Properties requested authorization to develop a 160 unit project and to vary with the guest parking standards. Community Development Deparlment Planning Commission Report February 10, 1986 page two During each of these approved projects the issue concerning the extension of Newport Avenue through to Edinger Avenue was considered. At the time Lincoln Properties was denied (in July of 1985), the Redevelopment Agency acted to prepare a specific Newport Avenue alignment to resolve the potential right-of-way question. Because the study was only recently completed, staff will be making a recommendation to City Council that the City not pursue the extension of Newport Avenue to Edinger Street with a grade separation structure. Minimum engineering design criteria standards can not be attained with the grade separation structures as studied. The developer then' requested that his application be readvertised for Planning Commission consideration. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Lincoln Properties is now ~equesting authorization to proceed with the 160 unit apartment complex. In an attempt to construct the highest quality project and to provide maximum flexibility as market conditions dictate, the proposal includes developing the project to condominium standards. The applicant proposes to construct 160 units on a 6 acre parcel of vacant land. The site plans submitted and attached to this transmittal indicate that 338 parking spaces are provided for the units which indicates that 2.11 spaces are being provided for each unit. The code specifies that 2 parking spaces should be provided for each unit plus 1/4 space per unit for visitors. Because of the magnitude of the project and the fact that 40 visitor spaces will be provided by this plan, staff suggested that additional landscaping should be provided along the Newport Avenue frontage area rather than providing the extra visitor parking spaces. Also, seventy-six (76} of the units will be one-bedroom or studio units, which justifies the reduction in parking spaces needed for the project. Attached to this report is a calculation of parking requirements for the variance request. The PD District specifies that 400 sq. ft. per unit be provided for open space requirements. The intent of this open space provision of the district is to provide amenities for the occupants. The developer is showing a 1,000 square foot clubhouse along with a 1400 square foot size pool and a spa area. Other open space areas include barbecue areas with landscaping between all buildings. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report February 10, 1986 page three The building elevations submitted show stucco with wood lattice trim and red concrete roof tiles. This style of architecture is commonly referred to as Spanish Mission style. A Negative Declaration was previously approved which had mitigation measures attached that pertained to sound attenuation. The approval of this project will also incorporate those sound attenuation measures as part of the conditions of approval in Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 2202. All the conditions of approval from the various departments are listed in Exhibit "A" of Resolution No. 2202. Included as part of this report is a project synopsis provided by the developer called "Newport Gardens." Tentative Tract No. 11370 has been filed in conjunction with this use permit to subdivide this property for 'condominium purposes. This report is listed under New Business No. 1. MAC:em Enclosures: Plans Resolution 2202; Exhibit "A" Parking Calculations Report Community Development Department rn o 0 Z JJ KA~IIZER & l('OHON" J I ~,OTTON ~ I 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. 2202 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING USE PERMIT 86-5 AND VARIANCE 86-1 TO AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF 160 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF NEWPORT AVENUE IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application has been filed on behalf of Lincoln Properties requesting authorization to develop a 160 unit condominium project at the southerly terminus of Newport Avenue and to vary from the requirements for providing guest parking spaces from .25 per unit to .11 per unit. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings of fact: That establishment, maintenance, and/or-operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or morals of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, in that: The proposed activity is in compliance with the use restrictions and application procedures of the City Code Section 9224d.1, 9291 and 9292; The project is in conformance with the intent of the city's development standards. The establishment, maintenance and/or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use in that the activity is proposed for the correct land use and zoning classification and shall be developed in a manner prescribed by the city's development and zoning provisions except for the guest parking provisions. o The establishment, maintenance and/or operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to property, improvements in the neighborhood, or general welfare of the city in that the project will be constructed in conformance with the 1982 Uniform Building Code. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 2~ 25 27 28 Resolution No. 2202 Page two o o That a Negative' Declaration with mitigation measures was previously approved incorporating the recommendations of Engineering Sciences, Inc. to conform with the city's Noise Ordinance. The proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Code as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal, and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. Final development plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and Community Development Department. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, relative to size, shape topography location or surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by others in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, evidenced by the following findings: The use is in conformance with the land use element of the Tustin Area General Plan. bo That 76 of the 160 units are either bachelor units or one (1) bedroom units. That all units have 2 parking spaces assigned to them therefore, .11 visitor spaces in addition to the tenant spaces shall provide adequate parking for the project. That the granting of a variance as herein provided will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated. That the granting of the variance as herein provided will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the public safety, health and welfare, and said variance should be granted. 1 2 3 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. 2202 Page three II. The Planning Commission-hdreby approves Use Permit 86-5 and Variance 86-1 for the development of 160 residential condominiums at the southerly terminus of Newport Avenue while varying from the requirements for provision of guest parking spaces from .25 per unit to .11 per unit subject to the conditions as listed in Exhibit "A" atttached to this Resolution No. 2202. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary EXHIBIT "A" FOR USE PERMIT 86-5 AND VARIANCE 86-1 o The development shall be surrounded by a solid redwood or cedar fence or masonry'wall or combination thereof except the property line abutting a street, alley or driveways. All trash collection areas shall be surrounded by a six foot fence or block wall with adequate access to and from these areas for trash and garbage collection vehicles. All development standards as recited in Section 9224e, 1 through 9 in the Planned Development District. All construction shall meet requirements of the City Ordinance, State and Federal Laws and Regulations, and of the following codes: 1982 Uniform Building Code 1982 Uniform Housing Code 1982 Uniform Mechanical Code 1982 Uniform Plumbing Code 1984 National Electric Code Swimming pool and spa shall be approved by the County Health Department. Development will be required to dedicate all required street right-of-way across the Newport Avenue frontage of the parcel. Street improvement plans (plan and profile) and construction of improvements for Newport Avenue which include but are not necessarily limited to the following will be required: a. Street paving b. Curb and gutter c. Sidewalk d. Driveway aron e. Marbelite street lights with underground conduit feed f. Street trees g. Construction of a looped domestic water system within the site inclusive of connections to both Kenyon Drive and ~ewport Avenue, fire hydrants and domestic water service meters. h. Sanitary sewer facilities Annexation of said parcel to a City of Tustin Lighting District. Advanced energy charges for street lighting may be required depending upon the date said annexation is complete. Said annexation must be initiated prior to final plan approval. Preparation and submittal of a final grading plan for review and approval by the City. ~ Community Development Deparlment J Exhibit "A" page two 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 fees in the amount of $250.00 per dwelling unit at the time a building permit is issued. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees in the amount of $500.00 per dwelling unit at the time a building permit is issued. The City will require the developer to enter into an agreement obligating the developer tO participate in the Eastern/foothill Transportation Corridor Fee Program at the time building permits are issued. On-site hydrants shall be required. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence that a water supply and hydrants for fire protection is available, shall be submitted and approved by the fire chief. Fire department emergency access construction details shall be submitted and approved by the fire chief. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this condominium project shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff and City Attorney prior to their recordation. The CC & R's shall specifically dictate responsibilities between the homeowners association and private property owners for the maintenance both interior and exterior of all buildings, plumbing and electrical facilities. The CC & R's shall also specifically prohibit the storage of recreational vehicles within the complex. The CC & R's shall contain restrictions against the conversion of garage spaces to any other use except the storage of motor vehicles. The City shall be a part of the CC & R's and any modification of the CC & R's concerning these conditions shall require approval by the City of Tustin. Environmental mitigation measures shall be required to reduce both exterior and interior noise levels to conform with the interior requirements of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance. Said mitigation measures as recommended by the City-retained firm of Engineering Sciences, Inc. shall be included on the final plans. Such mitigation measures may include construction of sound attenuation walls, increases in the quantity of structural insulation and reduction of exposed glazing. Continuous concrete curbs shall be provided to separate landscape planters from parking spaces and drive aisles. All roof top equipment and vents must be screened from view to the satisfaction of City staff. All signs must be approved by the Planning Department prior to permit issuance. Separate permits are required for plumbing, electrical, grading, signing and any work performed within the public right-of-way. Community Development Department DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY Project: Location/District: Action: Newport Gardens 14901 Newport Avenue/Planned Development Request for 160 condominium units. U.P. 86-5 and Variance 86-1 Building: Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback Gross Square Footage Net Floor Square Footage Height Number of Stories Materials/Colors Lot Size Lot Coverage Parking: Number of Spaces Ratio (space/square footage) Percent of Compact Spaces Type Uses: Number of Public Notifications (Owners): Environmental Status * No Standard District Requirement Proposed 15 fee~ 5 feet 10 feet N/A None None N/A According to Precise Plan 2 per unit; .25 per guest 2.25 20% N/A 15 feet 5 feet 10 feet N/A Bachelor 450-490 sq.ft. I Bedroom 650-675 sq.ft. 2 Bedroom 800-866 sq.ft. 29 feet Two-Story White Stucco Red Tile Roofs 6 acres 29% 2 per unit; .11 per guest 2.11 20% At-grade Multi-family Residential A Negative Declaration was previously approved. KAMN ITZER +COTTON Architect.re and Planning Peter Kamnilzer, AICP John Oliver Cotton, AIA Gene R. Smith, AIA Helena Toister, AIA Richard M. Luke, AIA Milan tojdl, AIA PROJECT: LOCATION: ZONING: Building: Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback No. of Units Gross square footage Height Number of Stories Material, Colors Lot Size Building Footprint Square Footage Lot Coverage Area of Parking (driveways & parking stalls) Open Space Area (Total) Open Space Recreational Area 900 SF/Unit + 64,000 S.F. Density LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY-TUSTIN APARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY 160 UNITS MULTIFAMILY/RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS SOUTHERN TERMINALS OF NEWPORT AVENUE, TUSTIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (FD) DISTRICT 50'-0" From center line of Newport Avenue to Parking 55'-0" from Center line of Newport Avenue to Building 5'-0" to parking, 52'-0" to build- ings. S'-0" to parking, 52'-0" to build- ing 160 122, 228 S.F. 18'-0" + ?~-0"(Roof)=25'-0" 2 Not Determined 6.013 AC 262,710 S.F.+S150 S.F.= 26?,860 S.F. 75,210 S.F. 29% 166,925 S.F. 100,935 S.F. 72,500 S.F. 26 Units/Acre 6330 Son Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, Californio 90048 Telephone (213) 937-3994 TUSTIN APARTMENTS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY Page 2 Parking: No. of Spaces Ratio Percent of Compact Cars Covered 360 2.25/Unit 2O% 320 ITEM NO. 6 Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: FEBRUARY i0, 1986 4TH REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11370 LZNCOLN PROPERTIES SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF NEWPORT AVENUE FSLIC PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED FOR THE PROJECT. SUBDIVIDE 6.4 ACRES INTO ONE (1) LOT RECOP~4ENDED ACTION: Recommend to the City Council approval of Revised Tentative Tract No. 11370 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2304. BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: A revised tentative tract map has been submitted in conjunction with Use Permit 86-5 to allow the subdivision of 6.4 gross acres into 1 lot for condominium purposes. Use Permit 86-5 authorizes the construction of 160 condominium units. The revised map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance and the site plan. All of the conditions of approval are listed in Resolution No. 2304. MAR~{ ANN//~HAMBERLAI ~ Associal~e Planner MAC:em Enclosures: Map Resolution No. 2304 Community Development Department 1 2 3 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. 2304 Page two 7. Construction of looped domestic water system for the entire site with necessary easements to be constructed with Phase 1. This system is to be connected to Kenyon Drive as well as Newport Avenue; 8. Sanitary sewer facilities. Payment of County Sanitation District No. ? fees in the amount of $250 per dwelling unit. Ge Payment of East Orange County Water District fees in the amount of $500 per unit. Preparation of a final grading plan for review and approval by the city. Developer must enter into an agreement obligating participation in the Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridor Fee Program at the time building permits are issued. J. Payment of parkland dedication fees. K. Submission of CC&R's to the Community Development Department and City Attorney's office for.review and approval. L. Annexation of the southwest corner to the city of Tustin prior to recordation of the final map. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14~ 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2304 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOURTH REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT 11370 The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application was filed by Lincoln Properties pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance (No. 847) for the purpose of creating a one (1) lot residential condominium project for the property located at the southerly terminus of Newport Avenue. Be That said Tentative Tract Map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. C. That a Negative Declaration had previously been approved for this project. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Revised Tentative Tract 11370 subject to the following conditions: Ao Dedication of all street right-of-way along Newport Avenue as required by the City Engineer. B. Dedication of all access rights to Newport Avenue to the city except at driveway openings per the approved site plan. Annexation of entire parcel to the city of Tustin Lighting District. Subject annexation papers must be provided to the city prior to final approval of final tract map. Installation of marbelite street lights with underground conduit along Newport Avenue as required by the City Engineer along with the payment of the installation charges to the city of Tustin. Preparation of street improvement plans and construction of said improvement which include but are not limited to the following: 1. Street paving; 2. Curb and gutter; 3. Sidewalks; 4. Driveway aprons; 5. Street lights; 6. Street trees; Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 10, 1986 GENERAL PLAN A/~ENOMENT APPLICATION FOR SIXTH STREET WESTERLY OF "B" STREET RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to advertise a public hearing for the area on the north side of 6th Street, westerly of "B" Street. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS: An application has been filed by Mark Ainslie requesting authorization to amend the general plan for three properties known as 405, 415, 425 West Sixth Street and Parcels 23, 24, 25. Presently the general plan shows these properties as single-family residential and the zoning is R-1. The request is to change the general plan for these properties to multi-family residential so that an appropriate R-3 zoning designation could be requested. Staff has' studied the proposal and suggests that either all or none of the area (as shown on the attached map) be considered for a general plan amendment to multi-family residential for the following reasons: If the project were considered for only the three parcels, this action would be considered spot zoning which is not allowed under the State Planning Law. It is questionable whether these properties along 6th Street are suited for single-family residential uses due to the noise and truck traffic created by the industrial users directly across the street at the Foster Arts Center. These properties along' 6th Street are suited for multi-family residential uses due to the noise and truck traffic created by the industrial users directly across the street at the Foster Arts Center. e These properties are approximately 60 feet wide and 333 plus feet in depth. The existing single-family homes are situated on the front 100 feet which faces the industrial complex while the remaining area of these properties is not utilized. Enclosed is a copy of a proposed development plan. I I Id"t:/  MARY/ANN/~AMBERLAIN,/,~ Associate Planner MAC:do attach: copy of site plan Community Development Department PROPOSED GB~ERAL P~ fi) SI~TH STREET -- ------ G~,IERAL P~I AN~ID~fF~ ALTEPC~ATIVE 1 PROPOSED GFNERAL P~ A~J~D~ SIXTH S T~EE T-- TRACT ' STREET -- -----' GF}IERAL PL~ l~:~i~, ALTERNATIVE 2 Planning Commission February 10, 1986 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - February 3, 1986 Oral presentation to be given by Donald D. La~, Dtrector of Commnity Development do Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - February 3, 1986 , Community Development Depar;ment ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR t~EETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 3, 1986 7:00 P.M. 7:01 I. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PROCLAMATIONS PRESENTED TO RUBY MAY PRESENTED TO PRES. LIGHTI~OOT PRESENTED TO JEAN KEMP FED. 12 AT IV. NOON THERE WILL BE 1. RUBY MAY - VOLUNTEER SERVICE IN SENIOR PROGRAMS 2. ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OF TUSTIN 3. FRIENDS OF THE TUSTIN LIBRARY COMMUNITY NOTES A TUSTIN ROTARY SWEETHEART LUNCHEON FOR SENIORS FEB. 4TH FROM 9:00 TO 10:30 A.M. THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC ~ETING OF THE ROUTE 55 ADVISORY CO~II'TEE WHICH DEALS WITH THE H.O.V. LANES. WE RECEIVED A LE1-FER FROM BEVERLY LANGLEY CONGRATULATING US ON OUR CROSSING GUARDS AND THE FINE JOB THAT THEY DO. STAFF TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR CROSSING GUARDS. T~. COUNCIL APPROVED $10,000.00 SEED Iq)NEY FOR TUSTIN AREA SENIOR CENTER FUND, INC. ,.,.tET SCHWARTZ WAS APPOINTED TO TAKE THE PLACE OF KEN HOESTEREY ON THE SENIOR CENTER FUNDING BOARD WHO HAS HAD TO RESIGN BECAUSE OF HEALTH PROBLEM, S. GREINKE REQUESTED THAT WE RECOGNIZE HIM AT THE NEXT COUNCIL IqEETING FOR THE WORK HE HAS DONE ON THIS COI~qII'I'EE. OI~ANG£ COUNTY BOWLING ASSOCIATION WILL BE HOSTING THE INTERNATIONAL BOWLERS IN THIS AREA. TUSTIN LANES WILL BE ONE OF THE HOSTS. V. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FOR 1. 60 DAYS ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO~ 85-8; PROHIBITION OF TOXIC WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS - ORDINANCE NO. 954 (Continued from January 20, 1986) ORDINANCE NO. 954 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-8 PROHIBITING THE DEVEL- OPMENT AND/OR OPERATION OF TOXIC WASTE TRANSFER STATIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS DAVID VI. PUBLIC INPUT MC MAHON REQUESTED THAT THE CITY REPLACE THE SWING FOR TODDLERS AT FRONTIER PARK. STAFF TO LOOK INTO PUl'TING UP A ANOTHER SWING. HE ALSO REPORTED THAT PEOPLE ARE SLEEPING IN THE PARK. JAMES L. MAYER COMPLAINED ABOUT THE FIRE HAZARD FROM WEEDS ON THE 55 FREEWAY. WRITE A LE1-FER TO CAL TRANS ABOUT THIS. XOVED APPROVED VII. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1986, REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $964,539.82 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $142,646.95 STAFF SHOULD CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 1 2-3-86 ~DOPTED RESOLUTION 3. RESOLUTION NO. 86-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 410. 86-18 TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT - VANDERLIP AVENUE) Adopt Resolution No. 86-18; and assuming no claims or stop payment notices are filed 30 days after recordation, authorize payment of final 10% of retention amount as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 4. RESOLUTION NO. 86-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NO. 86-16 TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF cOMpLETION (COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARK - PHASE I) Adopt Resolution No. 86-16; and assuming no claims or stop payment notices are filed within 30 days after recordation, authorize pay- ment of final 5% retention amount as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 5. CALTRANS SERVICE AGREEMENT #07-C458, NEWPORT AVENUE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT PROJECT Approve subject agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute same as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. APPROVED STAFF RECON~ENDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION 6. NO. 86-15 RESOLUTION NO. 86-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE COLUMBUS TUSTIN ATHLETIC FIELD RENOVATION PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopt Resolution No. 86-15 as recommended by the Community Services Department. APPROVED STAFF 7. RECOI~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF 8. RECOMMENDATION APPROVED STAFF 9. RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED 10. RESOLUTION NO. 86-13 AGREEMENT FOR REGIONAL MASTER PLAN FOR FLOOD CONTROL & STORM DRAINAGE Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement between the City, the City of Irvine, and The Irvine Company subject to final approval of the City Attorney's office; and authorize a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $5,000 for Tustin's total share of the first year cost as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS, HOUSING & COMMU- NITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974 (HCD) Approve the contract between the County of Orange (No. C40200) and the City and authorize its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk as recommended by the Community Development Department. PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR REHABILITATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES Approve the contract between the County of Orange (No. C40272) and the City and authorize its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk as recommended by the Community Development Department. RESOLUTION NO. 86-13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 8451 Adopt Resolution No. 86-13 as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 2-3-86 ADOPTED 11. RESOLUTION NO. 86-19 APPROVED SI'AFF 12. RECOM/4ENDATION APPROVED S~FAFF 13. RECOMMENDATION RESOLUTION NO. 86-19 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM) Adopt Resolution No. 86-19; and assuming no claims or stop payment notices are filed 30 days after date of recordation, authorize payment of the final 10% retention amount as recommended by the Engineering Division. TUSTIN LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - STREET LIGHTING AGREE- MENTS Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Street Lighting Service Utility-Owned System Schedule No. LS-1; the Street Lighting Service Customer-Owned System Schedule No.'s LS-2, LS-3 and Option Schedule No. LS-4, subject to the City Attorney's final approval, as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5)/COSTA MESA FREEWAY (RTE. 55) INTERCHANGE MODIFI- CATION Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement between the City and State of California Department of Transporta- tion as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. .VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION IN~FRODUCED 1. ORDINANCE NO. 964 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE & IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - ORDI- NANCE NO. 964 AND RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 ORDINANCE NO. 964 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 5600 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISH- ING REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE DISCLOSURE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESOLUTION NO. 86-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN NAMING THE ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THE AGENCY RESPON- SIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 2185 Recommendation: 1) M.O. - That Ordinance No. 964 have first reading by title only; 2) M.O. - That Ordinance No. 964 be introduced; and 3) Adopt Resolution No. 86-14. IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None. APPROVED STAFF RECO~ENDATION OLD BUSINESS 1. PARKING RESTRICTIONS DURING HOURS OF STREET SWEEPING Recommendation: Approve the current practice of regulating parking during hours of street sweeping with the addition of the six policies that would regulate that practice as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 2-3-86 XI. APPROVED STAFF RECO)~4ENDATION NEW BUSINESS 1. BID AWARD - PURCHASE & INSTALLATION, POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS CENTER UPGRADE APPROVED REQUEST 2. FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM ORANGE COUNTY CTSA ADOPTED RESOLUTION 3. NO. 86-17 A~ID STAFF RECOIeqENDATION XII. RATIFIED RECEIVED AND FILED 2. MARCH-lOTH AT 3. 7:00 P.M. Recommendation: 1) Award contract for subject bid to Modular Communica- tions Systems, North Hollywood, in the amount of $99,772; and 2) Approve $20,000 as contingency sum to cover any incidental modifications, addi- tions, unforeseen difficulties, etc., not directly or specifically addressed in bid request, as recommended by the Chief of Police. REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM ORANGE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED TRANS- PORTATION SERVICE AGENCY (C.T.S.A.) Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP - RESOLUTION NO. 86-17 RESOLUTION NO. 86-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE MEMBERSHIP IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMMITTEE, INC. Recommendation: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 86-17; and 2) Authorize a sup- plemental Water Service budget appropriation in the amount of $750 for said membership as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - JANUARY 27, 1986 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. STATUS REPORT CONCERNING ABANDONED RAILROAD SPUR TRACKS FROM THE INTER- STATE 5 FREEWAY TO MOULTON PARKWAY Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. BUDGET PLANNING WORKSHOP - ORAL REPORT Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. HUSTON XIII. OTHER BUSINESS REQUESTED CLOSED SESSION FOR LEGAL MATTERS REGARDING PREPARATION OF I.AW~UITE INVOLVING THE CITY OF IRVINE. ~J~PROVED CITY CLERK'S REQUEST TI~AT RENTAL FEES FOR 1986 POLLING PLACES BE INCRE~ED TO $35.00. MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 86-20 REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF A SERVICE AUTHORITY FOR FREEWAY EMERGENCIES (CALL BOXES.) AGENOIZE FOR NEXT MEETING THE MA1-FER OF JOINING THE JPA WITH FEBRUARY 26TH AS EFFECTIVE DATE. NGRATULATED POLICE DEPARI~IENT FOR CATCHING THE ESCAPED CONVICT. STAFF TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS WHEN THE ZONING ON MAIN STREET IS AGENDIZED. HUSTON TO SET UP TIME FOR COUNCIL TO RESPOND TO MAYOR GRISET'S REQUEST RELATIVE TO LOOKING AT SAJqTA ANA'S PLANS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 2-3-86 _FAFF TO AGENOIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTENDING NEWPORT AVENUE THROUGH TO EDINGER AND TO INCLUDE A REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING POSSIBLE LITIGATION AGAINST THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COI~ISSION FOR THEIR REFUSAL TO ALLOW THE EXTENSION TO DATE. GREINKE REPORTED THAT THERE WILL BE AN EVENING OF DANCE AT THE HIGH SCHOOL ON FEB. 15TH AT 8:00 P.M. THE COST IS $4 FOR ADULTS AND $1.50 FOR CHILDREN. STAFF TO AGENDIZE POSSIBILITY OF CHANGING THE NAME OF ~DULTON PARKWAY TO EITHER IRVINE CENTER DRIVE OR EDINGER ST. 8:35 P.M. XIV. ADJOURNMENT Recessed to the Redevelopment Agency, thence to a Closed Session for legal matters regarding preparation of legal action against the city of Irvine, and thence to the next Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 18 1986, at 7:00 p.m. ' CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 5 2-3-86 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE llJSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FEBRUARY 3, 1986 7:00 P.M. 8:35 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVED 4. STAFF RECOMI~ENDATION APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 20, 1986, REGULAR MEETING RED HILL AVENUE & MOULTON PARKWAY/EDINGER STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Recommendation: Authorize a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $36,000 for traffic signal and intersectin improvements at the Red Hill Avenue and Moulton Parkway/Edinger Street intersection as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. KENNEDY 5. OTHER BUSINESS 'EPORTED THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE CALIFORNIA APARTMEI~rS HAl) COMPLAINED THAT THE PROPANE COMPANY 1AS EXPANDED THEIR USE AND SHE REQUESTED T)LAT DON LA/~4 LOOK INTO IT. 8:36 6. ADJOURNMENT To the next Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 18, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 2-3-86