Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01 APPEAL OF P.C. DENIAL SUN-CAL HAMPTON VILLAGE 11-06-07
Agenda Item • Reviewed: "PORT City Manager AGENDA Finance Director MEETING DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 2007 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 ZONE CHANGE 06-002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 SUMMARY: The project site consists of a 4.1 -acre (net area) site currently developed with 60 apartment units. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue (1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue) within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district and High Density Residential General Plan land use designation (APN 432-342-30). On August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed project. On September 25, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4065 denying Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 for development of the site with the proposed height and site design and adopted Resolution No. 4066 recommending that the City Council deny the proposed zone change and tentative tract map. On October 2, 2007, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's actions to the City Council. In accordance with Tustin City Code Section Nos. 9272, 9294, and 9321, public noticing for the appeal was provided and the appeal was scheduled for the next available City Council meeting. The City Council is requested to consider the appeal of Planning Commission's decisions including denial of the conditional use permit, design review, zone change, and tentative tract map for subdivision and development of the site with 77 condominium units. APPLICANT/OWNER: Suncal- Browning LLC C/O Southwind Realty Group LLC 18301 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 710 Irvine, Ca 92612 Attn: Jim Magstadt City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 2 of 10 RECOMMENDATION: Per Tustin City Code Section 9294(c), the City Council could take action on one of the following alternatives: 1. Uphold the Planning Commission's action denying the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review applications and deny Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 and direct staff to prepare resolutions similar to those adopted by the Planning Commission; 2. Adopt the following resolutions approving the project: • Resolution No. 07-77 finding the MND adequate for the proposed Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020; • Resolution No. 07-78 approving Tentative Tract Map 17096; • Resolution No. 07-79 approving Conditional Use Permit Review 06-020; and, • Introduce and have first reading, by title only, of OrdinancE the subject property from Suburban Residential (R-4) Residential (R-3); 3. Remand the project back to the Planning Commission; or 4. Modify the action and provide direction to staff. FISCAL IMPACT: 06-024 and Design No. 1343 rezoning to Multiple Family The requested zone change, tentative tract map, conditional use permit, and design review are applicant -initiated projects. The applicant has paid applicable fees for the processing of this project. BACKGROUND: The proposed site is a 4.1 -acre (net area) parcel currently developed with a 60 unit apartment complex known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. The project site is bounded by Single Family Residential uses (R-1) on the south and west, Duplex residential zoning (R-2) and a condominium project (R-3) separated by Mitchell Avenue on the north, and Single Family Residential (R-1) and a mobile home park separated by Browning Avenue on the east (Attachment A — Location Map). The site is designated by the General Plan as High Density Residential (HDR) which provides for the development of residential condominiums with a permitted density of 15-25 dwelling units/acre (du/ac). The site is zoned Suburban Residential (R-4) with a permitted density of 14.5 du/ac or 60 units maximum. City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 3 of 10 The project involves the demolition of all existing units on the site and the development of the site with 77 new condominium units. To accommodate the proposed development, a zone change of the site to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to allow for the proposed density, a tentative tract map for subdivision of the land into condominiums, and a design review application for the site amenities and building designs need to be approved. Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, and Design Review 06-020 were submitted by the applicant accordingly. In addition, Tustin City Code Section No. 9226(c) requires new buildings proposed within 150 feet of single family residential to be limited to 20 feet in height or obtain a conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit 06-024 was requested to increase the height of structures within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) from 20 feet to 32 feet. Pursuant to Tustin City Code, the Planning Commission is the authorized body to consider, approve, or deny Conditional Use Permit and Design Review applications; and the City Council is the authorized body to consider, approve or deny zone change and tentative tract map applications upon recommendation by the Planning Commission (Attachment B — Planning Commission Reports and Submitted Plans). PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION On August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings. Numerous residents of the neighboring properties spoke in opposition to the project at both meetings (Attachment C — Submitted Public Comments and Planning Commission Minutes). Several letters have been provided to the Planning Commission and the City Council for their consideration. The major concerns noted in the public testimonies and submitted letters included: a) Incompatibility of the increased density, proposed height and setbacks with the neighboring single family residential properties; b) Traffic impacts on the adjacent roadways and vehicular, and pedestrian traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school or the adjacent neighborhoods; and, c) Limitation of on -street parking on the adjacent roadways and associated impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. On September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission, with a three to one vote decided to deny the project and directed staff to prepare resolutions for denial of the project. At the September 25, 2007 meeting the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Nos. 4056 and 4066 with a four to zero vote denying without prejudice Conditional Use Permit 06- 024 and Design Review 06-020 and recommended that the City Council deny without prejudice the proposed Tentative Tract Map 17096 and Zone Change 06-002 (Attachment D — Resolution Nos. 4065 and 4066). City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 4 of 10 APPEAL On October 2, 2007, the project developer (Suncal-Browning LLC) submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's actions denying Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 and the recommendation with respect to the Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map (Attachment E — Submitted Appeal Letter). The highlighted issues noted in the submitted correspondence are discussed below: General Plan Consistency Applicant's Comments: The appeal letter indicated that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed project: • Provides for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing; • Preserves the low density quality of the City's existing single-family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi -family development to meet the regional housing needs; • Revitalizes older residential uses and properties; • Improves urban design to ensure development is both architecturally and functionally compatible and creates unique identifiable neighborhood; and. • Encourages high quality design and physical appearance in development. The project is also indicated by the developer to be consistent with the following Housing Element policies: • Providing an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and diverse socio-economic needs; • Promoting cluster housing development consistent with the City's high density residential land use designation; • Increasing the percentage of ownership housing; • Encouraging new housing construction for home ownership in a mixture of price ranges; • Ensuring that new housing is sensitive to the existing environment; and, • Locating new housing in proximity to services and employment centers and thereby enabling walking or bicycling to places of employment. Staff's Response: The proposed density is within the High Density Residential density range designated by the General Plan. The proposed project would introduce new housing units and provide for homeownership opportunities consistent with the goals and policies of the Tustin General Plan. In addition, considering the potential development standards of the adjacent single family residences, the project would be compatible in height, size, and scale. The project is consistent with the applicant's noted goals and policies of the Housing and Land Use Elements of the General Plan; however, the Planning Commission found the project to be in conflict with the General City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 5 of 10 Plan's goals and policies that encourage preserving the low-density quality of Tustin's existing single family neighborhoods. The Planning Commission included the following findings in their adopted resolutions: • As proposed, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and three-story development; • Even though the proposed project is limited to 77 dwelling units, rezoning the property to R-3 would provide for a future opportunity for development of a higher density project of up to 100 units on this site, if this project is not implemented; • Approval of a high density project that is not compatible with the existing community would set a negative precedent for future in -fill development in Tustin; • The proposed height, size, and scale of the project are too large for the site in physical relationship to the existing adjacent structures; • The traffic study prepared by the applicant does not adequately address the circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project with respect to the proposed density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school and could have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and, • That the density, aesthetics and traffic impacts of the proposed tentative tract map or the proposed improvements were not adequately addressed in the mitigated negative declaration. It should be noted that the project would not be consistent with the current zoning, unless the City Council approves Zone Change 06-002. Density Applicant's Comments: The appeal indicated that the project's density is consistent with the land use designation under the City's General Plan High Density Residential which allows 15-25 du/ac. The proposed density is 18.7 du/ac, and the zone change would bring the zoning for the project site into compliance with the General Plan. During the deliberation and as a finding for denial, the Planning Commission noted that approval of a zone change could potentially lead to higher density if the project was not implemented. The developer noted that since the project requires a conditional use permit for the proposed product type, the entitlement is binding on the site, which would not allow for higher density development without a new entitlement. City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 6 of 10 The appeal letter additionally indicated that several other projects were recently approved with similar densities such as: the Arbor Walk project on Newport Avenue, the Cottages on EI Camino Real and the Red Hill Condos on Red Hill Avenue, all with densities between 18-20 du/acre. Staff's Response: The site is currently zoned Suburban Residential (R-4) and is located within the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation, which allows development of 15-25 du/ac. The current zoning would allow development of up to 14.5 du/ac or 60 units, which is less than the allowable density by the City's General Plan. The proposed density is within the HDR density range designated by the General Plan. Although, all discretionary approvals are subject to review and consideration on a case-by-case basis, project density is generally not regulated through the design review and conditional use permit process. In other words, once the zone change is approved, a 100 -unit project could theoretically be designed to meet the City's design review and conditional use permit requirements. Although, it should be noted that development of the site under the high density zoning and General Plan designation is still subject to maximum lot coverage, minimum open space, and setback standards that would dictate the maximum number of units on the site. Since the development which has occurred to date has not reached the maximum allowed level of density, the General Plan identifies effective density of 21.53 for HDR land use designation. With respect to the approved projects referred to by the developer, they are typically not adjacent to single family residential and did not require a conditional use permit for the increased building height. If approved, the project will comply with the development standard for the City's Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District as follows: Standards Required Proposed Density max. 25 du/ac. 18.64 du/ac. Site Area min. 7,000 sq.ft. 179,902 (net) Minimum lot area per unit 1,750 sq.ft. 2,336 sq.ft. Building Height max. 35 feet 35 feet (average) Lot Width min. 70 feet 290 Lot Coverage max. 65 percent 65 percent Landscape Open Space min. 35 percent 35 percent Front Setback min. 15 feet 15 feet to the building Side Yard Setback min. 5 feet 10 feet (7 feet to the balconies) Rear Yard Setback min. 10 feet 16 feet Off-street parking min. 154 garage spaces 154 garage spaces plus 20 guest stalls plus 25 guest stalls City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 7 of 10 Compatibility with Surrounding Uses Applicant's Comments: The appeal letter indicates that the project is compatible with the surrounding uses in that a lower building height was proposed for project units located adjacent to single -story single family residential properties, and to minimize privacy intrusion no balconies were proposed and window openings were small and limited with opaque glass. In addition, the project is across from duplex residential zoning and two-story residential on the north. The developer also indicated that the option to eliminate the third level loft (reducing the height to 26'-5") and the provision for an additional setback of 15 feet was offered to the Planning Commission as an alternative to the proposed design. Staff's Response: The proposed modification to the buildings that will reduce the overall height and increase the setback from adjacent single family residential properties is an improvement to the project design. Staff believes that the alternative design should be considered with respect to the tentative tract map approval; however, conditions should be imposed to ensure that adequate open space and setback from adjacent right-of-way would be provided. Traffic Circulation Applicant's Comments: The appeal letter indicated that the Planning Commission did not find the traffic analysis included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adequate for the site and noted the inadequacy in Resolution No. 4066 with the recommendation of denial to the City Council. The developer indicated that the responses provided by the developer's Traffic Engineer on August 24, 2007 and September 11, 2007, sufficiently respond to the noted public comments on circulation and parking. The study concluded that the project results in no significant impacts to circulation, parking, or the elementary school. It was also noted that the Orange County Fire Authority approved the proposed site plan. The appeal letter also noted that the traffic study included peak hour projects, internal circulation, and proximity to the elementary school and determined that the project generated traffic volume will not create a significant increase in traffic congestion at the school entrance. The MND incorporated mitigation measures including roadway improvements, traffic signage, and a Construction Traffic Management Plan to reduce anticipated traffic impacts to a level less than significant. The developer suggested that no facts or evidence were provided to support the Planning Commission's finding that the traffic study is inadequate based on circulation, project density, site access, or proximity to the elementary school. Staff's Response: A traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the City's Engineering Division (Exhibit 2 of Mitigated Negative Declaration). The traffic analysis considered the traffic impacts to the Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue intersection and concluded that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project under short-term (2008) and long-term (2025) conditions. The AM and PM peak hour City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 8 of 10 volumes for the entire project are approximately 70 Vehicle per Hour (VPH), or just a little over one vehicle per minute. Based on the submitted traffic analysis, staff believes that there are no anticipated delays with entering and exiting the site during any time of day and supports the submitted traffic analysis and the responses submitted to the MND by the applicant (Attachment E — Submitted Appeal Letter). The site is located near an elementary school with the main entrance off of Browning Avenue. The traffic study concluded that the project -generated traffic volume is not expected to create a significant increase to traffic congestion at the school entrance and no impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour. For development of the project, the developer will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue to provide more accessibility and visibility at the new four-way intersection of the main entrance to the project with Sandfield Place. Staff believes that with incorporation of the mitigation measures included as conditions of approval in the attached Resolution No. 07-78 on Browning Avenue, the traffic impacts for this project will be reduced to less than significant. Parkin Applicant's Comments: The appeal letter indicated that the proposed project provides a total of 179 garage and parking spaces at a rate of 2.32 parking spaces per unit. The existing apartment complex currently holds 111 parking spaces at a rate of 1.85 spaces per unit. Therefore, the proposed number of on-site parking spaces will sufficiently address the project's on-site parking demand. Staff's Response: Tustin City Code Section 9226a1(j) requires a minimum of two (2) covered parking spaces per unit. Each unit is designed with a two -car garage and 25 guest parking spaces are provided on-site. In addition, a standard condition has been included that the CC&Rs require the garage spaces to be used only for vehicle storage. Furthermore, on -street parking is also currently available on Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue. A few of the on -street parking spaces located on Browning will be affected by addition of a left turn pocket from the project. The existing on -street parking shortfall identified by public speakers would not be intensified with the new development in that adequate on-site parking would be provided. Tentative Tract Map Applicant's Comments: Development of the site with 77 condominium units requires approval of a tentative tract map for subdivision of the site. The Planning Commission is the recommending body for the tentative tract map. The Planning Commission made a finding that the project site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and three- story development and recommended that the City Council deny the tentative tract map without prejudice. City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 9 of 10 The appeal letter notes the statuary grounds for denial of a tentative tract map as the following: • The map conflicts with the General Plan; • The site is not suitable for the proposed density; • The map would create substantial environmental damage, serious health problems, conflict with public and or conservation easements, and water quality. The developer indicated that the proposed density for the project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site; that the proposed zone change would bring the zoning into compliance with the General Plan, and that the site borders other multi -family sites and therefore would be compatible with surrounding uses. Staff's Response: As stated by the appeal letter certain findings are required by State law and Tustin City Code for denial of a tentative tract map. However, contrary to the statement by the developer the project site does not border multiple family residences and is bounded by single family residential on the south and west property lines. The multiple family and duplex zoning is located north of Mitchell Avenue. Tentative tract maps are typically considered concurrently with the site's development plans and following a Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. In this case, the proposed 77 units with the proposed development standards were not acceptable to the Planning Commission; therefore, the conditional use permit and design review applications were denied, and the tentative tract map and zone change were recommended to be denied by the City Council. Unless the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision and approves the conditional use permit, design review, and the zone change; the tentative tract map would not be suitable for the proposed density. Conditional Use Permit Applicant's Comments: The appeal letter noted that the Planning Commission findings for denial of the conditional use permit as noted in the Resolution No. 4065 are not supported by facts that show the project would be detrimental to the health and safety of the neighborhood, or injurious to the City and that, on the contrary, the project seeks to revitalize the area and provide new home ownership opportunities in the City. Staff's Response: This project abuts single -story R-1 zoned properties on the west and south side. The applicant has designed the site to include: 1) a wider than required rear setback of 10 feet from the neighboring westerly properties and 16 feet from the southerly properties, 2) limited window and door openings and no balconies facing onto the adjacent properties, and 3) lower height for the end units with a third floor loft and a reduced overall height of 32 feet. Given today's standard for condominium development, staff determined that it is typical for multiple family residential structures to City Council Report November 6, 2007 Appeal of CUP 06-024 and DR 06-020, ZC 06-002 and TTM 17096 Page 10 of 10 be 2-3 stories in height. The proposed height is consistent and compatible with the maximum allowed height for the single family residential (R-1) zone, which is 30 feet. ENVIRONMENTAL: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project (Exhibit A of Draft Resolution No. 4064). Staff determined that any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and mitigation measures were included as conditions of approval in the draft resolutions. The draft mitigated declaration was made available for public review from August 3, 2007, to August 22, 2007. Public comments received during the public review period are included in Attachment C. However, the mitigated negative declaration was not adopted and as a result of Planning Commission's action, a statuary exemption finding was included with the resolutions of denial of the project. OPTIONS: At the September 25, 20007, Planning Commission meeting, the developer offered reducing the height of the proposed structures and providing additional setback along the westerly property line to address the concerns of neighboring residents. On October 29, 2007, the developer submitted a letter addressed to the City Council identifying the proposed modifications to the project to address concerns of neighboring residents and the City (Attachment F — Letter dated October 26, 2007). Should the City Council decide to approve the project subject to the listed modifications and covenant agreement listed in the letter, conditions of approval are included in the attached resolutions for your consideration. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A - Project Location B - Planning Commission Report C- Submitted Public Comments, Planning Commission Minutes D - Planning Commission Resolutions 4065, and 4066 E - Submitted Appeal Letter F - Letter from SunCal Companies to City Council dated October 26, 2007 G - Resolution Nos. 07-77, 07-78, 07-79 H - Ordinance No. 1343 ATTACHMENT A NOVEMBER 6, 2007, CITY COUNCIL REPORT Location Map ATTACHMENT B NOVEMBER 6, 2007, CITY COUNCIL REPORT August 28, 2007 & September 11, 2007, Planning Commission Reports DATE: AUGUST 28, 2007 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 OWNER: SUNCAL- BROWNING LLC C/O SOUTHWIND REALTY GROUP LLC 18301 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 710 IRVINE, CA 92612 ATTN: JIM MAGSTADT APPLICANT: KAREN SULLY THE SULLY GROUP INC. 161 FASHION LANE, SUITE 116 TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE GENERAL PLAN: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR 15-25 DU/ACRE)) ZONING: EXISTING: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) PROPOSED: MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ARTICLE 6 OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 14, CHAPTER 3. REQUESTS: 1. ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) ZONING DISTRICT TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH 77 CONDOMINIUM UNITS; Planning Commission Report AugList 28, 2007 ZC 06-00"0', TTM 1.1096, CUP 06-02-4, DR 06-02)0 P31ge 2 of 11 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE THE 4.1 -ACRE SITE (NET AREA) INTO A 77 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT; 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 TO CONSTRUCT STRUCTURES OVER 20 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT; AND, 4. DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 FOR APPROVAL OF BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 4064 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as adequate for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 for development of the proposed 77 residential condominium unit project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4065 approving Conditional Use Permit 06-024 for constructing buildings over 20 feet in height within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and Design Review 06-020 for the architectural/site design and amenities of the proposed condominium project. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4066 recommending that the City Council adopt the MND for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 and approve Tentative Tract Map 17096 for the purpose of subdividing and developing a 4.1 -acre (net) site with 77 residential condominium units. BACKGROUND The proposed site includes a 60 -unit apartment complex known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 60 units on the existing 4.9 acre (gross) site that includes 0.82 acres to be dedicated to the City for street rights-of-way along Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue. The applicant has requested a -zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to redevelop the site with condominium units. All existing units on the site are proposed to be demolished. To redevelop the site with 77 condominium units, a zone change, tent 3tive tract reap, conditional use permit, and a design review application need to be approved for subdivision of the land, the proposed increase in density, building structures over 20 feet, and approval of the site amenities and building designs. rl�il nil;g C-0mmission Report AUqust 28, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DP. 06-020 Inage 2 of 11 The project site is surrounded by single family residential uses (R-1) on the south and west, Duplex residential zoning (R-2) and a condominium project (R-3) on the north, and single farnily residential and a mobile home park on the east (Attachment A — Location Map). The site is zoned Suburban Residential (R-4) and designated by the General Plan as High Density Residential (HDR) which provide for the development of residential condominiums. ni.,;ri The following discussion includes analyses of the project description and site plan, access, architecture, landscaping, and environmental documentation. Project Description and Site Plan The project would involve construction of new three-story buildings and two-story buildings with lofts. The project is designed to adhere to the proposed new zoning of Multiple Family Residential (R-3) development standards with respect to setbacks, height, parking standards, and landscaping guidelines and the City's Private Street Improvement Standards. Although the project proposes three-story structures to replace existing one-story structures, the proposed buildings have been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring residences. The site is a corner parcel along Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue that abuts single family residential neighborhoods on two sides. The proposed site plan places the buildings 10 feet from the westerly property line and 16 feet from the southerly property line. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories with a loft that are 3-4 feet lower in height than other proposed units on the site. To provide a green screen, significant landscaping in the form of upright trees is proposed on the westerly and southerly site boundaries. In addition, no balconies will be located within these areas and window openings are smaller in size and carefully placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent existing residential properties. Site Design The project site is designed with a main drive 36 feet wide that runs parallel to Browning Avenue and secondary drives that are 24 feet wide, each providing vehicular access to 10-11 units. Adequate turn around space for emergency vehicles is provided at the terminus of the main drive. The project site is proposed to be developed with 16 buildings of four-plex, five-plex, and six-plex design. The buildings are designed in rows with entries facing one another and garages arranged back to back. Each unit is designed with a private patio at the front entrance and a balcony on the second floor. The end units along the westerly property line also have an opportunity for a private patio. Common landscape ureas between the P!annin0 Con-nission Report Au( -Just 28, 2007 /C 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 P� qe 3 of 11 units would also be provided with decorative walkways and landscape areas (Attachment C — Submitted Plans). Five different plans are proposed which range in size as follows: Plan Bedrooms Baths Square Footage 1 2 BR and loft 2 1,803 2 3 BR 3.5 1,863 3 3BR 3 1,997 4 213D and loft 2 1,831 5 3 BR 2.5 2,068 Zone Change The site is currently zoned Suburban Residential (R-4) and is located within the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation, which allows development of 15-25 dwellings per acre (du/acre). The current zoning would allow development with up to 14.5 du/acre or 60 units, which is less than the allowable density by the City's General Plan. The applicant has proposed to rezone the property from R-4 to Multiple Family Residential (R-3), to allow development of the site with 77 units at 18.7 du/acre density. The rezoning would also reduce the current rear yard setback of 25 feet to 16 feet. The project will comply with the development standard for the City's Multiple Family Residential (R-3) District as follows: Standards Required Proposed Density max. 25 du/acre 18.64du/acre Site Area min. 7,000 sq.ft. 179,902 (net) Minimum lot area per unit 1,750 sq.ft. 2,336 sq.ft. Building Height max. 35 feet 35 feet (average) Lot Width min. 70 feet 290 Lot Coverage max. 65 percent 65 percent Landscape Open Space min. 35 percent 35 percent (includes 2.6% decorative paving) Front Setback min. 15 feet 15 feet to the building Side Yard Setback min. 5 feet 10 feet (7 feet to the balconies) Rear Yard Setback min. 10 feet 16 feet Off-street parking min. 154 garage spaces 154 garage spaces plus 20 guest stalls plus 25 guest stalls The proposed density is within the HDR density range designated by the General Plan. Staff believes that the proposed project will improve an older neighborhood with new housing and provide for homeownership opportunities consistent with the goals and policies of the Tustin General Plan. PIai ring Commission Report Auciust 28, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17090, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 R,ige 4 of 11 Conditional Use Permit Tustin City Code Sections 9226(c) and 9228(d) that refer to development standards for R-4 and R-3 properties both require approval of a conditional use permit for structures over 20 feet in height within 150 feet of R-1 zoning districts. The buildings are two stories with a loft and three stories (4, 5, or 6 attached units) that range in height from 30'-9" to 36'-9" with an average height of 35 feet (Attachment C — Height Exhibit). The proposed increase in height of V-9" for an overall height of 36-9" is within the 10 percent allowed increase for minor adjustments and staff deemed that the proposed increase of a portion of the units would create a desired variation in building design/height and individual treatment of each unit. This project abuts R-1 on the west and south side and therefore requires a conditional use permit for the proposed height. The applicant has designed the site to include: 1) a wider than required rear setback of 10 feet from the neighboring westerly properties and 16 feet from the southerly properties, 2) limited window and door openings and no balconies facing onto the adjacent properties, and 3) lower height for the end units with a third floor loft and a reduced overall height of 32 feet. Given today's standard for condominium development, it is typical for multiple family residential structures to be 2- 3 stories in height. The proposed height is consistent and compatible with the maximum allowed height for single family residential (R-1), which is 30 feet. The applicant has indicated that the proposed increased number of units is the minimum density that would substantiate the economic feasibility of the project. Considering the proposed setbacks and stepped height design, aesthetic and livability impacts to adjacent properties are not anticipated to be substantial with respect to privacy and shade and shadow effects. Access, Circulation, Parking, and Traffic Analysis Traffic Analvsis A traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the City's Engineering Division (Exhibit 2 of Mitigated Negative Declaration). The study concluded that the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 737 average daily trips, which in comparison with the existing development, would be an increase of 334 daily trips. The traffic analysis considered the traffic impacts to the Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue intersection and concluded that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project under short-term (2008) and long-term (2025) conditions. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire project are approximately 70 Vehicle per Hour (VPH), or just a little over one vehicle per minute. Based on the submitted traffic analysis, no delay with entering and exiting the site is expected during any time of day. The internal circulation system for the project is basically a "T" shaped pattern with a single entrance. The main street is 36 feet wide and provides for parking on both sides and the alleys are 25 feet wide with no parking permitted. Planning Commission Report .4ugu-0t 2U0, 2007 ?C OEC -002, TTM 17006, CUP 06-0241 DR 06-020 P.,ge 5 of 11 The site is located near an elementary school with the main entrance off of Browning Avenue. The school's morning drop-off time coincides with the AM peak hour of the project. During that time an additional 17 project vehicles will be traveling southbound on Browning Avenue. The traffic study concluded that the project -generated traffic volume is not expected to create a significant increase to traffic congestion at the school entrance and no impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour. For development of the project, the developer will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue to provide more accessibility and visibility at the new four-way intersection of the main entrance to the project with Sandfield Place. With incorporation of the following mitigation measures on Browning Avenue, the traffic impacts for this project will be reduced to less than significant. Condition 4.1 is included to require traffic signage and striping, including turning lanes on Browning Avenue and parking restrictions adjacent to the site based on the traffic study recommendations. In addition, the developer would be required by Condition 4.3 of Resolution No. 4065 to submit a Construction Management Plan, as required under the Traffic Impact Analysis, for the site to address safety issues, such as regulating construction access to the site during children's arrival and departure from the nearby school. The applicant is also required to provide a corner cut off dedication at the corner and project entries as shown on the tentative tract map. Condition 2.1 of Resolution No. 4066 requires that the developer satisfy all dedication and easement requirements for street rights-of-way along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue and the appropriate corner cut-off on Browning Avenue as depicted on the tentative tract map. Pedestrian Circulation The project site is designed with three pedestrian accesses to Browning Avenue and one to Mitchell Avenue. Two of the access points are indirect from the courtyards to Browning Avenue. These areas are defined with a roof and step up from the street. The main driveway is designed with four foot sidewalks on both sides that lead to the front entries through the open spaces separating the building rows. Units along Mitchell Avenue and the end units along Browning Avenue are raised 3-4 steps from the existing grade at the public sidewalk. Each unit is designed with a private patio fence and gate to provide a buffer from the public right-of-way. In addition, a wheelchair access would be required through a paseo between the two buildings along Mitchell Avenue that connects the public sidewalk on Mitchell Avenue to the project site (Attachment C — Submitted Plans). Waste Management Plan To minimize trash hauler trucks backing up from the garage drives and to ensure that the trash cans do not impede site circulation, the applicant has proposed a Waste Management Plan (Attachment C — Submitted Plans) with centralized location for trash pick up. The plan proposes to use 11 of the 25 guest stalls for storing trash and recycling carts during the trash pick up days. Residents would be required to store containers next Planning Commission Report August 28, 2007 ?C 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024. DR 06-020 Paige 6 of 11 to their garage during trash collection clays where an employee of the homeowners association would relocate the carts into designated parking areas; the empty containers would be returned upon collection. The parking areas designated for storing trash carts would be posted with informative signage and enforcement regulations. Condition 8.2 of Resolution No. 4065 is included to require adequate signage for the waste management plan. Parkin Tustin City Code Section 9226a1(j) requires a minimum of two (2) covered parking spaces per unit and each unit is designed with a two -car garage. The Tt_Istin City Code also requires a minimum of one (1) unassigned open guest parking space for every four (4) units or 20 guest parking spaces. The project site provides a total of 25 guest parking spaces including 22 parallel stalls and three standard parking stalls (Attachment C — Submitted Plans). The guest parking spaces are evenly dispersed along the main private drive within an adequate distance to all units. The private drives that provide access to garages are required to remain accessible at all times. Condition 3.20)(4) of Resolution No. 4066 will be included in the CC&Rs to require that the garage spaces be used for vehicle storage. Cin -street parking is also currently available on Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue, however, on -street parking on Browning will be affected by addition of the left turn pocket from the project. Public Improvements The existing street lighting on Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue has been determined deficient with respect to current standards. To meet the current public street requirements, the developer is required to design and construct a street light on a "Marbelite" pole served by underground conduit at the project entrance on Browning Avenue. Additional lights may be required on Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue to meet the Residential Collector street requirements of 5,800 lumen high pressure sodium vapor lamps with 28' mounting height on 6' arms spaced 400 feet apart along both sides of the street. The lights are to be staggered from side to side along the street, thus the spacing between lights is 200 feet with the developer responsible only for lights on the side of the street frontage developed by the project. Condition 4.1 of Resolution No. 4065 requires that all street lights to be installed per the minimum design standards and the standards of the City of Tustin and the Southern California Edison Company, and as approved by the City Engineer. Arrhiforhyra The buildings are designed as contemporary style townhomes with influence from the "Hamptons," an east coast architecture using dormers, shingle siding, and simple gables. The units are staggered 2-3 feet to create an interesting street elevation. Units along Mitchell Avenue and the end units along Browning Avenue are designed with a Planning Commission report ;august 28, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 170106, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Pack 7 of 11 front porch covered by a second floor balcony. A variety of wood railing is proposed for the balconies. The courtyard between the buildings will be landscaped and designed with walkways connecting the parking areas to unit front entrances. Units with a raised finished floor (units south of the main entry, along Mitchell Avenue, and end units along Browning Avenue) have a small private patio separated by a raised brick wall. The exterior elevations are enhanced with architectural details reminiscent of the Hamptons such as dormer attic vents, wood shutters, balconies, and various siding finishes and colors to create visual interest. The roof material is proposed to be composition shingles in various designs and colors to complement the proposed architectural style and color scheme. Prior to deeming the application complete, staff communicated the following design concerns to the developer; • Providing a consistent side yard and front yard setback and street orientation on both Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue street fronts; • Adding more articulation on the street elevations; • Providing a deeper off -set and second floor projection than the proposed one foot on the Browning Avenue street frontage; and • Breaking the repetitious design on the Mitchell Avenue elevation. The developer addressed most of the issues by revising the Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue elevations. The revised design provided more variety on the balcony projections and oriented the end units on Browning Avenue with street facing porches. However, the shallow off -sets and projections, and the recommended 15 foot building setback along Browning Avenue were not addressed by the developer. The project site is a reverse corner lot where the side along Browning Avenue is wider than the front facing Mitchell Avenue. Tustin City Code does not include provisions for reverse corner lots; however, staff believes that the same setback requirement should be applied to both street fronts. The buildings are currently proposed at 15 feet from Mitchell Avenue and 10 feet from Browning Avenue with the balconies encroaching 3 feet into the setbacks. The proposed setbacks meet the minimum development standards for R-3 front and side yard setbacks; however, staff recommends that the applicant be required to maintain the same setback on both street fronts to provide for improved streetscape design and better livability of these units with more privacy and fewer noise impacts from Browning Avenue. Additionally, the increased setback would allow for architectural relief and added articulation and landscaping along the streetscape. Condition 1.8 of Resolution No. 4065 requires that the same setback be applied on both frontages. The applicant proposes ten color schemes for the buildings. Each unit is proposed with a different color variation to create individual emphasis. The shutters, railing, and other Planning Commission Report August 28, 2007 ?C 063-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 1' .-Ige 8 of 11 architectural elements are proposed with contrasting colors. Material and color sample boards for the project will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. Condition 6.2 of Resolution No. 4065 requires final approval of the colors by the Community Development Department upon submittal of construction drawings. Pool/Recreation Area A common pool/recreation area would be constructed and maintained by the homeowners association and consist of a pool/spa, restrooms for men and women, pool equipment enclosure, a shower, outdoor fireplace, and a seating area. A six foot wrought iron safety fence would enclose the pool area. The pool area is tucked in the corner and would not be visible from public rights-of-way. Landscape/Hardscape The project site is currently heavily landscaped along Mitchell Avenue with mature pine trees that are an enhancement to the streetscape. The project is proposed with Camphor trees accented with Coral trees along the main entry on Browning Avenue. A variety of Magnolias, Tipu trees, Chinese Pistache, Olive trees, and California Pepper trees are proposed within the site along the main drive and the courtyards. To provide a diverse landscape barrier to the residential neighborhood to the west and south, a variety of Chinese flame tree, Afghan pines, and Brisbane boxes are proposed. There are five courtyards throughout the site, each is proposed to be enhanced with a fountain, fireplace, and seating area. Noise Analysis The project site is located at the southwest corner of Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue, and therefore is exposed to traffic related noise. The City's General Plan recognizes that residents adjacent to major and secondary arterials are typically exposed to a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) over 65 Decibels (dB). Table N-2 of the Tustin Noise Element identifies potential conflicts between the land uses and the noise environment. Per Table N-2, most of the project site falls within Zone A through Zone B. Zone A requires no mitigation measures for noise while Zone B requires minor soundproofing as needed. The. City's noise ordinance requires a maximum 45 dB value for interior noise and 65 dB for exterior noise. An acoustical study was submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 1 of MND) that indicates that the building surfaces along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of 60.7 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings require a 15.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's CNEL interior noise standards. With common construction practices, a noise reduction of up Planning Commission Report AlIgust 28. 2007 7_C; 06-002, TTM 17006, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 0 of 11 to 20 dB could be achieved and no specific construction related mitigation required. Since the noise attenuation of a building falls about 12 dB with open windows, the noise study recommends that all units along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue be equipped with adequate ventilation with installation of air conditioning units with a summer switch for fresh air intake. Since this is a small and compact site, staff recommends that the Noise Analysis recommendation be extended to include the special A/C units for all units so that all residents would benefit from keeping the windows closed. Condition 10.1 of Resolution No. 4065 is included to require that all units are provided with A/C units and a fresh air intake option. Tenant Relocation Plan The existing 60 apartment units are currently rented at market rate, and the residents are on a month-to-month lease. The project is privately financed and no public funds are involved that would trigger relocation pursuant to state law. The applicant has submitted a Tenant Leasing and Relocation Plan. The plan indicates that a minimum 120 -day notice will be provided prior to vacation of the property, tenants would be on a month-to-month lease basis, and the last month's rent would be waived, which should provide the tenants with adequate time and monetary incentives to relocate. P11h1ir AlntirP A public notice for the availability of the draft mitigated declaration and the time, date, and location of the public hearings for the proposal was published in the Tustin News on August 2, 2007. Property owners within 300 feet of the site and tenants requested to be notified were notified of the hearing by mail. Public hearing signs were also posted on the site, and a notice was posted at City Hall on August 2, 2007. During the public review period, several property owners on Cloverbrook expressed their concern regarding the height and proximity of the proposed structures. In addition, staff received three emailed comments submitted to City Council (Attachment D — Submitted Public Comments). A shade and shadow study and a cross section of the proposed structures in relation to adjacent properties will be provided for pubic review at the Planning Commission meeting. Construction Phasing The applicant is proposing four phases for construction of the project (Attachment C - Phasing Plan). Phase 1 would include the model buildings (9 units) and the recreation center and the subsequent phases are proposed as follows: Phase 1 11 units along Mitchell Avenue Phase 2 20 units Phase 3 20 units Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 OWNER: SUNCAL- BROWNING LLC CIO SOUTHWIND REALTY GROUP LLC 18301 VON KARMAN AVENUE, SUITE 710 IRVINE, CA 92612 ATTN: JIM MAGSTADT APPLICANT: KAREN SULLY THE SULLY GROUP INC. 161 FASHION LANE, SUITE 116 TU STI N, CA 92780 LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUESTS: 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR 15-25 DU/ACRE)) EXISTING: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) PROPOSED: MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ITEM #4 A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ARTICLE 6 OF CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 14, CHAPTER 3. 1. ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) ZONING DISTRICT TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH 77 CONDOMINIUM UNITS; Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 2 of 14 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE THE 4.1 -ACRE SITE (NET AREA) INTO A 77 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT; 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 TO CONSTRUCT STRUCTURES OVER 20 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT; AND, 4. DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 FOR APPROVAL OF BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4064 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as adequate for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 for development of the proposed 77 residential condominium unit project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4065 approving Conditional Use Permit 06-024 for constructing buildings over 20 feet in height within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and Design Review 06-020 for the architectural/site design and amenities of the proposed condominium project. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4066 recommending that the City Council adopt the MND for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 and approve Tentative Tract Map 17096 for the purpose of subdividing and developing a 4.1 -acre (net) site with 77 residential condominium units. BACKGROUND The proposed site includes a 60 -unit apartment complex known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 60 units on the existing 4.9 acre (gross) site that includes 0.82 acres to be dedicated to the City for street rights-of:way along. Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue. The applicant has requested a zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to redevelop the site with condominium units (Attachment B - Submitted Plans). All existing units on the site are proposed to be demolished. To redevelop the site with 77 condominium units, a zone change, tentative tract map, conditional use permit, and a design review application need to be approved for subdivision of the land, the proposed increase in density, building structures over 20 feet, and approval of the site amenities and building designs (Attachment C - August 28, 2007, Planning Commission Report). Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 3 of 14 The project site is bounded by single family residential uses (R-1) on the south and west, Duplex residential zoning (R-2) and a condominium project (R-3) on the north, and single family residential and a mobile home park on the east. The site is zoned Suburban Residential (R-4) and designated by the General Plan as High Density Residential (HDR) which provide for the development of residential condominiums (Attachment A - Location Map). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REQUESTED: To summarize, the Planning Commission is requested to consider and act upon the following issues: 1. Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract_ Mao 17096 The Planning Commission is the recommending body to the Tustin City Council regarding any zone change and tract map proposal in the City. If the Planning Commission believes that the mitigated negative declaration is sufficient and that the project's design and density is appropriate (as conditioned or modified by the Planning Commission), the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zone change and tentative tract map. The Planning Commission may also recommend that the City Council deny proposed Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096. 2. Conditional Use Permit 06-024 The City Code limits the height of structures proposed adjacent to R-1 properties to 20 feet unless the project receives approval of a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. Staff has worked with the developer to provide a lower project height (32 feet) and additional setback (10 feet) adjacent to adjoining R-1 properties. However, the conditional use permit approval, modification or denial of the project is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission must consider the following findings in their deliberation (more specifically articulated in the attached Resolution No. 4065): • That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin. 3. Design Review 06-024 The design review application for consideration of the architecture, and the buildings and site design is a discretionary request and the Planning Commission may approve, deny or request additional revisions to the project design as deemed Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 4 of 14 appropriate. The Planning Commission must consider the following findings in their deliberation (more specifically articulated in the attached Resolution No. 4065): • That the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 7. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. 8. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Proposed signage. 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. DISCUSSION On August 28, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing. Eleven residents of the neighboring properties spoke in opposition of the project and two of tenants at the site expressed their concern about relocation. In addition, a petition with 94 signatures opposing the project and a letter from a current resident of Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments were submitted. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the September 11, 2007, meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant and staff to prepare responses to the noted concerns. Developer Comments and Staff Review At the August 28, 2007, meeting, the developer presented the project and referred to the design elements that were incorporated to make the project fit into the neighborhoods such as the reduced height at the perimeter and the streetscape. - In addition, the developer submitted a chronology of their community outreach efforts and stated that they are willing to work with the adjacent homeowners to sensitively replace the fencing Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 5 of 14 between the properties with a block wall with their choice of any additional landscaping, wall improvements, etc. to soften the view of the proposed structures from their backyards. The developer requested modifications some of which have been addressed and a new finding related to the CEQA resolution that was included in the attached Resolutions. The developer also noted a conflict between findings E and H of Resolution No. 4065. Finding H was erroneously included and has been removed; therefore, finding E is consistent with the proposed Condition 1.8. In addition, the developer expressed concern with staffs recommended Condition 1.8 of Resolution No. 4065 that a 15 foot setback be required along Browning Avenue. The following discussion is included to clarify the purpose of the condition in light of the project's review process that has been used to refine the current project (Attachment B — Submitted Plans and Attachment D — Browning Elevation): Submittal Date Submitted Staffs Major Concerns First 12/21/2006 Staff requested additional information for the need to modify the zoning and requested maintaining the rear yard setback of 25 feet consistent with current code requirements of R-4 development. The developer emphasized the economic feasibility of the project with the proposed units as the minimum threshold for redevelopment of the site and referred to the general plan land use designation of the site for high density development. Second 317107 The developer provided 15 foot setback to the porch posts on Mitchell Avenue and added the canopy entries to the Browning elevation with minimal alteration to side yard architecture which included 1 foot vertical building plane change and minimal offsets. Third 4/24/07 Staff requested a consistent setback and street orientation on Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue to contribute to a safer and more livable project for the future residents and requested more architectural articulation (i.e., more than one foot change of plane) on the project elevations. The developer resubmitted with minimal revisions to the side elevations on Browning Avenue. After this submittal staff agreed to proceed with the project as submitted and to recommend conditions as deemed necessary to mitigate the project impacts. Fourth 6/27/07 Staff deemed the application complete and noted that a mitigated negative declaration would be prepared with staff recommending to the Planning Commission mitigation measures and conditions to include provisions for a 15 foot setback along Browning Avenue, redesign of street facades emphasizing the individuality of each unit (i.e., additional vertical and horizontal off -sets, pop -outs, fascia Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 6 of 14 moldings, etc.), and general architectural/site improvements for a livable and attractive community setting a high-guality precedent for future in -fill development in the City. The developer was k*rmed that these recommendations may consequently result in smaller units or a reduction in the number of units. It was not intended that the units move closer to the westerly property line. The developer's resubmittal modified the side architecture with additional balconies and extended porches on Browning Avenue that resulted in slightly better street elevation but further encroached into the Browning Avenue setback (7 feet to the porch post) and also reduced the street landscaped areas. Staff agreed to schedule the project for hearings with a condition recommending a 15 feet setback on Browning Avenue. As noted in Staffs Response Item 3, this recommendation was based on the proposed project without compromising any of the other proposed setbacks. Public Comments Presented on or before August 28, 2007 The following is a general list of issues expressed by the speakers and staffs responses: Issue Raised Staffs Response 1. Increased density (zone change): 1. The proposed density of 18.7 du/acre is consistent with the Concerns were raised as to the basis of current Tustin General Plan land use designation (High Density supporting a zone change to allow Residential) that allows up to 25 du/acre. The Zone Change is a additional units. Several residents discretionary request that requires the Planning Commission expressed strong opposition to the zone recommend approval or denial of the project The City Counci is change for the proposed additional units the final decision maker for the zone change. The proposed density indicating that there is no public benefit is consistent with several of the general plan and the goals and associated with the project (e.g... policies of the Land Use Element and the Housing Element that, in affordable units, parkland, etc.) and that summary, encourage construction of new housing for ownership, the project would have a negative impact development of housing in proximity to services and employment on the community. centers, and promote additional dwelling units to meet Tustin's regional share of housing needs. 2. Proposed height of 32 feet for end units: 2. The project is designed with 32 foot tall structures at the Several residents adjacent to the project perimeter of the site adjacent to residential uses. The current R-4 site opposed construction of 32 feet high zoning allows a maximum height of 1 story or 20 feet within 150 feet structures within 10 feet of their common and up to 35 feet for the remainder of the site. The maximum property lines. allowable height for the adjacent R-1 properties is 30 feet, which is a development standard typically applied to additions and new home construction. Since a similar building height is available to the single family homeowners for future additions, the proposed height may be considered compatible with the neighboring development standards. This is a discretionary request and the Planning Commission may approve, deny or request additional revisions to the pro design as deemed appropriate. Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 7 of 14 3. Proposed side yard setback from 3. The following are development standards of the current R-4 westerly properties: zoning: While few residents abutting the project on • Maximum height — 2 stories or 35 feet the west opposed the proposed 10 foot • Front yard setback — 20 feet (along Mitchell Ave.) setback from the westerly property line, • Rear yard setback — 25 feet (along Pinebrook properties) one person noted that the buildings should a Side yard setback — 5 feet (along Cloverbrook properties) be set back according to the current • Lot area per family — 3,000 square feet standards. It was also noted by the The developer is proposing 32 feet tall buildings (average) 10 feet resident that the developer could later along the westerly property line which is 5 feet more than the reduce the proposed side yard setback to minimum allowable setback. But in keeping with the overall scale of 5 feet at this location. the project. Furthermore, under the current zoning the abutting R-1 properties could someday be improved with additions up to 30 feet tall 5 feet from the same property line without any discretionary review by the Planning Commission. Staff has recommended a condition of approval to require a 15 foot building setback along Browning Avenue. This recommendation was based on the proposed project and assumed that the developer could not be allowed to later reduce the setback to the code minimum standard of 5 feet. This condition has been revised to clearly state the requirement. A 5 foot setback (current standard) at that location would not be desirable or supported by City staff. It should be assumed that if the zoning to R-3 is granted and this project is not constructed, the R-3 development standards would be applicable to future projects at this location. 4. Timing of entitlement: 4. Twenty -bur months is the standard approval time for tentative Two residents requested that City approval trace maps and consistent with previous map approvals. The expire after 12 months so that construction conditional use permit period is shorter. The applicant indicated that is completed within a year and the the project would be constructed within 12-15 months. adjacent homeowners do not experience prolonged construction periods that may be experienced with possible delays as a result of the current housing market. 5. Required dedkatims along Mitchell 5. The right-of-ways are currently under public use through an Avenue and Browning Ave.: easement. All development within the City is subject to dedication Statements were made questioning the of right-of-way, if necessary, in fee titre. This project is subject to the City's interest in the dedication same requirement. requirements along the adjacent right-of- ways. 6. Compatible development (mass and 6. The project is designed with limited stucco (a prominent feature archftectural style): in the surrounding neighborhood) and includes added features from In addition to the concerns related to what the developer's architect has referred to as coastal massing and proximity of the structures to architecture of the "Hamptons." The proposed architecture would the neighboring homes, one resident noted provide diversity to the neighborhood. Condition 6.4 of Resolution that the Cape Code architecture is not No. 4065 was added to require the project to utilize compatible compatible with the ne' hborhood. colors and architectural articulation with the neighboring rorties. 7. Site access is being reduced to one 7. The proposed site layout and access meet the City and Orange driveway access to the project. County Fire Authority's requirements for emergency access. The Several speakers noted that there are City's Traffic Engineer indicated that from a traffic safety three access points to the existing ers five, one access to the adjacent roadway system is better Planning Comm _,sion Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 8 of 14 apartments and -.development of the site than three due to a reduction in conflicting vehicular movements, with only one access from Browning even if it creates delays to traffic exiting the project. Also, the Avenue is not adequate for emergency proposed access is further north of the school crosswalk than the purposes and would impact traffic flow on present driveway on Browning, which reduces potential conflicts Browning Avenue. with school children in the crosswalk. 8. On -street parking impacts: 8. No on -street parking will be eliminated on Mitchell Avenue. An Several speakers noted that the existing estimated 4 or 5 parking spaces on Browning Avenue may be street parking on Mitchell Avenue and removed as needed for sight distance to allow safe access from the Browning Avenue is heavily used and any project. The actual count will be determined during design. The proposal to remo 4e these parking spaces project would provide 5 spaces more than the required on-site would impact adjacent residential guest parking in addition to providing two garage spaces per unit. In neighborhoods. addition, since two of the driveways are no longer used, more on - street parking opportunity on Mitchell Avenue may be available. The existing parking condition on Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue may be related to other residential units and not directly related to the proposed project. Currently, parking on Mitchell Avenue is not permitted from 2:00 AM to 6:00 AM. 9. Property values: 9. The negative (or positive) impact to property values is not A local Realtor noted that the proposed supported by sufficient studies and documentation. project would have a negative impact on the property values of the neighboring Properties 10. Privacy impacts: 10. The project is designed with limited windows on westerly Adjacent homeowners to the west of the property lines. The applicant has proposed to use opaque glass for project site expressed concerns regarding the loft windows which are the tallest windows (Condition 6.5 of the windows facing onto their properties. Resolution No. 4065). This added feature would minimize any negative privacy impacts to adjacent properties. It again should be noted that the current zoning allows the adjacent R-1 properties to add 30 foot tall improvements to within 5 feet of this same property line without any restriction on the type of window glass used. 11. School pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 11. There is existing school related congestion on Browning at Several speakers indicated that a number Nelson School related to parent drop -oft and pick-ups. Pinebrook of students walk to the adjacent school and and Sandfield are presently impacted by vehicular traffic without the additional vehicular traffic on Browning project, as well as Browning. However, the proposed project is so would jeopardize their safety. Two close to the school that project generated school children are speakers noted current delays on anticipated to walk, resulting in a negligible amount of parent drop - Browning Avenue due to crossing guards offs from the project. and parents making illegal u-tums on Traffic from the project is anticipated to travel directly to and from Pinebrook. Walnut and Mitchell, with negligible turns, if any, into the school. It is not anticipated that project vehicles use Pinebrook or Sandfield during school opening or closing. The traffic study estimates 17 southbound vehicles from the project on Browning during the AM peak hour, with approximately 9 trips occurring during the AM school drop-off period. The City's Traffic Engineer concurs with these estimates. In fact, these estimates are based on the assumption that 95% of project traffic will travel to and from Walnut, which is the worst case scenario for considering the traffic impact to school traffic. Many morning commuters from the project will take Mitchell to Red Hill, thereby reducing impacts from the project at the school site. Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 9 of 14 12. Displacing rental and affordable units: 12. The project is not located within a redevelopment project area Two tenants stated that a portion of the where 15 percent of the total number of units would be required to existing apartment complex is currently be affordable. While the City is not required to meet RHNA occupied by seniors on fixed income that assigned affordable housing numbers on every project proposed in are concemed about relocation since the City, the City has accomplished the following in creating affordable rental housing may not be affordable housing. The projects listed here are those that have a readily available in the area. long tern agreement with either the City or its Redevelopment Agency. Project Affordable Total Unlb Perra;nt Unib Unlb affordable Tustin Field 1 78 376 20.7% Tustin Field 11 40 189 21.2% Columbus Grove 42 465 9.0% Columbus Squae 266 1,075 24.7% Arbor Walk 10 63 15.9% Heritage Place Seniors 54 54 100% Tustin Legacy Community Partners (future projects) 453 2,105 21.5% Ambrose Lane 8 38 21% Tustin Grove 21 145 15% Tobi 972 4,510 21.55% Notes: '240 units are set aside for Senior HouskV of which 153 units are affordable units to seniors. The City and its Redevelopment Agency and other state and federal agencies have provided financial assistance to many rental housing developments in Tustin that have rent restricted on age -restricted programs. Income, rent guidelines and age restrictions differ from project to project. The following are apartment complexes that offer affordable rents: Prolech&QSatfon Income L"els/Ober Restrictions Hampton Square 210 Low (up to 60% of median 16331 McFadden Ave. household income) Heritage Place 17 Very Low 1101 Sycamore 35 Low (Age restricted to 62+ or disabled) Westchester Part 150 Low (up to 60% of median 1602 Nisson Rd. household income) Tustin Gardens 99 Very Low Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 10 of 14 13. Units and parking stalls available to disabled. A speaker on behalf of the senior residents of the Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments stated that a large portion of the existing apartments are single story and amenable for persons with disabilities. It was inquired whether or not the new units be designed with accessible design features. 275 E. 60 St. (Age restricted to 62+ or disabled) Tustin Royale 16 Very Low 12662 Bryan (Age restricted to 62+ or disabled) Flanders Pant 8 Very Low 15520 Tustin Village Way 24 Low (no income or rent restrictions) Tustin Terrace 20 17432 - 42 Mitchell (Age restricted to 62+ or disabled) Rancho Alisal 13800 Parts Center Lane 69 Affordable units Rancho Maderas 13408 Heritage Way 54 Affordable units With respect to the potential displaced 60 residents, the displacement could be absorbed with the current rental units within the City (the City's current vacancy rate is 2.71 percent). With respect to the City's housing balance, the City's percentage for owner -occupied housing versus renter -occupied housing was 40 percent and 60 percent, respectively. Accordingly, Goal No. 3 and Policy 3.1 of the Housing Element encourage ownership housing to ensure reasonable balance of rental and owner -occupied housing. Based on current data, the City's percentage for owner -occupied housing was raised to 49.6 percent and the rental occupancy lowered to 50.4 percent. In comparison, the County's ownership to rental ratio is 60140, which is 10 percent higher ownership than City's current ratio. With respect to seniors' housing opportunities, it should be noted that the following are senior housing projects (project based senior apartments only): • Tustin Gardens 100 units (100 percent affordable rental) • Heritage Place 54 units (100 percent affordable rental) • Lennar (Legacy) 240 unit (153 units are affordable ownership) Total 394 units 13. The project would need to adhere to Title 24 and California Building Code Standards related to disabled parking, access and adaptable units. Ten percent of the units would need to provide ground level bedroom and bathroom facilities that meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Two disabled parking stalls would be provided within the proposed project. Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 11 of 14 14. Construction related impacts: 14. The applicant would be required to adhere to the City's Adjacent residents expressed their construction noise standards at all times (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. concern related to possible traffic, noise Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday). All and air quality impacts related to project staging and material storage would be done entirely on-site. In construction. addition, a construction Management Plan would be required to address safety issues such as regulating construction access to the site during children arrival and departure from the nearby school. Construction operation would also be required to comply with Air Quality Management District (AQMD) regulations for dust control on-site and maintenance of the roadways through street sweeping on a regular basis. 15. CEQA requirements: 15. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted traffic One speaker noted that the traffic and study and concurs that the submitted traffic study and the traffic parking impacts are not adequately analysis associated with the mitigated negative declaration is addressed in the mitigated negative adequate and recommends that the Planning Commission concur. declaration (i.e., the report only analyzes the impacts of the additional proposed units vs. the 77 total proposed units since 60 units currently exist on the site), and the issue needs further analysis to meet CEQA requirements. 16. School Access — No left tum from 16. The parent drop-off/pick-up area is in front of Nelson School Browning to school site: within the school site. It is designed for one-way traffrc to enter from Browning on the south and exit onto Browning from the north. Left turns are allowed from southbound Browning into the southerly entrance. However, since most children from the project are anticipated to walk, vehicles from the proposed project are not expected to be a factor. 17. Landscaping and fencing along the 17. The developer has proposed a line of 24 -inch and 36- inch box westerly property line: trees along the westerly property line with breaks where private Adjacent residents inquired on the type of patios occur. There are 6 private patios approximately 20 feet in fencing and landscaping proposed along width along the west side that will be privately used and maintained the westerly property line. by the adjacent units. Condition 3.2 (J)(7) of Resolution No. 4066 and 7.4 of Resolution No. 4065 require installation of all on-site landscaping by the developer and maintenance and replacement of the screening trees by the future homeowners association as needed. The developer is also required to coordinate with the adjacent residents in installation of a 6'-8' decorative block wall along the westerly and southerly property lines. The wall is conditioned to be constructed as a two sided split -face (or approved equal) within the condominium property in its entirety including its footing (Conditions 7.3 and 7.4 of Resolution No. 4065). In addition to the public concems noted above, the Planning Commission requested additional information on the following items: Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 12 of 14 • Asked how many similar location exists within the City where an R-3 property is located adjacent to R-1 with a 10 foot setback; and, • Safety and security measures with respect to landscaping and lighting of the site. R-3 Zoned Properties Adiacent to R-1 There are currently at least 20 zoning districts with an R-3 zoning designation that abut Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning including a variety of older apartment units and several parcels within Old Town Tustin that are adjacent to the First Street commercial zoning areas. Attachment E includes the location of these properties on the City's zoning map and detailed information on these locations. A photo exhibit will be presented to the Planning Commission at the September 11, 2007, meeting. Most of the multiple family developments listed are older apartments and that are typically one and two stories. In addition to R-3 zoning areas, there are many areas within the City where R-1 districts abut commercial as well as other residential zoning districts. The required setbacks and maximum height standards from various zoning adjacent to R-1 are included in the following summary for reference. Zoning Development Standard R-1 adjacent to R-1 side yard — 5 feet near yard — 5 feet (1000 sq -ft open space required within the hack yard) height — 30 feet R-1 adjacent to R-2 side yard — 5 feet rear yard —10 feet height — 35 feet R-1 adjacent to R-3 side yard — 5 feet rear yard —10 fleet height — 20 feet high within i 50' of PL and 35 feet beyond R-1 adjacent to R4 side yard — 5 feet Rear yard — 25 feet height — 20 feet high within 150' of PL and 35 feet beyond R-1 adjacent to PD side yard —15 feet rear yard —15 feet height - 20 feet high within 150' of PL and 35 feet beyond R-1 adjacent to Pr side yard — 5 feet rear yard — 5 feet (one story)10 feet (two story) height — 35 feet R-1 adjacent to G1 side yard —10 feet rear yard — 5 feet height — 35 feet The proposed height increase requires a conditional use permit, which is a discretionary request that the Planning Commission may: a) approve as submitted, b) deny and require compliance with the current standard of 20 feet within 150 feet, or c) request additional revisions to the project design as deemed appropriate. To approve the Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 13 of 14 conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must make findings as articulated in the attached Resolution No. 4065. Safety Measures The developer is required to improve the adjacent roadway up to current public street standards in terms of lighting. Conditions 4.4 of Resolution No. 4065 would require the developer to design and construct a street light on a "Marbelite" pole served by underground conduit at the project entrance on Browning Avenue and upgrade the street lights on Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue to meet the Residential Collector Street and Secondary Arterial Highway requirements. In addition, on-site lighting would need to meet one foot candle minimum for streets and parking areas. Additional pathway lighting would be required for pedestrian areas. The applicant is also required to install landscaping with consideration of safety and police surveillance. Condition 12.2 states this requirement and the Police Department would review landscape plans as necessary. All required on-site lighting will be directed to the site and not at adjacent properties. Additional Public Comments On September 4, 2007, staff met with several homeowners that requested a site visit for the purpose of viewing the spatial relationship of the proposed development to their properties. The residents submitted a letter and two photographs of street view with 32 feet high balloons in the background. On September 5, 2007, several homeowners submitted additional letters. The letters submitted at the August 28, Planning Commission meeting, and the newly submitted letters and photographs are attached hereto as Attachment F. Staff will also present photographs taken at the September 4, 2007 meeting from the resident's backyards at the Planning Commission meeting. Environmental Analysis A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4064). The attached Initial Study discusses potential impact categories and appropriate mitigation measures. Any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and mitigation measures have been included as conditions of approval. The draft mitigated negative declaration was made available for public review from August 3, 2007, to August 22, 2007. Public comments received during the public review period and staffs comments were provided on August 28, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting. lee, Minoo Ashabi Elizabeth A. Binsack Associate Planner Community Development Director Planning Commission Report September 11, 2007 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096, CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 14 of 14 Attachments: A. Location Map B. Submitted Plans C. August 28, 2007, Planning Commission Report (without attachments) D. Browning Avenue Elevations (1" submittal and final submittal) E. Zoning Map Excerpt and List of R-3 Properties F. Submitted Letters and Photographs G. Resolution No. 4064 and Exhibit A (Mitigated Negative Declaration) H. Resolution No. 4065 and Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 06-024, Design Review 06-020) I. Resolution No. 4066 and Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map 17096) S:CAd\pCREPMT120071TTM 17096 (Hampton Vitlage)-oontlnued.doe SUPPLEMENTAL GRAPHICS AERIAL - CONTEXT AERIAL - CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN INSPIRATIONAL IMAGERY C•1 SITE PLAN C•2 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN F-1 FIRE MASTER PLAN SL -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN T-1 WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN A-1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A-2 UNIT PLAN -ONE A-3 UNIT PLAN - TWO A-4 UNIT PLAN - THREE A•5.1 UNIT PLAN -FOUR A-3.2 UNIT PLAN - FOUR A A-6 I UNIT PLAN • FIVE A A-8.2 UNIT PLAN - FIVE S A-6.3 UNIT PLAN - FIVE C A-7 BUILDING TYPE 'A" - COMPOSITE PLAN A-8 BUILDING TYPE "A" - CHARACTER ELEVATION A-9 BUILDING TYPE '&" - COMPOSITE PLAN A-10 BUILDING TYPE'B" - COMPOSITE PLAN A-11 BUILDING TYPE'S" - CHARACTER ELEVATION A-12 BUILDING TYPE 'C' - COMPOSITE PLAN A-13 BUILDING TYPE 'C' - CHARACTER ELEVATION A-14 POOL BUILDING A.15 STREET SCENES A•16 COLOR ELEVATIONS - ENTRY A•17 COLOR ELEVATIONS - BROWNING AVENUE A-18 COLOR ELEVATIONS - MITCHELL AVENUE A•19 PERSPECTIVE VIEW - MITCHELL AND BROWNING CORNER A-20 PERSPECTIVE VIEW -COURTYARD A-21 PERSPECTIVE VIEW - HAMPTON VILLAGE ENTRANCE L-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 ENTRY LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT PLAN L-3 GARDEN COURTYARD ENLARGEMENT PLAN L-4 POOL ENLARGEMENT PIAN L -S MITCHELL AVENUE STREETSCAPE ENLARGEMENT PLAN L-6 NORTHWEST PROPERTY PRIVATE ENLARGEMENT PLAN L•7 ENTRY DRIVE PERSPECTIVE L-8 ELEVATIONS L-9 ELEVATIONS L-10 ELEVATION ENLARGMENT L•11 TREE SURVEY APPENDIX A - BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBIT APPENDIX B - CONSTRUCTION PHASING EXHIBIT SunCal - Browning, LLC AMIL KTGV GROUP,— Via. ■ HUNSAKE0. &ASSOCIATES KTGY NO. 20060092. DD 08.21.07 .oi: R4s :i x+'s ;aS$` saeo >G•`eRF's'es ,a; 5. {'d c mi°{"a.a R',.41 rbii+n Ilk +.: ;e .:.,.,.>. .., «r.ll, .T .v 49f •M rs"4 5 0 C 5 5 G C 5 5 c C 5 4 M,-.. 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 1;! i 4 4_--_� 3 2 2 2 2 t' 'ei 3 3 3 3 3 J << 4 4 1 Z ,Fc 3 3 3 3 3 W R-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4 1 3 4 T- 2 Ma Lo a IoaCJr as.� !� 2 2 2 2 2 U Mn� L" OPO I SPACE ae� Y� � 1 ' • • 1 " .. 4 ' • Anr..bnPn FiOE YARD f,F-'*RA..}( 10 a CORNER LOT' LIJE. ` .... ...- .. .•J'ti . vs...-. . . 5'a' P1TET1,001 LUT LII•lE �_ MINMIIM1t t Cf rWF:A f4ii \AJtT MIPp.UM FROIIT TAD SETBAOc 4 r.11PYPMM. HEAR YAgD SEf6tCR 10 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 PFDUGAPAOEE 15a 120WJf1 mii e( 4 . TOTAL CIEN Tq 44 _ [ 0 5 S B C 5 5 �'` C b _, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS r \ . . ... ..... L._.tL 14�.LLQ._.-.-.1L-��-_��-lJ._Li.�Y-:�i�-.�1JL- .. 1•. Ilxu.��J��� 11l � MAAE.rtA161JILOfJO YEKNT JB P�36'T WEYJHTED AVE.10.' P ETC I[lHT '•,� Mn 4W Loa IM'ACE caE. REFER tc sem* c 1 ...... _...... ......... ...... �, �, hONV.RAd ^PEN SPADE R'3. T:: ,Jf-FT (: I I,mnsl.+rA+LCI APEA PEP t1rNt 2 3J0 GO. IT MIlJNRM 5IOE YAARDRO 1 C MINMlH1 la OE :•[1EYP t O w. CORNER LOT LNE. �tt 1tr,d INTEPo(lR SRL �Ir-E. ti - MInIMIM REAR YARI}t,FTRAcx 1a i BROWNING AVENUE PAPv x PnovoED -ACE. 5u 1z aubtt, s(r nrurNraA+ (rEN wF N PARKF4(i x P'f4LMT. _.. .1r '9, Y IDI •L 101,i[:iaVlNTI w�U Q (g U 0 30 120 ?: 15 60 .J M1L.fmta twF Ft FYAT1f41 t'.PP Architectural Site Plan pA '.'1 0' 011 NI V: 11xt11J�f i Pr I:JIIfRr• . .. i!;1 t)1: iI" Hampton village 00 ll. _pfI A-i SunCal - Browning, LLC Tustin California KTGY GROUP KTGY NO. 20060092 00 • •I•+ U Tl ra Floor NET ARFA ANALYSIS 548 SF NET ,THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, +1'2 OF STAIR AREA, AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION. NOTES *WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOW NHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC ( KTGY NO. 20060042.00 2 BR+LOFT / 2 BA 1,803 SF GROSS 1,637 SF NET 0 4 18 fi [l 2 e Unit Pfans Hampton Village Tustin, Cafi f ornia -I 20'-10' i _. Root Below Kitchen 1 Garage Lau. N, .� t._ L Jlr'_ y Loft v' _ fl. _ Great �s Room -- z Master Bedroom -"�. _ Bed 2 o anv r - Entry l Patio *ra Floor Second Floor First Floor 634 SF GROSS 813 SF GROSS 356 SF GROSS 548 SF NET 766 SF NET 323 SF NET Plan One 2 BR+LOFT / 2 BA 1,803 SF GROSS 1,637 SF NET 0 4 18 fi [l 2 e Unit Pfans Hampton Village Tustin, Cafi f ornia -I *ra Floor NET AREA ANALYSIS 544 SF NET ,THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, OF STAIR AREA, AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION. NOTES *WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS `BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOWNHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V. 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC I.. KTGY NO. 20060092 00 T�ra Floor 634 SF GROSS 544 SF NET 0 t Second Floor 853 SF GROSS 804 SF NET Plan Two 3BR/3.5BA 1,863 SF GROSS 1,690 SF NET 0 4 1B [l L1 z e Unit Pfans Hampton Village Tustin California I First Floor 376 SF GROSS 342 SF NET T�ira Floor NET AREA ANALYSIS 538 SF NET *THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, ki OF STAIR AREA, AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION NOTES 'WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. *EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOWNHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20060092 00 T�ira Floor 645 SF GROSS 538 SF NET 2r0"__ .I w -m rr_. - porn 2 Kitchen � rr Di `I /' Room -14 4 A Living Room 111 Balcony b a a Second Floor 948 SF GROSS 888 SF NET Plan Tbree (End Unit) 3BR/3BA 1,997 SF GROSS 1,798 SF NET 0 4 1s 2 s Unit Plans Hampton Village Tustin, California N 22'-a _ y Patio First Ffoor 406 SF GROSS 372 SF NET / b 4 flx,i,��f inn fill n,(�., 11:1 tlf� i� 01 off 11; h rtfN muffs A-4 KTGY GROUP, NW Game Room NET AREA ANALYSIS 334 SF NET 'THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, va OF STAIR AREA, AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION. NOTES *WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS "OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOWNHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC I KTGY NO. 20080092.00 Game Room 361 SF GROSS 334 SF NET 22`a ti 0 dse Chimney N b.,trn Viet B81COny b a Second Floor 990 SF GROSS 939 SF NET Plan Four "A' (End Unit) 2 BR+RETREAT/ 2.5 BA 1,631 SF GROSS 1,706 SF NET 04 16 U 2 e Unit Plans Hampton Viffage Tustin, Cali f ornia -I L Chimney b v Patio 0 0 0 First Floor 480 SF GROSS 433 SF NET U.9 '1 Or . ua rn n; r -IP o: NxiIJJ,l i,1, ti17.ip UI; on 16 ria rtr� r•7,•s •t- A -5.I KTGY GROUP, Game Room NET AREA ANALYSIS 334 SF NET *THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, "2 OF STAIR AREA. AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION NOTES 'WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS *BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS •OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOW NHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20080092 00 r 22`Cr - r Roof Below Game Room I a x, n 7 a Roof Below Game Room 381 SF GROSS 334 SF NET r 22'-0' r -1._.YA IC y M b Kite uI . Great Room �I Secona Floor 990 SF GROSS 939 SF NET Ptan Four "B" (Interior Unit) 2 BR+RETREAT/ 2.5 BA 1,831 SF GROSS 1,708 SF NET 0 4 18 2 8 Unit Plans Hampton Viffage Tustin, California _I r 22'-0' r tV o Garage ♦ b n Patio First Floor 480 SF GROSS 433 SF NET UA !1 X •yx it lJtf ittt Itrlx,N' .. il:l fN' i rr.rfrom 'f+` KTGY GROUP. iiif xoMl �6�i ccm �t�a , w�rf tsswa Game Room NET AREA ANALYSIS 270 SF NET 'THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, Y2 OF STAIR AREA, AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION. NOTES `WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION - REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. *EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS *BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOW NHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20060092 00 22'_0' 22 -Cr / 2z a i Roof Below Bed 2 , Bedo 3 Garage b ath ,tau. ;� Genre Room M Beth - 1— Kitchen \ a1c ony Dining IEr1iry do 1r Bedroom m I I Roof Below i s ` �. _ fl � j :: Great - Room - ry { -- f 1 - Game Room second Floor First Floor 294 SF GROSS 1,044 SF GROSS 730 SF GROSS 270 SF NET 984 SF NET 691 SF NET Plan Five "A" (End Unit - Bldg. t} 3BRf2.5BA 2,068 SF GROSS 1,945 SF NET 0 4 18 ❑ fl Unit Plansq ' `r7 no in n` 'If 07 Hampton Village nn IV iu, Tustin, California PIAN N rr r' ' f - #ft KTGY GROUP.— A -6.i Game Room NET AREA ANALYSIS 270 SF NET 'THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, Y2 OF STAIR AREA, AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION. NOTES 'WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOW NHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC I. KTGY NO. 20060092 00 22'-a Roof Below Game Room 1, V,1Ya Roof Below f .27-0" - Game Room seconb Floor 294 SF GROSS 1,044 SF GROSS 270 SF NET 984 SF NET Pfan Five W (Ena Unit - Bfks. 2 &I 3BR/2.5BA 2,068 SF GROSS 1,945 SF NET [ J 0 4 18 ❑ 2 8 Unit Plans Hampton Village Tustin, California I �. 2Z -a UflA X ,�- an ri, iar PL LN V;1 '11' A -6a KTGY' GROUP, Garage N N - Pvvdr�,'11 1 1� Kitchen -_ II au Lr • Dining e e411 1- a�j"�� try II I lel M � Great Room e dery i� I • �S1 ri •, t First Floor 730 SF GROSS 691 SF NET UflA X ,�- an ri, iar PL LN V;1 '11' A -6a KTGY' GROUP, Game Room NET AREA ANALYSIS 270 SF NET 'THICKNESS OF EXTERIOR WALLS, 'Y2 OF STAIR AREA, AND CHASES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE NET AREA CALCULATION. NOTES 'WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION - REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS "OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOWNHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V. 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20060092 DO / 23-0' / \ Roof Below o m of o im1/y v o^ Game Room ti tlw �:-b alse Chimney Roof Below 230' \ Game Room Second Floor 294 SF GROSS 1,044 SF GROSS 270 SF NET 964 SF NET Plan Five "C" (End Unit - Bt os. 64 7� & 8) 3BR/2.5BA 2.068 SF GROSS 1,945 SF NET 0 4 1a C] I l 2 a Unit Plans Hampton Village Tustin California I ro v Chimney 23 Cr n. Garage 6imney First Floor 730 SF GROSS 691 SF NET . 08 _1 0; :fxiilJrliui I�11xR�• .... 03 IN r Ile M it iir P1_ n V;I f.. ,. A-6.3 KTGY GROUP, T(jira F6r NOTES *WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. "EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOW NHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20080092 00 f \ Second Floor 0 B 32 mmmmm C 4 16 Building TNpe "A" - Composite Plan Hampton village Tustin, California "1 First Floor H 0 UY �1 tl ur—ry o; r � "I lir, fill rl� urs I f „ A-7 KTGY GROUP, Left Elevation SunCal - Browning, LLC l..� KTGY NO. 20080092 00 Rear Elevation Color Group 2 SCHEMEI SCHEME2 SCHEME) SCHEME4 SCHEME '�I ISI �I �I ISI IPI Front Elevation 0 a 32 n 4 15 Building TNpe "A" - CW racter Elevation Hampton Village Tustin, California I Arc�jitecturaf F(eme►ttS +. Preca+t.Ent" SUM44H6 �c'j RAIa»+r -_- Painted PilvrCe.W frim =1,1 -Not Uvrl- i com", iti n SHinple liar( `_ I Painted CmPosite Trellis :+- Painanx) Q>tnpMic Ruilinq �rj 7>o01ratity Prepat.Q C:,r{Vl -' PaintedC:fanftwie.`' tter I Paintr)Wardtacia �+s }_,'qr+crGemenf c>'diry� uj ixorratit-e iron,,, ,�taJle F&T-Cunt � a"'".4c siiim S I Sectional Ga.a¢. lknr 'S',. Brif.4 Ve-Wer LW LjJ �l IAI Right Elevation Architectural Style Description the tnsditionat coasW charm of the Hamptons is represented to the homes at Hampton Village through the elegant mupficity of [wilding firm and architectural detail. facades adomed with painted siding arc cinnplemented In colors inspired by the pictures rye coastal villa" of the North NO, Steep roofs, gabled dormers• Nick chimneys and pedimented door surrounds are some of the key features that further define the architectural theme of Hampton Villages r�111J:fi,U I11!„pe• 11:1 01: f :' :•fl Illi 011 All KTGY GROUP, WNR 11.p .I 122'-a N 6 second Floor NOTES : *WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. "EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOW NHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 `CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC I KTGY NO. 20060092 00 i o B 32 F F 4 15 Buitaing TNpe "B" - Composite Pian Hampton Village Tustin, Cati f ornia .I First Floor r 1 OR ,1 0, nii.IN n' of n, -n; as -W r. .. t:• :�n ins KTGY GRCNJP, NOTES 'WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. *EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. 'BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOWNHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V. 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning, LLC f KTGY NO. 20080032 00 Pfan 5 " Tl ra Floor 0 8 32 4 16 Building Tvpe "B" - Composite Plan Hampton Village Tustin, California -I ti a flxfirf�bw lillri{•• . r1J tN+ i . •n on an it; 111; A—IO jft KTGY GROUP, Elevation - D SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 200130092 00 Arc itecturaf F.(e►nents Elevation - A 0 8 32 n n a 16 Buitaing Type "B" - Character Elevation Hampton Vittage Tustin, Cati f ornia Architectural Style Description 71w traditional coaxal chart of the Hamptons is represented in the homes at Hampton Village through the elegant simplicit% of building form and architectural detail, Facades adomed with paint -d siding are complemented by coMrs inspired by the picivarsque coastal villages of the North East Steep roofs, gahled dormers, brick chimneys. and pedimented door surrounds are some of the key features that further define the architectural theme of Hampton VdI4-c. PrecAJ_ F."Ir'r SHrnntna Ralump Paintrn W rCanent 9 rim ] -Not UM - 5 Composk k,n 861 Rr4 71 PaiW4 GOHMke Trelli . .. 4_ Pairdw) Gimpaate R,41_tilinq �'cl taemratit+e Prwa.�t CSI :s PafHtra GHHlnsitr YlNtter ] Painted Wada hncia IMA.. ;. .�: _ n FcrCettteHt 111r Ciaitnq IltanM rtC llnrmrr j " ,-. Flier-Cenrent. 4linq(e 5iiliwi :�-,I ('.arage, atn I __._....,_� ff TT� F_F_ ...,.. , 's" Brick Vtlnrel Elevation - C I ED �.:. DI A 4B . _ ... LTTI 1 _r e E0 Calor Group 2 Elevation - B SCHEME t SCHEME 2 SCHEME 3 SCHEME 4 SCHEME 5 Elevation - A 0 8 32 n n a 16 Buitaing Type "B" - Character Elevation Hampton Vittage Tustin, Cati f ornia Architectural Style Description 71w traditional coaxal chart of the Hamptons is represented in the homes at Hampton Village through the elegant simplicit% of building form and architectural detail, Facades adomed with paint -d siding are complemented by coMrs inspired by the picivarsque coastal villages of the North East Steep roofs, gahled dormers, brick chimneys. and pedimented door surrounds are some of the key features that further define the architectural theme of Hampton VdI4-c. / 45-0' Third Floor NOTES 'WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS. "EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING VARIES PER ELEVATION. REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS `BALCONY SIZE AND CONFIGURATION VARIES PER ELEVATION REFER TO ELEVATION SHEETS 'OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION TOW NHOMES R-1 GARAGES U-1 'CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE V, 1 -HOUR SunCal - Browning. LLC fj KTGY NO. 20050092.00 45'-0' Second Floor 0 8 32 a 18 Budding Type "CI - Composite Plan Hampton Viffage Tustin California "I. 4a' -a First Floor nu It i1; ul 11:, lR ,, 011 ,r ,n, r!„ A -U KTGY GROUP, 11 tj Left Elevation oil 00 00 00 00 Roof Pfan SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20060092 00 K - Rear Elevation Color Group I SCHEMEI SCHEME2 SCHEMES SCHEME1 SCHEME4 T3, E Front Elevation 0 a32 t I Moog Fl 4 16 Building TNpe "Cr - c6laractey Elevation Hampton Village Tustin, California . 1� A11CWeCtUraf Eleme"tS OwX 3] Ralronr • PairrtrD Ow -cement Trin, F';J Intim _'-Not 3. compositkn Sl/hyllc Ran; I Pakeil C.MHr0*k1 TM&I Paitita) Coottsivi(c Uiliq fizi 0"ratizt Prkza,4 corfvl Paimeh Crampoon s6flei, '11 Point") wax) racia ,T P&TACtIM"t Lor "INM Ti -41 MAcurat it v lWinier 'S SMOOMI i74VdF DOW ��,i op,.14 4,44*f,t EU 11 Right Elevation Architectural Style Description The traditional coastal charm ofthe llamptons is represented In the homes at Hampton Village through the elegant simplicity ol'building form and architectural detail Facades adamed with pointed siding are complemented by colors inspired by the picturesque coastal villages of the North East, Steep roofs, gabled dormem., brick chimneys. and pechmented door surrounds are some of the kin features that further define the architectural theme of I lam" Village. 011 '21 0; our ,lt gin, A-13 KTGY GROW, SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO 20060092 00 Left Rear MI -6 Equipment PMensa , -"t Floor Pfan -MUM Front Roof Pfan 016 F7 6j 2 Pool Building Plans& Elevations Hampton Village Tustin, California ArcWctmyaf Efewnt, -jj fi6y aw"t Lj?Ki?4" emnteB rhe. cunt 'im 3� 0mrrmite S4im#k- M4 41 PaiqLx) C�FVMA� RA"'q vt"[, 4.,Cnve G6, "I -14e Rook 1011(fl.• r, kL 111.111 k FIE1 A-14 A011k, KTGY GROUP,... N OTT WCSL bueu xene MIMMU Avenue Z5LreeL bCene South west Street Scene SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20060092.00 0 16 64 nFle 32 Street Scenes Hampton Village Tustin, Cali f ornia I JA _1 Ji OR A-15 jM KTGY GROUP. M :isa Ili) issl ism I �Iii8�. i .:!!l `. will we WIN fox I M f 7- 77 l_-_1 SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO 20060092 00 Browning Avenue Elevation 0 4 16 F1 Color Efevations, Hampton Village Tustin, catifornia 0 A -r7 KTGY GROUR,-- n ❑ n f^ SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO 20060092 00 Mitchell Avenue Elevation 0 4 16 onow 2 8 Color Elevations Hampton Viffage Tustin, California El H+rmpfnn 1'ilhrRr ,-, , , 0:7-OH-Oi off-16-nrr pilrh,11 A—nur EI—afbn 11-18 KTGY GROUP,., — SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20060092 00 Perspective View of Mita of l & Browniny Corner Hampton Viffage Tustin, Cafi f ornia AM KTGY GROUP, A-19 SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20080092.00 Perspective View of Hampton Vif Page Entry Hampton Village Tustin, California KTGY GROUP, A -2I 4- A aw .. moi. M A1.. m *d AMONSOW IL aw MR w a, i �r !r � � a� rrnw �+�.�+ mow.•+s+w• � �' � �� pt ..�,,,�e,w,�»;,M�".. � rr. R .:r* i < is .� ' ir•T'! + i-�"� ` ...�.a,,.. err '.'�ei➢ii� �ewuiti rWM ...,_ _... AF.AIAT. - PflNPEPTUAL SITE PLAN RAM f! T U a TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA `�.y 25 ,o� Pinebrook Drive Houses Browning Ave View From South SunCal-Browning, LLC. Cloverbrook Drive Houses (Side of Site) I _L t`4 - TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Houses on Mitchell Ave (Front of Site) Mitchell Street View from East ® HUNSAKER 6 ASSOCIATFS OtAnrcIIWARP�np 20060092 03.06.07 SunCal-Browning, LLC. TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION PHASING KEY SITE IMPROVEMENTS MODEL COMPLEX VMPW. PHASE I PHASE 2 PHASE 3 MWO.. PHASE 4 � MODEL BUILD-OLIT/PARKING HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES iffid I I 0 tA 01T RX Sur MR I Zan n i n j 20060092 06.18.07 SI;rRf rs-- ^17m' XJ . R11 C': (Y f BROWNING AVENUE W BUILDING HEIGHT KEY n Z � 30'-9- 0'-9"32'-6"36-0- 32'-6- 36-0- Am 36'-9" W-9' J J W V i HEIGHT MEASUREMENT ILLUSTRATION JU U K v ELVA asx;a?;ydSwOR'. `.eaSeGYx'�l2 J3E' �'_.''ani�e"v >ti,�. ..ire.ri..n: BROWNING AVENUE W BUILDING HEIGHT KEY n Z � 30'-9- 0'-9"32'-6"36-0- 32'-6- 36-0- 36'-9" W-9' J J W V HEIGHT MEASUREMENT ILLUSTRATION N 0 25 100 moot TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 12.5 50 HUNSAKF.R & ASSOCIATFS ®KTGYROUP.rc. SunCal-Browning, I.L.C. ®' rr ^.'. rcn tect Gure . ann np 20060092 03.06.07 PARKING ENFORCEMENT LETTER FIRE AUTHORITY NOTES FIRE MASTER PLAN ,,s 7 rb•e�lad Un,bpaa 43.i¢+Seaim ^ Mla I xY d M GY afa[ M SOmAm aR ILL E A{[CrC H�146tl1 RC CALL eat f94Clld soEwrls a nFsra-xsn .I" MCFMOEN AVE s.' n•�actw.. WR A�.w.:. I i� r,tl 2 mmRT A� eaA Gael H E>OLD MO wore H aawrr M A,HD Ia E EaE fedEs ML uRa awe TENTATIVE TRACT 17096 "� C;H,,:,3 ,� �, M;.i.11 A.�Hrr3 ,�� U �r 11.. xYnYm YiB•K ',eF .a ama"°ar ar®H ,� S,,,EM L -auRa fp]41YI63 Ma rmAr wG,aa dMl H MwWA F M Oat �. ,� H Y wAa Ma amAaA naR Ma mExac Wea6 Mr HAMPTON VILLAGE ]0 IS ]0 00 1� .R• NNS. NMMe If6rb xahinx Fnf Plan RYID a aE AaS era Ma waMrs awl l WMMIfa Ma HXMI aLM a mlacaxa M wl a6 wI mA a1•aM w a, M arat a H[ �rlrar rmm dA alxl Ilef o® alfa �Y PROJ Tr. ae bM wnlra^nra.aM WY x.1R abrrT „ream Yoim i, r•ed x ral.x.. All �bm M1,x Wrr. Adl rlvx 111r1•rEl® sauvRr6 L WEsr a 1s wML a Mr101F0 R M aR flNl H NraEn fa saucnws ax M MwOfn wmwH fM SwRaakn sr.11X MaH MM„eaH ad pfAaRF ORA VfMT.M S.R. NO. 144907 ( IN FEET) �� t Inch =30 R ytMraaws.:��.r:,mrnb Al nl,,ma .,. ea b.e a.,.,�,.a„m.e u,,,Mx P•P•xr ax aws xo arras xo xol nwrL A nuHrE fa YF Re ; rM rxE a MH HR aas awl lar M acouw s sWr x ms a Aar® 1Wpm rlbre H•„eewa'a Ameix;u, Y.M .4. ,eu.,,aak ,xk. Mtl reVexmm �e1y,1,�e,PW^�FW.rlwMrrM,Icu,RH.mM ad„Arnr xoom e,el^1.�,Mr b. r alElM w Mo gal H IOTMIm M aSOHIx MHII M.BS EM139WLE1WYY irO61Y1 x00.M1Y,®ErPaM EXISTING EXISTING b n— me,oL rr.i•b, vllep IfY,..xn,ri AYaiYo,,, ,x.,•I, i• ar A Aam GE a1Ml E 11talAa mm W 16LNlAa MOS E a aarU•A a� M M "o eaA amrLs R(sl su a SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES VICINITY MAP ,mx ad Man xn1 aauNNe tr T.aw'.1d yr rare` eex ,imi,x. xlrrtm' b ,�,�,x,,.n x..,;,,,, _s�Lz.r,rot,I;ro,w.a,irkcoa x,a acrA <mwN:. e«o. rr. a 1ria1wls au WH A aH Hr1lTM •Amr xrane M wand 3 ruMms3am dlw.fx raa�n. wfws xE WHwx,Mmx , i SNOT A PARTNOT '. A PART , \ I � ` " '.� i I �= X11"' A� �'p'Mal kr,i.yrr^, .r xwrp M1 kr r.m Th„yYa, Vidta Ib,wvwxv i Aa iai, a .,v.t ,d n,UAd P I .d w,p W3:� 3 Mxt�a.�r a3=xr .dESam Y aAa6 a PUQO as 5 RR a l0@ea[ MLS OvwIS d taaasnR em EAa 116IELB xORCeO R M arrerAD aElate SSM aC I WSil . . •.' TIVCT \ u„rm'h mro r:elruws 1 xirc "Irs ry .oraep PA1^B 2a,i.1 f' u. ee Tk a f tM 4k �1a Wf tl W _ x z e0a10.nr 1 .. \ - I z � w.nl .d n xrxe,.m ,,W ra„k xiryaa' . +„e, a.x rt>pmark rm w mm InanN a rc,nalr rp, x•'e ,bbi., ,eIW I,q xie,xl beidY. bxuwrr,u.tiu,nx. b,tl h,ra1 f .. W� I�rF 9aYfP MIBI a Iia SM151d.NUlld 1 ' M H011m IM nae rF1 Wr H •lam At M a9a[11a a M r9FCAt OM �alXedS 91Nr HWR H'A1 MI MPYMN of M allft OOxtt fM - - � I I mm L / 1'Y I V /I ry� y N 1 L{ () 1 1 -- IY ..• I fM 1 1 R 1 - - 1 I dr[k1,s. Fieaf f9bni44Juunn 16tlF alaasAarlea awl E Sa6Ra rA WrrMm w wd A ew101 14 At W Ir10e MXF4wAEMO M IHerxIG a HXi[ YO06 SMO MILnffi ra.1 1 ■ �RRIX7,:' i 1 fs. .• rt a 1 ri .�- '♦ a 1 --+i 5 1 < r' a ,�a: / ` 1 + .1 3• LL 1: _ 1 h -i� 1 1 1 ❑ N wows 1rR alana asst awl E xsrMrm nEUPEn M nI3Ar'1 mavMa YM 1A wra ra M Marrow Lsra ,u a x ac Ms Hcm11w a M Wa ac aYMAR aM 9mIRY a IfO.am_ E HnE Eooes u H wam ra ML amxE Ims Mo aro mar aM ML COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION LETTER na�a....w.:ow W , -' a ' _ Rd1'p' y - .j• -' i .. i g (. it� I 1 MOG 1 ; .. I Mu aH. marad Mo Hl tear raaours a ac nn. n. MorRcnEa nxx 1mEw ml H•aa Mo Mfawx um . vrssx wM aernM. / 1 - - 1 / ,- p " . - re Ai ! 1 3 1 1 I- i}. m istl 1 ('� 1 1 i f •L -- 1,71 Za' 20• J' ;y,,;Y.,e urww,xr, n.r.:�, smi., NwRt.wrf Ael. n f o �wnvM w,m vyw FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES: t R6 aaNr rs x caawa Hx M ,na1m pal ac - Mo - Mo ML an a tanr aaL warm aawlas 1•A1:r sGA.o•nr in W U I 1T ¢ ". i ! t 1� xf ' 1 �1 1 1 ,•.. _ _ 1 '' ..f .,.1 )'.",. _ _ r" .. , •• __` - .. ..,.r. , 1 1 q 1 / r� _ f 1 ___ I I { .1 1 _� i -_ 1 -'-I; t r # o 3 ,• �' 1 = / C r , ' IA *. M L � �� LL 1 ; 1 ,lY W Z I 1 .lA sa%,t.(„aWiNf'urbuanl.rnvllLYA tmke RaM'. NunEw IbIM. Nin. Mr-11Ar..^.. rae,n< T. srr l,ln,..Twin x xl uR-frr s -r sarar6 awr a aaRLeO EM Mwom rwLL�511EE5 IEDawL mAa woHpamp.rpcfllSm mnlmaoe IQrs 1 rNx Tom--- ,K_a T60.MA a. mnlrmata aO AI•E VEl.6 d Sr1Qa MO lR 9wl 1EL1 ae1 Z W _ T D3 l - vNr 1 i PMC 1 x- 7 I ,.' .r. �T� j1 _ T ��11 -- I 1 1 f h - IIPAFR(M0 M+r PM(NG �-'-+. F;•rr. R _ L 1 1 1 i I Q I red Me „ak rx.ar llfFA aab rtP,la",nur pertb red vw. nn nx n .,a.a.r+wrl r,r nttlwr+i.r n.rv,r+.1w1 rs i,r.,liee rcr e. •e .xN d.rm •.11 „a Nfi O n gwnx„ m, ,f ^nr „n,. w,,,r.,,.,. , w.,iarbx•reraxr - n fR MIRR M1 HaaxR lG mAvmMs a nE mxuMr arac Hrrs ML mr, I[waulrs xDnr eGEO alE aaloM RMamd M[AAF rNe n—1 al la YaH n nR rmrcara Harm a avana Tn i W � ���_ r, 1 .L •-------- - 1 OOD L r r' r ' � ' {. ^`�-- 1 w.wax..r..,>weri�..•,,,aer,a,. i,r.,..r:. r++., r..,.+,. rrw+r _ N.' i1 n E,¢orM ac HLnirr EsmrfrvL ala ILL fM xla,llrs f10E1 as a xrM E1ee ME xwc u iz ,- � _J D= _ M -- a �L-- (=M _ , .. r 1 I c-� IrI - �-1 .Y x I ARXRp RL0052i PANfIN(1 � 1 J. _ _ ' ql, � -j � _ � ^' i ` / `� /� / J W = I U I ,,,,T,+,. m, it rAtia fimzk rbl,R Saa.w. b.Xe„f^�Ira,Wn, ViII,Y srcoo srm a wn Hsac anoH Mo aom rw Mu awl Hrw arM a aHrAlanmrrmmaalMi �oa6wd�sa mess en Y°wr t`°we'MOHrwcs H�aa qf�i s�iwi i �lro°°°°i mr"rlair�a ao HalElfMr 11 Nl Ma1RCrRM. MrgNH aE 91xNa Sr3la4 aOfPOarO rR PWIFCOI e C a ¢ [i Q ■ „}.... 1 IIIIIHHHJJII` 1 1 1 141 (1 .l1 I _ �t �' " i t T c. / 1 I NO NS NMY SaaYS arrl H ,zm1 I, 9M.R Ie<e MO rrnldm SY mA ro wG a M H DEVELOPER'S NOTE: J O raj NOT A PART 1-A' - t - 1 Alas 1 I i C1 1J _ } a<ul off .M M rrr sMcr �M raMEers nn M wavm Z : OF FIRE ACCESSFIRE 1r .•Ir - t arA fE wslm nAx fa w a Ams sacs NTSR PLAN L F BUILDIIGUMMARY: R-1 MULTI -FAMILY UNR1 (n 1 1 �I 11 t fQ g `LL 1 rAa 1 (Z FpQ ti g 211 I�r I�m aA T� -DOES NOT EXCEED 1 0.0 00 S.F. TOTAL CONSTRt1CT—TYPE V_1HR SPRINIAERED -FIFIE 00 E FLOW GPM, 20 PSI -2HOURS WITH 511% CREDIT FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE FIRE SERVICE ISOLATION VALVEeL X w-- f' 1 �t !'� �P _ _ _ ,�, srwNac+ts mM IK olrA•f IA �� CONSTAUCITON NOTES: t MneLL fa Ur[ Oxer 71x1 IR RM erlA• OrMrt ala Na EP aaAO H9l eFlw At 5. SIF1E1fD aeE O wM YEa a 011E eD3 a RT M O At 5. -seam GE -__1hJr_ I -__ 7� - EX FH� _ti _ _-- EX. FH * e - x BROWNING AVENUE HAMPTON VILLAGE -TUSTIN CONDITONS OF APPROVAL Ae" cer'•"r «tee .c..f,� >........a �w+..Y.eoY.aa. 'ebebrn wl�.b M. �w•W�e,a�br•b°+mr.rw•�wi.,°pr,. LEGEND: rxl•c mels eao re a N® sn: ®laE® Is1Er EC1a am ❑s aas ■r lRW FIRE MASTER PLAN DATA SHEET wYr•r wow,rrn AvrraE A,awA.. EYe.n �axrANaNo.rAiavxo wxE rax wralwr,c x x1.�MI� n• d.naN ,fdia f,"rs,�R 1c.xNr n na Resor xoie uaiE 3a sMEr°u° rw�rp � rus lav a�'M® mH �� 1ao w E f1O®aN,afYr IeE YRaeaR rYe rRaaa IAEma ®YAMIR Ham m we w xaw Mw s a® ® r 1aE .mam.ual racMEl Y s r-xQ xmo eE,v4r,Ew � �- �n�cNE r .2$SECTKJl•aa+n .GC aMx1 �ianA�— o,•r.za.w r,r.. splrx.reew^..+'a,lti.,rs°p'rtu�.rrr.•r• ra _ .w. tl, a.a�x.��^a.�a ocr~rwea�..,.�°.,x°..:...�,^+,ol.�al,. r.. ,e nN.a. wnulana,ea..ro. ocTA..brb. wr _. - _ tlaaoanAaYn El. _� 1aaeO1a 0f1gaaai A�STT --. aw a eoR r— Moor Hra .�yV' ' ----------- aylla 11x1 aaa0 w®r a� lealr IAARa OerA 11aAMER LHAtell W H x1a•m MM (,ga acfA aa) lmamxnrr au0 P-tl' 1o: 0r Rxli0••xN.x Atm - row — buemm~,rwY'aix^•rbjx•h�i OY4.,IY•,,•,�M^ tiOCW bx� bmrax, dY.�A. �r.�ntI3r3e�3�' Na _ �' oa 1W , x[tmx rwF wr Sm t'A. IDD zN1 emrm ,rrEvn,M t,rr to tele INe rr/m eaLC11O• ,.® zMr Maim \i ■ aE-Hrm rla ed , ENTRY SECTION wm1g1E elm+ a..o+ws�tio. �m.w fwwrr •YM.an.,.r..b braEEx•ree ,•O.EaAwa iAEY.Me •aa: n^I__ APbbr..m...a..wbe �..rxarbr^eal. s++urrab� a,M b Pa.rar b .� .a.r A, 4•+b n W. n • waw •�N r Nr,er a x a^ ct.,1 P^I _ —A0° rnrm -- ---- - tso-2 LEGEND Ra. .ss STREET SECTIONS aW0 SRar ea.1[ aEOE fra xM MEA ewvw uM a ,7HrA1a Mr Paan ra[ raz$ W a rrwc a HwRa"a1�oE wE M Haam rMrr PREMISES IDENnF1CATION: PLACEMENT OF UNIT ADDRESS NUMBERS W MY Mus aro HraM ams ala As AO oelatlmrwrYA,rr.a.r•r+b Eason, sou¢ ala nwa�il[ mat wmP Gx�� M�oaa �Ycoxa aw...Ywlaaaa. a.e.bwa..•.aarar, ww. • AwfEAa recon a MErm au E rIe d M nE• nano a u a a raMEor ar aa110 YEf/ a 1101 A f0Ea1 lre n rllelr EE[ Na �L ear M SIIeR 8 IMIf EIA 10r a tlO d rlp M aOOIY n Aaam as EIAs M NE®. • MHalp Rwl bwlMar aM Rla EdameE �aRli•AaER ar- Yea9 alLLEr MI AE waL elalw®Ma. wE nmEn iI awl E 1Aa E Y a rM[ ae1111® EM I/1a EEA w wa AO alAr 9 erases• /M A _s�®MEOIRx�`a E a Fire Lane Entrance Sign Fire Lane Sign Mounting tR pet irlElarrt AeEA -Y RaR L•Ox.ME oaa nM0 mal a HSRRm rm mnnrla a a Earuat. �rre�eo.,aaaa�.w�.a:ib'�v�a.max'� r.'b�0w, uoaf.,ra• OaA 6b~Ya�Ow,a���^� el rAra,v W� dAOM.�• �e,xAd.r.�wE,rr,o• m•1— L. M ewO awl E A �E a . IOO a 4 a rm N E>e•R AeLT1a can W raA fEa IEatp r1111aa MOalOaalO[la meE4l aaLLT�aAaaE-rO11A4AMl@a® aAYei aa1RB E rR IlalEwc ard0 Erelm, la•rR m urw.r aw Er6r r1fa: Iaaar a eaaE9a a •Pam 1•. ea aaaaE awl E xeRrur a aloerur aularm W E wtaL M PL-ACFMENT OF BUILDING IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS rx. awLU MMOM (ADDRESSES)wx,.eYtir^ar w a•O a]eaEEa !� IaE. M IdOlre AYIOR 1@aE•1N O >Q Ea1, ar�Ya IH�r g M ! awl E >m�r harm ,fs M ease -- a1A4lA aEHY�„Alla0aEO 1MIC OEaE NDPARIM ,, n �m ra aooLox W '�L u� � O ;,r r E Ear ofa a storms. a awry nA tat rMs w NA•. _ x O �afara>�E aIo6Ea[grH1A EHOEs. 3e 7 E5 pl ,a11 5 0 Qr3atL..Y ...... ally Imp �IOGRe elalI01A0a MAS IVxra NM1 EM aM xMHia xM a. c. fx.ba.rw,e. b ar••b E•o•r.,•. b+x•rwla tie x,r W.aaa.b lxeraarYA.PM.tl abYarbxbrP�YrvVrr•rase,.wwNmre TM :�.eswb°ea>w ex�e.�.r w.e.s t°'rnw �i,.as��.^0•'r�.w .. www ew „a0ar�r�wppe."„r .«nrrraW.....eAr s^. b•+Y^N.�r.Ia•.a,.,bv y+ ae. rbpr. E.rr. mrann ArnMls rr lF+r�±• •.T' aN •dYYAb E„xYxq' rm^ 1A18A A 601 aadE aMgwal L ae1111r aaE1E - EIR/Mre1E• ■aaa awl E f1,1®a a MWAIr A M � EER muRAa 81-10T 000 own[ -a x®rm Ar O w�Ylna�elr� BImEAr[ Enax Eaas. _ VDae E+Meb+r•r..b.s..awrwr•arre.rrr„ �.flYae~rr�e.�b.Yr� m,R..rMmY,erb M^riw lAa b.rxr 11.r1w ° b• .. ,..w..a ea.•e.a.es. erar`r�^°4',�,e moss �realar w assn. ruwr �1a Mo meel'0�aa un r ,�01 rrr Imm O. lona a aI E aEu a fm�x MW awl E a '"„sr•' s rc.s ra-xn Aa NEr ._. __ _..__ , rM uIE eerc aEW art E wee w'avaA: rpa rer.aeao,.aa.r•M.ar,eA.afae.A•..a ntg lrer stole Ea aE 1st xs M Aar A aor aro r MRnLI 1rE M.epA POI aA1 Mo 1m,m rr Y n.v sL OS au E a Ioa ro a.E,A aw I AO N Iwa aw eErs as Y asst a xA. L-- 10. 5<0 �^J x a• EeLL E xe sx Acv a 11a �- E111r0' 11LL EArI39 Fr. .awe 11x1 M fllal A e R wf.aA M AOIa. f. IaRR-•Ini qwr®- Arrlgp 1aa�n A MO® frL E Mia d M teal R OEIa NW®O fLLAg3Ia AL ararl Rr mY Mawrd mAla YL IOA IOlSOI IIF�ME®i� YEO x oOAa®fMOE lxbw O YII OIN fYl E L AYY a M 10a NOTE: a >QI s i IOE MM zr waO 1�1 aE RAMYIaEx�A OIWm m6wfx® M Vlfi H 5a3 Y b1.,ry a r.Y me•q. r. A,w ar M.rre, 1^ ,.11,a.rP^•^a Ar b. Mw ,l.cCaxaa.afpa.am,rYtimrb, A, .O.r�e•I,b.e•1rr0 p.urb Nabba.a.�.•us�.M,+.•. rM- _ FMYY,�w r•bw4/.P•P^Ma al��wVrYnir_,e� rV.,fgtieiaerx•bYmrrrr.r•,r Mrluem •r. rrYN R^r1,M „r affA ntnan•teso:rr,...,ar.�a.rm,r.m.,m,b. P..I PREMISES IDENTIFICATION & ADDRESSING FIRE LANE ENTRANCE SIGN RED CURBING DETAIL TYPICAL LADDER SECTION Nrs ArcAe1TCT. KTGY GROUP A.... Twaa •�®P N nPAAulR l aIY.1an.s e,o YArLc1 3N�aV >HTt,eoM 1r•'w:1••w•• I ER. 1•=• O sm fwE mslarAxr SM x5 TO1G SAN A" CAISTRA1q, G a5 anal stage Naw a•Imr rAr -- — - - ai HlsEln E N x^ Na•�^>A • n,UA�alNaS1�AIIIMKat•ErR.+&r¢I euAs- SaavSrA•OmCMIOAoTnaES M c n erawso avnorm •� MORSE RVINIMa ITE FIRE MASTER PLN TENTATIVETRACT HAMPTON VILLAGE BfiOWNING AVE. AND MITCHELL AVE., TU371N S.R. NO. 144907 ERfT -F_- 1 A —_ °"• 3/1IZOOT — --- - ---- _--..—__-._ -_ --_---__- _._-.__ -- ---- --_.---_. _. _-_-- --- --- .- - xg. oLsvurtfoN ,meg REVISION , I I �I P. - LOT y LOT B I . I GLOI'97: lo LOT f9 ! i LOT' I 7HAC7• Atl10 h•, ' \ 7it�CrO 7A 68/0 I, I >ti 71y�yy ,A J 6Ra 6llla 7RACT g1 I TRACT 6800 , 7)74LY I _ C7' 0 ^ 7RACT + : 7RAL7 \ _. 10/ }� *ek-2o "raa oKz 2e I y '�assY2e i8a ssa a, r �aa+ .-14%:� .�` �.. � x-•, i t {_._-ry ---r+a�' h _rll�AL! ,rf A1.. 5 i 1 2 t+ I I._�91 ! -a ■ -t �i ,. ,i I _ ( i /_ _ LOT ffi r.. _ i e k • I , I _� _ ,i �Z'l 6�E. w �' + p _ eBe3c8iBa C- _ _ _ ,e 5 _ 1(P # -� - ,: • ! � � r I A � � " , , � � - ---- - _.>__—I' _. � I r:. ` 1, . I �-- , � , { r _ � X11' I � I I I; I '� ' •� --, J -r - _ i r � v-"'r't�__F,,F e; � ia._. '_�elnc: •r . �I I -' � i,�• r �•^ P -11-1 `r : 0A 25'r�_- /10•_A Fr;�,I7`A E 25' i h �,. . AE ll,vs II .' C. I -)_ r p' 1 •, J4 R- - rr - } ! __ �"""�9I�-''��- -L- I -;_ „ i; - - .. :Y r-- ..._Ji3.- $ ILS I�,II 1 rtacTeBss -11 i1� i ''-- - -z -i , it i { �'ti) $,l s' - Ii f� b1 � T fr I i h)`. I �`�� --t :� - I � f� - - �}� _ _-� - � •� . 1 �_S. ,-'�h -�r �•� M N _ ' Ia-1' O..i �� I I�+ "�•,\ �` ^,.7ifAL% _.- .��- r. N f' �. Y�JI _ 9•• �' I%�.- 5 G, lot1tT I �l --F f I w li- . TRACT AM - "s .1 TT iI- t kl , .. __ N � j' -'-.:-_--- e, _ � F:.- li- t I� �•-- - +b � �� I. '.'I, � i 4 -I _- t - 5 � I „f•.;- , ---- -- ---1--_ ,�_ ow "� "� � 5 I a c I 6 ii_.. 1 � 2b• „� - -'�I 4 'li-I I ... _JI. 1 .._ --e5..± qT- 1 �-S.l: 1 3r -x 1. I i _.._... __ T - - I'. )' i r�J µ... _ _._ __ .._ ,[ _ •'1 ' ' ill I I I I i{ nloc r qI �,,,,,} � t - � ; � i •� !X { . I \ I � t �- 1 _ e I S r / � }., i I1 � �_ I F r m 17FL4CT BR33 . fn r .av __ I , � - l_ � (�-...� _ --._ •-�-._!i i r __ y-�`- _ _ - - _ l y � 8 1 G • I 1 � Y I Y._( n ♦ 1 y 1 I.I �\ I _ , - - - - - - --_ - rvr r .� aalo r r rww J J a� I I: �; •S+�_ - �s�xt>r N� rrr - aLr r wr slow sLw 1 �'' - ,...-. ,. _. _ -.�;_� ,. _ _. €� -. •_.-I--1._ .__ .A.�.�,-..-._ ... __ _ .,.�_._ _ - - . -ab - - _._ rs •r r mJ`._ �....�-.-...aa't•___-.sem-.,- i _.� + �. — i BROWN ikVENW _— H — ----7777=7_ --- - 3 „ 43L+ SCHOOL asp ss�•ai 02a 2prrD 120 4a Isa 2� ae ; 4arzorsr j43. �+M ST1�E7 SECTJOIMS PRoeECT amauRr STA76Y W Or Ow1aw" '~mis OWN NWA i.M X / 7115.30 4 IrIIW V1 14, rl. YV .t5 A1lPNPJI UV�R ueo m30salea ao. sv rrr.eq WY AN"' ORIr0[S [)EnrG Alen mon w ar (o.w r<c) rr SlFlA.r9W elo ort nr Dorn or caro ,ws .:.. �:: .. w W... LL L•..r aw. mdrwnar AVE w,reu - a> a / u.a a a nn rs M rw km n M s W. /Unff R AWA- earawwe / ae �Y !r ry ,` rew a1e1� T • o.rr ��/�� eraaemw wrm rWw-0-e1Fb a,r r N.7N 4 N,aIrcDGE p 17eA5lJ1 i� ;�` iG.�.av x11000 301300err, • pw N eaae ,aru am rencr. •�-I . _ Dawe • .. rrAr i su menr w ran taarllew Lrwlo Lr mww Al" rD9fY: ,SN P!./ec lT ou / e.17 ee) ME PNES, •eeee.•ww+ rIL wCe FlNSi]Od 4 S[CYION A -A SE1C110N Q -I naouc v�.accn a"rirnirrr waaii`ara' aaaw>a,s* Ami PWAMW BY. • rum mar wwm w. m L own ;oanwlr) (aenrrrJ aaG �� lwtwe Iht wn•wcarw'a rirrmanla awe mew cwrw QTY MAP'�� i 30,5 Ir15 w�Y10r� I.w® R. M o -___y .VL1 redY6 r` _ ... _ _. -.._ _. - - . � ,_.•.__ ,. ra e30. rwa+Leaaelrnena11oL1aL ne: Vaerylw a tAw+ LLC 18301 VON KARMAN AVENUE SUITE 710 ��e � ss.a� _ we1rw..w. �e� ara l.e. i mr.so"r,an'w c awae'w•rc5'arFr^Mw"" aA �L .a..LLw<or� r .. w<wa IRVINE. CA 92612 A A RAW PHONE:9(991)9) 751 0 -1720ogre 08/17/07 FAX756EARTHYOSOIANifE waw... ruerrr a®10• u L s0® e11wa 1.ww r w J! `./l_5 fes' •awe 90nmw SCREE! lmlfliee bom ddW M. =.cn xo (�w>7 FW !.2m GROSS , „ ♦ 95 3 CONCEPTUAL MS MS aYwa 4 w eurr� Cowl" I.MWAI _ n K U..w M! 1301 L la® ai M !1•JOeBei I1ar mB3 },e1q 1 'N' d Wr rir w• nM >oe r"aanw"°wesr`Lrw �r,.ov raa luc urea rea+wr ___.._. ___ tOSLL LOTS � � «" STA.:�.� ...,.. . ,� . roa 1. GRADING PLAN _ ww. � A ,=- ..r L .r , 30 T. T NO 17096 osEs ea.ls.�• y a -_ C rare_ x'L• ^' rr early �r,er w. r ..w Aw o ri ew.r neon ua� nm waver a1u law ea een.r. k nr mvn,e15,a1er owe-.wu a nr ,;wtaaxr ar-au,aev rr .a roan�r(rs) L Dews � a+wrrs a ae r+re:, er+w r Y w[m+ew r rorr riwty erw K .wn o w�ra ar rerwwl erwr s lroua noy� r LLV �r1ar.� e[laN M P6li �A�.1®A H rYY (>!a 14 rM MMw[S SItl1Y510P fi 14: M.O[S SWMLD Of SWfA Mr /1D 5lY .w)101,'K M R! r _ yen a P. wa SIAM QF asrcws .a5 swaw FOR C n rLL L lerta Rel ma,rtartnac eoo 9 K )'.Gf 11wCil:.rr016 KGLImS OF 01a11r[ COOQr. Orrrnew, G Ci'rMR IK c) " ww rY... r.,w w,�.. .e1 ease mwlncs»xr r>s nrr nc�nr Samar .vers wrs `7r1Q r 0-2. -vwJTjjl W C., .wak DAIr wo. 11. mor -MM swm•, oleo. _ -1I] c�a ry as F L 8818 , TRACT 66W 4407' LOT 11 01 LOT c� cl M41r llocir Aw 7 6tw 9;� iy 7RAC7 eaw 4Wi3do-01 ' - -134-26 402-342-R3 4 L - 9 Lor MAE] YI Q T -e; qi, , f a Ile I at s'w Q. t RIM, suorl IT A 9 A L'A MA -MA I%-- ! � 43 A 4 1 21 1 1. 4 1 i 1 :3.51 M L 17- It 7MACT 6 24 L------ 41'�4� I", rr — el r ----- .!nAClr 69vr L Q r - ------ --- 14 5 7 1 iL ----- - - -------= L ------ 41 iOT a. MACY` It 14 3 16- arkLl 4 4- 25'1 A� 3- T-, F ■ It -YA 2" M�'O` " . Q. r a. U PLAN 4 PLAN 4 14 16.1 7n4C7' e0W PLAN 4 PLAN I z . L T 4 To .'/c ;w-7 4 .7- AfiRdWA NG —A r— F r w 205 4SOL-M"O 432-291,V 692••-W 40K�' J.q�00#-Aq PARKM SUMMARY MMLDWG TYPE y NOTES PROJWT SUAWARY STATEMENT OF OWR*RWV STREET SECTIONS mv� OF GROSS AM' W n FTWW.Sn Twolf �y T.-- ART mxRm is7Y V nMW ROW. 0MCAMW AWk 0.0-04 A4t. A A911.11, A, 'v'. 7,r.__ _ rlra �'r5°"r mrw •—_..__— t w w�1O°ar'mrsra o�taiw arnrra rerun x rrrNA" ".*M 'fi.v D.V./M f77 M /..,j 713•Ie, LW Au 't. (AM Yom 4.1 11, .. — —.=u VWMTY MAP PREFRAiM FOR: PREPARED BY. SMM A SECFN)N A-■ - 1 11 "', - I S4 1.-r.rr 11 - - 1 3 2W 2.3 -1 1001, BRowrdM LLC Eil 18301 VON KARMAN AVENUE K IDPM SPACE MJMIIIAMY AM DATE T7 SUITE 710 _ o1x •A•ar+a » rGrT 'fiS.�se r, ,}n -I� rmAO°y �e' xr. , '°.r°®*7 ar. n.�Y4Or'a`�sa'"aDow�'a'.ar re r a1a1w. m.t'..t...tr. EAU" MY FWrAAW AMrA M AMMWCS WIM $RWNE. CA 92512 W.O. am 4.95 AC.± -1710 GRm PHONE; (949) 7561720 tm FAX: (949) 756- jIWZ6 �- SITE CONTOUR INTERVAL a TOTAL LOTS rra LEGAL 1A V.-MM SITE PLAN L A -'Z. xw oIler`�wrvu -A-" f JKAM6 96 oa. Ea wom. T. T. ■NO. 170 FOR CONDOARNM PWlP-NW 1XISTWO AMEME IMM-A)MM SEE I C-1 avw"�"�i Bill BUILDINGS DETAILS ARCHITECTURE The traditional coastal charm of the Hamptons found its way into the homes at Hampton Village through the elegant simplicity of building form and architectural detail. Facades adorned with siding are complemented by subtle colors inspired by the picturesque villages of the north eastern coast. Gabled dormers, brick chimneys, and pedimented door surrounds add to the character of this new village. 1. SunCal-Browning, LLC. LANDSCAPE A Hampton inspired landscape featuring conifers for year round green foliage and plant material selected to give a fall color display.The landscape is a series of layers designed to create a low under story of interest. Low landscape walls of brick are used to define patios along exterior streets as one may see along the Main Street of an East Hampton Village. Courtyards with fountains and fireplaces create a place for intimate gatherings and socializing. TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES C)tE Y GROUP.rrc. Arcn ectW ure . €;tan nn no 20060092 03.08.07 PAI Pod � EriefyelJrfR See Shmt L, ❑ Poo ❑ Efllwgenest N See St" L-6 LANDSCAPE LEGEND OESCRPffON SYMBOL SMANCAI MAME COMMON MASE TFIEE N— ORM Apo CORNER [•�IIrIr cvlh'a iaW Ivs rwgq�"n <aSM•a ."MY"R Ire HtO1MAM': AWNLT �� Rve q"ka eyyn Pa.. FbMv,v MLy Sar �qd {� Ner,ToeDrre Po"r" EaDnerr�. GDMDr'1 1DniPnnyM Roles CYRaa • r�lanMn z Pfru. 1 .1rorit MET Q Selenvn r�tanM, PM Poy • •.. w•w M1%m CM- SuGnCal - Browning, LLC JI rT. � N0 Oh��3d�192.00 OESCRIMON SYMBOL B TWM f*W MAN PXW f f� Par.b . eaiasepn PAT* EMW ,!CpCM� 1TMPYR• COIAPf'/ARII O P +Daae 1fdY MJ[4 D4Yc� .DYiDya 5[iwr �.J4 Ssn le' Hvan kerker�n Wua.y' ® l�gnY.wn:� Y.r�van. • wf>•enw rwawr+er fY4tyD D•i1Dcr N' b /kr�npeKt Ofro Trx� 126 (�y qli V�Ed'M fry jig Bv� c..,o• WD• 1. M• m.b• Cfpya �5 Cn E1E6CNIPEIOM B`rllBOt ernAJrxJwME f.Yr,M10NJ4111E sizE /'craEfETE reeurreene ab\yH fMlwllar" TM ]Y Sr Jasferero" cerwve lMea+ br ]i Py P— Mbke A1rgn Ry N' !e. EN SESIG �'fFEt 7TfEE - VINE 0. T Den =W/Di'WlD IW— Wfi Bwyd^Aw :� lits. 4eMww. `xrnY+`+�b'+• NoM� n.n�pD1 Vu• ;S OY - } raps • wee e.�i.y l.e. 1M1 W u m .... , TURF . , ... .. .. C 7 ���. /`�. El 7 G l) Conceptual Landscape Plan Hampton Vi[tag e Tustin, California F7 ll:, nylon tylfs¢f• ,,nR.'7 n; 06-f8-07 OH-11�-INt Cnn<�pluel Len A>�xpr rrnn ' L -t • 0KTGY GROUP, C ";IA. I❑ 71 ❑ r] 17 LEGEND O1 ACCENT TERMINUS SPECIMEN TREES 172- BOX) OLOW DECORATIVE BRICK WALL (47 HIGH) WITH BRICK PILASTERS AND SIGNAGE �3 ENTRY PLAZA • ENHANCED PAVING TO CREATE SENSE OF ARRIVAL O4 PRIVATE PATIO' Oppo,hmny fb, Tabfa. Cho- aM PoRao PWma O CITY OF TUSTIN STANDARD ADA RAMPS O STEP STONES TO UTILITY CLOSETS O7 GUEST PARKING © HANDICAP PARKING SunCapl - Browning, LLC INA NO 06 p34 �iQ2 OC1 37 4 f> EntrN Lanascar a Enlargement Pfan Hampton Village Tustin, Cati f ornia Erylh m cafhe flamyWr. L,l,ntl'. O8 -i&07 fntrT La.d—p, f:nlare--nf flan .... 1: 2 •G KTGY GROUP^ ;;. r""'b ' IJ ❑ 1-1 Table and Chairs Wood Trellis with vines Entry with Brick Paving Water Feature Fireplace 8 Sealing Area SunCal - Browning, LLC UR n 80d,VRg 92 CIO LEGEND O WOOD TRELLIS WITH VINES O SIDEWALK a3 BENCHES V PRIVATE PATIO. Opportmn y for umbrella. 4bW rhaft anR pots (9 PLANTMG POCKET ® TURFAREA O PLANTING AREA ® GUEST PARKING B� FOUNTAIN 10 FIREPLACE d SEATING AREA 11 THIGH BRICK WALL 12 CONCRETE PAVER i3 B HIGH STUCCO WAIL WITH BRICK CAP ANO VINES I♦ DRIVEWAY 15 AIR CONOFNSFR 18 7HIGH SCREEN WALL 17 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN BROWNING AVENUE 0 B 32. (�i) El 4 16 Garden CourtNara Enlargement Plan Hampton Village Tustin California Is - SECTION A -A' COURTYARD 11 n�ptan 1'fllegc 06-19-07 Crr.len Lourt_vrrd I''—� Ahler6rmrnl Vlrn •,r .,., • � KTGY GROUP,—. x 7 Table. Clain and Lkrbrdla Pislacla d**,619 Loplaetamen confertus Raga bantslas chatwee KSrucnCal 2 Brrpopwgning, LLC IM.4 NnO08�3d Ov 2 00 0 8 32( f 4 l Ei Poo( Enlargement Ptan Hampton Vi[tag e Tustin, Cati f ornia 70 LEGEND 0 TRELLIS OSIDEWALK OSPA O POOL O5 TABLES. CHAIRSAND UMBRELLAS UCHAISES O6.ORNAMENTAL IRON FENCE O PUNTING AREA O PRIVATE PATIO. OpWw" fpr Lable. Can and nMscape •AIMKTGY GROUP, r;a c :m F 0 L F7 Entry with Brick Paving Entry Trellis with Vines Private Patios SunCal - Browning, LLC K IfJRLONOd?$ g�2.00 0 a 32 Mitc6eff Avenue Streetscape Enlargement Plan Hampton Vi Hage Tustin, California FEW LEGEND O ENTRY TRELLIS WITH VINES O SIDEWALK OBRICK PILASTER OPLANTING AREA O STEPS OPLANTING POCKET O DRIVEWAY OB PRIVATE PATIO, Opportunity far table, chairs and MMMCWe OEMSTING TREE TO REMAIN Liquidamber styraciflua Mitchell Avenue 11»rnNr lilfaRxW15-07 b" JFML KTGY GROUP«o�. A 1 1�� . . �' ;1 Ll ❑ ❑ ❑ Koelreuteria bipinneta Pinus etdarica Lophostemon confertus i Prunus c. 'Kauter Vesuvius' Northwest Section KS�uGnCal -- Browning, LLC MA NO 66134 �� 00 n t3 32 ❑ 4 North west ProrertN Private Enlargement Pfan Hampton Village Tustin, Cati f ornia LEGEND Oj PRIVATE PATIO: 06-f"7 Oppo *m* far table. dart NO IaaOaeepa O FENCE WITH OATS O W -W MOH WALL WITH VINES 4O SCREENING TREES OGARDEN COURTYARD. Refer M Sheet L-9 06-f"7 L-6 • KTGY GROUP, • o ^ ` 6-5-♦ c LJ 1 ❑ a El SunCal - Browning, LLC El 4�04WII'2-00 Entry Drive Perspective Hampton Vi Hage Tustin, California El OB -18-07 013- f;:- nn F.'l-f;unv L-7 • KTGY GROUPS INC. Ul ❑ p ❑ a BROWNING AVENUE Scale: V-10%0" MITCHELL AVENUE Scale: i'=10._O. SunCal - Browning, LLC tURL, °o 82.00 Elevations Hampton Village Tustin, Cafi f ornia oe4e-o7 L-8 AFMI, KTGY GROLJPR� M� n x n NORTHWEST Scats: 1'- 10'-0' n� ALAM&K "LAM Awrw _1C �i�- F� SOUTHWEST Scats: 1'=10'-U" KS7u�nyC(.�al� -- Browning, LLC IMA N 0410 4.01 .00 Elevations Hampton Village Tustin California n OB -18-07 .. 011- III -lift L—g KTGY GROUP .. 17 Ll 7- BROWNING AVENUE —anal PbW r woe anal WS" 51.11: IWIT . � 9hMs MITCHELL AVENUE snuaswu - 3If* a"WON stick P WW son Gab S"O.: VC- a' Pd -le Petlo w l N MI . M i 3his SunCal - Browning, LLC n Elevation Enlargement Hampton Village Tustin California •aw �AMIL KTGY GROUPM.. H 11 6 o 2 w z LU a J W U F— i 7 n ____.____._.__--1-._._- 1 6- 1 1 1 BROV EXISTING TREE LEGEND: 1. Pinus canariensis Canary island Pine Trees to be remained 2. Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 3. Juniperus chinensis Hollywood Juniper Trees to be removed 4. Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 5. Schinus terebinthefolius S Ficus microcarpa Brazilian Pepper Tree Indian Laurel 7. Melaleuca quinquenervia Caleput Tree 0 20 eo (rt) 8. Cupaniopsisanacardioides Carrot Wood U o air U7 9. Podocarpus macrophyllus Yew Pine Tree Sur7JelJf 10. Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm SunCal - Browning, LLC F1 UKA066wr2.00 Hampton V i ( f a 9 e Tustin, Cati f ornia ....e _ -- — — — Project Name: Hampton Townhomes ((� C.k.kob . w P... wkv ky .raRaa.e Wlea a. dd.n poNd.d fa I eswn* n p•fao only. MpA date for Cr csbAwb . caff rd. to saion to wd rnLocation: I PsuvtlW b W (a..s.•06on. mry b. nra. for W— 06- WW r rW paala.M. It s ers i{ maporebwydifo..uoVWmwwceb—lyVW—bpAeel.r—ist lwih Com IMA i Cif. HpYw'er, adrnl lW bip rwl. W4 VWT I g on IWC wroAl" «Idd K i roan Uur.d.rrtlts, %WKaaaa. WOAW.IQ r.�M1 a�ra.,a Deer %Case cdu#tlorn m aro■Abd ID ft bwds ma d" Mile. Dw to ft abwa Mi.u..rodorrrr Stale:T•20' I; Lit' oon,kl.rafa Sout r i CaYlnm'- f m'nmion r-nrwl prrady eW wwm %" "aar r..le n tlr mah\s aur i.i.l udoa.Yan. r.e�rd+ms DBAi.410.OT I A R C H I T E C T URAL n*.$..d fWd ei qe. 9"M22- . LIGHTING &CONTROL Ds q N.,DL-1-2 j rr J T- n-- I _ _ ]n - ti 4-4 17 1.? 20 .� L:` 26 -' '; -�- is ]r,. S• Ss ). )• Ts Si br 72 1'+ le be ]. L \� )x 1, Sr )e \r !e 1a Se \s l� to 1• ]. ). ')+ \r - tr 1e T, 1• to L 1. )d )r 7 'S._...1 t....--)+ � - S � 1. 1n lr 1a 4. )s 7, 1, Sr as '. ., L L 7a u L 7. )a ], 1r •, Sn 7a In 1a 7r L L L ]a as \a lr S. L S: S, 7, ],' ). L Ts !+ i :. qS __r � �N"Ys - is 7r !n' L L �Yr ]a as Ys Ss• Ys 7r f, ]r L ]+r,\L � an L,,. 1, ], ,iyL L 5,• Yr )s )• 7, ]s •r Yls� 11 list ]d l�; L Yr S -a —I , n inl )a \, a7d L 7n, }. L e li a b E "T�a ;�•• i� Lase.a� r�. IIIA" 1p 1. L t. 1s )• ]a 'M L S. 'ir-bit--� r, i I ' I ), 7. L ), Sn )e 10 \r 5r a• la yr L 7, 1, 1 � s �-- •_.. .._-' I •.-.. , I _ 7a L Sa A, )a )+ 1n \, Ss 1r 7. \i L \, ]. �. �.. __.- - -t f ....e _ -- — — — Project Name: Hampton Townhomes ((� C.k.kob . w P... wkv ky .raRaa.e Wlea a. dd.n poNd.d fa I eswn* n p•fao only. MpA date for Cr csbAwb . caff rd. to saion to wd rnLocation: I PsuvtlW b W (a..s.•06on. mry b. nra. for W— 06- WW r rW paala.M. It s ers i{ maporebwydifo..uoVWmwwceb—lyVW—bpAeel.r—ist lwih Com IMA i Cif. HpYw'er, adrnl lW bip rwl. W4 VWT I g on IWC wroAl" «Idd K i roan Uur.d.rrtlts, %WKaaaa. WOAW.IQ r.�M1 a�ra.,a Deer %Case cdu#tlorn m aro■Abd ID ft bwds ma d" Mile. Dw to ft abwa Mi.u..rodorrrr Stale:T•20' I; Lit' oon,kl.rafa Sout r i CaYlnm'- f m'nmion r-nrwl prrady eW wwm %" "aar r..le n tlr mah\s aur i.i.l udoa.Yan. r.e�rd+ms DBAi.410.OT I A R C H I T E C T URAL n*.$..d fWd ei qe. 9"M22- . LIGHTING &CONTROL Ds q N.,DL-1-2 Z il��, 4 2 �■ Q:Q Q Q ,a..;. w LLJ am mom 4 �1-1531 3 �ra p© Q © 2`,rI© �tx! © K e e a Q- =Y 2 .�, BROWNING LEGEND = = = = Path of Travel - Waste Disposal Truck Trash Container Recycling Container PARKING SUMMARY PARHM1V(S STALLS REQURED 1Ta . PiRHd�:11A11$PRfN�[lLi] �.[� ♦PARTC GTPU4 p- LLE T"4DFOR At.l 1 StMAGE Jfl COLL£RIOIJ DAY �.. BU1t fD Cl,q BlPLd110 TYPE SunCal - Browning, LLC KTGY NO. 20080092 00 0 30 120 15 60 Narrative A Waste Management Plan has been developed which minimizes waste disposal trucks backing up into private streets. Currently all units have designated space in garages to store two City approved trash and recycling containers (individual carts). On the day of trash collection, residents will move their trash and recycling containers to an area directly adjacent to their garage doors. An employee of the homeowners association will move the trash and recycling containers to designated trash collection points located in designated guest parking stalls on the center private street. These stalls will be marked and designated as trash collection points during the trash collection pickup time periods. These stalls will also be posted with a tow away sign for violation during the posted collection times. Waste disposal trucks will then empty all trash and recycling containers from the center private street and will not have to back into private drive aisles. Upon collection, the homeowner's employee will move the containers back to the individual areas adjacent to each owner's garage. These guest parking stalls will only be impacted for several hours during periods of minimum guest parking usage and during such time additional guest parking is available along both Mitchell and Browning Avenue. Waste Management Plan Hampton Village Tustin, California 1 -1277-1 l'•;["�W;^Nf.l.^71.•:'L�CI.'Sb'.f�I�:aJ� Y 3 Tradi & RecrX[e Container Staging Detail 0 10 40 5 20 (111 IN II' flll 1f Ibi T -i KTGY GROUP, Aor 2A. I GOT L Lorr 14 Lor 2Q -1-ocrr 2w ii i ; � ! i c 7R4 TRUT M4Cr a4V LOT -t ;j 77U--oCTr Lo i k nu T fsV 7X4Cr 0W rRACT O� It . i I : , ( `4�W- - 4W-tU2-20 IL 1 1 4112,104 ro 499�042 481-61V-24 Co... 4IM-842-M 652 pe APO t-�& X0.^i A A -L 4—w-0 0� , U LOT MAC. r £ �� to .,f„a Lo AVI Ail 14 , "Al m JA �4 IJ A + LVI IL tJi'I3J' ) L4 F At OY 4; kk n, 4 LJ4� LOT J, 777AL .- 1 a-ry JIL L l4, �2 13 t -4'1 �Ll -Fou 'T . ...•. M-7., 94 -Mr, -2� MAG -T I ------ i:� N, 4,V FT -1 RIFIL A. 4 ,: + 2.5 A IAL �A 7 4 V - J1- V� Sw. Mayr �r le 11-.AICT"W4 K�. 7 BROWP&d AVENUE Au:solv -e- A -R- Qj S04001 - STREET SECT10M8 LEGEND NOTES PROJECT SLIMIRURY STATEMENT OF OWRI90W IIIROW AREA 2-5--Lv st I r.[x9r �.. t —� , — — � ARM ITT.rascc_ ninm 11.0.W. WWrAMWAWX- iA09MM. AW t *1C L n41 J.W > d 2> NU1- A' "Ip Tr - ACT arms".. w X,- SECMIN A PREPARM FW. BY. VICNWTY AW SUNICAL.- Mwowmma LLC 7z— 18301 YONirt KARWAN10 AVENUE 1 su7 WINE CA 92612 PHONE: (949) 756-1710 '4k DAfL FAX. (949) 756-1720 cm ummm MR= &Kift bm 2"wo DEMTION FROM! CITY STANDARDS 3 _-- .1i...1.�I.N. —.111.1 W.O. — - �..50 5 (nr� ~T) reYAW SITE GROSS AWA_. --- CONTOUR INTERVAL via Z:!�� I I FOIAL LOTS TENTATIVE TRACT Z. w LEGAAL &W.M.PwIfum APPROJMUTE RAW 1 MAP NO. 7096 EARTHW%= QUANT11VIES cur, 3.m M fx�- A -M FOR CONDOANKM PURPOSES ATTACHMENT C NOVEMBER 6, 20073 CITY COUNCIL REPORT Submitted Public Comments & Planning Commission Minutes Submitted Letters Name Residence Address Letter Addressed to: Rick & Stephanie Satterlee 14302 Cloverbrook City Council & Planning Commission Danny & Elaine Wasserman 14271 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Kay and Jack Shafer 14352 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Wayne & Pam Poucher 2062 Sandfield Planning Commission Thelma Hatfield 1881 Mitchell #80 Planning Commission Jim & Julie Herron 14292 Cloverbrook City Council & Planning Commission Virginia MacLean 1941 Roanke Planning Commission Ronald & Joy Crawford 14321 Fembrook City Council & Planning Commission Victor & Victoria Khuu 14372 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Ron & Solange Brattus 14391 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Peter & Polly Martin 2102 Sandfield Planning Commission Timothy P. Zierer 14451 Silverbrook Planning Commission Jeff & Dianna Rountree 14301 Fernbrook Planning Commission Jurgen & Julie Knuth 14311 Fernbrook Planning Commission Tom & Monique Edwards 14272 Cloverbrook City Council & Planning Commission Carl & Becky Schaefer 14422 Pinebrook Planning Commission Scott & Kathlene Resley 1892 Sandwood Planning Commission Norma Miller 14342 Cloverbrook Planning Commission John & Kimberly Keelin 2072 Sandfield Planning Commission Darin & Stephanie Wilcox 14432 Cloverbrook City Council Conner Lauderdale 14492 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Eileen Campbell 14322 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Franklin Chvatal 14422 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Betty Kohl 14421 Cloverbook Planning Commission Mr. & Mrs. Pedro Gonzalez 14385 Pinebrook Planning Commission Bob & Mary Fontana 14391 Pinebrook Planning Commission Ms. Maxine Tier 14262 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Carrie & William Weeks 14392 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Mr. & Mrs. Zollwegs 14291 Cloverbrook Planning Commission Martha Feliciano 14262 Fernbrook Planning Commission Robert Watzl 14331 Fembrook City Council & Planning Commission PEOPLE OPPSED TO: Tentative Tract Map 17096, Zone Change 06-002, Design Review 06-020, and Conditional Use Permit 06-024 TJANE ADDRESS �A PEOPLE OPAED TO: Tentative Tract Map 17096 Zone Change 06-002, Design Review 06-020, and Conditional Use Permit 06-024 NAME ADDRE S S ' � o�.h�v � e ��c�j O \ �2 ✓ t�� rod1� l c,,`S'�- � r1 -'I./? V A -4 ��AD_iiill o20!Tr7_ cat r i4, WeAs 1¢34t2 Cloyer.6 roo L `Dr. M 17096 Zone PEOPLE OPPSED TO: Tentative Tract Map Change 06-0022 Design Review 06-020, and Conditional Use Permit 06-024 NAME A C-"� TIA ►-.7 tx h t " rQk 14 9-<:� 1 ADDRESS =Z r "r 0 a"00 I < ttRo SC A 22 r 171a Cj A P/ I f �l r :3-U Ll _ Is pis ` 3 L "ID K Vw4 bR . T �n1 14 -780 My01 u —tip, 2 0 y // n e hrvo Dr� s 4 9,279-0 7 �0 ,.. --;I, / �/- :i�c— �--f 4r4o�S-7�rlocd rZ) QY75t7r4 lyo �O PEOPLE OPPOSED TO: Tentative Tract Map 17096, Zone Change 06-002, Design Review 06-020, and Conditional Use Permit 06-024 NAME ADDRESS 1. PEOPLE OPWED TO: Tentative - Tract* Map 17096, Zone. Change � e 06-002 Desi Review 06-0209, and Conditional 'Use Permit 06-024 NAME ADDRESS /.eel V-00" oiyl WAV (i� I A. ..l !f..M.� ' 1% 1 . NET olollwff M. AAA • i i i � v 3 PEOPLE OPPSED TO: Tentative Tract Map 170969 Zone Change 06-002, Design Review 06-020, and Conditional Use Permit 06-024 NAME ADDRESS �;z T fd PEOPLE OPPOSED TO: Tentative Tract Map 17096, Zone Design Review 06-020, and Conditional Use Change 06 002, Dgn Permit 06-024 NAME ADDRESS 01fe 0 September 8, 2007 Dear City Stam, Tustin Planning Commission and City Council This letter addresses proposed Zone Change 06-002 for Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 Zone Change from suburban residential (R4) to multiple family residential (R3) to allow for additional density. This zone change is unnecessary and should not be permitted. It reduces the current set back requirements. The rezoning will not improve an older neighborhood, instead it replaces a community of neighbors some who have resided and rented there for over 20 years and damages an existing harmonious social community and damages the general welfare, property values, health and safety of the neighboring communities. Conditional Use Permit— to allow for decrease in 150 foot setback requirement because the site is immediately adjacent to an R1 single family development. Per Ordinance No. 862 a CUP is required when a project on an R-4 or R-3 is proposed that exceeds one story and or twenty feet within 150 feet of the R-1 zone. This ordinance was passed unanimously at the December 21 ", 1981 Planning Commission specifically (as stated in the recommendation from the Community Development Department) to "intent of requiring all multiple unit developments to meet the same standards for review and action by the Planning Agency as currently required for PD, condominium projects" The Planning Agency found and determined in the Resolution # 2005, 1 ( c) that the height restrictions in the Zoning Code do not adequately protect the character of neighboring single story, single family districts and therefore should be amended with the Ordinance No. 862. Furthermore, Code section 9291(c) states that the Planning Commission determines whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare for the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or general welfare of the City. City Ordinance No. 862 was established specifically to protect the R1 zones from encroachments of massive structures which loom over the single family residential life style. Approval of the proposed CUP will set a precedence across the entire city which will allow for 35 "structures to be erected in areas zoned R A, E-4 or R-1. Homeowners in Tustin who enjoy large lots will now be at risk of having Large Massive Structures built within S feet of their property lines. We purchased our home in Tustin and in this neighborhood because if afforded us the lifestyle that our family preferred, one in which our children could play in our backyard, we could enjoy the sunshine and fresh air all year round. The proposed development will harm this lifestyle and compromise our comfort, general welfare and moral belief in how our family chooses to live. We bought our property with the intention of making it a HOME — one in which we could bring up our children, pay our bills and have enough time to go to church, contribute to our neighborhood and our community. Please consider that an approval of this project threatens our choice of home — we don't have the opportunity to purchase a similar home in Tustin — we are on fixed income and the prices are too high, as are the property taxes should we have to move because we no longer have privacy, sun, fresh air, peace of mind or the enjoyment of living the single family residential lifestyle. Design Review — (per code section 9272) The reason the city requires Design review is a) to protect the increasing value, standards and importance of land, (b) to retain and strengthen the unity and order of the visual community and, (c) to ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are harmonious with the .highest standards of improvements in the surrounding area and total community. A Design Review approval may only be granted if the following findings are made: "tthM d rrr art' , , , , � . . t1rr sor • rrlit iii. In making such findings, the Director shall consider the following: Height bulk and area of buildings Setbacks and site planning Exterior materials and colors Type and pitch of roofs Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings Towers, chimneys, roof structures, etc. Landscaping, parking area design, traffic Location, height and standards of exterior illumination Location & appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure Location of refuse storage Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to the existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood Proposed signing Development guidelines On the contrary, this project's design impairs the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole. Please review comments above under CUP heading. The height and bulk of the buildings do not conform with the surrounding community; the setbacks are inadequate and are in direct conflict with ordinance 862. Mitigated Negative Declaration — the Initial Study and proposed mitigations are inadequate. Aesthetics The MND confirms that the project changes the visual character of the area from one- story apartments to three story loft structures. This increase in mass and scale is not mitigated purely by the statement in the report that the 1960's building appears dated! (These buildings were built in the 1970's) The proposed project has significant aesthetic consequences it blocks the sun and those neighbor immediately adjacent to the project loose view of the blue sky. Being able to see sky is valuable, it give a sense of freedom and peacefulness. Cultural Resources If one believes that having a cohesive, stable neighborhood then this project clearly has a significant impact on the cultural resource of neighbors living together in harmony for over 20years. Land Use Planning The project does have a significant impact on Land Use planning that is why the project requires a zone change and CUP. Population and Housing The project takes affordable senior living rental stock out of the market and in its place unaffordable condo living for families in area already lacking in school, parking and public transportation. Public Services Please provide the adequate police/fire response time and the current police response time. If the current response times are not adequate this project will only exacerbate an existing problem. Global Warming In CEQA review and General Planning across the state Global Warming recent legal case decisions have stated that appropriate land use planning requires that the Local Agency review project in conjunction with Nationwide efforts to reduce Global Warming. This project has not been reviewed for its impact on Global Warming and prior to approval of the MND a review must be conducted to conform with State and Federal requirements. In the developers proposal it was referenced many times that our R-1 community could build up to 30' in height. This is not necessarily true because we must conform to the visual unity of our single story neighborhood. We have neighbors that have made improvements to their homes and in doing so they could not add anything on that would appear to be a 2nd story from the front view of their home. Our neighbors Elaine and Danny Wassenaar recently remodeled their home and were told by the City that they could not have a design that would appear to have a 2nd story from the street. Yet the proposed development will most definitely be seen from the front view of our homes. It has a proposed height that is more than 2 times the height of our single level homes, with a proposed set back of 10'. This does not make sense. How can City Staff recommend a project that does not conform to the visual unity of the surrounding neighborhood, according to the General Plan? Thank you for hearing our concerns. Please deny the zone change, conditional use permit and design review. Sincerely, Richard & Stephanie Satterlee Jim & Julie Herron Jack & Kay Shafer PLANNING COMMISSION TALKING POINTS 8/28/2007 -Agenda Item 7 —Public Hearing David Levy & Olive Levy Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments Residents 14331 Browning Avenue, #24 Tustin, CA 92780 1.)The proposed project will result in eliminating .60 units of de facto "affordable" housing (especially given current rents, which are consistent with the quality of the housing). This is housing that is affordable to a range of lower income residents. The proposed replacement housing will be affordable to few if any of the current residents of thero erty. How much rental housing is Tustin approving to meet its P P Housing Element goals for lower income residents? Has it factored in the loss from this project and other similar projects already approved or proposed around the city? Will any of the units in this project be required to be, affordable at 50% of area median income? Or even at 80%? The developer is asking to get the benefit of up - zoning and exceeding height restrictions without providing any apparent public benefit. The project is praised for increasing "the percentage of ownership. housing consistent with Goal 3 of the City's Housing Element," however, how is that balanced, if at all,* with the City's Housing Element obligation to provide housing opportunities for all segments of its population? 2.) Under Impact XII c), the analysis states no impact regarding the displacement of "substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?" This is obviously not correct. For the reasons previously expressed, many people will be displaced and will require replacement housing; housing that will have to be created because equivalent housing at similar rents is Page 1 not readily available. I wonder, can City planning staff even provide the number of the individuals, currently occupying the 60 units, who will need to seek replacement housing if this project is allowed to proceed as proposed? 3.)The multi-level type of construction for the proposed units will be housing not readily useable, if at all, for people with mobility disabilities. The current housing is accessible and modifiable for use by persons with mobility disabilities. In fact, some units are currently occupied by people who, because of mobility limitations, would not be able to occupy the multi-storey type of proposed replacement housing. Will these units even be built with accessible -design features? I suspect not! Has the city analyzed the impact of the loss of this type of "accessible" housing stock and what effect it will have on its Housing Element responsibilities to plan for housing for all segments of the population including those with special needs, especially persons with disabilities and the frail elderly? 4.) There is an increase of 28% in the number of dwelling units on only 84% of the land area now used. This density is achieved at the expense of neighboring single- family property owners, who will now have three-storey structures looming over them. Neighbors to the south and west will experience substantial reductions in sunlight, possible noise intrusion and possible loss of privacy. What about this project is so beneficial to the area and the city that it justifies granting this variance? 5.)The impact analysis does not discuss the number of bedrooms in the project, only the number of units. With a per unit bedroom average above 2, perhaps 2.5, the parking requirement, at 2 garage spaces per unit plus an additional 26 open spaces, is quite likely inadequate. In order to afford these units the purchasing households will likely have more than an average of two working adults. Factor in older relatives Page 2 and under -20 drivers with their own cars and the result is the property will be seriously under -parked. Given the already entirely inadequate parking situation for residences along Mitchell, ' this project will just exacerbate the parking problem. Have City Planning staff or Planning Commission members visited this neighborhood hborhood in the evening hours to see the severity of the current parking problem? The lack of adequate on-site parking and the projects elimination of on - street parking along the Browning frontage will only add to an already severe problem As for the claimed 11 on -street spaces on Mitchell, where are they? And if they do exist, what is the likelihood that they will be available to residents of the project? 6. Inexplicably, the traffic analysis assumes 95% of the project -generated traffic will utilize the southerly portion of Browning from Sandfeld Place to Walnut. Actually, it is likely that a good percentage of project traffic will travel the northerly segment to Mitchell, and on to Nisson, as it travels to and from the 1-5 freeway. Was a survey of the current residents' travel patterns performed to support or revise this assumption? Also, the traffic analysis finds no significant impact during the time when children are arriving at and departing from the elementary school. Given the projects concentration of all ingress and egress at a driveway opposite Sandfield Place (far different from the 3 driveways currently used) it seems likely that there will P in fact be impacts with project -generated vehicles turning (both left and right), out of and into the property, potentially coming into conflict with the school related traffic. 7. The analysis justifies the project in part on the basis of aesthetics. The statement is made that the current complex $$appears dated," and therefore the new project will "enhance the visual characteristics of the area." Was a survey of area residents Page 3 conducted to determine if they find Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments aesthetically unpleasing or an eyesore that needs redevelopment to enhance the area? 8.) The analysis concludes that long-term the project will not have a significant impact on air quality (this undoubtedly helps explain Southern California's "wonderful, unimpacted" air quality). However, what about the short-term impacts of construction related diesel soot and dust (not to mention noise) on neighboring residents and the children at the elementary school? The developer is not even required to try and mitigate these more manageable impacts. Ma 6r 9. The credulity of the "No Significant Impact" analysis for this project is perhaps. well demonstrated through a metaphor; the. story of the frog and the pot of hot water. If placed in an already hot pot, the frog has the good sense to immediately jump out. However, if placed in a cold pot, that is slowly warmed, the frog will remain until cooked. My point is this: I'm sure the earlier project approvals for the conversion of apartments to condominiums. west of this project along Mitchell also received "Negative Declarations" regarding their impact, yet it's quite clear the cumulative impacts of those approvals and many others about the city has had a substantial impact. Traffic, parking, and noise impacts have not been insignificant when taken as a whole, yet each- individual project supposedly had "no impact". The finding under Impact XVII b) that this project has no considerable cumulative impact when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects or other current projects rings hollow. Page 4 J ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, 9/11/2007 - Aaenda Item 4 — Public Hearin David Levy & Olive Levy Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments Residents 14331 Browning Avenue, #24 Tustin, CA 92780 1.) The staff response defending the project's increased density with the rationale that High Density Residential allows 25 du/acre and the project is "only" 18.7 du/acre is misleading. While 25 du/acre may be allowed, other development constraints probably dictate that they will not be 2 and 3 -bedroom units as is the case with this project. The developer has shoe -horned as many units as they can on to this site; and to do so have had to seek a Conditional Use Permit to build to 3 storeys. 2.) The analysis that purports to show no impact on housing affordability and that the "displaced 60 residents [can be] .. absorbed with the current rental units within the City" is flawed. Accepting their vacancy rate of 2.71 %, it would take a pool of 2,214 units to provide 60 vacant units. Their inventory lists only 702 rental "affordable units", with the affordability level of some being undefined. It is also likely that the vacancy rate for the inventoried affordable units is substantially less than 2.71%, given that affordable housing invariably has waiting lists of tenants seeking to move in just as soon as a unit becomes free, and the current residents are reluctant to move and lose the affordable rent. The other inventory of affordable units, totaling 972, does not identify at what level of median area income they are affordable, and it fails to distinguish between units for sale and rental units. Page 1 3.) The staff response fails to justify the questionable assumption that 95% of the project generated traffic will only travel Browning between Walnut and the access drive. There is no explanation as to why this assumption is believed to be valid. 4.) The list of sites zoned R-3 adjacent to R-1 zoning (Attachment E) does not appear to get at the issue of concern raised by the commission. The inquiry was intended to assess whether other similar development has occurred in the City. While the table does demonstrate that there is only limited multi-storey, and virtually no 3 - storey development on R-3 adjacent to R-1, it is incomplete because it fails to give the setbacks that exist on these adjacent uses. Page 2 September 4, 2007 Commissioner Puckett, Please refer to page 9141 of the Tustin City Code (enclosed) With all due respect, we know that this developer is not always direct or forthcoming with his information. Have you thoroughly checked out his development pro -forma to make certain that it is necessary to award him all of the concessions and incentives he is requesting? We also know that he has paid far less for the property than he told us, so the economic feasibility of his pro -forma may need some review. The project as designed is too high, too dense and too intrusive for the surrounding area. Re -zoning would not be necessary for a more suitable project that would conform to your general plan for the city (see pages enclosed) Re -development should be beneficial to everyone in this area, and respect the rights of long time citizens and taxpayers. We need lower buildings with a respectable setback from our property lines to make this workable to all concerned. Sincerely, Jim and Julie Herron 14292 Cloverbrook Dr. Ti TSTIN CITY CODE INCENTIVES—AFFORDABLE HOUSING PART 4 APPLICATION ANI -'HOUSING INCENTIVES 9141 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW 9141~ (a) An applicant proposing a housing development pursuant to this Chapter, may submit a preliminary application prior to the submittal of any formal request for approval of a permit for a housing development. Applicants are encouraged to schedule a pre -application conference with the director to discuss and identify potential application issues. No charge will be required for the pre -application conference. A preliminary application shall include the following information: (1) A request for dens i� ty bbonus by specifying the code section of which the density bonus 7 shall be awarded. . j. (2) A description of the proposed housing development including the total number of units, target units by income category, and density bonus units bedroom mix. (3) The zoning and general plan designations and assessors parcel number(s) of the project site. (4) The location of the target units within the housing development. (5) The number of additional housingunits requested as the density bonus for the housing development. (6) A vicinity map and preliminary site, floor, and elevation plans, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveway, and parking layout. (7) A description of any requested concession(s) or incentive(s), waiver, and/or modified parking standards. If a density bonus is requested for a land donation, the application shall show the location of the land to be dedicated and provide evidence that each of the conditions included in subsection 9121(b) can be met. If an additional density bonus or concession or incentive is requested for a child care facility, the application shall show.' A conc � the location and square footage of the child care facility and provide evidence that each of the conditions in subsection 9121(c) can be met. (8) Ades p an description of development standards requested to be waived or reduced and an Y explanation of why they are needed. In requesting a waiver or reduction of develop-_: a licant shall rovlde substantial facts in the form of a me nt standards, the pp �— et development pro -forma that the waiver or modification is necessary to make the tar1.— , - units and other units in the housing development economicallfeasible. At a' mum, he development pro- orma shall include information id ent' capital a j eqitig uity investment, debt service, discount rate, revenues, vacancy allowance, oiler expo es, net income or net operating income, p re -tax cash flow, after-tax cash flow, and return on investment. that a housing incentive agreement is Cr (9) The applicant shall acknowled a in wri ' a _ required. REV: 1-2007 LU -1-12 PART 7 GENERAL REGULATIONS 1 Gib'.. 1 vl 1T (1) The City Council finds that poor quality in the exterior design, development and maintenance of structures, landscaping and general appearance affects the desirability of the neighborhood and the community as a whole, and impairs the benefits of both potential and existing occupancy of other properties to the detriment of the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare. (2) The City Council further finds that quality evaluations are necessary to fully accomplish, the purpose of regulations designed to control such matters, since such regulations cannot both allow reasonable latitude for diversity and originality of design and still be specific enough to control all the aspects of the different uses that can adversely affect the community. (3) The Community Development Department is hereby established to accomplish the above objectives and shall have the following responsibilities: (a) To provide for the review of building design, site planning and site development in order to protect the increasing value, standards and importance of land and development in the City due to the urbanization of Orange County. (b) To retain and strengthen the unity and order of the visual community. (c) To ensure that new uses and structures enhance their sites and are harmonious with the highest standards of improvements in the surrounding area and total community. (4) In carrying out the functions of design review, consultant services may be utilized as budgeted by the City Council. (Ord. No. 587, Sec. 2) b Scope of Jurisdiction Prior to the issuance of any building permit, including new structures or major exterior alteration or enlargement of existing structures, building to be relocated, and signs to be constructed or modified, the Community Development Director shall approve the site plan, elevations and landscaping for such development. (Ord. No. 587, Sec. 2) to _ CHILIrwo y` so 10 Inn 131 1 1 MAN im f_--- --- . of�ff c Asider the following items: t the not tea, thol nrac@- -- n, ale. In ma ing such findings, the Director shall (1) Height, bulk and area of buildings. (2) Setbacks and site planning. (3) Exterior materials and colors. !d1 Tun- „-R :--h of rnnfs (5) Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. (6) Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennas. (7) Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. (8) Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. (10) Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. (11) Location and method of refuse storage. W/WO07 PART 7 GENERAL KEU U LA' 11 UN 5 Page 1 of 14 (12) Phvcir_al roz-1ationship of pr000sPd of '--- ._ mYiGtinQ structures in the (13) Ap earance and Ae' _ ructures an ures in a neighborhood and puGlic t oroug ares. Proposed signing. (15) Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. d Procedures and Time Limits (1) The Community Development Department shall review all applications for use permit, variance and other proceedings subject to public hearing before the Planning Commission, and shall render to the Planning Commission a report of its review, observations and recommendation prior to the date of such public hearing. (2) Pertinent information shall be furnished to the Community Development Department to enable review and evaluation of proposed developments. (3) The decision of the Community Development Director in matters of original jurisdiction and those referred to him by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be final, unless appealed in writing as herein provided. (4) Develigment shall commenN _M kotherwise, a new e a req iu er d prior to any development. e Guiding Principles Implementation of the development preview process relative to external design shall be guided by the following principles: (1) Individual initiative shall be encouraged. Control shall be reduced to the minimum extent possible, while insuring that the goals stated in this Chapter are achieved to the fullest possible extent. (2) Good architectural character is based upon the suitability -of a structure for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of sound materials and upon the principles of cture. (3) Good architectural character is not, in itself, more costly than poor architectural character and is not dependent upon the particular style of architecture selected. (4) When considering signs, particular attention shall be given to incorporating the design, including colors, of the sign into the over-all design of the entire development, so as to achieve homogeneous development. (5) Building to be relocated must be previewed as to their compatibility with neighboring structures and with existing or proposed structures on the same site. -(Ord. No. 587, Sec. 2) f Appeals Appeal of any decision of the Community Development Director may be made by any person to the Planning Commission pursuant to the following procedures: (1) Within seven (7) days of an decisi an a Community Devel ment Deg Igenrgating-VIF-reasono saig alleM arn mnaneed , wever, at an i is a ion by U or any member thereof shall not be subject to the requirement of N 1i M' S , t • t '` r { ); ` t t �. ' � �' °-.iL� ! 7 '/'� Y �,` `l'�" k t e�•��`5F4•^t "�,P�ct r. . Vit: .p• . S- w .:. .,, b' . C ) i` ,t .. Y Y a. } e 1 • t Y Y: w t ( S E• Yf F' ' R L M , A P w x � 4 Kr f 4 ! • 1 f S !TM'f i rt'l� . �..� � 9,.. I•. _ '� .._r 7` , ti! i tea i 7:'w tati I i Muli jI — .-+a I - � _� - �, rr , f � '�'' ;k - �, 6 i rt .� d'Y'fn q •Y+. �`'r . 1 .-AT • , a n�5 • � •.r . _ . * � Vii•, +4 - jib 44Mr 1 - � \� _ •g„a .'r^# ,w; -- a >. ..w - ,,,.. !+ .. .-t c ,f 7 +•rT: '-v' m. v - ; a:. eta ,�r _ S ,.`\.. .,,-• . . ,. .... .. :,. .. 1. t. �f n•1. , ,., ... -�i 6... .. SYCJ+ .,, AY 11i l.. �. \T F i' :, y: .,fit. • f � rA $ K' . ti'. t- J td. , v. a "� `.'.' S�r�•�`'?�t ..:. ,;. •. ,. , C k 1, -:. ......,:, ..' ." .. •, C_ ,.,,. $ir,. t, _�i:,, ,, :;� �..,.:.. ., r, n .. i ,fir .. 5, � . n . � . , _, , , _ _. •,' ," a:n:M1 `•.c. .. I 1. �r1 .. t 1, ♦ .. ? .M v.. .�. � •M1 l lNtMl � i.. • 2-0 IT ; r- t t 4 t - q \ r L , x• 1:� t a Imo: i ,t- ) .. M1.r.l, • H.,i ,i', , },, : 'N !M1 , ,eY S. t ,,'�1,i!t 7, `<„r, t:. 'Ti .:.. wl. t. .. . � .:e .. t. .,4 f V. t •r u .^rt."a yy * x 4 k r' ,��` � h rTe t •. r r, y;1a �•� .f. F!':. ..t:.., 1. n-5. ,�., ,#... t• W. � ,'. 4i h, n 3' �. r�.. IT... , lei.. a .. ,«. .n _r• k: '. '�; ,5.. 4 i f k. is r F h J" :..,. :. .. ,.: , , ,. ,. .. ..,• .. .: ..., .. ,� Ott.,.; ..- ,.. ...,:n ., .., -.. ^. ...Y1�. r 3, r K, •til �. .%a . ,artjf a. �wY� 'f� .n to 'Y'Y .ti. •�'` t Y W F .✓ o- �p Sh, , N y • s a r ,•y +,� 1, is Kr. ♦,t, ul,� ��N ,. .... ..r y. �. •-, .... ...' .. ,- � -.. '•.. , -.h:.. SS.. d.":yy.., #'LSF- ."'•_. .�., 7 .4 � { ..1�:,:�, r'� w rr •r. t. n /yna.�� - _. �. ,, . �tii�s • ���� w ,1 \ vft r. r, .c .yy >- t,r „i_:c ,,.,. <. r. } �F r,:.. , ..:::^... ��tKthS.•.,r {',...,. -. tr.r ,., 1 t ;.. � v S. r, - .A r5x, - hJ n, r..,,, -f `t,;. f., w.;, o.,.a Y' ,, y.:,�r R ,. � E'M1 , � ,+ _ • .; ,.� "�, 'q`• , 'AC' � ,� c�"� ti >At .,*,,, , ,±? � ... ,FS.. t. 1 c. � � ..5:•;;t c k4.. :t„ ti k ;,?4�'. '�, 'd�.'+"�Y 4- :,. ,f '� �,�' .i'•',,�.y...4�jt� 't'` v,i :yt ':�' .'�i �,, .: +n.. .tx� .>,!.'t r F y 4 .l F { i + 1 , .1 • 4 Vii, r +: " t ,A 5 �i t • a � of , n r 4�L, e.,�i r. r.. ii'•' .1.. �h ,1 1, et�.r .}. 7 ,C i � {;'. ;;4•} y, ���y, F� �)��Ct;� Y' r YM•,1i T+i�i't � ty�,'�,',•^ ' _+1y`, H .. �r �t 1 �,[y '"r��+Pr�•;r "�,. }�rSr hY {'� F'�°s�. r h � M�ya t .-:+r.00'^< Xt !'` 1 � .a Yl� C..-yGk' � 'fli4 t � + -5-ar•�, £ _ mac. ti vwF Y `'*,` �•. , `fir` •j ,�� Ab 1` - ` J - `• �]'�li_.'.� IAA ,:. N t'' .. ,!, r i '� r), 4 A • ,'^' 4W 14 ol • ,.` ` � tea- _ " r - ,.a�, 5/t �-1:,� ; .,�, r "^ - _ �,(�� Ilay ' , n •,1 tea, A • � rLw ._. w r rte• _ M • ^ yy„ywMlY7yx.}wy..r lw.:r. 'r.. 4„YY� � .'ru•rr •r<•,.,.. :. - .. � ` f' i a — September 5, 2007 Re: Zone change 06-002 Tentative Tract -Map 17096 Conditional Use Permit 06-024 Design Review 06-020 Dear City Staff Planning Commission and City Council I live at 14302 Cloverbrook Drive, Tustin, CA which is on the west side of the project in question. Our property has the shortest distance from the back of our home to the side of the proposed development We have a very private backyard with a pool One of our big concerns is the small.proposed set back of 10 feet which would be a breeding area for criminal activity and a hiding place for thieves and drug addicts. Thus threatening the public health, comfort, safety and general welfare of our community. Currently the set back is over 20 feet with a single story behind our home. I am opposed to the rezoning of the current suburban R-4 zone to a multi family R-3 zone. The developer can build up to 71 units under the current zoning codo. There are no findings to justify the increase in density on the proposed development to 77 units. We already have traffic and PSS Problems that staff has not addressed adequately Why rezone? There is no justification other thea the develop benefiting not the community. 71 units with the same zoning are still very dense on 4 acres. Please ask the developer to give us a greater set back and lower the height. Part 7 General Regulation states that "The Community Development Director shall approve the submitted plans if he finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof or the community as a whole". To have buildings 32' to 40' looming over our 16' to 18' homes would most definitely impair the genera( appearance and harmony of our established suburban R-1 zoned single family neighborhood homes. The proposed development will rise above our 16' to 18' roof lines and appear to be in our backyards. The proposed developments height, Mass and set back are out of proportion to the existing surrounding single level homes. Thus not retaining or strengthening the unity and order the visual community. The appearance and design in relation to existing structures is out ofproportion. We currently do not see anything of this height mass, decreased set backs in our neighborhood and do not see it to be fitting. Thank you for hearing our concerns. Sinc ly, Richard Satterlee Victor & Victoria Khuu 14372 Cloverbrook Dr Tustin, CA 92780 City of Tustin Planning Department September 4, 2007 Dear Commissioners, We are writing this letter regarding the town home community that will be built soon behind our property line. Please be considering all inconvenience will cause to our dairy life. We are strongly disagree to change our zone from R1 to R3 R3 will cause more traffic, more violation, property value down, not enough parking spaces for all residents. We are strongly disagree to build three-story town house We will have no privacy. There will be noisy. How do you feel if there are three- story properties right behind your yard? Do you want to walk out to back yard enjoy your flower and the nature? I do not think anyone want this happen. We are living here for years, we enjoy our neighbors, quiet, no violation, and these entire make Tustin is a nice place to live. Sincerely, G> c�04 ,E Ron and Solange Brattus 14391 Cloverbrook Dr. Tustin, CA 92780 City of Tustin CA Planning Commissioners Subject: Hampton Village Gentlemen: We strongly oppose to the rezoning for the Hampton Village Project from R-4 to R-3. We do not want a conditional use permit for a height variance. The three story buildings will not match the surrounding area of Cloverbrook and Pinebrook when all are one story. Although the proposed three stories are to be located in the middle of the project, it is still too high. Many prospective buyers look for a home with a back yard with privacy and yes it will impact and lower the value of our Summerfield homes. We can for see a greater parking problem than already exists. Most families have more than one car, many with children could have even three or more cars. Safety may be a major issue due to the fact that only one exit shared with one entrance is proposed for this project. Should a major fire occur and cause fatalities, due to an inadequate evacuation plan would be a disaster. We hope a revised plan would be more suited to the Summerfield area. Respectfully: Ron Brattus Solange Brattus September 4, 2007 Dear Commissioner, We are against the zone change, which would allow them to put in just 6 more units than what it is currently zoned for. We are against the variance they want so that they can put a 32 -foot building 10 feet from our back yard. All we can ask is why are you giving this developer so many concessions? We understand that something is going to get built on that land. All we are asking is that you leave the zoning as is, and have the two story buildings moved back from our fence. Should we not get some considerations as Tustin residents? I am enclosing a picture to give you a perspective on how high the building will be behind our house. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, qN. September 2007 RE: Opposition to Zoning Change — Mitchell/Browning Ave Project. Mr. John Nielsen Tustin Planning Commission As homeowners in the Summerfield homes neighborhood for 21 years, we are writing to voice our opposition to the proposed zoning change for the Mitchell/Browning Ave Project. As you are well aware, the proposed zoning change would allow for the construction of a behemoth, three-story, multi -family complex to be situated within an existing neighborhood of single -story, single-family residential homes. We are opposed to the construction of such a large complex in our neighborhood that is already suffering from problems with traffic, parking and of lowering properly, values, which was brought on in part by the ridiculous school boundary changes recently adopted by the TUSD School Board. This large project will only compound the problems! The current zoning status is compatible with our existing single -story, single-family homes in the neighborhood. We are not opposed to a new development, but any new development should remain within the existing zoning regulations. Please hel maintain our nice neighborhood. Peter and Polly Martin 2102 Sandfield PL Tustin Sep. 3, 2007 To the Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed develop. ment�-ttal "u- uiu effix:t our Surnim P obvious that the develo e'�1e�d homes. n ,s pment will go through but I strongly feel that it should conform to the zoning regulations that have been in place in our neighborhood for the past 37 years. I oppose any zone change and I feel that putting in three story apartments will adversely effect the peace and serenity our our area via increased traffic andarkin p g problems. Once again, I am vehemently against the new development as it now stands and will continue to voice my opposition to anything that does not conform to the current zoning. Sincerely, Timothy P. Zierer 14451 Silverbrook Dr. Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-5729 September 3, 2007 City of Tustin planning Commission 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA Attn: Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Murray, Mr. Kozak and Mr. Floyd RE: SunCal-Browning LLC Dear CaamnissiOnersq As 11 year Tustin residents, 6 1/2 in the Summerfield tract, we are writing to express our concern regarding the proposed zoning change and design of SunCal-Browning's project located at the current Sierra Vista Apartments site. After attending your regular Augur 28" regular meeting we have a clearer understanding of what this project represents• short, we wish to provide three concerns and three responses to those concerns. • Increased housing density — from 60 to 77 units. Only allow increase of units under current zoning parameters. • Increased traffic along with the proposed single entry and exit opposite Sandfield Place. Two entry exits needed to accommodate existing local and Nelson School traffic. • Zoning change to accommodate up to 3 story structures. Have development conform to current zoning. The visual impact of this aspect of the project would really hurt the look and feel of our neighborhood If development on this site is inevitable, we desire that it be consistent with the community it will be a part o4 not the start of some new high density trend that is already served by other nearby properties. I appreciate you taking the time to fiuther consider our concern regarding this project. Sincerely, 9L e4e Dianna Rountree 14301 Fernbrook Dr. Tustin, CA 92780 September 3, 2007 City of Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA Attn: Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Puckett, Mr. Murray, Mr. Kozak and Mr. Floyd RE: SunCal-Browning LLC Dear Commissioners, As a 29 year resident in the Summerfield tract, I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed zoning change and design of SunCal-Browning's project located at the current Sierra Vista Apartments site. I was in attendance at your August 28'b regular meeting and now have a much better understanding �of what this project represents. After listening to the developer and residents I wish to provide three concerns and three responses to them. • Increased housing density — from 60 to 77 units. Only allow increase of units under current zoning parameters • Increased traffic along with the proposed single entry and exit. Two entry exits needed • Zoning change to accommodate 3 story structures. Have development conform to current zoning. As you heard at the meeting, this project has the potential to dramatically change the character of our neighborhood for decades to come. Please don't allow this very dense project in our single story bedroom community. I appreciate you taking the time to further consider our neighborhood's collective concern regarding this project. Sincerely, Jurgen & Julie Knuth 14311 Fernbrook Dr. Tustin, CA 92780 September 21, 2007 To: Tustin Planning Commission From: Tom & Monique Edwards 14272 Cloverbrook Dr. Tustin, CA 92780 While we are not opposed to change and new building, we are opposed to the proposed condo development at Mitchell and Browning streets in its present form. We don't think it is in keeping with the present character of the surrounding single story residences. We believe it will interfere with the privacy of people along Cloverbrook and Pinebrook, both within their homes and in their backyards. And we believe it will add to the traffic and street parking congestion along Browning, Mitchell, and Pinebrook, especially during the school year. We suggest no change to the zoning regulations, restrictions on height to two stories, and an increased set back in the proposal. As one of the original owners in this Summerfield tract, we have put on one addition to our home and are in the process of adding another one. We have enjoyed living in this neighborhood and Tustin and you can see we plan to stay. We would like to see this area retain as much of the community spirit and character that we have enjoyed over the past years. We hope you can consider these suggestions and those of our neighbors favorably. Thank you for your consideration 4�) � V- t AV LZ'Z� Tom & Monique wards 4 41- Il p �," I . A, to, September 5, 2007 Mr. Brett Floyd Mr. Steve Kozak Mr. Al Murray Mr. John Nielsen Mr. Chuck Puckett Re: Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments Redevelopment We were in attendance at the August 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting and fully supported and agreed with the comments communicated by our fellow Tustin residents. We thoroughly enjoy our Summerfield home and the traditional style neighborhood look and feel. When we originally looked at this home and neighborhood, we were impressed with the look and style of the Sierra Vista Apartments as they fit in so well with the surrounding residences and didn't stand out. Our neighborhood is quiet and all the residences fit the 40 -year old style perfectly. We have the following concerns regarding the proposed project at Mitchell and Browning: • The proposal of rezoning the current apartment land to allow taller and more units will introduce additional hazards and risks to this quiet little corner of Tustin. Just today, the first day of school, was a typical traffic nightmare from 7:30 am. until 8 a.m. I invite you to come visit our street in this 30 -minute time -period or in the afternoon when all the cars return after school, and you will see for yourself the risky situation currently at hand for drivers and pedestrians. The increased traffic with more people living in the same space will increase this risk considerably. It is also hard to understand how it is at all better for our . community to increase the number of residences and }educe the driveways from three to one and at the location closest to the crosswalk and elementary school. • We already have a serious parking problem in this area, and our small cul-de-sac has become one of the areas of overflow parking due to the insufficient parking of the surrounding apartment and multi -family units. This planned development will increase this problem drastically as parking along Browning appears to be planned for removal. The cars currently parked in that area will have no option but to park in our cul-de-sac and other surrounding single-family residential streets. In addition, there will be no enforcement if the residences of this new development choose not to use their garages for cars. We have non-residents of our street parking in front of our houses every night, and do not enjoy the thought of even more squeezing into this small street. We have difficulty enough now when having guests over as they have trouble parking near our home for just one evening. This problem has dramatically increased over the past year and this development plan doesn't appear to be lightening the load. The developer's current plan of three-story multi -family residences absolutely does not fit into this lovely 60's style neighborhood. The current design has a building le that fits into the new housing on the Marine BaSe or in r is b g �' this neighborhood ustin Ranch where the housing architecture is newer; however, no building on these clearly not of the architecture being proposed and certainly is eater than that of a two-story home. Our Summerfield homes have streets gr ears. Owners have stood the test of time and have not been built up over the yintended, and the kept them the quaint single -story style originally built and P . Our neighborhood current Sierra Vista Apartments fit that architecture perfectly f� dam„ cure not run-down and doesn't need a new mo may be older, but it is certainly housing development forced upon us. If they must build something, which is certainly questionable in the first Place, Please do or the three-story design. Please keep it to the single -story or not allow the rezoning represented on the surrounding streets• maxinnum two-story style currently We ap reciate your consideration, 4 G� Carl and Becky Schaefer 14422 Pinebrook Drive John & Kimbelry Keelin 2072 Sandfield Place Tustin, CA 92780-6342 (714) 734-0028 August 99 2007 City of Tustin Planning Commission Mr. Al Murray Mr. Steve Kozak Mr. Chuck Puckett Mr. Brett Floyd Mr. John Nielsen Subject: Rezoning of the property located at the comer of Browning and Mitchell Commissioners, We are very opposed to the possible rezoning of the subject property and do not believe it is in the best interest of the residents in the area. We would appreciate your thoughtfid consideration of the issues outlined below. We live on Sandfield Place which meets up with Browning in a small tract of the Summerfield homes. My wife and I have lived there with our 3 children for nine years. This is a small but tightly -nit neighborhood which includes Sandfield Place, Feinbrook and Shadybrook. Nineteen of our neighbors were able to be present at the Planning Commission meeting held on August 28, and all are opposed to any changes in zoning. Our concerns include: • Increased traffic on Browning • The safety of the Nelson school children and all pedestrians who walls our neighborhood • Increased overnight non-resident parking in our community • 'Tyree story architecture in a primarily single -story neighborhood We understand that the proposed Plans call for a single entranceJexit on Browning instead of the current three driveways; one on Browning and two on Mitchell. Browning is a busy street, especially in the afternoon and evening. Many cars use Browning as a shortcut to the 5 Freeway in order to by-pass the traffic signals on Red Hill. Allowing the builder to provide only one entrance and exit on Browning will increase this tic congestion. Pape 1 of 3 If the rezoning is allowed, the increased number of units on the property will further increase the number of cars on Browning. Please consider the close proxity of this property to Nelson Elementary. The increased traffic and the congestion of the can at any driveway located on Browning will undoubtedly affect the safety of the significant number of children who use the 3 major crosswalks on Browning. In the past nine years, the nonresident overnight parking in our community has steadily hxr+eased to dozens each night. Although we recognize the right of people to park on public streets, our neighborhood has found that the non-residents are often less than courteous. We are often fntstrated with those who leave their cars parked in our neighborhood because of the blaring music and car alarms sounding in the middle of the night, trash (food containers, bottles, cans, and used condoms) often found on the grass next to these parked cars, and our streets not being swept because cars are left for days ata time. Those who drop offtheir cars and get a ride to wherever they are going also tend to be careless of our neighborhood children at play, as they race to the end of the street. People need a place to park where they live! The developer claims tont ample parking will be provided for all residents based on a preestablished formula. The formula needs to be revised based on the reality of high density housing. 1) Often there are more than 2 cars per residence. This is common for finilies with teenagers, affluent middleclass owners who have an "extra" car, camper, or motorhome, and when multiple himlies live in the same unit in order to afford the rent/mortaaae. 2) People do not always park cars in their garage, they often store stuff. The curb parking available today, which is consisitently filled with parked cars, is planned to be eluninated. Please there is enough on-site parking The neighboring residents and the future residents of this new community will be grateful. When my wife and I were looking for a home, we specifically looked for a single story neighborhood. A three story high density housing unit on Browning will do nothing to improve the area. The entire area is hmiited to two stones. Please dont set a hoes' that is P�� for any ung greater than the current two-story structures for this area! I feel for the challenges that the planning commission faces when redevelopment projects are submitted. The city is iced in continual improvements and wants to be supportive of developers who continue to improve and renovate areas. Please remember that the developer is there through the duration of the project and then moves on. The residents in the area and the future residents of this new development will live with the decision you make for the long term. In summary, we are opposed to rezoning the subject area and, if redeveloping the Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments is to take place, we are asking you to require that an ent mweJexit be . on Mitchell, that you ensure that there is ample onsite parking for all the ftrture Pape 2 of 3 resident's vehicles and the vehicles of their guests, and that the height of the new Mwtum be limited to a typical two story s wture in the area (approximately 25') which is the current zoning of our neighborhood! We stand with our neighbors on Saodfield, Fembrook, Shadybrook, Browning, Mitchell, Pinebrook, and Cloverbrook in asking you to leave the R4 Zoning as is! Thank you for considering our concerns. We are available for finther comments if needed. Sinemly, eelin 14beflyA.xeel;n Pepe 3 of 3 September 7, 2007 Dear Planning Commissioner Chair Mr. John Nielsen, This letter is in regard to the property on Browning and Mitchell Avenues. We have one question for you. Why would you want to rezone thisyrouerty? 1. The minute you rezone this property it sets a precedent for all future rezones within single-family residential neighborhoods. Those who come after you on the Planning Commission will be able to site this property as one that had been rezoned, and use it for a reason to rezone other sites in single-family residential neighborhoods. 2. This rezoning will cause a huge parking problem. I suggest you drive down Browning Avenue between Walnut Avenue and Nisson Avenue after 9:00 p.m. this week. There is not a single parking space on the street. Residents from Mitchell Avenue now park on Browning because they have no place to park where they live. This morning when we woke up we had 10 cars parked on our street that belonged to people who lived somewhere else. We live on Sandfield Place, the street where the proposed entrance to the new complex will open up to. Already, we have people who cannot find a parking spot on Browning Avenue so they will pull in and park on our street. Where do you think the people who live in these new condominiums are going to park after the 11 extra parking spaces for their complex are full? That's right,(if there is any room at all) they will park on Sandfield Place, Fernbrook Drive, Shadybrook Drive and Pinebrook Drive. We don't know why you would let a developer build anything without enough parking for the residents who will live there and their guests that will visit them. 3. With high-density residential buildings already surrounding us on Browning Avenue, Mitchell Avenue, and Nisson Avenue, why would you want to bring it even closer to our single-family residential homes by rezoning? 4. The owner and the developer of the property obviously does not care about the surrounding neighborhood or the families who live there. He wants to build as many homes as they can in this property regardless of the intrusion it has on the homes surrounding it, why else would they want to rezone. I'm sure if this property backed up to their backyard, they would not be building this type of development. What about you, if you lived in one of the homes on Cloverbrook, Pinebrook, or Mitchell, which will back up to these high-rise condominiums, would you or your wife be in favor of this project? If you rezone and approve this project the developer will build these homes, take his money and be gone, leaving the neighborhood and the city to deal with all the problems that will then arise, such as parking, safety, traffic, etc. 5. The owner of the property stated at the last meeting that they had contacted all neighbors within 300 feet of the project, yet they never contacted anyone on Sandfield Place and only one person on Shadybrook Drive. Why didn't they want us to know about this project? 6. Most of the residents living in the current apartments now only have 1 car and most park in the parking structures and spaces, which exit onto Mitchell Ave. Only about 14 parking spaces are found in the parking lot that exits on Browning Ave. It is not connected to the other parking lots on the property. I'm sure you can see the problems that will occur, if they have all the residents exiting on Browning. Especially on weekday mornings when children are walking to school. Almost all children who walk to school now, who come from Mitchell, use the sidewalk that is in front of this complex. If they walk on the other side of the street they have to cross Sandfield Place. This is not safe as there are parents using this area to turn into and drop off their children, or parents will turn in and park on Sandfield Place and walk their children to school. Most parents prefer to have their children away from all these cars entering and leaving Sandfield Place, so they have them walk on the sidewalk where the apartments are now. I suggest you come and see the traffic situation some morning before school. You will see what a safety hazard this development will be for the children in the neighborhood. 7. There are already many of these high-rise homes going in around the city. We don't need this over here. It will look out of place, and will not go with the rest of the neighborhood. I'm sure when you took an oath of office you promised to protect the city of Tustin and it's residents. So now is your chance to protect the neighborhood residents of the Summerfield Homes. The city of Tustin has a slogan that says "Work where you must, but live and shop in Tustin". Let's make Tustin a city where people want to live because they know their Councilmen and Commissioners care about and look out for them. If you'd like to speak further with us please give us a call. 0 Thank you for your time, I Pam Poucher field Place Tustin, Calif. 92780 714-731-7206 September 7, 2007 Dear Tustin Planning Commission, This letter addresses why we oppose the proposed Zone Change 06-002 for Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020, and what we consider an appropriate compromise. My wife and I purchased our Cloverbrook Drive home 21 years ago. We purposely chose this particular neighborhood as it was entirely made up of single story homes, close to schools, and safe for the children. When we contemplated moving several years ago, we instead chose to reinvest a significant amount of our equity and remodel our home. Our decision not to move was primarily for the same reasons we originally purchased the home in this area. It is a safe, welcoming and wonderful home with a great front scape. We expect to see a significant benefit from owning this home in the future as it is becoming more unique to have a single story family ranch style home in Tustin. When we submitted architectural plans and secured permits with the City, we followed all the rules and covenants that were required by the City's Planning Department. We followed every provision noted in the building code and abided by the established zoning requirements that has been in existence for over 40 years. City planners scrutinized every detail and required changes to our plans in order to meet these provisions. It is now simply unfair to have wholesale changes made to these guiding principles. Our major issue with the proposed Hampton Village development is the attempt to change the zoning and rules that apply to our neighborhood, while we had to comply with the rules that were already in place. As we understand, the zone change allows for increasing the height restrictions andmininuzing set backs. The conditional use permit allows for increasing the height restrictions to an even higher elevation than the new zone would allow. The project design, in our opinion, does not fit with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. In our opinion, the view out of our living room and front door will be adversely affected by the sight of these three story structures. We sincerely believe this will decrease the value of our home. Another major concern is traffic and parking. There is currently a problem with heavy traffic and parking on both Mitchell and Browning. With higher density housing on the corner these problems will intensify. Why is the staff of the planning department supporting the developers with this proposal? They seem to be complacent and silent on this obvious issue. Again, existing homeowners in the neighborhood will be adversely affected. Where is the reasonableness in relaxing the rules and why is there a bias towards allowing this project to even get a continuance by the Planning Commission? These changes will negatively affect our investment. We do not feel this development warrants consideration in its present form. We do not feel higher density, higher elevations, and closer setbacks are benefits to the neighborhood. We have yet to see why a zoning change is needed. Where in the city has this been successfully done before? We suggest that only a maximum height of 20 feet be allowed and that the set backs remain as they are also allowed within the current R4 zoning. Thank you in advance for giving this your consideration. Your decision to deny the zoning change, the conditional use permit and design review will be supported and appreciated. Sincerely, IX q-A� Zanny& Elaine Wassenaar 14271 Cloverbrook Drive, Tustin, CA 92780 cc: Mr. Al Murray, Mr. Steve Kozak, Mr. Chuck Puckett, Mr. Brett Floyd, Mr. John Nielsen Planning Commissioners Re: Hampton Village The City of Tustin's web site advocates the rural and agricultural past of the area as a City in which to live with a high quality of life. There has been a proposal to redevelop 4.9 gross acres of land at the comer of Mitchell and Browning in the City of Tustin. This is a project that includes rezoning from R4 to R3 adjacent to R1 single story family homes. A project in this area with a higher density of living space deviates from the stated premise on the web site. We, the residents of Tustin moved to this city to enjoy a high quality of life and keep the old town feel of the entire city. Old Town itself has been well preserved, as should the rest of the older sections of the City. To change the zoning would embark on a drastic change in the area where we bought our homes. We wish to enjoy the continuation of the rural, open feeling in the City of Tustin. By approving the change in zoning for this pending development of higher density housing and within 10 feet of our property line would be a detriment to the area. The City of Tustin was built on the premise of its rural and agricultural past that needs to be continued in all areas of the city including this neighborhood. Please do not approve the change in zoning. Sincerely Eileen Campbell 14322 Cloverbrook Dr Tustin 92780 CONCERNED CLOVERBROOK RESIDENT I have lived on Cloverbrook Drive for 37 years. These homes are zoned to meet the needs of our neighborhood. If the units on Mitchell and Browning need to be replaced they must adhere to the zoning requirements already in existence. Our zoning laws are to regulate our neighborhoods, thus keeping big builders from coming in and building huge 2 and 3 story structures. Our quiet neighborhood will be destroyed by these, so call townhomes, that loom over our properties. The height and density of this development, in our city, and on our streets, is a great concern of mine. I hope you will listen to the property owners in this area. We need your careful consideration when voting on this matter. r Franklin Chvatal 14422Cloverbrook Dr. - Tustin A TROUBLED CLOVERBROOK RESIDENT I live on Cloverbrook Drive (35 years) and have always enjoyed our quiet neighborhood. The purposed building of two and three story townhomes on the corner of Mitchell and Browning, troubles me. These townhomes will tower over our quiet, single story homes. Building these structures 10 feet from our back fences is deplorable! This is not the way to create a working relationship between the builders and homeowners. Something MUST be done! Our zoning laws are put into place to protect our city, our home owners, and our neighborhoods. What good are they if we just change them to meet the whims of builders coming into our city to make the BIG bucks. Please DO NOT change the zoning laws that will destroy our homes, our lives, and our neighborhood. At present, Cloverbrook Drive has a MAJOR problem with our street being used as a shortcut to Walnut and/or Red Hill. We desperately need speed bumps just to protect us from the SPEEDING cars presently on the Cloverbrook speedway. Add to this, the conjestion created from all the cars trying to avoid Browning and the trouble on Cloverbrook will escalate. It is a disaster waiting to happen. We could easily see a fatality, the result being one of our children or adult seniors in this neighborhood. I fail to see even one positive for this project. I hope you will consider all the negatives of the proposed development. Please say NO to the developers coming into Tustin to line their pocket with cash from the destruction of our neighborhoods. Be1�yki.0 Tustin City Planning Commission: Mr. Al Murray Mr. Steve Kozak Mr. Chuck Puckett Mr. John Nielsen September 4, 2007 Subject: Tentative Tract Map 17096 Zone Change 06-002 Design Review 06-020 Conditional Use Permit 06-024 As long time residences' (3 8 years) of this neighborhood, we have seen many changes over these past years. From orange groves and farming land to the current city in which we live. We have always envisioned living in a quiet neighborhood with other residences similar to ours, that's why we purchased them. These past years have seen development steadily increase, each time with a zoning change that increased the population density. This is why we are very OPPOSED to another zoning change that will bring even higher living density, and all the associated problems of increased vehicle traffic, criminal activity, overcrowded schools, etc. Please leave our neighborhood as it is, and not allow the budding of THREE STORY STURCTURES that give the appearance of living in a walled canyon. Why should one developer, who does not even live here, have their way, when almost, if not all of the existing homeowners in the area are in opposition to this zoning change? This is highly unfair to the existing local neighborhood, and should not even be considered unless the local neighborhood homeowners are in favor of such a land use zoning change. We have zoning laws, to regulate our neighborhoods in the manner in which we, the property owners would like, not something forced upon us by a developer, and a city planning commission that allows such an unwanted change. If the existing units need to be replaced they should be within the same zoning requirement of the existing structures. We know what is best for our neighborhood, not others seeking to make a monetary profit at our expense. There are other appropriately zoned parcels where this type of development would be better suited, but NOT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD where children can still go to their neighborhood schools and play in a safe environment. Sincerely, i s"U OF. &a,*0"d ,4* .L. e4auv"d Ronald G. Crawford Joy L. Crawford 14321 Fernbrook Drive Tustin, CA 92780 September 6, 2007 Commissioner John Nielsen City Hall, Commissioners Office Tustin, California Re: Hampton Village Town Homes Honorable Commissioner Nielsen: My family and I lived on Pinebrook Drive; we have been residents of Tustin for over 20 years. We have seen our community grow and have seen many changes. Of those changes many have been improvements and most have been beneficial and in harmony with our community. The development of the Hampton Village Town Homes is inevitable. We do not object to progress, but the building of these town homes will be out of place, overpowering and not in harmony with the surrounding community. I have the following objections to the Hampton Village Town Homes as it is being proposed: • I am very much opposing the re -zoning, which will allow for additional unit to an already imposing complex. The proposed project is too big and enormous, considering the surrounding single story family units (R-1 zone). • The complex needs to have more than one traffic exit. Currently, there is one exit being proposed which will exit onto Browing Street near the northwest area. This exit will place our school children, parent traffic and oncoming traffic from Walnut/Mitchell at a potential risk and will create traffic setbacks and possible accidents. There needs to be a secondary exit off Mitchell Avenue. • Lastly, I object to the 3 -story units being built along the Northwest and Southwest areas adjacent to the Cloverbrook and Pinebrook residential homes. Our backyard is a playroom for us; we use it for gatherings and many family events. Our view to the Saddleback Mountains is lovely in the winter time and the Orange Hills are spectacular all year round. I will truly miss the view, the openness and the privacy we have enjoyed for many years. It is very difficulty for us to accept this project as it is being proposed. We plead to you to consider our oppositions and objections and consider a reasonable compromise. Thank you for you support and consideration. Singel !". 4J/VL Mr. & Mrs. P dro Gonzalez 14385 Pinebrook Drive Tustin, CA 92780 Bob & Mary Fontana Anthony Fontana 14391 Pinebrook Ave. Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 730-0718 Sept 06, 2007 2007 Re: zone change To whom it may concern, We are homeowners that live in the Summerfield homes. At the last Planning Commission Meeting they discussed a zone change for plans to raze a 60 single story apartments at 1972 Mitchell and Browning Ave. and replace them with 77 three story townhouses. We are strongly against this zone change the back of my house is going to be facing where you want to build the two story with a loft. I will lose my privacy, sunlight and airflow. Not to mention the traffic on Browning that it is going to create. It takes me several minutes to get out of my house onto browning with the school traffic between 7:30-8:15am and again when school lets out. Lets take in consideration the safety of the children crossing the street. You need to come out and observe for yourself the traffic during the week of school drop off and pick up. Where you want to add this new zone there are 75% single story homes. Sincerely, Mary Fontana -)� - ) 1�' I was shocked when I returned from vacation, that a three story building was planned for Mitchell/Browning. How could you consider approval of this across the street from a school? Did you not realize what an attraction this would be for child molesters and eg fti Iles? Seventeen years ago my granddaughter was driven to Nelson School, even though she could have easily walked Cloverbrook/Walnut and a short distance on Browning. WHY? Because child molesters and sometimes murderers were enticing children into their cars Traffic: I often was ask to take her to school or pick her up, and it was difficult to return to Browning due to the people taking the shortcut from Walnut to Red Hill , in addition to the regular traffic. Mitchell is busy now with the apartments and you want to add the cars from the units in a three story building? Trying to get on to Walnut from Cloverbrook and you add Mitchell from the proposed units and we will be isolated. Was the Traffic Division consulted on this? I live on the Cul de Sac like Mr. Bone my view will not be interfered with, unlike the people at the beginning of our Cul de Sac. Limited Sunli t I can look out my back door and check the weather, etc. They will be looking at a block wall, this could be depressing. PrlvaaIf like some buildings they have balconies etc. they will lose their privacy. Parking -We have a problem on Heatherfield , Sandwood and Cloverbrook with spill over from the apartments on Mitchell. I just can't visualize the problems with the neighbors on Browning will have with that many units added. PLEASE CONSIDER THE ABOVE BEFORE APPROVING THIS APPLICATION. Thank You • r Mrs. Maxine Tier 14262 Cloverbrook Drive Tustin, Ca. 9780 Phone 714-838-4862 September 11, 2007 Mr. John Nielson Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA Dear Commissioner Nielson: We write to you today about a matter up for consideration at tonight's Planning Commission Meeting concerning a requested zoning change, design review and Conditional Use Permit for the new owners of the property currently occupied by the Sierra Vista Apartment Complex, 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. We are residents of Tustin and reside at 14392 Cloverbrook Drive, within 100 feet of the proposed project, but not contiguous to the property. We attended your last meeting on August 28, 2007 and listened to the presentation by the developer as well as the public's comments. We were surprised to learn about all the meetings the developer has conducted with neighboring residents from early 2007 through August, 2007 as we were never notified or invited to them. We will definitely be affected by the proposed development as we live right next to two houses that abut the property (one on Cloverbrook and one on Pinebrook). We currently can see the roof line of the Sierra Vista Apartments from our back yard which at its peak is only two stories. The proposed development will place three story units (or as the developer likes to say, two stories plus a loft) at the perimeter of the project directly impacting the R 1 residences contiguous and nearby to this property. One reason we purchased in this neighborhood 13 years ago was the open skyline, the large setbacks which reduces noise from the street and neighboring properties and the California style homes which reminded Carrie of the home she grew up in in the City of Orange. We oppose the proposed development which is planned for the property at Mitchell & Browning for the following reasons: 1. Its Cape -Cod style townhomes do not match the neighboring properties. These proposed units, if built in their current proposed size, will dominate the skyline of the northern part of Cloverbrook and Pinebrook. They will either outshine the Summerfield homes or clash horribly with them, either way creating a conflict in the eyes of potential buyers of the Summerfield homes. 2. The proposed height of the townhomes is far greater than any other property in the neighborhood. One only has to stand at the intersection of Cloverbrook and Sandwood looking west to see the impact of two story townhome units on an R-1 residential neighborhood. Allowing three-story townhomes, even with mitigating privacy features (opaque windows, tree line, etc.), will create a towering monolithic look right in the backyards of the R-1 homes. 3. The proposed 10 foot setback from the Cloverbrook and Pinebrook properties means almost nothing if these townhomes are to be 32 feet in height. They will cut off the neighboring properties from the skyline view, sunrises, openness that they currently enjoy. This small setback will not mitigate the imposition of high density living on R-1 properties. We are realistic in realizing that this property will be developed by the owner under whatever conditions are placed on him. We don't oppose modernization or improvement of property if it is done responsibly and with forethought and consideration of the impact that it will bring to the neighboring areas. Therefore, we request that if you approve the developer's request to tear down apartment buildings and build townhomes/ condominiums, that you do so as follows: 1. Keep the current R-4 zoning intact. The developer can still develop the site under the current zoning with enough units and profit to justify the process. 2. Increase the setback from the R-1 properties at Cloverbrook and Browning from 10 feet to 40 feet (the current setback at the western condominium project that abuts the Summerfield properties on Heatherfield). The City is already concerned about the Browning street setback and requested it be increased to 15 feet. Why are the R-1 property residences not being afforded at least that amount of courtesy? 3. Limit the height of the proposed units from two story with a loft to two story only. If a potential buyer won't buy this property because it lacks a loft, he/she has plenty of other properties to choose from in southern Orange County that supplies this type of large high density housing. We thank you for your consideration of our comments and encourage you to give serious consideration to the future impact this project will have on the residents along Mitchell, Browning, Cloverbrook, Pinebrook and all the neighboring Summerfield homes before approving the developer's request. Sincerely, � M_ -, 1, A M •M I Carrie & William Weeks 14392 Cloverbrook Drive (714) 544-8045 September 10, 2007 Mr. Al Murray Mr. Steve Kozak Mr. Chuck Puckett Mr. Brett Floyd Mr. John Nielsen Re: Zone Change @ Browning & Mitchell Dear Sirs: We have lived @ 14291 Cloverbrook Dr. for the last twenty (20) years. It is a very quiet, private and friendly cul de sac/neighborhood. We have enjoyed the benefits of this suburban residential area on many levels. We feel that it would be a great disservice to our neighborhood to change the zoning to multiple family residential. Currently, the congestion on Browning, Walnut & Mitchell on any given school day when school is convening or being dismissed, is a nightmare. And there is great potential for serious accidents to children, crossing guards, other pedestrians or drivers. Rezoning this 4.1 acre site maximizes opportunities within every situation for failure and destruction. The development of a 77 -unit condominium complex on Browning Ave. and Mitchell Ave. is totally unacceptable in our opinion. We can't imagine how many more vehicles will be parked on Browning, (as we have so many now from the apartments on Mitchell), currently it looks like a used car lot .... we find it hard to fathom that any new infrastructure will support less congestion, traffic and parked cars. We on Cloverbrook have "pride in ownership" standing in our front yard and looking at some structures that are twenty (20) feet in height and within 150 feet of our neighbors backyard is very unacceptable and disconcerting. Where has our privacy gone? Giving others the opportunity to look, into our yards, into our homes and into our lives from a second or third story window or patio is very invasive and here again, we leave ourselves wide open for potential problems and issues. Finally, what about the people that will be uprooted from their homes in the Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. We need to do this for what.... because people have gotten greedy and we need to fit a few more people, cars and problems this particular neighborhood? Please understand; we do not wish to have our area rezoned. To us, a zone change isn't an option. We don't mind if you make a change just as long as it conforms to what the current zoning regulations are. Thank you for your time and consideration. The Zollwegs 14291 Cloverbrook Dr. Tustin, CA If Martha Feliciano 14262 Fembrook Dr. Tustin, Ca 92780 September 10, 2007 Mr. John Nielsen Planning Commissioner City of Tustin 300 Centennial way Tustin, Ca 92780 RE: COMMENTS ON THE AUGUST 28TH ,2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON THE PROPOSED HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWN HOMES TRACT 17069 LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF MITCHELL AND BROWING IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA. Dear Mr. Nielsen: I attended the August 28th meeting and came away with many concerns re: this proposed project. I have lived in the city of Tustin a total of 39 years and have seen numerous changes within the city, most being positive. I have presented issues before at planning commission meetings and have been listened to and the issues I presented addressed fairly. I expect the same of this planning commission. I live approximately 2 V2 blocks from the proposed site. In spite of the distance, I, too, have witnessed the overflow parking all along Sandfield which is directly across from the apartments. During school drop offs, the cars can overflow all the way to my home, 2 V2 blocks away from Browning. I object to the lack of planning in regards to parking. The current situation with lack of parking and overcrowding due to the apt's/ condos on Mitchell has not even been addressed. It was quite evident that all the pictures that were shown by the builder at the meeting were on a street sweeping day with minimal cars on the streets! I was shocked to see those pictures myself as I work and rarely see Browning so void of parked cars. Browning is a two lane street. How can there be only one entrance/exit in the new group of homes off of Browning? I find this extremely poor planning on the part of the builder. Traffic will be backed up during peak rush hours and school drop offs in the morning especially when residents try to exit their homes for work, school,etc. Two more exits onto Mitchell, which now exist with the current apartments, might eliminate one or possibly two more homes in the project. It seems to me that the builder and maybe the planning commission is only thinking of more monies for the city and the builder's pocket. Is this really for the good of the whole? I don't feel that it is. How can Tustin accept this? I'm disappointed that it would even be considered. How many of those on the planning commission had actually viewed the area prior to the August 28th meeting? It seems to me that if one had seen the site at peak hours and the proximity to the nearby homes it would be too obvious that adequate `planning' really was lacking. I do not object to new structures. I DO OBJECT to a zone change to fit the builder's plan. Why change a zone that has been in place some 37 years? Two stories is high enough as that is currently in some of the apt's now on that site. Also, keep some distance from the current homeowner's lots. How sad for them to have the proposed homes invading their private yards. I know that any member of the Tustin Planning Commission would NEVER want that happening next to their home. Who would? Also, why not an 8 foot fence? Six and V2 ft is not high enough. The proposed plan will be an eyesore and look totally out of place in that spot. WHY does Tustin allow this? This builder can build his 3 story homes in Tustin Ranch where they will fit in nicely and look beautiful and part of the plan there, not on Browning/Mitchell. In conclusion, I propose that the planning commission keep the current zone, that the building be limited to 2 story, that the proximity to the surrounding homes be reevaluated, that the fence be 8 ft. high, and that there by 3 entrance/exits to the new homes. Sincerely, Martha Feliciano From: Huizar,Maria Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 5:37 PM To: Harris, Eloise; Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Public Hearing tonight Thelma Hatfield, who lives at 1881 Mitchell Avenue would like express her opposition to the following project: Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, Design Review 06-020 Applicant: Karen Sully, The Sully Group Inc. Location: 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue Ms. Hatfield's phone number is 714 669-0466. Virginia MacLean 1941 Roanoke Avenue Tustin, CA 92780 September 13, 2007 R F C E I V FE F) fir,± ? tE y. i Mr. John Nielsen Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Change in zoning and proposed multi -family development at Browning and Mitchell Avenue Dear Mr. Nielsen, Unfortunately I was not able to attend the City Council meeting on September 11 regarding the above issue. However, I would like to express my concerns. As a resident of Tustin for 28 years, I have seen tremendous development in the surrounding area. My concerns are many. They are: Traffic: I have worked 5.8 miles from my home for 20 years. Just five years ago I could commute one way within ten minutes. At present it takes me from 18 — 30 minutes via one of three means, 55 Freeway, Redhill; or Jamboree. To add additional traffic without infrastructure is thoughtless. I understand Tustin Ranch Road will be extended which indeed will aid all the traffic created by the development of the Marine Base. Schools: Our classroom sizes are already at maximum. Santa Ana now has a crisis because there are 40 children to a classroom. Tustin High School scholastic standing has fallen in the past three years. How will these additional students be accommodated? Pollution: Air quality and the noise level go hand-in-hand with traffic. It has become so noisy that one cannot keep their windows open. The City of Tustin south of the 5 Freeway seems to becoming a conglomerate of multi- family housing and the established single family dwellings being surrounded. Those single families are moving out and renting their homes because of the influx. This causes a transient population. Please reconsider the proposed demolition of existing structures and construction of multi- story -family apartments that will put additional strain on resources as well as proximal residents. Sincerely, Virg is MacLean ' I ° UN A ;!jM Councilman Davert, OCT U 3 2001 RECEIVED We have read on the Tustin City website that you are an attorney. Because of your profession you know many things that the average citizen does not know. We can only attempt to navigate through life by common sense and what we have been taught is right and just. The proposed development on Mitchell and Browning is neither right nor just. As participants in the hearings we feel that all of the arguments, thoughts, and opinions expressed by the community are valid. As proposed, this project is too high, too dense and too close to existing properties. It will decrease our property value, it will increase the population on that site dramatically, and it will increase already existing traffic and parking problems for the residents and the school. There is California State standards applied to issuing a conditional use permit. I think these standards can be applied to this site and should be considered. 1. General Welfare Standard "The establishment, maintenance or conducting of the use for which a permit is sought will not, under the particular case, be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood" (Hawkins vs. County of Marin (1976) 54 Cal. App.3d 586.) 2. General Plan Consistency Standard "Although use permits are not explicitly made subject to a general plan meeting the requirements of state law, that condition is necessarily to be implied from the hierarchical relationship of land use laws. Thus, use permits are struck from the mold of the zoning law, the zoning law must comply with the general plan, and the adopted general plan must conform to state law; the validity of the permit process derives from compliance with this hierarchy of planning laws. (Neighborhood Action Group vs. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176) 3. Zoning Consistency Standard "To obtain a use permit, the applicant must generally show that the contemplated use is compatible in terms of zoning ordinances, and that such use would be essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare, and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoned district or be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. (O'Hagen vs. Board of Zoning Adjustment (1971) 19 Cal App.3d 151. Ordinary citizens know what is right for their community, but they often do not have the legal knowledge to express their concerns. It makes no common sense to rezone this property to an R-3 and to build 77 units, 3 stories high, next to an R-1 zone with existing single family 1 story homes, across from an elementary school that has traffic and parking problems, in a neighborhood that is too densely populated already. Thank you for considering our opinions and we hope you will only approve a project that is compatible with the neighborhood, with no more than 60 units of 1 and 2 story buildings, with respectable setbacks in keeping with the existing R-4 zoning. Respectively, Jim and Julie Herron MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 28, 2007 7:10 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Nielsen, Chair 1. PLANNING COMMISSION REORGANIZATION Puckett, Chair Pro RECOMMENDATION: Tem That the Planning Commission follow the procedures contained in the staff report to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro Tem. Commissioner Puckett nominated Commissioner Nielsen as Chairperson. Commissioner Kozak seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kozak nominated Commissioner Puckett as Chair Pro Tem. Commissioner Murray seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kozak, Murray, Nielsen, and Puckett Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Doug Holland, City Attorney Dana Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 14, 2007, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 3. APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REPORT REGARDING OLD TOWN PROJECTS APPROVED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 1 DEPARTMENT FROM JUNE 6, 2007, TO AUGUST 28, 2007. 4. TUSTIN HISTORIC REGISTER NOMINATION — 405 WEST MAIN STREET. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the nomination of 405 West Main Street to the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Designation Program. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Murray, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 3-0. Chair Nielsen abstained due to his absence from the August 14, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Continued to the 5. CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-010 September 11, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A 30- 2007, Planning LANE BOWLING ALLEY, ARCADE, AND RESTAURANT Commission WITHIN AN EXISTING 28,000 SQUARE FOOT TENANT meeting SPACE LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 2405 PARK AVENUE IN THE SP -1 -MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (PLANNING AREA 19 — COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to the meeting of September 11, 2007. Nielsen Invited anyone in attendance, who might not be able to attend the September 11, 2007, Planning Commission meeting to come forward to give testimony. No one approached the lectern. It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Puckett, to continue the item to the September 11, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Adopted 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-009 REQUESTING Resolution No. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A VETERINARY CLINIC 4063 AT 3051 EDINGER AVENUE IN THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL (PC -IND) ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4063. 7:16 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Ashabi Presented the staff report. Puckett Asked if the veterinarian is operating with another veterinarian at this time. Ashabi Answered in the affirmative. Puckett Asked if the original veterinarian will stay at the location after Dr. Hanson moves. Ashabi Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked what percentage of the total tenants in Jamboree Plaza are veterinarian uses. Ashabi Answered that staff does not have an exact number; there are four entitlements compared with approximately 30-40 uses within that center. Nielsen Asked if the conditions of approval provide stipulations for an overnight attendant in the veterinary clinic. Ashabi Responded that an overnight attendant is proposed when there is boarding on-site. Nielsen Asked whether or not that stipulation was in the conditions of approval. Ashabi Pointed out that condition 5.6 states that "a maximum of ten patients would be boarded in the clinic for overnight care with a technician on-site for supervision." Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Jen Long -Cortez, Stated that she was present on behalf of the applicant, Dr. Stephen J.L. Hare Hanson; thanked staff for working with the applicant over the past Associates few months in preparing the conditional use permit package; noted the staff conditions of approval have been reviewed by the applicant who accepts all those conditions contained in Resolution No. 4063. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 3 Ms. Long -Cortez Dr. Hanson is currently working in the advanced critical care and continued internal medicine building but is working with an imaging -MRI veterinary specialist who was providing care that is different from what would remain in the same building. Dr. Hanson has contracted with Steri -Cycle of Torrance; waste will be picked up by that entity. If the Planning Commission has any questions, Dr. Hanson is available to answer those questions. Puckett Asked if this would be an emergency room for animals. Ms. Long -Cortez Answered this would not be an emergency hospital but regular care for animals with existing conditions. Dr. Hanson, Indicated there is an emergency facility within the complex that is applicant open 24 hours providing emergency care; his practice is operated on an appointment basis; he is occasionally contacted to handle emergencies on a special, as -needed basis. Nielsen Verified with the applicant that this is a neurological clinic. Dr. Hanson Answered in the affirmative. 7:21 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. It was the consensus of the Commission that this is a good use for this site; all the Commissioners support staffs recommendation. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4063. Continued to 7. ZONE CHANGE 06-002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096, September 11, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024, AND DESIGN 2007, Planning REVIEW 06-020 REQUESTING: Commission meeting 1. ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) ZONING DISTRICT TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH 77 CONDOMINIUM UNITS; 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE THE 4.1 -ACRE SITE (NET AREA) INTO A 77 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT; Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 4 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 TO CONSTRUCT STRUCTURES OVER 20 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT; AND, 4. DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 FOR APPROVAL OF BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Adopt Resolution No. 4064 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as adequate for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 for development of the proposed 77 residential condominium unit project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4065 approving Conditional Use Permit 06-024 for constructing buildings over 20 feet in height within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and Design Review 06-020 for the architectural/site design and amenities of the proposed condominium project. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4066 recommending that the City Council adopt the MND for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06- 024, and Design Review 06-020 and approve Tentative Tract Map 27096 for the purpose of subdividing and developing a 4.1 -acre (net) site with 77 residential condominium units. Nielsen Stated for the record that he spoke with the developer and also several of the neighbors of the surrounding properties. Puckett Indicated that he also spoke with various residents but not at the same times as Chair Nielsen. Nielsen Asked if the one-page shade and shadow study represented the entire study. Ashabi Answered in the affirmative. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 5 Nielsen Asked what the maximum unit density would be for that particular site if the zone is changed to R-3 Residential, whether it would be the actual number of units that are being proposed or a higher density. Ashabi Noted that the General Plan allows up to 25 dwellings per acre, which would allow more units. Nielsen Questioned whether more units could be allowed with the zone change. Ashabi Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if hours of operation for construction would be normal hours of operation. Ashabi Stated the construction hours for the City are from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Nielsen Asked if additional mitigation measures are proposed during the construction process. Ashabi Answered that might be a question for the applicant. Nielsen Stated he noticed in the staff report that the wall on the western property line being six feet in one section and 6' 8" in another; and, asked which figure was correct. Ashabi Indicated that 6'8" is the maximum allowed and that is preferred for this location; the condition of approval should be revised to 6' 8" requirement. Nielsen Noted that on the western property line of those two-story homes with lofts with windows in the loft area the windows would be smaller; and, asked if the windows would be opaque. Ashabi Answered that the preliminary plans have not addressed the type of glazing, just the size and location of the windows. Nielsen Asked if there are other projects in the City that have the R-3 zoning next to R-1 properties with 10 -foot setbacks. Ashabi Stated that the only R-3 property within proximity of this site would be to the north of Mitchell. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 6 Nielsen Indicated that his question was whether or not there are any projects or residences currently anywhere in the south side of the City that have R-3 residential next to R-1 residential with 10 -foot setbacks similar to this project. Ashabi Responded that the question might require some research. Director Noted that staff can provide the standards for R-1 versus R-3; there may be varying differentials of setbacks where those might occur; for example, if the setback is five feet or ten feet, individuals can go up to that setback. Nielsen Clarified that his question was geared toward whether or not this is something new or something that has been done before in this area of the City. Director Stated that staff would need to research this question. Murray Asked for the rationale for the increase in the setback from the 10 to the 15 in that one area that staff recommended. Ashabi Responded that this is a reverse corner lot; the determination of the frontage of the lot is the narrow dimension of the lot; the majority or larger streetscape is along Browning Avenue which required that 15 -foot setback. Nielsen Questioned whether staff considers that a front -facing setback. Ashabi Commented that it would also provide more privacy to those residents that are adjacent to that property. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Jim Magstadt and Stated this is the second in -fill project the developer has presented Karen Sully to the Planning Commission; provided a PowerPoint presentation during which he referred to 50 -foot setbacks that actually included the yards of the neighboring residents; and, stated his team was available to answer any questions. Kozak Thanked the applicant for his presentation; and, asked for more information regarding the applicant's objection to the 15 -foot setback along Browning in Condition 1.8 and also about the fencing along the westerly and southerly boundaries near the single-family residences; for example, whether or not the new fence is being proposed in addition to any existing fences and the 10 -foot setback, Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 7 and whether or not there are garage openings that face the residents. Mr. Magstadt Stated the residents were informed of the original proposal for a six- foot block wall; the applicant volunteered to meet the 6' 8" maximum with any special treatment the neighbors might want on the wall. None of the garages face the adjacent residences. All the driveway areas are internal. The applicant stated specific suggested revisions to the conditions of approval would be addressed at a later time. Holland Noted that the Commission is conducting one hearing and now would be the appropriate time to hear any objections regarding any of the conditions of approval so the public would have the opportunity to comment on those objections. Kozak Asked for clarification whether or not the screening would be within the 10 -foot setback. Mr. Magstadt Stated the landscaping within the neighbors' yards will be augmented with a row of screening trees along the applicant's property. Kozak Verified that the 10 -foot setback would be heavily landscaped. Mr. Magstadt Confirmed that would be the case; and, stated the applicant is prepared to plant whatever trees are necessary to satisfy the screening desired. Murray Stated that this is a nice -looking project and very appealing from an aesthetics standpoint; and, asked about the lighting plan. Mr. Magstadt Answered that a lighting plan was submitted to the City; the applicant has retained a lighting specialist; the lighting is geared so that none reflects into the adjacent properties; decorative lighting has been proposed to meet some of the City's new lighting standards. Murray Stated proper lighting is necessary not only regarding the neighboring communities but also from a security standpoint; it is important that conditions not be built in that might prompt security issues. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 8 Mr. Magstadt Indicated the applicant would work closely with the Police Department regarding lighting and other security measures to protect the residents. Puckett Stated that, when he met with Ms. Sully, the plan was to have a meeting at the Citrus Cafe; and, asked for the attendance at the August 21 st meeting. Mr. Magstadt Answered that he thought there were about 15 people at that meeting and all were adjacent neighbors; in summary, attendees expressed concerns regarding height, density, setbacks, privacy issues regarding windows, maintaining the existing fences, area - wide traffic, and neighborhood parking. Nielsen Asked if the smaller windows along the western property line will be opaque. Mr. Magstadt Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if there had ever been any discussion of widening the setback against the western property line. Mr. Magstadt Responded that the neighbors would like 30 -foot setbacks; the City requires a 5 -foot setback and the applicant voluntarily designed 10 - foot setbacks; given the size of some of the backyards, some of the setbacks are as much as 50 feet; since Mitchell Avenue is 40 feet from curb to curb, the applicant feels that the setbacks being proposed are substantial. Nielsen Asked if there was an estimate of the timing from the beginning to the completion of the project. Mr. Magstadt Answered the project would take 12 to 15 months for the four phases. Nielsen Asked if any mitigation measures were planned regarding construction noise. Ms. Sully Stated that during construction, the typical requirements imposed by the AQMD and the City's Building Department would be followed; that includes dust control, watering the site, abiding by the construction hours; there is a condition regarding the construction plan which would deal with traffic control and truck traffic to and from the site, parking, staging areas, etc. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 9 Nielsen Asked, towards the end of the project when the final phases are being completed, what would be the plan for storing the construction equipment and material. Ms. Sully Indicated that would be managed on-site. Nielsen Asked if the applicant had any objections to the conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Magstadt Indicated there would be about eight changes requested. Murray Asked what mitigation measures might be addressed to deal with dirt and all road problems that typically occur during a construction project. Ms. Sully Indicated that all off-site debris would be removed, street sweeping, whatever the construction plan calls for; that plan will be developed during the plan check process. Nielsen Asked the applicant to state the requested changes to the conditions. Ms. Sully Requested the following: Resolution No. 4064: • In the environmental document, asked if the header should read that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt this resolution. If so, some of the Findings would need to reflect that, specifically Item Il on page 2. • Findings should be incorporated from the State Guidelines, Section 15074b, to support adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Holland Noted that the additional language has been added to the resolution; also, there are certain aspects of this project for which this Commission could be the final determinant; it would be appropriate for the Commission to adopt the resolution as written. Ms. Sully Resolution No. 4065: • Finding E on the first page conflicts with Finding H. Exhibit A of the Conditions of Approval: Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 10 • Condition 1.4: the timeframe should run consistent with the Tentative Map. • Condition 4.2: the reference to the video of the existing storm drain should be deleted; staff agreed to delete this on a prior occasion. • Condition 4.5: the reference to removing the handicapped street parking along Mitchell Avenue should be addressed during the street improvement plan and this condition be deleted. • Condition 5.2: typo clarification that northerly property line be changed to southerly property line. • Condition 7.3: the correction regarding the 6' decorative block wall be changed to 6'8'I . Resolution No. 4066: • Finding L reference to parcel map should be changed to tentative tract map. Nielsen Asked if staff needed time to address the requested changes. Director Answered in the affirmative. Kozak Referred to the revised page 2 and the addition of Item G for Resolution No. 4064 and asked that staff and the applicant provide clarification and a better understanding as to why that was added; and, stated he had not seen that before as a standard condition. Director Stated that language is from the California Environmental Quality Act. Kozak Asked if the City Attorney agreed with that added language. Holland Stated, that the most substantial change that is being suggested is that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects staffs independent judgment; that is a Finding that is suggested under State law and staff is concurring with that recommendation. Kozak Thanked staff for that information Director Stated that Resolution No. 4066 would be corrected; the 6' for 6' 8" correction is preferred, but there is no need to modify the language; it would be appreciated if the developer would work with the Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 11 adjacent properties regarding animals and other occurrences; a collaborative relationship would be appreciated; Condition 5.2, so noted; the modified resolution provided at the dais removed Conditions 4.5 and 4.2. Since staff may need more time to prepare their additional responses, the Commission may wish to begin public testimony at this time. Nielsen Invited the public to speak, asking that a few spokespeople be chosen to avoid repetitiveness; since there are approximately 75 people in attendance, this would speed the process. Kay Shafer, Stated this project is too high, too dense, too close to existing Cloverbrook homes, and the architecture does not match the neighborhood; the resident existing traffic along Browning, Mitchell, and Walnut is a problem; placing this development near Nelson Elementary School will create hazardous conditions for the children; parking is already a problem and will be impacted by increasing the number of units and potential residents of this project. A petition signed by 94 residents was presented by Ms. Shafer and is incorporated herein by reference. Stephanie Indicated her concern was that the development does not meet Sattlerlee, current standards; Ordinance No. 906 states that a project must not Cloverbrook exceed one story or 20' in height within 150 feet of her property; resident special circumstances do not exist; the zone change being requested emphasizes the fact that other properties with similar zoning classification are not granted similar privileges; she and her husband chose to buy their home in Tustin for the large backyards and frontyards without large building looming over them; any conditional use permit issued should expire within one year; the developer should not be allowed to wait for market conditions to settle. Jim Herron, Stated that his property abuts the development and will be directly Cloverbrook impacted; the privacy in the backyard was the main attraction for resident buying the house in 1975; that privacy will be destroyed by three- story condominiums 10 feet from the property line; several Realtors have indicated the proposed project will have a negative effect on Cloverbrook property values; he wonders if secret deals are being made between the City and the developer; he would like a more compatible development that would not block the morning sun, limit privacy, and destroy the beauty of his home. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 12 Jack Shafer, Commented that initially residents were told the proposed project Cloverbrook would be townhomes; now they are calling them condominiums; resident townhomes have one common wall; condos have four or more common walls; a Cape Cod style project does not fit into this neighborhood; he is not against building something that follows current zoning rules and restrictions; the 47 -foot setback the builder referred to includes Mr. Shafer's backyard. Rick Satterlee, Noted that he also was surprised by the developer's referring to his Cloverbrook personal backyard as meeting a setback; every house around the resident proposed project is single story; three-story structures looming over these homes will lower property values and forever change the neighborhood; he is opposed to the zone change, 10 -foot setback, and height variance due to the negative impact on the existing established R-1 zoned neighborhood; the community would perhaps support the project with the elimination of the third story, the provision of increased rear setbacks, and a maximum of 70 units in keeping with the current R-4 zoning; the staff report states there will be 22 visitation spaces, but only 18 are shown on the current site plan; the plans should include an entrance/exit on Mitchell. Julie Herron, Stated the existing complex has never been a problem; the Cloverbrook proposed development is wrong for the neighborhood; it is resident surprising that the City would allow such a mega -complex, to be built near a school; she would like to know if this project is part of a redevelopment project that would include different percentages of low-cost housing or a high-cost condominium project; the residents are opposed to the height, the enormity, the imposition being placed by the wall so close to the property line; it feels as though no one is respecting her values or property. Judith Jones, Added her opposition to the high density suggested for this project; Mitchell resident it is incompatible with the neighborhood; the suggestion for an entrance/exit on Mitchell would exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems. Toby Moore Stated that his primary opposition to the project was expressed in a Pinebrook resident letter to staff; the rebuttal provided by staff did not adequately address his concerns regarding the faulty assumptions based on the Traffic Study; the City must take into consideration that CEQA regulations have not been met; unless additional mitigations are put in place, he would recommend a full environmental impact report prior to any approval by the Planning Commission. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 13 Margaret LeBeau, Indicated that she has lived happily for 20 years at Rancho Sierra Browning resident Vista Apartments and would like to stay there a while longer; her concern is what will happen to the average senior citizen living on a fixed income when there are no affordable apartments available in Tustin; she has had her name on a waiting list for five years at the apartment complex on Sixth Street; she asked to be moved up on the list and was told that would not be possible; a $500 relocation expense does not go far to cover moving costs. David Levy, Submitted and read a statement into the record which is Browning resident incorporated herein by reference. Lisa Curlee, Stated that she is a condominium owner on Mitchell and the parent Mitchell resident of an elementary student at Nelson; traffic and parking are ongoing issues on Mitchell and at the school. Thelma Hatfield, Noted that she lives in the Tustin Park Villas condominiums across Mitchell resident the street from the proposed project; a 77 -unit project at this location would be a disaster waiting to happen; the traffic on Browning is so bad that motorists cut through the neighborhoods to get to the 1-5 freeway; when she goes to church on Sunday, there are no parking spots on Browning. Phyllis Burhenn, Indicated she has specialized in the Summerfield homes for more North Hills Realty than 33 years and has no doubt this project would have a negative effect on the homes along Cloverbrook, Pinebrook, and Sandfield and perhaps even on Copperfield. Nielsen Asked if staff was ready to respond. Director Responded that given the extensive public comments, the Commission may want to think about how to proceed; staff would like to take the opportunity to digest the comments received, especially the technical comments related to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Traffic Analysis, affordable housing, etc.; staff may not be prepared to respond in detail to each comment this evening; the Commission might want to take a recess to allow staff to discuss the issues and provide general comments or continue this item for two weeks to allow staff to come back and provide written responses. 9:25-9:40 p.m. Recess Nielsen Noted for the record that he lives in Summerfield Homes but is beyond the 500 -foot arc; legally, he has no conflict of interest and does not believe the impact will be as great as has been stated; the Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 14 comment suggesting the City must be making secret deals with the developer is false; the Commission and staff have done their utmost to make everything as public as possible. Asked if staff was ready to respond or would prefer the applicant return to the lectern. Director Suggested the applicant should proceed. Nielsen Requested that the applicant return to the lectern to address the issues stated by the residents. Mr. Magstadt Reiterated that the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to hold additional meetings if necessary; the applicant will look at the comments to try to solve some of the concerns; if staff needs more time to study these issues, the applicant would be willing to volunteer to continue the item; perhaps a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and neighbors would be appropriate; the developers want to be good neighbors and good owners. Nielsen Thanked the applicant; a subcommittee would not be advisable, because the Planning Commission does everything in public so that everyone can be aware of what is happening. Asked if staff was ready to respond. Director If the Planning Commission wished to continue the item, staff could provide comments at a later time. Nielsen Indicated that the best suggestion might be to continue the item; and, asked the City Attorney for his input. Holland Responded that, at the discretion of the Commission, a motion to continue the meeting could be made with instructions to staff to prepare a comprehensive set of responses to comments. Nielsen moved, seconded by Murray, to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Puckett Added that the Planning Commission approved a similar project at Red Hill and Walnut which he supported; in this case, there were so many residents who voiced their concerns that additional time seems the best way to proceed; he thanked the residents for their attendance and showing that government works. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 15 Nielsen Noted he also appreciated the residents coming forward to share their concerns. REGULAR BUSINESS Provided direction 8. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION: TOUR OF OLD TOWN to staff RESIDENTIAL AREA The primary purpose of the discussion is to identify possible future agenda items related to the Old Town Tustin Residential area. The discussion also provides a forum for the Commission to generally discuss the tour and to make recommendations for future tours. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive this report and provide direction to staff. Reekstin Provided a brief report. Puckett Stated it will be hard to top the first tour. Kozak Noted staff did a wonderful job of putting together a selected route to observe the various styles of architecture and other historic features in the residential area of Old Town; the Commission talked briefly at the last meeting about their individual observations and experiences; one of the things discussed was combining a tour with a workshop regarding the work program for the historic preservation responsibilities of the Commission; perhaps a tour of the commercial district of Old Town could then convene into a workshop where issues related to the Design Guidelines could be discussed and a path formulated. Nielsen Agreed with Commissioner Kozak's suggestion. Murray Stated it is important that the Commission get a feel for the contiguous areas of Old Town to get a perspective on the new responsibilities the Commission has been given. Nielsen Indicated the Old Town commercial district seemed to be the consensus for the next tour; and, suggested expanding the tours to Tustin Ranch and the Southwest area of the City. Puckett Added that another tour of The District to include the residential areas would be appropriate. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 16 Director Stated that staff could arrange the Old Town commercial tour, then perhaps a Legacy tour of The District and the Lennar developments where some milestones have been hit that staff would like the Commission to see. The Old Town tour could perhaps be scheduled for the second meeting in September. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to receive and file the report. Motion carried 4-0. Provided staff HISTORIC REGISTER AND COMMENDED PROPERTY direction PROGRAMS The Tustin Preservation Conservancy's interest in assuming responsibility for administering the Tustin Historic Register Plaque Program and the Commendation Program was expressed in a letter dated July 24, 2007. The Conservancy Board has offered to receive plaque requests from local residents and business owners, use the City's Historical Survey to research the property, and order the plaques from the same manufacturer that has been providing the plaques. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission receive this report and provide direction to staff. Linda Jennings, Congratulated Chair Nielsen and Chair Pro Tem Puckett on their Tustin Preservation selections this evening; and, reiterated her remarks from the July Conservancy 24, 2007, Planning Commission meeting regarding the Conservancy providing assistance to staff by taking over the historic plaque and commendation programs. Kozak Thanked Ms. Jennings for staying for the duration of the meeting to get to this item; and, asked if the Conservancy would be bringing their recommendations back to the Commission. Ms. Jennings Answered that would certainly be an option, if the Commission so desires, perhaps on a quarterly basis; and, asked whether or not the rectangular plaque requested by the Historic Preservation Committee for altered buildings has been designed. Nielsen Reiterated that he regretted missing the Old Town tour; the Conservancy is active in this field; the Tustin Historical Society and the Conservancy should perhaps prepare a proposal whereby they would be doing research and looking at the properties being Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 17 considered, with the Planning Commission as final arbiter and manager of the process. Puckett Stated his agreement with Chair Nielsen; the Commission should be the entity receiving the recommendations and making the final decision, perhaps on a quarterly basis. Murray Noted that collaboration between the Conservancy and the Historical Society would be important, but the Planning Commission should have an ownership in the decision. Kozak Agreed with the collaborative idea and to have guidelines established regarding who will do what. Ms. Jennings Stated the Tustin Historic Society is not interested in the architecture; they are primarily interested in the Museum; the research has been done on these buildings already; Carol Jordan was the Historian with the Historical Society and did all that research; a collaboration with the Society would probably not be an advantage. Suggested that the easiest thing to do would be to have the Conservancy receive the applications, process them, and provide them to staff on a quarterly basis for presentation to the Commission. Nielsen Reiterated that the Historical Society at least be given the opportunity to say no. Kozak Agreed with Chair Nielsen. Director Asked if staff was being requested to get the Society's input and develop draft guidelines. Nielsen Answered that, if the Conservancy has a proposal, the Tustin Area Historical Society be contacted regarding their possible involvement; if not, the information from the Conservancy will be given to the Commission; the Commission will create a logistical plan for the plaque program with the Commission as the final arbiter. Director Asked if Chair Nielsen would like draft guidelines prepared by staff; and, if the Historical Society is interested, have staff bring the guidelines back to the Commission for further direction. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 18 Nielsen Stated that if the Society is interested, get their input; if not, the Commission will have the Conservancy's input as necessary. Received and filed 5. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOPS report At the Planning Commission's request, staff will hold various workshops for the Planning Commission in the coming months. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission provide input to staff regarding future workshop topics. Director Indicated this item was continued in order to receive input from Chair Nielsen. Nielsen Mentioned the design guidelines referred to above be the first item to be considered. Kozak Noted that he commented last time that if the Commission were to look at prioritizing the workshops in terms of preparing the Commission to address issues that will be coming forward in the future, one of the issues would be infill projects similar to the one of the agenda this agenda; that may be something for the Commission to think about in terms of putting that as a priority. Nielsen Agreed that was an excellent idea. COMMISSION CONCERNS Murray Congratulated Chair Nielsen and Chair Pro Tem Puckett on their being selected to their respective positions. Noted the excellent community showing at this meeting; it was very interesting and enlightening; he appreciated the citizens coming out to express their concerns about a very important project; he will be interested in the proposal for a resolution at the next meeting. Stated he enjoys continuing to see great things at The District. Thanked Linda Jennings for attending and waiting through a long meeting to reach the Conservancy item. Kozak Added his congratulations to Chair Nielsen and Chair Pro Tem Puckett. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 19 Kozak continued Thanked staff for their hard work on all the agenda items and bringing back a couple items to allow Chair Nielsen's participation. Suggested that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Kenny Wilson, the Beckman High School football player, and expressed his condolences to his family and friends. Pointed out the building east of the Post Office where there are banners, neon signs, and window signs that are plastered all over the front of the structure; Code Enforcement should mitigate this problem. Puckett Offered his congratulations to Chair Nielsen and thanked the Commissioners for their confidence in his ability to perform the duties of Chair Pro Tem; this group may be the most diverse and best -qualified in his long experience of serving on the Planning Commission and City Council. Stated he attended the ribbon -cutting at the Chaparosa Grill yesterday; an excellent restaurant in the District; he and his wife enjoyed their 42nd wedding anniversary there. Noted that the Whole Foods ribbon -cutting is . scheduled for tomorrow and Oggi's for Thursday. Added that the resident participation at tonight's meeting was a good display of government in action; it is good to see the process at work. Nielsen Thanked his fellow Commissioners for his selection as Chair; and, congratulated Chair Pro Tem Puckett. Agreed with Chair Pro Tem Puckett regarding the knowledge and wide variety of expertise on the current Commission. Noted that staff keeps the Commission well prepared, making the job much easier. Thanked staff for spending a long evening; it was necessary; the neighbors in Summerfield homes and the apartments on Mitchell were very concerned about the project; it is good to see people get involved and provide input that will result in a project that meets as many needs as possible; it is important that the project mesh with the neighborhood. Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 20 Nielsen continued Thanked all the residents and the developer for their participation in the process. Noted he was also at the Chaparosa Grill and can attest to the great food. Added that it is good to see more businesses opening in The District; seeing the project come to fruition is wonderful. Commented on the sad passing of Kenny Wilson whose life touched many people; thoughts and prayers go out to his family; asked for a motion to close the meeting in his memory. It was moved . by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to adjourn in memory of Kenny Wilson. Motion carried 4-0. 10:17 p.m. ADJOURNMENT In Memory of Kenny Wilson The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held Tuesday, September 11, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. qhielsen Chairperson Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Minutes — Planning Commission 8-28-07 — Page 21 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 7:06 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given, followed by PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE a moment of silence in remembrance of 9-11-01 ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kozak, Murray, Nielsen, and Puckett Staff present Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director David Kendig, Deputy City Attorney Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer Justina Willkom, Senior Planner Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Ryan Swiontek, Associate Planner Reina Kapadia, Assistant Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR Approved 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 28, 2007, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Murray, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Adopted Resolution 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-003 AND DESIGN No. 4067 REVIEW 07-003 A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING FELLOWSHIP HALL, CONSTRUCT A NEW 23,707 SQUARE FOOT CLASSROOM AND FELLOWSHIP HALL BUILDING, AND TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 2,150 SQUARE FOOT LUNCH SHELTER STRUCTURE TO A TEMPORARY FELLOWSHIP HALL AND EVENTUAL CLASSROOM AND KITCHEN FACILITY ON THE CAMPUS OF RED HILL LUTHERAN CHURCH AND SCHOOL AT 13200 RED HILL AVENUE. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 1 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve Conditional. Use Permit 07-003 and Design Review 07-003 by adopting Resolution No. 4067. 7:08 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Kapadia Presented the staff report. Nielsen Asked for the height of the current hall. Kapadia Answered that the height was not indicated on the plan; perhaps that would be a question for the architect. Nielsen Asked if there is a basement in the existing structure. Kapadia Indicated that would also be a question for the applicant. Nielsen Asked if there is a left -turn pocket turning into the church for southbound traffic on Red Hill. Lutz Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Scott von Kaenel, Stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Lundstrom and Commission might have. Associates Nielsen Reiterated his question concerning the height of the existing fellowship hall. Mr. von Kaenel Answered that the height of the existing hall is approximately 20 feet. Nielsen Repeated his question regarding a basement in the existing hall. Mr. von Kaenel Responded in the negative. Nielsen Asked how long the project is expected to take from the beginning to the end of all phases. Mr. von Kaenel Answered that the expectation from start to completion would be approximately 18 months. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 2 Murray Asked if there might be traffic concerns regarding traffic backing up, particularly with the left turn, or any measures that have been considered by the school to address the traffic issues. Mr. von Kaenel Responded that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) did not indicate any expected impacts. Murray Suggested that perhaps someone from the school could respond to the question. John Lundstrom Noted that in the conditions of approval there is a condition that, if the City determines there are significant traffic impacts beyond what is projected in the TIA, the City reserves the right to notify Red Hill Lutheran Church and ask them to provide mitigation measures. Puckett Asked how long the three temporary units have been in use. Mr. Lundstrom Indicated that the two most recent modulars are approximately four years old; the older one approximately eight years old. Puckett Suggested that this remodeling will complete the campus. Kozak Stated that he saw conditions regarding screening and fencing around the site but no reference to construction schedules and whether or not the standard restrictions would apply. Director Answered the project would be subject to the standard construction activity schedule. 7:21 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Commissioners It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that this is a welcome project and a beautiful addition to the Red Hill Lutheran site. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4067. Motion carried 4-0. Adopted Resolution 3. CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 07-010 No. 4062 REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A 30 - LANE BOWLING ALLEY, ARCADE, AND RESTAURANT WITHIN AN EXISTING 28,000 SQUARE FOOT TENANT SPACE LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT AT TUSTIN LEGACY. THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 2405 PARK AVENUE IN THE SP -1 -MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (PLANNING AREA 19 -- COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4062 approving Conditional Use Permit 07-010. 7:23 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Swiontek Presented the staff report. Kozak Asked if the Police Department and other departments are satisfied with the proposed conditions of approval. Director Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Asked if other businesses are open until 2:00 a.m. Director Responded that there are expected to be other businesses that will be open until 2:00 a.m.; there are no restrictions at this point. Nielsen Asked if special mitigation has been considered regarding noise for the first floor neighbors. Director Indicated the applicant will incorporate improvements into the building plans. Puckett Asked what percentage of the business comes from the bowling and what comes from the entertainment. Director Suggested that question would be better directed to the applicant. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Brett Parker, Stated that the percentages vary from facility to facility; typically, the Strike Holdings business runs about 50-55 percent from bowling and shoes and the balance from food and beverage. Murray Asked if the Cupertino venue is larger than the one planned for Tustin. Mr. Parker Answered that the Cupertino venue is approximately 38,000 square feet. Murray Questioned whether or not there have been any unexpected challenges in Cupertino that might apply to the Tustin site. Mr. Parker Responded that the company has more than 10 years of operating history with these types of venues; the key is how the facility opens, how the situation is controlled during the first few weeks; less Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 4 experienced operators tend to open with a longer leash; the applicant knows the way to long-term happiness is to start with a very short leash and let it out over time if prudent; the biggest departure in Cupertino would be working more closely with the City than previously; Sheriffs deputies were hired through Santa Clara County to be on-site providing additional security. Murray Stated that he applauds those efforts; it is very important to establish good partnerships with the neighboring tenants and also with public safety; while wanting to ensure economic prosperity, it should not be at the expense of the quality of life for the citizens. Nielsen Suggested there has been a concern that this might become more of an entertainment facility, such as a nightclub or disco; and, asked if there were any long-term plans in that direction. Mr. Parker Indicated the long-term plan is to operate this business as planned from the start as a part of the community, not as a nightclub; a long- term commitment is the only way for it to make sense as an investment. Nielsen Asked for clarification regarding the security arrangements for this project. Mr. Parker Answered that it takes time to learn what is allowable in a community regarding police personnel which the applicant understands would not be allowed in Tustin; typically, there would be a combination of people who work for the company, subcontracted, bonded security people and, if appropriate, local police. Added that security is less of a concern than it would seem to be on the surface; this is not loud, dancing music but 84s frat rock; the idea behind the concept is to bring bowling back into favor as an activity for families. Nielsen Asked what the name will be. Mr. Parker Answered the name will be Strike Tustin. Noted there were two conditions the applicant wished to address as follows: Condition 1.5 makes the applicant responsible for the cost of enforcement of actions under the conditional use permit. If there were an action brought, the language suggests the applicant would be paying for unnecessary enforcement actions. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 5 Parker continued Condition 1.6 relates to a similar issue stating that the applicant will indemnify the City against third -party actions related to the conditional use permit. If someone were to sue the applicant, it would seem reasonable the applicant would defend that action. Kendig Stated that both are standard conditions, which are normally not objected to by applicants, and briefly explained the reasoning behind the conditions referred to above. Mr. Parker Reiterated that Condition 1.6 suggests the applicant would be paying double court costs, which seems onerous. Kendig Indicated the City Attorney would request the conditions remain. 7:41 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Asked for clarification from the City Attorney whether or not it would Kozak be acceptable to change Condition 1.5. Kendig Responded that it would be his recommendation that Condition 1.5 stand as it is; if the Planning Commission feels it should be changed, the City Attorney would not have a strong opinion on it. Indicated he would not be inclined to change standard conditions of Kozak approval; he supports the project and appreciates the extra time the applicant and staff took to reach a compromise and move forward. Murray Stated he concurred with the legal opinion and appreciated the efforts made between the applicant and the staff; this is a welcome project in the community. Puckett Questioned whether use restriction 5.1 is also a standard restriction. Director Answered in the affirmative, regarding this type of venue. Puckett Agreed with the other Commissioners that this is a good use of the property and something that will enhance the entertainment value of the District; he supports the project. Nielsen Noted that he also likes the project and hopes to spend time there with his family; and, stated the standard conditions should remain. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to adopt Resolution No. 4062. Motion carried 4-0. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 6 Denied, 3-1 4. ZONE CHANGE 06-002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024, AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 REQUESTING: 1. ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) ZONING DISTRICT TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) TO REDEVELOP THE SITE WITH 77 CONDOMINIUM UNITS; 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE THE 4.1 -ACRE SITE (NET AREA) INTO A 77 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT; 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 TO CONSTRUCT STRUCTURES OVER 20 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONING DISTRICT; AND, 4. DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 FOR APPROVAL OF BUILDING ARCHITECTURE AND SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4064 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as adequate for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 for development of the proposed 77 residential condominium unit project. 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4065 approving Conditional Use Permit 06-024 for constructing buildings over 20 feet in height within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) zoning district and Design Review 06-020 for the architectural/site design and amenities of the proposed condominium project. 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4066 recommending that the City Council adopt the MND for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06- 024, and Design Review 06-020 and approve Tentative Tract Map 27096 for the purpose of subdividing and developing a 4.1 -acre (net) site with 77 residential condominium units. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 7 7:47 p.m. The Public Hearing opened. Ashabi Presented the staff report. Nielsen Asked if the zone change would allow the applicant to have up to 25 dwelling units density on the property. Ashabi Answered in the affirmative. Nielsen Remarked for clarification that the current project would be 18.7 dwelling units; suggested that at some time in the future that could change to 25 dwelling units with this entitlement; and, asked if that would be automatically approved. Ashabi Responded that the 25 dwelling units per acre is a General Plan land use designation; the R-3 would allow up to 100 units, but the development standards would have to be met with submittal of a site plan and tentative tract map. Nielsen Asked for the logic for the current zoning and the new zoning being longest for the side yard setbacks. Ashabi Explained that the City Code definition for a front yard is the shortest dimension facing the street, which in this case would be Mitchell; the proposed site is referred to as a reverse corner lot. Nielsen Asked, regarding the current setbacks, what the dimensions are for the front and rear yards. Ashabi Answered the front would be 15 feet and the rear 10 feet. Nielsen Questioned what would be the maximum amount of units if the zoning did not change at the project location. Ashabi Indicated the maximum number of units would be 60. Director Added that the existing number is 60; if the existing units were to be removed, it would be 71 units. Nielsen Questioned whether the height restriction with current zoning would be 20 feet. Ashabi Answered that would be correct, 150 feet from the R-1 properties. Director Added that beyond the 150 linear feet it would be 35 feet. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 8 Nielsen Asked what mitigation measures could be taken regarding traffic leaving the project during school rush hours if traffic is deemed an issue. Director Questioned, as a point of clarification, whether Chair Nielsen was referring to potentially restricting traffic from leaving the site or entering the site. Nielsen Answered in the affirmative; and, stated his concern stems from the potential traffic issues and what the mitigation plan might be. Lutz Stated that one access point to the project is the best possible mitigation; there would be stacking on-site which would be the worst circulation problem; future mitigation is well -covered. Nielsen Indicated that his concern relates to traffic during school rush hour, particularly since there is a pedestrian crosswalk that would be very close to the entry and exit point into the project; traffic leaving the project turning right onto Browning going towards Walnut will run into the school traffic; and, questioned whether or not staff has any plan if this becomes an issue. Lutz Answered there was nothing beyond the existing crossing guard, the best scenario for traffic control. Nielsen Verified that nothing has been planned for problems with traffic out of the project. Lutz Stated that the turn movement in that direction could be restricted if necessary. Nielsen Asked if the Tustin Unified School District was consulted regarding traffic or circulation studies the District may have done around Nelson School. Lutz Answered the District was not consulted regarding this project. Nielsen Asked if a zoning variance on the current zoning regarding extending side yard setbacks would be a possibility or would it have to be a zone change. Director Asked for clarification of Chair Nielsen's question. Nielsen Stated that, if the zoning remained the same and if the setbacks were increased, he was questioning whether that could be accomplished with a variance rather than changing the zoning. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 9 Director Responded that there are Findings the Commission would need to make to approve a variance. Nielsen Invited the applicant to the lectern. Jim Magstadt Stated he has been doing this for a long time; the goal has been to acquire old, under-utilized rental properties and replace with upscale architecturally designed residential for - sale housing in order to satisfy the homebuyer demand for infill housing to minimize commuter time and to provide homes that are in close proximity to shopping, employment, schools, recreation, public transportation services; he met with residents of the community again due to his concerns regarding their comments at the last Planning Commission meeting; developing infill projects can be a challenge because the constraints are much higher; it is impossible to satisfy all the concerns and all the objections; in this situation, staff did a good job of summarizing the concerns of the citizens; in order to buy older properties, it is necessary to factor in what is being paid for the existing project and then be able to build enough density to make it economically feasible; it is his policy to check the General Plan to avoid proposing something that is not in concurrence with the goals of the City. • In summary, the developer is willing to make the following concessions: • The 10' to 15' setback along the westerly property line could be accommodated if the recommended 15' setback along Browning were eliminated. • Reduce height of Plan 4 and Plan 5 units from 32' 6" to 26' 6" by lowering the roof pitch and eliminating the lofts in the buildings adjacent*to the southwestern property line. Increase the setback along the southwest property line, which would be the side yard, from 10' to 15'. • Provide the 6' 8" block wall rather than the 6' wall and paint it to coordinate with the adjacent property owners. Provide landscaping that will not drop leaves onto adjacent properties. Provide additional landscaping along the private patio areas. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 10 Magstadt continued Added that the developer is very excited about The Legacy and proud to be a part of Tustin's growth and development. Reiterated his comments from the prior Planning Commission meeting regarding the existing landscaping with mature pine trees that so high anything behind them would be shielded and cause a minimum impact. Noted the developer has assembled an excellent team that was available to answer any additional questions. Puckett Asked if the reduction to 26' 6" would include all the buildings that would have been that height. Mr. Magstadt Responded it would include all the buildings along that property line, with the exception of the building that fronts Mitchell, a group of units that would maintain the same property line as the side yard at 10 feet. Puckett Asked if that could be accomplished without losing any square footage inside. Mr. Magstadt Indicated that this would require squeezing some of the units to pick up inches here and there. Murray Questioned whether or not this accommodation would change the total number of units but include removing the lofts. Mr. Magstadt Answered the lofts would be removed from the units along the side yard. Nielsen Invited the public to speak, requesting that a few spokespeople could be selected to speak; and, asked that only new information and comments be provided regarding the concessions the developer referred to above. Toby Moore, Reiterated his belief that the traffic component is flawed; there were Pinebrook resident incorrect baseline assumptions made regarding the existing site that had to do with access from three different locations, one on Browning and two on Mitchell; staff is still looking at the Traffic Analysis as being correct; 17 additional southbound trips going down Browning is incorrect by 120 percent. Nielsen Asked for consideration for all speakers and no audience intrusion. Mr. Moore Continued that Table 3 in the Traffic Study is based only on vehicles exiting from the current site and the proposed project; in that analysis, the current project to have 25 exiting vehicles and the Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 11 proposed project 43; the difference is 18 which assumes that 95 percent will make a turn going south on Browning; the problem is that the 25 assumes that is what currently occurs on the existing site which is not correct; there are three parking areas on this site; about 20 percent or less use the Browning location; the remainder use Mitchell; no study was done to determine how many vehicles exit, enter, or go down Mitchell as opposed to making a southbound turn going down Browning; the staff report states that the City's Engineer looked at the worst case scenario which is not the case; this is the worst case scenario: consider the 25 trips going out and assume that 20 percent are currently exiting that property on Browning and go south; that would be 5; 43 minus 5 is 38 which is very different from 17-124. percent more; that 17 number is used in all the other analyses of the Traffic Study, whether it is the flow numbers, intersection numbers, or the turn numbers, which are used to determine the level of service and whether in compliance with the City conditions. If the Study had been done correctly, perhaps those numbers still match what the City accepts for traffic on this street. It needs to be done. The Council [sic] should oppose the approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which is a condition for the zone change. Jacqueline Lui, Stated that the existing traffic is very bad when she goes to work; Browning resident when she comes home from her night classes, there are no parking spaces on the street for additional cars; 77 units would cause even more traffic and parking difficulties; five additional parking spaces will not be enough; the traffic for the school causes problems between 7:30-8:15 a.m.; affordable housing, with one bedroom, starts at $425,000 which many people cannot afford; people on fixed incomes will have no place to go. Georgia Abbott, Indicated she has lived on the corner of Browning and Mitchell for Browning resident 15 years; she planned on retiring and dying there; her family and friends enjoy coming to her home; if she has to leave her home, there is nothing in Tustin or Orange County she could afford to rent; this is a community that cares for each other and helps each other; there is a spirit of friendship and trust to live a peaceful, harmonious life; please reconsider the zoning and let the residents enjoy their lives. Peggy LeBeau, Stated she has lived in Rancho Sierra Vista for 20 years; she is 78 Browning resident years old and on a limited income; replacement housing for her is nonexistent and $500 would not be sufficient to cover moving costs; it is her hope that the Planning Commission will consider the huge advantage of recognizing the legitimate objections presented and allow this modest corner of Tustin to be an example of fair Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 12 housing which will help the entire neighborhood and keep many school children safe. Rick Satterlee, Stated his proposal is to keep the R-4 zoning and take away six Cloverbrook resident units; many of the projects with R-1 next to R-3 are very small and impact only a few homes; in his area, this project would impact a neighborhood with R-1 zoning on three sides. Danny Wassenaar, Referred to the poll recently published in the Orange County Cloverbrook resident Register in which homebuyers were asked what they considered most important to a home; 45 out of 100 people stated the most coveted feature is the backyard; regarding issues of height and density, staff refers to the Land Use Element of the General Plan Goals and Policies as their authority for allowing this construction; when he read the General Plan, he found that the Goals should be reviewed comprehensively, not one bullet at a time; what was excluded from the staff report, for example, was Goal 1.3 that discusses preserving existing low-density character and single- family zoned neighborhoods; or Goal 6.4 "to preserve and enhance the City's residential character and small-town quality by encouraging a maintaining Tustin's low-density residential neighborhoods through enforcement of existing land use ... and harmonious blending of buildings and landscapes." He does not believe the Planning Commissioner's predecessors from the late 1960s would approve of the proposed zone change; they had the foresight to see the big picture of how everything should fit together; this neighborhood is not in a special management area that needs redevelopment. Stephanie Satterle, Thanked staff for coming to her home and the developer for going Cloverbrook in the direction of lowering the height and increasing the setbacks; Resident Ordinance No. 862 states "the Zoning Code does not adequately protect the character of neighboring single stories in single-family districts and therefore should be amended with Ordinance No. 862; the ordinance must be there to protect single-family homes; the report states 24 parking spaces where only 18 are shown on the site plan, and it is a concern that 11 of the spaces will be used on trash days; it would be nice to preserve our neighborhood with appropriate setbacks; homes that have been added onto do not appear to be two stories. Julie Standish, Noted the residents of Pinebrook are very concerned that their Pinebrook resident street will bear the brunt of the changes on the Cloverbrook side; (no speaker form the cul-de-sac on which she lives is regularly used as a U-turn for presented) all of the people coming and going from the school; it is impossible to back out of her driveway during the peak times; eliminating the two driveways on Mitchell is an issue of great concern. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 13 Kim Keelin, Sandfield Indicated that the Sandfield, Fernbrook, Shadybrook neighbors all resident are united with the Cloverbrook and Pinebrook neighbors and agree with the no zoning change due to existing traffic congestion; there should be an additional Mitchell driveway. Juanita Haralson, Stated that she chose Tustin in 1974, particularly Rancho Sierra Browning resident Vista Apartments, because they were ideal at that time; being 81 years old, she has a fixed income of Social Security only; the apartments that have been listed for the seniors to look at have had no vacancies; when there is a vacancy, the waiting list is anywhere from two to three years long; the apartments range from $938- $1,056 at Heritage Plaza; for someone on Social Security, that would not be affordable. David Levy, Browning Submitted and read a statement into the record which is resident incorporated herein by reference. Jonathan Waaldridge, Stated he has lived in the Rancho Sierra Vista apartment complex Browning resident since he was five years old; he's 16 now; this is the home in which he grew up; it is unfair to have his home demolished for a project that does not seem necessary; affordable housing, such as Rancho Sierra Vista, is hard to come by; he lives with his 73 -year-old grandmother who works full-time to support him and his disabled mother; he would like to know where the affordable housing is in Tustin; moving out of Tustin at this time in his life would interrupt his schooling to his detriment; this project should not be approved. Patricia Erol, Indicated that she and her husband recently moved into Rancho Browning resident Sierra Vista; they lived in Tustin in the past and came back to the area because of the charm; most places are corporate and tall and cold; getting to know one's neighbors is part of the lifestyle at the apartments and a rare thing; gardening is a big part of her husband's life and he spends time doing so in the backyard; this is what they consider home and do not look forward to moving. Lisa Curlee, Stated that she is a condo owner on Mitchell and asked the Mitchell resident following questions: 1. What are we trying to achieve? 2. What are the goals for the neighborhood? What is being proposed does not seem to fit in. No one wants to stand in the way of progress, but this project does not seem to fit that definition. 3. What will this add to the community? 4. Who will buy these units? Many of the neighbors in the Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 14 area cannot afford to buy the homes they are living in now. 5. What will happen if these units are not sold? Would someone be renting them? 6. Who will safeguard the children's progress to school with the added traffic on Browning? Suggested the Traffic Study was based upon the people who live in the complex now, many of whom seem to be retirees; chances are the people moving into the proposed project will be working people with two incomes; the street parking problems that exist now should be addressed by the Police Department. Reminded everyone that Nelson Elementary would not be able to accept any children the project might house, because Nelson is full. Kay Shafer, Noted that the developer has been working with the residents to try Cloverbrook resident to come to a compromise but still has not given enough, this project would impact the entire neighborhood; if these residents agree to the concessions, the next developer may expect more; there is no need for a zone change that would set a precedent for all future rezones within single-family residential neighborhoods and open the City to development the residents have never seen nor would want to see; the taxpayers stand before the Commission to ask that this zone change and conditional use permit not be allowed to go forward; it would not enhance the community, would take away from current property values, and would take away the way of life the residents bought into so many years ago. Joe Vargas, Stated his opposition to the project for working families like his who Browning resident moved from Irvine to Tustin because Rancho Sierra Vista was charming and affordable; once people are there, they do not want to leave; it is a collaboration of retirees and working people who look out for their neighbors; he was speaking for them as well as his family. Maureen Kasinski, Indicated she is a forty -year Tustin resident; when she moved to 17th Street resident Tustin, it meant a backyard, green trees, open area; she is smothered by what has happened at Tustin Fields; this housing does not fit in Tustin; it does not provide quality of life to have three- story buildings with no backyard, just a garage and a little patio in front; Tustin residents have to have land and forty single -story cottages would be perfect on that property to take care of the seniors and the older people. Pam Poucher, Noted she has lived at her current location in Tustin for 29 years; Sandfield resident when Mr. Magstadt was speaking, he mentioned that he has been Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 15 doing this for many years and is very familiar with the whole operation; he commended the staff of the presentation; her question is why he would choose this property when the existing zoning would not allow the height and density proposed. Thelma Hatfield, Suggested that, if the developer is looking for future properties for Mitchell resident these types of projects, Park Villas, where she has lived since 1975, may be next; pleaded with the Commission not to change the zoning; noted this is a well -kept, pleasant, safe neighborhood; the builder seems to be in this for the money, not for the quality of life; asked that Tustin be kept as it is. 9:08 p.m. Recess 9:23 p.m. Meeting reconvened. Nielsen Asked staff to respond to the public input. Director Indicated that staff would be happy to respond to any specific questions the Commission may have; the Traffic Engineer may want to respond specifically to the comments made regarding the Traffic Study and/or ask Mr. Foust, who prepared the study, to comment on the technical analysis; staff could respond to comments regarding the affordable housing component; some of the comments provided in the staff report were very general because there were several comments made at the first Public Hearing and in the correspondence that was received; staff tried to generalize those comments and provide responses accordingly, not do so point by point; regarding the density issue, one of the speakers was correct—it is an issue of gross versus net calculation; 60 is the net, 71 would be the gross; there will be a dedication requirement that extends into the street. Nielsen Verified that the maximum would be 60 under the current zoning. Director Stated that was correct. Nielsen Asked staff for clarification regarding Ordinance No. 862. Director Stated, without having the history of the ordinances with her, that Ordinance No. 862 may refer to the setback requirement that applies to R-3 and R-4 properties that are adjacent to single-family residences; staff can research the history of that law. Nielsen Questioned whether staff had comments regarding the traffic study. Lutz Stated he would defer specific questions to the Traffic Engineer, Joe Foust. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 16 Joe Foust, Austin- Referred to the 17 trips southbound being off as much as 120 Foust Associates percent; this analysis took, as CEQA requires, a worst-case analysis; that is, 95 percent of the project traffic would head south on Browning from the existing apartments as well as the proposed condominiums; with the assignment of 95 percent of the traffic going north and south on Browning, that constituted the most traffic that would be going through what was identified early on as one of the key traffic concerns of this project, Nelson School located close by; putting the project in perspective, these 77 units will generate approximately 600-700 trips a day; the county -wide CMP program exempts development projects up to 2,400; the City staff, rightfully so even though they might learn to regret it, chose to evaluate this project in detail even though it substantially exceeded what would be the criteria for a CMP type of traffic impact analysis; this project is well below what is normally considered one that would be subject to a CEQA and traffic impact basis on the county -wide CMP guidelines; Walnut is carrying approximately 20,000 cars a day; Browning has about 5,000 cars a day; there is a logic in going south to Walnut rather than north to Mitchell; the volume on Walnut is substantially higher than it is on Mitchell and Walnut leads to more destinations; regarding the total volume of this project, even at 95 percent on Browning; the volume of exiting traffic, whether turning right or left, would be 43 vehicles in a hour in the morning; there are already 800 vehicles on Browning, which is a five percent change if all the vehicles go one direction; that applies no credit at all for the existing apartments; whether the number is 17 or 22 or 34, 77 units would still have an insignificant impact in comparison with the total volume of traffic. In looking at the destinations and the direction of the traffic coming out of the new development, the traffic will go north and south through the crosswalk at Nelson School where there is a crossing guard; the real issue with the school is there is no left turn, requiring a U-turn within the intersection or onto the cul-de-sac street. That count is about one car per minute during the peak times making a U-turn. The point is that this project is adding 17 more dwelling units and whatever traffic that will generate; 95 percent of that traffic will go southbound on Browning. As a potential back-up plan, everyone could be forced to tum left out of the project. Those that want to get to Walnut would probably make a U-turn to do so. Nielsen Asked if the study included school days. Mr. Foust Answered that all the school counts took place when school was in session; other counts were taken at Browning and Walnut this spring; no counts were done when school was not in session. Nielsen Invited the applicant to come forward and respond. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 17 Mr. Magstadt Restated his position: the applicant has been in the process for one and a half years through five submittals; it has been complicated and time-consuming; adjustments have been made; modifications were made to the site plan; the applicant meets and exceeds all the development standards of the Tustin General Plan; concessions and refinements have been ongoing to arrive at a project that everyone could be proud of and would be a financial and living success for the residents; additional concessions have been made tonight based on the needs of the neighbors; while it is not possible to meet all their concerns, the applicant has tried to do; he is sympathetic to the residents who live in these units; there are State standards regarding relocating tenants; the applicant exceeds those State and local standards and goes beyond any of the competitors regarding such concessions; he appreciates all the time and effort everyone has put in and urges the Planning Commission take everything into consideration and allow the project to move forward. 9:40 p.m. The Public Hearing closed. Kozak Thanked everyone for their participation. Stated he reviewed all the materials carefully; visited the site on multiple occasions; read all the letters that were received from the residents, the developer's materials, the staff reports, etc. and evaluated everything and considered the options that he sees. This is a highly constrained site and a very challenging project for everyone. The key points are as follows: Zoning — There seems to be a logic to having this property zoned R-4 as it has been, adjacent to R-1 properties; he does not see the need for a zone change; the economic feasibility argument presented shows no planning basis for a zone change; it is important to determine whether or not a project is detrimental; he is hard-pressed to find that this project is not detrimental to the general welfare of persons currently living in the neighborhood and detrimental to the adjacent residential properties as the project has been proposed and submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration. Harmonious Development — He noted the requirement for a finding and conclusion that there is harmonious development. In looking at the proposed project in relation to adjacent properties, it is his opinion that the height, size, and scale are too large for this small site. In terms of physical relationships of the proposed structures to existing structures, the setbacks are lacking. The density on the Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 18 site is high. The project has a number of beneficial aspects, i.e. architecture. He generally encourages the reuse, revitalization, and rejuvenation of projects; however, in this case, the project as proposed is too high, too close, and too dense; he is unable to support the project as proposed. The project is not a good fit for this site in this community. It may work in another location, but it is his judgment that this looks like five pounds trying to be pressed into a two -pound box. Murray Indicated this has been very tough; he reviewed everything, drove by the site numerous times, even at night, to make sure he could see it from the perspective of the residents; complimented staff and the developer for their effort in trying to accommodate the community. Change is never easy but sometimes compromise is necessary. He has strong concerns regarding the aesthetics and how they fit into that community; the setbacks have been his concern since the beginning which stems from his background in public safety. While measures and accommodations have been made, the primary concern is the relocation plan. Those things are important. In a situation like this and after hearing some of the testimony from the people who live in the neighborhood, it is evident that there is a special kind of character and those things are hard to find. He cannot support the project as presented. Puckett Offered his congratulations to all the people in the audience for the organization involved in their presentation of their concerns; indicated there is an opening for a Planning Commissioner; it is not an easy job; he liked this project from the beginning and thinks it would be good for that area; this is a good developer; a similar project was approved on Walnut and Red Hill that was perfect for that location; he likes the architecture; the developer has expressed a willingness to work with the neighbors and with staff more than any developer he has seen during his years on the Planning Commission and City Council; he commends the developer for his willingness to work with the residents; he supports the project. Nielsen Thanked staff for their diligent, hard work in putting together all the information that it takes for this type of hearing; staff spent countless hours going over the public input; he appreciates everyone coming out and letting the Commission know his/her feelings at both hearings; this sort of participation is what makes a fair hearing fair; he looks at this project in a number of different ways; he lost sleep and thought about the project until his head ached; he read every letter and e-mail that was sent. Suggested that this could be a precedent -setting development; the positives of the project include a developer that has put a lot of effort and money trying to put together a project that he feels would Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 19 fit the location and the neighborhood; he met numerous times with neighbors and has made some concessions to which no one in the audience responded; the developer is trying to come to a compromise in this situation; the architecture is fine and if the project were correctly done it could be a major benefit to the neighborhood. Indicated the negatives of the project in his opinion are: The setback issue, particularly in the western property line, has been an issue with the neighborhood and with him since the beginning. The height examples, as shown in staffs well -researched documentation, being close to a major R-1 development would not affect an entire neighborhood the way this project would. Given the traffic situation around Nelson School, it is his opinion the Traffic Study was too optimistic; he drives Browning two to three times daily, and there are more cars going from Browning toward Walnut; while he may be accused of being over -cautious in trying to keep the children safe, he is fine with that; with any project that goes in that spot, there must be some sort of traffic mitigation; there is not a Plan B, only the Traffic Study indicating there will be a non-significant amount of traffic; anything that makes a bad situation worse is a problem. While the above might be worked out, the one thing he could not get past was the zone change which could allow at some time up to 100 units on that property; if that were allowed to happen, it would destroy the neighborhood. The developer is to be complimented for working hard on this project; however, the project is too dense, needs larger setbacks, and traffic mitigation near Nelson School; all would need to be addressed for him to take another look at the project. While the developer's heart may be in the right place, he is in the business to make a profit. Transitioning rental property into ownership property in Tustin is a good thing, but he cannot support this project as submitted. Cautioned the residents in the audience that a project will be built on that property at some future time; the residents should be as accommodating as possible to a developer that is trying to work with them, because it would be much easier than an owner that will not work with them. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 20 Nielsen continued Asked staff how a motion should be presented. Director Answered that there should be a motion to deny and direction to staff to bring back resolutions for the Planning Commission's consideration with Findings in support of a denial. It was moved by Murray, seconded by Kozak, to deny. Motion carried 3-1; Puckett dissented. Director Noted that this is an appealable item; the appeal period would not commence until the Planning Commission has taken action on the resolutions supporting its actions that the Commission directed staff to bring to the next meeting. None REGULAR BUSINESS 5. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2007, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Presentation: Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Director reported The City Council approved the plans and specifications to advertise the bids for the Tustin Library. Reminded the Commission that the Old Town commercial tour is planned at 5:30 p.m. before the September 25, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Noted that the Planning Officials Forum flyer was e-mailed to the Commissioners; the Forum is scheduled for October 18; there should be some interesting presentations, one of which will be Prospect Village; the Commissioners are encouraged to attend. COMMISSION CONCERNS Murray Stated that this has been a great example of City government at work. Commended the citizens for coming out to share their feelings and concerns and staff for all their research and hard work. Suggested the Red Hill Lutheran expansion and the Strike Bowling facility are welcome additions to the City. Complimented The Sully Group for their efforts and concessions. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 21 Murray continued Applauded his peers on the Planning Commission for their opinions and careful research and thoughts. Asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of 9-11-01, just as the meeting began. Kozak Agreed with Commissioner Murray's adjournment suggestion. Offered his thanks to staff for their work, particularly on Agenda Item No. 4, a challenging item for everyone involved. Noted that he attended with Chair Nielsen the Saturday evening Tustin Conservancy barbecue; and, thanked Linda and Steve Jennings for sponsoring that event. Referred to the vacant Arco site on Red Hill; and, asked that staff arrange for the lot to be cleared of weeds. Puckett Stated that tonight was a tremendous example of government in action with all the people involved and committed to their cause. Noted the Red Hili school project looks wonderful; the fact that they are progressing and able to expand is impressive. Indicated that he will be returning to Kansas next week for a 75th anniversary of the home church where he grew up, founded on September 23, 1932. Asked if there has been any progress regarding Katherine Spur. Director Indicated the studies related to the Spur are dormant at this time; studies have been done looking at various alternatives; staff is now waiting for some cost estimates of those alternatives; the last estimate was in the early 1990s and those estimates are out of date. Puckett Questioned whether or not there is a concern with the pipeline. Director Answered that the pipeline has been abandoned, but easements still exist. Puckett Indicated that his Peppertree neighbors continue to ask what can be done to get something started there; and, asked that staff keep him apprised regarding any developments. Director Stated that the analysis performed by staff could be provided to anyone who might be interested. Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 22 Puckett Noted that closing in honor of the victims of that dark day in history, 9-11-01, would be appropriate. Nielsen Stated that the Commission took the Heritage Village project very seriously; it was difficult, but important, to choose the right decision; it was also important that the community came out to express their opinions; the developer was trying to be accommodating in order to get his project approved, and it would be good to see something more accommodating back from him that the Commission could work with. Thanked staff for all the work on that project. Noted his enjoyment of the Tustin Conservancy barbecue; every time he attends a Conservancy event, he learns something new: this time he learned which houses had cellars. Agreed with the suggestion of adjourning in honor of the 9/11 victims. 10:11 P.M. ADJOURNMENT In Memory of the Victims of 9-11-01 The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. Chairperson Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Minutes — Planning Commission 9-11-07 — Page 23 ATTACHMENT D NOVEMBER 6, 2007, CITY COUNCIL REPORT Planning Commission Resolutions 4065, and 4066 RESOLUTION NO. 4065 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 77 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 4.1 -ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 was submitted by Sun -Cal Browning LLC requesting authorization to demolish 60 apartment units and construct a 77 -unit condominium project on a 4.1 -acre (net area) site located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue (APN 432-342-30); B. That the site is located in the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation and Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district; C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, by the Planning Commission; D. A petition in opposition of the project with 94 signatures in addition to 19 letters and 23 public comments were received in opposition of the project. The residents of the adjacent communities expressed that the density, height, and traffic impacts were not addressed with the proposed project and not adequately analyzed in the MND. E. At the conclusion of the September 11, 2007, hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare resolutions of denial for the project including the following findings: As proposed, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and three-story development; Even though the proposed project is limited to 77 dwelling units, rezoning the property to R-3 would provide for a future opportunity for development of a higher density project of up to 100 units on this site, if this project is not implemented; Resolution 4065 CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 2 Approval of a high density project that is not compatible with the existing community would set a negative precedent for future in -fill development in Tustin; • The proposed height, size, and scale of the project are too large for the site in physical relationship to the existing adjacent structures; and, The circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project with respect to the proposed density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school and could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. F. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and will be injurious and detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that: a) The buildings along the R-1 adjoining properties are proposed at 10 feet from the westerly property line and 16 feet from the southerly property line. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines are designed at two stories with l th with an overall height of 32'-6" that is not compatible adjacent single story residences. The current zoning allows a maximum height of 20 feet within 150 feet of Single Family Residential (R-1) district unless a conditional use permit is granted; b) Even though the units along the westerly property lines are designed with two stories with a loft, the overall project includes mostly 3 -story structures at an undesirable distance from the single story, single family residences to the west of the property; and, c) The project site is within an established single story, single family neighborhood, where 3 -story structures will negatively impact the aesthetics, privacy, views and quality of life of the adjoining properties. The proposed setbacks and stepped height design do not adequately reduce the aesthetic and livability impacts to adjacent properties. Resolution 4065 CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 3 G. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk, and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 7. Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. 8. Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. 9. Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Proposed signage. 14. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. H. The proposed height does not fit the single story ranch style architecture characteristic of that area; I. Without approval of a zone change from R-4 to R-3 by the City Council, the proposed. subdivision would not be in conformance with the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district regulations; and, J. The applicant has requested approval of Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 in conjunction with the application for Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020, and the Planning Commission is recommending denial of the project related to Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096. K. This project is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the Environmental Quality Act) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency. Resolution 4065 CUP 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 4 II. The Planning Commission hereby denies without prejudice Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 for development of a three-story 77 -unit condominium project on a 4.1 -acre site located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 25th day of September, 2007. --9- - JOH IELSEN Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4065 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September, 2007. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 4066 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE ZONE CHANGE 06-002 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE AND REZONE AN EXISTING PARCEL CONTAINING 60 APARTMENT UNITS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A 77 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 was submitted by Sun -Cal Browning LLC requesting approval to rezone and subdivide a 4.1 -acre (net area) parcel for development of a 77 -unit condominium complex on properties located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue; B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for zone change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007 by the Planning Commission; C. A petition in opposition of the project with 94 signatures in addition to 19 letters and 23 public comments were received in opposition of the project. The residents of the adjacent community expressed that the density, height, and traffic impacts were not addressed with the proposed project and not adequately analyzed in the MND. D. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare resolutions of denial for the project including findings as follows: As proposed, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and three-story development; • Even though the proposed project is limited to 77 dwelling units, rezoning the property to R-3 would provide for a future opportunity for development of a higher density project of up to 100 units on this site, if this project is not implemented; Approval of a high density project that is not compatible with the existing community would set a negative precedent for future in- fill development in Tustin; Exhibit A Resolution No. 4066 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096 Page 2 The proposed height, size, and scale of the project are too large for the site in physical. relationship to the existing adjacent structures; The traffic study prepared by the applicant does not adequately address the circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project with respect to the proposed density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school and could cumulatively have a negative traffic impact on the neighborhood; and, That the density, aesthetics and traffic impacts of the proposed tentative tract map or the proposed improvements were not adequately addressed in the mitigated negative declaration. E. This project is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the Environmental Quality Act) which states that CEQA does not apply to projects rejected or disapproved by a public agency. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny without prejudice Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 to rezone and subdivide a 4.1 -acre (net area) parcel for development of a 77 -unit condominium project located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 25th day of September, 2007. JOON'NIELSEN Chairperson Z�'ELIZAB'' TH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A Resolution No. 4066 ZC 06-002, TTM 17096 Page 3 3 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4066 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September, 2007. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT E NOVEMBER 6, 20073 CITY COUNCIL REPORT Submitted Appeal Letter Dated October 2, 2007 FP7� Ip SunCal Companies October 2, 2007 VIA HAND DELIVERY Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Denials for Hampton Village Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing on behalf of SunCal-Browning LLC ("SunCal"), the applicant with respect to the Hampton Village project (the "Project") located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue in the City of Tustin (the "Project Site"). This letter shall serve to appeal the recent actions of the City of Tustin Planning Commission with respect to the Project applications for Conditional ' Use Permit 06-024 (the "CUP'), Design Review 06-020, Tentative Tract Map No. 17096 (the "TTM"), and Zone Change 06-002 (collectively, the "Project Applications"). The grounds in support of SunCal's appeal are discussed below. The Project Site is currently developed with 60 units of antiquated multifamily housing known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. SunCal has proposed to replace this aging apartment complex with 77 attached town home units of multifamily "for sale" housing, which results in an additional 17 units over the current housing on the site. Current zoning with respect to the Property is R-4 (Suburban Residential), allowing a by - right utilization of the site for up to 60 units. SunCal has filed the Project Applications in order to increase the unit count from that .currently permitted to 77 units, an increase of only 17 units, in order to assure the economic feasibility of the proposed project. SunCal is committed to developing a project that will enhance the community and provide additional high-quality home ownership opportunities in the City. The Project was endorsed by City staff upon application because of the revitalization nature of the Project, particularly, the replacement of aging and dated multifamily apartment project with new "for sale" home ownership opportunities. City staff issued its staff report recommending approval at the August 280' and September 11th Planning Commission meetings. On September 25, 2007, the Planning Commission for the City denied the Project Applications, adopting resolutions denying the CUP and Design Review, and recommending denial of the TTM and Zone Change. The Planning Commission also found that the Project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") based on its denials. SunCal believes the Planning Commission's actions to be inconsistent with the City's General Plan and applicable laws. SunCal believes the Planning Commission did not properly take into account the General Plan of the City, the extensive environmental review given to the Project, the existing use of the property and the existing zoning which expressly allows multifamily residential housing adjacent to the existing single family residential housing, and the City Council's desire to revitalize aging and dated buildings with high quality "for sale" housing projects. SunCal is appealing the Commission's actions as a whole. The resolutions of denial adopted by the Planning Commission focus on alleged conflicts in four specific areas; namely (1) General Plan consistency; (2) density; (3) compatibility with surrounding uses; and (4) traffic circulation and parking. L General Plan Consistency SunCal believes the Project is entirely consistent with the City's General Plan. For instance, the Project achieves consistency with the City's Land Use Element goals and policies by: • Providing for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing; • Preserving the low density quality of the City's existing single-family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi -family development to meet regional housing needs; • Revitalizing older residential uses and properties; • Improving urban design to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible and to create unique identifiable neighborhoods; and • Encouraging high quality design and physical appearance in development projects in the City. In addition, the Project achieves consistency with the City's Housing Element goals and policies by: • Providing an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and diverse socio-economic needs; 2 • Promoting cluster housing development consistent with the City's high density residential land use designation for the site; • Increasing the percentage of ownership housing; • Encouraging new housing construction for home ownership in a mixture of price ranges; • Ensuring that new housing is sensitive to the existing environment; and • Locating new housing in proximity to services and employment centers and thereby enabling walking or bicycling to places of employment. In summary, the City's General Plan calls for a well balanced land use pattern and a variety of housing types. The Commission's belief that the Project must be "consistent with existing single story ranch style architecture characteristics of the area" is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The facts show that this Project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and would help to achieve the goals and policies contained within the City's Land Use and Housing Elements. A Densi The Project Applications propose densities which, are consistent with the land use designation for the Project site under the City's existing General Plan. The City's current land use designation for the site is High Density Residential, which allows for a density of 15-25 dwelling units per acre ("du/acre") or a maximum of 100 units. The requested zone change seeks to re -zone the site from R-4 (Suburban Residential, which also allows for multi -family) to R-3 (Multi -family Residential), which would be consistent with the City's General Plan. If approved, the proposed zone change would allow for a maximum density of 25 du/acre, which is within the current land use designation parameters. Therefore, the proposed zone change is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed density for the Project is 18.7 du/acre, which is below the maximum density allowed for under the existing land use designation. The existing zoning at the Project site allows for a maximum density of 14.5 du/acre, which is less than the minimum density allowed for under the City's current General Plan. Therefore, requested zone change would bring the zoning for the Project site into compliance with the General Plan. Further, the Planning Commission's concern that the proposed zone change could lead to a higher density project in the future is not warranted. By granting the CUP concurrently with the zone change and imposing a condition on the CUP that limits development at the site to 77 units (the Project's proposed density), the City Council can limit the proposed Project, as well as any future development at the site, to 77 units. Since a CUP runs with the land and is binding on future property owners, the unit cap would remain valid even if this Project is not implemented. 3 We also note that several projects have recently been approved in the City with similar densities and characteristics to the Project. Those projects include, but are not limited to, the Arbor Walk project on Newport Avenue (infill project with approved density of 19.3 du/acre and 35 -foot building heights), The Cottages on El Camino Real (infill project with approved density of 18.64 du/acre and 35 -foot building heights), and Red Hill Townhomes on Red Hill Avenue (infill project with an approved gross density of 19.8 du/acre and a maximum density of 25 du/acre and 35 -foot building heights). Based on the foregoing, the Project's proposed density is in fact consistent with the General Plan. III. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The proposed Project is compatible with surrounding uses based on the City's General Plan, zoning, and existing surrounding uses. The Project would help to achieve a balanced community and ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs at the site, consistent with the City's Land Use Element goals and policies. The Project site shares its northerly boundary area with a condominium project and a duplex project. As mentioned previously, the land use designation for the Project site is High Density Residential. Although the Planning Commission resolutions infer that the Project is an island in a sea of single -fancily residential homes, this is simply not the case. Although the Commission found that the site is not suitable for a three-story development, the Project has been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring residences. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories. SunCal has additionally offered to eliminate all lofts in those units adjacent to existing single family dwellings and to increase the northwesterly side yard setback to 15 feet. This will result in reducing the height of those units from 32 feet 6 inches, to 26 feet 5 inches. Significant landscape screening in the form of trees is proposed on the westerly and southerly boundaries. In addition, no balconies will be located within these areas and window openings are smaller in size and/or are opaque, and are carefully placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent properties. Since similar building height is available to the adjacent single family homeowners for future additions, the proposed height should be considered compatible with neighboring developments. Additionally, two-story homes are located directly across the street to the north from the Project site. IV Traffic Circulation and Parkin The Commission found the Project to be exempt from CEQA based on its denials of the Project Applications. Nevertheless, the resolutions denying the Project Applications allege deficiencies in the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") for the 4 Project which we believe to be improper. (See, for instance, the 61' bullet point in section D of Resolution No. 4066). The Commission's findings in support of its actions are not supported by facts or evidence, and the MND as drafted by City staff is entirely appropriate for the Project. As noted by City staff, who prepared the MND for the Project; the MND fully satisfies the requirements under CEQA, and is supported by extensive technical studies and thorough investigations which are discussed within, and are attached to, the MND. In addition, two supplemental memoranda were prepared by the Project's Traffic Engineer to specifically address public comments on circulation and parking. Those -memoranda, dated August 24, 2007, and September 11, 2007, are attached hereto. They concluded that the Project results in no significant impacts to circulation, parking, or the elementary school. It is also important to note that the Project circulation has been approved by the Orange County Fire Authority. The Initial Study (the "IS") for the Project determined that the Project would cause no impacts relating to (l) levels of service; (2) changes in air traffic patterns; (3) design features or incompatible uses; (4) emergency access; and (5) existing policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The IS determined that there could be a "less than significant impact" to parking capacity, and a "less than significant impact with mitigation incorporation" with regard to vehicle trips. a. Traffic /circulation Based on the existing apartment buildings and conditions at the site, the proposed Project would result in only 17 additional units. A traffic study was performed and concluded that the Project would generate approximately 334 additional daily vehicle trips. The study concluded that there is adequate capacity to accommodate the Project under short-term (2008) and long-term (2025) conditions. The traffic study included, among other things, peak hour projections, internal circulation, and proximity to the elementary school. It was determined that the Project does not create a significant impact under the City's performance criteria. Moreover, the study and supplemental memoranda concluded that the Project -generated traffic volume will not create a significant increase in traffic congestion at the school entrance. The MND further incorporated mitigation measures, including required roadway improvements on Browning Avenue, implementation of a traffic signage and striping plan, and a Construction Management Plan which regulates construction access to the Project site during children's arrival and departure times from the elementary school. With mitigation, the study determined that traffic impacts would be reduced to a level less than significant. No facts or evidence have been provided to support the Commission's finding that the traffic study is somehow incorrect or inadequate with respect to traffic and circulation based on the Project's density, site access, or proximity to the elementary school. 5 b. Parking The proposed Project exceeds the City's minimum code requirement of 174 spaces by providing a total of 179 spaces (or 2.32 parking spaces per dwelling unit). The proposed Project includes more onsite parking than the existing apartment complex. There are currently 111 parking stalls at the site (or 1.85 spaces per unit). The Project would increase onsite parking from 1.85 spaces per unit to 2.32 spaces per unit. In addition, all units include a two -car garage and 25 additional guest parking spaces are included in the Project. The CC&Rs for the Project will only allow for vehicle storage in the garage spaces. Also, a Waste Management Plan has been incorporated to minimize parking impacts associated with trash disposal. The traffic study and supplemental memoranda determined that impacts associated with parking will be less than significant. No facts or evidence have been provided to support the Commission's finding that the traffic study is somehow incorrect or inadequate with respect to parking based on the Project's density, site access, or proximity to the elementary school. V. The Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit a. The Tentative Tract Map State law provides certain statutory grounds for the denial of a tentative map. For instance, the City can deny a tentative map if it finds that the map conflicts with the City's General Plan. In light of all the points discussed above, this is not the case here. The City can also deny a tentative map if it finds that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. As outlined above in Sections II ("Density") and III ("Compatible Uses"), the proposed density for the Project is consistent with the land use designation for the site, the requested zone change would bring the zoning for the Project site into compliance with the General Plan, and the site borders other multi -family sites and is therefore compatible with surrounding uses. Other statutory grounds for which the City can deny a TTM include substantial environmental damage, serious health concerns to the public, conflicts with public and/or conservation easements, conflicts with agricultural preserves, and water quality violations. None of these grounds exist, or have been alleged to exist under the proposed Project. b. The Conditional Use Permit The Commission was required to approve the CUP for the Project unless it found that the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the neighborhood, or that it will be injurious or detrimental to property 2 and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. (See Tustin Municipal Code § 9291(c).) The Commission supported its denial of the CUP by finding the following: (1) As proposed, the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density and three-story development; (2) Even though the proposed Project is limited to 77 units, rezoning the property to R-3 would provide for a future development opportunity of up to 100 units if the Project is not implemented; (3) Approval of a high density project that is not compatible with the existing community would set a "negative precedent"; (4) The proposed height, size, and scale of the Project are too large for the site in physical relationship to the adjacent structures; and (5) The circulation and parking impacts with respect to density, site access, and traffic conflicts with the adjacent elementary school could have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The above Planning Commission findings are not supported by facts to show that the Project would be detrimental to the health and safety of the neighborhood, or injurious to the City. With regard to Finding #1, the Project design and density is consistent with the existing land use designation, as well as the goals and policies of the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The Project is also compatible with surrounding uses, as it across the street from duplex and multi -family uses. Finding 42 is easily remedied by imposing a unit cap on the CUP, as discussed in Section 11 above. Finding #3 is also not supported by facts in that the existing zoning provides for a maximum density which is below the minimum allowed under the General Plan, and the proposed zone change would bring the site into confofmance with the General Plan. With regard to Finding #4, the Project would help to achieve a balanced community and ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs at the site, consistent with the City's Land Use Element goals and policies. Also, the Project has been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring residences. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories. As mentioned previously, SunCal has offered to eliminate lofts from those units which are adjacent to existing single family dwellings and to increase the northwesterly side yard setback to 15 feet. Significant landscape screening in the form of trees is proposed on the westerly and southerly boundaries. In addition, no balconies will be located within these areas and window openings are smaller in size and/or are opaque, and are carefully placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent properties. Since similar building height is available to the adjacent single family homeowners for future additions, the proposed height should be considered compatible with neighboring development standards. As to Finding #5, no evidence has been provided to show that the traffic study is incorrect. With mitigation, the traffic study and supplemental memoranda concluded that there would be no significant impacts to traffic circulation or parking as the result of the Project. It must be emphasized that the proposed Project results in only 17 additional units to the existing conditions. 7 In addition to the above findings, the Planning Commission provided additional facts in support of its belief that the Project is somehow injurious or detrimental to the community. For instance, in support of its denial, the Planning Commission found that lofts are included in the Project units which are adjacent to the single family residential neighborhood. However, SunCal has offered to remove those lofts. The Planning Commission also found that the Project is "within" a single family neighborhood, which is also incorrect since the Project is across the street from multi -family uses such as condominiums and duplexes. With regard to privacy concerns, the Project is carefully designed to be sensitive to the existing community and provides for landscape screening, smaller and/or opaque windows, and no balconies are included on the units adjacent to single family dwellings. Finally, with regard to setbacks and stepped height design, the Project is designed to include a wider than required rear setback of 10 feet from the neighboring westerly properties and 16 feet from the southerly properties. SunCal has additionally offered to increase the northwesterly side yard setback to 15 feet and to further enhance landscaping at the westerly and southerly borders. The proposed height of the Project is compatible with the maximum allowed height for single family residential (R-1), which is 30 feet. To summarize, the Project design and density is consistent with the General Plan, the land use designation for the site, and the surrounding uses. The Project furthers the goals and policies contained in the City's Land Use and Housing Elements, and replaces an aging apartment building with new upscale multi -family dwellings. No evidence has been provided to show that the Project will be injurious or detrimental to the neighborhood or the City. On the contrary, the Project seeks to revitalize the area and provide new home ownership opportunities in the City. VI. Conclusions Based on the Project's consistency with the General Plan and compatibility with the community, as well as the concessions SunCal has offered with regard to heights, setbacks, and landscaping, SunCal respectfully requests that the City Council approve the MND, TTM, and Zone Change, and overturn the Commission's denials of the CUP and Design Review, and allow for this Project to move forward. Respectfully submitted, iags dt P er, Cal -Browning LLC 8 cc: William Huston, City Manager Doug Holland, City Attorney Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Minoo Ashabi, Associate Planner Z WrWA us r1 _FousT A5S--CIA TSSNC, I. rRAFFIG ENGINEERING AND rRANSPoRrArION PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer of Public Works/Engineering City of Tustin FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E. DATE: August 24, 2007 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO TOBY B. MOORE E-MAIL, DATED AUGUST 22, 2007 The.proposed project with its 77 town home units compared with the existing 60 apartments will be an additional 27 vehicles per hour (vph) (18 out and nine in) in the AM peak hour. Presently, there is 864 vph traveling on Browning Avenue at the intersection of Pinebrook Drive in the AM peak hour. This increase constitutes only a three percent change in the existing traffic in the critical AM peak period when students are arriving at the Nelson Elementary School. A three percent change is virtually imperceptible since daily traffic fluctuations of up to 10 percent are routine. Peak hour traffic counts were specifically obtained on Browning Avenue at Sandfield Place and at Walnut Avenue. In addition, peak hour volumes were estimated at the Nelson Elementary School driveway even though this location is below the City's threshold for analysis. Pinebrook Drive, whose intersection with Browning Avenue is opposite the Nelson Elementary School driveway and its volume was estimated since this cul-de-sac street serves only 19 residential units with its estimated AM peak volume of 13 vph (19 DU x 0.67 AM trips/DU). The proposed project will only add through traffic to this intersection with none expected to turn into or out of Pinebrook Drive. The school congestion conditions referred to are existing conditions, which this project's traffic is not expected to change or impact in any significant way, although a worst case distribution of project trips was assumed with nearly all being assigned to Browning Avenue to/from Walnut Avenue. In reality, project traffic, particularly during the period of school arrivals, can avoid the school congestion altogether by using Browning Avenue to the north to Mitchell Avenue rather than Walnut Avenue. In this case, there will be virtually no impact on the school congestion or Pinebrook Drive. As a result, the traffic study did not examine Pinebrook Drive since it is a cul-de-sac, which project traffic will not use, and its traffic volume is quite limited with only 19 homes. Any existing traffic conditions, as noted by Mr. Moore, will not be significantly effected by the project's minimal (three 1067001 mmldoc 2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 - Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 Tel: (714) 667-0496 Fax: (714) 667-7952 www.austinfoust.com Mr. Terry Lutz, City of Tustin August 24, 2007 Page 2 percent) increase in through traffic. The study does indicate that "the school driveways are not being analyzed...," but that is in reference to any existing congestion and/or potential improvements to the existing school drop -of operation. The impact of the project upon this congestion was evaluated and concluded to be insignificant with the addition of only seven or eight additional vehicles during the critical 7:40 AM — 8:00 AM period. The traffic study did, at the City's request, perform a detailed analysis of the existing school related congestion in the AM and PM peak hour when children arrive and depart. The results of this analysis are documented in the report under a section titled "School Impacts." In summary, that analysis finds this project will add a total of 17 additional vehicles to southbound Browning Avenue during the entire AM hour. Less than half of these will occur during the critical 20 -minute period (7:40 AM -- 8:00 AM) when school congestion is the most serious. The addition of seven or eight more cars to Browning Avenue in the critical 20 -minute school arrival period is not expected to create any significant increase in delays. With respect to parking, the project is exceeding the City's Code of 174 spaces by providing a total of 179 spaces. The elimination of some existing on -street parking is a safety measure to ensure that adequate visibility is available to motorists exiting the project's entrance. Further, the on -street parking to be removed is on the west side of Browning Avenue adjacent to the project entrance and as such is not expected to have any impact on Pinebrook Drive. 1067001mm2.doc K WAvsr1jv.FousrASS0C1Ar9 INC. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MEMORANDUM TO: Terry Lutz, Principal Engineer of Public Works/Engineering City of Tustin FROM: Joe E. Foust, P.E. DATE: September 11, 2007 SUBJECT: BROWNING AND MITCHELL TOWNHOME PROJECT — SCHOOL TRAFFIC IMPACT SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) conducted an initial traffic study of the proposed rezone of a site with 60 apartments on Browning Avenue to 77 townhomes. During the public review of this project, considerable controversy has arisen over the impact of the increased traffic on existing traffic congestion created by the public elementary school located directly across from Pinebrook Drive. As a result, AFA has conducted additional study of that congestion and the potential impact this project will have on it. It was previously reported the increase in residential units from 60 to 77 will add only 27 cars and in the critical AM peak hour to Browning Avenue. Further, the critical school arrival period lasts about 20 minutes and this project will add only eight or nine vehicles to Browning Avenue during the morning arrival. Such an increase (an addition of 27 vehicles per hour (vph) compared with over the 600 vph that already exist) is not considered to constitute a significant impact. However, to fully quantify the effect, actual traffic counts and measurements of existing delay during the school arrival at Pinebrook Drive and Browning Avenue were conducted. The actual data is attached hereto. Review of this information indicates a total of 56 vehicles make left turns and another 1 l make right turns into Pinebrook Drive from Browning Avenue in the 30 minutes between 7:45 and 8:15 AM. Likewise, 65 vehicles exit Pinebrook Drive during the same period with virtually all turning right to proceed south on Browning Avenue. The average delay encountered by the motorists existing Pinebrook Drive is nine seconds whereas the absolute worst case delay is 50 seconds and this worst case only occurred once. 1067001mmldoc 2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 • Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 Tel: (714) 667-0496 Fax: (714) 667-7952 www.austinfoust.com Mr. Terry Lutz, City of Tustin September 11, 2007 Page 2 CONCLUSION These supplemental observations and traffic counts confirm that in fact there is congestion on Browning Avenue associated with school arrivals and departures. However, the extent of that congestion last about 30 minutes and the delay in exiting Pinebrook Drive averages nine seconds per vehicle. The addition of another eight or nine vehicles on Browning Avenue during this critical period will not have any significant impact. Lastly, field observation reveals children who live in the surrounding residential area walk to school escorted by their parents. Many of the children in this new development are expected to do the same. Cc: Karen Sully, The Sully Group 1067001 mmldoc APPENDIX 1067001 mm3.doc A-1 LOCATION: PINEBROOK DR DIRECTION: EASTBOUND CITY: TUSTIN TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. DELAY SURVEY TIME PERIOD; 0730 - 0830 FILENAME: 09702DIA DAY: MONDAY DATE: 09/10/07 ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME 7:31:43 7:31:46 00:00:03 7:53:20 7:6 :23 00:00:03 7:33:50 7:33:52 00:00:02 7:53:30 7:53:45 00:00:15 7:34:01 7:34:12 00:00:11 7:53:55 7:53:59 00:00:04 7:35:55 7:36:07 00:00:12 7:53:56 7:54:00 00:00:04. 7:37:30 7:37:34 00:00:04 7:54:19 7:54:22 00:00:03 7:37:53 7:38:05 00:00:12 7:54:20 7:54:23 00:00:03 7:38:27 7:38:35 00.00:08 7:54:31 7:54:36 00:00:05 7:38:40 7:38:48 00:00:08 7:54:52 7:54:58 00:00:06 7:39:05 7:39.08 00:00:03 7:55:09 7:55:21 00:00:12 7:39:15 7:39:15 00:00:00 7:55:10 7:55:22 00:00:12 7:39:50 7:39:57 00:00:07 7:55:35 7:55:39 00:00:04 7:40:00 7:40:08 00:00:08 7:55:36 7:55:40 00:00:04 7:41:40 7:41:45 00:00:05 7:56:04 7:56:11 00:00:07 7:41,53 7:42:01 00:00:08 7:56:05 7:56:12 00:00:07 7:42:18 7:42:23 00:00:05 7:56:05 7:56:13 00:00:07 7:42AS 7:42:49 00:00:04 7:56:50 7:56:58 80:00:08 .7:43:15 7:43:59 00:00?° 7:56:51 7:58:59 00:00:08 7:43:16 7:44:00 00:00:44 7:57:19 7:57:23 00:00:04 7:44:59 7:45:02 00:00:03 7:57:20 7:57:24 00:00:04 7:45:20 7:45:23 00:00:03 7:57:35 7:57:41 00:00:06 7:45:30 7:45:40 00:00:10 7:57:5$ 7:58:03 00:00:07 7:46.53 7:46:58 00:00:05 7:59:18 7:59:21 00:00:03 7:47:47 7:47:53 00:00:06 7:59:49 7:59:53 00:00:04 7:47:55 7:48:00 00:00:05 8:00:02 8:00:12 00:00:10 7:48:20 7:48:27 00:00:07 8:0021 8:00:26 00:00:05 7:49:20 7:49:25 00:00:05 8:00:45 8:00:47 00:00:02 7:49:45 7:49:51 00:00:06 8:01:12 8:01:15 00:00:03 7:49:53 7:49:58 00:00:05 8:09:23 8:01:28 00:00:05 7:49:59 7:50:03 00:00:04 8:02:10 8:02:15 00:00:05 7:50:05 7:50:55 MWIM 6:02:39 8:02:44 00:00:05 7:50:06 7:50:56 00:00:50 8:03:10 8:03:14 00:00:04 7:51:03 7:51:03. 00:00:00 8:03.31 8:03:44 00:00:13 7:51:09 7:5113 00:00:04 8:03:32 8:03:45 00:00:13 7:51:10 7:51:14 00:00:04 8:03:33 8:03:46 00:00:13 7:52,10 7:52:15 00:00:05 8.05:05 8:05:23 00:00:18 7:52:20 7:52:25 00:00:05 8:05:06 8:05:24 00:00:18 7:52:47 7:53:09 00:00:22 8:05:07 8:0525 00:00:18 00:0627 00:04:32 COMMENTS; A-2 SUB -TOTAL 1 = 00:10:59 659 ogt ;: 7y 8.9,E TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. DELAY SURVEY LOCATION: PINEBROOKI DR DIRECTION: EASTBOUND FILENAME: 0970213113 DAY: MONDAY CITY: TUSTIN DATE: 09/10!07 TIME PERIOD: 0730 - 0830 ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME 8:05:08 6:05:26 00:00:18 8:06:09 8:05:27 00:00:18 8:05:40 8:05945 00:00:05 8:05:41 8:05:46 00:00:05 8:06:10 8:06:15 00:00:05 8:06:11 8:06:16 00:00:05 8;06;16 8:06:22 00:00:06 8:09:27 8:09:31 00:00:04 8:28:40 8:28:45 00:00:05 0 00:01:11 00:00:00 SUB -TOTAL 1= 00:01:11 COMMENTS: A-3 LOCATION: PINEBROOK DR DIRECTION: EASTBOUND CITY: TUSTIN TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC. DELAY SURVEY TIME PERIOD: 13:30- 15:00 FILENAME: 09702D1 P DAY: FRIDAY DATE: 09/07!07 ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY ARRIVAL DEPARTURE DELAY TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME 13:31:05 13:31:07 00:00:02 14:42:06 14:42:24 00:00:18 13:33:09 13:33:11 00:00:02 14:42:35 14:42:41 00:00:06 13:35:02 13:35:05 00:00:03 14:43:25 14:43:27 00:00:01 13:37:10 13:37:12 00:00:02 14:43:40 14:43:42 00:00:02 14:05:15 14:05:35 00:00:20 14:43:42 14:43:45 00:00:03 14:17:49 1417:51 00:00:02 14:44:40 14:44:43 00:00:03 14:18:37 14:16:39 00.00:02 14:44:59 14:45:03 00:00:04 14:19:40 14:19:42 00100:02 14:45:15 14:45:21 00:00:06 14:20:00 14:20:05 00:00:05 14:45:45 14:45:47 00:00:02 14:20:01 14:20:06 00:00:05 14:46:03 14:46:29 00:00:26 14:20:28 14:20:30 00:00:02 14:46:04 14:46:30 00:00:26 14:20:29 14:20:31 00:00:02 14:46:45 14:46:49 00:00:04 14:20:50 14:20:52 00:00:02 14:46:51 14:47:10 00:00:19 14:20:51 14:20:53 00:00:02 14:47:12 14:47:51 00:00:39 14,20:55 14:20,59 00:00:04 14:47:13 14:47:52 00:00:39 ..14:20:56 14:21:00 00:00:04 14:48,30 14:4$:45 0.0.00:15 14:'k:57 14:21:01 00:00:04 14:48:58 14:49:06 00:00:08 14;21:48 14:21:52 00:Q0:04 14,50:13 14:50:35 00:00:22 14:22:30 14:22:32 00:00:02 14:50:30 14:54:35 00:04:05 14:22:35 14:22:36 00:00:01 14:54:18 14:54:23 00:00:05 14:22:36 14:22:37 00:00:01 14:55:58 14:56:03 00:00:05 14:22:38 14:23:03 00:011.25 14:58:42 14:58:56 00:00:14 14:22:39 14:23:04 00:00:25 14;23:54 14:23:56 00:00:02 14:25:21 14:25:26 00:00:05 14:25:58. 14:26:22 00:00:24 14:26:48 14:26:54 00:00:06 14:28:15 14:28:17 00:00:02 14:28:27 14:28:30 00:00:03 14:28:47 14:28:50 00:00:03 14:29:05 14:29:10 00:00:05 14:29:30 14:29:32 00:00:02 14:31:14 14:3116 00;00.02 94:3311 14:33:14 00:00:03 14:35:58 14:38:00 00:00:02 14:37:02 14:37:10 00:00:08 14:39:26 14:39:28 00:00:02 00:03:12 00:08:32 SUB -TOTAL 1 00:91:44 COMMENTS: A-4 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS NIS ST: BROWNING AVE EMI ST: PINEBROOK DR/SCHOOL DRIVEWAY CITY: TUSTIN PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND BEGINS NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER LANE$: 1 1 0 7:00 AM DAY: THURSDAY 15 AM WL WT WR Total 30 AM 22 65 0 45 AM 46 81 0 8:00 AM 10 28 0 15 AM 2 23 0 30 AM 0 117 45 AM 1 0 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: 730 AM VOLUMi '- 80 197 0 COMMENTS: FILENAME: 0970201A DATE: 9/08/07 DAY: THURSDAY WESMUND WL WT WR Total 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 73 9 0 0 17 1 0 1 188 0 85 8 2 0 41 1 0 1 265 0 49 3 1 0 24 2 0 0 117 0 37 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 85 PHF: 0.6 0 244 21 3 0 83 5 0 2 635 A-5 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS NIS ST; BROWNING AVE FILENAME: 0970201 M ENV ST: PINEBROOK DR/SCHOOL DRIVEWAY DATE: 9/6/07 CITY: TUSTIN DAY: THURSDAY PERIOD NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BEANS NL NT NR SL . ST_ __ SR EL ET ER WL WT WR Total LANES; 1 1 0 0 1 0 1:00 PM 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 15 PM 0 0 0 70 1 0 9 3o PM 0 17 0 0 20 0 45 PM 4 38 0 3 21 3 *-2:00 PM 17 38 0 0 32 11 15 PM 13 47 0 0 26 1 30 PM 11 51 0 0 36 3 45 PM 17 45 0 0 40 3 3:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM _..4:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 5:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM 6:00 PM 15 PM 30 PM 45 PM PEAR HOUR BEGINS AT: 1400 PM VOLUMES= 58 18t 0 COMMENTS: 0 134 18 A-6 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 1 0 0 0 70 1 0 9 0 0 5 113 5 0 16 9 0 5 122 1 0 12 3 0 4 121 2 0 23 3 0 5 1$8 PHR 0.89 8 0 60 15 0 19 494 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICESt INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS NIS ST: BROWNING AVE FILENAME: 09702D1A ENV ST: DRIVEWAYS 1 & 2 DATE: 9/6/2007 CITY: TUSTIN DAY: THURSDAY DRIVEWAY # 1 DRIVEWAY # 2 (javVj-11? PERIOD BEGINS NR SL WL WR U-TURN NR SL WL WR U-TURN Total 6:00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :45 AM 7:00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :45 AM 8:00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :46 AM -"0 AM :15 AM :30 AM :45 AM 10:00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :45 AM 3 2 0 0 1 42 12 2 36 0 97 0 4 0 0 1 30 21 1 45 0 102 2 0 0 0 2 3 6 2 22 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 7 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT. 730 AM VOLUMES - 5 6 COMMENTS: SEE PHOTO. 0 0 4 79 40 5 103 0 242 A-7 TRAFFIC DATA SERVICES, INC SUMMARY OF VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENTS NIS ST: BROWNING AVE EMU ST: DRIVEWAYS 1 & 2 CITY: TUSTIN FILENAME: 09702D1 M DATE: 918!2007 DAY: THURSDAY URKIEWAY # 1 - DRIVEWAY* 2 PERIOD BEGINS NR SL WL WR U-TURN NR SL. WL WR U-TURN Total 10:00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :45 AM 11;00 AM :15 AM :30 AM :46 AM 12:00 PM :16 PM :30 PM :45 PM --.1:00 PM :15 PM :30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 ;45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 2:00 PM 5 6 0 1 1 14 10 0 10 0 :15 PM 2 8 1 0 1 16 7 1 25 0 :30 PM 1 4 0 0 0 16 1 1 27 0 :45 PM 3 1 0 0 1 9 5 0 18 0 PEAK HOUR BEGINS AT: ' 1400 PM VOLUMES x 11 19 1 1 3 85 23 2 81 0 COMMENTS! SEE PHOTO A-8 6 7 47 62 50 37 198 =�' tt I' _ h lff;`,t� .t �' �yyyy T• -1f. .. - ' ' - :-Z't{, • - ! � ' '. ;itt�{1 'i - i11 '. I rt"C,• �' 7 •SS' i .yr r-�' - a�� ;'NAw•aTrr . �': t:ft �;�� •11 - ,�,fij7.^ tS.'. . A ti. { pTUt -t 4 - -4 �,,_!�W. �` _yC 7 1 _t V ti 4, , ti x �..1 FGr "ir 'r -�' ' • 1 l -t ,x1.t �r `t 1 I,y ., -iz r 1. i 'ice t I ' •nil- ft r ,. r ' c - �} {i--ty�[sZ 1: , :. r _ , i ry 'c z: 1 c i {o- r } f Ott a r- T M1 t j ! .' ;' I 2b I r 4-..: E 1t 'k K jf !!. c4. s_ • 7 . , t'+fit: S i :111 ..: `�.i t .. , r,& ... -t"r� f r n � 1 r r) 1 - rty'�'•.r'r�.xt[e, } �• S. i{ Ifin - +, rt 31:..: _ (� a 1Y��N-�} t r Ir "fit„ t ; ', .. ' t y 7 c11 - - 4., t��itt ys: i _,YS it T•' -i` t r i7. i J -, t •r Y t. A } ]I ��r's. t} -.; s e e 1.7rs,�-+- r S r-tryy�r-FY+4 �. 1 1'.. - / 't^;� rmw - 1 , _ -�' T--- ;;b�,'',•t^'p+ ;y'i-- i - ^5:.. t a. `>:tt4 t r •�f� ( 'r .i j _ 4=r ' yeti yt r 'u t 7.4� b j �' rj; } _ ;, tr t +fy LCf } S'y i { '...'t. t.: ! (n : } i 8 /� t .i. rt i �r�'tw i * 7- r -tt } t - F E - r' t�,•i ,- 't 14 11 !}i[ ..y _k •i}� t �t r r ���t ,,,--. rfi _97T yi, _ 'u J. ij C t +fl { � i a t �jx a ; a , r t ?. t�' 1 jr =F^. t.. �a +tv� c _ I f t t �r • `r7r: - = t i"'a' { -3 ^ iti .. v s' t i .4 3-•.{. `* 1 .1 ll ,/ D { i y:� .it ! t r« y i S t, 1 1 4 ` 7 } , 7 i .•t•-•7•ITJ al: : r ! T 1 tij aR- >. t. .li �lt rr', }. �!` �'-r_{.�{� F 1 +•i t - 5, r _ . ;;� =.Ns fi.` -,r, k1h. y(r ii ... �r'�y t 'ti I-}r:i'i t -� A! t r -1..i rrr `•C.:. • ..tib. .}� tfi 1 r u7 r 7 < r t w e. 7 s. i- U 't} j 11 < �Ft' •xi 1-1�>�r'.'� i' l R r r ! r` r}i.s.t r ^'-`.1}• +7 _: �•x�.tc d -u. k,•, J • rd' '..tt t t . -.� _' i_'j'�r 11;a� n i ..,�tt� r } �. •." rt is 1 t ! , ti'y" _{ i s _A _tt i ?'�f' ar E•f'.{J Y 1}'� :<. , t f. L - 1 Y-L,�r't t 'i *r,. a 1 t_ •rl i ..i� lk r. 1 t�. IJ"`c"r,,v,t..r..r, c :1 7 7 -:y' '=ir �,= _-f I r Sy, 's c, _;r i '`t a . _ a _ ttlr . 1`L F, 1. i 1i1, L -.a. 7' ,i �. Sl i Al { �,• a 4S � .Ar 14 . t. � 1 _t. 7 ''V .f✓ k- '""5 y � .f- r ...,.,, t - 'ti "[[b] r .. 7c1�p>_� a 1 4 r .= r' Tr p.•r+ .S ii1'}t'� -f � L_ �Y r 1 F. yS'Y�.•r +. r f. r 1:��M•�-'f { _ 1, { „} / t4i t '.� ^f73 fh a KtLai f' k 1 ,:7i.� t•r. �' f • 6-:j $.�.. t - ct r t.:, '^ { t` t .I t t "... Am t c 8 =wI }' z rri ,i j. r'6':7 �. 3 [ �•" 1; Jy ,. ': s l r t . , `�"4t f;:.i .,o `n - it rn 1 . .5 {tf,.�t. H, ,: -'c- li..a {. +,. ^ _ t ., ' 4' y' a 'y" r r ,t L .'. 1. - i "" &AS ri r'' P Yi' its 1 {'� , .�` t { t- 'rl: ' 't'f -a } ,. r ':T u r�t ':11 tt � ;L f , Zt.1 .� t' 6 1 1 - .:. rli-. ' ♦ • "�' 'f E i t' 6r _ t{ r: -t Y� i i r _� •Y 71 �xY,t.,f i i. 1 •E _ I 1 r'^.4'T •1 i[ r ''tYr'S :.t / 1 rte^': I �:"� il� i'/1 TT t '{b{t 'T t- J� + ( i t,r'it• s i t F -� "`rte N -r I�Ct t. ^�(.-t f- S•�j,t .F 3 t j _ y t. -fes, r! * .3� -h ti -t, [art i --.t .. r rc z; { _ _ t • " '. r^ - I' i�'L. t f' • � t�J 't. � :lint. d+'* .� - t .tt- r �' 1. tt� t S [ •., t y u P . _ . {_ , r r_N_'_7_ t [ _ r ; tt� r.'ItJ 71 Y ttr� �` .Y _ .jam 1.1 �.. �.i'r �t l • .� tF,t' .s i-r'f ` .-} r A}�,yyt '.r _. ) �LL r'- t , j ., r S r .: +Y _ a : + ..I' -_-_ :t>r w ..r >�"h ' r tr ._r tr f .. rz t �i � "tom r �" t t� j _ '' ^ -: �yr.��• , 't ii',. •tY, t lYc j. 9 •a 1 �. '.' 1 1... �r{, r-�-� t Z ...{ tl-.: Ir 1 r' .4 �(3-rI t .S`i�. t,�' - P r r T t't - -`fA. -R�- a. `"� r ;i y ] 'Y" •t��Y -.. ii7 - a 1 if ir.t• ;`�- z: ' � y ^ _ n 1 J '.t - ['' r < <. .- 4- X- - ' ri t.s i i. ; ( t Stn iFF ; i�. 4 r�• t f} ti�' +,iiiiii ir{� J' f . t It -.t i r _ '; t-_ r iv tI!i� i'�''t� +r ,tet` t, �'�..�> - 4 S } �`" , a.:.� :Z2 t u�i`ti'-y f 't 1t .� f c, , •{'.t N , 11 st^� •-. `�;y.' t., j. 11. _ 7 -t�r:h, i .]5m- r}- 1 .• 7:T t. +t ty n kI til • r '� �a ? t I r r + fr=. t t Ir r`r� 1y ��4' t r: rtn K1•- Y �zf { ,� = li Y[ ': ,, r ( hit }w+r i .' i ; 6.4e 7;::3^ P t I -t ��{ �r rrl t -t ; �tl :.i C" t' 'i F,z - y a[t' r 1�t h ,, a ]' �.. - l YY' ZC .. t�� Y'7-' '1.'._t._1��'41.- 1 ••?e1. iIt ._I t tl y i '::t ...4 4. r:' i t .t' 1 'r1t_ rfJ� � a' 1.a.. v a .. t. r S- 7'" a T� 3 �r4'' n i + _. t Y- +r �f vi ..t r i +' '_ rt �, ^y 't^_ sr 1 _ a.t'f)hs..� r �„ tw it� 't'' ai��!' - _ y-3 r. S L ti . t- - .., r r - -y .rr .{ r J�� : t r`ir• �. etc . Sl -t r,. J a ' l 1. I1 `4 . I - 7 \ i, ' ! ;ty l� �` fix' , '&W -0 `y' r .. . i ' : : , 7" to ' 4% - . - :�'4. ». `r_ -,k'C t f. i ::it • •,r.'.{1. Iw, f'l'y ° 'h''1- �'� . - I 1. .Gt .. - , i i.. S : {1 t T. , fit- 1 6 -r , '.r r. . i �;:i r 2 s.y fMY.. ".'1' '. _ !_ tt �.I Li C ! J yytt]` 1 ai .1 �' �i _ 11L it r F t ,. <}(r '� T'S. tl -r r 1 r: T ' {f }rr 1 t i• t J a Z- r.•!''�}y t.. -t ,t'�� . y1. Iet t,' f� 1... t1Yi.' l �1�' . p: ' . f i. . j v �r ytt Ty li r f` t it Tr Y 1 tyF . }.' .r�fr ", , es: t' ? - `'y •t, _ 7r.t r _ +.'r ':i- - _ •I t�r,J t'a S7 ) 1 ! - -7h t t , 1. v t _%, t t � .� J I.la - t i I L x J l t ,5 fir.. y ` t t _ - r 'i �.4t r 1 trs-' r ,1 '[ ` - : *iti.'� . y r 4. yam' x c r 4th rr, r] 4r.; -r w♦-. `fir �_ -Tj: . r J j ri -i ,N 4 r. r -r. rT •� 'ii i t - *�"- •ly 3i t�� {},f .. i�.- s i,�"It ,tC it - t%•• '1 #t.. - t' ,.rs'- r ter - r t ;•, h TT 1 - I ,' F -r Lr s... 'i '>r' -n r, j f -: r , ,cr T r i ,l 1,_� t rth '' �', t [-. i. r•"r is .- i "'c Y r 1 1 +7. :•f •((,�Y i t st .'it •t '{i t - - - c r 3 i sy- el, r. 1. "1,r -i Y� 1 •.7[ t 1. i `ty..y _... 4tj s ( j �y ' 1 ` il. rcl r.rl • r f r y .r' 1- li - "-7• ,rr,.• w ' • :,.i ..tI 7 = y4,: '?'f - r --- --- - - .� . - t }.. + ... . - r ..it . t ... r ( .. - . _ t ATTACHMENT F NOVEMBER 6, 2007, CITY COUNCIL REPORT Letter from SunCal Companies to City Council dated October 26, 2007 SunCal Companies CORPORATE OFFICE 2392 MORSE AVENUE IRVINE, CA 92614 MAIN 949 777 4000 FAX 949 777 4050 WWW.SU NCAL.COM October 26, 2007 Mr. Lou Bone, Councilman Mr. Jerry Amante, Councilman Mr. Doug Davert, Councilman Mr. Tony Kawashima, Councilman Mr. Jim Palmer, Councilman City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Hampton Village Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: For the last several months, members of SunCal/ Browning LLC ("SunCal") have met with representatives of the Summerfield neighborhood that adjoin the proposed Hampton Village. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the local residents concerns pertaining to the proposed town home development at the existing Rancho Sierra Vista apartment complex. The topics raised during the meetings pertained to the proximity of proposed townhomes and the height of the proposed structures to the rear property line of the Cloverbrook residences. Additional concerns were also raised regarding a commitment to the proposed number of dwelling units for Hampton Village and traffic patterns and parking in the vicinity. SunCal has offered to modify the development and incorporate specific limitations on the development into -the development application in response to the local residents, concerns. This letter identifies the modifications and expresses a commitment by SunCal to work with the City of Tustin and local residents to validate and document these concessions. Enumerated below are the proposed modifications to the Project: 1. Lofts located in the town homes abutting the rear property lines of the residents along Cloverbrook will be completely eliminated. 2. In conjunction with the elimination of the lofts, the Project's roof heights will be lowered along the rear property line of the Cloverbrook residences. 3. The setback from the property line of the town homes will be increased to twenty (20) feet from the property line as a result of relocating an internal walkway and minor building articulation. 4. Landscape plant material will be installed along the common property line to the Cloverbrook neighbors in order to minimize the building impression. 5. Opaque glass will be installed and opening of the second floor windows of the dwelling units will be limited along the rear property lines of the Cloverbrook residences. The above modifications are depicted on the attached graphic section identified as Exhibit A. 6. In addition to the modifications of the Project mentioned above, SunCal will enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin in a form acceptable to the City of Tustin to accept a limitation to restrict the number of dwelling units to not more than 77. 7. SunCal will endorse the installation of a stop sign at the intersection of Browning and Mitchell Avenue to prevent unabated through traffic. 8. SunCal will install signage at the exit/entry driveway restricting right turn movements on to Browning Avenue during the morning arrival hour and afternoon departure hour of the Nelson Elementary School. 9. SunCal will mitigate the effects of debris and dust during construction in the rear yards of the adjoining homeowners. This letter and attachments shall become part of the official City record of the Project in exchange for the removal of the resident's objections to the proposal. The commitments made herein by SunCal would be applicable to the Project. In addition, SunCal would agree to a condition which makes all of these commitments binding on future owners/developers of the property subject only to the rights of the City of Tustin to modify the commitments. The undersigned supports the plan revisions mentioned above and withdraw their opposition to the Project: Date/Address Date/Address Date/Address Date/Address Date/Address Attachments Date/Address Date/Address Date/Address Date/Address Date/Address Very truly y urs, Sam Veltri cc: John Neilson, Chairman, Planning Commission Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Bill Houston, City Manager Douglas Holland, City Attorney ATTACHMENT G NOVEMBER 6, 2007, CITY COUNCIL REPORT Resolution Nos. 07-77, 07-78, 07-79 RESOLUTION NO. 07-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE CHANGE 06- 002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020, A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP AN EXISTING 60 -UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH A NEW 77 - UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. The applicant (Sun -Cal Browning LLC) has requested to rezone and subdivide a 4.1 acre (net area) property currently developed with 60 apartment units for development of a new 77 -unit condominium project. The properties are located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue; B. That the requested zone change, conditional use permit, tentative tract map, and design review are considered a "project" subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.); C. That City staff prepared an Initial Study to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 that concluded, with mitigation measures, potential significant impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared; D. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published and the Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for a 20 -day public review and comment period from August 3, 2007, to August 22, 2007, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines; E. Public comments were received and a Final Negative Declaration with response to submitted comments was prepared; F. That the City Council is the final authority for the project and will consider the MND prior to action on Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096; Resolution No. 07-77 Page 2 G. The Planning Commission held public hearings on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007. A petition in opposition of the project with 94 signatures in addition to 40 letters and 23 public comments were received in opposition of the project. The residents of the adjacent communities expressed that the density, height, and traffic impacts were not addressed with the proposed project and not adequately analyzed in the MND. The Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, and did not find it sufficient for the proposed Zone Change 06-002, Conditional Use Permit 06-024 Tentative Tract Map 17096, and Design Review 06-020; H. The City Council held a public hearing on the project on November 6, 2007; I. The City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. II. The City Council hereby adopts Final Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit A and Mitigation Monitoring Report attached hereto as Exhibit B for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 for the subdivision and development of 77 condominium units on properties located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 6th day of November, 2007. LOU BONE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Resolution No. 07-77 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do 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. 07-77 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of November, 2007, by -the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 Project Title: Hampton Village (TTM 17096) Zone Change 06-002 Conditional Use Permit 06-024 Design Review 06-020 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: (714) 573-3126 Project Location: 1972 Mitchell Avenue. 14251-143 51 Browning Avenue Project Sponsor's SunCal-Browning LLC Name and Address: c/o Southwind Realty Group 18301 Von Karman, Suite 710 Irvine, CA 92612 General Plan Designation: High Density Residential Zoning Designation: Existing - Suburban Residential (R-4) Proposed - Multiple Family Residential (R-3) Project Description: A request to demolish an existing apartment complex containing 60 units on a 4.1 -acre (net area) site and redeveloping the site with 77 three story condominium units Surrounding Uses: North: Residential (R-2) East: Residential (R-1) & MHP South: Residential (R-1) West: Residential (R-1) Other public agencies whose approval is required: ® Orange County Fire Authority ❑ City of Irvine ❑ Orange County Health Care Agency ❑ City of Santa Ana ❑ South Coast Air Quality Management ❑ Orange County District EMA ❑ Other B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as. indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geological Problems ❑Water ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Energy and Mineral Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or .mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Minoo Ashabi Title Associate Planner Date ?'.7 - Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? H. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? M. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ Less Than ❑ ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ ❑ Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ A IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation .plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial _ adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public. airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ID ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ID g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a I tream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Less Than Significant ❑ Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post - construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ Less Than ® ❑ Significant ❑ Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ S ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 ❑ Less Than ® ❑ ❑ Significant ® ❑ Potentially With Less Than ❑ Significant Mitigation Significant ❑ Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ S ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ 121 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SACdd\M 00\Rad Hill Cando"A fill Townbomw initial atndy.doe Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 ZONE CHANGE 06-002 HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWN HOMES BACKGROUND The property is located within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district and High Density Residential land use designation. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue and surrounded by single family residential units on the south and west, Browning Avenue, single family residential units and a mobile home park to the east and Mitchell Avenue, and duplexes and apartment units to the north. The proposed 4.9 -acre site (gross . area) is currently developed with a 60 -unit apartment complex known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. All existing units at the site are proposed to be demolished. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 71 units on the existing 4.9 acre (gross) site that includes property to be dedicated to the City for a street right-of-way. The applicant has requested a zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to redevelop the site with 77 condominium units. As previously indicated, the proposal would also include dedication of property along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue, which would reduce the net site area to 4.1 acres. The proposed rezone would allow development of the site with a density of 18.8 du/acre, consistent with the current general plan High Density Residential designation of 15-25 du/acre.. In addition, for subdivision and development of the site a tentative tract map, design review, and conditional use permit applications are required. Approval of the design review would address the site and architectural design of the site. Approval of a conditional use permit is required to construct structures over 20 feet in height adjacent to single family residential uses (Tustin City Code Section 9226c). This analysis evaluates the environmental impact of the proposed 77 -unit condominium project in comparison to the existing 60 -unit apartment complex. The site is proposed to include one 6-plex, eleven 5-plex buildings, and four 4-plex buildings designed as town homes with garage access through private alleys. Ten of the 5-plex buildings are connected with a covered breezeway. Units along Mitchell Avenue have direct access to the street by raised stoops and the units located along Browning Avenue are accessed by the breezeway from the street and from the interior green courts. The units are designed as three stories and two stories with a loft and include 2-3 bedrooms that range in size from 1,803 square feet to 2,068 square feet. The main entry drive to the project curves to the south as it provides access to the private alleys. The pool and recreation area are nestled between buildings located south of the project entrance on Browning Avenue. I. AESTHETICS Items a, & b — No Impact: The subject property is not located on a scenic vista. The property is a 4.1 -acre parcel currently developed with one story apartment buildings and is surrounded by developed parcels. Significant landscaping in the form of mature pine trees exists along the Mitchell Avenue right-of-way that will continue to be maintained. Additional trees are Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 2 proposed along the perimeter and interior of the site with emphasis at the corner and project entry. For redevelopment of the site, the existing on-site trees are he to be removed and new landscaping will be installed. The proposed project would not disturb any rock outcroppings or historical buildings, and the site is not located on a State scenic highway. Items c & d — Less than Significant Impact: The project would involve construction of new three-story and two-story with loft structures that would change the visual character of the area. The existing one-story apartments were developed in the 1960s and appear dated; therefore, redevelopment of the site would enhance the visual characteristics of the area with new contemporary structures and new landscaping. The project is designed to adhere to the Multiple Family Residential development standards with respect to setbacks, height, parking standards, and landscaping guidelines and the City's Private Street Improvement Standards. Although the project proposes three-story structures to replace existing one-story structures, the proposed buildings have been designed to be sensitive to the existing neighboring residences. The site abuts a single family residential neighborhood on two sides. The applicant has placed the buildings 10 feet from the westerly property line and 16 feet from the southerly property line. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories with a loft that are 2-5 feet lower in height than other proposed units on the site. To provide a green screen, significant landscaping in the form of upright trees is proposed on the westerly and southerly site boundaries. In addition, no balconies will be located within these areas and window openings are smaller in size and carefully placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent existing residential properties. The proposed buildings are set back 15 feet from Mitchell Avenue and 10 feet from Browning Avenue. The proposed setbacks meet the minimum development standards for front and side yard setbacks; however, since the primary streetscape is oriented along Browning Avenue, the applicant will be required to maintain the same setback on both street fronts to provide for improved streetscape design and better livability of these units with more privacy and fewer noise impacts from Browning Avenue. Additionally, the increased setback would allow for architectural relief and added articulation along the streetscape. The proposed condominium complex would generate new light sources with the installation of new exterior lighting for streets, alleys, landscape areas, patios, and parking areas. In addition, the developer would be required to install additional street lights on Browning Avenue to meet the City's standards for public streets. However, the new sources of light would not adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area since the number of lights would be compatible with a typical residential project and would be required to comply with the City's security code standards. In addition, all lights would be required to be arranged so that no direct rays would shine onto adjacent properties. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 3 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 8103(w)15 Private Street Standards Tustin Security Ordinance II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a. b & c — No Impact: The project site is currently improved with residential buildings and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The proposed project will have no impact on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project will not result in the conversion of farmland to a non- agricultural use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Field Inspection Submitted Plans III. AIR QUALITY Items a. b. c. d & e — Less Than Significant Impact: The project will temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area due to the proposed demolition, grading, and construction activities at the property. Since the site is relatively flai, only minor grading will be required. Redevelopment of the site would result in 17 additional residential units that are well below the thresholds of significance established by Tables 6-2 (operation thresholds) and 6-3 (construction thresholds) of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which notes that construction of fewer than 297 condominium units is not considered a significant impact. In addition, cumulative construction within the area does not exceed the established AQMD thresholds. Less than significant short-term emissions associated with demolition, grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will comply with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which include requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project will not create a significant impact related to air quality. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook City of Tustin Grading Manual Project Application Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 4 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a, b, c, d, e & f — No Impact: The project site is currently improved with residential buildings and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The site is not inhabited by any sensitive species of animals and would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species, or migratory patterns. No wetlands exist within the project site. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a — No Impact: The project site is currently improved with residential buildings built in the 1960s and surrounded by other developed residential buildings. The property is not located in an area where any cultural or historic resources have been previously identified on the site. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Items b, c & d - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation The proposed project is redevelopment of an existing residential site and is not located in an area with undisturbed land. However, as a standard grading condition of approval, if buried resources are found during grading within the project area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the resource and recommend appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint would be considered during this process. With the mitigation measures listed below, potential impacts to archeological resources would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: If buried resources are found during grading within the project area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 5 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a -ii, a -iii, b & d — Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed buildings will be located within an area of the City that is known to contain expansive soils which may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits per the 2001 California Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability in sites depending on their soils or geological concerns. No significant impact is anticipated since the project must comply with the 2001 Uniform Building Code related to Chapter 18. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin Grading Manual 2001 California Building Code Chapter 16 and 18 Items a -i, a -iv, c, & e — No Impact: The project site is not located within an area identified as a fault zone on the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. However, a soils report is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits per the 2001 California Building Code to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 18, which requires proper excavation and fills for buildings, structures, foundations, and retaining structures, and appropriate construction techniques to ensure seismic stability in sites depending on their soils or geological concerns. The project will be required to be engineered to withstand unstable soils, possible landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse as they relate to the this specific site. Since all new buildings in the City are required to operate on the existing sewer system, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will not be necessary. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code 2001 California Building Code Chapter 16 and 18 California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001 VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 6 Items a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h — No Impact: The proposed project involves construction of 77 condominium units. No storage or transport of hazardous materials is anticipated from the proposed residential development. The project would not result in exposure to hazardous substances other than the possibility of household hazardous waste which residents could properly dispose of at approved County drop-off locations. A residential project is not anticipated to store or emit hazardous materials which could create a hazard to adjacent properties, schools, or the general public if released into the environment. The scope and location of the project has no potential to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The site is in an urbanized area and has no potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk due to wildland fires. All grading and construction is subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. As such, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant hazards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Approved Fire Master Plan Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Items a, b, f, g, h, i, j, and p — No Impact: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with improved site drainage and additional landscaping. A significant amount of stormwater received on-site will percolate into the soil where landscaping is provided and the remaining stormwater will be conveyed through a fossil filter prior to entering a City stormdrain. City stromwater infrastructure is currently available to accommodate storm water from the project. The applicant must provide a drainage and hydrology report to the City and demonstrate that the private storm water drainage system will be able to handle the capacity of any storm water directed into the system. Best Management Practices are required to be implemented during construction to deter water from flowing off-site. Best Management Practices will also be implemented to ensure that, once the project is constructed, storm water leaving the site will be filtered prior to entering the storm drain. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area. The project by nature would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project is located within Zone X (areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood), as mapped on a Flood Insurance Rate Map. Accordingly, the project will be designed and graded with an appropriate drainage system to avoid any potential flood hazards. The project site will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or darn, or Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 7 by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Nor would the project increase significant erosion at the project site or surrounding areas. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 4900 et al Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map 06059CO281H, February 18, 2004 Items c, d, e, k,1, m, n & o — Less Than Significant Impact: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will continue to maintain a relatively flat site with improved site drainage, including drive aisles, curbs and gutters, and additional landscaping. With new construction, there is the potential -to impact stormwater runoff from construction and post -construction activities with stormwater pollutants from landscaped areas and trash enclosures. There is also the potential for the discharge of stormwater that could affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters and changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, the project is required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order R8- 2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Together, these regulations minimize water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into local waters. As such, the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area. Mitigation Measures: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 4900 et al IX. LAND USE PLANNING Items a & c — No Impact: The proposed project would not divide an established community since it includes construction on an existing site that is already improved with multiple -family residences. The proposed project is not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable conservation plan. Item b — Less Than Significant Impact: Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 8 The property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as High Density Residential and is currently located within the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district. The proposed 4.9 -acre site (gross area) is currently developed with a 60 -unit apartment complex. The existing zoning designation would allow a maximum of 71 units on the 4.9 acre site including the street right-of-way. To redevelop the site with 77 condominium units, the applicant has requested a zone change to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3). The proposal would also include a right-of-way dedication along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue, which would reduce the net site area to 4.1 acres. The proposed rezone would allow development of the site with a density of 18.8 du/acre, consistent with the allowable general plan residential density of 15-25 du/acre. If approved, the proposed project would increase the percentage of ownership housing consistent with Goal 3 of the City's Housing Element, the project is accessible through the City's current street system, and the project could be supported with existing transportation and public facilities. Mitigation Measures Required: The development exceeds the allowable number of units under the current zoning requirements. Approval of a zone change by Tustin City Council to rezone the property from Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) is required for development of the proposed project. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Tustin Zoning Map X. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a & b — No Impact: The proposed project is not located on a mineral resource recovery site. The construction of a condominium project on a lot which is improved with existing apartment buildings will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XI. NO_ Item a — Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation The project site is located at the southwest corner of Browning and Mitchell Avenues, and therefore is exposed to significant traffic related noise. The City's noise ordinance requires a maximum 45 dB value for interior noise and 65 dB for exterior noise. The City's General Plan recognizes that residents adjacent to major and secondary arterials are typically exposed to a CNEL over 65 dB. Table N-2 of the Tustin Noise Element Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 9 identifies potential conflicts between the land uses and the noise environment. Per Table N-2, most of the project site falls within Zone A through Zone B. Zone A requires no mitigation measures for noise while Zone B requires minor soundproofing as needed. An acoustical study was submitted by the project proponent, which indicated that the private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise of 60.7 CNEL and 59.7 CNEL along Mitchell Avenue. The proposed project would meet the City's noise requirement for outdoor areas; therefore, no mitigation will be required. To meet the interior noise standards, the buildings along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue would require a noise reduction of 15.7 dB to achieve a maximum interior 45 dB value. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reduction of at least 20dB. The noise analysis also indicates that the noise attenuation of a building falls about 12 dB with windows open and recommends mitigation measures to provide adequate ventilation for homes along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (Exhibit - Noise Analysis). The noise reduction technique recommended by the acoustical analysis would be implemented and required as a condition of approval. With the mitigation measures listed below, potential noise impact would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: All units along Browning and Mitchell Avenue as indicated in the attached noise analysis shall be equipped with air conditioners with a summer switch for fresh air intake to allow adequate ventilation and noise attenuation. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code 4611 et al Tustin General Plan Acoustical Study (Exhibit 1) Items b, c & d— Less Than Significant Impact: Although the grading and construction of the site may result in typical temporary construction noise impacts, the Tustin Noise Ordinance only allows construction activities to occur during the daytime on Monday through Saturday. The proposed project will not create excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the City's established standards. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Section 4611 et al Tustin General Plan Item e & f — No Impact: Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 10 The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a public or private airport/airstrip. The proposed project is three stories in height consistent with the City's maximum height limit and similar to other structures in the vicinity. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a. b. and c — No Impact: The project involves the proposed construction of a condominium project on a site that is currently improved with apartment complexes including 60 units known as Rancho Sierra Vista Apartments. The proposed project would remove and replace the existing 60 units with 77 units that would not result in significant population growth in the area. The existing apartment units are proposed to be rented at market rate (not considered as affordable units) and the existing residents are on a month-to-month lease. While there will be displacement of existing residents as a result of the proposed project, the displacement would not be substantial nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere since the impact could be absorbed by the local rental market. The project is privately financed and no public funds are involved that would trigger relocation pursuant to state law. However, the applicant has submitted a Tenant Leasing and Relocation Plan that indicates that a minimum 120 -day notice will be provided prior to vacation of the property, tenants would continue to be on a month-to-month lease basis and the last month's rent would be waived, which should provide the tenants with adequate time and monetary incentives to relocate. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a — Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection are currently provided. While police patrols to the area may be needed from time to time to ensure safety, no new additional police protection would be required as a result of the proposed project. The Police Department has recommended measures to reinforce safety and effectively patrol the area, which will be included as conditions of approval. The project would utilize existing infrastructure and is not anticipated to increase the need for new streets, public services, or infrastructure. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 11 The proposed project is located within the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The proposed 17 additional units are not anticipated to cause a significant rise in the number of students served by local schools. The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from the residential developer as a condition of approval for the project prior to issuance of the building permit. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the project would only result in a minor library demand which can be accommodated with the existing library facilities. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XIV. RECREATION Items a & b — No Impact: The project would include a private community pool recreation area to benefit the residents of the project. However, since the size of the recreation area does not comply with the minimum criteria for parkland dedication, the project would be conditioned to pay in lieu fees for parkland dedication in accordance with Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code. The developer has indicated that they will pay in lieu fees to comply with Tustin City Code. While the residents of the project may use existing City parks, the increased use of these parks would not be such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, nor does the project propose recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment.. . Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay parkland in lieu fees based on Tustin City Code Section 9331.d.3 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a — Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: A traffic study was submitted and reviewed by the City's Engineering Division (Exhibit 2). The study concluded that the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 737 average daily trips, which in comparison with the existing development, would be an increase of 334 daily trips. The traffic analysis considered the traffic impacts to the Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue intersection and concluded that there is adequate Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 12 capacity to accommodate the proposed project under short-term (2008) and long-term (2025) conditions. The project does not create a significant impact under the City of Tustin's performance criteria. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire project are approximately 70 vph, or just a little over one vehicle per minute. Based on the submitted traffic analysis, no delay with entering and exiting the site is expected during any time of day. The internal circulation system for the project is basically a "T" shaped pattern with a single entrance. The main street is 36 feet wide and provides for parking on both sides and the alleys are 25 feet wide with no parking permitted. The site is located near an elementary school with the main entrance off of Browning Avenue. The school's morning drop-off time coincides with the ' AM peak hour of the project. During that time an additional 17 project vehicles will be traveling southbound on Browning Avenue. The traffic study concluded that the project -generated traffic volume is not expected to create significant increase to traffic congestion at the school entrance and no impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour. For development of the project, the developer will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue to provide more accessibility and visibility at the new four-way intersection of the main entrance to the project with Sandfield Place. With incorporation of the following mitigation measures on Browning Avenue, the traffic impacts for this project will be reduced to less than significant: Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: • The traffic signage and striping plan shall incorporate all requirements outlined in the traffic impact analysis, including turning lanes on Browning Avenue and parking restrictions adjacent to the site. • Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a Construction Management Plan, as required under the Traffic Impact Analysis, for the site to address safety issues, such as regulating construction access to the site during children's arrival and departure from the nearby school. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 2) Items b, c, d, e, and g — No Impact: The project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. The proposed project will not induce substantial population or growth, result in changes to air traffic patterns, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. Seventy-seven units are proposed, which require a two -car garage per unit and 20 guest parking spaces at one guest parking space for every four units. In accordance with the R-3 requirements, Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 13 the project provides 25 on-site parking spaces, which is sufficient parking to comply with current parking requirements for the proposed use. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:. None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Item f - Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: In accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9226, all units include a two -car garage and 25 guest parking spaces are provided. The on-site street layout results in a short T intersection that may be inadequate for access and circulation of disposal service trucks; therefore, the applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan that includes storing trash and recycling carts within 11 parking spaces during trash pick up days. To minimize the anticipated parking impact, the plans indicate that the emptied carts are quickly returned to garage alleys by an employee of the homeowners association. With the submitted plan any temporary impacts to the projects on-site parking is expected to be reduced an insignificant level. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Residents are required to store their trash and recycling carts within the area designated within the garage. Prior to collection day, the residents need to move the carts to an area immediately outside their garage, where a homeowner association employee will be in charge of relocating them to the designated parking stalls that are marked and designated accordingly. The carts shall be placed in the common drives no earlier than noon on the day before scheduled collections and removed within twelve (12) hours of collection. Any changes or modifications to the approved waste management plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a, b, c, d, e, f & g — No Impact: The proposed project will not exceed the requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board or require -or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. If approved, the proposed project will utilize the existing sewer and storm drain systems and thus will not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project proponent would be required to submit a hydrology report to ensure proper grading, drainage, and connection of planned sewer systems. The project will be served by the City's existing trash hauler contract, thus will not require a new trash hauler. Adequate water supply from existing resources will be available to serve the proposed project. Hampton Village Town Homes TTM 17096, ZC 06-002, DR 06-020, CUP 06-024 Page 14 Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a. b & c — No Impact: The site is located in the Suburban Residential (R-4) zoning district and currently improved with 60 apartment units. The project includes redevelopment of the site with 77. condominium units. The proposed project design, construction, and operation will comply with applicable City codes and regulations. The project, by nature of its location and as designed, does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment; reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or, eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. The proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan S:\Cdd\MINOO\Hanvton Village\Hampton - ND analysis.doc Exhibit 1 Noise Analysis NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN Report #06-320 December 11, 2006 Prepared For: Sun Cal — Browning, LLC 2392 Morse Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Bill Vasquez Q�OFE$; A, Q�� A1C Mestre Greve Associates y � 27812 El Lazo Road c3 C= 31101 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone (949) 349-0671 FAX (949) 349-0679 .o�. civil. IM r*i a t NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN Report #06-320 December 11, 2006 Prepared For: 'Sun Cal — Browning, LLC 2392 Morse Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared By: Fred Greve, P.E. Bill Vasquez Mestre Greve Associates 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Phone (949) 349-0671 FAX (949) 349-0679 Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 2 of 9 SUMMARY NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The project must comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. For the exterior living areas which are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL, some form of noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with a noise barrier. Representative cross-sections along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (see the Appendix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The results indicate that observers in private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The first floor exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL. Therefore, the project will meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will not be required along Browning Avenue or Mitchell Avenue. INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units, the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the transmission loss of each element, and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 3 of 9 Building surfaces along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of 60.7 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings will require 15.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, all rooms along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue are projected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. ADEQUATE VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. Adequate ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table S 1 and shown in Exhibit S 1. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet adequate ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Table S1 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Along Browning Avenue Units in Buildings 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Along Mitchell Avenue Units in Buildings 8,9 ■❑ I -J 1-1-1 L Lj LJI-� w ''T-4 V1 NOISE ANALYSIS FOR HAMPTON VILLAGE TOWNEHOMES CITY OF TUSTIN 1.0 INTRODUCTION Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 4 of 9 The purpose of this report is to demonstrate compliance of the "Hampton Village Townhomes" Project with the noise related `Conditions of Approval' placed on the project by the City of Tustin. The project calls for the development of multi -family homes. The project is located in the City of Tustin, as shown in Exhibit 1. The project will be impacted by traffic noise from Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. In addition, aircraft noise from the John Wayne Airport will be addressed. This report specifies any mitigation measures necessary to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. Site plan and grading information was obtained from the grading plans for "Site Plan T.T. No. 17096 for Condominium Purposes" by Hunsaker & Associates, December 4, 2006. Building construction details were obtained from the architectural drawings for the project by the KTGY Group. Inc., December 5, 2006. 2.0 CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE STANDARDS The City of Tustin specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for traffic noise levels at residential land uses. Both standards are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour time weighted annual average noise level based on the A - weighted decibel. A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise -sensitive time periods is given more significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. The City of Tustin has adopted an exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL and an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL for residential. Qj IV G `s C��, PROJECT LOCA TIONgyp• �P Jam' Exhibit 1-Vicinity Map Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 5 of 9 3.0 METHODOLOGY The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway .Traffic Noise Prediction Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level". A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is interrupted by the barrier. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. 4.0 NOISE EXPOSURE The existing traffic volumes for Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue were obtained from Mr. Terry Lutz at the City of Tustin on December 5, 2006. The projected (year -2026) traffic volumes were calculated from the existing (year -2006) ADT's using an overall 10% growth factor. The traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and roadway grades used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table L Table 1 FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, SPEEDS, AND ROADWAY GRADES ROADWAY Browning Avenue Mitchell Avenue TRAFFIC VOLUME SPEED GRADE 4,840 35 <3% 6,160 30 <3% The traffic distributions for Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue that were used in the CNEL calculations are listed below in Table 2. This arterial traffic distribution estimate was compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be considered typical for arterials in Southern California. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 6 of 9 Table 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the.60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of the roadway to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in.Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. Table 3 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ROADWAY Browning Avenue Mitchell Avenue DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (FT) -70 CNEL- -65 CNEL- -60 CNEL- RW 26 56 RW 24 51 RW — indicates noise contours falls within Roadway right of way * - Contour distances in this table are based on the centerline of the roadway representing the noise source. The site plan (Exhibit 2) indicates that exterior observers along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL I ' 41 I / I I 1 I I I� . W4 00 • M4 W cn Q 0 cn cn Q W 0 F" cn Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 7 of 9 4.1 Aircraft Noise Exposure The project is located northeast of the John Wayne Airport. The future CNEL noise contours were acquired from the "EIR 508/EIS — John Wayne Airport and Land Use Compatibility Program". The project is located 5 miles from the John Wayne Airport and 3 miles from the 60 CNEL contour. Analysis of the project location indicates that worst-case aircraft noise levels at the project site will be far less than 60 CNEL. Therefore, aircraft noise will not significantly impact the project site. 5.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The project must comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. For the exterior living areas which are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL, some form of noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with a noise barrier. Representative cross-sections along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue (see the Appendix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The results indicate that observers in private outdoor living areas along Browning Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 60.7 CNEL. The first floor exterior observers along Mitchell Avenue would be exposed to a maximum unmitigated traffic noise level of 59.7 CNEL. Therefore, the project will meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will not be required along Browning Avenue or Mitchell Avenue. 6.0 INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units, the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the transmission loss of each element, and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 8 of 9 Building surfaces along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue will be exposed to noise levels of 60.7 CNEL. Therefore, these buildings will require 15.7 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to, indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, all rooms along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue are projected to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. 7.0 ADEQUATE VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable Uniform Building Code. Adequate ventilation will be required for those homes listed in Table 4 and shown in Exhibit 3. The acceptability of using air conditioners to meet adequate ventilation requirement varies by municipality. The local jurisdiction and the mechanical engineer for the project should be consulted. Table 4 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS BUILDING Alone Browning Avenue Units in Buildings 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Along Mitchell Avenue Units in Buildings 8,9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- 1 I I MESTRE GREVE ASSOCIATES \ I I I L----------! I 1 I C- O Buildings Requiring Adequate Ventilation Exhibit 3 - Ventilation Requirements Mestre Greve Associates Report #06-320 Page 9 of 9 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS awning Townhomes, Tustin Sully Group - Karen Sully 714-665-1101 ext 103 PORT #06-400 ED/ BILL; December 2006 Date SoftG... Soft Hard I ' - -1-1 Hi 58.5 Roadway Name Medium Truck iWat hr/I Ave. 53.1 Vehicles Per Day 53.3 h, Inti Total Speed (mph) 61.5 Au 0.08% Grade Adj. (dB) 60.2 0.00 dB 54 Vehicle Noise Red (dB)1o 61.k dit 59.0 Roadway Grade 65 n W . 6" 70 Thic is thn rMPI t 14 - MiUmll Aw CNEL WORKSHEET - CALVENO - (NO MACRO) - 5-24-95..tl From: BarrCalc CNEL MASTER - Standard Arterial Mix Soft Hard Auto 58.5 59,7 Medium Truck 51.6 53.1 Heavy Truck 53.3 54,5 Total 60.3 61.5 MiUmll Aw CNEL WORKSHEET - CALVENO - (NO MACRO) - 5-24-95..tl From: BarrCalc CNEL MASTER - Standard Arterial Mix To get other noise levels (CNEL), ntd in nfhnr Acton- Iftl Dist. Soft Hard Day Eve Night Equiv Auto 75.51% 12.5796 9.34% 208.6% MT 1.56% 0.09% 0.19% 3.7% HT 0.64% 0.02% 0.08% 1.5% To get other noise levels (CNEL), ntd in nfhnr Acton- Iftl Dist. Soft Hard 25 64.7 "A 30 63.5 63.4 35 62.5 6" 40 61.6 6&4 45 60.9 6} 9 50 60.2 bt 3 54 59.7 61.k 60 59.0 60,7 65 58.5 6" 70 58.0 6" 75 57.5 bvg 80 57.1 jM4 90 56.4 5" 100 55.7 M4 T73I'A 12AW4 9.61% To get other distances (ft), nad in nthPr nnien lavnlo CNEL Soft Hard 57 81 4-W 58 70 444 59 60 88 60 51 W 61 44 sb 62 38 44 63 32 as 64 28 28 65 24 22 66 20 48 67 18 44 68 15 4+ 69 13 9 70 11. 7 47.92'4 I A4'x 1.74'4 Unit Road Elevation Distance To Wall Base Of Wall Distance To Observer Pad Elevation Observer Height Wall Height ------ Auto Barrier Reduction MT ------ HT 7lratne Noise Soft Hard Aircraft Noise TOTAL NOISE it mit with wu// no mit with wall 0 0 54 54 0.0 0.0 54 54 0.0 0.0 S S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.7 no mit �+ 59.7 6" r� 59.7 no mit 59.7 59.7 no mit �t+ 59.7 "4. 5.5 BarrCalc CNEL Browning Mitchell Exhibit 2 Traffic Analysis Draft CITY OF TUSTIN ,y BROWNING & MITCHELL TOWN HOME PROJECT Traffic Analysis 1 Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2223 East Wellington Avenue Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 (714) 667-0496 June 14, 2007 CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1 ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................... 1. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA.................................................................................................................... 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................... 4 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS.......:................................................................................................ 8 PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................................................... 8 PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION....................................................................... 19 SCHOOLIMPACTS................................................................................................................................. 21 CMPANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................... 23 PARKING................................................................................................................................................. 24 CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 25 APPENDICES A: Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Worksheets B: Delay Calculation Worksheets H LIST OF FIGURES _Page LIST OF TABLES Paye 2 1 Project Location............................................................................................................................ 3 2 Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 9 3 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes — 2006..................................................................................... 3 11 4 Project Distribution.................................................................................................................... 5 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes — Project-Generated............................................................... 12 6 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes — 2008 No Project..................................................................14 7 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes — 2008 With Project............................................................... 15 8 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes — 2025 No Project.................................................................. 17 9 Peak Hour Intersection Volumes — 2025 With Project............................................................... 18 LIST OF TABLES Paye 1 Level of Service Descriptions — Signalized Intersections............................................................. 5 2 City of Tustin Performance Criteria.............................................................................................. 6 3 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary — Proposed Project ...................................................... 7 4 Level of Service (LOS) Summary — Existing ....................................................................10 16 5 Level of Service (LOS) Summary — 2008 No Project and With Project .................................... 6 Level of Service (LOS) Summary — 2025 No Project and With Project .................................... 20 7 Traffic Delay and Queuing Survey Results — W.R. Nelson Elementary School ........................ 22 24 8 Parking Code Criteria................................................................................................... ........... ' BROWNING & MITCHELL TOWN HOME PROJECT Traffic Analysis s This report presents the results of a traffic analysis performed for the proposed construction of 77 residential town homes in the City of Tustin. It has been prepared for submittal to the City in support of the project application and proposed zoning amendment (to allow two and three-story town home products). The report contains documentation of the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis, and presents the results and findings of the traffic impacts of the proposed project. INTRODUCTION The proposed project is located on a 4.1 -acre site in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue in the City of Tustin. The project location is illustrated in Figure 1 and the proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2. The site is currently occupied by the Rancho Sierra { Apartment complex, which contains 60 residential units. The proposed project consists of redevelopment 1 of the site with 77 residential town homes. Access to the project will be via a driveway on Browning Avenue around 500 feet south of Mitchell Avenue. I ANALYSIS SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY The study area consists of the intersections of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue, and Browning Avenue at Sandfield Place. Intersections beyond these locations would not meet the one 9 percent impact criteria used by the City for traffic studies such as this. Existing (2006) peak hour intersection turn movement volumes are first presented. The project is then analyzed under two time frames, a short-range representing project buildout and a long-range representing City General Plan buildout. The short-range time frame used in this analysis represents the amount of growth that is projected to occur by the time the proposed project is built out in the next two years, and is referred to as year 2008. Year 2008 No Project volumes were formulated using the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and applying a one percent annual growth factor for two years (two percent total). Project -generated traffic was then added to the 2008 No Project volumes, resulting in the 2008 With Project traffic volumes. , i i Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc 1 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis Figure 1 PROJECT LOCATION Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-figl.dwg 1 I I M -- � -----_______— — : .66 -Orr 3RN3AV 773 11MSol � 3 I - w*wf rw-w w.pY wo-W w•ar ru-40 www If>Aw rfYM Y7•Y t. O -W I. n ► MYM , MYW ► MIw , NYfI ,'MVA/ , NVN ,, MAI ► hvv ► NV11 ► MM ► MVM' - n } w'ww wr•Ir wr,Y www : wtrw � � 1!f•.. 11>A41 trip-* r+•,,R RO•r r NM I WM A MfA1 'I MYM i r " ';� r ww I ww 1. IIS!AI 1 iMtM t lMAI .. � .. a ,•' { ��� ,« ....' ..... www ww,r www .rrw! w•.v '�' : � � .r••.yr � .rrrn•r w+r,a: v1v � +rs•r r AVW I1 WW I Wu r Who, r NOW ~,! r MYy 11 New f raA3f r.3rAr I M*M � J ... ., .._ ... ............. ... f ., i.. 3 Viz:' I •rvw oww Ism•/ . Mwv l wthr. �, �" �a' �. now i1,Q+w rn•r ON"" 00.0 " I WN 1 ww M/A/ 'r fVYfd (' Mv7I .•(_- .}e c MVA/ I MW 1 NYY I WWI° wuzf jr AV N � � .sw,Y J•'wV Mwq.. � IssN/ IA I,i• �.: MI1Y WW •. -w4p w ; wMON-0enl,•r • w �r nYM I MVM r w�l r N f M►M !MAI 1 ►MAI ° ou i - u. ' to 44 • �•Y1, ' • s elf ;�.w www •- ✓l�Rt : .. ....: i. i .. r, „�,,�� iii �' �, w/rw war' rw►r rsw l wwY ;{' F • wwar /ASI �.MM 1M•Y �../•W i w>U 1MVI\I !Z 1MY r NVY ({ Ww!'i ww 4 ww I } I ........ _... .. ...... .. 1 '. w II .. .. ... ..... ... _..• x .... .. 'w •. w ,.. M'fYY K0•Y KI.11 KILN L� 3r f wVM ' I hvw I MVM c IMI •--+z•-T- -1 . _ Q:Y ... 731-40N1'S : ' uw 1•ow3 r _. ....... .� -�-'- = kk , Mrfl ► S ' � Y,.• .,. ► I ►MVM IvVM . AIYM .;.• ,p , S :.I' � ... .. w _.t r.... � 4....- �; ' ••Lr . � , ,� e- Vii` r , 4 — ...�� ' l tzt wit ' 0 I M E Buildout (2025) volumes without the proposed project were derived from 2025 Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) ADT forecasts and assume the southward extension of Tustin 1 Ranch Road to Barranca Parkway southeast of the project (see Reference 1). Project -generated traffic. volumes were then added to these volumes to give the 2025 With Project volumes. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA The traffic analysis utilizes a set of performance criteria for evaluating intersection capacity to determine potential project impacts. Traffic level of service (LOS) is designated "A" through "F" with LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. Table 1 summarizes the general LOS descriptions. The intersection capacity analysis examines AM and PM peak hour volumes and intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values at the intersection of Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Since this intersection is currently signalized, ICU methodology is used. The methodology used at the intersection is consistent with Hihwa of Browning Avenue and Sandfield Place g Y Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures for unsignalized intersections. The performance criteria for each is summarized in Table 2. The City of Tustin has determined that Level of Service "D" is the minimum acceptable level of service for peak hour operation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is located on a 4.1 -acre site in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue in the City of Tustin. The site is currently occupied by the Rancho Sierra Apartment complex, which contains 60 residential units. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of the site with 77 residential town homes, resulting in a net increase of 17 residential units. Table 3 summarizes the existing and proposed land uses and the corresponding trip generation estimates. As shown, redevelopment of the project site results in a net increase of 334 average daily trips I (ADT), with 27 of these occurring in the AM peak hour and 40 occurring in the PM peak hour. This increase has been used for the impact analysis results presented here. Browning* Mitchell Town Home Project 4 Austin -Foust Associates, mc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc Table 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS — SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS DESCRIPTION DELAY PER VOLUME -TO - VEHICLE CAPACITY (secs) RATIO A LOS "A" describes operations with low control delay, up to 10 seconds per < 10 0—.60 vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Many vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may tend to contribute to low delay values. B LOS "B" describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 10-20 .61-.70 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than the LOS "A", causing higher levels of delay. C LOS "C" describes operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 20-35 .71-.80 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from only fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. Cycle failure occurs when a given green phase does not serve queued vehicles, and overflows occur. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D LOS "D" describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 35-55 .81-.90 55 seconds per vehicle. At LOS "D", the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E LOS "E" describes operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 55-80 .91-1.00 80 seconds per vehicle. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent. F LOS "F' describes operations with -control delay in excess of 80 seconds > 80 > 1.00 per vehicle. This level, considered unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of lane groups. It may also occur at high V/C ratios with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also contribute significantly to high delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc 1 Table 2 CITY OF TUSTIN PERFORMANCE CRITERIA V/C Calculation Methodology (Signalized Intersections) Level of service to be based on peak hour intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values calculated using the following assumptions: Saturation Flow Rate: 1,700 vehicles/hour/lane Delay Calculation Methodology (Unsignalized Intersections) Level of service to based on peak hour intersection delay (seconds per vehicle) based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Ideal Saturation Flow Rate: 1,900 vehicles/hour/lane Performance Standard Level of Service "D" Signalized Intersection Peak hour ICU less than or equal to .90. Unsignalized Intersection Peak hour delay less than or equal to 35 seconds. Pro iect Impact Signalized Intersection - Project causes an increase in ICU of greater than .01, when the "With Project" ICU is more than .90 (LOS "E" or "F'). Unsignalized Intersection - Project causes an increase in delay of greater than 2 seconds, when the "With Project" delay is more than 35 seconds (LOS "E" or "F'). Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 6 Austin -Foust Associates, Mc. 1067001rpt.doc 'rJ Table 3 LAND USE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY - Proposed Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount ADT In Out Total In Out Total Trip Generation Town Home (Project) 77 DU 15 43 58 49 28 77 737 Apartment (Existing Use) 60 DU 6 25 31 24 13 37 403 Increase 17 DU 9 18 27 25 15 40 334 Trip Rates Town Home DU .17 .50 .67 .45 .33 .78 7.89 Apartment DU .10 .41 .51 .40 .22 .62 6.72 Single -Family Detached DU .19 .56 .75 .64 1 .37 1.01 9.57 'ITE Land Use Category 231. (Given as a reference only. The Single -Family Detached trip rate was used to calculate the project trip generation. 2ITE Land Use Category 220 3Town Home ADT rate was interpolated between the ITE Single -Family Detached (land use category 210) and Apartment (land use category 220) ADT rates. 4ITE Land Use Category 230 5Because of the size of the town home product type, the project trip generation was calculated using the higher Single -Family Detached trip rates to assume a worst-case scenario. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The existing arterial highway system in the vicinity of the project consists of Browning Avenue, Mitchell Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Browning Avenue is a two-lane secondary roadway in the project vicinity and carries approximately 4,500 vehicles per day. Walnut Avenue is a four -lane secondary arterial located south of the project and currently carries approximately 19,500 vehicles per day. 13 Existing (2006) peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figure 3, and the intersection capacity utilization (ICLT) values and delay (for the highest stopped leg) for these volumes are summarized in Table 4. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. The target LOS for intersections is LOS "D". According to this criteria, the study area intersections are well below the target LOS for existing conditions. Traffic volumes at the school driveway are not being analyzed as partof this analysis but are included in the graphics to give the reader a complete understanding of the intersection volumes north and south of the school entrance that are part of the analysis. For purposes of this analysis, traffic volumes at the school were estimated based on an elementary school of about 300 students using ITE trip generation rates. (A discussion on "School Impacts" is provided later in this document.) PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS Distribution of project -generated traffic was based on prevailing traffic patterns at the study area inters g intersections and is illustrated in Figure 4. The project -generated traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 5 and are representative of the "net increase" of 17 units on the project site as discussed earlier. However, the "total" project -generated volumes are given at the project driveway to calculate capacity. Short -Range (2008) Project Impacts i t The short-range time frame used in this analysis represents the amount of growth that is projected to occur at the time this project is built out in the next two years, and is referred to as year 2008. Year 2008 No Project volumes were formulated using the 2006 traffic volumes as a base, and applying a one Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc 1 E i",, MITCHELL AVE i / Q z i/ O �+ r 22 tSANDFIELD PL 00 It .r Un M j�t 28 4-29 �1 SCHOOL ENTRY d M M M O V N N �► t 228 *-787 WALNUT AVE 148 —f' 700 -- - MITCHELL AVE i' 1 . a ' U z i O m f 04 SANDFIELD PL M � N N N � O M `~I +_0 Y .c- 0 SCHOOL ENTRY 000 N I t 183 Y �► -*--937 WALNUT AVE 65 1 662 —► Legend L-��--- Project Location Figure 3 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES -2006 tl Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig3.dwg J Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001 rpt.doc Table 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY - Existing Signalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Browning Ave. & Walnut Ave. .53 1 A .48 A Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dela LOS Dela LOS 2. Browning Ave. & Sandfield Place/Project Driveway 19.2 C 12.3 B Note: 'Seconds per vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU — intersection capacity utilization LOS — level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91— 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <10 A 10-15 B 15-25 C 25-35 D 35-50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001 rpt.doc Legend Project Location Figure 4 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig4.dwg MITCHELL AVE ' . a ' z , 10/ 5%—+ SANDFIELD PL 959.7. K U-) rn U') rn SCHOOL ENTRY be 0 �» rn Y �► t60% WALNUT AVE 35% --�' AM MITCHELL AVE % ! ; o m f / ZA 5% 1 SANDFIELD PL 959. Z » 0 In rn SCHOOL ENTRY K b\ K n c> C14 4 t 75% WALNUT AVE 20%--+ PM Legend Project Location Figure 4 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 11 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig4.dwg Legend Project Location 19 Net Project Increase (19) Total Project Volume Figure 5 PEAK HOUR USTMRSECTION VOLUMES - Project -Generated Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig5.dwg MITCHELL AVE -1� im � I (2) 1 (41)"7• SANDFIELD PL ^ d r_l 1 t SCHOOL ENTRY ao ao rn 4 '!_ 5 WALNUT AVE 31 AM MITCHELL AVE / z z 1 / Cr m i Or SANDFIELD PL d d �l 1 SCHOOL ENTRY d N PO It -19 WALNUT AVE 5 PM Legend Project Location 19 Net Project Increase (19) Total Project Volume Figure 5 PEAK HOUR USTMRSECTION VOLUMES - Project -Generated Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig5.dwg percent annual growth factor for two years (two percent total). The 2008 No Project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 6 and include the existing use on the site (60 apartment units). i i Project -generated volumes, representative of the net increase of 17 units on the project site, were then added to the 2008 No Project traffic volumes resulting in the 2008 With Project volumes. These are illustrated in Figure 7. Table 5 summarizes the corresponding peak hour ICU values at the intersection of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue. As shown, the intersection operates at an acceptable level of service under both scenarios. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. Buildout (2025) Project Impacts Peak hour buildout (2025) volumes without the proposed project were derived from 2025 Irvine Transportation Analysis Model (ITAM) ADT forecasts and assume the southward extension of Tustin Ranch Road to Barranca Parkway southeast of the project. Growth factors, derived from base year (2000) and 2025 ITAM forecasts at the three mid -block approaches to the study area intersection, were applied to the 2006 volumes used in this analysis to represent a 2025 time frame. The ADT volumes show no increase on Browning Avenue, and an increase from 26,240 to 27,000 between 2006 and 2025 (three percent) on Walnut Avenue. The 2025 No Project volumes are illustrated in Figure 8 and include the existing use on the site (60 apartment units). Project -generated volumes, representative of the net increase of 17 units on the project site, were then added to the 2025 No Project traffic volumes resulting in the 2025 With Project volumes. These are illustrated in Figure 9. Buildout of the proposed project has been assumed in both the 2008 and 2025 analysis. As such, 2008 and 2025 project -generated traffic volumes entering/existing the site are the same. Likewise, no future development is anticipated in the existing Sandfield Place residential neighborhood and volumes entering/exiting the neighborhood are also the same in both time frames. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc a s IAM PM MITCHELL AVE / Z i /I 0 i i' / � T 22 SANDFIELD PL rn00 M d d tD M d iA-28 �► - 29 t � SCHOOL ENTRY rn u) d t7 00 d d A— 233 1� Y *--803 WALNUT AVE 151 1 714 —► MITCHELL AVE z_ m '+ j-14 t SANDFIELD PL 00 un N N N 0 o M 04 4-0 i— 0 * �1 SCHOOL ENTRY �o U') N U-) 00 L 187 f 956 WALNUT AVE 675 --► Legend Figure 6 Project Location PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES - 2008 No Project Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig6.dwg IrM� PM MITCHELL AVE / I f Z 0 0 22 0 --► t � SANDFIELD PL 41 Z Tao r M r 00 M i 28 i �► 4--29 t � SCHOOL ENTRY r -Ln in r7 to U') U*) N N I i 238 Y �► `— 803 WALNUT AVE 154—.+ 714 —o- MITCHELL AVE 1 ! a - Cr m i NV C-434 N i 1 0 j-14 1 --► t � SANDFIELD PL 27 —Z dON N L O N i 0 ♦ Y •G— 0 t SCHOOL ENTRY r� o N r N cD � t- 206 �► f— 956 WALNUT AVE 71 S 675 --► Legend [7. I Project Location Figure 7 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 2008 With Project +I Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 15 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001-fig7.dwg 1 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 16 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc Table 5 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY - 2008 No Project and With Project Signalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Browning Ave. & Walnut Ave. No Project .53 A .50 A With Project .55 A .50 A Increase Due to Project .02 -- .00 Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dela LOS Dela LOS 2. Browning Ave. & Sandfield Place/Pro'ect Drivewa No Project 19.7 C 12.4 B With Project 22.3 C 14.1 B Increase Due to Project 2.6 -- 1.7 -- Note: 'Seconds per vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU — intersection capacity utilization LOS — level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <10 A 10-15 B 15-25 C 25-35 D 35-50 E > 50 F Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 16 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc 1 Legend Project Location �y Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 17 Figure 8 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES - 2025 No Project Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig8.dwg MITCHELL AVE 0 �o 22 SAND FIELD PL t rno M j28 4-29 t � SCHOOL ENTRY 0) Lnto 00 LO N N II i 233 4 -0-811 WALNUT AVE 151 --.P' 721 -� AM MITCHELL AVE f "; f ,Q f0 0 m vf� N�� 'i ,i 1 r 14 tr SANDFIELD PL 00 Ul) N N N 0)O K) C14�ra t SCHOOL ENTRY LO N ao �► i 187 *-965 WALNUT AVE 66 S 682 --► PM Legend Project Location �y Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 17 Figure 8 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES - 2025 No Project Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig8.dwg IAM 9� MITCHELL AVE ' O i O m i / ,c- 22 O t � SANDFIELD PL 41 rnoo �M 00 M A.'— 28 i �► — 29 t � SCHOOL ENTRY P M lD d U') N N N AAL -238 -*-811 WALNUT AVE 154 _J' 721 -0- I AM ► MITCHELL AVE I� o f - z m 1 i N .- r 1 0 ,r-14 O 01-�1 SANDFIELD PL 27Z .tO14 N POO to N 0 0 SCHOOL ENTRY �o N N (p 0) L 206 �► f— 965 WALNUT AVE 71 1 682 —� Legend Project Location Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 18 �l Figure 9 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES - 2025 With Project Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001-fig9.dwg Because the ITAM ADT volumes used to derive the future peak hour intersection volumes for this analysis showed no increase (see discussion above) and because of the built -out nature of the adjacent land uses, no increase is assumed for the through volumes on Browning Avenue. The through volumes + on Walnut Avenue, however, were increased three percent based on the ITAM ADT volume increase between 2000 -and 2025 at this location. Table 6 summarizes the peak hour ICU values for the 2025 No Project and With Project conditions and shows that the intersection of Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue operates at an acceptable level of service under both scenarios. ICU worksheets can be found in Appendix A and Delay calculation worksheets can be found in Appendix B. PROJECT ACCESS AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION The existing apartment complex on the proposed project site has vehicular access to both Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue: Sole access to the proposed project will be taken via a driveway on Browning Avenue located around 500 feet south of Mitchell Avenue opposite Sandfield Place. The total project -generated volumes at this intersection were given previously in Figure 9. Since this intersection does not meet a signal warrant with the inclusion of project -generated traffic, the driveway will operate as an unsignalized full movement access point. With an ADT volume of 4,500 and most project driveway movements being right turns, no significant delays to existing traffic on Browning Avenue or Sandfield Place are anticipated. Currently, Browning Avenue is striped as a two-lane roadway with left turn lanes in the center median. Upon completion of the project with its new entrance driveway oriented directly opposite Sandfield Place, the existing double -double yellow median should be converted to a. left turn lane to T accommodate left turns into the project. Virtually all project traffic (about 95 percent) is expected to utilize the segment of Browning Avenue southerly of the site to Walnut Avenue. This will result in a northbound left turn volume entering the main driveway of 14 vehicles per hour (vph) in the AM peak hour and 47 vph in the PM peak hour. Conversion of the existing double -double yellow median south of Sandfield Place to a left tum lane will effectively provide a 200 -foot long left turn storage lane on Browning Avenue at the project entrance which will be more than adequate to accommodate a maximum peak arrival of 47 vph northbound on Browning Avenue. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the entire project are approximately 70 vph, or just a little over one vehicle per minute. With such limited Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 19 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc F 1 O 1,7 Browning &. Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 20 AUStln-rouS[ Assocla=, lnc. 1067001rpt.doc Table 6 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) SUMMARY - 2025 No Project and With Project Signalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ICU LOS ICU LOS 1. Brownie Ave. & Walnut Ave. No Project .54 A .50 A With Project .55 A .50 A Increase Due to Project .01 -- .00 Unsignalized Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Dela LOS Dela LOS 2. Brownie Ave. & Sandfield Place/Pro'ect Driveway No Project 19.7 C 12.4 B With Project 22.3 C 14.1 B Increase Due to Project 2.6 -- 1.7 -- Note: 'Seconds per vehicle average. Abbreviations: ICU — intersection capacity utilization LOS — level of service Level of service ranges (ICUs): .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F Level of service ranges (Delay): <10 A 10 —15 B 15-25 C 25-35 D 35-50 E > 50 F Browning &. Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 20 AUStln-rouS[ Assocla=, lnc. 1067001rpt.doc 1 traffic there is not expected to be any delay associated with entering or exiting the site during any time of the day. The internal circulation system for the project is basically a "T" shaped pattern with a single entrance off the stem of the "T". In effect, the circulation plan is essentially a main cul-de-sac street with shorter cul-de-sacs along the main spline. The main street is 36 feet wide with 25 -foot wide "alley" type i driveways each serving about four or five residential units. Parking is permitted on the main 36 -foot wide spline, but no parking is permitted on the 25 -foot alley driveways. With a total peak hour two-way volume of less than 70 vph at the entrance and progressively less as one proceeds into the development, no traffic safety, circulation or delay issues are anticipated. The internal traffic situation will be calm with virtually no opportunity for excessive speeds or congestion as long as cars are not parked on the 25 - foot wide alleys. SCHOOL IMPACTS An existing public elementary school is located nearby the proposed project in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Browning Avenue and Walnut Avenue. The main entrance to the school is located on Browning Avenue and serves pedestrians, and those arriving by car or bicycle. The school's morning drop-off time for students coincides with the AM peak hour on the adjacent circulation system During that time, an additional eight project vehicles will be traveling northbound on Browning Avenue, and an additional 17 project vehicles will be traveling southbound on Browning Avenue. These project - generated volumes are not expected to create any significant increase to traffic congestion at the school entrance and the public safety requirements related to schools already enforced at this location will apply to the project traffic as well. No impacts are anticipated in the PM peak hour. P J P P During the construction phase, a Construction Management Plan should be implemented that would address safety issues. This would give the City the ability to regulate construction traffic by limiting (or prohibiting) access to the project site during the time frames when children are arriving at and departing the school. A traffic delay and queuing survey was conducted in May 2007 to document the operational characteristics of traffic on Browning Avenue in the project vicinity during the school's morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times. The results are summarized in Table 7. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 21 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc i 1 Table 7 TRAFFIC DELAY AND QUEUING SURVEY RESULTS - W.R. NELSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTHBOUND VEHICLES ON BROWNING AVENUE Variable Morning Observation Results Afternoon Observation Results School starts: 8:00 AM School dismissal: 2:14 PM Total Peak Total Peak Survey Time 7:30 am - 8:20 am 7:40 am- 8:00 am 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm 2:00 m- 2:30 prn Survey Duration 50 minutes 20 minutes 90 minutes 30 minutes Min. stacked vehicles 0 7 0 0 Max. stacked vehicles 24 24 14 14 Avg. stacked vehicles 7 16 4 1 10 WESTBOUND VEHICLES EXITING SANDFIELD PLACE Variable Morning Observation Results School starts: 8:00 AM Total Peak Afternoon Observation Results School dismissal: 2:14 PM Total Peak Survey Time 7:30 am - 8:20 am 7:40 am- 8:00 am 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm 2:00 m 2:30 pm Survey Duration Vehicles Exiting Sandfield Place 50 minutes 20 minutes 44 23 90 minutes 53 30 minutes 29 Maximum Delay 40 seconds 40 seconds 40 seconds 40 seconds Maximum Delay Occurrence 3 times 3 times 3 times 3 times ,Average Delay 11 seconds 15 seconds 9 seconds 8 seconds Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis 22 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc The distance between the Browning Avenue crosswalk north of the school's exit -only driveway to the centerline of Sandfield Place is approximately 250 feet. The total number of vehicles traveling southbound on Browning Avenue and "stacking" from the crosswalk to beyond Sandfield Place (interfering with that neighborhood's ability to exit) were counted in five minute increments during the school's peak periods. The number of vehicles exiting Sandfield Place, and the delay in seconds, was also observed. As indicated, the worst-case maximum number of vehicles stacked on southbound Browning beginning at the crosswalk is 24 in the morning, with an average of about 16 vehicles during the school's peak traffic period (7:40 AM — 8:00 AM). However, it should be recognized that this traffic "queue" was, in reality, a "rolling" or "creeping" queue whereby most simply slowed to a crawl speed and proceeded to creep past the school. Motorists existing the side streets were able to enter this rolling queue or turn across it with little delay encountered. During the same peak traffic period for the school, 23 vehicles exited the Sandfield Place neighborhood. The maximum delay experienced by any driver was 40 seconds due to the southbound traffic queue on Browning Avenue and this only occurred three times. The average delay for motorists exiting Sandfield Place was 15 seconds. I As stated earlier, the proposed project will add 17 southbound vehicles to Browning Avenue in the AM peak hour. Because the PM peak hour of residential uses occur much later than the afternoon dismissal time for a school, only minimal project trips will affect the afternoon school -related congestion. It can be anticipated that approximately half of the 17 project -generated trips (nine) would occur prior to the school -related congestion which begins at approximately 7:40 AM and half (nine)would occur during the school -related congestion. It can be concluded that he addition of nine project -generated vehicles to the southbound traffic queues will not produce any measurable increase in delay to vehicles exiting Sandfield Place. CMP ANALYSIS State legislation creating the Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires that local governments analyze the impacts of their land use decisions on the regional transportation system. The Orange County CMP requires that land use projects analyze their traffic impacts to any intersection identified on the CMP Highway System. Projects with the potential to create an impact of more than three percent of LOS "E" capacity on CMP Highway System links, or generate 2,400 or more daily trips Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 23 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc i are required to prepare a CMP analysis. If a project has direct access to a CMP link, the threshold is reduced to 1,600 or more daily trips. The proposed project does not meet these requirements, there are no CMP intersections in the project study area and therefore no CMP analysis is required. i PARKING The City of Tustin has established parking space requirements to ensure that new developments provide adequate parking for their use. They vary by land use type and number of units, and the criteria is summarized in Table 8. As shown, based on the proposed project's occupancy of 77 units, a total of 174 parking spaces are required under the City's parking code. The proposed project will provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces (total of 180 spaces) to fulfill these requirements. Also, 11 on -street parking spaces are provided on Mitchell Avenue (but do not count towards meeting the on-site parking requirements). No on -street parking will be allowed on Browning Avenue along the protect frontage. This entire section should be red -curbed to comply with the City of Tustin's sight distance standards. -n CONCLUSIONS The study area intersection, Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue, has adequate capacity to accommodate theJro ro osed project land use under short-term (2008) and buildout (2025) conditions, and P P P the proposed project does not create a significant impact at this location under the City of Tustin's performance criteria. To fulfill the City's parking code requirements, the proposed project will also provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 24 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc Table 8 PARKING CODE CRITERIA Type City Requirement Project Requirement Resident Space 2 spaces per unit 154 Visitor Space 1 space per 4 units 20 Total 174 As shown, based on the proposed project's occupancy of 77 units, a total of 174 parking spaces are required under the City's parking code. The proposed project will provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces (total of 180 spaces) to fulfill these requirements. Also, 11 on -street parking spaces are provided on Mitchell Avenue (but do not count towards meeting the on-site parking requirements). No on -street parking will be allowed on Browning Avenue along the protect frontage. This entire section should be red -curbed to comply with the City of Tustin's sight distance standards. -n CONCLUSIONS The study area intersection, Browning Avenue at Walnut Avenue, has adequate capacity to accommodate theJro ro osed project land use under short-term (2008) and buildout (2025) conditions, and P P P the proposed project does not create a significant impact at this location under the City of Tustin's performance criteria. To fulfill the City's parking code requirements, the proposed project will also provide 154 parking garages and 26 open parking spaces. Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 24 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc The project will be responsible for implementing roadway improvements on Browning Avenue that will provide increased visibility and accessibility at the new four-way intersection with Sandfield Place (project driveway). These consist of striping changes and additions that will provide both a r southbound right turn lane and a northbound left turn lane into the project. Currently, Browning Avenue is striped as a two-lane roadway with left turn lanes in the center median. The project will convert the existing double -double yellow median to a left turn lane to accommodate left turns into the project. Conversion of the existing double -double yellow median south of Sandfield Place to a left turn lane will' effectively provide a 200 -foot long left tum storage lane on Browning Avenue at the project entrance which will be more than adequate to accommodate a maximum peak arrival of 47 vph northbound on Browning Avenue. The project will also provide a southbound right turn lane on Browning Avenue into the project driveway. Approximately 100-110 feet of on -street parking will be eliminated to accommodate this improvement. REFERENCES 1. "City of Irvine Planning Areas 30 and 51, Heritage Fields GPA/Zone Change, Traffic Study", September 2006. 2. "2005, Orange County, Congestion Management Program," OCTA, November 2005. 3. "Highway Capacity Manual 2000," Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2000. If Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project 25 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 1067001rpt.doc 1 e Appendix A Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICi) Worksheets This appendix summarizes information pertaining to the intersection analysis presented in this traffic report. ICU Calculation Methodology The ICU calculation procedure is based on a critical movement methodology that shows the amount of capacity utilized by each critical movement at an intersection. A capacity of 1,700 vehicles per hour per lane is assumed together with a .05 clearance interval. A "de -facto" right -turn lane is used in the ICU calculation for cases where a curb lane is wide enough to separately serve both through and right - turn traffic (typically with a width of 19 feet or more from curb to outside of through -lane with parking prohibited during peak periods). Such lanes are treated the same as striped right -turn lanes during the ICU calculations, but they are denoted on the ICU calculation worksheets using the letter "d" in place of a numerical entry for right -turn lanes. The methodology also incorporates a check for right -tum capacity utilization. Both right -tum -on - green (RTOG) and right -turn -on -red (RTOR) capacity availability are calculated and checked against the total right -turn capacity need. If insufficient capacity is available, then an adjustment is made to the total capacity utilization value. The following example shows how this adjustment is made. Example for Northbound Right 1. Right -Turn -On -Green (RTOG) If NBT is critical move, then: RTOG = V/C (NBT) Otherwise, RTOG = V/C (NBL) + V/C (SBT) - V/C (SBL) 2. Right -Turn -On -Red (RTOR) If WBL is critical move, then: RTOR = V/C (WBL) Otherwise, RTOR = V/C (EBL) + V/C (WBT) - V/C (EBT) Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis A-1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc n f 3. Right -Turn Overlap Adjustment If the northbound right is assumed to overlap with the adjacent westbound left, adjustments to the RTOG and RTOR values are made as follows: RTOG = RTOG + V/C (WBL) RTOR = RTOR - V/C (WBL) 4. Total Right -Turn Capacity (RTC) Availability For NBR RTC = RTOG + factor x RTOR Where factor = RTOR saturation flow factor (0% for County intersections, 75% for intersections in all other jurisdictions within the study area) Right -turn adjustment is then as follows: Additional. ICU = V/C (NBR) — RTC A zero or negative value indicates that adequate capacity is available and no adjustment is necessary. A positive value indicates that the available RTOR and RTOG capacity does not adequately accommodate the right -turn V/C, therefore the right -turn is essentially considered to be a critical movement. In such cases, the right -turn adjustment is noted on the ICU worksheet and it is included in the total capacity utilization value. When it is determined that a right -turn adjustment is required for more than one right -turn movement, the word "multi" is printed on the worksheet instead of an actual. right -turn movement reference, and the right -turn adjustments are cumulatively added to the total capacity utilization value. In such cases, further operational evaluation is typically carried out to determine if under actual operational conditions, the critical right -turns would operate simultaneously, and therefore a right -tum adjustment credit should be applied. Shared Lane V/C Methodology For intersection approaches where shared usage of a lane is permitted by more than one tum movement (e.g., left/through, through/right, left/through/right), the individual turn volumes are evaluated to determine whether dedication of the shared lane is warranted to any one given turn movement. The following example demonstrates how this evaluation is carried out: Example for Shared Left/Through Lane 1. Average Lane Volume (ALV) ALV = Left -Turn Volume + Through Volume Total Left + Through Approach Lanes (including shared -lane) Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis A-2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc 1 2. ALV for Each Approach ALV (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Lanes (including shared lane) ALV (Through) = Throueh Volume Through Approach Lanes (including shared lane) 3. Lane Dedication is Warranted If ALV (Left) is greater than ALV then full dedication of the shared lane to the left -turn approach is warranted. Left -turn and through V/C ratios for this case. are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (including shared lane) V/C (Through) = Through Volume Through Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) Similarly, if ALV (Through) is greater than ALV then full dedication to the through approach is warranted, and left -tum and through V/C ratios are calculated as follows: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Left Approach Capacity (excluding shared lane) V/C (Through) = Through Volume , Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane) 4. Lane Dedication is not Warranted If ALV (Left) and ALV (Through) are both less than ALV, the left/through lane is assumed to be truly shared and each left, left/through or through approach lane carries an evenly distributed volume of traffic equal to ALV. A combined left/through V/C ratio is calculated as follows: V/C (Left/Through) = Left -Turn Volume + Through Volume Total Left + Through Approach Capacity (including shared lane). This V/C (Left/Through) ratio is assigned as the V/C (Through) ratio for the critical movement analysis and ICU summary listing. If split phasing has not been designated for this approach, the relative proportion of V/C (Through) that is attributed to the left -turn volume is estimated as follows: If approach has more than one left -tum (including shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = V/C (Through) Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis A-3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001 rpt.doc If approach has only one left -turn lane (shared lane), then: V/C (Left) = Left -Turn Volume Single Approach Lane Capacity If this left -turn movement is determined to be a critical movement, the V/C (Left) value is posted in brackets on the ICU summary printout. These same steps are carried out for shared through/right lanes. If full dedication of a shared through/right lane to the right -turn movement is warranted, the right -turn V/C value calculated in step three is checked against the RTOR and RTOG capacity. When an approach contains more than one shared lane (e.g., left/through and through/right), steps one and two listed above are carried out for the three turn movements combined. Step four is carried out if dedication is not warranted for either of the shared lanes. If dedication of one of the shared lanes is warranted to one movement or another, step three is carried out for the two movements involved, and then steps one through four are repeated for the two movements involved in the other shared lane. browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis A-4 1067001rpt.doc 1. Browning Ave i Walnut Ave Existing Count (2006) TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .48 2008 With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 V/C 0 V/C NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 240 .14* 177 .10* SBT 0 0 0 .14* 0 .11* SBR 1 1700 243 .14 57 .05 EBL 1 1700 148 .09* 65 .05* EBT 2 3400 700 .21 662 .19 EBR 0 0 0 .21 0 .20 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3400 787 .30* 937 .33* WBR 0 0 228 .31* 183 .34* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .48 2008 With Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .50 A-5 2008 No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 V/C 0 V/C NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 254 .15* 192 .11* SBT 0 0 0 .14* 0 .11* SBR 1 1700 256 .15 61 .05 EBL 1 1700 154 .09* 71 .05* EBT 2 3400 714 .21 675 .20 EBR 0 0 0 .21 0 .20 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3400 803 .31* 956 .34* WBR 0 0 238 .31* 206 .34* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .50 A-5 2008 No Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .50 2025 No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 V/C 0 V/C NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 245 .14* 181 .11* SBT 0 0 0 .14* 0 .11* SBR 1 1700 248 .15 58 .05 EBL 1 1700 151 .09* 66 .05* EBT 2 3400 714 .21 675 .20 EBR 0 0 0 .21 0 .20 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3400 803 .30* 956 .34* WBR 0 0 233 .31* 187 .34* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .53 .50 2025 No Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 245 .14* 181 .11* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1700 248 .15 58 .05 EBL 1 1700 151 .09* 66 .05* EBT 2 3400 721 .21 682 .20 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3400 811 .31* 965 .34* WBR 0 0 233 187 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .54 .50 f j 1. Browning Ave i Walnut Ave 2025 With Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .50 A-6 LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 1 1700 254 .15* 192 .11* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 1 1700 256 .15 61 .05 EBL 1 1700 159 .09* 71 .05* EBT 2 3900 721 .21 682 .20 EBR 0 0 0 0 WBL 0 0• 0 0 WBT 2 3400 811 .31* 965 .39* WBR 0 0 238 206 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .55 .50 A-6 �J Appendix B Delay Calculation Worksheets Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project Traffic Analysis B-1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 1067001rpt.doc 1 2006 - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations, Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h): 0 0 0 22. 0 1 0 361 8 0 46.6., 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow, rate (vph) 0 0 0 23 0 1 0 380 8 0 491' 0 Pedestrians Lane Width .(ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent .Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Mediam`tYpe- None None Median storage veh) Ups#44m.signat pX, platoon unblocked vC, coni fltO-hg.vvl'um'e 872 879 491: 875 875- 384- 49�1� ` 388 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stake .2 cord. vol' vCu, unblocked vol 872 879 491 875 875 384 491 388 .single.-- tC, sin le- -�s 7.1 6'.5 � 6.2" 7.1; 4.1 . tC, 2 stage (s) tF- (s) 3.5 4 3:3 `3 5 4:9 8 3 . 42 22•, - p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 100 100 100 100 cMapait (�yeh/h) 28.8: ' fi9. `1 d7. 1170 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Voiume' Total 0 24 6 3$8 0. 401' Volume Left 0 23 0 0 0 0 Volume"Right' 0 cSH 1700 277 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume. to Capacity 0.00 0.09 0:00 0.23 0.00 0.29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 7 0 0 0 0 Conttot- 061' ' (s ; . 0:.0: 131:2 0.0 ' 0:0' 0:0 0:0 Lane LOS A C Appfo ch •l�ela�y s .; 0.0 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.5%:. ICU Level of Service.: A Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis B-2 Austin -Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report (B6141 P�' u M 2006 - PM Peak Hour 1 • Sandfield & Browning t 'r '- k- 4\ t �► 1 MnvamP_nt EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations f=ree T* free:.. Sign Controt Stop Stop p 0% 0% Grade Volume (veh/fY)� 0 0% 0 0 14 0% 0 1. 0 223: 25 . 1 " 220,110 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate. (vph.) 0 0 0 15 0 1' 0 235 26 1 232 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft.), Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median: tyl'" None None Median storage veh) upsttaaerr sgaih4ft� PX, platoon unblocked vC,. confli¢ting:.vofume 46.9 495' 232: 482 482:- :148 232; 261. vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2*, stage 2 cpnf:wol : . vCu, unblocked vol 469 495 232 482 482 248 232 261 tC, single (s) 7.1 6.15' 6.2 7.1 .6.5 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s). 3.5 4:0:: 13 :3:5 4:0. 3 3.. , 22 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 cN! capacily�.weh/h ). 5Q3, : 4 6 808 49g 46 13'36 1303 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volu+crte: Totat 0.. 16 0 26'C 1`: 232 Volume Left 0 15 0 0 1 0 Voa�rne Right 01, �.... 0' 26 U` .. 4 cSH 1700 507 1700 1700 1303 1700 VolpFne to' Capacity. OUO 0-'0.. 0:00 0:15 0.00' 0:14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 0 01. 0 0 0 Lane LOS A B A gppieac ©ell 3" 0;0: 00`od Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Intersection. Capacity Utilization 23:3% fCIJ LeveI f Service A' Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis B-3 Austin -Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [B614] i 2008 No -Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations, Sign Control Stop Stop... Free Free. Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h-) 0 0 0. 22 0 1 0 369 8 0:- 47.6 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Houriy:flowrate (vph) 0 0 0 23 0 1 0� 388 8, 0 50.1 0 Pedestrians Lane Width-: (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent'016ckage Right turn flare (veh) Median types Nene None Median storage veh) Upttma'w `fai pX, platoon unblocked vCn iagavolume, . 891' 896---',: 504 8.94- 894' 393:. 501;,.: vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2 vor vCu, unblocked vol 891 898 501 894 894 393 501 397 tC, single'(s). 7.. 6.5.. :6.2:. - 7.1' 6;.5, 6.2". 4A 4:1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s): 3.5. .4.8 3:3 : . 3.5: 401 13-1.. 2 2 . '' 2.2` p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 100 100 100 100 cM capaCity (veh/h) 263 - 279 <: 570 r X62 281 656::,1,063 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Vbl:ute Totaf., 0.24. Volume Left 0 23 0 0 0 0 Violume Righ : 0 cSH 1700 269 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.09 0.0:0 0:23' . 0.00 0.29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 7 0 0 0 0 Control.Delay. (s) 0:0 19:7 0.0 00 001. 0,0 Lane LOS A C Appr©ach: Delay (s) 0.0 19:7. 0.0 0 0 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 InterS`ctidn Capacity Utili2ation. 35A % ICU` Level'°of Service A:: Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis B-4 Austin -Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [B614] 1 2008 No -Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop: Free Free':. . Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh(h) 0 0 0 14 0 1' 0 22V 25- 1.. 225. 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 0 0 15 0 1 - 0 . 240 26 1 237- 0 Pedestrians Lane., Width (ft):; =y Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent, Bb,ckage- Right tum flare (veh) ` 4-.. MediadY None' None Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked v ; aonAdrrgIvolume 4.80+ 565. 237. 492 4191.' 253 237 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vet, s#agr� vCu, unblocked vol 480 505 237 492 492 253 237 266 tC, si.rlgh (s�} 7.1 6 5 6.2: 7.1 6,5 6.2 :. 4:1 4,1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s),: 3:5 4.0 3:3 35 4.0 3 3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 cm capacity:(veh/h) 495 469: 802' ' . 487 = 47 7$5: 'r3, : 1298" Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Vo1oe: Total27 Volume Left 0 15. 0 0 1Vol 0 10 cSH 1700 499 1700 1700 1298 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00. OM 0:00' ,. O.J.-O., 0:00. : r.14i:< : Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 00 0 0 ControE ela s A.-0;.. 12. 4.:; 0'J0,:':". 0.0 7: ..d. Lane LOS A B A A caac PP , Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Iraterseetion £ 'Oacity Utilization °23.5%a LCU Levet,of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis B-5 Austin -Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [B614] [J 1 2008 With -Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T, Sign Control Stop Sfap Free free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume .(veh/h) . 2 0 41 , 22 0. 1 14 363 8 0 452;, 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate .(vph) 2 .0 43 23 0 1 15 382 8: 0' 476 1 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft)' Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Medians types-: ; None None.,. . Median storage veh) Upstreaa PX, platoon unblocked vC,co ittgVol 6 9.3-8 391 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2' stag : 2: cdhf V6I. vCu, unblocked vol 889 896 476 935 893 386 477 , 391 tC, sin gle:S); . 7.1 ' 6:5 ` 6;2 ::;.. 7.:1: =6 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s): 3 5�;. 4:0 '33'. 22 2:2 PO queue free % 99 100 93 90 100 100 99 100 cM capacity, (VONK) 264' 276- '58q. Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Vol Total 4 24 15:.. 39'f 0 7. Volume Left 2 23 15 0 0 0 Volum@* Right. 48 . 1' p: g : cSH 556 232 1085 1700 1700 1700 Volume to.Capacity. 0:08. .0-10, 0:01 0.23 0:00 0:28. . Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 9 1 0 0 0 Contfolbola i:(s) 12:0 22:3` 8A off Q;0., 0�. Lane LOS B C A Approach: Delay (s). 12.0: 22.:3 0:3 0:0 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Inters@ctlon C.9pacity Utilization, 38.5% ICU Leve. of' Service A. Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin -Foust Associates, inc. B-6 Synchro 6 Report [66141 2008 With -Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection° 60acity Utilization 33:1 % ICU. Level df. Service : Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin -Foust Associates, inc. B-7 Synchro 6 Report [B614] Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop, Free: Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volgme (veh/h)' 1 0. 27 14 Q , 1. 47.: 205. 25';, 1 .:.2q2 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow. rate (vph) 1 0 28 . 15: 0 1 49`' 21:6: 26: 1. 223.: 2 Pedestrians Land ,Width (ft). Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent:.Blo0-13160 Right turn flare (veh) Media.n-type None None .. :. Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked vC, c, r�fli tig valum& 542 -56.7 224 582 555. .22'9r 225 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2;; stage :2 c®nf Vol vCu, unblocked vol 542 567 224 582 555 229 225 242 tC, single- {s:) 7.1 6.6 6.2 ?.1 6.5 6;2 " 4::1 .:. 4,.J .., tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s:) 3.5 4:0 3:;3 35. 40 3 3; p0 queue free % 100 100 97 96 100 100 96 cM eapac�#j (i eft M} 43$ 4'?i'7 8 5 39$ 42 6to `;13423: X100 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 VoluMe Total` 20'. .16 4, 242 Volume Left 1 15 49 0 1 0 V01uMs Right 28 1. 0: 26...0 2 cSH 791 412 1343 1700 1324 1700 Volume to"Eapacity 0.04. . 0.04 .0:04 ;0:14. 0;00' -OA1. Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 3 3 0 0 0 Controt Delay (s�, . 9:7 :1 14;:8 Lane LOS A B A A AppFoechi p"l s 6 7 ,14 fi, . .3 0.Q Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Intersection° 60acity Utilization 33:1 % ICU. Level df. Service : Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin -Foust Associates, inc. B-7 Synchro 6 Report [B614] 1 2025 No -Project - AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations, Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free:- Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (yeh/h} 0 0 0 '22 0. 1 0* 369- 8 d... 476: 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow, rate (vph) 0 0 0 23 0 1 0 .. 388 8 0 501: 0 Pedestrians Lane Width. (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent -Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median, type None None.. Median storage veh) Upstream signa(i) :, pX, platoon unblocked vC, cvnfti" ng�vo ome.. 854 8.08-1-'..' 5i 1. 894 :. 894 393 5d:1< 3§7 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol VC $00t* sra0 er:' o¢uif voi vCu, unblocked vol 891 898 501 894 894 393 501 397 tC,.sin9,u'e ( 7.1 , : 6 ;: 6..2 7., 6.5 6 2- 4..�` 4.1^ ' tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s.): 3..5- 4-0. 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3: : : 2.2 2:2'.: p0 queue free % 100 100 100 91 100 100 100 100 W'capacity (veh1h) 263 279' 570. 26 2811 656: =' 1063 't"1 2 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volucne>T-otal.. (}.4:. 091. 0: :5a, .-: Volume Left 0 23 0 0 0 0 Volume;Ri.gh 0. cSH 1700 269 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity. 0.00 0`.09 0.00: 0:23 0.6Or 0:29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0. 7 0 0 0 0 Control, Delay(� s 0..0 19.7 0,0. 0.0 Lane LOS A C Approach,bolay (s)' .0.0 19 :7 0:0 0,0 . Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersectio Capacityi Vtilization, .351% ICU Level of service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis B-8 Austin -Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [13614] fL 1 sir 2025 No -Project - PM Peak Hour 1 • Sandfield & Browning 4% t /0. Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control. Stcfp Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0. 14 0 11, 0• 228 25 1 22$ 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow. rate (vph) 0 0, . 0 15 0 1 0. 240 26 .11'.... 2.37 0 Pedestrians Lane Width0) . Walking Speed (ft/s) PereeM." 510tkage - Right turn flare (veh) Median P None, None..,:. Median storage veh) Upsteeamksign4 pX, platoon unblocked vE, co�nf�%etirt vQfurr�e 480 505 237 492,. 492. 253. 237 _ 20fi vC 1, stage 1 conf vol v2; staff 2 ca�Af vol vCu, unblocked vol 480 505 237 492 492 253 237 266 tC; single (s:): 7.'f' 6 5 6.2 7:1: 6,.5: 6,; .. 41 41 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (5) 3.5 4:0 3:3 ` 3.5 4.a :: 13-:: p0 queue free % 100 100 100 97 100 100 100 100 cM capacity .(veh/h) 495 469... 802 4817 477 786; 1 X30 19.. ' Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume Total: 0 16 0 266 Volume Left 0 15 0 0 1 0 Volume ,fight Q � 0 : ' -, 2S •. ::4 :. . cSH 1700 499 1700 1700 1298 1700 Vol ine:to Capacity, 0.00 0.03.. . ,0:0©: 0.10, 0:00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 2 0 0 0 0 Control; aela�r: 0 0 12 4. -ID, Q... 0 h air Lane LOS A B A AppFoacf4 0:0` 11.4 6 0. Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.4 Inter -section. -Capacity 23.5%a.. ICU Level=o1 Service: A: Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Traffic Analysis B-9 Austin -Foust Associates, inc. Synchro 6 Report [B614] 1 2025 With -Project AM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Sign Control, Stop Stop Free: Free'. Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume {veh/h); 2 0, . 41 22 0, 1. 14 363 8 6 4 2 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly flow rate (vph) 2 0 43 23 0 1 15 382 8, 6 476 1 Pedestrians Lane .Width (ft): Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right tum flare (veh) Median type- None- None Median storage veh) pX, platoon unblocked vC, COO i , ing voleme: 889: 896:_ 476 936 893 . 386. 477. 391..., vC 1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,1staga,2 conf •vol: vCu, unblocked vol 889 896 476 935 893 386 477 391 tC, si:ngFe- ( 7.1 615' 6.2 7.1 646 62 4 4;1 tC, 2 stage (s) r tF (s)., 3.5 4 0` 3.3 3.5 40 3 3: 2:2. p0 queue free % 99 100 93 90 100 100 99 100 cac� veh%h CIO. pa (.. ). 264 2716.:. 58'9` Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volume. To 45 24 :15. 391:.` 0 47. Volume Left 2 23 15 0 0 0 V61mme.. Rfgbt 43 1. p' 8 cSH 556 232 1085 1700 1700 1700 Volume -to Capacity 0.08 0 10 0:01 0.23 ()..00...'0.2$. Queue Length 95th (ft) 7 9 1 0 0 0 ControlLela 12;0. 22,3 8.4 . 610 a:0 0.01 Lane LOS B C A Approach delay (s 12:0 . 22.3 0,3 0;0 Approach LOS B C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.3 Intersection.�Capacity Utilization 38.5%ICU level of Sarvi.ce A Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin -Foust Associates, inc. B-10 Synchro 6 Report [13614] u W 1 2025 With -Project - PM Peak Hour 1: Sandfield & Browning Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stogy Stop Free Free. Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Volume (veh/h). 1 OJ 27 14. 0' 1 47 205: 25 1 212: 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly f dw; rate{vph) 1' 0 28 15 0 1. 49. 2161, 26 1 223 -2 Pedestrians Lane Width, (ft) . Walking Speed (ft/s) Perces# f�locf�a�e . . Right turn flare (veh) Mean, a :. NorYe Ndn Median storage veh) of. UP 1,.14 pX, platoon unblocked vC; 'Of ..:, , velUrne; 542 �v6 - 224 58 55 229' ° 2251. 24 vC 1, stage 1 conf vol - vCu, unblocked vol 542 567 224 582 555 229 225 242 tc, sing, ti_oo: 7.1 &.5- 6.2 7.1 6.6 6:62'' 4.1 4 1: tC, 2 stage (s) tF'($) 35 4:.© 3:33s 4: 3.3 22 p0 queue free % 100 100 97 96 100 100 96 100 cWCW4�,it�y (weki>h 438 41 ' 7 81-5 .-.3 98. 42 :. 8'�0.. T3�a3 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 SB 2 Volutn'e.'��tl.: 4+g.. ..z4 225 Volume Left1 15 49 0 1 0 Vol' Ai".... cSH 791 412 1343 1700 1324 1700 Volume to:,Eap.acity 0:04. 0.04 0:04 .0.'14 0: 0. 01=3 Queue Length 95th (ft) 3 3 3 0 0 0 Confrok.:C7eiay.{$.): 9.7 14,A-. TO 0 0' 7:T 00 .: Lane LOS A B A A Approah sta %s. 947. 14 1 1;:3 0..0- . Approach LOS A B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.6 Interse ti°©rr: apa . , y l t lizatiori- 33 1 % ICU Level.of"S"ervice A ' Analysis Period (min) 15 Browning & Mitchell Town Home Project (1067.001) Austin -Foust Associates, inc. B-11 Synchro 6 Report [B614] RESOLUTION NO. 07-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17096 TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING PARCEL CONTAINING 60 APARTMENT UNITS TO ACCOMMODATE A 77 -UNIT NEW CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 was submitted by Sun -Cal Browning LLC requesting approval to rezone and subdivide a 4.1 -acre (net area) parcel for development of a 77 -unit condominium complex on properties located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue; B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024, and Design Review 06-020 on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, by the Planning Commission; C. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential (HDR) and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning district (if Zone Change 06-002 is approved by the City Council) in that these designations provide for the development of residential condominium units; D. The site is a reverse corner lot, where the longer lot dimension is along Browning Avenue. As conditioned, units along Browning Avenue would be provided with a 15 -foot building setback consistent with the front setback for better livability of these units with more privacy and fewer noise impacts from Browning Avenue; E. As conditioned, the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); F. That the Public Works Department has reviewed the tentative map and determined that it is technically correct; G. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density and type of development; Resolution No. 07-78 Tentative Tract Map 17096 November 6, 2007 Page 2 H. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems; I. The proposed subdivision is not located within a 100 -year flood plain according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency map for the area dated February 18, 2004; J. That development of the site will require the developer to dedicate in fee title property to the City of Tustin including a 33 -foot dedication in fee along Mitchell Avenue and 40 -foot dedication in fee along Browning Avenue for public rights-of-way previously dedicated as public easements; K. That the Building Official has considered and approved deviations to the Private Improvement Standard to allow turning radii of less than 25 feet for private drives accessing private garages; L. That the tentative tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; M. That a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was published and the Draft Negative Declaration and Initial Study were made available for a 20 -day public review and comment period from August 3, 2007, to August 22, 2007, in compliance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration related to Zone Change 06-002, Tentative Tract Map 17096, Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 by adopting Resolution No. 07-77; and, N. That approval of Zone Change 06-002 to rezone the property to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) is required for the proposed number of units. The City Council had the first reading of the Ordinance No. 1343 on November 6, 2007. 11. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map 17096 to subdivide a 4.1 - acre (net area) parcel for development of a 77 -unit condominium project located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. Resolution No. 07-78 Tentative Tract Map 17096 November 6, 2007 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 6th day of November, 2007. LOU BONE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do 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. 07-78 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of November, 2007, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK GENERAL EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 07-78 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted improvement plans dated November 6, 2007, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code and other applicable codes. (1) 1.2 Approval of Tentative Tract Map 17096 is contingent upon the applicant returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk -Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 As a condition of approval of Tentative Tract Map 17096, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third -party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.4 Within twenty-four (24) months from tentative map approval, the subdivider shall record with appropriate agencies a Final Map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9323 of the Tustin Municipal Code. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 2 (1) 1.5 The subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, and the City's zoning regulations. (1) 1.6 Prior to Final Map approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall execute a hold -harmless agreement and provide a Certificate of Insurance pursuant to Section 9325 of the Tustin City Code. (1) 1.7 Prior to Final Map approval, the subdivider shall submit: A. A current title report; and, B. A duplicate mylar of the Final Map or 8'/2 inch by 11 inch transparency of each map sheet prior to Final Map approval and "as built" grading, landscape, and improvement plans prior to Certificate of Acceptance. (***) 1.8 Ordinance No. 1343 rezoning the property from the R-4 Zone to the R-3 Zone shall not become effective until recordation of a covenant running with the land and the final subdivision map. The covenant running with the land shall provide that no more than 77 dwelling units shall be developed and maintained on the property and that in the event building permits for the construction of the project as approved pursuant to Design Review (DR) 6- 20 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No.6-24 are not issued within sixty (60) days of recordation of the final map or within 24 months whichever occurs first, the Developer and/or Owner of the property and their successors and assigns will not contest or protest the rezoning of the property from R-3 Zone to the R-4 Zone, nor will any of them contest or protest the invalidation of CUP No. 6-24, D R 6-20 approval, and other project approvals. (***) 1.9 This Resolution and Tentative Tract Map 17096 shall shall not become effective and shall remain null and void until Ordinance No. 1343 takes effect pursuant to the terms of that Ordinance. (***) 1.10 This Resolution and Tenative Tract Map 17096 shall be null and void in the event that building permits for the construction of the project as approved pursuant to CUP No.6-24 and DR 6-20 are not issued within sixty (60) days after recordation of the City Council approval of the final map or 24 months, whichever occurs first. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (1) 2.1 All dedication and easement requirements for street rights-of-way along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue and the appropriate corner cut-off on Browning Avenue shall be satisfied as depicted on the tentative tract map. Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 3 (1) 2.2 The subdivider shall satisfy grant in fee, dedication and/or reservation requirements as applicable, including but not limited to, dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements, and water easements defined and approved as to specific locations by the City Engineer and other agencies. (1) 2.3 Subdivider's execution of a subdivision and monumentation agreement and furnishing the improvement and monumentation bonds as required by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. (1) 2.4 Preparation and recordation of a final subdivision map shall be required. (1) 2.5 In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including, but not limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans are also required to be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 2004 having the extension DWG. Likewise, layering and linetype conventions are AutoCAD -based (latest version available upon request from the Engineering Division). In order to interchangeably utilize the data contained in the infrastructure mapping system, CADD drawings must be in AutoCAD "DWG" format (i.e., produced using AutoCAD or AutoCAD compatible CADD software). The most current version of AutoCAD is Release 2004. Drawings created in AutoCAD Release 2004 are compatible and acceptable. The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting the "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be released until the "as built" CADD files have been submitted. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&Rs) (1) 3.1 All organizational documents for the project including any covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department and the City Attorney's Office. Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider. The approved CC&Rs shall be recorded with County Recorder's Office at the same time as recordation of the Final Map. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department after recordation. (1) 3.2 No dwelling unit in the development shall be sold or a Certificate of Occupancy issued, unless a homeowners association has been legally formed with the right to assess all these properties which are jointly owned or benefited to operate and maintain all other mutually available features of the development including, but not limited to, open space, amenities, landscaping, slope Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 4 maintenance/landscaping, private streets, and utilities. No dwelling unit shall be sold unless all approved and required open space, amenities, landscaping, or other improvements, or approved phases thereof, have been completed or completion is assured by a development agreement or financing guarantee method approved by the City. The CC&Rs shall include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: A. The City shall be included as a party to the CC&Rs for enforcement purposes of those CC&R provisions in which the City has interest as reflected in the following provisions. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CC&Rs. B. The requirement that association bylaws be established. C. Provisions for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair, and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including recreational buildings and amenities, landscaped areas and lots, walls and fences, private roadways (i.e., walks, sidewalks, trails), parkland facilities and bikeways, and open space areas. D. Membership in the homeowners association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual units. E. Architectural controls shall be provided and may include, but not be limited to, provisions regulating exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and walls, accessory structures such as patios, sunshades, trellises, gazebos, awnings, exterior mechanical equipment, television and radio antenna, consistent with the Tustin City Code. F. Maintenance standards shall be provided for applicable items listed in Section C above in CC&Rs. Examples of maintenance standards are shown below. 1. All common area landscaping and private areas visible from any public way shall be properly maintained such that they are evenly cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown spots, debris, and weeds. All trees and shrubs shall be trimmed so they do not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Trees shall be pruned so they do not intrude into neighboring properties and shall be maintained so they do not have droppings or create other nuisances to neighboring properties. All trees shall also be root pruned to eliminate exposed surface roots and damage to sidewalks, driveways, and structures. 2. All private roadways, sidewalks, and open space areas shall be maintained so that they are safe for users. Significant pavement cracks, pavement distress, excessive slab Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 5 settlement, abrupt vertical variations, and debris on travel ways should be removed or repaired promptly. 3. Common areas shall be maintained in such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination . of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare. G. Homeowners association approval of exterior improvements requiring a building permit shall be obtained prior to requesting a building permit from the City of Tustin Community Development Department. All plans for exterior improvements shall conform to requirements set forth by the City and the CC&Rs. H. Private open space areas within the common area shall be illustrated on a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall specify those portions of the common open space area that are allocated for private use and public use and access rights in perpetuity. The CC&Rs shall include a separate 8Y2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each unit that is allocated private open space. I. The approved site plan showing the dedication areas and provisions for maintenance of these areas by the homeowners association. J The approved "Site/Parking Plan Exhibit" and "Waste Management Plan Exhibit" shall be made part of the CC&Rs and shall be enforced by the homeowners association. In addition to the exhibit, provisions regarding parking shall be included in the CC&Rs, including the following: 1. All units are required to maintain a two -car garage. 2. The project site provides 25 parking spaces. Twenty spaces are required to remain as unassigned guest parking spaces that shall be permanently maintained in locations shown on the "Site/Parking Exhibit." 3. Residents shall not store or park any non -motorized vehicles, trailers or motorized vehicles that exceed 7 feet high, 7 feet wide, and 19 feet long in any parking space, driveway, or private street area except for the purpose of loading, unloading, making deliveries or emergency repairs except that the homeowners association may adopt rules and regulations to authorize exceptions. Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 6 4. Residents shall park vehicles in garage spaces. Storage of personal items may occur in the garages only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage spaces. 5. The homeowners association shall be responsible for monitoring and enforcing all parking and traffic regulations on private streets. The proposed CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the association to develop and adopt an enforcement program for parking and traffic regulations within the development which may include measures for fire access and enforcement by a private security company. 6. The private yards for units along the westerly property line shall be only improved with landscaping and hardscaping. No trellis or accessory structure is permitted. 7. Private patios along the westerly property line shall be designed with a 2-3 landscaping edge for landscape improvements. The developer shall install the landscaping and irrigation system for these areas to ensure that the planting remain healthy. The homeowners are responsible to maintain the private yards. Trees including the trees between private patios shall be maintained and replaced as necessary by the homeowner's association. K. Provisions for enforcing the "Waste Management Plan" to minimize backing into private streets. Trashcans shall be placed only in the locations identified on the approved "Waste Management Plan." Residents are required to store their trash and recycling carts within the area designated within the garage. Prior to collection day, the residents need to move the carts to an area immediately outside their garage, where a Homeowner Association Employee will be in charge of relocating them to the designated parking stalls that are marked and designated accordingly. The carts shall be placed in the common drives no earlier than noon on the day before scheduled collections and removed within twelve (12) hours of collection. Any changes or modifications to the approved waste management plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. L. Television and radio antennas shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of the Tustin City Code. M. The homeowners association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member of the Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 7 homeowners association Board and, where applicable, a manager of the project before January 1st of each year with the City of Tustin Community Development Department for the purpose of contacting the association in the case of emergency or in those cases where the City has an interest in CC&R violations. N. The homeowners association shall be responsible for establishing and following procedures for providing access to public utilities for maintenance of their facilities within the project area, subject to those agencies' approval. O. No amendment to alter, modify, terminate, or change the homeowners association's obligation to maintain the common areas and the project perimeter wall or other CC&R provisions in which the City has an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify, terminate, or change the City's right to enforce maintenance of the common areas and maintenance of the project perimeter wall, shall be permitted without the prior written approval of the City of Tustin Community Development Department. P. No delivery and or moving trucks larger than 40 feet shall be permitted on the private drives of the condominium projects with less than 25 foot radius turns. HOMEBUYER NOTIFICATION (1) 4.1 Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the subdivider shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a homebuyer notification document that includes the notifications listed below. The notification document shall be signed by each homebuyer prior to final inspection and occupancy, and a copy of the signed notification shall be provided to the Community Development Department prior to final inspection and/or issuance of each Certificate of Occupancy. A. A notice for roadway noise from Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue that may impact the subdivision. B. A notice, to be reviewed by the City of Tustin and the Tustin Unified School District, regarding the location of existing and proposed elementary, middle, and high schools which will serve the subdivision (text and map). C. A notice regarding units that are adjacent to aboveground utilities or structures (such as light standards and fire hydrants) identifying the type of structure and their locations. Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 8 D. A notice indicating that any use of a residence for a business shall be subject to the City's Home Occupation Ordinance and may require zoning clearance and a business license. E. A notice explaining the easements, facilities, amenities, and dedications that will be provided on lettered lots and indicating all on- site streets, alleys, paseos, and common areas are to be maintained by the homeowners association. F. A notice, to be approved by the City Attorney, indicating that neither the site, nor the project nor any part thereof any street or sidewalk, alleyway, or paseo thereon shall be privately gated, provided however that any swimming pool and/or spa facility within the common area and any indoor common area improvements, including any clubhouse and bathrooms, may be gated or locked and made available solely to residents of the project and their guests. G. A notice stating trash bins shall be placed in designated areas as shown on the approved "Waste Management Exhibit" no earlier than noon on the day before scheduled collections and removed within twelve (12) hours of collection. H. A notice indicating that surrounding properties may be developed in accordance with City ordinances in a manner which may partially or totally obstruct views from the owner's unit and that the City of Tustin makes no claim, warranty, or guarantee that views from any unit will be preserved as development of surrounding properties occurs. I. A notice explaining and providing a copy of a "Private Open Space Exhibit" and separate 8Y2 inch by 11 inch dimensioned site plan for each unit that is allocated private open space within the common area. J. A notice explaining and providing a copy of the approved "Site/Parking Exhibit" and related CC&R provisions. K. A notice explaining the phasing of construction within the subdivision and that activity may be disruptive. L. The developer shall notify all homebuyers that future Assessment/Maintenance Districts may affect the property. M. A notice stating that on -street parking currently available Browning Avenue may be restricted in the near future and upon construction of the project. Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-78 TTM 17096 Page 9 N. A notice indicating that the private yards for units along the westerly property line shall be only improved with landscaping and hardscaping. No trellis or accessory structure is permitted. FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the subdivider shall submit in - lieu parkland dedication fees in an amount and form as required by the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department. (1) 5.2 The applicant shall submit all fees required by the City and other agencies as identified in Resolution No. 07-79. (1) 5.3 The applicant shall reimburse the City of Tustin for the actual cost incurred to the City by the City Attorney for review of the CC&Rs and homebuyer notification per City Council Resolution 06-85. RESOLUTION NO. 07-79 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 77 -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON A 4.1 -ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251-14351 BROWNING AVENUE The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 was submitted by Sun -Cal Browning LLC requesting authorization to demolish 60 apartment units and construct a 77 -unit condominium project located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue (APN 432-342-30); B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said application on August 28, 2007, and September 11, 2007, by the Planning Commission; C. That the site is currently located in the High Density Residential (HDR) General Plan land use designation and Suburban Residential (R-4) Residential zoning district. The City Council approved Zone Change 06- 002 to rezone the property from R-4 to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) by adoption of Ordinance No. 1343; D. As conditioned, the proposed subdivision and development will be in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, zoning regulations, State Subdivision Map Act, and the City's Subdivision Code; E. The site is a reverse corner lot, where the longer side yard dimension is along Browning Avenue. As conditioned, units along Browning Avenue would be provided with a 15 -foot building setback consistent with the site's required front yard setback for improved livability of these units and to provide an enhanced streetscape; F. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin in that: Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 2 a) The buildings are located on their sides along most of the R-1 adjoining properties 10 feet from the westerly property line and 16 feet from the southerly property line. Units proposed along the single family residential property lines have been designed at two stories with a loft that are 3-4 feet lower in height than other proposed units on the site. b) No balconies will be located within these areas and window openings 'are smaller in size and carefully placed to minimize intrusion of privacy on the adjacent existing residential properties. c) The proposed height is consistent and compatible with the maximum allowed height for single family residential (R-1), which is 30 feet. d) The buildings are two stories with a loft and three stories that range in height from 30'-9" to 36'-9" with an average height of 35 feet. The proposed increase in height of 1'-9" for an overall height of 36'-9" is within the 10 percent allowable increase for minor adjustments. Given today's standard for condominium development, it is typical for multiple family residential structures to be 2-3 stories and the increase in height would create a desirable variation in building design/height and individual treatment of each unit. e) Considering the provided setbacks and stepped height design, aesthetic and livability impacts to adjacent properties are not substantial with respect to privacy and shade and shadow effects. G. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: ■ Height, bulk, and area of buildings. ■ Setbacks and site planning. ■ Exterior materials and colors. ■ Type and pitch of roofs. ■ Size and spacing of windows, doors, and other openings. ■ Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. ■ Location, height, and standards of exterior illumination. ■ Landscaping, parking area design, and traffic circulation. ■ Location and appearance of equipment located outside an enclosed structure. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 3 ■ Location and method of refuse storage. ■ Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. ■ Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. ■ Proposed signage. ■ Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. H. The project includes dedication in fee along Mitchell Avenue and Browning Avenue for existing right-of-way as depicted on Tentative Tract Map 17096. I. That the applicant has requested approval of Zone Change 06-002 and Tentative Tract Map 17096 in conjunction with the application for Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020, and findings and conditions of approval related to site design, street design, open space and park site design, dedication of necessary rights-of-way, and provision of necessary infrastructure improvements have been included in Resolution No. 07-78. J. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by Resolution No. 07- 77 for the proposed development. The City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the. environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. II. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 for development of a 77 -unit condominium project on a 4.1 -acre site located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 6th day of November, 2007. LOU BONE MAYOR. PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) 1, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do 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. 07-79 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of November, 2007, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-024 DESIGN REVIEW 06-020 RESOLUTION NO. 07-79 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall conform with the Tustin City Code and Tustin Design Guidelines and standards and be consistent with submitted plans for the project date stamped November 6, 2007, on file with the Community Development Department, except as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with the provisions of the Tustin City Code and other applicable codes. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be complied with as specified or prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued and substantial construction is underway within 24 months. All time extensions may be considered if a written request is received within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. (1) 1.4 Approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020 is contingent upon the applicant returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk -Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 The development of the project described in Conditional Use Permit 06- 024 and Design Review 06-020 shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Tentative Tract Map 17096 application as approved by Resolution No. 07-78 and mitigated negative declaration and Resolution No. 07-77 which are incorporated herein by reference. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW 'EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 07-79 Page 1 (1) 1.6 As a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit 06-024 and Design Review 06-020, the applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (*) 1.7 The project site shall provide a 15 -foot side yard building setback along Browning Avenue without reducing any other proposed project side or rear setbacks to improve the livability of these units and reducing safety and noise impacts from the adjacent right-of-way. The 15 -foot Browning Avenue setback is sufficient to allow a 3 -foot projection of balconies, porches and other similar architectural features that provide a usable private open space for the residents. (***) 1.8 Ordinance No. 1343 rezoning the property from the R-4 Zone to the R-3 Zone shall not become effective until recordation of a covenant running with the land and the final subdivision map. The covenant running with the land shall provide that no more than 77 dwelling units shall be developed and maintained on the property and that in the event building permits for the construction of the project as approved pursuant to Design Review (DR) 6-20 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No.6-24 are not issued within sixty (60) days of recordation of the final map, the Developer and/or Owner of the property and their successors and assigns will not contest or protest the rezoning of the property from R-3 Zone to the R-4 Zone, nor will any of them contest or protest the invalidation of CUP No. 06-24, DR 06-20 approval, and other project approvals. (***) 1.9 This Resolution and Design Review 06-20 and Conditional Use Permit 06-24 shall not become effective and shall remain null and void until Ordinance No.1343 takes effect pursuant to the terms of that Ordinance. (***) 1.10 This Resolution and Design Review 06-20 and Conditional Use Permit 06-24 shall be null and void in the event that building permits for the construction of the project as approved pursuant to CUP No.06-24 and DR 06-20 are not issued within sixty (60) days after recordation of the City Council approval of the final map or 24 months, whichever occurs first. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 2 GRADING PLAN SUBMITTAL (1) 2.1 Four (4) sets of final grading plans, including a site plan, and consistent with the landscaping plans, as prepared by a registered civil engineer, shall be submitted and shall include the following: A. Technical details and plans for all utility installations including telephone, gas, water, and electricity. B. Three (3) copies of a precise soils report provided by a civil engineer and less than one (1) year old. Expanded information regarding the levels of hydrocarbons and ground water contamination found on-site shall be provided in the soil report. All pavement "R" values shall be in accordance with applicable City of Tustin standards. C. All site drainage shall be handled on-site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent properties. D. Drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm drains shall comply with the on- site Private Improvement Standards. E. Two (2) copies of a hydrology report. F. Building and landscape setback dimensions and dimensions for all drive aisles, back up areas, each covered parking stall, and open parking stalls. (1) 2.2 The engineer of record must submit a final compaction report to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (1) 2.3 The engineer of record must submit a pad certification to the Building Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. (1) 2.4 A surety/cash bond will be required to assure work is completed in accordance with approved plans prior to permit issuance. The engineer's estimated cost of the grading, drainage, and erosion control shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and Building Official for determination of the bond amount. (1) 2.5 A note shall be provided on the final plans indicating that a six (6) foot high chain link fence shall be installed around the site prior to grading. A nylon fabric or mesh shall be attached to the temporary construction fencing. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 3 BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTAL (3) 3.1 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), 2001 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2001 California Plumbing Codes (CPC), 2001 California Electrical Code (CEC), California Title 24 Accessibility Regulations, Title 24 Energy Regulations, City Ordinances, and State and Federal laws and regulations. It is expected that a new set of California Codes will take effect on January 1, 2008. Please note that the current conditions are based on current codes that maybe subject to change with adoption of new codes. (3) 3.2 Building plan check submittal shall include the following: • Four (4) sets of construction plans, including drawings for mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. • Two copies of structural calculations. • Two copies of Title 24 energy calculations. • The location of any utility vents or other equipment shall be provided on the roof plan. • Details of all proposed lighting fixtures and a photometric study showing the location and anticipated pattern of light distribution of all proposed fixtures. All new light fixtures shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. All exterior lighting shall be designed and arranged as not to direct light or glare onto adjacent properties, including the adjacent streets. Wall- mounted fixtures shall be directed at a 90 -degree angle directly toward the ground. All lighting shall be developed to provide a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light coverage, in accordance with the City's Security Ordinance. A note shall be provided on the plans that "All parking areas shall be illuminated with a minimum of one (1) foot-candle of light, and lighting shall not produce light, glare, or have a negative impact on adjacent properties." • Noise attenuation features as required by Condition 10.1 of this Resolution. • Note on plans that no field changes shall be made without prior approval from the Building Official and architect or engineer of record. (1) 3.3 Sufficiently sized concrete pad in front of mailbox structures shall be provided to allow mail carrier to place mail and homeowner to retrieve mail without standing in the street or landscape area. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 4 (3) 3.4 Submitted plans shall comply with 2001 California Building Code Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and minimum egress requirements in Table 10A or the latest adopted codes at the time of plan check submittal. (3) 3.5 Area of third floors exceeding 550 sq. ft. shall have at least two means of egress per CBC Section 1007.7.1 and as modified by the City of Tustin Building Division Policy #C6. (3) 3.6 All buildings shall be within maximum allowable floor area per Table 5-B of the 2001 CBC or the latest adopted codes at the time of plan check submittal. (3) 3.7 Escape or rescue windows shall be provided in all sleeping rooms, in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code (Section 310.4). (1) 3.8 The clear and unobstructed interior garage dimensions for each parking space shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and 20 feet in length and shall be shown on the plans. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (1) 4.1. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, a separate 24" x 36" street improvement plan, as prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer, shall be required for all construction within the public right- of-way. Construction and/or replacement of any missing or damaged public improvements shall be required adjacent to this development. The developer shall remove and replace the damaged trees and damaged sidewalk along Browning Avenue and Mitchell Avenue. Said plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a) Curb and gutter b) Sidewalk, including curb ramps for the physically disabled c) Drive aprons d) Street Lighting e) Catch basin/storm drain laterals connection to existing storm drain system f) Domestic water facilities g) Sanitary sewer facilities h) Landscape/irrigation i) Underground utility connections j) Traffic signage and striping plan The traffic signage and striping plan shall incorporate all requirements outlined in the traffic impact analysis, including turning lanes on Browning Avenue and parking restrictions adjacent to the site. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 5 In addition, a 24" x 36" reproducible construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation, shall be required. (1) 4.2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a Construction Management Plan, as required under the Traffic Impact Analysis, for the site to address safety issues, such as regulating construction access to the site during children arrival and departure from the nearby school. (1) 4.3. Street Lights adjacent to the site: • The developer shall design and construct a street light on a "Marbelite" pole served by underground conduit at the project entrance on Browning Avenue. • Street lights on Mitchell Avenue (if required to meet design criteria) shall meet the Residential Collector street requirements: 5,800 lumen high pressure sodium vapor lamps with 28' mounting height on 6' arms spaced 400 feet apart along both sides of the street. The lights are to be staggered from side to side along the street, thus the spacing between lights is 200 feet with developer responsible only for lights on the new development side of the street. • Street lights on Browning Avenue shall meet the Secondary Arterial Highway requirements: 16,000 lumen high-pressure sodium vapor lamps with 30' mounting height on 8' arms, spaced at 240' along both sides of the street. The lights are to be staggered from side to side, thus spacing between lights is 120 feet with the developer responsible only for lights on the new development side of the street. (1) 4.4. All street lights shall be installed per the minimum design standards and the standards of the City of Tustin and the Southern California Edison Company, and as approved by the City Engineer. (1) 4.5. Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all work related to this development shall be required. (1) 4.6. Prior to issuance of encroachment permit, the sanitary sewer facilities plans shall be submitted as required by the City Engineer and local sewering agency for review and approval. (1) 4.7. Prior to issuance of any permit, a complete hydrology study and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 6 (1) 4.8. Permission from property owners shall be required for any work located on adjacent properties. (1) 4.9. Adequate horizontal and vertical intersection sight line shall be provided. In general a 25' x 25' limited use area triangle provides adequate sight at typical driveways. Additional sight evaluation, however, could be required to satisfy City of Tustin Standard Drawings and Design Standards for Public Works Construction No. 510 for all affected streets. The sight lines would be shown on the grading plan and landscape plan. If detailed analyses are requested, all landscaping within the limited use area would need to comply with City of Tustin Standard Drawings and Design Standards for Public Works Construction No. 510. (1) 4.10. Existing sewer, domestic water, reclaimed water, and storm drain service laterals shall be utilized whenever possible. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant shall contact and coordinate the project with the appropriate utility agency. (1) 4.11. On-site flows shall be diverted into an approved storm drain system, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. (1) 4.12. Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be repaired before acceptance of the tract and/or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development on any parcel within the subdivision. (1) 4.13. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (1) 4.14. In addition to the normal full size plan submittal process, all final development plans including, but not limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps, records of survey, public works improvements, private infrastructure improvements, final grading plans, and site plans are also required shall be submitted to the Public Works Department/Engineering Division in computer aided design and drafting (CADD) format. The standard file format is AutoCAD Release 2004 having the extension DWG. Likewise, layering and linetype conventions are AutoCAD -based (latest version available upon request from the Engineering Division). In order to interchangeably utilize the data contained in the infrastructure mapping system, CADD drawings shall be in AutoCAD "DWG" format (i.e., produced using AutoCAD or AutoCAD compatible CADD software). The most current version of AutoCAD is Release 2004. Drawings created in AutoCAD Release 2000 are compatible and acceptable. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 7 The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time the plans are approved and updated CADD files reflecting "as built" conditions shall be submitted once all construction has been completed. The subdivision bonds will not be released until the "as built" CADD files have been submitted. (1) 4.15. Prior to issuance of any Building permit, the applicant shall submit a site plan and obtain a new address from the Engineering Division. (1) 4.16. This development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the City of Tustin Water Quality Ordinance and all Federal, State, and Regional Water Quality Control Board rules and regulations. (1) 4.17. Project Recycling Requirement — The City of Tustin is required to comply with the recycling requirements contained in the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. To facilitate City compliance with this law, the Project Applicant is required to comply with Section 4327 of the Tustin City Code which details requirements for developing and implementing a Waste Management Plan. (1) 4.18. Multi -Family Recycling: The Applicant, Property Owner, and/or tenant(s) are required to participate in the City's recycling program. (1) 4.19. Prior to issuance of any permit the applicant shall submit the improvement plans to the Orange County Fire Authority for fire protection review and approval. The adequacy and reliability of water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated. The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. (1) 4.20. Prior to issuance of any Building Permit, release/approval from the East Orange County Water District shall be obtained prior to receiving water service. Backflow prevention devices must be installed in accordance with applicable standards and codes and shall be installed within an easement of suitable size to allow for unobstructed access, inspection, testing, and maintenance. The developer shall submit a water permit application to the East Orange County Water District and is responsible for all applicable and water connection fees. (1) 4.21. The location of fire hydrants shall be approved by the City of Tustin and the Orange County Fire Authority. (1) 4.22. Fire hydrant connections to the water mains shall be per City Standard Drawing No. 1004. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 8 (1) 4.23. Hydraulic analysis of the proposed water system and ability to meet OCFA fire flow demands and requirements shall be performed and certified by the developer. (1) 4.24. Blow off at dead end locations of water main shall be per City Standard Drawing No. 1007. (1) 4.25. Water meter and the connection to water main shall be per City of Tustin Standard Drawing No. 1001. (1) 4.26. If the buildings are sprinkled then water meters with reduced pressure backflow prevention device per City of Tustin Standard Drawing No. 1109 shall be used. (1) 4.27. The developer is responsible for all costs related to the relocation of existing fire hydrants and the installation of new fire hydrants if any. (1) 4.28. The developer is responsible for all costs related to the abandonment, at the water main, of all existing potable water and fire service connections if any. (1) 4.29. The developer shall be responsible for all costs related to the installation of new potable and fire related water services. (1) 4.30. Approval from the City's Water Services Division is required for permitting or construction of any new service connections, abandonment or relocation of existing services, or improvements that will affect City's water facilities. Water system improvements plan shall be designed by a licensed Civil Engineer in accordance with the requirements and standards of the City of Tustin Department of Public Works or American Water Work Association. A separate on- site water plan for improvements outside the street right of ways and within private property will be required for on-site improvements to be maintained by the City. Title block per Engineering Services Division's conditions is available from Engineering at (714)573-3164. Any easements for construction of City's facilities within private property shall be recorded. Submittals of improvement plan and design specification digital (PDF) files in entirety to Water Services Engineer are needed. These items are mandatory requirements prior to sign -off by the Water Services Manager. (1) 4.31. Prior to issuance of a demolition, precise/rough grading, and/or building permit with valuation of $50,000 or greater, the applicant shall submit for approval by the City of Tustin, Construction & Demolition (C&D) debris collection, disposal, and diversion information on the City -prescribed forms. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 9 (1) 4.32. At least 50 percent of the construction debris shall be diverted from landfill to the recycling plants. A security deposit in the amount of $50 per ton (not to exceed $5,000 per project) for a C&D security deposit will be collected prior to issuance the permit. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin documents (i.e. receipt from vendor) showing actual weight or volume of each material of C&D diverted to the recycling center. (City Ordinance 1281) (1) 4.33. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This WQMP shall identify the: structural and non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. (1) 4.34. Prior to submittal of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the applicant shall submit a deposit of $2,700.00 for the estimated cost of review of the WQMP to the Building Division. The actual costs shall be deducted from the deposit, and the applicant shall be responsible for any additional review cost that exceeded the deposit prior to issuance of grading permits. Any unused portion of the deposit shall be refunded to the applicant. (1) 4.35. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) indicating that coverage has been obtained under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) State General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that the NOI has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. In addition, the applicant shall include notes on the grading plans indicating that the project will be implemented in compliance with the Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities. (1) 4.36. The following requirements shall be defined on permit plan cover sheets as either general or special notes and the project shall be implemented in accordance with the notes: • Construction sites shall be maintained in such a condition that an anticipated storm does not carry wastes or pollutants off the site. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 10 • Discharges of material other than storm water are allowed only when necessary for performance and completion of construction practices and where they do not: cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard; cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; or contain a hazardous substance in a quantity reportable under Federal Regulations 40 CFR Parts 117 and 302. • Potential pollutants include, but are not limited to: solid or liquid chemical spills; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, glues, limes, pesticides, herbicides, wood preservatives, and solvents; asbestos fibers, paint flake or stucco fragments; fuels, oils, lubricants, and hydraulic, radiator or battery fluids; fertilizers, vehicle/equipment wash water and concrete wash water, concrete, detergent or floatable wastes; wastes from any engine equipment steam cleaning or chemical degreasing; and chlorinated potable water line flushings. During construction, disposal of such materials should occur in a specified and controlled temporary area on site, physically separated from potential storm water run-off, with ultimate disposal in accordance with local, State, and Federal requirements. • Dewatering of contaminated groundwater or discharging contaminated soils via surface erosion is prohibited. Dewatering of non -contaminated groundwater requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit from the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board. (1) 4.37. The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short-term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour. MODEL HOME PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASING (1) 5.1 A site plan, street improvement plan including a public parking area, landscape plans, lighting plans, and striping plan for the model home complex shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. The project construction shall follow the construction phasing proposed with the submitted phasing plan unless approved by the Community Development Department. All required improvements for streets, landscaping, ADA compliance, emergency access, security lighting, etc. shall be installed prior to final inspection for the model homes and the sales office. (1) 5.2 The recreation area (pool/spa, pool buildings, etc.), all perimeter block walls including a new 6' 8" block wall along the westerly and Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 11 southerly property lines, landscaping, and infrastructure shall be installed with the first phase of development. (1) 5.3 Temporary construction fencing shall be permitted to encroach into required travelways of private streets or drives once constructed and shall be removed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the model homes. (1) 5.4 The developer shall close and convert the model homes to occupancy within 90 days from the last home sale of the same style home. Prior to issuance of building permits for the model homes, the developer shall submit a bond to ensure the conversion. ARCHITECTURE (4) 6.1 Window trims, surrounds, and mullions shall be provided on all elevations consistent with the architectural treatment and of the buildings subject to final approval of the Community Development Department. (4) 6.2 All exterior colors and textures shall be submitted to review and approval of the Community Development Department and final inspection. Colors, materials, and textures shall be coordinated with the architectural styles and noted in construction plans. (4) 6.3 All mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and decoratively screened. The screen shall be included as an element of the overall design of the project and blend with architectural design of the building. All telephone and electrical boxes shall be identified on the construction plans. Electrical transformers shall be located toward the interior of the project to minimize visual impacts. (*) 6.4 A comprehensive material and color board compatible with the neighboring properties shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Department. (*) 6.5 Loft units along the -westerly property line shall include opaque glass on the third level to minimize the privacy impacts to the adjoining neighbors. LANDSCAPING/HARDSCAPE (1) 7.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for all landscaping areas, including the model complex, consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping requirements. The plans shall include the following: Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 12 • Include a summary table identifying plan materials. The plant table shall list botanical and common names, sizes, spacing, location, and quantity of the plant materials proposed. • Show planting and berming details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing, and coverage. Details for all equipment must be provided. • Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plans, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. • The Community Development Department may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing or quantity of materials during plan check. • Add a note that coverage of landscaping and irrigation materials is subject to inspection at project completion by the Community Development Department. • Turf is unacceptable for grades over 25 percent. A combination of planting materials shall be used. On large areas, ground cover alone is not acceptable. • Shrubs shall be a minimum of five (5) gallon size and shall be placed a maximum of five (5) feet on center. • Ground cover shall be planted eight (8) to twelve (12) inches on center. • Fences, wall, and equipment areas shall be screened with walls, vines, and/or trees. • All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy vigorous condition typical to the species and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, trimming, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. • Major points of entry to the project, private streets, and private drives and internal circulation shall receive specimen trees to create an identifying theme. • All trees shall be minimum 24 -inch box in size. Trees along the westerly and southerly property lines shall be a variety of Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 13 at least 24 -inch and 36 -inch boxes to create a mature tree lining on these boundaries. (4) 7.2 On-site walls and fences shall be noted on the plans with specific materials, colors, and decorative treatments. Interior wall/fences shall be made of durable materials subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. (4) 7.3 The applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners to replace all existing walls along the westerly and southerly boundaries of the site with a 6-8" tall decorative block wall (split -face or approved equal) within their property (including the footing). The color and material of the wall is subject to approval by the Community Development Department. (4) 7.4 Private patios along the westerly property line shall be designed with a 2-3 landscaping edge for landscape improvements. The developer shall install the landscape and irrigation system for these areas to ensure that the planting remain healthy. Trees including the trees between private patios shall be maintained and replaced as necessary by the homeowner's association. USE RESTRICTIONS (4) 8.1 Parallel guest parking spaces, parking stalls, and driveway parking spaces shall be maintained as shown on the approved "Site Plan" and "Waste Management Plan." Any changes to the number, location, or size of parking spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. (*) 8.2 Trashcans shall be placed only in the locations identified on the approved "Waste Management Plan." Residents are required to store their trash and recycling carts within the area designated within the garage. Prior to collection day, the residents need to move the carts to an area immediately outside their garage, where a Homeowner Association Employee will be in charge of relocating them to the designated parking stalls that are marked and designated accordingly. The carts shall be placed in the common drives no earlier than noon on the day before scheduled collections and removed within twelve (12) hours of collection. Any changes or modifications to the approved waste management plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Adequate signs that post the Waste Management Plan and designated parking spaces shall be provided subject to final approval of the Community Development Department. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 14 (1) 8.3 No outdoor storage shall be permitted during grading or building stages, except as approved by the Tustin Community Development Director. (1) 8.4 During construction, permission from adjacent property owners shall be required for any work located on adjacent properties. (1) 8.5 All on-site signs (i.e. stop signs, no parking signs) shall be designed with decorative posts complementary to the light posts throughout the site. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (5) 9.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The "Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection" form shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted to the Fire Chief for approval. (5) 9.2 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans for the required automatic fire sprinkler system in all structures to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 to request a copy of the "Orange County Fire Authority Notes for New NFPA 13 Commercial Sprinkler Systems." Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, this system shall be operational in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. (5) 9.3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit plans and obtain approval from the Fire Chief for fire lanes on required fire access roads less than 36 feet in width. The plans shall indicate the locations of red curbs and signage and include a detail of the proposed signage including the height, stroke and colors of the lettering and its contrasting background. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Emergency Access Roadways and Fire Lane Requirements." Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, the fire lanes shall be installed in accordance with the approved fire master plan. The CC&Rs or other approved documents shall contain a fire lane map, provisions prohibiting parking in the fire lanes and a method of enforcement. (5) 9.4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit architectural plans for the review and approval of the Fire Chief if required per the "Orange County Fire Authority Plan Submittal Criteria Form." Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 for a copy of the Site/Architectural Notes to be placed on the plans prior to submittal. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 15 (5) 9.5 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, plans for the fire alarm system shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for review and approval. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guideline for New and Existing Fire Alarm Systems." This system shall be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (5) 9.6 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a fire hydrant location plan to the Fire Chief for review and approval. (5) 9.7 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence of the on-site fire hydrant system to the Fire Chief and indicate whether it is public or private. If the system is private, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief prior to building permit issuance, and the applicant shall make provisions for the repair and maintenance of the system in a manner meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guidelines for Private Fire Hydrant and/or Sprinkler Underground Piping." (5) 9.8 Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the hydrant location on the street as approved by the Fire Chief, and must be maintained in good condition by the property owner. Please contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website for a copy of the "Guideline for Installation of Blue Dot Hydrant Markers." NOISE (*) 10.1 For adequate ventilation without windows open, all units shall be equipped with A/C units with a summer switch (fresh -air intake). ENVIRONMENTAL (*) 11.1 If buried resources are found during grading within the project area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American viewpoint shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. POLICE DEPARTMENT (*) 12.1 The pool access gates need' to be equipped with a knox box for emergency access. Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 16 (*) 12.2 Landscaping should be designed with surveillance opportunities for residents and police personnel in patrol vehicles. (*) 12.3 Security devices such as double locking deadbolts, strike plates, with 1 1/2 inch screws and pin locks on windows and sliders shall be installed minimizing the potential for criminals to access the units. FEES (1)(5) 13.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payment shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a. Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. b. Engineering plan check and permit fees to the Public Works Department based on the most current schedule at the time of plan check and permit issuance. c. Orange County Fire Authority plan check and inspection fees to the Community Development Department based upon the most current schedule at the time of permit issuance. d. Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fees to the Tustin Public Works Department based on the most current schedule at the time of building permit issuance. e. Transportation System Improvement Program (TSIP), Benefit Area "B" fees in the amount of $3.31 per square foot of new or added gross square floor area of construction or improvements to the Community Development Department. f. Water and sewer connection fees to City of Tustin Water Services. g. New development tax is $350.00 per unit. h. School facilities fee in the amount as required by Tustin Unified School District. Applicable parkland in -lieu fees as required by Resolution No. 4066. (1) 13.2 Within forty-eight (48) hours of final approval of the project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a Resolution No. 07-79 Conditional Use Permit 06-024, DR 06-020 Page 17 CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. ATTACHMENT H NOVEMBER 6, 20077 CITY COUNCIL REPORT Ordinance No. 1343 ORDINANCE NO. 1343 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE 06-002 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1972 MITCHELL AVENUE AND 14251- 14351 BROWNING AVENUE FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (R- 4) TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 77 CONDOMINIUM UNITS. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. FINDINGS The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Suncal-Browning LLC submitted a proper application for Zone Change 06-002 to rezone and subdivide a 4.1 acre (net area) property currently developed with 60 apartment units for development of a new 77 -unit condominium project. The properties are located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue; B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on August 28, 2007 and September 11, 20071 by the Planning Commission. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on November 6, 2006, by the City Council. D. That a proposed development has been assigned to meet the development standards of proposed Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning designation in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9226. E. The proposed zone change supports and is consistent with the Tustin General Plan Land Use as follows: • Goal 1: Provides for a well balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing; • Policy 1.1: Preserves the low density quality of the City's existing single-family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi -family development to meet the regional housing needs; • Goal 5: Revitalizes older residential uses and properties; • Goal 6: Improves urban design to ensure development is both architecturally and functionally compatible and creates unique identifiable neighborhood; and. Ordinance 1343 Page 2 • Policy 6.2: Encourages high quality design and physical appearance in development. F. The proposed zone change supports and is consistent with the Tustin General Plan Housing Element as follows: • Goal 1: Provides an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and diverse socio-economic needs; • Goal 3: Increases the percentage of ownership housing; • Policy 3.1: Encourages new housing construction for home ownership in a mixture of price ranges; • Policy 6.1: Locates new housing in proximity to services and employment centers and thereby enabling walking or bicycling to places of employment. Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective upon recordation of a covenant running with land prepared and approved by the Director of Community Development and the City Attorney consistent with the conditions of approval for the Project and on the latter of the following events: (a) the thirty first day after passage; or (b) recordation of final Tract Map No. 17096. Section 3. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 06-002 to amend Tustin Zoning Map to rezone the property located at 1972 Mitchell Avenue and 14251-14351 Browning Avenue with Multiple Family Residential (R-3) zoning designation, as identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 4. SEVERABILITY All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish the purpose of the regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall continue to be fully effective. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the day of , 2007. LOU BONE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Ordinance 1343 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1343 PAMELA STOKER, 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 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1343 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of November, 2007 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk c o -, rvv °v A 406 400 �7 T p r 4 p q o 70 7 742 9 ,Q A �ti,�. ,yob r �' � 9 �/t<�`• ? t� . \\\ > ,wo Rc A Cc 00 0 A / \ •:O•st,� 14,lq le � 9 � A V 4P �4W `Fti +40 04, \A. EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 1343 ZONE CHANGE 06-002 1972 Mitchell Ave. & 14251-14351 Browning Ave.