Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 11-08-93MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Kasalek, Baker, Butler, Stracker and Weil Absent: None PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) At this time members of the public may address the Commission regarding any items not on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can be taken off-agenda items unless authorized by law). IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON A/NY MATTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR REMARKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 1. Election of Officers Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission follow procedures to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-rem; and set thirty (30) days following Commission appointments for future reorganization of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stracker moved, Baker seconded to elect Commissioner Weil as Chairperson. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to elect Commissioner Stracker as Chairperson Pro-tem. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Baker thanked Commissioner Kasalek for an excellent year. Commissioner Weil thanked the Commission for electing her and agreed that Commissioner Kasalek has done an excellent job. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 2. Minutes of the October 25, 1993 Planninq Commission meetinq. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 2 3. Final Tract Map 14784 and 14837 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOT 20 AND "EE" OF TRACT 12870 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(b) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE TWENTY FOUR (24) N-UMBERED LOTS AND THIRTY NINE (39) LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 150 PATIO HOME DWELLINGS Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No.3205 recommending approval to the City Council of Final Tract Maps 14784 and 14837. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: IF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS AGENDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. 4. Conditional Use Permit 93-034, Siqn Code Exception 93-003 APPLICANT: LANDOWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ORANGE COUNTY FARM BUREAU 2512 CHAMBERS ROAD #203 TUSTIN, CA 92680 JOHN AND MARY PRESCOTT 18752 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THIRD STREET BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND PROSPECT STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2) CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERLAY DISTRICT THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 4) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 15304 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AUTHORIZE A OUTDOOR CERTIFIED FARMERS' MARKET ONCE A WEEK THAT MAY INCLUDE THE USE OF TEMPORARY, NONDURABLE SIGNS WITH PRICING INFORMATION, ATTACHED TO VEHICLES Recommendation -It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 93-034 and Sign Code Exception 93- 003 by adopting Resolution No. 3201, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 3 Staff read Condition 3.8 into the record to be added, as moved. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had seen the Farmers' Market in operation; and asked for a clarification of the signage requested. The Director responded that she had seen a special engagement in Huntington Beach; that there is more of a draw on those days; that this would have similar growers as at the Orange County swapmeet; that signage is posted on vehicles; tables identifying particular growers; and allowing pricing displays on individual products required the Sign Code exceptions. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the signs on the trucks could be 32 square feet. The Director replied that the Code allows displays at a height of 12 feet; and the other locations have some signs mounted on top of the vehicles. Commissioner Stracker asked what type of fencing material would be used; and how the Farmers' Market would operate in the "U" Shape. Staff replied that temporary fencing, probably chain link, was recommended; and that the Farm Bureau would help the farmers set up with pedestrian access. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there was any response to notice; and if the toilet would be locked at night. Staff replied that the property owner to the north responded with several concerns; and was unsure if the toilet was lockable. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Bill Bath, 240 S. Prospect Avenue, Tustin, adjacent property owner, commented that the Farmers' Market was made to sound as though it was solely to improve Tustin but Mr. Prescott is the main benefici- ary; that the Market will bring a lot of traffic causing potholes and repairs; that the alley is undedicated and never maintained by the City; that the rental property is on the property line; that there could be a safety factor with drunk drivers leaving the Swinging Door via the alley and people dropping lit items on saw- dust; that his driveway is already blocked on special event days; that the Market will create dust; that asphalt should be installed since the police will not enforce watering of sawdust, wood chips or parking; asked who cleans up after market day; and that staff did not read into the record that the hours and days could be extended after one year without a public hearing; that there are safety hazards; that there would be a problem having the toilets and trash bins near the rental property which could attract street people and rats; that the Market is not conducive to a decent standard of living for the renters or himself; asked who will lock and unlock the bins; that provision of rental fencing is too vague. Philip Cox, P.O. Box 10, Myers Flat, CA, owner of property at southeast corner of E1 Camino Real in Tustin; asked if this was an application for a farmers' market or a rock festival; commented that Mr. Bath has not been around farm people or buyers; that he has never seen anything like Mr. Bath suggested; would encourage approval of the Orange County Farm Bureau permit and wished them great success. Ruth Seiqle, 14652 Westfall Road, Tustin, commented that she has been attending Farm Bureau markets for 10 years and is excited Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 4 about market day in Tustin; that the market offers a good, healthy inexpensive way to buy fruits, vegetables and food items; that the atmosphere is festive, not rowdy; and encouraged approval. John Collins, 155 S. A Street, Tustin, commented that he was thrilled to have a Farmers' Market in Tustin; that he works and walks in Tustin; that his neighbors agreed with his excitement; and hoped it passed. Alan Reynolds, President Orange County Farm Bureau, stated that they are currently sponsoring certified markets in Costa Mesa on Thursdays, Huntington Beach on Fridays and proposing San Juan Capistrano on another day; that the benefits are interaction with farmers, and fresh produce direct from the grower; the markets are only open a few hours with set up and clean up extra; that there is an on-site market; the dumpster would be lockable, restrooms are not, but would be picked up as soon as possible; that farmers park until they leave at the end of the day; that gravel would help alleviate the dust problem; that they were concerned about permanent improvements until they are sure it will be successful at this location; that they are a non-profit organization; that the landowner expressed interest in assisting with permanent costs and is getting very little for his efforts; that the Prescotts have wanted a Farmers' Market in Tustin for many years. A. G. Kawamura, 210 W. Walnut Avenue, Fullerton, CA, whose family has been growing in the Irvine area since 1958 and a member of the Farm Bureau, commented that farming is compiled of a variety of industries in agriculture; that the Farm Bureau is compiled of mainly fresh produce with no subsidies and on the verge of extinction in this area; that regulatory aspects make demands on a grower more difficult making it tough to make a living; that many of his friends have allowed their land to diminish to the point where they can control a small amount of acreage and market their own product; that this is a viable way for Orange County agriculture to stay alive and well; and asked where we want food produced for the county; that this provides an opportunity for fresh produce and an aesthetic that is healthy for the Community. Commissioner Stracker asked if Mr. Kawamura was located at a farmers' market. Mr. Kawamura replied that he participates at the Fullerton Farmers' Market with a retired couple, but is more into shipping and growing; and came this evening to speak for local farmers who could not attend. Mary Lou Lorenzini, 2058 Valley Road, Costa Mesa, manager of Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach Farmers' Markets, presented a professional PVC sign with a green background and white lettering which was representative of the type of sign that would be installed on two solid stakes at the middle of the market; requested a month's trial basis and waiving of business fees for the farmers for 1993; that they are in favor of obtaining business licenses for the farmers for next year, if successful; that the atmosphere is like a fair, as one big, happy family; and that leftover produce is donated to charity. Commissioner Stracker asked where the farmers come from. Ms. Lorenzini replied that they come from Escondido, Imperial Valley, Fresno, and backyard growers are also encouraged; the produce is picked in the afternoon and available the next morning; that Irvine produce is picked in the morning and sold that day. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 5 Commissioner Weil commented that the business fees would be quite minimal and asked if they were asking waiver until the beginning of the year. Ms. Lorenzini affirmed. Rick Boufford, 303 E1 Camino Real, owner of Black Sheep Bistro, commented that his favorite thing to do when travelling to Europe is visit the Farmers' Markets; that he realizes that he may have parking problems on Wednesdays affecting his lunch trade, but encouraged approval; and hoped that Mr. Bath's problems could be overcome. Nancy Prescott, 230 South A Street, whose family owns the property of proposed Farmers' Market, stated that this is the third numbered tract in Orange County; that his mother wanted to put a Farmers' Market there in the forties; that there is a wonderful blend of produce, bakeries, and flowers; that there should not be a competition with other businesses; that outdoor eating and markets were brought up repeatedly in the charette process; that it is not a large money maker for the Prescotts, but fits in with the Tiller roots; that she understood Mr. Bath's concerns and offered to install Italian Cypress to limit the dust and provide privacy; that they do not recommend sawdust, but something more substantial; recommended approval, even on a six-month basis, as it would be wonderful for Tustin and Old Town, and benefit City residents. Commissioner Weil asked if the Prescotts were willing to install a more substantial fence. Ms. Prescott replied that her father-in-law was willing to install wrought iron fencing along with the Italian Cypress; and noted that their address on 17th street was Santa Ana, not Tustin. Commissioner Butler asked the chances of the hours being increased; asked how many vendors they expected; and if there was special arrangement for backyard growers; and asked if they anticipated any parking problems. Mr. Reynolds replied that the Costa Mesa market has not changed its hours in 14 years, and that the Huntington Beach market has been open for a little over a year without change; that Tustin is an easier location for the farmers and anticipate it to be open all year; that the other days of the week are already accounted for, so they would not be extending the days that it would be open; that there would be 30 vendors with cars, trucks and small trucks, not big vehicles. Ms. Lorenzini replied that the backyard growers usually have card tables for produce and can park in the parking lot; that there is an area on the right for backyard growers, the larger trucks in the center, and the smaller trucks on the left; and that there are empty lots across and down the street for parking; and that the average shopper is there for about 20 minutes. Mr. Reynolds commented that since this is not a building, they could relocate if there were parking problems. Commissioner Butler commented that there must be a way to make this work and be better for Mr. Bath and asked what could be done to accomplish this. Mr. Bath replied that they are generous with the fence and cypress trees, but his wife is allergic; rebutted Mr. Cox's comments by Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 6 noting that he did not indicate it would be a rock concert atmosphere; that Mr. Cox lives in Northern California and would not notice the traffic from the Swinging Door; asked why the extension allowance was written into the conditions if there they do not anticipate changing the hours; was unsure of the freshness of the vegetables; that it is to benefit the City, but they want to waive the fees, and do not seem committed; that he is not opposed to the variance in the sign ordinance, but feels the potential of 30 foot signs sets a precedent; that vendors will park anywhere with signage; and once the market is allowed they will have to live with it. Commissioner Weil commented that since this is a Conditional Use Permit, it is structured so that the City can shut it down for non- compliance. Mr. Bath commented that he is the only one verbalizing his complaint, but that the residents of the trailer park, which is owned by Mr. Prescott, also do not want it. Mr. Reynolds commented that the this is not a major business venture; that this is something for the farmers, the Community, and a little for the Farm Bureau; and that the Prescott's may make $50 per day, one day per week; that the farmers have to clean up after themselves and are not invited back if they do not; and the produce will have to be sampled for freshness. Commissioner Kasalek asked about potential problems with parking enforcement; and asked if the manager was on-site. Mr. Reynolds replied that there will be directional cones and can address excess parking if it occurs, but that contingent parking might need to be written into the conditions; and affirmed that the manager is on-site and ensures that the farmers are where they are supposed to be and clean up; and that the farmers follow the California Department of Food and Agriculture laws; that agricultural inspectors visit the site; and that this is a simple operation, like in the "old days." Commissioner Stracker asked what items are to be sold. Mr. Reynolds replied that it is predominantly produce with fruit, vegetables, cut flowers, fish, and bread, but no t-shirts; that it is Certified and regulations must be followed. Mr. Bath commented that he was not backing away from any of his comments, and not attacking the Prescotts. The Public Hearing closed at 7:58 p.m. Commissioner Kasalek commented that it was a wonderful idea; that it was the type of item suggested at the RU/DAT; that she wanted the neighbor's concerns mitigated; that she was concerned with the location of the dumpster and toilet in relation to the rental property; that she would not want flies and odors near her back door, and wanted it relocated to be inoffensive to the neighbors; that she thought the fence was wanted for privacy as well of dust; and was in favor of the project. Commissioner Weil asked if the conditions could be improved. The Director clarified for the audience that the purpose of a Farmers' Market is to provide a community benefit, and promote downtown; that our downtown is dying, and the type of daytime Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 7 activity brought to downtown is a direct corollary to the success of the businesses; that even though the businesses adjacent to this property would be impacted by parking, they were the first to recognize the need to bring people in; that the Certified Growers Market is regulated by the Orange County Agricultural Commission with stringent standards and the Orange County Health Department; that Third Street has always been identified as an area where more activity was desired; that a number of locations were considered for the Farmers' Market; that the staff aggressively pursued the Farm Bureau to proceed on this site as the most viable site for parking and limited financial improvements; staff feels that any concerns can be mitigated; that the alley is not dedicated, not a public street, not currently maintained as an alley, and not reflected in any City documents as a legal alley; that a number of alternatives have been considered for dust control; that improving the lot to a commercial standard would be a burden that the applicant can not or should not bear; that gravel, wood chips and sawdust are affective temporary measures; that a condition has been added to allow the Director to field investigate the conditions and to request that the applicant improve the dust mitigation, as needed. She continued with stating that the conditional use permit can be revoked by the Planning Commission for violations of conditions; that Mr. Bath can inform the Community Development Department of violations of the conditions for enforcement; that the lot must be maintained free of debris by the applicant at the close of each business day; that staff should have the ability to move the event day in case of scheduling problems; that the dumpster was located as far away as possible and along the alleyway where the trash company already picks up a bin; that the trash bin and temporary restroom would be set back 20 feet from the property line, and can be removed in less time if smells, etc. are causing problems; that staff was concerned with the cost of fencing and did not want to mandate that the applicant incur the cost of permanent fencing; that mesh fencing would be satisfactory, and even though temporary, it would be left in place. Commissioner Weil commented that the fence goes the full length of the parking lot, but asked if it would restrict access to the rear. The Director replied that it appears that even the property owner was obtaining access via this alley, and access would not be restricted; that the City provided options and resources for inexpensive suppliers of gravel, wood chips and sawdust; and is required by every temporary use in the City, even if only operating for less than one month; that staff suggested prorating the last 20 days of the year to next year; that Tustin's fees are the lowest in the County and would be prorated at $31.25 through January 1995. Commissioner Kasalek asked for clarification of the alleyway. The Director replied that it was a private alleyway running from Second to Third Street; that there are no public documents; that it is not a public alley, nor an independent lot; that there are probably reciprocal easements similar to the situation behind Rutabegorez; that a condition can be added requiring the Farm Bureau vehicles to access the site from 3rd Street only. Commissioner Stracker asked if liability insurance was a problem on this location. The Director responded that the City does not require liability insurance since it is not considered a City special event; that the applicant is required to sign a hold-harmless agreement as a condition of the conditional use permit approval. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 8 Commissioner Baker suggested that access be limited after setting up to avoid using Third Street, since it would be better dust-wise. The Director affirmed, but suggested that wheel stops may be located on one driveway; but that right-turn in and out would be safer, so traffic coming in from Third Street might be preferable. Commissioner Butler commented that he would love to see the market located here, but wanted to address all of the homeowners concerns, as possible; that he suggested no east access for trucks off of Third Street; that the best substance for dust control should be installed; that a fence agreement should be made; that fees should not be waived, as a precedent might be set; that time it should be clarified that there would be no time extensions, but that staff should be able to determine the day of operation. The Director asked if staff should not have the flexibility to move the hours from early morning to late afternoon. The Commission concurred that staff should have the ability to move the hours agreed upon, as needed. Commissioner Stracker asked if clean-up time was allowed after 2:00. The Director affirmed. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 8:24 p.m. Commissioner Weil asked if the Prescott's were agreeable to setting up a wrought iron fence. Ms. Prescott replied that as far as privacy was concerned, Mr. Prescott approved wrought iron and Italian cypress trees; that she is not in a position to negotiate; asked if the homeowner would prefer temporary fencing with the mesh, or wrought iron for aesthetics; that a permanent fence might not be favorable to the Bath's for parking. Commissioner Baker asked the reason for the fence. The Director replied that the fence is to provide a separation between the residence and parking; that the City does not require it to be permanent; that a temporary fence would be permanently mounted and maintained by the rental company; and that the Commission might want to focus on discussion of the fence issues in terms of whether the fence should be permanent, aesthetic, and/or screened. Commissioner Baker stated that the sawdust would not be wet down on the six days that the market is not there and suggested the mesh so long as it is maintained. The Director commented that mesh is required on all grading sites and that it keeps the dust down even when it is not watered; and suggested that with Mrs. Prescott's inability to make a commitment, the Commission could make parameters for staff. Mr. Bath commented that the fence should have some aesthetic value; that he did not want a wobbly temporary fence which could turn out to be permanent; asked if the non-profit Farm Bureau is bonded, and who is liable against potential fire; and would rather have asphalt than the fence. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 9 Commissioner Stracker commented that his issue was not with liability but insurance. Ms. Lorenzini listed the operating costs involved as reason for the month's trial basis: portable rented chain link fence, $400/year; city-requested gravel, $1,750; trash bin, $83/month plus $200 deposit; portables $55/month; railroad ties, $200. Commissioner Weil asked if the other locations had a similar setup. Ms. Lorenzini stated that the fair grounds are paved, and that the Huntington Beach location is on a dirt lot with expensive condominiums across the street without complaint. Commissioner Kasalek commented that sawdust was available. The Director stated that a number of options were provided regarding costs; and identified a number of alternatives with relatively little costs that resolve the problem and were consistent with other applications in the City; that there has been no requirement for railroad ties, nor requiring the rented fence to be chain link; and have been working closely with the applicant over the past few months and believe the recommendations are minimum. Ms. Lorenzini replied that the railroad ties were replaced by cones; and that the sawdust recommended would be $2,500. The Director replied that the city-recommended contractor would be available at a very low cost; that she did not know the type of standard that the applicant was requesting; and that all applicants have been able to provide for special events. Ms. Lorenzini stated that they are more than willing to work the City. Ms. Prescott stated that Mr. Bath's concern was location of the property line; that the area needs to be surveyed; that the fence needs to be aesthetic, not flimsy, since it will be there more than on Wednesdays from 10-2. Mr. Bath asked if the condition regarding extension of hours could be addressed. Commissioner Stracker asked if the driveways would be closed during the rest of the week. The Director replied that they were not closed off now, and are not requiring public improvement. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m. The Director recommended changes to the Resolution, as moved. Commissioner Butler asked if a condition could be imposed requiring the two property owners to agree on the fencing material. The Director replied that this should be a condition the Commission imposes not something to be negotiated in the future. Commissioner Weil asked for a consensus on solid, chain link with mesh, or wrought iron with or without mesh. Lois Bobak, asked whether screening is important. F - "1- ..... IIlI1 ¥ --Il Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 10 The Commission concurred on type of fence and importance of screening, 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the red curbing has to be met immediately. The Director affirmed that it was necessary for visual clearance and noted that it was only in need of red paint. Commissioner Baker moved, Butler seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 93-034 and Sign Code Exception 93-003 by adopting Resolution No. 3101 revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 1, Item 2.1: modified to read "The farmers' market shall be operated on Wednesdays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Any modification to the hours of operation or to the day of operation, not to exceed a total of four hours per market day shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for review and approval." Exhibit A, Page 2, add Item 2.6 to read, "Ingress and egress (access to the site for growers) shall be from Third Street or from E1 Camino Real only." Exhibit A, Page 3, Item 3.4 changed to read "A minimum solid six foot high fence, chain link fence with screening or wrought iron fence with screening shall be installed south of the northerly property line of the vacant lot adjacent to the residence at 240 South Prospect Street to separate the residence from the parking area. Final design and details of the fence shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department Director." Exhibit A, Page 3, adding Item 3.8 to read, "The applicant shall install 30 feet of red curb east of the designated vehicular entrance for the farmers' market on Third Street, and 10 feet of red curb west of the designated vehicular entrance on Third Street to provide adequate sight distance in conjunction with the operation of the proposed vehicular entrance to the site." Motion carried 5-0. o Tentative Tract Map 14800 and Amendment to the Conceptual Site Plan for Sector 6 of the East Tustin Specific Plan APPLICANT: LAND OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES IRVINE, INC. 3 HUGHES IRVINE, CA 92718 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 LOT 27 OF TRACT 13627 PLANNED COMMUNITY - COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED EIR (85-2), AS MODIFIED BY THE SUBSEQUENTLY-ADOPTED SUPPLEMENT AND ADDENDA, FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 1. APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF A 30.9 ACRE SITE INTO FOUR (4) NUMBERED LOTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND HOTEL PURPOSES; AND Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 11 2. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECTOR 6 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3202; Approve the Amendment to the Sector 6 Concept Plan by adopting Resolution No. 3203, as submitted or revised; and Recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 14800 by adopting Resolution No. 3204, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director, Community Development Commissioner Butler asked if the CC&Rs pertain to all four parcels or if there would be individual CC&Rs when the parcels are sold. The Director replied that the sites could be sold individually or sold in combination; that the CC&Rs need to be tied to all four parcels and layout a framework of reciprocal access agreements for maintenance, drainage and parking. Made corrections to Page 16 of the Initial Study: Mitigation monitoring, second to last sentence, should read, "These mitigation measures would include the future developer to contract for a fee with the City's contracted waste hauler. Projects would provide a trash receptacle which complies with the requirements of the City of Tustin's contract haulers specifications."; and Resolution Numbers 3203 and 3204, as moved. Commissioner Baker asked about the potential liability on the City for withdrawing the Fire Department requirement. Lois Bobak replied that the developer would not be required to pay for it due to funding through the City or an assessment district; that the policy decision of the City is based upon creating a false sense of security and may encourage drivers of emergency vehicles to be less safe than they should going through intersections; that liability would be considered on a case by case basis. Staff stated that the City currently has one preemptive device; that they recognize that the Fire Department may have need to access public streets from the fire station; that they are currently in design of the signal at Pioneer Way and Pioneer Road which is adjacent to new fire station and includes the preemption device; that the City's policy does impede traffic flow and is an imposition to the synchronization of the City's traffic system; and referred to the false sense of security; that a letter from the City Manager is included stating the City's position; that the Orange County Transportation Authority in conjunction with the Orange County Fire Department is pursuing traffic signal preemption funded through Measure M; that they received results from other cities with a 50/50 split on support. Commissioner Butler asked for clarification of Condition 8.1 A on Page 12 of Resolution Number 3204. The Director replied that they are property maintenance issues where other sections of the code allow enforcement and provides a mechanism for contract purposes; that the City does not enforce on- site circulation; that the City is not obligated to enforce any provision of the CC&R; that there was a task force regarding CC&Rs Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 12 and association input indicated that they did not want City to mandate the CC&Rs; and that they are privately recorded documents. Commissioner Baker asked if the hotel would be located here. The Director replied that the Council did not want to alleviate the issue of the hotel. Commissioner Kasalek asked if there had been discussion about moving the hotel south of the freeway. The Director replied that there was discussion regarding relocating it to City property that could be worked out with the City of Irvine; that the City of Irvine would be developing the property within their corporate boundaries and is no longer considered as annexation to City of Tustin. Commissioner Baker wanted to make sure this makes sense and not lock anyone into the plan. The Director replied that there is a development agreement and that the Commission could approve a concept plan or tract plan that is not consistent with that direction; that if the company wants to reexplore in the future elimination of the hotel, they need to renegotiate with the City. Commissioner Stracker asked if there were minimum standards of distance between traffic signals. Staff replied negatively, but usually design to Caltrans Design, but have used 500 feet between signals in some places. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:35 p.m. Mike Padian, Director of Development, City of Irvine, stated that they concur with all changes; that they are concerned with installing temporary landscaping ahead of development; that this site is not similar to the Costco/KMart center which was not required to install landscaping until the use was specified; that they anticipate a village commercial center; that they are actively marketing the site; that since the East Tustin Specific Plan is very precise as to grading, anything permanent would be discarded; that even temporary landscaping would cost upwards of $80,000 which does not make economic sense; and that it would be better to tie landscaping to the development. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the site was partially graded. Mr. Padian replied that it was mass graded; and that they make an attempt to remove weeds at least twice each year. Commissioner Stracker asked how they envision the property as pertaining to Tustin; and if they envision it as an entryway to the City. Mr. Padian replied that the initial phase is to serve the local residents, but will be an entryway to the City. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:42 p.m. Commissioner Butler commented that he did not see the benefit of putting another expense burden on the developer; and suggested a time frame be determined. Commissioner Baker suggested timing the landscaping to the time of first development instead of a time limit; and did not wish to put the burden on the developer at this time. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 13 Commissioner Kasalek stated that it was different with KMart/Costco due to local residents; that the developer does not need to incur the expense now. Commissioner Stracker stated that he envisions Jamboree as an entryway to the City and should be landscaped indicating the level of care taken in the City; and was concerned that the developer was before the Commission regarding this issue. Commissioner Kasalek considered this area as gateway to the City, but asked if it was realistic to require it in an area still being developed; and requested conditions be included to require the area be maintained. Commissioner Weil stated that landscaping was one of the more expensive items to maintain, and went along with the rest of the Commission, so long as they keep the area maintained. Commissioner Butler suggested that the developer consider the spraying the lot with wildflower seeds as done elsewhere. The Director suggested deletion of last sentence of Condition 3.6 and add 3.7, as moved. Commissioner Stracker indicated his concern about organization of lots and addition of traffic signal on Jamboree Road; that Jamboree should be as free-flowing and congestion-free as possible; that there does not seem to be a coordinated look to the area. Commissioner Weil agreed and asked the purpose of the traffic signal. Staff replied that it was a recommendation of the traffic engineer through Irvine's traffic study; that it would shift the impact further north or south; that there was ability to break the median at this location which would minimize delays on Jamboree; that it was looked considering a worst case scenario. Commissioner Stracker stated that the levels of service at the intersections of Portola and Tustin Ranch Road were good; that Portola would not be heavily travelled; and would service more efficiently. Commissioner Baker asked the purpose of the signal. The Director replied that the signal on Portola was predetermined based on preliminary design of the park to the south; that it should be signalized due to a mid block horse trail, pedestrian access, and a bike path. Commissioner Stracker commented that it did not seem to be efficient. Joe Faust, Austin, Faust Associates, stated that there is unlikely to be unprotected median breaks without the aid of a signal for left turn access off of Jamboree; that there is a significant amount of north bound traffic into the site; that the left-turners going out need the aid of the signal; that the impact of the signal will be established by the Portola and Jamboree/Tustin Ranch signals; that the purpose is to accommodate the future hotel development, and the north bound inbound traffic. The Public Hearing was re-opened at 10:04. Mr. Faust discussed the merits of the signal on Jamboree with Tustin Ranch being the most critical location. lllll 1' -'-IT .... T Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 14 Commissioner Weil commented that the conceptual layout of the project regarding circulation flow should be considered to have anchors on the same side of the street as parking; and noted the problems with traffic flow at Home Depot in Tustin Marketplace. Mr. Faust replied that the heavy outbound traffic would not occur at that location. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she is aware of people who will not shop at the Marketplace due to the traffic flow. The Director stated that this lot is one-half of the size of the Marketplace including Costco/KMart; that there will be additional traffic analysis. Commissioner Stracker stated that the signal appears to have a very short queue area. Mr. Faust stated that there is a stacking analysis based on forecast; and that the stacking distance is about 150 feet. Commissioner Baker commented that this would be considered more closely due to the experiences at the Marketplace. Commissioner Weil asked if the signals would be synchronized. Mr. Faust affirmed that this would fit in with existing system. Commissioner Stracker asked the distance from Portola to this signal. Mr. Faust replied that it was approximately 1800 feet. The Public Hearing was closed at 10:12 p.m. The Director suggested revised language for Condition ... "At the time of development of the first lot, the developer and/or subdivider shall provide permanent perimeter landscaping and irrigation adjacent to the public right-of-way adjacent to the proposed phase of development and shall provide a minimal level of temporary landscaping and irrigation adjacent to all other public rights-of-way. The treatment shall include temporary fencing with mesh fencing, bermed and ground covered to provide a temporary edge treatment..." Delete last sentence. Commissioner Baker asked if the parcels could be sold to four separate buyers. The Director replied that there could be four separate buyers; that there will be permanent landscaping with development of the first lot; and that there could be more than one phase; that there will be CC&R restrictions for landscaping; that the purchase agreements are very detailed. Commissioner Stracker suggested workshops with development of sites. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded, to approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3202 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Baker seconded, to approve the Amendment to the Sector 6 Concept Plan by adopting Resolution No. 3203, revised as follows: Resolution 3203, Page 1, Paragraph I, Item C, change the word eat to east and correct the word review to reviewed. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 15 Resolution 3203, Page 1, Section E, line 3 after general appearance, add "as applicable" Items 1 through 14, deleted, renumbered and changed to read as follows: o Conceptual, bulk and area of buildings. Conceptual setbacks and site planning. Conceptual landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. Conceptual physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. Conceptual design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. Exhibit A, Page 2, Condition 1.6 to read, "Conditions 1.1 thru 1·4, Planning Commission Resolution 2606 shall be incorporated into this resolution by reference and are attached as Exhibit B." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Kasalek moved, Butler seconded, to recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 14800 by adopting Resolution No. 3204, revised as follows: Exhibit A, Page 4, Condition 1.7, to read, "Prior to issuance of building permits, preparation of plans for and construction of:" Page 5, Condition 1.8, Item C, add, "where required per the American Disabilities Act and/or Title 24, State Accessibility requirements" Page 5, add Condition 1.13 to read, "Any future development on the site shall be required to contract for a fee with the City of Tustin's contracted solid waste hauler. At the time of future submittals for any development, plans and details for trash receptacles shall be submitted which show compliance with the requirements of the City's contract hauler's specifications" Page 6, add Condition 2.3 to read, "In the event sheet flow drainage across lot lines is approved by the City of Tustin Building Official, a reciprocal drainage agreement and easement shall be recorded on the affected lots. Such documents shall be submitted for review and approval as to format to the City of Tustin Community Development Department and City Attorney prior to recordation." Page 6, Condition 3.1, line 7, correct the word "appearance" to read "acceptance" . Page 7, Condition 3.5, modify Item C to read, "shower and locker room facilities for employees of each sex in each building of over one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet will be required or for any development containing one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet not in a single building where required by the Planning Commission" Page 8, Condition 4.1B4b, modified to read "elimination of ponding or sheet flow across lot lines unless approved by the City of Tustin Building Official." Exhibit A, page 12, Condition 8.1 A, seventh line, "reflected by the following B through M". correct Condition 8.1 B, should be modified to read "If an Association is created, there shall be a requirement that Association bylaws be established". T - --r' Ilil 'T -TI---" Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 16 Condition 8.1 D, modified to read, "If an Association is created, the Association and Master Association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual lots. Condition 8.1 G, add, "If an Association is created", 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. Condition 8.1 I, add "If an Association is created", the Association shall be required to file the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least one member etc. Condition 8.1 K amend to read, "No amendment to alter, modify, terminate or change "AN OWNER, OWNERS, OR THE ASSOCIATIONS" obligation... Condition 8.1 L modify to read, "Ail landscaping within public right-of-way along Jamboree Road, Tustin Ranch Road and Portola Parkway shall be maintained by the adjacent owner, owners or Association." Add Condition 8.1 Item M, to read, "In the event sheet flow drainage across lot lines is approved by the City of Tustin Building Official, notification shall be provided within the CC&R's which identifies the recorded reciprocal drainage agreement and easement on the affected lots. Such notification shall be submitted for review and approval as to format to the City of Tustin Community Development Department and City Attorney prior to recordation. Condition 10.3 B, correct to read, "Provision for landscaping maintenance of landscape lots, paseos and easements adjacent to project public streets shall be the responsibility of the adjoining property owner, owners or Merchants Association of Tract 14800". Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None STAFF CONCERNS: Report on actions taken at November 1, 1993 City Council meetinq Staff reported on the subject agenda. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Butler - Expressed his compassion for those who come before the Commission with concerns which may present an opposing view on issues being deliberated. He urged that the members of the Commission always try to place themselves in the shoes of the other person. He was pleased that the Commission was able to resolve some of the concerns expressed at this meeting. - He congratulated Commissioner Weil on her new appointment as chairperson and thanked Commissioner Kasalek for her past year of service as chairperson. Commissioner Baker - Wished to thank staff for resolving the lighting situation at the Synagogue. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Page 17 Thanked the volunteers who worked on the Dinosaur Dash. Expressed concern with the traffic congestion Tustin Marketplace Home Depot near Beacon Bay car wash. He wished to know when there would be some improvement in the situation. Staff noted that changes would occur in conjunction with the commencement of Black Angus project. In the meantime, Donahue Schriber has hired a security officer to direct traffic at that area to relieve the congestion. Commissioner Kasalek - None Commissioner Stracker - Reported that he enjoyed the Dinosaur Dash. Commissioner Weil - None AD JOURNM]~NT: Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is on November 22, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chairperson Kathleen Clancy Secretary