HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.H. 1 SAN JUAN APTS 02-06-89 PUBLIC 'HEARING
No.
· .
TO:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY IqANAGER
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANTS-
COHHUNI~ DEVELOPHENT OEPARTHENT
·
GENERAL PLAN AHENDHENT 88-02 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-02 (SAN JUAN
APARTHENTS)
SAN &UAN APARTHENTS
% #ESA DEVELOPHENT COMPANY
2925 COLLEGE AVENUE, fA-3
COSTA HESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
ATTENTION: HR. LARRY CAI~EAU
LOCATION:
1432 SAN ,JUAN STREET
ENV IROI~IENTAL
STATUS'
REQUEST'.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONHENTAL QUALITY ACT
1) .GENERAL PLAN AMENDI~ENT 88-02; TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROH C (COHHERCZAL) TO HF (HULTI-FA~ILY
RESIDENTIAL)
2) ZONE CHANGE 88-02; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROH PC-C1 (PLANNED
COHHUNITY/RETAIL COHHERCIAL) TO R-3 (2200) (HULTI-FAHILY
RESIDENTIAL)
RECOMHENDATZON
Pleasure of the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2546 and 2547
recommending approval to the City Council of the subject General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change request (Attachment A). The proposed General Plan Amendment
would change the land use designation of the subject site from C (Commercial) to
MF (Multi-family Residential). The proposed Zone Change would change the PC-C1
(Planned Community/Retail Commercial) designation to R-3 (2200)' (Multi-family
Residential) to accommodate a maximum of 8 dwelling units. The Planning
Commission determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
would be a compatible use in the neighborhood and the R-3 (2200) zoning
designation would provide a transitional zone between the adjacent R-3
properties and other surrounding land uses.
Ctty Council Report
San Juan Apartments
February 6, 1989.
Page two .....
The subject stte is currently vacant, but previously contained an older
residence which was recently demolished.
Surrounding land uses include multi-family residential uses to the west and
north, a church and Tustin High ballftelds to the south, and a real estate
office to the east. The multi-family residential uses immediately west of this
property are zoned R-3, whtch allows a maxtmum density of ! dwelling unit per
1,750 square feet of lot area. Multi-family residential uses on the north stde
of San Juan Street are zoned R-3 (2,700) which allows a maximum density of 1
dwelling unit per 2,700 square feet of lot area. (See Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
II
le
General Plan Amendment 88-02 - The proposed amendment is a request to
change the General ~51an 'land use designation on the subject property from C
(Commercial) to MF (Multi-Family Residential). The Planning Commission
determined that the proposed request ls consistent with other elements of
the General Plan tn that the multi-family designation would allow
compatible land uses and orderly development in the area. Please refer to
the December 12, 1988 and January 9, :/989 Planning Commisslon reports for
additional analysis on the proposed amendment (Attachments C and D).
2. Zone Change 88-02 -The proposed zone change is a request to change the
zoning on the .... Subject property from PC-C[ (Planned Community/Retail
Commercial) to R-3 (2200) (Multi-Family Residential). The applicant has
indicated tn their application that the proposed zone change is justlfied
based on the following'
a. A commercial project creates more trtp ends than a residential use;
b. The proposed cul-de-sac on San Juan Street would limit the commercial
value of the subject stte;
c. Mostly htgh-densit~ residential uses exist to the north and west;
d. The residential use would act as a buffer between the school and
commercial uses;
e®
There ls limited visibility from Red Hill Avenue for commercial use;
and
f. The small lot size makes commercial parking standards unworkable on
the subject site.
In reviewing the surrounding land uses and the applicant's justifications,
staff came to the conclusion that the~ feasibility to physically develop the
Corn rnunity Development Department
J
Ctty Council Report
San Juan Apartments
February 6, 1989
Page three
site with a commercial/office development, as currently designated, would
provide the most appropriate buffer between said surrounding uses. We,
therefore, originally recommended denial of the project and retention of
the current General Plan description and zoning on the subject property.
Please refer to the Planning Commission reports dated December 12, 1988 and
January 9, 1989 for addi ti onal di scussi on of the applicant' s
justtftcatlonsand staff's review of the proposed project (Attachments C and
D).
Staff have attached alternative resolutions for approval or denial of the
project as the City Council'may determine appropriate.
Daniel Fox /)
Associate Planner
Christine A. Shlngleton~
Director of Community Development
DF:CAS:ts:per
Attachments: Attachments A, B, C, D
Ordinance No. 1019
Resolution No. 89-19 (A), 89-19 {D) and 89-20
Corn rnunity DeveloPrnen~ Depar~rnen~
1
3
5
.6
7
8
9
10
1:2
13
14
15
IG
17
18
19
:20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
,.
RE'~OLUTION NO. 2546
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN,'CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02, A REQUEST TO
CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM C
(COMMERCIAL) TO MF (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUAN STREET.
The Planntng Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
I ·
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follo.ws-
'¸ AD
Government Code Section 65356.1 provides that when tt is deemed
to be in the public Interest, the legislative body may amend a
part of the General Plan.
In accordance with Government Code Section 65356.1, 'a publlc
heartng was duly nottced~ called, and held on the application of
the Mesa Oevelopment Company tqTMH reclassify .the land use
designation from C (Commercial) F (Multi-Family Residential)
on the property located at 1432 San Juan Street on December 12,
1988 and January 9, 1989.
CO
De
Thts amendment has been revtewed In accordance wtth the
California Environmental Qualtty Act and a Negattve Oeclaratton
has been prepared.
o
The proposed residential designation is in the best Interest of
the ,public and surrounding property owners in that a residential
designation would allow greater, land use compatibility between
the ad;jacent commercial, public and - Institutional, and
rest dentla 1 uses.
E. The proposed land use change is consistent with other elements of
.... the General Plan.
II. The Planntng Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council
of General Plan Amendment 88-02.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting ~ the Planning Commission of the
City of Tusttn, held on the ~/t'"day of ~~..~, lg8g..
Chai rman
I Penn1, Foley ~' ' .
Secretary
ATTACHMENT A
· STATE OF CALZFORN]A')
.COUHTX OF ORANGE )
CZTY OF TUST]N )
.o
·
], PENN] FOLEY, ~he undersigned; hereby certtfy that ] am .the Recording
Secretary of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn, California; that
Resolution No. ~~ ~as duly passed. ~d.adop~ed a~,.~regular ~e~tng of
=he Tus=ln Planning Co=lsslon, held on the :~r~ day of ._-~
PENN] FOLEY ~ -
Record1 ng Sei~e~a~y
R£SOLUTZON NO. 2647
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REGOMIdENOING APPROVAL TO THE CITY
COUNCIL OF ZONE CHANGE -88-02, A REQUEST TO REZONE
PROPERTY LOCATEO AT 1432 SAN JUAN STREET FROM-PC-C1
(PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL COMMERCIAL). TO R-3 2200
(MULTI-FAMILY RESIOENTIAL).--
The proposed zon(~ is consistent with the General Plan,
particularly the Land Use Element, tn that the multi-family
designation would allow compatible uses and orderly development
tn the neighborhood.
·
20
PASSED AND AOOPTED at a reg~,~F'
Clty of Tustln, 'held on the ~
Pen-n1 Foley ~ r--- ~
~. 17 '-'" O. The proposed zontng ts tn the best tnterest of the publlc health,
]8 '" . . safety and welfare of the' surrounding neighborhood and property
....,- , owners tn .that the maxtmum a11o~ed denstty would ensure greater
1ariel use compatibility bel~een the adjacent residential, publtc
· ~. and tnstltutlonalo and commercial uses.
II..The Planntng Commission hereby recommends approval to the CtTy C_oun_cll
.. of Zone Change 88-02. - -
i.~
meetlng 9f the Planntng Commission of
day of'~,a..~~, 1989 the
,~': C. N~aker
,~ Cha I rmah
I. The Plannlng Commission ftnds and determines as follows:
: A. A public heartng was duly nottced, called and held on the
·application of the Mesa Development... Company to rezone the
property located at 14'32 San Juan Street from PC-C1 (Planned
., Community/Retail Commercial) to R-3 2200 (Multi-Faint ly
Residential ) on December 12, 1988 and January 9, 1989.
This Zone Change has been reviewed in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration
has been prepared.
'* "":' ~:~-~::;" :7. The" Planning Commission of the Ct ty of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
· '-'. '"" ":.'~--'!".:':" follows:
.":~"[;': ,'- ";~t; }i '.: . · .,~i:: ., ', .:: .', '. :' .... .. ...'
:'~ r,i::~t;::COU#.TY~}i;O/:....ORAlIGi ,,,,. ) ', !. -,..- .*,, ',...., -.- .... .- .. ".
?-. ;' '~,'. -"r. 9. :i'~"-';Ix ;,:i;,'e"'i' '}~, ;-', .'~:_; .,. ,. ' - ' ' · , '. · . ' ' ', .- ..... : ..... , ' .. ,' · · '
; ~' 'i' ':9 '-,'~'? yl ,~;~.rf?~',"~l'::= 4-! ~,:: ...: .~-'.'.' ~. '" ' - i , -" '. ' . ' , ' ' , ' . ' " ' .... ~ ' .
· ;,... %.,.,. :~,,- .,,,;.~..,,,;(~i~t,:,.r..~ .~..r . '., ,''~ · · ' .... : , . · · ',., ,, . · . . . ' . : .
,:~,~,-'::'b, o- ~ - ~- ~~,,---.,,,..:.o...~,..~..,..._., ~.,~ .... ,_. . . ty of Tustln, California, that
;?'-:.:~-,-Z.,~'..,..,v. '.v. '~T/. · ~as ;Uly passe; and adop~d at
, ;?...:' ,the~.' , .... - . g ettng of
· ..,,,~,.~; ~;,.Tus~n Plannlng ~omstsston. held on ~h~
-L.?~,~;~,,..I~.~' .~, ~.~., ..... ..., , .... - ,..~
.r.,,,~,.~.. ~ '~~~ ~~:,'~' .' '''~i~?::'f? ''i':'i'~ ; :' ';' '''J':' ' ' ' ;, ' . . '.; ' ' ~ . .' '' '
. :.?,',:~' b,.:.-R~:~.~{,.~,,.:'. ,~' . ,~ , . ,' . '.. .: ..
, .. .. r ' -..'
;'-"*T ~' . ~ .6 . "~;':'* '.'' 3' ~' "': 'k: :": '~i '.,~ 'J'.. ". '*: .~'~ ~" ." · ' .' . ' .
,' :~'*.:, ', '' . ~.t'* }' ~,.:~ ~ ;. ?- ~ :" :, ' ~. · ,-." ',- '' ,' ' · ' , ,
' ~ ' ,'" -i '~; :'' :' %1' ~;" ',Z"[:' ',' .... .. ; ,:* ;. r. · : - . . .. ., ·
...,.. ,. ~,/~.¥~, ~ '~; ,~ , .. , , ? · . ,... ,- . .~ - , . .
.' ~;;~. ,-,.{,.,;~ .:;,;,,~ .. ,..... 15, ,,~ .~, .:.. : .... ., · ., ', .. ~,,. . ~-... .. .. ...
. .; ; .... "i~'vi'i,~v": ~,'~ ; ":. ; ..' ',' - '., . .~ '2, ."'' . .., ,.' :., , ,, . . r .
.~' ~' ~'.''' ri''.-~''~Z;:'',;'Z;;'?''¥'.L'': '::~''~ ''";' % ': ',' "':' : "' ' ' ' ' '" "'. '"" "':'' ' ' .' ' I "' '
','~.;4.'h..:i¥.-i'??,'9i, i"'".~"{,'1'.: ." ':; ~:'-?"'~..: e'.'. ' ' ". .' "'" '." ?"'' - ' ~' ' :' :"
. ...;...f. ';/ :.:.: .~.:-.71~ :, ,.. ~,:, : ",.-.',,' .,. ,'.. -., .-. - .,, ,,..'.... ., . . ; .. . .
",'. ~::,; / t,"' ?,..:'.<'B',';.: ~ ;- ;.'~ ' :,. 'f "'..:' .' '. . . ; ', " · . ~· .' ' " '
.'~ ;a . .- -.' : ,: . ~H:,~:,y'~.:'}:~:':: : ,~:;- .'-.~:"~ '~, ?..,'..' ' - . .'' ~'; ,~. ' . - .
"; :': ' t"'~.'...:':: .~".: '-' .;:?;:-',;)~,'; .... '-. ? ' * .}-~ ."..:. ':'.. ?:'..' .... ' ":::' .' '~ :;' :' "". :." ' ' , · '.
. ,.'.." ~::. ':~:.. ': ,':.'?,/;%"-~L;~;'; ..:-:;?/.-,:~..:, '....:....' ,: '~,: .'. '. · . . .: :;:....y..~ ..1. ,. ,' . . . . .
','' ~, ,,"-"' "'. '..~"~¥ ',~"'., '.~-"'," ':"' '. '' " ' :. ' .... '' . ~ ' · ' ' '. I ' '
'.":~.:' :-'.~' :.;.~'.'.':,'~,".;~?:.~: ?.;.".'.?::~.',:~T~:,.':~: ~:. ' :;.,: .'5 ": ,'' ;- . ' ~'. ' -
,. ?: .'" .::.'~.'~'h.: ;:,.~'.~:'~<'y'~':.':"..:..'~,-.":.': /:'.. ,'...' ... ": ..," .. ., ' · '
....Z., ',..?L.-'" "~:-,Z}'-'':;~'' :-:aL./,.,-"~' ~"';, '," ;L," ,.',, · :'?': ,, ' .... . . " ..=', .: .;' ' ~ '
'"Report
to the
Planning
Commission
DATE:
DECEMBER 12, 1988
ITEM NO. 2
SUB4ECT:
GENERAL PLAN AHEN~ENT 88-0:2 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-02 (SAN ,JUAN
APARTHENTS)
APPLICANT:
MESA DEVELOPPlENT COMPANY
2925 COLLEGE AVENUE, #A-3
" COSTA lIEU, CALIFORNIA 92626
ATTENTION: MR. LARRY CAMPEAU
LOCATION:
1432 SAN 4UAN STREET
ENVIRONMENTAL'
STATUS:
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE I~ITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
1) GENERAL'PIJUI AHENDIIENT 88-02; TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROll C (COMHERCIAL) TO MF
(HULTZ-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
2) ZONE CHANGE 88-02; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROH PC-C1
(PLANNED COMI~NITY/RETAIL COMHERCIAL) TO R-3 (FtULTI-FAHILY
RESIDENTIAL)
RECOI~4ENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2546 and
2547, denying General Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone Change 88-02.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Land Use Amendment*and Zone Change
for a .41 'acre (17,880 sq.ft.) site "generally locatedi on the south side of San
Juan Street west of Red Htll Avenue to accommodate multt-fanflly residential
development. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use
designation of the subject site from C (Commercial) to MF (Multi-Family
Residential). The proposed Zone Change would .change the PC-C1 (Planned
Community/Retail Commercial) designation to R-3 (Multt-Fandly Residential).
.The subject stte ts currently vacant, but previously contained an older
residence whtch was recently demol'lshed.
Corn munity Development Department
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commtsston Report
GPA 88-02/ZC 88-02-San Juan Apartments
Oecember 12, 1988
Page two
..
Surrounding uses Include multi-family residential uses to the west and north, a
church and Tustln Htgh ballflelds to the south, and a real estate office to the
east. The multi-family residential uses Immediately west of thts property are
zoned R-3 whtch allows a maxtmum density of 1. dwelltng untt per 1,750 square
feet of lot.., area. Hultl-fandly residential'uses on the north side of San Juan
Street are zoned R-3 (2,700) whtch allows a maxtmum denstty of 1 dwelling untt
per 2,700 square feet of lot area. (Se~ attachment I).
A public h..e.artng nottce denottng the. time, date, and location of thts hearing
was published tn the. Tusttn News. The property was also posted and property
owners within 300 feet of the' P~oject si,re were notified by mat1 pursuant to
State law. :]:n addition, the Board of Education and Hr. Maury Ross of the Tusttn
Unlfted School Dtstrtct were nottfted of the subject heartng by certified mall.
The applicant has been forwarded an agenda and a copy of the staff report.
DISCUSSION :.
General Plan Amendment 88-02 - The request to change the land use
designation from Commerc'ial"'to multt-famtly residential would allow further
encroachment and expansion of small, high-density residential uses, east
toward Red Htll Avenue. .The extsttng residential density on the south stde
of San Juan Street ts 25 dwelling, untts per acre wtth parcel stzes of .37
acres ,.or less. The Rancho San Juan condomJntum development on the
northeast torner, of Red Htll Avenue and san Juan Street ts also developed
at 25 dwelling unlts per acre. The extstlng residential denstty on the
north side of San Juan Street between'Red Htll Avenue and Utt I~rtve Is 16
o~elltng untts per acre with parcel stzes of .2 acres or less. The
proposed amendment would authorize a maxtmum residential density of 25
dwelllng untts per acre on the subject stte.
The Land Use Element and the Houstng Element of the General Plan recognize
an Imbalance of owner-occupied units versus renter-occupied units and
strongl.y encourage development of~-owner-occupted houstng types. There ts
'no lega'l tool which can be applle~!· to requtre only owner-occupied houslng.
Creation of the residential product type ts soley at the discretion of the
property owner, stnce both owner-occupied and renter-occupied product types
are permitted under the I~ultt-famtly designation of the General Plan. The
proposed amendment would be creattng a strong opportunity for additional
rental untts which' ls tn confltct wtth the Land Use Element and Houslng
Element of the General Plan.
2. Zone Chan~le 88:02 - The applicants have Indicated In thelr application that
Community Developmen~ Departmen~
C_ .
Planntng C~marlsston Report
GPA 88-02/ZC 88-02-San Juan Apartments
December 12, 1988
Page three
the proposed zone change is Justt'fted based on the following:
a. A commerlcal project creates more trip ends than a residential use;
b. The proposed cul-de-sac on San Juan Street would 1trait'the commercial
value of the subject site;
·
... c. Mostly high-density residential uses exist to the north and west;
d. The residential use would act as a buft~er between the school and
c~mmerct a 1' uses;
· ' e. There ts ltmtted visibility from Red Htll Avenue for commercial use; -and
·
f. The small lot stze makes commercial parktng standards unworkable on
the subject site.
The proposed R-3 zoning designation requested by the applicant would allow
a maximum of :LO dwe111ng units on the property (! unit per :Z,7SO square
feet of lot area), provided that required parking, landscaping, open space,
setback, and other development standards are satisfied. A residential
development wtth a R-3 (2,700) designation st,rllar to those properties on.
the north side of San Juan Street would allow a maxtmum of 6 dwelltng units
(! unit p,er 2,700 square feet of lot area).
In reviewing surrounding uses and the applicant's Justification, staff belteves
that. current zontng of the subject property should be retained for the following
reasons:
1.' The potential trafftc lmpacts'~f a' commercial project on the subject
· property would be negligible as compared to a residential use. The small
stze of the lot and 1ts location, on San Juan, a local street, instead of
Red Htll Avenue, make It less desirable for retail development. Even if
the st. te were to develop with other types of 'commercial uses permitted tn
the PC-C1 Otstrtct (i.e., professional office and vartous commercial
servtce uses), there is adequate roadway capacity at San Juan/Red H111 to
accommodate such a use.
2. Current commercial zoning at the stte is a more compatible buffer wlth
adjacent .uses to the south, which lnclude a church parking lot and
ballftelds for Tustln High School. Introduction of residential use on the
subject site would create potential noise dtstruptlons to future residents
and create a .land use Interface Issue where one does not currently exist.
3. There' are no physical constraints on the property whtch would make
development on the site difficult.
i. . ·
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission Report
GPA 88-02/ZC 88-02-San Juan Apartments'
December 12, 1988
Page four
4. Based on a recent City Counc11 decision, San Juan Street wtll not become a
cul-de-sac and wtll rematn open between Red Hill and Newport Avenue.
i, .
5. The Tusttn General Plan discourages creatton of additional multi-family
land use due to the already large Percentage of multi-family ~ntts In the
City, particularly renter-occupied untts.
CONCLUSZON
_
Staff belleves that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are
Inappropriate tn light of the surr...O,,U, ndlng land uses, Inconsistencies with the
Land Use~.'i'.Element and the Houstng Element of the General Plan, Incremental
encroachment of sma 11 scale, high-density development tnto the area, and
feasibility to physically develop the site as currently designated. For these
reasons, staff recommends that the Planntng Commission adopt ResolutJon No.
2546 and 2547 denying General Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone Change 88-02.
Daniel Fox
Associate Planner '
hrtsttne A. Shtnglel~~
Director of Community Development
DF: CAS: ts
Attachments: Negative Declaration
Attachment I
Resolution No. 2546 and 2547
Community Developmen~ Departmen~
Report to the
Planning
Commission
ITEM NO. 2
., DATE:
dANUARY 9, 1989
· ,.
SUBdECT: '-
GENERAL PLAN AHENDIqENT-"88-02 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-02 (:SAN ,JUAN
APARTlqENTS)
APPLICANT: SAN ,1UAN APARTHENTS
..... C/O MESA DEVELOPMENT COHPAliY
~,. 2925 COLLEGE AVENUE, ~A-3
COSTA .IqESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
ATTENTION: HR. LARRY CANPEAU
LOCATION:
1432 SAN dUAN STREET
ENV I IIOIOIENTAL
STATUS.-
REQUEST:'
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE ~ITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
1) GENERAL PLAN AHENDHENT 88-02; TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE DESZGNATION FROI4 C (COIg4ERCIAL) TO IqF (HULTI-FAFtILY
RESIDENTIAL)
,~, 2) ZONE CHANGE 88-02; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROH PC-C1 (PLANNED
'~ COIO~NITY/RETAIL COI4FERCIAL) TO R-3 (HULTI-FAHILY RESIDENTIAL)
.
RECOIg4ENDATION " ~"
ii i i
Pleasure of*the Planntn9 Commission.
BACKGROUND
On December.;,12, 1988, the Planntng Co .m..mt sst on revtewed a request for a General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change for a o41 acre (17.880 sq.ft.) stte generally
located on the south side of San Juan Street west of Red Htll Avenue to
accommodate.a multi-family residential development. A draft copy of the mlnutes
from that meetlng Js tncluded as Att,ichment A and a copy of the staff report
from that meettng Is tncluded as Attachment B. After much discussion, the
applicant requested continuance of the 1tern tn order to reevaluate the proposal
and. constder alternative uses. The applicant has revised the application to
reduce the development potential of the site from 10 untts to a maximum of 8
untts by requesting a zoning designation of R-3 (2200) rather than R-3 (1750).
The applJcant has also Indicated that with an 8 untt proposal, semi-subterranean
parking can be avotded (see Attachment C).
·
, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT D
· - ,
I
Planntng Comrisslon Report
San ~luan Apartments
~lanuary 9, 1989
Page two
Since the applicant has requested a modification to the tnttlal zone _change
application whtch was heard at the December 12, 1988 Planning Commission
meettng, thts 1tern has been renotlced. The notice was written to gtve the
Commission flexibility tn taking an actton whlch could result in a more
restrictive' zontng designation wtthout the requtremegt to continue or renotlce
the hearing:, A publtc heartng notice denoting the time, date, and locatton of
thts new heartng was published tn the Tusttn News. Property owners wtthtn 300
feet of the project stte were nottc~d by .... mall pursuant to State law. In
addition,, the Board of Education and.Mr. Maury Ross' of~ the Tustt.n Unified School
01strtct were nottfted of the subject heartng by certified mail The applicant
has been forwarded an agenda and a copy of the staff report.
DZSCUSS!ON
ii i
The staff analysis and issues raised in the December 12, 1988 report have not
changed,' however, several alternative actions are available at the discretion of
the Planning Commission and are Identified below:
1. Dental - The Cometsston my wish to deny the 'Zone Change and General Plan
:Aeen:dment requests tn ltght of the lssues ralsed In the December 12, 1988
report. In accordance with the Government Code Section 65354, dental of
such requests by the Planning Comrisston would be final unless specifically
appealed to the City Counctl by the applicant or any agrelved party. An
action to deny-the requests would retain the existing commercial General
Plan and Zoning designations.
2. ~- Ther;"are several alternative actions available to the Planntng
Coemt~s~on should they desire to ~recommend approval to the City Council a
change on the zoning and general plan land use designation on the subject
site from commercial to multi-family residential:
a.
b.
Ortgtnal' Proposal, 10 Untts- The original proposal requested a
~onlng d~slgnation "of /~-'3 which would allow a density of I dwelling .
unit per 1750 square feet of lot area (25 dwelllng units/acre). Thts
results tn a mxlmum developeent potential of 10 dwelling units.
Revised Proposal, 8 Units - As staff have been advised by the City
Attorney, 'the MUn'~'c'ipal~ Code would permtt a more restrictive density
factor to be added to an underlying designation (i.e., R-3 2200, R-3
.2700) to ensure greater compatibility between uses. There are
numerous R-3 designated properties with more restrictive density
factors tn place throughout the City. The revised proposal requests
a zoning designation of R-3 (2200) which would allow a density of 1
dwelling unit per 2200 square feet of lot area (20 units/acre). This
,results in a maximum development potential of 8 dwelling units. This
Would provide a transitional density between the higher density
.,. Community Developmen~ Depar~rnen~ ~/
Plannlng Comelsslon Report
San ,Juan Apartments
,January 9, 1989
Page three
(, .
r&sldentlally zoned properties (R£3) to the west and the lower density-
residentially zoned properties (~3, 2700) to 'the north. It should be
noted that although the applicant has stated that no subterranean
parklng would be used, there ts no guarantee to 1ts Implementation as
pa'rt of this action In that a zone change application cannot be
conditioned. It Is through the design revtew process and the
Integrity of the applicant that this statement be fulfilled.
c. 6 'Unit Alternative - This alternative would require a zoning
deSignatlon'6f R-~1(2700)an~iwould allow a density of I dwelling unit
per 2700 square feet of lot area (15 units/acre). This would result
in a maximum development potential of 6 dwelling units and a density
consistent with what is allowed'on the residentially zoned properties
to the north.
The applicant has indicated that this alternative is not economically
feasible. Staff have not been provided any written pro forma details
or economic analysis by the applicant that we could review to validate
this claim. The applicant has also indicated discussions with
potential commertcal clients. No further information has been
received related to.the status of this direction.
3. Environmental Review - Should the action be to deny the requests-, the-
Negative' Oecla'ratldn in the December 12, 1988 report would not need to be
certified. Sh6uld the action be to approve the requests, the Negative
Oeclaratton in the December 12, 1988 report would need to be certified. In
this conne~tlon,.~the environmental check ltst and evaluation would need to
be amended consistent with the action in reference to the maximum number of
dwelling units. ~
..
,CONCLUSION .... ' ........
be a~tlable should the Planning Commission wish to approve any
al~~~tt~/~,a~~s Identified above.
Daniel-Fox 'm ...... Christine Sfilng~eton~ ,
Associate Planner ' Director of Community/Development
Staff's orlgtnal analysis recommending denial of General Plan Amendment 88-02
and Zone Change 88-02 is contained In the December 12, 1988 staff report. Staff
have therefore attached Resolution No. 2546 and 2547 denying the subject General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change. Alternative resolutions recommending to the
City Council approval of the subject General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will
one of the
DF: CAS: ts
·
Attachments: Attachment A, B and C
Resolutt_on No. 2546 Lnd 2547
corn rnuniry ~-ve. loprnent Departrnent
CITY OF-'TUSTIN
Development. Departmen'
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM
I. Nome of Pral~n~t
Mesa Development Company
ACidrem and Phone Number. of Proponent
2925. College Avenue,
"C'6sta Mesa, Ca 92626 714-979-9991
mill
O
Date of Checklist Submitted December 12p 1988
Agent7 Requiring Checklist city of Tustin
Nmneof Pr~l, if c~lk~le GPA
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
a. Unstable earth conditions or in ctx,~es
in geologic substructures?
b. Oim~ptlam, displacemenl., compaction
ar overcavering of the soil?
c. Chaxje in topography ar ground surface
relief features?
cl. The destruction, covering ar modification
of any unique geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind ar water erosion of
. soils, either on or off the site?
f. Chczxjes in deposition ar erosion of beach
sands, ar changes in siltation, deposition or
;. erosian which may modify the channel of a
river or stream ar the bed of the ocean or
my bay, inlet ar lake?
0
b,
~' e~_her-~..Iocally or regionally?
3. VAster. Will the proposal result ire
...
a. ~es' in currents, or-the course of di-
rectlm of water movements, in either
marine .or fresh waters?~
bl
fl _ .
g. ~xpasure of people or property to geolo-
gic .h~..ards such as_ea.r;tl~quakes,...landslides~
muds_ Ii_des,. ground-failure, or similar hazards?
Air, Will the proposal result ire
Substantial air emissions Or... deterioration
of ambient air quality? .....
~, ....
The creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement~c~isture,, or
temperature, or any.-cha~e in climate,
Chc.xjes In abscxptim rotes, drainage pat-
terns~ or the rate ~ amounf of surface
,,1
·
Alterations to the course ar flow of flood
waters? _,. ,
Change in the amount of surface' water in.
any water body? '
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
¢~1~. ....... ...... .,. ..... "' ' ~"-'~' : ' : .-. ~ u.. .. · ,., ¥.
Alteration' Of the'direction or rote of flow.
of ground waters?
Chaxje in the quantity of. ground waters,
either through direct additions or with-
dr=wats, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations? '
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise, available~for-,.public water~.._
supp lies? '---,.,._ ......
..
ii i
l=xposure of people, or-.property tO'~'c~r' re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal.., waves?
4. Plant Life.
b.
Will the proposal result ir.
C3X.~e in the diversit~ of species, ~r-
number of m~ species of plents. (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
Reductlan of the nurri)irs of my Unique,
rare or ende~ered species of plants?
CO
Introcluatlm of new species of plants into
area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenbhmm~ of existing "species?
cl. F~eductlan in acreage of my agricultural
crop?
S. AnI,lal Life. Will the proposal result
Change in the dlveni~ of-*~ecies, or
r. Jmben of any species of animals (birds,
land animals irv:lucling reptilest fish ~
shellfish, benthic orgmisms ~r insec~
"b. educfim of the numbe 'of my unique,
rare or endangere~ specie~ of mimals?
Introductim of new specim of mimals into
m are~ or result in a borrler m the
migratim ar movement of mimals?
Detertoratlan to existing fl.~ or wildlife
habitat?
~, -Nat,~ Wlll~ the proposal result im
1
0
a. I~ in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severn noise levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
~ '.
Lcmd Lisa. Wlll the p~l result in a sub=
stantial alteration of the pres~.:t or planned
laxl use of an area?
Natural Rme~c~. Will the proposal result in=
.a. Increase in the rate of u.~. of any natural
~'. resources? ....
j .
Yes
I0.
b, Substantial de~letlon of a~ nonrenewable
natu. ml resource?
!
-'Ride of ~. Will. the ~1 Irmolvm
A risk of an e~p~ ar the relearn
of hazm~us substarmm (including, but not
radiation) in the mmm of ~ accident or
~ canc~tkms?
Parable interference with
plan?
II. Papulatla~ Will the prapaml alter the Iocatim,
dktributim, demity, ar growth rate of the
humm populcrtim of m area?
12. I-Immimj. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ingt or c~m~te o demand far edditlanal hauling?
13. Tr~i~Clrculatlan, Will the progesal
,r~ult im
Us
Genemtlan of substantial additi.onal
veHcular, movement? 'r --'
·
Effects on existing ming fcmilltim,, ar
demand far new parking?
14.
Substantial impact upon existing trmspar-
tatlan systems?
Alte~ to pre~nt parterre of circulo.
tian ar movement of peagle and/or goods?
Alteratlam to waterbomet rail ar air
traffic?
f. Imrea~e in traffic h~zards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists ar peclestri~?
Public Services, Will the propaml have an
effect upon, ar result in a need far new ar-
altered governmental services in my of the
following area=
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
'Yes
,,×
cl. Perks cz other recreational facilities?
.';.,~. · Maintenance'Of public fac~.i'.!iti., including
roads?
f. Other govemmento! .orvice~?
o
Energy. Will the propo~l re~lt im
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b~
Subst~iol increase In clernm~ upon exist-
lng source~ of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy?
Ulllitle~ Will the propaeal re~lt in a need
far new syst~ or substantial alterations to
the following utilitiezz
~. Power .or natural gm? ·
b. Communicatlam systemz?
Water?
Se~r or septi~ tml,?
17.
e. S tcrm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and dbpoml?
I-kmmm Health. Will the prc~zosal result im
b.
Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?.
Expmure of peaple to potential health
hazcrd.?
18. · Ae~fmfim. Will the propo~l reoult in the
obstruction of my scenic vista or view open to
· the public, or will the proposal, result in the
Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19.
IRegreotio~ Will the proposal result in an
...impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreati~l opportunities?
20. C~lturol Rmouro..
Will the Ixqxnal result in the alteration
of ar the cimmJction of a'prehistaric or
historic orctvmological site?
Yes
,.
!
21.
b. Will the prapa~l result in adverae physical
· ar aesthetic effeats to a prehistoric ar
histaria building, structure, or object?
e.. Dom the ~ have the potential to
caum a I)hysical c:hmvje which would affect
unique etl~ic cultural values?
d. Will the prcqxm. I restrict ecisting rellglaus
ar merecI uaea within the potential inq)c~
area? .......
Mandmee/Findings of Skjnif~ ',
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the enviranment,
substantially rec~e the habitat of a fish
or wildlife ~ecies, coJSe a fish or wild-
life IXq)ulatian to drop below self sus-
taining leveis~ threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number er restrict the rencje of a rare ar
endange~ plant or animal or elimincrte
important ~amples of the major periods
of California history or prehistoe/?
Does the project' have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvant~e of
lang-term, enviranmental geals? (A short-.
term imp.cX:t an the environment is one
which accurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while lang-term impacts
will endure well into
·
~ th~ project have inl)acts which are
~ndividually limited, but cumulatively can-
siclemble? (A project may impact on two
ar more separate resources where the impect
on each .resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts an the enviranment is significant.)
Daea the project have enviranrnental effects
which will cause substantial a~erse effects
an human beings, either directly ar indirectly?
III. Discussian of EnviravTmntal Evaluatian
IV.
. ,
Oet~in~ion -:.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
Ym
X
On the basis of thb ini~ woluotlan~
I find that the propmed project COULD NOT hcwea signh-~nt effect
an the enviromnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
.I find that. althmJgh the prQpoNd project gould have a significant effect
an the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
becaJse the mitigatlan measures described ~n an attQched sheet have
been edded to the project.. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the' prepoaed proj~c~ MAY have a skjntflearrt eHe~ on the environ-
merit, cr~l an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACY REPORT is required.
o,
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
GPA 88-02 and ZC 88-02 (San Juan Apartments)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT - The proposed project is a
request to change the General Plan land use designation fr~m C
(Commercial) to MF (Multiple Family Residential) and zoning from
PC-C1 (Planned Community/Retail Commercial) to R-3 (2200) (Multi-
Family Residential) on a .41 acre parcel to accommodate a maximum
of 8 dwelling units.
No actual development plans are being considered at this time.
Unless otherwise specified in the following sections, any .physical
development of the property will require, at-minimum, plans to be
reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and
separate environmental review as part of the City's design review
process. In this connection, appropriat~ mitigation measures and
mitigation monitoring in response to the site specific plans would
be developed at the time of any subsequent reviews. The applicant
has indicated that if development plans are approved, the property
would-be developed in one phase· i
The project site is situated in an urban area with development
adjacent to all sides. A single-story commercial office building
is located to the east, a church and school to the south, and
multi-family residential to the north and west.
·
~- The land use designation change would not result in any
changes to the existing earth conditions and topographic features
of the site since no specific grading or site specific plans are
being, considered as part ,of this request. Appropriate soils
reports and grading plans are required as part of the City's
design review process and any subsequent review (source: Building
Division).
AIR- This project would not result in any degradation to the
existing air quality based on review of AQMD standards for
preparing EIR documents.
·
WATER a.c.d.e.f.~.h,i - The change in land use designation
would not result-in any change to the existing water conditions
based--on a review of the site by City Staff.
']~~__~ - Any future development authorized under the Zoning Code
would add impervious surface area to the property which could
effect drainage and absorption rates. Appropriate drainage plans
are required as part of the City's building permit process and any
subsequent review.
pLANT LIFE - The project site will remain unchanged relative to
the existing'plant life. Presently, there are a few orange trees
along.the south property line and a few bottle brush trees along
the .east property line. The applicant has indicated his
intension to.incorporate these trees into any future development.
Environmental Evaluation
GPA 88-02, ZC 88-02
Page 2
ANIMAL LIFE - The project is an infill property in an urban area
and' free of any significant population of animals, fish, or
wildlife (source: Field Observations).
~ - The change in land use from commercial to residential
would typically result in less noise. The Noise Element of the
City'~,'General Plan indicates that commercial lands uses typically
generate more noise as a result of traffic generation and daily
operations on-site than residential uses. However% there are
certain uses permitted in the commercial district, such as
professional offices, which may be comprable or even quieter than
residential uses.
~ - There are existing noise sources from the roadway and
adjacent uses such as the church, ballfields, office, and
reside.~ces .. which may exposg.~future residents to additional noise.
Any residential developmen~ would need to be constructed to
certain standards so that interior noise levels do not exceed &5
db. This can be accomplish by the use of additional buffer areas,
lower density, and acoustical reports which identify any
applicable construction techniques such as additional insulation
and double pane windows (source: City Zoning Code and General Plan
Noise Element)i
·
·
Mitigation Monitoring - Any mitigation measures to achieve
the desired interior noise levels would be monitored through
the design review process, building plan check requirements,
construction techniques and field noise level readings in the
completed~ units prior to issuance of any certificates of
occupancy.
LIGMT AND GLARE - The change in land use would not result in any
increased light or glare on the propert~ since no site specific
plans are proposed as part of this request.
LAND USE - The project proposes to change the land use on a .41
acre...vacant property from ..commercial to Fesidential. Commercial,
residential, a church and Tustin High|ballfields are existing
adjacent to the site as seen in field observations and illustrated
on the General .Plan land use map. The multi-family residential
immediately to the west is zoned R-3 with a minimum density of 1
unit per 1,750. square feet of land. The multi-family residential
across the street on the north side of San Juan Street has a
lower density and is zoned R-3 (2,700) with a minimum density of 1
unit per 2,700 square feet of land area. The proposed R-3 (2200)
zoning'designation would provide a transition between the other R-
3 properties.
Environmental Evaluation
GPA 88-02, ZC 88-02
Page 3
Mitigation would be to ensure compatibility with adjacent Iand
uses through the use of adequate buffer areas, particularly on the
south and east property lines (sources City General Plan Land Use
Element and Zoning Code).
~itigation Monitoring - Any mitigation' to achieve a lower
density and/or adequate buffer areas between adjacent land
uses would be monitored through the design review and
building permit processes.
·
NATURAL RESOURCES - The change in land use~would not result in any
increased use of natural resources since no actual development is
immediately associated with this request. Any development
whether commercial or residential will use resources in the form
of construction materials and daily operations. Given the scale
of potential development, the use of natural resources would not
be a factor in development of this property (source: Community
Development Department).
11.
12
10. RISK OF UPSET - The change in land use would not result in any
increased risk of upset to the property or the neighborhood since
no site specific plans are proposed as part of this request.
Development of this property as residential or commercial uses
requir~ compliance with applicable building code requirements and
Fire Department requirements which significantly reduce the risk
of upset. The site is not located within any seismicly sensitive
areas (source: Community Development Department, Fire Department,
and City General Plan).
POPULATION - The change of land use to residetial would create
acres of additional residential land which could .accommodate
a maximum of 8 dwelling units. This would result in approximately
22 additional persons in the area based on 2.8 persons per
dwelling unit. This addition would most likely result from
relocations within the community given the location and scale of
the project and the existing neighborhood. Any actual population
increase to . the City as a result of this project would be
'negligible (source: Housing Element of the General Plan).
HOUSING - The land use change would create additional residential
designated land which could accommodate a maximum of 8 dwelling
units. The land Use change should not create a demand for
additional housing in the area since this property is the
remaining vacant parcel in the neighborhood (source: Community
Development Department).
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - The change of land use from
commercial to residential would generate fewer vehicle trips per
Environmental Evaluatio~
GPA 88-0~, ZC 88-02
Page ~
day. However, given the size of the property and development
potential under different uses, the reduction is negligible
relative to the surrounding street system. The Institute of
Transporation Engineering indicates that multi-family residential
uses may generate i0 vehicle trips per day per. unit. Office uses
may generate il vehicle trips per day per 1,000 square feet of
floor area. Retail Commercial uses may generate 100 vehicle ·trips
per day per i,000 square, feet of floor area (source: City_Traffic
Engineer and Institute of Transportation Engineering Trip
Generations).
l&. pUBLIC SERVICES - The General Plan Land U~e Element indicates that
residential uses typically require greater public services, in the
area of police' and fire protection and governmental services. The
various governmental services, police and fire departments have
indicated' that this reques'~'-would not effect the current level of
service that is presently being provided to the community or
require additional sevices (source: Fire and Police Departments,
Community Development Department, and Public Works Department).
, ,.
15. F.~- The change in land use would not result in any change in
· the use of energy since site specific plans are not proposed as
part of this request. Given the scale and type of development,
the site would not result in a substantial usage of energy
(.source: Public Works Department).
16. UTILITIES - The change in land use would not result in any
increased need for utilities. The site is in an urban area with
all utilities available to the site from San Juan Street and are
adequate to accommodate residential development (source: Public
Works · Department ).
17. HUMAN HEALTH - The change in land use would not result in any
effects to human health. Residential land uses typically, do not
create conditions which negatively effect human health. A
residential project in this area would not expose persons to
healt~i" hazards given the surrounding uses and location outside of
a 100-year flood area (source: Flood Insurance Rate Map, Police
Department, and Community Development Department).
18. ~ESTHETICS - The change in land use would not result in any change
to aesthetics in the area since site specific.plans are not
proposed as part of this request. The existing C-1 zoning
district and the proposed R-3 zoning district.has similar height
limits of 35 feet. The C-1 district does not have required yard
setbacks where'the R-3 district does require setbacks. Parking is
allowed to be open in the C-1 district where covered and garage
parking is required in' the R-3 district. Site specific
development plans are subject to the City's design review process
Environmental Evaluation
GPA 88-0Z, ZC 88-02
Page 5
by .the Community-Development Department to ensure the aesthetic
qualities of the area (source: City Zoning Code).
RECREatION - The General Plan Land Use Element indicates that
residential uses typically require greater recreational needs than
commercial uses. Residential developments may in some cases
either provide adequate recreational facilities for the project,
dedicate in fee park land, and/or pay in-lieu fees based on the
size of the project (source: City zoning Code).
Mitigation Monitoring - A~'~the time of site specific plans
are reviewed and approved as a part of the design review
process,., the exact method of satisfying the recreational
requirements would be established and implemented prior to
issuance of any building permits.
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The change in land use will not have any
effec~..on the cultural resources in that the General Plan does not
identi~fy any cultural resources on this property (source: ~City
General Plan).
21. ~ADNATOR¥ FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The change in land use will
not result in any adverse environmental impacts provided the
mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring as identified above
is designed and/or conditioned into the project. Again, no site
speci.fic plans are proposed as part of this request. Subsequent
review of site.development plans by various agencies, services and
the Community Development Department is required. In this
.connection, ~parate environmental review of the site specific
plans will be required as part of the City's design review
process and in accordance With CEQA.
,
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1988
~'.R~/~: / /resent///
PUI)~/]:C CONIGERNS:/ (L* ted ~ 3 mt
/~ OU*
[SCUS~ N
THE
CO (NT
Mt the
Corem1 Wet 1
. car~ .
2.
APPLICANT:
on1:to
:on fol not' a. )
-' COMI 3N A F
THE PLEASE IVE
RESS
CON~ CA CONSID ED~~'
ENAi rD )NE )/7'ION. RE WI LL~ NO '/
OF/"'HESE :MS ~IOR TO 'HE TIME/OF THE/
pNLE:SS.,.q' RS.~ THE C~ :SSION,/STAFF
,":lC I,T~MS TO/E
II--/FOR .< P/ERA')~ A~_ON.) / / ~DISC)~SSED AND/OR REMO/VED
s,o. /
L]:C HEARINGS
Genera,1 ,,, Plan,,,Amendmenl...88-02 and_ Zone_.Change. 88-02_. (San Juan Apartments)
MESA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
2925 COLLEGE AVENUE, iA-3
..... COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA
· '~ ATTENT!ON: MR.. LARRY CAMPEAU
1432 SAN JUAN STREET
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
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 (MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL)
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions
NO: 2545'and 2547, denying General Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone Change '88-*02.-. -
r I {lllll I II~J t~Uliliill ~:~ I tJII I"1 I I11~ ~
December 12. 1988 ~
Page t~o
Resolution No. 2546 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02 A REQUEST TO
CHANGE THE LAND.USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM C (COMMERCIAL)
TO MF (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
1432 SAN JUAN STREET. _._ . _
Resolution N'o. 2547 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY.OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING ZONE CHANGE 88-02 A REQUEST TO REZONE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUaN STREET FROM PC-C1 (PLANNED
,. COMMUNITY/RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO R-'3 (MULTI-FAMILY RESID. ENTIAL).
Presentation:- Daniel Fox, Associate Planner
·
commissioner Well asked if there was any response to th)e notices that were mailed.
staff responded that there were no written responses, that only one call was received
and that was to verify that the subject project was not the same project in which he
1 t red.
C.o.mmlss!oner Le Jeune asked if the zoning requests were originally made by a church;
Staff responded that it was not, that this'was a request for separate properties to
be rezoned.
The public hearing was opened at 7:09 p.m.
Josephine Vau~)hn, 1431 San Juan Street, Tustln, noted that originally all of the
~r~perty belonged to the church, which subsequently sold certain parcels. She stated
that she felt' that lO.apartments on that property would be too conjested and adequate
parklng would not be provided. She noted that five apartments would be acceptable
and that she would like to know more information regarding this project.
Larry Campeau, 2925 College Avenue; A-3, Costa Mesa, California 92626, noted that
the applicant on the staff report should be San Juan Apartments, and* not Mesa
Development Company. He stated some background on the project, that in February he
entered into an escrow with a condition that the property was zoned R-3. He said the
City told him that the zoning was R-3 and that the City wanted something other than
what was existing on that street. They tried to design a compatible project and put
parking quasi-subterranean. They submitted plans to the City on June 3rd. On July
15th they closed escrow. He stated that he had received the conditions of approval
for the construction drawings, removed the hazardous materials and demolished the
building that"*was on the property. On October 5th they turned in the plans for
approval, He indicated that the Community Development Department had made an error
and that the~property was not zoned R-3. His options were to redesign or rezone. He
stated that they had already invested $70,000 plus the cost of the' lot. They had
designed an upscale three bedroom apartment complex with units of 1100 square feet
that would rent at $1,000 per month. He stated that the property on both sides of
the proposed project was zoned the same. He was not concerned with the church or
baseball diamond as a neighbor to the complex. He also noted that affordable housing
is this developers' specialty.
Decembe~ 12, 1988
Page three ~
Dorothy Kellams, 1401 San Juan street, Tu.stln, spoke in opposition of the project.
She noted there was already too much trafflc in the area at all times and that there
was a tremendous parking problem. She felt that there was not a need for any more
aparteents or condominiums in this Immediate area.
Commissioner Shaheen noted that the area was Inappropriate for commercial
I I I [ Iii ·
*~eraidJne' Vaughn, 1431 San Juan Street, Tustfn, stated that she felt that a real
estate offfCe' Church or offlce would be appropriate, however, that apartments would
create more trafflc fn an already congested area.
Campeau.x, noted that there were 24' designated parking spaces on the stte.
The Director ..... noted that the Plannlng....,~Commlsston was unable to condition a zone
change. '"~'
Lots ~leffre¥, Deputy City Attorney, noted that tn thts case the City dtd a review but
'the applicant did not recetve any written approval. She Indicated that the
appllcant was aware that the development process Is very risky. One of those rtsks
Is 'Mstakes. Another rlsk ts that the Zontng or General Plan w111 change before the
pro~lect ts fJnlshed. Thls ls an Issue of vested rtghts whtch ts a harsh ~ssue and ts
a normal rtsk of development. The developer has no vested rights unttl a building
permlt 1s Issued, as long as the permtt wasn't tssued tn error. There are no equl:y
rlghts. Unfortunately, these are the normal rtsk of the developer process.
Mr. Campeaux asked If the Planning CommJsslon could approve, a Zone Change
conditioning approval to development of theJr spectflc pro~lect.
Lois ~le.ffre¥,' Indicated that handling thts process tn that manner would be considered
spot zonli~g, or parcer by parcel zoning, whtch ts not what the Ctty destres.
Mr. CampeaU? stated tl~t he was disturbed that he wenlt to the ultimate source and
thOUght he was upgrading the area. He s~ted that he understood that tlits was a
rtsky busJ ness.
The 01rector added that the developer had submitted] plans whtch had not been
approved; the plans were tn the preliminary review process· There were st111 many
unresolved matters. As an example, In three separate plan revtews, the Cl:y asked
for a legal description that was never adequately provided by the applicant. This tn
Itself complicated the zoning determination lssue.
The publlc heartng was closed at 7:40 p.m.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff tf the plans were submitted and revtewed tf the
f:.lrst thln'g to' vd'rlfy would be the zontn, g.
.The Dlrector responded affirmatively but noted that the plans were tn prel.lmlnary
revtew and that zoning questions st111 existed because of the lack of a legal
description originally belng provtded for the property.
Commtss!oner Le Jeune asked what could be built on thts property.
December 12o lg88
Page four
,,
Staff responded that PC C-1 allows a wide range of uses Including retatl, office,
commercial and small scale retatl uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit after a
Planning Commission public hearlng.
Commissioner Shaheen asked staff if the property were rezoned residential if
thelClty coull..d 'requl~e condominiums to be_,. butl, t at this location.
L, ol$I Jeffrey.noted that this was a legal issue and that the City could not restrict
the district to °Wner occupied units or condominiums
.
Commlsstoner.-Le Jeune asked if the. issue' could be dealt with later.
_
The Director stated that there are no public hearings under the R-3 designation for
future submittals and that Zone Change and General Plan would establish the maximum
density of the project with no discretion by the Commission.
'" Co.mm!ssloner Wetl asked if it was possible to designate the property as R-3 at 2700
square feet to reflect the area across the street enabltng the developer to construct
six units on the property.
Staff responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Wetl stated that she felt a .41 acre office project facing San Juan
Would be detrimental and that she had reservations leaving the commercial
designation. She also had reservations converting this area to an R-3 designation.
She noted tha, t. she had driven by and noticed that the parking and traffic problems
were definite 'concerns. She felt that the R-3 2700 square foot cut doWn the density
and the parking burden considerably. ~... ..
The public hearing was re-opened at 7:47.
..
Mr, Campeaux note~l that-the project would not make a profit with only six units and
it would be questionable if eight units would break even. He stated that he was
stuck with a piece of property that did not have a commercial frontage. He also
noted that he did not want to cheapen the project.
· [~'
Commissioner Wet1 noted that the problem is that an experienced contractor should not
g6'"thto a"projeCt without proper verification.
Mr. Campeaux noted that he felt building permits would be issued when he received the
conditions of approval from staff.
Lois jeffre3~ noted that escroW had closed prior to any plan check approval.
.Comm.tSstoner wetl asked if the developer had written.conditions of approval.
'Lots Jeffrey noted that he had a list of corrections needed plans, no plan check
appr6Val.
-Mr. Campeaux noted that he did not knoW if six units would make a profit.
The public hearing was closed at 7:55 p.m.
r I(~1111 Ill~J ~,,Uilliiil b;) lull I'1 I II1,,..~
December 12, 1988
Page ftve
Comatssloner Le Jeune asked for more tnformtton regarding the pro~lect.
i .i . i i iiii ii ii .
The Dlrector noted that the butldtng Nould be three stortes on one level but classed
as a two.story, but some elevations are actually three stortes tn hetght.'
Commissioner Baker agreed that thts Nas a difficult problem but fe]t that the City
should stay ~tth' ~he extstlng program.
.C0m;tssloner:t~e11 noted that she preferred to see an office project on that' site.
·
.Co ,,,.! ssloner. Le..~]eune noted that th.,!S_ was not the proper place for a commercial
proSect.
/
Co,,,lssloner Pontlous noted that she saw both sides; that the lot does not lend
~elf td"a commercial development and that R-3 would probably be a better use for
the site.
Commissioner I~etl asked Ifa designation of R-3 2200 could be used tn order to allow
eight unJ~ on the site.
Lots ,,Jeffrey noted that there were only R-3 1750 and R-3 2700 and that the developer
has' the rlght to develop the property to the maximum.
The Dtrector noted that she dtd not feel t't possible to establish an R-3 2200
des 1 gna tt on o.
Staff noted .that Nhen the area was annexed the R-3 2700 square foot designation was
established .to mirror the county zontag. ' Both are legitimate zoning based on
compatibility Ntth the surrounding areas, anythtng else Nould be spot zoning.
The publtc hearl;g Nas opened at 8:03
,Geraldine Valutjhn asked If she could tear her house do~n and but]d four or f-tve untts.
..
The DtreCtor Indicated that It depends on the parcel zoning. Ns. Vaughn ts allowed
to but]d to the maximum of the zontng designation. The code varies depending on the
stze of the property. She also offered to met wtth Hs. Vaughn to revte~ the zonlng
possibilities for her property.
Donald,,.Saltarel]t. 13751 Red Htl] Avenue. Tustln. property o~ner of the adjacent real
estate offlce, noted that the deve;opers are good people that are trying to do
something constructive with the church property. He also added that the developer
;ay have pa-l-d a htgh price but that ls not a valld reason for Inappropriately
a]]o~lng something to be butlt. He noted that tt would be nice If the developer
cou;d do something econo;l ca; ;y advantageous, but not at the neighbors expense. He
also noted hts concern about a three story butldtng In thts area. He also cautioned
the Co;mission that staff had researched the recommendation thoroughly.
i; ·
·
The pub;tc hearing Nas c;osed at 8:10 p.m.
Commissioner Le Jeune asked tf tt was advisable to postpone the application to look
at' an ~]tern~tlVe.
rmann]ng ~ommss~on M~nu~.~
December 12, 1988
Page six .....
Comm!ss!oner Well stated that the Commission seemed undecided.
The pub]tc hearing was re-opened at 8:!0 p.m:
Hr. Campe ux requested a continuance. ~"' '"
_
The Dtrector. noted that If the application were modified, the City would have to
*renottce for another publlc hearlng.
Staff noted that the Ctty would need to know if there were any changes in the
application prtor to December 19th.
The public hearing was closed at 8:13 p."~.
Commtsslo..ner Wet1 noted that the Commission was sensitive to the monetary clock.
Comm.tssloner. Baker Inquired If the developer had drawn on the construction loan.
The publlc hearing was re-opened at 8:15 p.m.
Hr; Campeaux noted that he had drawn $270,000 from the construction loan.
The publlc heartng was closed at 8:17 p.m.
Commissioner Le deune..moved,_Pontlous seconded to continue thts item unttl the next'
'~egUla~ meeti,ng-on January 9, 198'9o' Hotlon"Ca~rled 5-0.
ration
ff wa
Christ
Iled.
DI of
bt d
the
Area
rtstl gl D1
ltl
Pe ts f~ d-a
Shin
repol to,Cl
OLD
"_l .._. T_ g_ S_
. mN puumx. co x xo.
.REGULAR REETING
,1NIIMRY 9, 1989
CALL TO ORDER: 7:02 p..m., Ct~y Councql Chambers
PLEDGE' OF ALLEGI~/I~OCATION
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC CQNCERNS:
·
Present: get1, B~ker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Shaheen
·
(Ltnd~e4 1:o 3 mtnu~es per person for 1rems not on the &genda)
IF YOU gISH TO SPEAKTO THE COI4dISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL
OUT TH£ CAROS LOCATED ON TH£ SPEAK£R'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIYE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADdReSS FORT HE RECORD. .
gar7 Gallagher, 17382 Parker Or., Tusttn, spoke requesting that staff look tnto
~lacl'ng'a traffic stgnal at the corhe~ of Yandenberg Lane and Yorba Street.
·
(ALL HATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE AND gILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE gILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEHS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
YOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEHBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR
PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.)
LOCATION:
ENY IRONI4ENTAL
STATUS:
..
1. Mlnu~es of the December 12r 1988 Planntn~ Commission Meettng
Cc_-~__tsstoner Le Jeune.moved~ ~etl seconded to approve the consent calendar.
cat. ted .5~0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2, Gene~al Plan !:~n~;~nt 88-02 and Zone Chan~e 88-02 (San Juan Apartments)
APPLICAIfT: SAH jUAN APARTHENTS
C/O MESA OEYELOPf4ENT COMPANY
2926 COLLEGE AYENUE, lA-3
. COSTA MESA, CAL[FORN[A 92626
ATrENTION: MR. LARRY CAMPEAU
1432 SAH JUAN STREET
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS 6EEH PREPARED IN
Motion
ACCORDANCE ~ITH THE
REQUEST:
CALIFORNIA ENYIRONI4ENTAL QUALITY ACT
1) GENERAL PLAN AMENOMENT 06-02; TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE OESIGNATION FROM C (COMMERCIAL) TO MF (MULTI-F~ilLY
RESIDENTIAL) ....
2) ZONE CHANGE 88-02; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM PC-C1 (PLANNED
COHMUNITY/RETAIL COi~IERCZAL) TO R-3 2200 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
.Planning Comrl sston Pltnutes
,]anuar~~ 9, 1.g8.9 :
Page two ...
Recommendation: Staff' recommends that the P~anntng Commission adopt Resolutions
2.546 and 2547, denying.Genera] Plan A~nd~n~ 88-02 and Zone Change 88-02.
. .
P~sen~tlon: Dan Fox, Assoct~ P]anner
,
C~tssloner Le..~eune asked tf ~e Planntng Depar~ent had seen a vlsual plan of thls
project.
Staff responded that a Zone Change or a General Plan Amendment cannot be conditioned
and' that a formal submittal for the 8 untt project had not been made.
Cmmtsstoner Shaheen asked staff to clartfy the ctrcumtances that subterranean
par~tng wou]d or ~ou]d not be allowed.
Staff responded that the statement by the applicant ts not legally btndtng, that they
would not buJld subterranean parklng If the property changed haj~ds, the' new owner
would not be legally bound to whatever the applicant agreed to particularly, tf the
Zonlng Code ~loes not prohtbtt subte~anean parktng.
·
The publlc he&rtng was opened at 7:12 p..m. '
oper, no~ed, that he has had an a~chlto~l: draw up plans for an 8 untt development
wlthout subte~'anean parktng. He stated that ~e prope~ was ~de avaltab]e*to the ·
re~l~ ¢o~nt~ as co~rctal prope~; ~e~ wes one tnqutw 'and he feels ~at the
general consensus Is ~at ~e parce] Is not large enough for a co~rctal pro~ect of
a~ sort· He nord Chat, as the deYeloper, he Js ve~ ~lexlb~e as far as desJgn and
vt11 destgn ~e project to wha~ver ~e City and neighbors ~ant.
CoamJsstoner .$haheen asked ho~ many parktng spaces were available on
plans.
th~ revised
Hr. Campeaur stated that there were 18 total, etght enclosed, etght covered and two
v! st tops.
Commissioner Baker asked about the type of apartments proposed.
Hr..Campeau noted that the untts would be two bedroom/two bachs.
Co,,,tsstoner Le deun..e asked how long the property had been vacant under .the
commPctal zont rig.
~tr. Campeau noted that they had 'only recently torn down the ortgtnal farm house..
Commissioner Shaheen asked If the parktng could be controlled.
The 01rector noted that a General Plan Amendment or a Zone Change could' not be
conditioned. She Indicated that whtle staff had some design revtew authority;, tf
somthlng ts allowed by the Zoning Code, staff can not prohtbt~ tr. Subterranean
parktng can not be prohibited at thts ttme as part of the Commission's actton tf t~
Is authorized by the Code.
.Pl&nntng Co..t sston 141nutes
..
January. 9, 1989
Page t~ree.
Geraldine Yaughn, P.' O. 8ox 503, T-us~tn, Ca., noted that she 11Yes on the corner of
San &~n'and G~en Yalley, and ~at she ~poke ~ Hr. ~eau and ts satisfied
the e~ght untt$ and Hr. ~eau has assured her that tt wou~d be k~pC as a decent
net ghborhood. .
~e public he~ng was c]osed aC 7:22 p.m.
C~tsstoner Met3 nord ChaC ~e ~ducCton from ~750 to 2200 ts good as ~ar as
~nsl~ 1s concerned. She a3so nord ChaC ~s 3ong as the parktng
~p~sen~d, ~e R-3 (2200) designation ts accep~b3e.
~tssto~r ~e J~M nord ~aC he p~fe~d etgh~ rest~nCta] untCs and ~o stortes
~ .... ~e s1~ as long as the~ was no sub~rranean partt ng.
on
Comt~heen ~ved ~et~ se~~ ~o recownd co ~he Ct~ Counct~ appreva]
o · adoption of Resolution ~o. 2546. ~oclon~
-- ond*de
proper~ from PC-C~ to ~-3 (2200)
approv~
by ~e adopUon of Resolution ~o. 2547 recomndlng rezontflg. ~o~on carried
3. ~n~n~ ~ M Use Pe~ 87-!4
'APPL~: SO~N GOU~ZES OZL
14811 HY~ORO ROAD
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
OHNER: SOU~ERM COUNTIES OIL
LO~TIO~: 13918-13922 ~E~ORT AVENUE
ZONIHG: C-1 R~AIL ~ERCIAL
E ~ I ROmEMT~
~A~ S:
~QUE~:
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~IAS APPROVED FOR USE PERMIT 87-14 IN
GONFORMANCE ~IITH THE CALIFORNIA EZIVIROI~IENTAL QUALITY ACT.
TO AMEHO THE APPROVAL 'OF USE PERMIT 87-14 BY OELETING CONDITION
36 OF EXHIBIT A TO. RESOLUTION NO. 2420 THAT 'REQUIRES THE EVENTUAL
TERI4I#ATION OF LARGE TRUCI~ FUEL SERVICE AT THE' APPLICANT*S
EXISTING FUEL FACILITY.
Recomndatlon: It ts recommended that the Planntng Couutsston:
1) 'Deny a~ndmnt il to Use Penutc 87-14 by adoptton of Resolution No. 2553;
and *
2) Approve an 18 month extension for large truck fuel service at the t~actltty by
adopttflg Resolution Ho. 2S$4 and the conditions contained theretn, as. submitted
or rev1 sad.
Presentation: Erlc Haaland, Assistant Planner
Comtsstoner ~et~ asked If there were any responses ~o the publlc hearlng notice.
_
Staff noted Chat there was only one response from a net ghbor regarding notse concerns
from trucks at thts location.
Comdssloner ~etl asked tf there was"any particular time of day that the trucks were
holster Chart others and tf there were any ocher responses from other departments.
.Planning Commission Minutes
Januar~ g, 1989
Page four
.o
Staff responded that the Publlc Works Department do not recommend delettng the
condition as the applicant has requested.
· .
~.o...tsstoner Baker asked tf there were any complaints wtthtn the last ~8 months.
The Dtrector noted that there had been no'known notse complaints. Staff members from
various deparlzents have made obser, vattons tn early morning and late evenings that
there were many large trucks queuelng and creatlng some congestion on Newport Avenue
and Bontta Hay.
Co~mtsstoner Baker asked tf thts congestion had resulted Sn citations.
The Director' noted that she was not aware t.~ citations were Issued or there ~ere any
recorded traffic accidents at that locatton..~,... ,.
Co.,.tsstoner Ponttous clarified that the 18 month revtew was.not for a t=tnal
deter, lnatlon but to be reviewed every 18 months.
·
The Dtrector noted that the Planntng Comrlsslon recommended the ~mplementatton of
monitoring devtces on sensitive conditional '~ses tn order to look at potential
lmpacts over a longer period of tlme.
The p,bllc hearing was opened at 7:34
·
Frank Gretnke Z30'S. 'A' Street. Tustln, ovfier of Southern Counttes 0tl Co., stated
that ~"t was hts reco]lectton that the 18 month ttme frame was p].tced upon thls.permlt
to enablo him to work wtth the Redevelopment Agent), to relocate 1n 'Tusttn. He 'satd
that stnce that wasn't accomplished he has moved hts headquarters to another tern.
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 statton. He stated that there ~s a
need and that he felt he had proven to the City that tt can be safety accomplished.
He Indicated that any problems have always been worked out tn a neighborly fashton.
He dtdn't feel. that thts was~a 'basis for continued monitoring the use. He asked
staff tf there was anything that was requested of Southern Counttes 011 that they dtd
not cooperatively respond to .
The Dtrector noted that staff continues to en~loy aftne relationship wtth the
applicant and that they have been very cooperative and responsive, however, she
Indicated that she belleved that some ktnd of monitoring devtce was appropriate ~tven
the large trucks use of the site and 1ts location. She noted' that the condition
cou]d be altered to requtre reevaluation Instead of requiring future re]ocatton of
trucks.
rdr. ~;retnke noted that Southern Counties 0tl had been at thts' locatton for 58 years
and brought mt111ons of sales tax dollars to. the City. He Indicated that he ~anted
the right to continually operate and did not want to have to reapply for a permtt
every ~8 months. He s~d that he felt ~that th~ have proven theme;yes to the
c~nt~ and asked ~e Co~tsston to approve ~e reco~endatton and de]ere the ~8
~n~ condition. He s~ted that the Po]tce Depar~ent has p~er to write ct~ttons
tf ~ere ts a problem; that he wants t~af~tc-to f]ow free~.
Commlssoner Wet1 asked ho~ may large trucks were serviced'per day; tf there was a
ttme category where the truck trafffc was heavter than most.
Planning Commission Hlnu. tes .. .
January 9, 1989
·
Page ~ ye ":' ~*'
lqr~ Gretnke noted that there were probable 40 - $0 per day that were-spread
throughout the day-but'most]y peaktng at 7 - 8 a.m',-and 3 - 4 p.m.
Comtssloner Shaheen clarified wtth Hr. Grtefl~e that hts only conf]t'ct was with ~he
Z8 month cofldltlofl and asked staff If thts was the only means of control.
The Dlrector noted that the Planntng Commission c~n always 'Institute a revocation
procedure of the Use Permit at any ttme, that It then becomes the Ctty's
responsibility to monltor the use and not the appTtcant's. She suggested as an
alternative to address prevtous Commission concerns and concerns from other
Departments, the following changes tn Resolution No. 2553
A. Condition 36 shall be revtsed to read: Service for large
trucks, those tn excess of 30 feet In length at this-location
shall be revte~ed and monitored ever~ :iS months from the date of
approv&l of Use Permtt 87-:L4 and the Planntng Commission may
requlre addtttoM1 mitigation measures upon conclusion of thetr
Z8 month revte~ perlod to reduce any Identified Impacts. Satd
. ,ttlgatton measures, he, ever, shall 'not tnclude relocation of
:' . truck servtce.
8. All other conditions contained wtthtn £xhtblt A of Resolution
~' #o. 2420 shall, remtn as originally approved.'
The Dtrector stated tha~ staff does not b&nt the company to relocate, they Just want
to establish a monitoring devtce. She also noted that the Public Horks Department
dfd have traffic conce~'ns. She Indicated that the modification to the CUP would be
handl~d routinely by staff; that the Planning Commission would recetve a staff report
gtvtng the status of the situation. She noted that lf, In the future, an application
was made to remove the condition completely there would have to be a publlc hearing.
Coea, lsstoner Baker asked tf the alley behtnd the gas statlon was st111 t~o-way and If
~'ere had bd'en any problems.
Hr. Gretnke no~d that there 'had been no problems and that the.-alley ts st111
t~o-~ay.
The publlc hear-lng was closed at 7:60 p.a.
,,Comtsstoner Shaheefl asked staff for more clarification about the 18 month period.
The Otrector Indicated that the 18 month condition was put tnto effect to monttor any
potent1&1 tmpacts on a particular use, tf, problems artse then there would be no
no
tssue, houever, tf there ~ere commen~.reoccurrtng problems staff wtth concurrence of
the Comtston could request additional mfttgatlon measures.
Commissioner Baker asked If staff had to watt until the 18 month petted was over In
order to ,ri ttgate a problem.
The 01rector noted that the Planntng Commission could always lntttate revocation
procedures If the applicant was unresponsive'to a request.
·
Planntng Comdsston Minutes
3anuar~ 9, 1989
Page stx
.t
APPLICANT:
· _Co.m~ss~oner ~/etl 'thanked Mr. Gretnke for the cooperation he has given to the
and fee]s that~ouChern Counttes 011 wtll conttnue to be a good neighbor. She
Indicated her concern ts due to the nacre of the bustness and that the business
not ~ntCo~d b~ 4 person 24 hours a da~. -, She ts also concerned that queuelng
PFoblm ~ghC ~sulc as traffic Increases. She Indicated that she Ys tn ~avor
~e reYt~ ~C not a publlc h~ar~ng eYe~ Z8 ~nths. She also noted ~e possibility
of sche~llng spectal hours for large ~cks rather than relocation of ~e s~tton tn
~e eYenc of notse ~latnCs. .
~e Ot~c~r noted that ~e ]anguage of ~e condition could be changed to
a~ ~qulr~nc for relo~Cton of large t~cks,
~m~ss~oner Shih~n asked ;o~ss~oner ~e~; to ¢la~fy the l~mttlng tim for cer~fn
~cks.
C~ss~one~ Hell nord ~at ~e requ~nt ~o ~loca~ large ~rucks could be
~o~d from ~th~cond~t~on and ~hat at a ~ch' 1~ da~ Nhen ~e~por~ ~venue 9e~s
~ conges~d a p~oblem my a~tse ff~h ~e large ~cks, at ~ha~ ~lme s~f~ could
possibly sp~fy a ~t~ 1tM~ ffhen large ~cks could be served.
..
~ss~one~ Le ~eune noted that th~s fs a ve~ sensitive use and ~s a poten~ta~
~a~f~c pPoblem, ff~h-the ~ develop~nt on H~or~ Avenue and E1 Cam~no Real the~e
ff~11 be a n~d ~o~ s~ ~ ~n~o~. He ~e~nded ~a~ ~he Co~ss~on ~o~1~
s~ff~ s ~eco~ndatton.
C~tsst. one~ Poflttou~ asked t~ ~he~e ffould be any at,ton necessary on ~he part o~ ~e
appl ~ cant.
StaFF ~sponded tha~ the ~ev~ P~ocess eve~ ~8 ~nths ~ould be handled
a~nfsc~at~veTy, by s~F and ~ansmitted ~o the ~ss~on.
~sstone~ Le ~eune asked s~F h~ ~s s~at~ofl ffould be m~lga~ed and/or
non ~ ~ored.
' .
The O~rec~o~ nord that ~here could be various problems such as no~se. ~ra~F~c and/or
alley access. She ~nd~cated ~a~ a spec~tc fssue Mould h~ve ~o be b~ough~ up and
reco~ndat~on sough~ f~om the Public ~ks Oepar~nt, a~te~ ~htch s~ ~ould
~search ~e p~oblem ~ssue ~o a~t an ~PP~Opr~ate m~at~on ~asure.
C~ss~one~ Le ~eune moved Pofl~lous second~ to approve a ~d~lcat~on ~o Use
on Ho. ~552 sub~ec~ ~o ~he above no~ed
addition of A. and 8. Hot, on cat,ted 4-0=~ ~1~ C~ss~one~.. Shaheen abs~n~n~
4. Ten~t~ve Parcel Hap 88-350
~LZFORNZA CZYZL, ZNC. ON BEHALF OF THE ~RYINE COMPANY & ~E
~URELgOOO HOHEOgNER'S ASSOCZATZOH
~E ZRYZNE COHPANY
P.O. BOX Z
~E~ORT B~CH, CA 9~58.0904
Planntng Comml sston.M1 nu~es
danuary 9, 198g
Page seven
· LOCATZ0N:
ZO#ZHG:
£HVZRONIaEHTAL
STATUS:
AT & SF RAILROAO RZGHT-OF-WAY ADJAC£NT TO TRACT 8029 SOUTH OF THE I-5
SANTA ANA FREEWAY .
UNZONED RZGIfl'-OF-WAY
·
CATEGORZCALLY EXEI~LOT, CLASS 1S
R, ecomendatton: !t t s recomended that the Planntng Commission recommend
approval of Tentative Parcel Hap 88-350 to the Ctty Counctl by the adoptton of
Reso]uttofl No. 2548.
PresentatJon: Bernard Chase, Plaflner
Comtsstone, r Shaheen asked tf the fuel 11ne was st111 located tn the subject area.
· .
_.
The Dtrecter noted that she believed that the line was tnactlve but had' not been
form]y abandoned, nor had the easement been released. She Indicated that the Irvtne
Company wight be able to provtde more recent tnformtton.
The publtc hb.arlng was opened at 8:20 p.m.
Gutdo 8orqes, Prestdeflt of the Laurelwood Homeowners' Association, noted that the 10"
1"1ne has been abandoned wtthln the last 12 months, the %rvtne Company has removed the
11ne.:.to tdalnut, the easement ts belng negotiated wtth the Zrvlne Copmpany and the
AT&SF' and must be released prtor to the execution of the deeds. He also noted that
barbed wtre ts not needed as long as the 8 foot wall for screening and securtty
purposes fs approved.
Brtan SchnetdeP, 2154 Larch Lane, noted concern regarding the hetght of the'wall;
a'sked"for clartftcatJon regardJng the lJghtJng and asked Jf the additional lots were
necessary. He ask that the Laurelmood 'residents be considered as well as the
resJdents of the Hoblle Nome Park.
Staff clarified.that the ltghtlng standards requtre shielding o~ the flxture to
stratn the 11ght to prevent sptllover and the requirement ts one footcandle
throughout the parktng area.
8tll Robbtns, mnager of the Laurelwood Homeowners' Assoctattofl, noted that there are
31 spaces to servtce 522 horns, there are no empty spaces and, tn fact, there Is a
three to four month wa1 ting 11st f~r spaces.
Pete Ptrzadeh, Ktnager of Traffic Engineering for the Ir. vlne Company, offered to
anstmr any questions 'for the Commission.
Comrlsstoner Le Jeune asked If the gradtn~ could be red,ced.
Hr. Ptrzadeh noted that the proposed act vas Just for the parcel map approval, the
Irvtne Company wt11 be worktng with staff off the stte plan.
The Otrector noted that the destgn revtew conditions, are Incorporated In the
resolution but not required, staff feels all sJte. Issues; have been addressed.
..
Pl~nnfng Comflsslon Mtnu~es
Janua~/ 9, XgBg
Page etght
~Commtsstoner Le Jeune asked tf whaC happens to the spaces .that aren't gotng to be
eliminated, would ~ be ~enced ~l~h barbed.~lre.
.
Hr. Plrzadeh s~ted ~at ~ese spaces w~l~ not be ~fec~d. , ....
~e DJrec~rIs~ted ~et ~e extstlng ~rbed wtre wt;; not be a;tered.
.
C~t~ssJoner Le Jeune sugges~d ~at ~e 8 foot RY's be p;eced behtnd the barbed
htsstoner Shahee~ asked vhere the entrances and exJ~ vt11 be loca~d.
Staff Pesponded tha~ there vou]d be no change tn the cut. nC entrances or extts ~o
~e KY storage area.
B~an Schtnd]er noted that ~e etghC foot vail Js on]y for the ~bl]e Home Park stde
of ~e parcel and ~haC the Laura]rood stale ts stJ]] sJx foot. He asked tf ~e vho]e
fence c~d.b~ ratsed Co e~gh~ feet.
S~ff nord ~aC ~e ~mJsston vas not approving ~e eight ~ooC va]]; that the
aPp]t~CJon for ~e viii ~u]d be 4 sepa~ pub]Jc ,hea~tng; and
vail could ~ tns~]]ed on ali four ~fdes; Jf desirable by the Hgm~ners,
AssocJaC~on.and approved by ~e Planntng ~sston.
.
~e pub~tc hea~ng vas c]osed at 8:37 p.m.
.
u""
foll~ing revisions: · 4aoptlon of Resolution No. 2548 vJth the
Add to ft~ 3.2: 'Staff recownds, and ~uld support an applfc~tlon for a Use
Pe~ft, pursuant to Sectton 9271(t) of' ~e Tusttn C~ty ~de, to construct an
eJght (8) foot block ~all (to mtch extsttng butldt~s/valls Jn Lau~l~ood) for
sc~entng and security pu~oses along ~e property 11nes of Parcel 1."
Change Z~m 3.4 to read 'Ftnal ~Crtptng of parking s~11s shall be approved by
an authorized represen~tlve of the Board of Directors of the Laurel~ood
Ho~ner' s Assoctatlon."
~otton carrted 5-0.
5. Use Pe~t ~o. 88-Z4
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
-ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
MR.*& HRS. ROBERT CHANEY
1042 WALNUT AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92680
ROY ~. CNZKASAWA
$45 W. LAGUNA ROAD
CA~IARILLO, CA 93010
1032 WALNUT AVENUE
COMMERCIAL GENERAL
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS I)
Pla:~ntng ~mri sslon ~41 nutes
3anuarT g, lgsg
Page ntne
REQUEST: TO AUTHORZZE THE RELOCATZOH OF AH. EXZSTZNG 1560 SQUARE FOOT PET SHOP
(TVO' S PETS).
Recommendation: Ti: ts recommended Chat the Planntng Commission approve Use Permt~
88-24 by adopt:lng Resolution No. 2S51 wtth the condt~,tons contained theretn.
Presenta1:ton: Eric Haala. nd, Asststan1: Planner
The publlc hearing was opened al: 8:41 p.m.
·
Don Fears, 23932 Oswego S1:, E1 Toro, Ca. 92630, the architect for the applicant:
offered Co ansver any quest:Ions and noted the appllcan1:'s 1hi:ertl:ton Co leave the slgn
where, ttt s.
,Co,.,tsstoner Le ~]e, une., asked tf there would be any antmal boarding at 1:h15 factlt1:y.
Hr. Fears no~ed thai: 1:here wtll be 'no ~boardlng for dogs, hoverer, there wt~ be some
boar, ding fo~ ca~s and sheller antmlls such as chtpnunks.
The pub11¢ h~&rtng was closed at 8:42 p.m.
ComMsstoner Le 3eune asked tf,the shopptng center has a stgn plan.
Staff responded that the'slgn plan ts a stmlJle one and Js revtewed at staff level at
the 1:1me of the destgn revtev.
Commissioner I~etl moved, PontJous seconded Co approve Use Perml~ 88-24 by the
adopt:Jori of Resolul:lon CiO. Z551 with 'the' ~ondll:tons contained wtthtn. Hotton carrted
S-O.
Use Permtt 88-25
APPLZCAIrr:
LOCATZON:
7QNJ:NG:
EHV ZRONHENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
RUTABEGORZ, ZHC.
1S8 HEST HAZN STREET
TUSTZH, CA 92680
158 HEST HAZH STREET (S/E CORNER OF HAil( Alii) 'C' STREETS)
PLANNED CENTRAL CQHHERCTAL
CATEGORZCALLY EXEHPT, CLASS 1
AUTHORiZATiON TO SELL GENERAL LTQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSU~PTZON
COtI~]UIlcT~zoII 'dZTH A RESTAURANT USE .
Recommendation: ZC ts recommended thai: the Planntng Comml sslon approve Use
Perm11:88-~5 'l~y the adopt:ton of Resolu1:ton No. 2549.
Presenta1:lon: Bernard Chase, Planner
·
The pub11¢ hearing was opened al: 8:46 p.m.
Th~' pub11¢ heartng was closed at 8':'~? p.m.
Planntng Comrlsston ~n~tes
Oanuaff7 g, xgsg
· ..
_Commissioner Le Jeune asled about outdoor seating and the sale of alcghollc beverages
at the site. -
·
The 01rector noted that sa]e of alcoho]lc beverages at outdoor seattng areas ts not
authorized and she Is not aware that current outdoor seattng at the stte was ever
approved. .
Coa.rlsstoner Shaheen moved Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Pe~mtt 88-25 by the
a ed 5-0.
7. Use PePmft 88-28 --
_
APPLZCAIrr:
PROPERTY
OWN£R:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENYIRONHE~TAL
STATUS r
REQUEST:
GRAND AVENUE PET HOSPITAL
1602 N. GRAND AVENUE
SANTA ANA, CA 92701
TUSTIN AUTOHOTZYE PARTNERS
161 FASHION LANE, SUITE 116
· TUSTZN, CA 92680
1122 EL CNqINO REAL - BETWEEN EL CN4INO REAL AND INTERSTATE 5
COHHERCIAL GENERAL *
CAT£GORZCALL¥ EXEHPT (CLASS 1)
TO AUTHORIZE THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING SNALL ANZNAL HOSPITAl
(TUSTANA ANZHAL HOSPITAL) AT 1192 EL CAHINO REAL TO RELOCATE IN ~
FIODZFr/D AUTOHOTZYE REPAIR BUILDING AT 1122 EL CAHZNO REAL ~UE TO
THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF THE I-5 FREEWAY.
Recommendation: That ~e PJanntng Comrlss~on approve Use
adoptJng. ResOTutton No. ZSu2 wtth the condJtlons contained t~ereln.
P~esentatton: Ertc Haaland, Asslstant Planner
The publlc heartng was opened at 8:52 p.m.
D~an Pet~o applicant, offered to answer any questions.
The publlc .heartng was closed at 8:53 p.m.
·
Con~tsstoner Pontlous moved, Wet1 seconded to approve Use
adoptton of Resolution No. 2552. Hotton carrted $-0.
8. Tentative Tract Hap 13822
_
APPLICANT: DURFEE GARDENS PARTNERSHZP
1700 RAINTREE ROAD
FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 :
OWNER: SA~IE
LOCATION: 14372 S. ¥ORBA STREET (S/E CORNER OF YORBA
PLACE) , .,-
ZONING: R-l, SZNGL£ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Permtt 88-28 by
Permit 88-28 by the
AND NO.R~OOD PARK
, .
Planntng Co,.,tsslon Htnutes
January 9. 1989
Page eleven
ENV IRONIq£NTAL
STATUS:
.REQUEST:
A NEGATZVE DECLARATZON NAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WiTH THE
CALZFORNZA ENYZRONMENTAL QUALZTY ACT
APPROVAL TO SUBDZ¥iDE A 1.73 ACRE PARCEL- iNTO SiX (6) LOTS WiTH A
CUL-DE-SAC FOR THE DEVELOPHENT OF SiX (6) SINGLE FAMILY
RESZDENCES
Recommendation: it ts reconKended that the Plannlng Commission adopt Resolution i~o.
Z556, recommending to the City Count1] approval of Tentative Tract laap 13822.
Presentation: Steve RubJn, SenJor Planner
Comtsstoner t~etl referred to the plcture from the hlstertcal survey and asked when
the applicant vas nottfted that thts was a historical house.
Stiff responded that they had received the historical su~'vey on Tuesday and had
to ¢o.ntact the applicant on Thursday'.
·
Conm~ss~oner 4~e~1 asked tf there vas any attempt to nottfy the hfstorlcal soctety of
thJ s moat1 rig.
....
The DJrector noted that ~ost of the narratJve descrlptJon for the survey vas done by
Care]. Jordan of t~e hlsterical so¢tety.
The publf¢ hearing vas opened at 9:05 p.e. '
·
DP. Ronald Crovley_, 1700 Rafntree Rd., Fullerten, Ca. 92635, co-owner Of the project
stated that he recefved the staff report on Honday mornfng. He fnqu~red as go the
potentfal of movtng the home. Several movers noted that the roof must be completely
removed; that t~e home should not be moved more than a few blocks; and that it ~s not
a hfsterlcal house. He also stated that the house fs nog fn good condition, ~he roof
leaks and ~ere Js no,lng dfstfnctfve about the house. He also stated that this
a s;~11 proJect'and that the requirement of havJng a Paleantologtst and geologfst on
sJte during gradJng vould create an undue hardshJp. He also dld not feel that tt was
appropriate Co requJre and eroston control plan or a traffic routtng plan. He also
d~d not understand vhy he vould need to obtaJn permJsslon from the nefghborlng
propertJes, create a construction Phastng plan and supply an arborlst on site as the
trees are not mfntiined nol' ape they speg~men trees. He also questioned the Jssue
of the southern boundary retaJnfn~ wall and the
answer any qustlons.
Steniey Guske),, 17391 ~lorwood Park Place, Tusttn, noted that the exlstlng home on the
~Jte ls not 4t all vel; mJntiJned and he vas Jn favor of the proposed project's
approval.
l~;?lam grames_, 14382 r41mosa Lane, Tustln, Spoke ~n favor of the proposed pro~ect.
Hr~s. Rtchard Halderman, 17491 Norwood Park Pl, Tusttn, asked why she was not notlfled
and Ifa trafflc light will be placed ag ¥orba and Norwood Park Place.
·
Planntng Commission Htnutes
Janu&ry g, ZgSg
Page ~elve
· ·
Staff responded that there wtl1 be no traffic signal at the cul-de-sac and there
certatn crtterla that a. location must meet before a 11ght can be Justified at a
Particular location. He also noted that a.ll property owners wtthtn 300 feet' were
nottced and asked Ms. Haldermen to call him on Tuesday and he would do some further
research as to why she did not recetve a notice of this publlc heartng.
Terry Schnabel, Z735! Parker Or., Tusttn, noted hts concern that the back yards of
the proposed~ro;lect would be considerably htgher than bls and would 11ke .to see a
higher wall butlt and some follage to screen his property more. He also noted that
he was tn favor of the pro:lect.
Dr. Cro~le~,, noted that he had no 'ob:lecttons to plantlng trees to screen the
property.
The 01rector clarified that, when t'nstalltng a retaining wall, tf there ts more than
a 30 1nth drop from one $tde to the other, there must be a 30 Inch guard rat1 on the
top of the fence In addttton to the. required fence hetght.
Conmtsstone~ He11 noted that she wanted to be certain that the retaining wall wbuld
be sturdy er~ough,
Dr. Crowle~, noted that he would work wtth the neighbors ~or prtvac¥ and drainage.
G~en Leis 17351 Norwood P~rk Place, Tusttn, asked why thts tract ts opentng onto
- -~iorwood park Place and not Yorba Street.
Staff responded that rorba Is a secondary h'tghway and from a traffic engineering
standpoint tt lsn't.a good Idea to provtde curb cuts from that location.
·
Mr. Lets asked Or. Crowley what the approximate cost of the proposed units were
expected to be.
Or. CrowleZ responded that the price would be from $450,000 to $500,000.
Don Fontatne, 1~381 Mtmosa Lane Tusttn, spoke In support of the
aeve]opment/- '
proposed
John Jaeger, t4142 Hhttehead, [rvtne, one of the applicants, wanted more Information
regardtng~the paleontologist and the geologist.
Staff responded that the'requirements that Or. Crowley and Mr. Jaeger took Issue wtth
are all standard requirements. He elaborated that havtng a paleontologist and
geologist on stte durtng gradtng ts a standard requirement; that an eroston control
plan ts a standard UBC requirement for gradtng work between the months of October and
Aprl]; trafftc routtng plan Is a standard condition; obtaining permission from
neighboring property owners ts also a standard requirement to butld retaining walls;
a construction phastng plan fs :lust a plan tn wrtttng stattng that there wtll only be
one phase If that Is the case; and the arborlst ts being requtred because of the
large extsttng trees. Staff also noted that ~lr. Jaeger obtalned the staff report on
Fr!day prior to the meeting.
C~ommtsstoner Shaheen asked tf the applicant had to remove the house.
Pi&nntng Corn1 sslon 141nutes
January 9,. 1989
Page th1 r~een
-_
·
The Dtrector noted chac a good faJth effort must be made to comp]¥ wtth CEQA
-requJrementa, Jf there are slgnJftcant poJnts as to why restoring ts non-economical,
those potnts must be documented.
I~r. Jaeger noted that to ~ove the house would be an extreme hardshtp on chetr company
and asked Chat the relocation requirement be deleted.
·
The Director' reiterated that the developer must submit a report providing evtdence
that they have made a good falth effort to move the home, documenting economical
support lnfonaatlon to provide evtdence chat relocation ts Infeasible. However, the
¢tW leSt make the record comp]eta as far as the
cover the Planntng Commission fro. a legal standpoint. She res~ated chat a good
f<h efforl: lest be made.
Lots Jeffre~ responded that tf the tssue Is not dealt wtch an EIR must be required.
The pub11¢ heardng vas c]osed at 9:52 p.m.
Commtsstone~ Wet1 complimented the applicant on 4 clean project and noted her
surprtse 'a~ ~e ]eve] of conditions tn ExhJb~ A. She brough~ up some changes cha~
vt11 be re~ec~d tn ~he ~ton bel~, no~tng tha~ she dtd no~ van~ ~o excessively
burden ~e ~ppll~n~
C~tsstoneP,~etl ~vedr Pon~lous second~ te ~mnd ~ Ct~y ~unctl ~e approve]
of Ten~tJve Trac~ [~p 13822 "by ~e adoptton of ~solu~lon Ho. 2556 ~tth ~e
roll,lng ~vlsJons: Ellmlnate'*Z~m 4.4 B. 7.; on
'd'.; on J~ 9.1, 1. ag the end of ~e flrsg sen~nce add 'and/or feasJb~llW of
~loca~Jng ~e house.'; on t~m 9.1, ~, 11ne 2 afar 'county" add, "or tf relocation
ts fnfeasJble"; a~ the end of the flrs~ sen~n~ delete "satd stye." and replace
wJ~ 'astte or info~glon ~a~ ~vtng ~e s~c~re 1s ~nfea'slble."; and delete
1~ 9.2. ~Jon carrted 5-0.
At 10:00 p.,. Umre vas aftve mtnute break.
9. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 88-01
APPLICANT:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
SYCAMORE GARDENS HOMEOWNER' S ASSOCiATiON
A' NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE-CACIFORNLA -
ENVZRON/4ENTAL OUALTZY ACT..
REQUEST: REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 9314, EXCEPTIONS ($$412i, OF THE CITY'S
SUBDiViSiON ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE iSSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE FOR I~IE CONVERSION OF STOOC COOPERATIVES iNTO CONDOMZNIUr4$,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 56412(h) OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION raAP ACT.
..
Recommefldatlon: It ts recommended that the Planntng Commission adopt Resolutton No.
2550 recommending approval to the. ClOy Count11 of Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
88-01. - ....
Presentation: Steve Rubln, Senior Planner
.
The public heartng vas opened at 10:12 p.m.
Planntng Comrfsston.~l nuteS
Oanua~. g, XgSg. · · -
Page fourteen
..
Rtchard Kvtdt_, Box 3324, Tusttn, President of Sycamore Gardens Homeowners'
~Ssoctatlon asked staff to exp]aln '[tam 3 on page t~o of the resolution.
·
The Dlrector noted that tht~. was a provision of the State law provtdfng~ t~at an
existing tenant has the ftrst rtght of sa]e and relocation benefits. Thts provision
Js only requiring the applicant to.comply wfth State
· .
Lots Heffre), noted that this condition Js word for word from the Subdivision Hap Act
and tf de]eted the Amendment could not be certified under the Subdivision ~lap Act and
the applicant would have te apply for a parcel map.
~r. ICvJdt_ questioned the tenants ftrst rights
. ·
The Director noted that the tenants would have to be gtven ftrst rights anyway. She
noted that the Clty Attorney could look Into the matter and the Item co.u]d be
continued unti] the next meeting.
·
C_omeJsstoner tfeJ1 asked If staff had' suggested the SubdlYtston Ordinance Amendment to
the apPlicant.when determining what direction shou]d be taken In thts matter.
The Director Indicated that thts cours,e of action was the app]tcant's Idea. She
noted that tfa Tentative Tract ramp process were to be applted for the same law would
be applicable and there wou]d still be the Issue of tenant's rtghts, as stock coop's
are def. l ned by the Ct vt] Code.
Hr. gvJdt asked that the fssue be settled at thfs meettng a~ he dtd not want to see
this J t~-~ be delayed any further.
dohn Stuczynskt, 1833 E. 17th St, f111, Santa Ana, Ca., the consultant for the
II°meowners~ ASSociation, took Issue with the Intent of the law notfng that this
Particular 1tern of tenants' ftrst rtghts was meant for the developer and not the
Individual owners. He suggested that the Cfty Attorney could research the 1tea. The
City has to Issue the certtfJcattofl and can make the determination that Ztem 3 does
not: apply. However, he also asked that the Amendment not be delayed because of thts
1 ssue.
~Commtsstoner Shaheen agreed wtth the applicant that the law was designed for large
apartment: .cOmp 1 exes~eI ng converted tnto condominiums.
.ko~s deffre), noted that ~he woulli research .the Issue and adYIse the Dlrector of
Coaaunl ty Development.
Commissioner Le ~leun~e requested that the Item be continued.
Iq~r. I(vtdt noted that the continuance wtll not change the laws, ~st clarify them. He
stated that he wanted a dectston on the Amendment tontght and that they wtll abide by
whatever Interpretation th&y receive at a later date.
The public heartng was closed at 10:29 p.m.
_ C~o~tsstoner ~etl noted her reluctance to Include a condition that m'ay not apply and .
asked for a comer-hr from the City Attorney·
Planntng Commission Htnu~es
'~]anuary 9, 1989
Page ftfteen .
Lots Jeffre),' Clarified' that the Amendment was changtng the Ordinance wtth
that"'w&s In the la~ and stated that ~n ln~rpretdtlon ts needed from ~e
Atty.
.
.
The Dtrec~r nord ~t the ;t~ Attorney's office ~tll provtde the procedure
~e ~ppllc~nt ~tll need to proceed...
t~o~e~ Po~tl~us moved~ ~e Jeune seconded to reco~nd to Ctty Cou,ctl approval
; 3,D;]WS~O, Urdlnance A~n;~nt No. 88'01 by the ~doptton of Resolution ~o. 2550.
Norton ca~led 5-0.
OLO ~USXIIF.~
. .
XO.- Amendments to .the Tusttn Ctt), Code Relatod to Gradln~ and ~cava~t~
PrescriPtion: C~stlne Shtngle~n, Olrec~r of ~nl~ Deve.lopment
~tss~ner ~e!1 ~sked ~h~t ~e u~ge~ of p~sslng ~e Ordinance ~as.
~e D~c~f noted that the processes for the Htllstde Revtw Procedu~, Sector ~ps
and Phase Haps are 1etd out ~n ~e Ordinance and delaying ~e Ordinance wou]d aso
de]~ ~e Phase iV ~p.
~enntngs D. Ple~er 3r., S50 N~~ ~n~r Drtve. P 0 Box Z, Nevport Beach, ~.,
nord ~a~ h'e had ~en vorktng ~tth s~ff and aged vtth eve~lng ~n ~e Ordinance
ex~pC page Z~ ~H). fie noted ~oncern ~tth ~e ]ega] Issues surrounding the
vhlch 4s vordad wou]d ]oave the Zrv1ne ~4ny v~Ch 4 ]o~ of legal responsfbl]t~.
He nord thl~ there are mny o~er people tnvo]ved and they have a responstbt]tC~
~e Z~ne ~many and ~e Comany shou].d not be he]'d ]tab]e for ~ork done by other
peop]e. He also vaned to kn~ vha~ ls 4C~4]]~ be wa~anCeed. He no~ed tha~ the'
s~bt]tty of ~e 14nds~pe sys~ms, once ~rned over mst be ~tn~ned, slopes and
Po~nCla] defec~ Is dea]~ v~ tn the Clvt] Code. ~e nord tha~ ~e Coman~ ~anCed
~ rove ah~d a~ qutck]~ as possble and have t~ 4pp~ved subJec= Co ~he Co.ann's and
C~tsstone~ ~etl ~sked tf ~e Zrvtne Comany has warrantees In any o~er p~ojec~s
and If ~ere ~any slope problem t. an~ o~er pro3ec~s.
i
H~.' Plerce nord ~t he vtsn'~ ~.~re ~at ~e ]rvtne ~many had warrantees
irene or Orange ~un~ and ~hlt he had not researched thts ~C~er. ~erefore he
cou]dn'C glve &n iccura~ an's~r. :. '
~tsst~r ~etl nord Cha~ s]ope prob]ems are no~ necessarily developer faults.
C~tsstoner Shaheen asked what ~pes of problems did Hr. Plerce ~o~see.
Hr. Pterce noted ~at along Tus~ln ~4nch ~oad ~ere ts SO fee~ of slopes. He ~o~d
~h&t the responslbt]t~ should be shared wt~ soils experts, engineers, e~c.
The, Dtrec~r nord tha~ the sl~ua~l,Gns In Tus~tn dtf~er f~m o~er areas. There are
severe]y s]oped areas tn Sectors 4 and S. The Co.any ~t]1 be excluded from Phase 4
4nd ~e developer wt~1 be ~he responstb]e par~y. She Indicated ~ha~ language ~o
sattsf~ bo~ petites and ~ln~ln th~ legal bounds can be ~orked ou~.
Planntng co.,.tsston' r~Inutes
- - -,]aitu~ary g, lg8g
Page sTxteen
· o
Staff responded that tn other cttJes there are many developments on htllstde slopes
that.require extensive grading and slope warranties. 'Zn San Juan .Captsl~.ano the
developer ts responsible for the slopes and structural failure of the slope. The
developer ts also responsible for establishing a slope warrantee fund to be taken
over by the Homeowners' Association, where a thtrd party handles and adjusts clatms
regarding the slope Integrity. There lsa cet]lng for funds for s]ope replacement
and there may even be a rebate. Slope fatlure wtll be replaced wtthout any cost to
the homeowner.
The Director noted that the warrantee Is the concern of the Zrvtne ~ompany and that
she Is wtlllng to delete the l0 year portton of the requirement but wants a slope
warrantee Implementation program as & cond'j.t.to, on htllstde Tract Haps. She also
exp.latned that the warrantee program explained earlter was Just one example and there
Are a vartety of other mechanisms.
Staff noted that another optton ts to provtde Insurance, the ~]~veloper provides a
self lnsurtng f~nd, htres a ¢latms 'adjuster and administers the Insurance to the
contractor..
· .
I~r. Pterce' noted that the Zrvlne Company ts wtlllng to work with staff.
The. Dt~ecter noted'that there could be some ,1nor wordtng changes and the Commission
could pass the Ordinance'along to the Ctty Coun¢t] for adoption.
Lols Jeffre~ noted that thts approach ~ould be acceptable as the tssue ts one of'
publlc policy and not a legal tssue, the object ts Co t~ to assure that there is a
program to deal wtth potential rtsk of the City.
The Dtrecter recommended the following changes to the Ordinance:
~.} page three, ltne 2 add comma after 'however" and eliminate '" after
exemp Ct on; ,
Z.) page ftve, 8909 C, 11ne 5 change "authorizations"' to "authorization";
3.) Page stx, F. ]Ine two after 'relteve the" add "applicant and/or";
4.) page seven, [, change Sectton "9809" to "agiO";
S ). page etght, 8gl3, 11ne ! add "," "by"
· after "permit", add "or' ocher person"
after "permtttee" and On ltne t~o Insert before "decisions";
6.) page eleven, g, 11ne ceo end ftrst sentence wtth "operations. ~here";
· 7.) page C~elve,. 1.., ltn~ ~ after ",rlntmtze".. replace remainder wtth "and
h111stde roadways are destgned consistent wtth guidelines contained tn the
Gradtng raanual." and In paragraph "n" last sentence should be changed Co read
"[very permtt shall also be conditioned upon the applicant and/or owner's
warranty of all slopes through applicants and/or o~ner Implementation of a
slope warranty program subject to approval and review by the Ctt7 Attorne7 and
Planntng Comrlsston. ";
8.) page thtrteen 8gZ6 8, in the second to the last llne after "condition" the
word "reasonably" should be Inserted; and
9.) page sixteen, first paragr.aph chan~e "It's" to "1ts" '~nd tn the second
paragraph of Section 3, ftfth line, add "," after "purpose".
Planatng Comflrlsston. Htnutes
.. ~&nuary. g, ~989
P&ge seventeen
Commissioner Le ~]eune moved, Ponttous seconded to recommend approval to the C~7
Count1] of"'the amendmen.t$ 'to'the 'T~'stln City Code related to Gradtng and £xcavatton
by the adoptlon of Resolution Ho. 2555 wtth the revisions noted above. Morton
carried
ND( BUSZNESS
11. Use Determination (88-01)
Presentation: Dan Fox, Associate Planner
The public hearing was opened at 11:06 p.a. - ....
Ga~y Stark, 6 Feathergrass, Zrvtne, Ca. 92714, applicant noted that the area ]ends
l~self to children's fantasies and offered to answer any questions.
Commissioner Baker noted that he had some reservations regarding parking and stagtng
f~r the dropplng off and ptcktng up of-young cht]dren. '
Staff noted that there were flve adjacent parktng spaces aval]able.
The Dtrecter noted ~hat there cou]d be flextbtl'l~y tn the parking and that the
dJ$cussJon should be held off as a dJscusston for the Conditional Use Permtt
applJcatlon at whtch ttme the stte tssue can be resolved.
Commissioner Pofltto,s moved, bier1 seconded to determine, by mJflute order, ~hat a
b'lr~hday p~rt~' busl,es'$ Is s'~mllar Co'~ socia! hail and may be peculated w~htn the
C-Z (Re~11 Co~rcJal) DtstrJcr sub~ec~ ~ the approval of a Conditional Use
STAFF CONCERNS
12. Ctty Counc~j Acttofl agenda for December Z9r I988 and .JanuarZ 3r ~989
Presentation: Christine Shtn~]e~on, Otrector o~ Connuntty Oevelopmen~
No Planntng Commission action necessary.
CQBIJIZSSZON CO~ ·
. ,
Commt.sstoner Ponttous no,ed that a fence 'was. b~o~n do~n on the sidewalk on the corner
Of Hood~awn and Hlsson.
Commissioner Baker asked Nhat NaS happening on ~e corner o~ Hewpor~ and E1 Camtno
R~a]; the car Nash stte on }iewpor~ and Haln; and noted. Chat ~he £as~ Tus~ln ~rea
black t~p Is shallow on ~e street.
Planning Com~lsslon rHnutes
~anuar~ 9, 1989
Page eJghteen
S~aff responded that soll tssues vere betng *resolved at Nevport and £1 Camtno Real;
there ts currently code enforcement actton being taken at the car wash. stte and there
ts a ftnal course of black top that wtll be applied after all of the phases of
construction are completed.
ADdOURI~EIIT
At 11:25 p.m. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next
regular scheduled ¢~atlng in January 23, 198§ ar. 7:00 p.m. ~lotton carrted 5-0.
Secretary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
ORDINANCE NO. 1019
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ~OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING -ZONE CHANGE -88-02, A
REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUAN
STREET FROM. PC-C1 (PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL
COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (2200) (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). '
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows'
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows-
A. A public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on the
application of the Mesa Development Company to rezone the
property located at 1432 San Juan Street from PC-C1 (Planned
Community/Retail Commercial) to R-3 (2200) (Multi-Family
Residential) on December 12, 1988, January 9, 1989 and February
6, 1989.
12
13
14
15
lG
17
18
19
20
21
22;
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. -This Zone Change has been reviewed and in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration
has been prepared and has been certified by the City Council by
adoption of this Ordinance.
C.
The proposed zoning ls consistent wi th the General Plan,
particularly the Land Use Element, in that the multi-family
designation would allow compatible uses and orderly development
in the neighborhood.
D. The proposed zoning is in the best interest of the public health,
safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and property
owners in that the maximum allowed density would ensure greater
land use compatibility between the adjacent residential, public
and institutional, and commercial uses.
II. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 88-02 as shown on Exhibit
A, amending the City of Tustin Zoning Map to rezone property at 1432 San
Juan Street from PC-C1 (Planned Community) to R-3 (2200) (Multi-family
Residential. All mitigation measures contained in the approved Negative
Declaration are also adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the day of_ , 1989
O~sula EI K~n~edY,- - ' ....
Mayor
~a~y ~Jynn,
City Clerk
09 ¸'
NO.
LO/"
IYlGIV $Cll00/.0.$3~
·
BLK. 12
!\
I.t Il
SUBJECT SITE
1432 Sari Juan Street
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02
·
ZONE CHANGE 88-02
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1:2
13
14
15
1(;
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
:28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-19 (A)
A RESOLUTION OF 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMENT
88-02, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP OF THE
GENERAL PLAN FROM C (COMMERCIAL) TO MF (MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUAN
STREET.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolves as follows-
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows'
Ae
Government Code Section 65356.1 provides that when it is deemed
to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a
part of the General Plan.
Be
In accordance with Government Code Section 65356.1, a public
hearing was duly noticed, called, and held on the application of
the Mesa Development Company to reclassify the land use
designation from C (Commercial) to MF (Multi-Family Residential)
on the property located at 1432 San Juan Street on December 12,
1988, January 9, 1989 and February 6, 1989.
C. This amendment has been reviewed in accordance wi th the
California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration
has been prepared and has been certified by the City Council by
adoption of this resolution.
D. The proposed residential designation is in the best interest of
the public and surrounding property owners in that a residential
designation would allow greater land use compatibility between
the adjacent commercial, public and institutional and
residential uses. '
E. The proposed land use change is consi'stent with other elements of
the General Plan.
II. The City Council hereby approves Geheral Plan Amendment 88-02 changing
the land use map of the Tustin General Plan redesignating property located
at 1432 San Juan Street (as shown on Exhibit A) from C (Commercial) to MF
{Multi-family Residential). All mitigation measures contained in the
approved Negative Declaration are also adopted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the day of . .. , 1989.
Mary LWyn6'
City Clerk
Orsul a E" -Kennedy,
Mayor
EXHIBIT A
2-: J~IT.._'
:SAN JUAN STREET~'~
rn~rcr
/'//G/I $CMO01.
$E-$$
POR. LOT .$1
I
IIII
.!
I'
SUBJECT SITE
1432 San Juan Street
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02
ZONE .CHANGE 88-02
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IG
17
18
19
2O
9.1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 89-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ZONE CHANGE 88-02, A
REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUAN
STREET FROM PC-C1 (PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL
COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 (2200) (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL).
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows'
I. The City Council finds and determines as fo)lows'
A. A public hearing was duly noticed, called and held on the
application of the Mesa Development Company to rezone the
property located at 1432 San Juan Street from PC-C1 {Planned
Con~nuni ty/Retai 1 Conmmrcial) to R-3 (2200) (Multi-Family
Residential) on December 12, 1988, January 9, 1989 and February
6, 1989.
B. The proposed zoning is not consistent with the General Plan,
particularly the Land Use Element and the Housing Element, in
that these elenmnts discourage creation of additional
nmlti-family designated land due to a current imbalance of
renter-occupied housing versus owner-occupied housing .and the
City cannot require owner-occupied versus renter-occupied housing
as b6th are permitted in the R-3 zoning district.
C. The proposed zoning ts not in the best interest of the publtc
health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood and
property owners, in that comnmrclal uses are a more appropriate
buffer between surrounding residential developments and the
adjacent high school ballfields, church and office uses.
II. The City Counctl hereby denies Zone Change 88-02.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the day of , 1989.
-- ,i i
Ursula E. Kennedy,
Mayor
mary ii Wynn,
City Clerk