Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-25-89NINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COPIMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 25, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Le Jeune, Baker, Shaheen, Kasparian Absent: Pont i ous The Director introduced Chris Jackson, a new member of the staff. PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Sector Landscaping Concept Plan for Sectors 10, 11, and 12 APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Recommendation: THE IRVINE COMPANY PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2 AND ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUM) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL SECTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANS FOR SECTORS 10, 11 AND 12 It is recommended that the Planning Commission 1) approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2626, and; 2) approve requested modifications, by minute motion subject to conditions. Commissioner Baker moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page two PUBLIC HEARINGS Tentative Tract Map 13902, Hillside and Design Review 89-08 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: BREN OSGOOD COMPANY I CIVIC PLAZA, STE. 275 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOTS 24, 25, '00', 'UU', 'VV' OF TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN) THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 115 NUMBERED AND 17 LETTERED LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES; APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2677; approve Hillside and Design Review 89-08 by adoption of Resolution No. 2678 and 2680, as submitted or revised; and recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13902 by adoption of Resolution No. 2679, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Staff made corrections to Resolutions 2678 and 2679, as moved. Commissioner Baker noted that the unlocked gates on the paseos was an excellent approach, but he wondered if the staff would be reviewing past applications for reconsideration of gates being allowed on their paseos. The Director replied that the staff's position has not changed regarding the gating of paseos, and staff's recommendation has been consistent with all project reviews. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the irrigation systems include ground sensors or timers for moisture level detection; and if the sensors would be efficient during the rainy season. Staff replied that timers would be installed at the recommendation of the landscpape architect, based upon the type of plant materials installed; and in areas where slopes are more significant, it may be necessary to install additional protection to monitor increased moisture during the rainy season. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the City had a Slope Warranty Program in effect; and if the program would be applicable to this project. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page three The Director replied that in the Grading and Excavation Code there is a requirement that prior to issuance of a grading permit in a hillside area there shall be implementation of a Slope Warranty Program. She noted that the proposed program before the Commission tonight would not be expected to apply to this project. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:20 p.m. Car~ Bren, with Bren Osgood Company, introduced himself and noted that he was avail- able for questions of the Commission. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the ~termination for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2677. 4-0. Environment al Motion carried Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Hillside Review 89-02 and Design Review 89-08 by the adoption of Resolutions No. 2680 and 2678 with the follow- ing changes to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2678: Page one, Item 2.1 should be changed to read "At building plan check submittal please provide:" Page two, Item C line one after "specifications" add "shall be submitted which are" and on line four, after "4.1" add "and 4.3". Page two, Item 3.3 add "Director of Community Development." Page three, Item 4.1 add to the end "to review and approval of the Director of Community Development." Page four, Item 4.2, G add the following sentence to the end "Irrigation timing and/or water regulaton devices shall be installed to protect against over- watering, especially in sloped areas." Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Trat Map 13902 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2679, with revisions to Exhibit A as follows: Page nine, add "0. drainage devices, overwateri ng." Motion caried 4-0. Provisions for the maintenance and repair of slopes and including standards for slope irrigation to prevent 4. Conditional Use Permit 89-29 (Park Abrams) APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: PARK ABRAMS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 15751 ROCKFIELD, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 C/O MR. MARC BINDER MR. AND MRS. MARVIN LEE 50AKMONT LANE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 100 TUSTIN AVENUE C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page four ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTOMOBILE SERVICE SHOPS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission certify the final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2672; and approve Conditional Use Permit 89-28 by adoption of Resolution No. 2673 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the 44 spaces allocated would also allow for the parking of working vehicles awaiting service. Staff replied that the Municipal Code establishes one (1) space for every 500 square feet of service area, which would be available for employees and customers, including cars awaiting service; however, vehicles would not be allowed to be repaired in the parking lot, or be inoperative. The retail area allows one (1) space for every 200 square feet; and the combination of retail and service requires 40 parking spaces. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the elevation was showing an illustration, or if there was a tenant assigned to the center; if the motorcycle shop building was being demolished; and where the City boundary was located. Staff replied that he did not believe there were any tenants established, as yet; that the building would be completely remodeled; and that the City boundary was directly behind this property. The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. Marc Binder, project manager for Park Abrams, introduced himself as available for comments. Commissioner .Kasparian asked if the applicant would have any difficulty raising the parapet six (6) inches. Staff replied that the conditions of the Resolution required that the west elevation be raised to meet the other treatments, and that there is a standard condition requiring any mechanical equipment located on the roof to be a minimum of six (6) inches below the top of the parapet. Mr. Binder replied that the applicant felt that it would provide a better architectural look, and that they would have no problem complying. The public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian questioned Resolution 2673, Exhibit A, Item 1.3 which indi- cates that this is effective "one year from the date of this Exhibit" but that there was no date on the Exhibit. He also inquired as to the meaning of "Wet Signature" as noted in 2.1 A. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page fi ve The Director changed "Exhibit" to "Resolution", as moved. She replied that a "Wet Signature" is the State certification stamp which is placed on each page of the plans by the Civil Instructional Engineers. This is required by the State Architectural Office in lieu of a xerox copy of the stamp. Commissioner Le Jeune requested that the proposed awnings not have copy on them; and if there would be two (2) developments in Tustin with the name "Tustin Plaza". Staff replied that the proposed sign program does not indicate that copy on the awnings is disallowed, but that a condition could be imposed indicating that copy would not be allowed. The Director replied that she would suggest a condition to modify the title so that it does not reflect a current project elsewhere in the City. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to certify the final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2672 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2673 with the following revisions to Exhibit A: Page one, Item 1.3, line two, change "exhibit" to "Resolution" and on line three change "unerway" to "underway". l~-~e four, add: "6.6 No sign copy shall be permitted on the proposed canvas treatment on the proposed project." Motion carried 4-0. 5. Conditional Use Permit 89-30 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: PROTEK ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. 15243 SPRINGDALE AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY P.O. BOX 4159 ORANGE, CA 92613-4159 13922 NEWPORT AVENUE C-1, RETAIL COMMERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF SELF-CONTAINED, MOBILE UNIT TO EXTRACT AND TREAT CONTAMINATED VAPORS AND GROUNDWATER FROM THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1011 EL CAMINO REAL FOR A 12 MONTH TIME PERIOD. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2674, certifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Conditional Use Permit 89-30; and adopt Resolution No. 2675, approving Conditional Use Permit 89-30 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A' as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page six Commissioner Shaheen asked how long the project was e×pected to last; and if the project would be entirely cleaned-up at the end of the period. Staff replied that it should be completed within 6-12 months, but if they have not completed their clean-up within the approved time frame, they must submit a request for continuation at least 30 days prior to expiration of the permit. They must operate the equipment until it meets county standards. Commissioner Kasparian asked why the piping was to be abandoned and why the applicant would not be required to remove the piping when the project is completed. Staff replied that the applicant could abandon the process by pulling the pipe out, pulling out the wells, or filling the pipe with concrete plugs. Also, since some of the piping runs from the equipment to the contaminated site under an alleyway they will be required to sign an agreement with the City agreeing to abandon the piping at their own expense and will have to obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department to go under the public alley. Commissioner Kasparian asked who is required to certify the equipment for efficiency and who monitors the "clean vapor" emitted by the equipment; is this done by the equipment or by the AQMD; also, who checks for proper functioning of the equipment. Staff replied that the applicant is required to obtain the proper permits from the AQMD establishing guidelines for emissions. The applicant would have to provide information as to how this is certified; it is an unmanned facility, but there may be on-board controls. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that the staff report did not indicate the noise level of the equipment; asked for a clarification of the phases of the process. Tony Marraccino, Protek Environmental, Inc., noted that a normal conversation could be carried on within the trailer; at a two (2) foot radius the noise level at all phases was determined to be 68-72 dba; he reviewed the process and phases that the process goes through; noted that the water is recycled, that it is a closed loop system, and that organic compounds go into a holding tank. Commissioner Baker noted that he was sympathetic to the problems of Southern Counties Oil, but also to the neighbors and was concerned with the amount of noise & odors that might occur; he wondered what 68-72 dBa would sound like at 3:00 a.m.; and asked if any equipment would make noise outside of the trailer. Staff commented that 60 dBa was the maximum acceptable noise level at the property line of any complainants. Mr. Marraccino commented that the electrical equipment outside the trailer, the electrical pumps and blower, make noise, but the control building and an eight (8) foot fence are between the equipment and the property line. Examples of noise levels are: 60 dba equals background noise, 65 dBa equals normal conversation, and 75 dBa equals an average factory. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant would be using compressors; and what the highest pressure would be within the system. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page seven Mr. Marraccino replied that there would a small compressor inside the trailer; the compressed air at 150 psi would be the highest pressure. Commissioner Kasparian asked how the exhaust would be monitored and how it would be accomplished; asked if the shut-down procedure would operate sequentially in the event of an electrical failure; and if the air operated shut-down system was inde- pendent of the electrical power. Mr. Marraccino replied that the on-board computer monitors all key points of the operation, including odors and exhaust; it submits the report four (4) times each day; and they submit the information to the AQMD; theoretically nothing should be emitted. He also replied that the emergency shut-off valves were all air-actuated; once the system has pressure in it, if it loses power, it automatically releases the air and shuts down. He noted that it was very similar to blow-out prevention systems on oil well drilling rigs. Commissioner Baker asked if the diesel engine would have minimal exhaust fumes. Mr. Marraccino replied that the diesel boiler was the type used in heating homes and meets all AQMD standards for exhaust fumes. The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant would be allowed to build on the property during the clean-up process. Staff replied that the Orange County Environmental Health Agency would be required to provide authorization to proceed. They anticipate the project moving forward with the appropriate approvals. The Director noted that this was a similar extraction process as in the oil fields when there is development activity. A development can even be occupied once con- struction is completed with the system continuing to operate until final clearance. Commissioner Kasparian asked what constituted completion of the extraction process. Staff replied that completion would be achieved when the level of contaminants being extracted met the criteria established by State law and County regulations. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to certify the Final Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit 89-30 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2674. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Le Jeune abstained). Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 89-30 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2675 as submitted. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Le Jeune abstained). Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page eight OLD BUSINESS 6. Slope WarrantS Program Presentation: Lois E. Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney and Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development. Commissioner Baker asked if the person completing the finish grading would assume liability for the slope. Lois Jeffrey replied that with completion of the finish grading, the developer enters into the five (5) year warranty, and the obligations of the original landowner that did the rough grading would be terminated. The Director commented that this would be for slopes which were altered, not roadways or other areas that were unaltered by the precise grading. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the five (5) year warranty would be for the total life of the warranty regardless of how many graders were involved, or if the five (5) years was per grader. Ms. Jeffrey replied that it was per grader; that every time a slope is altered, the first period is cut off and would start a new five (5) year period. Commissioner Baker asked if only part of a grade was altered, would the developer then warrant everything on the parcel or just the area they altered. Ms. Jeffrey replied that it would only be the areas altered. Their obligations would end with the alteration of slopes, but with respect to other parts they would still be in effect. The Director noted that all of the slopes are subject to hillside review by the Planning Commission, but there is a mechanism for mapping those slopes within the Slope Warranty Program. Commissioner Baker assumed that there may be three different companies liable on one parcel. Ms. Jeffrey replied that it was conceivable, but it was not appropriate to require one party to assume all of that liability; they would all be obligated to perform. Commissioner Baker referred to the Blue Bird Canyon slide in Laguna Beach. Ms. Jeffrey replied that the Blue Bird Canyon slide was a unique situation and would not have been covered by this type of program; there were no CC&R's for the area, and the area was developed before the City was sophisticated in grading ordinances. Commissioner Baker asked how the five (5) year period was determined; and if the program was the same for the County. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page ni ne Ms. Jeffrey replied that based on advise of the City's grading consultant as well as discussions with Bob Ledendecker it was determined that after slopes are installed, there is a reasonable period in which they are most likely to fail; five (5) years was considered to be a good test period. Commissioner Kasparian commented that the main reason for this program was to be concerned with the original grading, and not what happens twenty years from now. Ms. Jeffrey replied that this would apply only if someone was altering warranteed slopes twenty years from now. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Item 3. B. Ms. Jeffrey replied that 3.B was an alternative to 3.A. Ms. Jeffrey reviewed some wording changes for the document: 1) Page 3, 4.A. should have "except where Section 9.C applies." inserted after "(...program)". 9.C refers to the case of an individual lotowner doing minor exempted grading work, whereby the warranty agreement does not terminate, but where the lotowner would first be held responsible. 2) Paragraph 5. line 5, remove landowners; line 6, should be "under Repair Agreement(s) covering the same slopes". 3) Page 4, first line, change "landowner" to "obligor" and add "applicable" after "under". Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification of "repair in a timely manner". Ms. Jeffrey replied that repair should be completed within 30-60 days, depending upon the severity of the problem. The Director noted that the City has the ability under the Notice Procedures in the Grading Ordinance to notify the obligor under the Slope Warranty Program to make whatever repairs need to be made within a time frame. Jay Pierce, Irvine Company, commented that they are in agreement with all but two (2) issues; but noted that they are ready to pull the rough grading permit for the final phase of the project and that the ordinance requires approval of the Slope Warranty Program before the permits will be issued. He made comments on the following: 1) Item 2.A, he felt that the requirement of the Warranty Program being required for slopes of five (5) feet or greater would create administrative problems, and would, therefore, prefer ten (10) foot slopes as a minimum. They feel that ten (10) feet would include the major slopes but would not include backyards, etc. This puts their whole site area into question. 2) Item 2.B. already allows for the City to identify any particular areas that are at risk no matter what height the slope was. 3) Item 3, they feel that the five (5) year period could literally stretch out for many years, which is a big concern of the Irvine Company. This is an unprecedented program, only existing where developers are building on very unstable land, which is not the case in Tustin Ranch. The recommendation by their consultants was 2-3 years, which would be more than ample. Once the Irvine Company completes their rough grading, the developer would assume responsibility, but the Irvine Company intends to be a part of the program to the end. They feel that it is unnecessary to saddle the builders with this obligation. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page ten Richard Hunsaker, Hunsaker & Associates, Civil Engineering firm for the Irvine Company, noted that the slope warranty programs came about after the slope failures of the mid- to late-seventies. His summary of the reasoning for the failures of those slopes was: 1) they were not inspected by soils engineers, nor were there grading permits; 2) they were designed with a safety factor of 1.5:1 (now usually 2:1); 3) landscape material was typically Iceplant, which due to its water-retaining ability, was very heavy and often brought the slope down (now landscape with very light materials); 4) improper drainage devices (now have adequate terrace drains which convey water off of the slopes into drainage systems); 5) slopes that failed were typically 30-50 foot range (10 foot is much more reasonable and easier to admin- ister). He feels that the three (3) year time frame is realistic, which should begin at the completion of rough grade; and that the standards of 1989 are much stricter, the inspections are better, and design of slopes is much better. Robert Break, Latham and Watkins, legal counsel for the Irvine Company, commented that they reviewed the warranty program of San Juan Capistrano, and determined that their program was more of a concept than a program based upon one developer. They also determined that there were no warranty programs within hillside areas of Orange County or Los Angeles. The Irvine Company's major concerns are: 1) to identify those slopes of major concern (10 feet) which would ultimately be the responsibility of the Homeowners Associations; 2) to determine if the Homeowners Associations have the wherewithall to deal with a major displacement, which they backed-up with a land- owner obligation; 3) that a five (5) foot slope would cause administrative problems and is impractical; 4) that their engineers determined that a two (2) year warranty would be ample time for problems to arise, but they will go to three (3) years as a reasonable period. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the $100,000 deposit would not be necessary if an association had a net worth of $1 million; and asked how the net worth of the assoc- iation was determined. Ms. Jeffrey replied that Homeowners Associations do not have to enter into repair agreements unless they are altering their slopes; if they enter into an agreement, then they have to provide security, as noted in Items 6.a. and 6.b. If the associa- tion does not enter into an agreement, the developer of the slope is still liable under the repair agreement, but the homeowners have an obligation to maintain slopes. The landowner or developer is still obligated under the agreement for five (5) years. Mr. Pierce noted that if a Homeowners Association was to take over an agreement, the Irvine Company would have to fund the deposit, since an association could not estab- lish any net worth in the beginning. Ms. Jeffrey commented that the Irvine Company could also agree to guarantee their performance, since they have a net worth of over $1 Million. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Irvine Company's basic premise was to be released from obligation before five (5) years. Mr. Pierce affirmed; and felt that the slopes would be taken care of over the three (3) year period. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the staff's monitoring system. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page el even The Director replied that the system is mapped and certified by the Planning Commission; the information is recorded; and the tracking system is by tracts so that any future alterations subject to hillside review would be reviewed against the previous map system. Ms. Jeffrey commented that the tract reviewed this evening was examined by staff to determine if there were any slopes that would fall within the five (5) foot limit; since it was determined that there were no slopes subject to this program, they were not required to comply. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this issued was determined with the final tract map for the sections. The Director replied that under the new grading ordinances in conjunction with a tract map the Commission would be required to review the grading concept under the hillside review procedures. Prior to issuance of any subsequent permits that altered that grading, the matter would return to the Commission for hillside review. Projects that are exempt would be those with less than 200 cubic yards of dirt being moved, and if a sloped area has less than a five (5) foot deep cut and five (5) foot deep fill. Mr. Break noted that this is not an ultimate liability statute, but a requirement to deal with emergency repairs while the liability issue is being resolved. If the grading was performed with the Irvine Company, and it was defective, the Irvine Company's liabililty would be in place much longer than three (3) years. Mr. Pierce noted that the time of review of the slopes is at a tentative tract map stage, with plans being done on a large scale; the Irvine Company is responsible for longer than three (3) years; they feel that they will be more harmed if there is a problem in the area; and that they will be available until the very end. The Director rebutted the arguments of the Irvine Company she indicated that just because the proposed program is the only model to deal with this type of problem, does not mean that it is unnecessary; even when slopes have been designed by soils engineers, weather conditions can result in slope failures; the program attempts to provide a solution to a problem that the City knows would be a potential risk; the City would not be comfortable with any test period that doesn't begin until after the landscaping is fully installed and final release is made on all grading activities; the five (5) year period is appropriate based upon advice of the City's grading consultant; the City's Public Works Director is also concerned with protecting the public right-of-way, particularly in areas adjacent to slopes. She noted that the recommended five (5) year Slope Warranty term does not relate to how the slope was designed. The slope failures that the City is concerned about relate to rainfall patterns, which tend to run in five (5) year cycles and tend to cause more damage when there is light-to-moderate rainfall over an extended period of time (i.e. a week). This will result in saturation and sets the stage for bedding plain failures. The County also has indicated that it is unlikely that within a three (3) year time period that the conditions would exist to test the slopes adequately under weather conditions noted above; over a five (5) year cycle there would be a 60-70% chance of the proper test conditions occuring; the City's grading Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page twelve consultant, soil and geotechnical engineer and public works department concur with the five (5) year terms. Regarding the argument about administration of five (5) foot versus 10 (ten) foot slopes, the Director noted that the City staff have been trained to determine slope size and are able to determine those impacted by the program. In summarizing, the Director reinforced that the five (5) year Slope Warranty term was extremely important, section 2.C. of the document allows the Commission to add slopes to the program. She felt that since current grading ordinances are not state-of-the-art, but standard practice, some of the information presented by the Irvine Company representatives was incorrect and oversimplified, irrespective of whether the proposed program was a unique program to Orange County. She indicated that the program was a good one that she would expect other cities to use as an ideal, reflecting the quality of the work done in the City of Tustin. Ms. Jeffrey commented that the program was unique, but a good one. Contrary to Mr. Break's comments, the San Juan Capistrano (SJC) program is part of the SJC City Ordinance. The Tustin program does not have as many exceptions which were in response to issues made by the Irvine Company; the SJC program, dealing with other situations, lasts 10 and 15 years; Placentia requires an additional one (1) year bond beyond their normal bond; there is nothing in this program that is beyond standard practice for agreements; and the City Attorney's office is comfortable with the program. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the program would be submitted to the City Council for approval. The Director replied that it would only be forwarded if it was appealed. Commissioner Baker commented that the warranty was created based upon past problems; however, if a company is producing a good product, he felt that a warranty was not a critical factor, but would be instrumental if a problem did occur. Commissioner Kasparian felt that it was all right to introduce a new program as long as it has substance; he felt that the main thrust of the warranty was to overcome the beginning period of determining responsibility for slope failures so that the problem could be resolved; and that they could possibly consider a three (3) year term for five (5) foot slopes, and extend the period to five (5) years for riskier grades; he asked the Irvine Company for a clarification of the degree of a five (5) foot slope. Commissioner Le Jeune did not feel that the five (5) foot height would create an undo hardship, and felt that the the program should be adopted as submitted by staff. Mr. Hunsaker replied that a five (5) foot slope would have a 26.5-30° grade. Commissioner Kasparian felt that 26.5-30° grade would be too severe, and decided to go with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve the Slope Warranty Program by Minute Motion. Motion carried 3-0 (Shaheen absent). Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Page thirteen NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS ® Request for the Planning Commission to provide possible workshop dates for Pacific Center East Specific Plan. A tentative workshop date was set for the workshop on October 9, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. 8. City Council Actions - September 18, 1989 meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COI~ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Kasparian asked the status of the Sign Code. The Director responded that the Committee should have a final draft ready for the Commission the first part of November. Commissioner Baker noted the increased amount of traffic in the City and asked if anything was being done. The Director provided an update on the impact of Cal Trans construction and on the proposed Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Santa Ara. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he had received a package from the FDA regarding Laser Light shows. He would review this information and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that Home Depot had things stored above the fence level. He also noted that there was a shoe store in the Marshall's center with illegal signs and flashing lights. The Director responded that these items would be referred to Code Enforcement. Commissioner Le Jeune asked that notices of City meetings be sent to the Commissioners. ADgOURNMENT Penni Foley Sec ret a ry At 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn to a Dinner/ Workshop on the Pacific Center East Specific Plan Project on October 9, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. and then to the next regular meeting .a~amex~)te~. ~j..~~~.~(~(~ Leslie Anne Pont4ous Chairman