The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 05-20-85IUSTI# PL~##I#G COffi4IS$IO# REGULAR MEETIMG REPORTS NO. 1 5-20-85 13, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: White, Wei], McCarthy, Puckett Absent: Sharp Chairman White announced the resignation of Commissioner Sharp. He will be unable to continue to serve on the Planning Commission because he has moved out of the City of Tustin. White expressed the Commission's disappointment over the loss of his knowledge, experience and guidance. He requested the staff write a letter on behalf of the Commission thanking him for his tenure on the Commission and wishing him well. PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT C~J_E#DAJ[: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting April 8, 1985 2. Final Parcel Map 84-1033 Commissioner Well moved, McCarthy second to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HFJU~I#GS Chairman White, with the consent of the Commission, rearranged the public hearings. He moved public hearing item 6 for consideration first. 6. VARIANCE 85-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Paul and Steve Amort 13642 Green Valley Drive Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, lot size, and side yard set-back requirements of the Multiple Family (R-3 2700) Residential District. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Commissioner Well questioned if the neighbors' additions and/or variances were done before the area was annexed to the City. Jeff Davis responded affirmatively. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Paul and Steve Amort, project applicants, spoke in favor of Variance 85-2. They objected to the conditions that the existing structure be upgraded; specifically, Items 2 and 13 contained in the Conditions of Approval. Planning Cormntssto. Hinutes May 13, 1985 page two Seeing no one further wtshtng to speak, Chairman Whtte closed the publlc heartng at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Wetl moved, Puckett second approval of Variance 85-2 subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A" with two exceptions. Item 2 shall allow the existing tree to be replaced by two 24" box trees; and, Item [3 shall allow the extstlng structure to be upgraded to the satisfaction of the planning staff. Motion carried 4-0. Chairman White combined consideration of Phase ! Residential Draft E[R 84-3, General Plan Amendment 84-4 and Zone Change 85-4 with consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 for discussion and public input. 3. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/PHASE I RESIDENTIAL Ae Applicant: Location: Request: Draft EIR 84-3 General Plan Amendment 84-4 Zone Change 85-4 Monica Florlan on behalf of The Irvine Company An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To amend the General Plan Land Use designation and property zoning to permit development of a Planned Residential Community consisting of single-family detached, attached and apartment dwelling units adjoining a public park. Presentation: Donald O. Lamm, Director of Community Development 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12345 Applicant: Loca ti on: Request: Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvtne Company An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To subdivide approximately 107 acres of land providing for development of specific land uses pursuant to the Phase I Planned Community zoning regulations. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Chairman White introduced two pieces of correspondence for the record. First, a letter dated May 13, 1985 from the law firm of Parker and Covert representing the Tustin Unified School District. Second, a letter dated May 13, 1985 from The Irvine Company regarding parking standards. Coralee Newman, Government Relations Manager with The Irvine Company, gave a brief overview of the planning process leadng up to this hearing. Jay Pierce, Phase I Project Manager for The Irvine Company, explained that this is a community plan. He informed the Commission that the 1trine Pacific Development Company and the Bren Company will join their development team. Planning Commissl~,, Minutes Hay [3, [985 page three DRAFT Steven Ross, Urban Design Specialist for The Irvtne Company, narrated a slide presentation depicting projects in [rvtne that could be similar to East Tusttn. Chairman White expressed his confusion over the density. This project proposes density to the maxtmum, yet the slide presentation just shown depicts housing density way under the density being proposed. Jay Pierce explained that net acres are exclusive of the green areas. Gross acres would include to the center line of the street. The density proposed is gross acres. Commission discussion ensued over the review and approval process and questions were raised as to what future control the Commission would have if the items before them tonight were approved. Don Lamm explained that all future development plans would go through a design review process at staff level only. The Planned Community Regulations stipulate that these projects would come to the Commission for a "Non Discretionary Review Process". The Planning Commission would only have the right to architecturally change items. The Planning Commission's goal would be to determine compatibility with the zone standards and design compatibility. If the Commission wants the prerogative to say "no", it most change the planned community zone text to require a public hearing. Commissioner Well expressed concern that the only thing that would come before the Commission in the future is the design review. She expressed confusion over what is actually proposed to be built and the proposed density. She would like the Commission to review what the developer actually proposes. She recommended the Conditional Use Permit process to ensure more review and control in the area. Commissioner McCarthy clarified that tonight the Commission should come up with a more standard density so that when the Irvtne Company goes to the builder they can tell the builder how many homes they can put on the property. He further stated that the density right now is not acceptable. (This raised applause by the audience) Don Lamm explained that density will be determined by two factors: the General Plan designation and zoning. At present, they dictate 4 UPA. Through the application process it would be raised to an average of 11 units per gross acre maximum; Chairman White opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. on the Draft EIR 84-3, General Plan Amendment 84-4, Zone Change 85-4 and Tentative Tract Map 12345 Hubert Clark, East Tustin Homeowners, asked for a reduction of 8~ to lO~ in the number of homes proposed. By reducing the number in Phase I it would allow a higher density to the north and provide more tax benefits from the higher priced product. Stephen Johnson, Santiago Municipal Advisory Commission, addressed the EIR and Zone Change. Their interest is with: 1) The county areas within the sphere of influence of the City of Tustin, specifically North Tusttn, citing Government Code Section 54774; 2) Tustin Unified School District reaction; 3) frontage on Bryan and Browning and the entire intersection of Browning and Irvine Blvd., two corners of Redhill and Irvtne. £IR premises respecting traffic shows only a slight incremental increase. Rejects this premise in fact and theory. The size of the project indicates there Planning Commtssiu,, Minutes May 13, 1985 page four DRAFT will be a tremendous number of people and automobile traffic generated. Referenced page 7 of the EIR regarding mitigation measures. Regional circulation improvement plan is no~ fully ~ddressed and wants the traffic study up front now. Once the project is built you cannot ask the developer t~ make this study and build the roads. What is the effect of this increased traffic flow on the existing residences? This is only one small percentage of this entire project. 93% of the intersection of Irvine and Redhill will be used up by 1990, what about the rest of the build up. The Irvine Company still has 80% of their land, yet they have saturated one intersection to grid lock. In this project only, 500 cars will want to turn left from Redhill to Irvtne. Who's going to pay for all the improvements that will be necessary? What's the cost to the taxpayers? Rebutted page 67, traffic distribution. If took a poll, probably everybody trmvelling north on the Santa Aha freeway would want to get off the freeway if there was a grid lock. They would take off down Browning, 17th, La Colina, Skyline. we are extremely concerned with the School District. Their job is to educate the students. Why are they alarmed about this plan? In order to build the schools in the Irvine area we will have to sell off school sites in the other areas. When this temporary blessing of over abundance of schools passes and we get re-populated, what is going to be the effect of that? The EIR has missed most of the issues that should have been discussed. We are just starting this matter and if this goes on, we will wind up with a locomotive out of control. Asked the Planning Commission to reject the EIR and continue the issue of the zone change until the Irvtne Company can document the mitigation statements. Ida Dickinson, 1429 Bryan Avenue, Tusttn Gold Key Association, concerned with the density as it will affect the traffic on Bryan Avenue, 1trine Blvd., Laguna Road and Redhill. Cost of the development to current residents. Lack of need for this high of density and low/moderate cost housing in the area. Clark Marks, 1672 Lear Lane, expressed concern with density; transitioning by townhomes from apartments to single family homes only extends through part of the development; traffic; further expressed concern with the Planning Commission only being allowed a design review if they approve this tonight. Most of the residents living in the area are against the high density of apartment. Tustin has many more apartments than is true in most cities. Suggest the Commission review this as well as the issues that were not reviewed in the EIR. Charles Larkin, 1802 Andrews, asked what the buildable density would be. Jay Pierce responded it would be around 17. So the density would increase from 4 to 17/18. He expressed concern with the traffic impacts on San Juan. Also, the area along the freeway proposed to contain apartments is not city it is county area. Robert Capalety, 1931 Sierra Vista, county island, concerned with traffic. Opposed to the density. Would like it to remain at 4 per acre. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 1985 page fi ye DRAFT Arlen (Jim) Hughes, 1752 Lance Dr., concerned with streets and adverse impacts. There is already adverse impacts, how can this not contribute te them. Also, concerned with density. Xs fearful that East Tustin will be known as a separate community and as the high density area. Suggested negotiation on density to a more realistic level, possibly 8. Net density is the concern of the individual who will buy there; gross density is our concern. Jackte Haney, 13352 Nixon Circle, encouraged the Commission to take their time in making this decision. It will affect the community for years. Carol Taylor, 13532 Farmington Rd., questioned when work would begin on the E1Modena Channel. It was supposed to be done in conjunction with the auto center; they have started work on the auto center. Also, Myford was scheduled to be completed in 1988, but nothing has been done on it. Berm around the auto center and raised portion around this track would push the water back into the surrounding area. The Irvine Company to date has not answered any of the citizens questions raised at the Town Hall meeting or tonight. Terry Austin, traffic consultant for the EIR, addressed density as it affects traffic. For residential, the per acre generation is somewhat constant. It is not constant on a per unit basis due to the variable types of residents. Lowering density does not give you a comensurate reduction in the amount of traffic. Redhill is the major issue for traffic. When the Jamboree interchange is completed in 1988 there will be a shift in traffic from Redhill. The result is that Redhill will be better than it is today. The Myford interchange is being reconstructed by the State. It is approved and funded and in the design stages. This will increase the capacity of an existing interchange. Jamboree is a new interchange; it is locally funded and committed by the City and it is also in the design stages. The location has been decided but the final design has not yet been approved. Chairman White questioned if they are assuming a connection of Laguna Road on the east side of Jamboree extending to Myford. Is it being submitted with this project or the auto center? Terry Austin said it is a committed project partially committed to the auto center and the remainder is committed to by the City. It will be a mitigation to the Myford and Bryan intersection. He responded affirmatively that the Jamboree Road extension from Bryan to the freeway, but not the interchange, is being installed with the auto center and there is a road paralleling and just below Bryan from Jamboree to Myford being put in as part of the auto center. Commissioner McCarthy questioned the flood control measures to be completed along with the auto center. Jay Pierce responded that within the month they should be starting with the E1Modena Channel improvements to remove the constrictions. Currently in design phase to make the further improvements under Bryan Avenue. These should be completed with the auto center. Planning Commission Mtnutes Hay [3, [g85 page slx DRAFT Jim McDonald, with RBF (flood consultants), responded to Commissioner Nell's concerns wtth flooding. The current proposal ts that unttl upstream development of the regional water courses ts effected there really tsn't the need or desirability ~o tmprove to 100~ capacities wtthin the project. Ultimately, we wtll provtde capacities consistent with current capacities upstream. Ne would be able to pass design flo~s whtch arrtve at the project site continuously through the project stte downstream. They wtll be removing the constrictions consisting of the Bryan Avenue undercrosstng, the farm brtdge crossing. Additionally, flood control berms are currently betng constructed around the auto center and will continue as part of the integrated plan of the residential component. The affect of thts berming actton Is to divert flows along Bryan Avenue; combtned affect is to reduce the flooding along Bro~ntng Avenue. Under current conditions today, we do see a significant pondtng condition, floodtng condition along Browning which ts created by a ratlroad berm. Wtth Implementation of the project and Incorporation of a swale adjacent to the Browntng right-of-way we wtll reduce the tmpacts of floodtng adjacent to the extsttng residents along Browntng Avenue. tn further response to Commissioner Netl's questton concerning Improvement of the culvert that parallels the freeway, Mr. McDonald explained that that is a regional issue which will see Caltrans, County and the City participating in an ultimate solution. The County's master plan calls for a facility to parallel the freeway which it currently does today. The exact size of that is dependent upon the regional solutions. Those being implementation of an enlarged channel facility upstream of the Bryan/Browning intersection. Until those issues are resolved at the County level and amongst the city decision making policies, that answer cannot be given at this point. Downstream of the freeway continuing into the city of Irvine, the channel facility is also undersized. The County has recently put together a project report for the E1 Modena/Irvine channel system which originates at the Peters Canyon confluence and continues all the way up through Tustin. The project report, which will surface and be approved by the Board of Supervisors, identifies deficiencies and project improvements which will alleviate the flooding issues. Commissioner Well further questioned if any improvements would be made to the flood channel that runs along side the auto center. Mr. McDonald said there would be some improvements to that primarily to provide capacity which is consistent with what is being delivered upstream. The portion of the undercrosstng under the freeway will not be opened at this point in time until the downstream solution is reached on a regional basis with the cities of Tustin, Irvine and the County. It is undersized at this point in time with the constrictions in place. Edward Stamford, 13201 Hickory Branch Road, questioned if the city has contacted any of the other communities in this area to see if this project will impact them. Oscar Barnhard, 13872 Karen Way, expressed further concern with the flood situation and stated the EIR is inadequate. He informed the Commission of his observations during the rainy season in that area. There is a lake bed down by the freeway and it is a serious situation. Bonnie Perkins, 13382 Epping Way, expressed her concern with the traffic. What is the City of Tustin going to do about the traffic this project is going to bring into this area. Especially, on Bryan coming through Tustin on Browning. Planning Commission Minutes May 13, lg85 page seven DRAFT Brad Olson, The Irvine Company, summarized some solutions: 1) Schools. It has not been their practice to force schools into overcrowding situations and do anything but try to enhance the situation. They will continue to work with the District. 2) Traffc. The combination of this project and the auto center brings some significant improvements to the circulation system. 3) Drainage. They are part of the total regional problem. The project and auto center carry with it the first steps in improving the linkage in the regional solution of the E1Modena Channel. 4) Density. A driving force in this was to try to provide housing that would be attractive, could be attractively maintained and could be marketed along the Jamboree Road, across from the auto center. We are using careful construction of apartments to mitigate from noise, where we can control the maintenance on the property and where we can provide an attractive form of housing for a part of the market that needs housing at an affordable price. The question of what density is appropriate for the single family and what should go along Bryan Avenue is difficult. Density of 4 per acre is not feasible in today's market. This density will address the needs of young people and young families. The prices will range up to $150,000 per unit with income levels between $35,000 and $60,000. The Commission then received several informal questions/comments from the audience. Bill Bangert, Foothill Community Association, expressed concern with the traffic penetrating above the East Tustin area. Chairman White, seeing no one further wishing to speak, closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m. Ne called a recess until 10:00 p.m. Chairman White reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Commission discussion ensued concerning the issues raised by the citizens and the action needed tonight. Several Commissioners have questons/tssues to be resolved and they need time to discuss with staff before making a decision. Commissioner Wetl moved, McCarthy second to continue these items to June loth due to the lack of a quorum on May 28, 1985. Motion carried 3-1, Puckett opposed. Chairman White recessed at 10:25 to allow the majority of the audience to leave. Reconvened at 10:27 p.m. 5. USE PERMIT 85-9 Applicant: Location: Request: Carver Development on behalf of Tusttn Main Associated, Ltd. Properties bounded by Main Street, Newport Avenue and E1Camino Real. Authorization to develop a 90,000 square foot retail center and 40,000 square feet of professional office buildings. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chairman White opened the public hearing at 10:46 p.m. David Neish, architect for Carver Development, agreed with staff's recommendation and discussed pulling building permits at different times for the retail/office structures. Margaret Greinke, 230 S. "A" St., spoke in opposition, to the proposed architecture. She would like to see it blend with the theme of Old Towne. This is the last large piece of developable land left in Tustin and should be thought out carefully; not turned into another strip center. P~anntng Commtsstno l~tnutes DRAFT page eight Seetng no one further wtshlng to speak, Chatrman ~lhtte closed the heartng at [[:0[ p.m. Co~tsstonee ~cCar:hy moved, Puckett second approve up 85-9 wtth ~dlftcatlon ~ condttlon [ that says the site plan elevations be approved by the planntng co~lsston; condition 25 C be left as tt ts; condt:lon 26 be added requiring butldtng permtts for the fetal1 be tssued prtor to o~ concurrent wt~ butldlng permtts for the offtce but excludlng butldtng[ and 2 from that requtre~nt; add condition 27 providing for benches or other seattng areas shall be provtded tn the stte develop~nt plan. Mo:ton carrted 4-0. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Bustness None. New Bustness None. STAFF CONCERNS 7. Revte~ of ¢tt¥ Counctl actton Hay 6, ~985 P~esentatton: Donald D. Lamm, Dtrector of Community Developmen~ COMMISSION CONCERNS None. AO~OURNMEIIT Adjourned at ll:17 p.m. to the planntng commission meettng scheduled June 10, 1985. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR ~ETING HAY 13, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION White, Well, McCarthy, Puckett, Sharp ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS PUBLIC CONCERNS: (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 April 8, 1985 Final Parcel Map 84-1033 PUBLIC HEARINGS EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY/PHASE I RESIDENTIAL A. B. C. Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Draft EIR 84-3 General Plan Amendment 84-4 Zone Change 85-4 Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company An area bounded by the 1-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To amend the General Plan Land Use designation and property zoning to permit development of a Planned Residential Community consisting of single-family detached, attached and apartment dwelling units adjoining a public park. Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agenda May 13, 1985 page two 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12345 Applicant: Location: Request: Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company An area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road. To subdivide approximately 107 acres of land providing for development of specific land uses pursuant to the Phase I Planned Community zoning regulations. Presentation: Donald O. Lamm, Director of Community Development 5. USE PERMIT 85-9 Applicant: Location: Request: Carver Development on behalf of Tustin Main Associated, Ltd. Properties bounded by Main Street, Newport Avenue and E1Camino Real. Authorization to develop a 90,000 square foot retail center and 40,000 square feet of professional office buildings. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner 6. VARIANCE 85-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Paul and Steve Amort 13642 Green Valley Drive Authorization to vary from the minimum lot width, lot size, and side yard set-back requirements of the Multiple Family {R-3 2700) Residential District. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner ADMINISTRATIVE MA1TERS 01d Business None. New Business STAFF CONCERNS 7. Review of City Council action May 6, lg85 Presentation: COMMISSIOM COMCER#S ADJOURNMENT Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission. TUST~N PLAN#ZNG COPINTSSTON REGULAR ll~E'i'T NG APRTL 22, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Counctl Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZA#C~/INYOCATXON ROLL CALL: Present: White, Wetl, McCarthy, Sharp Absent: Puckett PRESEErATXO#S None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CO#S£#T CALE#DAR: 1. Minutes from Planntng Commission moettng Apr11 8, 1985 2. Congratulations letter to Mayor Greinke. Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to approve the Consent Calendar. carried 4-0. PUBLZC HEARINGS 3. ZONING ORDZNANC£ AMENDMENT 85-3 Applicant: Location: Request: Morton YuJt Natto of SBD International, Inc, 17432 and 17442 Mttchell Avenue To amend the development plan for Ordinance No. 922 Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Presentation: Commissioner Well questioned the necessity of two exits and requested deletion of Condition l0 in the Conditions of Approval. Chairman White opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak he closed the hearing at 7:36 p.m. Commission discussion ensued over concern with the necessity of two exits for each unit and ensuring the housing is for seniors only. The-project applicant, Yujt Natto, explained that there will be 1~o exits on the bottom floor and two stairways on the top floor. He further explained that the less ambulatory seniors would be placed on the bottom floor. Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 1985 page two Mary Ann Chamberlain responded that this requirement will be met through the plan check process. We are currently mandated by the lg82 Uniform Building Code and whatever is required by the code will be integrated into this project. Mr. Natto further expressed concern with the requirement for a 6'8" block wall and requested it be lessened to a 6' wall. Commissioner Sharp moved, Well second to approve Resolution No. 2222 striking condttion 10. Motion carried 4-0. Old Business None. New Business STAFT CO#C~R#S 4. Report on Council Actions, April 15, 1985 Presentation: Edward M. Knight, Senior Planner CONqlSSIO# COI~#S Commissioner Wetl wondered if the Commission would be reviewing the City of Tustin Traffic study. Mr. Knight responded it would be co~q31ete soon and then it will come before the Commission. Wetl further informed the Commission there will be a scoping meeting for the Eastern Transportation Corridor on May lSth from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers and an open house information meeting regarding the proposed widening of on April 30th at Sierra Vista School in Irvine. AlklOURNI~#T Commissioner Sharp moved, Wetl second to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 13, 1985. RONALD H. WHxT~, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Plannxng Commission DATE: SUBJECT: NAY 13, 1985 FINAL PARCEL NAP 84-1031 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ALBERT AUER PROJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY FRANKLIN AVENUE ON THE EAST, gALNUT AVENUE ON THE NORTH AND FUTURE JAHBOREE ON THE NEST. PLANNED COMMUNITY (COPIqERCIAL) BACKGROUND DISCUSSION: The subject map of 10 acres has been submitted to subdivide (1) one parcel into (5) five separate parcels. All parcels comply with the zoning regulations and are in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. On October 8, 1984 the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map No, 84-1031 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2190. On November 5, 1984 the City Council approved the tentative map by the adoption of Resolution No. 84-87. On October 8, 1984 the Planning Commission approved Use Permit 84-24 which approved the uses and site plan for this project. All the conditions of approval have been complied with and the final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map. RECOI~IENDED ACTION: Recommended to the City Council approval of Final Parcel Map No. 84-1031 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2227. '~fARY ANN ~HAMBERLAIN Associate Planner MAC:per attachments: Resolution No. 2227 City Council Resolution No. 84-87 Tentative Map Final Map ~.~ Community Development Department PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1031 IN TN[ cIrY ~.F TU.~TIN , COUNTY OF O~ANGIr TENTATIVE PARCI~ MAP NO. 8A-1031 IN THf, GIr~l ~ 11,~'rlNi O;3UN~I {3~ ~ \ \ \ 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. 2227 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP 84-1031 LOCATED AT THE CORNERS OF WALNUT AVENUE AT FRANKLIN AND THE FUTURE JAMBOREE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A® That Final Parcel Map No. 84-1031 was submitted to the Planning Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 by Walden and Associates on behalf of Albert Auer, as a 5 lot subdivision for a parcel known as Lot 16 of Tract 8763. B. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. Ce That a Negative Declaration has been approved to conform with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. D. That the final map is in substantial conformance with the tentative map. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Final Parcel Map No. 84-1031 subject to the final approval of the City Engineer. PASSED AND APPROVED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of , 1985. Donna Orr, Recording Secretary RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Resolution No. 84-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 84-1031 LOCATED AT THE CORNERS OF WALNUT AVENUE AT FRANKLIN AND THE FUTURE JAMBOREE The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1031 was submitted to the City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 by Walden and' Associates on behalf Of Albert Auer, as a 5 lot subdivision for'a parcel known as Lot t6 of Tract 8763. B. That said map is in conformance ~ith the Tustin Area General Plan. C. That a Negative Declaration has been applied for to conform with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and is hereby approved. II. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1031 subject to the following conditions: A. Construction and/or replacement of all missing or damaged public improvements along the Walnut Avenue and Franklin Avenue frontages will be required and shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. Driveways 2. Domestic water services 3. Fire services 4. Sidewalks 5. Sanitary sewer laterals B. Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees will be required at the time a building permit is issued. C. Preparation of a sewer plan indicating the on-site layout of all sewer facilities with respect to the proposed water facilities. D. Reciprocal easements for vehicular/pedestrian access and utilities will be required. E. Preparation of a final grading plan based upon U.S.G.S. datum will be required showing how all on-site storm water drainage will be disposed of. 28 .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 84-87 page two F. Vehicular access rights to Walnut Avenue at th~ most easterly driveway' will require relinquishment by the City Council. This relinquishment should be shown on the final parcel map. G. Dedication of additional right-of-way for the radius type drives will be required. This dedication can be shown on the final parcel map. H. Compliance with conditions for Use Permit 84-24. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on 5th day of November , 1984. Attest: URSULA E. KENNEDY, Mayor MARY City Cle~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and .foregoing Resolution No. 84-87 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of November, 198~, by the following vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: COUNCILPERSONS: COUNCILPERSONS: Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli None None MARY E. wY~T~ Clerk City of Tustin,kJ~alifornia. Planning Commission DATE: TO: FRO#: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: PAY 13, !985 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND I~EHBERS OF THE PLANNING CO~lqlSSION DEVELOPMENT DEPARTNENT EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COHHUNITY / PHASE I RESIDENTIAL THE IRVINE CO#PANT AREA BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE 5, BROWNING AVENUE, BRYAN AVENUE AND ~NqBOREE ROAD EXTENDED NORTH OF INTERSTATE 5 TO ANEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND PROPERTY ZONING TO PERNIT .DEYELOIqqENT.OF A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL CO~HUNITY CONSISTING 'OF SINGLE-FAI~ILY DETACHED, A'I-rACHED AND APARTIRENT DWELLING UNITS AD&OZNING A PUBLIC PARK. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Staff recominends, the Planning Commission forward to City Council approval of The Phase I Residential Development Plan by the following actions: e Adopt Resolution No. 2223 recommending approval of DEIR No. 84-3 subject to mitigation measures. Adopt Resolution No. 2224 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment No. 84-4. Adopt Resolution No. 2225 recommending approval of Zone Change No. 85-4 thereby adopting a development plan with regulations pursuant to the Planned Community Zone District. APPLICATION SUI~J~Y: The Irvine Company, property owner, has submitted a request to develop its first residential phase in East Tustin. The area is generally bounded by Interstate 5 on the south, Browning Avenue on the west, Bryan Avenue on the north and the northerly extension of Jamboree Road on the east. The proposal submitted requests an amendment to the City's Land Use Element of the General Plan changing the property's designation from "Residential/Single Family" to "Planned Community/Residential and Public and Institutional" Community Development Department Phase !: Page 'cwo Residential Additionally, the land owner seeks a zone change by redefining the zone designation from "Planned Community" to "Planned Community/Residential and Public and Institutional". Included within the zone change request is a development plan with applicable zoning regulations. The development plan proposes an increase in the property's density from its present 4 units average per gross acre to 11 units average per gross acre consisting of both single-family detached, attached and apartment dwelling units. Lastly, a Tentative Tract Map has been submitted for subdivision of the property into major land use parcels for subsequent sale or development. Included on the map is the dedication of land for a public park site pursuant to requirements of the City's parkland dedication ordinance. A full analysis of the subdivision is provided in the Tentative Tract staff report. BACKGROUND: The Phase I Residential Project consists of approximately 107 acres in area and was previously included in the Specific Plan under preparation for the entire planned community of East Tusttn. The original plans for this project area proposed development of a regional automobile shopping center which was subsequently relocated easterly of Jamboree Road. By relocating the auto center it was the expressed desire of property owners west of Browning Avenue that residential construction commence between Browning Avenue and the Auto Center. In fulfillment of the City and Irvine Company commitment, this first residential phase was extracted from the East Tustin Specific Plan and its processing accelerated to the subject public hearing. While action on Phase I is totally independent of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the overa31 land use plan for this area does relate to both the density, dwelling type and overall balance of the East Tustin Plan. Land uses proposed in the Phase I Project are as requested by The Irvine Company but, reviewed and recommended by independent consultants preparing the East Tustin Specific. Plan. The dwelling types to be constructed consist of single-family detached, attached {condominium and townhomes), and apartments. PROJECT ANALYSZS: Development Plan The specific project seeking entitlement encompasses a maximum of 1,218 residential dwelling units comprised of 330 single family detached homes in Area 1,294 attached homes represented by condominiums or townhomes in Area 2,and 594 condominiums or apartments in Area 3. Referring to the development plan, there are three land use areas proposed with the fourth being that of a public park site. Community Development Department Phase !: Residential Page three RESIDENTIAL STATISTICAL SUI~AR¥ (Approximates) UPGA Maximum Dwelling Type Area Gross Acres Density Units Medium-Low Density ! 33 10 330 Medium Density 2 21 14 294 Medium-High Density 3 27 22 594 COI~MUNITY FACILITIES Neighborhood Park 4 Roads 22 Totals 107 11 * 1218 UPGA: Units per gross acre of land * Average overall, density Community Development Department MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 2 PUBLIC PARK MEDIUM/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 ) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 3 SANTA FUTVRE OFF-RAMP EAST TUSTIN PHASE I RESIDENTIAL ZONING Phase I: Resldenttal Page five Area [, designated medium-low denstty, Is located adjoining Brownlng Avenue and proposed to be developed into single-family detached homes on Individual lots averaging 3,000 square feet In area. This type of houstng product Is popular amongst ftrst ttme buyers seeking a detached home at an affordable price range. These homes are typically constructed wtth a private common area recreation factlity maintained by a homeowners' association. A comparable project' might be the "Vtsta Ftlare" homes on Culver Drive' north of Bryan Avenue in the ctty of Irvfne. Area 2 is designated medtum density for attached homes. Attached homes are classified as either condominium or townhome dwellfngs. Area 2 is anticipated to be developed with condominiums, generally fronting onto private drives and landscaped greenbelt areas. Area 3, the medium-high denstty district,would permit condomtnlums or apartments. At this ttme, staff anticipates Area 3 being developed into garden apartment units. The Irvtne Company typically processes a Planned Community and either develops portions of the project or sells large lots to merchant builders for further subdivision. Upon purchase by either a subsidiary company or merchant builder, the builder may file a subsequent subdivision map specifying precise arrangement of individual homes, public streets and greenbelts. These subsequent developments within Phase I would retu6n to the Planning Commission for site plan and structural design review. Additionally, the Plannlng Commission at a future date would be reviewing the overall landscape theme and wall designs along public roadways bounding this project. A sign program for on-site and directional off-site signing is proposed for consideration in the East Tustin Specific Plan to ensure uniform standards throughout East Tustin. The off-premises signing issue is one which requires additional staff analysis and therefore is not being considered in this application. PC Zoning Regulations The Planned Community Zone Regulations submitted with this application have been extensively reviewed by staff. The document proposes development 'standards which are significantly different than those presently found in the city zoning ordinance. In particular, the medium-low designation has significantly reduced structural set-backs and lot size than the traditional R-1 single family zone. Therefore the medium-low Area 1 should be viewed as zero lot line homes similar to the Laurelwood community southerly across Interstate 5. Community Development Department f Phase I: Page six Residential Concerning the townhome, condominium and apartment products in Areas 2 and 3, the proposed density standards are similar to and do not exceed Tusttn's R-3 and P-D zones. Off:street parking standards for single-family attached and apartment units differ from present City Standards. (See Parking Standard Comparison Chart.) At present, Tustin code requires two covered assigned spaces plus .25 open unassigned guest spaces per unit regardless of unit size or number of bedrooms. This standard applies to condominiums, townhomes and apartments equally. The Irvine CompanY proposes a variable parking standard related to the number of bedrooms per unit. The logic of this concept is one of more bedrooms generates the greater need for parking. The Comparison Chart indicates the proposed scale from a low of 1.0 spaces for a bachelor unit to 2.0 spaces for a three bedroom unit. Guest parking is the same at .25 spaces per unit or .5 if the two assigned spaces are garage enclosed. A difference between condominium/townhome standards and that of apartments is being proposed since apartment occupancy can be conditioned on the maximum number of household vehicles. Deed restrictions can be imposed on the management of apartments to ensure vehicle limitation standards are enforced by subsequent property owners. The subject of off-steer parking was seriously discussed with Irvine Company management. The Irvine Company agreed, after analyzing Council and Commission concerns, to propose parking standards which are greater than those presently enforced in the city of Irvine. ENVIROI~ENTAL XI~PACTS: The potential environmental impact of Phase I was the subject of significant discussion at both the East Tusttn Town Hall presentation and Community Informational Meeting conducted by The Irvine Company. In particular, the two major environmental issues raised were this project's impact on flood control facilities and the adjoining roadway circulation system. As determined by independent consultants contracted by the city, the Phase I Project will not create significant adverse impacts on the environment concerning flood control facilities or the circulation system, which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. In other words, while a project of this size will impact the environment, the capacity of public facilities such as flood control channels and roadways is presently or will be corrected to a level where this project will not create "significantly adverse impacts" as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. Community Development Department Phase ;: Residential Page seven EAST TUSTIN PHASE I: RESZDENT]AL PARKZNG STANOARO COMPARISO#S Tusttn Code Requtree~ts The Irvtne Cempeny Intttal Proposal Compromise Proposal Single-Fmlly Detached Nedlu~-Lo~ Oenstty A~a ~ All Unlts Guests ~aeage 0 Covered Garage .S Tusttn Code Requirements The Zrvlne Company Initial Proposal Cm~rmtse Proposal "2L CA 2 CA 2 CA 2 CA open 1.0 1.5 1.8 2.0 .2 1 C 1 C ]. C 1. C open (a) ]..0 1.5 2.0 2.0 .25 ! CA 1.0 CA 1.0 CA 2.0 CA ol~n Tusttn Code Redulreme~ts The Irvine Company Inttlal Proposal Compromise Proposal Aparme~ts Hedtum-Htgh Denstty Area 3 Bach. 1 Br. 2 Br. 3 6r. Guest 2 CA 2 CA 2 CA 2 CA .25 open 1.0 ]..0 1.8 2.0 .2 1 C ! C 1 C i C open (a) 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 .26 1 CA I CA 1 CA 2 CA open (a) C CA If a :wo car enclosed garage fs provided, a guest parkfng standard of .5 open unassigned spaces per unit will apply. 'Covered space Covered asstgned spaces Phase I: Residential Page eight The Irvtne Company has additionally applied for assessment district financing to construct ultimate public Improvements which will be necessary to serve total development of the land bounded by Interstate 5, Browning Avenue, Irvtne Boulevard and Myford Road. Specifically, the assessment district petition includes construction of the E1 Modena Flood Control Channel; widening and/or construction of Browning Avenue, Jamboree Road, Myford Road, Irvine Boulevard, Bryan Avenue and Laguna Road; along with miscellaneous improvements such as traffic signalization, signing, striping, lighting and utility installation. SUBDIVISIOM: In addition to the General!Plan and Zoning request, the formal subdivision map known as Tentative Tract 12345, has been submitted outlining precise road alignments for Laguna Road and Streets A and B which would connect Laguna Road to both Bryan Avenue and Browning Avenue. The Map indicates, as requested by property owners along Browning Avenue, that San Juan Street not be extended through and connect with Laguna Road thereby reducing potential traffic levels on San Juan Street. The Map further delineates the landscaped berm buffer to be constructed along Interstate 5 to reduce both visual and noise impacts from the freeway and interchange. By separate report to the Planning Commission, Tentative Tract Map 12345 is analyzed and specific conditions of approval are recommended. ISSUE AllALYSIS: The project, as presented, is one which staff believes the majority of issues have been resolved. However, issues remaining for Commission and Council are the overall justification for increasing property density, and the consideration of development standards different than those of the R-1 Single Family and R-3 Multiple Family zones. The Phase I Project is compatible with the proposed East Tustin plan via road alignments, zone designation standards and residential product type. However, the Phase I project will not generally reflect traditional Tustin development, but that found in the city of Irvine which The Irvine Company feels more closely satisfies affordable housing needs. The word affordable is somewhat misleading when considering the price and ultimate financing of these homes. While in historical terms, affordable was considered low-income housing, Phase I should not be considered low-income in nature. Community Development Departmem Phase I: Residential Page nine In today's market place, single-family detached homes at present financing rates with substantial property assessments, will most generally require two-income families for loan qualification. The issue of development standards is reflective of the housing type. If the Planning Commission and Council accept the concept of small lot single-family detached, attached and apartment dwellings in the Phase I area, the development standards then reflect developer needs for building this product type. The remaining issues are those of the public park dedication, school facility improvement and maintenance of landscape parkways. These issues, however, are addressed in staff's report concerning Tentative Tract No. 12345 where appropriate conditions are recommended pursuant to state law. CONCLUSXONS: The Phase I Project has been the subject of significant discussion, planning and analysis by both The Irvine Company and city of Tustin. The project has been refined to a level which staff can support from a technical perspective, while addressing requests of area property owners to buffer themselves from the Tustin Auto Center. Further, the Phase I Project when considered part of the East Tustin Plan, contributes to a balanced community of various housing products, recreation facilities, and employment opportunities. Concerning the fiscal impact of this project, ultimate revenues have been projected but costs have not been fully determined. Should the City be ultimately responsible for accepting and maintaining, all parkway landscaping along the project perimeter, Phase I service costs would exceed revenue. Similar questions remain concerning public park and roadway maintenance. Since assessment district financing is presently being considered for infrastructure construction, the applicability of assessment district financing for maintenance and operation may also be explored. However, in relation to projected auto center revenue, development of Irvine Company properties should not generate a negative fiscal impact on the City. Essentially, East Tustin should be planned as a~balanced~Jommunity from both a land use and fiscal impact perspective. Director of Community Development Attachments: Vicinity Map Resolution No. 2223 and Draft EIR No. 84-3 Resolution No. 2224 for General Plan Amendment No. 84-4 Resolution No. 2225 for Zone Change No. 85-4 Planned Community Zoning Regulations: East Tustin Phase I Residential Community Development Department ~i ~-i .. , ,..,..,o, o,.oo, o .... .. ,.. .... ,.,....,.. 7~~,~.~c,. ~-~.~.,, .,;~ ~;, -~,,~. ...'.,~~:.:.,.'~_ ,:.,.:' ?".'..:.:.:'"...?.:'".:.:".':-:'": ~4'- t._ ' .... .:'.--'-'.' ',' ::....-.* - .'-' .'-'.'--,'".'-'.'. _~:~>,~> ~, a =,,, ,.....,,...:.....:.,,,,,-._ .. ,...~:,..,,,... ,......, i~'¢'[j.~[Jl_~l~ "~' ':.'-':':-."-:.:.':~.'-:-'-"":-:-¢ *r¢,~o~ ¢ ~:'~"-'~:.'~ ~- I , .... ' ', , -.-... o-.-.- · o'.-.-,,~ ;.'.?.".'.';2..~..'~o. ..' il ~----,'¢%~"- % ~, '~2..%:':::.::-:.::::-:-:.: = N:::':-:.::::.;.~:~&::-:'-: -~. O~ rT.,_"~__ ~ -~ .:-~ ,,-'- .'...~:~ :--- ~.~ .... :,.,:: x , '~ ~ r,-rri :i'. ,- · ~... ,- . ,, --~ F ~I '--" ~' ~'~: ~' :" "" .... ~ '~--ll ,.¢,o.' "' '~° -'"'= -'?-; ~- . ~,.: ..... ~-,-.- ~ o* \ ~1 · .'_~!.i~::~'l .~;?~ -L.~ -.- ' ~*~ .- ~~, , ~----~- .',9_ ' - F ~'~--' I ~ --' -":-'~ "- ; ~ · ' :G' ...... ,~'~--- ' " I~_--'~-¢-~ ~"-~'.'~ ',o' ,,",¢' '_'--~ ~l .... VICINITY MAP CITY OF TUSTIN 1800 2800 FE,-T 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2223 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 84-3 AND AMENDMENTS, AS FINAL EIR 84-3 The Planntng Con~ntsston of the city of Tusttn, California does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That an Environmental ImPact Report would be required due to potential effects identified in an initial questionnaire done for the proposed Phase ! residential project with on-site and off-site improvements. That a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, for the city of Tusttn. That distribution of the DraftEIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. D. That a public hearing Was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft EIR. That incorporated within the Drafi EIR are comments of the public, commissions, staff and other agencies. That the Draft EIR and amendments were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State guidelines and the policies of the city of Tustin. That the subject Draft EIR has been reviewed by staff, and represent their independent evaluations and analysis.. That the Draft EIR and amendments have been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project that eliminate or substantially lessened the significant environmental effects there of as identified in Draft EIR and amendments; and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are hereby found to be acceptable by the inclusion of a statement of overriding considerations. This statement and all environmental effects and mitigating measures are listed in the attached document, Exhibit "A". Mitigation measures are specified as conditions contained in this resolution. 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 fiD. 2223 page two II. The Planntng Commission of the ctty of Tusttn does hereby recommend certification of Draft E[R 84-3, plus amendments as a ftnal EIR 84-3 to the Ctty Counctl. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commtssfon held on the day of , 1985. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary ~nvironmental Im~et Findings As Required by CEQA and the City of Tustin ~ Tustin It~ddevti~l EIR 1~1-3 M~y 13, 1985 Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and in accordance with the City of Tustin guidelines, as amended, this document presents the findings and a brief explanation of the rationale for eaeh finding required for approval of the proposed project. The Plannin~ Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find that changes or alterations have been required in~ or ineorporated int% the project which avoid or substantially mitigate the significant adverse im,~aets identified in the Final EIR as specffieally itemized below. A. Water Resources Impacts: The site is currently subject to shallow flooding resulting from the inability of regional drainage facilities in the area to convey peak storm flows. Findings: The elevation of the site will be raised above the flood level, or alternately, an earthen berm will be constructed around the perimeter of the site to protect the project from flooding. These mitigation measures would protect the site without significantly altering existing drainage and flooding patterns in the vicinity of the project. Impacts: Short-term degradation of surface water quality will occur during grading and initial construction activities. Findings: A plan for silt control of all storm runoff from the property during construction will be prepared and submitted to the City of Tustin and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region Office prior to the issuanee of any grading permits. Impacts: On-site runoff volumes and velocities will increase and the on-site drainage pattern will be altered. Findings: An on-site drainage plan will be submitted to the City of Tustin for approval prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Methods for controlling the velocity and direction of runoff will be incorporated into the project design. Impacts: Development of the site will effect a long-term change in runoff quality from agrieultural pollutants to urban pollutants. Findings: This impact will be partially reduced by the implementation of appropriate stormwater pollution control plans and periodic eleaning of storm drains. B. Lm~d Use and Aesthetic~ Impacts: The project is not consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designations for the site and surrounding areas. Findings: A general plan amendment and zone change are proposed as part of the project. The design and performance standards included in the Planned Community Regulations for the project will ensure that the proposed project is compatible with existing and planned land uses adjacent to and near the project site. C. ~tiea/Cire,,~-tioa Impaets.. The proposed project will contribute a small increment to an existing and projected cumulative traffic impact at several intersections in the area. The project will generate 9,583 ADT and 1,040 P.M. peak hour trips. Traffic from the project will incrementally worsen traffic conditions at the Red Hill Avenue/I-5 ramps and the intersections of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard and Red Hill Avenue and Laguna Road. Findings.' Several committed improvements to the circulation system in the vicinity of the project site will provide mitigation of the identified cumulative traffic impact created by the project and other anticipated development in the area. These committed improvements include reconstruction of the Myford Road/I-5 interchange, construction of the Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange, the widening of the I-5 freeway and the reconstruction of the I-5/S.R. 55 interchange. The Jamboree I-5 interchange has been committed as a locally funded project by the City of Tustin. The remaining three projects are contained in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). The rebuilding of the Myford Road interchange and the construction of the Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange will mitigate project impacts by diverting project traffic away from the Red Hill Avenue/I-5 interchange. The I-5 widening project and I-5/S.R. 55 interchange reconstruction projects will increase the capacity of the circulation system, thereby providing partial mitigation of areawide cumulative traffic impacts. In addition, the City of Tustin is currently preparing a eitywide traffic study which will serve as the basis for an update of the city's circulation element. This study will identify improvements to the city's circ,,]ation system necessary to support the level of growth currently anticipated in the city. D. No~e Impacts.' Portions of the proposed project located adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway, Jamboree Road, and Laguna Road will be subject to levels of noise in excess of the levels allowed by applicable noise standards. Findings-. All residences located within the 65 dB and ?0 dB CNEL contours, as shown in Exhibit 23 of the EIR, will require mitigation to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels. Typical mitigation measures which could be applied to the project are listed in Section 3.6.3 of the EIR. When the final height, location, and design of noise barriers and the dwelling unit pad elevations and construction plans are determined for the noise impact areas, an acoustieal engineer should certify that the outdoor noise levels are less than 65 dB CNEL and interior noise levels will meet the state standard of 45 dB CNEL for multi- famfly dwalIinffs. Impacts: Short-term noise impacts will occur during project construction. Findings: Compliance with city noise standards regarding hours of operation and the use of muffled construction equipment will minimize construction noise impacts. F.. Quality Impacts: Short-term increases in dust and exhaust emission will occur in the vicinity of the project during construction. Findings: Compliance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations and wetting of graded areas will reduce fugitive dust emissions during construction. In addition, other measures recommended by SCAQMD win be implemented, including phasing and scheduling construction activities to avoid emissions peaks and maintaining equipment engines in proper tune. Construction activity will be discontinued during first and second stage smog alerts. Impacts: Long-term regional increases in mobile and stationary-source emissions win result due to the increase in motor vehicle and energy usage associated with the project. Findings: The proposed project includes bicycle and pedestrian faeinties provided to reduce motor vehicle usage. SidewaLks will be provided along Jamboree and Laguna Road, and Bryan and Browning Avenues. All roads being constructed as a part of the project have sufficient width to allow for bicycle lanes. Other mitigation measures recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District win be incorporated into the project as appropriate and feasible. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin further finds that although ehanges~ alterations~ or conditionshave been ineorDorated into the Drojeet which will substantially mitigate or avoid significant effects identified in the Final EIR~ certain of the significant effects cannot be mitigated to fully acceptable levels. The remaining imDacts identified below may continue to be of significant adverse impact even when a].l known feasible and identified mitigation measures are applied. Project implementation will result in the termination of on-site agricultural production and the loss of 17 acres of "Prime Farmland" and 51 acres of "Farmland of Stat,wide Importance" as identified by the California State Department of Conservation. Findings: The project is currently committed to non-agricultural use. The Tustin General Plan Land Use Element currently designates the site for urban (residential) land uses. The existence of an Irvine Ranch Water District improvement finance district and the issuance of bonds to finance urban level water and sewer improvements for the project site and surrounding areas further indicates the existing commitment to urban development of this area. There are no economically or physically feasible measures available to mitigate this impact. Short-term construction equipment emissions and long-term mobile and stationary emissions will occur with project implementation creating an adverse impact on the air q,,~]ity of the South Coast Air Basin. Findings: As with any urban development project, air quality impacts cannot be completely mitigated. In approving the project, subject to the conditions and mitigation measures set forth, the city has done all that is technically and reasonably possible at the municipal level. C. Increased demand for limiting regional water resources. Findings: The project necessitates increased water use and, therefore, increased demand for regional imported water. This impact cannot be mitigated on an individual project basis although the city will require implementation of all feasible conservation measures. D. Increased long-term demand for finite fossil fuel resources resulting from project electrical and natural gas requirements. Findings: The project necessitates an increased cumulative demand for finite fuel resources. Although servicing agencies anticipate adequate fuel supplies for the project, the long-term demand for fossil fuel resources will be unavoidably increased. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find that certain changes or alterations (e.g., mitigation measures) required in or incorporated into the project are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City of Tustin and can or should be adopted by the respective agency as itemized below.' A. California Department of Transportation: Approval of the eormeetion of the Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange to the state freeway system. B. Tustin Unified School District: Provision of adequate school facilities with available state funds. The Plannin~ Commission of the Cit~, of Tnstin has weighed the benefits of the proposed project a~ainst its unavoidable environmental risks in daterminin~ whether to aDprove said Droject. The Planning Commission does hereby further find~ determine~ and state~ Dursuant to the provisions of Section 15093 of the State CE~A Guidelines~ that the occur,nee of the certain sign,fi,ant environmental effects identified in the 1;inal EIR and set forth in Dara~raph 2 above~ have been evaluated against the followir~ overridin~ considerations: A. The project will result in the following substantial social environmental benefits to the City of Tustin and surrounding areas: 1. The proposed @roi,et will provide a proper transition in land uses between the existing residential area to the west of Browning Avenue and the Tustin Auto Center and~ in effect, will serve as a buffer between the existing residential area and the Tustin Auto Center. and The proposed project will provide improvements to the lo, al circulation system including the full improvement of one-half the ultimate width of Browning and Bryan Avenues adjacent to the site and improvements to the local draina~e system including the removal of an existing timber bridge across the leg of the E1 Modena-Irvine Channel along Bryan Avenue and the reconstruction of the Bryan Avenue Culvert. The following environmental and social considerations make the projeet alternatives identified in the final EIR infeasible. Ce 0 The "No Project" alternative is rejected beeause it fails to meet the objectives set forth for the projeet~ particularly the objective to create a suitable land use buffer between the existing residential area to the west of Browning Avenue and the Tustin Auto Center. The "General Commercial-Commercial Office' alternative would not be compatible with the existing residential area to the west of Browning Avenue and would result in more significant traffic, air q]JRlity and noise impaets than the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the "Existing General Plan~ alternative is a potentially feasible land use alternative and hereby reserves the option to further consider this alternative during consideration of the general plan amendment and zone change. 1 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22. 23 25 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2224 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, BRYAN AVENUE, BROWNING AVENUE, AND PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds a~d determines as follows: Section 65356.1 of the Government Code of the S~ate 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 in accordance with Section 65356 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the application (GPA 84-4) of Montca Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company to reclassify the land use from Residential/Single Family to Planned Community/Residential and Public and Institutional for an area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road, as shown in Exhibit "A". Ce That a draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the subject project, and was recommended for certification to the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2223. That a change in classification would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 84-4 be adopted, amending the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan from Residential/Single Family to Planned Community/Residential and Public and Institutional for an area bounded by the 1-5 Freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue, and proposed Jamboree Road, as shown in Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on the day of , 1985. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT A 51385 NQ._84,4 _PLANNED_ COMMUNITY_ RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & FUI'URE OFF-~AISI~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2225 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-§ FREEWAY, BRYAN AVENUE, BROWNING AVENUE, AND THE PROPOSED JAMBOREE ROAD, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL AND PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A" AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE EAST TUSTIN PHASE I RESIDENTIAL The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as foll6ws: That a proper application (Zone Change 85-4) has been filed by . Monica Flortan, on behalf of The Irvine Company, to change the zone for an area bounded by the I-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue and the proposed Jamboree Road, from Planned Community to Planned Community/Residential and Public and Institutional as shown in Exhibit "A", and incorporating planned community regulatons known as the East Tusttn Phase I Residential. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons: That the proposed change would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding property owners. That the inclusion of a Planned Community zone and incorporation of development regulations will ensure that the proposed use will be compatible with future and existing developments. 3. The proposed zone designation is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. Development of subject property shall be in accordance with the policies adopted by the City Council; Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official; Uniform Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal; and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. Development of the subject property shall be governed by the Planned Community Regulation for the East Tustin Phase I Residential, shown in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and a part hereof, as now existing and hereafter amended by Ordinance of the City Council. 1 2 4 5 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 27 28 Resolution No. 2225 page two F. A draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR 84-3) has been prepared for this subject project, and has been recommended for' certification to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2223, with mitigation measures are specified as conditions in this resolution. II. The Planning Co~ission hereby recommends to the City Council that Zone Change 85-4 be approved, from Planned Community to Planned Community/Residential and Public and Institional for an area bounded by the 1-5 freeway, Bryan Avenue, Browning AvenUe, and proposed Jamboree Road, as shown in Exhibit "A", and incorporates Planned Community Regulations known as the East Tustin Phase I Residential. (Exhibit B). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of , 1985. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary ZONING MAP TUSTIN, CA. EXHIBIT .A ZC 85.4 1880' PUBLIC & INSTITUTIOI PLANNED _COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PER. RES. DATED PER ORD. DATED lrU~'URE OFF~RAI4P PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING REGULATIONS EAST TUSTIN PHASE I RESIDENTIAL ZONE CHANGE NO. 85-4 CITY OF TUSTIN MAY 1, 1985 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE NO. SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV SECTION V SUBSECTION A SUBSECTION B SUBSECTION C SUBSECTION D SUBSECTION E SUBSECTION F SUBSECTION G SUBSECTION H SUBSECTION I SUBSECTION J SUBSECTION K SUBSECTION L SUBSECTION M SECTION VI SUBSECTION A SUBSECTION B INTRODUCTION STATISTICAL SUMMARY ZONING MAP NOTES GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BUILDING SETBACKS FROM STREET LANDSCAPE AREAS ADJACENT TO STREETS PRIVATE STREET STANDARDS WALLS AND FENCING INTERSTATE 5 FREEWAY BUFFER LANDSCAPING PRIVATE PARK DESIGN EXTERIOR BUILDING ARCHITECTURE ANTENNAS TRELLIS COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING ACCESS TO PUBLIC STREET SIGNING DEFINITIONS APPLICABILITY DEFINITIONS 3 4 5 6 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 13 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Two SECTION VII SUBSECTION A SUBSECTION B SUBSECTION C SUBSECTION D SECTION VIII SUBSECTION A SUBSECTION B SUBSECTION C SUBSECTION D SECTION IX SUBSECTION A SUBSECTION B SUBSECTION C SUBSECTION D SECTION X SECTION XI SECTION XII PAGE MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL {AREA NO. 1) 20 PURPOSE 20 USES PERMITTED 20 USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 21 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 21 MEDIUM DENSITY-RESIDENTIAL (AREA NO. 2) 25 PURPOSE 25 USES PERMITTED 25 USES PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 26 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 26 MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (AREA NO. 3) 33 PURPOSE 33 USES PERMITTED 33 USES PERMITTED SUBJEC~ TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 34 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 34 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: AREA NO. 4 38 DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES 39 ENFORCEMENT 40 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION The regulations set forth in this ordinance for the East Tustin Phase I Residential Planned Community District have been established to provide for the development of a variety of residential housing types and densities, as well as compatible community facilities. The application of these regulations is specifically intended to encourage the appropriate use of the land, create a harmonious relationship among the residential land uses and existing commun- ity, protect the health, safety and general welfare of the co,,.unity and provide the flexibility needed to create a quality residential environment. Development within the East Tustin Phase I Residential Planned Community will occur pursuant to these Planned Com.munity Regulations. SECTION II. RESIDENTIAL Type Medium Low Density Medium Density STATISTICAL SUMMARY Approximate Maximum Area ~ross Acres Dens(~ Dwell(hq Un(~ 1 33 10 330 2 21 14 294 Subtotal Medium High Density 3 27 22 594 COMMUNITY FACILITIES Neighborhood Park Roads 4 22 Total 107 11 1218 RRYAN 1880' MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 2 MEDIUM/LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 1 ) PUBLIC MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA 3 SANTA ANA FWYo FUTURE OFF-RANP EAST TUSTIN PHASE I RESIDENTIAL ZONING 1884 SECTION IV. NOTES Ae Within the Planned Community area, the continued use of the land for agricultural purposes and other uses similar in character and all neces- sary structures and appurtenances shall be permitted. Be Any land use proposal not specifically covered by the provisions con- tained herein shall be subject to the regulations of the City of Tustin Zoning Code. Ce Whenever the regulations contained herein conflict with the regulations of the City of Tustin Zoning Code, the regulations of the East Tustin Phase I Residential Planned Community District shall take precedence. Grading will be permitted within the Planned Community outside of an area of immediate development upon the securing of a grading permit. Stock- pile and borrow sites may be permitted within areas scheduled for future development subject to an approved grading plan and issuance of a Temporary Use Permit by the City of Tustin. The density of any residential development shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units in the parcel by the gross acres for that parcel. For this purpose, gross acres shall be measured to the center-line of any internal public or private street or to the ultimate right-of-way line of any arterial highway as designated on the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. All areas designated for residential use may and are encouraged to be developed at a lower residential density without requiring an amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations. G. All construction shall comply with all provisions of applicable Municipal Codes. Model homes and their garages and private recreation facilities may be used as offices for the first sale of homes within a recorded tract and within subsequent similar tracts utilizing these same architectural designs subject to the regulations of the City of Tustin governing said uses and activities. Said model homes must be closed to the public and converted for occupancy within 90 days from the last home sale (deed recordation} in the subdivision tract of the same style home. Plans for the noise attenuation of units located near arterial highways or freeways which insure that interior and exterior noise levels do not exceed the City of Tustin 'noise ordinance, shall be submitted for review and approval at the time of. builders tentative tract consideration for residential development. Refer to Section 3.6.3 of EIR 84-3 for mitigation measures regarding interior and exterior noise levels. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 921, a park standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population is required for this Planned Community. This requirement shall be satisfied as detailed in Ordinance No. 921. The exact location, size, improvements and funding mechanism for both the neighborhood park and remaining parkland dedication shall be finalized prior to the issuance of a building permit for Areas 1, 2 and 3. The exact amount of dedication will not be determined until subsequent tract maps with specific projects have been filed. SECTION V. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Ae Building Setbacks from Streets: The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all main structures abutting the following streets. Setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. set back a minimum of 5 feet from tract walls. Street Designation Santa Aha Freeway and Interchange Ramps Jamboree Road Bryan Avenue Browning Avenue Laguna Road Streets A and B Buildings will be Minimum Building Setbacks 30' 26' 26' 26' 22' 20' Landscape Areas Adjacent to Streets: The following minimum landscaped areas shall be provided adjacent to the following streets. The land- scaped area including sidewalks and any utility easements shall be measured from the face of curb and may include: areas dedicated to or assigned through easement to the City of Tustin, if accepted; areas owned and maintained by private individuals or associations: areas owned by private individuals and/or associations and maintained by public maintenance districts; or a combination thereof. Street Desiqnation Minimum Landscape Area Width Santa Aha Freeway (from right of way) 30' Jamboree Road 20' Bryan avenue 24' Browning Avenue 24' Laguna Road 20' Streets A and B 19' Ce Private Street Standards: When private streets are constructed, they shall be improved in accordance with the following standards: {1) Private streets 150 feet or less in length serving 6 or less dwelling units and having no parallel parking within the travel way shall have a minimum paved width of 24 feet. (2) Private streets more than 150 feet in length, serving more than 6 dwelling units and with no parallel parking within the travel way shall have a minimum paved width of 28 feet. {3) Private streets where on-street parallel parking will be limited to one side only shall have a minimum paved width of 32 feet. (4) Private streets with on-street parallel parking permitted on both sides shall have a minimum paved width of 36 feet. (5) Private drives with perpendicular parking outside of the travel way shall have a minimum paved width of 24 feet. 10 (6) The paved street width {where required by the City, paved street width and sidewalks} shall constitute the total right-of-way for purposes of establishing setback lines for structures. Walls and Fencing~ {1} Materials~ Walls and fencing located adjacent to Jamboree Boule- vard, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue, and the I/§ Freeway shall be constructed of exposed slump block or stuccoed masonry block walls or wrought iron fencing materials. Walls and fences dividing common property lines not adjacent to a public right-of-way may be constructed of any material acceptable to the Planning Commission. (2) Height: Top of walls and fencing along Browning Avenue, Bryan Avenue, and Jamboree Road shall be a minimum of 6 feet 8 inches in height measured from the finished grade level of the adjoining public sidewalk or top of curb, whichever is higher. Walls and fencing dividing common property lines not adjacent to a public right-of-way may be constructed at any minimum height. However, common property line walls and fencing including hedges shall not exceed 7-1/2 feet in height measured from the highest adjacent grade level. Ee Interstate 5 Freeway Buffer: Sound attenuation buffering for both the interior and exterior of residential units shall be required in conform- ance with the City's noise ordinance. Prior to development of any parcel 11 adjoining the Interstate 5 Freeway or its interchange with Jamboree Road, a detailed analysis of noise impacts, mitigation measures and design standards shall be submitted for Planning Commission review and approval. A combination of earth berms topped with masonry walls shall be constructed along the Freeway right-of-way. The final berm and wall design height and limitation on adjoining structural windows will be determined by a qualified acoustical engineer retained by the City at the developers expense. Landscaping: A master landscape theme plan for areas adjoining Jamboree Boulevard, Bryan Avenue, Browning Avenue, Laguna and Streets A & B within this zone district shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to development of any parcel. Each development project within this district shall implement the master plan to ensure uniform and consistent landscape treatment throughout the project area. The master landscape plan shall also detail acceptable perimeter wall materials and colors. Private Park Design: Private park land may be credited towards park land dedication requirements of the City Municipal Code. The final size and improvements of any private park must be approved by the City Council if proposed for park land dedication credit. Exterior Building Architecture: The City encourages attractive architectural treatment of building exteriors visible from public streets. Development plans submitted pursuant to Section X Design Review Procedures must show details of building exteriors for structures which will be visible from public streets. 12 Antennas: Roof top antennas are prohibited within this planned community district. Consideration shall be given in design of building product for attic antennas and cable television. Trellis: Open trellis and beam constructions shall be permitted to attach the garage or carport to the dwelling and may also extend from the dwelling to the property line in the side or rear yard. In side yards, the maximum height shall not exceed seven and one-half {7-1/2} feet. Trellis areas shall not exceed fifty {50) percent of the remaining open space of a developed lot. Ke Common Area Landscaping: All commonly owned property exclusive of structural improvements shall be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs and ground cover. Landscaping shall be provided with permanently installed irrigation systems as appropriate and determined to be acceptable by the City Design Review process. Approval of landscape plans for commonly owned property shall be obtained pursuant to Section XI of this planned community document. L® Access to Public Streets: Developments shall not be Uesigned in a manner causing vehicles to back directly onto Browning Avenue, Bryan Avenue, Jamboree Road, Laguna Road or Streets A and B. Driveways with adequate turn around facilities shall be required. Me Signing: A comprehensive signing plan will be developed as a part of the East Tustin Specific Plan Planned Community Regulations. That uniform 13 signing plan for both permanent and temporary signage will be applied to this Planned Community at such time as it is adopted. In the interim period prior to the signing plan adoption, this Planned Co,.))unity shall be governed by the provisions of the City's sign code, as amended. For purposes of this Planned Community, supplemental or directional signs may be located on Irvine Company property within the City of Tustin. 14 SECTION VI. DEFINITIONS Applicability: For the purposes of these regulations, words, phrases and terms shall be deemed to have the meaning ascribed by this section. Words, phrases and terms not specifically defined herein shall be deemed to have the meaning described in the City of Tustin Zoning Code. B. Definitions Apartments: A structure designed and built for occupancy of three or more families for rental purposes. Area Per Unit: The ratio of the building site area measured horizontally as a level plane to the number of dwelling units in a development project. Attached Single Family Dwellinq. (Condominiums and Townhomes) Dwelling units with one or more common wal 1 (s}, such as condominiums {stacked flats) and townhomes. More than one dwelling unit may be located on a single lot. Building Site Area: The total land within the boundaries of a develop- ment project, not including any public street right-of-ways or easements that prohibit surface use of the property. 15 Buildin9 Site Coverage: The percentage of the building site area that is covered by the area within the perimeter of all structures located on the building site area. Covered area shall include all areas under roof, but not include roof overhangs and covered porches. Trellis coverage is discussed in Section V.j. Swimming pools and spas are not considered in calculating structural site coverage. Common Area - Residential: The area within a residential development that is not designed as a residential building site, which is owned in common by homeowners in the development, and which is available for common use or enjoyment by all property owners in the development and their invitees; example: common parking facilities, recreation areas, landscaped areas, open space areas. Community Facility: A noncommercial use established primarily for the benefit and enjoyment of the population of the community in which it is located. Conventional Developments: Conventional developments are defined as areas developed in such a manner that each dwelling unit is situated on a residential lot of record and no lot contains more than one (1) dwelling unit. Designation of conventional development shall be shown on the tentative tract map. Zero lot line subdivisions are considered conven- tional developments. 16 Cluster Developments: Cluster developments are defined as combining or arranging attached or detached single family dwelling units and their accessory structures on contiguous or related residential lots of record with arrangements of common space areas which are not a part of the individual lot of record. Designation of cluster development shall be shown on the tentative tract map. Condominiums: (See attached single family dwelling) Condominiums are defined as attached or detached dwelling units developed under the statutory condominium requirements established by the State Real Estate Commissioner's office; designation of condominiums shall be shown on the tentative tract map. Densitg: The number of dwelling units per gross acre. Detached Single Family Dwelling: A dwelling unit or accessory structure located on a single lot without walls in common with any adjoining dwelling unit or accessory structure. A dwelling unit'with zero side or rear setback commonly referred to as a patio home is considered a detached single family dwelling. Detached single family dwelling may be developed in conventional or cluster development fashion. Development Project: A proposed residential land use project submitted for City review and/or approval in accordance with City codes and ordinances, eg., site plan, tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, etc. 17 Gross Area (gross acres): The entire land area (acres) within the bound- ary of a development project, measured to the right-of-way line of any abutting arterial highway or the centerline of any internal {local} public or private street. Lot: A parcel of land to be occupied by a main building and an accessory building, or by a dwelling group and its accessory buildings, along with open space, parking and circulation as may be required by these regulations. UPC~A (Units per Gross Area): The density of a residential project computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units in the project by the gross area of the project. Ultimate Right-Of-Way: The right-of-way shown as ultimate on an adopted precise plan of highway alignment, or the street rights-of-way shown within the boundary of a recorded tract map, a recorded parcel map or a recorded PC development plan. The latest adopted or recorded document in the above case shall take precedence. If none of these exist, the ulti- mate right-of-way required by the highway classification as shown on the Master Plan of Streets. In all other instances, the ultimate right-of- way shall be considered to be the existing right-of-way in the case of a private street, and the existing right-of-way in the case of a public street. 18 Zero Lot Line~ The siting of dwelling units in such a manner that one side-yard setback is reduced to "0" feet in order to provide outdoor living space for the other side-yard area. Dwelling units so sited shall have no door or window openings in walls located on the zero side yard property line. 19 SECTION VII. MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (AREA NO. 1) Purpose: The medium low density residential district is established to provide for the development of a detached single family conventional or cluster residential development. B. Uses Permitted: (1) Detached Single family dwellings. (2) Schools, parks, playgrounds, bicycle and pedestrian trails. (3) Accessory buildings, structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use, including: a. Garages, carports, and open parking areas. b. Swi~iing pools, spas and jacuzzis, tennis courts, basketball or multipurpose courts and recreation buildings. c. Fences and walls. d. Patio covers and trellises. e. Garden structures and greenhouses. f. The keeping of pets of a type readily classified as being customarily incidental to a permitted residential use not involving a commercial activity. The keeping of equine, bovine, sheep, goats, swine and exotic or wild animals shall be prohibited. 2O (4) Easements and facilities for utilities including those for storm drain, flood control, pipelines, electrical, cable television, and natural gas. (5) Model homes (pursuant to Section IV: Notes). (6) Temporary real estate offices and construction offices and facilities. (7) Future development signs, subdivision directory signs, tract identi- fication signs, community identification signs, and other real estate signs for use in identifying proposed and existing residen- tial uses pursuant to Section V. C. Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: Ae Churches, temples, synagogues and other places of worship with or without private or parochial schools. B. Day care centers. D. Site Development Standards: (1) Maximum density: 10.0 dwelling units per gross residential acre. (2) Minimum Building Site Area per unit: Detached single-family: 3,000 square feet. 21 Minimum building setbacks for detached single-family dwellings shall be as follows: a. Front yard 1. Fifteen feet from any public or private street right-of-way line. Attached or detached garage and carports shall be set back a minimum of g feet from curb face, provided the garage is equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Garages and carports shall not be set back from the curb face between 9 and 24 feet to ensure that cars parking in the driveway do not overhang the sidewalk. If no sidewalk is required, the 24-foot setback may be reduced by 5 feet. If living areas are provided above garage, garage setbacks shall apply, however, the main structure will maintain the fifteen foot setback. bo Side yard - "0" feet one side, provided that the aggregate of both side yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet. Detached garages, carports or other accessory structures shall be situ- ated a minimum of 4 feet from the main building and may abut the side lot line provided: 1. The height of the accessory structure at-the side lot line does not exceed 12 feet; 2. No eave, projection or overhang extends beyond the property line; and 3. Measures are taken to insure the deflection of runoff away from the property line; 22 c. Rear yard - 10 feet minimum for main buildings. Garages, carports or other accessory structures may abut the rear lot line provided: 1. The same are detached a minimum of 4 feet from the main building; 2. The height of the building at the rear lot line does not exceed 12 feet; 3. No eave, projection or overhang extends beyond the property line; and 4. Measures are taken to insure the deflection of runoff away from the property line. d. Projections into required setbacks: 1. Covered patios, unenclosed on at least two sides, may abut any side or rear property line, per Section V.j. 2. Eaves, cornices, chimneys, balconies and other similar architectural features shall not project more than 4 feet into any required front, side or rear yard. (4) Maximum building height: shall be 35 feet. (5) Lot Area Coverage: The total area covered by buildings shall be a maximum of one hundred percent of any lot less the required setbacks. Covered areas shall include all areas under roof but not include roof overhangs and covered porches. Trellis coverage is covered under Section V,j. 23 (6) Off-street parking requirements: a. A minimum of two garage spaces shall be provided for each detached single-family dwelling unit plus one-half guest space per unit within a common parking area, driveway, or abutting public or private street. No more than 50% of guest parking shall be allowed on driveways. On street parking credit will be permitted at the rate of one space for each 22 feet of lineal curb frontage excluding no parking areas adjacent to fire hydrants and corner curb radi, or 18 feet if one end is unobstructed by other parking spaces. Parking area dimensions, location and access shall conform to the City design review criteria on file in The Co,,~unity Development Department. At a minimum, garage and carport spaces shall be 9 feet by 20 feet inside dimension. Open parking spaces shall also be 9 feet by 20 feet, or g feet by 17.5 feet,- with a 2.5 foot unobstructed overhang. Compact open spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. For purposes of determining this parking reqDirement, "dens", as determined by city staff, will be considered bedrooms if a closet can reasonably be provided within the den. 24 SECTION VIII. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (AREA NO. 2) Purpose: The medium density residential district is established to provide for the development of a variety of conventional, cluster and condominium residential uses. B. Uses Permitted: (1) Single family dwellings, attached and detached. (2) Schools, parks, playgrounds, bicycle and pedestrian trails. Accessory buildings, structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use, including: a. Garages, carports, and open parking areas. b. Swimming pools, spas and jacuzzis, tennis courts, basketball or multipurpose courts and recreation buildings. c. Fences and walls. d. Patio covers and trel)ises. e. Garden structures and greenhouses. f. The keeping of pets of a type readily classified as being customarily incidental to a permitted residential use not involving a commercial activity. The keeping of equine, bovine, sheep, goats, swine and exotic or wild animals shall be prohibited. 25 (4) Easements and facilities for utilities including those for storm drain, flood control, pipelines, electrical, cable television, and natural gas. (5) Model homes (pursuant to Section IV: Notes). (6) Temporary real estate offices and construction offices and facilities. (7) Future development signs, subdivision directory signs, tract identi- fication signs, co.,.unity identification signs, and other real estate signs for use in identifying proposed and existing residen- tial uses pursuant to Section V. C. Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: Churches, temples, synagogues and other places of worship with or without private and parochial schools. B. Private and parochial ~chools, day care centers. D. Site Development Standards: (1) Maximum density: 14.0 dwelling units per gross residential acre. 26 (2) Minimum area per unit: a. Detached single-family: area. b. Attached single-family: area per unit. 3,000 square feet minimum building site 1,750 square feet minimum building site (3) Minimum building setbacks for detached single-family dwellings shall be as follows: a. Front yard 1. Fifteen feet from any public or private street right-of-way line. Attached or detached garage and carports shall be set back a minimum of g feet from curb face, provided the garage is equipped with an automatic garage door opener. Garages and carports shall not be set back from the curb face between g and 24 feet to ensure that cars parking in the driveway do not overhang the sidewalk. If no sidewalk is required, the 24-foot setback may be reduced by 5 feet. If living ar~as are provided above garage, garage setbacks shall appl~, however, the main structure will maintain the fifteen foot setback. b. Side yard - "0" feet one side, provided that the aggregate of both side yards shall be a minimum of 10 feet. Detached garages, carports or other accessory structures shall be situ- ated a minimum of 4 feet from the main building and may abut the side lot line provided: 27 1. The height of the accessory structure at the side lot line does not exceed 12 feet; 2. No eave, projection or overhang extends beyondthe property line; and 3. Measures are taken to insure the deflection of runoff away from the property line; c. Rear yard - 10 feet minimum for main buildings. Garages, carports or other accessory structures may abut the rear lot line provided: 1. The same are detached a minimum of 4 feet from the main building; 2. The height of the building at the rear lot line does not exceed 12 feet; 3. No eave, projection or overhang extends beyond the property line; and 4. Measures are taken to insure the deflection of runoff away from the property line. d. Projections.into required setbacks: 1. Covered patios, unenclosed on at least two sides, may abut any side or rear property line, per Section V,j. 2. Eaves, cornices, chimneys, balconies and other similar architectural features shall not project more than 4 feet into any required front, side or rear yard. Minimum building setbacks for attached single-family dwellings shall be as follows: 28 The minimum building setback from any public street right-of-way line shall be 10 feet, except that the point of vehicular entry to any garage shall be a minimum of 20 feet from any public street right-of-way line unless the garage is equipped with an automatic garage door opener, in which case it shall be a minimum of 5 feet. From any private street or drive curb face, 4 feet minimum, provided that enclosed garages situated within 20 feet of any street or drive shall be equipped with automatic garage door openings. c. The minimum side yard setback for each principal structure and/or accessory structure shall be 10 feet. d® The minimum rear yard setback for each dwelling unit and/or accessory structure shall be 10 feet. e. The minimum horizontal distance between principal structures shall be 10 feet. f. Structures which abut a park, greenbelt or other permanent open space may abut the common property line. 29 g. Projections into required setbacks: 1. Covered patios, unenclosed on at least two sides, may abut any side or rear property line, per Section V.j. Eaves, cornices, chimneys, balconies and other similar architectural features shall not project more than 4 feet into any required front, side or rear yard. (5) Maximum building height: shall be 35 feet. (6) Lot Area Coverage: Trellis coverage is covered in Section V,j. (7) The total area covered by buildings shall be a maximum of 100% of any lot less the required setbacks, landscaping, parking and circulation. Trash stbrage and collection areas: Any residential development proposing.three or more dwellings on any one building site shall provide adequate and convenient trash storage area(s) meeting City standards and shielded from view by an opaque screen not less than 6 feet in height. (9) Off-street parking requirements: a. A minimum of two covered spaces shall be provided for each detached single-family dwelling unit plus one-half guest space per unit within a common parking area, driveway, or abutting 3O be public or private street. No more than 50% of guest parking shall be allowed on driveways. On street parking credit will be permitted at the rate of one space for each 22 feet of lineal curb frontage excluding no parking areas adjacent to the hydrants and corner curb radi, or 18 feet if one end is unobstructed by other parking spaces. Attached single-family and multiple-family developments shall provide a minimum number of resident parking spaces per unit as follows~ Covered Parking Assigned Unit Type Spacing/Units Space/Unit Studio 1.0 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 2 Bedrooms 2.0 3 Bedrooms (or more) 2.0 2 Development proposing 4 or more dwelling units shall also ~ovide guest parking at the ratio of 0.25 open unassigned parking spaces per unit. If a two car enclosed private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of .5 open unassigned spaces per unit will apply. Ce Parking area dimensions, location and access shall conform to the city design review criteria on file in the Community Development Department. At a minimum, garage, and carport spaces shall be 9 feet by 20 feet inside dimensions. Open parking spaces shall be 9 feet by 20 feet in size or 9 feet by 31 17.5 feet with a 2.5 foot unobstructed overhang. Compact open spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. For purposes of determining this parking requirement "dens," as determined by city staff, will be considered bedrooms if a closet can be reasonably provided within the den. e. No onstreet parking will be credited on area boundary streets. {10) Minimum gross floor area per unit excluding the garage area~ Bachelor 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom w/den 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms w/den or more 450 square feet 550 square feet 700 square feet 750 square feet 900 square feet 32 SECTION IX. MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (AREA NO. 3) Purpose: The medium high density residential district is established to provide for the development of for sale single family attached and rental multi-family residential uses. B. Uses Permitted: (1) Single family attached dwellings. (2} Multiple Family Dwellings {Apartments) (3) Schools, parks, playgrounds, bicycle and pedestrian trails. (4) Accessory buildings, structures and uses customarily incidental to a permitted use, including: a. Garages, carports, and open parking areas. b. Swimming pools, spas, jacuzzis, tennis courts, basketball or multi-purpose courts and recreation buildings. c. Fences and walls. d. Patio covers and trellises. e. Garden structures and greenhouses. f. The keeping of pets of a type readily classified as being cus- tomarily incidental to a permitted residential use not involving a commercial activity. The keeping of equine, bovine, sheep, goats, swine and wild or exotic animals shall be prohibited. 33 Easements and facilities for utilities including those.for storm drain, flood control, pipelines, electrical, cable television and natural gas. (6) Model homes (pursuant to Section IV: Notes). (7) Temporary real estate offices, and construction offices and facili- ties. (8) Future development signs, subdivision directory signs, tract identi- fication signs, community identification signs and other real estate signs for use in identifying proposed and existing residential uses pursuant to Section V. C. Uses Permitted Subject to a Conditional Use Permit: (1) Churches, temples, synagogues and other places of worship with or without private and parochial schools. (2) Day care centers. D. Site Development Standards: (1) Maximum density: 22.0 dwelling units per gross residential acre. (2) Minimum Building Site per Area Unit: 1,750 square feet. 34 (3) Maximum lot area coverage: The total area covered by buildings shall be a maximum of one-hundred percent of the site area, less the required setbacks, landscaping, parking and circulation. Covered area shall include all areas under roof but shall not include roof overhangs and covered porches. Trellis coverage is covered in Section V:j. (4) Minimum building setbacks: a. The minimum main building structure setback from any interior public street right-of-way line shall be 10 feet. b. The minimum setback from any private street or drive shall be 10 feet for all structures. c. The minimum horizontal distance between principal structures shall be 10 feet. d. The minimum horizontal distance between accessory structures shall be 5 feet. e. Structures which abut a park, greenbelt or other permanent open space may abut the common property line. Maximum building height: shall be 40 feet. Trash storage and collection areas: Any residential development proposing three or more dwellings on any one building site shall provide adequate and convenient trash storage area(s) shielded from view by an opaque screen not less than 5 feet in height. (7) Off-street parking requirements: a. Single family attached dwellings shall provide a minimum number of resident parking spaces per unit as shown in the Medium Density Residential District (Area 2). Multiple-family developments shall provide a minimum number of resident parking spaces per unit as follows: Covered Parking Assigned Unit Type Spacinq/Units Space/Unit Studio 1.0 1 Bedroom 1.5 1 2 Bedrooms 1.8 1 3 Bedrooms (or more) 2.0 2 Development proposing 4 or more dwelling units shall also provide guest parking at the ratio of 0.25 open unassigned parking spaces per unit. If a two car enclosed private garage is provided, a guest parking standard of .5 open unassigned spaces per unit will apply. b. Parking area dimensions, location and access shall conform to the city design review criteria on file in the Co,m,,unity Development Department. At a minimum, garage, and carport spaces shall be 9 feet by 20 feet inside dimension. Open spaces shall also be g feet by 20 feet, or 9 feet by 17.5 feet with a 2.5 foot unobstructed overhang. Compact open spaces shall be 8 feet by 16 feet. c. For purposes of this parking requirement "dens" as determined by city staff will be considered bedrooms if a closet can reasonably be provided within the den. 36 Minimum gross floor area per unit excluding the garage area~ Bachelor 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom w/den 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms w/den or more 450 square feet 550 square feet 700 square feet 750 square feet 850 square feet 37 SECTION X. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: AREA NO. 4 A. Purpose: The Public & Institutional District is established to provide for development and ensure its long term existence. Be Uses Permitted: All normally acceptable passive and active sport facilities as determined appropriate by the City. Ce Development Standards: As determined by the City Council upon the acceptance of park land dedication. 38 SECTION XI. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES Ae Design Review: Pursuant to the design review requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance, a comprehensive development plan application shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Said application shall include but is not limited to conceptual site plans, architectural elevations of all building exteriors, conceptual common area landscape plans, and conceptual recreation facility plans. City Planning Commission Development Review approval must be obtained for final conceptual development plans prior to submittal of plans and specifications to the building department. All plans submitted to the building department must be in substantial conformance with the conceptual plans submitted to, and approved by the Commission. While the Planning Commission review is not a discretionary procedure subject to public hearing, the commission may only impose reasonable conditions necessary to ensure compliance with this Planned Community Zoning Document and the City's General Plan. Application Requirements: The applicant shall submit-the necessary applications and fees to the Community Development Department pursuant to current application filing requirements. 39 SECTION XII. ENFORCEMENT This Planned Community Zoning Document has been adopted pursuant to the City of Tustin Municipal Code. Any violation of this zone district constitutes a misdemeanor violation of the municipal code punishable by imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of $500.00 per day of violation or both as determined by a court of law. The City maintains the option of citing for infraction violations pursuant to adopted procedures. 4O Report to the Planning Commission DATE: I~IAY 13, 1985 SUB~lECT: TENTATIVE' TRACT Ill]. 12345 PHASE I RESIDENTIAL, EAST TUSTZN ITEM NO. 4 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COHPANY AREA BOUNDED BY INTERSTATE S, BROMNING AVENUE, BRYAN AVENUE AND &AI4BOREE ROAD EXTENDED NORTHERLY OF INTERSTATE S ZONING: TO SUBDIVIDE APPBOXIHATELY 107 ACRES OF LAND PROVIDING FOR DEVELOP#E#T OF SPECIFIC LAND USES PURSUANT TO THE PHASE I PLANNED COll4UNITY ZONING REGULATIONS. RECON4ENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward to City Council approval of Tentative Tract No. 12345 by the following action: Adopt Resolution No. 2226 recommending approval of Tentative Tract No. 12345 subject to conditions in attachment "A" to the resolution. APPLICATION.SU~IARY: The Irvlne Company has submitted the attached subdivision map implementing the development plan proposed in Zone Change No. 85-4. Speciftcially, the map proposes precise alignments for the improvement of Browning Avenue, Bryan Avenue, Jamboree Road, Laguna Road and to be named Streets A and B. The map further delineates a proposed 4.25 acre public park site. The remaining large lots will ultimately be sold to merchant builders for development. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The impact on the environment resulting from subdivision of the subject property has been analyzed in Draft EIR No. 84-3. The property development plan as well was analyzed in staff's report for General Plan Amendment No. 84-4 and Zone Change No. 85-4. The physical design of Tentative Tract No. 12345 was determined primarily by the circulation system in relation to the adjoining developed community and the proposed East Tusttn Specific Plan. The map further delineates the maximum number of dwelling units per lot permitted by the particular zone density factor. The precise unit count for each lot could be slightly greater or smaller dependent upon the ultimate lot area. ~. Corn munity Development Depariment ~" Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract 12345 page two Lots A through S represent setback and reserve areas to be landscaped and dedicated for maintenance by either the City, property owners' association or maintenance district. Maintenance by the city could be accomplished pursuant to a landscape and lighting assessment district. The City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance requires dedication of three acres of land per 1,000 population. Pursuant to a ratio of housing units and the estimated population of each household, 8.8 acres of parkland will be required for the Phase I project. At this time however, a 4.25 acre site is being offered for dedication with the remaining obligation to be satisfied at a future date. Phase I public infrastructure will be improved as a condition of the subdivision map. Improvements include roadway paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drains, street lighting, sewers, water mains and miscellaneous public utilities. Major improvements not considered local improvements will be funded through assessment district financing during the early years of Phase I construction. ISSUE ANALYSIS: Principal issues associated with this subdivision primarily concern conditions of approval which are necessary to implement EIR mitigation measures. The two prominent environmental issues are related to flood control and circulation system improvements. A combination of interim improvements to the E1 Modena/Irvlne Channel and Browning Avenue are deemed acceptable by the City 'Engineer to accommodate increases in storm water runoff caused by both the Tustin Auto Center and Phase I Development. Eventually, the City created assessment district will proceed with construction of ultimate flood control facilities. Proposed improvements to the local circulation system are considered adequate to accommodate Phase I impacts. The cross section design of roadways within the project and surrounding community provide necessary capacity to accommodate project demands. Dedication of the public park site while both desirable and mandatory presents several issues; those being what acreage is adequate to serve this subdivision, what shall become of the balance obligation, and who will finance park site improvements and maintain them. In this case The Irvtne Company has proposed a partial dedication of land with the balance obligation to be credited through improvement of the public park site and private parks to be built in areas one, two and three. From a staff perspective, we recommend maximizing the availability of park land and financing of public park improvements through Communit'y Development Department Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract 12345 page three alternative means. However, staff does not have a specific proposal for financing but is exploring alternatives such as assessment districts or use of development fees. Regardless of which financing method is ultimately selected, staff recommends acceptance of the 4.25 acre park with the balance obligation dedicated elsowhere in East Tustln. A remaining tssue Is that of providing adequate school facilities for thts project. Pursuant to state law, Tusttn Untried School Dtstrict was forwarded Tentative Tract No. 12345 to seek the District's determination of school facility need based upon projected student population. The District requests both intertm (temporary facilities) for the Tusttn Htgh School campus and developer payment to refurbish the Utt Intermediate School. The District correspondence Is Included tn the Draft EZR "Comments and Responses" document. While the City is not responsible for providing school facilities, we are responsible for conditioning this map to the extent necessary yet permissible by state law. The environmental tmpact report proposes measures which the district can and should consider for adoption. The District, however, has requested imposition of the follow~ng condition as a further mitigation of project impacts: "Prior to recordation of a final tract map or other creation of a building parcel, the project proponent shall provide certification from the Tustin Unified School District that fees for providing school facilities have been paid. For the purpose of complying with this condition, the project proponent may provide certification from the Tustin Unified School District of compliance with this condition, or certification that the project proponent has agreed in writing to complying with this condition." Staff considers this proposed condition to be unreasonable for the following reasons: Under the School facilities law, government code section 65970 et. seq., fees are limited to mitigating conditions of immediate overcrowding and can only be imposed after all other reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and found infeasible by the District which has not yet been done; Under the school facilities law, residential projects can only be conditioned upon the payment of a specific fee amount reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the project, and fees collected can only be used for temporary facilities, (maximum of five years) whereas the District's proposedcondition is not so limited; and Community Development Department Plannlng CommJssion Report Tentative Tract 12345 page four The conditiOn requested by the District is based upon current enrollment figures and funding sources, and projection for the next school year, whereas the first residences in the project will not be available for occupancy until 1987, providing sufficient time to explore alternative mitigation methods through cooperative communication. Additionally, approval and recordation of Tract No. 12345 is not the final' discretionary approval for this project. Additional maps will be required prior to construction of single family detached and attached homes, and as a result adequate opportunities exist for the district to explore all reasonable methods and funding sources for mitigating the impacts of this project on the District school system. Overall, the state law only provides that a school district may seek temporary school facilities when immediate overcrowding will occur. Concerning permanent school facilities, it is not the responsibility of a developer to dedicate land or construct schools without compensation. Government Code Section 66478 clearly limits a city's ability to require land dedication for school sites. Pursuant to this code section, upon adoption of a local ordinance, a city may only require dedication of an amount of land which would not make the project economically unfeasible. Secondly, if a city requires dedication, the local school district within ~30 days after the requirement is imposed by' the city, must enter in~o a binding commitment 'with the subdivider to accept the dedication. "The school district shall, in the event that it accepts the dedication, repay to the subdivider or his successors the original cost to the subdivider of the dedicated land, plus a sum equal to the total of any improvements to the land, taxes assessed against the dedicated land from the binding commitment date and any other costs incurred by the subdivider in ma.intenance of such dedicated land, including interest costs incurred on any loan covering such land." Both the City and The Irvine Company recognize the School District's needs and budgetary constraints in purchasing land and constructing new schools in East Tustin. The Irvine Company will work with District administrators to seek available financing for new schools needed in East Tustin. Addressing current District needs, staff proposes the following condition be imposed on Tentative Tract 12345: Tract No. 12345 may create conditions of overcrowding within the Tustin Unified School District attendance area, but such finding by the District Board of Trustees has not been "supported by clear and convincing evidence" in the District's Resolution No. 01-02-85 pursuant to Government Code Section 65971. Should documented evidence be submitted by the District supporting their findings in Resolution No. 01-02-85, specifically attributable to Tract No. 12345, the developer shall be responsible for mitigating overcrowding ,, Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Tentative Tract 12345 page five conditions by providing interim classrooms and related facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65974 at such time development occurs. Until such time, the Tustin Unified School District should continue to examine available options as granted by state law and outlined in Final EIR 84-3. The applicant/developer (The Irvine Company) shall assist and work with the School District in evaluating these options, and submit a report to the Planning Commission within gO days of approval of this tentative tract outlining feasible mitigation measures for documented overcrowding within the Tusttn Unified School District attendance area. The remaining issue requiring discussion is that of open space maintenance. As indicated on the map, there are substantial landscape parkways provided along Browning and Bryan Avenues, Jamboree Road, Laguna Road, Streets A, B, and the Interstate 5 freeway. The unresolved issue is city acceptance and maintenance of these greenbelts at city wide taxpayer expense. The subdivision map proposes these landscape areas as individual lots subject to common maintenance provisions. It is staff's position that the city not be responsible and further that these areas be accepted by a 'common homeowners' association or landscape maintenance district. CONCLUSZON: In conclusion, staff is submitting the proposed conditions of approval which address major issues and mitigation measures proposed .in the Draft EIR. Should the Planning Commission approve the property owner's requested, general p]an amendment and zone change it would be approp~_iate to approve this subdivision map as well. Director of Community Development DDL:do attach: Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 Resolution No. 2226 Conditions of Approval "Exhibit A" to the Resolution Community Development Department ! § $ 7 9 10 11 16 17 18 ~.0 ~7 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2226 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12345 The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Montca Florian on behalf of The Ir¥ine Company for the purpose of creating a-27 lot (8 numbered and 19 lettered) · subdivision from a portion of lots 21, 22, 27, 28 of Block 44 of Irvine's subdivision as shown filed in Book-l, page 88 of Miscellaneous Record Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, California. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map. C. That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project, and has been recommended to the City Council for certification by the adoption of Resolution No. 2223. D. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with applicable ordinances, policies and standards of the city of Tustin, evidenced by the following findings:' That the proposed map is consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan. That a Development Plan with Planned Community Zoning regulations has been adopted for this project, ~nd this map is in conformance with the Plan and regulations. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. That an ordinance requiring the dedication of land for parks is in conformance with the Recreation Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. That pursuant to state law, Tustin Unified School Dtstrtct was forwarded Tentative Tract No. 12345 to seek the District's determination of school facility need based upon projected student population. 1 2 $ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 18 ~0 ~.7 Resolution No. 2226 page two The Tustin Unified School District requests conditioning of Tentative Tract No. 12345 causing the subdivider to provide said district with both interim classroom facilities for the Tustin High School campus and payment of fees to refurbish the Utt Intermediate School prior to recordation of a final map or creation of a building parcel. Thai Tract NO. 12345 may create conditions of overcrowding within the Tustin Unified School District attendance area, but such finding by the District Board of Trustees has not been "supported by clear and convincing evidence" in 'the District's Resolution No. 01-02-85 pursuant to Government Code Section 65971. Should documented evidence be submitted by the District supporting their findings in Resolution No. 01-02-85, specifically attributable to Tract No. 12345, the developer · shall be responsible for mitigating overcrowding conditions by providing interim classrooms and related facilities pursuant 'to Government Code Section 65974 at such time development occurs. Until such time, the Tustin Unified School District should continue to examine available options as granted by state law and outlined in Final £IR 84-3. The applicant/developer (The Irvine Company) shall assist and work with the School District in evaluating these options, and submit a report to the Planning Commission within gO days of approval of this tentative tract outlining feasible mitigation measures for documented overcrowding within the Tusttn Unified School District attendance area. That under the School Facilities law, Government Code Section 65970 et. seq. developer fees are limited to mitigating conditions of immediate overcrowding and can only be.imposed after all other reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of overcrowding have been evaluated and found infeasible bY the District which has not yet been done. That under the School Facilities law, residential projects can only be conditioned upon the payment of-a specific fee amount reasonably related and limited to the need for schools caused by the project, and fees collected can only be used for temporary facilities (maximum of five years) whereas the District's request is not so limited. That approval and recordation of Tract No. 12345 is not the final discretionary approval for this project. Additional maps will be required prior to construction of single family detached and attached homes, and as a result adequate opportunities exist for the district to explore all reasonable methods and funding sources for mitigating the impacts of this project on the District school system. 28 ! 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. 2226 page three II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Ctty Counctl approval of Tentative Tract Hap No. 12345, subject to conditions outltned In Exhtbtt "A" and made a part of thts Reso]utton. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission on the day of , 1985. RONALD H. WHITE, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12345 Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 is subject to the following conditions. These conditions shall be satisfied prior to final map recordation if not otherwise determined by City staff to be satisfied after map recordation: Provision for landscape maintenance and ownership of Lots A through S to be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners' associations, if not included within a lighting/landscape maintenance district. Landscape maintenance responsibility for those areas within the public right-of-way between the curb and meandering sidewalks shall not become the responsibility of the City. These areas shall be included within the maintenance of adjoining lots A through S for ultimate maintenance by a homeowners' association or lighting/landscape maintenance district. Control data shall be established to adequately delineate the southerly tract boundary with respect to right-of-way needs for the following improvements: Santa Ana freeway widening. Jamboree Road interchange. Collector distributor roads connection. for future Eastern Corridor/I-5 The typical section (G-G) on the map indicates a distance of 230 + feet from freeway centerline to tract boundary. The scaled distances Tn the plan view section of the map reflects a range of 175 + ft. to 215 + ft. The preliminary freeway geometrtcs delinete a need for-a scaled di~ance of 175 + feet maximum for the proposed freeway widening and a northbound on-ramp-Tot the Jamboree Road interchange. These needs shall be clarified at the earliest feasible date prior to map recordation. This clarification will also be needed for the determination of the Laguna Road alignment/location. Execution of an irrevocable offer of dedication of all required right-of-way adjacent to said map for the construction of the proposed Jamboree Rd. intechange, subject to approval of Caltrans for interchange construction. Dedication of adequate right-of-way shall be provided on Lots 3 and 4 to accommodate the greatest extent of right-of-way requirements for the Jamboree Road/Interstate 5 interchange as determined by the City Engineer. Building Permits will not be issued for any structure on Lots 3 and 4 until such time the ultimate right-of-way needs have been determined. Any decrease in area for Lots 3 and 4 from that shown on the tentative map will result in an equalivalent decrease in the number of dwelling units. Community Development Department Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 12345 page two 6. Preparation and submittal of a final grading plan delineating the following information: e Se 10. 11. Final street elevations at key locations. Final pad/finish floor elevations and key elevations for all site grading. All final pad elevations to be a minimum of 1.0 ft. above the base flood elevation as defined by FEMA. Location and elevations of all flood protection berms related to Tract No. 12345. All flood hazard areas of record. Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all construction work related' to Tract No. 12345. Provision for maintenance and ownership of the flood protection berms and associated landscaping to be the responsibility of the adjoining homeowners' association, lighting/landscape maintenance district and/or the city of Tustin, with said determination to be made prior to recording the final map. Provision for irrevocable easements for the required term of all flood protection berms in.favor of the adjoining Association and/or the city of Tustin, with said determination to be made prior to recording the final map. Annexation of land within this development into an appropriate street lighting district to provide for on-going maintenance and energy cost of said system. Preparation of plans for and construction of full improvements for all streets within the boundary of said tract map. These improvements shall include the widening of the easterly half of Browning Avenue, the southerly half of Bryan Avenue to its ultimate alignment and all required transitions, and Streets A and B. Improvements will include, but not be limited to, the following as determined by the City Engineer: . g. h. i. j. k. Curb and gutter/cross gutters Sidewalk Drive aprons Street paving Street signing and striping Landscaping/facilities Sanitary sewer service facilities Domestic water service facilities Reclaimed water service facilities Gas, electric, telephone, cable t.v. facilities Traffic signal facilities - Laguna Rd./Jamboree Rd. - 25~ of cost Bryan Ave./Jamboree Rd. - 66 2/3 % cost Bryan Ave./Browning Ave.- 50% of cost Browning Ave./Laguna Rd.- 33 1/3~of cost ,,, Community Development Department Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 12345 page three 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Existing perimeter streets, Browning Avenue and Bryan Avenue, shall be slurry seal coated the full pavement width from curb face to curb face prior to restrtptng the widened street Improvement. Preparation of plans for and construction of all sanitary sewer facilities as required by the City Engineer. These facilities shall include a gravity flow system pursuant to standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way as defined by the City Engineer. Placement of all above ground roadway appurtenances such as signing, street lights and fire hydrants behind the sidewalk when said sidewalks are constructed adjacent to the curb. Preparation of plans for and construction of a domestic water system to the standards of the Irvtne Ranch Water District/City of Tustin Water Service, whichever is applicable at the time of plan preparation. Any required reclaimed water systems shall be constructed to the required standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. Preparation of a hydrology and hydraulic study of. the tributary .area impacting the proposed development. Preparation of plans for and construction of all storm drain facilities as required by the City Engineer and Caltrans when applicable and pertaining to their facilities. Cash~surety deposit, if deemed necessary by the City Engineer, for the reconstruction of Street "B" at locations adjacent to temporary flood protection berming to return roadway interim profiles to long term grades when berms are no longer required for flood protection purposes. 19. Dedication of all vehicular access rights to Jamboree Road, Bryan Avenue and Browning Avenue except at designated street openings. Dedication of all vehicular access rights to Laguna Road, except at approved driveway openings, as designated on the final development site plan subject to the City Engineer's approval. 20. Reservation or dedication as determined by the City Engineer of adequate right-of-way for future Interstate 5 Santa Ana freeway widening and Eastern Corridor collector/distributor roads. 21. 22. Relocation of the sub-grade fuel line facility within this tract to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the San Diego Pipeline Company. Removal of the abandoned railroad right-of-way easement between Interstate 5 and Bryan Avenue. Community Development Department Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 12345 page four 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Payment of all required Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees that may be required as a result of the interim connection to the District 7 facilities, at the time initial building permits are issued. Prior to the recordation of a final map for any portion of, or all of the land delineated in Tentative Tract No. 12345, the subdivider shall enter into an agreement with the city of Tustin for participation in a fee program (if adopted by the Tustin City Council) for implementation of the Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridor. Said agreement shall provide that: The fee shall not exceed that amount as established by the nine participating agencies within the area of benefit. be Subdivider or Builder obligations to pay fee would only commence after the city establishes a fee program but not prior to issuance of building permits. Ce Subdivider or Builder obligations to pay fee would cease if the fee program were not established within three years of the issuance of building permits or recordation of final tract map. As detailed in the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 84-3, an earth berm topped with a masonry wall shall be constructed along the Interstate 5 freeway right-of-way of Lots 3 and 4 and additionally along the southerly property line of Lots 5 and 8 where' directly exposed to the freeway as determined by city staff. The final cross section design, height and construction materials shall be determined by an acoustical engineer subject to city Planning Commission approval prior to construction of the buffer or issuance of any building permit on these lots. Pursuant to City Code, the new development tax shall be paid prior to recordation of future builder subdivision maps on any individual Lot or at building permit issuance where a future subdivision map' is not required. Tract No. 12345 may 'create conditions of overcrowding within the Tustin Unified School District attendance area, but such finding by the District Board of Trustees has not been "supported by clear and convincing evidence" in the District's Resolution No. 01-02-85 pursuant to Government Code Section 65971. Should documented evidence be submitted by the District supporting their findings in Resolution No. 01-02-85, specifically attributable to Tract No. 12345, the developer shall be responsible for mitigating overcrowding conditions by providing interim Community Development Department Conditions ol= Approval Tentative Tract 12345 page fi ve 28. 29. 30. classrooms and related facilities pursuant to Government Code Section 65974 at such time development occurs. Until such time, the Tustin Unified School District should continue to examine available options as granted by state law and outlined tn Final EIR 84-3. The applicant/developer (The Irvtne Company) s~all assist and work with the School District in evaluating these options, and submit a report to the Planning Commission within gO days of approval of this tentative tract outlining feastble mitigation measures for documented overcrowding within the Tustin Unified School District attendance area. Pursuant to the city's Parkland Dedication Ordinance, this tract shall provide for the dedication of 8.8 acres of land for park purposes. The proposed 4.25 acre park site shall be dedicated to the city with the remaining 4.75 acre obligation satisfied through land dedication elsewhere in the East Tustin Specific Plan area or offer of dedication secured by separate agreement between the city and The Irvtne Company. The 4.25 acre park site in compliance with the Parkland Dedication Ordinance shall be rough graded free of obvious rock of construction by-product material with the following public improvements provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Community Services: Full street lmpr.ovements along Laguna Road and Street B including but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and signing. Public utility laterals of a sufficient size including water, electricity, sewer, storm drain, natural gas and telephone communication shall be installed to the park site property line. Development density shall be regulated by the adopted Planned Community Zoning Regulations for Phase I Residential/East Tusttn. The density calculations provided on the subdivision map are for informational purposes only and are superceded by the zone regulations. All applicable mitigation measures detailed in Final EIR 84-3 are hereby incorporated as conditions of approval for Tract No. 12345 and subsequent tracts recorded within this project boundary. Community Development Department J. Ngil~lOTgAgG NIY~I ~ .LUOdMgN YZY'ld NIJ.SI'I.L I I I T Plannin Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ~Y 13, 1985 USE PERMIT 85-9 CARVER DEVELOPMENT 17 CORPORATE PLAZA DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92660 THE VRCANT PROPERTIES FRONTING ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE BET~EN NAIN STREET AND EL CAMINO REAL PLANNED COtIJJNITY COI~ERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A + 91,OO0 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SHOPPING .. CENTER AND THE CONSTRUCTION'OF + 46,0OO SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. BACKGROUNO Following several hearings before the Planning Agency in late 1981, Use Permit No. 81-29 was approved for the vacant properties located on the westerly side of Newport Avenue, between Main Street and E1 Camino Real. The approved project, complete with an environmental impact report, consisted of 390,000 square feet of mixed commercial uses. Approximately 300,000 square feet was dedicated to professional office uses to be located in structures ranging from two (2) to six {6} stories in height. The remainder of the available square footage was reserved for restaurant and retail uses, along with a 15,000 square foot movie theater. During the public hearings, the majority of concern expressed by persons in attendance related to traffic impacts, and to the height of the then proposed structures. Based on information presented in EIR 81-2, 9,300 average daily trips {ADTS) could be expected to be generated from a 390,000 square foot mixed use complex. Although final elevations were not ever formally approved by the Planning and Development Agencies, a condition of approval contained in Resolution No. 2004 required that a maximum height limit of 75 feet be established for the site. Neither the traffic generated nor the land use issues presented significant adverse impacts to the environment according to EIR 81-2. Community Development Department ~Planning Commisslon Report Hay 13, 1985 page two PROPOSED PROSPECT (USE PER~IT NO. 85-9): The project currently before the Commission is a considerably different project from that previously approved. The square footage of office area has been reduced from 307,000 square feet to slightly over 46,000. Conversely, the retail and restaurant area has been expanded from approximately 50,000 square feet to over 90,000 square feet. The retail portion of the project will be constructed upon the triangular shaped property bounded by Main Street. Newport Avenue, and Sixth Street and consists 'of essentially a strip commercial concept with two additional free-standing structures. The office portion of the project is to be constructed on the parcel bounded by 6th Street, Newport Avenue, and E1 Camino Real, and consists of two, two-story buildings totalling approximately ¢6,000 square feet. DISCUSSION AND PRO~ECT ANALYSIS: There are several areas of discussion that must be addressed with a project of this size. For purposes of clarity each issue will be reviewed separately. Environmental: Pursuant to.Section 151S3 (c) of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Environmental Impact Report {EIR 81-2) prepared for an ear)ier project may be used as a portion of an initial study prepared for a subsequent project. In this particular instance, EIR 81-2 certified in conjunction with a 390,000 square foot mixed use project, identified potential impacts on the environment. Specific focus on traffic and land use impacts was' stressed. In terms of traffic, EIR 81-2 noted that the previously approved project would generate 9,300 average daily trips (ADTS), but that when considering existing and projected service levels, this increased traffic volume would not create an adverse impact on the environment. Subsequently, using the same formula utilized in EIR 81-2, the initial study prepared for this project indicates the estimated ADT figures are less than half of the counts for the Cai-Pacific Project. Specifically, the trip generation figures for the subject project are as follows: (Bldgs 2 & 3) 78,371 square feet 12,647 square feet Retail Floor Area 3189 Restaurant Floor Area 712 Office 568 Total 4469 These figures are based on estimated square footage breakdown between retail and and restaurant uses and are subject to change. However, the modifications in square footage would not create a significant difference in ADTS. The figure for the office space is, however, based upon the actual square footage requested. Community Development Department ~Planning Commission Report May 13, 1985 page three Utilizing the findings contained in EIR 81-2, the initial study for the Carver Project concludes that a center generating less than 4,500 ADTS will likewise not adversely impact the area. In relation to land use impacts, both EIR 81-2 and the current initial study identify the land uses proposed as compatible with each other, as well as, the surrounding community. The uses proposed will therefore not create adverse impacts to the area. So then, with the information referenced in EIR 81-2 within the context of the initial study, a negative declaration of environmental impact has been applied for in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Development Standards and Site Plan Review: Pursuant to the Planned Community District Regulations which govern the development on these particular properties, prior to construction of any project a Development Plan must be approved. To meet the requirements of the Municipal Code, the project as submitted shall constitute the development plan. Since the site plan constitutes a portion of the development plan for the properties, it is essential that the review of all .aspects of the design be given special emphasis. The basic site lay-out for the triangular lot is generally acceptable, and parking has been provided at a more than adequate ratio. However, there are some minor alterations that wil) be necessary prior to issuance of building permits. These alterations include: placement of block walls; location and size of bike trail along Newport Avenue; adjustment of some parking stalls to accommodate proper and safe traffic movements; and, the possible relocation of the easterly drive-way serving. Main Street. Also, the use of stamped concrete will not be permitted. Interlocking pavers are to be used for the entry design feature. Similar modifications are necessary on the parcel designated for the office buildings. Two modifications in particular are needed. One, a 30 foot wide easement dedicated to the City shall be required at the point where the drive-way curb cut meets Newport Avenue, continuing to the northerly property line. This will provide a mechanism by which future development to the north will have access to and desired exposure from Newport Avenue. Second, the notation on the site plan stating, "Owner reserves the right to close off parking entry" shall be removed. In working with the applicant, it was this Department's intent to allow mutual access movements and parking accommodations. Finally, landscape treatment along the Newport frontage needs to be enhanced. A three foot planter is completely inadequate and staff recommends a minimum of 10 feet be required. This will necessitate removal or relocation of parking stalls along Newport. However, the 1:200 mixed use parking ratio can be reduced and still provide adequate parking. Once the modifications or corrections noted have been incorporated into the site plan, the final version will be returned to the Commission for review. Community Development Department Planning Commfsston Report May [3, [985 page four Land Use Issues: As fndlcated tn the section of thls report related to environmental Issues, the proposed land uses of retail shops, restaurants, and professional offtces wtthln this project have been determined to be compatible with the surrounding area. The go,o00 square feet committed to retail (sales tax generating uses,) addresses recent concerns expressed by the City Council. Along these llnes, the developer has committed highly vtstble bulldfngs (2 and 3) for restaurants. Finance related businesses (i.e., Banks, Savings & Loans) or a multi-tenant facility simtlar to the newly constructed butldlng in E1 Camlno Plaza will not be permitted in etther of the buildings as a requirement of the approved development plan. As a condition of approval the development plan shall include the retail uses on the triangular site shall be required to comprise at least 75 percent of leasable floor area. Since this project Is considered as a singular development (even though the two parcels can stand independently), this requirement meets the intent of basic co~mnercial zone standards requiring that at least 50 percent of the total floor area of a project be deslgnated for retail use. Tied in with this concept, and to ensure that this intent is met, it will be recommended that building permits for the office structures shall not be Issued until permits'for the retail structure have been issued. This condltlon Is to include issuance of permits for the free standtng structures numbered 1 and 2 on the site plan, prtor to the offfce structure. Finally, ~rlth a parking ratio of 1:250 provided for the office structures, the development plan for the project shall include the provision that retail users, particularly office support users, will be authorized for the ground floors of the office complex. ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRO~ECT: The basic design theme of the retail portion of the project {Bldgs 3-10) is contemporary, using terracotta colored pitched roof, an off-white plaster fascia, and a contrasting feature color above the store front area. The store-front is situated under covered prominade and highlighted with plaster columns. Precise colors and materials will be presented at the Commission meeting. For the free standing structure (Bldgs 1 and 2), the applicant wishes to retain maximum flexibility to attract corporate or franchise tenants and therefore, the exact architecture has not been completely formalized. To allow this flexibility a condition of approval shall be that final elevations of Buildings [ and 2 will require Planning Commission review and approval. The major concern of staff in relation to the architecture is with the Main Street elevations. With the rear of the rental space oriented towards Main and the requirement of the Uniform Building Code that a rear exit be included, Communit¥ Development Department Planning Commission Report May 13, 1985 page five the project architect is faced with a difficult task of providing aesthetically acceptable elevations, providing the required door. The proposed solution to these conflicting needs is to utilize a combination of a screen wall and a landscape berm as indicated on Exhibit "B". The exterior portion of the wall which will be visible from the street shall be treated with the same color and materials utilized on the building. From the street, this treatment will give the impression that the landscaping abuts the structure. Although perhaps not the optimal design from an aesthetic standpoint, this concept addresses the concerns. Staff, however, wishes to continue to work with the applicant on final elevation plans. Thts continued effort should not preclude the Commission from making a decision on the project. [f changes to the design are implemented, all modifications would be referred for Commission approval. The ~o offtce buildings to be constructed are matching two story structures using a plaster and glass design. The major primary color utilized will be an off-white (matching the retail center) and will be accented by color bands along the top of the parapet and bordering window areas. The glass will be treated with a black anodized glaze. The flat roof shall be designed to screen, all roof-top equipment from view. As an entry point into the E1 Camino Real downtown area, this portion of the project is a focal point and of particular concern.. Being contemporary tn nature, the structures are a slight departure from the desired down-town theme. Therefore, staff would like to continue to work with the applicant to develop a ·ore acceptable architectural appearance. CONCLUSZONS: From environmental and land use standpoints, the project requested in Use Permit Application and conceptually is an appropriate project for the properties. However, the complexity of the project necessitates further refinement to achieve the highest quality attainable. With the attached conditions of approval, staff is comfortable with a positive recommendation for the basic project. Community Development Department Plannlng CommJssion Report May 13, 1985 page six RECOI~ENDED ACT~O#: It is recommended that Use Permit Application No. 85-9 authorizing 91,018 square feet of retail space on the parcel of land bounded by Main Street, Newport Avenue, and 6th Street and authorizing 46,232 square feet of office space on the property bounded by 6th Street be approved subject to the.conditions contained in Exhibit "A" attached. Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" Reduced Elevations Exhibit "B" Full Size Elevations Community Development Department Conditions of Approval Carver Development Use Permit Application 85-9 All final elevations shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development. Elevations of buildings numbered I and 2 on the approved site plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. However, in any event, all roof top equipment must be screened from view by parapet walls. All final details of corner plaza designs are subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development. Along the westerly property lines of the project a 6'8" high, 6" wide block wall shall be constructed. An opening in said wall shall be created for pedestrian access from the senior citizen housing project located at 275 6th Street onto the retail portion of the project. Further, the applicant shall grant to adjoining property owners the right to remove the wall at such time their properties are redeveloped. This removal shall be subject to approval by the Community Development Director. The expense of the wall removal shall be borne by the adjoining property owner. An agreement shall be executed and submitted to the City stating that the owner of this project shall maintain all landscaping located within the public'right-of-way and along the bike trail. The landscape area along Newport Avenue shall be at least 10 feet in width. The developer shall provide a 30 foot wide easement at the Newport Avenue ingress/egress point to the office project, continuing from the front property line to the rear property line. The easement shall be granted in favor of the city and assignable to adjoining property owners providing access rights to Newport Avenue. The notation on,' the site plan for the office project stating "Owner reserves the right to close off parking entry" shall be deleted , and mutual access and parking rights maintained. The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appropriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said developmenmt per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and "Street Improvement Standards". This work shall consist of, but not limited to: 'curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, street pavement, street trees and marbvelite street lights with underground conduit. Continuous 6" concrete curbs shall be provided along landscape planters adjacent to parking spaces and drive aisles. ~ Community Developmem Depar~nen! / Exhibit "A" Variance 85-9 Page two 10. An irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval 'prior to installation of any irrigation system. Said plan shall include location and description of the following: point of connection; back flow prevention device(s); location and types of valves location and sizes of piping; sprinkler head types, locations and manufacturer model; automatic sprinkler controller location and specifications. 11. A grading plan based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark datum should be submitted for review and approval. 12. The size and location of the water service and sanitary sewer lateral shall be shown on final site plan. 13. The proposed decorative pavement at all the driveway entrances and street intersections should be designated. Embossed or stamped concrete types are not acceptable within the areas of public right-of-way. Interlocking pavers constructed to city standards be utilized. 14. The bike trail/path along Newport Avenue shall be mihimum width of 10.0 feet, as is the current trail and ,that one located northerly of Main Street. The bike trail/path must be built to city standards with appropriate signing, striping and pavement markings. There shall be no right angle offsets within the bike trail as shown on attached plan. Any landscaping along the bike trail must be maintained so as not to exceed 30 inches in height from sidewalk level. 15. The bollards, as placed along Newport Avenue, could be a hazard for the bicyclist. Therefore bollards must be relocated. 16. Whenever a five foot wide sidewalk is utilized adjacent to the curb, all street lights, signs, fire hydrants and other above ground utilities must be located behind the sidewalk area. All on-site trees must'be located so as not to interfere with the proposed street light system. 18. Public improvements will be required along the Main Street, Newport Avenue and 6th Street frontages and will include but not be limited to the following: Street paving Curb and gutter Sidewalks Bike trail, paving, signing and striping Traffic signal installation (50%) at 6th/Newport Community Development Department Exhibit'"A" Variance 85-9 Page three fe g. h. i. j. k. Driveway construction Marbelite street lights with underground conduit Domestic and fire service systems Connection of all structures to sanitary sewer system Street trees as required Storm drain extensions as required 19. Dedication of all required right-of-way for Main Street widening, Newport Avenue widening and the Newport Avenue bike trail. 20. Enlargement of curb return radius at Newport/Main at southwesterly corner is required. 21. Payment of following fees is required at the time the initial building permit is issued: 22. 23. a® County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fee .based upon $50.00/1,000 square feet of building area and any front footage fee for connection to a County Sanitation District sewer (if required}. East Orange Colunty Water District fee. Contact E~rl Rowenhorst Of Tustin Water Service for fee amounts. Prior to approval of the subject project, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin for partici~atJon in a fee program {if adopted by the Tustin City Council) for implementation of the Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridor. Said agreement shall provide that: ae The fee shall not exceed that amount as established by the nine. participating agencies within the Area of Benefit. be Subdivider's obligation to' pay fee would only commence after the city establishes a fee program but not prior to issuance of building permits. Ce Subdivider~s obligation to pay fee would cease if the fee program were not established within three years of the issuance of building permits. de Subdivider shall furnish surety bond or money to assure payment of said fees. The area of land northerly of Sixth Street is comprised of three parcels per the assessor's office maps and the. area southerly of Sixth Street is comprised of two parcels. Either a Covenant and Agreement to hold all parcels of land as one must be filed or a Parcel Map should be filed on each area .northerly and southerly DY Sixth Street. Community Development Department Exhibit "A" Variance 85-2 Page four 24. All utilities serving the subject property shall be required to be underground. 25. The final approved site plan, square footages, and public improvements are hereby incorporated into the Oevelopment Plan for the subject property. The final Resolution of Approval for Use Permit 85-9 shall adopt said plan and shall include the following guidelines: ae All land uses located within the project shall comply with the permitted uses established in Section 9235 et seq. of the Tustin City Code. One hundred percent (100%) of the square footage within buildings 11 and 12 shown on the approved site plan may be occupied by office uses. However, the first floor may also be utilized by retail users. Co Buildings 4 through 10 on the approved site plan are to be occupied by retail commercial businesses only. Buildings 2 and 3 shall be limited to single-tenant restaurant uses. Building 1 is strongly encouraged to be a single tenant. de A minimum of 75% of leaseable area in the retail portion of the project shall be required to be occupied by retail users. ee A master sign plan shall be submitted for review and approval the Planning Con~nission. Community Development Department L ! MAIN ~TREE SHOPS [l~i. 011 t imm | Ifil Ill. NIV~I ~ .U:K)dA~.qN VZ~rld NI.LSI't/ NIVIfl ~ ~iOdM3N YZY'Id NI~'I~I Y:Z'~rld NLL~N.L YZY~lci IIII J.NglMdO'IgAgG UgAUYO NIVIPt ~ .LUOdMgN VZV'ld NI.LSI'I.L NIV~I 11 VZV'ld NIJ.~I'I1 Planning Commission DATE: SUB,) ECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONHENTAL STATUS: HAY 13, 1985 VARIANCE NO. 85-2 STEVEN AND PAUL AMORT 18161 JOSHUA LANE SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 13642 GREEN VALLEY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3 2700) CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION REQUEST: BACKGROUND: TO ADD A TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND VARY WITH THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-3 DISTRICT. The subject property was annexed to the City in November, 1980, and has a zone designation of R-3 2700. This classification permits the construction of duplex or apartment units at a ratio of 1 unit to every 2,700 square feet of land area. The applicants in this case are proposing constuction of a second, attached, residential unit well within the prescribed density requirements for the property. However, resulting from the size of the lot, combined with existing construction on the site, additional development will require approval variances pertaining to lot width, lot s~ize, and the side yard set back. Further, since the project proposed is in excess of 20 feet in height and within 150 feet of a single-family (R-l) zoned property, a public hearing is required prior to project approval. ISSUE ANALYSIS: Minimum lot size and lot width: The subject parcel is 50 feet wide and approximately 135 feet deep, totalling 6,750 square feet of land area. The R-3 District requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet and a lot size of 7,000 square feet. Since the parcel was annexed to the city and given this specific zone designation, and since similar projects have been constructed in the immediate vicinity, justification for approval of this variance exists. On both lots immediately adjacent to the subject property, two unit projects have been built and these lots are defined by the same lot dimensions as the applicant's. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report May 13, 1985 page two Minimum side yard set-back: As can be seen on the attached site plan, the existing structure on the property was constructed with a 4 foot, side yard set-back. Because of the age of the structure, records are not available to determine if the project was built to the codes in effect at the time or if a variance was required. In any event, the addition of the second unit with a four foot set-back, matching the existing building would not constitute a grant of special privilege, and the variance therefore could be granted. Site plan review: As submitted, the proposed site plan is in need of some minor revision, particularly in terms of increased landscape area, and the retention of a mature tree situated on the front portion of the lot. Specifically, it is recommended that the new garage be attached to the existing residential structure. A four foot side yard set-back would also be utilized in lieu of the three feet shown. This change will provide a substantial landscape area that will reduce the visual impact of the parking area. Additionally, the enlarged landscape area will permit the retention of the mature pine tree currently on the site. This landscape area should have a berm feature that further reduces the impact of the parking area. The only other modification to the site plan required is that public improvements (sidewalk, etc.) must be installed. Architectural Elevations: Since the project is within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone, and the proposal is for a two-story addition, special attention must be given to the height of the structure pursuant to Section 9226 C of the City Code. The nearest single-family zoned property to the subject site is approximately 130 feet away, and two multiple-dwelling complexes already separate the R-1 lot. Accordingly, the concern over the height of the proposed project is significantly diminished. The approximate height of the structure is 24 feet. However, until a formal grading plan is submitted the actual height of the structure in relation to current grade level has not been determined. To ensure that height will not be detrimental to the area, a condition of approval shall be envoked that the overall height of the structure shall not exceed 25 feet from existing grade. In terms of materials and colors, the applicant is proposing the use of black asphalt shingles, grey masonite siding with white highlighting window and fascia trim. To ensure compatibility on the site, a condition of approval will require that the existing structure be treated and upgraded with the same material and colors. Additionally, the final garage elevations (facing Green Valley) will require further architectural treatment, and prior to issuance of building permits appropriate modifications will be made. A final comment about the appearance of the project, the asthetic quality of the area will be improved in that utilities serving the units will be required to be underground. Planning Commission Report May 13, 1985 page three CONCLUSIONS: While the subject project requires variance from the noted development standards, precedent in the vicinity has been set for the development of two unit complexes on 50' X 135' lots. In this instance, the applicant's property is situated between two of these type developments. Accordingly, sufficient grounds exist to :grant variances for the subject project considering the privilege enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity, specifically on Green Valley. The conditions recommended to be imposed on this project will enhance the project and will allow the developer the flexibility of development while keeping the existing structure. RECOPIqENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 85-2 subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A". F IS ~s~/'6~ate P1 anner JSD:pef Attachments: Development Review Summary Reduced Site Plan and Elevations Conditions of Approval DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMMARY ProJect:' Variance 85-2 Location/District: Action: 15642 Green VAlley Drive/ R-3 f2700) Authorization to vary with minimum lot width and side-yard set back reauirements. District Requirement Proposed Building: Front Setback Side Setback Rear Setback ~ross SquareFootage Net Floor Square Footage Height Number'of Stories Materials/Colors 1S' lq' 5' 4' 1fi' 20~ garag9 * 1,425 ~ 441 * 40' 24' 2 2 Asvhalt shingle & , W09~ SidinF Lot Size Lot Coverage Lot W±dth Parking: Number of Spaces Ratio (space/square footage) Percent of Compact Spaces Type 7.000 6,?a4 Approximatel~ 75% ~5~ 2;ann-~d.ft. 70' 50' 2 2 1:2700 1:3397 Standard Standard Uses: Number of Public Notifications (Owners): Environmental Status 300' Raduis 33 within 300' Categorically,exempt Class 3 * No Standard :-! o EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 85-2 The final site plan shall be drawn showing the garage to be constructed as attached to the existing dwelling unit. The entire area between the public sidewalk and the open parking stall {with the exception of the drive aisle) shall be landscaped with lawn materials, ~nd the mature pine tree shall not be removed. A complete landscape plan including burming features and/or hedgerows shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appropriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said development per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and Street Improvement Standards". This work shall consist of, but not limited to: curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, street pavement, street trees and marbelite street lights with underground conduit. Continuous 6" concrete curbs shall be provided along landscape planters adjacent to parking spaces and drive aisles. An irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation of any irrigation system. Said plan shall include location and description of the following: ae point of connection; back flow prevention device(s); location and types of valves; location and sizes of piping sprinkler head types, locations and manufacturer model; automatic sprinkler controller location and specifications. A grading plan based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark datum should be submitted for review and approval. Show the size and location of the domestic water service and sanitary sewer lateral. Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees will be required at the time a building permit is issued. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required at the time a building permit is issued. Contact Earl Rowenhorst at the Tustin Water Service for fee amounts. Exhibit "A" Variance 85-2 page two 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Annexation of subject property to the Orange County Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 will be required. All annexation papers are to be submitted to the City of Tustin Engineering Division. Show all existing underground utilities in Green Valley along with all existing topo in the right-of-way. Materials and colors to be used on the new structures shall be as follows: Black asphalt shingles "Masonite" (grey) siding White window and fascia trim. The existing structure shall be upgraded with new siding and a new roof matching approved type and colors in condition 12. The final elevations of the garage structure facing Green Valley are subject to approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. The overall height of the new construction shall not exceed 25 feet from existing grade. All utilities serving the subject property shall be required to be underground. JD:pf Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 6 DATE: SUB,)ECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: MAY 13, 1985 VARIANCE NO. 85-2 STEVEN AND PAUL AMORT 18161 JOSHUA LANE SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 13642 GREEN VALLEY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3 2700) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION REQUEST: BACKGROUND: TO ADD A TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND VARY WITH THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-3 DISTRICT. The subject property was annexed to the City in November, 1980, and has a zone designation of R-3 2700. This classification permits the construction of duplex or apartment units at a ratio of 1 unit to every 2,700 square feet of land area. The applicants in this case are proposing constuction of a second, attached, residential unit well within the prescribed density requirements for the property. However, resulting from the size of the lot, combined with existing construction on the site, additional development will require approval variances pertaining to lot width, lot size, and the side yard set back. Further, since the project proposed is in excess of 20 feet in height and within 150 feet of a single-family (R-l) zoned property, a public hearing is required prior to project approval. ISSUE ANALYSIS: Minimum lot size and lot width: The subject parcel is 50 feet wide and approximately 135 feet deep, totalling 6,750 square feet of land area. The R-3 District requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet and a lot size of 7,000 square feet. Since the parcel was annexed to the city and given this specific zone designation, and since similar projects have been constructed in the immediate vicinity, justification for approval of this variance exists. On both lots immediately adjacent to the subject property, two unit projects have been built and these lots are defined by the same lot dimensions as the applicant's. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report May 13, 1985 page two Minimum side yard set-back: As can be seen on the attached site plan, the existing structure on the property was constructed with a 4 foot, side yard set-back. Because of the age of the structure, records are not available to determine if the project was built to the codes in effect at the time or if a variance was required. In any event, the addition of the second unit with a four foot set-back, matching the existing building would not constitute a grant of special privilege, and the variance therefore could be granted. Site plan review: As submitted, the proposed site plan is in need of some minor revision, particularly in terms of increased landscape area, and the retention of a mature tree situated on the front portion of the lot. Specifically, it is recommended that the new garage be attached to the existing residential structure. A four foot side yard set-back would also be utilized in lieu of the three feet shown. This change will provide a substantial landscape area that will reduce the visual impact of the parking area. Additionally, the enlarged landscape area will permit the retention of the mature pine tree currently on the site. This landscape area should have a berm feature that further reduces the impact of the parking area. The only other modification to the site plan required is that public improvements (sidewalk, etc.) must be installed. Architectural Elevations: Since the project is within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone, and the proposal is for a two-story addition, special attention must be given to the height of the structure pursuant to Section 9226 C of the City Code. The nearest single-family zoned property to the subject site is approximately 130 feet away, and two multiple-dwelling complexes already separate the R-1 lot. Accordingly,.the concern over the height of the proposed project is significantly diminished. The approximate height of the structure is 24 feet. However, until a formal grading plan is submitted the actual height of the structure in relation to current grade level has not been determined. To ensure that height will not be detrimental to the area, a condition of approval shall be envoked that the overall height of the structure shall not exceed 25 feet from existing grade. In terms of materials and colors, the applicant is proposing the use of black asphalt shingles, grey masonite siding with white highlighting window and fascia trim. To ensure compatibility on the site, a condition of approval will require that the existing structure be treated and upgraded with the same material and colors. Additionally, the final garage elevations (facing Green Valley) will require further architectural treatment, and prior to issuance of building permits appropriate modifications will be made. A final comment about the appearance of the project, the asthetic quality of the area will be improved in that utilities serving the units will be required to be underground. Planning Commission Report May 13, 1985 page three CONCLUSIONS: While the subject project requires variance from the noted development standards, precedent in the vicinity has been set for the development of two unit complexes on 50' X 135' lots. In this instance, the applicant's property is situated between two of these type developments. Accordingly, sufficient grounds exist to ~grant variances for the subject project considering the privilege enjoyed by other properties in the immediate vicinity, specifically on Green Valley. The conditions recommended to be imposed on this project will enhance the project and will allow the developer the flexibility of development while keeping the existing structure. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 85-2 subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Exhibit "A". JSD:pef Attachments: Development Review Summary Reduced Site Plan and Elevations Conditions of Approval DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUMIVUkRY Project:' Variance 85- 2 Location/District: Action: Building: Front Setback Si.de Setback 13642 Green VAlley Drive/ R-3 Authorization to vary with minimum lo't width and side-yard set back requirements. District Requirement Proposed 1S' Iq' S' 4' Rear Setback Gross Square Footage Net Floor Square Footage Height Number'of Stories Materials/Colors Lot Size Lot Coverage Lot Width Parking: Number of Spaces Ratio (space/square footage) Percent of Compact Spaces Type 207 1,42S 40' 2 garage 441 24' 2 Asnhalt shingle W99~ Siding 7.000 7S% 6,794 Approximatel> 70' SO' 2 2 1:2700 1:3397 Standard Standard Uses: Number of Public Notifications (Owners): Environmental .Status * No Standard 500' Raduis 33 within 300' Categorically exempt Class 5 e ge EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE NO. 85-2 The final site plan shall be drawn showing the garage to be constructed as attached to the existing dwelling unit. The entire area between the public sidewalk and the open parking stall (with the exception of the drive aisle) shall be landscaped with lawn materials, ~nd the mature pine tree shall not be removed. A complete landscape plan including burming features and/or hedgerows shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appropriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said development per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and Street Improvement Standards". This work shall consist of, but not limited to: curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, street pavement, street trees and marbelite street lights with underground conduit. Continuous 6" concrete curbs shall be provided along landscape planters adjacent to parking spaces and drive aisles. An irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to installation of any irrigation system. Said plan shall include location and description of the following: point of connection; back flow prevention device(s); location and types of valves; location and sizes of piping sprinkler head types, locations and manufacturer model; automatic sprinkler controller location and specifications. A grading plan based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark datum should be submitted for review and approval. Show the size and location of the domestic water service and sanitary sewer lateral. Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees will be required at the time a building permit is issued. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required at the time a building permit is issued. Contact Earl Rowenhorst at the Tustin Water Service for fee amounts. Exhibit "A" Variance 85-2 page two 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Annexation of subject property to the Orange County Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 will be required. All annexation papers are to be submitted to the City of Tustin Engineering Division. Show all existing underground utilities in Green Valley along with all existing topo in the right-of-way. Materials and colors to be used on the new structures shall be as follows: ae Black asphalt shingles "Masonite" (grey) siding White window and fascia trim. The existing structure shall be upgraded with hew siding and a new roof matching approved type and colors in condition 12. The final elevations of the garage structure facing Green Valley are subject to approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. The overall height of the new construction shall not exceed 25 feet from existing grade. All utilities serving the subject property shall be required to be underground. JD:pf Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 7 Hay 13, 1985 SUB,]ECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - May 6, 1985 Oral presentation to be glven by Donald D. Lamm, Dtrector of Community Development do Attachments: Ctty Counctl Actton Agenda - #ay 6, 1985 Corn munity Development DeparTment ACTION A6ENDA OF A REGULAR I~'EI'ZNG OF THE TUSI'IN CITY COUNCIL May 6, 1985 7:00 I. CALL TO ORDER ALL PEESENT II. ROLL CALL PRF_.SEN~D TI) III. PROCLAJ~ATIONS BUCK HENDERSON OF ~ FIRE 1. "FIRE SERVICE RECOGNITION DAY" - May 11, 1985 DEPARTI~NT IV. PUBLIC HEARING INTRODIJCED ONDII~MICE 1. ORDINANCE NO. 931 - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City NO. g31 ~ ES"FABLISHED ~ OF of Tustin, California, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ORDINANCE 62 FOR AT LEA.~"F ONE OCCUPAI~F NO. 922 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17432 TO 17442 MITCHELL IN EACH APAR~#T AND THAT THE AVENUE CITY BE MADE A PART OF THE CC&Rs M.O. - That Ordinance No. 931 have first reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 931 be introduced. DOUG CHAPtlMI V. PUBLIC INPUT WAS CONCERNED (For City of Tusttn Residents and Businesspersons on any matter, and for ABOUT PETERS Water Service Customers having a concern unresolved by Administrative proce- CAMYO# PROJECT dures,) MiD WHO WOULD SUPPLY THE WATER TO 'IHE EAST TUb'I'IN AREA. CHUCK MITCHELL PRESE~D A PETITION FOR C)IAJIGI#G THE ZONING ON WEST MAI# STREET TI) ~OFESSIONAL INSTEAD OF R-1. STAFF TO LOOK INTO THIS AND POSSIBLY ~ FOR PUBLIC I~JU~ING. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 15, 1985 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS in the amount of $66g,839.85 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL in the amount of $123,411.93 APPROVED STAFF 3. RECOIeqENDATION APPROVED STAFF 4. RECOI~IE#DATIO# APPROVED STAFF 5. RECOI~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF 6. REC01~ENDATION REJECTION OF CLAIM OF EDWARD A. REX; DATE OF LOSS: 1/8/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 3-28-85; CLAIM NO.: 85-20 Rejection of subject claim as recommended by the City Attor- ney. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF CITY OF SANTA ARA; DATE OF LOSS: 12/15/84; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 4/11/85; CLAIM NO.: 85-23 Rejection of subject claim as recommended by the City Attor- ney. 1985 EL CAMINO REAL CHAMPIONSHIP CHILI COOK-OFF Appropriate $1,000 from the general fund as seed money for the 1985 E1Camino Real Championship Chili Cook-Off as recom- mended by the Recreation Superintendent. REVISED DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES CON- FERENCE OF MAYORS Approval of the subject standard United States Conference of Mayors Deferred Compensation agreement as recommended by the Deferred Compensation Committee. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page I 5-6-85 ADOPTED ~-_~OLUTION NO. 85-41 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-42 7. RESOLUTION NO. 85-41 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS - SAN JUAN STREET DRAIN FACILITY NO. FOTP24 AND LATERALS Adoption of Resolution No. 85-41 as recommended by the Engi- neering Department. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 85-42 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, DECLARING THE INTENTION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO CHANGE THE DESIG- NATION OF LAGUNA ROAD, FROM NEWPORT AVENUE TO MYFORD ROAD, TO EL CAMINO REAL Adoption of Resolution Ho. 85-42 as requested by the City Council. APPROVED STAFF RECOI~IENDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION REJECTION OF CLAIM OF WESTERN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; DATE OF LOSS: 1-04-85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 4-08-85: CLAIM NO.: 85-22 Rejection of subject claim as reco~nended by the City Attorney. 10. REJECTION OF BIDS FOR RAWLINGS RESERVOIR ROOF REPAIR AND PAINTING PROJECT Reject all bids received for the Rawlings Reservoir Roof Repair and Painting Project as recommended by the Engineering Department. VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - Hone IX. OLD BUSINESS APPROVED REVISED STAFF RECOf~ENDATION EAST TUSTIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Accept the petition filed by the Irvine Company, dtrect staff to initiate the Assessment District proceedings, and approve these subject to a reimbursement agreement wherein the Irvine Company agrees to advance to the City the funds necessary to initiate the Assessment District proceedings as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. APPROVED OPTION ~2 A~ID 2. SENIOR CENTER PROGRESS REPORT AHD DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY THE FUNDS TO BE FRON THE GERER/B. Pleasure of the City Council. FUND X. NEW BUSINESS APPROVED STAFF RECOt~ENDATION AUTHORITJ~TION TO PURCHASE THREE WHEELED VEHICLE FOR WATER METER READING Authorize the purchase of a three wheeled vehicle (scooter) from Toro Pacific Distributing of the City of Industry for $6,795464 as recommended by the Engineering Department. /PPROVED STAFF 2. RECOI~IENDATIO# AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE COMPRESSOR Authorize the purchase of an Ingersoll-Rand gasoline powered compressor from Ingersoll-Rand of Pico Rivera for $9,024.84 as recommended by the Engineering Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 5-6-85 ~ONTINUED FOR 6 TO 8 WEEKS 3. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS (MARSHALL LANE) Authorize the removal of parking restriction signs along Marshall Lane between Santa Clara Avenue and Falrhaven Avenue as requested by seventy three percent of the residents/pro- perty owners. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 4. NO. 85-43 RESOLUTION NO. 85-43 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, INITIATING THE FORMATION OF A LAND- SCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT UNDER THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 Adoption of Resolution No. 85-43 as recommended by the Engi- neering Department. APPROVED STAFF 5. RECOI~IENDATION REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVAL - 173 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE Authorize the removal of the Elm tree at 173 Mountain View Drive by City forces subject to its replacement at the pro- perty owner's expense for all labor, materials and tree as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. APPROVED STAFF 6. RECOI~ENDATION FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT AND FIRE STATION LEASE AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1985-86 Recommended to endorse subject agreements as recommended by the Director of Finance. XI. REPORTS ' ~ATIFIED 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - April 22, 1985 All actions of the Planning Commission appealed by the City Council. are final unless RECEIVED AND FILED 2. EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT Receive and file. RECEIVED AND FI~'O 3. CONCERTS IN THE PARK Receive and file. KENNEDY XII. OTHER BUSINESS REQUES~E1) ll4AT REXT YEAR ~ SENI~ CITIZEN ~OJECT BE ~ RECIPIENT OF THE CHILI COOK-OFF PROFITS. KENNEDY REPORTED GP. AJ:FITI ON WALLS WHICH IS VISIBLE FROM THE FREEWAY. BOB LEDENDECICER SAID WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT. IN RESPONSE TO COUNCILMAN SALTARELLI ABOUT TRUCK PARKING AT THE SAN JUAN AND REDHILL CONDOMIN- IUMS, CHIEF THAYER RESPONDED THAT THEY POLICE THE AREA AND OFFICERS HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO SITE VIOLATEKS. SALTARELLI REQUESTED THAT THEY SEND A LETTER OF RESPONSE TO THE RESIDENT WHO BROUGHT IN THE PETITION REGARDING THIS MAli'ER. SALTARELLI REPORTED THAT THE CONCRETE AT THE BASKETBALL COURT IN MAGNOLIA PARK REEDS RESUR- FACING. GREINKE REPORTED THAT A NUMBER OF STREET LIGHTS ARE OUT ON MAIN STREET. :45 XIII. ADJOURNMENT - To a Workshop on May 15, 1985, at 4:00 p.m. to review alterna- tives regarding the I-5 Freeway widening projects and the Assessment District and thence to the next regular meeting on May 20, 1985 at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 5-6-85 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR I~ETING OF THE TUST]*N REDEVELOP~NT AGENCY Ray 6, 1985 7:00 P.M. 8:45 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT 2. ROLL CALL APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of April 15, 1985 APPROVED STAFF RECOI~IENDATION KENNEDY SUGGESTED ~T WE HAVE A CLOSING ESCROW PARTY. 4. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FROM TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Approval of the purchase of a 1.229 acre site from the Tustin Unified School District; appropriate $775,000 from the Town Center Capital Pro- jects Fund for purchase of the site; and authorize the Executive Direc- tor of the Agency to open an escrow account and execute documents neces- sary to consummate the purchase as recommended by the Executive Director. 5. OTHER BUSINESS 8:48 6. ADJOURNMENT - To a Closed Session pursuant to Government Code 54956.8 to give instructions regarding leases at Newforth Center and thence to the next regular meeting on May 20, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page I 5-6-85