Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 10-03-88 ": ACT I O N AGENDA 'i~;. '"" ~ 10-3-88 -- TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS NO. 1 10-3-88 REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 CALL TO ORDER:. 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: Present: Wet1, Baker, Le 3eune, Ponttous, Shaheen (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. C~tsstoner Le deune moved, Ponttous seconded to remove Item 2 fro. the consent calendar for open discussion. Morton carried 5-0.. 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.) 1. Minutes of the September 12, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting C_~tsstoner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the remainder of the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0~, 2. Amendment to 0esign Review 87-18, Tentative Tract Map 13106, "Sevilla"Project APPLICANT: LOCATION' ZONING' REQUEST: THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY 14 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR ARCHITECTURAL ALTERATIONS PERIMETER UNITS OF TRACT 13106. TO Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2533 approving exterior architectural alterations to the "Sevilla" project originally approved by Design Review 87-18, as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2533 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-18, A 110 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 Planning'Commission Actt. Agenda September 26, 1988 Page ~o Ce-missioner Wetl' ~oved, Ponttous seconded to approve exterior architectural alterations' to the' 'Sevtlla' project ortgtnai'ly approved by Destgn Revte-87-18 by the adoptton of Resolution #o. 2533 revtsed to eliminate Sectton TI. 1. Morton carrted 4-1 Mo: Shaheen. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Use Permit 88-19 APPLICANT' OWNER- LOCATION' ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ORANGE COUNTY BUILDERS 1260 HEACOCK ANAHEIM,~ CA 92807 ART AND ZENY R£MIGIO 65 EMERALD IRVINE, CA 92715 14752 HOLT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 R-3 3000: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 3,326 SQUARE FOOT, 10 BEDROOM, TWO-STORY ADDITION. TO AN EXISTING SENIOR'S HOME ON A 12,220 SQUARE FOOT LOT Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission either continue the hearing on this matter, or approve Use Permit 88-19 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2532 wit'h the conditions contained for redesign of the second story addition, as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2532 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-19 FOR A 3,326 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SENIOR CITIZEN'S HOME AT 14752 HOLT AVENUE. Presentation' Eric Haaland, Acting Assistant Planner Comtssioner Le Jeune ~oved, Wet1 seconded to continue Use Per~tt 88-19 to the October 10,' 1988 ,meting to enable the applicant ~ore tt~e to work with staff. Rotton cart1 ed 5-0. 4. Use Permit 88-21 APPLICANT' LOCATION' ZONING' MR. JOHN REISIG ON BEHALF OF THE RANCHO SAN JUAN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION RANCHO SAN JUAN CONDOMINIUMS, 13722 RED HILL AVENUE, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AND SAN JUAN STREET (LOT I OF TRACT 11330) R-3 1700 MULTI-FAMILY Planning Commission Actic genda September 26, 1988 Page three E NV I RONMENTAL STATUS' REQUEST' THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLAS-S 1) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO EXTEND THE HEIGHT OF EXISTING MASONRY WALL PORTIONS WITH A 24 INCH WROUGHT IRON TOP. Recommendation: It ts recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-21- by adopting Resolution No. 2534 with the conditions contained therein. Resolution No. 2534 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-21 ALLOWING A TWO FOOT HIGH EXTENSION TO PORTIONS OF A WALL AT THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CONDOMINIUMS AT 13722 RED HILL. Presentation' Bernard Chase, Planner Cc-missioner Ponttous moved, Le geune seconded to approve Use Permit 88-21 by the adoptlon Of Resolution No~ 2534 as submitted. ,u-";tton carried 5-Q. OLD BUSINESS Sign Code Amendment- update __ Presentation' Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development No Planning Comdsslon action necessary. NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS e City Council Actions taken at the September...19,. 1988 meeting Presentation' Christine Shingleton The following actions were taken at the September 19, 1988 City Council meeting: Approval of Ftnal Map 13556 - Market Place Approval of the Construction of Jamboree JWA Update Appointed a five member Cultural Resources Advisory Committee Density Bonus Policy continued COMMISSlOg CONCERNS C=tssioner Shaheen asked the status of the Right-of-way between Tustin Meadows and Peppertree homes. C~tsstoner Le ~eune noted wheel stops in disarray in the Red Hill Plaza parking lot. Planntng Commission Act1 September 26, 1988 Page four ,genda Commissioner Ponttous.asked if there was going to be a joint meeting with the Comdsston and Counctl regarding the color of the Market Place. Comtssloner #et1 asked the procedure on weekend code violation enforceeent. ADdOURI~qEk'T At 9:05 p.m. Cemmtsstoner Wet1 moved, Pontlous seconded to adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planntng Commdsston mettng on October 10, 1988 at 7-00 p.m. Morton carrted 5-0. 'Q~033~ 3HI ~0~ SS3BQQV QNV 3NVN 9IRJ B~OA 3AI9 3SV39d 'OSIV '39BVl S,B3XV3dS 3HI NO Q31V309 SQBV3 3HI /RO llI~ 3$V31d '/33DBRS V NO NOISSIWWO3 3HI Ol XV3dS O/ HSIM ~OA JI (epueSe aq% uo %ou stue%t do~ uosaad Jed se%nu[m ~ o% pa%trammel) uaaqeqs 'sno~uod 'aunaD al 'daqeB 'l~aM :SNB3ONOO OIqBfld NOIIVOOANI/30NVI93T1V JO 39039d sdaqme40 LDounoo X~O "m'd OE:E :B3(]BO Ol 9'1VO BB6! 'g~ B3BN31d3S 9NII33N 9¥133dS NOISSIh140'J DNINNVld NIISfll V O N 3 9 V Plannin Commission DATE: SUB,1ECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: SEPTEHBER 22, 1988 DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, WORKSHOP ON COLOR CHANGES DONAHUE SCHRIBER TUSTIN IdlARKET PLACE HIXED USE COHMERCIAL; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMHENDAT I ON.' Review the accent and base colors and the evolution that has occurred wtth those colors, and provide input to the applicant. No final discretionary approval for changes are being requested at this time. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On January 11, 1988 the Planning Commission approved Design Review 87-37 which among other things, established a base color and four (4) accent colors for the Tustin Market Place. On April 25, 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed several design issues for the project, including the use of accent colors. The original base color approved for the project was a terra cotta brown. Accent colors approved for the project included a range of hues in purple, yellow, orange and pink. When construction of the project had progressed to a point where color samples could be viewed under natural light conditions, the applicant began applying samples of approved base and accent colors to test site conditions. Donahue Schriber' communicated to the City that the architects (LPA & Mr. Legorreta), were not pleased with the base color (terra cotta) brown approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council for the project once a number of color samples were up on the building. Please note, that they never let Community Development Department staff view the original col or sample. Subsequent to review of these colors by Irvine Company representatives, in particular Mr. Bren and Roger Seitz, Donahue Schriber painted new color textures L Corn muniiy Developmen~ Departmen~ Planning Commtssion Meettng Destgn Review 87-37 September 22, :t988 Page on a sample wall which the Community Development Department was able to review. Several weeks ago Donahue Schriber was Informed that the sample colors were not acceptable since they were not consistent wtth the projects originally approved colors. Donahue Schriber Informed us that they would darken the sample tn an effort to achteve greater consistency with the orlgtnal color approved for the project. They also Informed staff that colors had been Incorporated tnto the texture material itself (normally white) to avotd white spots tf chtpptng occurred. They then proceeded to paint and texture a majority of the main butldlng at their own rtsk, despite our communication that the color was not approved representing that they would repaint the entire project If necessary. The actual color applted ts closer to a true brtck red. S. taff have begun to hear very strong negative community reactions in response to the red color applted on the bullding and want to go on record strongly opposing the new color applied to the building as being a significant departure of the '.'earthtone" terra cotta color originally proposed. At this time, the applicant has requested that the Commission hold a workshop to see the colors in the field as well as to allow the applicant to explain the evolutionary process that resulted tn their applying the new color. It ts our understanding that based on additional revtew of the colors by [rvtne Company officials last weekend, additional modifications to the base color will be recommended In the near future. It, therefore, Is Important for the Commission to know that the colors that they wtll see at this workshop are not the ftnal colors that they wtll be asked to approve. Consequently, the purpose of the workshop is Informational only; the Commission w111 be asked to take a formal action at a later date. However, tt would be appropriate for the Commission to express any comments, concerns or direction that it believes to be appropriate. Senior Planner SR:CAS:ts rlsttne A. Shtngleton/~ Director of Community D~elopment Corn munity Development Depar~rnent AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING CONMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/];NVOCATZON ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: Ne11, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous, Shaheen (Ltmited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1, ® Minutes of the September 12, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting Amendment to Design Review 87-18, Tentative Tract Map 13106, "Sevilla"Project APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: THE FIELDSTONE COMPANY 14 CORPORATE PLAZA NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR ARCHITECTURAL PERIMETER UNITS OF TRACT 13106. ALTERATIONS TO Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2533 approving exterior architectural alterations to the "Sevilla" project originally approved by Design Review 87-18, as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2533 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-18, A 110 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 Planning Commission Ageno, September 26, 1988 Page two PUBLIC HEAR1'NGS 3. Use Permit 88-19 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ORANGE COUNTY BUILDERS 1260 HEACOCK ANAHEIM, CA 92807 ART AND ZENY REMIGIO 65 EMERALD IRVINE, CA 92715 14752 HOLT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 R-3 3000: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO CONSTRUCT A 3,326 SQUARE FOOT, 10 BEDROOM, TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SENIOR'S HOME ON A 12,220 SQUARE FOOT LOT Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission either continue the hearing on this matter, or approve Use Permit 88-19 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2532 with the conditions contained for redesign of the second story addition, as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2532 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE-CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-19 FOR A 3,326 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SENIOR CITIZEN'S HOME AT 14752 HOLT AVENUE. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Acting Assistant Planner 4. Use Permit 88-21 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: MR. JOHN REISIG ON BEHALF OF THE RANCHO SAN JUAN HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION RANCHO SAN JUAN CONDOMINIUMS, 13722 RED HILL AVENUE, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AND SAN JUAN STREET (LOT i OF TRACT 11330) R-3 1700 MULTI-FAMILY THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 1) FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO EXTEND THE HEIGHT OF EXISTING MASONRY WALL PORTIONS WITH A 24 INCH WROUGHT IRON TOP. Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-21 by adopting Resolution No. 2534 wi th the conditions contained therein. Planning Commission Agen~ September 26, 1988 Page three Resolution No. 2534 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPRO¥ING' USE PERMIT 88-21 ALLOWING A TWO FOOT HIGH EXTENSION TO PORTIONS OF A WALL AT THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CONDOMINIUMS AT 13722 RED HILL. Presentation: Bernard Chase, Planner OLD BUSINESS 5. Sign Code Amendment- Update Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development NEW BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS 6. City Council Actions taken at the September 19, 1988 meetin,,,g Presentation' Christine Shingleton COMMISSION CONCERNS AOJOURmENT Adjourn to the next regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting on October 10, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- .~ . SEPTF. lqBER 12, 1988 · · CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, Shaheen PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) Ze Minutes of the August 22, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Minutes of the August 29, 1988 Special Planning Commission Meeting e APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Final Tract Map No. 13556 DONAHUE SCHRIBER ON BEHALF OF THE THE IRVINE COMPANY THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL; EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2), WITH ADDENDUM, FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC .PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE A 49.967 ACRE SITE, BEING A PORTION OF AMENDED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274, INTO 11 NUMBERED LOTS FOR THE PURPOSEOF CONSTRUCTING PHASE I OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE, A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, IN ADDITION TO MAKING CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS TO THE CITY AND THE STATE. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Tract Map 13556 to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 2531 as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2531 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP 13556 Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Planning Commission Minut~ September 12, 1988 Page two Commissioner Weil moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. . Use Permit 88-14 APPL I CANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: UNITED ORANGE COUNTY NEON SIGNS INC. 13801 WEST STREET GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MARIE CALLENDERS 721 WEST FIRST STREET TUSTIN, CA 92680 721 WEST FIRST STREET COMMERCIAL GENERAL - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN - COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 11) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A 25 FOOT HIGH, 78 SQUARE FOOT, CHANNEL LETTERED FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN. Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Resolution No. 2524 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 25 FOOT HIGH, 78 'SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 721 WEST FIRST STREET Resolution No. 2524 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY (d) OF TUSTIN DENYING A 25 FOOT HIGH, 78 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 721 WEST FIRST STREET. Presentation: Eric Haaland, Acting Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune clarified with staff that the total height of the sign is 25 feet and asked the height of the light standard that is next to the proposed sign 1 ocati on. Staff responded that it was approximately 20 feet. The public hearing was opened at 7:07 p.m. Mr. John Acierno, manager of Marie Callender's restaurant, stated that he wanted to make the sign as aesthetically pleasing to the community as possible. A sign board, provided by staff including elevations and pictures, was passed around by the Commissioners. The public hearing was closed at 7'10 p.m. Planntng Commission Minut September 12, [988 Page three Commissioner Wet1 asked staff if there had been any response to the public hearing not1 ce. Staff responded one call was received, from the residential complex to the east, expressing some concern regarding the sign. Commissioner Baker asked if Western Neurocare was noticed. Staff responded that they received a notice and staff had not received any response from them. The Director noted the proposed location of the sign is immediately next to the parking lot of Western Neurocare and that the'closest structure is across Mrytle Avenue. Staff responded that the proposed Neurocare building that will be next to the sign will be two stories below ground and two stories above ground. She also noted that the sign is within ten feet of the Western Neurocare property. Commissioner Le Jeune questioned the accuracy of the pictures on the sign board. ~ Commissioner Well asked if there was any other alternative. The public hearing was reopened at 7:16 p.m. Mr. Acterno stated that it was hard to get a perspective as to the size of the sign from the pictures that were taken from the northbound 1-55 freeway. Commissioner Baker noted that there was a sign on the property near the Western Neurocare site and asked if it would block the proposed sign. Commissioner Well noted that the picture was misleading and asked if the grassy knol 1 could be used for the sign. Mr. Acierno noted that the sign location is on the grassy knoll. Mr. Massey, respresenting Orange County Neon Sign, indicated that there is no projection of the sign over the property line and the knoll would work out fine as the location of the sign. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the line of trees would obscure ~he sign from the northbound 1-55 freeway. Mr. Acierno agreed that the sign would be blocked just from the right lane, that trees and buildings block the sign from the First Street corridor and the sign will be parallel to the Western Neurocare building. The public hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. Planning Commission Min'u% September 12, 1988 Page four Commissioner Weil proposed an alternative. She stated that in reviewing the location of the restaurant the sign was of no use to the southbound 1-55 traffic. She proposed that the sign be left at the 25 foot height and 78 square feet but make it a single faced sign and parallel to the freeway for exposure to the northbound traffic. She stated that this-alternative should mitigate the concern of the people using the Abigail Abbott building and still provide good freeway exposure. She indicated that the sign could possibly be angled. Commissioner Shaheen stated that having the sign parallel to the freeway would not work and felt it could be a traffic hazard. Commissioner Ponttous noted that the-intent of signs is to build up identification and that possibly the single face sign installed at an angle would be more easily seen by traffic. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he had a problem with the effect the sign might have on the freeway and noted that freeway exposure would be minimal. He stated that the Planning Commission was extremely generous with signage on the front of the building. He also noted that once a pole sign is erected it will remain up, citing the pole sign at Fat Freddies. Commissioner Baker noted that a business must advertise. He also noted that the surrounding .property-owners were given a chance to respond and have not responded. Commissioner Weil stated that she was considering the hospital patients that would be impacted by the sign and not necessarily the owners of the property. She indicated that she felt that signs are for identification purposes and not advertisement. She agreed with Commissioner Le Jeune that the First Street Specific Plan was very geherous with the signage allowed in that area. There was some discussion between staff and the Commission regarding neon signs. The Director clarified that Marie Callenders has exposed neon signs. Commissioner Shaheen noted that this business is paying taxes and looking for more exposure. He did not understand what the Commission was objecting to and stated that this request was a minor one. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Pontious seconded to deny Use Permit 88-14 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2524(d). Motion failed 4-1 Noes' Pontious, Well, Baker and Shaheen. commissioner Well moved to approve use Permit 88-14 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2524 with the following amendments: Delete Item I.C. 4. Change Item II. to read '.'The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 88-14 to authorize a 25 foot high, 78 square foot single faced fkeeway pole sign at 721 West First Street subject to the following conditions:" Item II. A, eliminate "pursuant to the submitted plans, or". Planning Commission Mi nut, September 12, 1988 Page fi ve Commissioner Baker noted that to get better freeway identification a business needs better visibility than the sign according to the proposed motion. Commissioner Well asked if the sign lighting was from one source and stated that she did not like the double faced sign. Commissioner Shaheen stated that he did not understand the slant of the sign and felt that the applicant should be allowed to take advantage of the double faced sign along the freeway. Commissioner Well restated the above motion, Pontious seconded. Motion failed 3-2 Noes: Commtssoners Shaheen, Baker and Le Jeune. Commissioner Shaheen moved, Pontious seconded to approve Use Permit 88-14 authorizing installation of a 25 foot high, 78 square foot, channel lettered freeway identification pole sign by the adoption of Resolution No. 2524 with the deletion of Item I.C.4. Motion carried 3-2 Noes: Well and Le Jeune. Commissioner Baker introduced and welcomed Edmund Shaheen, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner to the Commission and noted that he felt Mr. Shaheen will add a lot of. spirit to the Planning Commission. 5. Use Permit 88-20 ~PPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WINSTON TIRE COMPANY 900 W. ALAMEDA BURBANK, CA 91506 WINSTON TIRE COMPANY 900 W. ALAMEDA BURBANK, CA 91506 621 WEST FIRST STREET AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST STREET AND YORBA STREET. COMMERCIAL GENERAL-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CG-PUD) - FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO PERMIT THEREMODELING OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE. Planning Commission Minut~ September 12, 1988 Page six Recommendation: It is'recommended .that the Planning Commission either approve Use Permit 88-20 by adopting Resolution No. 2529 or deny Use Permit 88-20 by adopting Resolution No. 2529(d). Resolution No. 2529 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST STREET AND YORBA STREET, 621 WEST FIRST STREET. Resolution No. 2529 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF (d) TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, DENYING A USE PERMIT TO REMODEL AN EXISTING BUILDING TO BE USED FOR TIRE SALES AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FIRST STREET AND YORBA STREET, 621 WEST FIRST STREET. Presentation' Ron Reese, Acting Associate Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked what the intended hours of operation were. Staff indicated that the hours of operation were not indicated by the applicant but the Commission could direct the .question to the applicant. Commissioner Weil noted that the Commission had received two letters in opposition and asked staff if any others had been received. The Director indicated that there were none. The public hearing was opened at 8:00 p.m. Dr. H. Victor Eastman III, M.D., owner of 661 W. First Street spoke in opposition of the project due to the impending noise and the inappropriate mix of commercial use. He noted that the staff report was excellent and objective. He also stated that the proposed use would impose an unreasonale impact on his building. He surveyed his neighbors and turned in letters from 46 people comprising of property owners, business owners, tenants, employees and apartment managers that were in opposition of the proposed use. Donna D. Pate, employee of Abigail Abbott, noted her opposition and stated that she felt the use was inappropriate. Robert Campbell, 135 Yorba, spoke in opposition. He noted that he was pleased to see the change around First Street and Yorba and he felt that a tire store was not in keeping with that change, nor was it a positive impact for the Western Neurocare facility. He also noted concern regarding traffic increase, criminal activity and the aesthetics of having a unique entrance to the City along First Street. Planning Con~ntssion Hinut~ September 12, 1988 Page seven .Jacques Hunter, 'officer of Winston Tire Company, addeessed the ~ommission noting that the hours would ~e 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, closing at 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and remaining open one night during the week until 8-00 p.m. He stated that the store would be closed on Sundays, the repair work would be done inside a concrete block building. The type of work that would be done at this location would be tire changes, front, end alignment, brakes and shocks. He indicated that parking is a problem and that four months ago, staff had responded that First Street would be an appropriate location. He stated that Winston Ti re Store was a clean operation. He asked that the Commission consider the application. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if he was made aware of the need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit at the time he first spoke with staff. The Director noted that staff was not recommending approval or denial, that the decision is at the discretion of the Commission. Mr. Hunter stated that he felt the report was still negative. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the overhead doors would be closed during the day. Mr. Hunter noted that there would be six to eight bays with doors that would remain open during business hours. Commissioner Well asked Mr. Hunter if staff explained the confines of the First Street Specific Plan to him. Mr. Hunter responded affirmatively. The Director noted that the applicant was told that the application was subject to a CUP. He was also told to modify elevations to eliminate wood trim proposed but retain a mansard roof. Tom Davis, architect for Winston Tire, noted that the first elevation was actually submitted because the original drawings indicated a mansard roof. The applicant is willing to install a mansard. He stated that there was no indication from staff that the recommendation would be negative. The Director again noted that the staff does the evaluation and identifies the issues, however, the Commission has the final discretion. The public hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m. Commissioner Shaheen noted that staff does an objective and good job, the report was unprejudiced. He stated that the building would be excellent for another use but was unsuitable for use as a tire store; office or retail would be more appropriate on that si re. Commissioner Well noted that she served on the First Street Specific Plan Committee. Fhe Committee's goal was to create an ambiance along First Street and she agreed that Winston Ti re would not fit that criteria. Planning Commisston Mi nuteo September 12, 1988 Page elght ..-~. .... Commissioner Le Jeune a~reed that the use was inappropriate. Commissioner Pontious concurred. Commissioner Baker noted that the idea of the First Street Specific Plan was to make an appealing entrance window for City of Tustin. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well seconded to deny Use Permit 88-20 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2529 {d). Motion carried 5-0. The Director indicated that there is a seven day appeal period for a CUP and the applicant will receive a letter explaining the process including a copy of Resolution No. 2429{d). OLD BUSINESS . Proposed Vacation of a Portion of San Juan Street between Orange Street and Charloma Drive Recommendation: It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2526 finding that the proposed vacation of a portion of San Juan Street between Orange Street and Charloma Drive is in conformance with the adopted General Plan. Resolution No. 2526: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF SAN JUAN STREET BETWEEN ORANGE STREET AND CHARLOMA DRIVE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development and Ronald E. Wol ford, Engineering Services Manager Commissioner Baker asked whether the property would revert back to the City should TUSD sell the school site. Staff indicated that those detail s were -not finalized to date. Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, explained that what the Planning Commission was now facing is whether the vacation of San Juan is in conformance with the General Plan. Other issues would be researched by the City Council. The Director indicated that the Planning Commission role under the government code is limited to considering whether the vacation, of a public right of way, is consistent with the General Plan. The City Council will consider all other concerns and evaluate all alternatives and potential impacts after a full public hearing process. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he wanted to see the expansion of E1 Camino Real, one lane added in each direction, completed prior to the street closure of San Juan and that parking be permitted on San Juan. Commissioner Ponttous noted that she appreciated the summary of the trafic study. Planntng Commission Minuts September 12, 1988 Page. ntne Commtssione~ Pontious moved, Weil seconded to find that the proposed vacation of a portion of San Juan Street between Orange Street and Charloma Drive is in conformance with the adopted General Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 2526. Commissioner Baker asked for claFification of a. "thru trip". Terr)~ Austin, Austin Foust and Associates, explained that a "thru trip" is a trip made by someone that goes thru the area but doesn't live in an adjacent neighborhood. "Thru trips" are candidates for diverting, as well as where the trips go and how the trips will effect the surrounding area. Commissioner Baker questioned the study regarding Bryan Avenue between Red Hill and Newport as already being four lanes. Mr. Austin noted that the area of Bryan Avenue in question is located in a residential area but is considered a four lane secondary arterial. Commissioner Baker questioned the timing of the traffic study citing that Bryan was closed in the East Tustin area and thru traffic had already found alternative routes. He felt that now that Bryan is opened and completed, the closing of San Juan will place an undue traffic burden on the Bryan Avenue area. He also suggested that E1 Camino Real be completed as a four lane roadway and be placed in use prior to the vacation of San Juan Street. Motion carried 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 7. Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (OCHWMP) Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner The Director praised Laura Pickup for her leadership in this role and David Marcum for initiatially involving the City. No Planning Commission necessary. 8. Review of Conditions Placed on Use Permits and Variances Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare the necessary back-up information and resolutions for the preferred action alternative(s). Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Senior Planner The Director noted that in accordance with procedures, the case planner will check the discretionary approval and finalize the project prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Planning Commission Minu September 12, 1988 Page ten After some discussion between the Commissioners and staff clarifying compliance measures the Commission directed staff to recognize when a sensitive issue is likely to occur and write the standard condition language for that use and if the Commission feels there are more conditions necessary, they should add them at their discretion. STAFF CONCERNS 9. Report on Actions Taken at the September 6, 1988 City Council ~leetin9 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Commission action necessary COMMI SS ION CONCERNS Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a date for a Sign Code Workshop. Commissioner Pontious asked if there was anything that the City could do regarding ~irectional lighting at the corner of Red Hi 11 and Ni sson. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he felt that being on the Commission* would be very interesting. A. L. Baker Chai rma n Penni Foley Secretary Planning Commission SUB~IECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVlElt 87-18, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13106, "SEVILLA" PRO,1ECT. THE FIELDSTONE *COMPANY 14 CORPORATE PLAZA NEI, IPORT BEACH, CA 92660 LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MINOR ARCHITECTURAL ALTERATIONS TO PERIMETER UNITS OF TRACT 13106. RECOMMENDAT!ON: It ts recommended that the Planntn9 Commission adopt Resolution No. 2533 approving exterior architectural alterations to the "$ev~lla" project originally approved by Destgn Revtew 87-18, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND: On November 23, 1987, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 87-18, authorizing construction of a 110 untt, single family attached project ("Sevilla"). One of the conditions of approval was that the proposed project comply wtth submitted plans on file with the Community Development Departmen:. DISCUSSION: The Fieldstone Company, at the request of the Irvine Company, is now proposing to make minor exterior modifications to the exterior elevations of the project. Two of the modifications, specifically a false balcony and paned windows with a wood mullion on the rear elevations of two unit plans apply only to the perimeter units facing Tustin Ranch Road,'Lagier and Heritage Hay (see attached stte plan) all of the other modifications would be incorporated throughout the project. The proposed modifications affect front, rear and side elevations. .... Community Development Department ' Planning Commission Meeting Tentative Tract Map 13106 September 26, 1988 Page two iiii Submitted development plans for the Sevilla project originally proposed an Early California style architecture with hints of Craftsman elements incorporating textured stucco, brown wood trim, Spanish red tile roofs, paned window frames, extended wood roof beams and wood balconies. The revised architectural elevations requested by the applicant would change several non-paned windows to square, paned windows, add stucco elements to some balconies, eliminate a small arch over the windows in a hip roof feature, reduce the size of some secondary bedroom windows, add a. false balcony to one rear elevation of a unit add parted windows and a wood mullion to the rear elevation of another unit and round the corners of the lower stucco slopes on pop-out windows (see attached elevations). Staff believes that the proposed changes improve the appearance and overall quality of the project; however, there will be some inconsistency in regards to the two (2) internal units which will not receive the false balcony and paned windows with wood mullions. It would be appropriate to require that the changes be incorporated into the subject units throughout the project, thereby further improving the project. Incorporating these changes throughout the project would also eliminate potential confusion resulting from two (2) sets of plans on the construction site for the same units. CONCLUSION.- The effect of the proposed changes enhances the quality of the project's design while still remaining compatible with the general architectural style originally approved, and will actually add to the appearance of the buildings. .. Steve' Rbbin' Senior Planner Christine A. ShingleJ~fn Director of Community Development SR' CAS- ts Attachment' Site Plan Elevations (revised and approved) Resolution No. 2533 Community Developmem Depanmem I I I I I / ,J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2533 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING EXTERIOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-18, A 110 UNIT PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT 6 OF TRACT 12763 The Planning Commission of the 'City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows- A. That the Fieldstone Company is requesting approval of minor exterior design modifications to the Sevilla project originally approved by Design Review 87-18 and located on Lot 6 of Tract 12763. B. The revised project continues to comply with all findings contained in Planning Commission Resolution 2458. II. The Planning Commission approves minor exterior modifications to Design Review 87-18 as shown on the revised plans date stamped September 21, 1988 and on file with the Community Development Department, subject, to the following conditions. . The proposed architectural changes shall be' incorporated into the design of the subject units througho.ut the project. 2. 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. Proposed exterior modifications shall not be undertaken until approved by Building Official. 3. 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 day of 198__. A, IL.' Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUB~IECT: APPLICANT: OIJNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVI ROI~IENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 USE PERMIT 88-19 ORANGE COUNTY BUILDERS 1260 HEACOCK ANAHEIM, CA 92807 ART AND ZENY REM!G!O 65 EMERALD IRVINE, CA 92715 14752 HOLT AVENUE TUSTIN, CA 92680 R-3 3000: RULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION-TO CONSTRUCT A 3,326 SQUARE FOOT, 10 BEDROOM, TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SENIOR"S HOME ON A 12,220 SQUARE FOOT LOT RECOI~ENDATION: It ts recommended that the Planntng Commission etther continue the hearing on this matter, or approve Use Permit 88-19 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2532 wtth the conditions contained for redesign of the second story addition, as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes a 3,326 square foot, 10 bedroom, two-story addition to an existing senior citizen rest home. A rest home is a permitted use in the R-3 zone subject to Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit. An addition of this magnitude eliminates all non-conforming rights of the property and subjects the entire development to current zoning requirements. Community Development Department Plannlng Commission Report Use Permlt 88-19 September 26, 1988 Page two The subject property is surrounded by existing two-story apartment complexes to the north, east and south. Single family homes are located across the street in'- unincorporated area. A ten foot high block wall is located along the northerly property line as well as a chainlink fence on the easterly property line, and a chainlink fence is proposed for the southerly property line. The apartment building to the south of the subject property has it's driveway immediately adjacent to the driveway on the project site and the projects are presently open to each other. DISCUSSION' . iii The submitted plans propose a rear eight (8) bedroom ground floor addition to the existing senior's facility to be occupied by elderly residents along with new living, dining, kitchen, and office area. Two (2) caretakers bedrooms are also proposed within a small second story area. Ingress and egress to the site is provided adjacent to the southerly property line by a 16 foot wide curb cut leading to a U-shaped driveway in the front and a 12 foot wide driveway along the southern property line which accesses parking spaces at the center of the. property. Patio areas are provided along the rear property line behind the proposed addition and between the proposed parking spaces and the existing front building. The following summarizes the project's compl.iance with R-3 Development Standards: I rem Proposed Requt remen t Lot area 12,220 sq. ft NA Floor area 5,112 sq. ft NA Coverage 38% 75% mi nimum Height 22 ft. 40 ft. maximum Front setback 28 ft. 15 ft. minimum Side setback-north 5 ft. 5 ft. minimum Side setback-south 5 ft. 5 ft. minimum Rear setback 10 ft. 10 ft. minimum Parking 7 spaces NA Open space 790 sq. ft. NA Indoor common area 751 sq. ft. NA While the California State Social Services Department is responsible for the licensing of Residential Care Facilities for the elderly and determines the actual number of residents permitted and caretakers required for the subject facility, the applicant is expecting approval for a maximum of 20 to 24 residents. The parking requirement for the subject use is to be determined by the Planning Commission through the Use Permit process since there is no Corn reunify Development Department Planntng Commission Report Use Permit 88-19 September 26, 1988 Page three requirement of the zoning code. While seven (7) parklng spaces are tn'dtcated on the submitted plans, staff research has .indicated that a total of six (6) spaces would be sufficient for caretakers and guests. A low need for parking for such a facility is affirmed by an existing board and care facility located at 15645 "B" Street where staff observations rarely find more than one parking space in use which is a facility owned passenger van. Elderly residents of the facility do not and are not expected to drive automobiles. As a second point of reference staff contacted a number of Orange County cities to determine their parking requirements for similar uses. A parking standard commonly used by some cities requires one (1) space per four (4) beds which, in this case, would result in a six space total should the number of beds ultimately approved by the Planning Commission be limited to 24. A condition to this affect has been included in Resolution 2532. A reduction in the seven (7) proposed parking spaces to six (6) spaces would allow an increase in area of the adjacent central patio which would enhance the project considerably in the opinion of staff. The architecture of the new addition proposes to match the existing one-story gold colored, wood sided and stuccoed, pitched roof building. The materials proposed are stucco siding and composite roof shingles. Composite shingles are lower in aesthetic quality to, and not compatible with the existing wood shake roof shingles. Staff has included a condition that the roofing material be changed to match the existing wood shake shingles. Staff's greatest concern with the proposal is the architectural compatibility of the second-story. The submitted plans indicate a small, 22 foot high second-story rising from the front corner of the rear portion of the addition. The isolated character of this structure does not' compliment the single-story, low pitched roof character of the primary body of the building. Staff during design review on the project determined that the issue be addressed by either removing the second-story or redesigning it to be more compatible and harmonious with the rest of the building; however, the applicant has chosen to appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Staff believes that the applicant should redesign this element of the proposal or have conditions placed upon the approval requiring any changes that the Planning Commission deems appropriate. CONCLUS ! ON: Staff has reviewed the application and feels that the Planning Commission could continue the hearing if they wish to review actual modifications the applicant would make to the second story addition. In the event, the Planning Commission Corn rnunity DeveloPrnent Depar~rnen~ - Planning Commission Report Use Permit 88-19 September 26, 1988 .': ~' Page four .. wishes to approve Use Permit 88-19, staff would recommend that a condition of approval be included to Resolution No. 2532 requiring redesign of the rear second floor subject to final approval of design compliance by the Director of Community Development. Eric Haaland Acting Assistant Planner EH-CAS:ts Attachment' Resolution No. 2532 Christine A. Shtngleton ~x/ Otrector of Community Development corn muni~y Developmen~ Depar~men~ J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2532 A RESOLUTION OF' THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF' THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIF'ORNIA APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-19 F-OR A 3,326 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SENIOR CITIZEN'S HOME' AT 14752 HOLT AVENUE. - The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. A proper application, Use Permit No. 88-19 has been filed by Orange County Builders on behalf of Art and Zeny Remigio to request approval of a 3,326 square foot addition to an existing senior citizen's home at 14752 Holt Avenue. B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said application on September 26, 1988. Ce Establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the. neighborhood of such proposed use, as evidenced by the following findings: 1. The use as applied for is in conformance with the General Plan, Tusttn Zoning Code and the adopted guidelines for alcoholic beverage sales establishments. 2. The use applied for is a conditionally permitted use in the R-3 3000 Multi-Family Residential District. 3. The use shall be licensed by the State of California Social Services Department as a residential care facility for the elderly. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. E. A Negative Declaration in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act has been applied for and is hereby approved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 27 2~ Resolution No. 2532 Pa ge two II. The Planntng Commission hereby approves Use-Permit 88-19 authorizing the construction of a 3,326 square foot addJtlo'n to an existlng sentor citizen's home at [4752 Holt Avenue, subject to conditions attached as Exhibit A. PASSED AND'ADOPTED at a regular meetlng of the TustJn Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198.__. A. L. Baker ............... Chairman Penni' FoleY Secretary EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 2532 USE PERMIT NO. 88-19 GENERAL 1.1 ~he proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped September 26, 1988 on 'file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Director of Community Development Department in accordance with this exhibit. 1.2 Unless othe~lse specified, the conditions contained in this exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any butldlng permit for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 1.3 This Design Revte~ approval shall become null and void unless buildln9 permits are issued within ~elve (12) months of the date on this exhibit and substantial construction is under~ay. 1.4 At buildtn9 plan check, construction plans, structural calculations, and title 24 energy calculations shall be submitted. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements shall be complied with as approved by the Building Official. 1.5 .At bufldtng plan check, provide preliminary technlcal detatls and plans for all utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. AdditionallY, a note on plans shall be included stating that no field chenges shall be made without correctlons submitted to and approved by the Butldtng Official. 1.6 Building plan check submittal of final grading and specification shall be consistent with the site plan and landscaping concept and prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval by the Community Development Department. 1.7 Applicants shall satisfy all Public Works Department requirements including but not 1 lmited to the loll owing- A. The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appropriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said development per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and "Street Improvement Standards". This work shall consist of, but is not limited to, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, and street pavement. ii i m mi m mil m i i m SOURCE CODE ** EXCEPTION Exhibit A Resolution No. 2532 Page two 1.8 Applican~ shall comply with all requirements of ~he Orange County Fire Chief including required fireflow and i.nstallation, where required, of fire hydrants or sprinklers subject to approval of the Fire Department, City of Tustin Public Works Department and compliance with all requirements pertaining to construction. 1.9 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. C. Grading plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. D. All applicable Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department. E. New development fees to the Community Development Department. F. School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District. ** 1.10 Occupancy shall not exceed 24 residents including caretakers. The number of beds provided within the facility shall correspondingly be limi ted to 24. ** 1.11 The use shall maintain a valid license for a residential care facility for the elderly as required by the State of California Social Services Department. 1.12 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of Building permits. SITE AND BUILDING CONDITIONS ** 2.1 Note on plans that all exterior colors and materials to be used shall be subject to a review and approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments shall be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on submitted construction plans and elevations shall indicate all colors and materials to be used. ** 2.2 Construction plans shall indicate roofing material to be wood shake shingles matching those of the existing building to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Director of Community Development. 2.3 The proposed trash enclosure shall 'be stuccoed and colored to match main buildings. £xhi bi t A Resolution No. 2532 Page three ** 2.4 All 'rooftop mechanical or electrical fixtures and equipment shall be screened. All telephone, gas and electrical boxes must be indicated on the buildlng plans and shall be completely screened by an enclosure that matches main butlding treatments and color. Electrical transformers wh'ere provided and wherever possible shall be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufftcte'nt distance from frontage of the project. ** 2.5 Modify the proposed site plan to provide a total of six (6) parking spaces for employee and guest parking. Such alterations shall also provide an expanded landscaped patio area filllng the unused area between the building, driveway and six (6) required parking spaces including trees, shrubs, and ground cover. 2.6 Building plans submitted for plan check shall indtcate a door located at the north side of the central patio area for access from the new addition. 2.7 All exterior lighting shall be Installed so that said ftxtures do not direct light onto any surrounding properties. 2.8 Butldtng shall comply with the Tusttn Security Ordlnance. LANDSr.,APTNG, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS 3.! Final landscaping plans shall reflect the site plan'modiftcation requested in item 2.5 above. 3.2 Ftnal landscaping plans shall address the control of fertilizers, pesticides, and Irrigation water runoff. 3.3 Future formal submittals shall substantially conform to the landscaping standards on file with the Department of Community Development. 3.4 At plan check stages a completely detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted. The plan shall list all species and common names, sizes, spacing actual location and quantity of plant materials. Show planting and berming details, soil preparation and staking. The irrigation plan shall show location of central backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. The Department of Community Development may request additional sizing or quantity of materials during plan check. Note on plans that adequacy of coverage of landscaping and irrigation is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community Development. 3.5 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following requ i remen ts: Exhlblt A Resolution No. 2532 Page four a) b) c) .. Turf is unacceptable fo'r grades over 25~. A combination of planting materials shall be used, ground cover on large areas alone is not acceptable. Provide. a minimum of one 15 gallon size tree for every 30 feet of property line on the property perimeter and five 5 gallon shrubs. 3.6 All newly planted trees shall be staked according to City standards. 3.7 Shrubs shall be a minimum of 5 gallon size and shall be spaced a minimum of 5 feet on center when intended as screen planning. 3.8 Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to 12 inches on center. plans shall reflect this requirement. Landscaping 3.9 When 1 gallon plant sizes are used the spacing may vary according to materials used. 3.10 Up along fences and or walls and equipment areas provide landscaping screening with shrubs, and or vines and trees on plan check drawings. 3.11 All plant materials shall be installed in a healthy vigorous condition typical to the .species. 3.1.2 Landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and healthy condition, this will include but not be limited to trimming, mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. 3.13 In irrigation areas the irrigation controller shall be enclosed in a lockable housing. Design irrigation systems to provide sufficient coverage while avoiding water overspray on buildings and sidewalks. Note this requirement--on plan check drawings. Planning Commission DATE: SUB~IECT: APPLICANT: L OCAT I ON: ZONING: ENYI RONHENTAL STATUS- REQUEST: SEPTENBER 26, 1988 USE PERNIT 88-21 MR. OOHN REISIG ON BEHALF OF THE RANCHO SAN ,1UAN HOHEONNER'S ASSOCIATION RANCHO SAN JUAN CONDONINIIMS, 13722 RED HILL AVENUE, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AND SAN ~UAN STREET (LOT I OF TRACT 11330) R-3 1700 HULTZ-FAHZLY THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXENPT (CLASS 1) FRON THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONHENTAL QUALITY ACT TO INSTALL A 24 INCH WROUGHT IRON EXTENSION ABOVE AN EXISTING PIASONRY YALL RECOHPIENDAT I ON '. m , It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-21 by adopting Resolution No. 2534 with the conditions contained therein. BACKGROUND: The applicant, on behalf of the Homeowner's Association, proposes to install 24 inch high curved wrought iron fencing above portions of existing perimeter walls around the Rancho San Juan Condominiums, 13722 Red Hill Avenue. Since the proposal calls for a combination fence and wall exceeding 6'8" (as specified in Section 9271i(1)(a) of the Zoning Code), the proposed use is subject to approval of a use permit. The proposed changes are to perimeter walls surrounding private condominium _ patios and to a single length of perimeter wall which screens five (5) parking ~paces at the lot's rear corner (labeled as Portion Number 1 on Exhibit A). The existing walls are 5'11" high and constructed of slump stone, except for the ,,, Community Development Deparlment Planning Commission Meeting Use Permit 88-21 September 26, 1988 Page two · patio fence labeled as Portion Number 2 on Exhibit A. That fence is constructed of framed, vertical, wooden slats painted brown to match building trim. The applicant proposes adding the curved wrought iron fencing illustrated on Exhibit B. The ultimate height would then be 7'11". The wrought iron is proposed to curve slightly outward so as to inhibit intruders. The appllcant proposes to also install the wrought iron above the patio fence. The applicant will also be installing additional wrought iron fencing (not to exceed 6'8") in several locations which are not subject to a use permit. Immediately adjacent development is either walled or fenced. To the north is another condominium project (zoned Suburban Residential R-4 Planned Development). To the east is the San Juan Elementary School, to the south, across San Juan Street is a multiple-family project (zoned Duplex Residential R-2 1500) and a shopping center (zoned Retail Commercial 100 C-1 10,000) at the southeast corner of San Juan and Red Hill Avenue. Diagonally across that intersection from the subject condominiums (i.e., on the southwest corner) is a single lot commercial development (zoned Retail Commercial C-1 Planned Community).. Directly west, across Red Hill Avenue are residences fronting both San Juan Street and Red Hill Avenue, These residences are 'zoned Multiple Family R-3 2700 and many have second units. DISCUSSION: II Concerns related to this proposal involved the effectiveness of the fencing, curvature, fencing height, and whether iron fencing should appropriately be placed above wooden fencing. While laying additonal slump stone courses above existing walls would be preferrable for security purposes, that would pose two problems. First, existing footings may not be appropriate for the extra weight of additional block courses. Secondly, matching existing materials and avoiding cracks would be problematic. For these reasons, the wrought iron extension solution is recommended. Fencing curvature is proposed to face outward so as to inhibit intruders. Two problems are possible, first, fence ends could extend beyond a property line, and second, sharp ends could pose liability questions. For this reason, fence ends will be required to not extend beyond the outer faces of walls. Moreover, fence ends will be required to be squared and blunted. Fencing height would exceed the standard 6'8" height. However, due to the nature of the material and to security considerations, it is recommended that the extra height be approved. Lastly, there is a. question as to whether iron fencing should appropriately be placed above {i.e, mounted on) wooden fencing (Portion Number 2 on Exhibit A). While the applicant has talked with a contractor and feels that the fence sections will support the ironwork, staff feels that the proposed treatment would not be the most desireable. ~loreover, the remaining usable life of the existing wooden fence is less than that for the proposed ironwork. Corn reunify Development DePar~men~ Planni ng Corem1 ss~l on Meet1 ng Use Permit 88-2:[ September 26, 1988 Page three Therefore, it is recommended that 'the applicant reconstruct the wooden fence to a height of 6'8" to substantially match the existing fence. That actton would require a buildtng permit but not a use permit. The proposed height extensions to the wall have been reviewed with no objection expressed from the Building Diviston and the Police Department. Staff would, therefore, support the request wi th certatn conditions of approval. The proposed extensions should satisfy all Building Division requirements for .construction, should not curve out beyond the fence of the wall or fence, and should have squared, blunt ends. Additionally, the wrought iron or wood shall be platn and painted dark brown to match the existtng exterior, wooden trlm elements and Internal fencing of the project. COIICLUS!OII: · It is recommended that the Planntng Commission approve Use Permit 88-21 subject to conditions stated in Resolution No. 2534, attached. Bernard Chase Planner BC'CAS: ts Attachment' Site Plan Elevations Resolution No. 2534 C~f~ts~Jne A. Shingleton ~/ ' Dtrector of CommunJty Development Corn rnunity Developrnen: Departrnen~ EXHIBIT A ....~ .... [if , I LU i I !-- : I I EXHIBIT B 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2534 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-21 ALLOWING A TWO FOOT HIGH EXTENSION TO PORTIONS OF A WALL AT THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CONDOMINIUMS AT 13722 RED HILL. The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 88-21) has been filed on behalf of the Rancho San Juan Homeowner's Association to extend, by means of two foot high wrought iron work, an existing wall to 7'11" in height. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on September 26, 1988 for said application. C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental' to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use. D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not be injurious Or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fi re Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. F. This project is categorically exempt (Class 1) from the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2534 Page two II. The Planning Comn{i ssi on hereby approves Use Permit 88-21-to authorize a two (2) foot extension of height of an existing masonry wall, as shown on Exhibits A and B, to include a wrought iron top around portions of the perimeter wall of the Rancho San Juan Condominiums for security reasons at 13722 Red .Hill Avenue at San Juan Street (Lot 1 of Tract 11330) subject to the following conditions' A. The proposed wrought iron extensions shall satisfy Building Division and Police Department requirements for construction and mounting reinforcement inside the wall. B. The proposed wrought iron extensions shall not curve out beyond the face of the wall. C. The proposed wrought iron extensions shall be plain, have squared or blunt ends and be painted dark brown to substantially match existing exterior, wooden trim elements and internal fencing of the pro ject. De If the applicant wishes to extend the height of the fence of Portion Number 2 as illustrated on Exhibit A, then the applicant shall obtain a building permit to construct a new fence, to substantatlly match the existing fence to a height not to exceed 6'8". E. Approval of Use Permit 88-21 shall expire on October 2, 1989 unless approved construction has been fully completed. F. Approval of Use Permit 88..-21.is contingent upon the applicant signing and returning an "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198___. A. L. Baker Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUB,.1ECT: SEPTEHBER 26, 1988 S]:GN CODE API. E#i:MENT - UPDATE At the September 12, 1988 meeting, the Planntng Commission requested the status of revisions to the Stgn Code. As the Commission ts aware, tt was desirous that final completion of the ordinance and future workshops be deferred untt l. after the electton In early November. A draft of the ordinance ts, therefore, currently under preparation and ts not expected to be completed unttl the end of October. After the document has gone through Internal staff department review, we would 11ke to begtn meeting agatn wtth the Stgn Committee In mtd November. Attached is a very preliminary tentative schedule for revisions to the Sign Code. Mar~ Ann ~amberlai~ ' i " Associate Planner Director of Community ~velopment MAC: CAS: ts Attachment: Tentative Sign Code Amendment Schedule Community Development Department TENTATIVE SIGN CODE AMENDHENT SCHEDULE TASK Complete draft of sign code and background report- Circulate draft for internal comments Revise draft/after, staff review Distribute draft to Commi tree Members Sign Code Committee meeting - Review and Comments Revise/respond to comments - re-dtstri bute to Commi tree Sign Code Committee meeting - Review and Comment Planning Commission Workshop on Sign Code Revise/respond to Planning Commission comments Preparation of any Environmental D ocume ntati on Request for Chamber of Commerce - Input Community Workshop Revise/respond to comments Planning Commission final review - Joint Workshop with City Council Planning Commission Public Hearing City Council Public Hearing PRIMARY STAFF RESPONSIBLE Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup All staff to comment Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Ma ry Ann Chamberl ai n and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Ma ry Ann Chamberl ai n, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Mary Ann Chamberlain- and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup DUE DATE October 14-28 October 28- November 11 Week of November 11-18 Week of November 18 Week of November 28 December 2-12 Week of December 12 December 27 December 27- January 11 December 27- January 11 January 16-20 January 20- February 8 February 14 & February 20-24 March 14 Apri 1 3 ..'Report to the Planning · · Commlss on DATE: SUB,1ECT: SEPTF. IqBER 26, 1988 SIGN CODE AlqEIlI:MENT - UPDATE ITEM NO. 5 At the September 12, 1988 meeting, the Planning Commission requested the status of revisions to the Sign Code. As the Commtsslon is aware, it was desirous that final completion of the ordinance and future workshops be deferred until, after the election in early November. A draft of the ordinance is, therefore, currently under preparation and is not expected to be completed until the end of October. After the document has gone through internal staff department review, we would like to begin meetlng again with the Sign Committee in mid November. Attached is a very preliminary tentative schedule for revisions to the Sign Code. t4ar~ Ann ~amberlaifi Christine A. Shingleton// Associate Planner Director of Community ~q~velopment MAC' CAS: ts Attachment: Tentative Sign Code Amendment Schedu]e Community Development Department TENTATIVE SIGN CODE - NqE#[)IMEHT SCHEDULE TASK Complete draft of sign code and background report Circulate draft for internal comments Revise draft/after staff review Distribute draft to Committee Members Sign Code Committee meettng - Review and Comments Revise/respond to comments - re-dt stri bute to Commt tree Sign Code Committee meeting - Review and Comment Planning Commission Workshop on Sign Code Revise/respond to Planning Commission comments Preparation of any Environmental Documentati on Request for Chamber of Commerce - Input Community Workshop Revise/respond to comments Planning Commission final review -' Joint Workshop with City Council Planning Commission Public Hearing City Council Public Hearing PRIIqARY '~AFF ' P,[SPONSIBL[ Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup All staff to comment Ma ry Ann Chamberl ai n and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Ma ry Ann Chamberl ai n and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Ma.ry Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberl ai n and Laura Pickup Mary Ann-Chamberlain, Laura P'ickup and Christine Shingleton Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Ma ry Ann Chamberl ai n, Laura Pickup and Christine Shingleton Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup Mary Ann Chamberlain and Laura Pickup DUE DATE October 14-28 October 28- November 11 Week of November 11-18 Week of November 18 Week of November 28 December 2-12 Week of December 12 December 27 December 27- January 11 December 27- January 11 January 16-20 January 20- February 8 February 14 & February 20-24 March 14 April 3 , report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 6 DAT~: SEPTF..IqBER 26, 1988 SUB~IECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - SEPTEHBER 19, 1988 Oral presentation. ,pef Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - September 19, 1988 Community Development Department / ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 300 CENTENNIAL WAY SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PROCLAMATIONS PRESENTED 1. MASONIC U.S. CONSTITUTION OBSERVANCE MONTH, SEPTEMBER 1988 PRESENTED 2. NATIONAL McGRUFF CRIME FIGHTING AND CHILD PROTECTION PROGRAM NONE IV. PUBLIC HEARING - NONE NARGARETE ' V. PUBLIC INPUT THONPSON REQUESTED COUNCIL TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE LARGE RED BUILDING IN EAST TUSTIN. HELEN EDGAR REPORTED GRAFFITI ON THE SW CORNER OF LORETTA DRIVE AND SANTA CLARA. DOROTHY PAll'ON REPORTED A LOT OF WATER RUNNING IN THE GUTTER AT PEPPERTREE PARK WHICH MAKES A P~m~",E AT Tile SCHOOL DISTRICT PARKING LOT. REt,NARD MURRAY, 1550 TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY, WAS CONCERNED ABOUT .THE ~NTERCHANGE OF I-5 and 55 WHERE THE DC TRANSIT DISTRICT IS REFERRING TO HIGH OCCUPANCY {HOV) LANES THAT WILL BE 40' ABOVE GRADE OF THE NEWPORT FREEWAY. HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AIR POLLUTION AND THE SAFETY PROJECTIONS ON IT. BOB LEDENDECKER SAID HE WOULD TRY TO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE IROM CAL TRANS GIVE A REPORT AT THE NEXT COUNCIL NEETING. ,JOE LANGLEY SPOKE REGARDING CHANGES IN TIlE RULES FOR SIGNS FOR POLITICAL CANDIDATES. ROURKE RESPONDED THAT WE CANNOT ENFORCE THE 30 DAY BEFORE ELECTION RULE OR THE POSTING OF THE $100 BOND. BETTY DAVIES IN THE AUDIENCE REQUESTED COUNCIL TO LOOK INTO RENT CONTROL FOR MOBILE HOMES. EDGAR ASKED FOR A REPORT ON THIS. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED WITH A COUPLE 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 6, 1988, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF CHANGES APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $796,160.73 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,036.91 APPROVED 3. NARCOTIC ASSET FORFEITURE FUNDS Appropriate $37,393.00 from existing Narcotic Asset Forfeiture Trust Funds for the purchase of narcotic enforcement related items as recommended by the Police Department. Al- · i/ED RESOLUTION 88-103 4. RESOLUTION NO. 88-103 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REVISED PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN Adopt Resolution No. 88-103, the revised Personnel Rules and Regulations, as recommended by the Administrative Services Department. APPROVED RF'-'~ UTION 88-102 APPROVED RESOLUTION 88-104 APPROVED RESOLUTION 88-105 APPROVED RF~A UTION 88-106 APPROVED RESOLUTION 88-107 BUT CRANGED DATE TO WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19 APPROVED NOI~ NOb._ 5. RESOLUTION NO. 88-102 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 13556, A VESTING MAP Approye Final Tract Map No. 13556 by adopting Resolution No. 88-102 as recommended by the Community Development Department. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 88-104 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUST.IN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF JAMBOREE ROAD FROM IRVINE BOULEVARD TO TUSTIN RANCH ROAD, AD 86-2, PROJECT NO. 700077 (PHASE II.) Adopt Resolution No. 88-104 approving the plans and specifications for subject project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bi ds as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 7. RESOLUTION NO. 88-105 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF EDINGER AVENUE AND DEL AMO AVENUE, PROJECT NO. 800025 Adopt Resol uti on No. 88-105 approving the plans and specifications for subject project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bi ds as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engi neeri ng Di vision. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 88-106 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND LANDSCAPING FOR TUSTIN RANCH, PHASE II AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISING OF BIDS Adopt Resolution No. 88-106 approving the plans and specifications for subject project and authorizing advertising for bids as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 88-107 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PORTION OF SAN. JUAN STREET BETWEEN ORANGE STREET AND CHARLOMA DRIVE Adopt Resolution No. 88-107 of intention to vacate a portion of San Juan Street between Orange Street and Charloma Drive and set the Public Hearing for October 17, 1988, as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 10. AGREEMENT FOR SPECIAL SERVICES Authorize the City Manager to execute agreement with Filarsky and Watt to provide legal and consultative services to the City in regard to employee/employer tel ati ons, including representation in administrative and court proceedings, as well as labor negotiations as recommended by the Administrative Services Department. VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION -NONE VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - NONE CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 2 9-19-88 kcuuI~IENDATION AND KENNEDY SAID THAT PRASE 2 EXPAN- SION AFFECTS TUSTIN THE I~OST REGARDING LANDINGS. SHE REQUESTED QUIETER PLANES ON LANDING BE IX. OLD BUSINESS )VED STAFF 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). Recommendation: Receive and file as recommended hy the Community ABDRESSEil .AND THAT THE Development Department. . CURFEW BE SUSTAINED. STAFF TO SEND STRONG LETTER WITH HER CONCERNS AND STAFF OR COUNCIL'-APPEAR AND ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS APPOINTED ~IARGARET 2. CULTURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE POTTENGER, JOHN SAUERS RICHARD VINING, ROBERT At their regular meeting of August 15, 1988 and September 6, 1988, EDGELL, AND JEFF THOMPSON the City Council continued this matter. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. LEGISLATION AND STAFF BRING BACK A REPORT AS TO I~miEN W~E WOULD HAVE TO TAJCE ACT ION CONTINUE AND STAFF TO 3. DENSITY BONUS POLICY LOOK AT ROW I~E CAN INFLUENCE At their regular meeting of July 25, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2518, recommending City Council approval of a Density Bonus Policy for the City. Recommendation: Adopt the following Resolution as recommended by tho" 'Commlunity Development Department' RESOLUTION NO. 88-92 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A DENSITY BONUS POLICY FOR THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 4.3, SECTIONS 65915-65918, OF THE STATE PLANNING AND ZONING LAW. X. NEW BUS I NESS APPROVED A DONATION TO 1. FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF TUSTIN IN TIlE AMOUNT At the September 6, 1988 City Council meeting, Councilman Edgar OF APPROXII~ATELY $17,000 requested that this item be agendized for discussion. TO BUY BLEACHERS · Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. XI. REPORTS RATIFIED 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appeal ed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of September 1"2',' 1988. A~-.,[ CAN CABLEVISION TO TELEVISE I~EETINGS BEGINNING ON OCT. 3RD 2. STATUS REPORT REGARDING CABLE TELEVISION COVERAGE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 3 - 9-19-88 APp]~O VED STAFF R,~ IqENDATION 3. STREET LIGHT REQUEST, HOLLYHOCK AVENUE BETWEEN BROOKSHIRE AVENUE AND GREENMEADOW AVENUE - At the ~;eptember 6, 1988 City Council meet~ng, a resident expressed concerns about street.lighting, speeding .vehicles, and gathering of juveniles in the general vicinity of Hollyhock Avenue and Brookshire Avenue. Recommendation: Authorize the installation of a marbelite street light (5800 lumen) and underground conduit on both Hollyhock Avenue and Glenarbor Avenue at mid-block, and authorize a supplemental 1988-89 budget appropriation in the amount of $7,200 for said installations as recon~nended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF RECOIqqENDATION 4. COUNCIL CONCERN - TUSTIN MEADOWS At the September 6, 1988 City Council meeting, a resident expressed concern over increased criminal activity in Tustin Meadows. Relc.ommendation' Receive and file subject report as recommended by the Police Department. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 5. PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON WESTERLY SIDE OF CENTENNIAL WAY BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND STREETS Per City council request, staff has reviewed the red zoning on the westerly side of Centennial Way between Fi'rst and Second Streets. Recommendation: Receive and file subject report as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF 6. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) ENFORCEMENT RECOIqqENDATION AND COMMENDED THE POLICE At Mayor Hoesterey's request, a summary of our DUI enforcement DEPARTMENT efforts has been prepared. Recommendation' Receive and file subject report as recommended by the Police Department. KENNEDY X, II. OTHER BUSINESS REQUESTED THAT BOB LEDENDECKER TAKE NOTE OF THE NEW FREEWAY WALL ON THE 405 FREEWAY BETWEEN HUNTINGTON BEACH AND FOUNTAIN VALLEY AND SHE HOPED WE WOULD GET THAT KIND OF WALL. LEDENDECKER TO COlliE BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH A PROPOSAL REGARDING MAKING 3 LANES ON REDHILL FROM MARINE BASE TO EOINGER OR POSSIBLY 2 lANES WITH A BICYCLE LANE. KENNEDY SAID SHE WAS SHOCKED AT THE DISRESPECT THE IRVINE COMPANY HAS SHOWN IN PAINTING THE LARGE BUILDING RED AND SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT WE ARE NEGOTIATING THE MATTER AND STAFF WILL COME BACK WITH A REPORT. REPORTED GRAFFITI ON A WALL IN EAST TUSTIN. EDGAR SAID THE OCTOBER 17TH lqEETING WOULD BE CHANGED TO OCTOBER 19TH. APPOINTED EDGAR AS THE VOTING DELEGATE AND KENNEDY AS ALTERNATE DELEGATE TO THE LEAGUE I~EETING. MOVED TO WAIVE THE 72 HOUR REQUIREMENT. EDGAR REPORTED GRAFFITI IN THE FIRE LANE FROM MARSHALL UP THROUGH FAIRHAVEN. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 4.' 9-19-88 LF"~NDECKER TO INVESTIGATE RESTRICTING SPEED AS YOU GO ON SANTA CLARA FROM YORBA, AS YOU LEAVE ;' IAL LANE, GOING SOUT)I ON SANTA CLARA, THERE IS A HIGHER SPEED AND THERE MAY BE A WAY TO R...~.~tlCT SPEED BECAUSE LINE OF SIGHT IS REDUCED. PRESCOTT REPORTED GRAFFITI ON CALTRANS PUMPING STATION WEST SIDE OF PASADENA, SOUTH OF FIRST, AND ALSO ON THE TRASH BIN WALL BEHIND MAItSHALLS. PRESCOTT COMPLIt~ENTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THE BICYCLE PATROL. PRESCOTT COI~ENTED THAT THE SPEAKER IS INSTALLED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING AND YOU JUST HAVE TO FLIP A SWITCH. PRESCOTT .SAID HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TRUE ACCOUNTING OF THE MONEY SPENT ON THE BLEACHERS AND HOW IT COMPARES TO THE MONEY RECEIVED FOR THE YOUTIt CENTER. 9:32 XIII. ADJOURNMENT- To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, October 3, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SEPTEMBER 19, 1988 7:00 P.M. 9:32 ALL PRESENT APPROVED APPROVED ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS ROA 88-10 AND RDA 88-11 . Be NONE 6'. 9:33 7. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 6, 1988, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve Minutes. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,206.40 Recommendation: Approval of subject demands in the amount of $7,206.40 as recommended by the Finance Department. COMPLIANCE WITH AB 265 CONCERNING "SET ASIDE" FUNDS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Section 33334.6 of the California Health and Safety Code identified as AB 265 (Chapter 1135, Statutes of 1985) requires redevelopment projects including those adopted prior to January 1, 1977, to set aside a minimum o'f 20% of tax increment into a low and moderate income housing fund. Recommendation: Adopt the following Resolutions by title only as recommended by the Community Development Department: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 88-10 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE READOPTION 'OF A STATEMENT OF EXISTING OBLIGATIONS OR PROGRAMS OR BOTH IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT RESOLUTION NO. RDA 88-11 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF TIlE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING A FINDING RELATING TO THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT AREA LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUND DEPOSITS PURSUANT TO SECTION 33334.6 OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT- To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, October 3, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. ACTION AGENDA OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PAGE I 9-19-88