HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 03-20-89ACTION AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORTS
NO. 1
3-20-89
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 13, 1989
CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL:
Present: Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious,
Absent: Shaheen
PUBLIC CONCERNS' (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda)
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL
OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR
PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION~)
1. Minutes of the February 27, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting
Co~mnissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to'approve the consent calendar. )lotion
carried 4-0.
PUBLIC .HEARINGS
2. Use Permit 89-05
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
E NV I RO NMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
FERIDOUN REZAI
203 TROJAN STREET
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92804
SAME
15642 PASADENA AVENUE
R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT
PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1(SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE.
Planning Commission Actio,. Agenda
March 13, 1989
Page two
Recommendation: 1) It is recommended tha. t the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2572, approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for
Use Permit 89-05; and 2) It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2575, approving Use Permit 89-05, subject to the conditions
contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as Submitted or revised.
·
Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner
Commissioner Weil moved, Pontious seconded to approve the Final Negative Declaration
as .adequate for Use Permit 89-05 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2572 as
submitted. Motion carried 4-0.
Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-05 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 2575 with the following revisions to Exhibit A:
Item 1.3, change "Design Review" to "Conditional Use Permit" and add at the end
aCUP approval is also subject to Redevelopment Agency approval of the design of
the project. Failure to obtain such approval will result in the Conditional
Use Permit approval becoming null and void."; Item 3.1 A. add to the last
sentence "and shall be permanently retained as open guest parking with no
garage door installed."; and Item 3.1 B. add to the last sentence "and shall be
modified to provide pedestrian access for trash disposal." Motion carried 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS
3. Code Enforcement Activity R. epor.t
Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development
Received and filed.
4. Sign Code Amendment - Update
Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development
Received and filed.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Design Review 89-02
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
OWNER:
DAVE WILSON
1400 N. TUSTIN AVENUE
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92667
THE IRVINE COMPANY
P.O. BOXI
550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915
Planning Commission .Actiol. Agenda
March 13, 1989
Page three
ZONING:
REQUEST:
PC-MIXED USE - EAST TDSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT A 21,800 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON A 3.2 ACRE
LOT, SHOWN AS PARCEL #2 ON FINAL MAP 13834
Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission:' 1) Certify
Environmental Impact Report #85-02 as adequate to serve as the program-EIR by
adoption of Resolution No. 2573 as submitted or revised; 2) Approve Design
Review 89-02 by adoption of Resolution No. 2574 as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner
Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to certify Environmental Impact Report
85-02 as adequate to serve as the program EIR by adoption of Resolution No. 2573.
Motion carried 4-0.
Commissioner Pontious moved, Well seconded to approve Design Review 89-02 by adoption
of Resolution No. 2574 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0.
6. 1989 Amendments to Housing Elements
Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner
The Commission directed staff to agendize a workshop on the Housing Element
immediately after adjournment of the March 27th meeting.
STAFF CONCERNS
7. Report on Actions Taken at the March 6, 1989 City, Council Meeting
Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Le Jeune asked what happened to the Southern Counties Planning
Commissioner's meetings; asked if there was a City Ordinance requiring that trash
enclosures be enclosed; and if sidewalks would be required along Walnut Avenue at
Franklin at the site of the new bank.
The Director responded that there was a new Director of EMA and that nothing has been
scheduled to date. Regarding trash enclosures, there is no Ordinance establishing
trash enclosures for older areas where' they were not originally required. She also
noted that staff did not have the information regarding sidewalks on Walnut but would
follow-up.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Auto Center has requested a new sign.
The Director noted that a new sign program is in for preliminary design review.
AdOURmqENT
At 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to adjourn to the next
regular scheduled meeting on March 27, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers. Motion carried 4-0.
deUUeLd dotuas 'uLqn~l e~e3,S 'uoL3, e3uesadd
'33N30IS3B
AgIWVJ 399NIS V JO £33J O~l NIH£IN ONV £09 (gVI£N30IS3B
AIlWVJ 319NI$) I-B N~ 0£ £N33VDOV SI IVHI 333aVd V NO £33DOad
£N3W~aVdV £IND II 'Aa01$ JlVH 3NO ONV OM£ V £3Da£SN03 .01 1VAOaddV
13V A£IIVRO IVIN3WNOBIAN3 VINBOJIIV3
3Hi HlIM 33NVOaO33V NI 03aVd3ad N338 SVH NOIlVaV1330 3AIIV93N V
3VI£N3OIS3B AqIWVJ 3qdI£qRW '~-B
3flN3AV VN3OVSVd
3WVS
~OB36 VINaOJIIV9 'WI3HVNV
IVZ3B
:/s3nO3B
:Sn.LVJ. S
9V£N3WNOBI AN3
:9NINOZ
:NOI£V309
: B3NMO
:.LNV3I'lddV
S0-68 3)maed eSll 'Z
SgNIHV'-JH 3I'1911d
5u[3eew uo~ss[uuo3 5u[uueLd 686I 'Lg xaenaqej eq3 ~-o se3nu[w '~
('NOI£3V 3£VaVd3S aOJ BVON39V3 £N3SN03 3H£ WOBJ
Q3AOW3B BO/QNV Q3SS~3SIQ 38 0£ SW3~I 3IJ133dS £S3flO3B 3IlBfld
BO JJV£$ 'NOISSIWWO3 3H£ JO SB3BW3W $$31N~ NOI£OW 3H£ NO 9NI£OA
3H£ JO 3WI£ 3H£ 0£ BOIBd SW3£I 3S3HI JO NOISSflOSIO 3£VBVd3S
ON 3B llI~ 3B3HI 'NOIIOW 3NO AB Q3£DVN3 38 llI~ ONV 3NI£~OB
Q3~3QISNO~ 3BV BVQN39VO £N3SNO~ B3QNR Q3£519 SB3£1VW llV)
:avaN3'IV3 ZN3SN03
'OaO33B 3H£ BOJ SS3BOQV aNY 3WVN 99flJ
3AI9 3SV39d 'OSIV '39BVl S,B33V3dS 3HI NO O3/V309 SOBV3 3HI
99I~ 3SV39d '133~8~S V NO NOISSIWW03 3HI O/ 3V3dS O/ HSIH
(epue6e eq3 uo 3ou stue3~ ao~ uosaad aad se3nu.tm ~ 03 pe3~m~q) 'SNa33N03 3lqSfld
ueeqeqs 'sno~3uod 'euna~ el 'aeae8 'L~aR
:llV3 llOa
NOI.I.V30ANI/33NVI93TIV JO 39031d
saeqmeq3-L~ouno3 ,(3,~3 '-m-d O0:L
:a3crdo o~ l'lV3
686T 't:T HDllVld
9N!Z33W 8Vlf19311
NOISSIHNO0 9NINNV'Id NI.LSfl/
VaN39V
· saeqmeq3 t gouno3 Xh.L3
eqh U.L 'm'd O0:L he 686I 'Lg qoaeH uo flu[beam peLnpeqos JeLnfiea hxeu eqh oh uano.CPV
.LN3NNUflOt'OV
SNH33N03 NOISSINN03
huemdOLaAeO Xh[unmmo3 jo aohoed[o 'uoheL6u~qs au[hs~aq3 :uo[hehuesaJd
6U.LhaeN L~ouno~ ~h~ 686! '9 qoaeN eqh-he ua4e£ suo[3oV uo 3JodaB 'Z
SNH33NO~ JJVIS
aaUUeLd ao~ua$-'uunN eaneq :uo~sehuasaJd
ssuamaL3 6u~snoH o3 szuatupuamv 686! '9
aauueLd ao~uas 'uqn3 eaneq :uo~sesuasaad
· pas[Rea Jo pehh~mqns se ~/Sg 'ON uo~hnLoseB ~o uo[hdope &q 20-68 ae~AeU
u6~seo eAoaddv (g .'pes~Aea ao pa33~mqns se ~zsg 'ON uo~hnLosaB jo uo~sdope
Xq BI3 mej6oad aU3 se eAJaS oh ezenbepe se gO-SS# ZJodeB ~oedmI LehUaUJUOa~Au3
~haeD (! :uo~ss~mmoD 6u~uueLd au3 heq~ pepuammooea s.t hi :uo~hepuemmoseB
~BE! dVN 9VNI3 NO g# 9338¥d SV NMOHS '109 383V
g'E V NO dIHSB39V3Q 39180NOI~V 1003 3BVflbS OO8'Ig V IDnB/SNOD O/
NVqd ~I3133d5 NIISRI £$V3 - 3S~ QSXIN-Dd
V£OAO/ NOSB3Hd ~VN Ol /N3OV~OV 3AIBQ 831N3~ OIRV JO' SnNINB31
~t68-B~gg6 ¥INBo~Igv3 'HO¥3B IBOdR3N
3AIBO B3.LN33 .LBOdM3N 099
I XOB 'O'd
iNVdNO~ 3NIABI 3HI
/99~6 VINUO.4IqV3 '3~NVBO
3flN3AV NI.LSfl.L 'N O0~t
NOS9 IM 3AVQ
:.LS3nD3B
: 9N I NO.Z
:NOI£V309
:B3NMO
AlB3dOBd
:lNVOIgddV
~0-68 aa~AaB ufi~sao 'S
SS3NISI18 Fi3N
huemdoLeAeO XSLLUntUmO3 .4o jos, oa.ID(] 'uoo, eL6u.LqS eu~hs~aq3 :UO.LSeSuesead
asepdR - 3uampuamv apo3 u61.S 'l~
3uamdoLa~aO X3.Lurmuo3 :~o Jos, oaJ~o 'uosaL6U~4S aUt3S.LJq3 :uotsesuasaad'
hJodaB ~hl, Al. h3¥ hUamaoao:~u3-aPO3 '~
SS3NZSIm 0'10
o~3 a6ed
686[ 'E! qoJeN
~'oua6v uo ~ss ~mmo3 6u ~uue Ld
MZNU.TES
TUSTTN PLANNING COIP. q4]:SSTON
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 27, 1989
.
CALL TO ORDER:
7-05 p.m., City Counci 1 Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGTANCE/ZNVOCATTON
ROLL CALL:
Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Shaheen
PUBLIC CONCERNS- (Limited to 3 mtnutes per person for items not on the agenda)
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL
OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR
PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.)
Ze
..Minutes of .t.h.e. February 13, 1989 Planning Commission iMeetilni)
Con~ntssloner Well,noted a change to the minutes, On page ten, second to the last line
add in quotes "texture and n~tertals". Con~nisstoner Le Jeune m. oved, Pontious
seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Motion car~e'~ 51-0.
nil
PUBLIC HEARINGS
e
Second Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274
APPLICANT'
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
IRVINE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714
TUSTIN MARKET PLACE & RETENTION BASIN
PD-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - MIXED USE.
A PREVIOUS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR
THIS PROJECT.
APPROVAL OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
13274 TO SUBDIVIDE 129 ACRES INTO 22 NUMBERED AND THREE {3)
LETTERED LOTS. THE AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO THE CREATION OF THREE
(3) LOTS, #21, #22, AND LOT 'C' ADJACENT TO THE TUSTIN AUTO
CENTER.
Planning Commission Minut=s
February 27, 1989
Page two
Recommendation - '
It t.s recommended that the Planning Commtss'ion approve the environmental
determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2569, as submitted or
revised.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the.
proposed Second Amendment to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274, to the City
Council by adopting Resolution No. 2571, subject to the conditions contained in
Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner
Commissioner Well asked if the Company had reviewed the additional wording.
Staff replied that he discussed the language with Mr. Larry Williams of the Irvine
Con, any and that he approved the additional wording.
Commissioner Well noted that the final map is not connected verbally or visually with
this tentative tract map. Should there be a reference to connect them?
The Director noted that in conjunction wi. th the final map 13834, there would be
linkage language in the findings as well as with the supplemental conditions.
The publ i c hearing was opened at 7:2.0 p.m.
The public hearing was closed at 7:21 p.m.
Commissioner Baker asked if the presentation indicates that the negotiations with the
Irvine Company regarding the-south side of 1-5 in E1 Modena Channel are within the
City of Tustin only.
The Director noted the proposed improvements would be completed in two phases in
conjunction with the City of Irvine and the Orange County Flood Control District.
Interim storm drain improvements north of the I-5 freeway would provide protection
until fully-improved conditions are in place, which may take 3-5 years.
Commissioner Baker asked if this would place a hardship on Auto dealers.
The Director noted that interim improvements would be removing any potential risk.
Pad elevations of future dealerships are being raised above flood level; interim
improvements will divert water into the E1 Modena Channel.
Commissioner Baker asked if raising pad elevations will cause any problems on other
_
side of the channel.
Planning Commi sston Minutes
February 27, 1989
- Page three
The Director replied that all dealerships have been evaluated in event of 100 year
flood. There may be some ponding in parking areas.: but no pad areas would be
impacted. Based upon recommendations of City Engineer, it is felt that the City is
assuming minimal risk.
Commissioner Ponttous moved, Wetl seconded to recommend to City Council apphoval of
the second Amendment to vestin~ I lyehta'~lve Tract Map 13274 by the adoption of
Resolution No. 2571 with the following revision to Exhibit A, page two'
add "1.8 Prior to approval of the Final Map, the subdivider shall execute an
agreement with the City specifying the nature and extent of down stream
improvements to the E1 Modena Channel as well as responsibility for intract
improvements to be known as the Auto Center Drive Terminus Storm Drain
Extention to be completed in conjunction with development of the expanded
Tustin Auto Center site (retention basin area). The agreement shall clearly
mm
establish the limits of responsibility for all improvements for all parties.
Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Pontlous moved, Weil seconded to approve the Environmental Determination
for the project by the adoption of Resolution No. 2569. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Pontlous moved, Wetl seconded to note that Resolution No. 2569 be
adopted prior tO No. 21571. t~'~re was no opposition.
3. Use Permit 89-03
APPLICANT/
OWNER'
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
W & S COMMERCIAL, INC.
2402 MICHELSON DRIVE, #230
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715
1492 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE AT RED HILL AVENUE
M-INDUSTRIAL
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT.
TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING PROPOSED FOR OVER 50% PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
USE IN THE M-INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use
permit 89'03-~y adoption of Resolution No. 2567 as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Laura Kuhn; Senior Planner
Commissioner Well asked what a "detector check" was, as noted on Exhibit A, page two.
Staff noted that a "detector check" was a device that measured the amount of water
that went into a fire sprinkler system which is typically required on commercial
buildings over 10-15,000 square feet for water billing purposes.
The public hearing was opened at 7-30 p.m.
An. dy Shutz, President of W & S Commercial, Inc. noted that he discussed the project
with staff member, Laura Kuhn, and felt that everything was acceptable.
The public hearing was closed at 7'32 p.m.
Planning Commission Minut~
February 27, 1989
Page four
.
Commissioner Well asked staff to explain why driveway aprons should be revised to use
standard driveway design, not the radius drive design as shown on plans, as noted on
Page three of Site & Building Conditions 3.1b.
Staff replied that a radius drive requires that the driveway be along a .major
arterial highway or be an entryway into a major commercial project. Neither criteria
was met. Also, a radius drive requires a monolithic (one-piece) pour. If the city
is responsible for the driveway, cost of repair must be considered; due to
construction requirements, it could be hazardous to pedestrians; require a separate
easement mechanism, and dedication would be required. As it would be less costly to
maintain, and applicant seems to have no aversion to it, staff recommends a standard
driveway.
Commissioner Wetl questioned the number of trees-required. Referring to Exhibit A,
~age'~ve, 412b, the applicant is to provide one (1) 15 gallon tree for every 30 feet
of property line. Is that all the way around the property or just the area facing
the streets?
Staff noted that the property lines are the interior property lines in a parking area
and the area along streets where there is parking. Staff will work with the
applicant through concept to facilitate a plan to accommodate required number of
trees. Thts ts .not an unusual it ts a standard requirement. ,
Commissioner Well asked if provision 4.Zc requiring one (1) 15 gallon tree for every
~ive (5) Parking spaces was in addition to the trees required by 4.2b. Based upon-
her calculations, only 20 trees would be required, not 28. Where will the remaining
trees be required to be placed?
Staff replied that applicant is allowed to group trees to create a landscape
concept. Trees are to be averaged out over entire site and not in one area.
Commissioner Well asked the applicant if he is awarel that he is responsible for that
_.
many trees.
Mr. Shutz replied that he and landscape architects have not yet counted the number of
trees t~t are required.
Commissioner Wetl asked if conditions 4.2b and 4.2c could be deleted from Use Permit
The Director replied that all of the conditions of 4.2 could be deleted from the
·
text. The conditions are already provided for in 4.1 which indicates that the
Landscape Guidelines are to be followed.
Commissioner Weil requested the deletion of 4.2.
_ _
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1989
Page fi ve
Commissioner Baker asked if the meandering sidewalks would be affected by any future
widening of Red Hill Avenue.
Staff replied that the Public Works. Department has determined Red Hill Avenue to be a
major arterial highway which is anticipated to be widened in the future. However,
the planned sidewalks are considered by the Public Works Department to be the
ultimate design and would, therefore, most likely not be affected by the widening.
Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-03 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 2567 revised as follows:
Exhibit A, Page two, item 3.2, line one after "All exterior colors" add "and
materials" and line two after "Department" add "subject to general conformity
with the original submitted plans date stamped February 27, 1989."; Page five,
delete item 4.2. Motion carried 5-0.
e
Use Permit 89-04
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
BOBBY GILBERT (B & J TREE SERVICE)
17300 17TH STREET, SUITE J231
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
FRANARGOFIN ARNEL DEVELOPMENT'
950 SOUTH COAST DRIVE #200
COSTA'MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626
1062 EL CAMINO REAL
(SOUTH SIDE OF EL CAMINO)
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1)
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 4)
REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE STORAGE OF FIREWOOD,
VEHICLES AND SUPPORT SALES ACTIVITY FOR B & J TREE SERVICE.
Recommendation - Approve Resolution No. 2568 which authorizes the continuation of
outdoor storage and sales, as revised or as submitted.
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate .Planner
Commissioner Well asked staff if the chipper that was on the applicant's site was in
operation when staff visited the property.
Staff replied that it was running at the time of her visit.
The pub-lic hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m.
Bobb~ Gilbert, co-owner of B & J Tree Service, sta:ed that there are several chippers
on s)teJ T~ey occasionally run the chippers for a period of a maximum of 5 minutes
prior to sending to a job site to determine if the equipment is operable. There is
no need to use the equipment on the property, as-the purpose of the chipper is to
chip brush on the job site when they trim trees.
Planntng Commission Minutes
February 27, 1989
Page stx
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there appears to be several non-operative vehicles
on the site which, are unsightly. He asked if these vehichles are .1:o be stored On the
site.
Mr. Gilbert responded by stating that the vehtcles were part of an acquisition of
another tree service. Those in disrepair are being repaired, and the excess are
betng removed. Any unnecessary brush is being removed.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that upon first approval of the site, there was a
question of screening the property's activities and vehicles. At that time, the
Commission was assured that there would be a wood screen at all times, however, this
has not been the case.
Mr. Gilbert stated that they recently sold 130 cords of wood unexpectedly and are in
them'process of replacing the screen which will remain as long as B & J Tree Service
is on the site.
The Director commented that due to future developnmnt of the LA Land site and
potentially the subject site within 90-180 days, it would be an unfair burden on the
applicant to have to provide fencing which would potentially cost the applicant
between $2:80 and $4.00/lineal foot.
Commissioner Pontious asked the applicant if he will be prepared to relocate within
the 90-180 day ~tmeI frame.
Mr. Gilbert replied that they are in the process of looking for another site, and
that the~'lll'~'tll be prepared to move on time.
The public hearing was closed at 7-55 p.m.
Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Pe~lt 89-04 by the
~doption of Re~lution No. '2568.I' COmmissioner Well moved, Le.J.eu. ne' seconded to amend
Resolution No. 2568, page two, secttolnllllllE tO add "Inoperable vehicles shall not be
stored on this property." and to move the anendnmnt before the original motion.
Motion carried 5-0.
i i i
5. Variance 89-02
APPLICANT'
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
- STATUS:
REQUEST:
DURFEE GARDENS PARTNERSHIP
1700 RAINTREE ROAD
FULLERTON, CALIFORNIA 92635
SAME
14372 S. YORBA STREET (S/E CORNER OF YORBA AND NORWOOD PARK PLACE)
R-l, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3, SECTION 15303(a))
TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR SETBACK FROM THE CENTERLINE OF YORBA
STREET FROM 65 FEET TO 60 FEET ON LOT 2 OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13822.
Recommendation - It is recomnended that the Planning Commission approve Variance
_
89-02 by adopting Resolution No. 2565, subject to the conditions contained therein,
as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Minut=s
February 27, 1989
- Page seven
Commisstone~ Le Jeune asked why the required setbacks were nO~ met on the properties
#1-12.
Staff replied that they were built under county jurisdiction prior to being annexed
to the City, therefore this standard was not applicable.
. .
Commissioner Baker asked if the total rear yard of the house in question was 10-15
feet.
staff replied that there is approximately a 20 foot setback to the rear property
line.
The public hearing was opened at 8'04 p.m.
John Jaeger, co-owner of Durfee Gardens Partnership, stated that the first idea was
to re-design the house to conform with the 65 foot variance requirement. This would,
however, possibly require a variance for some other portion of the house. Based upon
many of the other homes in the area that have substantially more encroachment on
Yorba Street, and still do not look unattractive, nor do they appear to be inappro-
priately close to Yorba Street, they felt it best to request this variance.
Commissioner Baker asked how the cul-de-sac differed 'from the others nearby.
Mr. Jaeger replied that it goes deeper into the lot. They have no objection to this,
but because of the differences, the way the lots lay out, the three car garages and
the slightly larger size of these homes, this is the best they could come up with.
The public hearing was closed at 8-10 p.m.
Commissioner Weil moved, Shaheen seconded to approve Variance 89-2 by adoption of
Resoltui°n"lNo. 2'565 subje~'"t"to'~heI conditions contained in Exhibit A. Motion carried
5-0.
mi i
6. Orange County Hazardous Waste_.Management Plan
Presentation' Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner
The public hearing was opened at 7'10 p.m.
The public hearing was closed at 7-11 p.m.
Commissioner Well moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend approval to the City Council
of the Ora.nge County Hazardous Waste Management Plan by the adoption of Resolution
No. 2570. Motion carried 5-0.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 1989
- Page eight
®
Wtdentn. g of I-5 Freeway--- East of Red Hill Avenue
Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner
Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there was a way that the City could keep the citizens
better informed as to how the progress of the project is affecting Tustin.
The Director replied that the Public Works Department has been authorized to hire an
advocate for residents and local business as it relates to the widening program. On
a consultant basis, the person would be responsible for tracking on current actions,
right-of-way changes, acquisition programs, and the impact on local businesses and
residents occurring in relationship to those activities.
Commissioner Well, referring to the map, questioned whether the widening of the
freeway would affect Al's Woodcraft.
Staff replied that, tentatively, Al's Woodcraft would lose a portion of their parking
lot in order to accommodate the exit at Red Hill.
Recetved and filed.
8. Color and Materials Board for the Golf Course Clubhouse Review 88-53
Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner
Roger Settz, representing the Irvine Company, addres'sed the issues as presented by
the staff report.
a) Glass color and reflecttvtty: Intent of using indicated glass is to have a
warm-colored glass in building. Vision glass above seven-foot level will intensify
the green of grass and will not have muted gray tone in the sky. Reflective glass at
the Pro Shop meets the energy requirements of the building. The reflective surface
is never on the outside, always on second, third or fourth surface of laminated
glass. It does not look mirrored, it is warm-toned, and gives the project some life.
b) Inappropriateness of Kalwall: Architects suggest that Kalwall be used in certain
areas of the clear story of the building, not in any vision glass. The clear story
is the top story of building. The purpose of the Kalwall is to provide patterns on
the i nsi de wal 1, gi vi ng interest to the wal 1.
c) Pattern of stone veneer: At this stage, there has been no conversation with the
architect, however, if required, the Company would commit to the normal application
of a horizontal layout.
d) Use of stone at base in starters area: It is not currently in the plan, at this
stage, but would be an upgrade to the building. If there are concerns, he noted the
Company would like to work out a pattern that would be acceptable to the Commission.
e) Crystal White paint on assigned windows: This issue has been resolved.
window colors will conform to the rest of the project.
The
Planning Commission Mlnutes
February 27, 1989
Page nt ne
Commissioner Le. Jeune asked where the Kalwa11 is located on the building.
_
Mr. Set tz referred to the photograph of the model to Indicate that i.t was the opaque
pieces placed between the panels of the row of windows on the upper story.
Commissioner Shaheen expressed concern that the paint color indicated on the model
was not Navajo White, as stipulated.
Hr. Set tz referred to the color board to verify that the paint color that will
_
actually be applied is, in fact, a Navajo White.
Jay Pierce of the [rvine Company presented clarifications to issues posed by the
Staff Report and resolution adopted by the Commiston at' their meeting on February
13th.
Page two, item 12'
ton-type fence.
Black tubu]ar fenctng Is actually a very dark green fought
b) Page two, item 4.6' Sign program. The intent of the paragraph was to clarify
that the entry sign was to coordinate with the building in color only.
c) He asked if corrections would be made at plan check in modifying buildlng pl.ans.
The D'tretor noted that there was no need to clarify the issues above at this time
since action had already occurred and she believed these issues had been mutually
agreed upon between staff and the Irvine Copmpany.
Commissioner Wetl commented that the rose-colored windows would intensify the green
of th~ yolk'coUrSe and that the rose color is more compatible to the color scheme and
wood trim of the project.
Mr. Seitz noted that the glass in question would be installed above the 7-foot level
only.
Commissioner Shaheen questioned staff on why they preferred the gray windows over the
rose.
Staff responded that they did not consider gray better than the rose, they just
questioned the rose combined with K.alwall on the upper story.
Commissioner Baker took a vote on whether the color should be rose or gray- Rose
,,
carried 5-0.
Commissioner Baker asked if the reflective glass was located only at the Pro Shop.
Mr. Seitz commented that it faces the staging area and the first tee from the Pro
Shop. Also, that it was impossible to reflect the sunlight upon the °surrounding
houses due to the refraction of the glass and the surrounding trees.
Commissioner Baker commented that the understanding of the Commission was that the
Kalwali-was not easily visible from the ground.
planning Commission Mtnutes
February 27, 1989
Page ten
Commissioner Le Jeune asked the staff if they were concerned about the look of the
Kalwall"'from-the" lnstde or outstde of the building, or both.
Staff responded that it was primarily the view from the outside that they are
concerned wi th. .
Commissioner Baker asked if the Kalwall was likely to change colOr.
Mr. Seitz responded that they are able to keep it a translucent white without being
affected by the ultraviolet light.
Commissioner Baker asked if the Kalwall would be next to the rose-colored glass, and
if it would provide confusion to the eye due to bright spots?
Mr. Seitz, replied that the current design has it alternating with the rose-colored
glass on the clear wall to provide an interesting design pattern of light on the
wall. He also asked if there was a criteria the Planning Commission would be using
in regards to the stone veneer. His presumption .was that it would be compatible with
the use of the stone on the major pillars inside the building. Presumably it would
be used in 1 1/4" thicknesses, in square or rectangular design, with very thin
joints. To avoid disputes later on, he would'inform the architect of the
requirements.
The Director replied that, based upon the history of the project, there would be no
problem leaving the issue open subject to staff review and approval until plan check
plans were submitted.
Commtssion Baker noted that the CommiSsion would concur with Staff.
_
Staff noted that the applicant agreed to wood window treatment as requested.
Commissioner Wetl moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the color and materials board
aslsubmlt~;edl"for i~e project, bY minute order, with the following conditions'
1. Reflective gl ass to be placed wi th the reflective surface on the tnside; said
glass to be used only in the Pro Shop windows.
2. Rose colored glass may be used in windows above seven (7) feet in height.
3. Kalwall material may be used in. vertical elements, specifically on the clear
story behind the curved wall in conjunction with the rose colored glass.
4. Adoqutn stone may be used as veneer on wall surfaces near the entry walk
(porte-cochere) and the Pro Shop. Plans for the application of said veneer
at plan check shall be subject to review and approval of the Community
Development Department prior to instal lation.
5. Wood window frames shall be painted to match the stucco or be treated with the
transparent stain as used in the trellises and porte-cochere.
Motion carried 5-0.
Planntng Commission Minutes
February 27, 1989
Page eleven
9. Ftnal Tract Map 13834
APPLICANT/
OWNER:
LOCAT'ION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
THE IRVINE COMPANY
550-C NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
TERMINUS OF AUTO CENTER DRIVE CUL-DE-SAC BETWEEN THE TUSTIN AUTO
CENTER AND THE EL MODENA FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
PC-MIXED USE, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 15)
TO SUBDIVIDE THREE (3) NUMBERED LOTS AND ONE (1) LETTERED LOT ON A
7.274 ACRE AREA ORIGINALLY SHOWN AS LOTS #21, #22, AND 'C' THE OF
SECOND AMENDMENT TO TRACT 13274.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Final Tract Map 13834 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2566 as
submitted or revised.
Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner
- Commission Baker asked .staff if the contingency put the City at risk.
The Director replied that the Commission is recommending approval subject to the
staff validating that conditions have been met prior to the Counci 1 ' s. action.
Commissioner Wetl moved, Pontlous seconded to recommend approval to the City Council
approval ofl"~l'nai' Tract'Map 1'383it
byI lihe adoption of Resolution No. 2566 with the
following revisions:
Add
"I.C. The Final Map reflects only a portion, of the original land area shown on
Tract Map 13274. The Subdivision Map Act permits filing of phase Final Maps on
lots which conform with the original Tentative Tract Map." and renumber
ft ndi rigs.
Motion carried 5-0.
STAFF CONCERNS
10. Report on Actions Taken at the Febru. ar.¥ 21, 1989 City Council Meeting
Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development
COMMI SSlOII CONCERNS
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he was sorry that the reporter from the Tustln News
had left as he wanted to note that the newspaper had quoted the Commission as
spending 30 minutes discussing whether to name the golf course a "golf course" or a
"golf club". Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the Commission spent approximately ten
minutes discussing that item. He also asked about guidance from the City Council
regarding sidewalks.
Planning Commission Mt nute~
February 27, 1989
Page twel ye
Staff responded that they had previously thought this issue resolved but would be
happy to provide the policy guideltne~ again to the' Commission.
Commissioner Le Jeune also noted concern on the screening of the Water Works site
along'Main street~-noted that a complaint had been made to him about the house on
Pacific and Second where people are unloading large items after hours; and noted that
there are several signs that blink that are not in comformance with the sign code,
and that he would call staff with. a list.
The Director noted that staff would look into these items and respond to the
Commission. She al so noted that staff will not be able to remove illegal
non-conforming signs until the Sign Code is adopted and a thorough survey is
completed. She indicated that staff will provide a revised schedule for the Sign
Code.
Commissioner Shaheen asked what was happening with the abandoned property on the west
~ide of the Peppertree subdivision and asked for a letter for him to give concerned
homeowners.
The Director noted that storm drain improvements are required for the area. She also
noted that the Director of Public Works is working closely' with a represeniative from
the Peppertree Homeowner's Association and that she will obtain a copy of-the letter
that was provided to the Homeowner's representative.
Commissioner_._Pontlous noted that there are sign problems in the windows along Newport
Avenue across from TUstin Plaza.
Staff responded that enforcement action is .being taken.
Commissioner Well asked the status of reappointment of Planning Commissioners and
aiso noted that she had some changes to be made on Fence Guidelines provided at the
last meeting.
The Dlrector noted that the Commission serves at will until removed by the Ctty
Counci 1.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9-20 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to adjourn to the next regular
meeting on March 13, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
A. L. Baker
Chairman
Penni Foley
Secretary
Report to the
Planning Commission
Item No. 2
DATE'
SUBOECT'
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENV IRO~ENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
RECQHMENDATION
i i
®
e
MARCH 13, 1989
USE PERMIT 89-05
FERIDOUN REZAI
203 TROJAN STREET
ANAHEIH, CALIFORNIA 92804
SAME
15642 PASADENA AVENUE
R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONIqENTAL QUALITY ACT
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TM) AND ONE HALF STORY, .11 UNIT APARTHENT
PROJECT ON A PARCEL THAT IS ADJACENT TO AN R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) LOT AND WITHIN 150 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2572,
approving the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for Use Permit 89-05;
and
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2575,
approving Use Permit 89-05, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit
A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is proposing to construct a two and one half story, 11 unit
apartment project on a 20,184 square foot lot in the R-3 zoning district.
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission Report
Use Permtt 89-05
March !3, !989
.Page two
The subject property Is presently developed wtth a one-story single family
residence located on the front one third of the sl~e and a variety of fruit
trees In the rear yard. Surrounding zontng and land uses consist of two-story
apartment buildings on property zoned R-3 to the north and across Pasadena
Avenue on the west, one-story apartments on property zoned R-2 (Duplex
Residential) to the south, and one-story single family residences on property
zoned R-! to the east.
Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code states that when an R-3 lot abuts
property that is zoned R-Z, no main building(s) shall be built that exceed
one-story and/or 20 feet tn height (whichever is more restrictive), within 150
feet of said R-1 zoned property, unless the Plannlng Commission approves a Use
Permtt to permit said building(s) to exceed one-story and/or 20 feet.
The subject property ts located in the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area';
therefore, the proposed project w111 also require Redevelopment Agency approval
of Oestgn Revtew 88-20.
As this application requires a public hearing, notice was published in the
Tustin News and mailed to surrounding-property owners within 300 feet of the
subject property. A copy of this report and the meeting agenda has been
provided to the applicant.
PRO,]ECT ,DE,,SCR]:,PT]:,O.,N, IS]:,TE PLAN
Submitted development plans propose construction of two separate two and one
half story, apartment buildings containing a total of eleven townhouse type
units. 5tx untts wtll be located in Building "A" located parallel to the
northern property 11ne of the site and ftve (5) units wtll be located In
Butldlng "B" located parallel to the southern property line. Proposed untts
will be approximately !,200 square feet In size and contain three bedrooms and
2-!/2 baths. The overall denstty of the project 'would be 23.7 units per acre.
Under current provisions of the R-3 District, the maxlmum number of units that
could be authorized on the st te would be 1! untts.
But]dtng coverage on the site will be approximately 38% with setbacks proposed
of approximately 35 feet along the front of the property, 11.75 feet along the
side lot lines and approximately 10 to 24 feet at the rear of the property
adjacent to R-1 zoned property.
o
A total of 25 on-site parking spaces are proposed for the project; 11 two-car
garages and three open, covered guest spaces. Proposed parking is to be
provided under each building and will be partially below existing grade. Access
to all parking is proposed from a 27 foot wide central driveway.
Corn rnunity DeveloPrnen~ Depar~rnem ~
P1 anntng Comml ssi on Report
Use Permtt 89-05
March 1.3, 1989
Page three
Entryways to each untt wll 1 be provided by concrete walkways located adjacent to
the northerly and southerly property 11nes of the project with pedestrian access
to parktng below grade provided at three proposed stairwells (one at the front
and rear of buildtng "B" and one at a central locatton between unit 3 and 4 of
building "A" Prtvate ground level open space/patio areas are also proposed at
the front o~ each unit adjacent to .entries. Air conditioning untts wtll be
located in the corner of each enclosed patio area. Walkways and driveway areas
wi'11 be accented with spectal brick pavers or other spectal pavement treatment.
The proposed grading scheme for the project involves excavating approximately
five (5) feet below existing grade for the central driveway and tuck under
parking. The resulting driveway ramp incorporates 6[ blend slopes at each end
with an 11.23~ slope over the remaining portion. This Is within the maximum 13~
slope permitted by the City. Because the garage level is only five (5) feet
below grade, and an eight (8) foot ceiling is proposed for the garages, the
grade at the front entrances to the units is ratsed as much as 3.5 feet above
exlsttng grade, which is accomplished in steps. . Specifically, the grading
concept proposes a two (2) foot grade dtfference at the side property lines,
(pedestrian walkways) stepping up 18 ,Inches to the patio and front door level.
The actual ftntshed floor level of all 11 untts is stx (6) inches above the
patio level (see Sheet 3 of attached plans). As the sections on Sheet 3
indicate, the adjacent properties (north and south) will face a 6'8" combination
wall and fence (the fence is to be built of lap-siding, painted to match the
buildings, the wall will be stuccoed to match the buildings). The grade level
in the front and rear yard setbacks will not change from existing conditions
except for landscape berming and drainage. This concept helps preserve privacy
between the project and the rear yards of the single family residences at the
rear of the subject property..
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The proposed architectural design for the project is a modified cape cod design
which utilizes a combination of wood lap-siding and stucco wi th wood trim at
building corners and around doors and windows. The project incorporates a
variety of insets, projections and cantilevers to achieve relief on all sides of
the two buildings. The proposed color scheme includes "silver gray" stucco,
"pearl gr~y" siding, "swiss coffee" trim and "charcoal gray" asphalt composition
shingles. Surrounding color and material themes in the general vicinity of the
project include white stucco with blue trim and a white .gravel roof immediately
to the north, white stucco with blue trim and gray asphalt composition shingle
roofs immediately across Pasadena Avenue to the west, tan stucco and wood siding
with brick accents and a shake roof immediately to the south and general earth
tone stucco and wood siding with composition shingle, shake and gravel roofs' on
the single family residences to the east. Overall, staff believes that the
proposed color and material scheme is compatible with that of surrounding
developments. Additional architectural features include:
° Six inch bay window projections above front doors.
Corn rnuni~y Developmem Deparirnem ~
Planning Commission Report
Use Permtt 89-05
March 13, 1989
Page four
° Multi-paned windows on all sides.
° Lap-sided garage doors ("swiss coffee" whtte).
° Sliding glass doors located on patios.
° Electric and gas meters concealed below grade by the guest parking spaces.
Mail box enclosures with roofing, siding and colors to match the main
buildings.
° Chimneys at each unit (stuccoed, silver gray)
ISSUES
i i
C~o. mpattbility with Surrounding Development - The proposed project is essentially
an "in-fill" development, replacing an existing single family residence with an
11 unit apartment project based on permitted density of the R-3 zoning district
(one dwelling unit/1750 square feet of lot area). To ensure compatibility with
surrounding buildings' and uses, the proposed project has undergone an extensive
design review process, resulting in design {2-1/2 stories, pitched roofs,
chimneys), materials (combination wood siding and stucco) and colors (gray with
white trim) that reflect elements found in all of the structures in this
vicinity. The proposed design attempts to minimize impacts on adjacent
properties (specifically to the south and east) by maintaining a two and one
half story height, varying rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks that exceed
code standards by over six (6) feet.
Although privacy may be an issue for the property owners to the south and east,
staff believes that this is minimized due to the fact that the one-story units
.to the south are situated such that their rear walls face the subject property,
and the combination of their large eave overhangs and the proposed grades create
very narrow view angles into their property and the proposed buildng "B" is
setback over 11 feet from the common property line. Additionally, the single
family residences at the rear of the subject property are setback 25 to 28 feet
from the common property line and 35 to 52 feet from the proposed buildings ("A"
and "B" respectively). Also, as noted earlier, the grades at the rear of the
subject property are to be left natural (except for minor grading for drainage),
so residents of the proposed project will not "peer down" onto the adjacent
yards when walking through the rear yard area. The two and one half story
buildings to the north of the subject property are setback 20 to 25 feet from
the common property line, with a 20 foot wide driveway located along the common
property line.
cOmmunity DeveloPment Department
Planning Commlsslon Report,
Use Permit 89-05
March 13, 1989
Page fi ve
Paving Materials - As noted earlier, rust colored concrete is proposed along
wi~h red brick pavers as accents at the driveway and pedestrian walkways. Staff
questions this col or combination wi th those proposed' for the buildings. A
darker gray colored concrete and gray brick pavers would be more compatible and
consi stent wi th the bui 1 ding col ors.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above discussion, staff believes that the proposed project is
compatible with surrounding developments and would be a positive addition to the
neighborhood and should be approved.
Steve Rubi n
Senl or Planner
Christine Shingleton ' /~,/
Director of Community DeveTopment
SR:pef
Attachments: Site, floor, elevation and grading plans
Initial Study Negative Declaration
Resolution No. 2572
Resolution No. 2575
Corn rnunity Development Department
N GATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF TUSTIN · .
300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. -92680
Projec~ Title: Use Permit 89-05/-'
Design Review 88-20
Project Location: 15642 Pasadena Avenue -
·
Project Description:Proposed two-story, ll-unit apartment prdject with below
grad~ parking (one 2-car garage/unit plus 3 guest spaces).
Project Proponent: Feridoun Rezai
Contact Person: Steve Rubin Telephone:714/544-8890 [xt. 278
F. tle ND.Use Permit 89~05/·
Design-Review 88z2(
The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the
above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby find:
DThat there, is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have
been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said revisions are a.ttached to and
hereby made a part.of this Negative Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an £nvironmental Impact Report is not required.
i i
The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on
file at the Community Oevelop.ment Department, City of Tustin. The public
is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration
during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a
Negative Oeclaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Oevelopment Director, this review period may be extended if
deemd necessary.
REVIEW PERI00 ENDS 4:30 p.m. on Thursday. March 9. 1989.
Community I Development Director/
0
CITY OF TUSTIN
Conanunity Development Department
"ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY. FORM
2. Address ~ Phem Number of Proponent
3. Date of ~list Submitted
Agency Requiring Checklist ~./7~ ~/~
S. I~k3me of Propmal, if applicable
(Explmations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
Ye.
I. Em'th. Will the prolx:mal result Im
a. Unstable earth .conditla~ or in changes
In geologic subslnx:tures?
b. Disruptla~, dlsl=lacemen~, cornpc~
ar ~ercovering of the mil?
c. ~ in topogr~hy ar ground surface
relief ~res?
cL, The da~tnJctlon, covering or modification
of any mique geologic or physical features?
Any Increase in wind ar watar erosion of
mils, either on or off the site?
fo
Chaxjes in delx)sitlan ar erosion of beach
studs, ar chang, in siltation, deposit~ or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or stream ar the bed of the ocean or
my bay~ inlet ar lake?
0
go
~q)mure of people ar prcqSerty to geolo-
gic hazards suc~ as earthquakes, lancLslidBs,
rnudslidm, ground failure, ar similar haza~b?
Air, Will the proposal result im
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The ~reatlan of objectionable odors?
Alteratlan of air rnovemm~, moisture, or
temp~re, or any ~ In climate,
either locally ar regionally?'
Water. Will the proposal result im
a~
bo
Changm' in currents, ar the course of di-
rectlm of water mo~ment~, in either
marlin ar fresh waters?
~ in absarptlan mm, dmirmge pat-
term, ar the rate and arnaunt of surface
c. Alteratlam to the eaurse ar fl~w of flood
waters?
d. Change in .the ornount of surfoce water in ·
any water body?
e. D bcharge into surface waters, ar in my
alteratim of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dbmlved oxygen or turbidity?
Alteratlan of the dire~tlan ar rate of flow,
of ground waters?
Chaxje in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct, aclditlam or with-
drawab, ar through interceptlan of an
aquifer by cuts or excavatlam?
Substantial reductlan in the amaunt of
water otherwise available far public water
supplies?
Expaeum of people or property to water re-
- lated hazmds such as flooding or tidal waves?
Y~
4. PIcnt Ufe. Wlll the prop.al result im
bo
Change in the dlversity of species, ar
number of my species of plants. (Including
trees, slzub,, gross, crops, ~ aquatic
plant~
Reductlan of the numbers of c,v unique,
rare ar endangered species of plants?
IntmgIJ~lm of new species of plants into
on arco, or In a barrier to the hormel
replanbhrnent of existing specie,?
cl. Reduction in acreage of my agricultural
crop?
5. Anhd Lif-. Will the prapo~l result In:
Oa~ in the divenity of species, or
numben of my species of animals (birch,
land animals Including reptiles, fish c~l
shellfbh, benthic argmimm-ar imects)?
b. Reductlan of the numbers of ~ unique,
mm ar endangered specle~ of mimals?
Introcluctlm of new species of mirrmls into
on oreo, ar result In a Ixz'rler m iix
migrotlm ar ~ of' mirnol.?
d.' Oeteriorotim to existing fbh ar wildlife
hebit, t?
6'. Nois~ Will the propoml result ira
t
Be
a. Increcmes in esbting noise levels?
b. Exp<)sure of pecple to severe nol~ levels?
Lighf and ~ Wlll fhe prep. al produce
new light ar glare?
Lind Use. Will the proposal result In a sub-
stontlal alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area?
9. Natural IResomaJ., Will the propo~l r. ult in:
Imreme in the rate of use of any ncrluml
mmurc--? " '
b. Sd)stontlal depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
I0. Risk of Upset. Will the ~1 Involve
I1.
12.
'13.
14.
A risk of m explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to~ oil, pest~~ chmnicals or
radiation) in the evmt of al amida~ or
upset con~tkms?
Pamibh interf~ with m emergen~
rmpmvm pkm or an emergency evacuation
plm?
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, chmity, or growth rate of the
Fumm popul~im of cn area?
Houei~ Will the prapmal affect existing hous-
ing, or oreate a derna~ far additional houli~?
Trmspmtatla~Clrculatlan. Will the ~1
result ir,
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular.movement?.. ..
·
b. Effects m existincj parking facilities, or
cbrrmcl for new parking? ....
·
c. Substantial irnl)act, upon existing tronspor-
,
·
d. Alteratlam to present patterns of ¢irculG.
tion or movement of PeOPle and/or goods?
e. Alterotlans to waterborne, rail ar air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists ar pedestrims. ?
P1AIic Ses~cm. Will the prapaml have an
effect upon, ar result In a need far new ar
altered governmental services in any of the
following arean
·
a. F'ire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
Ym
d. P=ks er other recreational facilities?
e.- Maintenance of p~blic fceilities~ Including
roads?
f.. Other governmental services?
15. Ermrgy. Will the proposal result im
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?.
be
SubstmTtlal increase in ckmmd upon exist-
lng sources of energy, or require the
devel~ of new sou. rcm of energy?
Utilities. Will the prepmal result in a need
far new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utllitles~ _
a. Power or natural gm? ·
b. Comrmnicatlam systems?
c. Water?
cl, SewEr or septic tcrd.?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and dbpaml?.-....
17. Hmnm Health. Will the proposal result im
18.
a. Creation of any health hazc~l or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential ihealth
haz~ds?
Amfl~icm. Wlll the prevail result in the
obstnJction of any scenic vista or view OpEn to
the public, or will. the prcQosai result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
Recreation.. Will the propmal result in an
impa~t UlXe the quality'or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
Will the prcqsmal result in the alteration
of or the dmtnmtion of a prehistoric or
historic arckznological site?
Yes
21.
b.- Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric: or
· o
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
ar wildlife species, cruse a fish ar wild-
life papulatlan to dro~ below self sus-.
taiflirIcj IMISt threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number ar restrict the rmge of a rare or
endmgerod plant or animal or eliminate
import~ examples Of the major periods
of California history ar prehlstory?
b~
Daes the project' have the potential to
achieve short-term, to' the dbadvat~e of
lang-term, envirmmental goals? (A short-
term impact an the environment is one
which occurs In a mkrtiv~ly brief, definitive
period of time while long-term lrrqxz:ts
will endure well into the future.)
·
Daes the project'hav~ impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
sideroble? (A project may hmact on t~o
or more separate resources where the Impact
on each resaurce is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
Impacts an .the enviranment is significant.)
Does the project have enviranmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
an humm beings, either directly ar indirectly?
III. Diseu~ien of Em, kmmentol Evaluatlan
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this Initial evaluatl0m
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
an the envi~t, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the pragmed project cauld have a significant effect ..
an the envimmnent, there will not be a signif~ant effect In this case
because the mitigatlan 'measures ciesC~ an an attached sheet have
been .added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL. BE[ PREPARED,
I find ~ pra~osed project MAY'have a $igniflccmt effect .an the 'enviran-
merit, an ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT is requ,red. I:1
Signature
EXHIBIT A
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
USE PERMIT 89-05/DESIGN .REVIEW 88-20
Project Description 'Supplement - The proposed project involves the removal of an
.exist;lng one-story single family residence on an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential)
zoned lot and development of a two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project
consisting of two (2) buildings with below grade, tucked under parking (two car
garages and three guest spaces). Surrounding development includes: existing
two-story apartment buildings to the north and west, existing one-story apartment
units to the south, and existing one-story single family residences to the east.
1. EARTH - This project would not result in any change to existing geologic
co~dftions; however, grading is proposed that will require excavation 5 feet
below existing grade for driveway and parking purposes and raise grade levels
3.5 feet above existlng grades for the units themselves, resulting in
disruptions, overcovering and compaction of the soil and changes to existing
topography. This is proposed to accommodate below grade, tucked under parking
and still maintain a two and one half story building design. (Source: Field
inspection, June 30, 1988, preliminary grading plans)
Mitigation Monitoring - Appropriate soils reports and precise .grading
plans will be required by the Building Division prior to issuance of
grading permits to ensure proper drainage, compaction and retention.
2. AIR - This project would not result in any change to the existing air quality
based on review of AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents. (Source' AQMD
Regulation No. 15, Site and Floor Plan)
3. WATER a,c,d,e,f,g,h,i - This project would not result in any change to the
existing water conditions based on review of the site by City staff on June
30, 1988. The site is located in Flood Zone C, which is subject to minimal
flooding. (Source: Tustin FIRM, Proposed Site/Grading Plans)
WATER b - Improvements are proposed which will add impervious surface area to
the pro'~perty which could effect drainage and absorption rates. (Source' Site
Inspection, June 30, 1988, Community Development Department).
Mitigation Monitoring - Drainage plans for the project for acceptance of
water into the public storm drain system will be reviewed and approved by
the Public Works Department.
4. PLANT_L!FE_a,b,c,d - The site is developed with an existing single-family
residence and is landscaped with turf in front and fruit trees in the-rear.
Development of this project will result in removal of existing vegetation and
replacement with new turf, shrubs, ground cover and trees that are .common
species to the area. (Source: Field Inspection, June 30, 1988, submitted
landscape plans) .
- 5. ANIMAL LIFE a,b,c,d~, - Based on review of City records and site inspection
conducted by City staff, no .rare or endangered species are known to inhabit
the project site. (Source' Field Observation, June 30, 1988)
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use Permit 89-05 and Design Review 88-20
Page two
.
NOISE .- Adjacent, existing residents may experience Increases in ambient noise
l'~vels related to construction activities, however, this is considered a short
term impact.
Mitigation Monitoring - Construction activities shall be limited between
the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday '(including engine
warm-up). Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal
hol i day s.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE - The project wi ll introduce additional lighting i n.to the area
6y means of exterior fixtures on the future buildings.
Mitigation Monitoring - Specific lighting plans and light standards will
be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department which
confine direct light rays to the subject property as required by the
Zoning Code.
8. LAND USE - The proposed project will alter the existing land use of the site
although the proposed number of apartment units {11) is permitted by the R-3
Zoning District standards. Due to its two and one half story design, the
project could impact the adjacent properties to the east which are both
developed with one-story buildings. The one-story buildings to the south are
located within six feet or less of the common property line; however, the
resulting site line blocks views into those yards. (Source: Community
Development Department, General. Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code)
Mitigation Monitoring - The proposed building "A" shall maintain a
minimum 10 foot rear setback and building "B" shall maintain a minimum 24
foot rear setback. Rear yard grades shall be left natural except for
drainage purposes. Specimen size trees shall be planted'along the north,
south and east property lines of the subject site to provide additional
screening.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES - The project would not result in any significant increased
use Of natural resources. The site is presently developed, and is located in
an area of numerous existing multi-family developments as determined by field
inspection on June 30, 1988. (Source: Field Inspection, June 30, 1988)
10. RISK OF UPSET - The proposed project would not result in any increased risk'of
u~se~lto the property or future residents in that the proposed use is for an
11 unit apartment project and no hazardous or flammable materials are
associated with this use. Applicable requirements of the Fire Department and
Uniform Building Code will be satisfied to significantly reduce any risk of
upset {Source:-Building Division and Fire Department).
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use Permit 89-05 and Design Review 88-20
Page three
11. POPULATION '- The proposed project will remove an existing single family
residence and replace it with 11 apartment units, adding approximately 24 new
residents to the area, based upon the City's average household population of
2.4 persons/household (deducting the residents of the existing dwelling). The
proposed density and resulting increase in population in the immediate area
will not result in any significant impacts, as the-increase in number of
dwelling units and population are permitted and anticipated by the City's
Zoning Code and General Plan. Comments received from the Community Services,
Public Works, Police and Fire Departments did not note significant impacts to
their services as a result of this project. {Source: State Department of
Finance Census data- 1/88, Community Development,. Police, Fire, Public Works
and Community Services Department, General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning
Code. )
12. HOUSING - See No. 11.
13. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION - The project will generate approximately seven
(7) average daily trips (ADT)' 'lper unit, for a total of approximately 77 ADT as
compared to approximately 10 ADT for the existing single family residence.
Although this is a substantial increase, the City Traffic Engineer has
determined that the project would not significantly impact the carrying
-capacity of existing streets, as they are capable of handling the anticipated
additional vehicle trips generated by the project. (Source: Engineering
Department/City Traffic Engineer)
14. PUBLIC SERVICES -' The project would not result in any significant change to
public services, new families are likely to have children utilizing public
schools. All services are .in place for the area and developmenl~ of the site
has been anticipated by the Community Development Department. (Source: Fire,
Police, Public Works, Community Services Departments)
Mitigation Monitoring - The developer shall pay impact fees to the Tustin
Unified School District prior to issuance of permits.
15. ENERGY - The project will not result in a substantial change in the use of
energy. The project site has existing energy service. (Source' Public Works
Department)
16. UTILITIES - The project would not result in any increased need for utilities,
as all utilities are existing and presently serve the site and have adequate
capacity to serve the project~ (Source: Public Works Department)
17. HUMAN HEALTH - The project would not result in any effects to human health
gi~enl"the nature of the. proposed land use. {Source: Community Development
Department)
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use'Permit 8g-05 and Design Review 88-20
Page four
18. AESTHETICS - Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a
Use 'Permit to construct a building on an R-3 lot whose height would be greater
than one-story or 20 feet, when the property abuts an R-1 zone and the
building would be within 150 feet of a single family residence; all of these
conditions apply to the subject project. To mitigate potential impacts to the
single family residences to the east, and one-story apartments to the south,
the proposed project has undergone an extensive design review process,
resulting in a two and one half story building which incorporates col ors and
materials that are compatible with those found on existing structures and
bull ding height that i s consistent with exi sting two-story bull dings located
to the north and west. Additionally, impacts to the existing developments to
the east and south have been further mitigated by proposed side and rear
setbacks that meet and exceed minimum required setbacks and the proposed
grading scheme which minimizes grade differences to the extent possible.
Additional mitigation could be achieved via the proposed landscaping for the
project.
,
Mitigation Monitoring - The landscape plans shall incorporate the use of
minimum 24 inch box trees along the north, south and east property lines
to provide additional pri racy screeni rig.
19. RECREATION - Future residents of the project may use existing recreational
~acitities; however, due to the small scale of the project (11 units),
anticipated impacts are minimal. (Source' Community Development and Services
Departments)
20. CULTURAL RESOUCES - The-project site is not located in an area known as an
archaeoilo'gical resource, nor is it located in the City's Cultural Resources
DiStrict. The site is presently developed with a simple, one-story, stuccoed,
single-family residence. There is no evidence that any cultural resources
exist on the subject property. (Source: Tustin Area Historical SurVey, Field
Inspection, June 30, 1988.)
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The environmental evaluation provided
herein,
ii al~templ~s to fully "identify, discuss and mitigate any impacts
associated with the proposed development project. Considering the sources
used, the proposed level of 'development and the mitigation and monitoring
measures incorporated herein, staff has determined that any project impacts
have been mi tigated to a level of insignificance.
SR'ts-pef
1
2
3
4
5
RESOLUTION NO. 2572
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE FOR USE PERMIT 89-05 AND DESIGN REVIEW 88-20,
INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
7 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows'
8
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows'
9
10
11
12
13
14
'15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
'.26
27
128
A. Use Permit 89-05 and Design Review 88-20 are considered a
"project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and
has been distributed for public review.
C ·
Whereby, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has
considered evidence presented by the Community Development
Director and other interested parties wi th respect to the
subject Negative Declaration.
De
The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final'
Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate and
compl et·.
II.
A Final Negative Declaration has been con~leted in compliance with
CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission, having.final
approval authority over Use Permit 89-05, has received and considered
the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to
approving the proposed project and found it adequately discussed the
environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the
initial study and comments received during the public review process,
the Planning Commission' has found that there is no substantial
evidence that there will be any significant adverse environmental
effects as a result of the approval of the project because mitigation
measures identified in the Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential
significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
It;
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2572
Page two
significant effects will occur. The mitigation measures are
identified in Exhibit. a to ,the attached Negative Declaration and
initial study and are adopted as conditions of approval of the
sut~ject project pursuant to Conditions 2.1 and 5.1 of Exhibit A of
Resolution No. 2575, incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on
the day of , 1989.
A. L. Baker
Chairman
Penni Foley
Secretary
1
4
5
9
10
11
RESOLUTION NO. 2575
.- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT .89-05 TO .PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND ONE HALF STORY, 11 UNIT
APARTMENT PROJECT THAT IS ADJACENT TO AND WITHIN 150
FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO BE LOCATED AT
15642 PASADENA AVENUE
The Planning Commissio.n of the City of Tustin' does hereby resolve as
? follows:
8 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
12
13
14
15
1G
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. A proper application, Use Permit No. 89-05 has been filed on
behalf of Feridoun Rezai to request approval to construct a
two and one half story, 11 unit apartment project that is
adjacent to and within 150 feet of a single family residence, to
be located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue.
B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on March 13, 1989.
Ce
Establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for
will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use, as evidenced by the following findings:
1. The use as applied for is in conformance with the General
Plan and Tustin Zoning Code.
2. The use applied for is a conditionally permitted use in the
R-3 zoning district.
®
The development of the proposed apartment project on the
subject site is compatible with the uses in the surrounding
R-3, R-2 and R-1 zoning districts.
4. As designed, the project meets or exceeds all applicable
standards of the R-3 zoning district.
D. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied
for will' not be injurious or detrimental to the property and
improvements In the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to
the genera.1 welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be
granted.
E. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Resolution No. 2575
Page two
II.
The Planntng Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 89-05
approving construction of a two and one half story, [1 untt apartment
project that is adjacent to and within 150 feet of a slngle faintly
residence, to be located at 15642 Pasadena Avenue subject to the
conditions contained in Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustln Planning Commission,
held on the [3th day of March, [989.
A. L. Baker
Chairman
Penni Foley
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
USE PEP, NIT 89-05
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2575
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for
the project date stamped February 21, 1989 on ft'le wtth the Community
Development Department, as heretn modified, or as modified by the Director of
Community Development Deparl~nent tn accordance ~lth thts Exhtbtt.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the cOnditions contained in this Exhibit shall be
complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project,
subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.-
(1) 1.3 Design review approval shall become null and void unless building permits are
issued within twelve (12) months of the date on this Exhibit.
(1) 1.4 The applicant shall obtain right of entry from adjacent property owners for
all work adjacent to property lines. Proof of such shall be provided prior to
issuance of any permits.
(.~) 1.5 The applicant shall sign and return, an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form
prior to issuance of any permits.
PLAN SUBHITTAL
2.1 At building plan check submittal'
(3)
(2)
(3)
A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy
calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap
and Energy Requirements shall be complied wi th as approved by the
Building Official.
B. Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations
including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally,
a note on plans shall be included stating that no field changes shall be
made without corrections submitted to and approved, by the Building
Official.
(3)
(2)
C. Final grading and specifications and erosion control plans consistent
with the site plan and landscaping plans {including berms in the front
setbacks) and prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval of the
Community Development Department. Said plan shall clearly indicate all
grades and call outs.
D. A precise soils engineering report provided by a soils engineer within
the previous twelve {12) months.
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION
(2) NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING COl)ElS
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
*** EXCEPTION
(5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREHENT
(6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(7) PC/CC POLICY
ibt t A
~esolutton No. 2575
Page two
(1)
(2)'
(2)
E®
Information, plans and/or specifications to ensure satisfaction of all
Publ.tc Works Oepartment requirements including but not limited to:
1)
2)
4)
Curb and gutter
Sidewalk
Domestic water servtce
Sanitary sewer servtce
Street trees
Street 11ghts
F®
Any damage done to existing street Improvements and utilities shall be
repaired before issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.
G.
Prior to any work in the public right-of-way an excavation permit shall
be issued.
H®
Information to ensure compliance with all requirements of the Orange
County Fire Chief including required fireflow and installation, where
required, of fire hydrants subject to approval of the Fire Department,
City of Tustin Public Works Department and Irvine Ranch Water District
and compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction as
follows:
1)
Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in all units and garage
areas as necessary.
SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS
3.1 The site plan shall be modified as follows:
A.
Guest parking spaces shall be labeled as "Guest Parking" spaces. (provide
details for such marking and labeling).
B ·
The trash enclosures shall be moved six (6) feet to the east so as to
provide adequate back-up space for the guest parking stall at the east
end of Building "A".
C .
Building height shall not exceed 35 feet as measured from the average
elevation of the site based upon the lowest and highest grades proposed
on the subject-property.
3.2 Modify building elevations and proposed exterior materials as follows:
A®
Provide exact details and exterior door and window types and treatments
(i.e., framing color glass'tint).
B ®
Change the color of the accent concrete and brick pavers from brick red
to dark gray so as to be compatible with the building colors.
L. ,btt A
Resolution No. 2575
Page three
Ce
Property 11ne fences/walls shall be designed, painted and stuccoed to
match the main buildings.
(1) 3.3 All exterior colors to be used shall be subject to revtew and approval of the
(4) Dtrector of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments
must be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on
submitted construction plans and elevations shall indicate all colors and
materials to be used.
3.4 Automatic garage door openers shall be provided on all garages.
LANDSCAP]:NG, GROUN, D,S AND HARDSCAPE ELENENTS
(6) 4.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for
, all landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tusttn Landscaping and
Irrigation Submittal Requirements. Provide summary table applying indexing
identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plan-and
table must list botantical and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location
- and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and berming
details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show
location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler
type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment must be .provided. Show
all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan, public right-of-way
areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of
Community Development may. request minor substitutions of plant materials or
request additional sizing or quantity materials during plan check. Note on
landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping irrigation materials is subject
to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community
Development.
(6) 4.2 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following
requirements:
A. Turf is unacceptable for grades over 25~. A combination of planting
materials must be used, ground cover on large areas alone is not
acceptable.
B. Provide a minimum of one 15 gallon size tree for every 30 feet of
property line on the property perimeter and five 5 gallon shrubs.
C. Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum
of 8 feet on center when intended as screen planning.
D. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center.
E®
When 1 gallon plant sizes 'are used the spacing may vary according to
material s used.
Up-along fences and/or walls and equipment areas, provide landscaping
screening with shrubs and/or vines-and trees on plan check drawings.
,bit A
Resolution No. 2575
Page four
G. All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy vigorous condition
typical to the species and shall be maintained in a neat and healthy
condition; this will include but not be limited to trimtng, mowing,.
weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement
of diseased or dead plants.
H.' Earth mounding is essential and must be provided to applicable heights
whenever it is possible in conjunction with the submitted landscaping
plan. Earth mounding should be particularly provided along Pasadena
Avenue.
I. Major points of entry to the project, courtyards and pedestrian, internal
circulation routes shall receive specimen trees to create an
identification theme.
J. Landscaping adjacent to the right-of-way shall be coordinated with
parkway landscaping.
K. Minimum 24" box trees shall be planted at the north, south and east
property lines to provide additional privacy screening to the adjacent
residences.
L. The landscape nodes at the garage separations shall be enlarged to a
minimum dimension of 3' by 4', including a six (6) inch curb. Such shall
be shown on the grading plan. Shrub/trees shall be planted in said
nodes, in addition to ground cover. Irrigation plans shall include said
nodes.
4.3 Indicate lighting scheme' for project, note locations of all exterior lights
and types of fixtures, lights to be installed on building shall be a
decorative design. No lights shall be permitted which may create any glare or
have a negative impact on adjoining properties. The location and types of
lighting shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community
Development.
#OISE
!
(1) 5.1 Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of 7'00 a.m. to 6-00
(2) p.m., Monday through Friday. This shall include engine warm-ups.
FEES
(s)
(7)
Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal holidays.
6.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all
required fees including'
A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department.
,btt A
Resolution No. 2575
Page ftve
B. Santtary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District.
C. Grading plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development
Department. -'
Do
All applicable Building plan check and permit fees to the Community
Development Department.
E. New development fees to the Community Development Department.
F. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District.
G. Parkland dedication in-lieu fees in the amount of $3,300.00 to the
Community Services Department.
SR: pe f
Report to the
Planning Co.mmission'
'Item No. 3
DATE:
SUBJECT:
NARCH 13, 1989
CODE ENFORCENEIIT ACTIVITY
RECOIqiqENDATION
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND
The attached Code Enforcement computer print out lists all code enforcement
activity for cases open and closed from February 1, 1989 to March 3, 1989.
During this period staff handled 31 new code enforcement issues while closing 35
previously active cases. As of March 3, staff had 43 open cases to follow up
and c]ose.
Future activity includes a .routine inspec.tion for unauthorized banners, flags,
and signs, and progress on completion of revisions to the Code Enforcement
Manual. Staff is open to any suggestions or concerns that the Commission may
have in this area.
Ja~k W. Light ~
~Yanni ng Techni ci an
JWL -pef
Atttachment
~Chr~t sti ne Shi_ n)~t eton
Di rector of qO~mnunity Development
Community Development Department
Code Enforcement Report
LEGEND FOR COMPUTER PR~'NT OUT
-For 'column TYPE/CODE (i.e. 02/9400)
this n~er represents the general
type of violation as listed below
followed by all relevant City Code
section numbers.
01 - Illegal Temporary AdvertiSing
02 - Illegally Installed Sign
03 - Damaged, Unmaintained Sign
04 - Illegal Garage Conversion
05 - Illegal Parking
06 - Outdoor Storage
07 - Weed Abatement
08 - Illegal Construction
09 - Inoperative/Abandoned Vehicle
10 - Substandard Property i.e. parking, fences etc.
11 - Inappropriate Business Activity
12 - Public Nuisance
99 - Other
2.) For Column ORIGIN VOIL. This column reflects how
violation was recognized.
3.) For Column CASE STATUS (i.e. 02)
00 - Site inspection or personal contact, made with owner
01 - Phone call to property owner.
02'- Informal letter sent to property owner.
03 - WARNING NOTICE sent to property owner.
04 - NOTICE AND ORDER sent to'property owner.
05 - Correction in progress.
06 - Appeal underway.
07 - Correction Completed file to be closed.
08 - Referred to Attorney for further action.
99 - Other
4.) For Column OPEN T/F .T.= case open, .F.=. case closed
5.) For Column CONTACT LOG/DATE (i.e. 01<20-01 or 01/20-10)
%
date followed by
action taken -01
00 - Site inspection, personal contact with owner.
01 - Phone call to property owner regarding violation.
10 - Phone call from property owner r~garding violation.
02 - Informal letter sent to property owner.
20 - Letter received from property owner.
03 - WARNING NOTICE sent to property owner.
30 - WARNING NOTICE returned, not accepted by property owner.
04 - NOTICE AND ORDER sent to property owner.
40 - NOTICE AND ORDER returned, not accepted by owner.
05 - Correction in progress.
06 - Appeal underway.
07 - Correction Completed file to be closed.
08 - Referred to Attorney for further action.
99 - Other
6.) For column ACTUAL CLOSE DATE = Date of compliance.
7 ~ ) For column CLOSING MEMO = What action was taken to
comply.
i '
Planning Commission
DATE '
SUBdECT:
HARCH 13, 1989
STGN CODE AIiENDNENT - UPDATE
Attached please find an update of the status of revisions to the Slgn Code. 'The
draft ordinance was preliminarily reviewed by the Community Development
Department staff during the past several months and Js currently belng updated
to reflect those comments. Because of a number of staff vacancies at this tJme
as well as current work .program commitments, the schedule has been updated to
reflect a sltghtly longer review period. According to the attached schedule, a
draft of the ordinance will be forwarded to the Sign Committee by the end of
Marc h.
Prior to release of the draft, it might be appropriate for the Committee to
schedule a meeting for a briefing.
Ma~y Anny~L~amberlal'n Christine-A. hln~leton~
Associat~ Planner Director of'Community Development
MAC'CAS'ts
Attachment: Tentative Sign Code Amendment Schedule
Community Development Department
TENTATIVE SIGN CODE
AHENIMENT SCHEDULE
TASK
Distribute final draft to
Commi tree Members
PRIMARY STAFF
RESPONSIBLE
-!
Mary Ann Chamberlal n
and Laura Kuhn
Sign Code Comml tree meeting -
· Review and Comments
Mary Ann Chamberlain,
Laura Kuhn and
Christine Shingleton
Revise/respond to comments -
re-distri bute to Committee
Mary Ann Chamberlain
and Laura Kuhn
Sign Code Committee meeting -
Review and Comment
Mary Ann Chamberlain,
Laura Kuhn and
Christine Shingleton
Planning Commission Workshop on
Si gn Code
Revise/respond to Planning
Commi ssion comments
Ma ry Ann Chamberl ai n,
Laura Kuhn and
Christine Shingleton
Ma ry Ann Chamberl ai n
and Laura Kuhn
Preparation of any Environmental
Do cumentati on
Mary Ann Chamberlain
and Laura Kuhn
Request for Chamber of Commerce -
Input Community Workshop
Revise/respond to comments
Planning Commission final review -
Jol nt Workshop wi th City Counci 1
Mary Ann Chamberlain,
Laura Kuhn and'
Christine Shingleton
Mary Ann Chamberlain
and Laura Kuhn
Mary Ann Chamberlain,
Laura Kuhn and
Christine Shingleton
Planning Commission Public
Hearing
Mary Ann Chamberlain
and Laura Kuhn
City Council Public Hearing
Mary Ann Chamberlain
and Laura Kuhn
DUE DATE
March 20-27
April 14
May 22-26
May 26-June 6
June 12,
June 19-23
June 19-23
June 23-July 7
July 10-17
July 17-28
August 14
September 5
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY
ONNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
REQUEST:
MARCH 13, 1989
DESIGN REVIE¥ 89-02
DAVE WILSON
1400 N. TUSTTN AVENUE
ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92667
THE I RV !NE COMPANY
P.O. BOX !
550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8915
TERMINUS OF AUTO CENTER DRIVE ADJACENT TO' MAC PHERSON TOYOTA
PC-MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
TO CONSTRUCT A. 21,800 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON A 3.2
ACRE LOT, SHOWN AS PARCEL ~2 ON FINAL MAP 13834
RECOI~ENDATION
i
It ls recommended that the Planning Commission:
1)
Certify Environmental I~act Report //85-02 as adequate to serve as the
program EIR by adoption of Resolution No. 2573 as submitted or revised.
2)
Approve Design Review 89-02 by adoption of Resolution No. 2574 as
submitted or revised.
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 1989 the Planning Commission approved the second amendment to
Tentative Tract 13274 and Final Tract Map 13834. The second amendment and Final
Map created two new lots for auto dealerships and the extension of Auto Center
Drive to facilitate access to these two lots. On March 6, 1989 the City Council
reviewed and approved both the second amendment to Tentative Tract Map 13274 and.
Fi nal Map 13834. ·
Due to the nature of the franchise agreement for Toyota Lexus, the proposed
dealership has been processed on a "priority schedule". This agreement with the
proposed dealer (Mr. Dave Wilson who owns Toyota Of Orange) requires the
Corn munity Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Des1 gn Review 89-02
March 13, 1989
Page two
dealership to be open in September of 1989. Therefore, staff have incorporated
several site modification requirements as conditions of approval on the site so
that the project may proceed in a timely fashion. These conditions have been
previously agreed to by the apPlicant in writing prior to scheduling this item
with the Planning Commission.
As mentioned in the previous reports on the subdivision proposal, the property
is located in the PC-Mixed Use District of the East Tustin Specific Plan and not
in the PC-Auto Center District, therefore the site is subject to design review
approval by the Planning Commission. The proposed project is located on the
southerly parcel shown on Final Map 13834 which is directly adjacent to Mac
Pherson Toyota on the west, the E1 Modena Flood Control Channel on the east, the
I-5 freeway on the south and Auto Center Drive to the north.
ANALYSIS
Staff have reviewed the project for,conformance with the East Tustin Specific
Plan, Tustin Auto Center Design, Criteria and the Tustin Municipal Code. The
major issues related to the site, landscape/hardscape, signs and architectural
designs are discussed in more detail below.
.
Site...Deslgn' The project incorporates a 21,800 square foot building on a
3".2 acre parcel. The site is accessed by three drives, two of which are
35 feet wide and intended for customer use with the most easterly drive
used primarily for delivery purposes.
The building and site design incorporate setbacks of a minimum of 30 feet
from Auto Center DPive, 32 feet from the rear property line, 180 from the
interior lot line shared with the Toyota dealer, and 130 feet from the E1
Modena Flood Control Channel. The East Tustin Specific Plan establishes a
zero (0) foot interior lot line setback, and a minimum of 30 feet from
freeway (I-5) facing property lines. There are no other specific setback
requirements, however, the project also meets the setback criteria of the
Tustin Auto Center by maintaining a mimimum 30 foot setback from Auto
Center Drive (excluding canopy projections).
Overall, the project incorporates a land use coverage breakdown as
follows'
Use S,quare Feet
1st Floor Building Area
Vehicle Sales Display
Circulation/Parking Area
Landscaping
Total ·
18,595 .13.3
38,600 27.6
75,210 54.0
_6,987 5.02
139,392 Sq.Ft. ~
Corn rnunity DeveloPment DeparTrnent
Planning Commission Report
Design Review 89-02
March 13, 1989
Page three
®
The East Tustin Specific Plan currently requires parking at a rate of one
space per every 400 square feet of floor area or 55 spaces for this
project. The applicant has provided 84 parking spaces on-site for this
purpose. In order to maintain free and clear access to the parking as
required by the City Code, the applicant has been requested to remove the
rolling gate at the service area entry.
The service bays are designed so that all lube bays are incorporated into
the interior of the building. This ensures that there is no visual impact
to surrounding properties or the public street. As a condition of
approval, staff suggests that the street facing roll-up door be replaced
with a "flip-up" door which incorporates molded elements similar to the
building design and that this door remain closed except during service
peak hours.
To ensure compatibility with the remainder of the Tustin Auto Center,
conditions and design changes have been applied on this project which
reflect the site design requirements of the Auto Center Design Criteria.
Landscape and__Hardscape. Elements: To facilitate pedestrian movement, the
site incorporates an eight (8)'foot wide sidewalk adjacent to curb within
the public right-of-way. A five (5) foot landscape strip with pedestrian
access points is also provided adjacent to the sidewalk and includes palm
trees along the .street facing perimeter. This is the same street
front treatment found on all of the dealerships in the Auto Center.
The interior of the site provides a mix of hardscape areas for vehicle
circulation, vehicle sales display and pedestrian circulation. Staff
suggests that some form of visual or physical barrier be provided to
differentiate the customer parking and vehicle sales area as a condition
of approval. This barrier may be designed through use of enhanced
pavement treatments or curbing devices.
The landscape design incorporates the plant palette of this Tustin Auto
Center which requires a mix of palm trees, smaller specimen trees, shrubs
and vines. The street facing treatments, as mentioned earlier are
designed to match those of the other dealers in the center.
The Tusttn Auto Center Guidelines require a minimum of 5% landscape
coverage on the site. While the minimum requirement has been met,
additional landscape areas have been requested in the easterly parking
area. Specifical'ly any portions of unused parking area would be replaced
with planters as noted by staff on the attached landscape plan. This
would result in an increase in the total landscape coverage figure.
As required by the conditions of approval for the Tract Map which created
the new parcels and extension of Auto Center Drive, a landscape lot was
Corn rnunity DeveloPrnen~ Depar~rnen~
/
Planning Commission Report
Design Re vi ew 89-02
March 13, 1989
Page four
0
also created. This lot faces the freeway and incorporates berming and
landscape design features to match the existing treatment along the I-5
Freeway.
Slgn Program: The dealer has proposed slgn program which Includes the
fOil'.owing types of. signs-
- 1-36 square foot pylon sign for business identification.
1-6 square foot project directional sign for customer information
(maximum of three (3) feet tn hetght).
- 3-wall signs for business and vehicle make identification.
Staff suggests that the applicant conform to the Auto Center Sign Criteria
which is applied uniformly to all dealers in the Aut6 Center. Conformity
with the sign program and other requirements of the Tustin Auto Center
have been agreed to by the applicant. Conditions have been included in
the attached resolution which specify corrections to the sign program so
the. project meets these criteria. As a condition of approval for the
Tract Map for this dealer site and the other parcel to the north, both
lots will be included in the Tustin Auto Center Covenants, .Codes and
Restrictions (CC&R's).
Architecture: The design criteria for the Tusttn Auto Center requires
~hat t~. buildings incorporate similar architectural forms, materials, and
colors of a California style. The proposed project incorporates such a
design through use of cornice, molding and material elements.
Staff has suggested as a condition that the project include a smooth
finish rather than a mortar washed block to further emphasize the
Californl'a style. Colors include light beiges and whites in.conformance
with the Auto Center 'color palette. Molding/cornice treatments have been
included on the primary building facades to create shadows lines and
detai 1 s whi ch are interesting to 'the eye.
CONCLUSION
This project, if approved and built according to the proposed schedule', may well
be the first Toyota Lexus dealer in the country. The site design,
landscape/hardscape elements, signs and architecture have been designed and
Corn rnunity [~veloprnent Department
Planning Commission Report
Design RevJew 89-02
Hatch 13, i989
Page fl ve
con'ditioned, in staff's'estimation, to be compatible wlth the remainder of the-'
Tustln Auto Center. In order to meet the project schedule, staff has requested
project modificatJons, however, these can be Incorporated at the plan check
phase and have been agreed to In advance by the applicant. Therefore, with the
conditions contained In Resolution No. 2574 staff suggests approval of DesJgn
Rev1 ew 89-02.
Laura Kuhn
Senlor Planner
'C~lstJne A~ $1ftng~el:0n . -
DJrector of Community Development
LK:CAS:ts
Attachments: Site Plan
Sign Plan
Landscape Plan
Elevations
Resolution No. 2573~and 2574
Corn rnuni~y DeveloPmen~ Department
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
2.5
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2573
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C.ITY OF
TUSTIN, FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) FOR.THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL
EIR 85-2, AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED
SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE
PROGRAM EIR FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW 89-02 AND ALL
FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. Design Review 89-02 is considered a "project" pursuant to the
terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and
Be
That the project is covered by a previously certified Final
Environmental Impact Report for the East Tustin Specific Plan
which serves as a Program EIR for the proposed project.
II. The East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
(85-2), previously certified on March 17, 1986 as modified by
subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, was considered prior to
approval of this project. The Planning Commission hereby.finds' this
project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan
previously' approved; the effects of this project, relating to
grading, drainage, circulation, public services and utilities, were
examined in the Program EIR. All feasible mitigation measures and
alternatives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into this
project. The Final EIR, is therefore determined to be adequate to
serve as a Program EIR for this project and satisfies all
requirements of CEQA;
Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been
incorporated into this project which mitigates any potential
significant environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures
are identified as Conditions on Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2574
recommending approval of the Design Review 89-02.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a
regular meeting held on the day of , 198._..
A. L~" BAKER,
Chairman
PENNi FOL~Y,
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. 2574
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 89-02 FOR A 21,800
SQUARE FOOT AUTO DEALERSHIP IN THE PC-MIXED USE
DISTRICT OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN.
The Planning Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn does hereby reso]ve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commlssion flnds and determines as follows:
A. A proper application, Design Review No. 89-02 has been filed on
behalf of Dave Wilson to request authorization for a 21,800
square foot auto dealership In the PC-Mixed Use District of the
East Tustin Speciftc Plan on Lot #2 of Final Map 13834.
B. Establishment, maintenance, and operatlon of the use applied for
will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental
to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of
the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use, as'evidenced by the following ftndlngs:
1. The use as applied for is in conformance with the General
Plan, East Tustin Specific Plan and the Tustin Zoning Code.
2. The use applied for is a Permitted use in the PC-Mixed Use,
zoning district of the East Tustin Specific Plan.
3. The development of the proposed use on the subject site ls
compatible wtth surrounding uses In the Tusttn Auto Center.
C. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied
for will not be injurious.or detrimental to the. property and
improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to
the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be
granted.
D. A program Environmental Impact Report has been certified as
adequate for this project in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act as adopted by Planning Commission
Resoluton No. 2573.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2574
Pa ge two
II.
The Planntng C~mmlsston hereby approves Design Revte~ No~ 89-02
approving a 21,800 square fOOt auto dealershlp on Lot #2 of Final Hap
13834 subject to the conditions In Exhtbtt A attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198
~m'' -- L,' Baker--
Chairman
Pe66) Fbley
Secretary
EXHIBIT A
DESIGN REVIEW 89-02
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2574
GENERAL
(1) '1.1 The proposed'project shall substantially 'conform wi'th the submitted plans for
the project date stamped March 13, 1989 on file with the Community Development
Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of the
Community Development Department in accordance with this Exhibit.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this Exhibit shall be
complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project,
subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department.
(1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless building permits are
issued within twelve (12) months of the date on this Exhibit.
*** 1.4 The project site shall be subject to all requirements of the Tustin Auto
Center Sign, Loudspeaker, Landscaping and Architectural Criteria. Prior to is
issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for this project, the Tustin Auto
Center CC&R's shall be amended and recorded on the deed to this property.
1.5 All conditions of approval for the second amendment to Tentative Tract Map
included in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2571 shall be complied with as
applicable to this project and are hereby incorporated as conditions to this
project by reference.
(1) 1,6 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form
prior to issuance of any building permits.
PLAN SUB#ITTAL
2.1 At building plan check submittal-
(3) A.
Provide construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy
calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap
and Energy Requirements shall be complied with as approved by the
Building Official. Please note on plans:
®
Please indicate the. type of construction and group/occupancy type on
the plans. The building shall be groups B-2 and H-4 as specified by
the Building Official.
SOURCE CODES
i mil ilml
) STANDARD CONDITION
._) EIR MITIGATION
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/~
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
*** EXCEPTION
(5) SPECIFIC PLAN
(6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
(7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(8) PC/CC POLICY
r blt A
k~.,ulutlon No. 2574
Page two
(3)
Be
(2) C.
(3)
(2) Do
(3)
([)
(2)
(6)
(2)
Ee
2. Note on plans that the building will be equipped with a commercial
fire sprinkler system.
3. The enclosed service area will need to have a mechanical ventilation
system. Calculations and specifications shall be designed by a
certi fled Mechanical £ngi neer.
4. No glass will be allowed between B-2 and H-4 group area separations.
5. All openings to be 1-hour fire protected with automatic door
closures.
6. A clarifier (service bay drainage system) may be required as
determined by the Building Official.
7. Additional comments and corrections will be made at the time the
project is submitted for structural plan check.
Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations
including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally,
a note on plans shall be included stating that no field changes' shall be
made without corrections submitted to and· approved by the Building
Official.
Final grading and specifications based on the Orange County Surveyor's
bench mark datum (consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans and
prepared) by a registered civil engineer for approval of the Community
Development Department. Include final street elevations, finished
pad/floor elevations and note all flood hazard areas of record.
A precise soils engineering report provided by a soils engineer within
the previous twelve (12) months.
Information, plans and/or specifications to ensure satisfaction of all
Public Works Department requirements including but not limited to:
1. Construction or replacement of all missing or damaged public
improvements will be required and shall include but not be limited
to the following:
a. Curb and gutter
b. Si dewa 1 k
c. Wheelchair ramp
d. A.C~ pavement
e. Street lights
_..nJbit A
Resolution No. 2574
Page three
(1) 2.
f. Domestic water service
g. Fire hydrant/fire service (if required by O.C. Fire Marshal)
h. Sanitary sewer lateral
Separate street improvement plan (24" x 36" sheet) is required for
all work within the public right-of-way and all construction items
referenced to the City Standard drawing number.
®
If a detector check is required, it will need to be constructed
behind the right-of-way line within an easement to the City per
Standard Plan No. 129.
®
The extension of the cul-de-sac to serve this lot will need to be
completed by the City prior to issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy for this project.
5. Preparation of plans and construction of the extension of the 81"
RCP storm drain from the end of the existing cul-de-sac to the E1
Modena-Irvine Channel along wi th the extension of all other
utilities to serve the proposed dealer site will be the
responsibility of the Developer(s).
6. Approval of a sedimentation and erosion control plan related to this
development will be required prior to issuance of Building Permits.
®
The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or reservation
requirements as applicable, including, but not limited to the
following:
a. Dedication of all required street, sewer, water and flood
control right-of-way defined and approved as to specific
location by the City Engineer and other responsible agencies.
The flood control easement along the easterly side will be an
interim easement and will sunset once the ultimate downstream
improvements have been completed to the E1 Modena-Irvine FO7
Channel.
A visual triangle of ten by ten from the public street and project
drives shall be maintained for all directional signs between three
(.3) feet and eight (8) feet in height.
F®
Information to ensure compliance with all requirements of the Orange
County Fire Chief. including required fireflow and installation, where
required, of fire hydrants subject to approval of the Fire Department,
City of Tustin Public Works Department and Irvine Ranch Water District
~xnibit ^
Resolution No. 2574
Page four
and compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction as
follows:
Ze
Prior to th~'. issuance of any building permits for combustible
construction, evidence that a water supply for fire protection is
available shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief.
Fire hydrants shall be in place and operational to meet required
fire-flow prior to commencing construction with combustible
materi al s.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, plans for a
commercial fire extinguishing system shall be approved by the Fire
Chief. Such systems shall be operational prior to the issuance of a
certificate of use and occupancy.
®
On-site fire hydrant(s) may be required to provide required fire
flow for fire protection service.
®
All security gates installed on site shall conform to the
requirements on file with the Orange County Fire Department.
SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS
(1) 3.1 The site plan shall be modified as follows:
(z)
*** A. The trash enclosure shall be located so that it blends in with the
project, therefore, the enclosure shall be located to the rear of the
project site.
B. The customer parking area shall be open and accessible at all times,
therefore, the rolling gate adjacent to the service area shall be
removed. A minimum of 55 accessible parking spaces shall be provided for
customer and employee parking.
C. All lighting fixtures, locations and wattages shall be designed in
conformance with the Tustin Auto Center Lighting Criteria and the Tustin
Security Ordinance. Lighting fixtures shall be located so that light
rays do not shine on adjacent properties.
D. List as a note on plans that all revisions on plans after initial City'
approval shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for
subsequent approval and noted on signatured title sheets prior to
implementation.
(1) 3.2 All exterior colors and materials to be used shall be subject to review and
(4) approval of the Director of the Community Development Department subject to
general conformity with the plans date stamped March 13, 1989. All exterior
,tbit A
~Resolul:lon No. 2574
Page five
treatments must be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing
and noted on subnfitted construction plans and elevations shall indicate all
colors and materials to be used.
(1) 3.3 Note on final plans that a six foot high chain linked fence shall be installed
around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall
be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles.
(1) 3.4 All mechanical and electrical fixtures and equipment shall be adequately and
(4) decoratively screened. The screen shall be considered as an element of the
overall design of the project and shall blend with the architectural design of
buildings. All telephone and electrical boxes shall be indicated on the
building plans and shall be completely screened. Electrical transformers
shall be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient
distance from the frontage of the project.
(1) 3.5 Exterior elevations of the building(s) shall indicate any fixtures or
equipment to be located on the roof of the building, equipment heights and
type of screening. All parapets shall be at least six inches above rooftop
equipment for purposes of screening.
(1) 3.6 Adequate size trash enclosures with Solid metal, self closing,-self latching
(3) gates shall be provided. Said enclosure(s) shall be screened by a decorative
wall of a minimum height of six feet and if required, a dense type of
landscaping. The. actual location of said enclosures and types of screening
shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.
(1) 3.7.. If loud speakers are to be used on this site, a detailed plan of the speaker
(2) program shall be submitted and reviewed for conformance with the-approved Auto
Center Loud Speaker Criteria.
(5)
(1) 3.8 Note on plans that no outdoor storage is permitted except as approved by the
Tusti'n Community Development Director.
(1) 3.9 All exposed metal flashing or trim shall be either anodized or painted to be
compatible with main building.
(1) 3.10 Provide building elevations with scale indicating architectural forms, colors,
materials, details and signs.
(1) 3.11 Provide exact details on window types and treatments.
~ 3.12 The roll-up door on the ~street facing elevation (along proposed Auto Center
Drive) will be visible from the public street. For this reason, this door
shall incorporate the use of decorative design features such as a molded trim
so that it is an integral part of the architectural design of the building.
.... ,ibtt A
Resolution No. 2574
Page six
o
**'3.13 In order to minimize the visual Impact of the faclng service entry, the door
noted in Condition No. 3.12 shall remain open only during service peak hours
of 7-00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4'00 p.m. to 6'30 p.m. on the days vehicle
service are provided.
LANOSCAP]:IiG, GROUNDS AND,,, HAP, DSC, APE ELEMENTS
(7) 4.1 Submit at plan check complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for
all landscaping areas consistent with adopted City of Tustin Landscaping and
Irrigation Submittal Requirements and the Tustin Auto Center Landscape
Criteria. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to plant
materials in their actual location. The plan and table must list botantlcal
and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant
materials proposed. Show planting and berming details, soil preparation,
staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow
prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details
for all equipment must be provided. Show all property lines on the landscaping
and irrigation plan, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway
areas, and wall locations. The Department of Community Development may
request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing or
quantity materials during plan check. Note on landscaping plan that coverage
of landscaping irrigation materials 'is subject to field inspection at project
completion by the Department of Community Development.
(7) 4.2 Landscaping shall be provided in all parking areas, additional planter areas
(4) shall be installed in all unused areas of the parking lot incorporated with
the Tustin Landscape requirements. Specifically, all unused or partial
parking spaces in the customer/service parking area shall be replaced with
landscape planters.
(4) 4.3 All parking row ends shall be protected by a minimum four foot planter strip
(7) (two 6" concrete curbs with three feet of landscaping).
(7) 4.4 Screening adjacent to roadways, whenever possible, shall compliment the
architecture, .color and construction material of primary buildings .on the
site.
*** 4.5 Prior to issuance of any certificates of occupancy, the perimeter lot facing
the 1-5 freeway (Parcel A of Final Tract Map 13834) shall be fully landscaped
and i rri ga.ted.
FEES
(1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment or verification of the
(3) project shall be made of all required fees including but not limited to the
.-.mibit A
Resolution No. 2574
Page seven
(6)
follo~1 ng:
A. Grading plan check and permit fees to the Community Development
Department.
Be
All applicable building plan check and permtt fees to the Community
Development Department.
C. New development fees to the Community Development Department.
·
D. School facilities fees to the Tustin Unified School District.
E. City of Tustin or Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer
connecti on fee s.
F. Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program to the Public Works Department.
G. Payment of East Orange Water District ~ees.
.H.
Payment of all Assessment District No. 85-1 Reapportionment costs prior
to recor, dation of Final Map No. 13834 for this development will be
required.
I. All applicable portions of fees for Civic Center expansion, Irvine
Boulevard Widening and fire protection facilities and equipment pursuant
to the East Tustin Specific Plan.
SZGN PROGRAH
(1) 6.1 The proposed sign plan shall be revised to conform with the Tustin Auto Center
*** Sign Criteria as follows:
(4)
(5) A. The proposed pylon sign shall have a maximum height of 16 feet.
B. Maximum height for directional signs is three (3) feet.
C. The Auto Center sign program requires that all signs be set back a
minimum of five (5) feet from the property line (including sign face
projections) for all freestanding signs.
D. The proposed external ground mounted light for the pylon sign shall be
removed, all signs shall be internally illuminated.
Exhtbit A
Resolution No. 2574
- Page eight
E. All sign colors and materials shall be compatible wtth the building. ]~n
this regard, the proposed materials and colors for the proposed stgn
program shall be revtsed to Incorporate colors and/or materials found on
the butldlng or project walls, subject to approval of the Community
Development Director.
6.2 All signs shall conform with the Tustln Auto Center Sign Criteria.
ee~ TU:~TIN AUTO ' CENTER
'HARRIS.----~'"--'~
ARCHITIICT$ ,,.~.,~
~ · ~ --
, , .
,
~.... ~
i
i
I'
.
~ ~STIN AUTO CENTER
N I' I / ~
lAR ¢ H I ? E ¢ T s-,,,-~,,-,-~ ~
//
-
TUSTIN AUTO j CENTER
~ TUSTIN AUTO ' CENTER
//
· .
J,,A Ii c H I T l C T S ~.o~5.,.~ I
RePort to the
Planning Commission
* II~em NO, §
DATE ·
SUB4ECT:
MARCH 13, 1989
1989 AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING ELEMENT
RECOI~ENDATZON
·
It is recommended that the Planning Commission Direct the Community Development
Department to schedule a workshop on March 27, 1989 for the purpose of reviewing
the Housing Needs Assessment, and to review and develop policies and programs
for the 1989 Amendments to the Housing Element.
BACKGROUND
The State Legislature has required each city in-California to amend its Housing
Element of the General Plan every five years. Since the adoption of the last
Housing Element revisions in 1984, the legal requirements regarding the content
of Housing Elements have also changed.
In this regard, each city in the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) planning area must submit a revised Housing Element to the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) prior to July 1, 1989.
Before an amendments to a Housing Element are made, HCD must review the proposed
element for 45 days.
ANALYSIS
In order to meet the July 1st deadline, staff has been collecting the data
necessary to revise the informational component of the Housing Element. This
component is called the Housing Needs Assessment.
The second component is the Housing Program which is for the purposes of
establishing programs and polictes for meeting the housing goals set by SCAG.
The regional goals are to be contained in the Needs Assessment of the Housing
Element and set the tone for the housing programs and policies to be included in
the program section of the Element.
Community Development Department
i
Planntng Commission Report
1989 Revisions to Housing Element
March 13, 1989
Page two
Staff have prepared the following processing schedule for' the 1989 Housing
Element Amendment which meets the deadlines set by the State.
DATE (S) ACTIVITY
ii i iml
3/27/89
Workshop session with Planning Commission to
review Needs Assessment and identify Program
Policies/Objectives - will be a workshop and
scoping session with public/concerned parties.
3/27 - 4/10/89
Prepare final draft of Needs Assessnent and
Housing Program/Policies.
4/10'/89
Planning Con~nisslon to review .draft Housing
Element and suggest changes. Direct staff to
transmit Housing Elenent to HCD.
5/31/89
Comments due from HCD
6/12/89
Planning Con~ntsslon public hearing on Housing
Element
6/19/89
City Council public hearing on Housing Element
6/26/89
Transmit approved Housing Elenent to HCD
In order to facilitate this processing schedule, staff has recommended that the
Planning Con~nission hold a public workshop at the conclusion of the March 27,
1989 regular meting. This workshop will be for the purposes of reviewing the
draft Needs Assessment and the preliminary Housing Program. Interested parties
and members of the public will be invited to attend so that their concerns
be considered.
Staff realizes that the schedule limits our ability to prepare comprehensive
changes in the Housing Element. However, the ultinmte goal is to adopt interim
amendments to the Housing Element which meet State Law with the understanding
that the whole General Plan including the Housing Element is to be
comprehensively revised in the next few years. Staff have received funding for
the initiation of this project and anticipates circulation of a request for
proposal to consultant~ prior to June of this year with consultant selection and
contract commencement prior to July 1, 1989.
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission Repor~
1989 Revisions to Housing £1emen~
· - March 13, 1989
· - Page..-th~ee
CONCLUSTON
iiiii i .' ii
Based upon the staffing constraints and legal requirements, staff ls proposing
to amend the extstlng element in conformance wtth State law to meet the July 1,
1989 deadline. Comprehensive changes to the whole General Plan are to be
prepared in the next few years, l~lth this tn mind, staff suggests that the
Plannlng Commission dtrect staff to advertise the Houstng £1ement workshop for
March 27, 1989 and to proceed with the proposed schedule contained in this
report.
Laura ~Kuhn ' '
Senior Planner
LK:CAS:ts
~lffrr:c~t~o~e'oAf'coShtm~ngn~t'eve l°pm~nt -'
Corn munity DeveloPment Department
Report to the
Planning Commission
Irem NQr 7
o
DATE:
MARCH 13, 1989
SUB,1ECT: REPORT 011 CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS - March 6, 1989
Oral presentation.
Attachment: City Council Action Agenda - March 6, 1989
pef
,,, Community Development Department
ACTION AGENDA
OF A REGULARMEETING
OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 6, 1989
7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. I.
GIVEN II.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION - The Invocation will be given by Father
Des of the .St. Cecilia Catholic Church.
ALL.PRESENT III. ROLL CALL
PRESENTED IV.
ACCEPTED BY
DON PATTERSON
ACCEPTED BY
ETHEL REYNOLDS
ACCEPTED BY
K~THY DE NAYOR
PROCLAMATIONS
1. EMPLOY THE OLDER WORKER WEEK - MARCH 12-18, 1989
2. ETHEL REYNOLDS, "WOMAN OF DISTINCTION AWARD",
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN
3. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN WEEK,
MARCH 5-11, 1989
ACCEPTED BY TERESA 4. TUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL AUDION YEARBOOK
PERSON AND DENNIS BUTCHER
JOHN MEYER, V.
-~REBENTED THE CITY
~TH A REBATE OF
~21,635.60
PRESENTATION
1. JOHN MEYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FOOTHILL-
EASTERN CORRIDOR AGENCY
VI.
PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED TO
NARCH 20TH
.
AMENDMENTS TO TUSTIN CITY CODE RELATED TO GRADING
AND EXCAVATION
Due to an error in noticing of the Public Hearing,
discussion of the Grading Ordinance should be
rescheduled for the City Council meeting on March
20, 1989.
Recommendation: Continue this matter to the March
20, 1989 City Council meeting as recommended by
the Community Development Department.
CAROLE BRYANT VII. PUBLIC INPUT
REQUESTED THAT THE AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT REPORT BE AGENDIZED F~R THE NEXT
'MEETING. JOHN KELLY ASKED THAT IT BE AGENDIZED.
BARBARA MAGGIOv ST. JEANNE ST. LESTONNIC SCHOOL PRESENTED A PETITION WITH 500
SIGNATURES FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL ON MAIN STREET AT STONEGLASS. THE CITY
'--~NGINEER TO AGENDIZE THIS ITEM.
JOHN ADAMSv CONSULTANT FOR EMPLOYEES~ SAID THE MATTER IS NOW SET FOR MARCH
20TH TO DESIGNATE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO MEET WITH POLICE OFFICERS.
ROBERT L~ BB/~GE PRESENTED A PETITION TO THE COUNCIL REGARDING HIGH POWERED
WEAPONS.
PAGE 1, 3-6-89
VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
aPPROVED
__
~PROVED
· PPROVED STAFF
H~COMMENDATION
]~DOPTED
HESOLUTION 89-33
]~DOPTED
~SOLUTION 89-35
]tDOPTED
RESOLUTION 89-36
aPPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
aPPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
1. APPROVAL OF'MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1989, ADJOURNED
REGULAR MEETING
2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 2,241,275.77
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$204,772.13
3. REQUEST TO DEFER SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION
Authorize a two-year deferment of sidewalk
construction adjacent to the Bell and .Valencia
Avenue frontages- of the Ricoh Electronics
development subject to the posting of an
improvement bond in the amount of $16,500 by Ricoh
Electronics as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 89-33 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF WATER MAIN
IMPROVEMENTS ON ARROYO AVENUE
Adopt Resolution No. 89-33 accepting subject work
and authorizing the recordation of the Notice of
Completion as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 89-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATION OF. NOTICE OF COMPT.F. TION OF WATER MAIN
IMPROVEMENTS ON GRAMERCY DRIVE, SUSSEX PLACE, ETON
PLACE AND SANDHURST PLACE
Adopt Resolution No. 89-35 accepting subject work
and authorizing the recordation of the Notice of
Completion as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 89-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION. OF JAMBOREE ROAD BETWEEN TUSTINRANCH
ROAD AND CHAPMAN AVENUE (RELOCATED) AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
Adopt Resolution No. 89-36 approving the plans and
specifications for the subject project and
directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids as
recommended by the Public Works Department/
Engineering Division.
7. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. D89-009 WITH THE COUNTY
OF ORANGE TO PROVIDE FOR THE RESURFACING OF HOLT
AVENUE AND BROWNING AVENUE
Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute
· subject agreement as recommended by the Public
Works Department/ Engineering Division.
8. ORANGE COUNTY HAZARDOUS. WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Authorize staff to schedule final consideration
of the Orange County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan for the March 20, 1989 City Council meeting
Page 2, 3-6-89
as recommended by-the Community Development
Department.
/%DOPTED
~--~ESOLUTION 89-31
9. RESOLUTION NO. 89-31 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING THAT APPROPRIATEACTION .BE TAKEN TO .-
AvoID THE PREMATURE REDUCTION OF RENTAL ASSISTANCE
PAYMENTS TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES IN THE SECTION 8
EXISTING RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Adopt Resolution No. 89--31 requesting that the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
and the U.S. Congress take necessary actions to
avoid a premature reduction in the Section 8
Existing Rental Assistance Program as recommended
by the community Development Department.
APPROVED ST~tFF
RECOMMENDATION
10. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 88-17; CLAIMANT-DOROTHY
DEERING; DATE OF LOSS-1/26/88, DATE FI.LED WITH
CITY-6/8/88
Reject. subject claim for personal injury in the
amount of $50,000 as recommended by the City
Attorney.
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
11. NAME PROPOSAL - NEIGHBORHOOD PARK TRACT NO. 12345,
TUSTIN RANCH
Approve the naming of the first park in Tustin
Ranch as Camino Real Park and dedication of the
park in honor of Officer Waldron Karp, the only
Tustin Police Offi6er killed in the line of duty
as recommended by the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Community Services Department.
/%DOPTED
RESOLUTIONS
89-27 AND 89-32
12. RESOLUTION NO. 89-27 - A.RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING
THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR
THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2, AS
MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND
ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR
FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 13274 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION
MEASURESHAVEBEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Approve the Environmental Determination for the
project by adopting Resolution No. 89-27 as
submitted or revised as recommended by the
Community Development Department; and
RESOLUTION NO. '89-32 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13274
Approve the proposed Second Amendment to Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 13274 by adopting Resolution
No. 89-32 as recommended by the Community
Development Department.'.
IX.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCED 1. AUDIT COMMITTEE - ORDINANCE NO. 1022
ORDIN~NCE 1022. ~
THE FIVE MEMBER ORDINANCE NO. 1022 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COMMITTEE TO BE MADE UP OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, 4
Page 3, 3-6-89
MEMBERS BETNG REGISTERE~'
VOTERS WITHIN THE CITY
TUST'rN ~qD ONE RE~'rSTERED
._yOTER 'tN THE SERVICE ? THE W~,TER
~E CURRENT MEMBERS TO
SERVE UNTIL
AMENDING THE TUSTIN CI~'' CODE TO ESTABLISH THE
AUDIT COMMITTEE
RecommeDdation:
M.O. - Ordinance No. 1022 have first reading by
title only... · '
M.O. - Ordinance No. 1022 be introduced.
Xo
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
ADOPTED
ORDINANCE 1019
1. ZONE CHANGE 88-02 TO REZONE PROPERTY. LOCATED AT
1532 SAN JUAN STREET (SAN JUAN APARTMENTS) -
ORDINANCE NO 1019
The following Ordinance No. 1019 had first reading
and introduction at the February 21, 1989 meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 1019 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 88-02, TO REZONE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1432 SAN JUAN STREET FROM PC-C1
(PLANNED COMMUNITY/RETAIL COMMERCIAL) TO R-3
(2200) (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
Recommendation:
M.O. - Ordinance No. 1019 have second reading by
title only.
M.O. - Ordinance No. 1019 be passed and adopted.
(Roll call vote)
XI.
OLD BUSINESS
ADOPTED
RESOLUTION 89-2 6
AND
INTRODUCED
ORDINANCE 1021
1. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SESSION
PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTER
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
The City Council and Redevelopment Agency held a
joint Public Hearing on February 21, 1989, to
consider the proposed Second Amendment to the
Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center
Redevelopment Project Area.
Recommendation by the Community Development
Department:
1. Adopt the following Resolution No. 89-26
overruling written and oral objections and
adopting written findings in response to
written objections received and overruling
such written objections:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-26 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING WRITTEN AND ORAL
OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM
AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXING ENTITIES
Paqe 4; 3-6-89~ ·
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMEND&TION
X!I ·
AND OVERRULING SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE
PROPOSED SECOND A~ 'DMENT TO THE AMENDED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TUSTIN TOWN CENTER
AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
2. The following Ordinance No. 1021 have first
reading by title only and be introduced a's
follows:
· . ORDINANCE NO. 1021 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
"COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
TUSTIN TOWN CENTER AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
.'
2. STATUs REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE
MONITORING PROGRAM (JWA) , COALITION FOR A
RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS), AIRPORT SITE
COALITION (ASC) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHT PROGRAM
TASK FORCE (HOPTF)
Update on the John Wayne Airport Noise Monitoring
Program (JWA), Coalition for a Responsible Airport
Solution (CRAS), Airport Site Coalition (ASC) and
Helicopter Overflight Program Task Force (HOPTF).
Recommendation: Receive and file subject report
as recommended by the Community Development
Department.
NEW BUSINESS
1. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, 1988
-89 FY
Four bids were received on February 28, 1989, and
the low bid submitted by Doug Martin Contracting
Co. is 2.5% below the engineer's estimate of
$177,800.00.
Recommendation: Award the subject contract to
Doug Martin Contracting Company, Inc., of La
Habra, in the amount of $173,307.06 as recommended
by the Public Works Department/ Engineering
Division.
2. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVALS
This is a consolidation of requests which have
been received from various property owners
regarding trees within the public right-of-way.
RecommendatiOn by the Engineering Department/Field
Services Division:
1. Approve tree removals at the following
locations: 14661 Dartmouth Circle, 14322
Cloverbrook Drive, 1872 S. Sandwood Place and
1703 Stonehenge Drive.
·
Deny requests for tree removals at the
following locations: 275 E. Main Street and
Pa ge 5, 3-6-89
.
APPROVED ST~FF
_RECOMMENDATION
515 S. "B" Street.
3. SHOP EQUIPMENT AND ROLLING STOCK
The following rolling stock was authorized for
replacement from the vehicle lease fund and
capital fund in the 1988-89 fiscal budget.
~eco~mmendation: Authorize the purchase of rolling
stock and shop equipment as follows: one
Alignment Equipment from Myers Tire Supply in the
amount of $19,393.41; one Truck with truck body
from Guaranty Chevrolet in the amount of
$18,518.31; one Dump Truck from Fuller Ford in the
amount of $18,767.61; two Pick-up Trucks with lift
bed' from George Chevrolet, Inc. in the amount of
$30,904.30; and one 16" Brush Chipper from Vermeer
California, Inc. in the amount of $13,089.47 as
recommended by the Public Works Department/Field
Services Division.
ADOPTED
RESOLUTION 89-30
WITH L]tNGUAGE CHANGE ON
PAGE 2
4. FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 13834 - TUSTIN AUTO CENTER
EXPANSION
'The Irvine Company has proposed to create two
additional dealership lots on a triangular-shaped
parcel directly adjacent to the Tustin Auto
Center.
Recommendation: Approve Final Tract Map 13834 by
the adoption of the following Resolution No. 89-
30 as submitted or revised as recommended by the
Community Development Department:
RESOLUTION NO. 89-30 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 13834
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 5. RESOLUTION - CITY OF WESTMINSTER, SUPPORTING
89-39 SUPPORTING LEGISL~- LEGISLATION REGULATING PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL
TION REGULATING PORNOGRAPHIC
MATERIAL Councilman Prescott has requested that the City
Council consider the subject resolution adopted
by the City of Westminster.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.
89-37
6. RESOLUTION REGARDING CONSOLIDATION OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AND
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT
Mayor Pro Tem Edgar has requested that the City
Council consider the subject resolution.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
CONTINUED TO NEXT MEETING 7. TERMS'OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONERS
Councilman Prescott has requested that the City
Council discuss the process for considering the
appointment of commission members.
Page 6, 3-6-89
ST~FF TO COME B~CK WITH
~ REVISED RESOLUTION THaT
'-~'~ULDMEET THE CONCERN~ OF
~E COUNCIL ~ NOT PUT US
· N LE~L ~EOp~I:~DY
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
8.RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ABORTION CENTER OF
ORANGE cOUNTY
Councilman Kelly has requested that the City
Council consider the subject resolution.
~ecom~endation: Pleasure of the city Council.
~PPROVED ST~FF
RECOHI~ND~TION
9. SANTA ANA AREA TRAFFIC STUDY
The City of Santa Ana has been processing
amendments to its General Plan'which could permit
high-rise office buildings adjacent to Tustin.
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to
execute an agreement with Austin-Foust Associates
and appropriate $15,000 from the General Fund
reserve for services performed under the agreement
as recommended by the City Manager.
ADVERTISE WE /%RE ~OING 10. TERMS OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
TO REAPPOINT PL~/~qING
COMMISSIONERS. THERE
WILL BE A PRE-MEETING Councilman Prescott has requested that the City
ON APRIL 17 AND AGENDIZE Council discuss the process for considering the
FOR MAY 1ST appointment of commission members.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
NO. 89-34
11. ASSAULT WEAPONS
The City council has expressed an interest in
taking a position on the assault rifle issue.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
12. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE IRVINE COMPANY AND THE CITY
OF TUSTIN PERTAINING TO TUSTIN AUTO CENTER, PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS
The City, Mr. David Wilson (owner of Toyota of
Orange and franchisee for the Lexus automobile)
and the Irvine Company have been discussing the
feasibility of filling the E1 Modena Channel
Retarding Basin located between the Tustin Auto
Center and Tustin Market Place.
APPROVED ST~FF
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor to execute
subject agreement, authorize the City Attorney and
City Manager to approve the final form of the
exhibits to the agreement and appropriate $558,000
from the General Fund reserve for construction of
the public improvements as recommended by the City
Manager.
13. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF FURNISHINGS FOR THE TUSTIN
AREA SENIOR CENTER
At the December 5, 1988 meeting, the City Council
authorized bids for furnishings for the Senior
Page 7, 3-6-89
Center.
Recommendation by the Community Services
Department:
1. Authorize purchase of furnishings fOr the
Tustin Area Senior Center in the amount of
$87,508.08 from the following vendors: Vertex
Business Interiors, Tustin - $67,012.52;
Reel/Grobman Services, Inc., Santa Ana -
$7,018.00; PHH, Furniture Consultants, Los
Angeles - $12,.817.70 and Office Furniture
Specialists, Inc., Long Beach - $664.86
2. Appropriate $25,000 from the General Fund to
complete funding for the purchase.
XIII. REPORTS
RATIFIED
1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 27,
1989
Ail actions of the Planning Commission become
final unless appealed by the City Council or
member of the public.
?PROVED STAFF
,,ECOMMENDATION
Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission
Action Agenda of February 27, 1989.
2. JAMBOREE ROAD GRADING AND DRAINAGE PROJECT BETWEEN
TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND CHAPMAN AVENUE RELOCATED
(O GE)
The grading of the future Irvine Ranch Water
District reservoir has been delayed and it is now
required to add this grading to the original
grading/drainage contract.
Recommendation: Receive and file subject report
as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
3. MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW
Recommendation: Continue this matter at the March
20, 1989 City Council meeting as recommended by
the City Manager.
RICHARD VINING XIV. PUBLIC INPUT
ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF 12 YR. PERIOD ON REDEVELOPMENTHEARING. THE COM. DEV.
DIR. RESPONDED T~AT IT WAS A NAXIMUMTIME PERIOD ANDTHE COUNCIL COULD CHANGE
IT. MR. VINING FELT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED.
-~RESCOTT XV. OTHER BUSINESS
EQUESTED THAT WE AGENDIZE POLICEMAN LA BARGE'S PETITION FOR ALTERNATE
WEAPONS FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
PRESCOTT ASKED IF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE HAD BEEN ISSUED TO BUSINESSES
IN A NON CONFORMING CENTER, SPECIFICALLY P, ADIO SHACK AND POOL SUPPLY. THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SAID SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS.
STAFF TO AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING DISCUSSION ABOUT TALL BUILDINGS IN
Page 8, 3-6-89
SANTA ltlqA NEXT TO OUR UORDER. IT WAS SUGGESTED. .THAT BOTH CITIES HAVE
DI[SCUSI~ION OVER DINNER lt. KENNEDY ASKED THAT THE ! ITATION BE EXTENDED.
EDGAR-SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE A WRITTEN POLICY THAT THE C~)LF COURSE BE A
A '~BLIC GOLF COURSE AND THAT WE BE GUARANTEED IT WILL BE PUBLIC USE FOREVER.
EDGAR SUGGESTED AGENDIZING COMllERCIAL USE AT PACKERS SQUARE. THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUGGESTED THAT IT WOULD BE PREMATURE TO AGENDIZE IT
UNTIL STAFF HAS HAD TIME TO LOOK AT ALL THE INFORMATION.
EDGAR SUGGESTED THAT NOW THAT WE ARE GETTING CLOSER TO THE TIME TO FUND THE
CITY HALL PRO~ECT, THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ABLE TO VIEW THE PLANS AT CITY
HALL ·
EDGAR REMINDED STAFF OF THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON APRIL 3RD FOR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ·
KELLY REPORTED A TERRIBLE WEED PROBLEM AT GARLAND AND RED HILL.
KENNEDY SAID WE WOULD BE ADJOURNING THIS MEETING TO A WORKSHOP WITH CALTR~NS
ON MARCH 14, 1989 AT 6:00 P.M. AND SHE WANTED THE MEETING TO BE RUN BY CAL
TRANS OR OTHER PROPER AUTHORITY. BOD LEDENDECKER SAID THAT IT WOULD BE A CAL
TRANS MEETING AND PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO VIEW E~IBITS AT $: 00 P.M. AND THEY
WOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS AT 7: 00 P.M.
KENNEDY SAID THAT HER OTHER CONCERN WAS CAR THEFT PROTECTION. SHE ASKED
ACTING POLICE CHIEF WAKEFIELD IF HE KNEW WHAT IT WAS CALLED. HE RESPONDED
THAT IT WAS CALLED tmLOW-JACK SYSTEMme AND IT HAS HAD ~OOD SUCCESS ON THE EAST
COAST. THE COST IS ABOUT $15,000.
_OESTEREY SUGGESTED THAT STAFF COORDINATE A MEETING WITH THE JAYCESS TO
DISCUSS TILLER DAYS AND THE PB/~ADE AND WHO WILL HANDLE WHAT AREAS.
THE COUNCIL MEETING XVI.CLOSED SESSION
WAS ADJOU~D AT
11=10 P.M. TO THE The City Council will recess to Closed Session to
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, meet with its designated representatives regarding
THEN TO THESE CLOSED labor relations matters pursuant to Government Code
SESSIONS, THEN TO THE Section 54956.9 (c).
THE WORKSHOP ON MARCH
14, 1989, AT 6=00 P.M., Based on existing facts and circumstances, the THEN
TO THE NEXT' Council has decided to initiate or is deciding whether
REGULAR MEETING ON to initiate litigation. Said Closed Session is held
MARCH 21, 1989, AT pursuant to the authority of California Government
7:00 P.M. Code Section 54956..9(c)
ADJOURNMENT - To a Caltrans meeting on Tuesday, March
14, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. and then to the next Regular
Meeting on Monday, March 20, 1989, at 7:00 p.m.
Page 9, 3-6-89
ACTION AGENDA
OF A REGULAR MEETING OF
THE TUSTINREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MARCH 6, 1989
7:00 P.M.
P.M.
~.,L PRESENT
NO ACTION
TAKEN
APPROVED
APPROVED
DOPTED
~ESOLUTIONS
RDA 89-7 AND
RDA 89-5
lo
·
·
·
·
·
CALL TO ORDER
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SESSION -
PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENTTO THE AMENDEDREDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Recommendation: No action to be taken.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,773.53
Recommendation: Approval of subject demands in the
amount of $1,773.53 as recommended by the Finance
Department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1989, ADJOURNED
REGULAR MEETING
Recommendation: Approval of Minutes.
DESIGN REVIEW 88-62
-The applicant proposes to construct a 48,000 square
foot office building on a 2.36 acre parcel located at
the southwest corner of Red Hill Avenue and Industrial
Drive.
Recommendation
Department:
by the Community Development
1. Adopt the following Resolution No. RDA 8'9-7
certifying the final Negative Declaration as
adequate for the project:
RESOLUTIO~ NO. RDA 89-7 - A RESOLUTION OF'THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
89-03 AND DESIGN REVIEW88-62, INCLUDING REQUIRED
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
2. Approve Design Review 88-62 by adoption of the'
following Resolution No. RDA 89-5 as submitted or
revised:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-5 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF
A 48,000 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING
AT 1492 INDUSTRIAL way (DESIGN/SITE PLAN REVIEW
88-62)
RED. AG., PAGE 1, 3-6-89
ADOPTED
REBOLUTZONB
-~DA 89-8 AND
)A 89-6
NONE
11:12 P.M.
·
·
.
b~IGN REVIEW 88-29
Submitted plans propose the development of an
approximate 12,390 square foot industrial building on
a .70 acre site located immediately east of the
Champion Foods facility on Industrial Drive between
Red'Hill Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue.
Recommendation
Department:
by the Community Development
1. Adopt the f~llowing Resolution No. RDA 89-8
certifying the final Negative Declaration as
adequate for the project:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-29,
INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
2. Approve Design Review 88-29 by adoption of the
following Resolution No. RDA 89-6 as submitted or
revised:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-6 - A RESOLUTION OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 'OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF
AN APPROXIMATE 12,390 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL
BUILDING AT 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE (DESIGN REVIEW
88-29)
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT - To the next Regular Meeting on Monday,
March 20, 1989, at 7:00 p.m.
Red.Ag., Page 2, 3-6-89