The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 TTM 16581 AMENDMENTS ITEM #3 Report to the Planning Commission /a/~rtv. ~~\ i\.>l ' ~ ; Q~'(' DATE: JUNE 26, 2006 AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16581 (COLUMBUS SQUARE), AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, DESIGN REVIEW 04. 004 (COLUMBUS SQUARE) AND DESIGN REVIEW 04-006 (COLUMBUS GROVE) SUBJECT: PROPERTY OWNER! APPLICANT: LOCATION: LENNAR HOMES ON BEHALF OF MOFFETT MEADOWS PARTNERS 25 ENTERPRISE All SO VIEJO, CA 92656 PLANNING AREAS 4, 5 AND 21 OF MCAS TUSTIN LOW DENSITY AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ON FEBRUARY 22, 2005, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED RESOLUTION NOS. 05-35 AND 03-38 FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN WAS ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PROJECTS AND THAT NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS WERE ANTICIPATED. ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO CAUSE ANY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. REQUEST: THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS ARE REQUESTED: A) REVISE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF AINSLEY PARK (CLUSTER DUPLEX UNITS) IN COLUMBUS GROVE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AS TWO DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLES INTO ONE SIMPLIFIED STRUCTURE CONTAINING TWO UNITS; B) AN AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE RECREATION BUILDING FOR COLUMBUS SQUARE FROM 5,467 SQUARE FEET TO 3,765 SQUARE FEET AND REVISE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE COLUMBUS SQUARE RECREATION BUILDING TO A MORE SIMPLIFIED ARCHITECTURE WITHOUT TOWERS AND DECORATIVE PARAPETS; C) AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 2.2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 05-40 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16581 (COLUMBUS SQUARE) TO DEFER COMPLETION OF THE REQUIRED RECREATION CENTER FROM PRIOR TO Planning Commission Report TTM 16581 & 16582 Amendments June 26, 2006 Page 2 ISSUANCE OF THE 420TH BUILDING PERMIT TO PRIOR TO THE 950TH BUILDING PERMIT; D) AN AMENDMENT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN TO RELOCATE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT (CAMDEN PLACE) IN COLUMBUS SQUARE FROM A MODEL HOME UNIT TO A PRODUCTION UNIT IN PHASE ONE; AND, E) AN AMENDMENT TO THE PHASING PLAN OF COLUMBUS SQUARE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT IN EIGHT (8) PHASES INSTEAD OF THE APPROVED THREE (3) PHASES. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4025 for the following actions: . Deny the proposed modifications to the architectural design for Ainsley Park duplex units; . Deny the proposed modifications to the architectural design of the Columbus Square recreation center; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to reduce the size and architectural modifications to the recreation center in Columbus Square; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to defer the construction of the recreation center and two park sites 420th building permit condition to the 950th building permit; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to relocate an affordable housing unit from a model home site to Phase One production unit; and, . Recommend that the City Council deny applicant's request for eight (8) phases of construction for the senior housing project and approve a compromise to complete construction of the senior housing project within five (5) phases including model homes and built-out. BACKGROUND On February 22, 2005, the City Council approved development of 1,542 residential units within Planning Areas 4, 5 and 21 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Attachment A - Location Map). The approval included Tentative Tract Maps 16581 (Columbus Square) and 16582 (Columbus Grove), Design Review applications 04-004 and 04-006 and a density bonus that allowed development of 182 additional units on the Columbus Square site and an affordable housing plan for providing 266 affordable units. The project sites also included several parks and two recreational centers. The Columbus Grove site included a 5,132 square foot recreation building to serve a 465-unit community and the Columbus Square included a 5,467 square foot recreation building to serve an 835-unit community. The senior housing project included its own pool and recreation center which was recently approved with the site and development plans for that project. Both communities known as Villages of Columbus are currently under construction and the model homes for five (5) of the models were opened on June 17, 2006 and the Planning Commission Report TIM 16581 & 16582 Amendments June 26, 2006 Page 3 remainder of the models with the exception of the senior housing project (Coventry Court) and Ainsley Park (cluster units requested for revision), in July, 2006. Staff has been working diligently with Lennar Homes and William Lyon Homes to proceed with the plan checking of the project and commencement of construction in a timely manner. During the plan check process Lennar Homes verbally requested several revisions that were viewed by staff to be extensive and that could have a negative impact on the original approval; therefore, staff requested that a formal application for all the modifications be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. DISCUSSION On May 3, 2006, a formal application was submitted by the project proponent, which is described in Attachment B. The following discussion summarizes each request and staffs concems. a) Revise the architectural design of Ainsley Park (cluster duplex units) in Columbus Grove originally designed as two different architectural styles into one simplified structure containing two units. Applicant's Request - The applicant is requesting to revise the architectural design of this duplex product to simplify the structures so that the same architecture is carried out on both residences. The proposed elevations include altematives in the California Bungalow, Craftsman, Colonial, Monterey, and Victorian architectural styles. The modification is intended to simplify the structural framing, mechanical and plumbing systems with use of a uniform roof design, and exterior elements of Califomia Bungalow, Colonial, Craftsman, Monterey, and Victorian architecture (Attachment C - Submitted Plans). Staffs Analysis - Ainsley Park was originally designed as two duplex units formed in a four-unit cluster with interior motor courts, and the architectural design provided for a distinct and individualized look for each one of the attached units (Attachment D - Approved Plans). Staff concurs with the applicant that the approved marriage of two distinct architectural designs as attached units could be improved through the proposed simplified single architectural design. However, staff believes that the size of the structure is too large for the proposed California Bungalow and the Colonial styles and is not recommending approval of this modification. The other architectural styles may be supported with additional refinement and inclusion of appropriate details. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny this request and direct the applicant to work with staff to provide a compatible design that suits the approved dominant architectural styles within the community and continues to provide distinctive character for both units. b1) An amendment to reduce the approved size of the recreation building for Columbus Square from 5,467 square feet to 3,765 square feet and to revise the Planning Commission Report TTM 16581 & 16582 Amendments June 26, 2006 Page 4 architectural design of the Columbus Square recreation building to a more simplified architecture without towers and decorative parapets. Applicant's Request - The applicant is requesting to reduce the size of the recreation center due to the significant rise in construction costs and new marketing criteria. The amendments are also intended to provide for lower maintenance costs and HOA dues for the future homeowners. The applicant has indicated that the reductions were made in areas that are typically underutilized and the revised clubhouse would have the capacity for 173 occupants. In addition, the separate pool building and restrooms are proposed to be combined into one single building (Attachment C - Submitted Plans). Staff Analysis - Based upon Tustin City Code Section 9331(d), the Columbus Square's 1,077 unit project required 8.83 acres of parkland. 3.66 acres of this area was eligible for park credit, which included 1.66 acres of the main park and two (2) one-acre parks accessible from Valencia North Loop Road. With the project's approval, a waiver for parkland requirements for 241 affordable units was also granted in addition to the granting of a credit for the improvement cost for development of the main park which reduced the required parkland in-lieu fee to 1.85 acres. Prior to Council approval, staff considered the proposed size of the recreation center against what would be the minimum industry standard for 835 residences since a) the minimum standard size for a neighborhood park is three (3) acres and there are no parks greater than 1.6 acres in Columbus Square, b) the center should accommodate a variety of uses and conflicting events, and c) in comparison, if approved the recreation center at Columbus Square, serving 835 units including 552 multiple family units with no private yards, would be approximately 1,300 square feet smaller than the recreation center at Columbus Grove which serves a community of 465 homes including 279 single family homes with private backyards. Lennar has indicated that the proposed reduction is requested to provide the homeowners maintenance ability within the established HOA dues. Staff believes that the community would not benefit from a smaller size community center and that a smaller size recreation center would not be sufficient to accommodate a community of 835 residents. b2) An amendment to revise the architectural design of the recreation building. Applicant's Request - The applicant is requesting to simplify the architectural design of the recreation center by removing the tower element from the main building and the easterly and the westerly courtyard colonnades and eliminating the widow's walk parapet. Staffs Analysis - The approved recreation building was designed to complement the Colonial and Georgian architectural style of the homes in Columbus Square which included steep roofs, brick fa<;:ades and decorative trims in addition to including a tower element designed as a landmark and a decorative parapet resembling a widow's walk that would distinctively emphasize the building as a focal point of the community (Attachment 0 Planning Commission Report TIM 16581 & 16582 Amendments June 26, 2006 Page 5 - Approved Plans for the Rec. Center). Staff believes that the proposed architecture is too simplified and lacks the visual interest and importance that the recreation building was intended to bring to the community. The original architectural design was proposed with the development plans and should have been included in the project budget and the revision is not justified at this point of development when all initial phases of the homes are under construction. c) An amendment to Condition 2.2 of Resolution No. 05-40 of Tentative Tract Map 16581 (Columbus Square) to defer completion of the required recreation center from prior to issuance of the 420th building permit to prior to the 950th building permit. Applicant's Request - The applicant is requesting to defer the requirement to provide additional time for construction of the recreation center since plans for the recreation center are proposed to be modified under the current proposal. If the modifications are approved, building construction would not start until July 2006. Lennar has indicated that construction of the recreation center and private amenities would take approximatel~ fourteen (14) months, and the park sites would be completed prior to issuance of the 950t building permit (Attachment B - Submitted Request). Staffs Analysis - The 420th building permit threshold was established at project approval to ensure that the recreation center and the park site would be available to area residents within a reasonable time of moving into the community. Parks are required to be constructed within the initial phases of development and in most cases with the model phase so that homeowners will have immediate access to the community amenities (pool, barbeque, etc.). Staff believes that the request to defer this requirement to the 950th building permit, when more than half of the residents would be residing at the project site would be excessive and unreasonable, particularly since the delay in construction is due to Lennar's self- imposed desire to redesign and reduce the size of the recreation center. The architectural plans for the Columbus Square recreation center were submitted at approximately the same time staff was reviewing construction plans for the Columbus Grove Park, but the process is being delayed because of Lennar's request to reduce the size of the recreation center from 5,467 square feet to 3,765 square feet and greatly simplify the architectural design of the building. Staff is not recommending approval of this request. d) An amendment to the affordable housing plan to relocate an affordable housing unit (Low income) within a multiple family product (Camden Place) in Columbus Square from a proposed model home unit to a production unit in phase one. Applicant's Request - The applicant has requested the relocation because this is a model home site and would not be available for immediate occupancy (Attachment E - Submitted Revision to Affordable Housing Plan). Lennar selected the proposed location of the unit but no longer desires that the model home be utilized as an affordable unit and is requesting to relocate this affordable unit to Phase One production unit. Planning Commission Report TIM 16581 & 16582 Amendments June 26, 2006 Page 6 Staffs Analysis - With original project approval, an affordable housing plan was approved which documented the number, sizes and location of the affordable housing units to be built in the Columbus Square site. The units were required to be dispersed throughout the site and sixty-three (63) of these units were required to be provided in Camden Place, one of which was located in a four-plex model home building. Staff is not recommending approval of the requested relocation since a) the relocation would result in two affordable units in one four-plex building in Phase One, and b) the affordable unit would not benefit from any upgrades that are typically included in the model home unit. Because of the advantage of potential upgrades and a better location (since this unit is located across from the park), staff would not support approval of this request. e) An amendment to the phasing plan of Columbus Square to allow construction of the senior housing project in eight (8) phases instead of the approved three (3) phases. Applicant's Request - Staff was verbally notified by Lennar about a proposed change in the construction phasing of the senior site and has included this request as part of the proposed formal application. Lennar Homes has requested that the construction phasing of the senior housing project be extended to eight (8) phases in addition to model home and built-out phase instead of the approved three (3) phases due to the large size of each of the structures that include 24 units (Attachment F - Submitted Revision to Senior Housing Phasing Plan). Staff's Analysis - Staff is not recommending approval of this request since this revision could negatively impact the Planning Commission and City Council's original intent that the entire project site be developed concurrently. The senior housing project includes 63 percent of the required affordable housing for the Villages of Columbus, and it is essential that the construction of these units be accomplished proportionately with construction of the market rate units. Given that this site will have a late start, eight (8) phases of construction could lead to a major delay in delivering the affordable housing units and defeat the original intent of the project's phasing. Staff recommends that at minimum two structures be built concurrently for a total of five (5) phases including models and built-out as a compromise to allow the developer additional time and lead the project toward completion within a reasonable time. CONCLUSION When the comprehensive developments were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for a recommended action, the recommendation was based on a comprehensive proposal which also included variations from the required standards. In summary, these development projects received many allowances so that quality and livable communities would be developed to accommodate a variety of households. These allowances included the following: . Specific Plan Amendments that allowed for new development standards for a new product type (carriage way units); . Reduced rear yard setbacks for carriage way units; Planning Commission Report TIM 16581 & 16582 Amendments June 26, 2006 Page 7 . One hundred percent on-street guest parking versus 50 percent; . Reduced street widths and tuming radius; . Reduced minimum development site size; . Transfer of affordable housing units between planning areas; . 182 additional units with approval of a density bonus; . Density averaging within planning areas; . Concentration of affordable units in the senior housing project; . Parkland credit; and, . Reduction of 3-acre minimum park site to one (1) acre to be eligible for park credit and accept public use of the parks for in-lieu fees. In addition, since the project included many deviations from the standard requirements, one aspect of project may not have been recommended without another and staffs recommendation to approve the projects took into consideration the comprehensive proposal. During the plan check process and in an effort to record the final maps in a timely manner, staff worked with the applicant to allow for submittal into early plan check and modified conditions administratively where the modifications met the spirit and intent of the Planning Commission and City Council's original approval. Staff believes that the requested modifications are extensive and will deter from the overall design and quality of the community and is recommending the following actions: . Deny the proposed modifications to the architectural design for Ainsley Park duplex and direct the applicant to work with staff to provide a compatible design that fits with the dominant architectural styles within the community and distinctive character for both units; . Deny the proposed modifications to the architectural design of the Columbus Square recreation center; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to reduce the size the architecture of the recreation center in Columbus Square; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to defer the construction of the recreation center and two park sites 420th building permit condition to the 950111 building permit; . Recommend that the City Council deny the request to relocate an affordable housing unit from a model home site to Phase One production unit; and, . Recommend that the City Council deny applicant's request for eight (8) phases of construction for the senior housing project and approve a compromise to complete construction of the senior housing project within five (5) phases including model homes and built-out. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS On February 22, 2005, the City Council approved Resolution Nos. 05-035 and 05-38 finding that the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Planning Commission Report TTM 16581 & 16582 Amendments June 26, 2006 Page 8 Report for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin was adequate to serve the projects referred to as Columbus Square and Columbus Grove (Tentative Tract Maps 16581 and 16582), in that no additional impacts were anticipated, and all applicable mitigation measures were incorporated into the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed modifications are not anticipated to cause any additional environmental impacts. In addition, projects that are disapproved are not subject to CEQA process per Section 15270 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. ~t~- Minoo Ashabi Associate Planner -' S~fl~4;;)~L Elizabeth Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A- B- C- D - . E- F- G- Location Map Submitted Request for Amendments Submitted Plans Approved Plans for the Rec. Center and Ainsley Park Submitted Revision to Affordable Housing Plan Submitted Revision to Senior Housing Phasing Plan Resolution No. 4025 S:\Cdd\PCREPORl\2006\Lennar's Amendments.doc ATTACHMENT A Location Map Project Location Map Columbus Square (Tract Map 16581) Columbus Grove (Tract Map 16582) Planning Area 4 ED!~~fO HI'N'JE I il /'------ --7 / I (~." F I r="={ f J. --I t--- , ! - I ~-i'----.-- I (!) .~':~l~~:_~:':~r ""H-,r-' ~""~;J!, +~~"'~ <. '" Columbus Grove ATTACHMENT B Submitted Request DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST AND LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT - AINSLEY PARK Ainsley Park is an 84 unit duplex product located in Columbus Grove. It is designed as the "entry level" home for this community. Our request involves limited changes to the floor plans and elevations that we believe are necessary to address building inefficiencies, market segmentation, and incompatibility in architectural theming. The need for these changes has become apparent as this product has gone from an approved design concept through the working drawing process. In particular, we are proposing some changes to the floor plans to provide greater variation and hence, market segmentation for a broader range of buyers. However, it is important to note that the footprint of the units remains relatively unchanged. The architectural massing of the buildings has been modified mainly within the internal court areas to create a more coherent architectural style. The concept is for the two units to appear as a larger, single-family detached home, rather than two attached, but different looking homes. The f~ade changes to the perimeter of the units are very similar to the original concept. Finally, some of the building changes have been necessary to achieve greater efficiencies with the design of the structural, mechanical, plumbing and ventilation systems. Changes in roof lines have also been necessary to ensure prevention from water intrusion and are in keeping with the new architectural design. DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT - SQUARE RECREATION CENTER On April 7th, Lennar submitted architectural revisions for the Columbus Square Recreation Center. These revisions are included with this application package. Due to the significant rise in construction costs and new marketing criteria, the recreation building has undergone focused reductions in size. In addition, these changes were necessary to provide recreation center that can be maintained over time by the homeowner's association, based on the HOA dues established. The clubhouse building has been reduced in square footage from 6,050 square feet to 3,765 square feet in size (a 38% reduction). The reductions were made in areas that are typically underutilized, such as the lounge area and secondary multipurpose room. The layout of the greatroom, kitchen, and office remains unchanged. The proposed clubhouse has a total occupancy of 173 people, which is more than sufficient for the range of activities allowed by the HOA. In addition to the main clubhouse, the separate pool building and restroom building have been combined into one single building for greater efficiencies. The exterior elevations remain largely unchanged, with the exception of removing an entry element on the end of the East courtyard, a bay window at the West end of the clubhouse, and the cupola and windows walk detail on the roof of the clubhouse building. The landscape plan has been modified (increased) to address the reduction in building sizes. CERTIFICATE OF COMPUANCE FOR TIM TRACT 16581. RESOLUTION 05-40, CONDITION 2.2 This Certificate of Compliance involves a change in Condition 2.2 of Resolution 05-40, dated February 14,2005. Under this condition, prior to the issuance of the 420th building permit for production units, Lennar is required to: . Pull building permits for the senior housing; . Complete the first footing inspection for the senior housing; . Complete the first recreation building; . Complete park facilities. Lennar believes that the following obligations can be met under the current condition: . Pull building permits for the senior housing; . Complete the first footing inspection for the senior housing; . Complete park facilities (Montgomery Park, Washington Park, and Arlington Park) This application request involves the requirement to complete the first recreation building for Columbus Square. As noted above, the design of this private recreation center has undergone some modifications. Considering that the revised plans have just been submitted for building permit, we anticipate that the earliest the construction can begin is July 2006. The buildings and surrounding park facilities will take no less than 14 months to complete. Based on our current Building Permit Schedule, we will be ready to pull the 420'h building permit sometime between August and September of 2006. Therefore, the request is either to remove the completion of the recreation facility from Condition 2.2, or to adjust the threshold to the 950th building permit. We have submitted updated Building Permit Schedules to the Community Development Department that support this adjustment. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN AND DENSITY BONUS APPUCA TION AMENDMENT A second amendment to the Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Application is being requested. This is a minor amendment that involves the movement of one Low unit in Camden (planning Area 5-6, Columbus Square) from its current location in Lot 294 to Lot 296. This shift is needed in order to build the model home complex within Lot 294. The new location is essentially two buildings to the east, along the same local road (Lot U). This amendment affects a change to Figure 4 and Figure 18 of the Affordable Housing Plan and Density Bonus Application. The statistical tables are not affected. ATTACHMENT C Submitted Plans LENNAR COMMUNITIES COLUMBUS SQUARE REVISED RECREA liON CENTER PREll MINAR Y LANDSCAPE PLANS ~"-'. "L--~--'li :'-. ,i .- ::.,t'i' HERlT~'ci' ':'- '--~:V~i:'::~ , .;]k:.JI,' 1'"68.2 ~--' '. 0-FIREPLACE--r- PATIO vii , c:~-:'O~-L~7-1f-]:--LJrLtr;_, 1<1 . , . '~-Y:J r-1.'-; . ----/i'-,......,.J RESTROOM/POOL EQUIPMENT ;'--.C i--r-..... _-:-ROOM :""',"":,::J..-!'J:..;-' , I ~ -~" ,....,..~ J C .{ "'-... I, ~'.>. ------L, .! PICNIC TA.iLE"~~...';.""'.'-". BA:8ii~END1NG ' ....., ..... T LOT ',,-.,- .., .'\, - . <~-- f ,//,;,' ho )8.6 ~~ PO"'- I . i:9)pOO'- ~' r f- ["---'i , OVERHEAD STRUCTURE t\ \'h i TIjPA;? ; . ':i rr:" ~h______.__P~TIO' ___' J ~COURT't'AII.D I. , "i'i' ".' ,..J^".'.,. . "'''', -'.fl. .,;f -,,-, ,ie', I" "'f p-e8,4 ~---j -':;:1 ~--~ I -,-I- 11 j;j- .- i/' I " il if //'/ r/ "0.';- >-"<. ..,.., o '" 40 {i} HRP ~.E~SaN ......,.~_CI\_ ""''''''......LIO...-..... SCAl.E:f_2()'_O' DATE: FEBRUARY 21. 2006 """" I \~;, \ .!~~I ~~eh :/1 "' o Z :/1 Z '" ., - - II'! ! ' I c' I H ! liq!1 :.11 !II' II I "'II ,ai lpi ~ '!~I"I.'~~~.iI Iii ll.n II-II: ~ ilii i; II : 111m HI" ,: 1.11 - "' -' "' LJ " ~ ~" ...."... ~ " ,; ~ i ,II -i:, m'BEll.l1NdNIW.1Nf'lOftJ1lWllll DIJl4 D1 IIMTIIl ...... ,."".,...,..- NllSnl 31:1\fnOS snBwmo::> J-:..-m .~. , ~l -, 7'i'~- , ~I , -~,' i I 'J) ~ ; ! ~~ ~I -', ,.!. .1 i li-i' /1 0', ll~idi !: I iH j- ',-' 7'lj'~I~'~~" :/1;I'I:i - :dp ii' L! ll"l! !IIH~1 u! 3E .:i:li !I'-tin,:!! h ~~_i!;; ~~;_~~~I~~~!;j ",.-~ I I' , I ~ I ":J -. , ~l j . u ~ ~-~ " I ~_i m" Ea' 1 1'- VI 7 '" ,- "- c: 0' o {V "- e- x "- [1]" 8:3" '" 1 I , - i ! (---i} <JI 7 o e- o ,- iJ~ co co cc :> o o no I VI "- no ----- (~ n " 6 "- c o n t~Er .I~G "ih" ~" "' ., ~ : I ' i ::J ; I~ !III I b ' Ii",' Ii. i . ~ z i 1",1' 11:1 Pili'! 1'111" ; 1111111:1 Inl e n ~.." '" ...."'.. ~. [ ~ :m'lllllaaMtIWJII'IIR:nIIMII ...u,1M'1"Ia - ~- NUSfU 3Wrms snswmoo I'T-r:.:- " ~"l co ~ '. ~ " " e. c: 1 ~ ! (l; iY e. I x I, e. v; -' C T 0: ,., '" _i I tOE, .Ji' ~":I ~ ~~Ih I , I I iil ill !I ., 'I' 1<; 1<; ~ I i ~ ~ .1. 'II .~ I ~ i'i!'~ '... i~ 1"1' ~~I: ~I~ II v I! J t.:....~ ~-~ ! I! Lilli" II !III~!I !Il1'~! I ~ ~ I 'II. ~ ~ i. :.:11 l t n~h*h!lhfJ;1i B .~~~.~ .~. II~ II * , , . ,J ll1 il'l' "I n, 111'11 'i I pi o ~ I ~I~' II~ Ii 'I' < z I ii, J,l'il' Ii! 1!,i,1 , :i ~I!I! 1!'1~1i!! h IIII,! n" ~l::! i\l:!:iipIIIIHlgli!1 is ~ 1111 i.1Ioji' ~!I!i 'II 'I' I! 'I g ~i!lU~I!I~M~~'~;.:i;~i!~L ) L 1 I AJ! ~. ~ 1 f :m_.._~ "'10\'''' ~ --- NI1SOl 3\:IYnOS snswmoo IriiilI"~ t " .< _'d:l ---11 ,I 1 ~~ dl I i I l~, 'I -- i . i ! ~ ~ " .!hj f~ll~ ~.I.. liil!l ~~.u " iJD Ii ~ ~9 ' '. , CD I' ., ~'\7 ~~ ~ u ^ . ; .A,ii "VI! .. .~ Z <t ~ D- C< o o , I.. w (n ::J o T rn ::J ~ '-' I " ..Jl'l ~~~I:I . ~~i. ~ i I l~ il!' .i ~ I I, !illi~ ,II: Ii n !l,l!1 z Jill ~iliih!lH i,. i,:I~ :5 ~ !. !i..I!!,~ 19!i '1'11'1 1lr.1:' '- ~I:; lJi'i..'ii~ IG!!!l !,HIi'I,r.~!i !5~IIII!~f:3!!i' d/'lIl!!!il'II'.!!: 'ii ~ ~;t!!! ~I~~ ~!~i~!!!!!~~~~~G ~~ ""--.uMt..&IrIIt~ --,~ - 1IIloII1I8I_ NIlSfU. 31:MlOS snswrnoo v; .w o Z II :;;!.IL,~., ':lll " o""lllll~ ~ ~1!~!lI'il~ i ! illd! I~ I,ld Z "., I~ .1 'ite'l' Hli~~n.I:I:;~li ~ l i : ii, t;i Ill!l~~'!:', " . ! ,Ii, ili I, II: I. k,.lll,.. Ii lP ,I!;! ~!K;ljj:..!III! r7D Ii" ~'Ci " ~€di " 8-) <~~~ -' CL '" o o -' "- ~ l!1III II D L <{ m <{ -' v; j~ ::i'" ~ ! -' <{ '" -, c- U w c- I u '" < / '-- ,>:' ~~8 "'.::(/ "/~./,/ " ""'" ,>/ Z << ., '- (Y o o -' L. -' <{ r~ ::> c- u u c- z <{ -' Q W <{ -' v; -' <{ [r ::> c- U w c- :r: () '" <{ " o o '" Vi [" '" ".' ..~,....[._.- .- . .-- . " , " . " '. .- " -- - ~'~, x'- " '., / a ~: :l./l<, ' " . .-~: :. Jrrtt. ..~. . , ' ~-. .. - "- ~ ::> a w -' o o CL - u '" << '" " .fc- '--:9~,E: l .o-:6t;~ ,Z'-,O ~~ ! --......- -r- ,(ii~LE: ----1 ----r ,9-,01 , '9; jo' ~ --, , 8', ., '" " >~ J "0 ~I -or -1' , I I "~ '. .0 i Vi , 8; " ,. ,'. i~ a ~.l ;", ~ '::~ i . o < . . " . . u . I < " 3 N :':~) -- ~ " l , I ~ 1 I rl I Ie :rl I I I ~ I I .b" 'I i. i I,,' ~__~ ---(t"1~ -~~, I/I1iC~ ,rs- . . "ill. :.:.. >- , -- -- ,0 _ l~i1~1.1 ~ -: .; i I- - ~ o~ ~~~ :I~i I -fit _~! I -~d " '-~ , I 1 ' 2'1ft: .; ~ I. I ':.J~ I ~v '0 ~ ~I ~ I I : ~ I_-+-" t' ~/ ' '1' . . 0, ~ " ~ -=t'- . ! .~ o o o . e . . ! . . 8 . - =: . ii~ 'N ~ , 8 . " : . " IIW"". ot{Q Zot l~ ;~ Ii . ",'2. ~~ ~,IUL _LL a~~ , ii h ., ~.; .... .- . . . " ,; o J . 1 . 1I O' ,', in! o ~ b -" .1 . o < . < o . N -I I -'<-- ----~ ,,a',SL :~f<tOI "O-,1iI "O-,Ii "O-,ll II' ~. ,,9-,<:1 ~~ ,,0-,0" ,Ol-,LE , ;. -,,- -.--,.......".... - , n _n. . ."0 ! :9 il10 F ~--:' .. " '0 I \ " , . , -< , ~.~ ~":' ;0 ~; -" .0 .- 0- 0- ~ ; < :! , , , " ,. ~" .0 I> ,- . < " . . [: " , 8 V ~~9 0 ., , ,. ~ :":' ." .- < . N Z < ..J '" D.. Z Z < < ..J ..J D.. D.. . < . 8 0 , ~ ., ., i'!~ . , " '" Z < ..J D.. . ;(1;> 8; ~.9 -- ,- ~~ 8: e~ , ", .- .- ,. "", . ~-, ~ - .'-/ F G - . . 8 . : , . >- o . o ._ > ~. ~"\' <( 0 a:-i"II..:t.: gO! ~ ;l ; ..J ~ .J ~ : ll.. ~ tll .J ... C Z J: ,~ ~ :(.. .; u w . . ....'"..... -.--..,.........- .L 'R r l I ,~ I ~, II Ji ,~ -~ ~-~i , IJ , , ~ 11 I. ] , .L- I-,,' " ~ -. g < , ~ iii . ~" < ~, Z -< 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ .J", ~ Q III.J '" ~ Z:Ii ~ ~ :( <( :;; < J . . g " , < . -,,- -....,........- --, z 0 ~ <C Z > 0 '" ...I ~ '" <C 0: > '" <C ...I '" '" 0: ~ '" <'l '" Z 0: ~ <C I/) ...I D- Z <C ...I D- l_ . z 0 ;: z . > z 0 " J ~ 2 " . ~ ~ . ~ <C 0 <C > " > . > '" " .. '" ...I >- ~ ...I '" ~ m '" , z ~ ~ >- . :( ~ '" . ...I ...I '" m ~ ...I . m <C z . Z J . '" <'l '" 0: III ~ <'l I/) Z III <C ...I D- I/) Z <C ...I D- -,- v"',.....'~....,.- ,---- z o I- 0( > .. .J .. 0: 0( .. 0: l'l Z 0( .J .. z o I- 0( > .. .J .. I- .J .. m Z .. .. 0: t!) z 0( .J .. z o I- 0( > .. .J .. >- .. .J .J 0( . z o " c ~ ~ " ~- III 11::: : 11::"90(1 .c o~.. 0 II" it ." >- J: ~ W ~ lil ~ ~ I- ~ .J .. u )( ~ III ..J .. ~ Z ~ .~ !'l :( j . i ~ ~ . . z ;;! t~ ~: 'I~I .~~ II " _. .. ..J ~ 0 -' N" >. 1L.;:lt~~8~~8 : ~ 2 s ft~:;; g15, u ~ !~! ; 0 . . l'l <ll . z c " . III Z 0( .J .. -...-. 1..._'.........._ ' .. .J .. It 0( .. It r z o I- 0( > .. .J .. > .. .J .J 0( I .J'" Ii. ~ ~ S .H~ri! > .J ! ! ~ = ..: ~:;U'~B~ ;: ;:H~~a. - - >- I . . ~ >- ~ Z II: ~. ~ i' Iii ~~~U J} U:i. 8 ' .. .J .. I- .. .. It l- ll) N Z 0( .J .. z Q I- 0( > .. .J .. I- .J .. ID Z .. .. It Cl ' " w , .J ~ _. ~ ~ ~ ~ :; O~LO.. -" ~ ~ ffi"! ~ ~ ~ 51 ~ ~ ; ..... z_ .,:C: ." . N . Z . " . -.- .__,'WOO'....... z z Q Q l- I- 0( 0( > > .. .. oJ oJ .. .. It I- 0( .. .. .. It It I- Ul .. oJ .. >- .. oJ oJ 0( . i S ~ .~I d ~5111illl ~~ !!I! , , i'II'." z -' I"'. g~~U H! 5'" I .. oJ .. I- oJ .. al Z .. .. It l!l . z o ;: ~ -' :.:: ~ : ~: o\' ~ I ~j ~ ~ . , Z l : ~ ~ ~ . . z . " . - >- z. ~~ .~ 0-, >-< u_ -. >. >- < ~ I I .:::.':i.' :I!!I ,. 1':1 I'i 1'1 lilT! 1'1 '" ; II II ; I ODD ODD m~ I I I I , , , I ----It--- -- I I I I I I I I I I I I_ II II o DO U~ ril 1':I:,::',,:'i ::j. -:',:!" .",' 1'1,.'.'.'"", liil,i H j" 'I,!I i'l iI ~ N ~~ Q~~ ~~. > t- =:;; ~ ~ ~ :; lIJ G :i: 0:;;; 8 ~ ~ \11 ~ ~~~~88:;l~ ~D..~a:d~~~ ~ ~ H~~g~~~ \II it ~ ~: 8:; ii '" ~ I- III j::l::l: 'i': ~.J ~~IL~~~~:d ~~ :~! ~U : f ~ I' h' ". " " . 11II - .~~ D~ ~ N ~ ATTACHMENT 0 Approved Plans for Rec. Center and Ainsley Park ... ... .,. w "lo---- '. -;:e; ,.-- 'D , , o '"" ~ ,- --------- I :."-! ~I I ! ,-~ - Ifl- .. ----- Sa. ! ! , ' .~::-~ .l:fl IIi ::.:::.::tf3 . ... ... ... -... l "::t --- " . , ~I I -------------'Ir. .~ .....'OJ " , -:;;',-~ I , , , , .:. , , ~ ~I ! ----~~ , I . , ';:;, .... ... ------------------............................. ~ .,e ,;c ~ !II , , , Ii, - _ "ti : ! 8 ~ ~- .c, " ! "D-.9~ ! , e' " 1 ~ ~i I t a ~ ,,--,.o~-~-f ~ ---- ~ ,,-O=-.9~ ,s" ..J! mIl ---~-~'r.r1"-' " I , ~ ~ g o ~ 'I' 'II Ii lji :1; i': ']' ii' :i !: I~ j j __""____....r~.-- 3 ~ It! !~t ~ , ,,: i \" '"0- Q~~m~ ~I u; i i!121~~ I i I; ~~ iJ ~ ~ ! I I iil ~p . ' i!:: ~ ~~ Ij ids i .. -----;F.. l II ..-,n ~ " ~ r,"D-'~~1 <;I i 8 II . g ~ ~. II~ .; ~II i.i I! I I '-T"'" '",',' 1t:~ "___il ---dJ ! ~ 11 -~~ _"-,f!: :1 ! .w...';; jl ~_..-. ! ~ i, I . I ~ ~ I 1 ~ ~.II II " ~ ... ~8 z- "':::l" Z"'z <<- ~z~ "':::l 0... ~ ~ z8 ~~~ Z"'z <1-- .J~o ...;:;= uiil lWJ I- Z ~ u.. -~ , "I EL__-l ----, ;:::r- I i't=:L.~" ~ ... ~8 z.. -:::l" Z"'z <<- .J_o ~z= "':::l 0... ~ ::; i5 z8 ...~~ ~t~ ...;:;= uiil ~ ~ ~m _..- ... -- --m-- m.- _...... - --.-.-. --- -.. - --0__- . -- ...- --- _. ----- !'t ------ I,rc=--=- El3JD EEDD ~ o ~ ~8 _:z... zi.., ::5<2:: ~-Q :z~ ",- o::l ~'" ~ :z8 ""l~N :z"'<.:> <....:z ~~- ~~;;! U::l '" ~ ::l 8 a:i I.'-l IX '" :z8 ...~... :Z(;;<.:> ::5i;:2:: ~~;;! u::l '" ~ ~ ~8 _:z... ziI,J ::5<2:: ~-Q ~::! o::l ~'" ~ ~ -' -' <( ~ f@j B leJ 19 EL_ ~ .... jg ;z- "'::I<j ;Z";z :5:S2S c..;z:::! "'::I 0.. ~ :; <:5 I'-l- --- I I I m ;zg <- "'1:<j z~~ ""~o ~:i= uii1 l;2 :::l o u al L.IJ 0:.: \,;J ;zg ...~:; ;z~;z ""....- ..J~O o.:i= ui; ~ jg ;z_ "'::I<j ;Z";z :5:S2S CLZ::! Cliil ~ :; <:5 > L.IJ ...... ...... <( , ....8 " I, : ~<- I- zz~ Z ::so- ~ l:l..o9 u- ::l .... .. i ~ I ~ ~ ; I i ~ . I i I IX ;:S IX ...a , ~ ~i ~ ~I g ! ~ ~i ~ " : I " I II ~ ~ 'I dli'~ .i' ~,I i ......::,~. , . ~ , i I i, I , i 'I, ' "i -,' 1, - : ' ~ :'fr1~ ~!' I, " t!~~~:~ I ;::]E:;4' "rq I'!I , ,g.,1:!: -t 'I-'''i :1 I I I Li ~ z8 ..,~- z~Q <t-Z ....~- ...~~ u::l .. 1=, I z8 _~N z~Q ::St;:~ ...~~ u::l .. ,'f~C: 11 8[='" ....8 N<N zzQ ::so~ c..c;9 u- ::l .. , , , ~-] ; 1'- il ,11."- ,I ~ 1 z8 ~~~ <~~ .......0 o..:i= u" .. ....8 ",<'" zZ" ...o~ ..J....O o..o:::! u" .. I- "" ::l o U Z I.L.I I.L.I "" I,j ....~ N~~ Z z_ ... 0 ~ ..J .... , .0.. 8:: ii II z~ <- - I: , Z "'_ ... .... ~ ..J ... , 0.. :i = u- . ~ .... .... <( ATTACHMENT E Submitted Revision to Affordable Housing Plan E E E EJ 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ E 0 -c -c E E 8 -c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 -c ~ ~ l ~ e e 0 ~ "0 "0 ~ l € ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ '" 0 l ~ N '" C c l € c c '" '" '" '" a: a: N '" a: a: c c c ~ ~ '" '" '" ! ~ 0 0 a: a: a: ~ 1ij -' -' " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "0 "0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 -' -' -' ::E ::E .. N "' '" <Xl <Xl .. DIDID[JI c.J"'"> ::::::> L..L..J =c:::.:::: ~ -c:c:: ::::::> ::::::> , as;; ~ z UJ~ ~o.. <(w J f-:O -Ill a(j)~ U) f- ~~ -fo(/) (f) z u~ J J~u. foO In w ~~ " .J foU .:::: to ~ J(ru JOfo o~ ()~ lL ( " .' (///' ~, ~1"/ /' ....'..ll"..".""'..."""'<--"".". .","o"."R"""\."""",,m...."3'-' ..."",~...., ''''t'"",_ ~~ Vi ~ l~ j i > i e ~ ~ u ~.! ~ ! j '" ~ ~ ,. ~ . r" : U OJ , ~ : l: :';':f h ~~ i:.,lIul - , I ! ~ ~ ,~ ~ .1/, : , ,', . I, '!11i $; :; I 'I 0 . ll: .. '" " ~ _' ~ ~ < I 0, ' c ~; ~. ,,"- " Q C I '" I 0- U ~ <! ~ ~ ~ ::1 u ] :~ ~. '" .. ~ a .. f B" 1-' ~ ~ ~ < u '" ,I ~~ ;~ ~~ '" "' , I I , ~ " .E 1 ~,- ---" .,; Ul~ ",E WO ZI ....0 ",0 "'~ "E i: .~ ~~ i!i.. o~ ,.~ w'c -' ' alE !li E ,.8 ~ c c ~ -' I ! d II! '! ~ ~ f '1 "~ .! 1 I! ! " , ! j ; III*! ' ! ]",,:000 ~! :,', "1'1 . -I I . . '" ~ > ~ ~ ~ 'I' . il j ill ! I! II. 'l"~~ :' <: I : o.l.. ,- ~-~ ATTACHMENT F Submitted Revision to Senior Housing Phasing Plan t Eo-. ~~ D..;t,) ~~ ~~ ~~ t,) t . ------------ ~. · , --/ ~lll Il --- -11M ' -- j ---------- ~. : h_______ O~ lS3M - II ! ~~3NN .._-. I ' .-- \" D I __ l' i i ! ! ! i ! ! i ...1 ::>: ~! ..., ! ! i , ! i , i ~i ~: "'! ! ! , I I -- "11 r.i, ',/ I -1 . ::=: -~ ---./ ; I ! I' . I .1 . __i 'T i i ~;.-!-!I!i i : j i! !.. I . . ! I: i . .....- iiul 01100 'Iiiii DDDDI ATTACHMENT G Resolution No. 4025 RESOLUTION NO. 4025 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS 04-004 AND 04-006 AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 16581 AND 16582 AND THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PHASING PLAN FOR SENIOR HOUSING TO ALLOW COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN FIVE (5) PHASES INCLUDING THE MODEL HOMES AND BUILD-OUT FOR THE PROJECTS LOCATED IN PLANNING AREAS 4, 5 AND 21 OF MCAS TUSTIN KNOWN AS COLUMBUS SQUARE AND COLUMBUS GROVE I. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find as follows: A. An application was filed by Lennar Homes on behalf of Moffett Meadows Partners on May 3, 2006, to modify Design Review applications 04-004 and 04-006, Tentative Tract Maps 16581 and 16582 and Affordable Housing Plan to simplify the architectural design of Ainsley Park cluster units, reduce the size of the Columbus Square recreation center from 5,467 to 3,765 square feet and simplify the architectural design, defer completion of the Columbus Square recreation center from the 420th building permit to the 950th building permit, relocate an affordable unit in Camden Place from a model home site to a phase one production unit, and revise the phasing plan for senior housing to eight (8) construction phases for the project sites located within planning Area 4, 5 and 21 of MCAS Tustin. B. The properties are located at the southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and West Connector and Harvard Avenue south of Moffett Avenue within Planning Areas 4, 5 and 21 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designated as Low Density and Medium Density Residential and the MCAS Tustin Planned Community General Plan land use designation. C. Low density and Medium density residential development is permitted in Planning Areas 4, 5, and 21 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed amendments will not modify the approved uses. D. On February 22, 2005, the City Council approved the site and architectural design of 1,077 residential units in Columbus Square and 465 units in Columbus Grove with adoption of Resolutions 05-37 and 05- 40. E. A public hearing by the Planning Commission was duly noticed and held on June 26, 2006. Resolution No. 4025 Page 2 F. An amendment to revise the architectural design of this duplex product to simplify the structures so that the same architecture is carried out on both residences was requested by the applicant. The Planning Commission denies the requested revisions and directs the applicant to work with staff to provide a compatible design for Ainsley Park that suits the approved dominant architectural styles within the community and continues to provide distinctive character for both units. G. An amendment to reduce the approved size of the recreation building for Columbus Square from 5,467 square feet to 3,765 square feet and to revise the architectural design of the Columbus Square recreation building to a more simplified architecture without towers and decorative parapets was requested. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council deny the proposed modifications to reduce the size of the Columbus Square recreation center since the center should accommodate a variety of uses and conflicting events, and if approved the recreation center at Columbus Square (a community of 835 total units including 552 multiple family units with no private yards) would be approximately 1,300 square feet smaller than the recreation center at Columbus Grove (a community of 465 homes including 279 single family homes with private backyards). Considering that there are 835 single family and multiple family residential units in Columbus Square, the community would not benefit from a smaller size community center. H. An amendment to simplify the architectural design of the recreation center by removing the tower element from the main building and the easterly and the westerly courtyard colonnades and eliminating the widow's walk parapet was requested. The Planning Commission denies the requested modification since the proposed architecture is too simplified and lacks the visual interest and importance that the recreation building was intended to bring to the community. The original architectural design was proposed with the development plans and should have been included in the project budget and the revision is not justified at this point of development when all initial phases of the homes are under construction. In addition, there are no reasonable justifications for the revisions. I. An amendment to Condition 2.2 of Resolution No. 05-40 of Tentative Tract Map 16581 (Columbus Square) to defer completion of the required recreation center from prior to issuance of the 420th building permit to prior to the 950th building permit was requested. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council deny the proposed revision since the 420th building permit threshold was established Resolution No. 4025 Page 3 at project approval to ensure that the recreation center and the park site would be available to area residents within a reasonable time of moving into the community. Parks are required to be constructed within the initial phases of development and in most cases with the model phase so that homeowners will have immediate access to the community amenities (pool, barbeque, etc.). In addition, to defer this requirement to the 950th building permit, when more than half of the residents would be residing at the project site would be excessive and unreasonable, particularly since the delay in construction is due to Lennar's self-imposed desire to redesign and reduce the size of the recreation center. J. An amendment to the affordable housing plan to relocate an affordable housing unit (Low income) within a multiple family product (Camden Place) in Columbus Square from a proposed model home unit to a production unit in phase one was requested. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council deny the proposed modifications to relocate an affordable housing unit since the relocation would result in two affordable units in one four-plex building in Phase One, and the affordable unit would not benefit from any upgrades that are typically included in the model home unit. Because of the advantage of potential upgrades and a better location (since this unit is located across from the park), the Planning Commission would not support this request. K. An amendment to the phasing plan of Columbus Square to allow construction of the senior housing project in eight (8) phases instead of the approved three (3) phases was requested. The Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council deny the proposed phasing plan with eight (8) phases since this revision could negatively impact the Planning Commission and City Council's original intent that the entire project site be developed concurrently. The senior housing project includes 63 percent of the required affordable housing for the Villages of Columbus, and it is essential that the construction of these units be accomplished proportionately with construction of the market rate units. Given that this site will have a late start, eight (8) phases of construction could lead to a major delay in delivering the affordable housing units and defeat the original intent of the project's phasing. As a compromise, the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve an amendment that would allow construction of minimum two structures concurrently for a total of five (5) phases including models and built-out to allow the developer additional time and lead the project toward completion within a reasonable time. L. When the comprehensive developments were presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council for a recommended action, the recommendation was based on a comprehensive proposal which also Resolution No. 4025 Page 4 included variations from the required standards. In summary, these development projects received many allowances so that quality and livable communities would be developed to accommodate a variety of households. These allowances included the following: · Specific Plan Amendments that allowed for new development standards for a new product type (carriage way units); · Reduced rear yard setbacks for carriage way units; · One hundred percent on-street guest parking versus 50 percent; · Reduced street widths and turning radius; · Reduced minimum development site size; · Transfer of affordable housing units between planning areas; · 182 additional units with approval of a density bonus; · Density averaging within planning areas; · Concentration of affordable units in the senior housing project; . Parkland credit; and, · Reduction of 3-acre minimum park site to one (1) acre to be eligible for park credit and accept public use of the parks for in-lieu fees. In addition, since the project included many deviations from the standard requirements, one aspect of project may not have been recommended without another and staffs recommendation to approve the projects took into consideration the comprehensive proposal. During the plan check process and in an effort to record the final maps in a timely manner, staff worked with the applicant to allow for submittal into early plan check and modified conditions administratively where the modifications met the spirit and intent of the Planning Commission and City Council's original approval. The requested modifications are extensive and will deter from the overall design and quality of the community PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of June, 2006. NATHAN MENARD CHAIRPERSON ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4025 Page 5 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 City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4025 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26tl1 day of June, 2006. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary