Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.H. 2 USE PERMIT 87-14 02-6-89TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: REQUEST: WILLI/I~I A. HUSTON, CITY HANAGER COMHUNITY DEVELOPHENT DEPARTHENT APPEAL OF PLANNING COMHI$SION AHENDMENT TO USE PER, lIT 87-14 SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY 14811 HYFORD ROAD TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY 13918-13922 NEWPORT AVENUE TO DELETE CONDITION 36 OF EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 2420 WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY TO PERIODICALLY MONITOR AND MITIGATE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT RESULT FROM LARGE TRUCK FUEL SERVICE AT THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING FUEL FACILITY. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 89-15, denying the subject appeal, a request to delete Condition 36 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2420. BACKGROUND At their regular meeting on January 9, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2553 approving Amendment #1 to Use Permtt 87-14, modifying Condition 36, as tt relates to large truck service. Use Permit 87-14 was originally approved by the Plannln9 Commission on July 27, 1987 authorizing the construction of a self-service, card-lock commercial fuel facility on the subject site located at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and Bonita Street. At that time, concerns were raised about the fueling of numerous large trucks and their impact on nearby streets and traffic; appropriately certain conditions of approval were adopted to mi ti gate the impacts these trucks might have on the surrounding area. One such condition (No. 36 of Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2420), required the relocation of all large truck (in excess of 30 feet in length) fuel service upon completion of an alternate truck fuel service facility at another location, unless renewals were granted by the Planning Commission. While the applicant is currently establishing an alternate fuel facility, it f_ City Council Report Appeal to Planning Commission Amendment To Use Permit 87-14 February 6, 1989 Page two ' will not be In Tustin as originally envisioned, but tn the City of Orange. The applicant was, therefore, deslrous of retaining large truck fuel service at thetr Newport site indefinitely, particularly to servtce Tustin businesses. The Planning Commission recogQlzed the applicant's needs but did not belleve it appropriate to delete the condition completely. The Commission consequently chose to modlfy the language of the condition based on any potential traffic Impacts that could be associated with large trucks In excess of 30 feet using the site. The modified condition Is worded as follows' "Service for large trucks, those In excess of 30 feet In length at this locatton shall be revtewed and monitored every 18 months from the date of approval of Use Permit 87-14 and the Planning Commission may requlre additional mitigation measures upon conclusion of their 18 month review period to reduce any Identified impacts. Said mitigation measures, however, shall not tnclude relocation of truck service." To clarify the revised language of Condition 36, the applicant would not at any tlme be required to relocate the large truck service. DISCUSSION Pollce, Public Works and Community Development Department staff have raised tssues about the Impacts of large truck service on nearby streets, traffic, and potential nolse from such trucks on abuttlng residential properties to the east and would not recommend deletton of Condition 36 altogether. A number of staff have observed potentially hazardous trafflc sltuations Involving truck service .at the stte and believe that the City would lose a valuable tool to mitigate future trafflc lmpacts If Condition 36 was deleted. Attached to thls report Is a letter from a Tustln business person expresslng concern over his daily experiences with truck traffic related to the fuel facil.ity. Staff believes that the revised condition is a reasonable compromise, assuring the applicant of the permanent ability to provide large truck fuel service. CONCLUSION Based on the concerns of potential traff)c impacts related to large truck fuel service at the subject fuel facility, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Amendment #1 to Use Permit 87-14, Corn munity DeveloPment Department City Council Report Appeal to Planning Commission Amendment To Use Permit 87-14 February 6, 1989 Page three allowing the City to monitor and mitigate such condttJons by adoptJng Resolution No. 89-15. Eric Haaland - Assistant Planner Christine A. Shinglet~ Director of Community~ Devlopment EH:CAS:ts Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 9, 1989 Minutes dated January 9, 1989 Resolution No. 2553 and 2420 Resident's letter of opposition Resolution No. 89-15 ~ Corn munit¥ DeveloPmen~ Depar~rnen~ ~ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF AMENDMENT. #1 TO USE PERMIT 87-14 REQUESTING DELETION OF CONDITION 36 OF EXHIBIT AOF RESOLUTION NO.. 2420 WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY TO PERI-ODICALLY MONITOR AND MITIGATE TRAFFIC CONCERNS THAT RESULT FROM LARGE TRUCK FUEL SERVICE AT THE FUEL FACILITY LOCATED AT 13918-13922 NEWPORT AVENUE. The City Council .of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Amendment #1 to Use Permit 87-14 has been filed by Southern Counties Oil Company to delete Condition 36 of Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2420, requiring the City to monitor and mitigate traffic concerns that result from large truck fuel service at the. fuel facility located at 13918-13922 Newport Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said appeal on February 6, 1989. C. That the establis, hment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for could under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing and working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following conditions: 1. The use would not be consistent with the original approval of Use Permit 87-14. 2. Allowing the permanent use of large truck fuel service without City review at the site would hinder the City's ability to. monitor and mitigate traffic concerns that may arise from said use. 3. Condition 36 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2420 allows the City of Tustin to monitor and mi ti gate truck related traffic concerns of the use. Do That the maintenance and operation of the subject use could be injurious and detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of- the subject property, and to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, if Condition 36 of Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2420 were deleted. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1(; 18 21 22 :23 27 28 Resolution No. 8g-15 Page two II. The City Council hereby denies the appeal of Amendment #1 to Use Permit 87-14 requesting the deletion of Condition 36 of Resolution No. 2420, Exhibit A and affirms the Planning Commission's action. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of _ , 1989. ~a E'.'1 Kennedy, Mayor Mary ~ynn, City Clerk Planning Commission - ITEM NO. 3 DATE: SUBOECT-. APPLICANT: ONNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: .JANUARY 9, 1989 AMENDMENT ~1 TO USE PERMIT 87-14 SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY 14811 IqYFORD ROAD TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL COMPANY 13918-13922 NE#PORT AVENUE C-1 RETAIL COMMERCIAL A .NEGATIVE DECLARATION #AS APPROVED FOR USE PERMIT 87-14 IN CONFORRRNCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO AMEND THE APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 87-14 BY DELETING CONDITION' 36 OF EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2420 THAT REQUIRES THE EVENTUAL TERMINATION OF LARGE TRUCK FUEL SERVICE AT THE APPLICANT'S EXISTING FUEL FACILITY. RECelINENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission- 1) Deny amendment #1 to Use Permit 87-14 by adoption of Resolution No. 2553; and 2) Approve an 18 month extension for large truck fuel service at the facility by adopting Resolution No. 2554 and the conditions contained therein, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND Use Permit 87-14 was approved by the Planning Commission on July 27, 1987 authorizing the construction of a self-service, card-lock commercial fuel facility on the subject site-located at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue and Bonita Street. At that time, concerns were raised about the fueling of numerous large trucks and their impact on nearby streets and traffic; , _ ,,, Community Development DeparTment Plannlng Commission Report Southern Counties 0il January 9, 1989 Page two appropriately certain conditions of approval were adopted to mitigate the impacts these trucks might have on the surrounding area. One such condition (No. 36 of Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2420), required the relocation of all large truck fuel service to another site. This condition was imposed with the knowledge that the applicant expected to establish "an alternative truck service fuel facility" at another location, eliminating the large trucks from the subject property. However, the applicant has not been able to establish this alternative facility and wishes to'retain large truck fuel service at the subject facility indefinitely. To allow large truck service indefinitely, the Planning Commission must amend the original use permit approval by deleting Condition 36. Condition 36 provides for Planning Commission renewals of large truck service at the site every 18 months (which is presently due to end on January 27, 1989). DISCUSSION The applicant's fuel facility has been in operation for approximately 12 months and City files indicate that no accidents or complaints have resulted from its operations, although Public Works and Community Development staff have observed daily truck related conditions of some concern at the site. Trucks have been noticed stopping on Newport Avenue and waiting to gain entrance to the facility, as well-as momentari-ly blocking traffic at the Newport-Bonita intersection as they return from the fuel facility to the freeway. An additional concern with the original proposal was that upon exiting the facility trucks would turn right on Bonita Street toward Red Hill Avenue instead of using Newport Avenue, thereby disrupting the residential neighborhood behind the subject property. Consequently, a "no right turn" sign was required at the Bonita Street exit via the use permit approval to mitigate this concern. Staff believes that although no significant problems have arisen from large truck fuel service at the facility, the original concerns regarding impacts on traffic and noise are still valid and that not enough observation or experience has been gathered to warrant eliminating the monitoring tool that was established with condition 36. CONCLUSION i ii i Staff has reviewed the submitted request and recommends that the Planning Commission deny Amendment //1 to' Use Permit 87-14 by adopting Resolution No. 2553 and approve a 18 month renewal of large truck fuel service at the site by adopting Resolution Eo.· 2554 to allow further observation. Eric Haaland / Christine A. Shi~gieton ~ Assistant Planner Director of Community Development EH:CAS'ts Attachments: Resolutions 2553 and 2554 Resolution 2420 Corn rnuni~y DeveloPrnen~ Deparirnen~ TUSTIN PLANNING COMHISSION .REGULAR IqEEI'ING jANUARY 9, _1989 · CM..L TO ORDER: 7:02 p.m., Ctcy Count1] Chambers PLEDGE' OF ALLEGZANCE/XNVOCATZON PUBLIC ~ CONC~RKS: Present: Wetlo Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Shaheen Cl.tndCed to 3 minutes per person for teems not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COI~ISSION ON A SUB,1ECT, PLEASE FILL OUT TH£ CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAM£ AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. . .. Mar~ 6allagher, 17382 Parker Or., TusCtn, spoke requesting th4t staff look tnto Pla¢lng a tra'ffi¢ signal aC the. corheF of Yandenberg Lane and Yorba Street. (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION· THERE W.ILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSS,ION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE. COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITT. MS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the ,, December 112r 1988 Plannln~ Commission,Meeting Co.___-,q. Jsstoner Le Jeune,,movedr ,Wet1 secon~,,d. Co approve Ch~e consent calendar. cart1 ed ,5-'0. ii i eMI, PUBLIC HEARINGS · 2. General Plan .A_.-endmeflt ,88-02 and Zone Chan~e 88~02 i San Juan Apartments) APPLICANT: SAN ~UAN APARTMENTS C/O MESA DEYELOPHENT COHPANY 2925 COLLEGE AVENUE, iA-3 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 AI'rENTXON: MR. LARRY CAJ4PEAU LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: .. REQUEST: Motion 1432 SAN ~UAN STREET k 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-F~4ILY RESIDENTIAL) ... 2) ZONE CHANGE 88-02; TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM PC-C1 (PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO R-3 2200 (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) .Planning Coati sston Htnutes January' g, l.;8.O .' Page 'two .-. Itecommendatton:' Staff recommends that the planntng Commission adopt Resolutions No. Z.S46 and 2547, denytn~-&eneral Plan Amendment 88-02 and Zone CRange 88-02. Presentation: Dan Fox, Associate Planner . . . · Coemtsstoner Le Jeune asked tf the Planntng Department had seen a vtsual plan of thts project. Staff responded that a Zone Change or a General Plan Amendment cannot be conditioned and' that a formal subatttal For the 8 untt project had not been made. CommiSsioner Shaheen asked staff to clarify the circumstances that subterranean Parking would or would not be allowed. Staff responded that the statement by the applicant Is not legally btndtng, that they would not butld subterranean par~tng If the property changed hajds, the new owner would not be legally bound' to whatever the applicant agreed to particularly tf the Zoning Code Gloes not prohtbtt subterranean parking. · The publlc heartng was opened at 7:12 p.a. ' i - Larry' Camaeau, 2925 College Avenue, A-3, Costa Mesa, California, 92626, the .developer, noted that he has had an archtte~t draw up plans for an 8 untt deyelopment wtthout subtereabean parktng. He stated that the property was made available to the · realty ¢omuntty as commercial property; There was one tnautry 'and he feels that the general consensus Is that the parcel fs not large enough for a comeerctal project o~ any sort. lie noted that, as the developer, he ts very flexlble as far as design and ~tll destgn the project to whatever the City and neighbors want. C.o~tsstoner....Shaheen asked how many parklng spaces were available on th~ revised plans. -' ~lr. Campeau~ stated that there were 'Z~.total, etght enclosed, eight covered and two visitors. Comtsstoner Baker asked about the type of apartments proposed· Mr. Campeau noted that the untts would be bo bedroom/two baths. Co~elsstoner Le Jeune asked how long tAe property had been vacant under the commrctal zontng. Mr. Campeau noted that they had ~flly recently torn down the ortgtnal far~ house. ~q~untsstoner Shaheen asked tf the parktng could be controlled. The 01rector noted that a General Plan Amendment or a Zone Change could' not be conditioned. She Indicated that whlle staff had some deslgn revtew authority; t f somthlng ts allowed by the Zontng Code, staff can not prohibit. ~t. Subterranean- parktng can not be prohibited at thts tlme as part of the Commission's action t~ tt Is authorized by the Code. .Planning Commission Hlnutes Page thre~ Geraldine Vau~hn, P. O. Box 603, Tusttn, Ca., noted that she 11yes on the corner of San Juan and Green Yalley, and that she ~poke to Hr. Campeau and ts satisfied wtth the etght untta and Hr. Campeau has assured her that It would be kept as a decent · neighborhood. .. The public hearing Nas closed at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner He11 noted that the reduction from :1750 to 2200 Is good as far as density ls conc~'~ned. She also noted that as long as ithe parklng 15 provided as represented, the R-3 (2200) designation ts accepteble. Conantsstoner Le Jeun.e noted that he preferred etght residential untts and t~o stortes on the slte as long as there Nas no subterranean par~lng. · , Conantsstoner Shaheen movedf He11 seconded to recommend TO the Clty Count11 approval Of""Gener&l Plan Amendment ~8~b'2 by the adoptton of Resolution Ho. 2646. Hotton . c&rrted $-0. Commissioner. Shaheen moved~. Ponttous seconded to recommend to the Cl.ty Count11 approval of Zone Change 88~02"to rezone the sub3ect property from PC-CZ to R-3 (2200) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2547 recommending rezonlng. Hotlon carrted.6-O. 3. Amendment t! to Use Per~tt 87-:14 'APPLZCANT: SOUTHERN COUNTZES OZL COHPANY 14811 IdYFORD ROAD TUST[N. CALZFORNZA 92680 OHNER.~ SOUTHERN COUNTZES OIL COt4PANY LOCAT%ON: :139tS-t3922 N£HPORT AVENUE · ZONING: C-t RETAIL COIdldERCZAL ENV ZRONHENTAL STATUS: · .. x ~QUEST: A NEGATZVE DECLARATZON HAS APPROVED FOR USE PERid[T 87-:14 ¢J:)NFOIViANCE H[TH THE CAL[FORN[A ENY[ROI~EHTAL QUALZTY ACT. TO AHENO THE APPROVAL 'OF USE PERf4[T 87-L4 6Y OELETIHG COHD[TZOH 36 OF EXHIBit A TO RESOLUTTOII HO. 2420 THAT REQUIRES THE EVEHTUAL TL*~f4ZNATZON OF LARGE TRUC~ FUEL SERYZCE AT THE APPLZCANT'S [XZST~NG FUEL FAC[LZTY. Recommendation: Zt ts recommended tha~ the Planning Co=ats$ton: ~) Deny'amondmenC ~1 TO Use Permtt 87-14 by adoptlo# of Resolution Ho. 2653; and 2) Approve an :18 month extension for large truck fuel servtce at the ~ac111ty by &dopttng J~esolutlon Ho. 2564 and the conditions contained thereln, as submitted or rev1 sed. Presentation: £rlc Haaland, Assistant Planner Conan~S$toner He11 asked If there ~ere any responses to the publlc heartng notice. Staff noted that there ~as only one response from a net ghbor regarding nolse concerns from trucks at thls location. Commissioner He11 asked tf there Nas'*any particular time of day that the trucks were holster than others and tf there ~ere any other responses from other departments. ·Planntng Commtssl. on ~ttnutes Januar~ g, Xg8g Page four ..o .# Staff responded that the Publlc Works Department do not recommend delettng the condition as the applicant has requested. · . Comtsstoner Baker asked If there were an), complaints wtthtn the Iasc 18 months. The D'lrector noted that there had been'"no known noise complaints. Staff members From Yarlous deparments have made obser, vattons tn early morntng and late eventngs that there were many large trucks queuetng and creating some congestion on Newport Avenue and Bontta Hay. Comtsstoner Baker asked tf this congestion had resulted In citations. The Dtrecter' noted that she was not aware t.~ citations were lssued or there were any recorded trafftc accidents at that locatton.~,... .. Commissioner Pontlous clarified that the 18 month revtew was, not for a ftnal determination' but to be revteved every 18 months. · . The Dlrecter noted that the Planntng Commission recommended the Implementation of monitoring devtces on sensitive conditional 'uses In order to look at potential lmpacts over a longer pertod of tlme ....... The public hearing was.opened at 7:34 · Frank Gretnke 230' S. "A" Street. Tusttn, ovn'er of Southern Counttes 0t] Co., stated t~hat It was hts recollection that the Z8 month tlmo frameiwas p],tced upon this.permit to enable him to work with the Redevelopment Agency to re]ocate in Tusttn. He said that stnce that wasn't accomplished he has moved his headquarters to another to~n. He stated that m~ny of' the patrons of the gas statton are local residents and that - there lsa need for them to use .thls particular station. He stated that there is a need-and that be'felt he had proven"tO the Ctty that it can be safely' accomplished. He Indicated that any problems have alvays been vorked' out tn a nelghbor]~ fashion. He dtdn't feel. that thts was a basts for continued monltorlng the use. He asked staff tf there vas anything that vas requested of Southern Counttes 011 that they did not cooperatively respond to . The Dtrector noted that staff continues to enjoy a fine relationship wtth the app]tc~nt and that they have been vet? cooperative and responsive, hoverer, she Indic&ted that she belteved that some kind of monitoring devtce was appropriate ~lven the large trucks use of the stte and 1ts location. She noted' that the condition could be altered to require reevaluation Instead of requiring future relocation of trucks. tar. Gretnke noted that Southern Countl'es 0tl had been at thts' location for 58 years and brought mt111ons of sales tax dollars to the City. He Indicated that he ranted the rtght to continually operate and did not ~ant to have to reapply for 4 permtt ever~ ~8 months. He stated that he Irelt ,that they have proven themselves Co the co~unt~ and asked the Co~tsston co approve ~e reco~endaCton and delete the ~8 ~nch condition. He s~Ced that the Poltce Depar~enC has po~er Co ~rtCe citations tf ~ere ts a problem; that he ~ants t~afftc.to ~1o~ freely. Co~tsSoner ~et1 asked ho~ my-large ~ucks ~ere serviced'per day; 1~ there ~as ~ ~1~ catego~ ~here the truck Crafftc ~as heavter than most. Planntng Commission Hlnu~s .. January 9, ],98g · · .~ *.. Page ftve . .**. Hr: 'Gretnke no,ed that there were probab,le 40 - $0 per clay that were spread ~hro~ghout the day but mostly peaktng'a't 7 - 8 a.m. and 3 - 4 p.m. Comtssloner Shaheen clarified vtth Hr.-Grlen~'that hts only conflict vas ~lth the X~8 ~n~ condition and asked s~ff tf ~s v~s ~e only ~.ans of ~ontrol. ~e. Dl~c~r no~d ~at ~e Pl4nntng Comtsslon c~n alvays'lnstt~ute a revocation pro~ of the Use Pe~t at ~ny tl~, ~at It then becoms the City's responstbt11~ to ~nltor ~e use and not ~e applicant's. .She suggested as an 4Iterative ~ ~ddress prevl~s Co~sslon concerns and concerns from other Deputing, ~e roll,lng changes In ~solutlon ~o. ~553 ZZ.: Ae Condition 36 shall be revtsed to read: Service for large trucks, those tn excess of 30 feet In length at thts location shall be revlewed and monitored every ~8 months from the date of approval of Use Permit 87-:L4 and the P]annlng Commission m~y require additional mitigation measures upon conclusion of thetr :LB month revle~ petted to reduce any Identified lmpacts. Said mitigation measures, ho~ever, shall 'not Include relocation of truck servtce. . -' 6. A11 other conditions contained wtthln £xhtbtt A of Resolution No. 2420 shall, rem~t n as or1 glnal ly approved.' The 01rector stated that staff does not kant ~e co,any to relocate, they ~ust to ~s~bllsh a ~nltorlng devtce. She also no~d ChaC the Publlc Horks Depar~nt dtd have ~afflc concerns. She tndlc,~d Chat ~e ~dt~fcaClon Co the CUP ~ould be handlud r~Clnely by s~ff; Chat tho Pla'nndng Comtsston ~ould recetve a staff report gtvtng ~e s~s of ~e st~atlon. She no~d that lf, In the future, an a~pltcatton was mdc to r~ve the condition co~letely there would have to be a publlc hearlng. ComtSstoner Baker asked tf the alley behind the gas s~tlon ~as st111 ~o-way and ~ere had been any problems. Hr.,,,Gretnke nord ~at ~ere had b~n no proble~ and that the alley Is still The p~110 heartng ~as closed at 7:50".~..~. ~tsstoner Shaheen asked s~ff for ~re clartfl~tton about the ~8 month perlod. ~ 0t~c~r tndl~d ~at the %8 mon~ condition was put tn~ effect to ~nttor 'any poOh.al 1~c~ on a particular use. If no proble~ arise then there ~ould be no tssue, h~ever, tf ~e~ ~re co~n'~oc~tng proble~ s~ff with concurrence ~e ~tston could request additional mitigation ~asures. C~tsstoner Baker asked If s~ff had to watt untll the %8 month pertod was over tn order to mltlgate a problem. . The 01recUr nord that the Planntng Co~sslon could always lnlttate revocation procedures tf the applicant ~as unresponsive to a request. Planntng Comdsston Mlnutes January 9, 1989 Page stx Commissioner Wet1'thanked Mr, Gretnke !'or the cooperation, he has given to the Ctty and feels that Southern Counties 0t1' w111 conttnue to be a good neighbor, She Indicated her concern ?s due to the.naCre of the bustness and that the bustness ts not m~nltored by a person ~4 hours a day, .. She Is also concerned that queuelng probl~ Mght result as traffic Increases. She tndlca~d that she ts In ~avor o~ ~e revt~ ~ no~ a publlc heartng eve~ ~8 ~nths. She 41so noted the possibility of scheduling spectal hours for large ~rucks r~ther than relocation of the s~ton In ~e even~ of notse co~latn~s. · The Dtrector noted that the language of the condition could be changed to eliminate &ny requtremont for relocation of large trucks. Commissioner Shaheen asked Coneflsstoner Wet1 to clarify the 11mttlng ttme for certain (tucks. Commissioner Wet1 noted that the requirement to relocate large trucks could be removed from .the-condition and that at a much later date when lrewport Avenue gets more congested a problem may artse wtth the large trucks, at that time staff could posstbly specify a time 11rotc when large trucks could be served. .. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that thts ts a yew sensitive use and ts a potential trafflc problem, wlth the new development on Nevport Avenue and E1 Camlno Real there wtll be a need for staff to monttor. He recommended that the Comtsslon follow staff'.s recommendation. ' -:, ' - - Conantsstoner Pon~tous asked tf thei-e would be any actton necessary on the part of the appl 1 can C. StaFF responded that the revtew process every 18 months would be handled administratively, by staff and transmitted Co the Commission. Commissioner Le Jeune asked staff how thts situation would be mitigated and/or Ion t Cored. The Direct:or noted that there could be vartous probloms such as notse, trafftc and/or alley access. She Indicated that a spectftc tssue would have to be brought up and a reco~anendatton sought from the Publlc Horks Oeparl:~nt, after which staff would research the problem tssue to attempt an appropriate mtttoatlon measure. Conmntsstoner Ce deune moved~,,,Pon'tlous seconded to approve a modification to Use Permtt 87-id"by the adoption of Resolution No. 2553 subject to the above noted addttton of A. and 8. Morton carrted ,4-0-! wl,th Commissioner Shaheen abstatntn9. 4. Tentative Parcel Map 88-350 APPLICANT: CALIFORNIA CIVIL, INC. ON BEHALF OF THE IRVINE COMPANY & THE LAURELWOOO HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATIOtl OWNER:, THE IRYINE 'COMPANY P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BF. ACH, CA 92058=8g04 . Planntng Corn1 sslon.H1 nu~es January 9, ],989 Page seven 'LOCAT]ON: ZQ#[NG: ENVIRONmEnTAL STATUS: o. AT &' SF RAZLROAD R]GHT-0F-gAY ADJACENT 'TO TRACT 8029 SOUTH OF THE [-5 SANTA ANA FREEWAY . UNZONED RIGHT-OF-WAY CATE$OR]CALLY EXEI~IPT, CLASS Recommendation: ]t ts recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval Of Tentative Parcel Hap 88-350 to the City Count11 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2548. '**' Presentation: Bernard chaSe, Planner Commtsstoner.Shahe. en asked tf the fuel 11ne was st111 located In the subJec~ area. The Dtrector noted that she belleved tha*t**the 11ne was lnactlve but had* no~ been formaly abandoned, nor had the easemen~ been released. She Indicated that ~he Irvlne Company mtght be able to provide more recent Information. The publlc hk~rtng was opened at 8:20 p.m. Gutdo Bor~les, President of the Laurelwood Homeowners' Assocl&tlon, noted tha~ the 10" l'fne has been al~ndoned wtthtn the las~ 12 months, the Zrvtne Company has removed the 11rte.*to Valnut, the easemon~ Js bel. ng negotl&ted wtth the ~rvlne Copmpany and the AT&SF and must be rele&sed prtor to the execution of the deeds. He also noted Chat barbed wtre Is not needed as long as the 8 foot va11 for screening and' secu~lw- - purposes !s approved. Brian Schneider, 2154 Larch Lane, noted concern regarding the hetght of the wall; aSked'for clarification regarding the 11ghtJng and asked~Jf the additional lots were necessary. Ne ask that the Laurelwood resldents be ~onsldered as well as the resJdents of t~e gobtle Home Park.. Staff clarified.that the 11ghCJng standards require shielding of the fixture Co strain the light to prevent sp111over and the requl, remenC Is one footcandle ~hroughouC the pagktng area. ' 8tll Robbtns, m~nager of the Laurelwood Homeowners' Association, noted thaC there are 31 spaces to servtce 522 homes, there are no empty spaces and, In fact, there Is a t~ree to four month waJtlng ltst f. or spaces. Pete Ptrzadeh, l~tnager of Trafflc Engineering for the Invtne Company, offered to answer any questions for the Commission, Commissioner La, Jeune asked If the grading could be redu~ced. Iqr. Ptrzadeh noted that the proposed .act was Just for the parcel map approval, the [rvt'ne Company w111 be working with s~ff on the site plan. The Director noted that the destgn revtew conditions are Incorporated tn the resolution but not required, staff feels all site lssues' have been ~ddressed. Pl~nnlng Commt sslon t41nutes danu&ry 9, 1989 Page eight ... Commissioner Le Jeune ask'ed tf what happens to the spaces that aren't going to be ~]lmlnated,' would they be fenced wtth barbed .wire. ' Mr. Ptrzadeh stated that these spaces wil~ not be affected. The 0trecterAstated that the extsttng barbed wtre wtll not be altered. Cotmmtsstoner Le ~leune suggested that the 8 foot RV's be placed behtnd the barbed wlre. Commissioner Shaheen asked where the entrances and exits will be located. Staff: responded that there would be no change tn the current entrances or extts to the RY storage area. Brtan Schindler noted that the efght foot wall ts only for the I~btle Home Park side ~f the parcel and that the Laurelwood side ts still stx foot. He asked tf the whole Penc. e could, b.e raised to eight feet. Staff noted that the Commission was not approving the eight foot wall; that the application for the wall would be a separate public ,hearing; and that an eight foot wall could be Installed on al1 four ~'tdes; If destreable by the Hgmeowners' Association.and approved by the Planntng Comrlsston. The Publ. tc hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. · Commissioner Stiaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend appro%.,11 of Tentative Parcel Map 88-3S0 to the City ¢ounct! I;y the adoption of Resolution Ho. 2548 with the following rev1 stons: ---Add to 1tam ;3.2: 'Staff recom~hds, and would support an application for a Use : Permtt, pursuant to Section g27']~(t) of the Tustln City Code, to construct an eight (8~ foot block wall (to match existing buildings/walls In Laurelwood) for screening and security puT. poses along the property lines of Parcel 1.# Change ~tem 3.4 to read 'Ftnal strtptng of parklng stalls shall be approved by an authorized representative of the Board of 01rectors o~ the Laurelwood Homeowner' s Association:" Morton carrted 5-0. S. Use Permtt No. 88-~4 APPLZCANT: O~'ER: LOGATZON: ZONZNG: ENVZRONMENTAL STATUS: .. HR. & HRS. ROBERT CNANEY 1042 ~ALNUT AVENUE TUSTZN, CA 92680 ROY H. CHIKASAHA $45 W. LAGUNA ROAO CAMARZLLO, CA 93010 1032 ~ALNUT AVENUE COMMERCIAL GENERAL CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT (CLASS l) Plaf~ntn9 Comnd sston Ht nutes ,lanu&ry 9, 1989 Page ntne REQUEST: 'TO AUTHORIZE THE RELOCAT]OH OF AFl EX[STTNG 1550 SQUARE FOOT PET SHOP (TWO' S PETS ). ~ Reco.ne~datlon.: It ts recommended that ~te Planning Commission approve Use Permtc 88-24 bY adopttng Resolution Fie. 2551 wtth the conditions contained theretn. Presentation: Ertc Haala. nd, Assistant Planner The publlc hearing was opened at 8:41 p.m. Don Fears, 23932 Oswego St, E1 Toro, Ca. 92630, the architect for the applicant offered t~ Answer any questions and noted the applicant's Intention to leave the sign where, t t ts. ._.. . Comtss!oner Le ,leune asked tf there would be any antm~l boarding it thls facility. · Hr. Fears noted that there wt11 be 'no '.boarding for dogs, ho~ever, there w111 be some boardtng fo~' cats and snhtller &ntnatls such as chipmunks. .. The publlc h~arlng was closed at 8:42 "p.m. Commissioner be ,leune. asked if,the shopping center has a sign plan. Staff responded that the*sign plan ts a simple one and ts revtewed it staff level aC the ttme of the destgn revte~. r~--tsstoner He11 moved? Ponttous seconded to approve Use Permit 88-24 by the ~-~tton of Resolution NO. 125'51 with Ithe c°nd'tttons contained within. Hotton carried 6-0. 6 ..... Use Permtt 88-25 APPLICANT: · LOCATION: ZONING: ' £NV IROM4EXTAL STATUS: REQUEST: I~UTABEGORZ, INC. 158 WEST HAIN STREET T~gTIN, CA 92680 158 WEST HAIH STREET (S/E CORHER OF HAIN AND 'C' STREETS) PLANNED CENTRAL COl4FIERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT, CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATTON TO SELL GENERAL CON~UNCTIO# WITh A RESTAURANT USE LIQUOR FOR OFI-SITE Recmmendatlon: !t ts recoaanended that the Planntng PerJtt 68-26 b-y the &doptlon of Resolution No. 2549. Presentation: Bernard Chase, Planner · The publlc heartng Has opened at 8:46 p.m. .. The publlc he~r~ng ~as closed at 8:'~.~ p.m. CONSUHPTION IFl Con~atsslon approve Use Planntng Comnrlsston H~n~tes danua~ 9, 1989 . PJge~.ten Commissioner Le Jeune asled about outdoor seating and the sa]e of a]cpho]lc beverages .at the st te. The Dtrecter noted that sale of alcoholic beverages at outdoor seattng areas ts not authorized and she tS not aware that"current outdoor seating at the stte was ever approved. . Comrlsstoner Shaheen moved~ Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 88-25 by the &doptlon of Resoluuon No. 2549~" ~ot~on carried' S-O. 7. Use permlt 88-28 APPLICANT: PROPERTY OHNER: LOCATION: ZONING: £NYIRONHENTAL STATUS :' REQUEST: GRAND AVENUE PET HOSPITAL .... 1602 N. GRAND AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92701 OHNER: LOCATION: ZONING: TUSTZN AUTOHOTIYE PARTNERS ~ 161 FASHION LANE, SUITE 116 TUb'TIN, CA 92680 1122 EL CAMINO REAL - BETNEEN EL CA/aZNO REAL AND INTERSTATE S COIqHERCZAL GENERAL CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT (CIA'SS 1) TO AUTHORIZE THE RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING SHALL ANIHAL HOSPITAL (TUSTANA ANIHAL HOSPITAL) AT 1192 EL CAJ'IINO REAL TO RELOCATE IN k HODZFTED AUTOHOTTVE REPAIR DUZLD~NG AT 1122 EL CASINO REAL ~UE TO THE PI{OPOSED WIDENING OF THE I-5 FREEWAY. ~ecommendatfon: That the Planntng Co~mJssJon approve Use adopting ResolUtion No. 2552 with the' conditions con~alnedl tlleretn. P~esen~atlon: £rtc Haaland, kssfstant Planner The publlc hearing was opened at 8:52 p.m. Dan Pet~/, applicant, offered to answer any questions. The publlc hearing was closed at 8:53 p.m. CommtssJoner Ponttous moved, Wet1 seconded to approve ~doptton o~ Resolution No. 2552. ~otlon carried S-O. 8. Tentative Tract Map 13822 APPLICANT: DURFEE GARDENS PARTNERSHIP 1700 RAZNTREE ROAD FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635 ' SA~E 14372 S. YORSA STREET (S/E CORNER OF PLACE) , ..-- R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Permft 88-28 by Use Permtt 88-28 by the YORBA AND NORNOOD PARK Plannlng Comisslon Hlnu~es 31au&fy 9, 1989 Page eleven ENV IRONHENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: 'A NEGATIVE DL:'CLARATZON HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE HITH THE CALXFORNZA ENVZRONHENTAL OUALZTY ACT APPROVAL TO SUBOIYZDE A 1.73 ACRE PARCEL INTO SZX (6) LOTS WITH A CUL-DE-SAC FOR THE DEVELOPHENT OF SIX (6) SINGLE FAMZLY RESIDENCES Recom~ndatton: It ls recommended that the Planntng Commission adopt Resolution i~o. 2556, recommndtng to the Ctty Count11 approval of Tentative Tract ~4~p 13822. Present,ton: Steve ~btn, ~ntor Planner C~lssloner ~et] refe~ed ~o the plc~re from the hls~rlc~] survey and asked ~hen ~e ~ppllcant ~s notlfted that thts ~as ~ historical house. S~ff ~sponded ~at they had recetved ~e historic1 survey on Tuesday ~nd had trted ~ cO~Ct the applicant on Thursday~ ~1sstoner'~e11 uked If ~ere ~as any attest to nottfy the hls~rlcal 'soclety of ~1 s met1 .... ~e Dl~c~r nord ~at mst of ~e n~tlve description for ~e survey ~as done by ~rot ~ord~n of ~e hls~rlcal socle~. ~e p~11c hearing ~as opened at 9:05 p.m. , Dr, Ronald C~le~, 1700 ~Jntree Rd., Fu11~n, ~. 92635, co-o~ner of ~e project s~d that he recelved ~e s~ff report on Honday ~rnJng. He Inquired as to the po~nttal of ~vlng the ho~. Several ~ve~s nord that the roof ~t be co~letely re~ved; ~at ~e h~ should not be ~ved ~re ~an a fe~ b]ocks; and that It ts not a historic1 house. He also s~d ~at the house Is not In good condition, the roof leaks and ~e~ ls no~ng dJstlncttve about ~e house. He also s~ted that ~ls ~ ~11 p~Ject~nd that the requJre~nt of havlng ~ Pa;enn~loglst and geologist on sl~ cluing ~rndlng ~Ould create an undue h~rdshlp. He ~lso dld not feel that approp~a~ to r~utre ~nd eroston con~ol pl=n or a trafflc routlng plan. He also did not unders~nd ~hy he ~ould ne~ ~ ob~Jn pernJsslon from the neJghborlng prope~tes, cre~ ~ const~ctlon phaslng plan and supply an arbortst on slte ~s the ~es a~ not ~Jn~Jned nor ~e they specl~n trees. He also questioned the lssue of ~e s~em b~ndaW re~tnJn~ ,all and ~e ~rought ~r~ fence. .He offend to ~fl~p any qusttons. s~nley Guskey, 17391 No~ood Park Place, Tustln, nord ~at the extstlng ho~ on the sJ~ ls not at all ~11 ~tn~Jned and he ~as In f~vor of the proposed project's approval. , Htllla= Kra~s, 14382 ~41~sa Lane, Tustln, spoke in favor of the proposed project. Hrs. Rlchard Halde~an, 17491 No~ood Park P1, Tustln, asked ~hy she ~as not notified and If ~ trafflc light ~111 be placed ~t Yorba and No~ood Par~ P;ace. Planntng Co~isston r41nutes , danu&ry 9, 198g Page rye1 ve . ·. -Staff responded that there wtll be no trafftc stgnal at the cul-de-sac and there ts certain crtterla that a. location must meet before particular location. He also noted that all property owners wlthtn 300 feet' were noticed and.asked Hs. Halderman tO'call hlm on Tuesday and he would do some further research as to why she dtd not recetve a notice of this publlc hearing. Ter~ Schnabel, 1735! Parker Or., Tusttn, noted hts concern that the back yards of the proposed project would be considerably htgher than his and would like .to see a higher wall butlt and some foltage to screen hts property more. He also noted that he was tn favor of the pro:lect. Or. Crowle),, noted that he had no 'ob;~ecttons to planttng trees to screen the property. The Director clarified that, when l'nsta111ng a retaining wall, tf there ts more than a 30 1nth drop from one stde to the other, there must be a 30 tnch guard rat1 on the top of the fence In addttton to the. required fence hetght. CommtsstoneP 14etl noted that she wanted to'be certain that the retaining wall w~uld be sturdy enOUgh~ Dr. Crowle), noted that he would wbrk w~lth the neighbors for prtvacy and drainage. · , G~en. Leis 17351 Norwood P~rk P]ace,-:Tusttn, asked why thts tract ts opentng onto - - Norwood Park Place and not Yorba Street. · Staff responded tllat ¥orba Is a secondary h'tghway and from a trafftc engineering standpoint It Isn't a good Idea to provide curb cuts from that location. Mr.'"Lets asked Or. Crowley what the approximate cost of the proposed units were expected to be. 0r. .Cro~l. ey responded that the prlce would be from $450,000 to $500,000. · ' Oon Fontatne, 1~38! Mtmosa Lane, Tusttn, spoke In support of the proposed development. John Jaeger, 14142 t~httehead, Zrvlne', one of the applicants, wanted more Information regardlng~e paleantologtst and the geologist. Staff responded that the'requirements that Dr. Crowley and Hr. Jaeger took Issue wlth are. ail standard requirements. He elaborated that havtng a paleantologtst and geologist on stte durtng gradtng Is a standard requtremeet; that an erosion control plan ts a standard USC requirement for grading work between the months of October and Apr11; traffic routtng plan lsa standard condition; obtaining permission from neighboring property owners ts also a standard requirement to butld retaining walls; a construction phastng plan Is Just a plan tn wrtttng stattng that there wtll only be one ,phase If that ts the case; and the arborlst Is betng requtred because of the large extsttng trees. Staff also noted that ;ar. Jaeger obtatned the staff report on Frtday prtor to the meeting. .C..o. mmtsstoner Shaheen asked If the applicant ~ad to remove the house. P1 anntng Cored sslon Iq1 nu~es J&nu&ry g,. 1989 Page thtrteen _ The Otrector noted that. a. good fat th effort must be ~ade to comply wtth requirements, If there are Stgnlf~c~n~ points 4s Co ~h~ restoring Is non-economical'. Ch~se pot n~ ~sC. be dot,enid. NF. 3a~ noted ChdC Co move the house ~ould ~e an ex~e~ hd~dshtp on ~hetr co~an~ · ~d ~sked ~t ~e relocation requlre~nt be de]eted. . ~e Director' ~t~rated that ~e developer ~st sub=tt · report providing evtdence ~t ~ey h~ve ~de · good f~l~ ~ffort to move ~e ho~, documenting economtc~l ~ppo~t Infection te provtde evt~nce ~at relocation ts Infeasible. However, the C1~ mst rake ~e record co~le~ ~er ~e Planning ~mtsslon f~m ~ legal s~ndpolnt. She res~ted that · good fal~ effor~ mst be mdc .... Lot.s ~effrey responded that tf the tssue ts not dealt ~tth ~n E[R ~st be required. The p~11c he~ng ~s closed ~t 9:52 p.m. C~tsstonef ~etl co, limned ~e ~ppltc~nt on 4 cle~n project ~nd .noted her surprtse ~t ~e level of conditions tn ~tblt A. She brought up some changes that ~tll be re~ec~d tn the mtton bel~, nottng that she 4t4 not ~ant to excesslvel~ burMn ~e ~pp11~nt ...... .... Comtsstoner ~etl mved~ Ponttous second~ to ~co~nd ~ Ctty Count11 the appr0val of Ten~lve Tract l~p ~3822 by roll,lng revisions: Ellm~nate'i~m 4.4 B. 7.; on [~m 7.Z A, 11ne 6 change "0' to 'J'.; on t~ 9.~, l, 4t ~ end of ~e first sen~nce ~dd "and/or fe~slb111'ty'of- ~loc~ttng ~e house.'; on 1~m g.Z, Z, line Z ~f~r 'county" ~dd, 'or tf relocation Is fnfeastble"; at the end of-the ~trst s~nce dele~ 'smtd site." and replace ~1~ '~ sl~ or fnfo~t~on that ~vtng ~e struc~re ls Infeasible."; and delete ~ 9.2. ~otton carried 5-0. At 10:'~0 p.,. ~re ~as · five ,tnu~ bre~k. 9. .Subdlvtston.~'dtnance Amendment 88-01 APPLICANT: S¥CAHORE GARDENS HOHEOiJNER'S ASSOCIATION E~VIRO~E~AL STATUS: A NE~TIVE OECL~TION HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE. CALIFORNIA ENY[RO~E~AL QUALT[Y ACT.. REQUE~: REQUE~ TO ~END SE~[ON 9314, ~CEPTZONS (66412), OF THE C[TY'S SUBDIVISION O~INANCE TO ALLO~ THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF C~LIANCE FOR THE CONVE~ION OF STO~ COOPE~TIVES INTO CONDOHINIUHS, PURSUANT TO SE~ION 66412(h) OF THE STATE SUBDIVISION HAP ACT. .. Reco~ndatlon: It ts reco~nded ~at the Planntng Co~tsston adopt Reso;utton No. 2550 recounting approva] to the C1W Count1] of Subdivision Ordinance A~nd~nt 88-01. Presentation: S~ve Rubln, Senior P~anner The publtc hearing was opened at 10:12 p.m. Plannt~g Comt. sston.r~tnutes '- ' Janu&ry g. 1989 '. Page ~fourteen . : Rtchard Kvtdt, Box 3324, Tustln, President of Sycamore Gardens Homeovners Asso¢latl'on asked staff to explatn item 3 on page t~o of the resolution. The Otrecter noted that tht'S was a provision of the State law providing t~at an exlsttng tenant has the ftrst rtght of sale and relocation benefits. Thfs provision Is only requiring the applicant to.comply with State law. Lots ~leffre), noted that thts condition ts word for word from the Subdivision Hap Act and If deleted the Amendment could not be certified under the Subdivision Hap Act and the applicant would have to apply for a parcel map. ~lr. Kvtdt questioned the tenants ftrst rlghts. The Director noted that the tenants would have to be gtven ftrst rights an3r~ay. She note~l':that the Clt7 Attorney could look Into the matter and the 1tern could be continued unit1 the next meettng. , - Commissioner I~etl asked tf staff had suggested the Subdivision Ordinance Amendment to the appllcan-t.whin deternrlntng what direction should be taken In thts matter. The Dtr~ctor Indicated that thts cours,e of actton was the applicant's 1dee. She also noted that tfa Tentative Tract Hap process were to be applled for the same law would be applicable and there would st111 be the Issue of tenant's rtgh~s as stock coop's are def. l ned by the Clvl] Code. ' -' ' . · Hr. Kvtdt asked that the Issue be settled at thls meettng ai he dtd not want to see this Item be delayed any further. John Stucz;},nskt, 1833 E:. 17th St, f111, Santa Ana, Ca., the consultant For the Ilomeowners' AsSOciation, took'Issue wt~ the Intent of t~e law nottng that this Particular 1tern o'f tenants' ftrst rtghts was meant for the developer and not the Individual ovners. He suggested that the Ctty Attorney could research the 1tern. The C1~/ has to tssue the certification ah~l can make the determination that Ztem 3 does not apPiy. Hovever, he also asked that'"the Amendment not be delayed because of this 1 ssue. Co,ntsstoner Shaheen agreed wtth the appllc&nt that the law was designed for large apartment comlexes betng converted 1nCo condom~nluKs. · Lo~s Jeffrey, noted that she would research ~e Issue and advtse ~e Director of '~nl~ ~e~lo~nt. f ... ~tsstone~ Le Jeune ~eques~d ~ha~ ~e tt~ be continued. ~. Kvtdt noted ~at the continuance vtll no~ change the lays, ~US~ clarl~y ~hem. s~d ~ he vaned 4 dectslon on ~e ~ndment ~onlgh~ and thaC the~ wtll abtde by vha~ver tn~re~lon they recetve a~ a lair date. The publlc heartng was closed ~ ZO:2g p.m ..... _ Comtsstone~ ge~l noted her reluctance ~o tnclude a condition ~haC ~ay not apply and asked ~or a count ~rom the C~ P18nnlng Coflmrlsslon Hlnutes 'a&nuary 9, ].989 P~ge ftfteefl . · Lots Jeffrey clartft.ed' that the .~end,~nt was changtng the Ordinance wtth langua'~e that"was In the law and stated that an Interpretation ls needed from the City Attorney. -- ! .. The Dl-recter noted that the C1~ At~rney's offtce ~tll provide the procedure and h~' ~e applicant ~tll need to prbceed... Co~tsstoner Pontlous moved~ Le Jeune seconded to reco~nd to Ctty Cou~ct~ approval of Subdivision Ord'ln~nce X~nd~nt ~o. 88-01~y the ~doptlon of Resolution No. 2550. gotton ca~ted O~ . . ~0.. ~en~tn~ ~ ~he Tusttn Ct~.Code Rela~d M Gradtn~ and .[xcavatto~ Presefl~ttofl: C~rtstlne Shtngle~fl, Dlrec~r of Co~nlty Development ~tsstoner ge~l asRed uhat the urgefl~ of passing the Ordinance was. ~ Dl~c~f flo~d that the processes for ~e Htllstde Revt~ Procedu~, Sector ~aps and Phase ~ps are 1etd ~t tfl ~e.Ordlflaflce end delaytng ~e Ordlfl6nce uould 6so del~ ~e Pha~ [V ~p. ~enntn~s O. Pte~e. ~r., 550 N~po~ ~n~r Drive. P 0 Box ~. Newport Be~ch. nord ~at he had been ~orktng ~tth s~ff and agreed ~tth eve~lng tn ~e Ordinance except pa~e L2 ~N). He noted ~oncern ~tth the 1raga] Issues surrounding the uhfc~ as ~orded ~ould l~av~ ~e [rvtne ~any ~tth a 1o~ of le~a] responslbl]l~. He nord that there are ~ny o~er people Involved and ~ey have ~ responstbl]lty ~e ~rvtne ~any and ~e ~any should not be held 11ab]e for ~ork done by other people. He also ~an~d te kn~ ~hat Is me,ally be ~a~anteed. He noted that the s~bl]lty of ~e lands~e sys~ms, once ~rned over ~st be ~fn~lned. s]opes and po~ntla] defec~ fs deal; ~tth In the Clvl] Code.' He nord that the Co,any ~anted ~ ~ve ahe, d as qutckly as possble and have It approved subject to the Co~any's and C1 ~.' s Atterney~s de~t na~t ohs. Comtsstoner ~e~ asked If ~e [rvtne Co~,ny h~s ~arrantees In any other projects ·nd If ~ere '~ere' any slope proble~ tn any other projects. Hr. Plerce no~d ~t he ~asn't ,=are ~at ~e Zrvlne ~any had ~antees In Zr~ne or'"'Ortnge ~unty ~nd that he had not researched tht s ~tter, therefore, he could,'t gtve 4n 4ccur~M ~n's~er ~tssto~r ~etl, nord that slope problems are not necess~ly developer f~u]ts. C~tssloner $haheen ~ste4 ~hat ~pes of problems 414 ~r. Pterce lo,see. Hr."Pterce noted that along Tustln ;~anch ;~oad there ts $0 feet of slopes. He no,ed that the responsibility Should be shared wtth soils experts, engineers, etc. The. Dlrecter noted that the situations tn Tusttn differ from other areas. There are severely sloped areas tfl Sectors 4 and 5. The Company wtll be excluded from Phase and the developer w111 be the responsible party. She Indicated that language satt'sfy both parttes and matntaln the le~al bounds can be worked out. Planntng Coma1 sston' Htnutes 'Oanu-ary g, Xg8g Page sTxteen Srdzff responded thaC tn other ctttes there are lay developments on htllstde slopes that.require extensive gradtng and slope warranties. 'Zn San Juan ,Captstcano ~e developer Is responsible for the slopes and stroctaral fallure of the slope. The developer ts &lie responsible for establishing a slope warrantee fund to be taken over~-by the Homeowners' &ssoclatton,"'where a thtrd par~ handles and adjusts ¢latms regarcltng the slope tntegrl~. There Is a cetllng For funds for slope replacement and there my even be a reblte. Slope failure ¥tll §e replaced wtthout any cost to the homovner. .The Dtrect6r noted that the warrantee ts the concern of the Z~vtne ~omany and that sl~ ~s wtlltng to deleto the l0 year portton of the requtremnt but wants a slope warrantee t:~lemntatton program as a cond~,'.Aon on ht]lstde Tract Haps. -She also explained that the warrantee program explatfled earlter was Just one example and there ~re a varlet7 of other mchants,Ls. Stiff noted that another optton ts to provtde Insurance, the d~veloper provtdes self lnsurtng fhnd, htras a clatms .adjuster and administers .the Insurance to the contractor** · *, · Hr...Pierce' noted that the Zrvtne Compan~ Is wtlllng to work with staff 'T.. r. The.Ot'~.ector noted' that there could be sm "1nor vorcLtng changes and the Commission could pass the Ordinance 'along to the .ClOy Count11 'for adoption. , LOts %1afire), noted that this approach would be acceptable as the tssue ts one of'" public pollc;y and not: ~ legal Issue. the ob~lecC Is 1:o t:r), Co assure t:haS there Is program Co deal with potential rtsk of She ClOy. '. The 01rector reco,,mmended the following changes Co the Ordinance: · l.) page three, 11ne ~ add COllBii after no,ever and eliminate ',' after exemp tt on; 2.) page ftve, 8go9 C, 11ne S change 'authorizations" CO 'authorization'; 3.) Page .six, Ir. 11ne Cwo after 'relieve-the' add 'applicant and/or'; 4.) page seven, £, change Sectton "g809' Co S.). page etght, 8g13, 11ne 1 add ',' 'by' after "permit', add "or other person' after 'pereflttee' and On 11ne cwo tflserC before 'decisions'; G.) page eleven, g. 11ne Cwo end first sentence with 'operations. Hhere'; · 7,) page teelve, 1.., 1tn~ 2 after 'arlntmtze' replace remainder wtth 'and h¶lls'tde roadways are destgned consistent with guidelines contained tn the Gradtng Hanual.' and tn paragraph 'n' last sentence should be changed Co road '[very permit shall also be conditioned upon the applicant and/or owner's warranty of all slopes through appltcanr, s and/or owner ImplementatiOn of slope warranty grogram sub3ecl: Co approval and revtew by the C1t¥ Attorney and Planntng Coma1 sston. '; 8.) page thtrteefl 8g].6 8, In the second Co the last 11ne after 'condition' the word 'reasonably' should be Inserted; and 9.) page stxteen, ftrst paragraph change 'It's' co '1ts' 'and tn the. second .. ' after 'purpose' paragraph of Section 3, ft'fth 11ne, add ', . .. · PIAno, rig Cored sstoK 141 nuTes ~&nuary. 9. ~989. Page seveflcoefl · Commissioner ,Le 3eune movedr Ponttous-',seconded CO recommend &pproval to the C~y ¢oun¢1~ or'the amendmen.ts ~o ~he TusCln'¢~ Code related CO Grading ~nd ~xcava~on by the adoptlofl of Resolution #o. 2666 wtCh the revtslofls noted &hove. aotton_ carrted SoO. ~ NEX BUSZNES~ Use Deterntnatton {88,-01..). Present&eton: hn Fox, Associate Planoer The publlc beartng was opened at ~:06 p.m. 'hl reachergrass, trvtne, Ca. 927Z4, applicant noted Chic the area lends dren's fan~stes and offered co answer any questions. Comrlssloner Baker flocod ~Jut he had some reservations regarding parking and s~g, tn9 f~r ~ dropFlng "~ft, &nd ptcktng up of-3tQung children,. Staf_f,floted C~t there ver'e five ad,J~...cenS parktng spaces available. ' The Direc~°r noted Chat there could be tqexlbt1'tCy t Chi parking and Chic Chi discussion should be held off as a dfscusslon for Chi Conditional Use PerutC appllcaSton aS whtch time Chi stCe Issue can be resolved. · CoamfS'sfoner Pontlo.s moved. Vel1 seconded Co deCormfne, by mfnuCe order, that birChd&y parC~ busl.ess l$"s'lmlldr Co 4 ~oclal hall and may be permit:Ted wfChtn Chi C-2 (ReCat1 Comeercl&l) 01sCrfcC sub3ecc~'Co the approval of a Conditional Use Perrll:. Hol:ton Carrted .5-.0. 12. , Ct~ Counc13 AcCton agenda for.,.Deceeber 19t 1988 ..and Ja..nuar~.3r .1989 ,, PreseaCacfon: ChC~sClne Shtn~leTen, 0treccor of ComufltW Oevelopaenc · No Pl&Mtng Comntsston acCton necesser~.~i: · CQI~SSZQII COIICOUG · . Commt.sstoner PonStous noted chic a fence 'was, blown down on the sldewalk on chi corner Gf' H~odl"~wn "'~nd ' 111 sson. Commt~stQner .Baker asked wl~t was happening on Chi corner of Hewpor~ and E:I Camtno Real; the car wash sfTe on IleuporC and. liltn; and noted Chic Chi £asC TusCtn area bla.c..k...Cop 1s slullo~ on Chi street.. .... · o. t" , Pla~ntng Comlsston fltnu~es Janua~/ 9, 1989 PAge eighteen Scarf responded that soil Issues were being 'resolved at Newport and Were ts cur~ntly code enforce~fl= 4ctlofl betng Uken at ~e car wash. st~ and there ts' 'i' final c~e of bl~ck ~p ~a~ wtll be ~pp11~ ~af~r all of ~he phases of cons~c~on a~ co~le~d. ~U~ At ZZ:2S p.m. htsstoner Ponttous ~edf Shaheen ~o~ed ~o adjourn ~o the ~gulir scheduled meClng on dinui~'23"',' L~8~ aC 7:Ob p.m. Morton ca~ted ~'L. Bager .& . I' 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2553 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING'AMENDMENT ~1 TO USE PERMIT 87-I4 MODIFYING CONDITION 36 FROM EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 2420, AS IT RELATES TO LARGE TRUCK FUEL SERVICE FROM THE EXISTING iSELF-SERViCE FUEL FACILITY AT 13918-13922 NEWPORT AVENUE ' The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby' resolve follows: as 8 I. 9 10 1I 12I 1-3 14 IG 18 I 20 21 22 The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Amendment tl to Use Permit 87-14 has been filed by Southern Counties 0tl Company to modify Condition 36 of Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2420, requiring the relocation of large *truck fuel service from the self-service fuel facility at 13918-13922 Newport Avenue to a separate site. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said application on January 9, 1989. C. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for under the circumstances of this case will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and'general welfar~ of the persons residing ahd working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following conditions: 1. The luse ts consistent wi th the original approval of Use Perm1 t 87-14. 2. The proposed modification of condition 36 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2420 will allow the City of Tusttn to monitor and mitigate truck related traffic conCerns of the use. O. That the establishment, maintenance., and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious and detrimental to' the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, and to the general welfare of the City of Tustln and should be granted. ' 24 · 25, 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2553 Page ~o .. The Planntng Commission hereby approves Amendment fl to Use Permit 87-14 as follows: 6 7 8 9 10 II 12I 13 PASSED AND held on the 14 17 18 A. CondttJon 36 shall be revised to read: Servtce for large trucks, those In excess of 30 feet In length, at thts locatton shall be reviewed'and monitored every 18 months from the date of approval of Use Permit 87-14 and the Planning Comm~ssJon may requtre additional mtt~gatJon measures upon conclusion of thetr 18 month revtew pertod to reduce any ~dentJf~ed Jmpacts. Said mitigation measures, however, shall not tnclude relocation of truck service. B. All other condJttons contained wtthJn Exhlbtt A of ResolutJon No. 2420 shall remaJn as originally approved. ADOJ~TED at a regulAj~ meettng of the Tusttn Planntng Commission, ~ day of ~, 1989. ' ~4/ / . .* . A.,,.[~. 8al~r - ' Secretary 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE OF* CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, .PENNI FOLEY, the. undersfgned, hereby certtfy that I am the Recordfng Secretary of the Plannln_g Commtsslon of the Ctty af Tusttn, Caltfornfa; that Reso?utlon No. '=.~~~ was duly passeda~ adopted at ~_~eg*ular meettng of 198 ' PENNI- FOLEY Recording Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22: 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2420 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 87-14 AUTHORIZING A 24 HOUR SELF-SERVICE COMMERCIAL FUEL PUMPING OPERATION ANO AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH ' BLOCK WALL ON THE PROPERTIES KNOWN AS 13918-13922 NEWPORT AND1016-1022 BONITA AVENUE. The Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I · The Planntng Commission finds and deteratnes as follows: _ A. That .a proper application, (Use Permit No. 87-14) has been ftled on behalf of Southern Counties 0tl Company for authorization to operate a 24 hour self servtce commercial fuel factltty and to construct an etght foot block wall on the properties known as 13918-13922 Newport and 1016-1022 Bontta Avenue· B. That a publtc hearing was duly called, nottced and held on said app 1 t ca ti on. C· That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applled for wt11. not, under the circumstances of thts case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons resldtng or working tn the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. That the uses applied for are consistent with the land use element of the Tusttn Area General Plan as it pertains to comeercial uses in areas given the General Plan Designation of Commerct a 1. 2. That the uses applled for are consistent with the C-1 zontng regulations as they pertatn to servtce stattons tn that a Conditional Use Permtt ts requtred prior to operation of such use and that Sectton 9271 (t) 3 of the Municipal code authorizes walls tn excess of 6'8" In hetght upon securlng of a Conditional Use Permtt. 3. That measures to buffer the subject use from adjacent residential areas have been considered and are included herein by reference. Such measures include but are not limited to,. an eight* foot block wall along the eastern property line and installation of sufficient landscaping material s. 4. That the architectural treatment of all structures will be consistent with the surrounding area. 1 2 3 4 '5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24~ 25 26 27 28 :: Resolution No, .420 Page t~o De Ee Fe That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to .the proper~y and improvements in the neighborhood .of the subject property, nor to the general 'welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as admtnistere'd by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. That a Negative Declaration in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared a~d hereby is approved. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 87-14 to authorize a 24 hour self service commercial fuel facility and construct an eight foot block wall at the properties known as 13918-13922 Newport and 1016-1022 Bonita subject to the following conditions: le The proposed project shall substantially comply with. submitted site plans for the project date stamped July 7, 1987 and on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Oevelopment in .accordance with this exhibit. 2. The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appropriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall · construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said development p. er the City of Tusttn "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works and "Street Improvement Standards". This work shall consist of, but is not limited to, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, and street pavement. e Unless othewtse specified, conditions contained in this exhibit shall be complied wi th prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. e Compliance with all conditions of Resolution 2421 herein incorporated by reference. Final plans must show vehicular movement patterns; one way traffic movement for. trucks is required. 6. A traffic engineering analysis .shall be furnished to the Public Works Department verifying ability for large truck movement and · that adequate on-site stacking space is available'. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22~ 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution ~o. Page three 0 Research and analysts of existing pavement on Bonita and the public al'ley immediately adjacent to the southern property boundary shall be conducted concerning the load bearing capacity of said surfaces. Such information shall be provided by the developer to the City Engineer for review and approval. If deemed necessary by the City Engineer affected areas on Bonita and the alley shall be Improved by the developer to accommodate large trucks. 8, . Dedication and Improvement of street right-of-way for a 22' X 22' corner cutoff at the corner of Newport and Bontta unless waived by the City Council. Submission of street improvement plans is required. Plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall show existing and proposed improvements which shall, include, but not be 1 t mi ted to: a) Removal of existing driveway approaches and replace with curb, gutter and sidewalk. b) Removal and replace damaged or sunken curb and gutter. c) Construct full width sidewalk. d) Construct 35' radius curb return with handicapped access e) Replace pavement in alley and on Bonita to 'carry truck loadings if required. f) Uttlity relocations -- Edison, water, telephone, street lighting, etc. g) Oriveways permitted to maximum width of 44' per Engineering Standards. h) Reconstruction of median in Newport depending' on traffic operational characteristics on this site. i) Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required prior to the building permit being issued. J) Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program will be required at the time a building permit is issued. k) Construct the improvements outlined herein prior to Certificate of Occupancy. ~0. A "NO RIGHT llJRN" sign must be installed at the egress point onto Bonita subject to approval of Public Works and Community Development Department as to location and design. Il. Show on site plan all existing fire hydrants within 200 feet of the property. 12. Approval stamp from the Health Department must be on construction plans prior to submission to Orange County Fire Oepartment and prior to issuance of building penni ts. 1 2 5 6 8 9 10 12 1.,5 16 1.'7 ~8 19: 23 2,~ 28 Resolutlon No. 2420 Page four 13. A complete sign plan including details of free standing monument sign and location and detail of' price signs is required. Address'is to be shown on site and should be shown - on sign plans. Business identification signs shall be .consistent in design and color to other structures on site. 14-. .At building plan check, construction plans, structural ' calculations, and title 24 energy calculations must be submitted. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements must be complied with as approved by the Building Official. 15. At building plan check, provide technical detail and plans for all-utility installations including telephone, gas, water and electricity. 16. At building plan check submittal of final grading and specifications consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans and prepared by a registered engineer for approval of 'the Community Development Department. !7. Submittal of a prectse soils engineering report provided by a soils engineer within the previous twelve (12) months. .18. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Orange County Fire Chief including required fireflow; installation, where required, of fire hydrants subject to approval of the Fire Department, .City of Tustin Public Works Department and Compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction. 19. All exterior colors to be used are subject to a review and approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments must be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing. Revels similar to details used on the Tusttn Plaza Project (13700 Block - Newport Ave.) shall be shown on final elevations. Also, finish materials on the block wall, trash enclosure, and the control buildings shall be plastered and have a trowel finish. 20. Submit detail for all on-site walls. Show type of wall cap and type of color, exterior materials (which must be consistent with main building materials),, and dec°rative treatment of all.exposed walls. All walls should be finished on. both sides with an architectural treatment compatible with main buildings. 2!. Directional signs shall be 'provided on the site to direct vehicles to the proper access, parking and loading areas. Sizes, design and location of such signs shall be approved by the Director of Community Development. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 23 25 26 27 Resolution No. , Page five 22. A six foot high chain ltnked fence shall be Installed around the site prior to construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along .the perimeter of the site for gradtng and-- construction vehicles. : 23. The proposed trash enclosure shall have soltd metal self-closing and self-latching gates. 24. All mechant'cal and electrical ftxtures and equipment shall be - adequately and decoratively screened. The screen shall be considered as an element of the overal-1 design of the project · and must blend with the architectural design of buildings. All telephone and electrical boxes must be Indicated on the building plans and must be comp. letely screened and tocated in the tntertor of the building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the tnterlor of the stte maintaining a sufficient dtstance from frontage of the project and provides sufficient, acoustical Insulation tf placed adjacent to residential uses to the east. 25. Indicate ltghttng scheme for project, note locations of all exterior ltghts and types of fixtures, ltghts to be Installed on butldtng shall have a decorative design. No ltghts shall be permitted which may create any glare or have a negative impact on adjoining properties. The locatton and types of 11ghttng shall be subject to the approval of the 01rector of the Communtty Oevelopment Oepartment. 26. Earth moundtng ts essential and must be provtded to appl 1cable hetghts whenever-tt ts posstble tn conjunction wtth the submitted landscaping plan. Earth mounding should be particularly provided along Newport frontage as shown on submitted plan. 27. Future submittal shall substantially conform to the submitted landscaping concept plan on file with the Department of Community Development, as heretn and modlfted or as modtfted by the Otrector of Community Oevelopment pursuant to the Ctty's Oestgn Review procedures. 28. A completely detailed landscape and irrigation plan must be submitted with whatever scale necessary to depict adequately what is occurring. Provide-summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plan and table must list botanical and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant matert al s proposed. Show planting and bermtng details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall indicate location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler .type, spacing and.coverage. Detail's for all equipment must be provided.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 *, Resolution No. ~. Page st x Show all property 11nes on the landscaping and Irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalks widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of Community Development may'request minor substttutJons of plant materials -or request additional sizing or quafltty materials' during plan check. 29. All newly planted trees shall be staked ac'cording to Clty standards. 30. Shrubs shall be a ~lntmum of 5 gallon size. Trees shall be spaced a mtntmum of 8 (etght) feet. on center when intended as screen planting. All eucalyptus trees on-stte may be a minimum of 15 gallon size wtth the exception of those additional carrot~oods located at entry points (mtntmum of 3 trees) whtch shall ~e a mtntmum of 24" box stze. - 31. Ground cover shall be planted-be~een 8 to 12 inches on center. 32. All plant materials shall be installed tn a healthy vigorous condition typical to the species. 33. All landscaping shall be enclosed by a minimum 6 inch high concrete curb. 34. Matn~atn landscaping Ina neat and hea.lthy condition, thts wtll tnclude but not be 1trotted to trtmtng, mowing, weedtng, removal of 11tter, fertilizing, ~egular watering, or replacement of dtseased or dead plants. 35. In irrigation areas, controller should be enclosed tn lockable housing. Design irrigation systems to provide sufficient coverage and reduce water overspray on buildings and sidewalks. 36. Servtce for large trucks, those tn excess of 30 feet tn length, at their location shall be relocated upon completion of an alternative.truck service fuel facility not to exceed 18 months from the date of approval of Use Permit 87-14 subject to any applicant renewal requests reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 25 /'~ PASSED AND ADOPTED at _a ~egular ' Tusttn Plannl. ng Commission, held on the ~7~ day of ~, 198~m' 27 28 Chairman STATE OF-CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTItt ) · I, PEl~ttZ FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certtfy that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning CommJsston of the Ctty of Tusttn, California; that Resolution ~1o. ~ was duly passed and p.dopted at a regular meettng of the~usttn Planntng Co--ton, held on the ]~_~day of 198-,/ . _.I46%.LIAM..JOHN,., CO., INC. 1'11 EUCAM!NO REAL "TUSTIN', CA 92680 RECEIVED January 25, 1989 Ursul'a Kennedy. Mayor Tustin City Hall 300 Centennial Way Tustin, 'CA 92680 Madame Mayor: As a resident of North Tustin for over 20 years who has maintained an office in Tustin more than half that time, must strongly object to both the location and %he operation of the Southern Counties Oil Company gas station on Newport Avenue. On more occasions than I can recollect, as I have at, tempted to · make a left turn on Bonita while heading south on Newport, I have been blocked by huge rigs which.not only cut off my left turn but also traffic headed north on Newport as the rigs wait for seuti)--bound traffic to clear so that they can compl~t~ their entry onto Newport heading south via a lef': turn. On other occasions I have been unable to make a left turn from Newport onto Bonita because large rigs have not fully exitcd the gas Station and are stepped at the stop sign walt~n.q to ct. ess Newport while the balance of the semi completely blocks Bonita because of their length. The final straw came just this week. o, ope of tho~ rar'e occasions When there was no blockage of either Newpor~ ur Bonita. ! made my left turn onto Bonita and was halfway through the turn arc when a huge semi without any regard ~or my priorities exited the gas station just yards-from me. I was forced to slam on my brakes and wait for tt]e driver to obtain clearance onto Newport Avenue .to make his left turn. In my opinion there is no question that the gas station cperation there constitutes a grave Uanger and menace to traffic. It is just one bad accident wa~ting to happen. I do not wish to be the victim. Page 2 I am aware of the political manipulations which placed the gas station in its current location. ! realize the diffic~lty in reversing that decision. But, at the very least, some controls must be maintained over its operation to protect the citizens of this community. Sincerly, William J. Kresi~h President WJK:pw cc Christine Shingleton, Community Development Director .o