Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 07-05-88 ACTION AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING coIqHISSIO# REGULAR FLEETING ~UNE 27, 1988 REPORTS NO. 1 7-5-88 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Counct1 Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS' Present: Puckett, Hell, Le ~eune, Ponttous Absent: Baker (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 CONSCNT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) -. 1. Minutes of the June 13, 19.88 Planning Commission Meeting Coemtsstoner Puckett moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the consent calendar. i i Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING 2. Tentative Parcel Map 88T. 206 APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION' ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SOLMAR DEVELOPMENT CO. 1201E. HUNTER AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 MR. AND MRS. CHANG CHAMPION FOODS 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 M-INDUSTRIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 15) TO SUBDIVIDE ONE, 2.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS. Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 88-206 by the adoption of Resolution 2508 as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Action Agenda' June 27, 1988 Page two Presentation' Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Commissioner Puckett moved, Ponttous seconded to recommend to City Council the ap[~roval Of Tentative Parcel Hap 88-206 by ~he adoption of Resolution No. 2508. Hot*ion carrted 4-0 NEll BUSINESS 3. Design Review No. 88-13 APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION' ZONING' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' DADDY-O'S RESTAURANT PAUL MARTINO 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 JOHNSTOWN AMERICAN 23201 LAKE CENTER DRIVE EL TORO, CA 92630 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 C-2 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL EXPOSED NEON TUBING ON AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 174 E. MAIN STREET. Recommendation: Deny Design Review 88-13 by Minute Order. Presentation' Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune moved. Puckett seconded to continue the subject item to the JUly 11. 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0.. . Density Bonu. ses and Other Incentives Recommendati on- It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the subject matter and determine an appropriate policy direction to deal with all present and future requests for density bonuses or other incentives for residential developments. Presentation' Steve Rubin, Senior Planner It was agreed that staff would further research the options available regarding density bonuses and other incentives and return findings to the Co,mission at a later date o Planning Commission Action Agenda June 27, 1988 Page three Reorganization. of Planning Commission Presentation' Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Re comme nda ti on' Receive and file. No Planning Comtsston necessary. STAFF CONCERNS . City Council Action Agenda for June 20.,. 1988 Presentati on' Christi ne Shi ngl eton, Di rector of Commu ni ty Development COMMT SSZON CONCERNS Commissioner #etl inquired about the Parks and Recreations Corot tree. Commissioner Ponttous noted that there were some tables set up outside some of the newer restaruants tn town and asked tf they could be provtded with a copy .of the newly adopted Outdoor Otntng Guidelines, specifically the new yogurt shop in the Courtyard shopptng center. Commissioner Le Jeune noted his concern regarding umbrellas with advertisements located at Roma O'Ztalla. ADgOURmENT At 7:48 p.m. C~tsstoner Le Jeune moved,. Puckett seconded to adjourn to a workshop to discuss the sign program for the Tusttn Market Place on July 6, 1988 at 5:15 p.m. in the Counct1 Chambers and then to the next regularly scheduled Planntng Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. on July 11, 1988. AGENDA TUSTZN PLANNZNG CO~SSTON REGULAR #EETZNG JUNE 27, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Counct] Chambers P LEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/! NVOCAT!ON ROLL CALL: Puckett, We1], Baker', Le Jeune, Pontious PUI)L!C CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for ,items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: . (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY 'ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE' NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS' PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE.COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) Minutes of the J. une 13, 1988 Plannin~ Commission Meeti. n..~ PUBLIC HEARING 2. Tentative parcel Map 88-206 APPL I CANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SOLMAR DEVELOPMENT CO. 1201E. HUNTER AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 MR. AND MRS. CHANG CHAMPION FOODS 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE TUSTIN, CA 92680 M-INDUSTRIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 15) TO SUBDIVIDE ONE, 2.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map 88-206 by the adoption of Resolution 2508 as submitted or revised. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Planning Commission Agenda June 27, 1988 - Page two NEW BUSINESS 3. Design Revtew No. 88-13 APPLICANT' 0 WN ER: LOCATION' ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DADDY-O'S RESTAURANT PAUL MARTINO 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 JOHNSTOWN AMERICAN 23201 LAKE CENTER DRIVE EL TORO, CA 92630 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 C-2 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL EXPOSED NEON TUBING ON AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 174 E. MAIN STREET. Recommendation' Deny Design Review 88-13 by Minute Order· Presentation' Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner · Denstt¥ Bonuses and Other Incentives Recommendation- It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the subject matter and determine an appropriate policy direction to deal with all present and future requests for density bonuses or other incentives for residential developments. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner · Re, organization Ofl Planning Commission Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Recommendati on' Receive and file. STAFF CONCERNS · City Council Action Agenda ll. for June 20, 1988 Presentation- Christi ne Shi ngl eton, Di rector of Commu ni ty Development COIqNI SS ION CONCERNS AD,IOURNMENT Adjourn to next regular Planning Commission meeting at 7'00 p.m. on July 11, 1988. HINUT[S TUSTIM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING dUNE 13, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.,.City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present' Puckett, Wet1, Le Oeune, Pontious Absent' Baker PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR' (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) ® Minutes of the May 23, 19881.Planntng Commission Meeting Con~ntssioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to approve .the consent calendar. Motion carried 4-0. i iml PUBLIC HEARING At 7'03 p.m Con~ntssioner Baker, arrived. 2. Use Permit 88-10 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RICHARD MATICS MATICS ISLAND MARKETS 500 S. BAY FRONT NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92662 BEDFORD PROPERTIES 3002 DOW AVENUE; SUITE 502 TUSTIN, CA 92680 3002 DOW AVENUE, UNIT 534 PC-IND - PLANNED COMMUNITY INDUSTRIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 1) AUTHORIZATION TO SELL BEER AND WINE FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE (LICENSE TYPE 41) AND 2) AUTHORIZATION FOR AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMMERCIAL USE (RESTAURANT). Planntng Commission Minutes June 13, 1988 Page two Recommenda ti on It is recommended, that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-10 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2504. Presentation' Laura Cay Pickup, Acting Senior Planner The public hearing was opened at 7'08 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7-09 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that this was a perfect location. Commissioner Weil asked if the applicant was agreeable to the hours imposed. Staff indicated that the applicant had agreed to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 88-10 by the adoption'of Resolution No. 12504. Motion carried 5''OeI 3. Use Permtt 88-11 mi APPLICANT' 9WNER' LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONCO AND SONS P.O. BOX 2301 YORBA LINDA, CA 92686 BRUCE ENDERLE c/o UNION OIL 1432 N. MAIN STREET ORANGE, CA 92667 17280 E. SEVENTEENTH STREET AT YORBA PC-C: PLANNED COMMUNITY-COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO MAINTAIN TWO (2) 17.8 ADVERTI-SEMENT SIGNS. SQUARE FOOT POLE MOUNTED PR I CE Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny Use Permit 88-11 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2505. Presentation' Laura Cay Pickup, Acting Senior Planner Staff stated that the applicant had withdrawn their application and they are wi lli ng to work with staff regarding signage. The public hearing was opened at 7-11 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7'12 p.m. Commissioner Le 'Jeune moved, Pontious .seconded to permanently table Use Permit - 88-11. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minute= June 13,- 1988 Page three 4. Var1 ance 88-05 APPLICANT' LOCATION' ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST- BURNETT-EHLINE 2050 S. SANTA CRUZ ANAHEIM, CA. 92805 13011 - 13051 NEWPORT AVENUE THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NEWPORT AVENUE AND IRVINE BOULEVARD C-2 (CENTRAL COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE FILED FOR THIS PROJECT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A REQUEST BY BURNETT-EHLINE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO ALLOW THE PLAZA LA FAYETTE PROJECT (A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT) TO HAVE 60 PARKING SPACES LESS THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED, TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED RESTAURANT USES WITHIN THE PROJECT. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2502 approving Variance 88-05 with conditions, as submitted or revised. Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Puckett noted that the existing buildtng is a confectionary food building and asked i f there are any large restaurants interested i n this location. The Director indicated that the develope~ was currently' under negotiation wi th a number of potential operators. She also pointed out that the City was willing to accept a 6,500 square foot restaurant building and a 3,000 square foot- confectionary food bui 1 di rig. Commissioner Baker asked how many restaurant seats would be made available. He also ques(ioned the number of seats in the Gyro King restaurant. The Director indicated that there would be 273 restaurant seats proposed between the proposed 6,700 square foot restaurant and confectionary building in addition to the Gyro King restaurant which has 64 seats. Commissioner Pontious asked where the entrance of the restaurant would be in relationship to the center. The Director indicated that the entrance would be on the north end of the building to attempt to create a courtyard atmosphere between the restaurant and the confectionary bui 1 ding. Commissioner Baker ask'ed for clarification of the boundaries. The Director described the boundaries of the site and potential sites for parking expansion. Commi'ssioner Puckett asked how the restaurants 273 seats would compare to any other restaurant in the City in regard to size. Planning commission Minute. -June 13, 1988 Page four The Director noted that it is bigger than anything in the City at this time. There could be between 223 and 229 seats in the 6,700 square foot restaurant. The public hearing was opened at 7'29 p.m. An unidentified gentleman in the audience, representing the developer indicated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. The public hearing was closed at 7'31 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune indicated that he saw no problem with the additional parking _ req~i rements. Commissioner Pontious indlcated that she would like to see two entrances, one on the Western ~ide' to encourage parking in that area. Commissioner Wei, ll, agreed. Commissioner Puckett noted that he was in favor of approving the parking variance to help La Fayette PlaZa move toward completion. Commissioner Well asked staff why a four year window was included to monitor the p~rking situ~'tion. The Director noted that a four year period was something had been consistently applied in other similar parking situations in the City. Commissioner Well commended the Director for working with the applicant to arrive at this ~age. The Director suggested the following changes: · 1. On the "Additional Discussion of Environmental Evaluation", page 1, paragraph 2, line 2 the number should be changed to "243". Resolution No. 2502, Exhibit A, page 1 renumber item number "5" to number "6" and add the following: "5. Developer shall be encouraged to provide a second entrance to the proposed 6,807 square foot restaruant on the west side of the proposed bui 1 ding." Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to approve Variance 88-05 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2502 as revised. Motion carried 5-0. 5. Variance 88-06 APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION' ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS' MR. & MRS. LIANE LEE (GOLDEN CHINA RESTAURANT) 1046 WALNUT AVENUE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 MR. ROY CHIKASAWA P.O. BOX 3297 CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA 93011 1046 WALNUT, AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WALNUT AVENUE AND NEWPORT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Planning Commi ssion Mi nute= June 13, 1988 Page fi ve REQUEST' APPROVAL OF AN EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING GOLDEN CHINA RESTAURANT IN A MULTI-TENANT SHOPPING CENTER, RESULTING IN A CEKTER-WIDE DEFICIT OF 56 PARKING SPACES. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 2507, approving Variance 88-06, subject to the conditions contained therein. Presentation- Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Puckett asked if parking becomes a problem, where could the applicant park vehicles? The Director indicated that the problem in the lot would likely in concentrated parking congestion rather than lack or availability of parking spaces which were distributed throughout the property. There were speces in front of the market that would be avai 1 able. Commissioner Puckett noted that the Golden China restaruant is in the middle of the center. Commissioner Pontious indicated that there is parking on the northeast side of the center that is Seldom used. Commissioner Puckett indicated that he did not feel that this would be a problem. The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. -. Robert Balen of~LSA, representing the Mr. and Mrs. Lee, the owners, noted that he agreed with the staff report. He felt that staff did an excellent job in working with the applicant and offered to answer any questions the Commission or staff might have. The public hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m. Commissioner Baker questioned the valet comment in Resolution No. 2507, and asked what criteria the City would use to implement the valet parking. The Director indicated that the City would reserve the right to make a determination by the City Engineer or the Community Development Director, that the situation would be checked in the field. Commissioner Baker asked if that clause needed to be added into the Resolution. The Director noted that she didn't envision any problems. Commissioner Baker moved, Pontious seconded to approve Variance 88-06 by the adoption Of'ReSolutiOn No. 2507 as submitted. Motibn carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS 6. Outdoor Seati.ln0 Guidelines Planning CommiSsion Minutes June 13, 1988 Page si x Commissioner Well noted that staff did a great job in submitting a complete set of guidelines. She indicated that she agreed with the clearly defined patio, but felt that total enclosure was unnecessary. She felt that access through the restaurant was good but did not feel that it should be the only access. Possibly the use of self-latching gates with the provision that the gates are visible from the restaurant would be feasible. Commissioner Le Jeune noted his continued concern that umbrellas be kept consistent. Commissioner Baker indicated that he agreed and prefers to maintain control over the outdoor seating a~eas and alcohol served in these areas. Staff indicated that if the City does not require the fencing, that ABC will require it. Commissioner Well indicated that she had a problem with ABC allowing beach cities to have alcoholic beverages in a public area, but not allowing it in Tustin. The Director noted that the Market Place project is bigger than anything else the City has approved. Staff wants to provide the applicants with as much flexibil.ity as possible using the guidelines set by ABC. She suggested the following changes: In Resolution No. 2490 page one, I. A. 1. a. and b. should be replaced with' "a) the patio area shall be clearly/physically defined. It must be clearly a part of the restaurant it serves; b) be accessible preferrably through the inside of the restaurant; and" Page two, 4. b., line 1 should read "all structural elements, umbrellas, II furniture, awnings, Page three C., eliminate item 1. renumber the remainder of item C. Page four, item 4. should read "The dining area shall be physically related to the building that the restaurant is in, ensuring that the entrance to the dining area is preferrably through the restaurant." Commissioner Le Jeune and Well agreed that we want to provide future applicants wi th i i ii flexibility. Commissioner Baker noted again that these are just guidelines. Commissioner Puckett asked how many restaurants with outdoor seating, operating in the City, are currently affected. The Director noted that these guidelines are applicable only in new uses or old uses that are being altered. Commissioner Pontious moved, Puckett seconded to approve Outdoor Seating Guidelines by adoption ~f Resolution No. 2490 a'ls revised. Motion carried 5-0. 7. Standard Tract Map ConUitions for CC&R's Presentation- Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 'Planning Commission Minutes - June 13, 1988 Page seven Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve the addition of recommended language to Standard conditio6's for CC&RI'ms. Motion carri, e~ 5-0. e Abandoned Ri ght,of-Wa¥ - Peppertree. Subdi vi si on Presentation- Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Puckett moved, Pontious seconded to continue discussion of the abandoned right-of-way until i~'he July 11, 1988 'Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Council Actions - June 6, 1988 Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Well commended staff on a job well done on the Cultural Resources Di stri ct. No Commission action necessary. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Pontious noted that the Community section of the L. A. Times still had meeting start tlimes as 7-30 p.m. Commissioner Baker congratulated staff on the Chili Cook-off Booth decoration prize. He also asked when the graphics package was due for the Market Place. The Director noted that it would tentatively be on the July 11, 1988 Planning Commission agenda and that there would be a workshop prior to that meeting. Commissioner Baker and Pontious both indicated that they would be absent the week of July 27th. Commissioner Le Jeune recognized staff on the handling of the Cultural Resources Ordinance, that staff has built a great rapport and reestablished trust with the Old Town neighborhood and that he has noted there is a more positive atmosphere in Old Town. Commissioner Puckett noted that Thursday was Grad Night. He asked that staff send a note to Tom Auftenburg and Joyce Hanson for receiving the Tustin Chamber of Commerce Man and Woman of the Year Awards. commissioner Well asked about the South County Planning Commissioner's meetings. She also asked about a seminar on developers fees. The Director noted that the meeting is being rescheduled and that staff is monitoring developer fees very closely, that the City must have an accounting system to monitor. the developer fees. Planning Commi-ssion Minute. June 13, 1988 Page eight ADdOURI~qENT At 8:25 p.m Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to adjourn to the next regular meeting of the Tustin Plan6ing Commission on June 27, 1988 at 7-00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. · At 8'26 p.m. Chairman Well reconvened the Commission. i Con~nisstoner Puckett moved, Pontious seconded, to certify the Negative Declaration as a'dequate for Variance 88-05 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2506. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to adjourn at 8-30 p.m. carried 5-0~ Motion Kathy Wei 1 Chat rma n Penni Foley Secretary Item No. 2 _ Planning Commission DATE: SUB,]E CT: APPLICANT OWNER: LOCAT ! ON: ZONING: ENV I ROI~IENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ,1UNE 27, 1988 TENTAT]:VE PARCEL PIAP 88-206 SOI.lqAR DEVELOPMENT CO. 1201 E. HUNTER AVENUE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 HR. AND HRS. CHANG CHAHP ]:ON FOODS 1302 ]:NDUSTRTAL DRIVE TUST]:N, CA 92680 1302 ZNDUSTR]:AL DRIVE TUST]:N, CA 92680 H-INDUSTR]:AL CATEGOR]:CALLY EXElqPT (CLASS 15) TO SUBDIV]:DE ONE, 2.5 ACRE PARCEL ]:NTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS. RECOII4ENDATION It is recommended' that the Planning Commission-approve Tentative Parcel Map 88-206 by the adoption of Resolution 2508 as submitted or revised. SUI~ARY Solmar Development Company is intending to construct a new industrial buildingl on a vacant piece of property located on Industrial Drive between Woodlawn and Red Hill Avenue. The site is currently part of a larger 2.5 acre lot owned by Champion Foods. Prior to the sale of the property to Solmar Development, the property must be subdivided into two separate parcels by the processing and approval of a Parcel Map as required by State law and the Tustin Municipal Code. , Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Tentative Parcel Hap 88-206 June 27, 1988 Page two ANAYLSIS Staff has reviewed this application for conformance with State .Law and City requirements. The issues related to this map include: Zoning conformance, site accessibility and the proposed development project. Zonin~ll. Conformance' Prior to a subdivision of property in Tustin, staff reviews each proposal for conformance wi th the current Zoning Code. Specifically, the subdivision must create lots which meet the minimum size and width requirements of the applicable Zoning District. The requirements of the M-1 District as compared with the proposed subdivision are as follows: Re.qu i rement Min. L°t Size' 20,000 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width- 100 feet Parcel 1 Parcel 2 78,190 sq. ft. 30,666 sq. ft. 186 feet 140 feet 2. Site Accessibility' Prior to approval of this Map, staff must consider the existing ii development on Parcel 1. This site currently contains an industrial building with three access drives. One of these drives must be modified to accommodate this subdivision. The necessary conditions of approval for this modification are incorporated into the resolution attached to this report. With the suggested conditions in the resolution, the drive will be moved further west in order to maintain the current accessibility to Parcel 1 or recordation of a reciprocal access agreement will be necessary. Any future development proposal would be subject to the City's site plan design review process. 3. Development Proposal: Solmar Development Company intends to develop Parcel 2' )n the near ~uture, however, the site design and architecture have yet to be finalized. For the purposes of this Parcel Map, all proposed site improvements are not shown on the Map. This avoids any future conflict between this Map and the final site plan approved by the Community Development Di rector. CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed the proposed Tentative Map for conformance with the Tustin , Community Development Department Planntng Comm-t ssi on Report Tentative Parcel Hap 88-206 ~une 27, :tg88 Page three General Plan, Zontng Code and Subdtvtslon Hap Act. Staff recommends that, with the ftndtngs and condlttons of approval contained tn the attached resolution, the Planntng Commission adopt Resolutlon No. 2508 recommending approval of Tentative Parcel taap 88-206 to the Clty Counctl. Development L CP: CAS: ts Attachments: Resolution 2508 Tentative Map 88-206 Corn munity DeveloPmen~ Deparirnen~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2508 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION' OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-206 LOCATED AT 1302 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE, TUSTIN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 88-206 was submitted to the Planning Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 by Solmar Development Company requesting authorization to resubdi vi de one parcel into two (2) parcels for Parcel 31 as recorded in Book 35, Page 50 in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on June 27, 1988. C. This .project is Categorically Exempt, Class 15 from m the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project area. D. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, Tustin Zoning Code and Subdivision Map Act. E. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. G. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. H. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict wi th easements acquired by the public-at-large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. I. Tha.t the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 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. 2508 Page two II. The Planntng Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 88-206 subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Plannings, Commission, held on the day of , 1988. Kathy Wel l, Chairman Penni Foley, ........... Secretary Exhibit A to Resolution No. Z508 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATZYE PARCEL HAP 88-Z06 PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IIqPROVEIqENTS (l) 1.1 Any damage done to exlsting street improvements and utilities shall be (6) repaired before acceptance of the Tract and/or issuance, of a Certificate of Occupancy for development on any parcel within the subdivision. (1) 1.2 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an Excavation Permit must be (6) obtained (and applicable fees paid) from the Public Works Department. (1) 1.3 All construction within a public right-of-way and or public easement must be (6) shown on a separate 24" X 36" plan with all construction referenced to applicable City and County drawing numbers. (1) 1.4 All changes in existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other public (6) improvements shall be the responsibility of subdivider. (1) 1.5 Applicant shall post all required subdivision bonds and agreements prior to (6) Final Map. (1) 1.6 This property (Parcels I of 2) shall be annexed to the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance District. The property owner shall file a letter stating that they will not protest this annexation. GRADING/DRAINAGE - ii (1) 2.1 Prior to issuance of grading permits: (2) (6) A. A detailed soil engineering report shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official conforming to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, City grading requirements, and all other applicable state and local laws, regulations and requirements. ii i m ii i i i mi I imlll i ii i mil SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) EIR MITIGATION (3) UNIFORI4 BIJ ILDING CODES (4) DESIGM REV IEld *** EXCEPTIOM' -- (5) SPECIFIC PLAN (6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (8) PC/CC POLICY (9) OlllER MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENT ~olutlon No. 2508 ibtt A ~ge ~o (1) 2.2 B. (2) (3) Preparation and submittal of a grading plan for Parcel 2 subject to approval of the Department of Community Development delineating the following information: 1. Methods of drainage in accordance with all applicable City standards. 2. A note shall be placed on the grading plan requiring Community Development Department approval of rough grading prior to final clearance of foundations. The Department will inspect the site for accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may require certification of any grading related matter. 3. Final street elevations at key locations. . Final pad/finished floor elevations and key elevations for all site grading. 5. All flood hazards of record. Ce 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. (1) D. (6) Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. (1) E. Written approval must be obtained from adjacent property owners for rights-of-entry for construction activity across lot lines. (1) 2.2 Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all construction (2) work related to the subject parcel including a method of control to prevent dust and windblown earth problems. 2.3 A precise grading permit shall be issued prior to issuance of any building permits on Parcel No. 2. 2.4 All earthwork shall be performed in accordance wi th the City of Tustin Municipal Codes and grading requirements. FIRE DEPARTNENT ' 3.1 The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Orange County Fire Marshal, including required fire flow, installation where required of fire 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. ~olu'tton No. 2508 ~xhtbtt A Page three (1) 3.2 Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, (6) evidence that adequate water supply and operational fire hydrants are (2) available for fire protection shall be submitted and approved by the Orange County Fire Marshal. The subdivider shall also submit water improvement plans for approval of Fire Marshal. NOISE 4.1 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the 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. FEES 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all required fees including: A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public Works Department. B. Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District No. 7. C. East Orange County Water District fees. D. Grading planchecks and permit fees to the Community Development Department. E. All applicable Building plancheck and permit 'fees to the Community Development Department. F. New development fees to the Community Development Department. G. School facilities fee to the Tusttn Unified School District. H. Transportation Improvement Fees for Specific Plan No. 7. GENERAL ~ 6.! Within twenty four months from Tentative Parcel 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 Map Act, and applicable conditions contained herein. 'olution No. 2508 ,ibtt A Page' four (2) 6.2 Prior to Final Map approval: A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report. Be Subdivider shall conform to all applicable provisions of the City Code. All requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance shall be satisfied. Ce 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. D. Show on the Final Map all easements of record. The easterly drive on Industrial Drive shall be moved to be completely contained on Parcel i and shall be designed to be a minimum of 27 feet in width. Otherwise a reciprocal access agreement has to be filed on Parcels 1 and 2 subject to review and approval of City Attorney and Community Development Department. . eport to the Planning Commission Item No. 3 DATE'. SUB&E CT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONHENTAL STATUS: REQUEST- · &UNE 27, 1988 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 88-13 DADDY-O'S RESTAURANT PAUL HARTINO 174 E. HAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 ,IOHNSTOIOI AHERICAN 23201 LAKE CENTER DRIVE EL TORO, CA 92630 174 E. RAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 C-2 CENTRAL COMHERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT CLASS 1 AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL EXPOSED NEON TUBING ON AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 174 E. HAIN STREET. RECOI414ENDATION: Deny Design Revtew 88-13 by Minute Order. SLI~ARY: The applicant, Mr. Marttno, recently redecorated the for~r La Spada Restaurant into Daddy-O's Restaurant. The restaurant is a free-standing building with an adjacent parking lot at 174 E. Main Street. The style of the interior and exterior modifications reflect a 1950's art deco concept. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSXS: mill i iiiii i · The original design revt~ for Daddy-O's was a request for an internally illuminated awning which included a front sign. This proposed awning encroached into the public right-of-way which ~ant that the City would have had to enter into an "Hold Harmless Agreement" with the property owner before an encroachment permit could be issued for the awning. Due to the complexity of the permits i nvol red, the restaurant owner decided to apply for an i nterna 1 ly Community Development Department PlannJng Commission Report Design Review No. 88-13 June 27, 1988 Pa ge two illuminated sign without the awning. At that time, staff informed the applicant that any form of exposed neon would require Planning Commission approval. Because the applicant was anxious to have the sign installed for the grand opening, staff worked witl~ the applicant to bring the style and design of the sign into conformance with both the old town area and the 1950's art deco concept. (Please see the attached picture of the existing sign.) Now that the sign is installed and Daddy-O's has had their grand opening, the applicant has reconsidered and is requesting authorization to remove the plastic covers in order to expose the neon of the signs. The applicant believes this would be more in keeping with the lgSO's theme of the restaurant. Staff is recommending that the exposed neon be denied for' the following reasons: . The Planning Commission has never approved any exterior mounted, exposed neon signs in the old town area and thus would be setting a new precident. . The E1 Camtno Real Specific Plan states that signs shall be of uniform size, color and style while being compatible with and complimentary to the village identification. 3. The existing sign, although modern.in design, has a cleaner look than neon and would not be as bright. .. COIICLUSXOll: Staff contends that the overall design of the buildtng wtth the use of neon would not be tn keeptng wtth the old town area and, therefore, recommends denial of the use of the exposed neon tubtng as requested. Ma r~ Ann ~amber 1 at n' Associatev P1 anner MAC:CAS-ts attachments Chr s ig !~o_n _ Director of Community Development Community Development Department TO: FROM' SUBJECT: PLANNZNG COHHZSSTON COI~NTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTHENT DENSZTY BONUSES AND OTHER ZNCENTZYES Item No. 4 RECOgRENDATZON It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the subject matter and determine an appropriate policy direction to deal with all present and future requests for density bonuses or other incentives for residential developments. BACKGROUND Section 65915 (a) of the State Planning Law provides that when a developer agrees to construct 25% of the total number of units of a housing development for persons of low or .moderate income (90% - 120% of the County median income level [$44,000+] for Orange County), a city shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provid-e other incentives of equivalent financial value. A copy of Chapter 4.3 of the State Planning Law (including Section 65915 through 65918) has been attached for the Commission's use and information. Chapter 4.3 discusses all aspects of density bonuses, et al as they pertain to apartments and condominiums. DISCUSSION Staff has become aware of a pending proposal from a developer to construct an apartment project in the City for which he intends to request a 25~ density bonus, with 25% of the normally allowed units being set aside for low or moderate income residents pursuant to State law. At this time, staff believes that it is appropriate to inform the Commission of this pending proposal for a density bonus, and that the City needs to establish standard procedures to deal with such requests. Because the City has never dealt with density bonuses other than for senior citizen housing projects {which are treated differently than apartment projects), staff is requesting that the Commission provide staff with direction as to whether the City should opt to allow the bonus units, or provide other incentives of equivalent financial value instead. One issue which should be considered in establishing such a policy direction would be whether the project is able to meet setback, lot coverage, parking and open space standards wi th the bonus units, or whether the bonus units would mandate applying for a variance to one or more of those standards {as a rule, staff thinks that bonus units should not mandate a variance to code standards). Planning Commfsston Report June 27, 1988 Density Bonuses Page t~o If other incentives are granted instead of the bonus units, a developer would still be requlred to set aside 25% of the allowed units for low or moderate income residents. Incentives could tnclude but not be ltmlted to: reducing or waiving permit fees, redu'~Ing or waiving planning application fees, subsidizing or installing certain'public improvements or a combination of these things. The size of the project (i.e,, number of units, etc.) could very possibly affect the ability to provtde an adequate number or amount of incentives that would be of equivalent financial value. State law requires that the City establish procedures to deal with this issue. Such procedures would require the approval of the Planning Commission as well as the City Council. The City must establish procedures which will deal With such proposals on a consistent basis, although this does not mean that they can not be considered on a case by case basis, so long as there are set criteria that are used in each evaluation. Staff believes that the design review process can be used to perform the necessary evaluation, taktng tnto consideration a project's ability to meet code standards, its compatibility with surrounding development (i.e. scale, mass, design), as well as the City' s abi It ty to provi de adequate alternative i ncentlves. Senior Planner SR'pef Attachment' Christine Shingleton (/ Director of Community Development Chapter 4.3, State Planning Law Corn munity De~eloPrnent Department Chapter4.3. Density Bonuses and Other . Incentives HOusi~ ~v~l~nt for low- or ~derate- inom~ bouae~l~ 65915. (a) When a developer of housing agrees to construct at least (1) 25 percent of the total units of a housing development for persons and families of low or moderate inccme, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or (2) 10 percent of the total units of a housing development for lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (3) 50 percent of the total dwelling units of a housing development for qualifying residents, as defined in Section 51.2 of the Civil Code, a city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent f i nancial value. (b) A developer may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal for.the development of housing pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of any formal requests for general plan amendments, zoning amendments, or subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or city and county shall_, within 90 days of receipt of a written, proposal, notify the housing developer in writing of the manner in which it will comply with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of ccmpl iance with this section. (c) For the purposes of this chapter, "density bonus" means a density increase of at least 25 percent over the otherwise maximun allowable 'residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan. ~he density bonus shall not be included when determining the number of housing units which is equal to 10 or 25 percent of the total. The density bonus shall apply to housing developments consisting of five or more dwelling units. (d) If a developer agrees to construct both 25 percent of the total units for persons and families of low or moderate inccme and 10 percent of the total units for lower-inccme households, the developer is entitled to only one density bonus under this section although the city, city and county, or county may, at its discretion, grant more than one density bonus. (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 1333. No repeal er. ) 131 Conck) (x3~ersion; provision for loc- or =cderate-iname f~milies 65915.5. (a) ~hen an applicant for apprOVal to convert apartments to a condominium project agrees to provide at least 33 percent of the total units of the proposed condcminiu~ project to persons and families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Gode, or 15 percent of the total units of the proposed condcminiu~ project to lower inccme households as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Gode, and agrees to pay for the reasonably necessary administrative costs incurred by a city, county, or city and county pursuant to this section, the city, county, or city and county shall either (1) grant a density bonus or (2) provide other incentives of equivalent financial value. A city, county, or city and county may place such reasonable conditions on the grantin~ of a density bonus or other incentives of equivalent financial value as it finds appropriate, including, but not limited to, conditions which assure continued affordabil ity of units to subsequent purchasers who are persons and families of low and moderate inccme or lower income households.. (b) For purposes of this section, "density bonus' means an increase in units of 25 percent over the number of apartments, to be provided within the existing structure or structures proposed for conversion. (c) For purposes of this section,-"other incentives of equivalent financial value" shall not be construed to require a city, county, or city and county to provide cash transfer payments or other monetary compensation but may include the reduction or ~iver of requirements which the city, county, or city and county might otherwise apply as conditions of conversion approval. (d) An applicant for approval to convert apartments to a condcminiun project may submit to a city, county, or city and county a preliminary proposal pursuant to this section prior to the submittal of any formal requests for subdivision map approvals. The city, county, or city and county shall, wi thin 90 days of receipt of a written proposal, notify the applicant in writing of the manner in which it will ccmply with this section. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for carrying out this section, which shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require a city, county, or city and county to 132 Charter cities approve a proposal to convert apartments to .. conda~ini~.n~. (f) An applicant shall be ineligible for a density bor~us or other incentives under this section if the apartments proposed for conversion constitute a housing development for which a density bonus or other incentives ~ere provided · under Section 65915. (Added by St ars. 1983, Ch. 6 34. ) 65916. Where there is a direct financial contribution to a housir~ develolmment pursuant to Section 65915 through participation in cost of infrastructure, write-down of land costs, or subsidizing the oost of construction, the city, county, or city and county shall assure continued availability for low- and moderate-income units for 30 years. When appropriate, the agreement provided for in Section 65915 shall specify the mechanisms and procedures necessary to carry out this section. (Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1207. Effective October 2, 1979. ) 65917. In enacting this chapter it is the intent of the Legislature that the density bonus or other incentives offered by the city, county, or city and county pursuant to this chapter shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of low- and moderate-income housing i n proposed housing develolmments. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1263. Effective September 22, 1982.) 65918. ~he provisions of this chapter Shall apply to charter cities. (Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 1207. Effective October 2, 1979. ) Chapter 4.4. Interagenu~y Beferrals Definitions: "Affected city" "Affected territory" Note.- Chapter 4.4 shall r~main in effect only until January 1, 1990. See Section 65919.12. 65919. A~ used in this chapter the following terms mean: (a) "Affected city" means a city within whose planning review area an affected territory is located. (b) "Affected territory" means an area of land located in the unincorporated portion of a county which is the subject on one or more proposed act ions. 133 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COHMISSION COI~NITY DEVELOPI~ENT DEPART)lENT REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING CO~HISSION ];n accordance wtth Sect, ion ;t500 of the Tus'cJn Municipal Code, on the first meeting of July of every year' the Planning Commission reorganizes. This reorganization is for the purposes of nomination and election of a new Commission Chair and Chair' Pro-rem. This memo is just a reminder that at the beginning of the next Commission meeting on July Il, 1988, the Commission will be scheduled to reorganize, Should you have any questions, staff will be prepared to answer them at the Commission meeting or please call the Department, LCP'pef ~Shri sti ne Si ngleton x~ Director of Community9~evelopment Report to the Planning Commission ~tem No. 6 DATE: JUNE 27, 1988 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - JUNE 20, 1988 Oral presentatt on. per Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - June 20, 1988 , Community Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 20, 1988 7:00 P.M. 7:03 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF AELEGIANCE/INVOCATION ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PUBLIC HEARINGS AOOPTEO RESOLUTION NO. 88-68 .1. LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 1988-89 FISCAL YEAR FOR THE TUSTIN LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTP~ICT STAFF TO FORNULATE A PLAN The Engineer's Report, prepared b~ BSI Consultants, Inc., has been OF flOW WIE CAN ASSIMILATE filed with the City Clerk. A total of 18 parcels are proposed for ALL TIlE CITY DISTRICTS annexation to the District, most of which are in Tustin Ranch, north INTO ONE WIllIIN A TII~ of I rvine Boulevard. TABLE OF 3 NONlltS Recommendation: That the City Council: i i {1) Conduct the Public Hearing and take testimony from citizens and property owners wishing to speak. (2) RESOLUTION NO. 88-68 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF ADDITIONAL TERRITORY TO AN EXISTING DISTRICT AND CONFIRMING THE ANNUAL 1988-89 FISCAL YEAR LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF PUBLIC LIGHTING FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRITORY INCLUDED IN THE TUSTIN LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT Adopt Resolution No. 88-68 ordering annexation of additional territory to the District: and confirming annual 1988-89 fiscal year levy of assessments as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engi neeri ng Di. vi si on. NONE IV. PUBLIC INPUT V. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1988, REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 1988, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING AP PRO VED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,813,659.56 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $177,176.39 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-66 3. RESOLUTION NO. 88-66 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MANUFACTURE AND DELIVERY.OF REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 86-2 AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Adopt Resolution No. 88-66 approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for the manufacture and delivery of reinforced concrete pipe, Assessment District 86-2 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 1 6-20-88 ADOPTED RESOLUTION N~. 88-67 o. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 88-67 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, INFORMING THE ORANGE COUNT. Y ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM .ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF' THE STATUS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Adopt Resolution No. 88-67 informing the Arterial Highway Financing Program Adv.isory Committee of the status of the City of Tustin Master Plan of Arterial Highways as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF RECO~ENDATION 5. AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ORANGE AND THE IRVINE COMPANY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF JAMBOREE ROAD BETWEEN IRVINE BOULEVARD AND EXISTING CHAPMAN AVENUE Approve an agreement with the City of Orange and The Irvine Company for the improvement of Jamboree Road between Irvine Boulevard and existing Chapman Avenue and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engi neeri ng Di vi si on. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-65 6. RESOLUTION NO. 88-65 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING ANY FORM OF JOINT OR FULL COMMERICAL USE OF MCAS EL TORO Adopt Resolution No. 88-65 opposing any form of joint or full commerical use of MCAS E1 Toro as requested by the City Counc i 1. APPROVED STAFF P"-~IqENDATION 7. AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR EL CAMINO REAL BETWEEN MYFORD ROAD AND JAMBOREE ROAD Approve an agreement with the Southern California Edison Company for extension of underground electric lines and street lights on E1 Camino Real between Myford Road and Jamboree Road as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF . RECOIqMENOATION 8. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES - JAMBOREE ROAD BETWEEN IRVINE BLVD. AND SANTIAGO CANYON ROAD Approve the professional services agreement desi gnati ng Geo-Soils, Inc. of Santa Ana to provide geotechnical services along Jamboree Road ~etween Irvine Boulevard and Santiago Canyon Road in the City of Orange, and authorfze the Mayor to execute said agreement. CONTINUED TO NEXT 9. AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/STRUCTURAL PLAN CHECK AND MEETING FOR DISCUSSION INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES REGARDING USE OF AN EXPANDED Approve the agreements with the firms of Melad & Associates, RANGE OF O)NSULTANTS FOR Roger Leggett, Inc., BSI Consultants, Inc. and GPS Consulting DIFFERENT PROJECTS Engineering and authorize the City Manager to execute' said agreements as recommended by the Community Development Department. VI. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 2 6-20-88 VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION '--- ~TEI) ORI)INANCE , 1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-4 (CULTURAL RESOURCES DISTRICT) The following Ordinance No. 1001 had first reading and introduction at. the June 6, 1988, meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 1001 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-4 AMENDING PART 5 AND 7 OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 9 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO CULTURAL RESOURCES. Recommendat i on: M.Oo - ThatI Ordinance No. 1001 have second reading by title only. M.D. - That Ordinance No. 1001 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote) ADOPTEB OROINANCE NO. 1008 2. CITY ORDINANCE 1008 - ADDITION TO TUSTIN CITY CODE 4930 PERTAINING TO CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL, PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The following Ordinance No. 1008 had first reading and introduction at the June 6, 1988, meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 1008 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM, THEREBY ADDING CHAPTER 1, SECTION 4930, TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE., TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC WATER'SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY'S WATER SYSTEM AREA Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 1008 have second reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 1008 be'passed and adopted. {Roll Call Vote) ~OPTEI) ORBINANCE NO. 1009 WITH REVISION lliAT lliE CONwlISSION BE CALLED 'PARKS RiD IECREATION CO~ISSION' 3. COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION ORDINANCE NO. 1009 The following Ordinance No. 1009 had first reading and introduction at the June 6, 1988, meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 1009 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADDING PART V, CONSISTING OF SECT. IONS 1551 THROU~ 1557, TO CHAPTER 5 OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION. Recommendati on: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 1009 have second reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 1009 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote) VIII. OLD BUSINESS ~,F~''' yED STAFF 1. STATUS REPORT - JWA/CRAS/ASC Recommendation: Receive and file as recommended by the Community Devel opmen"t' 'D~'pa rtment. 3ITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 3 6-20-88 APPROVED STAFF RECOMI~NDATION - 2. REQUEST FOR HANDICAPPED PARKING STALL (FIRST/PACIFIC STREETS) City Council requested staff contact-Ms. Davies and discuss any impacts of requesting her employer to furnish a handicapped parking stall within their on-site parking lot. Recommendation: Receiv. e and file as recommended by the Public Works' Departme'n't'/Engi neeri ng Divi si on. THE PROPERTY AT 17341 3. UNDERGROUND/UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 10 FOR NEWPORT/MCFADDEN AVENUE MC FAJ)DEN BE ASSESSED FOR THE UTILITY SERVICE CONVERSION WITH A LIEN BEING PLACED ON THE PROPERTY TO BECOME OUE WHEN THE PROPERTY IS SOLD At previous meetings, the City Council surfaced concerns regarding the funding responsibility for the utility service conversion from overhead to underground at the O'Dell residence at 17341 McFadden Avenue. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. i i CONSIDER THIS MATTER 4. COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARK LATER IN THE SUlkiER WHEN REDEVELOPMENT FUNDING Councilman Edgar requested that the City Council consider his WILL BE AVAILABLE recommendation that the City proceed with preparation of working drawings for Columbus Tustin Park. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. NEW BUSINESS A~ ,VIED SI'AFF R~ ,~NI)ATION 1. POLICE MOTORCYCLE REPLACEMENT Council authorized the replacement of four (4) police motorcycles in FY 87/88 budget. Sealed bids were opened in the office of the City Clerk on June 9, 1988, and were read as follows: Santa Aha Kawasaki, Santa Ana Tri-City Honda-Kawasaki, Anaheim Harley-Davidson, Santa Ana $22,467.76 $22,573.76 $23,320.00 Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of four (4) new police motorcycles ~{ the cost of $5,299 each, plus tax, for a total of $22,467.76, including tax, from Santa Aha Kawasaki, 1850 E. Edinger Avenue, Santa Aha, CA 92705, as recommended by the Police Department. STAFF TO BRING BACK RESOLUTION REGiU~J) ING COSTS FOR DUPLICATING TAPES OF THE I~EETINGS 2. TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF MEETINGS A question has been raised about the availability of tapes and/or transcripts of public meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. C(~NUE UNTIL W~E 17..T 3. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS Ii ~ATION REGARDING MEASURES 68 AND 73 THAT Councilman Kelly requested agendizing this item. WERE PASSED. AGENDIZE FOR 1ST I~EETING-IN AUGUST Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 6-20-88 ~PPROVED- STAFF :ECOMMENOATION 4. PURCHASE OF FUEL .MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND REFUSE COMPACTOR Bids on the equipment were received until 10:00 a.m., June 9, 1988,_ at the office of the City Clerk as follows: REFUSE COMPACTOR: Fountain Truck Equipment, Santa Fe Springs Haaker Equipment, Pomona Century Machinery Co., Inc., Phoenix, AZ Rol pak, Belmont $13,205.48 $13,197.00 $13,865.67 $14,335.96 FUEL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: J.F. Keaveny, Inc., National City Petro Quip Co., Santa Aha $18,950.00 Did Not Meet Spec. Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of Refuse Compactor from Fountain Truck Equipment for $13,205.48 and the purchase of Fuel Management System from J.F. Keaveny for $18,950.00 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field Services. ~PPROVED STAFF ',ECOMI"ENDATION Xo 5. AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR TRACT NO. 12870 Recommendation: Approve amendment to subdivision agreement for Tract No. 12B/0 as requested by the City Attorney. REPORTS :Ri ,:0 ',ENNEOY REQUESTED THAT 'HE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW 'HE OUTDOOR SEATING .iUIOELINES /~lO THAT THIS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA- JUNE 13, 1988 'All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public; IE AGENOIZEO FOR Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of )ISCUSSIOPl. SHE ALSO June 13,"1988. i ~KEO TI~T TUSTIN EAOOWS BE NOTICED ANO INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE EASEMENT BETWEEN 'USTIN t~ADOWS .AND PEPPERTREE. ~PPROVED CONTINUANCE 2. RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY' CARE FACILITIES Mr. Walter Davis appeared before the City Council at their meeting on June 6, 1988, and voiced concern about the existence of halfway and related residential community care facilities and their concentration or density in his neighborhood. Recommendation: Continue matter until July 5, 1988, as recommended by the Community Development Department. ,PPROVED STAFF :ECOHHENDATION 3. RETROFIT OF BUILDINGS TO COMPLY WITH UNIFORM FIRE CODE PROVISIONS FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEMS Councilman Edgar at the City Counci°l's meeting on June 20, 1988, asked that staff explore the possible retrofitting of structures to comply with the recently introduced provisions of the Uniform Fire Code related to requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems. Recommendation: Receive and file as recommended by the Community Development Department. ITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 5 6-20-88. · . ,PPROVEI) STAFF :ECOHI~NOATION 4. SEVENTEENTH STREET, YORBA STREET/CARROLL WAY TO ROUTE 55 FREEWAY At a previous City Council meeting ¢ a public concern surfaced regarding the. blockage of the intersection at the Seventeenth street and Yorba Street/Carroll Way intersection. ' Recommendation: Receive and file subject report. ,PPROVED STAFF ',ECOHFENDATION 5. FLEMING RESIDENCE AT 13831 ORANGE STREET At a recent City Council meeting, a concern was raised regarding a City employee, acting on behalf of the City, that may have offered to buy Margaret Fleming's residence at 13831 Orange Street. Recommendation: Receive and' file Subject report. :ELLY REPORTED XI. OTHER BUSINESS 'HAT A RESIDENT HAD COMPLAINED Al)OUT TREES THAT RUINED HER SIDEWALK AT VINEWDOD AND YORBA. IE ALSO REPORTED THAT AN APARTMENT BUILDING ON BONITA OFF OF ORANGE ST. HAS MULTIPLE TRASH CANS NSTEAO OF A BIN. ;INCE THE GO CART RACE WILL NOT BE TAKING PLACE, EDGAR SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY LOOK AT WAYS OF 'OSSIBLY ~F.I..PING THE BOY'S CLUB SINCE THIS EVENT WAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THEM. HE ALSO BROUGHT UP 'HAT EAST TUSTIN RESIOENTS WILL NEEO THE SAME SERVICES PROVIOEO BY THE BOY'S CLUB. 'RE.SCOTT REPORTED A BANNER Wllti BALOONS HANGING DOWN ON PROSPECT AVENUE 14II CH WERE LEFT OVER ~RF 'ILLER OAYS. ED STAFF TO TAKE CARE OF WEEDS THAT ARE GOING TO SEED IN PLANTERS ON IRVINE BLVO. :ECESSEO TO THIS XII. CLOSED SESSION - Litigation has been formally initiated to which the :LOSED SESSION City is a party. The title of said litigation is Fenwick vs. 'City of Tustin, Case No. 479698. Said Closed Session ~s held pursuant to the authority of California Government Code Section :54956.9{a) and based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. Said Closed Session is held pursuant to the authority of California Government Code ITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 6 6-20-88 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR'MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 20, 1988 7:00 P.M. ):05 1. CALL TO ORDER ILL PRESENT 2. ROLL CALL LoPROVEO APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 6, 1988, REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve Minutes. U~PROVED ~PPROVED STAFF ~ECOMMENOATION tONE ):07 6~ APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,745.83 Recommendation: Approval of subject demands in the amount of $26,745.83 as recommended by the Finance Department. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF PARKING RIGHTS The City Attorney's office has reviewed the agreement for. parking spaces in the Steven's Square Parking Structure in order that the property owner can meet their required additional parking. Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to approve Agreements and Grants of Parking Rights as recommended by the Community Development Department. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT To the next Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday July 5, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. :EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA PAGE i JUNE 20, 1988