Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-08-73 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION October 8, 1973 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the eighth day of October, 1973, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day in the Council Chambers, 275 South "C" Street, Tustin, California. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Edgar. The Invocation was given by Commissioner Hare. ROLL CALL Present: Dombrow, Edgar, Hare, Larnard, McHarris Absent: None. Others present: James G. Rourke, City Attorney R. Kenneth Fleagle, Asst. City Administrator- Community Development Director Bruce Lenorovitz, Asst. Planning Director Jessica Carroll, Planning Commission Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Dombrow moved for approval of the minutes of the September 24, 1973, meeting; seconded b~ commissioner Hare. Carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Environmental Impact Report (Draft) - The Irvine Company Location: Bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway to the northeast, the future alignment of Myford Avenue to the southeast, the U. S. Marine Corps Air Station (H) to the southwest, and the future alignment of Jamboree Road to the northwest. Mr. Flea~le reported that the Irvine Company consultant had submitted responses to questions raised by staff and Commis- sion for their consideration and that consultants and repre- sentatives of The Irvine Company were in the audience to respond to any further concerns. Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Ray Kimmey, Irvine Industrial Complex, 2122 Campus Drive, Irvine, stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner Dombrow asked if he was responsible for the EIR Addendum or was Owen Menard & Associates responsible. Mr. Kimmey stated that Owen Menard & Associates wrote the Addendum but that he agreed substantially with its contents. Commissioner Dombrow stated he had approximately 15 points to question to which Commissioner Larnard replied these could be taken up and discussed after the close of the public hearing. Commissioner Dombrow responded that some of his questions would be directed to the individuals responsible for the EIR Addendum, and that he takes exception to continued use of such terms as "however, In our opinion, But for, if's", etc. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 2 Mr. Owen Menard, Owen Menard & Associates, 222 W. Foothill Blvd., Claremont, listed the expert analysis teams employed for the various precise studies involved, stating their firm was the overall coordinators. Commissioner Dombrow pointed out that if a more precise EIR was not available at this time, is The Irvine Company asking the Planning Commission to authorize development of a great number of acres without any precise idea of what would be happening. Mr. Menard stated that an EIR on 300+ acres leaves a great number of questions for the future which cannot be answered precisely at this point in time. Mr. Ron Smothers, Owen Menard & Associates, stated they are presenting what could be labled a specific plan, although not a precise one of the property, which must be considered for evaluation of the EIR, which is less specific than a general plan that would employ detailed information such as precise number of cars, employees, etc. As proposals are made to the City in the form of precise industrial proposals, further evaluation should then be given. The Irvine Company will present when available a set of standards that will guide the development of this property. Commissioner Dombrow replied that the EIR Addendum does not tell what is planned, nor is it close to knowing what will be created on proposed location, and that, frankly, he is most concerned about the impact the development would have to Tustin residents, i.e., will it increase the quality of their life, since we know it will increase the quantity. Mr. Menard stated a finite development plan is not available and that answers are being sought to a development plan that does not exist, but that The Irvine Company is seeking to create a large industrial park within the confines of Tustin zoning allowance. He further stated that conceptual documents submitted considers this type of land use and provides a sounding board to be utilized when the Planning Commission considers each development within the complex. Commissioner Hare asked if the City would have the opportunity for a second look at precise plan or if present submittal is final as far as the City is concerned. Mr. Flea~le replied the intent is that the Commission would have an EIR that would outline the character of future devel- opment and from which sufficient guidelines could be estab- lished to accommodate each separate development that would come in, although Commission would be looking at phases of the plan to be sure it falls within the range of a comparable nature. Commissioner McHarris had the impression that the report was a document that justified the proposal. However, the nega- tive points can become serious and major; for instance, traffic, land use, recreation area. The Report states traffic can be handled by the interchange, but if interchange is not put through, the whole concept would fall through. Commissioner Edgar stated many pieces of plan can be accurately identified; but recreation area, railroad plans, etc., will have to be determined early and Commission would look to The Irvine Company for these to be identified as soon as business locations are known. Mr. Smothers stated they had given a broad definition of a particular type of development. The General Plan has noted PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 3 land use for this area to be industrial. Unless given pre- cise proposals, reliance would have to be placed on the utilization to define the impacts. The Irvine Company looks to the EIR as a present document, stating what can be expected from this particular project. However, it does not stop there since future considerations would also have to be determined. It will take monitoring on the part of the community to insure that identified items of importance are complied with. Commissioner Dombrow questioned if this implied maximum per- missible and minimum permissible use, to which Mr. Smothers replied in the negative. Commissioner McHarris stated his belief that the answer to question #43 had been "sloughed off", further stating that the report indicates airport noise is concentrated to two periods of time, morning and evening. Therefore, he finds it difficult to understand how this will be a major impact. Mr. Smothers stated the noise would seriously affect the area for use as a golf course, but they are not stating there is no alternative. To Commissioner McHarris' question as to what they are worried about, Mr. Smothers replied it was the fact they are dealing with use of noise standards. If the area were used for buildings, according to Mr. Menard, they could be made more soundproofed but there is no way to miti- gate noise on a golf course. Commissioner McHarris asked if noise level would rule out residential use of the property to which Mr. Smothers replied that under normal conditions, it would be difficult to locate a residential area in such a location. The noise levels do take into consideration the frequency of the flights and give an overall composite of zone rating. Commissioner Dombrow stated he lives 200 feet from railroad track. If this is considered within zone 2 of HUD's Depart- mental Circular 1390.2, do we measure zone on the level at the time train is passing or ten minutes after passing? Mr. Smothers replied that they are utilizing resource informa- tion. Intensity of noise would be measured when train is passing and the number of trains that go by. There is a technology that creates a zone occurrence. This is information gathered from the military and reply is based on their ability to put this information together accurately. Commissioner Hare stated it is obvious from the discussion that the Planning Commission is not going to accept the Addendum as written. Therefore, he suggested Commission members put questions together and turn in to staff for answer and continue the present hearing. Commissioner Dombrow stated proposals could be submitted to staff for transmission to developer. Mr. James Kinder, 1941 Hampshire Road, Tustin, stated he has talked to residents bordering Walnut who are definitely opposed to development. He has reviewed the EIR and it does not give any type of report of impact upon residents surrounding the area. Therefore, he wonders and asks Planning Commission how should we consider change in Master Plan in the City of Tustin and to whose benefit it would be to develop land in form of industrial rather than recreational or planned community. He further questions how many acres of land are available in City for recreation as opposed to land available for industrial. He would like sufficient time for people located in the area PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 4 of proposed development to be given a chance to voice their opinion either in the form of a petition or before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hare asked Mr. Kinder if he represented any organized group to which Mr. Kinder replied that tonight he represents himself as a concerned individual but hopefully tomorrow will have a committee which will form opposition. Commissioner Dombrow asked Mr. Kinder if he would be willing to state his specific objections. Mr. Kinder replied in the affirmative. There being no further comments, Chairman Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 8:30 p.m. Motion by Commissioner Hare, seconded by Commissioner Dombrow to continue hearing for 30 days~ or until November 12 and that in the interim, workshop sessions be conducted with developer and interested citizens, with detailed reaction from Planning Commission, citizens groups and any other interested people to be presented to staff prior to workshop, and further input to be developed by Planning Commissioners wishing to do so prior to workshop session so that staff will have opportunity to present to developer for reply. Mr. Flea~le stated he is interested in seeing the questions answered for the Commission and City Council. He is also interested in the property owner being permitted to proceed on schedule with assurance given to City that total interests of the City will be protected. He would rather have the matter scheduled for the next regular agenda and, if we have the necessary answers, proceed from there. If not, con- tinue until we receive the answers the Planning Commission requires. If Commission feels workshop session is required after receiving answers, one can then be called. Chairman Larnard stated that should a motion be passed that the hearing be continued to next regularly scheduled meeting, hopefully at least the submittals by Planning Commission would be in, and answers perhaps developed thereby allowing some- thing productive to be done at next meeting. Mr. Fleagle stated that the matter could be agendized for each continued meeting until all questions are resolved. Commissioner Dombrow questioned whether we would be incon- veniencing the individual that will take at least two weeks to get organized with questions, etc., and wouldn't we save time later than having it come up each time, having citizens say they have not had time to form answers. Mr. Fleagle replied that this was publicly advertised 30 days prior to public hearing. Also, the EIR was placed in the library and special notices in Tustin News Home Owners' Newspapers. Therefore, he feels it would be unjust to con- tinue the matter at the developer's expense longer than necessary. Chairman Larnard stated that if workshop session is to be held in two weeks, it would be more productive to agendize item to proceed. Although he does not know how much time will be needed, feels it would be better to agendize item for meeting of October 23 to see where we are. Mr. Kinder stated there is a lot of dollar value in the homes surrounding proposed complex and it would be beneficial to study the EIR. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 5 Commissioner Dombrow asked Mr. Kinder how much time he felt he would need, to which Mr. Kinder replied that in 30 days they can get a good cross-section of the feel of citizens. Commissioner Dombrow questioned Mr. Kinder if he would have some opinion in two weeks time. Mr. Kinder stated they could review EIR questions by Commission and replies of con- sultant, but does not feel that would be enough time to get an opinion of citizens in the community, but that he would like to participate in workshop session. Commissioner Hare asked Mr. Menard if a 30-day continuance would work a hardship on him. Mr. Menard replied that it would depend on the various committees and staff and how much would be desired. Believes 30 days would be acceptable. Commissioner Dombrow asked Mr. Menard if he would be willing to join in a workshop session to which Mr. Menard replied he would be more than willing to work with the City. However, thinks adversary role of the Planning Commission is somewhat unnecessary. Mr. Menard reiterated that he would be more than willing to work with Planning Commission and staff to make sure EIR is very adequate product and addresses all ques- tions necessary to be addressed. Commissioner McHarris pointed out to Mr. Menard that he believes the EIR report is one of the best ever presented to City. How- ever, one of the problems is when considering industrial use of the property in the summer, the Planning Commission did not have the EIR and were not aware of the problems brought up therein. Chairman Larnard asked Mr. Menard how the two-week period of time seemed as to opportunity for meaningful answers in time spent with staff. Mr. Menard replied that a meeting in two weeks, with workshop sessions where questions were solidified and presented to them would give them opportunity and time for reply. Chairman Larnard stated there are two possible approaches. Item could be agendized at next meeting, giving Mr. Menard time to work with staff and citizen's group to put together their questions and his response thereto and perhaps find a way to move further ahead than presently anticipated. The other option would be a workshop and whatever would be nec- essary after workshop sessions. Mr. Menard thinks two weeks will provide time to think things over. Commissioner Dombrow stated he was under the impression Plan- ning Commission could get questions together, citizens committee could formulate questions in a week or so, and staff, Planning Commission, citizens committee, etc., could sit down and solve some problems, thus saving time. Commissioner Edgar stated he is personally in favor of Mr. Fleagle's proposal to agendize for next meeting and that Com- mission must set for themselves precise timetable and suggests week from today for responses to Mr. Fleagle for this type of comment, and that after the public hearing, within a few days of that time, we have workshop to resolve questions still out- standing. If questions not resolved, all parties commit them- selves to workshop between that meeting and the next Commission meeting. Commissioner Dombrow concurs with Commissioner Edgar's sugges- tion. However, before scheduling public hearing, to sit down PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 6 with developer with written questions which would save an otherwise wasted evening. Commissioner Dombrow restated motion that public hearing be continued 30 days. Workshop before hearing two weeks from today, wherein interested parties, developer, citizens committee and Planning Commis- sion get together and reschedule for second regular meeting November 12, 1973, at which time all input would be in. Commissioner Hare moved to withdraw motion. Commissioner Dombrow. Seconded by Moved by Commissioner Hare, seconded by Commissioner Edgar that Environmental Impact Report (Draft) - The Irvine Company be a~endized at next regular meetinq, October 23,'1973; that each Commissioner desiring to do so submit any additional ques- tions they may have to staff; also giving citizens group opportunity to do same within one week from today. The staff will then consolidate and submit to items of concern to the Irvine Company prior to next regular meeting, with under- standing that matter can be continued from that time. Chairman Larnard stated he believes it would be futile to schedule workshop before two weeks from tonight's meeting. In his opinion, a "yes" vote may give opportunity to save developer's time. Motion to continue Environmental Impact Report (Draft) - The Irvine Company carried. Ayes: Hare, Edgar, Larnard, McHarris. Noes: Dombrow. Absent: none. 2o ZC 73-6 - A Joint Application of the City of Tustin Planning Commission and the Irvine Company for a zone change from Planned Community (Residential) to Planned Community (Industrial-Commercial). Location: Bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway to the northeast, the future alignment of Myford Avenue to the southeast, the U. S. Marine Corps Air Station (H) to the southwest and the future alignment of Jamboree Road to the northwest. Mr. Fleagle presented the background on the proposed subject zone change, stating that staff has no exception to the text as presented by the Irvine Industrial Complex. Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:05 p.m., with the understanding that this application would be tied in to the previous public hearing. Chairman Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:06 p.m. Moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner Hare, that ZC 73-6 be continued to the next public hearing before the Commission on October 23, 1973. Carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Initial V-73-5 - Application of L. B. Lewis, Tustin Convalescent Hospital, for a variance for authority to install one double-face (6' x 12') electric pole sign, twenty (20) feet from grade. Location: 165 North Myrtle Street, Tustin PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 7 Mr. Lenorovitz brought before the Commission a summary of the request to vary with the Sign Ordinance by allowing construc- tion of an internally illuminated free-standing sign of 72 square feet per side, for a total of 144 square feet of sign face area. Applicant requests sign to be 20 feet in height to provide visibility from both First Street and Irvine Boule- vard. Ordinance permits a 12 square foot sign in the R-3 District. Mr. Lenorovitz noted that the last request for a variance for a free-standing sign was denied in favor of a low profile type. Commissioner Edgar asked what the distance would be from Irvine Boulevard, to which Mr. Lenorovitz replied that it would be closer to Irvine Boulevard than First Street. Chairman Larnard opened the public portion of the hearing at 9:25 p.m. Mr. L. B. Lewis, 170 Preble Drive, Tustin, stated there are three owners of the Tustin Convalescent Hospital, of which he is one. Of the three, two live within the City of Tustin. The reason for asking for a variance to the Sign Ordinance is that the hospital is located on a dead-end street. From a patient standpoint, it is not a bad location, but there is no through traffic, so people are unable to see the facility. Various families and doctors have told them of difficulty in locating the facility. They receive calls daily on how facility may be located. It is their desire to serve the City with such a hospital since it is the only such type in the City, being one stage from acute hospital, offering 24-hour care, with Walter J. Berger, M.D. serving part-time on the staff, with an additional 10-15 doctors being associated with them. The reason they require a pole sign is that, if the sign were located on or near the ground, it would be difficult to see because of cars parking in front of the sign, obliter- ating its view from First Street. A sign along fence of shrubs would preclude it from being seen from Irvine Boulevard. The reason for requesting a double-face sign is to let people on both Irvine Boulevard and First Street know of their location. Sign proposed is for the purpose of clear readability from both First Street and Irvine Boulevard. Mr. Lewis stated that Mr. William Becker of Custom Sign Company can give indications from his company's standpoint of the need for this request. Since the operation is proprietary in nature and he is depen- dent upon its successfulness for his livelihood, it being located on a dead-end street, a pole sign would greatly faci- litate their hospital. Commissioner Hare questioned Mr. Lewis if the sign would be turned out at night, to which Mr. Lewis stated that it would be turned off at approximately 11:00 p.m. Commissioner McHarris asked if Mr. Lewis owns the R-3 property surrounding the hospital and, if so, were there any plans for its development. Mr. Lewis replied that he is a part owner of the property but has no present plans for development. Commissioner McHarris asked in what manner Mr. Lewis felt he was at a distinct disadvantage to which Mr. Lewis replied that because they were located on a dead-end street, there is no traffic flow going by seeing the development. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 8 Commissioner McHarris asked what other properties in the vicinity are there that are developed. Mr. Lewis replied that he did not care to mention names. Chairman Larnard stated he would like to know where buildings are located. Mr. Lewis replied that a pre-school faces Yorba Street. Immediately behind are two temporary classrooms in the form of mobile homes which they received permits to bring in last fall. Commissioner Dombrow asked that if, when property was built, Mr. Lewis knew it would be a dead-end street. Mr. Lewis replied that they did know but liked %he fact of its rela- tive quiet for a convalescent hospital. Commissioner Dombrow asked if they were surrounded by E-4 single family residences, to which Mr. Lewis replied there are two; one to the immediate east and one to the immediate northeast. Commissioner Dombrow requested to know the visiting hours. Mr. Lewis replied they were rather broad; from approximately 10:30 a.m. to about 7:30 p.m. Commissioner McHarris asked if the request for sign was for the purpose of advertising rather than for directional loca- tion purposes. Mr. Lewis replied that it was for both. Commissioner Hare asked if convalescent hospital was a refer- ral type of operation and if they got their clientele from doctors? Mr. Lewis stated they run advertisements in newspapers and have doctors that refer. Clientele results on an approximate 50-50 basis. Mr. William Becker, Custom Signs, 160 Centennial Way, Tustin, presented photographs of current sign to the Planning Com- mission, together with a rendering of proposed sign. Photo- graphs showed present 12 x 12 foot sign a bit over 8 feet in height, which he asked the Commission to equate another 12 feet higher. Width of proposed sign would be the same. Mr. Becker stated that to view from 500 feet, a larger sign is needed. He further stated he has been in the sign business for 26 years and has never sponsored a client's cause where the need is so dire as the present one. In this case, a low profile sign would not be good because the need is to go higher and to have the footages requested. Mr. Becker stated that when distance from sign is 550 feet one way and 450 feet from another way, the hardship represented by his client is without question. Commissioner McHarris stated the present sign ordinance per- mits a 12 foot sign and asked if they had a variance for their present sign. Mr. Lewis replied that this sign was put up by the original construction company and not the hospital and it is his under- standing that no official request from the City had ever been received asking for its removal. He further stated the only problem with their requested sign per se is the zoning. Had they been in a C-1 zone they would have been allowed this sign. Mrs. Agnes Bacon, 140 Mountain View, Tustin, spoke in favor of a variance, stating she lives two blocks away and did not PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 9 know hospital was there until it had been in existence for more than one year. She has personally directed people to its location, stating it presently has no vision. Mrs. Margaret Bird, North "B" Street, Tustin, stated she has never seen present sign and has tried to direct people. It is her belief that sign is needful. Chairman Larnard closed the public portion of the hearing at 9:45 p.m. Commissioner Hare asked Mr. Fleagle if this hearing was duly advertised. Mr. Flea~le replied that it was. There was a public notice printed in the Tustin News and notices sent to all residents within a 300 foot radius of the property. Chairman Larnard noted R-3 property northeast used as a pre- school, with expanded use with portable buildings. R-3 property located in southwest direction and asked Mr. Fleagle if there were any other unusual variances or permits connected with other properties. Mr. Flea~le replied that Big Brothers of America and apartment house are located in R-3. To the south is pre-school in R-3 zone, and hospital in R-3 which is institutional use. With the exception of one property in center of this block, the property is not used in accordance with the zoning by strict reference. One of the big problems is that property is not zoned to reflect the actual use. There is only one property which is properly used, that being the Rancho Yorba Apartments. As Mr. Becker pointed out, if this were C-1 zone, there would be no problem of putting up this sign. Chairman Larnard asked Mr. Rourke if application fell within the definition of a "hardship" case. Mr. Rourke replied that a variance is required to be related to the property. Commissioner McHarris noted that applicant's sign request would be about the same size as Mobil sign that stands up on Fourth Street. If this proposal were before the Planning Commission as a new use, it would not be looked on very favor- ably, and since hardship was self-imposed, he sees no basis for the new proposed signing. Commissioner Dombrow stated that in order to find a legal hardship, it cannot be self-imposed. Owners knew they were building on a dead-end street. They have admitted enjoyment of a quiet area. Part of their business is referral type. Therefore, he feels there are no local grounds and questions any moral grounds of any type. Commissioner Hare stated he is fully convinced there is a hardship in this situation. No one has come before the Com- mission to complain and, therefore, it is a matter of semantics. Commissioner Edgar questioned Mr. Rourke on what position do we have relative to interpreting whether this is a hardship case. Mr. Rourke replied that hardship necessary under ord- inance and State laws to grant variances is having to do with physical property; size, shape, etc. This is a finding the Planning Commission is required to make in order to grant a variance. Items such as zoning on other properties in the area do not enter into decision. Since it is self-imposed, exceptions cannot be considered. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 10 Commissioner Hare asked if hardship was a matter of judgment on the Commission's part to which Mr. Rourke replied in the affirmative. However, Mr. Rourke stated, the geometrical shape of the property is not a factor. The matter of hard- ship goes back to property which makes general application of ordinance more burdensome than on other properties in same zone and area. The dead-end could be considered a geo- graphical peculiarity of the area. Commissioner McHarris noted this might leave Commission open to other persons requesting a variance for similar reasons and does not think it would be fair to grant this variance and deny others. However, if a hardship can be determined to exist, the request seems more reasonable. Commissioner Dombrow stated he cannot justify sign as pro- posed due to what has been done before and what will have to be done in the future. Therefore, he would have to vote against proposal and have present sign removed in conformance with the sign ordinance of the zone. Mr. Fleagle suggested that the sign could be in conformance with the size criteria of the code if it were located in the area indicated on the plot plan, of a size equal to 12 square feet, not to exceed 8 feet in height from the ground level in a planter base. It would not provide identification desired by applicant but would create awareness of the site and remain within the sign limitations of the code. Also illumination of the sign could be reduced from 800 milliamperes which applicant has requested to 450 milliamperes. Moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner McHarris that variance be granted as to placement of sign, illuminated one side only, not to exceed 450 milliamperes, and of a monument type not to exceed 8 feet in height with lighting to remain on no later than 7:30 Chairman Larnard asked Mr.Fleagle his opinion of light remain- ing on at night, if the intensity is reduced, to which Mr. Fleagle replied that 450 milliamperes will not be offensive even if it were to remain on all night. However, 800 would be, even at 7:00 p.m. in the evening. Commissioner Hare questioned Mr. Lewis if an 8 foot free- standing sign would be sufficient. Mr. Lewis replied that it would be a terrific compromise compared to their original request. However, rather than be totally denied, he would rather have a smaller sign than none. Commissioner Edgar moved to amend motion to show deletion of limitation of time sign may be lighted. Seconded by Commis- sioner Hare. Commissioner Dombrow stated sign would be primarily a direc- tional sign and, in order to avoid annoyance to people, he sees no benefit to sign being lighted all night and feels it would be a detriment to the community. Motion as amended approved. Ayes: Edgar, IIare, Larnard, McHarris. Noes: Dombrow. Absent: none. Motion that variance be denied as requested and a sign authorized in the area indicated on the plot plans, illumina- ted one side only, not to exceed 450 milliamperes, maximum of eight feet in height, monument base, of a size equal to 12 square feet, carried unanimously. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 11 Commissioner Hare found it necessary to leave the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Meeting continued with a quorum. PUBLIC CONCERNS - None. OLD BUSINESS 1. Orange Count~ General Plan, 1983 - Land Use Element Mr. Fleagle stated that Mr. Irwin Schatzman, Orange County Planning Department was present to give an explanation of the Orange County General Plan. Mr. Irwin Schatzman explained that the Orange County Planning Department serves as staff who has tried to update land use element which, at present, is undergoing additional public hearings. The main focus is how to plan efficiently because it is a statement of where we want to go and, where possible, how we get there. Zoning is to be consistent with those of the General Plan. Three maps were presented for Commission consideration. Staff noted that the granting of zoning districts were not always in accordance with the Tustin General Plan. Mr. Schatzman stated that compliance with government code requires land use be consistent with General Plan. However, this is an amendable plan which has used City land use pro- posals wherever possible. The major category of Plan guide has been broken into three areas: 1) Preserve Areas, 2) Plan- ning Reserve Areas, and 3) Urban Areas. Preserve Areas represent a policy commitment and should be considered as non-urban areas for the ten-year timeframe of the Plan. Planning Reserve Areas generally represent those areas where a planning program is presently underway. Urban Areas applies to those regions of the County where development to one degree or another should occur within the next ten years. The urban land use area is composed of all land use cate- gories but is generally shown by the residential, commercial, industrial, public and quasi-public land use classifications. It was noted that the public hearing in Supervisorial District No. 4, which affects the City of Tustin, will be held on November 6, 1973. Staff will receive notification. Mr. Schatzman requested meeting between staff of City and County for discussion and that he is looking forward to receiving Planning Commission comments through staff. With regard to a question posed concerning Tustin's Sphere of Influence, Mr. Schatzman stated the public hearing would be the time to reconcile any differences between the County and City plans but they are requesting from each city copies of adopted land use proposals. The Sphere of Influence would be in conformity where possible with the City since it will undoubtedly belong to the City at some future time. Mr. Fleagle asked if, under the terms of the General Plan, we can take a parcel of Newport Avenue, within a one mile area and use it as a shopping center? Mr. Schatzman replied in the affirmative, all factors being equal. However, it would have to come before the County Planning Commission. In answer to a question from the audience, Mr. Schatzman stated the Tustin Area General Plan will be used as a source of reference and documentation. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 12 With regard to density, Mr. Schatzman stated when an area General Plan indicates residential land use and the 1983 Land Use Element also indicates land use, the plan showing the lowest density is the one the Orange County Plan- ning Commission would use. It is County policy that the densities are to be used as an additional factor in evalua- ting and reaching decisions on land use proposal. Existing Tustin General Plan boundaries that do not necessarily con- form to the land use designation would change pursuant to the Orange County Planning Commission boundaries. Any con- cerns regarding this may be brought out at the public hearing. Chairman Larnard stated that words in the text were understood by some to indicate in some way as much as 10 acres or more in any area could become commercial if certain terms were met. Mr. Schatzman replied that the scale or level of detail which the Land Use Element addresses paints a broad picture. Local commercial is not to be found automatically consistent. They must be found to be consistent prior to land use proposal. Commission must decide if they meet guidelines as well as any factors Commission takes into consideration. The Orange County General Plan has a policy which discourages strip commercial in Orange County. Zoning is the tool to be used to carry out General Plan. Intent of State legislation (Senate Bill 594, Section C) indicated that when zoning dis- trict becomes inconsistent with General Plan due to amendment, zoning district to be changed within a reasonable time. Commissioner Dombrow asked why the County solicits Tustin Planning Commission opinion of any particular project; take the report from staff and then totally ignore it. Are we going to have a meaningful relationship with the County? Mr. Schatzman responded that staff's comments are considered but perhaps not used. In preparing from staff point of view concerning County islands and in Sphere of Influence zones which will undoubtedly be annexed to City, County assumes City objectives are in concert with County of Orange. He believes there are certain major concepts which have County guide objectives. Where City zones differ from County, Tustin should direct County as to difference. NEW BUSINESS 1. Utt & Mitchell Park (Preliminary Review) Mr. Flea~le noted this is a park site which will have an advertised hearing and stated that Mr. Brent Marchetti was present to give background. Mr. Marchetti introduced Mr. Paul Sato, Consultant, to present preliminary park plan to the Commission. Mr. Sato, presenting a rendering of park plan, stated it is to be a passive park serving a radius of one mile area. In concept, users would walk to the park. Additional cars, if necessary, could be accommodated at school across the street. The park will have a western theme. There will be good police surveillance. Areas will be separated with mounding and there will be handball courts. The north and east will be screened off by high trees, shrubs, etc. There will be a group gathering area. The drain problem on water will be solved by channelling to bridges and sump pump or drainage system which is presently located through the site. There will be security lighting in key areas. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 13 Commissioner Dombrow asked if the roadways through the park would be sufficient to accommodate police vehicles, to which Mr. Sato replied that they would support maintenance vehicles, but that lighting and security were such that would preclude the necessity of police vehicles on the premises. Mr. Fleagle noted this will be going to public hearing on November 26, 1973. Environmental Impact Report - Negative Declaration Yorba Storm Drain Location: Yorba Street to 250' south of Laurie Lane Mr. Fleagle stated that the proposed project would have no adverse impact upon the environment and that property owners in the vicinity were most concerned with the installing of the storm drain and street improvements. Moved by Commissioner Edgar, seconded by Cor~Lissioner McHarris, that Resolution No. 1370 be adopted, determining that the proposed project will have no adverse impact upon the environment and is therefore authorized a negative environmental impact declaration. Motion carried unanimously. e Formal Finding - Santa Aha First Federal Savings & Loan Association. Mr. Fleagle stated it is the desire of Mr. C. L. Benson, President, Santa Ana First Federal Savings and Loan Associ- ation to locate and operate a limited branch facility which would employ four people, with limited service facilities. Commissioner Dombrow questioned Mr. Fleagle if we would be opening ourselves at some future date to having this facility expanded. Mr. Fleagle replied that use terms of finding would be limited service facility with limited employees. However, after two years, they can go back to State and ask for full service facility which could provide full service. The Commission desires, they can specify the limitations to preclude problems at a later date. Mr. C. L. Benson, President, Santa Ana Savings and Loan Associ- ation, 506 North Broadway, Santa Ana, stated they have approval of Federal home back to operate facility in the general area. The facility in which they would like to locate has 1600 square feet and parking for 8 or 9 cars. They contemplate three full time employees and one part time. Hours of operation would be 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and until 6:00 p.m. Friday, with half day on Saturday. Primary purpose is for savings needs of immediate area. This facility would accept deposits and loan payments, plus service such as traveller's checks. There are no plans for expansion, nor do they contemplate change in design. Chairman Larnard asked Mr. Benson if there are any other buildings similar in the City. Mr. Benson replied that primary function is to have savings and make real estate loans. However, the real estate loans would be processed at the main office. If they found it necessary to expand, they would look for facility within general area which would allow full service facility. Calif- ornia Federal has applied for and had approved a limited faci- lity in the vicinity of 17th Street and Yorba. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 14 Moved by Commissioner Edgar, seconded by Commissioner Dombrow that permission be ~ranted, subject to condition to limiting facility as proposed by staff. Commissioner Dombrow feels specific limitation is necessary to insure facility will be maintained as a limited facility, and confined to 12 square foot signing, within the limited zone. Chairman Larnard asked why we needed a Formal Finding. Mr. Flea~le replied that restrictions and limitations could be incorporated into a Resolution and brought back to the Planning Commission for adoption. This resolution could incorporate specific limitations of the Charter regarding number of employees and services to be rendered. Motion by Commissioner Edgar, seconded by Commissioner Dombrow and amended to read that Resolution be prepared for Chairman's signature ~ranting permission of a limited facility, subject to conditions as proposed by staff carried unanimously. 4. Waiver of Under~round Requirement - Franchise Contractors Location: Ralphs Shopping Center, 17th Street. Mr. Flea, lc reported that the Building Department recommends that requirements of Ordinance No. 455 be waived on this project since the service would be one out of several over- head services presently in existence. The Edison Company has been asked if they would consider undergrounding but replied there is no way in their budget to do so since they have used all available funds for First Street. Moved by Commissioner McHarris, seconded by Commissioner Dombrow, that a waiver be qranted to Franchise Contractors, prov~din~ they waive all protest to undergrounding of their service in the future. Carried unanimously. Request for Extension for Tracts 7794, 7979 - U. S. Development Corporation. Location: South of Santa Ana Freeway, east of Santa Fe Spur Line. Mr. Fleagle summarized for the Commission the background and items requiring attention prior to approval of the sub- ject maps. He stated the precise point of Jamboree and the freeway is not yet known. Developer is willing to inform each prospective buyer that a roadway will be built in back of him where applicable. Mr. Warren James of The Irvine Company stated the State of California has not designed the interchange. Concerning Tract 8030, the State has not yet decided if there will be an over or underpass. This is a primary problem. When you consider the perimeter treatment of the subdivision, this would mitigate the effect of an overbank impact. There- fore, he requests that Item 3 of the City Engineer's recom- mendation be eliminated as a condition since they do not know what it will look like. If the Planning Commission desires, the Irvine Company will have potential buyers sign an acknowledgment that they know a roadway is going in. Chairman Larnard asked if the Irvine Company has any idea of when the State might know whether there will be an over or underpass, to which Mr. James replied they have had no PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 15 indication in the last year and a half and have no idea when and what will be required. Mr. Flea~le stated that it is important to find out quickly when this will be put in, not only as related to the develop- ment but potential industrial. Whatever decision is made will be from the State level. Commissioner Dombrow questioned if there were any way of forcing them to put us on a five-year plan now and Commission can give decision as to what they want. Mr. Fleagle stated that if tract maps are not extended, it will require resubmittal of tract maps, which means City, County and developer will have to go to State before any development can proceed. Commissioner Dombrow questioned if, assuming tract numbers had expired, what type of timeframe would be involved. Mr. James replied that part of the problem is that Tract 8030 is ready to record. As far as the industrial complex, it would be in their best interest to impose whatever is neces- sary, to adequately warn the public. However, to hold up development for State decision, there is no way of knowing how long it would be. Chairman Larnard asked how the EIR would come into the plan. Mr. Fleagle replied it would involve noise levels, mitigating measures, etc. Moved by Dombrow, seconded by McHarris that 18-month extension for Tentative Tracts 7794 and 7979 be approved, subject to the following conditions: Construction of the interim earth channel between Walnut Avenue and Fl0 Channel with connection to the Fl0 Channel to be completed prior to November 1, 1973. Construction of the interim earth channel to be completed prior to the issuance of occupancy certificates for Final Tracts 8029, 8030, 8031 and 7979. Construction of the earth embankment for the future Jamboree Road overcrossing with land- scaping and irrigation system prior to the sales of units adjacent to said embankment in Tract 8030. That all potential buyers within 300 feet of the earth embankment be notified that they will be abutting, or located near, an eventual arterial highway; and that all sales information (litera- ture, models, maps, etc.) indicate this. Motion carried unanimously. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None. CORRESPONDENCE 1. Letter of Inquiry from Mr. Sol Zwirn Mr. Flea~le pointed out that Commission has a copy of letter PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 16 addressed to his attention and his response thereto. Mr. Sol Zwirn, 17361 Marybelle Avenue, Tustin, stated part of his problem was overdevelopment of Irvine Boulevard as related to First Street where they are backsliding because of having trouble of getting to where they want to go. A lumber company is building a new facade right at property line. This was not his understanding. He dedicated 17' to the City and tore down 10' of existing building for setback. Those tenants building to property line are getting financial benefit of that additional space. It was his belief that City could deny building permits but in talking to Mr. Fleagle now understands this was not the case. As examples, Tustin Lumber and Van Hove Garage. Mr. Zwirn asked the Com- mission if they were fully aware of the situation and if nothing could be done. Chairman Larnard stated there are individual parcels, each unique with problems to be solved. Mr. Rourke stated he is not familiar with zoning situation. However, in the case of Van Hove and the Mullins property, if City had acquired property by building further back, we would have had to pay and we had limited budget which was the major basis of approval. Mr. Fleagle noted that any new property developed on First Street must observe the 10 foot setback, which was reduced to 10 feet by Planning Commission recommendation, recog- nizing the shallow lots. In order to encourage development of the First Street property and make it to the desires of the City, parking requirements for Mr. Zwirn were waived. Mr. Zwirn could have waited until City had condemned and built up to frontage. However, he would still have had to appear before the Planning Commission to develop property and it is quite possible the Planning Commission would have required the dedication of a setback. Mr. Zwirn noted that economically there is not much that can be done. Mr. Rourke stated that all properties have been acquired except for two or three now in litigation. These will be required to be set back. In his opinion, nothing feasible can be done now. Mr. Zwirn further stated his concern for property located on the southwest side of Irvine and Prospect. His understanding is that this is a PR zoning and that real estate offices are not allowed therein. Mr. Flea~le stated that whether or not a realty firm can be located in a PR zoning is a Planning Commission decision. However, if such realty firms operate within the restrictions of the district, he does not feel there is anything adverse. The Ordinance does not spell out Real Estate per se as allowed in the PR zone. Chairman Larnard stated that he feels more time is required to look into this particular ordinance concerning real estate firms being located in this particular zoning. Therefore, the question of PR zoning as related to real estate firms will be placed on the agenda of the next regular meeting at which time some type of analysis will be made. Mr. Zwirn will be notified. PC Minutes October 8, 1973 Page 17 2. Correspondence from John Dunlop regarding Open Space Lands. Mr. Fleagle stated that the correspondence from John Dunlop speaks for itself, in that he is asking the Commission's voice to the growing opposition to Proposition 1. Correspondence received and filed. 3. Correspondence from City Council. A meeting scheduled with the Parks and Recreation Commission on October 16, 1973, and a Special Meeting for a Sign Ordinance Hearing on October 29. STAFF CONCERNS 1. Pending Items for October 23, 1973 An Amendment for "Best Years" - Irvine and Holt A Prezone from Orange County R-4 to Planned Development District for 24 unit condominium - San Juan and Browning. Presented to Planning Commission. 2. County of Orange - Zone Change Case No. ZC 73-27 Mr. Fleagle stated a petition was presented by citizens to change zoning from "Planned Community" to "General Agricultural". Moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner Edgar, to continue to next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, October 23, 1973. Carried unanimously. COMMISSION CONCERNS Planning Commission Resolution No. 1371 to the City Council recommending City Council action to resolve energy crisis. Commissioner Dombrow read the proposed Resolution No. 1371 to the Planning Commission concerning the critical consequences of an energy crisis. Moved by Commissioner Dombrow, seconded by Commissioner McHarris that Resolution No. 1371 be adopted as written for presentation to the City Council. Carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 a.m. to a Special Meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission at 7:30 p.m. on October 16, 1973. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDING SECRETARY CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Acting Chairman Pro Tem See Recreation minutes of October 16, 1973.