Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08-12-74 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING CO~t~ISSION August 12, 1974 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the 12th day of August, 1974, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., of said day, in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Others Present: Commissioners McHarris, Dukleth, Hill, Schier Commissioner Sutcliff R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator for Community Development Bruce Lenorovitz, Assistant Planning Director James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary Ann Chamberlain, Planning Commission Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner tIill. INVOCATION was given by Commissioner Schier. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Schier, that the Minutes of July 22, 1974 be approved. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Environmental Impact Report 74-3 - Maurice A. Enderle, evaluating the impact upon the environment of a proposed 12-1/2 acre business- professional complex to be known as the Enderle Center. Report prepared by Haworth, Anderson, Lafer. Location: 17th Street on the north, Vandenberg Lane on the south, and +800 feet easterly of Yorba. Mr. Lenorovitz reviewed the staff report and informed the Commission that the Draft EIR adequately addressed the items of major sig- nificance as related to the total project, however, the staff had listed 21 supplemental items that need to be commented on to satisfy the City of Tustin Guidelines. When these 21 items are answered satisfactorily, the EIR can then be certified. The Commissioners questioned staff as to the extent of the signinq and when will a plan be submitted? Mr. Lenorovitz answered that no signing had been discussed but it would either become part of the Use Permit application or a condition of the Use Permit and a master plan would need to be reviewed at a later date. The Commission raised the question of the number of exits in the project and the traffic movements. Mr. Lenorovitz explained that the City does have a traffic engineer and the potential traffic hazards and conflicting traffic movements will be studied further. PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page two Chairman MctIarris opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Ed Haworth of Haworth, Anderson, and Lafer stated that he felt the major issues had been settled and ~hese minor 21 items could be easily answered so that the EIR could be certified. Mr. Haworth commented on the following 21 items which were compiled from comments received from various agencies and departments: 1. Phasing of building construction and public improvements. Ans. The building construction schedule has not been finalized. Public improvements program could be tied to approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Cost/Revenue Analysis Ans. The main figure to be substantiated is the projected sales tax revenue per square foot. The sales projections were based on sales data for several similar developments as supplied by Mr. Stanley Meyer, real estate broker for the proposed center. The supplied projections were reduced as a conservative measure (see p. 18 of the EIR). 3. The Flood Plain Impact. Ans. The proposed project site has been identified by the County Flood Control District as not being in any flood plain, therefore no impact was to be discussed. The subjects of irrigation lines and adequacy of fire flow requirements were addressed on p.3 of the addendum in items 12 and 9, respectively. 4. Availability of water supply. Ans. Refer to D. 33 of the EIR. 5. Estimated sewage generation Ans. Sanitation District #7 was contacted in regard to the requested information. According to Mr. Jim Wybenga of the District staff, the District facilities have been planned in anticipation of full development of designated land uses in the project area, therefore the demands of the proposed project will be accommodated. The Sani- tation District does not have specific data as to capacity or estimated generation by project type. A letter to this effect is being sent by the District to the City. 6. Statement from Southern California Edison Company. Ans. A letter regarding the project was sent to Southern California Edison; no response has been received to date. It should be noted that the utility companies are obligated to service customers within their service areas and state as a matter of policy that this will be done. 7. Financial responsibility for center island construction. Ans. This is City policy and is not a part of the EIR. * At the meeting Mr. Haworth responded that the developer would accept the responsibility. 8. City standards require a 10 foot setback from the property line for the first parking stall from a drive entrance. Ans. This should be set as a requiremsnt for for the use permit and has no impact on the EIR. 9. Pedestrian circulation system. Ans. This is provided by the site plan. 10. Reference to two plant species to be dropped. Ans. The two plant species were suggested and could be omitted if Staff so chooses at the time of precise plan approval. PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page three 11. Percolation function. Ans. Refer to pp. 22-23 of the EIR. As noted in the EIR, the alluvial soils on the site are generally well-drained and of moderate to rapid permeability. 12. Omitted from the alternatives evaluated are proposals such as major department store etc. which would have a more critical impact. Ans. We concur with the Staff's observation that the alternatives suggested would probably have more significant impact. No part- icular purpose is served by looking at alternatives which may be worse than the proposed project. 13. Street width of Enderle Center Drive. Ans. The discrepancy between City standards and proposed street widths is noted. Resolution of the discrepancies is within the scope of precise plan approval. 14. The median islands do not conform to City Standards and Vandenberg Lane was changed to Enderle Way. Ans. (*Site plans should be corrected to City standards as per the median islands~ In reference to the name change, the EIR, specifically the errata sheet, does not suggest a name change. Note was made of the designation on the site plan as referring to Vandenberg Lane, the name used in the text of the report. Precise location and details of traffic control measures will be worked out at the time of precise plan approvals. 15. Additional storm drain facilities. Ans. The correction has been noted and is a matter of record in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. The developer has been so advised. 16. Annexation to the Tustin Lighting District. Ans. The anticipated tax rate would be $0.1193 with a tax dollar return of $2,445.65 per year. 17. Excessive driveway access on Yorba and Enderle Center Drive. Ans. P. 8 points out the problem on Yorba Street. P. 5 of the Traffic appendix suggests a mitigating measure. 18. Matter of security from the Police Department. Ans. Current security seems to be adequate. Additional services, if necessary, would be at the option of the owner. 19. Fire Department water and hydrant system. Ans. The applicant would meet all City standards for providing these facilities. 20. The criteria used to estimate traffic generators and "trips projected" should be included in the EIR. Ans. The following publications were used as reference sources for the traffic study: 8th Progress Report of Trip End Generation Counts, Cal-Trans, July 1973. Miscellaneous studies by Cal-Trans on specific commercial locations. A study on trip end generation rates by W. Berg and C. Anderson, presented to the Highway Research Board in 1973. It should be noted that commercial uses have a range of generation rates that can vary greatly depending on various factors. The middle ranges were chosen for most of the proposed uses. Bank and Savings & Loan Restaurants Offices Ran_~ Used 6-188 trips/1000 sq. ft. ~ 31-73 48 2-42 15 PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page four Because of the very general concept of the commercial shops at this time as to tyge and size (e.g., the possibility of relatively major tenances should not be discounted), it was the consultant's opinion that the overall traffic impact would best be assessed by using the middle ranges of a standard neighborhood shopping center (super- market, drug store, variety store) within the given projected gross leasable area, resulting in a rate of 64 trips/1000 sq. ft. It was felt that this approach to the traffic generated by the commercial shops would be in the best interests of both the applicant and the City. The projected traffic volume, as pointed out in the traffic study, will not materially change the volumes on affected roadways, which are designed to handle the anticipated flow. Should the proposed center accommodate only small specialty shops the gen- erated rates would very likely be lower. Should a major tenant, however, locate in the center, the projected traffic volumes more than adequately cover this possibility (the range for a department store is 6.2-56.2 trips/1000 sq.ft.) 21. Letter from the Mosquito Abatement District. Ans. The applicant has contacted the Mosquito Abatement District regarding midge control. Installation of a filtration system as a control measure was suggested by the District. Details of the system are being worked out and will be available as part of the precise plans. In reference to concerns by adjacent residents in regard to lighting and signing, the latter will be according to precise plan approvals. Generallv, the signs will be part of the overall aesthetic design concept of the center. Lighting will not exceed 15 feet in height, will not be directed at the residential areas and generally be downlight. Every effort will be made not to intrude upon the privacy of the residences. Chairman McHarris commented that he felt the EIR could not be certified tonight because of the unanswered questions and how the phasing of the project is to be completed. Mr. Haworth answered that because the marketing information has not yet been compiled they have no specific renters and do not know whether they will build and then lease, or lease and then build. Commissioner Dukleth stated his concerns pertaining to the exits and entrances on the west side of Yorba. He drives the street every day and feels that traffic will be a real problem on Yorba and then exiting onto 17th Street. Commissioner McHarris commented that the location of the bank could also be a potential problem as to the stacking up of traffic at drive-up service windows. Cars leaving the bank-site would not be able to exit at the points they desire. Commissioner Hill stated that he was concerned about the signing and whether the lack of large individual signs would hurt any potential lessees. Mr. A1 Enderle, applicant and owner, described the bank stacking situation of the various banks in the Tustin Area. His conclusion was that the local home-owned banks were having stacking problems, namely the Santiago Bank. The major bank branches such as the Bank of America and Security Pacific have solved their stacking problems. At this time Mr. Enderle expects to have a major bank branch in his center. Mr. Larry Reed, President of the Park Tustin Homeowners Association informed the Commission that their association has five concerns about the project; PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page five 1. The phasing of the project - where will it start and when will the street be completed (Vandenberg Lane) to Yorba. 2. The traffic situation on Yorba - they desire median islands, fewer driveways and adequate left turning pockets. 3. They desire to see the 10' landscaping requirement along all major streets. 4. Signs - they desire to see low profile signing rather than large signs. 5. Lighting - They desire to see low-leuel lighting that would pro- duce a minimum of glare to the surrounding Droperties. Mr. Reed further questioned the parking situation on Vandenberg Lane and wondered if parking would be permitted on the south side so as to bring some relief to the residents of Park Tustin. Mr. Reed questioned the parking situation on Vandenberg Lane and wondered if parking would be permitted on the south side of the street so as to bring some relief to the residents of Park Tustin. Jim Shimozono, Architect for the Enderle Center, responded to some of Mr. Reed's questions. Mr. Shimozono compared this center to the Town & Country in Orange, and stated that the signing and lighting would be of a very low profile and the whole effect of the center would be like the Town & Country, very tastefully done. Additionally, the landscaping will be 10' along the major streets and on Vandenberg Lane, a minimum of 10' to 16' from the curb. Mr. Roger McCune, President of the Enderle Gardens Homeowners Assoc- iation, stated there were no objections to the center but the association had presented a resolution to the Citv concering the traffic problem on a 300' strip of Yorba, south of Enderle Gardens. Mr. Fleagle answered that the resolution had been presented to the City Council and staff was directed to proceed in finding a workable solution. Commissioner Hill moved to continue EIR 74-3 as an open public hearing at their next regular meeting; seconded by Commissioner Schier. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 2. Use Permit 74-9 - Maurice A. Enderle - for the development of the Enderle Center at Yorba:.and 17th Street, as a business- professional complex. Mr. Lenorovitz presented the staff report and commented that the plot plan provides a generally acceptable design scheme but staff does have concerns that center around the following: The adequacy of the bank's driveway and drive-in location which is unacceptable from a traffic viewpoint; the excessive driveway openings along Yorba Street and Enderle Center Drive; the center median islands as proposed, and parking lot setbacks which are needed at a minimum of 10 feet. Chairman McHarris questioned staff if parking would be allowed on the south s~de ~f Vandenberg Lane. Mr. Lenorovitz answered that no parking should be allowed on that street because of the volume of traffic. Chairman McHarris suggested that the situation be looked into further and offered the solution that parking could be allowed only for the night hours. PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page six Chairman McIIarris opened the public hearing. Mr. A1 Enderle, owner and developer, presented renderings of the pro~ect to the Commission and explained that there would be a clock tower in the development complimented bv a water effect. Mr. Stanley Myers, leasing agent for the center, explained to the Commission t~nat they were trying to avoid the cheaD and garish and would have high quality clothing stores, book stores etc., that would not need large signs. Mr. Enderle gave a synopsis of the history of the property, how the condominiums were built, the Bob French proposal, and the dedication of the 3 acres of property for public rights of way. Mr. Enderle requested that in the approval of the use permit the off-site improvements would not have to be completed at the same time, phasing them with the phasing of the development. Chairman McHarris complimented Mr. Enderle on the fine plan for the center but feels that there are small details that are of concern to all and have to worked out before approval. Commissioner Dukleth again commented that he felt the traffic would be a problem, the stacking of the bank lanes and the intersection of 17th & Yorba. Mr. Dukleth suggested that a traffic volume study be conducted. Mr. Itaworth pointed out that Figures 1, 2, and 3 of the Environmental Impact Report had provided traffic volume studies. Commissioner Schier moved to continue Use Permit 74-9, as an open publ~--~aring, to the next regular meeting; seconded by Commissioner Dukleth. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 3. Zone Change 74-11 - Covington Brothers - for a change of zone from the R-3 ~2,000) District to the Residential Planned Development (PD) District. The intent of the zone change is to authorize the conversion of a 70 unit apartment complex into a 68 unit condominium. Location: Northeast side of Mitchell Avenue 660+ southeast of Red Hill Avenue known as the Windsor Garden Apartments. Mr. Lenorovitz presented the staff reDort and commented that the staff had no objection to the zone change request but any future development plans would have to be in strict compliance with the PD District regulations. Commissioner Schier commented that the project looked like apartments rather than condominiums, however if 1/8th of all the aDartments were removed then the City would have a good development. Mr. Lenorovitz explained how in the Williamshire conversion they had to decrease the amount of units from 128 to 98 in order to provide the necessary oDen sDace to be in compliance with the PD District. In the Georgian Apartment conversion they acquired a vacant lot and provided more parking in order to be in compliance with the 2 to 1 parking ratio required in the PD District. Commissioner Schier stated that he felt we should not let our standards down. Chairman McHarris opened the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page seven Claude Clements, applicant for Covington Brothers, stated that if they knocked out any more units than 2 or 4, the project would be economically unfeasible. UsuallV they (Covington Brothers) market their projects at $25,000 and under. Neal Davis, 2451 E. Orangethrope, Fullerton, representative of Covington Brothers, explained to the Commission that these units are all two bedrooms and geared to adults only, not children. They inteDd to modernize the units completely, replace carpets, utilities and guarantee them for a year. Mr. Davis stated that they intended to remove only two of the units and add recreational facilities. Chairman McHarris explained to the applicants that the zone change approval would put them in a non-conforming status of the zoning code and the Tentative Map could not be accepted unless the project would be made to comply with the zoning code. Mr. McHarris further informed them that any decision made by the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. The public hearing was closed at 10:10 p.m. Mr. Lenorovitz suggested that perhaps the matter should be continued for two weeks and then have the staff prepare a resolution of approval. Mr. Davis stated that they are in Escrow and would prefer denial of the zone change rather than a continuance. Chairman McHarris commented that he would li~e to deny this zone change because the project does not fit into the Planned Development District. After further discussion Commissioner Dukleth moved that the Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution for consideration by the Commission at their next meeting, recommending approval of the zone change request, subject to the condition that any future development plans be in strict compliance with the PD (Planned Development) District regulations; seconded by Commissioner Hill. MOTION CARRIED: 3-1 AYES: Dukleth, IIill, Schier. NOES: McHarris. 4. Use Permit 74-6 - Saddleback Medical Development Company - for the expansion of the Tustin Community Hospital by the addition of 6925 square feet to an existing structure to house classrooms, physiological lab, recovery room and other facilities. Location: 14662 Newport Avenue Mr. Lenorovitz presented the staff report and explained the pending annexation with regards to the extra parking needed for the hospital. Since the hospital is expanding and in turn ~ using the parking spaces for this expansion, (12), additional spaces will be needed. Commissioner Schier questioned staff i~ the property owner has con- sented to the annexation of the vacant property where the future parking lot is proposed? Mr. Lenorovitz answered no, not at this time, but the City is hoping for it. Chairman McHarris opened the public hearing at 10:25 p.m. David Hook, 501 N. Brookhurst, Suite 308, Anaheim, applicant, informed the Commission that the parking was not a part of the application. The brickyard to the north would be the only place to go to gain more parking spaces and he feels that parking at the hospital is no problem at the present time. Mr. Hook further stated that if they did lease the brickyard property, its possible that the property could be sold in three years, because the master lease expires at that time. Mr. Hook explained that the hospital had made a survey of vacant spaces at the hospital during various times of the day, over a thirty day period, and the least amount of vacant spaces they had counted were 29. According to other PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page eight city standards they would be required to have 230 spaces and with the 12 they are deleting, they have 260 spaces. Commissioner Schier questioned Mr. Hook if this expansion would involve more people for the classrooms. Mr. Hook answered no, that this was mostly for the Dupils already attending classes at the hospital. Chairman MctIarris suggested continuance because there seems to be a misunderstanding between staff and the applicant. Mr. Lenorovitz stated that he was interested in receiving the parking study that was done by the hospital. Since there is additional expansion, an increase in ground coverage and an increase in use, it seems they would be creating a parking problem because they are taking away 12 parking spaces and not adding any. Mr. Lenorovitz informed the Commission that they can approve the resolution stipulated on the parking. Commissioner Hill moved that Use Permit 74-6 be continued to the next regular meeting,as an open public hearing, in order for Staff and the applicant to discuss the 58 car parking lot. Commissioner Dukleth moved to have a parking survey conducted; both motions seconded by Commissioner Schier. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 5. Use Permit 74-7 - L.B. Lewis and Clyde Stockdale - for the continued use of two trailers as temporary classrooms for a pre- school - kindergarten, for an additional two-year period. Location: 14851 Yorba Street Mr. Lenorovitz gave a brief history of the property and the different variances and use permits that have been approved. The latest action, Use Permit 72-393 which authorized the use of the subject trailers has four outstanding conditions that have not been met: 1. Construction of a 6'8" masonry wall. 2. Installation of landscaping. 3. Street improvements. 4. A parcel map which has not been filed. Mr. Lenorovitz has spoken with the applicant and he has agreed to make all these improvements as soon as possible. Chairman McHarris questioned staff if the school has 48 students or has the number increased? Mr. Lenorovitz answered that he didn't know. Commissioner Schier questioned staff why the wall was needed? Mr. Lenorov'~tz answered that walls are required by the Zoning Ordinance between different zones and uses. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 10:55 p.m. Mr. L.B. Lewi. sr 1211 E. First Street, Applicant, informed that there are about 50 children during the summer and a projected 69 for the fall term and that is the reason they need the trailer appro- val now so they can commence the fall classes after the Labor Day Weekend. Mr. Lewis explained that presently they have a chain link fence and if they construct a block wall fence, they will deny the elderly people in the convalescent home the pleasure of watching the children on the playground. In reference to the landscaping, this has not been completed because the street has not yet been widened. The Parcel Map is ready for filing but will not be recorded by the City Engineer until all the conditions of the previous use permits are met. Mr. Lewis further explained that they would be willing to increase the bond for the street improvements to $3,700. Mr. Lewis expressed his concern for the children and requested renewal tonight rather than one month from now so they can start the fall classes. Chairman McHarris questioned Mr. Lewis if they could make the street improvements PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page nine now and not later. Mr. Lewis answered they could, but there are still other sections of Yorba that have not been improved. The public hearing was closed at ll:00p.m. Commissioner Dukleth pointed out that he had inspected the trailer and there was no skirting on them and structurally they did not look safe. Also he noticed the chain link fence needed repair. Commissioner Schier moved that Use Permit 74-7 be approved subject to construction of full street improvements, in accordance with the City Engineer, construction of the 6'8" masonry wall on the north property line only, installation of the remaining landscaping, recordation of the Parcel Map, and review for compliance on the date of the previous Use Permit (October 9, 1973); seconded by Dukleth with the further stipulation that skirts be added to the trailers and the trailers should comply with all Building Code requirements. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0. 6. Use Permit 74-8 - Forest Olson Co. - for the use of two mobi~ o~ice structures during a four month period during the renovation and remodeling of an existing real estate office. Location: 13250 Newport Avenue, adjoining the Lucky Market Parking Lot. After Mr. Lenorovitz reviewed the staff report Commissioner Schier questioned s~f~ if they had discussed the sign redu~fon wi~ the applicant? Mr. Lenorovitz answered in the negative. Chairman McHarris asked what the restriction would be for the signing. Mr. Lenorovitz replied that they could reduce the degree of non- conformity and bring the sign more into conformance with the existing Ordinance by lowering the height of the sign so as not to exceed the building roof line and reduce the sign face by 25%. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 11:20 p.m. Robert Coles, 701 W. 16th Street, Costa Mesa, applicant for Forest Olson Company, stated that he agreed with the technical requirements imposed, but not the sign reduction, since this was not a part of the Use Permit. If the Commission does impose the condition of reduced signing, he would withdraw the application. Also, they had landscaped the front portion of the Flood Control Channel and would not want to erect the block wall in the front, but would agree to install the wall along the parking area at the rear of the building. Commissioner Hill explained to Mr. Coles that the philosophy of the new sign ordinance is to try and bring signs into conformance when- ever possible. Mr. Coles stated that he understood the problem but does not have the authority from the Olson Company to make a change in the signing. The public hearing was closed at 11:35 p.m. Commissioner Hill stated that he felt the issue of the sign should not prohibit the use of the trailers, but he understood that the ordinance was written in a manner to try and bring nonconforming signs into conformance. Mr. Lenorovitz commented that we did obtain voluntary compliance from Don Jose's and The Aspen Mine Company Restaurants. Commissioner~i~ suggested that staff draft a letter addressing the sign issue to the Forest Olson Company. PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page ten Commissioner Schier moved to adopt Resolution No. 1400 granting a Use Permit ~n application No. 74-8, subject to the following amendments: Strike item 2 (e) (e), 2 (q), and amend 2 (f) to read: That the existing wall along the flood control channel be extended to the rear building line of the Forest E. Olson building; seconded by Commissioner Hill. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 7. Use Permit 74-10 - tlarry L. Gardner - to operate a real estate school in the Professional Office District in an office building located at 17632 Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Lenorovitz reviewed the staff report and informed the Commission that there are two determinations that need to be made: First, is a business school, in this case a real estate school, a permitted use in the PR District? Second, if this is a permitted use, is this proposed use compatible with the land use of the district and specific area? Commissioner Schier questioned Staff if this school would be con- ducted only in the evenings? Mr. Lenorovitz answered that a situation of this type would be impossible to enforce (only evening classes), even if spaces were available for parking. Chairman McHarris opened the public hearing at 11:55 p.m. Harry Gardner, 3059 Johnson Avenue, Costa Mesa, applicant, informed the Commission that his office on Irvine Boulevard serves four different functions: 1. Administers correspondence courses for liscensing as a California broker (real estate). 2. Administers and coordinates students who attend monthly seminars in Los Angeles. 3. Is a consultant and public speaker. 4. Operates a resident school only one night a week. Usually his classes would have only 15 students and the building has 99 parking spaces. Mr. Gardner commented that he monitored cars in regards to the parking situation and there were never more than 40 cars in the lot during the day, and at night as few as 2 or 3 cars. Mr. Gardner stated that he felt the neighborhood was very real estate oriented; there are several real estate companies, brokers title companies, escrow companies. Commissioner Schier questioned Mr. Gardner if he plans to have classes more than one night a week and possibly during the day. Mr. Gardner answered that if his classes became large enough he possibly would. Mr. Don Fife, 18341 Irvine Boulevard, stated that he was just an interested citizen that used to have his office at the corner of Irvine and Yorba. At that time there was a school located in that building. Later when the school became too large they moved away. Staff responded that this building was located in a C-1 zone and the parking accommodations were different and were reflected in the development. The public hearing was closed at 12:25 a.m. Mr. Lenorovitz commented that staff has no opposition to the first three uses that Mr. Gardner is involved in. It is the fourth use that is a zoning violation. Mr. Lenorovitz further stated that there are other developments in the same area that were built to the commercial standards and a school would be allowed in the C-1 zone. After some discussion among the Commissioners, Dukleth moved to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at the next meeting, stating that a real estate school is not a permitted use in the Professional District; seconded by Commissioner Hill. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page eleven 8. An amendment to Ordinance No. 157 (The Zoning Ordinance) to require the dedication of .park land and or payment of fees as a condition of the approval of a subdivision map or parcel map, pursuant to Section 11546 of the State of California Business & Professional Code. Mr. Lenorovitz reviewed the staff report and explained that even though the ~ity is now virtually developed, it would still be a requirement of State Law to adopt an ordinance implementing the Open Space Element of the General Plan. The Chairman opened the public hearing at 12:50 a.m. Seeing and hearing no one, the hearing was closed at 12:51 a.m. Commissioner Dukleth moved that the Draft Park Land Dedication Ordinance be recommended for approval by the City Council; seconded by Commissioner Schier. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS - None OLD BUSINESS 1. Tentative Tract 8490 - K & W Korporation Location: East side of the Newport Freeway between Santa Clara and Fairhaven. Mr. Lenorovitz summarized the history of this EIR and explained that analysis--indicated that this project is less than desirable, with the environmental impact being more severe upon the residents of the proposed subdivision than upon surrounding properties. Mr. Jerry Klein, 111 East Third Street, San Dimas, President of K & W Korporation, presented to the Commission folders containing documen- tation of mitigating measures being offered to ease adverse impacts. He showed slides of the location, described the topography, and gave a summary of the Company's involvement with the property and dealings with the City, in order to illustrate the extent to which the Companv has gone to obtain the best possible development. Mr. Klein submitted the following comments about specific concerns: A. Fire Department An emergency access of 20' has been provided on the north boundary of the tract. He pointed out that the SATO dispatcher confirmed that the first and second fire response would be by Santa Ana and Tustin from the south, using the south entrance to the tract. All police and ambulances would respond from the south. B. Noise The accoustical engineers have proposed construction of a sound barrier consisting of a 6'8" concrete block wall on a 4-foot berm, with landscaping on either side of the wall. This will reduce the existing decibel level to about 60 dB to the tract and reduce the noise level to the adjacent homes on the east side of the tract by about 50%. PC Minutes 8/12/74 Page twelve C. Traffic Curculation The County Road Department has indicated that the access through lot 6 on Ethelbee is acceptable if the emergency fire access is provided. Proposed is a median island in the middle of the long cul-de-sac to force the slowing of traffic. Another median island has been proposed for the tract entrance (Lot 6) to separate incoming and outgoing traffic. The County has indicated that Ethelbee is wide enough and could carry the traffic for the tract. D. Storm Drain A catch basin is to be installed in the cul-de-sac for draining to the storm drain under Santa Clara. E. Schools The Tustin and Orange Unified School Districts have been contacted about possible problems that may arise since the school district boundaries fall in the middle of the tract. The Orange Unified School District has indicated that the boundaries cannot be altered to allow the tract to be entirely within one district. Mr. Klein discussed three alternative designs for the project: 1. City staff desires two entries to the tract for total cir- culation. The County prefers the single south entry. 2. City staff also suggested developing the southerly half of the tract and leaving the northern half vacant until a northerly entrance can be obtained. 3. The owner of the existing home at Rainier and Ethelbee is re- luctant to sell. The City could condem the property at K & W's expense. Glenn Newbrander, 13271 Ethelbee (Lot 5), stated that he has lived in his home for eighteen years sees a problem with this tract because there is presently parking on both sides of Ethelbee which will make it difficult for emergency vehicles to service the tract. Mr. Newbrander suggested tunneling under Fairhaven and Santa Clara to make access for this tract. Mr. Donald Fife, 2018 Deodar, Santa Ana, stated that he felt this development would be an improvement for the surrounding residents but takes exception to K & W buying Lot 6 because he is presently in Escrow for the same property. Mr. Lloyd Hendricks, 13231 Ethelbee Way, stated that he understood that K & W had dropped the Escrow on Lot 6 after July 11, 1974. Mr. Ed Richmond, 13242 Ethelbee Way, stated that none of the neighboring residents opposed the tract but they do oppose the entrancewa¥ being located on Lot 6. After some discussion among the Commissioners pertaining to the street and circulation system, they seemed inclined ~oward denial. M_r. Flyable suggested that perhaps with a continuance.some solution could be worked out. Commissioner Dukleth recommended continuance for this matter; seconded by Commission Schier. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 Mr. Klein was questioned if one of the three solutions recommended were acceptable. Mr. Klein shook his head in the negative. Mr. Lenorovitz requested that the Minutes reflect that they (the alternative~ were either unacceptable or economically unfeasible. NEW BUSINESS 1. Revision of Tract 8574 - Bill Reed Architect Mr. Lenorovitz explained to the Commission that the developer has made a modification to the plot plan without the approval of the Planning Commission. Some of the buildings were moved approximately one foot due to mature trees that are trying to be saved. Mr. Reed, Architect for the project, proposed cutting down the drives on the garages and staff agreed that the driveway width could be reduced to 24' rather than the original 25' that was proposed. Commissioner Dukleth moved to refer this matter to staff for further determination; seconded by Commissioner Schier. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE 1. National Trust for Historic Preservation - Received and filed. STAFF CONCERNS 1. Commission suggestions for Long Range Capital Improvement Program. Reports received from the Commissioners. 2. City Council - Planning Commission Workshop Session on September 16, 1974 at 6 p.m., prior to City Council Meetinq. COMMISSION CONCERNS 1. Reservations for League of California Cities - October 20-23, 1974 at Los Angeles. ADJOURNMENT Chairman McHarris adjourned the meeting at 2:30 a.m. to the next regular meeting of August 26, 1974. ~La~NING ~M~4I~S~ON RE'CORDING SECRETARY