Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 07-18-88~ ~- ACT I O N AGENDA " TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION REGULAR HEETING ,July 11, 1988 REPORTS NO. 1 7-18-88 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, ~e~l. Baker, Le deune Absent: Ponttous 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. 1. Reorganization of the Commission Commissioner #etl opened nominations for the Chatrm~n of the Planntng Commission. Cxmmlsstoner Le deune nominated ComBlsstoner Baker, Commissioner Puckett seconded the noBlnatton. Natal nattons ~ere closed. Commissioner Puckett moved, Le deune seconded tO elect Commissioner Baker as Chalrmn. Hotton carr;~,d 4-0. Chatrman Baker opened nominations for 'Chairman Pro-tern of the Planning Co~risston. Commissioner #et1 nominated Comrisstoner Pontlous, Conntstoner Le deune seconded the nomtonation. Nondnattons ~ere closed. Commissioner get1 moved, Le deune seconded to elect Commissioner Ponttous as Chatrman Pro-tm. gotton carrted 4-0. 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.) 2. Minutes of the June 27, 1988 Planning. Commission meeting 3. Final Parcel Map 88-179 APPLICANT' K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 Planning Commission Action ,~enda July 11, 1988 Page two OWN ER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE COLLINGS COMPANY COLCO LTD. 17320 RED HILL AVENUE #190 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 SOUTH SIDE OF SEVENTEENTH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET EAST OF ENDERLE CENTER WAY. PC-C PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT~ (CLASS 15) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Parcel Map 88-179 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2514 as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2514 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 88-179. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner CoeIlsstoner Puckett moved, kletl seconded to approve the consent calendar. I~otton caPPted 4-0. . POBLIC ItEARING$ 4. General Plan Amendment 88-01, Zone Change 88-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: E NV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FREEWAY ACCESS RESERVATION AREA SOUTH OF TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-01: AN ADDENDUM TO EIR 84-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED. 2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 15. 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01: TO RECLASSIFY THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE GENERAL PLAN MAP FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROJECT AREA. 2) ZONE CHANGE 88-01: TO REZONE THE PROJECT AREA FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED COMMUNITY'COMMERCIAL. 3) TENTATIVE MAP: TO RECONFIGURE TWO EXISTING PARCELS TO CREATE TWO POTENTIAL DEALERSHIP DEVELOPMENT SITES. Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of: le . Draft addendum to Tustin Auto Center EIR 84-2 by adoption of Resolution 2510; General Plan Amendment 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2511; Plannlng Commission Actloh ~genda Ouly 11, 1988 Page :hree e Zone Change 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2512~ and Tentative Parcel Map '87-201 by adoption of Resolution 2513. Resolution No. 2510 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 84-2 AND ADDENDUM AS REQUI~ED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Resolution No. 2511 A RESOLUTION OF THE~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE 1-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER Resolution No. 2512 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE EAST .TUSTIN AUTO CENTER. Resolution No. 2513 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201 LOCATED ON THE. NORTH SIDE OF:THE I-5 FREEWAY, EAST OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Comlssloner Puckett moved, Wetl seconded to reco.maend approval of draft adde.Klum to the Tustln Auto Center 'EIR 84-2 to the City-:Council by-adoption of Resolution No. 2510. I~otton carried 4-0. Commissioner Wet1 moved, Le deune seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of General' Plan Amendment 88-01 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2511. Motlon carried 4-0. Commissioner Puckett moved, Le deune seconded to reco.mend approval to the City Counct1 "of Zone 'Change 88-01 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2512. Motion carrted 4-0. Co, missioner Wetl moved, Le deune seconded to recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2513 with one minor revl sion. Motion carrted 4-0. Conditional Use Permit for a Master Sign Program for the Tustin Market Place; and an Amendment to Design Review 87-37, for the Desi.gn Review for the proje..c.t, on the Landscape Concept for the Entertainment Village and fdr the storefront glazing. Planning Commi sslon Action .,genda July 11, 1988 Page four APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONAHUE SCHRIBER ON BEHALF OF THE IRVINE COMPANY 3200 BRISTOL, SUITE 660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 SUSSMAN/PREJZA & COMPANY, INC. 1651 18TH STREET SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BRYAN AVENUE & JAMBOREE ROAD APPROVAL OF A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND A REVISION TO THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE (FROM CANOPY TO PALM TREES) AND ALSO A MODIFICATION'iTO THE STOREFRONT GLAZING STANDARD (FROM GREY TO CLEAR GLASS). CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 3) Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2516, approving a master sign program for the Tustin Market Place and amendments to Destgn Revtew 87-37 as tt affects the landscape concept for the Entertainment Village and the storefront glaztng standard. Resolution No. 2516 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, 'CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15 FORA MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, REVISING THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE AND THE STOREFRONT GLAZING STANDARDS Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Commlstoner We1] moved, Puckett seconded to approve the Master Stgn Program for the Tusttn Market Place,' amend Destgn Revtew 87-37 as tt affects the** landscape concept for the Entertainment Vlllage and amend the storefront glazing standards by the adoptlon of Resolution No. 2516. Notlon carted 4-0. OLD BUSINESS 6. Abandoned Right-of-Way Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue their discussion on this matter until August 8, 1988. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Wetl moved, Puckett seconded to continue the issue of the abandoned right-of-way until' August 8, 1988." Notion carried 4-0. 7. Design Review No. 88-13 APPLICANT: DADDY-O 'S RESTAURANT PAUL MARTINO 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 Planning Commission Action ~genda July 11, 1988 Page five OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: E NV I RO NME NTAL STATUS: REQUEST: 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 the request for the use of exposed neon tubing by the adoption of Resolution No. 2517. Resolution No. 2517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF EXPOSED NEON TUBING AT 174 E. MAIN STREET Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community DeveloPment Co, ltsstoner #et1 ,oved, Puckett seconded to deny the request for the use of exposed neon tubing by the adoptton of [tesolut'to'n'" No. 2517 as revtsed. Norton carrted 4-0. 8. Rancho Maderas APPLICANT': LOCATION: REQUEST: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY"DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 LOT 14, TRACT 12763 MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2515 approving exterior architectural revisions to the Rancho Maderas project originally approved by Design Review 87-32 as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2515 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 A 266 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT 14 OF TRACT 12763 Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Co.mai ssloner Puckett moved, Wetl seconded to approve exterior archi tectural revisions to Design RevtSW 87-32 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2515. Notion carried 4-0. Planning'Commission Actto,, Agenda July 11, 1988 Page slx STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Ctt¥ Council Actions taken at July ..5, 1988 meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Dtrector of Community Development No Planntng Commission actton necessary. COH#I SSZON CONCERNS ADJOURBtENT At 8:40 p.m Cmmntsstoner He11 moved, Puckett seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled meettn9 on July 25, 1988 at 7:00'p.m. Norton carried 4-0. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING CO##ISSION REGULAR MEETING ,July 11, 19aa CALL TO ORDER' 7'00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/ZNVOCATZON ROLL CALL- PUBLZC CONCERNS: Puckett,"Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious (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. 1. Reorganization of the Commission 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 PSBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR KZ~OVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) . Minutes of the June 27,. 1988 .Planning Commission meeting 3. Final Parcel Map 88-179 ~ APPLICANT: OWNER- LOCATION- ZONING' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' K.W. LAWLER AND ASSOCIATES 2832 WALNUT AVENUE,.SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 THE COLLINGS COMPANY COLCO LTD. 17320 RED HILL AVENUE #190 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 SOUTH SIDE OF SEVENTEENTH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET EAST OF ENDERLE CENTER WAY. PC-C PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS. ' · (CLASS 15) FROM THE Recommendation' It t s recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Parcel Map 88-179 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2514 as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Agenda July 11, 1988 Page ~wo Resolution No. 2514 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ~USTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 88-179. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. General Plan Amendment 88-01, Zone Change 88-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FREEWAY ACCESS RESERVATION AREA SOUTH OF TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-01: AN ADDENDUM'TO EIR 84-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED. 2) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 15. 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 88-01: TO RECLASSIFY THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE GENERAL PLAN MAP FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY,COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROJECT AREA. 2) ZONE CHANGE 88-01: TO REZONE THE PROJECT AREA FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. 3) TENTATIVE MAP:- TO RECONFIGURE TWO EXISTING PARCELS 'FO CREATE TWO POTENTIAL DEALERSHIP DEVELOPMENT SITES. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of: ® 2, Draft addendum to Tusttn Auto Center EIR 84-2 by adoption of Resolution 2510; General Plan Amendment 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2511; Zone Change 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2512; and Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 by adoption of Resolution 2513. Resolution No. 2510 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 84-2 AND ADDENDUM AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Resolution No. 2511 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL. Planning Con~nisslon Agenda July 11, 1988 ....... "- Page three PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Resolution No. 2512 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE 1-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE EAST TUSTIN AUTO CENTER. Resolution No. 2513 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 1-5 FREEWAY, EAST OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit for a Master St~nI Pro~raml..for the Tustin Market Plac.e..; and an Amendment to Design Review 87-37, for the Design Review for '~he project, on the Landscape Concept for the Entertainment Village and for the storef, ront.i glazing. APPLICANT' LOCATION- REQUEST' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS- DONAHUE SCHRIBER ON BEHALF OF THE IRVINE COMPANY 3200 BRISTOL, SUITE 660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 SUSSMAN/PREJZA & COMPANY, INC. 1651 18TH STREET ~ SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BRYAN AVENUE & JAMBOREE ROAD APPROVAL OF A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND A REVISION TO THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE (FROM CANOPY TO PALM TREES) AND ALSO A MODIFICATION TO THE'STOREFRONT GLAZING STANDARD (FROM GREY TO CLEAR GLASS). CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 3) Recomn~ndation: It is recon~nended that the Planning Con~ni ssi on adopt Resolution No. 2516, approving a master sign program for the Tustin Market Place and amendnents to Design Review 87-37 as it affects the landscape concept for the Entertainment Vi 1 lage and the Storefront glazing standard. Resolution No. 2516 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15 FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, REVISING THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE AND THE STOREFRONT GLAZING STANDARDS Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Planning Commission Agenda July 11, 1988 Page four OLD BUSZ#ESS 6. Abandoned Right-of-Way Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue their discussion on this matter until August 8, 1988. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 7. Deston 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 RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 174 E. MAIN STREET. AN EXISTING Recommendation: Deny the request for the use of exposed neon tubing by the adoption of Resolution No. 2517. Resolution No. 2517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF EXPOSED NEON TUBING AT 174 E. MAIN STREET Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 8. Rancho Maderas APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 LOT 14, TRACT 12763 MODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2515 approving exterior architectural revisions to the Rancho Maderas project originally approved by Design Review 87-32 as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2515 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 A 266 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT 14 OF TRACT 12763 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agenda July 11, 1988 Page fi ve STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Ctty Council Actions taken at July 5, 1988 meetin_g Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Dtrector of Community Development CONNI SSION CONCERNS AOaOURNMENT ,Adjourn to the next regular scheduled meeting on July 25, 1088. TO: PLANNING COHHISSION FROM: C(]H~NITY DEVELOPflENT DEPARTHENT SUBJECT: PI.ANNING COHHI$$ION RE-ORGANIZATION , / RECOIIqENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission follow procedures noted below to elect a Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-tem. BACKGROUND: As a matter of standard procedure, the Planning Commission re-organizes once a year by appointing a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-rem. This usually occurs at the first Planning Commission meeting of the new fiscal year. In reorganizing and appointing a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-rem, the Commission should undertake the following actions: ® Chair should open nominations. Each nomination should receive a first and second. e The chair should then close nominations and call for a vote for Chairperson. e Upon completion of vote, current Chairperson will relinquish their seat and will turn gavel over to Chairperson. e New Chairperson will open nominations for Chairperson Pro-rem. Each nomination shall receive a first and second. Nominations should be closed and the Chairperson should call for a vote for the Chairperson Pro-tem. -Christine Shingleton ~ Director of Community Development CAS:pef MI-NUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 2 - REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAIICE/IN¥OCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Net1, Le Jeune, Ponttous Absent: Baker PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited 1:o 3 mtnut~s per person for 1terns not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the June 13, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Puckett moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the consent calendar. Morton carrted 4-0. PUBLIC 'HEARING 2. Tentative Parcel Map. 88-206 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SOLMAR DEVELOPMENT CO. 1201 E. 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 commi ssion approve Tentative Parcel Map 88-206 by the adoption of Resolution 2508 as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1988 Page two Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Commissioner Well asked if the lots would share parking. Staff noted that each lot would have to stand independently in regard to their parking needs. The public hearing was opened at 7:08 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:09 p.m. Commissioner Puckett moved, Pontious seconded to recommend to City Council the approval of TentativeI Parcel''1 Map 88-2106 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2508. Motion carried 4-0 NEW BUSINESS 3. Desion Review No. 88-13 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: E NV I RONMENTAL 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: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development The Director stated that the applicant had written to request the continuation of this public hearing until the July 11, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to continue the subject item to the July 11, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Density.... Bonuses 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 Planning commission Minutes June 27, 1988 Page three Commissioner Pontious questioned if there are any other ways to deal with this issue bestdes density bonuses. Staff responded that there is a possibility of including such things as reducing or waiving permit fees, reducing or waiving planning application fees, subsidizing or instal ling certain public improvements or a combi nation of these thi rigs. Commissioner Puckett asked what the bottom line was. ,, Staff indicated that if the developer doesn't provide the appropriate amount of low to moderate housing units they would not be allowed to utilize the extra units. Commissioner Well asked if Tustin has its "'Fair Share" of affordable housing. The Director indicated that SCAG's Regional Housing Assessment Model of 1983 is currently being revised. She noted that the East Tustin development adds a large number of households to the City and that the military base has over 800 households. The City is involved in County programs that attempt to meet our low and moderate income ~housing need. The City has gone on record protesting revised lg88 SCAG figures as the military housing was not subtracted from the number of availabe units. This will have a major impact on how the City will update its housing element. Commissioner Well asked if the City is obligated to supply affordable housing because of redevelopment funds. The Director noted that all of the powers that the Redevelopment Agency has would be tools available for use of housing set-aside funds. Commissioner PonttOus asked for a definition of "quali fyi ng resi dent". Lois Jeffrey, stated that she dld not have a specific definition but would return with a firm definition.. Commissioner Puckett indicated that she would be in favor of a lower number of density units i n return for granting certain i ncenti yes. Commissioner Ponttous stated that she would be more lenient in granting bonuses in a condominium situation rather than for apartments. She also was concerned that there would be adequate parking. Commissioner Le Jeune agreed with the concern regarding parking and encouraged staff to look into it very carefully. Commissioner Pontious noted that a combination-of the density bonuses and incentives wod'ld be desireable elements that would best utilize the property. Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1988 Page four Commissioner Well noted that density bonuses could become a' problem. She stated that the extra, square footage has to come from somewhere. She indicated that she felt that the current condominium products coming before the Commission are very tiny and did not feel that they could get any smaller. She stated that the bonuses would cause'variances for parking, open space, recreational facilities and that she would prefer to see the City provide financial help with the infrastructure. She indicated that the closer people get together the more trouble there is; that the crime rate is higher in the apartments in the City, therefore, she is against density bonuses. Commissioner Pontious agreed with Commissioner Well on the apartment issue. She indicated that condos would be better; that when people make an investment they tend to take better care of their property and keep the area more respectable. Commissioners Puckett, Le Jeune and Well agreed that there should be density bonuses for condominiums but not apartments. The Director indicated that there is a wide range of alternative approaches that could be explored. A set of objective criteria regarding parking, density, recreational facilities, condominiums, square footage and ownership restrictions could be established. In the case of a project outside of the redevelopment area it would not be as easy to obtain a financial bonus, therefore, the Commission needs to carefully consider other criteria. The Director noted that the Commissioners would be provided with the correspondence the City recently sent to SCAG regarding our "Fair Share" affordable housing figures. It was agreed that staff would further research the options available regarding density bonuses and other incentives and return findings to the Commission at a later date. 5. Reorganization of Planning Commission Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner Recommendatt on: Receive and file. No Planning Commission necessary at this meeting. STAFF CONCERNS 6. City Council Action Agenda for June 20,. 1988 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development City Council action was taken on the following issues: Airport Noi se Moni tori ng Cultural Resources Distri ct Street Name Committee Residential Community Care/ Drug and Alcohol facilities Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1988 Page fi ve CORqlSSION CONCERNS Commissioner Well inquired about the Parks and Recreations Committee. Commissioner Pontious noted that there were some tables set up outside some of the newer restaruants in town, specifically the new yogurt shop in the Courtyard shopping center, and asked if the Commission could be provided with a copy of the newly adopted Outdoor Dining Guidelines. Commissioner Le Jeune noted his concern regarding umbrellas with advertisements located at Roma D"Italia. ADJOURNMENT At 7:48 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to adjourn to a workshop to discuss the sign program for the Tustin Market Place on July 6, 1988 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers and then to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. on July 11, 1988. Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Report to the Planning Commission T.r, pm Nn ?~ DATE: dULY 11, 1988 SUBdECT: APPL I CANT: ONNER: LOCATION: · ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST'. FINAL PARCEL MAP 88-179 K.W. LANI. ER AND ASSOCIATES 2832 WALNUT AVENUE, SUITE A TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 THE COLLINGS COMPANY COLCO LTD. 17320 RED HILL AVENUE ~190 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92705 SOUTH SIDE OF SEVENTEENTH STREET, .APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET EAST OF ENOERLE CENTER #AY. PC-C PLANNED COMMUNI~ COMMERCIAL THIS PROdECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 15) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. TO SUBOIVIOE ONE PARCEL INTO 'rwo PARCELS.' RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Parcel Map 88-179 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2514 as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND: On May 9, 1988 the Planning Commission approved Use Permit 88-8 and Design Review 88-4 for a 62,000 square foot mixed use office and retail center. The project contained four buildings on a site plan with two distinctive use areas. This plan incorporated three retail buildings which faced Seventeenth Street and one office building along Vandenberg Lane. Subsequently the applicant processed a Tentative Parcel Map to create two parcels from the one existing lot. This lot configuration would facilitate separate property ownership of the retail area by Colco Ltd. and the office portion by First Fidelity who plans to occupy the majority of the office structure floor space. Community Development Department F_ Planning Commission Report July 11, 1988 Final Parcel Map 88-179 Page two The Tentative Parcel Map was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1988. The Tentative Map was subsequently approved by the City Council on June 6, 1988. The property owner has met all conditions of approval on the Tentative Map. CONCLUSION Staff has reviewed the proposed Final Map for conformance with the Tentative Map. All conditions of approval have been met and the Map is ready for Council approval. Therefore, staff suggest that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2514 recommending approval of Final Parcel Map 88-179 to the City Counci 1. Sent or P1 anner Christine A. Shlngl~F. tbn, Director of Community Development LCP: CAS: ts Attachments: Final Parcel Map 88-179 Resolution No. 2514 Corn rnunity DeveloPrnen~ Department ALL OF ?ElrrATIV[ KM- BI'I?I PAR C E L SHEET I DF Z SHEETS i PARCELS BLOCR MODULE MAP NO. 88- 179 IN T~E fflTY GF TUSTIN, ~U~I O~ Q~[, STAT~ ~F ~ALIF~RNIA. ~ M.BEAL. L.~. 4~S DATE Or SURVEY: JANUARY. I~M · '~ P~ ~E A. ~A~N . BY OdlSl' S CSSTIFICATE vs. T~S UNM(.HSIGMSn. BEING ~ P~IXS ~Vl~ MY IK~O TI~ I~lE~ IN ~K ~0 ST. JKS f~ ~.. U.S.A., L~., A NI mG ~W~TII~, h' ~'"~*~ ~ ~-~- - ~ATI ~ ~l~ll) ) · ., ~Y ~lC IN ~ ~ ~1~ ~A~ ~ PIIKIP~ ~ or ~IK~ IS ~UKV~VOi' $ CKITI Ir ICATF .. THIS W I,/A.~ P#KPA#KU BY HK (~t UNDKF NY DIK~I(m MI) IS ~flFI) ~l~m A Fl#U) SUUV~Y #F~IST#ATI~W ~XPIMAI'Iqm I)ATI~f COUNTY SURVHYOIt'S CVrYllrlCATl~ S TI~C#NICAL~Y CUMRI,(.'T I~I.AT.IVJ~ TO ~311, PAMCKL HAP mJ4MD&RY. · DATED THIS -- DAY. OF -- 19 c.i. NEL~Mi BYt (3XMTY SUSVKYOi DEPUTY PL,,~MING CUlMISSION CSSTll;ICATK I, , qKCI,KTAKV OF THI, CITY or TUb~TIN PLANNIK CONHISSIUN, DO NSlliY CJUITIIFF THAT Tills ~AP UA~ SUmITTI,D'TO TH# TO,TIN PLAN#tH C~MNISSIUN AT A I'I~GUJ.,AJI METING TH"II~ ON THI, DAy OF , ' , 19 , &Jib TOI,'I,I,UE'QN &~ COIIIqMMIK ~ T#S TI~TATIVS NA~ ~ FILKU, )~4~i~l~D ,MiD APPHOVI,O SV ~AIU PI,AN#lNG (~IMISS ION. DASD Tills ~OAV OF' , I") . I, UtlANGK (,~IUlITY FMJUO COIn~UL DIST#1~"T WU,IX(# t)F AN IC.A~)3M~NT AND IMTKS CUN~K#VATION I,I,C011N(.U IN IKXN(M)~'), I'A(:F :l~#, ())'VICI&t. KKC~mOS. 2. TiW ClXINTY OF ~UdGI,, IM~UWl, O~ A VKHI~JL,AS AL:[:KD:; ~(:HT.~ IJ(JCUNItl/T #1,UNdHtU tM IMXM~ 92b6, PA(;# 123 (ii; OFFICIAl. 3. CI~Y OF TUSTIS, NULU~I' Off VkHfC~li.4# ACCHHfi l,l(.'lrT.~ ~) ITTH 5~rlKFF AS UKUI- (~TSD tM~ F.N. 1'0-1026, IIS(.YMID~H IN fMlU~ I~), PM;I~.'; 44 AMI) 45, OF PAl,titi- HAPS* 4. FIHFJ4AN*S FUND TN~U~&NCt[ 'HUNt,MY, WXd~I op' AN ~ASir/q~NT ~4~#I~SS, HAIHTKNAKS A~ I,SPAll, I,EGUIILII~D IN m~ I'll&S. SSCIFrAS¥, CITY U~ TtISTIN P~INC ~ISSION CITY CL~K* S STATS OF CALIFORNIA) SS COUNTY 01~ O#AW~ ) I IIllllV CKITIFY THAT 'fijiq HAP VAI' PItFSI,ICTKI/ ~ TIIH CITY of T~STIM AT A HlU:U~AI, MI(STING THKHKUF IIK~.D Il/__, AND THAT THI,IL'UP~H SAID CUUNCll. OlD, iV AN APP#OVK SAID W. AND DID AL~O APPIOVE 'SUIIJKCT MAP P~ItSUAMT TO TNK P~OVISI(mS OF $~CTION b6416(a)(3) (A) OF THI, SUBDIVISION ~AP &CT. IJATID THIS __D&Y oF , 19 HAETK. VYIIN Ip'l STATK 1)F C~NHn'Y Ol' (mAN(;K ) I III(HKDY CF#TIFY THAT, ACL~IMUING TI) THK ##CO#US L)F NY OYFICY. THK#F AI,F N4) I.IKN.*i A~AIII~T TIIK I.A#D ~WK#KH I'Y Tills HAr M ANY FAST T#K#~()¥ ~'(m IJ#PAliJ STATF. (.~NIHTY, NUNICIPAh tJ~ I.(X:&I. 'F,UKS (m .%PKCIAI. A~SK~'~N~.JCTS CO~LK(.'T#I) AS T&XI,S. I,XCKPT 1'AXE.% ~w SFHCIM, AS~K~.'~l~ln',~ ~(SJ.KC'TKI) A.~ TAXKS NOT YK'r IJ&TKI) THI~ I)&Y t))' ........ . t9 . .~*TATK (IF CAI. I FONN f A ) (.~ffJ~rrY ()~ ()((AW;F I IIF#K#Y C#NTiFY TO TIIF #FUOSI)I,I, ()P' ~Af~K C(XJNTY TIIAT TIIF P#OVI.I;ION,~ ()~' THP: I)lVl,~l(m NAP ACT ilAVP: I,KFN (~]NPIolKP ¥1TI! k~CA#I)IN4; t)):l,O~l'r.~ ~1) S~(:lJ#~ T#F PAY#FNT OJ; TAXH.~ t)K ,~PHCIAI, AHfiKSSNKNT,(; (~t,hF.(~'KI) A:; TAXK.~ (IN TIIF I,ANI) (:~K#):IJ #Y Till(: #AP. I)ATKf) T#I,~ ....... IJAY ()J~ ......... · Ida__... L1NI)A U, #()HFNTS ~y: i:~,~IC--~-F: TIIF /K)AI,I) OF SIJPKHVISOI,S ' (~vpirrY ALL. OF Tfl,.NTATIYE P. IL SS-1'141 S#EE'T 2 OF 1, MIEETS ~ PARCELS Llll ACRES OAT[ OF SURVEY: ,JANUAR'Ir 19lC SCALE: !' · 40' MONUMENT lITES: p. ii tl4 144 ~ 41,. iNLU, S ITII&IWlSE IITil. )'--INIIILIITIE llf~lll II~TAIIC& PIK f. lJL ISII44'% 45. 0~---- IIIICATI, I I" I,P. TAll, lB LS. 4d~l eR EPIEMII PARCEL. MAP NO. 88-179 IN TNE CITY OF' TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF' CALIFORNIA ANNA M. SEAL L.S. 4qSS DATE OF' SURVEqf:JANIIARI, IIS! K.W. LAWLEK AND ASSOCIATE:i, INC.' O, ASIS OF BEARINGS: I' %llllT Ill llllll · · IIEl I1" Kelly PER P. ll. Ill. Il-lei& IIClIIil iii III Iil, Pills 44 % aS If PI, IIIL MAPS.~IIIII III II~lll fltlllTl~ f-M3filllldL NOTE: ii i ///'////IIIIICATES iii - VENIr. uLAI &Gel. SS. · · IIII ~1 II f. FILI. C.S.~./'~--' 14q, 44' f, E41.}l,')~','~'"'\ ,Ill.41' MIl. WINES. / I~ ~['~ I&I PEN I*.IL / [: "'"' /l' I ~ SEVENTEENTH STREET id ~r wi IMIL · T&& L,'b. 4t%t. ~//:....,..-, h:" --,*-,:.....:... . .. ,,t.,,.,,,.,.., ...... : / '. · , . '/ fAT IIIfnali ' I % ~/ '~'~44JI"~'~l-44~O~"/L/ ~ I~ Itlr _ ~ b;~ ~ ' ~-~_~ bt~ ,. I \ =':l~. "' '"'"~ '" '"' -'-~= -' ~:~ ~'~ PARCEL . ~.,sz Acm · .,:.~' . ,.,~,, NIIoIi~EZ'I . ~. Il.lO' Wttt I.C.r.C.I. ,o.,,. ~ ~-'..,"~,- ~,,,,~,',., ,,~-"~. IL I151. I~, I · ,. :.. PARCEL ~ '"'.:" ' I.Stt ACRES P(I. P.M. ltO/44q,,lS. Ltl1% 1 KK. ~ ~[f. A~CEPTT~ COL PCL.] 5.%l. STAMKS L.S. T41q. Pti F.M. I~ 144~4&. ' I~NT ~AL z- t. ~..o TiC, :. u~u ' .~ / . %v t.~q*~l. PER ~ "''-~-~' .L.S. ~41~. P&I P.K ISl144%4~ trl. IIITIINL SIT-'* #IITNIIG. LSTI, l'f lite. AIIGL[. IMS NI. II STilt, Pti LT. z'~,14 PEK lB.IA J&OI44q''41L 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [ 19~ 21 22 23 24 RESOLUTION NO. 251.4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 88-179. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planntng Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Final Parcel Map No. 88-179 has been submitted by the Col 1 trigs Company. B. That a Publtc Hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1988. At this hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 88-179 to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map 88-179 on June 6, 1988. C. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tusttn Area General Plan and Subdivision Map Act. D. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. E. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of .development. F. That the design of the Subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably i.njure fish or wildltfe tn thelr habitat. G. That the design of the subdivision 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. He That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not ltkely to cause serious publtc health problems. I. That the Final Map is in substantial conformance with the Tentati ye Map. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2514 Page two II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Final Parcel Map No. 88-179 and also authorizes the City Manager to execute any subdivision bonds or agreements for the subject tract. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of . ,, 1988. · Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary Report to the Planning Commission T~m ~Jn ~. DATE: JULY 11, 1988 SUBJECT: APPLICANT/ OIOIER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: GENERAL PLAN AI"IEND#ENT 88-01, ZONE CHANGE 88-01 AND '"TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP 87-201 THE IRVINE COHPANY 550 NEHPORT CENTER DRIVE NEHPORT BEACH, CA 92660 FREEWAY ACCESS RESERVATION AREA SOUTH OF TUSTIN AUTO CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL 1) 2) 1) 2) 3) GENERAL PLAN AHENDIqENT 88-01 AND ZONE CHANGE 88-01: AN ADDENDUM (NO. 88-01) TO ETR 84-2 HAS BEEN PREPARED. TENTATIVE PARCEL HAP 87-201: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 15. GENERAL PLAN AIREND#ENT 88-01: TO RECLASSIFY THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE GENERAL PLAN HAP FROH PLANNED COFU4UNITY TO PLANNED CO#MUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR THE PROJECT AREA. ZONE CHANGE 88-01: TO REZONE THE PROJECT AREA FROM PLANNED CQRI~NITY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED COI~UNITY COIqMERCIAL. TENTATIVE HAP: TO RECONFZGURE THO EXISTING .PARCELS TO CREATE THO NUMBERED AND THREE LETTERED LOTS. RECOI4MENDATI ON: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of: ® ® Draft Addendum No. 88-01 to Tustin Auto Center EIR 84-2 by adoption of Resolution 2510; General Plan Amendment 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2511; Zone Change 88-01 by adoption of Resolution 2512; and Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 by adoption of Resolution 2513. SLII~ARY: The original Auto Center land use plan called for a 8.27 acre freeway access* reservation area for the purposes of installing a full cloverleaf interchange at C~m mu~i!v Development Dep~rtm~n_t i ........................................ Planning Commission Report General Plan Amendment 88-01, Zone Change 88-01 and TPM 87-201 July 11, 1988 Page two the I-5 Freeway and Tustin Ranch Road. The final design of this interchange has resulted in an excess parcel of land (5.05 acres in size) in the original reservation area which is adjacent to the Tustin Auto Center. Since the property is no longer needed by Caltrans, the property owner wishes to revise the Auto Center layout by creating one additional dealer site in this area. The property however, was not properly reclassified to commercial use at the time the Auto Center was approved. Therefore, the Tustin Municipal Code and State Law requires processing of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Tentative Parcel Map along with the necessary environmental documentation. The subject project area is bounded by the I-5 freeway to the south, the existing Auto Center boundary to the north, the Mixed Use Center of the East Tustin Specific Plan area to the east and Tustin Ranch Road to the west. The project area is identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. BACKGROUND: In December of 1984 the Tusttn Planning Commission approved EIR 84-2, Zone Change 85-1, Genera~l Plan Amendment 85-1 and Tentative Parcel Map 84-1032 for the Tustin Auto Center. This..project created 11 dealer sites, a joint use parking facility., public streets and a 8.27 acre freeway access reservation area. The previously approved Zone Change and General Plan Amendment covered the 11 developable lots created by Parcel Map 84-1032. The freeway reservation area retained its original General Plan designation of Planned Community and Zoning Code classification of Planned Community Residential. Therefore, the property. must be reclassified to Planned Community Commercial and a Parcel Map must be processed to create any new developable, lot ..... ANALYSIS' Staff have reviewed the proposed project and have addressed each of the requested applications to-ensure conformance with City and State requirements. Each of the project elements is discussed separately below' Draft Addendum No. 88-01 to EIR 84-2: The initial Auto Center project and related .... street ~ro~ments were-~onsidered in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which was prepared in 1984. This EIR includes a project description, identification of environmental impacts and project mitigation measures. The nature of the proposed expansion is such that the previous program EIR can serve as the EIR for this project. Section 15184-2 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes preparation of an addendum to an EIR when only minor technical Community DeveloPment Depar~rnen~ Planning Commission Report General Plan Amendment 88-01, Zone Change 88-01 and TPM 87-201 July 11, 1988 Page three ® e changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA. An addendum pursuant to this requirement has been prepared and is attached to this report for review {Attachment I). Prior to approval of this project, the Planning Commission must recertify the original EIR with the addendum. This addendum makes minor technical changes to the original EIR. General Plan Amendment 88-01: .... As previously mentioned, the freeway reservation area was not reclassified to a commercial designation when the Auto Center project was approved. The current zoning is Planned Community which is considered a residential classification. Prior to approval of a General Plan LanU Use reclassification, the implications of the proposed use must be considered. The existing and proposed project area is surrounded by commercial uses to the north and east. Major roadway improvements are located to the south and west. By nature of the properties location, it would only be accessible through one of the existing commercial uses and is subject to a high ambient noise level (traffic from 1-5 freeway and Tustin Ranch Road) which makes residential development both unlikely and undesireable from . an environmental perspective. Exhibit "B" shows the proposed lot layout which would facilitate one additional dealership site. Any proposed development would be subject to the same Zoning Regulations and development criteria required of all projects in the Tustin Auto Center. Considering the project location, accessibility and proposed zoning restrictions (discussed in more detail in Section 3 of this report) staff considers the General Plan reclassification appropriate for this area. The necessary findings for this amendment are identified in Resolution 2511 attached to this report. Zone Change 88-01: The freeway access reservation site is currently classified as Planned Community Residential on the Zoning Map. The existing Auto Center parcels are zoned Planned Community Commercial which requires approval of a development plan prior to construction. The Planning Commission approved the Tustin Auto Center Planned Community Corn rnunity DeveloPment Depar~rnent Planning Commt ssion Report General Plan Amendment 88-01, Zone Change 88-01 and TPM 87-201 July 11, 1988 Page four . Zoning Regulations and development plan for the Auto Center in 1984. To ensure uniformity in site development and land use consistency, staff suggests that these regulations also be adopted for the expansion area. These Zoning Regulations are included in Resolution 2512 attached hereto. The Auto Center Zoning Regulations establish development and use criteria. The uses include new auto dealerships with accessory sales of parts, used cars, recreation vehicles, service and related uses. The regulations also require that all development conform with the Auto Center Development Gui deli nes. The Auto Center Development Guidelines establish criteria for architectural style, landscaping, lighting, signs, and loudspeakers. All parcels are also subject to participation in a Dealer Association. These development guidelines and the membership requirements are described in the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC & R's) which are recorded on the deed to all parcels in the Auto Center. Staff suggests that the CC & R's be updated to include the new expansion area and that they also be recorded on the deed to the new parcel created by Parcel Map 87-201 discussed be1 ow.' Tentative Parcel Map 87-201' Exhibit "B" shows the proposed lot layout for the project area. Essentially, this new configuration creates one additional dealer site for a total of eleven dealer sites in the Auto Center (three lots were consolidated into two sites for the middle island of the Auto Center). The proposed map includes: Parcel 1: 4.843 Parcel 2: 4.689 Parcel A,B,C: 1.250 Total Area: 10.782 Parcels i and 2 are proposed dealership sites. Parcels A,B,C are located along the perimeter of Parcels 1 and 2 for landscaping and maintenance access purposes. These lots ensure that the landscaped perimeter facing the 1-5 freeway and Tustin Ranch Road is maintained. Both proposed dealer sites can be accessed by Auto Center Drive. The actual site design for Parcels 1 and 2 is subject to the Auto Center Development Guidelines. The site design and architecture would be reviewed by the Community Development as part of the Design Review process. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report General Plan Amen'dmen: 88-01, Zone Change 88-0[ and TPM 87-201 July.ll, 1988 Page five CONCLUSION: Draft Addendum 88-01 to EIR 84-2 includes minor technical changes to the original EIR 84-2 for the Auto Center. The recertification of EIR 84-2 with Addendum 88-01 is considered adequate under CEQA. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Tentative Parcel Map have been reviewed for conformance wi th the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Subdivision and Planning Law and the Tustin Municipal Code. Staff considers this project compatible with the area and suggests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Draft Addendum 88-01 to EIR 84-2, General Plan Amendment 88-01, Zone Change 88-01 and Tentative Parcel Map 87-201 to the City Council. LaUra Cay Pi cku~ Senior Planner LCP:CAS :ts Christine A. Shi6gleton ~/ Director of Community Development Attachments: Exhibits A and B Attachment I: Addendum No. 88-01 to EIR 84-2 Resolutions 2510, 2511, 2512 and 2513 ~ Corn munity DeveloPmen~ Depar~men~ ~ TUSTIN A,. rO CENTER E'.PANSION · EXHIBIT A Z z 8' ./ ~z EXHIBIT B DRAFT ADDENDUM TO TUSTIN AUTO CENTER EIR NO. 84-02 TUSTIN AUTO CENTER EXPANSION PREPARED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CITY OF TUSTIN JULY 1988 ATTACHMENT I TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ,, · I. Introduction II. Project Description 2.1 Location 2.2 Project Characteristics 2.3 Discretionary Actions III. Impacts Associated with Auto Center Expansion 3.1 Cumulative Impacts IV. Appendices A. Initial Study B. Resolution 85-i0 Certifying EIR 84-2 PAGE NO. 2 2 A-1 B-1 - i - LIST OF EXHIBITS ® 2. 3. 4. ® NUMBER Regional Location Project Vicinity Project Site Original Freeway Interchange Design (full cloverleaf) Approved Freeway Interchange Design (partial cloverleaf) Proposed Lot Configuration for Auto Center Expansion -ii- SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ! On January 21, 1985-the Tustin City Counc(1 certified as 6omplete the Tustin Auto Center Final Environmental Impact Report 84-2 (EIR 84-2). EIR 84-2 addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a 59.81 acre auto center in the City of Tustin. On page 10 of EIR 84-2, a 8.27 freeway access reservation area is identified as part of the Auto Center project. This reservation area is the subject of this addendum. EIR 84-2 was adopted as a program EIR in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168. Pursuant to Section 15168 (c) of these guidelines, all "subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared". An Initial Study (Appendix A) was prepared for consideration of any new or increased impacts from this project. On Page 10 of EIR 84-2, the components of the Auto Center land uses are discussed. The project included a 8.27 acre freeway access reservation site for the purposes of constructing a freeway interchange with a full cloverleaf design. · Caltrans has worked with the City on this interchange design and the approved plan eliminates the need for a 5.05 acre portion of the reservation site. The. property location and accessibility have established the need to re-design the existing lot configuration of the southwest side of the Auto Center. This addition of land area and the project components are discussed in Section 2 'of this document. The inclusion of this reservation area as a potential dealership site is not a substantial change in the project description as contained in EIR 84-2. In conformance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this document is an addendum to EIR 84-2. An addendum can be prepared when changes are made to a proposed project and such changes do not create any new significant impacts, substantially worsen any significant impacts, or substantially lessen any significant impacts already addressed in the EIR prepared for the project. This is the case with the addition to the. .Auto Center, as described in Section 3 of this document. Per Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this addendum will be attached to the certified final EIR 84-2 for consideration by the decision-making body in its review of the proposed Auto Center expansion which requires a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Parcel Map. - 1- SECTION 2 PROOECT DESCRIPTION' 2.1 Project Location The project site is located in the City of Tustin, California, just south of the East Tusttn Specific Plan area, as shown in Exhibits I and 2. As described on Page 7 of EIR 84-2 the project site is located in an area bounded by E1 Camino Real to the north, Tustin Ranch Road to the west, the 1-5 freeway to the south-and the E1 Modena:Flood Control Channel to the east. The freeway reservation site lies to the southeast, south of the existing Auto Center parcels and just east of Tustin Ranch Road as shown on Exhibit 3. 2.2 Project Characteri sti cs As described in Section 2.2 of EIR 84-2, the planned land uses for the area are described in the Tustin Auto Center Planned Community Regulations. These regulations are incorporated into Resolution 2512 for Zone Change 88-01 and will be applied uniformly on the expansion area. Therefore, the land use and on-site improvements will be substantially the same as the project considered in EIR 84-2. A freeway access reservation area of 8.27 acres was proposed with the plan for construction of I-5/Tustin Ranch Road interchange. The design* of this interchange included a full cloverleaf design, a part of which was to be located on the reservation area. Since the time of approval of EIR 84-2, the City has prepared an environmental assessment and design of the interchange. The original full cloverleaf design has been revised to a partial cloverleaf design, thereby, eliminating the need for the. freeway reservation area (see Exhibits 4 and 5). City staff has reviewed the potential land uses for the area in view of the current residential designation on the property on the General Plan and Zoning Maps. The site size, location and accessibility make residential development _ . environmentally as well as economically infeasible. Exhibit 4 identifies the existing Auto Center lot configuration. As discussed in EIR 84-2 all parcels are accessed by an internal looped system called Auto Center Drive. The proposed lot configuration facilitates the existing access design (Exhibit 6). The expansion project therefore, will not change the access and circulation pattern. 2.3 Di screti onary Actions This addendum addresses the discretionary actions proposed with the Auto Center expansion. As discussed in EIR 84-2 on pages 8-10, certain formal actions to reclassify the zoning and general plan designations on the -2- LOS ANGELES COUNTY - FUI. L.E RTON ANA _ QE HUNTINQTON'~ BEACH SANTA ANA Airport COSTA MESA NEWPORT:- BEACH PACIFIC OCEAN BEACH SAN NARDINO . J ' TU8TIN Site Irvine Lake RIVERSIDE COUNTY IRVINI Lake I~ Mission Vie jo MI8810N VlEJO N JUAN CAPISTRANO CLEMENTE mmm .J SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL LOCATION CITY OF TUSTIN /\ EXHIBIT 1 il 0 3 6 MILE8 CITY · V£ ,.% · i , BRYAN AVE i-'--"'1---i~' ~ "x I ......... ' iSit ~ ~"'"' I · ~, "'"'..,. '\1 ..".' -- ~."'CITY ', -.. IR,iNE~ '1 _, I ,. . VICINITY MAP CITY OF TUSTIN M~kIiI B~iI~mm m ~ EXHIBIT 2 il 0 '1300 2600FEET TUSTIN AUTO CENTER EXPANSION ""-SANTA ANA FREEWAY -~~~-- PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA EXHIBIT 3 0 m i > 0 ITl ..~o -.~' .~ - EXHIBIT 4 I11 RANCH Z ITl m .! m ,mm ROAD EXHIBIT 5 0 Cl. Z X w W Z W 0 Z w ~z zo? EXHIBIT 6 property were processed with the initial Auto Center project. .Additionally a Parcel Map (No. 84-1032) for the proposed lot configuration was required. The expansion project also requires certain discretionary actions such as: 1. Amendment of the Tustin General Plan Land Use Map designation. 2. A zone change in conformance wi th the proposed general plan re-classi fi ca ti on. 3. Approval of the tentative parcel map. Each of the proposed actions is discussed in greater detail below. The Tustin General Plan Land Use Map designates the site as Planned Community. As defined in the Tustin General Plan Land Use Element, the Planned Community designation is both a land use and a zoning classification. This designation assures compatible land uses by requiring precise development plans and regulations for any area designated planned community by the general plan. The project site is part of a 1,988-acre parcel which was annexed to the City of Tustin in 1977. At that time, the annexation area was pre-zoned Planned Community-Residential in conformance with the general plan designation for the area. The Planned Community pre-zone ordinance requires the adoption of a specific plan prior to the issuance of any bui 1 ding permi ts. The proposed General Plan re-classification and Zone Change would change the General Plan and Zoning designation from Planned Community to Planned Community-Commercial; planned community regulations as adopted for the Auto Center with the initial Auto Center project would be applied to the expansion area as a part of the Zone Change. The planned community. regulations .include site development and performance standards for the Tusttn Auto Center. As such, the planned community regulations reflect the requirements of a specific plan in accordance with Section 65450 of the Government Code and meet the requirements of the city's pre-zone ordinance. The Planned Community (PC) Regulations list the permitted and conditionally allowed uses for the Auto Center and sets forth the applicable .development standards {i.e., building heights, setbacks, required landscaping and parking). The PC regulations also contain performance standards for lighting, sign. s, landscaping and sound attenuation. The proposed parcel, map reconfigures lot 9 of the original Auto Center plan and the freeway reservation area for a total area of 10.782 acres'~ This area is proposed for two numbered dealer lots, one 4.843 acres and the other 4.689 acres and three lettered lots for landscaping and maintenance access purposes. - 3- SECTION 3 IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH AUTO CENTER EXPANSION 3.1 Cumulative Impacts As discussed in Appendix A - Auto Center Expansion Initial Study, all development related impacts such as drainage, surface runoff, noise, light and glare, transportation and circulation have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. The remaining issues related to the Auto Center expansion are cumulative in nature. Section 4.0 of EIR 84-2 identifies the cumulative impacts associated with the Auto Center project. All findings of significance and conditions are made in Appendix B which contains the Resolution approving EIR 84-2. Of specific importance to the proposed expansion project is to determine adequacy of the previous EIR and amend any technical data specific to the new project area. In this regard, the expansion area will not, as identified in Appendix A create any non-mitigated environmental impacts in itself. However, the cumulative impact of the Auto Center as a whole may have impacts. This discussion of cumulative impacts in EIR 84-2 identifies the mitigation measures and findings necessary to ensure that. no significant, unmitigated impacts associated with the project will occur wi thout proper' consi derati on. Specific impacts associated with the initial Auto Center project are discussed in EIR 84-2. The mitigated impacts as discussed in Appendix A are also properly addressed in EIR 84-2. The discussion in EIR 84-2 is adequate under CEQA for the expansion area. As a reference to this document, EIR 84-2, as on file with the Department of Community Development serves as the base document for detailed information and technical data. All related technical reports, conditions of approval and responses to comments on EIR 84-2 are also on file with the City of Tustin, Community Development Department. -4- APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FOR AUTO CENTER EXPANSION APPENDIX A CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department- ENVIRONHENTAL INITIAL STUDY FOPJ4 I. Name of I=r~p~nent ~ne !trine Comp,an}, ,, Addre= mci Phone Number of P~menf 550 Ne%Tport Center Drive ,New~o, rt Beach; CA, 92660 3. Dam'of Che~li~ Submitted 6-22-88 ~. Agenc~ Requiring Checklist ,cit7 of Tusttn $. Name of Proposal, if cq=pl~le Tustin Auto Center Expansion II. II Idll I III I1%11 (Explmatlam of all "yes" .and "tnaybe" answers am required on attached sheets.) ~ Will th~ prapoml result im a. ' 'mtd)le earth c~nditions ar in .chcmgm b. Dl.ruptl.., disl~l=:em~nt., cormcgtion ar ~v~overing of lhe soil? Chc.xje in topography ar grauncl surface relief femums? The clnstruction, cavering ar modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind ar water erosion of soils, either on or off the.site? f. Chmges in deposition ar erosion of beach sands, ar-~es in siitatian, deposition or erosian which may modify the channel of a river ar stream ar the bed of the ocean or my bay, inlet ar lake? A-1 ~gcsure of geogle ar I:)ragerl¥ to gm)lo- gk: hazcu~ 'such as earthqudc~ lar~licim, mudslidm, ~ failure, ar similar hczz~:b? Air. Will the pragmal reult ir. a. Sd)stantlal air emissions ar deterleration of ambient air quality? b. The c~'eaticn of obi.rutland)lc odors? Alteration of air rnoveTmnt, moLltum, or tenl)erature, or any ~ In climate, either locally ar regionally? ........ WalJr. Wlll the pragaml result im fo go C:hmvjes in curren~ ar the caurse of all.. rertim of water mmmmentz, in either rnm'irm ar fresh waters? ~ In abmrl)tim mt~ drainage Ixrt- term, ar the rate and amaunt of surface runoff? Alteratlam to the ~aurie ar fl~ ef ~ watem? .Cltmge In the anNxmt of surface water in. my water bqdy? O~ Into iurfa, watm, ar ~n my alteratlan of mJrfCx~ water quality, in- ¢ludlng ~ r~ limited to-terrq)em~re, dlJmlvecl ax'ygm or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground wamr.? ~ in the ClUC~tit~ of gr~ ~rters, either through direct addJtJam or with- drawab, ar through interceptim of cm mluifer by cuts or excavatiam? Sut~antlai recluctim in the amaunt of water oltmrwise available far public water sugglies? ~paeure of peogle ar prog~ to water r~.' lated hazcrd, such as flooding ar tidal wave~? 7~ PIc~ life. Wlll the pragoml rmutt im number of my spegie~ of plant~ (including trees, skm~s, gras~ cmp~ ~ acluati¢ . plmts)? b. IRedugtlan of the nund:mm of cmy unique, rare ar endangered spegie~ of plants? Introckgtim of new al)re:ica of plants Into mareG, or in a barrier to the nomml mplen~ of ecisting ,t)e=iea? d. Reducticn In ex:tm:ge of c~ agricultural crap?. · ~attmel I=Jf~ Will-the proOeeol result Ox.xje in the dlvemity of ~l)egles, or nurnbe~ of cmy ~:mgt. of animals (bird~, land animals including reptiles, fish ~ Redugtlan of the mn-Lmm of my uniclu~, rare or enda~erecl spagie~ of mirnals? IntTQckgticn of new .pegias of m ira als into m ale, ar rmult in a barrier to the mlgratlcn ar mo~m~t of mira als? cl. Detarioratlan to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Will the p~l r~ult im o. In~z~aa~ in e~L~tlng nod leveL~? b. E.xpaeure of people to stature notae levels? Light mml C. dar& Will the pragom~l produce new light ar glare? I. md Uae. Will the proposal result in a sub- stmrtlal alteration of the prese.:t or planned land use of an area? blafurcd Resour~m. Will the pragosal re~lt in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural remurces? Ym -x A-3 I0. I~I~ ~ Ulxl~. Will the ~ 11~~ · II. 12. 13. A risk of cm Jl)~ ar the rellm of haz~daus ~ (lrctucIing, ~ not radlatia~ in the e.nt of m accidatt ar u~llt CalCUtk.l.? Pcq~laflm. Wlll the I:)~1 altar the location, dbtrl)utian, damity, ar gnowth rate of the hJmm Ix~latian of m area? ~ Will the p~l affe~-*t existing h~us- lng, ar ¢.~zte a clmmmd far additio~zl hausing? TralSlXr~t~Clla~tetle., Will the prel:e~l result ins C~neratic~ of .ubstmtlal additional v~icular, mavm'rJi~ · Eff~lz on existing I~zrking f~:tliti., ar clmnmxl far n~w parking? d. AIt~citiom to pre~ Ixrtterm of tim or mo~l~flt of IXolit~ ondJor good~? e. Alteratlam to waterbarne, rail ar air traffic? f. Imreal in traffic hazardz to rr~tar ~.hicles, bicyclists ar pedesfriam? Public Servicm. Will the pragaml have an effect u~m, ~r fault in a need far new ar altered governmental services in cmy of the following area~ b. Police prote:tion? · ~. Schaols? Y~ ,X A-4 d, Perks a' other recre~ior~l facilities? Malnt~ of public fa:ilitles, Including roads? f. Other go~emmefltal servmes. I~. ~m~j~. Will the propoml r~lt im I& 17. I& 19. ,. I.I, of ,utwtmtlal am~un~ of fuel or en~rcjy? Sub~mtial Increa,. in demand upen exist- lng murc~ of energy, or require the cl~elepment of new source, of enm~jy? Ufllitlm,. Will ttm p~i mit In a need for nmw .ystmm, or aub~ntiai altermion, to the f~llg~ing utllitlu ~. Pm,~ or natural gm? · b. Commmicat~ system? cl. Sw~r er septic, tcnl.? e. Sta'm ~ clmiruge? fo So lLd waste and dhoami? I-Immm Health. Will the pralMml mit ir. ~. Creet~ of my 'l~dth hezmd or potential henlth hozc.~l (mo:luding rrmnml health)? b.. Expofure of Ix~pl~ to potential h~lth A~mh~lc.. Will the pre~ r, ult in the obstnagtian of c.~y scenic vista or view open to tt~ public, or will the prepcml result in the cm~ian of an a~sthetically offemive site opon to public view? IRm:rmmtien. Will the prepeml'result in an irnpau-t upon the quality ar quantity of existing rmcreotic~ml opportunities? Will the IWq)omt ruult in the altemticm .of ar the dmmJctian of a prehistaric or histmic ~.~.~l~~ site? Xl III. or*am thOle effegts to*a ix*Ehtm'~nric ar himoric: building, sn~-*mre, ar abjEc~ 21. Mmdmmy Fb~ngl of Skjnt~ Does the project have the potential to ckgrade the quality of the erwiranment, substantially reducm the habitat of e fish ar wildlife apecies, eaJse ~ fish ar wild- life papulatlan to drop below aelf raja- toiling IMis, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal ~rr. Twnity, reduce the rutH)Er er rmtrJ~ the raxje of e rare or mdmg~ plc~f or animal er elimincrfe irmortant ecanq)les of the major pericxLs of California histor/ er prehistory? bo Does the projecf have the potential to aghleve short-term, to the dbadv~tage of lang-term, enviranmental goals? (A which eggur, in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while leng-term · Oaes the projeat hav~ i~ which are individucdly limited, but cumulatively can,. ziderable? (A project may impact on t~m er more ~e remume~ where the irma=t where the effect of the total of 1hose iml)cx:t~ on the enviranment is significcytt.) Dcm the pmjeat have enviranmental effects which will cause substantial adveme effects an humm beings, either directly er indirectly? Dim:union of Envi~tat E~mluetien See attached Exhibit A for clarification of all answers. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) X. X A-6 · On the basis of this initio, ~aluatiom - I'flnd that the Pragosed ;)rojec'r COUCD NOT ha~ a significant effect an the. environment, and a NEGATIVE DEC]=A~ATION will be prepared. ---- I find-that althoucjh the pral~ Ix~ject could ha~ a significant effect an the envln~, there will not be a ,kjnificant effect in this 'case 'I--I_ becmse the rnitigatlan measures dmcribed an an attached sheet have been added to the project.. A NEGATIVE DECLA~ATION WILJ. BE PREPARED. ..' I find the p~ project MAY ha~ a signiflcc~ effect an the enviran- merit, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I--I · Laura Cay Pickup Senior Planner pursuant to Section 15153 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an environmental document has already been prepared and an addendum to describe minor techni'cial changes has been prepared, however, no further environmental documentat.ion is.required. A-7 EXHIBIT A Initial Study Auto Center .Expansion EIR 84-2 - Addendum I · Earth a-g: The proposed expansion area is in a reserve area originally intended for an 1-5 freeway off-ramp· The site was rough graded and a portion bermed and landscaped with the initial Auto Center development project. All compaction, soil and grading issues are adequately addressed in 84-2. No new impacts are anticipated since the expansion is intended for the same types of land uses and development as discussed in the previous EIR. II. Air a-c: The expansion area would accommodate one additional dealer site. This addition in itself would not substancially increase emissions or degrade air quality. The project EIR however, discusses the air impacts of the project as a whole. This discussion identifies impacts and mitigation measures considered adequate under C£QA. III. Water a, c-i: No impacts are anticipated on water resources or issues as a result of one additional dealership in 'the'Auto Center. All conditions, impacts 'and mitigation of these issues are adequately discusro' in EIR .. 84-2. b: The development of the proposed expansion of the Auto Center will alter drainage patterns and surface run-off. However, modern grading and site design techniques will be implemented to properly drain all surface run-off into the nearby E1 Modena Flood Control Channel. This impact, with the aforementioned conditions on development, has been mitigated to a level of insignificance. IV. Plant Life a-d: The expansion area has been rough graded and a 10' foot wide berm With landscaping has been installed in the area. Study of the site and landscape plan shows that there are no rare, endangered or mature plant species located in the project area. The existing landscape pattern will be moved further south towards the I-5 freeway in order to maintain the landscape buffer along the southerly line of the Au to Center. No significant impacts are anticipated. V. Animal Life a-d: The project area was thoroughly inspected by a professional environmental planning firm at the time EIR 84-2 was prepared. This inspection, and review of all updated records and information on file at the City of Tustin, has determined that no rare or endangered species have been si ted on the property. No significant impact on animal .life is anticipated with the proposed expansion. Addendum EIR 84-2 Page' two VI. Notse a-b: E[R 84-2 identifies specific noise related impacts of the Auto Center development. The E[R incorporated mitigation measures for potential long term impacts from the 'use of loud speakers. Specific regulations imposed on all Auto Center dealers have been adopted to mitlgate noise impacts to a level of Insignificance. These regulations will be required for development proposed tn the expansion area, thereby mitigating any long term impacts to a level of insignificance. Short term notse tmpacts as a result of construction activities may occur If unchecked. However, as a condition of approval, all construction activities wtll be regulated to conform.to the requirements of the Tustin Noise Ordinance. These requirements regulate construction activities during specified time limits and days of operation. Also, overall noise levels are limited to a level considered acceptable to the Orange County Health Department. All noise related impacts have been mitigated to a level of Insignificance. VII. Lig.h~ a~,d Glare The proposed expansion area will accommodate an additibnal dealer site which will eventually be developed and outdoor lighting installed. The light inl~act was addressed and mitigated through EIR 84-2. These same conditions apply to the expansion area, therefore, the adopted lighting regulations for the Auto Center will be applied on all development in the expansion area. This lighting program reduces' any light and glare impacts to a level of insignificance. VIII. Land Use The project area is currently designated Planned Community Residential in the General Plan and on the Zoning Map.. However, the proposed use of the property was for a freeway off-ramp from the I-5 freeway from Tustin Ranch Road. The off-ramp 'has been redesigned to eliminate the need for this reserve area. The accessibility to the property, its size, shape and location made it infeasible to develop the property for residential use. The propqsed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the project area would redesignate -the property from Planned Community Residential to Planned Community Commercial. This redesignation is for a land area 5.05 acres in size. When compared to the Auto Center .as a whole {60 acres) the land use change proposed is considered insignificant. A-9 ,Addendum "EIR 84-2 Page three IX. Natural Resources a-b: The proposed development in the expansion area will accommodate one additional auto dealership. This development will involve typical construction materials and landscaping which will not significantly impact any natural resource. X. Risk of Upset a-b: The proposed land uses do not involve storage or use of large quantities of any hazardous or flammable chemicals. Also the project location is off local streets as opposed to a major throughfare, therefore, no significant risk of upset is anticipated with this project. XI. Population The proposed project is on vacant land and will not displace any existing residents.· However, employees working at any new facility may come to the area. The one additional site, however, is insignificant in terms of its population impact in that one new facility would en~loy less than 75 persons. Therefore no significant impacts on population are anticipated. · - XII. Housing The anticipated 'development in the expansion area wi-ll accommodate one additional dealership. As discussed in Section XI above no significant increase in population is anticipated with this project. However, the City is currently processing numerous subdivision maps in the surrounding area for new housing, therefore, additional housing is being provided in the area. XIII. Transportation/Circulation a, c-f: The additional site created by the expansion project, in itself, will not create a significant impact on the transportation and circulation facilities in the area. However, impacts resulting from the Auto Center as a whole have been addressed in EIR 84-2. The discussion and mitigation of these impacts are considered adequate to cover this project. b: Any new development of an auto dealership will create a demand for parking.. However, the Auto Center Development Regulations require adequate on-site parking facilities in conjunction with a centrally located joint use parking facility. The expansion area will become a party to the Development Regulations and will also enjoy its pro rata share of use of the joint parking facility. With these elements, the parking demand impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. A-10 Addendum £IR 84-2 Page four XIV. Public Servlces X¥. a-f: All public servtce needs have been discussed in the previous EIR 84-2. These services have been installed and are operatlonal for the existing dealers in the Auto Center. The addition of the project area, therefore, does not significantly impact the servtces in the area. Energy a-g' The project area is currently served by gas 'and electric utilities, the addition of one dealer site will not create a significant impact on the use of substanctal amounts of fuel or energy or creation of new energy sources. XVI. Utilities a-f: The Auto Center EIR 84-2 sets forth conditions and mitigation measures for providing proper access to utilities. All utilities have been installed and the proposed, area has access to stub into these facilities. Therefore, no significant impact on utilities is anticipated. XVII. Human Health a-b: The development of the Auto Center, as well as the expansion area has been reviewed for potential impacts on human health. All. construction 'and operation of facilities in the Auto Center will be inl accordance with modern safety guidelines as required by the State of.' California. No signi ftcant impact on human heal th i s anti cipated. XVIII.Aesthetlcs The Auto Center Development Regulations set forth an architectural and landscape program for consistency and quality of' projects in the Auto Center. These regulations will be applied uniformly to all dealers in the Auto Center, including the proposed expansion area, therefore, no aesthetic impacts are anticipated. IXX. Recreation The Auto Center project does not incorporate residential uses, therefore, the project does not require recreation facilities. XX. Cultural Resources a-d: EIR 84-2 reviewed the project area and the proposed land uses for the projects impact on cultural resources. This analysis covers the same conditions as the expansion and is adequate discussion for this project. This analysis identified no significant impacts on cultural resources. A-il ~ddendum EIR 84-2 Page five XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance a, b, d: EIR 84-2 addresses the mandatory findings of significance of the Tustin Auto Center. The proposed expansion is similar and the discussion in the previous £IR is considered adequate for this project. c: With the expansion area and the existing Auto Center Development, some cumulative impacts are imminent. These impacts are identified, discussed and mitigated in £IR 84-2. This discussion is adequate to cover the expansion project. All mitigation measures and conditions of approval for [IR 84-2 will be applied to this addendum and are incorporated into the resolutions of approval by reference. LP:pef A-'12 APPENDIX B RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR EIR 84-2 APPENDIX B 1 6 ? $ 9, 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 :~0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT {EIR) 84~2 FOR THE TUSTIN AUTO CENTER The City Council of the City of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as fol lows: I® The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ae A. Draft EIR 84-2 and amendments were noticed, prepared, and processed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of t.he City of Tustin for the proposed Tustin Auto Center to be located northerly of the Santa Aha Freeway and easterly of Jamboree Road. The Planning Commission, by adoption of Resolution No. 2204 on January 14, 1985, recommends that the City Council certify EIR 84-2, as amended. Ce Exhibit A, attached and a part hereof, and EIR Text identifys mitigation measures that avoid or substantially mitigate adverse impacts of the project; adverse impacts which-cannot be feasibly mitigated; and overriding considerations justifying the proposed project. II. The City Council-of'the City of Tusttn does hereby certify the final EIR 84-2 for the proposed Tustin Auto Center to consist of the Draft EIR 84-2, amendments, thereto,- staff's technical report, written comments and responses, testimony received at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and responses as contained within the minutes, and the mitigating measures and overriding considerations as contained herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the .215t day of January . 1985. URSULA E. KE'IINNED¥, /~) Mayor (Y City Clerk B-1 Aa ~ by ¢~QA and the City of ~ 2anualT 21, 1985 Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Art of 1970, as amended, and in accordance with the City of Tustin guidelines, as amended, this document presents the findings and a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding required for approval of the proposed project. . The City Council of the City of Tustin does'hereby find that eh~n~es or alterations have been required in~ or fneor~)orated into~ the Drojee-~'whieh avoid or substantially mitigate' the significant adverse imDaets identified in the final Eiit as' sL~eeffieally itemized below. ' A. Water Resources Imparts: The site is currently subject to flooding ranging in depth from one to three feet resulting from the'~ inability of regional drainage facilities to oonvey 100-year flood flows. Findings: Imparts: The project includes the construction of an earthen berm extending from an existing berm to the west of the project site and wrapping around the project site to protect the project from flooding. This berm will protect the site without significantly altering existing drainage and flooding .pa~terns in the vicinity of the project. No increased flooding imparts will result to adjacent properties. Short-term degradation of surface water quality will occur during grading and initial construction activities. Findings: Imparts: A plan for control of onsite storm runoff from the property during construction will be prepared and submitted to the City of Tustin prior to the issuance of any grading permits. On-site runoff volumes and velocities will increase and the on-site drainage pattern will be altered. Findings: An on-site drainage plan will be submitted to the City of Tustin for approval prior to the recordation of the final parcel map. Methods for controlling the velocity and direction of runoff will be incorporated into the prejeet design. Imparts: Development of the site will effect a long-term change in runoff quality from agricultural pollutants to urban pollutants. Findings: This impart will be partially reduced by the implementation of appropriate stormwater pollution control plans and periodic cleaning of storm drains. B-2 Resolution No. ff;-.___~. Page 2 B. _Land Use and Aesthetics Imparts; Findin~ Imparts: The project is not consistent with the existinK general plan and zoning designations for the site and surroundin~ areas. A general plan amendment and zone change 'are proposed as part of the project. The project design and performanee standards included in the Tustin Auto Center Planned ?ommunity Regulations will ensure that the proposed project m compatible with land uses planned for areas adjacent to and near the project site. Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the introduction of high intensity night Hghting in the East Tustin area. Findings.. The Tustin Auto Center Planned Community Regulations contain llghtinK Peeformanee standards stipulating the type of lighting which may be used, the maximum height of eaeh fixture, and the allowable wattage per square foot. Only sharp cut-off fixtures at a maximum height of 20 feet are allowed, thereby localizing light and glare impacts. C. .Teansluortation/Cire,Jation Findings: The Proposed projeet will contribute a small increment to an existing and Projected eumulative traffic impart at several intersections in the area. The project will generate 8,205 ADT and 845 p.m. peak hour trips. Traffic from the project will incrementally worsen traffic conditions at the Red Hill Avenue/I-$ ramps and the intersections of Red Hill Avenue and h'vine Boulevard and Red Hill Avenue and Laguna Road. Construction of the Jamboree Road/l-$ interchange will provide substantial mitigation of Project related traffic imparts by directing project related and other traffic from Red Hill Avenue. The Jamboree Road/I-5 interehange has been committed fo~ construction by the City of Tustin as a locally funded project (Tustin City Council Resolution No. 86 65). D. Noise Imparts: Activities at the auto renter facilities will increase overall ambient noise levels in the area by a few decibels. The number of individually audible and potentially intrusive traffic noise events will increase as a result of the auto renter development. B-3 Resolution No. f~r o Page 3 Finding: Impacts: Findings: Impacts: Findings: _Air Quality _ Findings: Impacts: Findings: The Tustin Center Planned Community Regulations contain operational performance standards which will mitigate noise imparts to an insignificant level. Other recommended operational and site planning measures will also reduce project imparts. Short-term noise imparts will occur during project construction. Compliance with city noise standards regarding hours of operation and the use of muffled construction equipment will minimize construction noise imparts. The project site is exposed to noise impa~ts from the Santa Arm Freeway. Over one-half of the p~ojeet site is exposed to freeway noise levels in excess of the City of Tustin~ noise objective of $$ CNEL for commexeial land uses. The project design incorporates a wall of at least eight feet in height along this edge. This wall will serve to attenuate noise from the freeway and will reduce on-site noise levels to acceptable levels. Short-term increases in dust and exhaust emission will occur in the vicinity of the project during construction. Compliance with Rule 403 of the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations and wetting of geaded areas will mitigate fugitive dust emissions cluring'eonstruetion. Long-term regional increases in mobile and stationary-source emissions will result due to the increase in motor vehicle and energy usage. The proposed project includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities provided to reduce motor vehicle usage. Sidewalks will be provided along Jamboree and Laguna Road and on aU internal roads. All roadways being constructed as a part of the project have sufficient width to allow for bicycle lanes. No further mitigation measures are feasible to reduce motor vehicle air quality emissions. B_4 Resolution No. ?~'-/o Page 4 _The City Council of the City of ~tin. further finds that a!_thoug~ _alteuations~ or conditions have been ineorDorated into the puo~c-ot whioh will s,,hstantially mitigate' or avoid .significant effects identified in the fi'hR! E!R; ~eutain of the si~ifioant effects eaunot be mitigated to f-Uy aeoeptsble levels. The uemaining impacts identified below may continue to be of si~_{Xioant 'adverse impact even when mil known f~asible and identified mitigation meastw~s ave applied. A. Project implementation will result in the termination of on-site a~ieultural produeti, on and the loss of 80 acres of nFarmland of Statewide Importance" as identified by the California State Department of Conservation. Findings: The project is eurrenUy committed to non-agvieulttwal use. The Tustin General Plan Land Use Element eurrenUy designates the site for urban (residential) ]and use. The existence of an Irvine P, aneh Water District improvement finance district and the issuance of bonds to finance urban level wate~ and sewer improvements for the project site and surrounding areas further indicates the existing commitment to urban development of this area. There are no economically or physically feasible measures available to mitigate this impart. B. The proposed project will generate approximately 8,205 ADT and 845 P.M. peak hour trips. Traffic from the project will incrementally women traffic conditions at the Red Hill Avenue fl-5 ramps and the intersections of Red Hill Avenue and Ivvine Boulevard, and Red Hill Avenue and Laguna Road. Findings: Construction of the Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange wiU provide substantial mitigation of project related traffic impacts by diverting project related and other traffic from Red Hill Avenue. The Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange has been committed by the City of Tustin as a locally funded project (Tustin City C0uneil Resolution No. 84-85). Prior to construction of the interchange, the State Department of Transportation must approve connection of the interchange to the state freeway system and the City of Tustin must select and institute a mechanism to finance construction of the interchange. Until such time as these approvals and actions are taken and the interchange is constructed, traffic generated by the pro~eet will adversely impart operating conditions at the Red Hill Avenue/I-$ ramps and the intersections of Red Hill Avenue and Irvine Boulevard, and Red Hill Avenue and Laguna Road. B-5 Resolution No..~;-'l~ Page $ 3~ C, The project site is located within the Eastern Corridor study area-and approval and construction of the auto renter project prior to completion of the route location study could influence the study by eliminating some potential alternative alignments of the corridor. Findings: The City of Tustin will participate in the Eastern Tt~rtation Corridor Study and cooperate with the County of Orange and the other local agencies involved and affected by the study. It is not considered economically feasible-to delay approval and implementation of the project until the corridor study is completed. Do Short-term construction equipment emissions and long-term mobile and stationary emissions will occur with project implementation ereatin& an adverse impart on the att quality of the South Coast Air Basin. Findings: As with any urban development project, air quality imparts cannot be completely mitigated. In approving the project, subject to the conditions and mitigation measures set forth, the city has done all that is technically and reasonably possible at the municipal level F,. Increased demand for limited regional water resources. Findings: The project necessitates increased water use and, therefore, increased demand for regional imported water. This impart cannot be mitigated on an individual project basis although the city will require implementation of all feasible conservation measures. F. Increased long~term demand for finite fossil fuel resources resulting from pr.jeer electrical and natural gas requirements. Findings: The project necessitates an increased cumulative demand for finite fuel resources. Althoug~ serviein~ agencies anticipate adequate fuel supplies for the pr.jeer, the long-term demand for fossil fuel res. ureas will be unavoidably increased. The City Counefl of the City of Tustin does hereby find that certain changes or alterations (e.g.~ mitigation measures) required in or incorporated into the p~ojeet are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a public affeney other than tl~& City of .Tustin and ran or should be adopted' by the respective affeney ,as itemized below. ' A. California Department' of Transportation; Approval of the connection of the Jamboree Road/I-5 interchange to the state freeway system. B -6 Resolution N6. ?~'-/o Pale 6 The City Council of the City of Tustin has weighed the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve said L~ro~ect. The City .Council does hereby further find, determine, and state, pursuant to the prowsions of Section 15093:of the state CE~A Guidelines, that the occurrence of the certain si~:nificant environmental effects identified in the final EIR and set forth in paragraph .2 above, have been evaluated against t. he following overricltn~ considerations: A. The project will result tn the following substantial economic, social, and environmental benefits to the City of Tustin and suzTounding areas: At build-out, the project is anticipated to yield a positive annual fiscal surplus of $1,306,200 to the city~ general fund. Total annual revenues are projected at $1,414,?00 and total costs at $108,500. (2) The consolidation of auto dealerships in one location will result in less vehicle miles traveled than would be typical of a strip pattern of auto dealerships. This fact is reflected in the trip generation rates for the Irvine Auto Center, a similar type of development, which are considerably lower per acre than the observed rates for individual auto dealers. (3) The proposed project will provide improvements to the local circulation system consisting of the extension of Laguna and' Jamboree Roads. B. The following economic and social considerations make the project alternatives identified in the final EIR infeasible. The "No Project" alternative is rejected because it fails to meet the objectives set forth for the project, particularly the objectives of providing an increased revenue base to the city and creating a development which provides for a range of auto-related uses to serve the City of Tustin and surrounding communities. (2) (3) The "Existing General Plan" alternative is rejected because it fails to meet the objectives set forth for the project, particularly the objectives of providing an increased revenue base to the city and creating a development which provides for a range of auto-~elated uses to serve the City of Tusttn and surrounding communities. Residential use of the~ site is considered less desirable than the proposed commercial use given the site's proximity to the I-5 freeway. The "Residential Development at Ten Dwelling Units to the Acre" alternative is rejected because it fails to meet the objectives set forth for the project, particularly the objectives of providing an increased revenue base to the city and creating a development which provides for a range of auto-related.uses to serve the City of Tustin and surrounding communities. Residential use of the site is B-7 Resolution No. ~-~'~ ~ Pal~e ? (4) considered less desirable than the proposed commercial use ~iven the site~ proximity to the I-5 freeway. The "Alternative Leeations' alternative is rejected because development of the proposed project on the other available sites in the city would result in 8eeater environmental impacts than would development of the project on the proposed site. The potential alternative sites would result in/eeater impacts to existin~ residents oe would require substantially increased site improvement costs than would the currently proposed site. The proposed site offers the best combination of distanee of existin~ residents, freeway visibility, and freeway access. B-? STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Cl'erk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the nembers of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No, 85-10 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular neeting of t'he City. Council held on the 2115m~m day Of January, 1985, by the fol lowing vote: AYES : NOES : - ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: Edgar,. Greinke, Hoesterey, Kennedy, Saltarelli COUNCILPERSONS: None COUNCILPERSONS: None MARY E. WYNN~'~Ctt~ Clerk City of Tustl~, Californl t)-8 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 RESOLUTION NO. 2510 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 84-2 AND ADDENDUM NO. 88-01 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: '- I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows- A. That an initial study questionnaire was prepared for General Plan Amendment 88-01 and Zone Change 88-01 (the "Project"), and it was determined that Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 84-2 (Tustin Auto Center), with an Addendum (No. 88-01), could be employed to describe this project, in accordance with Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines.- B. That the environmental documentation was prepared by City of Tustin and Michael Brandman Associates. C. That the subject EIR and Addendum No. 88-01, including comments, have been reviewed and considered by the City of Tustin. D. That the EIR (84-2) 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 Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines, EIR 84-2 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 documentation need be prepared. F® That the addendum 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. That the findings and mitigation measures described in Resolution No. 85-10 and 2204 are hereby incorporated into this resolution by reference. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ~5 1(1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2510 page t~o II. The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby recommend to the Ctty Council certification of Final £IR 84-2 with Addendum No. 88-01, which has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and adequately addresses the project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tus%in Planning Commission on the day of , 1988. Chairman PENNI FOLEY Recording Secretary 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2511' 3 4 5 6 A RESOCUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR AN AREA BOUNDED BY THE 1-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER, AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 9 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Section 65356.1 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. be That in accordance with Section 65356.1 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing was duly called, · noticed, and held on the application of the Irvine Company to reclassify the land use from Residential/Single Family to Planned Community/Commercial for an area bounded by the 1-5 Freeway, Tustin Ranch Road, the existing southerly border of the Auto Center and west of the E1 Modena Channel as shown in Exhibit "A". C. That Environmental Impact Report No. 84-2 (Tustin Auto Center) as amended by Addendum No. 88-01 has been prepared for the subject project, and has been recommended for certification to the City Council, by the adoption of Resolution No. 2510. D. That a change in classification would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 88-01 be adopted, amending the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan from 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171 19t 21 23 2~ 27 28 Resolution No. 2511 Pa ge two Residential/Single Family to Planned Community/Commercial for an area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, Tustin Ranch Road, the existing southerly border of the Auto Center and west of the E1 Modena Channel as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of 1988. Chairman PENNI FOLEY Recording Secretary ,< ol,-- zn- <I:LU n" Zz :~^¥.----.-.-- IN/tAOUg -- ResolUtion No. 2511 RESOLUTION NO. 2512 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF A AREA BOUNDED BY THE I-5 FREEWAY, TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL, FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL AND INCLUDING THE INCORPORATION OF PLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS KNOWN AS THE EAST TUSTIN AUTO CENTER. ~ The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows- A. That a proper application, (Zone Change No. 88-01) has been filed by the Irvine Company, to change the zone for an area bounded by the 1-5 Freeway, Tustin Ranch Road, the existing southerly border of the Auto Center and west of the E1 Modena Channel, from Planned Community to Planned Community/Commercial as shown in Exhibit "A", and incorporating planned community regulations known as the East Tustin Auto Center. Be That a pt.,bltc hearing was duly called, noticed and held on s~id appl i cation. ' C. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, 'and welfare of the surrounding property owners. . That the inclusion of a Planned 'Community zone and incorporation of development regulations will ensure that the proposed use will be compatible wi th future and exi sting developments. . The proposed zone designation is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. De An Environmental Impact Report (EIR 84-2) as amended by Addendum No. 88-01 has been prepared for this project, and has been recommended for certification to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 25'10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 Resolution No. 2512 page t~o II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Ctty Council approval of Zone Change No. 88-01 from Planned Community to Planned Community/Commercial for an area bounded by the I-5 Freeway, Tustin Ranch Road, the extstlng southerly border of the Auto Center, and west of the E1 Modena Channel, as shown in Exhtbit "A", and Incorporates Planned Community Regulations known as the East Tustin Auto Center (Exhibit "B" attached hereto). PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. · Chairman PEN~I~m' POLEY Recording Secretary N I LLJO Z x I,U 0 0 -- ONINt~:)UI~ EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 2512 . EAST TUST~N AUTO CE~NTF_~ CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY REGU~~ON$ NOVEMBER, 1984 THE IRVINE COMPANY Amended by the Planning Commission January 14, 1985 EXHIBIT B RESOLUTION NO. 2512 .1' TUSTIN AUTO CENTE~ PT~iN~D COMMUNIT~ HEGULATIONS CIT~ OF TUSTIN Novembe= 1984 . SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III SECTION IV SECTZON V SECTION VI SECTION VII INTENT AND PURPOSE STATISTICAL ANALISIS GENE3tAL NOTES DEFINITIONS PERMITTED ZONING MAP SITE PLAN REVIEW SECTION VIII DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Subsection A. Building Se=backs · Subsec=ion B. Building Heigh=s Subsec=ion C.. Pa=king Subsec=ion O. · Subsec=ion E. Subsec=ion F. Subsec=ion G. Subsec=ion H. Subsec=ion I. Subsec=ion J. L&ndscaging Walls and Fences Sound AE=enua=ion Signage · S'~o=age and Loading Re£use COllec=ion A=ea' Page '1 3 8 9 11 11 ll 12 13 14 15 16 SECTION I. INTENT AND PURPOSE T~e Planned Community Regulations are intended Co guide -CAe pla~ing and design of ~ auto sales, leasing an4 =e- ~C~ service cancer. ~e R~laCions pro, Ce C~e ~aliCy dlvelo~nC of ~e pco~C by establishing sCan~=ds ~or CAe Si~e pla~inq, architectural design, and ~Cerial~ for all sC~cCures whi~ will bec~ a pa== of CAe CanCer. While the AuCo CanCer serves a unique ~uncCion within the Tus=in area, the Planned Community Regulations seek to inCeg=a=e tAis Can=er into CAe surrounding community in a nmnner thaC is compa=ible with existing and ~uture develop- .o s~cTzo~ zz. S~zS~,ZCA~ ~Ar.~SZS, The TusCin Auto Center Planned Community has been estab- lished as one (1) basic- group: ~ Au,to Sales, Leasing & Se=vice Net Acres 40.00 This group shall be served .. Publ£c Lanciscape buffer a=ea TOTAL GROSS ACRES 1.51 55.46 B --2-- T' T. SECTION III . GENERAL NOTES 0 Within =he Planne~ communi=¥ asea, =he con=inue~ use of subJec= =o ~e appli~ble zoning codes of =~e Ci=y of ~s=in. 2. Wa=er service and sewage disposal ~acili=ies wi=bin P1Anne~ Co---,;ni=y asea shall be ~urnished by =he Irvine HancA Wa=er Dis=ri==. However, ~empo=a=y services ,=he= agencies ny be necessa=y. 3. Regardless of =he provisions of ~his supplemental =ex=, no cons=ruc=ion shall 'be allowed wi=bin =he boundaries conzPlies wi=h all provisions of.applicable building codes and =he various mechanical codes rela=ed =here=o. 4. Any land use proposal os developmen= standard ~o= speci- fically covered ~¥ =his plan and its supplemen=al CexC shall'be subject =o CAe regulations of =he City of TusCin zoning codes. 5. Whenever =he regula=ions :con=ained herein conflict wi=h =he regula=ions of Tus=in zoning codes, =he regula=ions con=aine~ herein shall Cake precedence· pr.perry during =he cons=ruc=ion shall Be prepared and =o =he issuance of a grading permi=. The plan shall rain =he in=egri=y o~ sil= con=rol ~acili=ies during normal o~era=ion. · Approval by =he Air Quali=y Managemen= Dis~ric~ of any plans, devices, or ~acili=ies ~or =~e con=rol of any air pollu=an=s which ~ay be genera=ed, shall ~e req~Aired. 8. Grading within =he zone shall be subjec= =o =he approval · Energy conserva=ion provisions shall be considered w~en building orien=a=ion, maZe=isis and design are ~eing developed. r 10. Alee= co~encemen~ of alterations o= construction of any sCruc=ure, or imgrovemenC thereon, the owner shall 4iligen=iy prosecute the work thereon, to an end that the structure shall no~ remain in a ~ar~ly finished condition any longer than reasonably necessary for -11. All mechanical a~urcenances on ~uilding roof 12. CC&Rs for the subject project, to include provisions for the maintenance and replacement of landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. Prior to the issuance of bu.ilding permits for subject project, a Master Development-Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and approved by resolution. Said plan shall incorProate by text, diagram and illustration the following el ements: ae Ce ee building materials and colors landscape.plan, to include theme, plant materials, irrigation system and fixtures wall plans to show elevations, materials, and location signing to include locations, size,'height, materials, and intensity of lighi~ing performance standards for noise control perimeter lighting fixtures, location, and intensity. B-4- SECTION IV. DEFINITIONS 1. Adver=isinq Surface: The total area of the face of any signing structure. · 2. Common'Area: Areas designated bY Parcel Map for land- scape ~r employee par~ing purl~oSes and deeded Co a legally ~ormed Auto Center Merchants' Association. of--~ay witAi~""~Ais ordinance shall mean dedicated vehi- .cular rigA=s-of-way, including any median paving or landscaping located within =hat right-of-way. 4. Gross Acreage: The entire land area wi=bin =he boundary abut=lng arterial highway o= the =ante=line of any Net Acreage: The total !and area of the land described in =he use or other permit. Net acreage shall consti- tute. the total buildable area. Lines: Any parcel's frontage which ~aces onto an property line, whether facing =he interior loo9 road or facing .toward an entrance Rear - The property line of any parcel which is adjacent to =he perimeter streets of Jamboree Road, Laguna Road, My~ord Road, or =he I-~ ~reeway. Side - Those property lines which separate one subdivided parcel which has been designated for retail use from another such subdivided parcel or from a designated common e~loyees' par~ing lo=. Service & Storage ~uildings: Ail structures on any retail pa=tel whose primary purpose is o=he: =~an =he display, sale or lease of automobiles and related merchandise. SECTION V. USES 9ERMINED A. Uses 1. Au=o, Cruc~, and recreational vehicle sales, leasi~g and service (dealerships and/or independen=s) · Sarvice indus=ties, may include, bu= are no= limi=ed Co, ~.~e following = a. Repair, ~ain=enance and se=vicing of appliances or componen= par=s for mo=o= vehicles. · b. Tooling. c. Testing. shops '(excluding noise noxious performance =es=lng). d. Repair, main=chance and servicing of above- lis=ed items provided Chat said £ndus==ies ave hoc =he poin= of customer delivery or collec- =ion. · e. Oiagnos'=ic labs. ~. ~rimen=al automobile assembly and ~abrica- - . g. Vehicular s=orage a=eas (exclusive of impound yards ). Uses Permit=ed Su~ecC co Gran=in~ of a CU~ ~? CAe Plannin Commission £~ Not Included in AuCo Dealershi 1. Tire, battery and accessory shops and accessory £ndoor ins=alia=ion ~acilities. 2. Au=o and vehicle glass shops. 3. Au=o and =tuck ten=als. Pain= and restoration shops (~ndependen= o~ dealer- ships ). · $. 8od¥ Shops (independen= of dealerships). C. Service industries which provide a service Co uses listed in Section A., above. p!annin~ commission 1. Car wash. Service station. 3. Motorcycle sales. B --7-- SECTION VII. SITE PLAN REVIEW =o submitting plans and specifications for ptan,chec~ and building penni= processing. This =ev~ew shall be conducted by =~e Co---unity Development Department in accordance with ~olicies of the City of TusCin. Approvals shall remain valid for a period of 18 months. Decisions by =he Community Development Department shall be final unless appealed =o =he Planning Commission wi=bin seven days of =he Community Development Depa=%menC's decision. The Applicant shall submit six (6) sets of site plans and elevations =o the Community Development Department that include the following inf0'=mation as applicable: 2. Titie Block: a. Scale of ~ap~ b. Name and Add=ess of Applicant;, c. DaCe. of preparation. 3. All bounda=.y lanes on the subject property fully dimen- sioned and tied in with =he centerline of adjacent or 4. ~he name, location and width of any adjacent public or private SC:ceOs. Widths should include any required street widening. The name, location and width of any water courses, structures, irrigation ditches, and any other permanent physical ~eatu=es o~ the land. $. The width and location o~ all existing o= 'proposed public o= private easements. ?. Ail proposed improvements p=ope=ly dimensioned. 8. All pa=king spaces and aisles drawn and dimensioned the ~low o~ traffic moted by arrows and calculations ~he =ecluired nu~e= of parking s~aces. r 1 9. The looa=ion and wid=h of all vehicular and pedes=rian access openings in=o and o.u= o~ the proper=y. 10. All proposed walls and ~ences, including heigA= and ma=erial, and all proposed exterior lighting; 11. Ail proposed landscaping in as much de=ail as possible. The zoning and existing land use of the subject property and proper=ies contiguous Co irs boundaries. 13. ~oca=ion of neares= walls and s=ructures and adjacen= proper=les, =he use ~herein, and adjoining driveways. 14. A brief description of the in=ended use of the proper=y, hours of opera=ion, number of employees, and other general cha=ac=eris=ics tha= would apply Co =he proposal. Indicate all existing fire hydrants and wa=er main sizes. 16. 17. Indicate building size,.Cypo o~ construction, and building eleva=ion. · · Indica=e all'existing stree= li.gh=s, u=ility'poles, Crees and signs within the public right-of-way adjacen= to =he sire. The Director of Community Oeveiopmen= shall respond =o sub- mir=al of =he above-lis=ed information within thir=y (30) days. Such response .may consti=u=e approval, approval with conditions deemed necessary to pro=eot the public health, safety and welfare, or disapproval of Applican='s site plan. If no action is ~aken wi=bin ~he allo==ed time, the sire plan shall be deemed approved, unless =he time limit is waived by the Applican=. B -10- SECTION VIII. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Buildin~ Se=backs 1. No s=ructure of any kind,-an~ no parc =hereof~ shall be placed on any sire closer--co a property line than herein provided. The ~ollow~ng structures and ~=ov~en=s are specifically excluded ~=om =hese se=bac~ provisions: a. Roof overhang. b. S=eps and walks. c. Paving and esso=ia=ed curbing in relation to the landscape area, excep= =ha= cus=omer parking areas shall no= be within 10 fee= of the s=ree= proper=y lines. d. Fences, except =ha= no fence shall be placed wi=bin =he street setback area' for service or · storage buildings. ·. Landscaping. Signs and d£splays idenCf.~¥ing =he owner, lessee or occupan=. g. Lighting. 2. No se=back is required from in=erior property lines. 3. Se=back from street proper=y lines: a. Sales or display buildings shall be sec back a minimum of 10' from =he in=erior loop road and a minimum of 60' from the entrance s=ree=s. Roof overhangs may no= projec= nee:er =hah 5' to =he proper=y line. Service and storage buildings shall be set: back a minimum of 50' from =he ~ron= proper=y lines and a minimum of 65' from =he rear proper=y lines. However, a service or storage building may be built aC ~he rear proper~y line provided B 4 =hat i= does hoc exceed the height and length described in Section VIII.F., paragraphs 2 and 3 of this document, subject to Planning Commission approval. B. Buildin~ Heights 1-. Buildings shall be a ~aximum of 30' 'in height to top of ridge line. 2. Automobile display and signage shall not be allowed on Cop of any building. 3. Automobile storage in the second level of a building shall be allowed only if ~.ully screened [rom view, including =he line of sight ~rom the second story of any structures which may be built across Jamboree and Laguna Roads." l. hca auto dealer shall provide a minimum of eleven (ll) offer=eeC pa=king spaces per nec buildabl~ acre which shall be reserved for employee pa=king only· · 2. In the event that employee pa=king is provided in a comnM3n pa=king loC, each dealer shall provide separate pa=King space on his/her premises ~o= any demonstrator automobiles which are driven by a company employee. o aha=ed by several merchants, a recorded document shall be filed with the Building and Planning Departments and shall be signed by the Owner of the common site, stipulating to the permanent reserva- tion of use o~ the site ~or employee par~ing purposes. · Each automobile dealer shall provide a minimum of six onsite pa=king spaces reserved exclusively for customers' use. Additional customer par~ing shall be allowed at curbside where appropriately striped. 5. Onsite handicapped par~ing shall be provided as required by CAe governing agencies· B -12- . O. Landscape -1. Every site on which a 'building is pla=ed shall be landscaped according =o plans approved as-specified herein and ~aintained thereafter in a sightly and well-kept condition pursuant =o =ha standards agreed u~n by ~e ~=o CanCer Merc~an=s' ~socia=ion. Su~ ~in=en~ce s~ll include r~ular irriga=ion, ~erCili~Cion, ~lCiva=ion ~d tree ~runing. 0 The pr.perCy owner, lessee or occupant shall land- scape a 5' strip ~,~_ _~diately.behind =he pr.perry line adjacent ~o any interior street o~ =he Auto excepting walkways and driveway areas· The Auto Can=er Merchants' Ass.cia=ion shall main=sin this landscape in compliance with the Declaration of Covenan=s, Condit£ons and Res=fictions of this Auto Canter· · o · Tee property owner', lessee or occupant shall provide irr£gation and .taimtenance faciliCies for the land- scaped areas, and shall keep said ~acili=ies in good working order at all times. · Landscaping shall be installed within thirty (30) days of occupancy or completion of the building, whichever comes first: · Sire landscaping shall be compatible with the land- scape master plan which has been developed as a guide ~o coordina=e the species o~ plant'materials, thus providing con=inuity of landscape within the Center. · The pro~ecC developer shall provide a continuous landscape buffer between the Auto Center and Jamboree and Laguna Roads. Additionally, land- scaping shall be provided in ~he median of Jamboree Road. · Undeveloped areas reserved for future expansion, such as the freeway interchange or any parcel not promptly built out, shall be maintained £n a weed- free condition but need not be landscaped. B -12- T F · . Liqh~£nq l. Offsite and street lighting will be provided by the projec:'s developer. 2. All ex=erior ligh=ing shall ccmply wish the pro- ~ec='s Planned Ligh=ing Cri=e~ia, as se= forth in the P~oje~= Design Criteria on file with the City of Tus=in. · 3. Lighting plans shall be submit=e~ showing the design layout and exact fix=ute mounting and wa=rage pro- posed by ea~ auto dealer. Areas of display shall be lighted by sharp cutoff fix=utes e~fual to Elsco Manufacturing Co. 's Auto King VI to direct lighting downward only. "Prom= row" lighting standards adjacent to the Auto Center interior roads shall no= exceed 20' in height and shall have no more than three fixtures per s=an¢lard a= a minimum of '40' on center. The in=eric= of the display area may be illuminated by fixtures no close= than 60' to the front line of display lights. These fix=utes shall be on s=andar~s no higher than 20', shall be spaced no closer =hah 60' on center, and shall have no more than ~our ~ixtures per pole. Average wa=rage fo= the entire display area shall not exceed 1.5 wa=ts/square fcc=. Display areas within 125' of Jamboree Road o= Laguna Road shall no= exceed 1 wa== per s~uare ~oo=. 7. Se=vice and storage par~ing areas shall be lighted by s=an¢la=ds ~o higher than 24' which shall contain no ~ore than ~wo ~ix=ures of =he a~ove described specification per pole. Ave=age wattage ~or the en=i~e storage area shall not exceed 0.2 watts per square ~oot. 8. Creative lighting design and =einfo=cement of lighting in=ensi~y to provide varying degrees o~ light £n=ensity ~or me=chandising and highlighting purposes are encouraged as long as =he .overall ave=age, wa=rage is. no=. exceeded. B -14- · .° T, · Spot fixtures s~all be direc=ed downward only, perimeter walls. S~rings of inca~descen= fixtures shall not be allowed in any exterior area· F. Walls and Fences 1. All service, storage and trash areas shall be screened from view from any street by a wall. Land- scape screening alone shall not be deemed suffi- cient. · Walls constructed on the perimeter of the Auto Center shall be in keeping with the projec='s Design Cfi=erie. These walls shall be no less than 8' and no greater than 10"' in height, with the exception ~at the wall order 9rope=fy line· This increase pr.perCy. The pc.perCy owner s~all provide addi- tional landscaping wall height on adjacent streets. · If a' building is constructed as permitted in the above paragraph, no sloping roofs ~hall be used on such a structure, and any drainage shall be away from the wall into the site. No facies, gutters, or other roof edge treatments shall be visible above the 14' height of the wall. 4. Offsets in the perimeter walls are encouraged when adjacent to a 14' high structure. Such offsets shall be compatible with the project's design criteria. G. Sound Attenuation l· Ail body repair work and all compressor work shall be performed in an enclosed area only. Access doors to such enclosures shall face away from Jamboree Road. Auto dealers adjacent =o Jam~oree Road may not open service bay doors toward Jam~oree Road. ,r T~ 3. AuCo dealers adjacent Co ~aguna Road may hoc open doors ace no higher than CAe perimeter wall which screens CAem from ~aguna Road. 4. Air comp=esso= exhaust stacks ~hall contain a the perimeter streets which surround CAe AuCo an~ s~ll be moun=e~ no higher Chart 12' above ~e~iaCe ~inished grade. Air conditioning units may not be mounted on Cop any building which is less =Aah 65' from a rear property line. H. Siqnaqe 1. Signs shall, be allowed subject Co CAe-provisions of CAe Tustin Auto Center Sign Criteria, as approved by CAe Cit]~ of Tustin Planning Commission. Project developer shall supply signage adjacent announcing CAe AuCo Center location. Addi'Cionally, CAe developer shall supply ~reeway directional travel signs at CAe nearest ~=eeway off=amps. 3. Roof-mounted signs shall hoc be allowed. 4. Billboard signag~ shall hoc be allowed. I. Sro=age and ~oadin~. A=ea.s 1. No materials, supplies o= e~ipmenC, including owned o= ope=aCed Cruces, shall be scored in any area on a sire except inside a closed building behind a =isual ha=cie= o= se=vice area which screens =he equi~menC from =iew of all public. streets. The singular exception shall be any vehicles w~ich ara a ~a== o~ CAe me=chant's customer display. ~. Neither =he loading doc~ no= CAe offloading opera- Cions ~o= automotive ~a=Cs and ocher supplies s~all be risible ~=om any public streets. B -1.6- -. J. ~efuse Collec=ion A=,eas 0 visually screene~ ==om access s=ree=s, ~=eeway, an~ acl~acen,: proper=], b], an opaque screen. B -L7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1(; 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2513 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201 LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE I-5 FREEWAY, EAST OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF THE EXISTING SOUTHERLY BORDER OF THE AUTO CENTER AND WEST OF THE EL MODENA CHANNEL. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-201 was submitted to the Planntng Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 847 by the Irvine Company requesting authorization to reconflgure two (2) existing lots into two (2) parcels and three (3) lettered lots for Parcels 9, C and D of Parcel Map 84-1022 as shown on a map filed in Book 200, pages 19-24 of Parcel Maps and a portion of lots 26 and 27 of Book 44 of Irvine's subdivision per a map filed in Book 1, page 88 of 'miscellaneous record maps, both filed in the office of the Orange County Recorder. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on July 11, 1988. C. This project is Categorically Exempt, Class 15 from 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 habi tat. H. That the design of the subdivision 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2513 Page two II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 87-201 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 .... , 1988. Chairman Pehn'i FOi~, Secretary Exhibit A tO Resolution No. 2513 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-201 PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (1) 1.1 Any damage done to existing 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. GRADING/DRAINAGE (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. (1) 2.2 B. (2) (3) 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. e 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 SOURCE CODES STANDARD CONDITION ~,..) 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 .olutton No. 2513 Exhtbi t A Page two (1) (6) (1) (2) accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may requtre certification of any grading related matter. 3. Final street elevations at key locations. 4. Final pad/finished floor elevations and key elevations for all site grading. 5. All flood hazaPds 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. 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. Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan for al.1 construction wok-k related to the subject Tract including a method of control to prevent dust and windblown earth problems. (1) 2.3 A precise grading permit shall be issued prior to issuance of any building' permits within the subject Tract. (1) 2.4 All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the City of Tustin Municipal Codes and grading requirements. FIRE DEPARTMENT (1) 3.1 The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Orange County Fire (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. (1) 3,2 Prior to issuance of Uuilding 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. The subdivider shall also submit water improvement plans for approval of Fire Marshal. :solution No. 2513 Exhtbtt A Page three NOISE (1) 4.1 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the (2) provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only (6) 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 (1) 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. Ce Grading planchecks and permit fees to the Community Development Department. De All applicable Building plancheck 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. GENERAL (1) 6.1 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. (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. so~utton No. 2513 _xhtbtt A Page four 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. Show on the Final Map all easements of record. E. The CC & R's for the Tusttn Auto Center parcels shall be amended to include the expansion area and filed on all parcels created in this subdi vlsi on. F. The amended CC & R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director prior to recordation. *** 6.3 All development on Parcels 1 and 2 shall be in accordance with the Tustin Auto Center Development Guidelines. *** 6.4 Parcels A, B, and C are for landscape and maintenance access. These lots shall be landscaped and maintained as specified for all perimeter landscaped lots in the existing Auto Center area. This landscaping shall be per the adopted landscape guidelines and Auto Center Guidelines for the City of Tustin. *** 6.5 A block wall .shall be installed along .Lots A, B and C per the Auto Cente~' Development Guidelines. The location, design and construction shall be :consistent with existing walls and shall meet all required design criteria. Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 5 DATE: dULY 11, 1988 SUBdECT: CONDITIOHAL USE PERMIT 88-15 FOR A MASTER SIGH PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIH MARKET PLACE; AHO AN AMENOMENT TO OESIGH REVIEW 87-37, FOR THE LAHDSCAPE DESIGH COHCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE AND THE STOREFRONT GLAZIHG. APPLICAHT: DOHAHUE SCHRIBER~ON BEHALF OF THE IRVIHE COMPANY 3200 BRISTOL, SUITE 660 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 SUSSMAH/PREJZA & COMPANY, IHC. 1651 18TH STREET SANTA ROIIICA, CA 90404 LOCATION: SOUTHgEST CORNER OF BRYAH AVENUE & JAMBOREE ROAD REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A MASTER SIGH PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND A REVISION TO THE LANOSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE (FROM CAHOPY TO PALM TREES) A.NO ALSO A MOOIFICATION TO THE STOREFRONT GLAZING STAHOARO (FROM GREY TO CLEAR GLASS). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, PURSUANT TO SECTIOH 15303 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS 3) , REC~ENDATION: It ts recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2516, approving a master sign program for the Tustin Market P]ace*and amendments Design Review 87-37 for the landscape concept for the Entertainment Village and the storefront glazing standard. BACKGROUHD: Condition No. 3.3 of Resolution No. 2464, approving Design Review 87-37, requires the submittal of a master sign program to the P]anning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for Phase I of the Tustin Market Place. Additiona]]y, section 3.11.7 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (signage) al]ows the applicants to request approva] of a master sign program that deviates from the specific standards for shopping centers upon the submittal of a use permit. Due to the sca]e of the Tustin ~larket Place, certain sign elements exceed the normal standards; therefore, the app]icants have submitted CUP 88-15 for the Commission's consideration. , Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permit 8~-I5 July II, lg88 Page two A second part of this applicarlon is a request for Commission approval of a revision to Design Review 87-37, to allow a change in the landscape concept for the Entertainment Village, substituting palm trees for the "canopy" trees that were to be used in the "grove" of the village and also a change from grey tinted to clear glass at the storefront windows. DISCUSSION: The proposed sign program consists of two parts, tenant signage and project signage. Each of these parts is discussed below: Tenant lSignage: This portion of the sign program consists of written graphics and signage criteria accompanied by illustrations. The criteria identify information to be provided on plans, submittal and processing requirements, construction detail requirements, a list of prohibited types of 'signs, and a description of the seven types of signs that are to be permitted based upon the type of tenants (see Attachment I). Proposed sign types are evaluated individually as follows: A. Tower Si gns Located on major tenant's towers (Stor, Home Express & Home Depot in Phase I ). Constructed of fabricated aluminum channel letters with spray applied 1 i near polyurethane pal nt fi ni sh. Illuminated by either exposed neon on sign face and/or concealed within sign for a "halo" effect to delineate graphics. Maximum area - 260 square feet per tower face, maximum-two signs-per tower. ° Color shall be tenant's color and/or compatible with building color. ° Neon colors to reflect paint palette with the addition of white. Proposed tower signs placed to face the interior of the center, will provide major tenants with their primary source of identification. The allowed area of 260 square feet is less than the 25~ of wall area allowed by the Municipal Code. The signs will be centered vertically with the top of the building parapet (35', see illustration in Attachment I). Freeway Si gns 7' wide x 24' high x 18" thick fabricated aluminum cabinets with spray applied textured/finish and color for major tenants only. Corn rnunity Developrnen~ Depar~rnen~ Planning Commission Repof't Conditional Use Permit 88-~5 July 11, 1988 Page three ° Color unt form for all cabinets. Tenant names placed diagonally on cabinet in 21" high fabricated, white acrylic letters. White interior illumination. Maximum of 10 signs placed along I-5 frontage, spaced 35' or more apart. These signs will provide freeway identification for the major tenants within the center without cluttering up the buildings themselves, a major concern of the Commission and staff (the Municipal Code would allow such signs). It is a unique approach to the problem of freeway visibility, one which is also being strongly considered for the Tustin Auto Center which experiences problems with its existing freeway sign (Sussman/Prejza has been retained by the Irvine Con, any to deal with the Auto Center's freeway signs). The 21" letter height will allow visibility to freeway traffic at distances of several hundred feet. .This exposure, is critical for those major tenants to be located in Phase II along Bryan Avenue, as they will be almost half a mile away from the freeway. While the major tenants in Phase I are much closer to the freeway, it is i~ortant to treat all major tenants equitably. C. Building Fascta Signs For "mini major" tenants, typical of Phase I, and possibly some tenants within the Entertainment Village. Display tenant name and/or logo type only, 90 square foot maximum area. Constructed of .fabricated aluminum wi th spray applied linear polyurethane paint finish. Illuminated with either exposed neon on sign face and/or concealed neon for "halo" effect to delineate graphics. Color shall be tenant's color and/or be compatible with building color. ° Neon colors to reflect paint palette with the addition of white. The maximum sign area of 90 square feet is l'arger than the maximum 75 square feet the Municipal Code allows for tenants in a shopping center elsewhere in the City, however, staff believes that this size is consistent with the scale {both verticle and horizontal) of the Market Place. Corn rnunity DeveloPmen: Depar~rnen~ Planntng Commi ssion Report Conditional Use Permit 88-15 July 11, 1988 Page four D. Sign Bands 1. Tenants not I n the Entertatnment Vlllage ° Located on white, 3' high aluminum sign band. Constructed of fabricated aluminum channel letters wi th spray a'pplied linear polyurethane paint finish. Illuminated by white (only) neon contained within the channel letters for "halo" effect, or exposed on face of letters. 18" maximum letter height and maximum 66~ of storefront length, centered wi thin sign band. ° One sign provided for each storefront occupied. Colors shall be tenant's colors and/or be compatible with building color. . Tenants in the Entertainment Vi 1 lage ° Same as above except no restriction on neon colors. The area of these signs is essentially in keeping with what would be allowed in a shopping center elsewhere in the City. The village signs are not restricted to specific colors for the neon, as this is'a high activity, night time area, and the goal is to create a "festive" atmosphere, which staff believes is in keeping with the Village's purposes. The restriction to white neon in the perimeter building signage will enframe the Entertainment Village without detracting from it. E. Arcade Signs Hung perpendicular in front of tenant's entry, suspended from arcade ceiling. Constructed of fabricated aluminum with spray applied polyurethane paint finish. ~ ° Contains tenant's name/logotype. ° Variable shape, 10 square foot maximum area. ° 9' verttcle clearance, hung centered in arcade. Corn rnunity DeveloPment Depar~rnen~ Planntng Commission Report Condtti onal Use Permit 88-15 July 11, 1988 Page fi ve These signs are typical of many shopping centers having arcades (e.g., Larwi-n Square). Such signs provide visibility/identity to customers walking under the arcade. They would be most prevalent in the storefronts adjacent to Bryan Avenue which have a 10' arcade all along their frontage. F. Anci 1 lary Arcade Si gns ° Same as above. Occur only at major tenants for identifying entrances, exits, customer pi ck-up, etc. £ssentially, these are "building operation" or directory signs. G. Stand-Alone Building Pads ° South part of Entertainment Village at E1 Camino Real, Shall be subject to the provision of Section 9493 (Single tenant-not part of a shopping center) of the Tustin Municipal Code. Signs for each pad to be reviewed on case by case basis with submittal package for each bull ding. A1 though these pads are part of a shopping center, their location and arrangement make them unique. For this reason, the standards .for single tenant buildings - not part of a shopping center are the most appropriate for this si tuati on. Project Signage - This portion of the sign program includes identification of the "Tustin Market Place" as' well as interior directional signage {see Attachment II). Project identification signs include: A. Freeway Identification 8' high, 1'-0" thick letters against a 10' high, 240' long background wal 1. Background wall to be a purple-grey color, pursuant to the approved color chips. ° Ground i 11 umi nated. Along with the major tenant freeway I.D. signs, this sign provides the primary freeway exposure to vehicles passing in both directions on the I-5 freeway and takes advantage of the long freeway frontage/exposure that the Market Place has. Corn munity DeveloPment Depar~mem Planning Commission Report Conditional, Use Permit 88-15 July 11, 1988 Page stx B. Major Entry Identificatton ° 50' high x 35' wide x 5' thick monolithes at Jamboree Road entrances. Constructed of fabricated aluminum cabinets with spray texture. Color is to be purple-grey, pursuant to the approved color palette. ° 2'-3" high, white letters, internally illuminated. These signs provide a dramatic entry statement to the project commensurate with the projects overall size and scale. They are one of the four (4) vertical elements of the project, the other three (3) being the 50' major tenant towers (which they match in height), the 90' light towers and the 70' Entertainment Village towers. C. Secondary Entry Identification 25' high x 17'-6" wide x 2'-6" thick monolithes at the New Myford Road entrance. Constructed of fabricated aluminum cabinets with' spray applied texture, color is purple-grey pursuant to the approved color palette. -. 12" high letters, ground illuminated. All dimensions of these signs are one-half those of the Major Entry monoltthes. D. Auto.Directional Signs ° 14' high x 6' wide x 1' thick pylons, ground illuminated. Located along E1 Camino Real, before the rock sculpture, spaced 40' to 50' apart. It indicates direction to various major and minor tenants (by type) wi th arrows. Constructed of fabricated aluminum with sprayed on texture coating, col or i s purple-grey. ° Changeable 'name strips. These signs provide direction to arriving motorists to the different major tenants and/or types of minor tenants once they are in the project. Their size and spacing makes them clearly visible to the motorists and allows for simple, legible directions. Corn munity DeveloPment Department Planning Commission Report Conditional Use P.ermit 88-15 July 11, 1988 Page seven E. Miscellaneous Auto Regulatory Signs Standard Department of Transportation signs (i.e., stop, yield, turns, etc., see sheet GD-4 on plans). Back of sign panels to be purple-grey color pursuant to approved color pal ette. ° Sign post is 2" x 10" white metal. The message faces of these signs are industry standards for regulating vehicle movement; however, the purple-grey back combined with the more substantial (thicker) pole reflects back to the overall project theme. In addition to the sign program, the applicant is requesting approval to modify the landscape design of the Entertainment Village. Specifically, they propose to replace the canopy trees originally proposed for this area with date palms. The palms would still be planted in a "grove", as the canopy trees were to be planted. Palms have been proposed for the following reasons: They wi 11 provide a uniform height. Mature trees of equal size can be planted in large numbers, which would be much more difficult to do with any other variety of trees. They will be different, yet compatible with other taller palms to be used elsewhere on the perimeter drive of the site, thereby maintaining the height hierarchy that was introduced with the original concept. The applicant proposes to landscape the portion of the Entertainment Village south of E1 Camino Real along wi th Phase I, including improving the parking areas so as to eliminate the eye-sore of graded, undeveloped parcels to vehicles entering Phase I. The use of palm trees in this part of the "grove" will allow them to match their height later on when they landscape the portion of the Village north of E1 Camino Real. This would be very difficult to do with any other variety of trees. Staff does not have any objections to this proposal, as we believe it is in 'keeping with the original "hierarchy" and "grove" concept, and will allow for a more finished look at the completion of Phase I. The last item that the applicant is requesting approval for is a change in the storefront glass from a grey tint to clear glass. Grey tinted glass is specified in the approved architectural guidelines, and therefore a change from those guidelines requires Commission approval. This request is the result of a recent finding by the project arc'hitects, Leason Pomeroy & Associates. In 1/4 inch sampler, the approved Greylite-14 tint is a light grey color; however, when it is made at a 1/2 inch thickness, as it has Corn munity DeveloPment Depariment Planning Commission Report Conditional Use Permtt 88-15 July il, 1988 Page etght been recently determined ts requlred for this project due to the hidden sills betng used, the ttnt mix In the glass becomes so dark that it ts almost opaque. As this ts not desirable for retail activity, the applicant has requested approval to use clear class (except for the mezzanine windows on Stor which will stay grey). Staff supports thts request as a dark grey ~ould not be desirable for retatl users. Also, staff does not believe that the change In glass color has a significant Impact on the project design as a whole. CONCLUSION: The proposed sign program ts both bold and simple. The design, size and scale of the signs matches the boldness, size and scale of the project ttself, without drawtng undue attention away from the project. The use of alumintum channel letters wtth the spray on polyurethane paint finish and Internal & external neon Illumination for the tenant stgnlng provtdes an excttlng combination of qualtty, -color, form and texture, ~tthout resorting to plasttc or cheap~flashing lights. The project signing draws on the shape and stze of the buildings themselves, thereby, creating a hierarchy of Identification/directional signs that blend ~tth the architecture of the project. In essence, the proposed sign programs for both tenant & project Identification work' ~tth the archi l[ecture of the Tustin ~larket Place rather than detracting frGm ~t. The same can also b'e satd of the proposed modifications to Design Review 87-37, the "grove" trees and the sto~efront glass; each modification, while different from what was approved, does not significantly alter the original concept of the project. Steve Rubi n Sentor Planner SR: CAS: ts Attachments: Resolution No. 2516 Attachments ! and I! Blue Ltne Plans of Project Slgnage 'Christine . ing e/~f Director of Communit~ Development Corn munity DeveloPment Depar~mem 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 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2516 A RESOLUTION OV THE PLANNING COMMISSION OV THE CITY OV TUSTI~, CALIVORNIA, ARPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15 FOR A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE AND AMENDING DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, REVISING THE LANDSCAPE CONCEPT VOR TNE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE AND THE STOREFRONT GLAZING STANDARDS. The Planntng Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. Proper applications (CUP 88-15) were filed by Donahue Schriber, representing the Irvine Company, requesting approval of a Master Sign Program for the Tustin Market Place. Also requested is approval of a revision of Design Review 87-37 for the landscape concept for the Entertainment Village, switching from canopy to palm trees in the "grove", and a change from grey tinted to clear glass for the storefront windows. B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held-on said application on July 11j 1988. C. Pursuant to Section 9291 of the Tusttn Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the Master Sign Program will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, general welfare of the persons working or residing in the neighborhood nor will it be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements tn the area. The Commission further finds that the Master Sign Program will provide for signs that are compatible wi th, and complimentary to the architectural design and treatments of the Tustin Market Place. D. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the change from canopy to palm trees in the Entertainment Village is in keeping with -the original concept of a "grove" as well as maintaining the "hierarchy" of trees established in the original design of the project. E · Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the change from grey tinted to clear glass for the storefront windows will not be detrimental to the design concept of the project and will allow for proper vi si bility of retai 1 space. II. The Planning Commission conditionally approves: A. Conditional Use Permit 88-15, establishing a Master Sign Program Resolution No. 2516 Page two 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1(; 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Be for the Tustin Market Place, subject to the following conditions' . All stgns shall comply wtth the provisions of the approved Master Sign Program on file wtth the Community Development Department, as heret n modtfied or as modtfied by the Director of Community Development tn accordance with these conditions. Pursuant to Section 3.12.2.F of the East Tusttn Specific Plan minor deviations from the Master Sign Program (a 10~ increas'e in height or area), shall require the prior approval of the Director of Community Development; all other deviations shall require the prior approval of the Planning Commission. 3. All signs shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development for compliance with the Master Sign Program, including design, colors, illumination type, materials, etc., prior to issuance of permits for a sign. . All signs shall comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City (including UL approvals). 5. Permits shall be required for all signs as necessary. . Project Signing shall utilize a purple-grey background base color pursuant to the approved color palette. Also, the low screen wall along Jamboree Road shall be of the same purple-grey color. . 7. Construction level plans including structural calculations, for all Project Signing shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of permits for said signing. . All signs for the stand alone buildings in the Entertainment Village south of E1 Camino Real shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at the same time that plans for the buildings themselves are r~viewed by the Planning Commission. 9. Applicant shall provide design guidelines and criteria for bull ding address numbering that ' i s consistent with the approved Master Sign Plan, subject to approval of the Director of Community Development. An amendment to Design Review 87-37, permitting a change from canopy to palm trees in the "grove" of the Entertainment Village, subject to the following conditions' . Palm trees planted in the E1 Camino Real median shall be a sterilized, non-fruit bearing variety so as not to drop fruit into the public ri ght-of-way. ResolUtion No. 2516 Page three 5 6 7 8 9 10 e ® Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Community Development Department at whatever scale necessary to depict construction level detail reflecting the proposed change prior to installation of said trees. The actual sizing, quantity and location of the palms to be planted shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development. Please note that all planting shall comply with current City landscaping standards for the entire site of one tree for each five parking stalls within a parking lot. 11 C. 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 An amendment to Destgn Revtew 87-37, permitting a change from grey tinted to clear glass at storefront windows, subject to the following condition: 1. The second floor mezzanine wi ndows for Stor~ shal 1 remain as grey ti nted glass. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular .meeting of the Tustin Planning Conm~ts~lon, held on the day of , 1988. Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary Sussman/Prejza & Company, Inc. TUSTIN MARKET PLACE TENANT SIGNING CRITERIA Sussman rejza &Company, Inc. Tustin Market Place Graphics and Signing Criteria June 10, 1988 Page 1 TUSTIN MARKET PLACE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA GRAPHICS & SIGNING ,CRITERIA The following criteria have been established for the purpose of assuring an outstanding and consistent tenant signing program. Conformance will be strictly enforced and any non- conforming signs will be disapproved. 1.1 SUBMISSION: Tenant shall submit for approval one (1) complete set of sign drawings to Landlord and three (3) sets to Landlord's Architect prior to sign fabrication. All signs submitted for Landlord approva~ must conform to review and approval by the Planning and Buildings Divisions of the City of Tustin. In addition to detailed drawings such submissions shall include: ae Elevation of storefront showing design, location, size and layout of sign drawn to scale indicating dimensions, attachment devices and construction detail. Be Sample board showing colors and materials including fascia, letter faces, returns, caps, etc. Ce Section through letter and/or sign. panel showing the dimensioned projection of-the~ face of~-the tet-ter and/or sign panel and the illumination. 1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A® Tenant signs shall be designed in a manner that is not only imaginative but also of high graphic quality. In addition, tenant signs should be compatible with and complimentary to adjacent and facing facades. Be Brightness of signs is subject to approval by Landlord and shall comply with all applicable building and electrical codes and shall bear the U.L. label. Surface brightness of all illuminated materials shall be consistent in all Sussman/Prejza & Company, In . Tustin Market-Place Graphics and Signing. Criteria June 10, 1988 Page 2 Ce De letters and components of the sign. Light leaks will not be permitted. Advertising or informative content of Tenant's signs shall. be limited to letters designating Tenant's trade name. Crests, corporate shields or logos may be permitted at the discretion of the Landlord. Such designation of*store ..... shall not include any specification of the merchandise offered for sale or the services rendered and shall contain no advertising devices, slogans, symbols or marks. Tenant will be permitted to place upon main entrance to its premises not more than a 144 square inch of white vinyl lettering not to exceed 1-1/2" in height, indicating hours of business and emergency phone numbers. 1.3 SIGN CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS: ae Tenant's sign contractor shall submit drawings and obtain all required permits from the Planning and Building Divisions of the City of Tustin. All drawings submitted to the City shall bear the approval of the-Landlord or his Agent. B. Ail letters shall be fabricated using full-welded construction. Ce Location of all openings for conduit sleeves and supports in sign panels of building walls shall-be indicated by the sign contractor on drawings submitted to the Landlord. Sign contractor shall install same in accordance with the approved drawings. D. Sign contractor shall repair-any damage caused by his - - work. Ee Sign installation shall be coordinated with the Landlord prior to commencement of any work by the tenant's sign contractor. F® Ail electrical signs shall bear-,the U.L. label; their fabrication and installation shall comply with all national and local building and electrical codes. Ge Ail ~onduit, raceways, crossovers, wiring, ballast boxes, transformers, and other-equipment necessary for sign connection shall' be concealed. All bolts, fastenings and clips shall consist of enameling iron' with porcelain Sussman/l)rejza & Company, Inc. Tustin Market Place Graphics and Signing Criteria June 10, 1988 Page 3 He I · J· K· L· enamel finish; stainless steel, anodized aluminum, brass or bronzed; or carbon-bearing steel with painted finish. No black iron materials will be allowed. Separate all ferrous and non-ferrous metals with non-conductive gaskets to prevent electrolysis. In addition to gaskets, provide stainless steel fasteners to secure ferrous to non-ferrous metals. No sign maker's labels or other identification will be permitted on the exposed surface of signs, except those required by local ordinance which shall be in an inconspicuous location. Threaded rods or anchor bolts shall be used to mount sign letters which are spaced out from background panel. Angle clips attached to letter sides will not be permitted. Simplicity and restraint in materials selection is important;' however, the material selection, its method of application, or its detail construction should be consistent with the other storefront design Criteria. Landlord shall not be responsible for the cost of signs fabricated or installed which do not conform to the sign criteria. 1.4 The following are prohibited: A. Signs of box or cabinet type construction. B. Signs employing animated components. C. Signs employing moving or flashing lights. D. Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes or -~ transformers. E. Sign manufacturer's names, stamps or decals. F. Signs employing luminous-vacuum formed type plastic letters. G. Signs employing unedged or uncapped plastic letters or letters with no returns and exposed fastenings. H. Paper, cardboard or styrofoam signs, stickers or decals hung around, on or behind storefronts. I. Exposed fastenings. J. Except as provided herein, no advertising placards, banners, pennants, names, insignia, trademarks or other descriptive material shall be affixed or maintained upon the glass panes and supports of the show windows and doors. Sussman/Prejza & Company, inc. Tustin Market Place Graphics and Signing Criteria June 10, 1988 · Page 4 Ke No simulated materials (i.e. wood grained plastic laminates, etc.) or wallcovering may be used in the sign area. DESIGN CRITERIA: These criteria establish general signing guidelines for specific tenant areas within Tustin Market Place. 1.5 SIGN TYPES: The general sign types allowed will be as follows: A. TOWER SIGNS-. ae B. C. D. E. F. Tower Signs Freeway Signs Fascia Signs Sign Bands Arcade Signs Ancillary Arcade Signs Tower signs will-display tenant name and/or logo type -~ only. Construction will be of fabricated aluminum channel letters or symbols with spray applied polyurethane paint finish. Sign will be stud mounted 2" off background. Illumination may be exposed neon on face of sign and/or neon concealed within aluminum for "halo" effect to delineate graphics. Tenant shall be allowed a maximum of 260 square feet per tower face. Color--Paint-. Tenant paint colors shall be existing colors from established logo types and/or compatible with and complementary to adjacent and facing facades. Final color selection approval is subject to the discretion of the Landlord. Neon: Neon color shall reflect colors established in paint pallette with the addition of white. Sussman/Drejza & Company, Inc. Tustin Market Place Graphics and Signing Criteria June 10, 1988 page 5 B. FREEWAY SIGNS: Freeway signs shall be on a 7' X 24' fabricated aluminum cabinet with a spray applied rexcoat finish. Identification will be 21" high fabricated white acrylic (Futura bold) letters with white interior illumination. Color: Uniform color of cabinets and copy t~o be established by Landlord, no alternates shall be accepted. C. BUILDING FASCIA SIGNS: Fascia signs shall display Tenant name and/or logotype only in architecturally designated areas. Construction will be of fabricated aluminum with a spray applied linear polyurethane paint finish. Sign will be Stud mounted 2" off background surface. Illumination may be exposed neon on face of sign and/or neon concealed within aluminum for "halo" effect to delineate graphics. Tenant shall be allowed a maximum of 90 square feet. Color--Paint:Tenant paint colors shall be existing. colors from established logo types and/or compatible with and complementary to adjacent and facing facades. Final color selection approval is subject to the discretion of the Landlord. Neon: Neon color shall reflect colors established in paint pallette with the addition of white. D. SIGN BANDS: Landlord will provide typical tenant bays with 3' high fabricated aluminum sign band between columns for tenant identification. This band will act as a uniform background as well as house all electrical for tenant identification. 1. TENANT SIGNS OUT OF VILLAGE Construction will be of fabricated aluminum channel letters with spray applied linear polyurethane paint finish. Signs wil be stUd'mounted 2" off sign band' Illumination to be white neon contained within channel Sussman/Prejza & Company, Inc. Tustin Market Place Graphics and Signing Criteria June 10, 1988 Page 6 letters for even halo lighting effect or exposed on face of letters. Sign band identification shall not exceed 18" in cap height or 66% of bay front in length and will be centered within sign band. Tenants shall provide one sign for each occupied bay. (I.e., if Tenant occupies two bays, two signs are required.) Color--Paint: Tenant paint colors shall be existing colors from established logo types and/or compatible with and complementary to adjacent and facing facades. Final color selection approval is subject to the discretion of the Landlord. Neon: Only white neon shall be allowed for illumination. 2. TENANT SIGNS IN VILLAGE Construction will be cut-out aluminum 'or fabricated aluminum channel letters with .spray applied linea[~ polyurethane paint finish. Signs will be stud mounted 2" off sign band. Illu~ination to be exposed neon of various color ~round face of individual letters. Tenants shall provide one sign band for each occupied bay. (I.e., if Tenant occupies two two bays, two signs are required.) Color--Paint: Tenant paint colors shall be existing from established logo types and/or compatible with and complementary to adjacent and facing facades. Final color selection-approval is subject to the discretion of the Landlord. Neon: Full spectrum of neon is allowed. E. ARCADE SIGNS: Arcade signs shall be perpendicular to the storefront and suspended from ceiling in the arcade in front of the tenant's entry. The arcade sign shall consist of graphic elements and lettering in fabricated aluminum with spray applied polyurethane paint finish applied to a decorative aluminum panel. The panel should be of an interesting shape and incorporate graphic features. The arcade sign is limited to a maximum of 10 square feet in area. Sussman/Prejza & Company, Inc' Tustin Market Place Graphics and Signing Criteria June 10, 1988 Page 7 Arcade sign panels shall start 9' 0" above grade and shall be centered in the arcade. F. ANCILLARY ARCADE SIGNS: Ancillary arcade signs (Customer Pickup, etc.) shall be perpendicular to the storefront and suspended from ceiling in arcade at informational area. Signs shall consist of a fabricated aluminum panel area of interesting shape with applied or silkscreened graphics. If more than one is approved, they shall be of identical shape and construction. Ancillary arcade signs shall be limited to a maximum of 10 square feet in area. Ancillary arcade signs shall start 9' 0" above grade and shall be centered in the arcade. Ancillary arcade signs shall occur at Type I buildings only. Sign message is limited to building operation (i.e., Exit Only, Customer Pickup, etc.) . 1.6 TENANT AREAS: The following is a listing of tenan~t areas as determined by their architectural profile. Along with each tenant area will be a listing of sign types and quantities allowed for that area. TYPE I Tenants in buildings 35',0" in height Two (2) tower signs conforming to attached elevations, Area I: (1) (2) (*) One Freeway Sign One Sign Band (for Pedestrian Identity, locate above Tenant's Entry Bay) Ancillary~Arcade Sign * Quantity subject to submittal and approval. TYPE II Tenants in buildings 30'-0" in height (1) (2) One Building Fascia Sign One Arcade Sign (if applicable) TYPE III Tenants in buildings 24'-0" in height (1) (2) One Sign Band Identification per Occupied Bay One Arcade Sign (if applicable) Sussman/I)rejza & Company, Inc. Tustin Market Place Graphics and Signing Crit_eria June 10, 1988 Page 8 TYPE IV Tenants in individUal freestanding buildings Tenants that fall into this category will be subject to normal sign controls as described in Tustin City Code; Article 9493, "Allowed sign~in commercial district (single tenant - not part of shopping center)". In addition, all signs must be designed and included for consideration with the architectural design package submitted for Use Permit. Note: Any tenant areas that do not fall within these profiles will submit their design request under the general guidelines of this criteria for individual review by Landlord/Landlord's Architects, and the City of Tustin. File:SC#9:TMPCrit.1 ,o-,oG · / I -ei · · · ' I i · · -e · · · · · / LL L e~ · SuHman /Prejza & Company, Inc. · · · .... J _L' Sussman/Prejza & Company, Inc.. ~Ussman/Pr®Jza & Company, Inc. Z / 4 Sussman/Prejza & Company, Inc. I Ill I · · · i Suwsman/PreiZa & Company' Inc. , ! Sussman/Prejza & COmpany, Inc. Suss~man/Prejza & Company, Inc. Sussman-/Prelza & company,.Inc. Sussman//Prejza & Company, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I '1 I '1 I I I ! I,-- ! ! ~Sussman/PreJza & Company, Inc. lussman / Prelza & Company, Inc.' Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: JULY 11, 1988 ABAIIOOIIED RIGHT-OF-NAY RECOI~EIlDATZOII It is recommended that the Planning Commission continue their discussion on this matter until August 8, 1988. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission at their meeting on May 23, 1988 was approached by a -number of residents living on Alder Lane and Apple Tree in the Peppertree subdivision asking about any future AT&SF plans for abandoned easement areas owned by the Irvine Company located behind their homes. Staff have initiated a discuasion of the matter with the Irvine Company. The Irvine Company is currently reviewing possible, alternatives for disposition of the property and has requested additional .time to complete research and work on the matter prior to making their recommendation' to the City. Christine Shingleton ~/ Director of Community Development CAS: pe f Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: dULY 11, 1988 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OklIER- LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DESIGN REVIEW NO. 88-13 DADDY-O' S RESTAURANT PAUL lqANTINO 174 E. IqAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 JOHNSTOWN AMERICAN 23201 LAKE CENTER DRIVE EL TORO, CA 92630 174 E. MAIN STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 C-2 CENTRAL COI~ERCI~ CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS I .. AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL EXPOSED NEON TUBING ON AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUILDING LOCATED AT 174 E. MAIN STREET. RECOI~ENDATION: Deny the request for the use of exposed neon tubing by the adoption of Resolution No. 2517. SLII¥,ARY: The applicant, Mr. Martino, recently redecorated the former La Spada Restaurant into Daddy-O's Restaurant. The restaurant is a free-standing building wi th 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 ANALYS.IS' The original design review 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 meant 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 involved, the. restaurant owner, decided to apply for an internally Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Destgn Review No. '88-13 July 11, 1988 Page 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 with the applicant to bring the style and design of the sign into conformance wi th 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 i s 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 precident. e The E1 Camino Real Specific Plan states that signs shall be of uniform size, color and style while being compatible with and complimentary to the village identification. The existing sign, although modern in design, has a cleaner look than neon and would not be as bright. CONCLUSION: Staff contends that the overall design of the building with the use of neon would not be in keeping with the old town area and, therefore, recommends denial of the use of the exposed neon tubing as requested. Ma~y An~ chamberlain Associate Planner . MAC:CAS :pef attachments Christine A. Stiingle~,~fi- - Director of CommunitIF Development L Corn rnunity DeveloPrnen~ Depar~rnen~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2517 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNINGCOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE USE OF EXPOSED NEON TUBING AT 174 E. MAIN STREET The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That a proper application, Design Review 88-13, was filed on behalf of Daddy-O's Restaurant at 174 E. Main Street requesting approval of exposed neon tubing for (2) two exterior wall signs. Be Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Miunicipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, architectural features and general appearance of the proposed sign would impair the orderly and harmonious development of the old town area, subject to the following findings: . The Planning Commission has never approved any exterior mounted, exposed neon signs in the old town area and thus would be setti.ng a 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. II. The Planning Commission hereby denies the use of exposed neon tubing at 174 E. Main Street. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a reguiar meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 11th day of July, 1988. Chairman Penni ~oley Secretary Planning Commission DATE: dULY 11, 1988 SUBdECT: RANCHO IqADERAS APPLICANT: LocATION: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 630 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92668 LOT 14, TRACT 12763 REQUEST: NODIFICATION TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 RECOItqENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2515 approving exterior architectural revisions to the Rancho Maderas project originally .approved by Destgn Review 87-32 as. submitted or revised. BACKGROUND On September 28, 1987, the Planning Commission approved'Design Review 87-32 authorizing construction of a 266 unit residential apartment project {Rancho Maderas) which may ultimately be converted to condominiums. One of the conditions of approval was that the proposed project comply with submitted plans on file with the Department of Community Development. Western National Properties, at the request of the Irvine Company are now proposing to make minor exterior building modifications. Submitted development plans for the Rancho Maderas project originally proposed a California Ranch style architecture, with predominate use of stucco and some minor wood elements. The existing elevations also emphasized hipped roof conditions and no pilaster/column detailing. Revised architectural elevations requested by the applicant would add gabled roof conditions,' more prominent wood features highlighted by more wood detailing and plaster columns and pilasters. The revisions are still compatible with the general architectural style originally proposed and will actually add to the appearance of the buildings. ~l~ristine Shlnglet6n- ~Y - - Director of Community Development CAS: pe f Attachments: Letter from applicant Revised Elevations Resolution No. 2515 , Community Development DeparTment 1 2 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2515 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-32 A 266 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT 14 OF TRACT 12763 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as 6 follows' 7 I. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That Western National is requesting approval of minor exterior design modifications to the Rancho Maderas project originally approved by Design Review 87-32 and located on lot 14 of Tract 12763. B. The revised project continues to comply wi th all findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution 2433. II. The Planning Commission approves minor exterior modifications to Design Review 87-32 as shown on Exhibit A subject to the following condi ti ons. 1. The applicant shall submit for building plan check and approval, modifications to original construction plans, structural calculations and other information as deemed necessary by the Building Official to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Building Codes. Actual exterior modifications p.roposed shall not be undertaken unti 1 approved by Bull ding Official. · 2. The applicant shall make payment of any applicable building plan check fees to the Community Development Department for review of plan modifications. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 11th day of July, 1988. C hal rman Penni Foley Secretary July 5, 1988 WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES RECEI-VED · 0 1988 CO£,;;~IUNITY D,.-,ELD, Ms. Christine Shingleton Director, CXammmity Develo~ City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Rancho Maderas; Tract 13030 Irvine Pacific requests the City of Tustin's review and approval of the revision to the archi~ elevations for this project. .These revisions to the exterior elevations were generated by Irvine Pacific's and The Irvine Company's desire to not create too homgeneous of it was decided that this project was too similar in nam and ~tectural detailing to our adjacent Rancho Robles project. The existin~ archi~ elevations em~-~ize hipped roof conditions, ~ ~ c~lir~ ar~ no pilaster/column c~cailir~. pilaster. The effect of a more vibrant and richer textured building is obtained by these revisions. Again, our request is for your department and the Plann/ng Commission to ap~xove these revisions, under~ that upon receipt of apptDual, w~ official for his review and approval. Please co~tact me if you should require further information. Thank you. Kevin Pohlson Senior Project MaD~ger KP/js cc: Lloyd Dick - City of Tustin ' 630 The City Drive South · Orange, CA 92668 · (714) 971-4747 Illlll* . ! $~D SFD LOT 2 SFD LOT 4 CPI LOT ? t · SFA LOT 5 HS LOT 8 APTS I NC [' LOT 12 i LOT 13 I ; · . SFA ~ APTS SFA ' ES LOT 1 1 c° o LOT LOT 6 ' LOT 10 ~, ~ o o ............ ~ ............ :. '. °~ _EGEND THE.. IRVIN(~ COMPAN~ PLAN Ill ,o lC6~· SECTORS 10 &11 TENT. TRACT 12763 Planning Commission DATE: dULY 11, 1988 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - JULY 5, 1988 Oral presentation. per Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - July 5, 1988 Community Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ,)ULY 5, 1988 7:00 P.M. 7:01 P.M. HOESTEREY ABSENT PRESENTEO NONE NONE APPROVEO Will( CORRECTIONS APPROVED A~PROVED APPROVED CONTINUANCE TO 7/18/88 APPROVEO REJECTED REJECTED REJ~ECTED I · II. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL III. PROCLAMATION - Parks and Recreation Month IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS V. PUBLIC INPUT VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1988, REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,300,889.65 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $178,622..01 3. MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY OF MISSION VIEJO IN THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTAT ION CORRIDOR Approve Addendum No. i to the Corridor Agency. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement as recomm¢ ~ded by the City Manager· ¢. TAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING Approve continuance of this item to the July 18, 1988, Council Meeting as recommended by the City Clerk. 5. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE OPERATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1988-89 Authorize the City Manager, through Minute Action, to continue fiscal operations for 1988-89 at an appropriation level to exceed that of 1987-88, until such time as the budget process can be completed as recommended by the Finance Department. 6. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 88-27; CLAIMANT-KIRK WATILO, DATE OF LOSS-2/10/88, DATE FI1. ED WITH CITY-4/26/88 Reject subject claim for property damage in the amount of $314.40 as recommended by the City Attorney. 7. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 87-33; CLAIMANT-MARY ANN CARTER AND LINDA GRIFFIN, DATE OF LOSS-8/24/87, DATE FILED WITH CITY-9/8/87 Reject subject claim for property damage and personal injury in the amount of $1,000,000 as recommended by the City Attorney. 8. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 88-22; CLAIMANT-JASON PFEIFER, DATE OF LOSS-12/16/87, DATE FILED WITH CITY-3/23/88 Reject subject claim for property damage and personal injury in the amount of $265,188.82 as recommended by the City Attorney. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 1 JULY 5, 1988 ADOPTED IZESOLUT !ON 88.-69 ADOPTED RESOLUTION · NO. 88-71 APPROI/ED: (1) CONTINUANCE TO 7/].8/88 AND (2) EXTENSION OF EXISTING CONTRACTS APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-74 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-75 9. RESOLUTION NO. 88-69 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TF[E CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 88-206 LOCATED AT 1302 INDUSTRIAL WAY Approve Tentati,ve Parcel Map. 88-206 by adoption of Resolution No. 88-69 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 10. RESOLUTION NO. 88-71 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN. Adopt Resolution No. 88-71 relating to the compensation of part-time employees as recommended by the Administrative Services Department. 11. AUTHORIZATION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/STRUCTURAL PLAN CHECK AND INFRASTUCTURE SERVICES Approve the agreements with the firms of Melad & Associates, Roger Leggett, Inc., BSI Consultants, Inc. and GPS Consulting Engineering and authorize the City Manager to execute said agreements subject to City Attorney approval as to form as recommended by the Community Development Department, 12. EAST TUSTIN; AMENDMENT TO SUBDI'VISION AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 12870 & REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENTS OF COSTS FOR INFRASTRUCURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR EAST TUSTIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2 Approve amendment to Subdivision Agreement and Reimbursement Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute as recommended by the Public Works Department and City Attorney's office. 13.. RESOLUTION NO. 88-6 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING .UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NC). 10, NEWPORT/MCFADDEN AVENUE, AND ORDERING THE CONVERSION ~ Adopt Resolution No. 88-6 establishing Underground Utility : District No. 10, Newport/McFadden Avenue and ordering the conversi on as recommended by the Publ i c Works Depart- ment/Engineeri'ng Division. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 88-74 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF GRADING, DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND WATER LINE RELOCATION ON JAMBOREE ROAD FROM TUSTIN RANCH ROAD TO CHAPMAN AVENUE (NEW) Adopt Resolution No. 88-74 approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertising of bi ds as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 88-75 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION 'TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1988, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 2 JULY 5, 1988 AOOPTEO IESOLUTION O. 88-76 RESOLUTION NO. 88-76 - A RESOLUTION Or THE CItY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA,. REQUESTING-THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 'OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1988, WITH THE Sl~ATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION .TO BE HELD' ON THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE .Adopt Resolutions No..88-75 and No. 88-76 as recommended by the City Clerk. NONE VII, ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION ADOPTEO ORDINANCE ~0. 997 1. ADOPTION OF FIRE CODE - ORDINANCE NO. 997 The following Ordinance No. 997 had first reading and introduction at the May 16, 1988, meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 997 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING SPECIFIED SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE AND ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AND UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS, 1985 EDITIONS, WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE 1987 SUPPLEMENT AS THE FIRE PROTECTION REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN IX. Recommendat i on: M.O. "That" Ordinance No. 997 have second-reading by title only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 997 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote) OLD BUSINESS RECEIVED AND FI)ED 1. STATUS REPORT - JWA/CRAS/ASC Update on the John Wayne Airport Noise Monitoring -Program, Coalition for a Responsible Airport Solution (CRAS) and Airport Site Coalition {ASC). ~PPROVEI) STAFF tECO~4EN~ATION dlTH THE ADDITION :)F:(1) COPY OF COUNCIL LETTER BE ) ISTR~BUTED TO OTHER ~.C. OELEGATION [ NO [ VIDUALS ANO INTERESTED COMMUNITY iEMBERS SUCH AS ~)NALEE ELLIOTT AND 4ALT DAVIS AND (2) STAFF TO PREPARE A ~Er-aE. UT ION FOR · NTATION BY COUNCIL Fb .,:AGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ON AUGUST 14 Recommendation: Receive and file as recommended by the Community Development Department. 2. RESIDENTIAL'COMMUNITY CARE AND DRUG/ALCOHOL RECOVERY FACILITIES City Council, at their meeting on June 20, 1988, continued their discussion on the subject topic to permit the Community Development Department and City Attorney's office to evaluate the ability of tile City to regulate residential community care and drug and alcohol recovery faci 1 itl es. Recommendation: That the City Council (1) Authorize the Mayor to transmit correspondence to local state legislators, the League of California Cities and surrounding cities requesting support for modifications to state law relating to.licensing of community care and drug and alcohol recovery faci 1 iti es. (2) Instruct staff to initiate a code enforcement action against Yorba House I, 13682 Yorba Street. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 3 JULY 5, 1988 RECEIVED AND FI LED SUBJECT REPORT X. ' NEW BUSI N_ .S 1.. OUTDOOR SEATING The City Councii at their regular meeting on June 20, 1988,- requested that Council review recently adopted outdoor seating guidelines approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 1988. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council APPROVED STAFF RECOI~EI~ATION WITH REPLACEMENT TO BE A I~GNOLIA TREE AT 2332 FI G TREE DRIVE 2. REQUEST FOR TREE REMOVALS There is a consolidation of requests which have been received from various property owners regarding trees within the public ri ght-of-way. Recommendation: Approve tree removals at the following locations: 14902 8raeburn, 14791 Briarcliff, 1751 Heather, 14711 Mimosa, 13741 Malena, 1201-1202 Prospect, 14431 Emerywood, 14521 Emerywood, 142317 Cloverbrook,. 14801 Branbury, 1035 Irvine Blvd., 14061 Charloma, 14892 Bridgeport, 14412 Heights, 17461 Norwood Park, 14261 Heatherfield, 2332 Figtree and 14432 Cloverbrook as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field Services Division. APPROVED STAFF RECOIqMENDATION 3. REJECTION OF FORMAL EQUIPMENT BID Council authorized, at their meeting of April 4, 1988, solicitation .of bids for the purchase of a pick-up cab and chassis-with a utility bed. Only one bid was received and it did not totally comply with the speci fi cati OhS. Recommenu~tion: Reject the bid received from Jim Click Ford on uune 9, 1988, in the amount of $13,018.38, for a pick-up cab and chassis with uti'lity bed, and authorize staff tp revise the specifications and rebid the unit as recommended by the Public Works Depart- ment/Field Services. ITEM CONTINUED TO 7/18/88 AND CITY A1-FORNEY TO INTERPRET CALIF- GOVT. CODE SECTION 54957.2 RE: RECORDER VS. MINUTE BOOK 4. CLOSED SESSION MINUTES Councilman Prescott has requested that the Ci{y Council consider adoption of an ordinance pursuant to Section 54957.2 of the Cal iforni a Government 'Code. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. APPROVED CONTINUANCE TO 7/18/88 5. OPTION OF THE CITY PRINTING AND MAILING THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 1988, CONSOLIDATED GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION At a Registrar of Voters election seminar, the City was informed that some cities who have consolidated their elections were printing their own sample ballots because it gave more exposure to their candidates. Recommendation- Pleasure of the City Council. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 4 JULY 5, 1988 XI. REPORTS RATIFIEO . 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA- JUNE 27, 1988 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed 6y the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify .the Planning Commission Action Agenda of June 27, 1988. RE CE I VED AND FILED mODEL ORiel NANCE TO BE AGENDIZED ON 7/18/88 ITEM CONTINUED TO 7/18/88. STAFF TO: (1) RETURN WITH TI~ETABLE FOR COORDINATING EFFORTS OF VACATING SAg JUAN STREET/WIDENING OF EL CAHINO AND (2) REVERSIONARY CLAUSE 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF JUNE 30, 1988 Recommendation: Receive and file subject report. 3. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION ORDINANCE - SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM Recommendation: Receive and file subject report. 4. PROPOSED SAN JUAN STREET VACATION In September 1987, the City'Council authorized staff to proceed with a traffic analysis to investigate the feasibility of vacating a portion of San Juan Street adjacent to Tustin High School and Lambert Elementary School. This authorization came as a result of Caltrans' request to the City to consider the vacation of San Juan Street. The firm of Austin-Foust Associates was the City's selection to complete thb analysis of this potential street closure. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. XII. OTHER BUSINESS PRESCOTT ..... .. . REQUESTED POLITIIiAL GRAFFITI POSTERS ON TRAFFIC CONTROL BOXES AT FIRST/NEWPORT A~ RED HILL/I-5 BE REMOVED. · REPORTED CEMENT BLOCK AT S/E CORNER OF PARKING STRUCTURE NOT PROPERLY ~ REPAIRED. REQUESTED AGENOIZING OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD ISSUE ON 7/18/88. REQUESllEO COUNCIL HAVE JOINT DINNER Will( TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. REQUESTED ADJOURNMENT IN ~MORY OF SEVEN MARINES KILLED IN HELICOPTER CRASH IN JAPAN ON JUNE 25. EDGAR ........ SUPPORTED AGENDIZING OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD ISSUE ON 7/18/88 WITH INCLUSION OF PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND COST OF DETAILED PLANS. REQUESTED PUBLIC HEARING BE HELD ON 7/18/88 FOR THE 1988-89 FISCAL BUDGET. KENNEDY ........ REQUESTED AGENOiZING OF TUSTIN EMERGENCY PLAN. REQUESTED AGENDIZING OF GOVT. CODE SECTION 54957.7 (BROWN ACT), SPECIFICALLY CONFIDENTIALITY. 8:50 P.N. xiII. ADJOURNMENT - In memory of seven Marines to the next Regular Meeting on 7/18/88 at 7-00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 5 JULY 5, 1988 ACTION A~NDA OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETINb O'F THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JULY 5, 1988 7:00 P.M. 8:51 P.M. 1. HOESTEREY 2. ABSENT APPROVED WITH 3. CORRECTION APPROVED 4. NONE 5. 8:53 P.N. 6. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 20, 1988, REGULAR ~EETING Recon~endation: Approve Minutes. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,624.30 Recon~nendation: Approval of subject demands in the amount of $65,6'2"4.30 as recon~nended by the Finance Department. OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT - To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, July 18, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. ~EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA PAGE i JULY 5, 1988