Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 06-19-89 GEND .... A~AC_TI. ON AG£ N DA TUSTZN PLANNING C01~IZ SS ]: ON REPORTS NO. 1 6-19-89 REGULAR HEETZNG · 3UNE 12, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS' Baker, Ponttous, Le Jeune, Shaheen, Kasperian (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. ) o 1. Minutes of the May 22, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting C_~-~fsstoner Pontlous moved, Le deune seconded_ to approve the Consent Calendar. Norton carrted 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Use Permtt 89-19' APPLICANT: SUNG CHUN CHIANG 18861 DEEP WELL ROAD SANTA ANA, CA 92714 OWNER: COLCO PROSPECT L.P. 17320 RED HILL AVE. #190 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 · LOCATION' 17582 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 105-A ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS I STATUS: REQUEST- AUTHORIZATION TO SELL GENERAL LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN Planning Commission Acttc June 12, 1989 Page two genda CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. Recommendation: It ts recommended that the Planntng Commission approve Use Permit 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 2616, as submitted or revlsed. Presentation' Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Pontlous moved~ ,Kas~artan seconded to approve Use Permit 89-19 by the adoptlon of Resol'utlon NoL 2616 as'submitted. Morton ,carrted 5-0. ® APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Vartance 89-5 INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 671 EAST FIRST STREET C-1, RETAIL COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13511 (CLASS 11). TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION' OF A 140 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN WHEN THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE PERMITS A MAXIMUM AREA OF 75 SQUARE FEET. Recommendation: It is recommended that the'~lanning Commission approve Variance 89-05 b~ adopttngl'~solution No. 2621 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached thereto; authorizing a maximum 125 square foot tenant tdenti fi cation s, ign. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le geune seconded to approve Varlance 89-05 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2621 subject to the conditions comtalned In Exhibit A attached thereto, as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. ® APPL I CANT: ARCHITECT: LOCAT'ION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 (Donahue-Schriber) MR. J. LUIS CABALLERO DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 MS. CHRISTINE M. LAMPERT LANG LAMPERT ARCHITECTS 9272 JERONIMO ROAD, SUITE 123C IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 14901 HOLT AVENUE, COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) FROM THE Planntng COmmission Actto,...genda 3une 12, 1989 Page three REQUEST: PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. - 1) A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN WITH A NEW FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. 2) A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE PERMII'FED AMOUNT OF CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ORIENTED TOWARD HOLT AVENUE FROM ONE SIGN TO TWO SIGNS. Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 by adopting Resolution No. 261g, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Comtstoner Le de.une moved~ Ponttous seconded to approve Conditional Use Permtt 89-20 and Va~tance 89-07 by' the adoptlofi' of Resolution No. 2619. subject to the conditions contained tn Exhtbtt A attached thereto, with the following revlston to Exhlbtt A: change Item 1.3 to read 'Use Pendt approval shall become null and void unless all butldtng permtts are tssued wtthtn twelve (12) months of the date Of thts Exhtbtt and s.bstanttal constrwctton ts underway.' Morton carrted 5-0.. ' 5o · General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03 APPLICANT- CONSULTANT' LOCATION' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' MR. MICHAEL G. PADIAN IRVINE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 .- MR. CHRIS MARTIN CDC ENGINEERING, INC. 15520-B ROCKFIELD BLVD. IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1), A REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO I (INDUSTRIAL). 2) A REQUEST TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO PC-IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL) Recommendation' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following acti OhS: ° Adopt Resolution No. 2625 certifying the Negative Declarati,on for General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03; Adopt Resolution No. 2617 recommending approval to the City-Council. of General Plan Amendment 8g-O2(b); and Adopt Resolution No. 2618 recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 88-03. Planning Commission ActiOn Agenda June 12, 1989 Page four Presentation: Daniel Fox, Associate Planner _Commissioner Pontlous uovedt Le deune seconded to certify the llegattve Declaration for Generai'"pl&n Amendment 89~02(b) and Zo.e Change 88-03 by the adoptton of Resolutlofl No. 2625 as submitted. Iqotton carrted $-0. to recommend approval to Ct ty Counc11 o by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2617 as s,bmittod. Hotlon carrled S-O. Ce 3eu.e seconded to recommend approval to the Clt~ COMB_ lsstoner Pontlous moved~ i i, Council of Zbne 'Change 88-03 by the adeptto, of Resolution No. 2618 as sub. fitted. Hotlon carrted 5-0. , , ,,, 6. General Plan Amendment 89-02 (C), Zone Change 88-02 and East Tusttn SPe6ific plan Amendment 88-01 APPLICANT' GENERAL LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, ZONING PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY GENERALLY"LOCATED IN SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. CERTAIN TEXTUAL CHANGES TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ARE. ALSO PROPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve Addendum 89-01 to the East Tusttn Specific Plan EIR-8S-2 and recertify Final EIR 85-2 and all subsequently adopted Supplements and Addendums by adoption of Resolution No. 2629. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2630, as submitted or revised. 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 88-02 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2631, as submitted or revised. 4. Recommend to the City Council approval of East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2632, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director' of Community Development _Corem_ tsstoner Le 3eune moved, PonttoUs seconded to approve Addendum 89-01 to the East Tustln Speclftc Plan EiR 85-2 and recerttfy Final EXR 85-2 and all subsequently adopted Supplements and Addendum by adoptlon of Resolution No. 2629 as submitted. Hotlon carried 5-0. ,, Planning Commission Action..~enda June lZ, 1989 - Page ftve Comlssloner Le 3eu.e .oved~ Ponttous seconded to recomend to the Ctty Counct1 approval of ~e'neral Plan Mendment 89-02(c) by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2630 as subuJtted. Not, on carrted 5-0. Com. lSstoner Le deune .oved, Ponttous seconded to recommend to aCs try .Counct1 approval Of Zone' Change 88-02 by the 'adoption' of Re~olu~ton No. 2631 submtttod. Iqotton carrted 5-0. __ Commissioner Le deune meved,-,Ponttous seconded to recommend to Clty Counc11 approval of. East Tusttn Specific Plan Amndment 88=0i 'by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2632 as subMtted. Norton carrled 5-0. ® Tentative Tract Map APPLICANT' LEGAL DESCRIPTION' ZONING:' E NV I RONME NTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRV INE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 PARCEL MAP 88-315 - LOTS 7 & 8, TRACT 12763 PARCEL MAP 88-316 - LOTS 15, 16, 17, AA, Y & Z TRACT 12870 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 1) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 2 LOTS IN TRACT 12763 TO CREATE 2 NEW NUMBERED LOTS; AND 2) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 3.EXIST~G NUMERED LOTS AND 3 LETTERED LOTS IN TRACT 12870 TO CREATE TWO NUMBERED LOTS. Recommendatl on' actions' It recommended that the .Planning Commission take the following o ® Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 by adoption of Resolution No. 2627, as submitted or revised; and Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel. Map 88-316 by adoption of Resolution No. 2628, as submitted or revised. Presentation' Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commtstsoner Ponttous moved? Le deune seconded to recommend to City Counctl approval ~f' Tentative Parcel Hap 88-315 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2627 with the following revisions to Exhtbtt A- item 4.1 B. 3. b to read 'Elimination of any sheet flow between lots and pondtng.'; item 4.1 b. 3. d. change 'contributory' to 'trtbutory'. item 7.6 delete 'on property wlthtn the map untts,"; item 7.9 ts changed to read 'The cumulative number of untts for vhtch certificate, of occupancy may be Issued shall not exceed the number of units permitted tn the East Tusttn Spectftc Plan and the cumulative total of square feet of occupied revenue generating uses or equivalents as shown tn the East Tustln Specific Plan Development Agreement.' Morton carrted 5-0. Commissioner Pontlous .oved, Le,deune seconded to recommend to Clty Councl.1 approval Planning Commission Act~O~ ~enda June 12,. 1989 · Page slx of Tentative Parcel following revisions: ] o1= and P°ndlng. '; tattled S-O. Hap 88-3Z6 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2628 wlth the item 4.1 8.' 3. b to read"£11minatlon of any sheet flow bel~een item 4.1 b. 3. d. change 'contributory' to 'trtbutory', ® General Plan Amendment 89-02(d) (Land Use Element) APPLICANT- ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN, COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02{d) LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission: ® ® Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2622; and Recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(d), amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adoption of Resolution No. 2615. Presentation' Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner Cmmtssloner Le deune moved, Ponttous seconded to certify the Negative declaration as &dequa~e for thts project by apProval Of Resolution No. 2622 as submitted.. Morton carried 5-0. ' Commissioner Le 3eune moved, Ponttous seconded to recommend approval to the Ct~y Coun¢tl 'of Gene'ral Plan Amendment 89-02(d) by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2615 as s.bmitted. Hotton carried 5-0. , ,, ,, ,, 9. General Plan Amendment 89-02 (al) (Housing Element) APPLICANT: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' CITY OF TUSTIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE' CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(A) - 1989 REVISIONS TQ THE HOUSING ELEMENT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission' 1. 'Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2623; and 2. Recommend approval of the 1989 Revisions to the Housing Element to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2624. Presentation' Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Coemtsstoner Le deune moved, Ponttous seconded to cer~tfy the Negative Declaration as adequate 'for this Project by approval of Resolution No. 2623 as submitted, gotlon Planning Commission Acttc jenda June 12, 1989 Page seven carrled 5...0. ~mmtssioner Le deune moved, Shaheen seconded to recommend approval of the 1989 Revisions 'to the Houslng E]ement i~o the Clty Counc11 by adoptton of Resolution No. 2624 as submitted. Mot'Ion carrted 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 10. Amendment to Use Permtt 88-23, Paclftc Bell Fleld Services Center - carwash Recommendatl on: meettng. Conttnue to Pub]lc Hearing until June 26th Planning Commission Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Sentor Planner Commissioner Pont!ous moved, Le....Jeune seconded to conttnue the publlc hearing on thls matter to the dune 26, 1989 Planntng Comwisston neettng..Iqotlon carrted 5-0. 11. StatuS Report for East Tusttn Residential Pro~ects Recommendation: Receive and ftle. Presentation: Christine A. Shlngleton, Director Of Community Development No Planntng Comwisston action necessary. NEd BUSINESS 12. Permtt to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCAT I ON: ZONING: REQUEST: JORGETA TAHTAWI 1661 GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 SAME 1661 GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 PC-R-1 SINGLE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PLANNED COMMUNITY) AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation: It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audi ence l wi shes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a protest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject appl'ication without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. - Presentation: Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner' Planning Commission Acti~ June 12, 1989 Page eight genda Commissioner Pontlous moved~ .Le deune seconded to approve ~he subject application, by Nln. te Order, subject to compliance wlth"~11'requtrements of Ordinance 991. Iqotton carried 5-'0. : 13. Sector Landscapln~ ,concept Plan' for Se. ctors.l.O,.ll...and .12 APPLICANT- ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS- REQUEST. THE IRVINE COMPANY PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2 AND ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUM) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL SECTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANS FOR SECTORS 10, 11 AND 12 Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission 1) approve Environmental' Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2626, and; 2) approve requested modifications, by minute motion. Presentation: Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Co...tsstoner Ponttous moved, Le deune seconded to conttnue thts matter to the June 26",' 1989 Piannlng Co.mtsston meetlng. ~otton Carrted 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 14. Action Agenda of dune 5, 1989 City Council Meet~n~ Presentation' Christine A. Shtngleton, Director of Community Development COHHISSION CONCERNS " Co.mls~toner Baker asked about the status of the field trips to the homes in the RacqUet club area was. Staff responded that tt mould be in the later part of duly. Co.missioner Le Oeune asked staff to return with tnformtton regarding appeals of Planntn~ Com.isston decisions to the Clty Council. Cmmtsstoner Shaheen asked the status of the joint Planning Commission/City Counctl meetlng. Co. missioner Le Jeune noted that he would like to see that the meeting have no time constraintS. He asked the status of the Stgn Code and also asked that Information on the Water Works be tncluded on the agenda for the jotnt meeting. Commissioner Ponttous noted that she would be unable to attend the dune 26, 1989 im iii ill meeting. ADJOURNMENT · Commissioner Shaheen moved. ,.Ponttous seconded to adjourn to the next meeting of the planntng Commission on June '26, 1989 at 1.:'00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Roti on carrled 5-0. ii iii AGENDA · TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 12, 1989 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCER)IS: Baker, Pontious, Le Jeune, Shaheen, Kasperian (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.) · Minutes of the May 22, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting . . PUBLIC HEARINGS · Use Permit 89-19 APPLICANT' OWNER' SUNG CHUN CHIANG 18861 DEEP WELL ROAD SANTA ANA, CA 92714 COLCO PROSPECT L.P. 17320 RED HILL AVE. #190 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 LOCATION: 17582 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 105-A ZONING: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS I STATUS: REQUEST' AUTHORIZATION TO SELL GENERAL LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION -IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 2616, as submitted or revised. Presentation' Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner Planning Commission Agen~ June 12, 1989 Page two 3. Variance 89-5 APPLICANT. OWNER- LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 671 EAST FIRST STREET C-1, RETAIL COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13511 (CLASS 11). REQUEST' TO AUTHORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A 140 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN WHEN THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE PERMITS A MAXIMUM AREA OF 75 SQUARE FEET. .RecommendatiOn· It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 89-05 by adopting Resolution No. 2621 subject to the .conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached thereto; authorizing a maximum 125 square foot tenant identification sign. Presentation' Eric Haaland, Assistant Planner · · e APPLICANT' ARCHITECT' LOCATION' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 (Donahue-Schriber) MR. J. LUIS CABALLERO. T DONAHUE SCHRIBER " 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 MS. CHRISTINE M. LAMPERT LANG LAMPERT ARCHITECTS 9272 JERONIMO ROAD, SUITE 123C IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 14901 HOLT AVENUE, COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT oF AN EXISTING FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN WITH A NEW FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. 2) A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ORIENTED TOWARD HOLT AVENUE FROM ONE SIGN TO TWO SIGNS. Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 by adopting Resolution No. 2619, subject to the Planning Commission Agenb~ June 12, 1989 Page three conditions contained in Exhibit A; attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation. Daniel Fox, Associate Planner 5. General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and' Zone Cha.nge 88-03 APPLICANT. MR. MICHAEL G. PADIAN I RVINE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 · ' IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 CONSULTANT. MR. CHRIS MARTIN CDC ENGINEERING, INC. 15520-B ROCKFIELD BLVD. IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 LOCATION- NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REQUEST. 1) 'A REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO I ( INDUSTRIAL ). 2) A REQUEST TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO PC-IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL) Recommendation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions. · . 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2625 certifying the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 89-02{b) and Zone Change 88-03; Adopt Resolution No. 2617 recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(b); and Adopt Resolution No. 2618 recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 88-03. . . Presentation- Daniel Fox, Associate Planner 6~ APPLICANT. GENERAL LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: General Plan Amendment 89-02 (C), Zone Change 88-02 and East Tustin ~nt 88-01 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AN ADDENDUM TO EI R 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, ZONING PLAN MAP DESIGNATION AND EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION OF Planning Commission Agena,~ June 12, 1989 Page four CERTAIN PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. CERTAIN TEXTUAL CHANGES TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ARE ALSO PROPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGES IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the folloWing a~ttons' 1. Approve Addendum 89-01 to the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR-85-2 and recertify Final EIR 85-2 and all subsequently adopted Supplements and Addendums by adoption of Resolution No. 2629. 2. Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2630, as submitted or revised. 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 88-02 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2631, as submitted or revised. 4. Recommend to the City Council approval of East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2632, as submitted or revised. Presentation' Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community DEvelopment ® APPLICANT. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: TentatiVe Tract Map THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 · . PARCEL MAP 88-315 - LOTS 7 & 8, TRACT 12763 PARCEL MAP 88-316 - LOTS 15, 16, 17, AA, Y & Z TRACT 12870 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 1) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 2 LOTS IN TRACT 12763 TO CREATE 2 NEW NUMBERED LOTS; AND 2) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 3 EXISTING NUMERED LOTS AND 3 LETTERED LOTS IN TRACT 12870 TO CREATE TWO NUMBERED LOTS. Recommendation' actions' It recommended that the Planning Commission take the following · Recommend to City Council approva~ of Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 by adoption of Resolution No. 2627, as submitted or revised; and Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-316 by adoption of Resolution No. 2628, as submitted or revised. Presentation' Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agen(, June 12, 1989 Page fi ve ® General'Plan Amendment 89-02(d) (Land Use Element) APPLICANT' E N V I RO NMENTAL STATUS- REQUEST' CITY OF TUSTIN, COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(d) LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission' 1. Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2622; and 2. Recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02{d), amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adoption of Resolution No. 2615. Presentation- Beth Schoemann, Associate Planner 9. General Plan Amendment 89-02 (a) (Housing Element) APPLICANT' E NV I RO NMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST' CITY OF TUSTIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(A) - 1989 REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT Recommendation' It is recommended that the'Planning COmmission· 1. Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2623; and 2. Recommend approval of the 1989 Revisions to the Housing Element to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2624. Presentation-. Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner OLD BUSINESS 10. Amendment to Use Permit 88-23, Pacific Bell Field Services Center - __ Carwash Recommendation' Continue to Public Hearing until June 26th Planning Commission meeting. Presentation' Steve Rubin, Senior Planner 11. Status Report for East Tustin Residential Projects Planning Commissi°n Agent June i2, 1989 Page six Recommendation- Receive and file. Presentation- Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development NEll BUSINESS 12. APPLICANT. OWNER- LOCATION. ZONING- REQUEST' Permit to Operate a Large FamilLDay Care Home JO RGETA TAHTAW I 1661 GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 SAME 1661 GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 PC-R-1 SINGLE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PLANNED COMMUNITY) AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Recommendation. It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and then accept any protests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission 'meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a .protest is not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. Presentation. Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner 13. APPLICANT' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST. Sector Landscap.min9 Concept 'Plan for Sectors 10, 11 and 12 THE IRVINE COMPANY PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2 AND ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUM) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL SECTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANS FOR SECTORS 10, 11 AND 12 Recommendation. It is recommended that the Planning Commission 1) approve ~vi~onme~ta)-Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2626 an~; 2) approve requested modifications, by minute motion. ' Presentation. Christine A. Shingleton, Director of Community Development STAFF CONCERNS 14. Action _Agenda of June 5, 1989 City Council Meeting Presentation. Christine A..Shingleton, Director of Community-Development Planning Commission Agency, June 12, 1989 Page seven COMMI SSIO# CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next meetin9 of the Plannin9 Commission on June 26, ~1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 22, 1989 . CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGXANCE/IN¥OCATIO# " ROLL CALL: Present: Baker, Pontious, Le Jeune, Shaheen, Kasperian PUBLIC CONCERNS' (Limited to 3 minutes per p~rson 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: le . APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION: ZONING' ENV I RONMENTAL (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTIONTHERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR ~0 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.) .~ Minutes of the Ma~, 1989 plann_~ Commission Meetin[ Modification to Desi~ Review 87-13 (Tract 13038) WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 IRVINE PACIFIC 13202,04,06,08 MYFORD ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN' MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STATUS' THE pROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1). ' REQUEST' TO AUTHORIZE THE DELETION OF 64 TWO FOOT WIDE BY THREE FOOT LONG DRIVEWAY PLANTERS FROM THE PROJECT'S APPROVED SITE PLAN. Recommendati_o~n: It is recomn~nded that the Planning Commission approve the modifica- tion to Design Review 87-13 by adopting Resolution No. 2607, as submitted or revised. Planntng Commlssion Minus.- _ May 22, ].989 Page two Commissioner Baker a~ked f~r a clarification of .the effect of removing the 64 ~lanters 'a'~d rePi~cing with potted plants. The Director replied that the planters were originally conceived to provide relief to the garage areas. However, since the slab on the garages is abnormal, the applicant has suggested replacing planters with potted plants. Staff has determined that the separations between garages are too narrow and' that plantings would be an impedi- ment and recommends removal of the planters without replacement. 3. Desi_~e_vi ew 89-24 APPLICANT' THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92714 ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS' PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST' 1) MODIFICATION OF' CONCEPTUAL SECTOR PLAN FOR SECTOR 7 2) MODIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN FOR TRACT 12870 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission: ~ Approve Environmental Deter. mi natt on for the ~roject by adoption of Resolution No. 2613; and 2) Approve Design Review 89_-24 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2614 .... .. . Commissioner Baker asked if moving of the sidewalk to the curb was in order to ~reate ~ larger fro~t yard. for the units. ~ .. The Director replied that on the 'local collectors, staff agrees with the design review committee and Public Works Department that the sidewalks should be moved to curb level du~'to problems with grade variations and inefficiency of design. 4. E_xposed Neon Stgn_~s APPLICANT' WANDA HAWKINS - DIGITAL EAR ].3011 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 PROPERTY BURNETT EHLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OWNER: 2050 SOUTH SANTA CRUZ; SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 LOCATION' ].30].1 NEWPORT AVENUE, PLAZA LA FAYETTE ZONING' C-2, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11 REQUEST' TO INSTALL ONE (1) 25 SQUARE FOOT SIGN WITH EXPOSED NEON TUBING Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the ~equested si g~ by t~inute Order. Commissioner Le jeune moved, Pontious seconded to approve the consent calendar. Planning Commission Minu' May 22, 1989 Page three PUBLIC HEARINGS . 5. Amendment to Conditional Use P. ermit 81-20, Design Review 89-15 (Mobi 1 ) APPLICANT' PROPERTY/ OWNER' LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS REQUEST: MS. RHONDA DAVIS G & H PERMITS 2915 E. LA JOLLA ANAHEIM, CA 92806 MOBIL OIL CORPORATION 3800 W. ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 700 BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91506-4001 171 E. FIRST STREET CG (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 81-20 (MOBIL) TO ACCOMMODATE A 250 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING SNACK SHOP. 2) AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE CERTAIN SITE IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO LANDSCAPING, SIGNS, LIGHTING, AND FUEL PUMPS. · Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Amendment to~: Conditional Use Permit 81-20 and Design Review 89-.15 by adopting Resolution No. 2604 as submitted or revised. · . Presentation' Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasperian asked if any underground work was to be anticipated. Commissioner Baker inquired as to when it the station was last tested for leaks. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the alleyway at the rear of the station connecting it to the Big 0 Tire Store would remain open. Staff replied that there would only be minor replacment of fuel lines at the pump islands; and that the alleyway would remain open, as it was actually an easement for access to Mullin Lumber Company which is located further down the alley. The public hearing was opened at 7'15 p.m. Commissioner Kasperian asked which department would conduct a traffic study on the effect of the additional traffic from the larger snack shop. Commissioner Shaheen asked if this would be a sit-down or take-out shop. Commissioner Baker replied that it was strictly a take-out store, a mini-mart. H~ masked if the applicant would be considering application for the sale of beer and wi ne wi th the addition. Planntng Commission Minut May 22, 1989 Page four Mr. Ken Half, authorized agent for Mobil, stated that the shop. currently sells beer and wine. The expansion is to provide extra floor space and Health Department- required storage areas; the tanks were replaced in 1985. For safety reasons, would like to request waiving the required 10 foot setbacks for lighting as defined in Item 4 of the Staff Report. Staff replied that the applicant would be willing to'utilize 36 inch lights at the corner of the lot allowing them to locate the lights within the setback area as proposed. If the applicant intended to utilize the 14 foot high lights as propos.ed, a variance to deviate from the development standard would be required, or there could be an amendment to change the height of the lights to 36 inches. Commissioner Baker noted that the applicant would be adding quite a bit of additional landscaping and was concerned about continued maintenance. Mr. Malf replied that Mobil Oil has an outside firm contracted to provide landscaping maintenance, and felt that there would be no problem maintaining the lot effectively. Commissioner Le Juene noted that visibility was. limited when exiting from.the rear of the lot onto Prospect-Avenue; trees may need to be removed and was concerned about traffic safety. The Director noted that without recommendation from the Public Works Director, she would not suggest traffic signs to be installed (i.e. Right Turn Only). She felt, though, that upon site inspection prior to finalizing the site, the applicant would be willing to trim trees, etc., as required to insure visibility. Responding to Commissioner Kasperian's question regarding the traffic impact study- due to the scale and nature of this project, a study was not required by the Engineering Department. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 81-20 and Design Review 89-15 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2604 revised as follows- "Exhibit A, Item 3.3 add an additional sentence "Fixtures less than 36 inches in height may be located in the setback area." Motion carried 5-0. e APPLICANT/ OWNER' LOCATION' ZONING' E NV I RONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' Use Permit 89-17 and Temporary. Use Permit THE IRVINE COMPANY P.O. BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEAOH, CA 92658-8904 12442 TUSTIN RANCH ROAD - TUSTIN RANCH GOLF CLUB PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL-GOLF COURSE, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303{c) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) APPROVAL 'TO OPERATE TEMPORARY CLUBHOUSE, STARTER'S BOOTH AND GOLF CART STORAGE FACILITIES WHILE PERMANENT FACILITIES ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION; AND 2) AUTHORIZATION FOR ON-SITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (TYPE 40 AND TYPE 47 STATE ABC LICENSE). Planning Commi ssion Minut May 22, 1989 Page five .. ~) Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission' Approve a Temporary Use Permit. for a clubhouse, starter's booth and golf cart storage facilities by adopting Resolution No.-2609 as submitted or revised; and 2) Approve Use Permit 89-17 authorizing on-site sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages (Type 40 and Type 47 Alcoholic Beverage License) by adopting Resolution No. 2610 attached thereto; as submitted or revised. Presentation' Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Staff made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2609. Condition 5 should read: "A chain link fence with vinyl mesh shall be installed to enclose and screen the storage area housing the driving range retrieval, washing and distribution equipment prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the temporary clubhouse." Cond~ti.o.n.9 e rem orary clubhouse and golf course snail De ead: "Hours of operation of..th _~ P~.-A ,.~,,4n, ranoe shall be 7:00 a.m. to s~h~°Unldtor 10:00 p.m. Hours et o_p.er, at~_on_~°,T~,~=,~'j~'i=na a~~ the end of the sentence: ~'~0 p.m." Condition 13 should nave auu,~,v-~ ...... , "unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Department. Corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2610 were' deletion of Item 5; Item 7 should be changed to read' "Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages in the clubhouse shall be 6-00 a.m. to closing. Hours of sale,, of alcoholic beverages fr. om the golf course shall be from 6'00 a.m. to closing .... · Com~_tssioner POntious_ inquired if, regarding item 6 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2610, t~here could be a requirement that persons operating the beverage carts must be at'~': least 21 years of age. Staff replied that "Operation of the mobile beverage carts shall be 'by persons of a minimum of 21 years of age." be added to the end of item 6. Kasperian noted that on page 5, paragraph 5 of the Staff Report, it Commissioner ng" tournaments or special events, two or more such carts could be ~tates "DuriHe asked if there was any limit imposed as to how many mobile beverage operated." , carts the applicant could have, and if there were no limits did that make the definition of "tournaments or special events" immaterial. He also inquired as to the amount of fencing enclosing the driving range. Staff replied that no limits were imposed by ABC and that several mobile carts would 'n re osed for the driving range will only be along the ce table. The fenc~.g P P __ e is no other fencing proposed, be ac P . s road. Ther therl edge, ad3ace_nt to an. acc? ...... ~--ted alone its edges and the location nor Y mDer o~ ~r~:~ ~,~,, ~ · however, there_ a. rea. lar_g_.e._nu~ --~ for additional protection. of the range within the courS: will pr ..... Commissioner Shaheen~ asked if it was to be presumed that there will be no future ~equest for permanent use of the temporary facilities. -- Staff replied that a condition could be i~posed prohibiting the retention of the temporary fixtures for future permanent use. · The Director noted that Condition 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution 2609 states that this Use Permit is for one (1) year and can only be extended upon approval of the Planning Commt ssi on. Planntng Commission Minul:~ May 22, 1989 Page stx Commissioner Baker asked if patrons were permitted to bring their own alcoholic 5everages onto the premises. Staff replied that patrons were not prohibited by Sta{e law, 'but could be prohibited by the rules of the golf course. The public hearing was opened at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Baker asked if the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions and changes to the Exhibits, excepting the fence. He also inquired as to whether they would be agreeable to the age requirement for sale from the mobile beverage carts. Mr. Tosh Neminsk)[, Irvine Company, affirmed agreement to the conditions. Mr. Butch Fogler, employee of the course operator, assured the Commission that it would be possibie to require only 21 year-olds to service the mobile beverage carts; the driving range has a curve-T which forces the golfers to aim toward the middle of the driving range, and the targets are positioned such that the golfers must direct their shots toward that area; so that the operator can maintain control over the over-consumption of alocohol, they intend to maintain strict control over-'its sale versu's bringing it onto the premises. · Commissioner Baker_ referenced a letter from Foothill Community Builders stating that fhe maintenance operation shal.1 begin 15 minutes before sunrise, and asked for a cl ari fi cart on. · Mr. Fogler noted .that they like to mow the greens before people are using the course, r~quiring very small equipment opePating 15 minutes before sunrise, which should not bother the neighbors. The public hearing was closed at 7'58 p.m. Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Temporary Use Permit by the adoption of Resolution No. 2609 wi th the following revisions to Exhibit A' Replace 5 with' ~5. A chain link fence with vinyl mesh shall be installed to enclose and screen the storage area housing the driving range,retrieval, washing and distribution eguipment prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the temporary clubhouse." ,R,?lace 9 with' · Hours of operation of the temporary clubhouse and golf course shall be dawn to 10-00 p.m. Hours of operation of the driving range shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 mm p.m. Commissioner Pontious moved,. Le Jeune seconded to approve Use Permit 89-17 by the ~doption of'~(esoluti6n No. 2610 with 'the following revisions to Exhibit A' Delete Item. 5; renumber the remainder of c°h~ditions Add to new ~-tem~ "Operation of mobile beverage carts shall be by persons of a minimum 'of 2~' years of age." Change new item 6 to read as follows: "6. Hours of sale of alcoholic beverages for the type 40 and 47 licenses shall be 6-00 a.m. to closing. Under no Circumstances I! shall alcoholic beverages be sold after 2:00 a.m. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commisston Mi nute~ May 22, 1989 Page seven · Tentative Tract Map iNoo 13627/Sector Development Plan (Sectors 2, 3_~,_. ~, '5 and 6) and Hillside Review 89-01 APPLICANT' LOCATION' LEGAL DESCRIPTION' ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQuEsT' THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX"I' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 SECTOR 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 OF 'THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ROUGHLY BOUNDED BY THE CITY OF TUSTIN EASTERN BOUNDARY AND THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF JAMBOREE ROAD ON THE EAST, iPORTIONS OF THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE TUSTIN RANCH AREA AND FUTURE EASTERN BOUNDARY PROPOSED FOR THE PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK ON THE WEST, FUTURE PORTOLA PARKWAY AND THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF TRACT 12870 ON THE SOUTH AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE THE CITY AND PETER'S CANYON REGIONAL PARK BOUNDARY ON THE NORTH. A PORTION OF BLOCKS 40, 41, 42 AND 66 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISION, AS . SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORD MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR. THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 1) A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN EAST TUSTIN SECTOR LEVEL.. SUBDIVISION CREATING 27 NUMBERED LOTS AND NUMEROUS LETTERED.~... LOTS. 2) APPROVAL OF A LAND USE CONCEPT PLAN AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTORS 2, ..3, 4, 5, AND 6 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 3) APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MASS GRADING CONCEPT FOR CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN SECTORS 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6 WITHI~i THE HILLSIDE DISTRICT IDENTIFIED IN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions' 1. Approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. ~2612; 2. Approve the Sector Development Plan and Landscaping IConcept Plan for Sectors 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2606, as submitted or revised; 3. Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 13627 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2603, as submitted or revised; and 4. Approve Hillside Review 89-01 by adoption of Resolution No. 2608, as submitted or revised. Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planntng Commissi°n Minut~ May 22, 1989 Page etght .. Commissioner Baker asked for a definition of a Tentative Tract,. and'a Vestlng _ Tentative T~:ac't' Map. The Director replied that a Tentative Tract Map is defined under State Subdivision Map Act as the preliminary submittal for a proposed subdivision. At this point the Commission can impose conditions; once the conditions are met a final map can be recorded as the legal lot. A Sector Level Map is required to define large parceliza- tions that are proposed by the company. The Builder Level Maps provide for the actual unit and lot layout for the builders. If a Vesting Tentative Tract Map is requested the applicant would be provided with a vesting right to build under the requirements that were in place at the time thane a Tentative Tract Map was approved. In the case of a Vesting Tentative Map, the final map must be recorded within twelve months and there must be a full development plan submitted insuring compliance with all zoning requirements. The public hearing was opened at 9'00 p.m. Mr. J. Pierce, the Irvine Company, noted that l~hey have been planning this last phase with the Planning Staff over the past year, and appreciate the efforts and profes- sionalism of the staff. They are in agreement with the majority of the conditions of approval, excepting the park dedication.- Mr. Mike McCla)~, resident with property adjacent to lots 5 and 26, noted that over the past six (6) months, the developers have been working in the area moving dirt and cutting down hundreds of eucalyptus trees. He could not understand how the City could issue a notice of public hearing, his first legal document of the work to be done, when all of this work has been going' 'on for the last six {6) months. He wanted to know, on the maps, where Lower Lake Drive was in conjunction with the work being performed · The Director replied that there has been a number of activities occuring in this vicinity that relates to the retarding basin, north of A Street; construction of the outlet that will drop into the golf course for drainage; grading activities for Tusttn Ranch Road and Tract 12870; diseased eucalyptus wind rows have been removed; trees in conjunction with the retarding basin had to be removed; re-vegetation will be provided along the retarding basin. Mr. William Collins, 2261 Pavilion Drive, Santa Aha, commented that he lived in the area adjacent to lots 5 and 26; he wanted to thank the Irvine Company for working with the neighbors and for establishing good communications. He felt the neighbors were in general agreement with the Tentative Tract Map, except for' two-story homes adjacent to-the tennis club will interrupt their views, and will be incompatible with the area; there is a berm present on lots 5 and 26 at the property line between the Irvine Company and the homes, which they hoped to have reduced overall; and they invited the Commission to view the area. Mr. Pierce pointed out on the map for Mr. McClay that Lower Lake Drive construction is due to development of the retarding basin; and regarding Mr. Collins' comments about .the berm, the slope is approximately at.grade at their 'property line and increases 15-20 feet in height as it moves away from the property line. Planning Commission Mi nut~ Hay 22, 1989 Page n1 ne Commissioner Baker clarified for the recording that the retarding basin was at the south end of the regional park, where the eucalyptus trees have been removed, at the end of Lower Lake Drive; there are no plans for connection of a street with Lower Lake or Foothill. Glen Almquist, M.D., 2281 Pavillion Drive, -Santa Aha, noted that the 20 foot berm was their greatest concern at this point, due to the'way it bisects the neighborhood and distrupts the natural flow of the surrounding area. Mr. Pierce commented that they have met with the concerned parties and have committed to returning to them with a plan outlining a particular, grading plan. How to deal with the grading will be determined at time of starting of development. Lot 26 will not go above its present height. Commissioner Baker clarified that there would be two additional opportunities for the neighbors to speak and additional time to negotiate with Irvine Company, and that this was not part of the agenda. The Director noted that the Commission was not dealing with grading issues of specific lots, at that time, only actual lot configuration. There. would be two additional opportunities for the homeowners to review the precise issues pertaining to each of the lots in question. Lot.5 is rough graded; precise grading will be proposed in conjunction with the Development Design Review. Lot 26 has Tract Map Proces~ for individual builders, and also a Hillside Review of Grading Concepts. The applicant ts willing to meet wi th the residents to hear their concerns, which will be addr. essed in the planning process. She noted that the mass grading plan for Tract 12870 was co.mpleted and approved in conjunction with the sector level map. This evening's meeting is to look at the lot patterns for Sectors 4 and 5, and whether they meet the Specific Plan. The CommissiOn' was not being asked on Lot 26 to decide on the grading grading concept or future lot patterns for specific developments, at this time. Judy.Almquls. t, 2281 Pavillion Drive, Santa Aha, noted that as President of the Committee for Compatibility, representing 120 homes and 500+ members, she needed to assure compatibility between the old and the new; they are not part of Tustin, but feel as though they are residents of the City; they take a lot of pride in Tustin. The objective this evening was to make the Commission aware of the 20 foot berm in Sector 8; they are afraid it will reduce their land values; and feel that when it is in place, they will be unable to change it. She objects to the way Lots 5 and 26 line up, producing a 20-foot difference in height on the property adjacent to her home and Mr. Collins' home; tf.a two-story house were built on the 20 foot high lot,. the residents would look directly down into her backyard. The Irvine Company has agreed to cooperate and make plans compatible, and has agreed to hold their mass grading plans until further review by the homeowners. Carl Greenwood, 2102 Racquet Hill,' Santa Aha, represented the Racquet Hill neighbor- hood; as a group they were concerned with Racquet Hill Drive remaining a dead-end. They have been informed by the Irvine Company that the street will not go through, but they are concerned that in 15 years, decision-makers may change, and decide to put it through if there was a cul-de-sac in place. Lot 26 density Was approved higher than on Lot 5, but the Irvine Company agreed to make changes. They are concerned with the hillside east of the Racquet Hill area being a focal point for the golf course and the entire East Tustin area. They, too, encouraged the Commission to make a field trip to the area. Planning Commission Minu% May 22, 1989 Page ten Mr. Donald Williams, 2032 Lower Lake Drive, Santa Ana, noted that he is a recent resident to the area, with property adjacent to the construction site. He inquired as to whether Lower Lake Drive would go through. His concern was that the new area would generate a lot of traffic wi th no exit to the north; the new area to the east of his home would be more greatly populated than his area and would possibly provide a majority vote if they wanted to extend the street; He felt that opening up Lower Lake Drive as an arterial would be disappointing, and would like the Commission to provide guarantees that it will remain a cul-de-sac. He also asked regarding the Regional Park: if the park land was dedicated but not accepted by the county, could the land be used for future home sites. Mr. Pierce replied that the Board of Supervisors is adopting a document regarding the dedication of this park, however, the dedication is being slowed by technical issues which are currently being taken care of. It .is anticipated that it will be a Regional Park. The Director noted that the Regional Park is required by the East Tustin Specific Plan. Regarding the extension of Lower Lake Drive and Foothill Blvd., the original Environment Impact Report contained more than adequate protections for the residents in the area. Prior to any connection of either roadway, a very comprehensive study. would be completed by the County of Orange Environmental Management.Agency, and the~ City of Tustin to address whether that need existed. If the need was to exist, a variety of mitigation aspects would be explored. She noted that Lower Lake Drive was currently to be a cul-de-sac. Mr. Williams commented that the grading work currently being performed is obviously for streets, which he wonders whether or not has been approved. · . Mr. Pierce replied that there is an access road for the retarding basin which has been designed to coincide with Street A. The Director noted that there will be a 25 foot right of way for the regional trail that will also be graded, almost to the westerly boundary of the tract. Commissioner Baker asked what the time frame on approval would be for the Regional Park; and if the Director was aware of any problems associated with the Board of Supervisors. The Director stated that the only problems were the technical ones noted by Mr. Pierce which related to the deed documents. The City is not a party to the actual dedi cati on. Mr. Collins again invited the Commission to view the sites with the neighbors as the tentative grading plans begin on Lots 5, 26, and Racquet Hill. Commissioner Baker replied that that was an excellent suggestion, but it would be - coordinated through Staff. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that it was standard procedure for the Commission to view the sites in question. Planning Commission ~linut Hay 22, 1989 Page eleven Mr. McClay wanted further clarification as to whether construction has started or not on the lots that were being reviewed this evening. He found it hard to believe that the construction was just for the retarding basin; and that it was ironic that the Commission is making decisions on allowing plans that millions of dollars have already been spent on. 'Brad Olson, Irvine Company, repllied that work is underway for the retention basin and the required major storm drain lines, as permitted as part of the prior major tenta- tive tract map in connection with the remainder of Tustin Ranch. The work that is being performed is an Assessment District project that the City is managing. All of the immediately adjoining property owners were noticed by the City of the work being performed. Commissioner Baker asked if any work has been done in addition to the retarding basin and storm drain construction. Mr. Greenwood noted that the construction site has cut back into the Camp Myford area, and wondered how this section related to the retarding basin. Mr. Pierce replied that there is no work being done in regards to Tentative Tract Map 13627, which was before the Commission this evening; they have had to construct a storm ,drain line 'from the retarding basin to the golf course, running through Tract 12870. The alignment required soil removal, creating new slopes, and removal of trees. The Director replied that all of the work being conducted has been per City approved plans that relate to the Assessment District~activity on the retarding basin, Jamboree Road, or the' extension of Tusttn Ranch Road. All work has been fully approved wi th permi ts issued. The put~lic hearing was closed at 9:50 p.m. The public hearing was re-opened at 9'.'51 p.m. Mr. Pierce voiced his concerns regarding the conditions .imposed relating to the neighborhood park. It was important to the Irvine Company to maintain their good working relations with the Staff. Their 'intent was not to take parkland from the City, it was to keep conditions flexible so that they can perform under the dedication requirements of the Tusti.n Specific Plan. The Specific Plan clearly states that the actual parkland dedicated will be based on the actual number of units contructed. With this being the final phase, they need flexibility to dedicate less acreage if they acutally build fewer units than planned. If they do build fewer units, it would be .practically impossible to retrieve any parkland that has been dedi cared. Commissioner Baker asked if the park in question would be a three {3) acre park, out of 599 acres. · Commissioner Shaheen noted that he felt that the City needs more parks in the development; the City of Irvine does a magnificent job on their parks, large and beauti.ful; he could see no reason for eliminating any parkland in this area, and asked where the closest park was, and how big it was. Planntng Commtsslon Mi nut~ May 22,. 1989 Page twelve The Director replied that there was an 8.9 acre community park approximately 1 mile south of the neighborhood park in the location of the Redwoods. Mr. Olson'commented that they respected Commissioner Shaheen's concerns, but that the Irvine Company is proposing to meet the terms of the Specific Plan. They do not intend to shortchange the City of any park dedication, but upon reaching the fourth phase of the project, they would like to have some flexibility in the amount required to be dedicated. They believe that there may very possibly be considerably fewer units built than the 9,000 contemplated. The dedication of this park land may never be a requirement under the City's Park Ordinance, the Specific Plan, or an entitle- ment of the City under this development. If the units are built, the park land deserves to be dedicated. This area is rich in parkland with the Regional Park's 300 acres immediately adjoining this sector. The public hearing was closed at 9' 58 p.m. The Director made corrections to Exhibit A of Resolution 2603, as moved. Th~ Director commented on the requirements of the neighborhood park site as recom- mended by Staff noting that: there be a dedication of lot 16, which shall be a mini- mum of three (3) acres, with a 2.7 acre site being reserved; the location and size were to be determined with the Park Dedication Ordinance; four (4) neighborhood parks ' were proposed in the Specific Plan; this would be the fourth park, wi th no other opportunities to obtain one; three {3) acres is the most efficient and smallest size necessary for the construction of a neighborhood park, as established by City Council policy; provisions of the Specific Plan state, "the precise acreage and locations of private and public neighborhood parks shall be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Map as identified under the review procedures Subsection. 1.5 of the Specific Plan"; the 2.7 acre resePvation proposed on Lot 17 supplies the flexibility for the builder if their unit counts fall below estimates; Staff recommends that no less than three (3) acres be dedicated at this time, with full dedication being required in conjunction wi.th this tract. She noted that this was located on page six of Resolution 2603, item B and E. She also commented that this item has also been discussed with the Community Services Department and the City Manager's Office, as well as the City Attorney's office, with unanimous consensus as to what was intended by the Specific Plan. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if once the dedication was finalized, if there was no chance 6f reve'rsal. · Lois Jeffrey affirmed, but that tonight's dedication proposal was only for three {3) acres. The Staff and the City Attorney's office disagree with the Irvine Company's interpretation of the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan very clearly requires four (4)'parks, with this being the fourth. The Plan also clearly states that the amount of acreage is to be determined by the number of units, so Staff has proposed the min- imum park size of three {3) acres, with 2.7 to be reserved. If the number of units is reduced, the 2.7 acres could return to the Irvine Company for some other use. Commissioner Kasperian asked if the three acres and the 2.7 acres were taken as individual numbers, could they be considered as providing five parks in total; and does the Public works Department actually determine the adequacy and reliability of the water system design, as noted in Exhibit A, page 2, 1.4b. He also asked what "Slope Warranty Program" meant. P1 anni ng Commi ssi on Mi nut. May 22, 1989 Page thi rteen The Director replied that the 5.7 acre site will be one site.. Until Thursday, there was no problem, and the company had agreed in writing to the three (3).acre dedica- ific Plan identifies a water System concept, requiring tion. She noted that the Spec ..... ~----' ~-- ~hecked by the Public Work? full Improvement plans that woul? De SUDmlcceu i~ s Grading and Excavation Code required that with De artment. Also, th.at t. he C t_y__ istrict area, that the builder or P ' ct ma in a hillside d approval of any tentative ira p The actual terms and provisions will subdivider enter into a Slope Warranty Program. be reviewed by the Commission for determination of appropriateness in individual ci rcums tances. L_ois jeffrey 'responded by stating that the water system design will be prepared by the developer, and then evaluated by the Irvtne Ranch Water District as to their meeting of the District's standards, for the eventual takeover of the retail water system by the City of Tustin. Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the Specific Plan provisions would be if the County ~f Orange does not accept the. Regional Park area; there would be very little upkeep, consi deri ng i ts acreage. The Director replied that.a regional park site was provided for in Sector 1; to modify that use, there would have to be a modification to the Specific Plan; this is a passive site, or nature oriented. The public hearing was re-opened at 10-15 p.m. Mr. Pierce_ noted that they are in agreement with all of the changes .made to the ~esolutions. Regarding the park issue, though, they requested Staff to 'inform them as to where it states in the Speci'fic .P. lan the number of parks required. He requested Staff to provide the Irvine Company with their information to assist them i n this matter. The Director replied that on page 2-4, Public Parks--noted four (4)*, stating that "only the exact number, location, and size of private neighborhood parks will be established with subdivision maps." The materials are available, but it has been reviewed in detail at Staff level, with concurrence on the requirements of the Specific Plan by the City Attorney's office. · Mr. Olson noted that he became aware of the total units being provided last Thursday, ~nd woul~d like to review the information- If the requirement is as Ms. Jeffrey states', there is no argument left. The Director noted that there is a fifteen (15) day appeal to the City Council on the decision. The public hearing was closed at 10'20 p.m. Commiss_ion. e.r P~_o_ntious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Environmental p~Of Resolution No. 2612 as submitted. Determination for Motion carried 5-0. loner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the Sector Development Plan Commt ss' _____~_ - ...... _ -- a--~-j--L-~-~-~ptn~ Concept Plan for Sectors 2,. 3., 4, 5 and 6 by the adoption of and ..... Motion carrleo 5-0 Resolution No. 2606 as subm;tted.. Planning Commission Mi nu% May 22, 1989 Page fourteen Commissioner Pontious moved, Le Jeune seconded to recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Tract 13627 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2603 with the following revl si on s- ; Change title to Resolution 2603, page three', to read "Resolution No. 2603" Exhibit A, Item 1.1 E rep.lace "stripping" with "striping" . Exhibit A, Item 1.1 R delete "In the event the material used to construct Jamboree Road is insufficient to support continued transit use of the stops, the subd'i vi der wtll be responsible for constructing a concrete .pad at the bus stop to support the weight of a bus." Change. 2.4 to read as follows- "2.4 A reservior site and booster pump station site shall be noted and reserved in *** concept on Final Map 13627 for future acquisition subject to approval of general location by the City Engineer. The location of the reservoir site shall be on either lot 13 or 24 at an elevation of between 320-350 feet and the location of the booster pump station shall be on lot 26. All locations will be finalized with subsequent builder level maps. Additional easements for transmission pipelines will be required if public streets are not available." Exhibit, A Item 4.3 last line delete "and" Exhibit A, Item 5.1 C-5, at the end of the first sentence add "of Tustin Community Services Department" Exhibit A, Item 5.1 C-6 change first sentence to read' ""Permanent fencing shall be installed by the developer of adjacent bordering properties that abut each park site tf required by the City of Tustin Community Services Department prior to release of certificates of occupancy for development of said properties. Exhibit A, Item 7.1 B-lfirst sentence delete- "to prevent drainage on streets" Exhibit A, Item 7.1 D-2 line 9 "in to" change to "into" Exhibit A, Item 7.1 D-7e line one add "precise" before grading and delete sentence 2 beginning with "Costs for such "' e · · · Exhibit A, Item 12.3 D line 1, delete "not"" Exhibit A, Item 12.5, line 5 should read" exceed the number of units permitted by the cumula~tive total of square..." Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve Hillside Review 89-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2608 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ® Use Determination 89-01 (Cullivan) APPLICANT- LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: MR. BRUCE E. CRANE NORRIS, BEGGS AND SIMPSON 18400 VON KARMEN AVENUE, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715 275 CENTENNIAL WAY C-2 (RETAIL COMMERCIAL)/FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (OFFICE) THIS ITEM IS NOT CONSIDERED A PROJECT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRON- MENTAL QUALITY ACT AND IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. REQUEST: A DETERMINATION OF USE TO CONSIDER WHETHER A DENTAL LAB SHOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT. Recommendation: Pleasure of the Commission. Presentation' Daniel Fox, Associate Planner Planntng Commission MinuL May 22, [989 Page ftfteen Commissioner Kasperian noted that the Commission needed to know the answers to the Issues to be dlscusse~ prtor to'maktn~l a determination for .the project, regardless of what a. "C2" dtstrlct ts. Staff replied that the C2 district is a retail/commercial district allowing for a wide range of retail activity, service/commercial uses, and general office uses. The · building that the applicant is requesting the use for is an office building. The Director noted that despite the representations of this user at this location, if a determination is made, it would be made without standards and would be allowed on all C2 zoned lots. Commissioner Shaheen asked how many people would be employed on the premises. The public hearing was opened at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Bruce Crane, real estate agent representing the tenant, reviewed some of the issueS;here are presently two employees, and with the possibility of an aditional two persons they .would still fall within, the parking requirements; -Counter-top equipment used {no intended additions)' burn-out oven, casting machine, ultrasonic cleaners, polishing lathe, dust collectors, and porcelain furnace; Other inventory' porcelain, plasters, gold, wax, tools; - Facility used for crowns and bridges; Presently has ten (10) accounts, in.tends to increase to 15-20, while maintain-?,: lng a Tustin address. · Commissioner Shaheen commented that some dentists do the same work in their own ~ental offices, an-d--~hat this did not constitute heavy industry. C_ommtssioner Pontious asV, ed where this lab was currently located; and inquired into the feasibility of t-he I~eat venting system as mentioned in the letter of May 9 from Mr. Crane to the Community Development Department. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a strong odor from the wax that would require ~nting; and if th~ere would be any problems with parking or delivery vehicles. Commissioner Kasperia~n asked if. the current facility required any special venting for ~umes; and if tlhere would be venting of'toxic fumes in the pedestrian area outside the building if the ovens were gas or electric; if Mr. Crane had any idea of the ; grid that power demand at any given time; and is Larwin Square on a central power might be impacted by this tenant; he was unsatisfied by the equipment usage. Mr. Cran~e replied that the lab required more room and the applicant wanted the move ~O"be in conjunction with a dentist that he is currently working with who was also moving; as per the equipment supplier for the dentist's office, with drilling a hole to the outside of the building for venting, the lab should not have a problem dissi- pating the heat from the ovens. He could operate as such without a venting system, but would require extra air conditioning to maintain a comfortable temperature in the room; and commented that he had heard no complaints at the current location. This location has Sufficient parking, and deliveries are done by the applicant via his own car. The venting system at his current location was coordinated with his present Planntng Corem1 sston Minute May gg, [989 _ Page stxteen landlord; and that this building is part of Larwtn Square, but that the venting would be at the back of the building where there is no foot traffic. Based on the current .. location, there seems to be adequate power. Commissioner Shaheen asked if the Fire Department was involved in inspecting the site ~nd equipment to de~ermine if there was a fire hazard. The Director replied that the Fire Department does not look at power demands of individual pieces of equipment, only exiting, the use of flammable materials, etc. The Uniform Plumbing Code and Mechanical Code regulates the voltage and heating demand of plumbing and electrical fixtures through submittal of technical plans to the Building Department. aS:~ was not prepared, at this meeting, to provide the information regarding the g ines and mechanical servicing for the building. Commissioner Baker asked if the four {4) issues presented involve power sources, or venti rig. The Director noted that the issues offer alternatives for the Commission. If it is determined that the use is permitted there would then be no ability to impose condi- I . 'ular use of a C2 zone. Items would be handled through the tions on th~at pa.rt?.c ........... , .~,,c with any uniform building, plumbing, or submittal of ten~acsve lmp. ru.vu'tm="~,_?~'~' ...... ,'~S The other issues may be more irements being nano)eu, a~ electrical code requ . - ............. ld recur The current location appropriate to address, ~ecause tills ~ype OT U~: ~vu · is in another district; each diitrict has its own list of permitted uses; and if this?... case it would then be permitted in a C2 district and a CG zone. *-' · Commissioner Pontious felt that there was not enqugh information presented. She had no problem with the use of this facility other than the questions raised about equip- ment and odors, but would rather have a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Shaheen felt that since this was a legitimate business in operation, ~it~ similar uses ~ office buildings elsewhere, it was a waste of time to require this individual to return to the Commission for approval of a Conditional Use Permit. He also inquired as to when it would be scheduled. The Director commented that requiring of a Conditional Us~ Permit would identify to the applicant that this is a use in a particular business that the Commission would be receptive to.. However the issue, as presented by Commissioner Pontious, is that allowing a dental lab to 'be permitted i6 a C2 zone would then allow it to be located anywhere in the retail district., including service strips, commercial districts, the CG zone, and any other C2 zones where there are shopping centers. The matter could be agenized to the next meeting in three {3) weeks, and at the risk of the tenant, processing of tentative improvement plans could begin. Commissioner Kasperian noted that he agreed with the position that if there is a code, then the Commi~ion should review the code for the particular area. If there is a precedent, then there is still the option of proceeding with the idea of granting the ~ermit. 'He asked if items 2 and 4 could be combined. The Director replied that although the applicant would like direction this evening, the Staff is implying that they do not believe that the operation is inconsistent Planntng Corem1 sston Minute'. May Z2, 1989 _ Page seventeen with a Commercial District. However, there could be issues on certain operations that may or may not make that use consistent with the commercial character of the district. In such a case, the Commission may review each application individually and decide whether it is an appropriate use for that district, the ability of which is provided by the Conditional Use Permit process. . Commissioner Baker noted' that if the commission is giving a blanket authority to an applicant, there can be a dental lab in a retail location. In regards to the dental office in a retail center which was denied two weeks ago, he felt that this was the same type of location, and wondered if they should exert that type of control. Commissioner Shaheen dissagreed with the relationship to the last issue of dental office in a retail center. He felt that the Commission makes life difficult for people investing in professions. Commissioner Pontious_ clarified that even though the center in question was a retail center, it still fell under the C2 district and would have allowed a dentist office. If the Commission approved this item, it would allow a dental lab in any C2 district,. i ncludi ng retai 1. ' · The Director noted that applicant of two weeks ago was under a Community Commercial District, which was regulated by a different set of development guidel, ines, and was not related to this issue. Mike McClay, a dentist in the audience, commented that the wax was put in the oven '~''' until it vaporized; the pieces were approximately 1/10 ounce; the ovens are usually electric; a bunson burner may be required for creating wax patterns; there is an odor which requires venting, but is not very abusive to the surrounding neighbors. The public hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. ~ Commissioner Shaheen felt that this should be an allowable use within the C2 zone. Commissioner Le Jeune had no problem with the lab, since all work is done on a small custom basts.' However, he did not agree that this was the best way to get into use. Commissioner Kasperian felt that he should be inherently cautious and proceed slowly; tt was lncumbant upon-the Commission to determine I f the use was permitted within the zone, whether or not it is a legitimate business. Commissioner Pontious changed her opinion and noted that, with the clarifications of the issues and information received during the public hearing, she would not be opposed to allowing the dental lab in a C2 district. Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded 'to determine, by Minute Order, that a dent-----~l laboratory is similar to t~ses within the C-2 district and should be permitted. Motion carried 4-1 (Kasperian). Planntng Commission Minute. May 22, 1989 Page eighteen .. STAFF CONCERNS Action Agenda of May 15, 1989 City C'ounctl Meettng. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, DireCtor of Community Development COIqlqI SS !ON CONCERNS Commissioner Pontlous noted concerns with- 1) Market Place window signs; 2) the Sign Code status; and 3) the deterioration of the Fashion Club sign in Tustin Plaza. Commissioner Le Oeune asked if the City's new Sign Ordinance will require that existing signs be brought into conformance. Commissioner Baker asked if cold air balloons were allowed in the City and the status of the property on Garland and Red Hill. ADdOURNNENT At 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Shaheen seconded to adjourn to the next meeting of the Planning Commission on June 12, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Motion carried 5-0. A.' L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Planning Commis'sion DATE: dUNE 12, 1989 SUBJECT: USE PERMIT 89-19 APPLICANT: SUNG CHUN CHIANG 18861 DEEP WELL ROAD SANTA ANA, CA 92714 OWNER: LOCATION: COLCO PROSPECT L.P. 17320 RED HILL AVE. #190 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 17582 EAST sEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 10.5-A ZON I NG: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS I STATUS: REQUEST: AU1}iORIZATION' TO SELL GENERAL LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve 'Use Permit 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 2616, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting authorization to sell general liquor for on-site consumption (Type 47 License - beer, wine, and distilled spirits)' in conjun.cti.on with a proposed restaurant located in a commercial tenant space presently under construction on the south side of Seventeenth Street west of Prospect Avenue (Colco Property). Since sale of liquor is a conditionally permitted use in commercial districts, a use permit is required to be approved by the Planning Commission. A public-hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this matter was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site and Parents Who Care were also noticed by mail. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report on this matter. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Use Permi% 89-19 June 12, 1989 Page two DISCUSSION Submitted plans indicate a 2,000 square foot 24 seat Chinese fast-food restaurant with counter service and indoor seating that would include on-site sale and consumption of beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Staff has reviewed the proposed us~ for conformance with the City's Alcoholic Beverage Guidelines and analyzed the issues of project location and hours of operation as presented in the following discussion' Ze Project Location - The loc'ation of the subject restaurant is within a large commercial center that is adjacent to commercial properties located to the east and west and bounded by Seventeenth Street and Vandenberg Lane to the north and south. A1 though the Alcoholic Beverage Gui delines do not specify distance requirements for on-site licenses, the project provides minimum distances of 1,500 feet from any public school, and 400 feet from any residential property. Due to its location amidst commercial surroundings, the project appears to be well ·'buffered from these more sensitive uses. 2. Hours of Operation - The proposed hours of operation for the restaurant are 11'00 a.m. to 10-00 p.m. daily. These hours are considered compatible with the surrounding uses in the area. ' · . CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed the subject application for conformance with the Zoning Code and the Alcoholic Beverage Sales Establishment Guidelines and finds that the use meets or exceeds applicable standards. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 89-19 by adopting Resolution No. 2616 and the conditions contained Exhibit A attached thereto; as submitted or revised. Eric Haaland Assistant Planner EH'CAS'dh'ts Attachments' Exhibit A Resolution No. 2616 Ffistine A. Shfnglet~fi ' ~' Director of. Communit~ Development Community Development Department ,[' 2,C LICENSING SERVICE. 1850 E. 17th ST.- STE. 21]. SANTA ANA, CA 92701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 It'; 17 18 19 2O 9.1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2616 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 89-19, AUTHORIZING ON-SITE AND CONSUMPTION SALES OF GENERAL LIQUOR (TYPE 47 ABC'LICENSE) IN CONJUNCTION WITH .A RESTAURANT USE AT 17582 EAST SEVENTEENTH STREET, UNIT 105-A. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. A proper application, Use Permit No. 89-19, has been filed on behalf of Sung Chun Chiang request authorization for on-site sales and consumption of general liquor (Type 47 ABC License) in conjunction with restaurant use located at 17582 East Seventeenth Street, Unit 105-A. B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said application on June 12, 1989. C. Establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, moral~, 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 applied for is in conformance with the General Plan, Tustin Zoning Code and the adopted guidelines for alcoholic beverag.e sales establishments. 2. The use applied for is a conditionally permitted use in the Planned Community Commercial Zoning District. 3. The subject site is located a minimum of 400 feet from the nearest residential site and a minimum of 1,500 feet from the nearest school and therefore, is not considered to have a negative impact upon residents or school children based upon its location. 4. Alcohol sold on the pr. emises shall be for on-site consumption only. 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 general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. E. This project is Categorically Exemp.t from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to section 15301 (Class I). 1 2 3 4 '5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2616 Page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit 89-19 authorizing on-site sales of general liquor (type 47 ABC License) in conjunction with a restaurant use located at 17582 East Seventeenth Street subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A; attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198____. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Poley Secretary GENERAL _. EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2616 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT 89-19 . 1. The proposed project shall substantially conform to submitted plans date stamped June 12, 1989 on file with the Community Development Department as herein modi fi ed. ® Unless otherwise specified, conditions in this exhibit shall be complied with prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 3. Use Permit approval shall become null and void unless an alcoholic beverage license is obtained from ABC and the sale of liquor commences within 12 months of the date of this exhibit. 4. Approval of Use Permit 89-10 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. 5.. Hours of sales of alcoholic beverages shall be limited to the hours when food is served (11'00 a.m. to 10'00 p.m. daily). e No outdoor or bar eating is authorized at this location. 7. All alcoholic beverages shall be consumed within the restaurant premises ' 8. Authorization for on-site sales of general liquor is contingent upon the use of the subject suite remaining a restaurant. At such time the restaurant use is discontinued, this Use Permit shall become null and void. 9. All persons serving alcoholic beverages shall be 18 years of age or older and shall be supervised by someone 21 years of age or older. A supervisor shall be present in same area as point of sale. EH' dh' ts Pl, anning CommisSion DATE: SUBJECT ' APPLICANT- OWNER' LOCATION. ZONING- ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST' ~IUNE 12, 1989 VARIANCE 89-5 INNOVATIVE GRAPHICS INC. 833 N. ELM STREET ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD SUITE 300, SOUTH TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 671 EAST FIRST STREET C-1, RETAIL COMMERCIAL ltlIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT F~OM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13511 (CLASS 11). TO AU1}IORIZE THE INSTALLATION OF A 140 Sou~mJ~E FOOT WALL SIGN WHEN THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE PERMITS A MAXIMUM AREA OF 75 SQUARE FEET. RECOI~ENDAT ION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance 89-05 by adopting Resolution No. 2621 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached thereto; authorizing a maximum 125 square foot tenant identification sign. BACKGROUND On July 22, 1986 a sign permit was issued by the Community Development Department for a five foot high wall sign, 125 square foot in area with internally illuminated channel letters identifying Osco Drugs, a retail business in the Courtyard Shopping Center. Since the Tustin Sign Code limits such signs to a maximum of 75 square feet, this permit should have required approval of a variance; however, the permit was apparently incorrectly issued without a variance. Community Development Department lanning Commission Report Variance 89-5 June 12, 1989 Page two The applicant is now proposing to remove the existing non-conforming sign (non-conforming due to lack of a variance) and to replace it with a new larger sign identifying the tenant space for "Sav-on Drugs". The subject property is an approximately 10 acre site bounded by Irvine Boulevard to the north, Holt Avenue, and Newport Avenue to the east, First Street to the south and commercial property to the west. A pu.blic hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the public hearing on this matter was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were also noticed by mail. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report on this matter. DISCUSSION The .submitted plans propose a five foot tall wall sign, 140 square feet in size with red faced, internally illuminated channel letters trimmed with white. The sign will be placed above the store entrance facing the shopping center's front parking lot (same location as existing sign). The proposed sign would be visible from off-site at the following approximate distances: 330 feet from Holt Avenue and Newport Avenue; 170 feet from First Street; End ° 550 feet from Irvine Boulevard The proposal for a 140 square foot sign exceeds the size of the al ready non-conforming, existing sign which would increase the disparity between the sign and code requirements. Staff has requested the applicant to limit the proposal to a maximum of 125 square feet so as not to deviate from the code required maximum area of 75 square feet any further than the existing sign does. At the time of writing this staff report, the applicant had indicated that he would be able to accept a 125 square foot-maximum sign area by use of 4.5 foot tall letters and a corresponding reduction in the length of the sign. The large size of the subject shopping center and the sign's interior location result in reduced sign visibility from the public right-of-way, (as detailed in the distances noted above). The existing 125 square foot sign has not created any problems or generated any complaints since its installation in 1986. In order to approve the requested variance, the Planning Commission must make four required findings. Staff believes that these findings can be made for a 125 square foot maximum sign area matching the size of the existing sign but not a larger 140 sq. ft. sign as follows' · 1. There are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the shape, Community' Development Department Planning commission Report Variance 89-5 June 12, 1989 Pa ge three size, topography, location or intended use of the subject property which do not necessarily apply to other properties in the same zoning district in-that the subject shopping center site is very large, resulting in long to achieve vi si bility. e Granting the requested Variance would not convey a special privilege 'to the pUoperty owner which is not enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district; in that smaller commercial properties acheive acceptable sign exposure to public rights-of-way for business identification while complying with sign code provisions due to smaller sites and shorter visual setbacks of signs. The variance would let the applicant enjoy the same degree of visibility. e The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to adjacent and surrounding properties, in that the proposed sign project would not constitute an increase beyond the present sign, which exists without any' known negative effects upon the surrounding properties. -The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the General Plan. CONCLUSION ' Based on the above analysis and findings,..it is recommended that~the Planning Commission approve Variance 89-5.for a 125 square foot wall sign by adopting Resolution No. 2621 subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Eric Haaland " Assistant P1 anner EH :CAS: ts Attachment: Plans Resolution No. 2621 Chhi~stine A. Shingleto~ Director of Community Development Community Devemopment Department I I i Iii' - . ,., '.. ;-; . ..1. ,; 'f ,~1 II.IIl ;.¢:',i '. j.,! '~' L, iij I' ~ :-'1' ~. !,' :, ,'" !'.il .,il a ,~ "1 :,.! 1 1/ o o -' i ' / .LB .LB Idl=l ......... 11 ..... 1 ' '-" ' "' · .! ! '1 I ~ II "~"~ ~ II · · .... .... I_..1_1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 112 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2621 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE 89-05, AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A 125 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN (WHEN THE TUSTIN SIGN CODE PERMITS A MAXIMUM SIGN AREA OF 75 SQUARE FEET) AT 671 EAST FIRST STREET. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That a proper application, (Variance No.'89-05) has been filed on behalf of Innovative Graphics Inc. requesting approval to install a 140 square foot maximum area wall sign (when the Tustin Sign Code permits a maximum sign area of 75 square feet) at 671 East First Street. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said'application on June 12, 1989. C.. That the Planning Commission has reviewed the request for 140 sq. ft. wall sign and does not feel it appropriate, but believes that a variance from the maximum sign area permitted by the sign code to permit sign area of 125 sq. ft. would be warranted as demonstrated in the following findings- . . · There are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the shape, size, topography, location or intended use of the subject property which do not necessarily apply to other properties in the same zoning district in that the subject shopping center site is very large, resulting in long to achieve visibility. 2. Granting the requested Variance would not convey a special privilege to the property owner which i's not enjoyed by , qther property owners in the same zoning district; in that smaller commercial properties acheive acceptable' sign. exposure to publ i c ri ghts-of-way for busi ness identification while complying with sign code provisions due to smaller sites and shorter visual setbacks of signs. The variance would let the applicant enjoy the same degree of visibility. The granting of this variance would not be materially detrimental to adjacent and surroundin'~' properties, in that the proposed sign project would not constitute an increase beyond the present sign, which exists without any known negative effects upon the surrounding properties. 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 .13 '14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26' ~8 Resolution No. 2621 Page two. II. 4. beyond the present sign, which exists The granting of this variance would not be contrary to the General ~lan. De That this project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt (Class 11) pursuant to the provisions of Section 15311 of the California Environmental Quality Act. ~ The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 89-5 authorizing the installation of a 125 square foot maximum area wall sign (when the Tustin Sign Code permits a maximum sign area of 75 square feet) at 671 East First Street, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, · held on the day of , 1989. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Se c re ta ry 'GENERAL. __ EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 2621 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL VARIANCE 8g-$ 1. The proposed project shall substantially conform to submitted plans date stamped June 12, 1989 on file with the Community Development Department as h.erein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development. 2. Unless otherwise specified, conditions in this exhibit shall be complied with prior to issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. · 3. Variance approval shall become null and void unless sign permits and all construction is completed within 12 months of the date of this exhibit. 4. Approval of Variance 89-5 is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. 5. At Bulding plan check submittal and prior to issuance of sign permits- a® Provide two copies of plans including site plan, fully dimensioned and detailed elevations, attachment methods and electrical details for approval of the Building Official. All components shall be U.L. 1 isted. The sign plans shall be modified to indicate a sign no larger in area than 125 square feet. Co Provide payment of all required fees as applicable including plan check and permit fees to Community Development Department. 6. The approval of this variance is dependent upon the subject tenant occupying its existing store area (36,000 sq.ft.). Should said store area be reduced or a new tenant be leased the existing tenant space, the new or existing tenant shall comply with the City's Sign Ordinance for such businesses by reducing its sign area to the maximum 75 sq. ft. permitted within 30 days of the change of occupancy or prior to issuing a business license t~ the new tenant, as applicable. 7. This sign shall conform to all other provisions of the Tustin Sign Code with the exception of requirements for sign area. Planning CommissiOn DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: ARCHITECT: LOCATION: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JUNE 12, 1989 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-20 AND VARIANCE 89-07 ( DO NAH U E- SCH R I BE R) MR. J. LUIS CABALLERO DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 ~IAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300, SOU'Itl TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 MS. CHRISTINE M. LAMPERT LANG LAMPERT ARCHITECTS 9272 JERONIMO ROAD, SUITE 123C IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 14901 HOLT AVENUE, COURTYARO HOPPING CENTER THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN WITH A NEW FREESTANDING CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. 2) A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE PERMITTED AMOUNT OF CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGNS ORIENTED TOWARD HOLT AVENUE FROM ONE SIGN TO IWO SIGNS. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 by adopting Resolution No. 2619, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to make certain improvements to the courtyard area of the Courtyard Shopping Center which includes the removal of the existing wood trellis elements, replacement of landscaping, and installation of new lighting. Part of these renovations include the replacement of the existing center Community Deve!opment Department Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 June 12, 1989 .. Page two identi'fication sign on the wood trellis element with a new freestanding center id6ntification sign. The Tustin Sign Code considers this element a pole sign and requires approval of a conditional use permit for its installation. A variance is also requested to allow more than one center identification sign to be oriented toward Holt Avenue since there is an existing monument sign already in place on Holt Avenue at the entrance to the center. The Tustin Sign Code only permits 1 center identification sign per street frontage. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of Irvine Boulevard and Holt Avenue, bounded by Newport Avenue on the east and First Street on the south. The project site is located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area. Surrounding uses include professional office uses to the west and north, office and commercial uses to the south. This item requires a public hearing; therefore, a public hearing notice denoting the proposal, location, and time of hearing was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of the hearing by mail pursuant to State law. The applicant and architect were forwarded a copy of the meeting's agenda and staff report for this item'.' ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the project and identified certain issues and highlights of the project which are discussed~ below 1. Zoning Requirements - The Tustin Sign .Code requires approval of a conditional use permit for installation of a pole sign. The proposed center identification sign is approximately 23 feet in height and totals approximately 45 square feet in sign area. This is within the maximum development standards of 24 feet in height and 50 square feet of sign area for a center identification pole sign. The proposed sign is in conformance with applicable development standards of the sign code, with the exception of the number of center identification signs oriented toward Holt Avenue. Please refer to' Section 3 below for additional discussion related to the Variance request. 2.- Design - The proposed identification pole sign will be located in the same location as the existing center identification sign at the entrance to the courtyard area. As previously mentioned, the existing wood trellis Community Development Departme_nt . Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 June 12,. 1989 Page three I I elements in the courtyard area Will be removed to enhance the courtyard atmosphere and increase tenant visibility. The new structure at the entrance to the courtyard area is proposed to be a blue steel truss frame supported by two columns of split face concrete block to match the existing courtyard columns. The steel truss frame will include illuminated channel letters to identify "The Courtyard". The columns will include a directory sign to identify tenants located with the courtyard area. Other courtyard improvements include replacement of the existing landscaping with new landscaping and the installation of new decorative light fixtures. The sign structure appears appropriate in scale for the courtyard area, and combined with the other improvements, will enhance the existing pedestrian element of the center. 3. Mandator¥ Findings - Sign Orientation Variance - As previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a total of two center identification signs to be oriented toward Holt Avenue. The Tustin Sign Code would only allow one such sign. In order to approve the Variance request, the Planning Commission must make the following positive findings: a. That there are physical and/or special circumstances applicable to the' site, lot configuration, topography, or use of the property which justify the variance request; · . b. That the applicant is being denied a privilege enjoyed by others in similar conditions and identical zoning designations; c. That the variance will not have a detrimental impact on the subject property or surrounding properties; and d. That the variance is cons. istent with the provisions of the General Plan. Staff believes that the four findings can be made to support the variance- request. The site possesses a unique and irregular lot configuration for a typical commercial c'enter which includes four street frontages. The Newport Avenue frontage does not provide direct access to the center nor afford any significant visibility due to two freestanding buildings (Coco's and Sanwa Bank) on this portion of the site. The applicant will not be granted special privileges in that the maximum of four center identification signs as permitted by the Sign Code (one fo)' each street frontage) will not be excluded. The variance will not have a detrimental impact on the pr. oPerty or it's vicinity in that the intent of the Sign Code related to center identification will still be achieved. The proposed freestanding sign at the courtyard area, although visible fr. om Holt Avenue, will not appear to be the primary source of identification from Holt Avenue due to parking lot landscaping and the distance Community Development De_partment II I · Plannl~g Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 89-20 and Variance 89-07 June 12, 1989 Page four from the .street. The sign will ~have its greatest effect on-site, to identify the courtyard shops and courtyard area of the center. This treatment avoids unnecessary and repetitive street exposure. ~' Finally, the variance request is consistent with other elements of the General Plan by providing tasteful design and reinforcing the pedestrian environ~nt of this project. CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed the issues associated with the subject conditional use permit and variance and supports the project. Staff has been able to make the required findings to justify the variance request. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 89-20 'and Variance 89-07 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2619, subject to the conditions of Exhibit'.A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Daniel-Fox ' Associate Planner DF:CAS'ts Attachments' Resolution No. 2619 Christine A. Shihgl~on Director of Community Development Community Development D_epartment 5 9 lO II 12 13 14 l? lg 2O 21 23 2~ 2~ RESOLUTION NO. 2619 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 89-20, FOR A CENTER IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN, AND VARIANCE 89-07 TO PERMIT TWO CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGNS TO BE ORIENT. ED TOWARD HOLT AVENUE LOCATED IN THE COURTYARD SHOPPING CENTER AT 14901 HOLT AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That proper applications, (Use Permit No. 89-20 and Variance 89-07) have been filed on behalf of Donahue Schriber to authorize replacement of a center identification pole sign for the courtyard area of the Courtyard Shopping Center and permit two center identification signs to be oriented toward Holt Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said applications on June 12, 1989. C. That 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,"evidenced by the following findings' 1. The pro.posed center identification pole sign is replacing an existing center identification pole sign at the same location of the project; 2. The proposed design and related improvements will further enhance the pedestrian element of this project; and 3. The prOposed sign is appropriate in design and scale for the courtyard area in which it is being located. D. That 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. E. That there are special circumstances related to lot configural~ion and use of the property applicable to the subject property that justifies the request in that the project site is bounded by four street frontages, one of which does not provide direct access to the center or afford significant visibility of the center. 2 Resolution No. 2619 Page two 4 5 6 7 F· That the granting of a variance as herein provided will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated in that the property will not exceed the maximum number of signs authorized by the Si gn Code. 8 9 G. That the granting of the variance as herein provided will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the public, safety, health and welfare, and said variance should be granted. 10 12 13 14 15 1(;. 17 18 19 ~0 ~3 ~4 25 26 27 ~8 H · Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fi re Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. I. The project is considered Categorically Exempt {Class 11) from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit. No,.,~... 89-20 to authorize a center identification pole sign for the courtyard area of the Courtyard Shopping Center an¢ Variance 89-07 to permit two center identification signs to be oriented toward Holt Avenue, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit 'A', attached hereto· PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. A'. L-. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT 89-20 AND VARIANCE 89-07 CONDITIONS OF APP~VAL RESOLUTION NO. 2619' GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped June 12, 1989 on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of 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 Use Permit 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 sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to the issuance of any building permits. PLAN SUB)lITTAL (3) 2.1 At building plan check submittal*, the applicant shall provide construction plans and structural calculations for the subject pole sign. All requirements of the Uniform Building Codes shall be complied with as approved by the' Building Official. · . SOURCE CODES STANDARD CONDITION CEQA )lITIGATION UNIFOI~ BUILDING CODE/S (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (7) PC/CC POLICY · ' i i! it" z 0 Ii i l Planning Commission DATE ' SUBJECT' APPLICANT' CONSULTANT ' LOCATION- ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST' JUNE 12, 1989 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(b) AND ZONE CHANGE 88-03 MR. MICHAEL G. PADIAN IRVINE OFFICE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY 2 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 MR. CHRIS MARTIN CDC ENGINEERING, INC. 15520-B ROCKFIELD BLVD. IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET/JAMBOREE ROAD A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1) A REQUEST TO RECLASSIFY THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY F~H P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO I (INDUSTRIAL). 2) A REQUEST TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO PC-IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL) .ECO~ENOATiON Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions' · ® Adopt Resolution No. 2625 certifying the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03; ® Adopt Resolution No'. 2617 recommendi.ng approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(b); and e Adopt Resolution No. 2618 recommending approval to the City Council of Zone Change 88-03. Community Development Deparimem ~/ Planning Commission Report GPA 89-02(b) June 12, 1989 Page two BACKGROUND e The applicant is requesting a'General Plan Amendment and Zone 'Change for an 18..4 acre site located on the northwest corner of Edinger Street (previously Moulton Parkway) and Jamboree Road to accommodate industrial development. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation on the subject site from P & I (Public and Institutional)to I {Industrial). The proposed Zone Change would change the zoning designation from P & I (Public and Institutional) to PC-IND {Planned Community- Industrial). The subject site is currently vacant and was created with the realignment of Edinger Street and the Jamboree Road railroad overpass. Prior to the realignment, it was part of MCAS Tustin, which accounts for the P & I land use/zoning designation. Surrounding uses include MCAS Tustin to the south and west, the A.T. & S.F. railroad, and Irvine Industrial Complex-Tustin to the north, and vacant land designated for Public and InstitUtional uses to the east. A public hearing notice denoting the time, date, and location of this hearing was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the project site were notified by mail pursuant to State law. In addition, a copy of the meeting's agenda and staff report for th~s item has been forwarded to the · . applicant and consultant. OzscOsSXON ' i i ® General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) - The proposed change to the General Plan land use designation would'allow a logical expansion of the existing Irvine Industrial Complex-Tustin located to the north. The designation of this site to accommodate industrial land uses would be compatible with existing adjacent land uses, particularly when considering the military base operations to the south and west and the industrial development to the north. The Land Use Element of-the General Plan encourages industrial type land uses in this area of the community to buffer the operations of the military base from other more sensititve uses in the Community. ® Zone Change 88-03 -.The proposed zoning designation of PC-IND (Planned Community - Industrial) would allow for compatible industrial land uses and consistent zoning with adjacent properties to the north. By establishing the PC-IND designation on this property, the site would be included within the Irvine Industrial Complex-Tustin and would be subject to the provisions and development standards of that'complex (see Attachment A). These standards and regulations identify permitted and conditionally permitted uses, development standards, parking requirements and other design related items. Typical uses that would be permitted in this PC-IND designation Community Development Departmen_t Planning Commission Report GPA 89-O2(b) June 12, 1989 Page three include manufacturing and light industrial uses, research and development uses, and commercial and office support uses. At this time, no specific development plans are proposed. Any site specific proposals would be subject to the City's Design Review process and review by outside agencies to ensure that the adopted provisions of the PC-IND district and other concerns are satisfied and implemented. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are appropriate in light of the surrounding military and industrial land uses and Would provide for orderly and harmonious development of the area and City. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2625 certifying the Negative Declaration and Resolution No.'s 2617 and 2618, recommending approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendmen~ 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03, respectively. Associate Planner · . ChriStine A. Shin~leton '! .et°_ f. . Director of Community Development DF'CAS'ts Attachments' Attachment A Negative Decl atari on Resolution No's. 2625, 2617 and 2618 Community Development SECTION I SECTION I I SECTION I I I SECTION IV SECTION V Sub-Section A Sub-Section B Sub-Section C Sub-Section D Sub-Section E Sub-Section F Sub-Secti on G Sub-Secti on H Sub-Secti on I Sub-Section .O Sub-Sectt on K Sub-Section L SECTION VI Sub-Secti on A Sub-Secti on B Sub-Secti on C SECTION VII SECTION VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS NOTES DEFINITIONS APPLICABILITY GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Site Requirements Setbacks Building Heights Landscaping Parking Requirements Sign and Graphic Standards Fences and Wal 1 s Telephone"and Electrical Service Storage and Refuse Collection Areas Loading Areas Ma i ntenance Public Safety I ndu stria 1 / Commerci a 1 Purpose and Intent Permitted Uses " Permitted Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW SIGNS Page 1 2 3 ¢ 5 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 lO l0 l0 lO lO ll II ll 13 14 17 SECTION I. s'rA'rls'rlcAL ANALYSIS The Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Con~nunity (Tustin) has been designated - . . {1} Industrial/Support Commercial - 305 Gross ~cres. (2} Neighborhood Commercial - l0 Gross acres. . -1- SECTION II. NOTES · Within the Planned Community area, the continued use of the land for agricultural purposes with uses, structures and appurtenances accessory thereto shall be permitted. 2. Grading will be permitted within the Planned Community area outside of immediate development upon the securing of a grading permit. Water service and sewage disposal facilities within the Planned Con,unity area shall be furnished by the Irvine Ranch Water District, until such time as the City Council of Tustin shall own and operate a water utility or by agreement with interested parties providing alternative utility services. 4. Regardless of the provisions of this supplemental text, no constrUction shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Irvine Industrial Complex Planned Community except that which complies with all provisions of applicable building codes and the various mechanical codes related thereto. Any land use proposal no-t specifically covered by this plan and its supple- mental text shall be subject to the regulations of the City of Tustin Zoning COde. · - 6. A plan for silt control for all storm runoff from the property during the construction, during initial operation of the tract, maintaining the integrity of silt control facilities during normal operation shall be prepared and submitted to the California Water Qual i ty Control Board Staff for their review and approval prior tO issuance of a grading permit. 7. Approval by the Air Pollution Control District of any plans, devices, or facilities for the control of any air pollutants which may be generated, shall be required. 8. After conmencement of construction of any structure, or improvement thereon, the owner shall diligently prosecute the work thereon, to an end that the structure shall not remain in a partly finished condition any longer than reasonably necessary for completion thereof. 9. The property owner shall diligently proceed to develop or market the land for development in accord with the district regulations and conditions of approval, and shall not withdraw the land from the market for the purposes of a speculative industrial land area reserve. r, SECTION III. OEFINITIONS · Advert~ sin~j ,Su~ace The to~:~ area of the face-of the stmcture, excluding supports. .. Area of Elevat{on iiii · Total height and length of a building as projected to a vertical plane. BUl~ldl,in~) Site Area. The total land area of the land described in the use or other permit. · Setbacks from Str. eet Corners, Setbacks from street corners shall be established as that point of inter- section of the required setback lines from access streets, prolonged to point of intersection. S id.e and Front of Cor.ner Lo~s, For the purpose of this ordinance, the narrowest frontage of a lot facing 'the street is the front, and the longest frontage facing the intersecting street is the side, irrespective of the direction in which structures face. -3- SECTION IV, The provisions contained in this Planned Community (PC) ordinance shall apply as 'specified to all con~nercial and industrial uses-that are permitted.within the Irvine IndUstrial Complex. Extraction of natural resources shall be subjec% to a Conditional Use Permit. Except as otherw_i_se s~ated in this ordinanc_e.:..'the requirements of the Zoning Code and devel_.o_L~_._e, nl: "sl:'a-~d~;~l$ of the City of, Tustin shall apply. -4- SECTION V. .GENERAl- OEVELOI=MENT STANCIAI::IOS ,. Unless otherwise specifically, prohibited herein, any .industrial operation and. use will be permitted if it is performed or carried out so designed and con- ~ structed that the operations and uses do not cause or.produce a-nuisance to -. adjacent sites such as but not limited to vibration, noise, radio frequency interference sound, electromechanical disturbance and radiation, electromag- netic disturbance, radiation, air or water pollution, dust, emission of odorous, toxic or non-toxic matter. All lighting is to be shielded and direct rays confined within property lines. An exception shall be made during periods when breakdown in equipment occurs in such a manner as to make it evident that the effect was not reasonably preventable. The Con~nunity Development Director shall be notified in~nediately after such impediment occurs. Said period is not to exceed thirty (30) days except upon review and approval of the Community Development Director. A. Site Requirements_ 1. Minimum site size for all industrial parcels shall be 30,000 square feet. The minimum site size for commercial uses shall .be that which is necessary to accon=nodate on-site parking and landscaping. 2. Structures ~ay not cover more than 50 percent of t.he net lot area. 3. Co~ercial uses' shall n°t exceed 20 percent of total Planned Co=aunity land use area. · B. Setbacks_ All setbacks will be measured from the Property line. For the purpose of this ordinance, a streetside property line is .that line created by the ultimate right-of-way of the frontage street. 1. Setback from Streets_ Front and/or exterior side setbacks shall be a minimum of thirty (30} feet, except for lots which face Jamboree Road which shall have a minimum of forty-six C46} feet. 2. Side Yard · Side yard setback shall be a minimum of ten (10} feet. 3. Rear Yard · None, except when the lot abuts a service road or alley, in which event, the setback shall be not less than ten (10) feet. When the rear of the property' abuts Jamboree Road, a setback, shall be maintained of a minimum of forty-six (46} feet. 4. Architectural features ma ro'ect-as follows: a. Roof overhang, subject to the specific approval by the Director -5- · of Planning which may project six (6) feet into thirty (30) feet setback area and three (2) feet into a ten (lO) foot setback area, or ' b. Steps, and open and unenclosed staircases. C. Buildin~ Heights_ Building heights Shall comply with the applicable criteria of the Federal Aviation Agency, .and for those areas within 200 feet of the centerline of Jamboree Road, shall require the approval of the Planning C~mmission in conjunction with site plan review, fo: any structure exceeding twenty- five (25) feet in height. · D. Lan.dscaping I. General Statements. a. Landscaping will consist of an effeci:ive combination of street trees, trees, ground cover, and shrubbery provided with suitable irrigation. Dry landscape materials may be used in side and rear only. All unpaved, non-work areas {excluding vacant lots} will be landscaped. b. T. he entire area between the curb and the building setback line shal1 be landscaped on' those lots fronting on Jamboree Road, Myford Road, Walnut AvenCe and Moulton Parkway, except for any vehicular or · ' .pedestrian access way in said area. 2. Other Stree.t,S The entire area between the curb .and a point ten (lO} feet in back of the front property line shall be landscaped, except for any vehicular or pedestrian access way in said area. 3. Undeveloped Area_ a. Landscaping plans will incorporate provisions for erosion control on all graded sites which will remain vacant prior to building construction. b. Undeveloped areas will be maintained in a ~eedfree condition~ · 4. Boundary Areas Boundary landscaping is required on all interior property lines. Said areas will be placed along the entire length of these property lines. Trees, equal in number to one (1} tree per thirty (30) lineal .feet of each interior property line, will be planted in the boundary area in addition to required ground cover and shrub material. "-- 5. Parkin9 Areas. a. Parking areas shall be landscaped and/or fenced in a manner as to screen said areas from view of all adjacent access -6- streets, freeways and other properties .or at a minimum have view of' said area broken up. Plant materials .used for screening will consist of lineal or grouped masses of shrubs and/or trees of a sufficient size and height to meet this requirement and combined with walls or berming as necessary. b. T6ees, not less than fifteen (15) gallon size, equa'l in number to one {1} per each five {5) parking stalls, provided with adequate irrigation system, will be installed in and around the · parking area. · 6. Landscaping Maintenance a. Periodic inspections will be made by the City of Tustin and reports submitted on conditions which are in non-compliance with the requirements of this section. Corrections to bring an area into compliance with the standards will be accomplished within thirty (30) days of notification of the offender. b. Lawn and ground covers are to be kept trimmed and/or mowed regularly. All planting areas are to be kept free of weeds and debris. c. All plantings are to be kept in a healthy and growing condition,. Fertilization, c¥1ttvation,-and tree pruning are to be a part of regular maintenance. d. Irrigation systems will be kept in working condition. Adjust- ments.and cleaning will be a part of regular maintenance. e. StakeS, guys, and ties on trees will be checked regularly for correct function. Ties are to be adjusted to avoid creating abrasions or girdling to the stems. E. Parkin9 Requi.rementsI 1. Location of. Parktn9 Required off-street parking will be provided on the site of the .use served, or on a contiguous site. When parking is provided on a site of different ownership, a recorded document will be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the Community Develop- ment Department and signed by the owners of the alternate site, stipulating to the permanent reservation of use of the site for said parking. 2. Parking Standards and RequiremenlltS' Parkt-ng requirements by land use, including size of spaces, aisle widths, etc. will conform to the provisions of Resolution 1322 of the City of Tustin. a. Office m One (1) space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. -7- b. Manufacture,. ~<esearch and Assembly Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than two (2) spaces for~ each 1,O00 square feet of gross floor area, plus one (1) space for each vehicle operated from and stored at the subject, site. ., c. Warehouse. Two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees, but in no event less than one (1) space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet; one (1} space for each 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; one {1} space for each 4,000 square feet of gross floor area for areas in excess of the initial 40,000 square feet of floor area of the building. If there is more l:han one (1} shift, the number of employees on the largest shift shall be used in determining parking requirements. F. Sign and Graphic Standards One (1} sign per street frontage shall be permitted. The signs may be of the following type: 1. Wall Signs · a. An identification sign placed on a wall shall not comprise more than lO percent of the area of the elevation upon which the sign is located. . b. In multiple tenancy industrial buildings, each individual industry may have a wall sign over the entrance to identify the tenant. Said sign will give only the name of the comp. any and wil.1 be limited to six (6) inch high letters. Said signs will be oriented toward the parking or pedestrian area for that building and shall not exceed a maximum area of five square feet. c. No wall sign will exceed an area equal to one and one-half (l-l/2) square feet of sign for each one (l) foot .of lineal frontage of the building or store. However, no sign shall exceed 200 square feet in area per face. 2. Ground Signs_ a. Ground signs shall not exceed four (¢) feet above grade in height or more than 200 square feet in area. 3. Miscellaneous Signs The following 'signs are permitted in the [trine Industrial Complex: a. Temporary Identification-Signs 1). Sales or .iLease Sign -8- A sign advertising the sale, lease or h',.- o~ the site will be al 1 owed. Cons.tflx. ction sign_ A sign denoting the architects, engineers, contractor, and other related subjects will be allowed at the co~nencement of construction. Said sign will be removed at the time the building is fit for occupancy. 3) Future Tenant Sign_ A sign listing the n~me of the future tenant will be allowed until occupancy of the tenant, subject to the provisions listed in Appendix A. . b. S ectal Pur .oses and Directions Si ns l) The permanent signs include in Section VIII of this ordinance will be allowed subject to the provisions contained therein. S. Standards- a. Signs will be restricted tO advertising only .the person, firm, company or"corporation operating the use conducted on the site or the products sold therein. b. The area of a wall sign will be measured by a rectangle -around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial symbol.. c. All signs attached' to the building will be surface mounted. d. Only one (l} single or double face permanent sign will be allowed per street frontage per site. e. Signs visible from the exterior of any building may be lighted, but no signs or any other contrivance will be devised or constructed so as to rotate, gyrate, blink or move in any fashion. G. Fences and Wall.s_ 1. Height_ a. No fence or wall in the commercial or industrial group shall exceed eight (8) feet in height except that a twelve (12) foot fence may be permitted subject to Community Development Director's approval. b. No walls greater than three (3} feet shall be located within the setback area paralleling a street right-of-way. -9' · 2. Restrictions on Mate.rials- a. Walls or fences of sheet or corrugated iron, steel, aluminum, asbestos, or security chain-link fencing are specifically ' prohibited. b. Chain-link fencing is permitted when combined with redwood battens in all areas except 'chose fronting along Jamboree Road, Myford Road, Walnut Avenue and Moulton Parkway. Telephone and Electrtca-1 Service All "on-site" telephone and electrical lines will be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment will 'be screened from view of adjacent stree'c$ and properties. I. Storage and Refuse Collection Areas_ 1. All outdoor storage areas and refuse collection areas shall be visually screened so that materials stored within these areas shall not be visible from access streets, freeways and adjacent property. 2. Outdoor storage includes all company owned and operated motor vehicles, except for passenger vehicles. 3. Storage or refuse collection will not be permitl~ed between a frontage street and a building line. J. LoadinQ Areas_ Streetside loading, on other than special landscaped streets, will be allowed providing the loading dock'is setback a minimum of seventy (70} feet from'the street right-of-way line. Said loading areas wi-ll be screened from view of adjacent streets, and access shall be provided without the necessity of vehicle maneuvers from frontage streets. K. Mai ntenanc.e. .1. All structures .in the Irvine Industrial Complex will be maintained in a neat and orderly, manner. 2. All permitted signs will be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. L. Public Safety, No operation in the manufacture, compounding, assembling, processing or treatment of any product, and 'no material stored on property within the Complex shall be injurious to the health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood by reason bf danger to life or property. -10- SEC'rlON ~1. INCIUS'T'RI~I:~I-/C~C]MIVIERCIAI- A. purpose and I.nten_t .. . It 'is the intent in this group to allow a combination of general industry, business and professional offices, and commercial a¢.tivi_tlies., ....... . Minor ancillary-activities associated with the above activities {industrial} may be located outside'a structure Provided screening requirements as set forth in this ordinance are met. B. Permitted Uses. _ 1. Industrial/Support Commercial_ a. Support Commercial Group uses, such as but not limited to the fol 1 owl ng: l) Blueprinting, photostating, photo engraving, printing, publishing and bookbinding. · 2) Administrate.ye, professional, and business offices. 3) Cafeteria, cafe, restaurant, or auditorium. 4) Service ~tations. 5) Commercial Sales/Warehousing 6) 'Industrial support facilTties, to include activities limited to the sale of products or services related only to the ·Industrial Complex. Activities of a commrcial nature will be restricted in scope so as to service and be accessory to the industrial community. Accessory uses and structures when related and incidental to a permitted use. ?) Barber shop b. Eight Industria1 GrouQ l) Uses primarily engaged in research activities including research laboratories, developmental laboratories, and compatible light manufacturing. 2) Manufacture,-research assembly, testing and repair of components, devices, equipment and systems and parts and components · 3) General manufacturing and/or assembly. · -ll - 4) Service industries which provide a service as opposed to the manufacture of a specific product, such as; but not limited to the fol 1 owl ng: a) The.repair and maintenance of.appliances or component parts. b) Tooling c) Printers d) Testing Shops e) Small machine shops f) Repair, maintenance and servicing of above listed itens (excluding automobile repair) providing that said industries are not the point of customer delivery or collection. Industries engaged in the distribution and/or storage or warehousing. 6) Construction industr, ies o. 7) Accessory uses and structures when related and incidental to a permitted use. 8) Agriculture as a continuation of the existing land use, and all necessary structures and appurtenances. 2. ~Neighborhood Commer.cial_ a. Retail sales, such as, but not limited to' clothing, shoes, jewelry, liquor/deli, stationery, books, fast food drive through and take-out, hardware, appliances, pharmacy/drug store, furniture, carpets, auto parts, etc. b. Retail services such as, but not limited to: shoe repair, dance studio, fitness center, travel agency, escrow and real estate, in- surance, caterer, etc. c. All uses permitted under Subsection B {l) (a) and (b}' Industria'l/ Support Commercial. Planning Agency review of the location of the structures pursuant to use permit procedures. -12- C. Pen-~itted Uses Subject to Conditional Use Permit The following additional uses shall be permitted subject to a Use Permit and upon the finding that the proposed use shall be compatible with surrounding authorized developments and the use shall not be del~rimental. to the health, safety, morals, comfort and genera1 welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or the welfare of the City. - 1. Transportation and Truck Terminals 2. Utility Service Yards 3. Furniture Warehouse Sales 4. Rug and Carpet Sales and Distribution 5. Building produc~s storage and/or sales including plumbing, lumber, electrical and masonry supplies. 6. Heavy manufacturing or other uses which may be objectionable by reason of offensive odor, dust, noise, lights, vibration, subject to performance standards of the Air pollution Control Board. 7. Uses involving the storage or handling of ~plosive or dangerous ma teri al s'. 8. Uses involving the public ass~bly of groups larger than 500 persons. 9. Fast Food and Take-Out Services .o - 13- - SECTION VII. CI~NCEI:ITUAL CIESIGN REVIEW A. Where required by this ordinance a Conceptual Design Review Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission to enable them to make a finding that the'proposed development is in conformity.with both ..the intent and · provisions of this ordinance. 1..It is proposed that the Irvine Industrial development be guided by an overall conceptual design plan that delineates principles, criteria, and standards dealing with enough specificity to assure that the concept is maintained while allowing design flexibility as the complex builds out incrementally over time. 2. Each increment of development will be submitted for Conceptual Design Review with a specific program of uses, quantitative data, site layout, and architectural design. Prior to, or coincidental with the submission of a tract or parcel map for any portion of the Planned Community area the Conceptual Design Plan and attendant strategy should be approved by the Tustin Planning Commission. This allows the City to assess each subsequent increment of development for its conformity with the overall Conceptual Design Plan. Any major change in the intent of .the Conceptual Design Plan must require re-submission for City Planning C .oQ)n. ission and City Council approval. 3. A Conceptual Design Plan, with attendant strategy, is a'graphic and written description that sets forth the environmental parameters, .. controls and guidelines, necessary to implement the development concept for a given planning area. Items for which principles, criteria 'and stand,ds, Shall be included in the Conceptual Design Plan are'as follows' a. Activities (uses) and their distribution over the land b. Density of use and outdoor spatial character c. Building coverage and height (or land use intensity} d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation e. Landscaped areas f. Outdoor lighting theme g. Signing h. Streetscape i. Parking j. Buffering from conflicting land uses 4. Within thirty {30} days after submission of the Conceptual Design Review Plan, the Planning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, or disapprove the plan. In approving the plan, the Planning Commission shall find that: a. All provisions of this ordinance are complied with; b. The following are so arranged that traffic congestion is minimized, pedestrian~ and vehicular safety and welfare are protected, and -1¢ - there will be minimal adverse effect on surrounding property: 1) Buildings, structures and improvements 2) Vehicular ingress egress and internal circulation 3) Setbacks '4) . Height of buildings 5) Location of service 6) Walls 7) Landscaped areas 5. The applicant may appeal in writing to the City Council. Such appeal shall be filed in duplicate, with the Con~nunity Development Department within ten (10} days after the decision. The Community Development Director shall forward the duplicate copy of the appeal to the City Clerk. The City Council shall consider the appeal at a regular meeting within thirty (30) calendar days following the receipt by the Clerk of the duplicate copy of the appeal, or within such time as the Council shall continue the matter. The City Council shall review the Conceptual Design Review Plan and shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval, based .on findings listed in Section 4 a and 4 b above. 6. The approved Conceptual Design Review PlanI, with any conditions shown thereon or attached ~hereto, shall be dated and signed .by the Planning Co~nission's secretary. One (1} copy of said approved Conceptual Design Review Plan and conditions shall be mailed to the applicant. · ~. Before a' building permit'may be issued for any building or structure in a development requiring Conceptual Design Review, the building or structure must be in conformity with the approve~ site Conceptual · . Design Review Plan. 8. Revisions to an approved.site plan shall be made pursuant to the procedure set forth in this section. 9. Upon approval of the Conceptual Design Review Plan, the applicant shall submit site plans for staff review and building permit approval pursuant to City of Tusttn Ordinance No. 1BY. Staff shall review plans for conformance with the Planning 'Commission approval. Any substantial deviation shall require re-submittal to the Planning Con, hi ssi on. 10. The applicant shall submit ten (10) prints of the site plan to the Conmunity Development Department. The site plan shall be drawn to scale-and shall indicate clearly and with full dimensioning the following information: a. Lot dimensions. b. All buildings and structures: locati, on, size, height, proposed use. c. Yards and space between buildings. d. Walls and fences: location, height and materials. e. Off-street parking: location, number of spaces and/or dimensions of parking area, internal circulation'pattern. f. Access - pedestrian, vehicular, service: points of ingress and egress. g. Signs: location, size, height. h. Load-ing: location, dtmehsions, number of spaces, internal circulation. i. Lighting: location and general nature, hooding devices. J. Landscaping: location and'general nature. k. Street dedications and improvenents. I. And such other data as may be required by the Community Development Director. m. Access for the handicapped shall be provided in accordance with the Civil Code Section 54-546 of the California Government Code. ll. Phased Development As a condition of any increment of the proposed development, the applicant shall provide evidence of the adequacy of the circulation system to accon~nodate traffic demands and the adequacy of storm drain facilities. _16. SEC'I'ION VIII. A.' Signs for the Planned Community Industrial District shall be limited to those Signs authorized by the Sign-Code of the City of-Tustin as adopted by.Ordinance No. 428, or as' hereafter amended. B. signs Shall be related to the standards applicable to .the authorized use and clevelopment of the property. (For example: a professional office building shall be l'imited to the signing authorized for t. he professional district). - l? - NFGATIVE DECLARATION ii i iii ,. 111 · · i m i iii CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 i Project Title'GPA 89-02(b), ZC 88-03 File No. Project Location' Northwest corner of Edinger Street/Jamboree Road Project Description' ~4nendment to the land use map from Public and Institut to Industrial and Zone Change from Public and Institutional to PC- Industr~ Project Proponent: The Irvine Office and Industrial Company Co.tact Perso.' Daniel Fox Telepho.e: 544-8890 Ext. 254 ,,, Loal [al. 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 Envir'onmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby find: That there, is no substantial evidence that the project may ~iave 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 mi ti gate the affects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on file at the Community Development 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 Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on June 12, 1989 DATED: Community Development Director CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM I. Name of Proponent 2~ e Address and Phone Number of Proponent Date of Checklist Submitted Agency Requiring Checklist Name of Proposal, if applicoble II. Ermi~tal Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes MeFbe, No I. Ecrth. Will the proposal result in, a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes. in geologic substructures? · bo Disruptlam, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? " X c. Chc~je in topography or ground surfoce relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ~' fa Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed· of the ocean or ony bay, inlet or lake? )< Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, .rnudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air.' Will the .~roPosol result im e a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result im a, Changes' in currents, ar the course of di- re:tim of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? bo Clxeges in absarptien rotes, drainage pat- terns, ar the rate and artx~nt of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course ar fl~w of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in'. any water body?, Discharge into surface waters, .ar in my alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial reduction in the amount of water .otherwise available far public water supplies? i. Expasum of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? × × e 0 o 8o Pictor Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, ar number of c~y species of plants . (including trees~ shrubs~ grass~ crops~ and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? do Introduction of new ~pecies of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result go Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, ar insects)? 0 Reduction of the numbers of my unique, rare or endangered specie~ of animals? Int~ion of new species of mimals into an area, ar result in a b~rler to the migration ar movement of animals? d.. Deteriorcrtlan to existing fish ar wildlife habitat? ' ' Noi~e. Will the proposal result im a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light ami Clam. Wlll the proposal produce new light ar glare? L.and Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the prese~:t or planned land use of an area? Natural Resour~ Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Y~ X. b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal in~olve~ II. 12. 13. 14. A risk of m explosion or the release of hazardaus substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditiom? Possible interference with m emergency response plcm or mt eme~ evacuation plon? Populatlan. Will the proposal alter the location, distributlan, density, or growth rate of the humm population of an area? Hou, ing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? Tronspartatlan/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular, movement? · b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand' for new parking? c. Substantial Impact upon existing trmspor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will. the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Yes X d. pc~ks .or other recreational facilities? ee Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposa~ re~lt in= 16. Ge 17. 18. 19. 20. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new ~ources of energy?. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities= a. Power or natural gas? · b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. storm water drainage? f.' Solid waste and dizposal? Hummt Health. Will the proposal result in= a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental-health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazorcis? Aesthetics. Will the .proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Re~'eatian. Will the proposal result in an. impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Culfural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of ar the dest~ian of a prehistaric ar historic archaeological site? Yes ×. be W~II the pr~x~al re~11 in edver~e ph~ic~l or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or abject? Does the proposal have the potential to cause a ph~ical chexje which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Mmdetory Findings of $ignificmce. ae Does the project have the potential to' degrade the quality of the enviranment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, ca, se a fish or wild- life popul~ian to drop below self sus-,. raining leveis~ threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number ar restrict the rancje of a rare or endangered plant or animal ar eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history ar prehistory? be Does the projecf have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of lang-term, enviranmental goals? (A short- term impact an the environment is 'one which occurs in a relatively brief~ definitive period of time while lang-term impacts will endure well into the future.) · Ce Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) de Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. IV. Discussi~ of ~vironmental Evaluation Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a.significant effect on the environment, them will not be a significant effect in this 'case because the mitigatlan measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect an the environ- " ment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I. I Signature DZSCUSSTON OF ENVIIIO~~~ EV'ALUi~TION GP~ 89-02b ~ncl SC 88-03 (IRVINE COMPKNY) PROSPECT DESCRIPTION SUPPLEMENT - The proposed project is a request to change the General Plan land use designation from P & I (Public and Institutional) 'to I - (Industrial) and the zoning designation from P & I (Public and Institutional) to PC-IND (Planned Community - Industrial) on an 18.4 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Edinger Street and Jamboree Road. No actual development plans are being considered at this time. Unless otherwise specified in the following sections, any physical development of the property will require, at minimum, plans to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department and separate, environmental review as part of the City,s design review process. Appropriate mitigation measures and mitigation monitoring in response to the site specific plans would be developed at the time of any subsequent reviews. The project site is situated in an urban area. The U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin is located to the west and south (zoned Public and Institutional), the A.T. & S.F. railroad and various industrial uses to the north (zoned ~lanned Community Industrial), and vacant land zoned Public and Institutional to the east. · lo E~RTH - The land use designation amendment and zone change would not result in any changes to the existing earth conditions and topographic features of the site since no specific grading or site specific plans are being considered as part of this request. Appropriate soils reports and grading plans would be required as part of the City,s design review process and any subsequent review· sources: City of Tustin Building Division Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. · ~IR - The land use amendment and zone change would not result in a~y degradation bo the existing air quality. sources: AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. DZSCUSSZON OF ENVZRONMENT/qL EFALUATION GPA 89-02b and ZC 88-03 (ZRV~NE COMPlqNY) Page 2 WATER amc,d.e.f,q.h,i - The change.in land' use designation would not resul2 'in any change to the existing water conditions based on a review of the site by City Staff. sources= City of Tustin Building Division. City of Tustin Public Works Department). Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. WATER b - Any future development authorized under the Zoning Code would add impervious surface area to the property which could effect drainage and absorption rates. Appropriate drainage plans would be required as part of the City,s building permit process and any subsequent review. sources: City of Tustin Building Division. city of Tustin Public Works Department. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 4. PLANT LIFE - The project site will remain unchanged relative to the existing plant life. The site is free from any plant life, with the exception of common weeds and gr.~sses'. Any development under the existing or proposed land use designation and zoning would result in removal of the existing vegetation. sources: Field Observations. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. . ANI~ LIFE - The subject property is free of any significant population of animals, fish, or wildlife. sources: Field Observations. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. NOISE a - The change in land use from public and institutional to industrial would not result in any increase to existing noise levels on the site or in the immediate area in that no specific development is proposed at this time. Actual noise levels as a result of physical development could vary significantly depending upon the actual use of the property. Future noise impacts would be evaluated at the time of subsequent submittals and reviewed for conformance with the City,s Noise ordinance. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GPA 89-02b and ZC 88-03 (IRVINE COMP/~NY) Page 3 sources: City of TUstin zoning Code. City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: .None Required. NOISE b - There are existing noise sources from the roadway, railroad, and military base operations which may expose future users of the site to additional noise. Any development would need to satisfy the City,s Noise Ordinance and Building Codes to achieve required interior noise levels. sources: City of Tustin Zoning Code. City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element. Standard .procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. LIGHT ~ND GLARE - A change in land use designation and zoning would not result in any increased light or glare on the property since no site specific plans are proposed as part of this. request. Future development proposals would be reviewed for potential impacts at that time. ~ sources: City of Tustin zoning Code. city of Tustin Security Code. Standard procedures for'~esign review for the City of Tustin, .Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. · LAND USE - The project proposes to change the land use designation and zoning on a vacant 18.4 acre property from Public and Institutional to Industrial. The Marine base, and other industrial uses are existing adjacent to the site. as seen in field observations and illustrated on the General Plan land use map. This property was previously a portion of the marine base which accounts for its present public and institutional zoning. The proposed land use designation appears to be appropriate given the characteristics of the existing industrial complex north of Edinger Street and the military base south of Edinger Street. The proposed zoning of PC-IND would adopt the existing zoning regulations and uses for the Irvine Industrial Complex - Tustin, situated immediately north of this property. DZSCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION GPA 89-02b and SC 88-03 (IRVINE COMPANY) Page 4 sources= city of Tustin Community Development Department. City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Map. Field Observations. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. · NAT~ RESOURCES - The change in land use would not result in any increased use of natural resources since no actual development is associated with this request. Any future development will use resources in the form of construction materials and daily operations· Given the scale of potential development, the use of natural resources is not anticipated to be a factor in development of this property. sources= City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 10. RISK OF UPSET - The change in land use would not result in any increased risk of upset to the property or the neighborhood since no site specific plans are proposed as part of this request. However, industrial uses could'be a greater threat than institutional uses. Development of t-his property with industrial uses would require review as to its potential for upset and compliance with applicable building code requirements and Fire Department requirementS. The site is not located within .any seismicly sensitive areas. sources= City of Tustin Community Development Department. Orange County Fire Department. City of Tustin General Plan). Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. · Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 11. POPULATION . - The. proposed project would not result in any direct increase in population in that no additional dwelling. units would be created with the proposed land use change. However, industrial uses typically attract people to the area by way of new jobs and the need to work close to home where institutional uses typically service the needs of the existing population. Any future development on this site would be evaluated for impacts on population. DISCUSSION OF ENVIROlqMENTAL EVi~UiS. TION GP/% 89-021) and v.C 88-03 '(IRVINE COMPANY) Page 5 sources: City of Tustin Housing Element of the General Plan. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 12. HOUSING - As previously mention in Section 11 above, the. change to industrial land uses could create a demand for additional housing by the creation of new jobs in the area. Any future development on this site would be evaluated for impacts on housing. The proposal would not displace any existing housing. sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 13. TRANSPORTATION ~ CIRCU?.~TION - The change of land use from public and institutional to industrial would not in itself increase or have an effect on the existing traffic conditions in this area. The Public Works Department has indicated that the 'proposed land use change would not have an effect on traffic given the conditions of the existing street system~ however, at the time specific development plans are proposed, a traffic study would most likely be required to evaluate in detail, the effects of the specific development plans on the existing street system. Any submittal of site specific plans would be subject to City review and the provisions of CEQ&. sources: City of Tustin Traffic Engineer. City of Tustin Public Works Department. Standard procedures for design review for the Tustin, Community Development Department. City of Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - All services are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed land use amendment and zone change. The availability of public services (i.e Police, Fire, and City Maintenance) to adequately serve the future development of the site would be reviewed at the time of any subsequent submittals. sources:. Orange County Fire Department. City of Tustin Police Department. City of Tustin Community Development Department. City of Tustin Public Works Department. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community development Department. DTSCUSS'FON OF ENV'rRONI~NTiqL ~UAT'rON GP~. 89-02b and v~C 88-03 (TRV~NE COMPi~.NY) Page 6 Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 15. ENERGY - The change in land use would not result in any change in the use of 'energy since site specific plans are not proposed as part of this request. Given the scale and type of development, it is not anticipated that development would result in a substantial usage of energy; however, future develop would be reviewed to determine the possible impacts. sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 16. UTILITIES - The site is in an urban area with all utilities available to the site from Edinger Street and through the public utilities easement along the north property line and would be adequate to accommodate industrial development. sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 17. ~HE]~LTH - The change in land use would not be expected to result in any effects on human health. The proposed uses that . would be permitted on the property are light J . manufacturing., research and.development, commercial services, and office support uses which typically do not create conditions that negatively effect human health. Uses that involve large amounts of chemicals or flammable materials require approval of a conditional use permit to specifically evaluate the use on a case by case basis pursuant to the provisions of the PC-IND regulations. In either case, the review process would also require separate environmental review in accordance with the provisions of CEQ~. sources: Orange County Fire Department. City of Tustin Police Department. City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 18. ]tESTHETICS - The change in land use would not result in any change to aesthetics in the area since site specific 'plans are not proposed as part of this request. The proposed PC- IND zoning designation would adopt the existing zoning regulations and development standards applied to the industrial complex situated immediately to the north. Site DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONKENTAL EVALUATION GPa 89-02b and ZC 88-o3 (IRVINE COMPANY) Page 7 specific development plans' would be subject to the City,s design review process by the Community Development Department to ensure the aesthetic qualities of the area. sources: City of Tustin zoning Code. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 19. RECREATION - The proposed land use change would not result in an increase need for recreational opportunities. Industrial uses typically do not demand extensive recreational amenities from the community as do residential land uses. sources: City of Tustin General Plan Land Use Element. City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES - The change in land use will not have any effect on the cultural resources in that the General Plan does not identify any cultural resources on this property. sources: City of Tustin General ~lan. City of Tustin Historic-Resources Survey. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The change in land use will not result in any adverse environmental impacts as a result of the proposed land use designation amendment and zone change. Again, no site specific plans are proposed as part of this request. Subsequent review of site development plans by various agencies, services, and the Community Development Department would be required. In this connection, separate 'environmental review of the site specific plans would be required as part of the City,s design review process and' in accordance with CEQA. sources: City of Tustin General Plan. City of Tustin Zoning Code. City of Tustin Community Development, Public Works, and Police Departments. Orange County Fire Department. ---- Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. June 6, 1989 DRAFT Mr. Jennings D. Pierce The Irvine Company P.O. Box I Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 SUBJECT: GOLF COURSE OPEIiIIIG Dear Jay: At our meeting on June 1st we identified the following plans that were to be submitted; for the oPening: - Temporary Building tie - downs with calculations - Deck - Lan~lsc~pe (phase 1) - Electrical (including all lighting/fixtures) - Precise Grading and Street Plans As of June 511h, only the landscaping and Precise Grading/Street Plans have been submitted-. There are 23 working days remaining (not counting Saturdays) to get all plans submitted, reviewed, corrected (if necessary), approved and all 'work completed. On May 18th you, Tosh, Lloyd and myself met to review the status of plans for the golf course, with particular importance placed on items necessary fo' rl;h'July 7th opening. At that meeting, and each of our subsequent meetings, (of which' there have been two) we have discussed the same plans as listed above. Unfortunately, we are still waiting on ,nost'of those plans. I know that both you, Tosh and your consultants are working del igently to get these .plans in, and Lloyd and I have been and will continue to give them our highest priority; however, I am beginning to have serious doubts that. all work noted in my letter to your dated May 18th (items i thru 5, copy attached) will be completed. I am sure that presenting a finislled look at the July 7th opening is just as important to.the Irvine Company as it is to the City. We really Qo not want to hav. e to get into the situation of posting bonds/securities for incomplete work. Particularly since the City Council will have to determine what is acceptable to bond for and what is not. June 6, 1989 Pa ge two At this time, a much-more concerted effort is needed to get the necessary plans in to the C'i~y for review. It would also be appropriate to fake a realistic look at the work that needs to completed {items 1 thru 5 of letter} for the opening and identify those items that simply cannot/will not De completed. If you have any-'comments, questions or suggestions about this process, please call me at 544-8890 .- extension 278. Sincerely, Christine A. Shingleton Director of Community Development 'Steve Rubin Senior Planner cc: William Huston Christine Shingl eton L1 oyd Dick Tosh Neminski Brad O1 son .o of Tustin Community Development Department May 18, 1989 Mr. Jennlngs D. Pierce The Irvine Company P.O. Box I Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8904 SUBJECT: TUSTIN RANCH GOLF COURSE OPENING Dear Jay' Pursuant .to your request, I have prepared a list of items that will require approval by the City prior to the opening of the Golf Course on July 7, 1989, as well as those improvements that will be required to be completed~ prior to that date .... The foil. owing plans will require City approval (and issuance of appropriate permits) prior to July 7, 1989' 1. Precise ~rading plan 2. Street improvement plans (both on-site and at Tustin Ranch Road); 3. Parking lot plans; 4. Lighting plans for all roads/drives, parking lot, driving range and maintenance building; 5. 'Foundation plans for the temporary clubhouse; 6. Plumbing and electrical plans for the temporary clubhouse; 7. Landscaping plans for the entry-drive, parking lot, maintenance building, temporary clubhouse and all edge treatments; and 8. Execution of a Hold Harmless Agreement to allow issuance of building prior to the Peter's Canyon retention basin becoming operational. The following is a list of all improvements that the City will require to be completed prior to July 7, 1989' 1. Tustin Ranch Road~ up to and including the intersection with Fairgate Dri'ie and the golf course entry. This includes paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalks; Hr. Jenntngs D. Pierce Page two 2. Paving-of entry drive, access road to maintenance but]dlng, parking lot (by phases) and all pedestrian walkways/paths (Including decorative treatments), and temporary stgn permtts; Site llghttng Including entry drive, parking lot, drtvtng range, temporary clubhouse, access road to maintenance butldtng and maintenance yard. Shielding and atmtng of lighting wt11 have to be verified prior to opening. 4. Installation of all edge landscaping and Irrtgatlon along entry drive, tn and around parktng lot (by phases), around temporary clubhouse and starter's booth, along access road and around maintenance yard; and 5. Striping of parking lot, including handicap stalls. I hope this information will be helpful in preparing the golf course for its opening on July 7th. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at 544-8890, extension 278. Sincerely, Christine A. Shtngleton Director of Community Development Steve Rubl n ~, ~ Seni or P1 anner CAS'SR:dh cc: Tosh Neminski L1 oyd Dick Christine Shingleton RESOLUTION NO. 2625 3 4 5 A RESOLUTION OF THE. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(b) AND ZONE CHANGE 88-03, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 6 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 7 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 8 9 10 11 A. General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03 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. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1!3 24 25 26 27 28 C. Whereby, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative ,Declaration. D. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined' it to be adequate and complete. II. A Negative Declaration has '6een comple%ed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission, having recommendation authority over General,Plan Amendment 89-02(b) and Zone Change 88-03, has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative DeclaratiOn prior to recommending approving the proposed project to ~he City Council and found that 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 significant effects will occur. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the day of , 1989. A~ ~L. Baker Chairman Penni ~61 ey Secretary 1 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2617 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(b), A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM P&I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO I (INDUSTRIAL) ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET AND JAMBOREE ROAD. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 8 I. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. Government Code Section 65356.1 provides that when it is deemed' to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. B. That a proper application has been filed by the Irvine Company for the purpose of reclassifying the General Plan Land Use designation of the property located at the northwest corner of Edinger Street and Jamboree Road from P & I (Public and Institutional) to I (Industrial). C. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) was duly called, noticed, and held on June 12, 1989. Do Government Code Section .65358(b) states that no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than 4 times per calendar year. However, each amendment may include more than 1 change. Appropriately in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 89-02(b), 4 other Amendments shall be considered 1 Amendment per Government Code Section 65358(b). II. E. This General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It has been determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. F. The proposed Industrial designation is in the best interest of the public and surrounding properties in that an Industrial designation would allow greater land use compatibility between the adjacent military operations and industrial uses. G. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with other elements of the General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(b) as shown on Exhibit A, amending the General Plan Land Use designation from P&I (Public and Institutional) to I (Industrial) on the property located at the northwest corner of Edinger Street and Jamboree Road. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 27 28 Resolution ho. 2617 Page two PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , t989. A. L. Baker Chairman ~enni--Poley secretary · /; I -.INDUSTRIA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(b) EXHIBIT A 2 3 4 5 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2618 10 11 12 13 14 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE' CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ZONE CHANGE 88-03, A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF EDINGER STREET AND JAMBOREE ROAD FROM P & I (PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL) TO PC-IND (PLANNED COMMUNITY - INDUSTRIAL). The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol lows' · I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That a proper application has been filed by the Irvine Company's Irvine Office and Industrial Company for the purpose of rezoning an 18.4 acre parcel at the northwest corner of Edinger Street and .Jamboree Road from P & I (Public and Institutional) to PC-IND (Planned Community-Industrial). 16 17 lg 19 2O B. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider Zone Change 88-03 was duly called, noticed, and held on June 12, 1989. C. This Zone Change has been revlewed in accordance wi th the California Environmental Quality Act. It has been determined ~ the that this project will not have a significant effect on environment and a Nega'(ive Declaration has been prepared. D. ~ The proposed zoning is consiste~)t with the General Plan, particularly the Land Use Element and General Plan Amendment 89-02b, in that' the proposed zoning would allow compatible uses and orderly development in the neighborhood. 21 The proposed zoning is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare and would be compatible with the existing adjacent military operations and industrial uses. 22 II." The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of Zone Change 88-03 as shown on Exhibit A, amending the City 5~3 of Tustin Zoning Map to rezone property located at the northwest corner of Edinger Street and Jamboree Road from P&I {Public and 24 Institutional) to PC-IND (Planned Community-Industrial). 25 26 27 28 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. 2618 Page two PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. A'. L. ~aker Chairman Penni F6ley Secretary o %°*~' PC-IND (PLANNI C UNI ZONE CHANGE 88-03 Z ~ z z z Z · Z Z Report to the Planning Cornmission ITEM NO. 6 DATE: JUNE 12, 1989 SUBJECT- · GEHERAL PLA)i AT.IE~IDZE)tT 89-02 (C), ZOrlE CHA)iGE 88-02 A;iD EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01 APPLICANT' THE IRV INE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 GENERAL LOCATION' sECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRO)~MENTAL STATUS' AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 85-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED - REQUEST' A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION, ZOninG PLAII MAP DESIGNATION AND EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAH DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. CERTAIN TEXTUAL CHANGES TO THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ARE ALSO PROPOSED TO IMPLEMENT THE REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION CHANGES IN THE SPECIFI£ PLAN i · . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions' . Approve Addendum 89-01 to the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR-85-2 and recertify Final EIR 85-2 and all subsequently adopted Supplements and Addendums by adoption of Resolution No. 2629. . e Recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) by the adoption of Resolution No. 2630, as submitted or revised. 3.. Recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 88-02 by the 'adoption of Resolution No. 2631, as submitted or revised. e Recommend to the City Council approval of East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2632, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND Applicant proposes to modify the Tustin General Plan, Zoning Plan Map and East Tustin Specific Plan as it affects certain property generally located in Sectors ~ ' .Communitv Development Department Planning Commission Report June 12, 1989 GPA 89-02(C), ZC 88-02, & ETSP Amendment 88-01 Page two 7 and 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan. The inten: of these entitlement changes is to implement the School Facilities Agreement between the Irvine Company and the Tustin Unified School D~strict dated_March, 1988 and a Letter of Understanding between the Irvine Company and the City of Tustin, dated March 11, 1988 and subsequently amended on April 3, 1989. The Letter of Understanding with the City requires the Community Park originally proposed on Lot 7 in Tract 12763 of Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan to be relocated north of Irvine Boulevard within Tract 12870 and Sector 7. The Park's relocation is to accommodate the expansion of the original high school proposed in Sector 11 to a 40 acre site. The portion of the project site located in Sector 7 is northwest of the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The port,on of the project site within Sector 11 is bounded by Irvine Boulevard on the north, ~lyt:ord Road on the east, Heritage ¥~ay on the south and Tusti.q Ranch Road on the west. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of the hearing on this matter was pu61ished in the Tustin News. Property owners wi thin 300 feet of the project area were noticed by mail· The applicant was informed of the availability of the staff report on this matter. · DISCUSSIO~I · . Staff have reviewed the proposed project ~o ensure conformance wi~h ~he Agreements described in the report, City and State requirements. Each of the. project components is discussed below' · General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) - The existing General P~an Land Use Designation within the project site and proposed General Plan Land Use revisions are depicted in Exhibits 4 and 5 of the attached Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 85-2. The proposed General Plan Amendment would revise General Plan land use configurations as follows: Change the easterly 10 acre portion of the former high school S~te located at 'Irvine Boulevard and New Myford Road in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan from High 'School (HS) to Planned Community Residential (PCR); Change the designation of the former 16 acre Community Park site located at Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan from Community Park (CP) to High School (HS); Community Development Department I II I II -- I II II Planning Commi ssi on Report June 12, 1989 GPA 89-02(C), ZC 88-02, & ETSP Amendment 88-01 Page three e . Change the designation Of a former 20 acre residential site located in Sector 7 of the East Tustin Specific Plan adjacent to' Jamboree Road north of future Keller Drive from Planned Community Residential (PCR) to Community Park (CP). Zone Change 88-02 - the existing Zoning Plan Map designation within the project site and the proposed Zoning Plan Map revisions are shown in Exhibits 6 and 7 of the attached Addendum to Final EIR 85-2. The specific Zone Change requested would revise the Zoning Plan Map as follows: Change the easterly 10 acre portion of property currently classified as Planned Community - Community Facility (PC-CF) located at Irvine Boulevard and New Myford Road in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan to Planned Communfty Residential (PCR); Change the designation of a 20 acre site currently class, i fied as Planned Community Residential (PCR) located adjacent to Jamboree Road and north of future Keller Drive in the East Tustin Specific Plan to Planned CommUnity- Community Facility (PC-CF). Since, a Zoning Map must be consistent with a City's General Plan as ~required by State law, the proposed Amendments will establish consistency between proposed General Plan land"use changes and the City's Zoning Ordinance. Specific Plan Amendment - Proposed Specific Plan Amendments are map amendments to the Specific Plan Land Use Plan and narrative amendments which implement and establish textual consistency in the Plan with the ma~ amendments. The existing Specific Plan land uses and proposed Specific land uses for Sectors 7 and 11 are depicted in Exhibits 2 and 3 of the attached Addendum to Final EIR 85-2. Narrative amendments are provided in Appendix A of the Addendum. Language to be removed from the plan is cross-hatched and new language is bolded and underlined. Proposed specific Land Use Amendments can be summarized as follows' ° Change the easterly 10 acre portion of the former high school site located at Irvine Boulevard and New Myford Road in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan from a High School (HS) designation to a Medium High Density (MH) designation; ° Change the 16 acre Community Park ('CP) designation in Sector 11 to the High School (HS) designation' Change the designation of a former 20 acre site located adjacent to Jamboree Road north of future Keller Drive in Sector 7 from Medium High Residential (MH) to Community Park (CP). -Community Development Department Planning Commission Report June 12, 1989 GPA 89-02(C), ZC 88-02, & ETSP Amendment 88-01 Page four Once the above Specific Plan Amendments are approved the new "approved" land use Map will be used as a base for a revised reprint of the East Tustin Specific Plan and all maps in the Specific Plan by the applicant. These maps are not assigned a page number in the text, so 'they will be listed by section number and Exhibit letter as follows: e SECTION # EXHIBIT 2 D 2 F 2 G 2 H 2 ' I TITLE Circulation Plan Drainage & Flood Control Concept Plan Sewer Concept Plan ~later Concept Plan Landscape Concept Plan · Addendum 89-01 to ~IR 85-2 as Previously Amended - The initial General Plan, Zone Change and Specific Plan Amendments necessary to adopt the East Tustin. SpecifiC Plan were considered in E!R 85-2 certified on ~',.larcn 12~ 1986 and the subsequently adopted supplements and addendums. EIR 85-2 included a project description, identification of environmental impacts and pro,iect mitigation measures. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes the preparation of an Addendum to an EIR when only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the project as an addendum to Final E~R 85-2, as previously modified. No new significant environmental .i~sues other than those raised in EIR 85-2 have been raised by the proposed project. A copy of Addendum 89-1 is attached. o. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report June 12, 1989 GPA 89-02(C), ZC 88-02, & ETSP Amendment 88-01 Page five CONCLUSION The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan Amendment' have been reviewed for conformance with the California Environmental Quali!:/ Act, State Subdivision Map Act, State Development and Planning Law, the Tustin Area General Plan and the Tustin City Code. The proposed amendments implement terms of a Letter Agreement between the applicant and the City of Tustin and also the adopted School Facilities Agreement between the applicant and the Tustin Unified School District. Addendum 89-01 with recertification of EIR 85-2 is considered adequate under CEQA. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolutions approving the subject project request. · Christine Shingleton v~e~ll DJ.rector of Community De opment CAS'pef ~ Attachments' Resolution Numbers - 2629, 2630, 2631 and 2632 Exhibits Addendum 89-1 Community Development Department 2 3 4 5 '6 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2629 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMI'SSION OF THE C'ITY OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 85-2 FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADDENDUM NO. 89-01 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-02 (C), ZONE CHANGE 88-02 AND EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01 AND FIND THAT THE FINAL EIR, AND ALL SUBSEQUENT ADDENDUMS AND SUPPLEMENTS ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE PROJECT AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 10 11 12 12 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A, That an initial study questionnaire was prepared for General Plan Amendment 88-02 (C), Zone Change 88-02 and East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 (the "Project"), .and it was determined that Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 85-2 (East Tustin Specific Plan including all certified supplemental and addendum documents), with an Addendum (l~o. 89-01), could be employed to describe this project, in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). B. That the environmental documentation was prepared by City of Tustin and Michael Brahdman Associates. C~ That the City provided public notice ~F its initial study and its intention to prepare an Addendum for the project. EIR 85-2 (including all certified supplemental and addendum documents) and Addendum No. 89-01, including comments, have been reviewed and considered by the City of Tustin. D. That EIR 85-2 (including all certified supplemental and addendum documents) and Addendum 89-01 was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and CEQA Guidelines, and the policies of the City of Tustin. E. That pursuant to CEQA, EIR 85-2 (including all certified supplemental and addendum documents) has previously been prepared and certified and adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the project, its significant environmental impacts, and the alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant environmental effect, and that no additional environmental impacts or mitigation measures were identified in Addendum 89-01. 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 20 ~3 24 25 ~6 ~7 Resolution No. 2629 Page two F. 'That Addendum 89-01 prepared for the project addresses only minor technical changes or additions and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred. G, All impacts, mi tiation measures and project alternatives identified in the previously certified environmental documents identified in Section I A. of this Resolution have been reviewed and considered, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project, as applicable, that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in each of the previously certified documents and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding on each significant impact identified in the previously considered environmental documents. Findings and a Statement of Facts supporting such findings and mitigation measures are listed in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 85-28 and Exhibit A of Resolution No. 87-76 and are incorporated herein by reference. II. The'Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council certify that EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan (including all certified supplemental and addendum documents) and Addendum 89-01 are adequate to serve as t)i~ project EIR and that such documents have been completed in compliance with State CEQA law and Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission heldd on the day of , 1989. A. L. Ba~er Chairman Penni Foley Se cre tary 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2630 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(c), A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTOR 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ow s: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A· Government Code Section 65358 provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. B · That a proper application has been filed by the Irvine Company for the purpose of reclassifying the General Plan Land Use designation of property generally located in Sector 7 and 11 of the East Tustin Specific Project Plan area. .The portion of the project located in Sector 7 is northwest of the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The portion of the project with Sector 11 is bounded by Irvine Boulevard on the north,.. Myford Road on the east, Heritage ¥1ay on the south and Tustin Ranch Road on the west. C. Government Code Sed~ion 65358(b) states that no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than four times per calendar year.. However, each amendment may include more than one change. Appropriately in conjunction General Plan Amendment 89-02(c), four other Amendments are being considered which shal 1 be considered one Amendment per Government Code Section 65358(b). De That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) was duly called, noticed, and held on June 12, 1989. This General Plan Amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and an Addendum to EIR 85-02 has been prepared. F. The proposed amendments are in the best interest of the public and surrounding properties in that the proposed amendments are consistent with terms of a Letter of Understanding between the City of Tustin and Irvine Company dated March 11, 1988 and amended April 3, 1989 and will guarantee designation of an adequate high school site and community park sites to serve the communi Resolution No. 2630 Page two 4 5 6 G. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) as shown on Exhibit A and more specifically described as .follows' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 i9 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Change the easterly 10 acre portion of the former high school site located at Irvine Boulevard and New Myford Road in Sector. 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan from High School (HS) to Planned Community Residential (PCR); B · Change the designation of the former 16 acre community park site located at Irvine Boulevard and Tustin Ranch Road in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan from Community Park (CP) to High School (HS); and C. Change the designation of a former 20 acre residential site located in Sector 7 of %he East Tustin Specific Plan adjacent Jamboree Road north of future Keller Drive from Planned Community Residential (PCR) to Community Park (CP). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. · . A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary E~(HIBII " ~ .. .. R.AI',,r,,IED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL , , ~ ..".. · .~ '~,~.. ., ,...:,., .i' -" ' ~ ~R PG8 COMMERCIAL 'i' r-~'~_ PLAI",,~ED COMITY COMMERCIAL PUBLIC AN0 kNSTffUTIDNAL flTERMEDIATE SCPK)OL HiGH SCHOOL. COMMUNITY PARK · REGIONAL TRAIL REGIONAL PAF~ RECREATK~N REVISED LAND USE DIAGRAU TuStin Area General Plan EDAW Inc. REVISED 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2631 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, .CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ZONE CHANGE 88-02, A REQUEST TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTORS 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ow s' I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That a proper application has been filed by the Irvine Company for the purpose of reclassifying the Zoning Plan flap designation of property generally located in Sectors 7 and 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan project area. The portion of the project located in Sector 7 is northwest of the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Jamboree Road. The portion of the proje.ct within Sector 11 is bounded by Irvine Boulevard to the north Myford Road on the east, Heritage ;~ay on the south and Tustin Ranch Road on the west. B. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider Zone Change 88-02 was duly called, noticed, and'held on June 12, 1989. C. This Zone Change has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and an Addendum to EIR 85-02 has been prepared. D. The p'roposed rezoning is necessary to establish consistency with the General Plan as required by law. E. The proposed zoning is in the best interest-of the public health, safety, and welfare and would be ,compatible with the existing and surrounding uses. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of Zone Change 88-02 as shown on Exhibit A and more specifically described as follows' Ae Change the easterly 10 acre portion of property currently classified as Planned Community - Community Facility (PC-FC} located at Irvine Boulevard and New Myford Road in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan to Planned Community Residential (PCR); and B · Change the designation of a 20 acre site currently classified as Planned Community Residential {PCR) located adjacent to Jamboree Road and north of future Keller Drive in the East Tustin Specific Plan to Planned Community - Community Facility {PC-CF). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 2O 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2631 Page two PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on ,the day of , 1989. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary * "" "' PCR ., :.'..,. ~ ; .. '~7.~',"':" ~ ;,,..,, · ':.,: :l: '), ' ~ %'~ ./ ,.~. · '*"": ~ ' ' '*' ~' ~ °· J '*" "~ i' *' ' ....... .~,. .- ." .I' ' .... ~ '"' "? .~. ~. .. ~ ~ .~ ' 1%..' .,~ "~ ' ' ' '~ *' ,' "- ~5" ' . . .:~ ,. t · : .' ). n'.'~:" . . . :.. ::'~:. ,~: ..:2., .~ .. '... . ':-- i: 'I' '~ "-- '" ~ & . , ~'- . .. _'. ~?'.':L': ' ~. .~"' ,.~." ': '~ '.~ 'J" :' '". I :. ~ ..... ~.. . ,'.".:.~:- .~ ;.--:~:--4 ;:~.:,,'.*::~..~.~.,-}~: 2~ ':~' :. ~'x',T '.'.t~/': '~.'"'..:' ~ ~ .: .-% ,: ~. -: ',..~ .~' ... .. .~.;' ~ '.' ..~ .-. ~ r. · :.... , '~, .. .. . '.::.. . ..~.. ~ , PCR PCR PCR AVE'., PCMU o. EXHIBIT ,. RESOLUTION NO. 2631 PCR LEGEND l_ ',, ;,; 1 COMML~ RESIDEN~AL ~'P,¢¢ ] PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ~ PLANNED COMMUNITY MIXED USE i'CpCCF! PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES PCCF · PGC ' I I · .. o- REVISED ZONING 1 3AP III III i Ii I II . El)AW In~ REVISED 1 3 4 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2632 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAN~ING COMMISSION OF ~HE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01, PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE PLAN FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTOR 7 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND NARRATIVE TEXTURAL AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. · Section 3.14 of the East Tustin Specific Plan provides that amendments to the East Tustin Specific Plan shall be initiated and processed in the same manner set forth by the City Code for amendin§ the City Zoning Ordinance. B. That a proper applica'tion has been filed by the Irvine Company for the purpose of making certain Specific Plan Land Use Plan amendments on certain property generally located in Sector 7 and 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan. The portion of the project site located in Sector 7 is northwest of the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Jamboree' Road. The portion of the project site within Sector 11 is bounded by Irvine Boulevard on the"" north, Myford Road on the east, Heritage Way on the south and Tustin Ranch Road on the west. In addition to proposed~Land Use Plan amendments, narrative amendments are al so proposed to establish textual consistency in the Plan with the proposed map amendments. C. A public hearing before the Planning Commission was duly noticed, called and held on June 12, 1989. D. The East Tustin Specific Plan has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Addendum 89-01 to East Tustin Specific Plan EIR 85-02 has been prepared. E. The proposed East Tustin Specific Plan Amendments is in the best interest of the public health., safety, and welfare and would' be compatible with the existing and surrounding uses. F. The proposed East Tustin Specific Plan Amendments will establish consistency with General Plan Amendment 89-02(c) and Zone Change 88-02. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of Eas~ T'ustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01. Textual amendments are shown on Exhibi~ A and map amendments are shown on Resolution No. 2632 Page two 4 5 6 8 9 10 II Exhibit B and can be more specifically described as follows' Ae Change to easterly 10 acre portion of the former high school site located at Irvine Boulevard and New ,qyford Road in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan from a High School {HS) designation to a Medium High Density {MH} designation; B · Change the 16 acre Community Park (CP} designation in Sector 11 to the High School {HS) designation; and Ce Change the designation of a former 20 acre site located adjacent to Jamboree Road north of future Keller Drive in Sector ? from Medium High Residential {MH) to Community Park {CP). 12 13 14 15 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Comm)ssion, held .on the day of , 1989. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTIO:{ ~10. 2632 TEXT MODIFICATIONS Table 2.1 Statistical Summary Land Use Designation Acreage Residential Estate (up to 2 du/ac) Low (up to 5 du/ac) Medium Low (up to 10 du/ac) Medium (up to 18 du/ac) Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac) 415 287 5O 222 18,5 Open Space Public Neighborhood Parks* Community Parks Golf Course ;~741 150 Commerci al/Busi ness Neighborhood Commerci al General Commercial Mi xed Use 10 31 121 Institutional Elementary Schools* Intermediate Schools High School 58 15- 40 Other Uses Roads (arterial and major only**) 101 · * Certain park and school site acreages have not been established. Such acreage will be taken from residential land use area. ** Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major. roads, has been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses. Residential Land Use: The Land use Plan designates five residential categories, each of which has maximum density. Residential.densities are controlled in all of the following: land use areas, sectors and the Specific Plan Area· , For any residential subdivision map the maximum density range cannot be exceeded for a particular land use area. Lower densities will be permitted in any area. ?he boundaries and acreage .of the land use areas shown on the Land Use Plan are approximate and will be precisely determined in the future when subdivision Maps are reviewed. The land use areas described within each sector are subject to the policies specific to a given sector. These policies are outlined in Secf~;n 2.14. 2-2 The total number of dwelling units for the overall Specific Plan Area may not exceed 7,950 units. However, if the total allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unbuilt units may be transferred to the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the provisions of the following paragraphs. The total number of dwelling units in each Sector may not exceed the figures -' specified Table 2.4. If a sector is developed with less than the maximum number of units permitted within the sector, then a transfer of units .will be permitted from sector to sector within the Specific Plan Area. These transfers will .be closely monitored. When proposing unit transfers, compatibility with adajacent land use areas must be considered. Specific requirements for allowing unit transfers and maximum unit increases in Sectors are outlined in the Development Standards in Section 3.0. Also, in Section 3.0 there are more definitive standards for development of each residential density category. Mixed Use Designation: The Land Use Plan designates 121 acres in the southeast corner of the site, in Sector 12 between Bryan Avenue and the I-5 Freeway, as a mixed use area. A 70-acre commercial center and hotel/motel will be developed in this area. Additional commercial uses or office and research and development uses may also be developed within this area. The Mixed Use designation permits flexibility for location and configuration of these uses. It also creates the opportunity for development to respond to future changes in economic and market forces. The Development Standards for the Mixed Use Area are defined in Section 3.0. Non-Residential Land Uses: The Land use Plan (LUP) includes a number of non- residential uses such as: (1) Schools, (2) Parks, (3) Open Space and Recreation FacilitieS, and (4) Commercial Land Use designations. These are summarized in the following table: Table 2.2 Land Uses Integral to the LUP Institutional Use Quantity Approximate Total Acreaqe_ Intermediate School I 15 High School I 40 Commun'ity Park 3 37 41 Go.1 f Course 1 15-~ Commercial/Business Use General Commerci al Neighborhood Commerci al 31 10 2-3 Table 2.3 Land Uses Anticipated in LUP InStitutional Use Elementary .School Public Neighborhood Parks Private Neighborhood Parks Quantity 3-6 vari es * Approximate Total Acreage 8-10 3-4 * Vari es * * The exact number, location and size of private neighborhood parks will be established with subdi- vi sion maps. One high school site is reserved along Irvine Boulevard and one junior high school site is designated for the area along Peters Canyon Wash in Sector 2. Five elementary school sites are to be distributed throughout the Specific Plan area, and one elementary school has been sited with an adjacent neighborhood park, which encompasses the redwood/cedar stand situated on Sector 3. Four other neighborhood parks are generally located in various sectors of the Plan. Three (3)community parks are more specifically located: they include an eight- acre site near the junior high school, a ~6 20-acre site, and a 13-acre site incorporating a knoll situated south of Portola Parkway. Elementary and Intermediate schools and public neighborhood parks are symbolically illustrated on the Land Use Plan. The specific sizes, location and numbers of these facilities will be determined in accordance with the provision of Subsection 2.8. 2.2 Circulation · The Circulation Plan, Exhibit D, illustrates the backbone vehicular circulation system for the Specific Plan area. This section describes the existing and planned arterial highway circulation system for the East Tustin Specific Plan. Established Arterial Highway Alignments Street City of Tustin Classification County of Orange Classification Irvine Boulevard Bryan Avenue Portol a Parkway Santa Ana Freeway Browning Avenue Future Road Myford Road Weir Canyon Road Major Major Primary Primary - Major* Freeway Freeway Secondary S ecg nda ry Major* Major or Primary* Major*- - - Primary Freeway* Eastern Transportation Corridor - E1 Camino Real Secondary * Conceptual ly Proposed 2-4 Table 2.4 Tustin.Statistic:d Analysis Acreage * Total Maxi mum A11 owab 1 e Land Use Density Uni ts SECTOR 1 125 Estate Density Residential 2.0 du/ac Subtotal 125 188 SECTOR 2 74 101 5O 13 o 10 ** 15 ** 8 ** Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Medium Low Density Residential 10 du/ac Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac Elementary School Junior High School Community Park Subtotal 271 1,010 + SECTOR 3 6 08** 03** Low Density Residential Elementary School Neighborhood Park § du/ac Subtotal SECTOR 4. Subtotal SECTOR 5 17 118 118 98 18 Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac Estate Density 'Residential Low Density Residential 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 68 + 177 Subtotal 116 219 SECTOR 6 31 General Commercial Subl~otal 31 SECTOR 7 Subtotal SECTOR 8 Subtotal I28 111 132 o 10 ** I3 33 ** 150 436 77 26 0 10 ** o 4 ** 117 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac Elementary School Community Park Golf Course Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Elementary School Neighborhood Park 4 du/ac 18 du/ac ",605 + 349 233 582 + 2-24 - Table 2.4 (Cont'd) n SECTOR 9 Acreage 39 Land Use Maximum Density * Total Allowable Units Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 39 156 SECTOR 10 46 15 o 10 ** Low Dens i ty Res i dent i al Medium Density Residantial Elementary School 5 du/ac 18 du/ac Subtotal 71 405 + SECTOR 11 57 ~¢ 56 40 o 10 ** o 4 ** 10 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac High School Elementary School Neighborhood Park Rei ghborhood Commerci al Subtotal SECTOR 12 I83 177 121 Mixed Use 1,540 + Subtotal 121 7,950 *** Total allowable number of permitted units within a given sector may be increase(l if a s~ector unit transfer..occurs as described in Subsection 2.1. ** The precise acreage and locations of private and public'neighborhood parks, elementary schools and intermediate schools will be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Maps as identified under Review Procedure Subsection 1.5 and consistent with policies established in Subsections 2.9 and 2.10 of the Specific Plan. *** If the maximum aliowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unconstructed units may be transferred to the Specific Plan area. This acreage figure is an estimated allocation for this land use. If it changes, other land use acreage allocations in the sector may change. However, the total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. Total Allowable Units assumes that if a school and/or a park currently designated for this sector are not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities are constructed~ the land use area density limitation may preclude construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units would be transferred to another sector. 2-25 Sector 7 This is the largest of the 12 sectors in terms of acreage. The site is virtually flat and encompasses 436 acres. It is situated along the eastern boundary of the site and is bounded by Portola Parkway on the north, Myford Road on the east, the Future Road on the west, and Irvine .Boulevard on the south. The Site includes a hillSide knoll located south of Portola Parkway, a visually prominent landform feature which contrasts with the flat topogcaphy within the rest of the Sector. Eucalyptus windrows occur along Peters Canyon Wash and in the easterly portion of the Sector. This area is planned to encompass a variety of residential densities to be developed around an 18-hole privately owned and operated golf course which is to be open for public play. Residential uses including medium and medium high densities are planned for this Sector. Densities generally decrease from east to west with the medium-high areas located along Myford. Road. Also planned for this area is an elementary school which has not beep~ precisely located at this time, however., it is currently allocated for the southwest quadrant of this sector. The precise location and size of this school shall be determined as per Subsection 2.10 of this Specific Plan. A regional riding/hiking trail, and bikeway are planned in accordance with County Master Plans (Class I). The trail may be located away from Peters Canyon Wash in order, to avoid conflicts with the golf course.~ The trail location in Sector 7 shown on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit C) following along arterial highways is conceptual and may be adjusted to meet specific site conditions and to ensure trail continuation in the adjoining City of Irvi'ne. A neighborhood park has also been generally allocated for this same quadrant. The size and location of this park will be precisely determined as per Subsection 2.8. Finally, a 13-acre community park has been precisely located to encompass the knoll at the northern most end of the sector. Jn additional 20 acre communi02 park will be provided near the southeast corner o[ the sector. The following policies apply to Sector 7: A. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted within this sector are as shown' in Table 2.4. B. The golf course as shown on the Land Use Plan illustrates a conceptual boundary. The precise edges of the golf course may vary as long a's the 2-37 area of the other residential .land uses remain generally consistent with the Statistical Summary and that the relative location of residential land use are consistent with Exhibit C. There may be an adjustment of increased acreage from the minimum acreage of 150 to the golf course from that shown on the statistical summary. Any adjustment, however, shall be at the discretion of the landowner, and can encroach on the residential land use parcels within this sector. Such an adjustment would change acreages within those land use parcels, however, the total maximum number of units allowed within the sector will not be exceeded. The golf course provides a strong visual image within the sector as well as the whole community and visibility shall be provided from the arterial roadways, therefore the golf course shall directly front on Myford Road, and Irvine Boulevard, and shall have at least two frontages on the Future Road. A minimum of 250-feet of lineal frontage shall be provided at each of these points. Incorporation of existing eucalyptus windrows shall be considered within the golf course. C. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways adjoining this Sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer 'to Section 2.12 Implementation, for specific requi rments. D. A community park shall be located along the edge south of Portola Parkway and shall include the north side of the knoll located south of this road. Development policies related to this knoll are established in Section 2.13, Hillside District.Guidelines, Landform Modification. An additional 20 acre Community Park shall be provided ad/acent to Jamboree Road m~d o. north of hv#~e Boulevard. E. Where feasible and consistent with flood control requirements,· the treatment of Peters Canyon Wash (Exhibit L) should retain a natural appearance by (1) minimizing concrete channelization such as vertical walls and concrete channel or trapezoidal soil cement~ (2) retaining or replanting indigenous vegetation along the drainage course, and/or (3) locating the drainage course within open space areas. 2-38 Sector 11 This sector consists of approximately 183 acres. It is bounded by the Future Road al ignment on the west, Irvine Boulevard on the north, Myford Road on the east, and Bryan Avenue on the south. Several land uses are proposed within this sector. The .residential uses include medium density which is to be located in the southwest quadrant of the sector. Medium high residential development is to be situated along the eastern boundary of the site encompassing the entire area between Bryan Avenue and Irvine Boulevard. A 40-acre site has been designated for a high school just south of Irvine .Boulevard. This will be centrally located to both Myford and the Future Road extension. ~ ~lfi[fi¢i~I~l~ i~/~ Sg gg6v~}~ northeast corner of. the sector, a 10-acre neighborhood commercial site has been planned at the intersection of Irvine Boulevard and Myford Road, an important entry point into the City from the east.. An elementary school has been generally located between the medium and medium high residential development, lhe precise sizes and location of schools shall be determined as described in Subsection 2.10 of this Specific Plan. A neighborhood park has been generally located in the area of the medium residential development. The precise location of this park is to be determined as described in Subsection 2.8 o'f this Specific Plan. The following policies apply to Sector 11: A. The maximum number of residential units permitted in this sector are as shown on Table 2.4. B. In addition to the specific submittal requirements for the Subdivision Map of this Sector, refer to Section 1.5, a conceptual landscape plan for arterial roadways within' this.Sector shall also be submitted with the Subdivision Map for approval by the Director of Community Development, refer to Section 2.12, Implementation for specific requirements. 2-43 A buffer 'for the E1 Modena channel shall be provided. The methods for buffering shall include, but not be 'limited to fencing and landscaping. 2-44 EAST TUSTIN STATISTICAL A~NALYSIS Acreage * Total Max i mum A11 owab 1 e Land Use Density Units SECTOR 1 Subtotal 125 -125 Estate Density Residential 2.0 du/ac 188 SECTOR Subtotal SECTOR 3 Subtotal SECTOR 4 74 101 50 13 o 10'* 15 ** 8 ** 271 6 08** 03** 17 118 Estate Density Residential Low Density Residential Medium Low Density Residential Medium Density .Residential Elementary School Junior High School Community Park 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 10 du/ac 18 du/ac Low Density Residential Elementary School Neighborhood Park 5 du/ac Estate Density Residential 2 du/ac 1,010 + 68 + Subtotal SECTOR 5 Subtotal 118 98 18 116 Estate Density .Residential Low Density Residential 2 du/ac 5 du/ac 177 219 SECTOR 6 31 General Commercial Subtotal 31 SECTOR 7 Subtotal SECTOR 8 10 ** 33 ** 150 436 77 26 o 10'* 0 4 ** Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac Elementary School Community Park Golf Course Low Dens i ty Res i dent i al Medium Density Residential .Elementary School Neighborhood Park 4 du/ac 18 du/ac 3,605 + 349 233 Subtotal 117 582 + 3-13 EAST TUSTIN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (Cont'd) Acreage Land Use Maximum Density * Total Allowable Un. its SECTOR 9 39 Low Density Residential 5 du/ac Subtotal 39 156 SECTOR 10 46 15 o 10 ** Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential E1 ementary School 5 du/ac 18 du/ac Subtotal SECTOR 11 71 57 ~ 56 40 o 10 ** o 4 ** 10 Medium Density Residential 18 du/ac Medium High Density Residential 25 du/ac High School Elementary School Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Commercial 405 + Subtotal SECTOR 12 I83 177 121 Mi xed Use 1,540 + Subtotal 121 7,950 *** Total allowable number of permitted units within a given sector may be increased if a sector unit transfer..occurs as described in Subsection 2.1. ** The precise acreage and locations of private and public neighborhood parks, elementary schools and intermediate schools will be determined as part of the review of the Sector Subdivision Maps as identified under Review Procedure Subsection 1.5 and consistent with policies established in Subsections 2.9 and 2.10 of the Specific Plan. *** If the maximum allowable units in Tentative Tract Map No. 12345 are not constructed, the unconstructed units may be transferred to the Specific P1 an area. This acreage figure is an estimated allocation for this land use. If it changes, other land use acreage allocations in the sector may change. However, the total allowable units for the sector will remain the same. Total Allowable Units assumes that if a school and/or a park currently designated for this sector are not built in this sector and that the acreage goes into residential use. If these facilities are constructed, the land use area density limitation, may preclude construction of the total allowable sector units and such unbuilt units weuld be transferred to another sector. 3-14 CF C. Zoos or nature centers with live animals in conjunction with a public park site. D. Hospitals outside the Browning Aircraft Approach and departure corridor for MCAS Tustin. E. Commercial recreational centers located on public park and school sites. F. Residential uses - compNance with Residential Regulations detailed bz Section 3. 6.1 through 3. 6.40nedium density) C G. Temporary uses - shall be regulated pursuant to the applicable section of the city municipal code. H. Unlisted uses - those uses not specifically listed in this Section 3.9.2 are subject to Community Development Department determination to be either permitted, conditional or prohibited uses pursuant to the objectives of this zoning regulatory document and the purposes of the individual land use category. Decisions of the Community Development Department may be appealed to the City Planning Commission. 3.9.3 Site Development Standards A. Building site area: no minimum requirements. B. Building Height limit: 35 feet unless Community Facility Land use is located totally within a land use area allowing greater building height, in which case the greater height limit shall be-allowed. C. Building setbacks: same setbacks al'l'owed for the land use area in which' Community Facility Use is located. For uses not located entirely within .one land use area, the most restrictive setback standard for any adjoining area shall prevail. D. Landscaping: a minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the building site area shall be landscaped. E. Parkinq: compliance with parking regulations detailed in Section 3.10. F. Signing: compliance with signing regulations detailed in Section 3.11. G. Lighting: all lighting, exterior and interior shall be designed and located to confine direct rays and glare to the premises except sports field lighting which may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit (Section 3.9.2,A.8), H. Trash and Storage Areas: All storage, including cartons, cn. nf.,~ners and trash, shall be shielded from view within a building or area ~, ' ':ed by a masonry wall not less than six (6) feet in height. No such ,~, ".;hall be located Within fifty (50) feet of any residentially designat¢C ,~',.2a unless it is fully enclosed. 3-45 RESOLUTION N0.2632 EXHIBIT 'B' I LEGEND RESIDENTIAL ] ESTATE DENS/TV ' LOW DEN~dTY INSTITUTIONAL/RECREATIOHAL ; COMIdERCIAL/SU$tNE$$ /,'.. Revised Land Use Plan I II I ii i ii EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN C~y of Tustin ~ ( SEE EXHIBIT I-1 / I-IA FOR SITE SPECIFIC DETAIL EDAW Inc. REVISED_ Repor ITEM NO. 7 Planning · 'Commission DATE: SUBJECT' APPLICANT' LEGAL DESCRIPTION' ZONING' STATUS' REQUEST- JUNE 12, 1989 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP THE I RVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE P.O. BOX 'I' NEWPORT BEACH,,CALIFORNIA 92658-8904 PARCEL MAP 88-31S - LOTS 7 & 8, TRACT 12763 PARCEL MAP 88-316 - LOTS 15, 16, 17, AA, Y & Z TRACT 12870 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLA~I CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 1) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 2 LOTS IN TRACT 12763 TO CREATE 2 NEW NUMBERED LOTS; AND 2) REQUEST TO RECONFIGURE 3 'EXISTING NUMERED LOTS AIID 3 LETTERED LOTS IN TRACT 12870 TO CREATE TWO NUMBERED LOTS. RECOMMENDATION It recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions' · · Recommend to City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Hap 88-315 by adoption of Resolution No. 2~27, as submitted or, revised; and Recommend to City Council approval of. Tentative Parcel Map 88-316 by adoption of Resolution No. 2628, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND As discussed in a previous staff report for Commission's meeting on June 12th {General Plan Amendment 89-02{c), Zone Change 88-02 and East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01), the City of Tustin and Irvine Company executed a Letter ~ ,, Community Development Departmenl _ ~,2 Planning Commission Report . Tentative Tract Ma~ June 12, 1989 Page two of Understanding in March of 1988, agreeing to the following: relocation of a 16 acre community park 'from lot 7 of Tract 12763 located in Sector 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan to lots 15, 16, and 17 in Tract 12870, a 20 acre site located in Sector 7, and; the expansion of the future high school site in Tract 12763 to include 40 acres. As required by the terms of said agreement, the applicant has filed an application requesting resubdivision of lots 7 and 8 Tract 12763 (Parcel Map 88-315) and resubdivision of lots 15, 16, and 17 and several landscaping lots shown on Tract 12870 (Parcel Hap 88-316). Parcel Map 88-315 is bounded by Myford Road on the east, Heritage Way on the south, Irvine Boulevard on .the north and Tustin Ranch Road on the west. Parcel Map 88-316 is bounded by future Robinson Drive on the west and north, Jamboree Road on the east, and future Keller Road on the south. A public hearing notice identifying the time, date, and location of the hearing on tilis matter v~as published in the Tustin News. Property owners witilin 300 feet of the site were also noticed by mail. The applica~lt was al'so informed of the availability oF -the s~a~f report on this matter. DISCUSSIO~ Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 - Proposes to create 2 parcels- Parcel 1, a 10 acre development si~e, and; Parcel 2, a 40 acre high school site. Future development on Parcel i will requTre Planning Commission re¥iew and approval. To establish consistency with adjacent residential projects, Tentative Parcel Hap 88-315 would create landscape easements along Irvine Boulevard, Myford Road, and Heritage Way with landscaping along Irvine Boulevard tQ be maintained by the Tustin Lighting & Landscape District and areas adjacent to Heritage Way and Myford Road to be maintained by the adjacent property owner or Homeowner's Association. e Tentative Parcel Map 88-316 - Proposes ~ to create 2 parcels' Parcel 1, a 10 acre elementary school sitq, and Parcel 2, a 20 acre community park site. CONCLUSION Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 and 88-316 are consistent with the General Plan, Zoning and East Tustin Specific Plan Amendments proposed to the Planning Commission and approval is conditioned upon City Council approval of these amendments. Community Development Department Plannin§ Commission Report' Tentative T. ract Map · June 12, 1989 Page three With inclusion of conditions of approval listed in the attached Resolutions, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No's. 2627 and 2528 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Maps 88-315 and 88-316. Christine A. Shingleto0/~/ Director of Community [Tevelopment. CAS'ts Attachments' Resolution No's. 2627 and 2628- Tentative Parcel Map Community Development D epartm'ent r..O ~-0 - 0 o~ [-.- oo 0 / // W i, -- N ,( I! ./ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 lC, 17 1,~ 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2627 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-315. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol lows: I. The Planning Commission 'finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 was submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting authorization to subdivide lots 7 and 8 of Tract 12763 as per map recorded in Book 581, pages 16-25 of Tract maps in the office of the Orange County Recorder. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on June 12, 1989. C. That the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 15 ~ro~n til? requirements of the California Environ~ental Quali'ty Act for tile subject project area. De E. That the proposed subdivision will be in conformance with Tustin Area General Plan, Tustin Zoning Code, East Tustin Specific Plan, ~nd State Subdivision Map Act. · . That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density development. Ge That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause e'nvironmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. H. That the design or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. I. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 II 12 14 15 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2627 Pa ge two II. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-315, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit'A'. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. A. L. Baker Chai ?man Penni-~o16y Se creta ry EXHIBIT A PARCEL MAP 88-315 RESOLUTION )10. 2627 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE I~4PROVEMENTS (1) 1.1 Prior to issuance of Building permits or other grants of approval for (6) development on each parcel within the boundary of Parcel Map 88-315, the subdivider shall prepare plans and construct or post security guaranteeing construction of all new or altered construction required within the public right-of-way and any necessary changes to improvements originally approved for Tract 12763 in conformance with applicable City standards, including but limited to the following: A. Curb and gutter/cross gutters B. Sidewalks including access facilities for physically handicapped persons C. Drive aprons/approach D. Street paving E. Landscaping/irrigation facilities F. Sanitary server service facilities per City Engineer and Irvine Ranch Water District Standards. G. Domestic water service facilities to Irvine Ranch Water District and City of Tustin standards, ~hichever is 'applicable at time of plan preparation, also subject to Fire Department a.oproval and Health Department standards. H. Reclaimed ~.~a'ter servic~ 'Facilities I. Utility connections (i:e., gas, electric, telephone, and cable T.V. facilities) J. Traffic signal systems and. other traffic control devices K. Street and paseo lighting L. Storm drains and subdrains M. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines N. Lot monumentation '- O. Fi re hydrants P. Bus stop installation eastbound on Irvine Boulevard opposite Robi~son Drive. The area adjacent to the stop shall include a paved passenger waiting a-rea, compete witl] a bus shelter and bench. A bus turnout si~all be provided if determined necessary by the City engineer in accordance with Transit District Turnout Design Guidelines based on roadway cross-sections, travel volumns or speeds. Approval from the Department of Community Development shall also be required on the actual architectural design on any installed bus stop improvements. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) EIR MITIGATION (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION (5) SPECIFIC PLAN (6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (8) PC/CC POLICY (9) OTHER MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENT Resolution No. 2627 Exhibit A P-~qe two *** 1.2 The requirements contained in Condition 1.1 shall be noticed by a statement on the Parcel Map. . , . (1) 1.:t The amount of acceptable security for construction of public improvements (6) shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The amount and acceptable security for private improvements shall be reviev~ed and approved by the Building Official. (1) 1.4 All construction within a public right-of-way and/or public easement must be shown on a separate 24" X 36" plan with all construction referenced to applicable City, County, or Irvine Ranch ~,~ater District standard drawing numbers. (1) 1.5 All changes in existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other public (6) improvements shall be responsibility of subdivider. *** 1.6 Placement of all above ground facilities, such as signing, street lights and fire hydrants shall be behind the sidewalk when said sidewalks are constructed adjacent to the curb within the public right-of-way. (5) (6) (8) D ED ! CAT I O ~I S / .,~ SE R'I AT I O :~ S /EA SE: !E:IT S 2.1 The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or reservation requirements as applicable, in'cluding but not limited to dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements and water easements defined and approved as to specific location by the City Engineer and other r'esponsible~gencies. · . *** 2.2 The subdivider shall reserve Parcel 2 for a public high school si (6) Reservation of Parcel 2 shall not be terminated or released unless approved by the Tustin Unified School District and shall not require termination pursuant to Sections 66480 and 66481 of the Subdivision Map Act. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (1) 3.1 Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be (6) repaired before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development on any parcel within the subdivision. (1) 3.2 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Excavation Permit must be obtained and applicable fees paid from the Public Works Department. GRADING/GENERAL (1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of grading permits within Parcel-Map 88-315' (2) A. A detailed soil engineering report shall be submitted to and approved by Resolution No. 2627 Exhibit A --~e three the Building Official conforming to the requir.~ments of the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Requirements, and all other applicable State and local laws, regulations and requirements. B · Preparation and submittal of a grading plan subject to approval of the Department of Community Development delineating the following information: 1. Methods of drainage in accordance with all applicable City standards. · All recommendations submitted by geotechnical or soils engineer and specifically approved by them. · A drainage plan and necessary support documents such as hydrology calculations to comply with the following requirements: a. Provision of drainage facilities to remove any flood hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which will allow buildin~ pads to be safe from inundation from rain fall ~qich ma)' be ex,2ected from all storms u,o to and i~lcluding t'.le ti~eore~cal 100 year storm and. dedication of any necessary easements on the final map as required. b. Elimination of any sheet flow and ponding. c. Provision of drainage facilities to protect the lots from any high velocity scouring action. d. Provision for contributory drainage from adjoining properties. 5. All flood hazard areas of record. 6. A note shall be placed on the grading plan requiring Community Development Department approval of rough grading prior to final clearance for foundations. The Department will inspect the si~e for accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may require certification of any grading related matter· C. Preparation of a. sedimentation and erosion control plan for all construction work related to the subject Tract including a method of control to prevent dust and windblown earth problems. De Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. E. Written approval must be obtained from adjacent property owners for rights-of-entry for construction activity across lot lines. 4.2 All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the City of Tustin Municipal Codes and grading requirements. Resolution No. 2627 Exhibit A P~e four FIRE DEPARTME)IT. (1) 5.1 The subdivider shall comply with all reqQirements of the Orange County Fire (6) Marshal, including required fire flow, installation where requirad of fire (2) hydrants subject to approval as to location by the Fire Department, City of Tustin Public Works Department and Irvine Ranch Water District, a'nd compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction. The Fire Chief may require 'financial security to be posted for fire protection. (1) 5.2 Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence (6) that adequate water supply and operational fire hydrants are available for (2) fire protection shall be submitted and approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal. Required fire hydrants shall be in place and operational to meet required fire flow prior to commencing construction with combustible materials. (1) 5.3 A construction phasing plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the (6) Fire Chief for the evaluation of emergency vehicles access prior to issuance of Building permits within boundary of the tract. _ NOISE k_, 6.1 Prior to the fssuance of any building Permits' (2) (3) A. A final acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures~require4 to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitl~d to the Tustin Community Development Department for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared by an expert or authority in the field of acoustics. All residential lots and dwellings, shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noises, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard 65 dba CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dba CNEL in all habitable roo6s is required. Evidence prepared under the supervision of an acoustical consultant that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be provided. For any project that falls under the Browning Corridor, a complete noise study shall be conducted and submitted to the City for review. In addition to Community Noise Equivalency Levels (CNEL) said study provides Resolution' No. 2627 Exhibit A -- o fi ve information on single event noise measurements as 'generated by helicopter flyovers for information purposes only. (1) 6.2 Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Use or Occupancy, field testing in (3) accordance with the Title 25 regulations may be required by the Building (2) Official to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. (1) 6.3 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the (9) provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ord'inance and shall take place 6nly during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance 'with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. GENERAL (1) 7.1 Subdivider shall notify all potential homebuyers of the following (5) Assessment/Maintenance Districts affectihg the property: B · Assessment District 86-2. City of Tustin 1982 Landscaping and Lighting District as amended as it affects Parcel i along Irvine Boulevard. (1) 7.2 Prior. to recordation of any final map, Subdivider shall pay plan check and (3) inspection fees for all public and/or private infrastructure improvements (6) within City's responsibility excluding those financed by an Assessme,qt (9) District. (1) 7.3 Prior to issuance of certificates of use or occupancy, the Subdivider shall (6) pay all costs related to the calculation of the reapportioned parcel assessments, the preparation of the reapportionment assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to Assessment District 85-1 applicable to the subdivision. (1) 7.4 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all (3) required fees including: (6) (9) A. Major thoroughf.are and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department. B. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District. C · Grading plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development Department. All applicable-Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. ResOlutioh No. 2627 Exhi bi t A Page six ,. E. New development fees to the Community Development Department. F · School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the District and the Irvine Company. (1) 7.5 Within 24 months from tentative map approval, the Subdivider shall file with appropriate agencies, a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision ;~tap Act, aqd applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. (1) 7'.6 Prior to release of Building permits, (other than grading) on property within the map units, the Subdivider shall record a final map in conformance with appropriate tentative map. (1) 7.7 Prior to final map approval. , A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report. Be Provision 'For landscal)ing maintenance and o'~nership of landscape easements or lots along Heritage ~'la~r and Myford Road shall be ~;l~ responsibility of the adjoining property owners and/or Homeowner's Association on Parcel. C · Subdivider shall submit a duplicate mylar of the Final Map, or 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch transparency of each map sheet prior to final map approval and "as built" grading, landscape and. improvement plans prior' to certificate of acceptance. (1) 7.8 Subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State (9) Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, in the East Tust]n (5) Specifc Plan and Development Agreement, EIR 85-2, and all applicable (2) conditions for Final Map 12763. (1) 7.9 The cumulative number of residential units for which certificate of: occupancy (5) may be issued shall not exceed those permitted in the East Tustin Specific Plan and the cumulative total or square feet of occupied revenue generating uses or equivalents as shown in the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. 7.10 The Browning Corridor Aviation Easement and G.C.A. Easement as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding dated July, 1985 between the United States Marine Corps, the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin, shall be indicated on the Map. Resolution No. 2627 Exhibit A ge seven *** 7.11 Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-315 shall be condition upon City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(c), Zone Change 88-02 and East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Should the City Council fail to approve the subject actions, Tentative Parcel Map approval 88-315 shall become null and void. CAS'ts 1 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 17 18~ i9 21 22 23 2,t 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2628 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-316, The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' I. The Planning Commission finds and determi,';es as follows' A. That Tentative Parcel Map 88-316 was submitted to the Planning Commission on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting authorization to subdivide lots 15, 16, 17, AA, Y AND Z of Tract 12870 as per map recorded in Book 601, pages 1-20 of Miscellaneous Maps filed in the office of the Orange County Recorder. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on June 12, 1989. C. That the project is Cate,~orically Exei'n,ot, .~ lass 15 fro~.l ti~ requirements of %he California Environmental Q~lity Act for the subject project area. D. That the proposed subdi'vision will be in Conformance with the'~'' Tustin Area General Plan, Tustin Zoning Code, East Tustin Specific Plan, and S~ate Subdivision Map Act. · . E. That the si~e is physically suitable for the type of develo.~ment proposed F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Ge That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. H. That the design or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. I. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 · 28 Resolution No. 2628 Page two II. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel~ Map 88-316, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit'A'. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. 'A. L. Baker Chairman .. .o Penni Foley Secretary EXHIBIT A PARCEL MAP 88-316 RESOLUTION )(0. 2628 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (1) 1.1 Prior to issuance of Building permits or other grants oF approval for (6)' development on each parcel within tile boundary of Parcel Map 88-316, the subdivider shall prepare plans and construct or post security guaranteeing construction of all new or altered construction required within the public right-of-way and any necessary changes to improvements originally approved for Tract 12763 in conformance with applicable City standards, including but ~ot limited to the follo~ing: A. Curb and gutter/cross gutters B. Sidewalks including access facilities for physically handicapped persons C. Drive aprons/approach D. Street paving E. Landscaping/irrigation facilities F. Sanitary sewer service facilities per City Engineer and Irvine Ranch Water District Standards. G. Domestic water service facilities to Irvine Ranch ~later District and City of Tustin Standards, whichever is applicable at time of plan preparation, subject to Fire Department approval and Health Department Standards. H. Reclaim. ed wate~~ servic.~ facilities I. Utility connections (i.e., gas, electric, telephone, and cable T.V. facilities) J. Traffic signal systems and other traffic control devices K. Street and paseo lighting L. Storm drains and subdrains Iq. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines N. Lot monumentation " O. Fi re hydrants P. Bus stop installation soutllbound Jamboree Road south of Robinson Drive. The area adjacent to the stop shall include a paved passenger waiting area, compete with a bus shelter and bench. A bus turnout shall be provided if determined necessary by the City engineer in accordance with Transit District Turnout Design Guidelines based on roadway cross-sections, travel volumns.or speeds. Approval from the Department of Community Development shall also be required on the actual architectural design on any installed bus stop improvements. SOURCE CODES (1) STA:(DARD CONDITION (2) EIR MITIGATION (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION (5) SPECIFIC PLAN (6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (8) PC/CC POLICY (9) OTHER MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENT Resolution No. 2628 Exhibit A - ~e two *** 1.2 The requirements contained in Condition 1.1 shall be noticed by a statement on the Parcel Map. (1) 1.3 The amount of acceptable security for construction of public improvement~ (6) shall be re. viewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The amount and acceptable security for private improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. (1) 1.4 All construction within a public right-of-way and/or public easement must be shown on a separate 24" X 36" plan with all construction referenced to applicable City, County, or Irvine Ranch Water District standard drawing numbers. (1) 1.5 All changes in existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other public (6) improvements shall be responsibility of subdivider. *** 1.6 Placement of all above ground facilities, such as signin§, street lights and fire hydrants shall be behind the sidewalk when said sidewalks are constructed adjacent to the curb within the public right-of-way. (5) (6) (8) DEDICATIO~ S/RESE,RVATIO?I S/EASE;~IE~ITS 2.1 The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or reservation requirements as applicable, including but not limited to dedication of all required street and flood control right-of-way easements, vehicular access rights, sewer easements and water easements defined and approved as to specific location by the City Engineer and other responsible agencies. *** 2.2 The subdivider shall reserve Parcel I for a 10 acre public elementary school. (6) Reservation of Parcel i shall not be terminated or released unless approval by the Unified School District and shall not require termination pursuant to Sections 66480 and 66481 of the Subdivision ?,lap Act. *** 2.3 The subdivider shall dedicate Parcel 2 for park purposes by separate written (1) instrument approved by Community Development and Community Services (4) Departments at the time of recordation of final map. According to all (6) applicable provisions of Ordinance 921 and the East Tustin Specific Plan and ~.~emorandum of Understanding between the City of Tustin and Irvine Company dated March 11, 1989 and amended on April 3, 1989 as follows: Unless otherwise noted, the following items shall be provided and conditions met subject to approval of the Community Development and Community Services Departments prior to acceptance of Parcel 2, a public park site by the City. · Submittal and approval by the Department of Community Development and Department of Community Services of a soils report and revised rough grading plans specific .to Parcel 2 submitted by subdivider's registered Resolution No. 2628 ~ ibit A je three soil and civil engineer. In addition to a standard soils report, subdivider shall also provide lot specific soil testing for fertility/agronomy, with any recommendations for soil amendments. 2. Parcel 2 shall be rougtl graded to two percent (2%) or bonded for per an approved revised rough grading plan, free of obvious rock and construction by-product material. Grades shall be certified and must include field notes. 3. Full public improvements must be installed or bonded for by the developer around the perimeter of the park site, subject to approval of the City Engineer. These improvements include, but are not limited to full street improvements: curb, gutter, sidewalk,- street lighting and signing. me Public utility laterals of a sufficient size including water, electricity, sewer, storm drain, natural gas and telephone communication shall be installed or bonded for at the property line of Parcel 2 with actual designated locations subject to approval of the City Engine_:r and Community Services ,~epartment. 5. Construction type fencing shall be installed around the perimeter of the park site if required by the City. Installation of said fencing shall be tied into the road development. Between the time the site is dedicated and the time the site is fenced, any materials dumped on site will be removed to restore site to original .~rades at subdivider's expense. · . CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (1) 3.1 Any damage done to existing street improvements and utilities shall be (6) repaired before issuance of a-CertiFicate of Occupancy for tile dew~.lopment on any parcel within the subdivision. {1) 3.2 Prior to any work in the public righ't-of-way, an Excavation Permit must be obtained and applicable fees paid from the Public Works Department. GRADING/GENERAL (1) 4.1 Grading plan submittals subject to approval of the Department of Community {2) Development shall delineate the following information. (6) 1. Methods of drainage in accordance with all applicable City standards. e All recommendations submitted by geotechnical or soils engineer and specifically approved by them.. 3. A drainage plan and necessary support documents such as hydrology Resolution No. 2628 ibit A je four calculations to comply with the following requirements: a. Provision of drainage facilities to remove any flood hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rain fall which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 year storm and dedication of any necessary easements on the final map as required. b. Elimination of any sheet flow and ponding. c. Provision of drainage facilities to protect the lots from any high velocity scouring action. d. Provision for contributory drainage from adjoining properties. 4. All flood hazard areas of record. e A note shall be placed on the grading plan requiring Community Development Department approval of rough grading prior to final clearance for foundations. The Department will inspect the site for accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may require certification oF any grading related matter. e Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control 21an For all construction work including a m6thod of control to prevent dust and windblown earth problems. 7. Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. · . 8. Written approval must be obtained from adjacent property owners for rights-of-entry for construction activity across lot lines. (1) 4.2 All earthwork shall be performed 'in accordance with the City of Tust~n Municipal Codes and grading requirements. F I RE DEPARTMENT (1) 5.1 The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Orange County .Kire (6) Marshal, including required fire flow, installation where required of fire (2) hydrants subject to approval as to location by the Fire Department, City of Tustin Public Works Department and Irvine Ranch Water District, and compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction. The Fire Chief may ~quqme financial security to be posted for fire protection. ~'~<~ (1) 5.2 Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence (6) that adequate water supply and operational fire hydrants are available for (2) fi re protection shall be submitted and approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal. Required fire hydrants shall be in place and operational to meet required fire fl ow prior to commencing construction with combustible materials. ResOlution No. 2628 Exhibit A Page five (1) 5.3 A constrdction phasing plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the (6) Fire Chief for the evaluation of emergency vehicles access prior to issuance .of Building permits within boundary of the tract. NOISE (1) 6.1 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the (9) provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. GENERAL (1) 7.1 Subdivider shall notify all potential homebuyers of the following (6) Assessment/Maintenance Districts affecting the property: A · B · Assessment Dis'~rict 26-2. , City of Tustin 1982 Landscaping and Lighting District as amended as it affects Parcel I along Irvine Boulevard. (1) 7.2 Prior to recordation of any final map, Subdivider shall pay plan check and (3) inspection fees for all Public and/or private infrastructure improvements (6) within City's responsibility exclu, ding those financed by an Assessment (9) District. (1) 7.3 Prior to issuance of certificates of use or occupancy, the Subdivider shall (6) pay all costs related, to the calculation of the reapportioned parcel assessments, the preparation of the reapportionment assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to Assessment District 85-1 applicable to the subdivision. (1) 7.4 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all (3) requir, ed fees including: (6) (9) A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department. B. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District. C · Grading plan checks and permit fees to the Community Development Department. . Resolution No. 2628 Exhi bi t A ~Dage si x All applicable Building p. lan 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 subject to any agreement reached and executed.between the District and the Irvine Company. (1) 7.5 Within 24 months from tentative map approval, the Subdivider shall file with appropriate agencies, a final map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision lflap Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. (1) 7.6 Prior to final map approval. A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report. B . Subdivider shall submit a duplicate mylar of the Fi.qal rla!~, or ~ 1/2 inch by 11 inch tr~nspar~:ncy of each map sheet i)rior to final ~ap ~ppro~;al and "as built" grading, landscape and improvement plans prior 'to certificate of acceptance· (1) 7.7 Subdi'vider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State (9) Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, in the East Tustin (5) Specifc Plan and De vel opme'nt Agreement, EIR 85-2, and all applicable (2) conditions for Final Map 12870. *** 7.8. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-316 shall be condition upon City Counc'il approval of General Plan Amendment 89-02(c), Zone Change 88-02 and East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 88-01 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Should the City Council fail to approve the subject actions, Tentative Parcel Map approval 88-315 shall become null and void. CAS'ts Report to tine .... Planning Commission OATE ' dUNE 12, 1989' SUB~)ECT: APPLICANT' ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(d) (LAND USE ELEMENT) CITY OF TUSTIN, COt4MUNTIY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. GENERAL PLAN AMENDHENT 89-02(d) LAND USE ELEHENT REVISIONS RECORNENDATION , It is recommended that the Planning Commission' 1. Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution No. 2622; and · 2. Recommend'approval to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(d), amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adoption of Resolution No. 2615. BACKGROUND California Planning, Zoning and Development law and recent court decisions require that a City's local general plan contain population density and building intensity standards that establish maximum development levels for each land use classification. While the City's current General Plan contains population density standards, it would be appropriate for the City to establish intensity standards for all land use classifications in conjunction with other comprehensive amendments to the Plan being proposed at this time since the City may only amend the General Plan four times per year. The California Government Code states that no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than four times during any calendar year. However, each amendment may include more than 1 change to the General Plan. · Community Development Department Planning Commission Report GPA 89-02 June 12, 1989 Page two Appropriately General Plan Amendment 89-02id) is being considered in conjunction with four other amendments all of which will be considered I amendment per the. Government Code. Since the Department will begin undertaking conprehensive revisions to the General Plan in the next fiscal 'year, Amendment 89-02(d) is intended to be interim only. A public hearing notice denoting the time, date, and location of this hearing was published in the Tustin News. ANALYSIS Government Code Section 65302(a) specifically reads: "...The land use element shall include a statement of standards of population density and building intensity for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan." While recent court decisions have fallen short of actually defining what proper measures of building intensity might be, there have been a number of interpretations and poiQts addressed in spec. ific cases as follows: ° Intensity shoUld be defined for each land use category in the plan. General use captions such as "neighborhood commercial" and "service industrial" are insufficient measures of intensity by themselves. ° Building intensity is not synonymous with population density. Intensity is dependent on'a local plan's context and may be based upon a combination of variables such as maximum dwelling units per acre, height, size limitations and use restrictions. Th6 'Stbte Office of' Planning and Research has also recommended that each intensity standard include: 1) permitted land uses and building types; and 2) concentration of uses. "Permitted uses is a qualitative measure of uses that will be allowable in each land use designation. The concentration of use can be defined by one or more quantative measures that relate directly to the amount of physical development that will be allowed." Many cities in .completing comprehensive revisions to their General Plans have utilized the concept of floor area ratio to establish maximum development levels for each land use Uesignation. Floor area ratio is a ratio which expresses the relationship between a structure and the lot upon which it is situated and is Community Development Department Planning Commission 'Report GPA 89-02 June 12, 1989 Fage three calculated by dividing the gross floor area of a structure by the gross area of the lot upon which it is built. Tustin staff, do not believe that the use of floor area ratio standard would completely implement the intent of our local General Plan. Implementation of such an approach in Tustin could alter maximum land use intensity patterns currently permitted in the Zoning Code since the floor area ratio concept does not deal with such issues as maximum building height, a particularly sensitive issue area in Tustin. Staff, therefore do not support the use of a floor area ratio standard at this time without a comprehensive look at the entire General Plan for consistency as well as a more exhaustive environmental review. Since the City will be undertaking a comprehensive revision to the entire General Plan over the next fiscal year, staff felt it more appropriate to develop an interim approach to defining population density and building intensity in order to ensure that our future planning actions could not be held invalid, due to the inadequacy of our General Plan for failure to comply with Government Code Section 65302(a). The interim approach recommended for defining intensity standards is generally referencing the Tustin Zoning Code in the General Plan. While the Land Use Element defines public and private land uses, it is not a zoning map. The Zoning Code on the other hand, is. an in~lementation tool whi.ch specifically identifies development standards or the mechanism to determine them in each zoning district. TXese dev~elopment standards control specific land use intensity measurements such as placement of buildings, maximum height, bull(, density and lot coverage permitted on specific parcels. Therefore, by referencing the Zoning Code as the density and intensity guidelines, .the Land Use Element Amendment would not alter the existing land use intensity patterns or create a means for promoting or discouraging growth beyond that currently permitted in the General Plan or Zoning Code. In addition to establishing .standards in the Land Use Element assorted typographical, spelling,and grammatical errors have also been corrected in the Amendment. ' Proposed amendments, in the Land Use Element recommended by General Plan Amendment 89-02(d) are textual only 'and are attached as Exhibit 'B'.. Language to be removed from the Element or deleted is cross-hatched and new language is bolded and underlined. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report GPA 89-02 June 12, 1989 Page four · CONCLUSION staff believes that the proposed General Plan Amendment is appropriate to comply-~ with the Government Code changes and avoid possible litigation in the future. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No's. 2622 and 2615 approving General Plan Amendment 89-2(d). Beth S~hoemann Associate Planner BS:CAS'ts Chr~tin6 A~ Shingleton ~/ ' Director of Community Development , Attachments' Negative Declaration Environmental Initial Study Resolution No's. 2622 and 2615 Community Development Department NEGA5 . DEC.L. ARA', _ON .... CiTY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 I i i Project Title:General Plan Amendment No. 89-02-D File No. GPA 89-02 D Land Use Element Project Location' City of Tustin Project.De~cription'~extural revisions to the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General PLan. Changes to the Element are required by State Law. Project Proponent: City of Tustin Contact Person'Beth Shoemann Telephone. 714_544_8890 Ext. 250 The Community O~velopment Oepartment has conducted an initial study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Envi~'onmental Ouality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby find: That 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 attached to and hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on file at the Community Development 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 Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4'30 p.m. on DATED: May 31, 1989 June 12, 1989 Comfiunity Development Director~/ II. CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM I. Name of Proponent City of Tustin Community Development Department 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent .. 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, Ca. 92680 Contact: Beth Schoemann- Associate Planner ... · 3. Date of Checklist Submitted May 30, 1989 ,,, 4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of Tus~in $. b~nle of Proposal, if applicc~le General Plan Amendment 89-02 (d)' See attached project descrlpcloh ann dzscussion ot initia± study determina t ions. Envirmm~ental Impacts (Explanations of all '~es" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) No I. Em-th. Will the proposal result ins a. Unstable earth conditions or in d~anges in geologic substructures?. b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Chonge in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Chonges in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or · ony bay, inlet or lake? e e g. Exposure of people or prope£ty to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mucislides, ground failure, or similar hazc~-cls? Air. Will the proposal result in.' a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result im a. Cl~nges in currents, or the course of dl- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, dminoge pat- terns, ar the rate and amount of surfoce runoff? c. Alterations to the course or fl~w 'of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surfoce waters, or in any alteration of surfoce water quality~ in- clucling but not limited to temperature~ dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Chc~je in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an oquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available far public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? .× 0 0 PI(eW Life, Will the proposal result in.' Change in the diyersity of species, ar number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plcints? Co Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in ocreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the pn=posal result in= ao Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfisht benthic argonisrns' ar insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of ony unique, rare or endangered specie~ of onimals? Introduction of new species of mimals into on area, ar result in a barrier to the migration or movement of onimals? Deterioraticlh to existing fish .oF. wildlife habitat? Noise, Will the proposal result in= a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light ar glare? Lard Use. Will the proposal result, in a sub- stantial alteration of the pres~;~t or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in-' a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Yes b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve~ II. 12. 13. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pest. icicles, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? Possible interference with m emenjen~ r__~,~x3nse plmt or mt emergency ~ion plan? Populatlam Will the proposal alter the location, distrJbutian, density, or growth rate of the human population of on area? Housi~ Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? Trcmsportatian/Circulatlam Will the proposal result in= a. Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular, movement? . · b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? · c. Substantial impact upon existing transpar- tation systems? " d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists ar pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services in. any of the following areas= a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? Yes c. Schools? -- d. Porks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of-public facilities, incJuding roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. 'Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- irxj sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems~ or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communicatians systems? c. Water? · d. Sewer or .septic tanks? · e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Humor Health. Will the proposal re'suit' in= a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazords? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of c~ aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreatian. Will the proposal result in an impoct upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Yes X. 21. be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, ~TUCt~e, or object? Ye~ x Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical: chonge which would affect unique ethnic' cultural values? ~'ill the proposal restrict existing religious or sooted uses within the potential impact oma? -' ~ory Findings of Signifi~. ae be cci Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, coJse a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus-. taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number ar restrict the rc~xje of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project' have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of ~me while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) . Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the enviranment is significant.) de Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? i11. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation See attached exhibit A for discussion of this initial study and the project _ descrintion. IV. I:)eterm,r~fion (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initi~..~aluation= I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th~ environment, them will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project-MAY have a significant effect on the environ- merit, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. xxx I I ! Date ' May 30, 1989 Signature Beth Schoemann - Associate Planner City'of Tustin E~"~IBIT. ]~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ DISCUSSION OF INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES GENERAL PLAN AME~NE~ NO. 89-02 (D) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment No. 89-02 (d) is for the purpose of revising the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. The revisions are required to comply with Government Code Section 605302 (a). The revisions to the Land Use Element include: 1. The addition of statements which address the standards for population density and building intensity for various zoning districts. All revisions to the Land Use Element are textural in nature and do not create any new programs which impact any of the other elements in the Tustin Area General Plan. The revisions are not intended to be a comprehensive update of the Land Use Element since a complete General Plan revision program is slated for the next fiscal year. A full Environmental Impact Report for this new General Plan will be ~repared. DISCUSSION OF INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES: I. Earth- Questions A-G: The proposed revisions to the Land Use Element would not result in any direct development of the land within the City of Tustin. However, if specific development proposals occur, these projects are reviewed under CEQA as a site specific project. Therefore, no anticipated impacts would occur which would affect geologic features, sub-structures, or soil conditions which could result in erosion or geologic hazards. The revisions will not increase population density or building intensity beyond that provided in the current provisions of the Tustin Zoning Code. Sources: Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. Air- Questions A-C= As discussed above, the Land Use Element revisions would not directly result in development in the City of Tustin, but provides a tool for guiding development. In this regard, each proposed housing project would be reviewed under CEQA prior to approval of'the project. The revisions will not increase population density or building intensity beyond that provided in the current provisions of the Tustin Zoning Code. Therefore, the revisions to the Land Use Element would not create significant impacts to air quality, creation of odors or alter air movement patterns. Sources= Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. Water- - ~uestions A-I~ In the City of Tustin, there are no significant natural ~bove ground water bodies. While development can impact absorption rates and drainage patterns, any future development woul~ require an individual environmental review and assessment of any and all environmental impacts. As discussed in the previous sections in this analysis, the Land Use Element revisions do not propose any new buildings or development within the City and only serve as a guide for future development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that this project will have an impact on water quality. Sources= City of Tustin, General Plan Land Use Map. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 4-5. Plant and Animal Life-There are no known animal or plant species which exist in the City which are considered rare or endangered. However,each proposed project would be reviewed under CEQA prior to approval of the project. Therefore, the revisions to the Land Use Element would not significantly impact flora or fauna in the city. ~ources= Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Historical records, and previous EIR's for East Tustin. Standard procedures.for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 6. Noise- Questions A-B: While the Land Use Element revisions will not directly result in development of any buildings or other development projects, it will be used as a guide for development. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQ~ as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts. In this regard, noise impacts are typically mitigated by use of standard conditions on development of sound proofed residential units (45 dba) and limits on the timing for construction operations. Such conditions would be applied as standard conditions to every project to ensure minimum noise impacts to future residents and existing residents as well. The revisions will not increase population density or building intensity beyond that provided in the current provisions of the Tustin Zoning Code. Sources: Proposed 1989 Revisions [o the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. · . Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 7. Light and Glare-While the Land Use Element revisions will not directly result in development of any buildings or other development projects, it will be used as a guide for development, ks discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQ~ as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts. Light and glare is typically mitigated by use of standard conditions on development which require that reflective materials be revised to non- glare producing materials and that all lighting installed on the exterior of the property be designed to reduce light rays and to eliminate light from impacting surrounding properties to ensure minimum light impacts to future residents and existing residents as well. The revisions will not increase population density or building intensity beyond that provided in the current provisions of the Tustin Zoning Code. ~ources: Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin zoning code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 8. Land Use- The Land Use Element revisions do not create any new land use designations or provide for new land uses within the City of Tustin. The revisions do not impact or change any existing land use designation in the General Plan or zoning Code,.but are a clarification of building and population intensities. Bources: Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. City of Tustin Land Use and Zoning Maps. Tustin zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 9-10. Natural Resources and Risk of Upset- Questions A-B: While the Land Use Element revisions will not directly. --~esult in new development, it will be used as a guide for development. ~s discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be'. subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts. · . Sources: Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community .Development Department. Tustin zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 11. Population-The revisions to the Land Use Element do not propo'se to change land use densities or developments which could result in an increase of population in the city. The revisions will not. increase population density or building intensity beyond that provided in the current provisions of the Tustin Zoning Code. Sources: Tustin Zoning Code. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Mitigation Monitoring: None---Required. 12. Housing-The proposed revisions to the Land Use Element will be used as a tool for guiding development in the City of Tustin. The changes to the element are for the purpose of clarifylng the existing standards as set forth in the Tustin Zoning Code and will not result in increases or decreases in the land use, population or building · densities which are currently permitted in the City. Sources= State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 13. Transportation/Circulation- Questions A-F= While the Land Use Element revisions will not directly result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development. &s discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts including those regarding transportation and circulation issues. The revisions will not increase population density or building intensity beyond that provided in the current provisions of the Tustin Zoning Code. ~ources= State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed i989 Revisions to the Tustin'Land Use Element. Circulation Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. ~'~' Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 14. Public Services- Questions A-F: The current public services in the City have been provided based on current revenue levels--generated from typical sources. However, all new developments in the East Tustin Area are subject to review for conformance with the East Tustin Fiscal Model which establishes staffing and fiscal projections for city services. The revisions to the Land Use element do not propose any new development in the city and only provide guidelines for future development. The revisions will not increase population density or building intensity beyond that provided in the current provisions of _ the Tustin Zoning Code. ~ources: East Tustin Fiscal Model State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Tustin Zoning Code. PrOposed 1989 Revisions'to the Tustin Land Use Element. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 15-16. Energy and Utilities- Questions A-F: The Land Use Element revisions.will not directly result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to =educe or eliminate any environmental impacts. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department~. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. '~itigation Monitoring: None Required. 17. Human Health- Questions A-B: While the Land Use Element revisions will not' directly result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any health related impacts. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 18. Aesthetics-The Land Use Element revisions will not directly result ._in new development, it will be used as a guide for development. As ~iscussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as.a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts and ensure architectural and development compatibility with the surrounding'area. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 19. Recreation-The current public services in the City have been provided based on current revenue levels generated from typical sources. All new parks are provided based upon pre-established standards in the City Park Land Dedication Ordinance and provisions for parks in the city establish staffing and fiscal projections for city services. The revisions to the Land Use Element do not propose any new development in the city and only provide guidelines for future development. Sources: East Tustin Fiscal Model Parkland DediCation Ordinance. State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Tustin Zoning Code. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. · 20. Cultural Resources- Questions A-D: The revisions to the Land Use Element do not propose any specific physical development in the City. As discussed above, any new development proposals will be reviewed individually under CEQA for consideration of any potential impacts which may occur as a result of a specific project. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the.Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. '~- Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance- Question A= The revisions to the Land Use Element do not propose any specific physical development in the City, but constitute a plan for the guidance of establishing building and population intensity. As discussed above, any new development proposal will be reviewed individually under CEQA for consideration of any potential impacts to habitats for fish and wildlife or California history which may occur as a result of a specific project. Sources= State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the city of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Tustin Zoning Code. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. Question B= The State of California requires each City in the State to prepare and adopt a General PIan which includes a Land Use Element. -When deemed in to be in the public interest, the City may amend the ~and Use Element. In this regard, the revisions to the Land Use Element have been prepared so that building and population intensity standards are adequately addressed. Sources= State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community'Development Department. Tustin zoning Code. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. Question C-D: The revisions to the Land Use Element do not propose any specific physical development in the City but constitute a plan for the guidance of development. As discussed above, any new development proposal will be reviewed individually under CEQA for consideration of any potential impacts which may be individually limited or cumulatively considerable. Additionally, the Land Use Element is a long range planning tool used to ensure orderly growth and development of a City so that the needs of all human beings wishing to reside in the City may be addressed. 'ources= State Planning, zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Land Use Element. RESOLUTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 2622 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(d) LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO 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. General Plan Amendment 89-02(d) is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the Californi'a 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 Negat. ive Declaration. D. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed, final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate 'and-' complete. · II. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission, having recommendation authority over General Plan Amendment 89-02(d), 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. · PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. A. L. Baker Chairman P&nni Foley Secretary 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 ~3 14 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2615 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNI'NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(d), A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol lows: I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. Government Code SectiOn 65358 provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of its General Plan. B. Government Code Section 65358(b) states that no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than 4 times during any calendar year. However, each amendment may include more than 1, change to the General Plan. Appropriately in conjunction, with General Plan Amendment 89-02(d) four (4) other amendments are being considered and all amendments shall be considered as 1 amendment per Section 65358(b). Ce In accordance with Section 65302(a) of the Government Code, the General Plan Land Use Element must inclUde population density and building intensi.ty standards. In order to comply, a textual amendment has been developed for the General Plan. This Amendment is consistent wi th other elements of the Tustin General Plan. D. A public hearing has been duly called and noticed, and held on June 12, 1989. E. The proposed amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. F. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public health, .safety, and welfare of the citizens of Tustin based on the following- ® Land Use Element Amendment 89-02(d) will not alter the existing land use intensity patterns or create a means for promoting or discouraging growth beyond that currently permitted in the General Plan or Zoning Code. The amendment wi'll accomplish the task of defining population density and building intensity standards. 2. The proposed amendments are interim to be reevaluated in 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 ~3 24 25 26 ~7 28 Resolution No. 2615 Page two ® conjunction with comprehensive revisions to the General Plan. The establishment of intensity standards will ensure that the City of Tustin has an adequate General Plan. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(d) proposed textual amendments to the Land Use Element as shown in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary EXHIBIT I · L USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL ,N PURPOSE Section 65300 of the Government Code of the State of California requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long'term general plan for the physical development of t'he city, and of any land outside its b.oundaries which in the planning agency's judgement bears relation to its planning. Section 65302 {A) states that a land use element is required which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoy- ment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall also identifJy areas tovered by the plan which are · . subject to flooding and shall be reviewed annually w)th respect to such areas. This objective was achieved in 1966 by the joint efforts of the City of Tustin, County of Orange, and Foothill .Planning Committee by the prepar- ation and adoption of the Tustin Area Genera] Plan. But the Tustin area is not static - it is a dynamic community that has gone through a period of unparalleled growth and change during the past decade· The Land Use Element was a desire for the future rather than an acknowledgement of reality and probability. It has been amended on several occasions, unilaterally by both the City and County. Existing Zoning patterns for high density residential and conflicting land uses were perpetuated. · Ambiguities in use boundaries andinconsistency of the Land Use Element with Zoning Ordinances were the basis of various interpretations and controversies. ' Initial theories of general plans as related to Zoning established the role of the Land Use Element as a blueprint for future development that would serve as a gui deline to be considered by Planning Commissions and City Councils in hearing zone change applications. It was neither sacred nor precise. In 1971, by the enactment of AB1301, and amendments by AB1725 and · SB1239, the State of California Legislature established the requirement that General Plans and Zoning Ordinances must be consistent bY July 1, 1973, and the various land uses authorized by the ordinance are compat- ible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan. The intent of this element is to establish a basis f~or conformity and · recognize the realities of existing land developments as well as to establish precise guidelines for future developments. <_It is no.t- a zoning map, nor are development standards incorporated into this docu- ment. This element defines areas for major land use classifications as defined in subsequent section. The distinctions of land use, as related to population projections and housing unit density are contained in the Residential Element.> The element consists of both text and a Land Use Plan Map which define private and public 'land uses. The element also includes population -2- density standards as well as definitions for building intensity stan- dards. However, the General Plan is not a zoning map. The text and Land Use Plan Map provide general, broad direction. The Zoning Ordinance, on the other hand is a specific implementation tool for classifyi_n_g properties within the community, into specific land use dis- tricts. The Zoning Plan Map which designates land use zoning districts is accompanied by_ ordinance provisions which specifically identify, development standards or the mechanism to determine them in each zoning district. These standards control specific land use intensity, measure- ments such as ~.lacement, maximum height, bulk, density, lot coverage , permitted on specific parcels, etc. The Local Agency Formation Commission in December 1972, formally adopted a "Sphere of Influence" for the City of Tustin, which is the area encom- passed by this element. II. CLASSIFICATION OF USE A Land Use Plan reflects the application of General Plan goals and objectives to the distribution and intensity of future land uses in Tustin. The Land Use Plan is not meant to serve as a zoning map but should only be interpreted as a general guide to the amount, type, and relationship of land uses. The following major land uses appear on the Land Use Plan Map and are identified and described as follows' A. Residential Land Use Classifications Four residential density cat_e_gori.es are established for the purpose of providing the City with a range of building intensities that allow flextbility~ A mix of higher and lower densities may be_~ mitred within an area but the overall densities within a land us~e category shall not exceed the densities noted herein. In some areas, densities allowed at the zonin9 level may be substantially lower than identified in the Land Use Element if deemed necessary to implement General Plan goals, policies or implementation programs. <A>i. SinQle-Family.Residential This classification is related~to the character of residential land use rather than to precise zoning classifications or den- sity patterns. Within the Tustin Sphere of Influence, 5,727 acres or 67.9% is designated for single-family occupancy. The character of this occupancy varies from the estate on 4 .acres of hillside to the patio home on a 3,600 square foot parcel. The intent is. to identify the traditional residential subdivision · with detached, owner-occupied units, each on its own parcel of land, maintaining a low density character with the actual setbacks, maximum height, and lot coverage of buildinQ to be specifi cally .g°verned by the Tusti n Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map~. Population densities within this classification will vary from 2 persons to 20 persons per acre. <_The density patterns for varying housing developments are reflected od the Residen- tial Section and Map of the Land Use Element.>_ <B>2. Multi-Family Residential It is also the intent of this classification to de'fine the char- acter of development rather than unit density. _<Included within this definition are the developments that are designed for -4- cluster development with common open areas,_> The classification allows for a wide range of living accomodations including.. single-family units, apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and coo..peratives/communit)~ apartments. Traditional concepts for land use elements have defined patterns by the number of dwel- ling units allocated to an acre of land. As such, they were a distortion of reality and meaningfulness. As an example, a heavy density area would authorize 25 dwelling units per acre. The result could be. 25 three-bedroom family apartments with a population three times greater than a development with one bedroom units. <To accommodate the need for more precise defini- tions and classifications of multi-family developments is accommodated by the Residential Section and ~4ap of the Land Use E1 ement. > o The max.~mum, dwelling unit density would not be expected to exceed 25 dwel!in9 units pe'r acre in this classification with approximate population density of 60 persons per acre. In a~y_. event, classification of multi-family development includin9 actual density, setbacks, maximum height, lot coverage, and type and size of buildings shall be specifically governed by the Tustin Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Plan Map. <C. Professional> <This classification encompasses the office building, either detached or within a complex. Occupancy within this area is related to services to the individual as distinguished from retail sales.> 3. Mobile Home Residential This classification, subject to a conditional use permit, allows · · mobile home parks, travel trailer parks, and permanent rec~'ea- tional vehicle parks, and accesso..ry and service structures associated with such parks. The maximum densities for this land use classification ranges.from 10 to 1..5 dwelling units per acre or with an approximate population density of 24 to 36 persons per acre. Actual density~ maximum height, setbacks, and lot coverage shall be specifically governed by the Tustin Zoning Ordina. nce and Zoning Plan Map. 4. .Planne. d Community Residential To allow diversification of the relationships of various densi- ties, b_u_ildings and open. spaces in planned.building .groups, a planned communi.ty residential classification has been created. The classification recognizes that mixed and integrated uses can be made to be compatible by~'design standards. To ensure compat- ibility of land uses permitted in this classification with the._ character of surrounding developments (which is the same objec- tive of land use plans), precise development plans must be a_p_proved prior to authorization for development. The actual mechanism for defining location, land use designation, density. range and other build~...ng intensity standards will specifically be governed bx Planned Community District provisions contained in the Tustin Zoni.n.g Ordinance and/or adoption of a specific plan pursuant to authorization by the California Government Code. --6- B. Commercial Classifications 1. Professional This classification provides for the development of professional office uses and related commercial uses either detached or within a complex. Occupancy witlhin this area is related to services to the individual as distinguished from retail sales. Actual permitted uses and permitted bui.lding intensity in this classification shall be specifically .governed by the Tustin Zoning Ordinance and Zoni. ng Plan Map' <D>2. Commerci al The commercial classification, <like the multi-family area, is cumulative and encompasses a wide variety of activities.> is characterized by. a variety, of miscellaneous retail and commer- cial service uses. Land uses include the professional office building, private recreation facilities, individual stores and shops, shopping centers, and facilities providing sales and services, including automobile sales and service. Actual ~ermitted uses in certain locations in this classification and permitted buildin9 intensity, standards such as setbacks, maximum height, lot coverage, and other limitations is determined and shall be specifically governed by the Tustin Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Plan Map._ <H>3. Planned CommunitX Commercial This designation is both a land use and zoning classification. It recognizes that mixed and integrated uses can be made to be compatible by design standards. To assure the obje'cti've of com- patibility of land use and building intensity with the character -7- of surrounding developments, <(which is the same .objective of land use plans)> precise development plans are reviewed and approved prior to authorization for development. The actual mechanism for design, location, p.er. mitted land use and other b~ilding intensit~ standards will be specifically_governed by Planned Community District provisions found in the,T, ustin Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Plan Map;. This will provide the developer with a high degree of flexibility in land uses in response to market demand. <It provides the development plans.> <E>C. Public and Institutional Classification This designation includes public and.. quas..i.-public uses such as parks, schools, churches, hospitals, open space, utility facilities, · and other institutions such as the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station. <~f a public or quasi-public character.> Open space and parks are more precisely defined by the Conservation-Recreation-Open Space Element of the General Plan. Amenities and compatibility of uses in this classification with surrounding, use classifications will be ensured by review of the specific location of each proposal .in this classification including setbacks, maximum height, lot coverage, and or'her size limitations. Specific building intensity will be gov- erned by Public and Institutional provisions contained in the Tustin Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Plan Map. <F>D. Industrial Classification <This classification includes those activities of heavy commercial, warehousing, and manufacturing chara'cter that are incompatible with residential development.> The Industrial land use classification is --8- .o oo designed to accomodate a variety of industrial uses which are non- polluting, including but not limited to heavy commercial,, research and development, distribution, warehousing, light manufacturing, wholesaling and related service uses that are incompatible with residential development. Actual permitted land uses and permitted building intensity standards such as setbacks, maximum height, lot coverage, and other size limitations shall be specifically governed by the Tustin Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Plan Map. <G>E. Military Classification The reality of the Marine Corps Air Station (Helicopter) within the Tustin Sphere of Influence is recognized. At such time as the Department of the Navy should declare the uses surplus to its requirements, action would be necessary to define its precise land use classificat, ion for private development. <I>F. S. pecific Plan Classification · . Section 65450 of the Government Code authorizes cities to adopt · specific plans based on the general plan and regulations for the purpose of implementing the general plan and the purposes of the State Planning and Zoning Act. Not only may a specific plan classify land uses and street design in general terms, but it also precisely defines the character and design of development. <As an example, E1 Camino Real is designated as a Specific Plan area for the purpose of preserving its historic character as well as promot- ing the concept of a village shopping center.> Although there is no specific plan classification .shown on the Land Use Map, a specific pla. n...may be utilized in conjunction with any land use classification as a means of achieving General Plan goals and objectives. --9-- III. ASSUMPTIONS A. The character of the community is established as a quality residential area with a commercial and potential industrial base adequate to support the desired level of government services. B. The residential areas of the older town center area will be the subject of pressure for redevelopment or more intense land use. These pressures may be reduced only by requiring property maintenance to prevent deterioration and blight. C. Public improvements, such as the First Street project, will encour- age and stimulate private property owners to develop and redevelop their properties for the highest and best use. D. The potential of a regional shopping center to serve the Tustin area exists at the intersection of the Santa Ana Freeway with. Jamboree Road and may be a reality through the cooperation and promotion of the Irvine Company. ' E. The Economic base and reputatio'n' of the community will be based upon the quantity and quality of professional office space, commercial centers, and potential of industrial parks. F. No large scale annexations of inhabited areas will be accomplished until such time as there is a change in existing state law or resi- dents of unincorporated areas pay a higher price for urban, services than the tax rate for city residents. G. The advent of rapid transit facilities may have a significant effect upon the character of the community by creating a demand for high quality living accommodations with convenient access to employment centers. -10- H. The incorporated City of Tustin and unincorporated area within the Sphere of Influence are mutually dependent and impacted .by any change in land use or character of the area. I. Additional park lands will be provided on a regional basis by other agencies of government and neighborhood parks will be provided as a requirement of private developers in conjunction with subdivision approval. IV. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A. To promote an economically balanced community with complimentary and buffered land uses to include industrial, commercial, professional, multi-family a~d single family development. , B. To revitalize the economic health and vitality of the Town Center Area. C. To preserve and expand' the industrial base by designating the U. S. Marine Corps Air Station (Helic6pter) as an industrial reserve to be developed under Planned Industrial Zoning Standards at such time as . the land may be made available for private development. D. To establish an identity as a professional office building area, providing quality structures with design amenities. E. T'o provide neighborhood parks and open space in geographiccal areas 'based upon the same location and distribution as appropriate for elementary school sites. F. To provide a variety of .housing accommodations with emphasis upon · single-family residential areas. G. To preserve the low density exclusive characteristic of the foothill area. 11 V. H. To obtain a distinguishable community identity related to community pride and cohesiveness of political, social and economical factors. I. To accommodate an optimum pqpUlation .~f not more than 84,000 inhabitants within the Sphere of Influence. .' PROPOSALS A. To relate, by zoning classification, the population density for authorized land uses in addition <contrast> to the traditional classification of housing unit density. To determine permitted land uses and building intensity standards such as setbacks, maximum height, lot coverage and other size limitations .by reference to specific zoning provisions for certain properties governed by the Tustin Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Plan Map. B. TO preserve the inddstrial areas 'against encroachment of conflicting and non-compatible land uses. · · -12- C. To actively pursue the annexation of unincorporated islands in the interest of economy of gqvernment services, community identity, and uniformity of development standards and land use controls. D. To provide a degree of flexibility and integration of land use for transitional properties by classification as Planned Community. E. To encourage the development of First Street between the Newport Freeway and Newport Avenue for professional-commercial development at a depth that will result in quality improvements w~ile protecting the enjoyment of abutting residential properties. F. To designate the commercially zoned areas east of B Street and south of 6th into a Planned Industrial classification compatible with existing and adjacent uses. G. To establish by land use plan and zoning the professional character · · of Irvine Boulevard. H. To remove the industrial character of properties on -Ne~wport Boulevard, northerly of the Sania Fe Railroad. I. To recognize~existing developments and prior amendments to the Land Use Element. J. To designate for potential single-family development, an area easterly of Browning Avenue. VI. AREA OF LAND USE ALLOCATIONS: YEAR 2000 The distribution of land uses in this element is predicated upon the character of existing developments, the trends of market demand, and the philosophy of the city in restricting multi-family developments to that currently authorized by zoning. -13- Table I Use Categ0rg Zoning Gross Acres % of Total Si ngl e-Fami ly R- 1 5,387 63.8 Multi-Family R-3 455 '~ 5.4 Mobile Homes M.P.H. 62 .7 Professional PR 52 .6 Commercial C-1 236 2.8 Industrial PM 704 8.5 Public & 'Instit. P&I 387 4.6 Freeway -- 419 5.0 Military Base -- 728 8.6 TOTAL 8,430 100.0 Total area within incorporated limits - 1973 - 4.5 square miles Total area within Sphere of Influence - 1973 - 13.1 square miles -14- VII. POPULATION PROJECTIONS The following population data is based upon the 1970 Census for the areas within the Sphere of Influence, and projections to the year 2,000 are based upon trends and planned developments. Table 2 S~phere of Influence POPULATION HOUSING UNITS 1973 66,000 23,000 1975 76,000. 25,300 1980 78,000 26,000 2000 84,000 28,000 '1970 Federal Census for area within Sphere of Influence VIII GENERAL CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS . A. Annexation Polic~. The City of Tustin is not expected to increase its corporate limits by any significant amount result.lng from annex- ation of inhabited areas, unless there is a substantial change in State annexation laws. Inhabited annexations require a vote of the · . electorate, and few people are willing to vote an increase in taxes, even for a higher level of services. An additional consideration to that of the required vote of the per- sons living in an area proposed for annexation, is the financial impact upon the city taxpayer. Economic analysis from various sources indicate that the annexation of inhabited Single-family residences at densities less than 12 units per acre are a financial liability upon the city. Development Research Associates, in their economic analysis of the City of Tustin (1970) reported the following' -15- .o "Since the provisions of local public services to resi- dents issubsidized by commerce and industry, the City must attract additional commercial and industrial devel- opment if it allowsresidential expansion. At current valuations and levies, 40 acres of addtional industrial improvements or 20 acres of additional commercial devel- opment would be needed to offset the net public costs of maintaining an additional 1,000 residents in single- family homes." There are considerations other than financial, as related to annexa- tion. These factors include development control, 'environmental control, community identity, economy of services, and the philosophy of "home rule" and political representation by permitting the resi- dents of an area to have voice and participation in the affairs of the community. . As a matter of policy, it would'be the intent of the city to approve annexation requests for inhabited areas upon petition of the resi- dents, when such annexation would contribute toward the objective of "squaring" the boundaries and providing community identity. B. Revitalization of the Town Center. The adoption of a Speci'fic Plan for E1 Camino Real was one step toward the objective of increasing the economic viability of the town center area by providing encour- agement for private development. Failure of private property owners to foster the objectives of a unique village center may necessitate positive assistance of the city toward this.end. Critical to the quality of the Tustin Community is the preservation -16- of residential structures that have been permitted to deteriorate with the intent of creating blight that will encourage higher den- sity authorization for redevelopment. The City has-adopted a policy of restricting the density of the old town area to a single-family character. To effectuate this policy without blight, a property maintenance ordinance is a necessity to prevent deterioration and preserve the quality of the area. C. East Tustin Area. The land use element currently provides for a use designation known as Planned Community {P.C.). The P.C. use is a method to assure the compatibility of land uses with the character of surrounding developments and provide for a vehicle to ensure pre. cise development plans are reviewed and approved prior to devel- opment. One of the purposes of the land use element is to provide for flexibility and integration of land use for transitional proper- ties by classification as Planned Community. It is the intent in the East Tustin area to utilize Planned Community as a land use tool in general and specific planning. The majority of the area is divided into three Planned Community desig- nations' P.C. Residential~ P.C. Commercial~ and P.C. Mixed Use. The Planned Community Residential area is Kecommended to have a density range from two dwelling units per gross acre to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. It is anticipated that the subject area will support a total residential dwelling unit count of 7,950 units for the approximate 1,173 acres of land dedicated to residential uses. At the city of Tustin's current popula~tion rate per unit {1980 census} of 2.43 person/unit, the population density of the East -17- Tustin area may be approximately 19,440 people, a 47.63 percent increase over the 1985 population of 40,815. Port~ons of the East Tustin area are'located in hills'ide areas and will maintain a maxi mum density not to exceed two dwelling units per gross acre, in keeping with the goals of the Open Space and Conservation element. Hillside areas are generally defined as having a slope greater than an average 10 percent grade, and the approximate acreage meeting this criteria is 440 acres. The approximate number of dwelling units should be in the range of 880. The proposal for areas of East Tustin which are on level terrain and adjacent to existing residential area is to maintain single family residential detached with a character of development compatible with existing development. This is constructed to not mean lot size, but does mean an overall' density less than standard R-1 residential den- sity, which is 6.0 dwelling units to the acre. The range is between 4 tO 6 gross dwelling units pe~ acre, and 5.0 gross dwelling units per acre is recommended. The approximate acreage of thes? areas is 166 acres, with a unit generation of approximately 830 units. Outside of these requirements, remaining areas devoted to residen- tial may have residential densities ranging from two dwelling units per gross acre to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. The terrain for these areas is level, and the land carrying' capacity could conceiv- ably support the maximum density proposed. It is the goal of the Land. Use and Housing Elements to promote a variety of housing types, including single-family residential, and owner occupied housing. Unlike the single-family classification, the term single-family -i8- residential is construed to mean the definition shown in the Housing Element, which shows single-family as either detached, duplex, or .. townhouse units. These units can be achieved at density ranges between 6 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre, or an average of 9.0 dwelling units per gross acre. To attempt a balance between provid- ing for a variety of housing types, including multiple family,, and owner-occupied single family units, an average of 11.0 dwelling units per acre is employed. The gross acreege figure of approxi- mately 567 acres will produce approximately 6,237 units for this area. While residential unit limitations are imposed, the locatiOn, desig- nation and density range of residential units will .be determined at such time that the area undergoes specific planning. The location of planned community residential areas are consistent with the goals of the land use element and internally ~onsistent wi th other elements of the general plan." To ensure that density ranges are internally consistent, specific planni~qg will allow these densities to be studied against the goals and objectives of the other elements. To ensure that the entire subject area is considered, one specific plan for the entire area will be prepared. The land use diagram will serve as the base to determine location of residential units and the entire project area will not exceed approximately 7,950 dwelling units. Both the Specific Plan, and the General Plan, will be used in future consistency findings in the East Tustin area. -19- Planned Community Commercial will support all retail commercial uses with support office uses and covers an approximate acreage of 40 acres. Planned Community Mixed Use can support retail commercial 'uses or office/research and development uses and covers an approxi- mate acreage of 120 acres. The recreational use shown on the diagram is designated as exclusively for a golf course and covers an approximate acreage of 150 acres. · Public and Institutional uses cover proposed community park loca- tions, as well as conceptual intermediate and high school sites. The approximate acreage for these uses is estimated at 90 acres. -20- Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 9 DATE: SUBJECT ' APPLICANT' JUNE 12, 1989 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02 (A) (HOUSING ELEMENT) CITY OF TUSTIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(A) - 1989 REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT RECOI~ENDATION ._ It is recommended that the Planning Commission' · · 1. Certify the Negative Declaration as adequate for this project by approval of Resolution NO. 2623; and 2. l~ecommend approval of the i989 Revisions to the Housing Element to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. '2624. BACKGROUND As required by State law, each jurisdiction in California is required to revise the Housing Element of the General Plan every five years. These revisions are coordinated on a geographic basis so that regional agencies (i.e., councils of governments) may prepare data on existing and future population projections which address regional housing needs. In this regard all jurisdictions in the Southern California area, comprised'of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) planning area, are required to submit a new Housing Element to the State prior to July 1, 1989. This element, must be reviewed by the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)prior to final adoption. To meet the schedule mandated by State law, staff have revisioned the 1984 Housing Element. These revisions do not represent comprehensive changes to this element but incorporate updated statistical information, the 1988 regional housing forecasts and new information necessary to' address changes in State law. Amendments are not of a comprehensive nature and only attempt to meet the new requirements of the law and to incorporate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment adopted in June 1988 and as revised in November 1988. Community Development Depariment Planning Commission Report Housing Element June 12, 1989 Page two 'On March 27 and April 10, 1989 the Planning Commission held public workshops to review and comment on the draft revisions. Public testimony was received at these' meetings 'and all comments and revisions were incorporated into' the document prior to transmittal to the State HCD. The document was transmitted to HCD on April 14th and comments have been received for consideration. ANALYSIS The 1989 amendments to the Housing Element, as mentioned previously, must be approved and in effect prior to July 1, 1989. The proposed changes to the Housing Element are relatively minor. In fact, they are only for the purposes of updating statistical data, meeting the latest requirements establised by the California Legislature and to incorporate the existing and future housing needs as established by the SCAG 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Please note that all changes to the Housing Element are specifically denoted in the revised draft' of the Housing Element which will be submitted to the Planning Commission by June 9th under separate cover due' to the fact that final comments, on the Element from State HCD were. not 6eceived until June 6th. All text to be deleted is marked with "carrot" symbols (_< _>) all new text is underlined. In responding to concerns communicated by State HCD, additional additions and clarifications to the Element, as appropriate are being made and will result in. some~,changes~in the document since the Commission's last review on April lOth. Staff will highlight these changes in the'document by.an asterisk in the left hand margin of the document. A copy of HCD comments and a detailed response from staff of these comments will be transmitted by June 9th under separate cover. Staff will review our responses with the Commission at the meeting. Once the document is approved, all symbols identifying corrections will be removed. A summary of the major Amendments to the Housing Element is discussed be 1 ow' Ze Statistical Data: The Housing Element must, as required by State law, attempt to ~de6~ify population, housing and income characteristics. While a majority of the statistical information must rely on the 1980 Census Data (which was used 'for the 1984 Housing Element) the figures provided by the 1988 report of the State Department of Finance and Employment Development Departments, Orange County Progress Report for 1988-89 and the 1988 SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment {RHNA) are incorporated wherever possible. 2 Re ional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)' One of the major cbmponents of the Housing 'Element ii a discussion of the existing and future housing needs in the City of Tustin. these needs were established by SCAG and were published in June 1988. Based upon certain deficiencies in the RHNA and problems specific to the City of Tustin, an appeal of l~he figures was. Commu-nity Development *Department Planning Commission Report Housing Element June 12, 1989 · · Page three .- · . ,,. made. This appeal-resulted in some revisions to the figures presented in the June 1988 RHNA. These revisions were adopted and approved by SCAG in November 1988. -' · The existing needs for housing established the current picture relative to housing needs. A copy of the RHNA is provided as an attachment to this report and provides a full and complete description and definition of the methodology used to establish the RHNA figures. Housi.ng Goals, Policies and Programs' A major focus of the Housing Element ~eVisions has'-~be6'n to provide"'adequate consideration of all the needs of the community. Special needs for the elderly, handicapped, female heads of households and homeless must be considered. In order, to address the requirements of State law and to provide a well balanced Housing Element, the issue of the homeless has been added to the element. The RHNA provided basic information on the sources, causes and numbers of homeless .persons in the SCAG region. This information has been included in the, element, as well as the addition of programs and policies to address homeless needs. 4. Evaluation of Past Performance' Of major concern to the State Housing and Community DeVelopment Depar~nt, is the adequacy and effectiveness of the Housing Element· In this regard,"the Housing Element contains a new section which discusses the successes and failures of the previous Housing Element· A detailed vacant land study is provided which identifies all readily availabl'e or future potential housing sites· Mos% of these sites are in the East Tustin Area which provides for a variety of housing types. Discussion of the previously mentioned programs, policies and objectives is also provided. While not all of the objectives have been met, certain programs have been very successful in providing much needed assistance to the handicapped, Seniors and homeless, The rehabilitation and conservation efforts have al~o been very effective. The element also proposes two new housing policies and many new housing programs. Most of these policies, and programs are aimed at meeting the needs of the homeless and to identify new programs which' have resulted from senior housing projects and the recently adopted Cultural Resources District for Old Town. On April 14, 1989 the draft Element was transmited to HCD for comment. Comments were received and, where appropriate, they have been addressed in the document. Attached to this report is a copy of the HCD comments and a detailed response from staff to these comments as to how they have been addressed. Com'munity Development Departmept · Planning Commission Report Housing Element June 12, 1989 Page four CONCLUSION Staff have reviewed the Housing Element text and_ incorporated any and all verified or reliable statistical data, where possible. The new programs and policies provide mechanisms for addressing the new needs required to be addressed by the law (i.e., homeless). The proposed revisions include an evaluative tool for looking back over past actions so that future needs can be met. With the corrections from HCD and the previous Commission and public comment, the element is ready for final approval. In order to meet the timing schedule and based upon the previous comments from the public, State HCD and the Planning Commission, staff suggests that the Commission recommend approval of the 1989 Housing Element Revisions to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2624. Senior Planner LK:Pef Christine Shi ngleton Director of Community Developmeni~ Attachments: Negati've Declaration/Initial Study " Resolution No. 2623 and 2624 1989 Revisions to the Housing Element Community Development Department I!. CITY OF TUSTIN Commu,,ity Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM le Name of Proponent '~C I'TY OF TUSTI N i · Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3 ~) 0 r. F N T F N N I A ! W A Y T II c; T I N CALIFORNIA, ~)2680 COMhUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONTACT: LAURA C. KUHN, SENIOR PLANNER e 5. Nome of Proposal, if applicable GENERAL PLAN SEE ATTACHED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STUDY DETERMINATION.S. Envirenmeatai Impacts Date of Checklist Submitted MAY 30, 1989 Agency Requiring Checklist C I T Y 0 F T U S T I N . . AMENDMENT NUMBER 89-02 DISCIJssION OF INi I'IAL (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets~) Yes Maybe' No Will the proposal result im a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Chaxje in topography or ground surface relief features? X . X de The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of , soils, either on or off the site? f® Changes in. deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes 'in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or my bay, inlet or lake? (A) e e g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslidess ground failures or similar h~z. crcls? Air. Wi'll'-the proposal result im a, Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result a. Cl~nges in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movementss in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or fl;3w of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water 'in. any water body? e. Discharge into surface waterss or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration 'of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an oquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available far public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X X X X e Be Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or 'number of any species of plants (includihg trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, · rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural · crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in.' a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms'or insects)? b. Reductian of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered specie~ of animals? c. lntroductlen of new species of animals into an area, ar result in a barrier to the migratian or movement of a~imals? d. Deteriomtian to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ' ' Noise. Will the proposal result ins ,, a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light ~ Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the prese;:t or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in,- a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X X X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involv~e~ II. 12. 13. 14. ae A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an occident or upset conditions? Possible interference with an ~ re_~ plan or an erne~ evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? Trc~portatian/Circulatian. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular, movement? . · b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? . Co Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic I~zards to motor vehicles~ bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or. altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? Yes . o X X X c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including. roads? f. Other govemmental~ervices? · 15, Energy, Will the pr6posal result a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy~ or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems~ or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? · b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e.. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in.- a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public~ or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destrt~ion of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Yes × X X, X X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical ~e which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? cl. Will the prOpOsal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. ~ory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality, of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, codse a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus-. toining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ~ommunity, reduce the number or restrict the ronge of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project' have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive ,period of time while long-term impacts -will endure well into the future.) · c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- sideroble? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X. X !!!. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS INITIAL STUDY AND THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION. IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initiC~..¢aluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 'the mitigation measures described on an attached d{eet have !" I been added to the project. A NECATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- merit, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. bat~ MAY 30, 1~)8~ I--I Sig~m LAURA C. KUHN, SENIOR PLANNER :B~IBIT iq PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~ DTSCUSSTON OF 'I'NITI:]~ STUDY RESPONSES G_~_I~I'EI~:L PL~.N :]~.~ENDM:ENT NO. 89-02 (iq) PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION= General Plan Amendment No. 89-02 (a) is for the purpose of revising the Housing Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. The revisions are required to be completed every five years as mandated by state law. The revisions to the Housing Element include: 1. Updating the statistical and demographic data contained in the element to reflect the Southern California iqssociation of Governments (SCAG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the 1988 Department of Finance demographic and statistical data. 2. Updating all housing programs and identification of past performance and areas of concern. 3. Providing additional information on the Homeless and other needs groups 'which must be addressed in the Housing Element as required, by recent changes in State Law. &11 revisions to the Housing Element are textural in nature and do not create any new programs which impact any of the other elements in the Tustin Area General Plan. The revisions are not intended to be a comprehensive update of the Housing .Element since a complete General Plan revision program is slated for the next fiscal year. A full Environmental Impact Report for this new General Plan will be prepared. DISCUSSION OF INITIIqL STUDY RESPONSES: I. Earth- Questions A-G: The proposed revisions to the Housing Element would not result in any direct development of the land within the city of Tustin. However, if specific development proposals occur for housing projects, these projects are reviewed under CEQA as a site specific project. Therefore, no anticipated impacts would occur which would affect geologic features, sub-structures, soil conditions which could result in erosion or geologic hazards.. Sources: Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. Air- Questions A-c: As discussed above, the Housing Element revisions would not directly result in development of housing.in the City of Tustin, but provides a tool for guiding development to ensure equal and quality housing opportunities for all residents. In this regard, each proposed housing project would be reviewed under CEQA prior to approval of the project. Therefore, the revisions to the Housing Element would not create significant impacts to air quality, creation of odors or alter air movement patterns. Sources: Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. Water- Questions A-I: In the City of Tustin, there are no significant natural above ground water bodies. While development can impact absorption rates and drainage patterns, any future development of housing projects would require an individual environmental review and' assessment of any and all environmental impacts. As discussed in the · --~revious sections in this analysis, the Housing Element reVisions do mt propose .any new buildings or development within the City and only serve as a guide for future development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that this project will have an impact on water quality.. Sources: City eof Tustin, General Plan-Land Use Map and Element. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 4-5. Plant and Animal Life-There are no known animal or plant species which exist in the City which are considered rare or endangered. However,each proposed housing project would be reviewed under CEQA prior to approval of. the project. Therefore, the revisions to the Housing Element would not significantly impact flora or fauna in the city. Sources: Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Historical records, and previous EIR's for East Tustin. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. 'itigation Monitoring: None Required. Noise- Questions A-B: While the Housing Element revisions will not directly result in development of any buildings or other development projects, it will be used as a guide for development of housing units. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts. In this regard, noise impacts are typically mitigated by.use of standard conditions on development of sound proofed residential units (45 dba) and limits on the timing for construction operations. Such conditions would be applied as standard conditions to every project to ensure minimum noise impacts to future residents and existing residents as well. Sources= Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin. Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 7. Light and Glare-While the Housing Element revisions will not -~irectly result in development of any buildings or other development .Jrojects, it will be used as a guide for development of housing units. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to ~conditions to reduceor eliminate any environmental impacts. Light and glare is typically mitigated by use of standard conditions on development which require that reflective materials be revised to non-glare producing materials and that all lighting installed on the exterior of the property be designed to reduce light rays and to eliminate light from impacting surrounding properties to ensure minimum light impacts to future residents and existing residents as well. Sources= Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element.' Standard procedures for design.review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 8. Land Use- The Housing Element revisions do not create any new land use designations or provide for new land uses within the City of Tustin. The revisions do not impact or change any existing land use ~esignation in the General Plan or Zoning Code. Sources= Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. City of Tustin Land Use and Zoning'Maps. ~itigati0n Monitoring= None Required. 9-10. Natural Resources and Risk of Upset- Questions A-B= While the Housing Element revisions will not directly result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development of housing units. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject ko conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts. Sources= Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 11. Population-The revisions to the Housing Element do not propose to change land use densities or housing developments which could result in an increase of population in the City. Sources= City of Tustin, General Plan Land Use Element. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. 'itigation Monitoring= None Required. 12 Housing-The proposed revisions to the Housing Element has and will be used as a t~ol f~r guiding development of housing in the City of Tustin. In this regard, the element.may have an impact on housing, in that all new housing projects are reviewed as to whether they meet the Housing Element policies and objectives. Additionally, the Housing Element provides an impetus for the provision ~of housing units for special needs groups such as the handicapped, homeless, and low income population so that there is an equal housing opportunity for all residents, both existing and future. These impacts on housing are considered to be positive in a cultural and a~ministrative/policy manner rather than neg=tive on the environment. Sources= State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing. Element. Mitigation Monitoring= None Required. 13. Transportation/Circulation- Questions A-F= While the Housing Element revisions will not directly .... result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development f housing units. As discussed previously, any and all future ~evelopment projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts including transportation and circulation issues. those regarding Sources= State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Circulation Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development _Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 14. Public Services- Questions A-F: The current public services in the City have been provided based on current revenue levels generated from typical sources. However, all new housing developments in the East Tustin Area are subject to review for conformance with the East Tustin Fiscal Model which establishes staffing and fiscal projections for city services. The revisions to the Housing element do not propose any new development in the city and only p=ovide guidelines for future development. Sources: East Tustin Fiscal Model - State Planning, zoning'and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 15-16. Energy and Utilities- Questions A-F: The Housing Element revisions will not directly result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development of housing units. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 7. Human Health- Questions A-B: While the Housing Element revisions will not directly result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development of housing units. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any health related impacts. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 18. Aesthetics-The Housing Element revisions will not directly result in new development, it will be used as a guide for development of housing units. As discussed previously, any and all future development projects are subject to review under CEQA as a separate project and will, therefore be subject to conditions to reduce or eliminate any environmental impacts and ensure architectural and development compatibility with the surrounding area. Sources: State Planning, ~oning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. · . Mitigation Monitoring:- None Required. 19. Recreation-The current public services in the City have been provided based on current revenue levels generated from typical sources. All new parks are provided based upon pre-established standards in the City Park Land Dedication ordinance and provisions for parks in the city establish staffing and fiscal projections for city services. The revisions to the Housing Element do not propose any new development in the city and only provide guidelines for future development. Sources: East Tustin Fiscal Model Parkland Dedication Ordinance. State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. ~0. Cultural Resources- Questions A-D: The revisions to the Housing Element do not propose any specific physical development in the City but constitute a plan for the ~uidance of providing housing to the many types of persons who may wish to reside in the'City. As discussed above, any new development proposals will be reviewed individually under CEQA for consideration of any potential impacts which may occur as a result of a specific project. Sources: State Plannlng, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance- Question A: The revisions to the Housing Element do not propose any specific physical development in the City but constitute a plan for the guidance of providing housing to the many types of persons who may wish to reside in the City. As discussed above, any new development proposal will be reviewed individually under CEQA for consideration of any potential impacts to habitats for fish and wildlife or California. history which may occur as a result of a specific project. ' ources= State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the.City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. Question B: The State of California requires each City in the State to prepare and adopt a General Plan which includes a Housing Element. This element is to be updated every five years so that changing demographics and long term goals for housing can be re-evaluated. In this regard, the revisimns to the Housing Element have been prepared so that long range planning issues can be appropriately addressed and the necessary accommodations made for housing policies. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of approval, Tustin Community Development Department. '~tigation Monitoring: None Required. · Question C-D: The revisions to the Housing Element do not propose any specific physical development in the City but constitute a plan for the guidance of providing housing to the many types of persons who may wish to reside in the City. As discussed above, any new development proposal will be reviewed individually under CEQA for consideration of any potential impacts which may be individually limited or cumulatively considerable. Additionally,.,the Housing Element is a long. range planning tool used to ensure orderly growth and development of- -a City so that the needs of all human beings wishing to reside in the City may be addressed. Sources: State Planning, Zoning and Development Law. Proposed 1989 Revisions to the Tustin Housing Element. Standard procedures for design review for the City of Tustin Community Development Department. Standard Conditions of agproval, Tustin Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring: None Required. 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 ~7 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2623 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF' THE ~ITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02 (A) 1989 HOUSING ELEMENT REVISIONS, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planngng Commission finds and determines as follows: A. General Plan Amendment 89-02 (a) 1989 Housing Element Revisions 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 Deve.lopment Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. D. The 'Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed final Negative Declaration and determined it to be adequate~ and · . complete. II. A ~Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission, having recommendation authority over General Plan Amendment 89-02{A), 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of June, 1989. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2624 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING'APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 89-02(A), A REQUEST TO REVISE THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. Government Code Section 65358 provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of its General Plan. Bo Government Code Section 65358(b) states that no mandatory element of a General Plan shall be amended more frequently than 4 times during any calendar year. However, each amendment may include more than I Change to the General Plan. Appropriately in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 89-02(a) four {4) other amendments are being 'considered and all amendments shall be considered as I amendment per Section 65358(b). Ce In accordance with Section 65302(a) of the Government Code, the General Plan Housing Element must be amended every five years. Textual revisions to the Element have been developed to address this requirement a.nd new legal requirements for k~ousing Elements. Statistical and demographic information in the Housing Element. De A public hearing has been duly called and noticed, and held on June 12, 1989. E. This Amendment is consistent with other elements of the Tustin · General Plan. Fe The proposed amendment has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental 'Quality Act and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. G. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Tustin based on the following: le Housing Element Amendment 89-02(a) will not alter the existing land use patterns or create a means for promoting or discouraging growth beyond that currently permitted in the General Plan or Zoning Code. The amendment will accomplish the task of updating statistical and demographic information and complies with new requirements mandated by State law to address the homeless needs and to review past performance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 12 ~3 14 17 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2624 Page two 2. The proposed amendments are interim to be reevaluated in conjunction with comprehensive revisions to the General Plan. e The updated goals, policies and programs and information will ensure that the City of Tustin has an adequate General Plan. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends.to the City Council of General Plan Amendment 89-02(a) proposed textural amendments to the Housing Element as shown in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 10 DATE: SUBJECT- ,JUNE 12, 1989 ANENDHENT TO USE PERNIT 88-23, PAC]*FIC BELL FIELD SERVICES CENTER - CARWASH At their regular meeting of May 8, 1989, the P]annin9 Commission adopted Resolution No. 2602, approving an amendment to Use Permit 88-23 to permit the relocation of the tralnlng yard and development of a new parklng area at Paciflc Bell's Field Services Center located at 14451 Myford'Road. In conjunction with that action, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on the proposed ca r/truck-was~ facility for the project to this date to allow staff and the applicant time to review alternate locations. Staff is not yet finished with this review, and recommends that this item be' continued to the June 26th Planning Commission Meeting. The applicant has been informed of this and is agreeable to that date. St&~e Rubin Senior Planner Christine A~ Shingleton/ Director of Community Development SR-CAS:ts Community Development Department ITEM NO. 11 Inter -"C'om _ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEEr DEPARTMENT STATUS REPORT FOR EAST TUSTIN RES]*DENTIAL PRO,.1ECTS Attached for .your information is a list of all residential projects and their development status as of June 1, 1989 in the East Tustin Project area. This list identifies each project by phase, project name, tract number, number of approved units, product type, number of completed units and project status. This list also identifies totals and percent of totals for each phase of the Tustin Ranch. · Please contact me should you have any questions or require additional information related to this matter. Associate Planner DF'per Attachments Christine Shingle~F Community Development Department 0i0 ,--1' D] ,'rl tv]. ~! ."q i ',/. LF,, g6 0.. U] :;-, C', t'~ ;;5 C: C, ~ ; I c,©: r~ _rD.,: O.©j 1-~ II ii .--4 ii Il II Ii II i o . ' II i1 i it ,Fi ,--:~ o , 11 '.Fl Z II 11 II II tl 11 II I1 II . II . if '[ ri Ii ~--~ 11 PHASE IV LEGEND PHASE Iil PHASE I! PHASE I Report the Planning commission ITEM NO. 12 DATE' SUBJECT.' APPLICANT: O~ER' LOCATION: ZONING: REQ{JEST' JUNE 12, 1989 PERMIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME JORGETA TAHTAWI 1661GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 SAME 1661 GREENMEADOW TUSTIN, CA 92680 PC-R-1 SINGLE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (PLANNED COMMUNITY) AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME RECOliNENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Chairman inquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a protest, and Ithen accept any '~rotests submitted. If a protest is lodged, then the matter should be continued to the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting in order for staff to evaluate the protest. If a protest is~ not filed, the Commission should approve the subject application without further discussion by Minute Order subject to compliance with all requirements of Ordinance 991. BACKGROUND - Jorgeta Tahtawi presently operates a Small Family Day Care Home at 1661 Greenmeadow and is requesting authorization to operate a Large Family Day Care Home. Section 9223a6 of the Tustin Zoning Code establishes the requirements and standards for the operation of Large Family Day Care Homes. These homes may care for up to 12 children including their own children under the age of 12. In August of 1987, Ordinance 991 was adopted by the City Council which amended and expanded the criteria for reviewing permits for Large Family Day Care Homes. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Permit to Operate A Large Family Day Care Home June 12, 1989 m P. age two : Inspections have been made at the S~bject address by the Community Development and Fir. e Departments with the following findings: _ 1. The proposed day care home by design, location and layout will not constitute a noise nuisance to neighboring properties. 2. The day care home is not within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of any existing large family day care home. 3. All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary were notified of the intent to establish this home. 4. The proposed day care home has been inspected by the Orange County Fire Department. 5. The play yard of the proposed home is enclosed by a six-foot high fence which is setback from the required front yard. 6.' The proposed home does not have a swimming pool. 7. The propo'sed home provides adequate off-street parking areas and has a~equate drop-off and/or pick-up facilities boti~ on-site and off-site which will avoid interference wi th traffic and promote the safety of children. 8. The applicant has applied for a license wi th the State of ~California. CONCLUS ION: The California Government Code mandates that permits for these homes must be granted by the City unless a formal protest is made by a property owner within 100 feet of a proposed home. This protest must be based on one or more of the following adverse impacts: noise, traffic, parking, concentration or spacing of such homes. This is not an open public hearing: however, it is recommended that the Chairman i'nquire if any person in the audience wishes to submit a formal protest. All such ~rotests should then be received as part of the public hearing record. [~a Kuhn Christine Shingleton ~ Senior Planner Director of CommunityD6velopment ILK: pe f Attachments:' Map Community DevelOpment Department LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME 1661 GREENMEADOW Cl. ROANOKE c~ ;HBI )N AV · CE~TENNI'AL · · '.. j PARK ,~., ~.' O.C.F.¢.P. NORTH NOT TO SCALt A regular meeting of the ,.~nning Commission of 'the Ci,~ of Tustin, California was held on Monday, June 12,. 1989. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker, Pontious, Le Jeune, Shaheen and Kasparian Subject: Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home · Commissioner moved, seconded to approve, by Minute Order, a permit to operate a Large Family Day Care Center at 1661 Greenmeadow. Motion carried . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )§ CITY OF TUSTIN ) I Penni Foley, Recording Secretary of the Tustin Planning Commission do hereby certify the foregoing to be the official action taken by the Planning Commission at the above meeting. Penni Foley Recording Secretary Planning Commission ' DATE: JUNE 12, 1989 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: SECTOR LANDSCAPING CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTORS 10, 11 AND 12 · THE IRVINE COMPANY ENV IROI~ENTAL STATUS: PROJECT COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2 AND ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUM) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL SECTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANS FOR SECTORS 10, 11 AND 12 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Planning Commission 1) approve Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2626, and; 2) approve requested modifications, by minute motion. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at a regular meeting on December 8, 1986 approved the Concept Land Use and Landscaping Plans lot"Sectors 10, 11 and 12 {Tract 12763, Phase I I). The applicant is now requesting modification to the approved concept plans to reflect land use and parcel changes proposed in Sector 10 by General Plan 88-01, Amendment 89-02 {c), Zone Change 88-02, East Tustin Specific Plan Amendment and Tentative Parcel Maps 88-315 and 88-316. The Commission approved a corresponding request for Sector 7 at their meeting of May 22, 1989. Attached revisions to the Development and Landscaping Concept Plans for Sectors 10, 11 and 12 reflect the requested land use modification. Christine Shingleton Director of Community Development .... CAS:pef Attachments: Resolution No. 2626 Exhi bi ts Community Development Department [NH IRVINE BLVD. H i L. LEGEND AVE. 'IL :::?7 :.': F. ".'.'. °Ae LOOP ROAD 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 · 13 14 15 17 2O 21 23 24 25 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2626 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC' PLAN AND ALL SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDUMS IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR REVISIONS TO THE SECTOR AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLANS FOR TRACT 1287.0 FOR SECTORS 10, 11 AND 12 (TRACT 12763) 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. Revision to the sector and Landscape Concept Plans for Tract 12763 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B. The projects 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 and; II. The East Tustin Specific Plan final'Environmental Impact Report previously certified on March 17, 1986 and all subsequently adopted supplements and addendums was considered prior to approval .of these projects. The Planning Commission hereby finds' the project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of .t. he project were examined in. the Program EIR as amended with subsequently adopted supplements and addendums; and all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into the project. The Final EIR as amended is therefore determined to be adequate to serve as a Program EIR for the project and satisfies all requirements of CEQA. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures were originally identified as Conditions in approving Tentative Tract Map and approving the original Sector Concept Plans for Tract 12763. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1989. Penni Foley Secretary A. L. Baker Chairman Report to the Planning Commission- ITEM NO. 14 DATE: JUNE 12, 1989 SUBJECT: REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS - JUNE 5, 1989 Oral presentati on.' pef Community Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULARMEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. 7:01 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE GIVEN BY JEFF II. SLIPP, ASSOC. PASTOR ALL PRESENT III. INVOCATION - The Invocation will be given by Larry Ahl, Pastor'of Colonial Bible Church. ROLL CALL IV. PROCLAMATIONS PRESENTED 1. DEBBIE FERRIER, FORMER MISS TUSTIN READ PROCLAMATION 2. FLAG DAY - JUNE 14, 1989 Ve PRESENTATIONS YOUTH TO HAVE SERVICE 1. MORMON CHURCH COMMUNITY SERVICE PROJECT · PROJECT WITH PROCEEDS TO GO TO SENIOR CITIZEN PROJECT. SUSAN JONES TO ~RDINATE PROJECTS WITH THEM. E ARE GOING TO HAVE 2. WALK FOR AIDS IN ORANGE COUNTY 2,500 WALKERS TO RAISE'S370,000. THEY ASKED THAT THE CITY CONSIDER THEM IN THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR. VI. PUBLIC HEARING APPROVED STAFF 1. EXXON APPEA~' OF A PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION ON EXPIRATION OF USE PERMIT 87-6 FOR CITY ATTORNEY TO COME OFF-SITE BEER AND WINE SALES AT 14082 RED HILL BACK WITH PROPOSED FINDINGS AVENUE On April 24, 1989, the Planning Commission determined that Use Permit 87-6 had expired on June 1, 1988. Recommendation: That the City Council, by Minute Motion, uphold the Planning commission decision that Use Permit 87-6 expired on June 1, 1988 as recommended by the Community Development Department. NONE VII. PUBLIC INPUT VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR ROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ' MAY 4, 1989, CIVIC CENTER RENOVATION WORKSHOP MAY 15, 1989, REGULAR MEETING APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,416,839.74 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $401,765.85 A ROVED com NDA'x'IO APPROVED ST~FF RECOMMENDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 89-69 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO1. 89-?0 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 89-71 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 89-7; CLAIMANT-JOHN ELLEXSON, DATE OF LOS~ ~/16/89, DATE FILED WITH IITY-4/17/89 Reject subject claim for property damage in the amount of $78.50 as recommended by the city Attorney. 4. AUDIT AGREEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 'Authorize the Finance Director to sign. the Proposal for Audit Services submitted by Dieh~, Evans and Company in the amount of $21,850.0'0 as recommended by. the Finance Department. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 89-69 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, 1988-89 FISCAL YEAR Adopt Resolution No. 89-69 accepting said work and authorizing the recordation of the Notice of Completion as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 89-70 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 IMPROVEMENTS ON BRYAN AVENUE FROM BROWNING TO JAMBOREE, SOUTHERLY HALF OF IRVINE BOULEVARD FROM RANCHWOOD TO JAMBOREE, AND THE EASTERLY SIDE OF BROWNING AVENUE NORTHERLY OF . BRY.AN AVENUE. Adopt Resolution No. '89-70 accepting said .work along Bryan Avenue, southerly, half of Irvine Boulevard~ ~nd easterly side of Browning ~venue and authorize the recordation of the Notice of Completion as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 89-71 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING UNDER S.B. 140 FOR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Adopt Resolution No. 89-71 authorizing the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to execute applications for funding under the SB 140 Program for highway improvement projects as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. ADOPTED 8. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13627 (IRVINE COMPANY) RESOLUTIONS NO.89-67 WITH IMPLEMENTED LANGUAGE RESOLUTION NO. 89-67 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ~ARDING SCHOOL SITES AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING .~OLUTION NO. 89-68 THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ALL SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA IS 'ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13627 AND HILLSIDE REVIEW 89-01 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN . INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 89-72 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ~pprove Environmental -Determination for the ~roject by adoption o~ solution No. 89-67; and RESOLUTION NO. 89-68 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY couNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13627 Approve Tentative Tract 13~27 by adoption of Resolution No. 89-68 as recommended by the CommunitY Development Department. .. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 89-72 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE AUTO CENTER STORM DRAIN FACILITIES, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Adopt Resolution No. 89-72 approving plans and specifications for the storm drain facilities within the Tustin Auto Center and direct the City · Clerk to advertise for bids for the pre-order of storm drain pipe as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 89-73 10. RESOLUTION NO. 89-73 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL.OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND WHEELCHAIR RAMPS, SB 821 PROJECT, 1988-89 FY Adopt Resolution No. 89-73 approving specifications and authorizing advertiseDent of bids for subject project as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 89-74 fl. RESOLUTION NO. 89-74~ - A RESOLUTION OF THE~CITY COUNCIL OE THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR INSTALLATION OF 45 MIL HYPALON LINING AND. STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS AT RAWLINGS RESERVOIR Adopt Resolution No. 89-74 accepting said work and authorizing the recordation of the Notice of Completion as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. ADOPTED RESOLUTION' NO. 89-75 12. RESOLUTION NO. 89-75 - A RESOLUTION OF.THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 89-1, TRACT NO. 13106 Adopt Resolution No. 89-75 approving lot line adjustment No. 89-1 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. NONE IX. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None Xe ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1023 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1023, AUDIT COMMITTEE The following Ordinance No. 1023 had first reading and intro- duction at the May 15, 1989 City Council meeting. XI. APPROVED ST~FF RECOMMENDATION AND ADVERTISE FOR NEXT MEETING FOR MEMBER TO SERVE ON CRAS '--DOINTED GEORGE 'FRIES AND CHERYL GUNDERSON AND APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONTINUED FOR ONE MONTH ORDINANCE NO. 1023 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY %F TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, 24ENDING THE TUSTIN CI% 20DE REGARDING THE AUDIT COMMITTEE Recommendation: M.O. - Ordinance No. 1023 have second reading by title only. M.O. - Ordinance No. 1023 be 'passed and adopted. (Roll call vote) OLD BUSINESS 1. STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE MONITORING PROGRAM (JWA), COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS), AIRPORT SITE COA~..ITION (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. 2. APPOINTMENT OF TWO NEW .AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERS The City Council interviewed the following candidates on May 15, 1989: Arnold Gaunt, Cheryl Gunderson, George Jeffries, and Glen Weber Recommendati:on: 1. Appointments at the Pleasure of the City Council. 2. Set the term 0f appointments as stipulated in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1022 by setting the term of office of the two new appointees to be until the second meeting in February of 1992; and setting the terms of office of current Audit Committee members.Weil, Sullens and Greinke to the second meeting in February of 1993. 3. BUDGET WORKSHOP Staff is in the process of finalizing the draft 1989-90 budget. Recommendation: Receive and file subject report. 4. APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS At the May 1, 1989 City CoUncil meeting, it was moved and carried that this item be continued at the June 5, 1989 City Council meeting. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. STUDY PROJECT WITH CAL TRANS AND NO "--~NDING UNTIL ALL NCERNS ARE MET 5. 3T. JEANNE DE LESTONNAC HOOL DRIVEWAY EVALUATION AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL STUDY At a recent city Council meeting, staff was requested to evaluate driveway conditions at Saint Jeanne ' s School. ~.ecommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. XII. NEW BUSINESS SOLICIT FOR MEMBERS THE SAME AS WE DID FOR AUDIT COMMITTEE 1. CITY OF TUSTIN WATER CORPORATION VACANCIES There are presently two vacancies on the five member City of Tustin Water Corporation Board of Directors. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 2. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVALS This is a request from a'property owner regarding trees within the public right-of-way. Recommendat ion: ' Approve removal and replacement of two trees at 14661 Yorba Street as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field Services Division. SET WORKSHOP FOR JUNE 3. "LIVING TREASURE" PROGRAM 19TH AT 6:00 P.M. Council has endorsed this concept, whose purpose would be to acknowledge people who have-made a contribution to the Tustin area community, and to do so while they are still alive. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 4. CONSTRUCTION OF MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS AND INSTALLATION OF FLASHING BEACONS AT YORBA STREET/AMAGANSET WAY AND AT PROSPECT AVENUE/BENETA Bids for these traffic signal improvements were opened on May 30, 1989. The low bid of $205,900 submitted by Steiny and Company is 7.2% over the Engineer's estimate of $192,000. Recommendation: Award the contract for miscellaneous traffic signal improvements and the installation of flashing beacons to the low bidder, ,Steiny and Company, in the amount of $205,900 and authorize a supplemental 1988-89 budget appropriation of general fund money in the amount of $9,000 to cover the additional cost of non-assessment district related work as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF 5. RECOMMENDATION CHRIS SHINGLETON AND ' ' LEDENDECKER TO WORK ~ETHER REGARDING ANY PROPERTY THAT WOULD BE NTA ANA (I-5) FREEWAY/ ~DENING AND I-5/RTE 55 NTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCT_., At a previous City CoUncil meeting, staff was directed to prepare a letter to be sent to all affected property owners adjacent to the Santa Ana TAKEN BY CAL TRANS Freeway widening project and the I-5/Rte 55 interchange reconstruction- project. Recommendation: Approve the letter and direct staff to mail it to all affected Tustin property owners adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway widening and interchange reconstruction projects as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 6. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE REQUEST Bids for i Ton Value Truck with Truck Body and 1 Ton Flat Bed Truck with Dump Bed were opened on May 11, 1989. Recommendation: 1. Authorize the purchase of equipment, from low bidders as follows: 1 Ton Value Truck with Truck Body from Guaranty Chevrolet, Santa Ana, California, in the amount of $45,696.95; and 1 Ton Flat Bed Truck with Dump Bed from FUller -Ford, Chula Vista, California, in the amount of $21,227.75 ~ 2. Authorize a supplemental appropriation from the water fund in the amount of $14,200.00 to the Water Capital Equipment fund as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field Services Division. XIII. REPORTS RATIFIED · 1. PLANNING'COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - MAY 22, 1989 Ail actions of the Planning Commission becOme final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of May 22, 1989. NONNE XIV. PUBLIC INPUT E'--LY REQUESTED XV. OTHER BUSINESS "- ~ ,' THE ACTING' POLICE CHIEF NOTIFY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED AT THE END O3 THE CHILI COOKOFF. KELLY ASKED FOR A REPORT ON THE WATER WORKS HOME. KELLY ASKED THAT WE ADJOURN IN HONOR OF THE CHINESE STUDENTS THAT WERE KILLED. EDG ASKED A m PORT SZGN. THE Z-$ WIDENING AS I7 VFECTS THE REVERE HOUSE --~OUNCIL CONCURREDWITH EDGAR THAT THEY BE FURNISHED WITH A PROGRESS REPORT EGARDING THE WARNER AVENUE BRIDGE. EDGAR SAID THAT SPEEDERS HAD BEEN ISSUED 6.,000 TICKETS IN PASADENA. HE ASKED ACTING'CHIEF'TO.CHECK INTO IT. MAyoR TO SCHEDULE MEETINGS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIONERS. · PRESCOTT ASKED THAT A REPORT ON BANNER POLES' BY THE CITY ATTORNEY BE AGENDIZED FOR THE NEXT MEETING. PRESCOTT COMMENTED THAT 100 YEARS AGO YESTERDAY, ORANGE COUNTY CAME INTO BEING. COUNCIL CONCURRED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, AND AUDIT COMMITTEE SHOULD HAVE BUSINESS CARDS. AGENDIZE RESOLUTION FOR HOUSE BILL 2380 REGARDING POST OFFICE ZIP CODES STAFF TO AWARD 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD PRIZES FOR THE CHILI COOKOFF FOR PEOPLE'S CHOICE AWARD 9:38 P.M. XVI. ADJOURNMENT - To A Workshop regarding Living Treasures on June 19th at 6:00 p.m. and Mayor to arrange a workshop with Planning Commissioners and Parks and Recreation Commissioners, and then to the next Regular .Meeting on Monday, june 19, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 5, 1989 7:00 P.M. 9:38 p.m. ALL PRESENT APPROVED APPROVED i · · · CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 15, 1989, REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,254.38 Recommendation: Approval of subject demands in the amount of $23,254.38 as recommended by the Finance Department. REBOLUTIONS No. RDA 89-15 'AND NO. RD/~ 89-16 NONE 9:40 P.M. · · Re st for approval of a ' ~sed site plan for a pr~ .ously approved two an= ~ne-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 at 15642 Pasadena Avenue. Recommendation by- the Department: Community Developmen~ Adopt the following Resolution No. RDA 89-15 recertifying the Final Negative Declaration as adequate for the revision to Design Review 88-20: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 88-20 AS ADEQUATE FOR A REVISION TO SAID DESIGN REVIEW, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 2. Adopt the following Resolution No. RDA 89-16 approving a revised site plan for Design Review 88-2~, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A as submitted or revised: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REVISION TO THE SITE PLAN FOR DESIGN REVIEW88-20 AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY, 11 UNIT APARTMENT PROJECT AT 15642 PASADENA AVENUE OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT - To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, June 19, 1989, at 7:00 p.m.