Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-09-89 MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COHNI$$ION REGULAR NEETING JANUARY 9, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, Shaheen 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. look into Mary Gallagher, 17382 Parker Dr Tusttn, spoke requesting that staff placing a traffic signal at the c~ner of Vandenberg Lane and Yorba Street. 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.) Minutes of the December 12, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to approve the consent calendar. carried 5-0. Motion PUBLXC HEARZNGS 2. General Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone Change 88-02 (San Juan Apartments) APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SAN JUAN APARTMENTS C/O MESA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2925 COLLEGE AVENUE, #A-3 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 ATTENTION: MR. LARRY CAMPEAU 1432 SAN JUAN STREET A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02; TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM C (COMMERCIAL) TO MF (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) 2) ZONE CHANGE 88-02; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM PC-C1 {PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 2200 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page two Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions No. 2~46 and 2547, denying General Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone Change 88-02. Presentation: Dan Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Planning Department had seen a visual plan of this project. Staff responded that a Zone Change or a General Plan Amendment cannot be conditioned and that a formal submittal for the 8 unit project had not been made. Commissioner Shaheen asked staff to clarify the circumstances that subterranean parking would or would not be allowed. Staff responded that the statement by the applicant is not legally binding, that they would not build subterranean parking if the property changed hands, the new owner would not be legally bound to whatever the applicant agreed to particularly if the Zoning Code does not prohibit subterranean parking. The public hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. Larry. Campeau, 2925 College Avenue, A-3, Costa Mesa, California, 92626, the developer, noted that he has had an architect draw up plans for an 8 unit development without subterranean parking. He stated that the property was made available to the realty community as commercial property. There was one inquiry and he feels that the general consensus is that the parcel is not large enough for a commercial project of any sort. He noted that, as the developer, he is very flexible as far as design and will design the project to whatever the City and neighbors want. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many parking spaces were available on the revised plan~. Mr. Campeau, stated that there were 18 total, eight enclosed, eight covered and two visitors. Commissioner Baker asked about the type of apartments proposed. Mr. Campeau noted that the units would be two bedroom/two baths. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how long the property had been vacant under the commercial zoning. Mr. Campeau noted that they had only recently torn down the original farm house. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the parking could be controlled. The Director noted that a General Plan Amendment or a Zone Change could not be conditioned. She indicated that while staff had some design review authority; if something is allowed by the Zoning Code, staff can not prohibit it. Subterranean parking can not be prohibited at this time as part of the Commission's action if it is authorized by the Code. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page three Geraldine Vau~hn, P. O. Box 503, Tusttn, Ca., noted that she lives on the corner of San Juan and Green Valley, and that she spoke to Mr. Campeau and is satisfied with the eight units and Mr. Can~eau has assured her that it would be kept as a decent neighborhood. The public hearing was closed at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Well noted that the reduction from 1750 to 2200 is good as far as density is concerned. She also noted that as long as the parking is provided as represented, the R-3 (2200) designation is acceptable. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he preferred eight residential units and two stories on the site as long as there was no subterranean parking. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Wetl seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 88-02 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2546. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Ponttous seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 88-02 to rezone the subject property from PC-C1 to R-3 (2200) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2547 recommending rezoning. Motion carried 5-0. 3. Amendment #1 to Use Permit 87-14 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY 14811MYFORD ROAD TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY 13918-13922 NEWPORT AVENUE C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS APPROVED FORUSE PERMIT 87-14 IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AMEND THE APPROVAL OF USEPERMIT 87-14 BY DELETING CONDITION 36 OF EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2420 THAT REQUIRES THE EVENTUAL TERMINATION OF LARGE TRUCK FUEL SERVICE AT THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING FUEL FACILITY. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: 1) Deny amendment #1 to Use Permit 87-14 by adoption of Resolution No. 2553; and 2) Approve an 18 month extension for large truck fuel service at the facility by adopting Resolution No. 2554 and the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Well asked if there were any responses to the public hearing notice. Staff noted that there was only one response from a neighbor regarding noise concerns from trucks at this location. Commissioner Well asked if there was any particular time of day that the trucks were noisier than others and if there were any other responses from other departments. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page four Staff responded that the Public Works Department do not recommend deleting the condition as the applicant has requested. Commissioner Baker asked if there were any complaints within the last 18 months. The Director noted that there had been no known noise complaints. Staff members from various departments have made observations in early morning and late evenings that there were many large trucks queueing and creating some congestion on Newport Avenue and Bonita Way. Commissioner Baker asked if this congestion had resulted in citations. The Director noted that she was not aware if citations were issued or there were any recorded traffic accidents at that location. Commissioner Pontlous clarified that the 18 month review was not for a final determination but to be reviewed every 18 months. The Director noted that the Planning Commission recommended the implementation of monitoring devices on sensitive conditional uses in order to look at potential impacts over a longer period of time. The public hearing was opened at 7:34 p.m. Frank Greinke 230 S. "A" Street, Tusttn, owner of Southern Counties Oil Co., stated that it was his recollection that the 18 month time frame was placed upon this permit to enable him to work with the Redevelopment Agency to relocate in Tusttn. He said that since that wasn't accomplished he has moved his headquarters to another town. He stated that many of the patrons of the gas station are local residents and that there is a need for them to use this particular station. He stated that there is a need and that he felt he had proven to the City that it can be safely accomplished. He indicated that any problems have always been worked out in a neighborly fashion. He didn't feel that this was a basis for continued monitoring the use. He asked staff if there was anything that was requested of Southern Counties Oil that they did not cooperatively respond to . The Director noted that staff continues to enjoy a fine relationship with the applicant and that they have been very cooperative and responsive, however, she indicated that she believed that some kind of monitoring device was appropriate given the large trucks use of the site and its location. She noted that the condition could be altered to require reevaluation instead of requiring future relocation of trucks. Mr. Greinke noted that Southern Counties Oil had been at this location for 58 years and brought millions of sales tax dollars to the City. He indicated that he wanted the right to continually operate and did not want to have to reapply for a permit every 18 months. He stated that he felt that they have proven themselves to the community and asked the Commission to approve the recommendation and delete the 18 month condition. He stated that the Police Department has power to write citations if there is a problem; that he wants traffic to flow freely. Commtssoner Wetl asked how may large trucks were serviced per day; if there was a time category where the truck traffic was heavier than most. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page five Mr. Greinke noted that there were probable 40 - 50 per day that were spread throughout the day but mostly peaking at 7 - 8 a.m. and 3 - 4 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen clarified with Mr. Grienke that his only conflict was with the 18 month condition and asked staff if this was the only means of control. The Director noted that the Planning Commission can always institute a revocation procedure of the Use Permit at any time, that it then becomes the City's responsibility to monitor the use and not the applicant's. She suggested as an alternative to address previous Commission concerns and concerns from other Departments, the following changes in Resolution No. 2553 II.: Ao Condition 36 shall be revised to read: Service for large trucks, those in excess of 30 feet in length at this location shall be reviewed and monitored every 18 months from the date of approval of Use Permit 87-14 and the Planning Commission may require additional mitigation measures upon conclusion of their 18 month review period to reduce any identified impacts. Said mitigation measures, however, shall not include relocation of truck service. All other conditions contained within Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2420 shall remain as originally approved." The Director stated that staff does not want the company to relocate, they just want to establish a monitoring device. She also noted that the Public Works Department did have traffic concerns. She indicated that the modification to the CUP would be handled routinely by staff; that the Planning Commission would receive a staff report giving the status of the situation. She noted that if, in the future, an application was made to remove the condition completely there would have to be a public hearing. Commissioner Baker asked if the alley behind the gas station was still two-way and if there had b&en any problems. Mr. Gretnke noted that there had been no problems and that the alley is still two-way. The public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen asked staff for more clarification about the 18 month period. The Director indicated that the 18 month condition was put into effect to monitor any potential impacts on a particular use, if no problems arise then there would be no issue, however, if there were common reoccurring problems staff with concurrence of the Commiston could request additional mitigation measures. Commissioner Baker asked if staff had to wait until the 18 month period was over in order to mitigate a problem. The Director noted that the Planning Commission could always initiate revocation procedures if the applicant was unresponsive to a request. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page six Commissioner Wetl thanked Mr. Greinke for the cooperation he has given to the City and feels that Southern Counties Oil will continue to be a good neighbor. She indicated her concern is due to the nature of the business and that the business is not monitored by a person 24 hours a day. She is also concerned that queuelng problems might result as traffic increases. She indicated that she is in favor of the review but not a public hearing every 18 months. She also noted the possibility of scheduling special hours for large trucks rather than relocation of the station in the event of noise complaints. The Director noted that the language of the condition could be changed to eliminate any requirement for relocation of large trucks. Commissioner Shaheen asked Commissioner Wetl to clarify the limiting time for certain trucks. Commissioner Well noted that the requirement to relocate large trucks could be removed from the condition and that at a much later date when Newport Avenue gets more congested a problem may arise with the large trucks, at that time staff could possibly specify a time limit when large trucks could be served. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that this is a very sensitive use and is a potential traffic problem, with the new development on Newport Avenue and E1 Camino Real there will be a need for staff to monitor. He recommended that the Commission follow staff's recommendation. Commissioner Ponttous asked if there would be any action necessary on the part of the applicant. Staff responded that the review process every 18 months would be handled administratively by staff and transmitted to the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff how this situation would be mitigated and/or monitored. The Director noted that there could be various problems such as noise, traffic and/or alley access. She indicated that a specific issue would have to be brought up and a recommendation sought from the Public Works Department, after which staff would research the problem issue to attempt an appropriate mitigation measure. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to approve a modification to Use Permit 87-14 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2553 subject to the above noted addition of A. and B. Motion carried 4-0-1 with Commissioner Shaheen abstaining. 4. Tentative Parcel Map 88-350 APPLICANT: OWNER: CALIFORNIA CIVIL, INC. ON BEHALF OF LAURELWOOD HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658:8904 THE IRVINE COMPANY & THE Planning Commission Mtnutes January 9, 1989 Page seven LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO TRACT 8029 SOUTH OF THE I-5 SANTA ANA FREEWAY UNZONED RIGHT-OF-WAY CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-350 to the City Counctl Resolution No. 2548. Commission recommend by the adoption of Presentation: Bernard Chase, Planner Commissioner Shaheen asked if the fuel line was still located in the subject area. The Director noted that she believed that the line was inactive but had not been formaly abandoned, nor had the easement been released. She indicated that the Irvine Company might be able to provide more recent information. The public hearing was opened at 8:20 p.m. Guido Borges, President of the Laurelwood Homeowners' Association, noted that the 10" line has been abandoned within the last 12 months, the Irvine Company has removed the line to Walnut, the easement is being negotiated with the Irvine Copmpany and the AT&SF and must be released prior to the execution of the deeds. He also noted that barbed wire is not needed as long as the 8 foot wall for screening and security purposes is approved. Brian Schneider, 2154 Larch Lane, noted concern regarding the height of the wall; asked for clarification regarding the lighting and asked if the additional lots were necessary. He ask that the Laurelwood residents be considered as well as the residents of the Mobile Home Park. Staff clarified that the lighting standards require shielding of the fixture to strain the light to prevent spillover and the requirement is one footcandle throughout the parking area. Bill Robblns, manager of the Laurelwood Homeowners' Association, noted that there are 31 spaces to service 522 homes, there are no empty spaces and, in fact, there is a three to four month waiting list for spaces. Pete Pirzadeh, Manager of Traffic Engineering for the Irvine Company, offered to answer any questions for the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the grading could be reduced. Mr. Ptrzadeh noted that the proposed act was just for the parcel map approval, the Irvine Company will be working with staff on the site plan. The Director noted that the design review conditions are incorporated in the resolution but not required, staff feels all site issues have been addressed. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page eight Commissioner Le Jeune asked if what happens to the spaces that aren't going to be eliminated, would the~ be fenced with barbed wire. Mr. Ptrzadeh stated that these spaces will not be affected. The Director&stated that the existing barbed wire will not be altered. Cotmmissioner Le Jeune suggested that the 8 foot RV's be placed behind the barbed wire. Commissioner Shaheen asked where the entrances and exits will be located. Staff responded that there would be no change in the current entrances or exits to the RV storage area. Brian Schindler noted that the eight foot wall is only for the Mobile Home Park side of the parcel and that the Laurelwood side is still six foot. He asked if the whole fence could be raised to eight feet. Staff noted that the Commission was not approving the eight foot wall; that the application for the wall would be a separate public hearing; and that an eight foot wall could be installed on all four sides; if desireable by the Homeowners' Association and approved by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-350 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2548 with the following revisions: Add to item 3.2: "Staff recommends, and would support an application for a Use Permit, pursuant to Section 9271(I) of the Tustin City Code, to construct an eight (8) foot block wall (to match existing buildings/walls in Laurelwood) for screening and security purposes along the property lines of Parcel 1." Change Item 3.4 to read "Final striping of parking stalls shall be approved by an authorized representative of the Board of Directors of the Laurelwood Homeowner's Association." Motion carried 5-0. 5. Use Permit No. 88-24 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: MR. & MRS. ROBERT CHANEY 1042 WALNUT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 ROY M. CHIKASAWA 645 W. LAGUNA ROAD CAMARILLO, CA 93010 1032 WALNUT AVENUE COMMERCIAL GENERAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page ntne REQUEST: TO AUTHORIZE THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING 1560 SQUARE FOOT PET SHOP (TWO'S PETS). Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-24 by adopting Resolution No. 2551 with the conditions contained therein. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner The public hearing was opened at 8:41 p.m. Don Fears, 23932 Oswego St, E1 Toro, Ca. 92630, the architect for the applicant offered to answer any questions and noted the applicant's intention to leave the sign where it is. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there would be any animal boarding at this facility. Mr. Fears noted that there will be no boarding for dogs, however, there will be some boarding for cats and smaller animals such as chipmunks. The public hearing was closed at 8:42 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the shopping center has a sign plan. Staff responded that the sign plan is a simple one and is reviewed at staff level at the time of the design review. Commissioner Well moved, Ponttous seconded to approve Use Permit 88-24 by the adoption of Resolution NO. 2551 with the conditions contained within. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Use Permit 88-25 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RUTABEGORZ, INC. 158 WEST MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 158 WEST MAIN STREET (S/E CORNER OF MAIN AND 'C' STREETS) PLANNED CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO SELL GENERAL CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-25 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2549. Presentation: Bernard Chase, Planner The public hearing was opened at 8:46 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. P1 anntng Commt ssi on Mi nutes January 9, 1989 Page ten Commissioner Le Jeune asled about outdoor seating and the sale of alcoholic beverages at the site. The Director noted that sale of alcoholic beverages at outdoor seating areas is not authorized and she is not aware that current outdoor seating at the site was ever approved. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 88-25 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2549. Motion carried 5-0. 7. Use Permit 88-28 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: GRAND AVENUE PET HOSPITAL 1602 N. GRAND AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92701 TUSTIN AUTOMOTIVE PARTNERS 161 FASHION LANE, SUITE 116 TUSTIN, CA 92680 1122 EL CAMINO REAL - BETWEEN EL CAMINO REAL AND INTERSTATE 5 COMMERCIAL GENERAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) TO AUTHORIZE THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING SMALL ANIMAL HOSPITAL (TUSTANA ANIMAL HOSPITAL) AT 1192 EL CAMINO REAL TO RELOCATE IN A MODIFIED AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR BUILDING AT 1122 EL CAMINO REAL DUE TO THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF THE I-5 FREEWAY. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-28 by adopting Resolution No. 2552 with the conditions contained therein. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner The public hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Dan Petty, applicant, offered to answer any questions. The public hearing was closed at 8:53 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Well seconded to approve adoption of Resolution No. 2552. Motion carried 5-0. 8. Tentative Tract Map 13822 APPLICANT: DURFEE GARDENS PARTNERSHIP 1700 RAINTREE ROAD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 OWNER: SAME LOCATION: 14372 S. YORBA STREET (S/E CORNER PLACE) R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: Use Permit 88-28 by the OF YORBA AND NORWOOD PARK Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page eleven ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.73 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX (6) LOTS WITH A CUL-DE-SAC FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIX (6) SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2556, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 13822. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner Commissioner Well referred to the picture from the historical survey and asked when the applicant was notified that this was a historical house. Staff responded that they had received the historical survey on Tuesday and had tried to contact the applicant on Thursday. Commissioner Wetl asked if there was any atten~)t to notify the historical society of this meeting. The Director noted that most of the narrative description for the survey was done by Carol Jordan of the historical society. The public hearing was opened at 9:05 p.m. Dr. Ronald Crowle~, 1700 Ratntree Rd., Fullerton, Ca. 92635, co-owner of the project stated that he received the staff report on Monday morning. He inquired as to the potential of moving the home. Several movers noted that the roof must be completely removed; that the home should not be moved more than a few blocks; and that it is not a historical house. He also stated that the house is not in good condition, the roof leaks and there is nothing distinctive about the house. He also stated that this is a small project and that the requirement of having a paleantologist and geologist on site during grading would create an undue hardship. He also did not feel that it was appropriate to require and erosion control plan or a traffic routing plan. He also did not understand why he would need to obtain permission from the neighboring properties, create a construction phasing plan and supply an arborist on site as the trees are not maintained nor are they specimen trees. He also questioned the issue of the southern boundary retaining wall and the wrought iron fence. He offered to answer any qustions. Stanley Guskey, 17391 Norwood Park Place, Tustin, noted that the existing home on the site is not at all well maintained and he was in favor of the proposed project's approval. William Krames, 14382 Mimosa Lane, Tusttn, spoke in favor of the proposed project. Mrs. Richard Halderman, 17491 Norwood Park P1, Tustin, asked why she was not notified and if a traffic light will be placed at Yorba and Norwood Park Place. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page twelve Staff responded that there will be no traffic signal at the cul-de-sac and there is certain criteria that a location must meet before a light can be justified at a particular location. He also noted that all property owners within 300 feet were noticed and asked Ms. Halderman to call him on Tuesday and he would do some further research as to why she did not receive a notice of this public hearing. Terry Schnabel, 17361 Parker Dr., Tustin, noted his concern that the back yards of the proposed project would be considerably higher than his and would like to see a higher wall built and some foliage to screen his property more. He also noted that he was in favor of the project. ~r. Crowle¥, noted that he had no objections to planting trees to screen the property. The Director clarified that, when installing a retaining wall, if there is more than a 30 inch drop from one side to the other, there must be a 30 inch guard rail on the top of the fence in addition to the required fence height. Commissioner Wetl noted that she wanted to be certain that the retaining wall would be sturdy enough. Dr. Crowle¥ noted that he would work with the neighbors for privacy and drainage. Gwen Leis 17351 Norwood Park Place, Tustin, asked why this tract is opening onto Norwood Park Place and not Yorba Street. Staff responded that Yorba is a secondary highway and from a traffic engineering standpoint it isn't a good idea to provide curb cuts from that location. Mr. Leis asked Dr. Crowley what the approximate cost of the proposed units were expected to be. Dr. Crowle¥ responded that the price would be from $450,000 to $500,000. Don Fontalne, 14381 Mimosa Lane, Tustin, spoke in support of the proposed development. John Jaeger, 14142 Whitehead, Irvine, one of the applicants, wanted more information regarding the paleantologist and the geologist. Staff responded that the requirements that Dr. Crowley and Mr. Jaeger took issue with are all standard requirements. He elaborated that having a paleantologist and geologist on site during grading is a standard requirement; that an erosion control plan is a standard UBC requirement for grading work between the months of October and April; traffic routing plan is a standard condition; obtaining permission from neighboring property owners is also a standard requirement to build retaining walls; a construction phasing plan is just a plan in writing stating that there will only be one phase if that is the case; and the arbortst is being required because of the large existing trees. Staff also noted that Mr. Jaeger obtained the staff report on Friday prior to the meeting. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the applicant had to remove the house. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page thirteen The Director noted that a good faith effort must be made to comply with CEQA requirements, if there are significant points as to why restoring is non-economical, those points must be documented. MK- Jaeger noted that to move the house would be an extreme hardship on their company and asked that the relocation requirement be deleted. The Director reiterated that the developer must submit a report providing evidence that they have made a good faith effort to move the home, documenting economical support information to provide evidence that relocation is infeasible. However, the City must make the record complete as far as the CEQA requirements are concerned to cover the Planning Commission from a legal standpoint. She restated that a good faith effort must be made. Lois Jeffrey responded that if the issue is not dealt with an EIR must be required. The public hearing was closed at 9:52 p.m. Commissioner Well complimented the applicant on a clean project and noted her surprise at the level of conditions in Exhibit A. She brought up some changes that will be reflected in the motion below, noting that she did not want to excessively burden the applicant. Commissioner Wetl moved, Ponttous seconded to recommend to City Council the approval of Tentative Tract Map 13822 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2556 with the following revisions: Eliminate Item 4.4 B. 7.; on Item 7.1 A, line 6 change "0" to "J".; on item 9.1, 1, at the end of the first sentence add "and/or feasibility of relocating the house."; on item 9.1, 2, line 2 after "county" add, "or if relocation is infeasible"; at the end of the first sentence delete "said site." and replace with "a site or information that moving the structure is infeasible."; and delete item 9.2. Motion carried 5-0. At 10:00 p.m. there was a five minute break. 9. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01 APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SYCAMORE GARDENS HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTIY ACT. REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 9314, EXCEPTIONS (66412), OF THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR THE CONVERSION OF STOCK COOPERATIVES INTO CONDOMINIUMS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 66412(h) OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2550 recommending approval to the City Council of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner The public hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page fourteen Richard Kvldt, Box 3324, Tustin, President of Sycamore Gardens Homeowners' Association asked staff to explain Item 3 on page two of the resolution. The Director noted that this was a provision of the State law providing that an existing tenant has the first right of sale and relocation benefits. This provision is only requiring the applicant to comply with State law. Lois Jeffrey noted that this condition is word for word from the Subdivision Map Act and if deleted the Amendment could not be certified under the Subdivision Map Act and the applicant would have to apply for a parcel map. Mr. Kvtdt questioned the tenants first rights. The Director noted that the tenants would have to be given first rights anyway. She noted that the City Attorney could look into the matter and the item could be continued until the next meeting. Commissioner Wetl asked if staff had suggested the Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to the applicant when determining what direction should be taken in this matter. The Director indicated that this course of action was the applicant's idea. She also noted that if a Tentative Tract Map process were to be applied for the same law would be applicable and there would still be the issue of tenant's rights, as stock coop's are defined by the Civil Code. Mr. Kvtdt asked that the issue be settled at this meeting as he did not want to see this item be delayed any further. John Stuczynskt, 1833 E. 17th St, #111, Santa Ana, Ca., the consultant for the Homeowners' Association, took issue with the intent of the law noting that this particular item of tenants' first rights was meant for the developer and not the individual owners. He suggested that the City Attorney could research the item. The City has to issue the certification and can make the determination that Item 3 does not apply. However, he also asked that the Amendment not be delayed because of this issue. Commissioner Shaheen agreed with the applicant that the law was designed for large apartment complexes being converted into condominiums. Lois Jeffrey noted that she would research the issue and advise the Director of Community Development. Commissioner Le Jeune requested that the item be continued. Mr. Kvtdt noted that the continuance will not change the laws, just clarify them. He stated that he wanted a decision on the Amendment tonight and that they will abide by whatever interpretation they receive at a later date. The public hearing was closed at 10:29 p.m. Commissioner Wetl noted her reluctance to include a condition that may not apply and asked for a comment from the City Attorney. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page fifteen Lois Jeffrey clarified that the Amendment was changing the Ordinance with language that was in the law and stated that an interpretation is needed from the City Attorney. The Director noted that the City Attorney's office will provide the procedure and how the applicant will need to proceed. Commissioner Pontlous moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment No. 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2550. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 10. Amendments to the Tusttn City Code Related to Grading and Excavation Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well asked what the urgency of passing the Ordinance was. The Director noted that the processes for the Hillside Review Procedure, Sector Maps and Phase Maps are laid out in the Ordinance and delaying the Ordinance would aso delay the Phase IV Map. Jenntngs D. Pierce, Jr., 550 Newport Center Drive, P 0 Box I, Newport Beach, Ca., noted that he had been working with staff and agreed with everything in the Ordinance except page 12 (N). He noted concern with the legal issues surrounding the warranty which as worded would leave the Irvine Company with a lot of legal responsibility. He noted that there are many other people involved and they have a responsibility to the Irvine Company and the Company should not be held liable for work done by other people. He also wanted to know what is actually be warranteed. He noted that the stability of the landscape systems, once turned over must be maintained, slopes and potential defects is dealt with in the Civil Code. He noted that the Company wanted to move ahead as quickly as possble and have it approved subject to the Company's and City's Attorney's determinations. Commissioner Wetl asked if the Irvtne Company has warrantees in any other projects and if there were any slope problems in any other projects. Mr. Pierce noted that he wasn't aware that the Irvtne Company had warrantees in Irvine or Orange County and that he had not researched this matter, therefore, he couldn't give an accurate answer. Commissioner Wetl noted that slope problems are not necessarily developer faults. Commissioner Shaheen asked what types of problems did Mr. Pierce foresee. Mr. Pierce noted that along Tusttn Ranch Road there is 50 feet of slopes. He noted that the responsibility should be shared with soils experts, engineers, etc. The Director noted that the situations in Tusttn differ from other areas. There are severely sloped areas in Sectors 4 and 5. The Company will be excluded from Phase 4 and the developer will be the responsible party. She indicated that language to satisfy both parties and maintain the legal bounds can be worked out. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page sixteen Staff responded that in other cities there are many developments on hillside slopes that require extensive grading and slope warranties. In San Juan Captstrano the developer is responsible for the slopes and structural failure of the slope. The developer is also responsible for establishing a slope warrantee fund to be taken over by the Homeowners' Association, where a third party handles and adjusts claims regarding the slope integrity. There is a ceiling for funds for slope replacement and there may even be a rebate. Slope failure will be replaced without any cost to the homeowner. The Director noted that the warrantee is the concern of the Irvine Company and that she is willing to delete the 10 year portion of the requirement but wants a slope warrantee implementation program as a condition on hillside Tract Maps. She also explained that the warrantee program explained earlier was just one example and there are a variety of other mechanisms. Staff noted that another option is to provide insurance, the developer provides a self insuring fund, hires a claims adjuster and administers the insurance to the contractor. Mr. Pierce noted that the Irvine Company is willing to work with staff. The Director noted that there could be some minor wording changes and the Commission could pass the Ordinance along to the City Council for adoption. Lois Jeffrey noted that this approach would be acceptable as the issue is one of public policy and not a legal issue, the object is to try to assure that there is a program to deal with potential risk of the City. The Director recommended the following changes to the Ordinance: 1.) page three, line 2 add comma after "however" and eliminate "," after exemption; 2.) page five, 8909 C, line 5 change "authorizations" to "authorization"; 3.) Page six, F. line two after "relieve the" add "applicant and/or"; 4.) page seven, E, change Section "9809" to "8910"; 5.) page eight, 8913, line I add "," after "permit", add "or other person" after "permtttee" and on line two insert "by" before "decisions"; 6.) page eleven, g. line two end first sentence with "operations. Where"; 7.) page twelve, 1., line 2 after "minimize" replace remainder with "and hillside roadways are designed consistent with guidelines contained in the Grading Manual." and in paragraph "n" last sentence should be changed to read "Every permit shall also be conditioned upon the applicant and/or owner's warranty of all slopes through applicants and/or owner implementation of a slope warranty program subject to approval and review by the City Attorney and Planning Comml sslon. "; 8.) page thirteen 8916 B, in the second to the last line after "condition" the word "reasonably" should be inserted; and 9.) page sixteen, first paragraph change "it's" to "its" and in the second paragraph of Section 3, fifth line, add "," after "purpose". Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page seventeen Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Ponttous seconded to recommend approval to the City Council of the amendments to the Tustin City Code related to Grading and Excavation by the adoption of Resolution No. 2555 with the revisions noted above. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 11. Use Determination (88-01) Presentation: Dan Fox, Associate Planner The public hearing was opened at 11:06 p.m. Gary Stark, 6 Feathergrass, Irvine, Ca. 92714, applicant noted that the area lends itself to children's fantasies and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Baker noted that he had some reservations regarding parking and staging for the dropping off and picking up of young children. Staff noted that there were five adjacent parking spaces available. The Director noted that there could be flexibility in the parking and that the discussion should be held off as a discussion for the Conditional Use Permit application at which time the site issue can be resolved. Commissioner Ponttous moved~ Well seconded to determine, by minute order, that a birthday party business is similar to a social hall and may be permitted within the C-2 (Retail Commercial) District subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Motion Carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERMS 12. City Council Action agenda for December 19, 1988 and.~Qnuary 3, 1989 Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development No Planning Commission action necessary. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Pontious noted that a fence was blown down on the sidewalk on the corner of Woodlawn and Nisson. Commissioner Baker asked what was happening on the corner of Newport and E1 Camino Real; the car wash site on Newport and Main; and noted that the East Tustin area black top is shallow on the street. Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 1989 Page eighteen Staff responded that soil issues were being resolved at Newport and E1 Camlno Real; there is currently code enforcement action being taken at the car wash site and there is a final course of black top that will be applied after all of the phases of construction are completed. ADdOURNIqE#T At 11:25 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on January 23, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. Penni Foley / Secretary /C~hal rman