Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-14-89MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COIINISSION REGULAR MEETING August 14, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Ponttous, Le Jeune, Baker, Shaheen, Kaspartan 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 July 24, 1989 Planning Commission meeting Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carr)e~ 5-0. Staff introduced two new planners to the Commissioners, Ann Bonner and Sara Pashalides. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance 89-09 (Dynachem) APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. TERRENCE MCRELL MORTON THIOKOL, INC. DYNACHEM DIVISION 2631MICHELLE DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 2631MICHELLE DRIVE PC-IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY - INDUSTRIAL) THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 5) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM 389 SPACES TO 357 TO ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF MEZZANINE AREA FOR AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page two Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Variance 89-09 by adoption of Resolution No. 2653. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to continue Variance 89-09 September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Amendment of Use Permit 87-29 to the APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: STEELCASE 1123 WARNER AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 C/O MS. JAN CIANO 1123 WARNER AVENUE PC-IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY-INDUSTRIAL) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFOEMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZE INSTALLATION OF THREE (3) NEW UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS TO CONTAIN XYLENE, WASTE XYLENE, AND RESIN. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify the final Negative Declaration for the project as adequate by adoption of Resolution No. 2649, 2) Approve Amendment to Use Permit 87-29 by adoption of Resolution No. 2650. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked if the concrete vault would still be above the water table. Staff replied that it would still be about 7 or 8 feet above the water table. Commissioner Kasparian asked if Cal OSHA would be one of the departments that will review'~c~e i6stallation; and he wondered how the applicant would detect leakage into the vault. Staff replied that he thought OSHA would be involved with some of the requirements of emergency equipment and exits; and that he did not know what equipment was proposed for leakage detection, and that it should be referred to the applicant. Commissioner Kasparian noted that Item C-2 of Resolution 2650 indicated zoning regulations and development standards for the Irvine Industrial Complex, and wondered how that pertained to this application. Staff replied that the Irvine Industrial Complex standards require a conditional use permit for installation of storage tanks of flammable and combustible materials; this application satisfies this requirement for a permit. Commissioner Kaspartan suggested that there was wording in Exhibit A that should possibly be changed. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page three Staff replted that, In discussion with the Director, they decided that since it was a standard condition approved by the Commission tn entirety, it should first be taken back to them for revtew and concurrence. The public hearing was opened at 7:15 p.m. Jan Ciano, Steelcase representative, noted that leakage detection would be accom- plished by both manual Inspections within the vaults and tank leveling guages. Commissioner Kasparian reinforced his concern about leakage within the vault and wanted to know how' they would detect any leakages upon the bottom of the vault. He also wanted to know if the monitoring equipment would be a redundant system whereby if one fails the other one maintains the monitoring; he is concerned due to the nature of the toxicity and flammability of the chemicals. Also, he inquired as to whether the Commission could receive the information without compromising the schedule for completion; he felt that he would ultimately like to view the equipment. Ms. Ctano replied that it would be by manual inspections which are done approximately twice each week. She replied that the actual monitoring equipment has not been selected yet, only the type; and that the equipment would have checks built into it. She noted that at this point they are asking for approval of the concept, and that the design would be reviewed by an environmental design firm. Staff noted that they would be working with the applicant through the plan check process. Staff will report back to the Commission with the information requested. Commissioner Baker asked what Xylene was used for. Ms. Clano replied that it is used in the paint process both as a thinner and a cleaner. The public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked where in the amendment conditions would be concerning the fire marshall. Staff replied that all plans for new building construction require review by the fire department prior to issuance of any permits. Condition 2.1C refers to the require- merits of the fire marshall. Lois Jeffrey noted that Item 10, page 3 of the attachment to the Negative Declara- tion allows for the City's review of the design of the concrete vault and insure that the proper monitoring is available, and the design standards have been met. However, it does not insure that the monitoring systems are redundant. Staff suggested that a condition be added that the review of final working drawings be brought back to the Commission as an information item on the Consent Calendar prior to the issuance of permits. This would allow the Commissioners to review the final working drawings and hopefully satisfy their concerns. This could be done concurrently with progression of the project. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that this plan was a much better package than previously presented. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page four Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to certify the final Negative b~lar~on for the project as adequate by ~he adoptlon of Resolution No. 2649. Morton carrted 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Amendment to Use Permtt ~7-29 by the adoption of Re~olutton No. 2650 with the following revision: add Item "1.6 The final working drawings shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission as an informational item prior to the issuance of any permits." Motion carried 5-0. 4. Extension of a Temporary Use Permit APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DAVID WILSON, PRESIDENT TUSTIN LEXUS 30 AUTO CENTER DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 LOTS 31 AND 32 OF TRACT 12870 (PHASE III AREA OF EAST TUSTIN) PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEQA EXTENSION OF A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve an extension of a Temporary Use Permit, by minute motion for 6 months. Presentation: Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Juene asked if these were the banners that are on the building at this time. Commissioner Baker asked if this was the Mitsubishi dealership location, and if the banners were the only condition of the application. Staff replied that the banners are the only reason for the temporary use permit. Since the applicant will be moving to another site in the near future, he would like to have banners at this location instead of permanent signs. Commissioner Baker asked if the reference in conclusion of the staff report that states ~'...six months or until completion..." meant that the applicant would have to return after six months if the new facility was still uncompleted. Staff replied that that statement was added so that the applicant would not have to return if the new facility was not completed within the six months. The public hearing was opened at 7:27 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve, by Minute Order, authori- zation of the extension of a Temporary Use Permit at 30 Auto Center Drive for: post- ing of three (3) banners for a period of up to six months or until completion of construction for the Lexus Dealer at 45 Auto Center Drive, whichever period is less. All banners shall be securely affixed to a building. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page five 5. Use Permit 89-09 LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TUSTIN AUTO CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TUSTIN AUTO CENTER DEALER'S ASSOCIATION % MC LEAN CADILLAC/DAIHATSU ONE AUTO CENTER DRIVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 PLANNED COMMUNITY - TUSTIN AUTO CENTER CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 11 TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL TUSTIN AUTO CENTER MASTER SIGN PROGRAM TO ALLOW: 1) MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING FREEWAY MONOLITH SIGN; 2) INSTALLATION OF SEVEN, DOUBLE-FACED VEHICLE MAKE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ALONG THE FREEWAY; 3) INSTALLATION OF TWO, DOUBLE FACED DEALER DIRECTORIES, ONE AT EACH OF THE CENTER ENTRIES AND 4) MODIFY THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM TO ALLOW VARIOUS TYPES OF TEMPORARY SIGNS Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 89-09 with the modifications suggested by staff by the adoption of Resolution No. 2654 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Staff made a few minor changes to the staff report, as moved. Commissioner Baker asked about the signs leading people to the Auto Center. Staff replied that small blue signs have been installed by the Public Works Depart- ment; they are not impacted by this program since they are part of 1985 agreement. She noted that the partial completion of the Jamboree intersection within the next 12 to 15 months will help people get to the auto center. Commissioner Baker asked how visible the new shorter signs would be from the south- bound lanes of the freeway. Staff noted that the signs would be raised in landscape berms along the freeway and would be visible. Commissioner Kasparlan asked if this Exhibit A would supercede the 1985 package. Staff replied that the Exhibit requires the applicant to revise the Master Sign Program in accordance with any conditions of the Resolution and to create a new Master Sign Program, thereby making the 1985 package null and void. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page six B111 Pope, the Dealer's representative, noted that the dealers have lived with the Auto Center for three (3) years; they are sttll growing and 1991 should be thetr first full operating year. They are the only auto center that ts completely walled In; they have only one (1) major project stgn, which Is unreadable and currently unllt; they have at present no major access; they cannot be seen from the freeway; other auto centers get attention--they would like attention, too, without appearing garish. Their goals are: to make the buyer remember where the Auto Center Is; to provtde easy access and stgnage for the customers; to have better freeway slgnage; to provtde two (2) Identification signs at each of the entrtes; and to get a more uniform approach to promotional slgnage. There are three tssues on the proposed program on which they do not yet agree wtth staff: 1) They would 11ke to retatn the routed letters on the monolith Instead of channeled letters. They feel that tt Is compatible, a cleaner destgn, more maintenance-free, and less costly; that the canned letters have a cluttered look, lend themselves to vandalism, and requtre more maintenance. 2) They like the cream colored background, but that the earthtone colors blend too closely to the cream background. The proposed stgn Is a neutral background with vibrant colors of magenta and turquoise accent. They feel that the magenta letters work well wtth the red ttle roofs and that the turquoise accent stripe follows the Spantsh color palette, wtth both bringing life to the sign. They feel that the signs are simple, compatible, and In good taste. 3) They would 11ke balloons and flags to be allowed for short durations of 30 days only. The program has written language to enforce that the Association wtll police the dealerships. The balloons would not be seen from outstde the walls. The promotional aspect ts very Important to the dealerships. Commissioner Baker noted that Mr. Pope stated that balloons would not be visible outside the walled area. He asked if cold air balloons would be allowed. Mr. Pope replied that small balloons and flags would not be visible since they would be below the roofs. As part of the program, cold air balloons would be permitted as part of an Association promotion. The association would have to apply to the City for approval. As part of individual dealership promotions, cold air balloons would not be allowed. Commissioner Ponttous stated that under the original plan cold air balloons may have been allowed~ but wondered if with adoption of this new plan they would be approved. Staff replied that according to the language of the new program, cold air balloons are not allowed for individual dealer promotions, but would be permited balloons (type or size unspecified) for the center-wide promotions. Commissioner Shaheen asked Mr. Pope for a clarification of the specific areas of ~o~flict. Mr. Pope replied that the areas of conflict are canned letters versus routed letters, staff-recommend colors versus magenta/turquoise, and small balloons and small flags for individual dealers. There are two types of promotions: 1) Association promotions requiring City approval; and 2) small promotions for individual dealers. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page seven Mike McLean, McLean Cadillac, stated that their purpose as an Association was to sell cars and be a state-of-the-art Auto Center. They bought into the center knowing that it was a walled-in center but with adequate signage. In early discussions with the Irvlne Company, they expressed concerns that the monolith lettering was too small, it was unexciting, and only the size attracted attention. It is not doing the job they require it to do. People drive right by it because it blends too well into the community. The turquoise highlight attracts attention and the magenta lettering and blends well with the surrounding community. They do not intend to clutter the sign with lettering, only auto makes such as Acura, Ford, Cadillac, Toyota, etc. The pictures presented to the Commission show Harbor Boulevard of Cars and various signs Including a red tent sale, without continuity. The next picture of the Garden Grove Auto Center shows through signage what they are selling. Tusttn dealer's are not asking for a rolling marquis, only one set of colors with one type of lettering. They need a little life to the sign, though, showing who they are and what they do. They have lost the Mitsubishi dealership. Relocating dealerships bring a body of business that is established, but new dealers have trouble becoming profitable. Dealers must promote continuously to provide excitement to the potential buyers. If a dealership does not look exciting, the buyer will go elsewhere. The ability to promote and breed the atmosphere of excitement means a lot to the auto business. If they were not allowed to promote, they could lose 30-40% of the business, the buyers will go elsewhere. The center will be spending $25,000 per month on TV advertising, Cerritos Auto Center spends $100,000 per month--to promote buyers to come to their centers. He noted that 1991 will be their first full operating year, with people knowing that they are there. At that time, they expect the Auto Center to have revenues in excess of $400 million. It is what Fashion Island and South Coast Plaza each brought in in 1988. The Auto Center can do that with half of the acreage, and considerably less demand on City services. All they ask is to have the visibility they require. At this time, it is difficult to differentiate to tell them from housing tract next to them. With the product line to do that, they feel that $200 million in sales is an inadequate job. They believe that they can be much better than that, and with the program presented, a little attention to the signage and promotional aspects, they believe they can do it. Commissioner Shaheen commented that he felt that it was an integral part of the community based upon sales revenues, and wondered if the areas of conflict noted by Mr. McLean agreed with Mr. Pope. He felt that based upon the way the other dealerships "stick out like a sore thumb" the Commission ought to make a special attempt to cooperate with the Auto Center on the four (4) points involved, even if it required a committee be formed for additional study. Commissioner Ponttous stated that she felt that the issues could be decided upon tonfght. Mr. McLean replied that they were working as a unit, but that his particular point was that they needed some attention along the freeway, which would be provided by the colors on the sign. He commented that they felt that Tusttn provided a special community and did not want to hurt it, only to help it. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page eight Commissioner Baker asked how tall the sign was along the Garden Grove Freeway. Mr. McLean replied that he guessed it to be 60-75 feet tall; it is taller than their sign. Staff brought two points to the Commission's attention: 1) In the package presented to staff balloons for individual dealers was not recommended, but was reconmended for center-wide promotions only. She felt that Dealers at tonights meeting were actually asking for a reverse of that--balloons for the individual promotions, but not the center-wide promotions. Mr. Reed Chessler, Team McPherson, felt that the large presence of interested parties should lead the Commission to understand the urgency of the Auto Center to make some- thing happen. They have lost one dealer with a great deal of experience who felt that the problem was that the traffic that did not come to the dealership. They do not want to be obtrusive to the community; they feel that Tustin Auto Center is a model, perhaps for the nation, of what a good auto center should be. With the proper road access and signage, they could experience what is good for them and the City. In their opinion, Tustin staff is one of the most cooperative and most interested in listening to the problems of any governmental agency they've worked with. He feels that it is time to stop listening, though, and time to put up signs so that the survivors can begin to prosper and maintain their visability in the community. The public hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous was concerned about the individual dealership identification on the frontage. With the freeway dividers, she wondered if the dealerships felt that there was a visibility problem. Mr. Pope replied that the signs can be seen from the southbound side of the freeway. Commissioner Baker felt that the road bed of the freeway would be substantially higher with the reconstruction, allowing the signs to be that much more visible. Mr. Pope noted that the existing berm will be moved out to the roadway which will allow further elevation to work with. Commissioner Baker commented that this project has not requested brightly colored signs to be installed on the outside walls like Garden Grove or others. He feels that the sample looks clean, and does not have a problem with a little turquoise line. Commissioner Shaheen asked the Director if the Commission could approve the applica- tion and then work out a compromise. The Director replied that the staff was prepared to make changes this evening at the Commission's direction. The issues involved are: proposed colors, no pop-out letters for the signs, and the balloons and flags. Commissioner Pontlous asked for a consensus of the three issues and asked for comments. Planntng Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page nine Commissioner Pontlous felt that the actual slgnage itself was a clean look. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that he felt that there was so little of the turqulose color requested and that it needs a ltttle accent; and asked if other applications are approved for balloons, specifically small balloons; and if the banners requested were the types that gas stations would use. Staff replied that there was only one other occasston that staff wsa aware of where a balloon was permitted, and that was under specific direction of the Council. Small balloons are only permitted within a building. Large or small balloons are not permitted outside the buildings. Banners are permitted. The Auto Center would like the banners and pennants which would be aflxed to the wall. At this point, they were asking for two things: 1) Balloons for center-wide promotions, which is in the package; and 2) the abtltty to have small balloons for the individual dealer promotion package, which was not submitted in the staff report. They would also like string flags or individual flags for everyone. Commissioner Ponttous noted that in the staff report under Center Promotions and Individual Dealer Displays, Item 1 stated that "No flags or balloons of any type are to be permitted." Staff replied that staff suggests that the balloon portion of both packages should not be approved at this time since they do not allow it for other businesses. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they should ask the Association how they intend to use the balloons, if they are attached to the autos, etc. Staff replied that they have not yet made proposals, but that during the center-wide promotions they would have the opportunity to post large or small balloons. The Director noted that there are actually two separate issues: small helium balloons and large cold air balloons. The previous direction from the Commission has been not to approve string balloons, small balloons, or the large heltum balloons. The Commission has maintained this decision, except in specific circumstances that were approved by the City Council. Staff acknowledged that the Auto Center wtll be a major revenue producer for the community. However, to tsolate the dealerships on the balloon issue and allow them to be granted a temporary use permit for balloons will set a precedent for all the other businesses within the community who wtll want the same treatment. If the Commission is going to take action in authorizing the balloons, the Commission needs to recognize the precedent and realize that if they are going to do it for one type of business they should do it for all. All busineses need to be treated fairly and consistently. Balloons could be easily argued to be just as important to the small businessman. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a clarification on the differences in balloons, and flags and banners. The Director replied that as far as permitting balloons, they are all equal; string flags are not permitted; banners are permitted. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page ten Commissioner Kasparlan commented that he felt that balloons or pennants do not attract him that the main concern is to be able to recognize that there is an auto center as you drive along the freeway. Once in the Auto Center, he could not see how a dealership with balloons and flags would outdraw one without balloons or flags. He was personnally against the balloons and flags, as they are not constructive, and are not in keeping with the way they would like Tusttn to look. Commissioner Baker felt that the Auto Center has been at a disadvantage due to Tustin Ranch Road being unavailable, and that they need some attraction and direction. In the auto business they try to get customers to drive by their dealeships, and he wondered if a temporary use permit until Tustin Ranch Road is completed would be a compromise. They have invested a lot into their businesses and the City. He wanted to know what the City could do to help them pull in customers. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that nothing would be visible outside the walls, anyway. Staff noted that if a cold air balloon was even mounted at ground level, it would be visible from outside the walls. At this point, staff supports allowing each dealer to each post one (1) banner on the outside perimeter walls for temporary time periods during the year. Banners are consistent with the opportunities allowed every other business in town. Commissioner Pontlous noted that the banners could be colorful, thereby attracting attention. Commissioner Le Jeune felt that during a promotion, each dealership might be competing with each other. Staff replied that they would be allowed to post banners inside the center as long as they did not exceed one per street front. Those dealerships with two street fronts in the center would be allowed to have two (2) banners on the building and one (1) on each of the perimeter roads. Commissioner Baker asked if that meant on the freeway as well, which would provide color to th~'w~ll. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the banners would be allowed on the buildings or walls, stnc~ the amount of trees in the illustration would probably limit visibility of the signs along the walls. Staff replied that the banners would be allowed on the freeway, E1 Camino Real and Tustin Ranch Road. They would be allowed on the building or a wall, as long as it is securely affixed below the roof. She felt that the illustration did not reasonably replicate the landscaping of the walls. Dealers have had banners along the freeway which have been very visible. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that they will need signs along the freeway, since the' banners that have been there have not been well maintained. Staff replied that a condition could be revised so that the landscaping does not limit visibility of the signage, and so that it does not become a problem. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page eleven Commissioner Pontlous felt that a permanent banner locatton would be the 1deal solution. Permanent ftxtures could be Installed to asstst In Installation. The Dtrector replted that it would be the perfect solution. The Commission would be allowing the dealers to post a banner on a quarterly basis for up to 120 days per year. This could be worked wtth the design committee on a temporary use permit without granting a condition to that effect. Commissioner Ponttous noted that the concurrence of the Commission seems to be to approve the lettering and signage colors proposed by the Association, but to continue the Ctty's prohibition on flags and balloons as recommended by staff. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparlan seconded to approve Use Permit No. 89-09 by the adoption of Resolution No. 26~4 ~tt~ the following revisions to Exhibit A: Delete Item 3.2 and renumber accordingly; Add to the newly numbered Item 3.3 "E. All banners and pennants shall be securely affixed to a building or wall. All such banners or pennants shall be located below the roof, parapet or wall line." Add to the newly numbered Item 3.4 "F. All banners and pennants shall be securely afflxed to a building or wall. All such banners or pennants shall be located below the roof, parapet or wall line." Motion carried 5-0. 6. De~tgn Review 87-37 and Amendment to Use Permit 87-30 APPLICANT: ONNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 NORTH ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE, TUSTIN MARKET PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MIXED USE COMMERCIAL THE PRESENT PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2) WHICH SERVES AS A PROGRAM EIR FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. APPROVAL OF: (1) THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR THE THEATRE/RETAIL COMPLEX IN THE NORTH ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE AND; (2) AN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF TOWER ELEMENTS OVER 50 FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE FROM FIVE TO SIX. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page twelve Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2655, certifying that Final EIR 85-2 for the East Tusttn Specific Plan is adequate to serve as the Program EIR for this project; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2656, approving the design review for the theatre/retail complex for the North Entertainment Village subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto as submitted or revised, and amending Use Permit 87-30 to increase the number of tower elements over 50 feet in height in the Entertainment Village from five to six, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit B, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the report of January 1988 authorized five (5) towers up to 70 feet high; and are these towers larger or smaller in relation to the building as compared to Phase I. Staff replied that in Phase I, the towers are 50 feet tall, the buildings are 35 feet and the ltght towers are 90 feet; the ortglnal approval for the five towers tn the Entertainment Village was for 70 feet; the four (4) laser light towers have been requested at 60 feet; The towers now considered are proposed at 65 feet; they are certainly larger in horizontal dimensions than the plan that was presented in January 1988; they were presented with a much taller and thinner look, akin to the ltght towers; these towers are much larger. The Director noted that the whole concept was basically changed; there were four (4) laser towers and one (1) at the center of the village to act as a focal point; what the Commission approved in January 1988 was not a building tower, but part of the full system of lighting towers; and that they what was being recommended this evening was just adding a tower, but changing the architectural design as originally proposed and and modifying the previous approval of towers. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the laser towers were poles. Staff replied that the laser towers were lO-foot triangular shaped structures. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was confused on the size as compared to Phase I and asked if these towers are 15 feet higher and almost the same width. Staff agreed that the tower at the entrance to the movte theater would be similar in width and depth, but be approximately 15 feet higher than the highest tower on Stor or Home Depot in Phase I. The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Glenn Myers, Donahue Shriber, noted that he was the "culprit" that authorized the ~inting of the auto sculpture. However, when staff notified him of the error, he then notified the contractor to stop work. It was not their intention to paint outside of the approved area. The pink color is intended only to act as a fine line accent on the inside of the sculpture. Planntng Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page thirteen Leason Pomero¥, project architect, made the following comments regarding the project: The design challenge was that of scale; it has not been done before on this much land; the types of stores represented are typically stand-alone, but they have created a collection on 77 acres; the towers are there to bring scale to this regional shopping center; in Phase I the tower was 50 feet, the buildings are 35 feet, and the first four (4) light towers are 90 feet with over 77 acres for the peoject he felt that 90 feet was not tall; Entertainment Village towers are proposed at 65 feet high and the buildings will be 46 feet since the initial approval of the project they have been redesigning the concept of the project to fit the needs of tenants; the original light towers were to be 70 feet high, but are now 60 feet high; the theatre entry tower to be 65 feet tall will be open all the way up with escalators and stairs; the theater which is on the second floor uses the tower for access; the second tower in the building mass is necessary at the 65 foot height to break up the mass; they wanted to identify the Village with the tower on that side, so that it is visible from the auto sculpture, on E1 Camino Real and break the horizontal line of the 46 foot building with a vertical element. He is the architect of record and he highly recommends the tower height. He feels that the auto sculpture colors were a fluke, but that the reasons for the color in the slots is symbolic, showing a square that has been ruptured with the cracks opened up exposing a brilliant color or activity. The pink color shows activity and will introduce the public to the colors that they would experience closer to the shops. The exterior color of the auto sculpture will ultimately be green when landscaping is full grown (he felt that the creeping fig would grow very quickly). In the interim, they would like the exterior auto sculpture wall not to be white, but would rather they paint it terra cotta. The public hearing was closed at 9:02 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt that the towers were too high; and that they should reduce all of the towers. Comadsstoner Pontlous noted that she would like to see the proposed sign for Edwards, s't~6e tt will have an affect on the overall look; and tf they lowered the building, they would sttll have the color to break up the building. Conmntsstoner Shaheen felt that the height of the building was a minor issue, and that they would be breaking up the architectural design if they lowered the towers. Commissioner Kasparian asked about the laser show, and the laser around the ~rtmeter. ~e noted that the lasers being used were Class 4 lasers, which are very dangerous; he wanted to see the applicant address safety aspect of the mounting of the laser, and how it is to be made safe for the operator and pedestrians; also the possible danger of mirrors moving; if this has not already been addressed, he would like it included in the Resolution. Mr. Pomero¥ replied that the conceived idea was to have a blue line around the perimeter and a laser production inside the center. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page fourteen Commissioner Pontlous commented that she felt that the ltght tan color, number 1 on the color board (~at has not been approved), could be approved for use as It has been Indicated on the drawings for the one area requested. She would like It to be clear tn the conditions that tt could be used only as they have represented tt, and not altered to other areas. Staff replied that Item 3.2 of Resolution 2656 stated that "Building colors...shall adhere to those "hues" displayed on the "7/10/89 Color Board" ..."Use of the three tan colors shall conform to the use as shown on the plans dated 8/14/89 .... " Commissioner Ponttous asked tf the Commission would see the ftnal plans of the patio area, where there might be proposed servtng of alcoholic beverages by restaurants. She felt that tt was clear that there will be alcoholic beverages, and they wtll want to serve them on the patto. She wanted to be sure that restrictions were tncluded tn the Conditions consistent wtth ABC and Ctty standards. Staff replied that any application for alcoholic beverages would come back as a conditional use permit request, a condition could be added giving consideration to compliance with any ABC conditions. Commissioner Shaheen felt that this was a separate issue and asked how this related to the approval of the design of the building. Commissioner Pontlous replied that open patio areas foar restaurants it was part of the pres~Etation, and she felt her comments were appropriate. The Director responded to Commissioner Kasparlan's concerns about the laser safety and noted that 3.14 would be modified to reflect the safety issues, as moved. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to certify that Final EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific PlaE is adequate to serve as the Program EIR for this project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2655 as submitted. Motion carried 4-1 (Shaheen). Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparlan seconded to approve Design Review 87-37 and Use ~ermit 87-30 by adoption of Resolution No. 2656 requiring elimination of one of the requested towers, revised as follows: 3.14 The applicant shall submit plans for any and all external displays involving the use of unshielded light bulbs, festoons, strings of open light bulbs and/or open, exposed neon or gaseous light tubing for review and approval by the Planning Commission. Said proposal shall address location, design, colors and hours of operation. 4.4 Provide details in patio areas to ensure that outdoor restaurant seating has been evaluated to determine appropriateness of outdoor sale of alcoholic beverages. In the event it is destreable to sell alcohol in these areas, plans should be prepared to ensure application of mitigation measures to ensure compliance with Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) requirements. Motion carried 4-1 (Shaheen). 7. Amendment to Use Permit 88-15 APPLICANT: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page fifteen Oh~iER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: COMMERCIAL EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIXED USE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO 11) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS OF SECTION 15311(a) OF THE REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND THE APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve an amendment to the Tus~i'n' Market Place Sign Program by adopting Resolution No. 2657, subject to the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Associate Planner Staff recommended that the Commission continue the hearing to the meeting of August 28, based upon changes that the applicant would like to make to their sign program proposal. This will allow staff time to revise their resolution appropriately. The Director noted that since it was a public hearing, she felt that the Commission may want to provide comment and direction to the applicant on the project identification color issue in question. Staff gave a brief account of the background of the staff report, allowing the Commission to understand the issues in question. Commissioner Ponttous noted that they would be willing to look at other colors, but felt that the colors they were proposing would possibly not give the contrast that was necessary. The Director replied that while the best approach would be to have the applicant provide a range of alternatives at the next meeting, the applicant would like to discuss the color recommended with hopes of persuading the Commission. The Commission has the opportunity to discuss the matter at this point, and with the information presented, staff would like the Commission to provide direction to the applicant. Commissioner Pontlous noted that she would like to see more alternatives that might provide them with good visibility, but not use colors that have been proven to be sensitive. She was not sure that tan and purple are appropriate nor that what's recommended by the applicant provides the contrast that they need. Commissioner Baker commented that he was not excited about the purple at all. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page sixteen Commissioner Shaheen felt that he did not like tan on purple or purple on tan; and even if the colors are compatible, the combination would not allow enough contrast to be able to read the sign. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if they could be presented with a sample of alternative colo~s when the"~s~e came before the Commission, so that they could see what the contrastsreally look like. Mr. Pomero¥ noted that the beige background being light, and the purple free-standing letters being dark, there was a considerable amount of contrast. The original wall had much more contrast with purple letters on a white background. Their reason for this issue is that the designers and tenants are totally frustrated; they are not as proud of the center as when they started; there is a lot of work yet to be done, and they would like to get it back on schedule. Commissioner Shaheen felt that there must be some way to expedite the matter due to any delays that have occurred. He asked where the conflict actually lay. The Director noted that the complete application for the sign program was not submitted until July 25, and that staff scheduled it within a very tight timeframe. Staff are responding expeditiously recognizing that the tenants do need signage. In trying to expedite the matter staff have brought the issues to the Commission as soon as they could. Delays have ben as a result of the applicant; the purple color was painted out as late as September 1988. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they were voting on a Resolution. Commissioner Pontlous replied that they were voting to continue this until August 28, at the'applicant's request. Commissioner Le Jeune commented that this has been a very unusual project, and felt that everyone has been doing their best to accomodate each other. He felt the developer needs to keep in mind that the City has citizenry that has questions. He also felt that there have been basic problems with the developer's performance: the first building was painted the wrong color, the Home Depot tower was painted an unapproved color; the auto sculpture had a problem; there are colored lights on Jamboree Road. He feels the Planning Commission has been expeditious. Mr. Pomeroy replied that he hoped that they all wanted a successful project that is recognized for its successes. He hoped that they would not get caught up in petty items, because that is when the split occurs. They need a majority that believes in the common good. He felt that it was interesting and did not agree that the Planning Commission should be able to override his professional judgment on the height of the tower since he was an architect registered by the State of California and had experience in these matters. Commissioner Shaheen suggested that the applicant can appeal the decision to the City Council. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue the Amendment to Use Permit 88-15' to the August 28th ~ee(lng per the applicant's request. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page seventeen 8. O~sl~n Review 89-54 and Use Penntt 89-16 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUE ST: TARLOS & ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF EL POLLO LOCO 17802 MITCHELL IRVINE, CA 92714 THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 3002 EL CAMINO REAL (TUSTIN MARKET PLACE) PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIXED USE COMMERCIAL THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2) WHICH SERVES AS A PROGRAM EIR FOR THIS PROJECT, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 2,803 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE-THRU WINDOW IN THE SOUTH ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 2651, certifying that Final EIR 85-2 is adequate to serve as the Program EIR for the subject project; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2652, approving Design Review 89-54 and Use Permit 89-16 for the E1 Pollo Loco restaurant, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker asked if the red inset is a standard corporate color for entranceways to an E1 Pollo Loco. Staff replied that he had seen both red and yellow, but was not sure about either color individually. The color board for the center does provide a yellow, but did not know if it was the correct tone. The Director replied that the color board shows the choices of hues available. The exposed neon that would frame the inset is proposed as red, and the stgnage could also pull in red. Even if the inset was yellow, there would still be red stgnage to contrast. Commissioner Shaheen commented that the new color board differs from the sketch, and asked if the color board was the actual color that is proposed. Staff replied that the sketch was an innacurate representation, but that the color board was correct. Commlssoner Kasparian asked if 11 feet access lane was too narrow for large trucks. Staff replied that staff would be more comfortable with 12 feet, which is a standard traffi c wi dth. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page eighteen The Director noted that, based on recommendations of the Engineering Department, staff is asking for 12 feet and the entryway throat increased to 14 feet. Commissioner Pontious asked if there could be a slight down-grade into the trash enclosure to assist in reducing the visibility from E1Camtno Real. The Director replied that a down-grade would not work, since the trash bins are quite heavy. She suggested that a berm might accomplish this, as well as landscape modifi- cations which might provide sufficient screening. Commissioner Kasparian asked if pedestrians entering must always cross the driveway; if there was no sidewalk access leading in; and if there would be any legal obliga- tions if there was an accident there. He asked if the Commission would not actually be approving that portion of the facility. Lois Jeffre~ replied that since this is private property, and since staff has presented recommendations, there would be no problem with liability. If modifica- tions are made, and someone still is injured, the City's approval does not translate into something actionable against the City. The Director noted that slnce the staff is suggesting modifications to the site plan to include additional enhanced pavement areas, to reinforce pedestrian access, and to add safety measures so that pedestrians can move across the aisles safely, the Commission would be voting on this issue. The public hearing was opened at 9:59 p.m. John Tarlos, Tarlos & Associates architect and owner of two E1 Pollo Loco franchises in Northern California, noted that the exterior of the butldtng that they are presenting had to be completely redesigned to meet the design of the center; it was very difficult to get it approved with the corporation, since one of the main concerns of a corporation is to maintain their identity; the red color is their corporate identity and matches the building signs; if the red color had been disallowed by staff, when Initially presented, they would probably not have continued with the application, because they could not get corporate approval. They are concerned with the tower size, as a normal building is about 22 feet high; due to the center's design, they had to design a box-looking building, and the corporate image was lost; the color, as an insert, is very important; they have agreed to paint the insert instead of installing ceramic ttle; they feel that the height of the tower is proportionate to the side of the building and as a pedestrian would approach it. In review of Exhibit A, Item 3.1, A) he concurred that changing the throat to 14 feet would not be a problem; B) should not be part of their requirement for compliance; C) since the trash would be shared with another fast food user, they could not make a decision on it and referred it to the developer; D) he understood that there was a two-foot berm and a two- to four-foot hedge which would completely seal-off the trash enclosure from the street. They have tried to work out a compromise with the staff regarding the bulldlng design, but have to also work with the corporate staff. They feel that they have made the best attempt to accomplish that. They did not have the intention to have the sign program approved this evening, as it is not yet completed. Commlssoner Kasparian asked if the bottom drawing was what they wanted. Mr. Tarlos replied that it is completeley different from what the corporation would have liked. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page nineteen Commissioner Baker asked if the red insert was the corporate color, and if the red neon was also requested. Mr. Tarlos affirmed that the red was a corporate color, and that since there is to be neon in the center, they would like it as an accent. Gary Brubaker, franchlser, commented that they made the modifications to the building with the understanding that they would be able to maintain their logo in the red, which is in the front and rear of the building. He compared their colors as being as important to them as the "Arches" are to McDonald's. He noted that the current signs on their stores are 75 feet square, and the molding for those signs are already in place; if they have to have smaller signs on a much larger building, it would cost them considerably more to develop new signs to fit the architecture; they also want signs on all four (4) walls of the tower. Commissioner Pontlous asked if Mr. Brubaker wanted 75 foot signs on all four sides of the tower. Mr. Brubaker replied that that would be nice, but they would accept 75 foot signs on the front and smaller signs on the three (3) sides. Commissioner Pontious asked what the size limitation was on the three (3) side walls. Staff replied that the 25 feet square would be allowed on the side and rear walls. Molded plastic signs would not be permitted on this building, but would have to be a fabricated aluminum letter per the Market Place Sign Program. The Director commented that due to existing provisions in the sign code to regulate sign installations on all free-standing pads, the Planning Commission would not have the ability to alter the provisions of the sign code without a variance. Glenn Myers, Donahue Shriber, commented that they initially were able to replicate ~osely the design of the retail buildings in the Market Place; but that since they knew that they could not predict how the individual tenants would be designed, their commitment to the City was to work with each tenant. It is very difficult to change the identity of the restaurants. They have at least two restaurants that have refused to come into the center because of their inability to fit in architecturally. He felt that if they are to continue to require the tenants to adhere to the architecture, then the tenant must be able to maintain their identity somehow. He feels that there is a potential to lose many opportunities; they want this to be a successful center; they are tenant driven; without tenants, there will be vacant pads and loss of revenue. He noted that the required minimum 12 foot driveway was incorrect. He felt that 12 feet was fine for a highway, but with no cross traffic and curb on either side, a trash truck can easily fit within an 11 foot width without coming in contact with anything. Their consultants informed them that 11 feet would work very well. Regarding the trash enclosure, in the event that the berming does not shield It properly, they would include taller shrubs. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page twenty Mr. Pomeroy, project architect, made comments in support of the proposal: There is a berm along E1 Camino Real as well as a hedge that is designed to be six (6) feet tall and will shield the trash enclosure; he supports the height of the tower, and felt that it was clearly in proportion with the other buildings; he proposed that the towers vary in height; the variety of colors is t~ortant, and would assist in maintaining individual identities; a small touch of color would be wonderful. Regarding the pedestrian circulation, customers coming from the west or south have to cross a drive aisle to enter, but the entire shopping center requires pedestrians to cross a drive aisle to enter the stores. They do not know where the pedestrians will be coming from; customers will take the shortest route possible. The suggestion is ideal, but not practical. Staff replied that they are not proposing a crosswalk or enhanced paving in the drive aisle, only through the drive-through lane and landscaping. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the architect agreed with the statement. Mr..Pomerp¥ replied that if pavement is installed, they will want to walk through the drive-thru, but would tend to walk around, otherwise. The public hearing closed at 10:15 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen recognized that the tenants will require some identity and felt that if they preclude them getting "top-notch" tenants because of the identification factor, then they were making a tremendous mistake; they need a certain amount of mix in the center to be successful; and needed to look at this issue in a different light. Commissioner Pontlous felt that none of the Commissioners want the businesses to look ~otally Identical, or deny them their Identities, but that they could possibly ftnd something to satisfy both sides. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the sign package was condng back to the Commission. Staff replied that the sign for this project will not have to, but the sign program for the Tusttn Market Place will. Within that program, there will be standards set for the free-standing tenants. Once those criteria are established, then each tenant will not have to come back to the Commission to get their stgnage approved. Commissioner Kasparian commented that with national chains, certain items will have to remain individual, and the Commission will have to be accommodating within their framework. The Director noted that it was Staff's belief that providing the red neon tubing, red signage and a yellow inset since yellow is an already approved accent color would con~ly with the corporate colors; and if the applicant is stating that red is the only corporate color, staff believes that they have would like to come back with information to the contrary. Mr. Tarlos stated that the first 15 E1 Pollo Loco buildings had yellow and red corporate colors, but after an extensive marketing review, red is now the only corporate color. There are presently 120 buildings in the chain. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page twenty-one ~9_mmtssloner Kasparlan asked If there was presently a mix of both colors and if not, would they be changthg back to two colors. Regarding the molds that are already made for signs, he empathized with thetr position due to them being a corporate chain that may make a mold for all of the slgns In the chatn. Hr. Tarlos replied that at this time there is only one corporate color which is red. Commissioner Baker asked the City Attorney if they would be setting a precedent if they approve the red. Lois Jeffrey replied affirmatively. establish free-standing buildings color. They will be allowing any applicants who wish to to propose any color they wish as a corporate Commissioner Shaheen asked if they could approve each application based on presentation ~f a corporate color. The Director replied that staff had no issue with the use of a corporate color combination for the signs. Lois Jeffrey commented that this was an equal protection issue, whereby if the Commission approves one to have its corporate color, then any others will have the right to be treated in the same manner, if they are similarly situated. Commissioner Shaheen asked if an individual could claim a corporate color structure. Lois Jeffrey affirmed, but asked if an individual had a corporation, would they want to differentiate between that individual's corporation and a large corporation. If they differentiate, then they have to define a criteria as to what is a corporation to which they will grant this to. Commissioner Shaheen agreed, but within a set pattern of a group of stores of a ~articular corporation is different. He felt that Council should address the issue as tt occurs and not anttcpate it. Commissioner Pontlous asked how many free-standing units there would be. Glenn. Myers replied that there would be 10. He noted that they have been open one year and have been marketing the center for an additional year, but they still have only two (2) signed leases. He encouraged the Commission, so as to help the center, to allow this type of individuality. Commissioner Ponttous felt that the issues could be resolved at this meeting, and referred to Exhibit A to understand the conditions. The Director commented that the applicant had trouble with Item 3.1 b, because he felt that the parking was not part of the pad for E1 Pollo Loco. Per the East Tustin Plan the developer will have to provide the information he needs regarding parking. Planntng Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page twenty-two The Director commented that 3.1 c was regarding the widening of the loading zone, and noted that Mr. Myers had represented that it was not necessary. The trash enclosure was not on the original site plan, but the City's Design Review Committee including the traffic engineer have recommended 12 feet. Commissioner Shaheen asked if one (1) foot would make a difference to the applicant. Mr. Myers replied that it would mean a redesign of the plans. Commissioner Pontlous poled the Commission to obtain a 3'.2 b; and 3.2 c. 'Decisions were made as moved. consensus regarding 3.1 c; Commissioner Le Jeune asked if 32 feet would be the highest tower for freestanding pads, and if all four towers would not be 32 feet. Commissioner Baker noted that, according to Council, they may be setting a precedent. Commissioner Ponttous agreed that they would be setting a precedent, but if it was only the free-sta6d~ng buildings, then the issue is limited. Commissioner Le Jeuene noted that if a corner gas station was being torn down, and something' like a Del Taco wanted to reside in its place, they would expect their corporate colors. Commissioner Shaheen felt a restaurant would not apply unless they could use their colors. Commissioner Ponttous restated the issue: way as has been proposed in the drawings. to limit the red color only to the entry- Staff informed the Commission that, although the rear-facing drawing was not in color, that the applicant also wanted an accent line to follow along with the neon tubing. Commissioner Kasparian asked if 3.2 C included the slgnage color. Commissioner Baker asked if 3.2 C referred to the neon. Commissioner Ponttous replied negatively to both. The Director noted that the Condition should be revised, as moved (reumbered as 3.2 B). Staff stated that Condition 3.2 E restricts the neon tubing to the front elevation only, and that the Commission was proposing both front and rear. Mr. Tarlos commented that the neon was initially intended as an outline in both the front and rear recesses. Commissioner Pontious felt that the consensus was to not change 3.2 E, regarding exposed red neon tubing; and to delete 4.3, regarding pedestrian walkways. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page twenty-three Commissioner Le Oeune moved, Kaspartan. seconded to certify that Ftnal EIR 85-2 is adequate to serve as the Program EIR for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2651. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review 89-54 and Use Permit 89-16 by adoption of Resolution No. 2652 with the following revisions: Delete items 3.1 C, 3.2 B, and 4.3. Change 3.2 B to read as follows: "Colors used shall be only those approved on the applicant's sample board. No other colors are permitted. Red shall be used tn insets on the front and rear elevations only." Motion carried 5-0. 9_. Tentative Tract Map 13746, Use Permit 89-07 and. Design Revtew 88-45 APPLICANT: OWNER: AKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY I CIVIC PLAZA, STE. 175 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE PACIFIC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUE ST: LOTS 14, W AND X OF TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN) (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1) AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 3 NUMBERED AND TWO LETTERED LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES; 2) APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING OF 316 APARTMENT UNITS; AND 3) APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following ~tion¥: 1) Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2646; 2)Approve Design Review 88-44 and Use Permit 89-07 by adoption of Resolution No. 2647, as submitted or revised; and Recommend City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13746 by adoption of Resolution No. 2648, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page twenty-four Commissioner Baker asked If a separate sound study was necessary for each project. The Director replied that there was a conceptual notse study whtch was done for the larger sector level tract, 12870, to determine the posstble wall Installations that wtll be constructed. It also required that units meet the tnterlor noise levels. $tnce additional measures may be needed, 11ke double-pane wtndows, each site's speclftc project requtres a more detatled acoustical study. It takes a sector level study one step further and ts spectflc to the development plan. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Resolution 2648, Exhibit A, 7.1 O, Page 9, and if this was an intrusion on the business. The Otrector replled that the Association needs a mechanism to assess the costs of damage, so that the Association does not have to bear the full cost. Commissioner Pontlous noted that the Association has the ulttmate responsibility, but t f th6 damage Is due to a single homeowner, then the costs could be btlled back to the homeowner. Commissioner Kaspartan asked for a clarification of Resolution 2648, Exhibit A, Page 10, 8'. 1" D'. 2. The Director replied that the property reserved for schools may not be necessary to meet school enrollment needs. It could then be released and would then be developed under the underlying residential designation of the Specific Plan. Commissioner Baker asked if Item 7.1 N of Resolution 2648, Exhibit A was complete. The Director noted that staff will reword disclosure info, as moved. Commissioner Pontlous asked about Item 7.1M of Resolution 2648, Exhibit A, and if the CC&R's would be enforced by a management company, who may not have any officers. The Director replied that the developers may or may not decide to file their final maps right away, so there may be a period of time that it is an apartment complex with no active Association. In the event the map is filed, then the majority ownership in the Association could have officers just as a condominium project would. The public hearing was opened at 10:50 p.m. Conrad Sick, spokesman for Aklns, was available for questions. Commissioner Pontlous asked if there was not a problem with widening of entry roads. Mr. Sick affirmed. The public hearing was closed at 10:57 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Page twenty-fi ve Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Environmental Determination by the adoption of Resolution No. 2646. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen move, Le Jeune seconded to approve Design Review 88-44 and Use Permit 89-07 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2647. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Kasparian seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13746 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2648, revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 9 after "Disclosure information" insert "shall be provided." Motion carried 5-0. 10. Design Review 88-67 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 THE IRVINE COMPANY SECTOR 8 OF TUSTIN RANCH, TRACT 12870 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PLAN - LOW THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT PRIVATE ENTRIES AND ENHANCED STREET AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND FAIRGATE DRIVE AND FAIRGATE DRIVE AND RAWLINGS WAY. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission open and continue the hearing on this application to their next regular meeting on August 28, 1989. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue Design Review 88-67 to the August 28, 1989 Planning Commission meeting per the request of the applicant. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 11. Summary of Work Projects Recommendation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. 12. Status Report Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 twenty-six NEW BUSINESS STAFF BUSINESS 13. Report on City Council Actions of August 7, 1989 Meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Le Jeune requested that decaffeinated coffee be served at the Commission meetings. Commissioner Kasparian complimented staff on the prompt response to the fire hazard issue at 17th Street and Prospect. Commissioner Shaheen asked about the vehicles stored at the fire wood sales facility on E1Camino Real east of Newport Avenue. No Planning Commission action necessary. ADJOURNHENT At 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Kasparian seconded to adjourn to a Joint Meeting with the City Council on August 15, 1989 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room and then to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission on August 28, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Penni Foley Secret a ry ~Leslie A. Pontlous, Chairman