Resolution Number 81-4-21-1RESOLUTION NO. 81-4-21-1
AREA PLAN - PLANNING SECTOR E OF THE ORTEGA PLANNED
COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT PLANS (FREDRICKS)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
AREA PLAN - PLANNING SECTOR E OF THE ORTEGA
PLANNED COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT
PLANS FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT 81-1 (FREDRICKS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Fredricks Development Corporation,
has submitted Residential Concept Plans for Growth Management 81-1
which propose a 30 -unit single-family attached residential
development located in Planning Sector E of the Ortega Planned
Community in accordance with Chapter 9-7 of the Municipal Code
(Residential Growth Management) and Comprehensive Development
Plan 78-1; and,
WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Board has
determined that the proposed project will have a significant
effect on the environment, has required the preparation of an
environmental impact report, which report has been certified as
final by the City Council, and has otherwise carried out all
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
concept plan, has recommended adoption of a draft growth management
point rating for the concept plan, and has forwarded said plan
and point rating to the City Council recommending approval subject
to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council, after holding a duly -noticed
public hearing, hereby finds and determines as follows:
1. The growth management point rating of 65 points is
accurate and appropriate.
2. The proposed concept plan, as conditioned, is
consistent with the 1.5 Medium/High Density
Residential designation and is otherwise consistent
with all other Elements of the General Plan.
3. The proposed concept plan, as conditioned, is
consistent with the Planned Community regulations
on the property and with all applicable requirements
of Title 9 of the Municipal Code (Land Use).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the exhibits
prepared for Growth Management 81-1 compose the necessary elements
for an Area Plan as per Comprehensive Development Plan 78-1 for
Planning Sector E of the Ortega Planned Community and are therefore
approved as such.
-1-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a growth management
point rating of 65 points is hereby adopted for the subject
residential concept plan per Chapter 9-7 of the Municipal
Code --said point rating being detailed on attached Exhibit "I."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does
hereby approve Residential Concept Plan Growth Management 81-1
subject to the following conditions:
1. Pursuant to Section 9-7.109 of the Municipal
Code, Residential Concept Plan approval does not
constitute final approval of a project. All
further requirements of Title 9 of the Municipal
Code must be satisfied for the project to
proceed.
2. If the subject parcel is granted building permit
allocations under Chapter 9-7 of the Municipal
Code (Residential Growth Management), the
processing of composite development plans and
subdivision maps shall be required. Composite
development plans shall be consistent with the
approved Residential Concept Plans and shall
include the following: (1) grading,
(2) architectural elevations, (3) landscaping,
and (4) other plans as required by the Director
of Community Planning and Development.
3. Proof of geological and soils stability of all
proposed grading and development within the
subject parcels shall be submitted to the
satisfaction of the City prior to any tentative
tract map approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of
April 1 1981 , by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Councilmen Friess, Buchheim, Hausdorfer,
and Mayor Schwartze
NOES: None
ABSENT: Counc"
ATTEST:
CITI CLERK
-2-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) J
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
I, MARY ANN HANOVER, City Clerk of the City of San Juan
Capistrano, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a
true and correct copy of Resolution No. 81-4-21-1 , adopted by
the City Council of the City of San Juan Capistrano, California,
at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of
April 1981 .
(SEAL) 4,
4 MARY ANN HANOVER, TY LERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO )
MARY ANN HANOVER, being first duly sworn, deposes
and says:
That she is the duly appointed and qualified City Clerk
of the City of San Juan Capistrano;
That in compliance with State laws of the State of
California and in further compliance with City Resolution
No. 79-2-21-7 and on the 24th day of April 1981
she caused to be posted:
RESOLUTION NO. 81-4-21-1
being: AREA PLAN - PLANNING SECTOR E OF THE ORTEGA PLANNED
COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT PLANS (FREDRICKS)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
AREA PLAN - PLANNING SECTOR E OF THE ORTEGA
PLANNED COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT
PLANS FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT 81-1 (FREDRICKS
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
in three (3) public places in the City of San Juan Capistrano,
to wit: The Administration Building; The San Juan Hot Springs
Dance Hall; The Orange County Public Library.
RY
JMAD
.
� l�
Ripf
NN
HANOVER,
y erk
San ZRian
Capistrano,
California
-3-
r.
RATINC CRIILRIA
----
Greater tnan
1-1.5
.5-1
! 0
5
I l.S mi.
+
mi.
mi.
1. Proximity of nearest
developed public
No
0
5
park or other public
recreatiun facility;
-5
•5
(e.g., jr. high or high school)'
0
1
3
2. Proximity of nearest
elementary school*
0
1
3
3. Project site located
in attendance area
!All 3 levels.
2of 3
l of'3
served b.- school designated as over -overcrowded
open area
levels
levels
crowded (elementary,
jr. high, or high
G.P. designation
over-
over -
school)
Yes
I
crowded
crowded
.i. Project requires extension of commuter
or arterial road for access
S. Project provides dual access to
development
6. Variances requested to accommodate
project
7. General Plan Amendment required to
accommodate project .
S. Consumption of land designated for
Resource Conservation E Production
in the General Plan (°a of site area)
9. Landform alteration - sensitivity of
grading concepts; ridgeline preser-
vation
10. Provision for open area - public
and private
11. Provision of private recreation
facilities
12. Reduction of 50': or more below
maximum General Plan density
13. Overall quality of design
(innovation., architectural quality,
amenity, energy saving measures,
etc.)
14. Unusual public benefit from project**-
TOTAL
Provision of low or moderate income
housing
�S)
NS
W5.
ss than
.5 mi.
c
5 S
5
levels
0
Yes
! 0
5
I No
es
0
S
Yes
No
0
5
Yes
No
-5
•5
1
100%
0%
0
10
Relatively heavv
Min. grading-
rading-grading
grading- unnecessary
preservation
' landform alteration
of. major
8 landfoms
0
) 10
+Min. provision of —9 Maximum provisio.
open area
of open area
consistent with
5
G.P. designation
0
10
No S
Yes
0
10
nYes
IO
0 5
0 2 ?10
0 3.100
0-1S
• measured from nearest boundary of most distant lot (or dwelling unit if there are
no individual lots) in the project to the nearest boundary of the park or school
site.
•• Examples include: correction of unsafe condition, mitigation of existing adverse
environmental or nesthetic condition, preservation of liistaric structures or site,
etc. _ -H//3/T S.
r�
PI
u
►]
u