Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 01-18-88TUSTIN PLANNING COHHISSION REPORTS NO. 1 1-18-88 REGULAR MEETING dANUARY 11, 1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., Ctty Council Chambers ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Pontlous, Le deune, Baker and Weil ABSENT: Puckett PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE. DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of December 14, 1987 Planning Commission Meetin. i~ Commissioner Ponttous moved, Le deune seconded to approve the minutes of the December 14, 1987 meettng. PIotton carrted 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS e Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274, Design Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 87-30 and Variance 87-06 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Donahue Schrtber for the Irvine Company Southwest corner of Bryan Avenue and Jamboree Road The project is covered by Final EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan {a program EIR). No additional environmntal documentation is requi red. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2463, as submitted or revised. 2. Approve Design Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 87-30 and Variance 87-06 by adoption of Resolution No. 2464, as submitted or revised. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 11, 1988 Page two 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 by adoption of Resolution No. 2465, as submitted or revised. Resolution No. 2463 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274, DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, CUP 87-30 AND VARIANCE 87-06 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Co, missioner Le Oeune moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2463 as revised. ,, Motlon carried 4-0. Resolution No. 2464 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, CUP 87-30 AND VARIANCE 87-06 FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 78+ ACRES IN SECTOR 12 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFI~ PLAN Co, missioner Ponttous moved, Le Jeune seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2464 as rev1 sed. Norton carried 4-0. Resolution No. 2465 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274 Comtsstoner Baker moved, Pontious seconded to approve Resolution #o. 2465 as revtsed. Norton carried 4-0. Presentation: Steve Rubtn, Senior Planner BUSINESS 3. Revision to Approved Site Plan (Recreation Area ) /Tract 12855 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development There was no Co,mission opposition. OLD BUSINESS 4. Local and Regional Transportation Improvements Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development No Commission action necessary. Planning Commission Action Agenda January 11, 1988 Page three 5. Status of 265 S. Pacific Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Mo Commission action necessary* 6. Planning Commission and City Council Schedules Orange and Irvine Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Mo Commission action necessary. 7. 1988 Goals and Objectives Presentation: Christine Shingleton~ Director of Community Development The Director will be calling each Commissioner to obtain their individual list of goals and objectives for 1988; discussions continued to meting on January 25, 1988. ADdOUR~lqE#T At 10:00. p.m. the meting was adjourned to the next regular meting on danuary 25, 1988. AGENDA TUSTI N PLANNING COHNI SSION REGULAR HEETI NG JANUARY 11, 1988 CALL TO ORDER' 7' 30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL- PUBLIC CONCERNS- Puckett, Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous (Ltmtted to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR' (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) . Minutes of December 14, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS . Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274, Design Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 87-30 and Vartance 87-06 , ,-- APPLICANT: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Donahue Schriber for the Irvine Company Southwest corner of Bryan Avenue and Jamboree Road The project is covered by Final EIR 85-2 for the East Tustin Specific Plan {a program EIR). No additional environmntal documentation is required. RECOMMENDED ACTION' 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2463, as submitted or revised. 2. Approve Design Review 87-37, Conditional Use Permit 87-30 and Variance 87-06 by adoption of Resolution No. 2464, as submitted or revised. 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 by adoption of Resolution No. 2465, as submitted or revised. Planntng Commission Agenda January 11, 1988 Page two Resolution No. 2463 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274, DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, CUP 87-30 AND VARIANCE 87-06 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Resolution No. 2464 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, CUP 87-30 AND VARIANCE 87-06 FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 78+ ACRES IN SECTOR 12 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Resolution No. 2465 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274 Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner NEW BUSINESS 3. Revision to Approved Site Plan (Recreation Area)/Tract 12855 Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development OLD BUSINESS 4. Local and Regional Transportation Improvements Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 5. Status of 265 S. Pacific Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 6. Planning Commission and City Council Schedules Orange and !rvine Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development 7. 1988 Goals and Objectives Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agen January 11, 1988 Page three STAFF CONCERNS 8. Report l..on City Council lactions taken on December 21, 11987 and January 4, 1988 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development C0PqMI SSION CONCERNS ADJOURmENT Addournment to the next regular Planning Commission meeting on January 25, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. -MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COHHISSION REGULAR NEETING DECENBER 14, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: 6:35 p.m., Conference Room, Tustin Branch, Orange County Library PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Well, Baker, Pontlous, Le Jeune and Puckett PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Ltmtted 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. Cultural Resources Workshop i At 7:50 p.m. the workshop ended. The Commission meeting reconvehed in the City Council Chambers at 8:08 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR: ° (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) Minutes of November 23, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting . Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the minutes with minor changes made by Chairman Weil. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS 3. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions Memorandum Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development Chairman Weil thanked the Director for the quick and thorough survey. The public hearing was opened at 8-12 p.m. Jerry Wetl, 1702 Summerville, Tustin recommended that the Commission hold off on the letter to the City Council to see if the Planning Commission could resolve the problem.- He noted that he would like to help in representing homeowners. The public hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m. Planning Commlston Minutes December 14, 1987 Page two Commissioner Pontious concurred that the Commission should handle this matter if at all possible. Commissioner Well suggested that the item be referred to a Committee, perhaps Mr. Well, Commissioner Weil, the Director and Lois Jeffrey could meet on the following Wednesday. Commissioner Puckett suggested that another Planning Commissioner could attend. Commissioner Le Jeune volunteered to serve on the Committee. The Director noted that there was a need to remove certain responsibilities from the homeowner such as the integrity of perimeter bock walls. By concensus the Commission appointed a sub-committee to review issues and report back. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue this issue to the January 11th Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Arterial Bikeway System, Presentation: Jeffrey Davis, Senior Planner Commissioner Baker asked for some feedback. The Director explained the location of the paseos. Commissioner Well asked for clarification on their placement in East Tustin. The Director noted that staff will be meeting with the Irvine Company. NEW BUSXNESS STAFF CONCERNS 5. Bramalea Tract 13094 - Architectural Changes Jennings D. Pierce, representing the Irvine Company noted that this change is not a change in style, they are starting to introduce hip type roofs. The Company thinks it is a good architectural treatment. · Commissioner Puckett moved, Le Jeune seconded to approve the requested modification of the roof-line to a hip type roof on dwelling unit type two by Minute Order. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Action Agenda from December 7, 1987 City Council Meetin9 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Minu ; December 14, 1987 Page three The following actions were taken at the December 7, 1987 meettng' Introduction of Amendment #1 to Zone Change 84-4 Approval of 1988-89 CDBG program Private contract services for grafitti removal Aoproval of HCD funds Final approval of EIR for the San Diego Pipeline Franchise Approval of participation in CDBG for the next three years Adopted model construction building codes COIqNI SS ION CONCERNS Commissioner Puckett wished everyone happy holidays. The rest of the Commissioners also extended holiday wishes. ADJOURI~ENT At 8:40 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on January 11, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. by unanimous informal consent. Kathy Wei 1 Chairman Penni Foley Secretary Report' to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 2 DATE: SUBJECT: dANUARY 11, 1988 VESTING TENTATIYE TRACT IqAP 13274, DESIGN REYIEg 87-37, CUP 87-30 AND VARIANCE 87-06 APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST' DONAHUE SCHRIBER FOR THE IRVINE COMPANY 3200 BRISTOL, SUITE 660 COSTA IqESA, CA 92626 SOUTHHEST CORNER OF BRYAN AVENUE AND JAMBOREE ROAD 1) APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 129+ ACRES INTO 28 NUMBERED AND THO LETTERED LOTS FOR A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, 2) SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN APPROVAL OF A 78' ACRE SHOPPING CENTER, 3) VARIANCE APPROVAL TO EXCEED THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR STRUCTURES #ITHIN 300 FEET OF THE CENTERLINE OF BRYAN AVENUE ANO TO PLACE PARKING AREA LIGHTING ABOVE THE 35 FOOT- HEIGHT LIMITATION, 4) CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO PERMIT LIGHTING STRUCTURES EXCEEOING 50 FEET IN HEIGHT. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY FINAL EIR 85-2 FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (A PROGRAM EIR). NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. RECOI~ENDED ACTION 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adoption of Resolution No. 2463, as submitted or revised. 2, Approve Oesign Review 87-37, CUP 87-30 and Variance 87-06 by adoption of Resolution No. 2464, as submitted or revised. 3. Approve Sector 12 Concept Plan for the East Tustin Specific Plan and recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 by adoption of Resolution No. 2465, as submitted or revised. SIJ~ARY The applicant proposes to subdivide a 129+ acre site into 28 numbered and two lettered lots for commercial development. In conjunction with approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274, the applicant is only requesting at this time site plan and design review approval to permit development of a. 78 acre mixed use commercial shopping center on a portion of the site located east of proposed new Myford Road and the E1 Modena Channel {although other uses are conceptually shown for the entire 129 acre site). Conditional use permit approval for .Com munity Development Depar;ment Li P1 ann1 ng CommJ ssi on Report Vesting TentatJve Tract Map 13274 January 11, 1988 Page two lighting structures which exceed 50 feet in height and variances to permit roof structures in excess of 35 feet and parking area lighting over 35 feet in height is also required in conjunction with the Commission's review of the proposed shopping center development. Since Donahue Schriber has requested fast tracking of subject approvals, construction could begin as early as March or April with an estimated occupancy for Phase I of the project expected prior to November, 1988. The entire 129 acre project site is bounded .by undeveloped residentially zoned land to the north of' Bryan Avenue, the Santa Aha (I-5) Freeway to the south, agriculture uses to the east of Jamboree Road, and the Tustin Auto Center and Tustin Ranch Road to the east (Attachment I). PRO~IECT DESCRZPTION/SITE PLAN Submitted development plans propose construction of approximately 717,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, 55,000 square f~et of restkurant/fast food space and a 1500 seat movie theatre complex (see P~rcel A on site plan) to be developed in three phases over a three year period. Phase I is located in the southern portion of Parcel A, adjacent to the I-5 Freeway and Myford Road. Phase I will consist of hard good retail uses, specializing in home improvement and furnishings. Phases II and III will consist of a promotional goods section and a community oriented entertainment village. Typical soft goods would likely include a grocery store and a variety of retail, sporting goods and clothing merchandisers. Entertainment uses would include a movie theatre complex, restaurants, a possible night club, fast food stores, etc. The submitted plans also provide a concept plan for development of Parcel B, a 23+ acre site. While this concept plan proposes 80,000 square feet of ret-ail/commercial space, 20,000 square feet of restaurant space and a 250 room hotel, Donahue Schriber and The Irvine Co, any have .no formal agreements to develop Parcel B at this time. The potential development shown for this area on the site plan is merely conceptual to comply with the concept plan required by the East Tustin Specific Plan. While subsequent submittals for Parcel B will be required and possibly result in Some changes to this concept; any future proposal should address the need for a possible postal facility on Parcel B, and will come before the Commission for review. As the site plan indicates, proposed buildings on Parcel A are arranged in three groupings consistent with the proposed merchandising approach described above. The hard. goods and soft goods section are layed out along the outer edges of the site in almost a horseshoe configuration with an orientation towards Jamboree, with the entertainment village proposed at the center of the site. The primary access to the project will be provided from signalized intersections at Jamboree/E1 Camino Real, E1 Camino/New Myford Road, and along Jamboree approximately 600 feet north of the centerline of E1 Camino Real. The primary Corn rnunity Development Depar~rneni L Planntng Commission Report Vesting Tentative Tract Hap [3274 January []., [988 Page three entry and exit points for the project are proposed along I[1 Camino Real at two fully signalized intersections basically equally spaced between New Myford Road and Jamboree and providing access to porttons of the project north and south of E1 Camtno Real. Two secondary access points are also proposed along ![1 Camtno with movements restrlcl:ed to right turn In and out only. Loadtng and truck deliveries would be restricted south of E1 Camino Real to an access driveway along new Myford Road and north of E1 Camlno Real to l:wo access driveways along Bryan Avenue. Truck loading areas are expected to be substantially out of publlc v~ew due to their locations on the s~t,e and the landscaping, berming and wall systems proposed along the perimeters of the site. The grading concept for the site has been~designed to minimize site preparation costs as much as possible and to facilitate project vi si bility. As shown on Sheet A-13 of the submitted plans, grade differences between' the project site and the 1-5 freeway Will range from 4 to 18 feet above the' freeway; along Jamboree from O-g feet above Jamboree south 'of E1 Camino Real and an average of ! foot above Jamboree north of E1 Camino Real. Grade difference along Bryan Avenue will average 2 feet below the street elevation and along MyfOrd Road an average of 2 feet above Myford. Bermtng along the perimeter of the site is illustrated on Sheet A-11. Along Bryan Avenue, a six foot high berm will screen most of the rear of the buildings from public View, the same is true for portions of Myford Avenue. Along the I-5 Freeway and portions of Jamboree Road and Myford a screen wall ranging from two to eight feet in height will be utilized in conjunction with the grade differences and berming to achieve adequate screening. Other major features of the project include: An extensive interior circulation system to facilitate vehicular access to the outer uses. ° A proposed pedestrian oriented "Grove" enclosing the entertainment village. A 1+ acre urban sculpture or "auto square'"' at the center of the "Grove" designed as a central focus and "decision point" for arriving vehicles. ARCHITECTURAL DESIG# The architectural design of the project is directly related to its scale. Proposed buildings are typically single-story structures 35 to 50 feet in height, with the exception of some mezzanine space proposed in the hard goods section (Phase I). Because of the amount of wall area for a project of this size, the project architect has used the buildings and a combination of wall form, texture and colors, combined with natural and artificial lighting to create more of an "urban sculpture" rather than just a series of buildings. As Corn rnunity Development Department Planntng Commission Report Vesting Tentative Tract Map [3274 January 11, 1988 Page four a result, the walls have become the principal element of design. Building walls will have a "streamlined" appearance and are primarily designed in a concrete tilt-up style with concrete panels to be stucco textured and painted. In the hard and soft goods sections all exterior walls are proposed in the same texture, materials and base color (a deep red-brown earth tone to minimize their area). A series of brighter accent colors are incorporated at critical locations, such as at store entrances, roof tower elements, sign monuments, etc. The entertainment village, located in the "Grove", will have a lighter base color due to its smaller scale. However, it too will utilize accent colors. Attachments II and III provided by the applicant, provides additional narrative on Architectural Guidelines and the use of colors in development of the proposed project. .. Proposed building colors indicate a range of color "hues" to particularly soften the potential visual impacts of accent colors as requested by the Commission at previous workshops on the project. The range of colors include different shades of yellow, orange, pink and purple. .A color board demonstrating the actual range of colors that might be used on the buildings will be available at the January 11th hearing. Approval of the proposed range of color hues will provide a degree of flexibility to the applicant when painting the buildings. Although final color selection will be made by the applicant, staff will review colors in the field to ensure adherence to the approved range of colors. It is important to note that the project has been designed as a regional center; its large scale does not lend itself to residential scale architectural treatment. As the adjacent Auto Center addresses itself more to the freeway than the residential community, so does the proposed project, both in its physical layout as well as in its architectural treatment. Because the layout of the project focuses its activities internally, it will have less impact upon the nearby residential communities than a project which had the buildings located at the center of the site surrounded by a parking lot. Particular attention has been paid to the "edges" of the project. The landscape treatment along Bryan duplicates the plant materials utilized along the perimeter of the residential district on the north side of Bryan, including berming, and use of pine and eucalyptus trees. Along the freeway and Myford, the planting scheme seeks to shield or screen the back side of the buildings. Perhaps the most unique feature of the project is the proposed use of sculptural towers, ranging from 70 to 90 feet in height (which requires a CUP, discussed later 'in this report). These towers provide vertical relief to the otherwise horizontal nature of the project. ISSUES Building Height along Bryan - The applicant has submitted Variance 87-06 requesting approval to exceed the 35 foot height limit for buildings within 300 Corn rnuni~y DeveloPmen~ Depar~rnen~ Planntng Commission Report Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 January 1!, 1988 Page fl ve feet of the centerline of Bryan Avenue, as set forth in the East Tusttn Specific Plan. The request to exceed 35 feet is applicable only to three, 50 foot .high buildtng roof towers located above major store entrances' and ranging from 230 .to 270 feet from the centerline of Bryan Avenue in the soft good sectton of the' project, the rest of the buildings in this sectton are at or below 35 feet. A postttve aspect of this request ts that these structural roof elements provide some vertical relief to the large horizontal massing of buildings on the site. In addltlon, the roof elements are also consistent with remaining portions of the project which contain the same feature. Roof towers also provide a natural placement for slgnage associated with major tenants, thereby removing such slgnage from the butldtng walls themselves. The Design Review Committee believes that a variance for this request ls not unreasonable, based on the following findings: -. o . There are unusual and exceptional circumstances pertaining to the size and location of the subject property which do not pertain to other properties in this Specific Plan district in that the site's size and proximity to the [-5 Freeway have dictated a unique and distinctive destgn approach, which incorporates these butldtng roof tower elements to minimize placement of signs on buildlng walls and more Importantly, provtde a focal point for the tenants which will be vtsible across much of the expansive project area. . Said variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right, which right is enjoyed elsewhere, on the project site {on other parcels); in that the three {3) subject roof towers will provide the respective tenants with the same signage rights as will be enjoyed by other major tenants within the same project (on other parcels). . Granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties in that the three {3) subject roof towers are located a minimum of 230 feet from the center line of Bryan Avenue, are separated by a minimum of 240 feet from each other, and.will be partially screened by the landscape screening along Bryan Avenue. . That the granting of this variance is not contrary to the provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan; in that these three (3) roof towers are not immediately adjacent to Bryan Avenue, and would maintain architectural continuity, encouraged by said Specific Plan. Building) Height Greater Than 50 Feet - The applicant has submitted CUP 87-30, requesting approval to exceed the 50 foot height limitation for buildings in the Mixed Use Commercial District. In an attempt to provide: 1) concentrated lighting for the expansive parking areas serving the hard and soft-goods sections of the project, 2) much needed vertical belief to an otherwise "horizontal" project, and 3) to create a distinctive sculptural element which would be highly visible to fast moving Community DeveloPment OeparTmen~ J L P1 annlng Commt ssi on Report Vesting Tentative Tract Hap 13274 January 11, 1988 Page si x vehtcles on the I-5 Freeway, the project architect has incorporated eight 90 foot high by 10 foot square towers into the project (the placement of lighttng In these towers ts also addressed by Variance 87-06, discussed following this section). The project architect has also incorporated five, 70 foot towers into the project. Four such towers, triangular in section, would be located at each of the outer corners of the entertainment village ("Grove"), with the fifth tower being located in the center plaza of the village, which would contain a ticket booth for the theatre complex in its base. The function of the five towers is purely to focus attention on and distinguish the entertainment village from the rest of the project. As part of the four corner towers, the applicant has proposed "connecting" them by a blue light gas laser beam, which would result in a thin blue "ribbon" of light against the night sky, as another way to distinguish this area from the rest of the project and to impress upon customers that the "Grove" is a separate and unique area within the project. The Design Review Committee believes that all of these tower features add a much needed vertical element to the project, withobt which it would be a project covering-78+ acres of land with (distances of 1/3 a mile or more) with nothing taller than 50 feet. Furthermore, there is value in the distinctiveness of both the 90 foot light towers and the 70 foot sculptural towers, particularly as they will make a statement as to the uniqueness of the "Tustin Market Place". Light Fixtures Greater Than 35 Feet In Height - Variance 87-06 also requests approval to place light' fixtures higher than the 35 foot limitation in the East Tustin Specific Plan. Specifically, the applicant proposes to place light fixtures in the eight, gO foot towers discussed tn the preceeding section of this report. Essentially, the applicant is proposing high, mast lighting as seen in many large retail centers {e.g. Brea & Westinster Malls). These centers utilize 110 to 120 foot metal poles with a cluster of lights at the top. As proposed for this project, the lights (sport floods with adjustable cut-off capabilities) would be housed in 90 foot towers which are designed as sculpture-like forms compatible with the design of the rest of the project. The result is eight light towers to light 60+ acres of the site ( 18+ acres lie within the entertainment village which relies upon typical light fixtures due to the heavy use of canopy trees). Initial staff concerns with this .proposal dealt with the potential glare from such lights. However, further study showed the proposed scheme of lighting was preferable to a "forest" of 35 foot light poles throughout the parking lot areas since the cumulative glare from hundreds of light poles, compared to that of the towers, could be much greater. The Design Review Committee believes that the towers are preferable provided they are turned off within one {1) hour of closing of the last tenant, in the hard or soft goods sections of the project. The Committee also recommends that Corn rnunity DeveloPment DeparTrnenl L Planning Commission Report Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 January 11, 1988 Page seven the applicant explore the need for scattered "typical" light poles or lighting on buildings attached to light packs to provide necessary night time security lighting of parking and loading areas. The Committee believes that a variance for eight fixtures above 35 feet is appropriate, based on the following findings: There are unusual and exceptional circumstances pertaining to the size of the subject property which do not pertain to other commercial properties in this Specific Plan; in that there are no other commercial properties in the Specific Plan which encompass the same amount of acreage as the subject property, whose large size and resulting expansive parking areas would require a "forest" of 35 foot light poles which could result in significant, cumulative glare; whereas eight, 90 foot towers with focusable light fixtures wilt minimize light sources, and shall be turned off within one (1) hour of closing of the last tenant in the respective section of the project. Said variance is necessary for the preservati'on of a substantial property right, which right is enjoyed by other commercial properties in this Specific Plan; in that other commercial properties will be encouraged to minimize 'light sources to reduce potential impacts associated with glare from parking lot light fixtures. 3.L The granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties in that the use of eight light towers with focusable light fixtures will further reduce the potential of glare impact (by minimizing light sources) rather than hundreds of 35 foot light fixtures. The granting of this variance is not contrary to the East Tustin Specific Plan in that the use of the light towers will be more compatible with surrounding residential uses due to the minimization of light sources and resulting reduction in potential glare. Circulation - In order to provide their desired landscaped medians, the applicants have received approval from the Public Works/Engineering Department to widen E1 Camino Real between Jamboree and Myford from an 80 foot right-of-way to 90 feet. The right-of-way width will actually narrow from 90 feet to 80 feet between the Myford/E1 Camino Real intersection and the intersection immediately to the east. The widened section of E1 Camino Real will permit an approximate 20+ foot wide landscaped center median allowing the applicant to carry over the landscape theme from north of E1 Camino Real (the "Grove") to south of it without losing continunity. Both the site plan and tentative map need to be corrected to reflect the widened E1 Camino Real right-of-way (which should be done prior to issuance of building permits for Phase !). .. Community Developmen~ Departrnen~ P1 annlng Corem1 sslon Report Vesting Tenta.l:~ve Tract Map [3274 Janua~ 11, 1988 Page el ght A second revised right-of-way involves the Myford overpass at the I-5 Freeway. The tentative map reflects the necessary right-of-way for the overpass;, however, the site plan does not. Associated with the future Myford overpass is the necessary access to the rear of the hard goods section of the project for trucks delivering merchandise to .the stores. The Orange County Fi re Department requires a minimum 28 foot wide drive at the rear of these buildings for fire access purposes. The appropriate revisions will have to be made to the site plan to reflect these items prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I. A third circulation issue is the dimension of the outer drive loop immediately in front of the buildings of both the hard and soft goods sections of the project. The site plan indicates a 30 foot drive, while the actual dimension is 28 feet (according to the project architect). The site plan should be corrected to reflect this prior 'to issuance of building permits for Phase I. The last circulation issue is the proposed customer pick-up/loading area in 'front of the proposed furniture retailer (the "STOR") located at the southeastern corner of the hard goods section {near the Jamboree/1-5 interchange). The site plan indicates eight angled parking spaces in front of this retailer. Although it is not noted as such, this area would require one-way traffic movement. Preliminary conversations with the retailer's architect has indicated that sliding, tinted glass doors 'will be used versus the typical roll-up steel loading doors (as at the rear of the buildings) for customer pickup/loading. However, the Design Review Committee continues to have reservations regarding pickup/loading activities occurring at a store front, and has a definite concern that the angled parking spaces will be inadequate to serve their intended purpose. Staff concerns can be summarized as follows: ° How will these spaces be reserved for loading activities only? Vehicles with trailers will not fit in these spaces, and will partially block the one-way drive ai sl e. Ingress and egress to these loading spaces will require vehicles to cross lanes of on-coming traffic, resulting in potentially severe congestion during peak hours. Customer pick-up/loading activities would be most appropriate on the east side of the building, where its location and difference in grade from Jamboree would greatly reduce its visibility. Staff has reviewed preliminary floor plans for this proposed retailer, and while the floor plan is not set up for customer pick-up/loading on the east side of the building, such could be accommodated by flip-flopping the floor plan (presently, the pick-up area is at the west end of the building). As noted above, this activity would be less visible and would also place it in a area with much less vehicular traffic movement. Community DeveloPmen~ Depar~rnen~ L P'lannlng Commission Report Vesting Tentative Tract Map [3274 January 11, 1988 Page ni ne Any revisions regarding this issue should be made prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I. Pedestrian Circulation - As proposed, covered walkways for pedestrians occur throughout the entertainment village and in front of the small tenant spaces in the hard and soft goods sections of the project, but not in the front of the larger tenant spaces. The applicants reasoning for this is that the large tenants tend to be destination oriented, with customers coming to that one store and returning home, they believe that walking from store to store would more likely occur with the smaller retailer and would be encouraged in the entertainment village (in which the applicant hopes to create a "village-like" atmosphere). While the Design Review Committee sees some merit to this concept, further discussion, may be appropriate at the January 11th hearing including the possible inclusion of a condition requiring overhangs above entryways of major retailers in the hard and soft goods sections. Landscaping - A detailed landscaping plan has not been received or reviewed at the writing of this report. Staff has been informed by the project architect that the landscaped strip along Bryan Avenue has been widened from 20 feet to 30 feet. The revision will reduce the. width of the access to the rear loading facilities for the buildings along Bryan-Avenue; however, this area will still be 60+ feet wide, more than enough for fire and delivery vehicles. This change should be incorporated into the site plan prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I. The "Illustrative Site Plan-" (Sheet A-3) provides a general landscape concept for the project. Additional narrative describing the concept provided by the applicant is included as Attachment IV. Essentially, the edges of the project 'will incorporate pines, eucalyptus and shrubs, with more formal plantings including palm trees highlighting the outer loop drives throughout the project. The parking "rooms" are outlined by berms and trees, with 5' X 8' planters containing shrubs scattered internally to break-up the large expansive parking areas, while still allowing for good vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Sheets A-4, A-6 and A-11-12 provide elevations and sections which illustrate the landscape concept for the project. No information on hardscape elements proposed for the site has been submitted. The Design Review Committee has one concern with the 1+ acre "sculpture" in the center of the "Grove", relating to maintenance. A rough rock surface (as proposed) will collect dirt and debris creating an on-going maintenance problem. The applicant should consider this concern and suggest a viable sol uti on for surfacing to reduce maintenance. Corn rnunity DeveloPment Depar~rnen; Plannlng Comlsslon Report 'Vesttng Tentative Tract Map [3274 January 11, 1988 Page ten iii A formal detailed landscape plan which includes plant types, sizes, number, planting details, irrigation systems, public amenities (location and type of refuse containers, benches, bicycle parking facilities, fountains, kiosks, etc.), paving materials and treatments, and other hardscape elements, should be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I. Said plan should also address any proposed phasing of plantings. Signage - At the writing of this report, a sign program has yet to be submitted for review. Such a program addressing temporary signs, project identification {including entrance monolithes) and, tenant identification, directories, direction signs for vehicles, etc., should be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for Phase I. As part of the architectural treatment, the project architect has proposed the use of 50 foot high monuments painted in an accent color (purple) at major entrances to the project along Jamboree. Staff would suggest that final approval of the colors and treatments on these monuments be tied with future Planning Commission approval of signage for the project. ENVIROI~ENTAL ANALYSIS The East Tusttn Specific Plan Final EIR 85-2 (a Program EIR) certified on March 17, 1986, was throughly reviewed while considering the environmental issues of this project. It has been concluded that the environmental issues associated with this project were adequately addressed in said EIR, in particular, traffic impacts. Appropriate mitigating measures identified in Final EIR 85-2 have been included as conditions of approval for the project (an initial study substantiating the above has been prepared). It is, therefore, recommended that the Commission make the finding that requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met and that no further environmental review i s requi red. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A list of conditions of approval is included with the attached resolutions. Outside of specific issues discussed in 'this report, conditions of approval are standard conditions required by either the Specific Plan, other applicable municipal codes, the approved Development Agreement for the project area or requirements of City Departments or outside reviewing agencies. Staff will respond to any questions concerning listed conditions at the January 11th public hearing. CONCLUSION Gtven the analysis conducted by staff and consideration from other. City Ii ~Departments and outside agencies and the public, it is concluded that the .. Community DeveloPment Oepar~mem Planning Commission Report Vesting Tentative Tract Hap ~L3274 ~anuary 1!, lg88 Page eleven proposed project meets applicable requirements of the East Tusttn Specific Plan, the Tusttn ~luntctpal Code, the Subdtvlston Hap Act. as adopted, and t.he California Environmental Oualtty Act. It Is therefore recommended that the Planntng Commission approve the land use concept plan for Sector 12, recommend. to t.he Ctt.y Counctl approval of Vest.tng Tentat.tve Tract. ~lap 13274, and approve Destgn Revtew 87-37, CUP 87-30 and Variance 87-06 wtth attached Conditions of Approval. Senior Planner Christine A. Shtn~leton~' Director of Community Development SR'CAS:ts:pef Attachments: ¥tctntty Hap Tusttn t4arket Place Architectural GutdelJnes Color Narrative Landscape Narratl ve Environmental Inttial Study Vest, lng Tentative Tract. Hap 13274 Stte Plans Elevations Sect.t on s Resolutions No."s 2463, 2464, & 2465 Corn reunify DeveloPmen~ Depar~men~ ATTACHMENT I EL C. MEDIUM DEN81TY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE SCHOOL / MEDIUM-HIGH :NSlTY RESIDENTIAL g~--AGRIcUL*TURAL MIXED USE SITE VICINITY MA P · NORTH SOURCE: CITY OF TUSTIN NOT TO SCALE ATTACHMENT II TUSTIN ~a~_W~T pnaCE ARCH/TECTURAL GU/DELINE$- INTROE~CTIO~ Tustin Market Place is a unique project. The size of buildings, the required location and the proximity with the freeway, produces an unusual scale and requires an architectural solution that is more an urban sculpture than a series of buildings. Because of this we propose to group the buildings and make the walls the principal element of composition. To avoid the confusion of several buildings of different shapes and colors, the walls are of the same material and harmonic colors that, in contrast with the large parking areas, becomes this urban sculpture. Object ives To ensure a consistent quality and aesthetic for both the design and the actual constructed project, it is intended that all buildings have the same basic "shell" components, i.e.' wall texture, colors, store- front system, glass types, etc. Also, that typical conditions on various buildings be treated the same way. Regardless of what architect is respons, ible for a building, the entire project shall give the impres- sion that one architect designed it and one contractor built it. The general appearance of the center embraces an overall design character that is continuous through- out the project. There is the opportunity for design flexibility for the major tenants. It is recognized that these tenants need a unique or special image that identifies their store as different from the others. The area where this may occur is limited to the recessed area within the dripline of the build- ing. Within this area the tenant can be creative with the storefront, the paving patterns on the ground, the ceiling and the use of elements or forms placed within that zone. The small pad buildings, which would most likely be fast food restaurants and financial uses, would be required to have their building designs compliment and be part of the overall design character of the project. Basic building forms, materials, texture and color must coincide with the rest of the building in Tustin Market Place. 8 601 I/AG I. I 86/PND. 5 The entertainment village north of E1 Camino consists of two sections, the cinema and the shops surrounding it; and on the opposite side of the plaza a cluster of three restaurants, possibly including a night club. The cinema/shops portion will be designed by the center's master architect and they will also work with the restaurant architects to establish the exterior design of those buildings. t'--~ If a major tenant is using their own architect for 'i1 i any building or portion of building in the center, he will jointly develop that exterior design with the . center's master architect to guarantee cohesiveness of the design within the center. There are some exceptions to this rule. Where windows are needed in the main walls of the large user buildings (not the storefront in the recess) they will be allowed but must be "punched" openings; no ribbon windows will be allowed. Also, any walls enclosing outdoor retail Space must be designed to stay in keeping with the scale and character of the overall center. Ail designs are subject to review by the Tustin Market Place Design Review Committee (comprised of the master architect of the center and the developer). GUIDELINES 1. Ail design shall appear as an integrated part of an overall design concept. Ail design shall incorporate the use of strong, simple forms and elements. 3. Paving within dripline of a building at major tenants must be the same materials as are used in common areas on site but pattern may be unique to that store. 4. Storefront system will be grey tinted glass with butt glazed verticals; it may vary in its layout configuration. The head height for all glass in storefront will be 9'-0". 5. Ail lighting in soffits will be recessed and be of a typical light source. 86011/AG1.2 8 6/PND. 5 . .. 13. All truck doors and man doors at rear of build- ings will be. painted to match overall building color. 14. Transformers shall be at the rear of the build- ings and will therefore be screened from public view. 15. Ail roof mounted equipment shall be screened by the building parapet; no separate "top hat" roof screen enclosures will be allowed. 16. No exterior components of p1 umbing, drainage or mechanical systems shall be exposed on any building wall. Overflow pipes that empty above grade are permitted so long as drain pipe is concealed inside building and only the end of pipe through the wall is visible. 86011/AG1.4 87/PND. 5 Leas o n Pom eroyA ss oc i a tes .-I rt'i~i t{ *.'t u rt, ' l: tteri~ ~r DETAIL REFERENCE PLAN OUTUNE SPECIFICATIONS Exterior Finish: 'Stolit R' Ready Mixed, Acrylic Based, Textured Wall Coating Or Equal. Sealant: Tremco Dymonic, Or Equal, I Part Moisture Curing Modified Urethane. Paint: Flat Acrylic Latex, Leason Pomeroy Assoc. To Specify Manufacturer and Color, Glazing: Aluminum Storefront With Kynar, Or Equal, White ColOr Coating, And Center Glazed With Grey Tinted Vision Glass TUSTIN MARKET PLACE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES L easo n Pom eroyAssociates At*chitecturu' Pltot~ting l~ttt~ior O~tg~t x o · See Wall Sections TYPICAL BUILDING SECTION TE ,Crylic Based Heavy, .7 ' extured Wall Coatin~ ~ver Tilt-Up Concrete :.' '~ ' ° I · · 4ezzanine When ., k3 - )ccu'rS .. ,.~ ! ~"~~ P~S~ S~FF1T · ,. ~Ac~n Colo~ I , ~ · ,~.. · . . . ~.~ . .. ~ -~ ... I WAII SFCTION L easo n PomeroyAssociates A~v.'hitt~:ture' Platn~linl~ lntffie ~r Dt~ign Accent Color At. 40'x40' .Towers Mezzanine When Occurs ---~~_ _ Acrylic Based Heavy. Textured Wall Coating._ Over Concrete' uas(~ni'y BI6cl~ WALL SECTION L e as o n Pom ero yA ss oc ia tes ,.D~'hit~'t~ru ' l'lanninl¢ llttt'rh ~r l Acrylic Based Heavy ~ Textured Wall Coating "~ Over tilt-Up Concrete Panels Metal Panels Over Metal Stud Wall WAI I SFCTION Acrylic Based Heav, Textured Wall Over Tilt-Up Concrete Panels Accent Color Metal Panels Over Metal Stud Wall Metal Panel WA~ ~- SF:CTION PHASE 11" LeasonPo'.meroy~~'iates ..IrChttcttt~rt' Ittlt'rt¢ ,r Paint Back Of Parapet To Match Color Of Adjacent Acrylic Texture Coating Tilt-Up Concrete Panel With 'Stolit" Or Equal Acrylic Texture Coating Sealant C)', Reglet And Counter Flashing 4' Fiber Cant Built-Up Roofing TYPICAL PARAPET LeasonPomeroyAssociates ..l~JDtt~'tt~t" l'f~tntti, tg 3/4' Max. CMU Wall Wi-th Flush Mortar Joints 'Stolit' Or Equal Acrylic Texture Coating Paintable Sealant, Applied Slightly Concave · From Concrete Surface, With Backer Rod Paint Sealant To Match Adjacent Exterior Finish Acrylic Texture Coat Finish Over Scratch And Brown Coats On Paper Backed Metal Lath'. Metal Stud Wall EXPANSION JOINT AT ROOF o · · . .o CMU Wall 'With Flush Mortar Joints 'Stolit' or Equal Acrylic Texture Coating Paintable Sealant Applied Slightly Concave From Concrete Surface, With Backer rod Paint Sealant To Match Adjacent Tilt-Up Panel Exterior Finish Tilt-Up Concrete Panel With 'Stolit' Or Equal Acrylic Texture Coating FXPANSION JOINT AT WALL .~.~. Leasont~)meroy,4ssociates · trci.,t&~t~tF¢' l:'t.~lttHt~l.~ it:l~'r...r · Tilt 'Up Concrete Panel. Do Not .. Chamfer Exposed Edges. Rough , Patch Spawled Corners Prior To Textur6 I A ~ 'Stolit' Or Equal Acrylic Texture // [ I~ ~-- Coating. Apply In Neat, Straight / 'JF-~.~ LineTo Ed'ge Of Joint _ / .~/,i" ~ Paintable Sealant Applied Slightly / M Concave From COncrete. Surface, / ...ax. With Backer Rod /z~ 'Pafn't"~ntire Finished Surface and JbintsTo Match TYPICAL PANEL ,JOINT Side Face 3/4" Max. Paint Sealant To Match Adjacent Exterior Finish · . Paintable Sealant Applied Slightly Concave From Concrete Surface, With Backer Rod Tilt-Up Concrete Panel With 'Stolit' Or Equal Acrylic Texture Coating Street Face PANEl JOINT AT CORNER Leas o n Pom eroyAss oc ia tes Arc'iJituct~rt" Plttnni~o~ l~tter'ior Design , Gypsum Board Interior Finish Metal Stud Wall ,- Acrylic Texture...Coat FiniSh Over Scratch And Brown Coats On Paper Backed Metal Lath Grey Tinted VisiOn Gl'as~" STOREFRONT AT HEAD Leaso n Pom ero yAssociates ..Ircl)tt~'!:trt' ' lJt, tnnin, q ln&'rt, ~r Dt.~.t~n Grey Tinted Vision Glass .o Concrete Bulkhead 1/2' Expansion Joint STORFFRONT AT SILL- ,Gypsum' Board Interior Finish Metal Panel Attached. To Metal Stud Wall With Fastener's Set In Sealant (Panel Stiffeners @ 1'-6" O.C.)' ,Sealant And Rod At Both Sides Aluminum Frame Grey Tinted Vision Glass STORF:_FRONT AT HEAD ,~ L ec~so n Pomerc ¢,.qss(~'/ates 0 ' 0 · 't~ 0 .. · · _.. · · 0 · ©o ° · · · Grey Tinted Vision Glass Aluminum Frame Sealant And Rod At Both Sides Concrete Bulkhead Shim As Req'd. ,,1/2" Expansion Joint STOREFRONT AT SILL bO .0 0°~ .o' '~0 '0.* Acrylic Texture Coat Finish Over Scratch And Brown Coats On Paper Backed Metal Lath Metal Stud Wall 'J' Mold Sealant At Both Sides Gypsum Board Interior Finish Concrete Bulkhead 1/2" Expansion Joint WALL AT SILL ..~ LeasonPomeroyAssociates FRAME BEYOND DOOR- SEE DOOR SCHEDULE METAL THRESHOLD RIOR PAVING SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS , EXPANSION JOINT DOOR CkOSER INSET IN FLOOR STOREFRONT DOOR - SILL CONCRETE PANEL ,, SEALANT BOTH SIDES. SHEET METAL FLASHING AT HEAD CONDITION ONLY. --"HOLLOW METAL FRAME WITH T-ANCHOR @ 2'-0" O.C. AND 6" FROM ENDS DOOR-SEE SCHEDULE SERVICE MAN DOOR HEAD/JAMB JAMB BEYOND ROLL-UP DOOR SEE DOOR SCHEDULE EXTERIOR PAVING SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWI:NGS EXPANSION JOINT. WEATHER SE~. TRUCK DOOR - SILL Leaso n Pomer~Associa tes .~rd~itet~u~t" I~ltt~ior 'CONCRETE PANEL SEE STRUCTURAL ½" ~) EXPANSION BOLTS @ I6" O.C. DOOR GUIDES BY DOOR MANUFACTURER 3/16" BENT PLATE FRAME W/ANCHORS ~ 2'-0" O.C. & 6" FROM ENDS. 'ROLL-UP DOOR-SEE DOOR SCHEDULE SEALANT TRUCK DOOR - JAMB' .. Leaso n PomeroyAssoc ia tes An.'bit~wture' p&ommg lnterk~r l)t~.'t~ot ' CONCREll~ PANEL SEE STRUCTURAL . '. . _ ROLLING DOOR '" 2 .-~ · :_., ~ & HOOD - MOUNT -: :' ~ · / ~ - PER MJ~XUFAC'rURER ~ l! e z'-o' o.c. MAX. --~ 111 .... &6' FROM ENDS. i| TRUCK DOOR - HEAD, L e as o n Pom er ~Ass oc i ates Arcbit~.'ture' P~co~i~ O 1'-0' 12'-0" @ e 6' High Concrete Slab & Curb _ .High MasonrY Wall- Surface Texture & Paint T° Match Adjacent Building Gates- Painted Metal.Decking In Steel Angle Frames . 6' Galvanized 'Steel .pipe, 4'-0' High, 'Filled_With · Grout -'@: Ea.ch Corner-. p. ai..nt To Match Enclosure "Stolit" Or Equal Acrylic Texture Coating · .. REFUSE ENCLOSURE' Leason PomemyAssociates .~rcbi~.x:tttr{,' Pla,tntn~ inh ~i~ ,r Dt.~'ig~t 3'.. Striping Typ.~. Compact Stall Handicapped Stall Standard Stall PARKING STRIPING ATTACHMENT Iil Tustin Market Place is actually three different centers in one. The design intent is to 'provide different shopping-experiences but to tie them together architecturally. One of the best ways to accom- plish this is by the use of similar forms, materials and colors. Since the project is composed of only one story buildings and yet spans over 1/3 of a mile between the north and south sections, it is the intention of the design team that the buildings that encompass the property be an earthy color in a medium to medium-dark range. A darker color "ties" the buildings down to the ground better and makes the project appear less expansive than a light color would. Also, the buildings will have considerable blank wall (no glass) area that would give off substantial glare if painted a very light color. There /s very limited freeway frontage for a project this size. To be a successful retail center it must be recognized as something different to catch the passerby's attention. Several ideas have been developed to accomplish this. The tall light towers, the · building accent towers and the base color-for the buildings. Nearly every building or complex of buildings built along the freeway is a beige, neutral or off-white color. This center needs to have a base color that is an earthy color that accent colors go well with and will be noticeably different to the person in the car. It should not go unnoticed letting someone drive by thinking it is just another industrial project. Within the center there is the equivalent of over ten football field lengths of store frontage excluding the entertainment village· The architectural solution was to carve away or sculpt this mass of building into different planes and different heights. Regardless of the variation of the building form it is still too much area to be just one color. To effectively break this up it needs bold accent colors. They not only break up the continuing base color but add life and animation to the project. Because the frontage is so lengthy it needs strong and distinctive articulation of those changes. The perimeter stores base color is one constant; the village area in the center is a different color as it is a much smaller massing of walls and a more distinct use than the other sections. The accent colors will be the same, again, with the purpose of keeping some constants throughout the project. Illi7/CNi. 1 8 6/P ND. 5 ATTACHMENT IV I. Landscape Screen The landscape screen functions in three areas. Fist, along Bryan Road the densely planted berm and median strip screen views to project service areas. Second, along New Myford and the flood control channel project service areas will be screened from auto and pedestrian view. Third, the la~scape screen along the ~anta Ana Freeway allows selected views into the project while creating a semi-opaque veil to screen out less pleasing service facades. 2. Formal Edge with Entry Nodes A formal landscape edge is created along E1 Camino Real serving to draw visitors to the Village Center. The main entry nodes along E1 camino Real are at Tustin Ranch Road, New Myford Road and Jamboree Boulevard. The entries provide project identity for vehicles arriving at the market place from east and west.. 3. Landscape as a Regional Theme Abundant, tail skyline palm trees reinforce the architectural theme'- towers which create the center's regiona/ image. The rhythmical spaced palms ringing the complex, with appropriately located accent palms, provide a clear image for the retail activity they announce. 4. Landscape "Fingers" to Shopping "Oasis" Formal rows of trees and shrubs ("fingers") extend from the retail edge to connect with the specialty and entertainment oriented Village Center. Special paving, accent palms and pedestrian lighting are featured at the Oasis areas. 5. Landscape "Window" In order to create the greatest visual impact, a clearly defined landscaped setback is provided along Jamboree Blvd. Crushed rock in a wide flat plane sets off the tall pickets and sign walls beyond, creating an open, expansive project gateway. 6. Village-Square Grove The heart of the project is the village square. The square is surrounded by the village which is characterized by a lush green landscape. The major landscape element in the village is the dense tree grove which differentiates this shopping area from the retail activity around the perimeter. Ii127/LNl.1 86/PND. 5 CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM I!. I. Name of Propment 2. o ATTACH-MENT V Donahue Schriber Addre~ ond Phon. Number of Proponent 3200 Bristol, ,Ste. 660, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 i ii (714) 979-2230 ~ate of Checklist Submitted August 17, 1987 Agency Requiring Chec:Jcljst City of Tustin Nome of Pro~osol, if o~iicoble "Tustin Market Place" (Design Review 87-37, Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274, CUP 80-30 & Variance ~n~i~ Iml~'~ 87-06) · (~xplanations of all "yes" and ~*" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes No I. Ecrlh. Will 'the p~l result im a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Dlsrupti~, dJ~lacements, compa:tion ar overc~vering of the soil? c. Ctxr~je in togogra~hy ar ground surface relief features? cl. The destruction, covering 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? fe Chmges in deposition or erosion of beach sands, ar changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream ar the bed of the ocean or my b~, inlet ar lake? x go ~xpasure Of people or property fo geol.o., gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslldes, ground failure, or' similar hazords? . 2. Air. Will the proposal result ins a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration ' ' of ambient air quality?' b. 'The creation, of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result im Changes. in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movemen=, in either marine or fresh waters? 'b. Chcx~ges in absorption rates, drainage pat- ternst or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. - Alterations fo the course ar fl~w of flood .cl. Change in the amount of surface water in. my water body? eo Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- ciudlng but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? go Chonge in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, ar through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ho Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available far public water sul~lies? i. Expasure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tici~l waves? X. Plcmt Life. Wlll the prop°sai result im bo Chrome in the diversity of species, ar number of my species of plants (including trem, shrubs, grass, crops, ~ aquatic plmts)?. Reductim of the numbers of any Unique, mm or endaxjered species of plants? Aninml Life. c. Introduction of new species of plants into m ~re~, or in a Ix. Tier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction In acreage of cr~ agricultural crop? Will the propo~l result in: 0 C~ in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of onirnols (birds, land enirrmh including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic orgmL~rru er insects)? Reduction of the numbers of my unique, rare or endangered ~eci~ of mirn~ls? Introduction of new species of mirnols into m are~, ~r result in a b~rrier to the migratlen er movement of animals? Deterioration. to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Wlll the proposal result in: e 8, a. Immases in exbfing noise levels? b. Expaeure of people to severe noise levels? Light ond Glare. Will the proposal produce new light ar glare? Lmtd Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stontial alteration of the pres~.;t or planned land use of an area? Natural Re~un:~. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Ym Yes ~ No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? lO. Risk of Upset. Will the.pmpo~l involvm A risk of mt explosion or the releose of ~ subst~ (including, bur not ~ limited to, oil, pest~i~ chemicals or ' rodlatlorO in the event of on occident or upset condit~? Possible interference with m emen~ency respcmse pl~t or m ernm'ge~ evactmtion plan? II. Populotion. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the humon population of m area? 12. I-Iou~ing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- 'lng, or create a demand for additional housing? · =13...:Tro~gartatla~Circulatlan. Will the proposal result in: bo Ceneration of substantial additional vehicular, movement? ' Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? do Substantial impact upon existing tronmor- teflon systems? . Altercrtions to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists ar pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have on effect upon, or result in a need for new or · altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? IS. 17. 'cl. Parks ar other recreatlonoi facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including road~? f. Other. governmental ~ervice~? Energy. Will the propaeal result ins Use of substantial ameunts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upan exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilitim. Will the proposal result in a need far new systerm, or substantial alterations to the following utilitJe~ a. Power or natural gm? · b. Communications systems? ¢. Water? d. Sewer ar septic tank~? e. Starm water drainage? f. Solid waste ar~ dispaeal? ~ Health. Will the proposal result ins Creatian of my health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health~ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazard~? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the abstructian of any scenic vista or view open to the public, ar will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? · Recr~atian. Will the proposal result in an impact upan the quality or quantity of existing recreatjonal opportunities? 20. Will the propmal re.ult in the alteratian of ar the destructian of a prehistaric or historic archaeological site? Ym 21. be Will the praposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehisfaric or historic building, structure, or object? Does the prapesal have the potential to cause a physical ~ which would affect unique etl~i¢ cultural values? Will the prapaeal restrict existing religious ar sacred uses within the potential impact area? Mexiatary Findings of Signiflcame. ae Does the project have the potential to degrade the .quality of the enviranment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range' of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project' have. the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, enviranmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Ce Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes I!1. IV. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation SEE FOLLOWING PAGE . Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, - and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, them will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigatian measures descried on an attached sheet have been added ~o the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL. BE PREP. ARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect an the enviran- rnant, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I--I I--I I--I Date Signature DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The East Tu~tin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report previously certified on March 17, 1986 was considered prior to approval of these projects~ The Planning Commission hereby finds: this project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of this project relating to grading, drainage, circulation, public services and utilities were examined in the Program EIR; and all feasible mitigation measures and alter- natives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into this project. An · addendum to EIR 85-2 has been prepared to address .the issue of li. ght and glare, and is attached to Resolution No. 2463 as Exhibit A. The Final EIR is there- fore determined to be adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project and satisfies all requirements of CEQA. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been incorporated into this project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures are identified as Conditions of Approval in the approving Resolutions for Design Review 87-37, Variance 87-06 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 113 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2463 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13274, DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, CUP 87-30 AND VARIANCE 87-06 WITH THE ADOPTION OF AN ADDENDUM TO SAID EIR AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A® Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274, Design Review 87-37,-CUP 87-30 and Variance 87-06 and respective development plans are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B. The projects are covered by a previously certified final environmental impact report for the East Tustin Specific Plan which serves as a Program EIR for the proposed project. II. The East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (85-2), previously certified on March 17, lg86 was considered prior to approval of these projects. The Planning Commission hereby finds' this project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of this project, relating to grading, drainage, circulation, public services and utilities, were examined in the Program EIR, (particularly in the Traffic Analysis contained in Appendix 'G' of the Technical Appendices for said EIR, which addressed a larger project than proposed), and an addendum to Final EIR 85-2 addressing light and glare, contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into this project. The Final EIR, with addendum, is therefore determined to be adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project and satisfies all requirements of CEQA. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been incorporated into this project which mitigates any potential significant~'environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures are identified as Conditions on Exhibits A, B and C of Resolution No. 2464 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19! 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 .. Resolution 2463 page ~o approving Design Review 87-37, CUP 87-30, Variance 87-06 and Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2465 recommending approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Hap 13274. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustln at a regular meeting held on the day of , 198_ . KATHY WE IL, Chairman PENni FOLEY, Secretary £XHIBIT'A DRAFT ADDENDUH TO EIR 85-2 FOR EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE t85052217) RESOLUTION NO. 2463 January 11, 1987 INTRODUCTION On~ March 17, 1986, the Tusttn City Council certified as complete the East Tustin ..Specific*Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (EIR 85-2). EIR 85-2 addressed the potential env)ronmental impacts associated with the development of a_+1,740-acre master planned community proposed in the City of Tustin. EIR 85-2 was prepared as a program EIR! in accordance with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Section 15188(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, all "subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental docament must be prepared." In conformance with the provisions of CEQA, an addendum to EIR~',85r2 covering Assessment District 85-1 was certified by the Tustin City Council on JUly.., 21, 1986. Subsequently, a Supplemental EIR to EIR 85-2, covering the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement was certified by the Tusttn City Council on October 22,, 1986. . · Ih-.conformance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this document is an addendum *n*EIR 85-2. An addendum can be prepared when changes are made to a proposed project d: such changes do not create any new significant impacts, substantially worsen any gnificant impacts, or substantially lessen any significant impacts already addressed in-' the EIR prepared for the'project. This is the case with the increase in light fixture height for the proposed project. Per Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, this addendum will be attached to the certified final EIR 85-2 for consideration by the deciSion-making body in its review of proposed development on the Mixed Use site in the East'~Tustin Specific Plan {the "Tustin Market Place"). PR~ECT DESCRIPTION The? applicant for the "Tustin Market Place" has requested a variance to utilize high-mast lighting fixtures to illuminate 60+ acres of parking lot (pursuant to the East Tusttn~.Specific Plan, light fixtures in th~Mixed Use District (Sector 12) have a 35 foot:height limit). Said light fixtures are proposed to be placed on a total of eight (8) 90 foot high towers with a maximum of four (4) fixtures per side of each tower (10' X<lO...!'square). The justifications for this proposal are summarized as follows' The ability to provide the high levels of illumination required of a major shopping mall while keeping the source brightness to acceptable levels is not practical at low mounting heights. (The high lighting level would require a bright-source, directly visible at the low mounting heights, even with sharp cut-off fixtures.) The desired method of providing high levels of illumination is directly from overhead, thus placing the source out of the area of visual use. Sharp cut-off lighting fixtures mounted at low levels even when closely spaced, leave considerable dark areas between cars and behind landscaping. The prevention of vandalism, theft, etc. is a major component in the elimination of dark areas to a.~..minimum by providing vertical illumination of the area between cars, etc. =xht bit. A solution No. 2463 rage two 4. The reduction in source glare, high uniform lighting levels (in accordance with I.E.S. standards) and the vertical illumination between objects leads to a more visible parking and walking area that substantially improves the safety of people in relation to traffic concerns. IMPACTS The environmental impacts from incident light trespass from shielded lighting fixtures mounted above the thirty-five foot level is less than or equal to the thirty-five foot poletop lighting method. The use of sharp cut-off lighting fixtures with visors aimed to limit the incident light to the property line will not have a significant impact when compared to the approved lighting criteria. Calculations have demonstrated that the ability to reduce spillover is greater with high-mast lighting than low-mast due to the greater ability to focus the bulbs. This will result in a reduced impact on future residents in the multiple family residence to the north of Bryan Avenue. Viewed from hillside residences, the two forms of lighting would have a similar impact; that of a large, illuminated site. Lastly, the reflective quality of both systems off sur. faces such as asphalt, cars, glass, leaves, etc. is the same. TERNATIVES ~ Project - Under this alternative, the project would be illuminated with light fixtures at a maximum height of 35 feet. Spillover from this type of fixture would be greater than the high-mast fixtures due to the inability to move and "focus" the fixture head. Shadow areas would also result, creating more opportunities for vandalism, theft, etc. Reduced Height - Under this alternative, the light fixtures could be mounted above 35 feet, but less than 90 feet. The benefits of high-mast lighting would diminish as the fixtures were lowered below 90 feet, thereby necessitating more towers on which to mount 1 i ghts. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The high-mast light fixtures shall be turned off no later than one (1) hour after closing of the last tenant in either the hard or soft goods section of the project. Spill lighting shall be controlled by optical, cut-off shielding, directional and vertical aiming methods. 4 5 ? II 12 14 l? 19 2O 21 23 25 27 21 .. RESOLUTION NO. 2464 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 87-37, CUP 87-30 AND VARIANCE 87-06 FOR A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON 78+ ACRES IN SECTOR 12 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLaN The Planning Commission of. the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as fol 1 ows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. Proper applications (Design Review 87-37, CUP 87-30 and Variance 87-06), were filed by Donahue Schriber, representing The Irvine Company, requesting approval of: a 78+ acre mixed-use commercial center; a CUP for 13 towers greater t-~an 50 feet in height; and Variances for 3 building elements higher than 35 feet within 300 feet of the centerline of Bryan Avenue and to place lighting fixtures higher than 35 feet above grade, pursuant to the East Tusttn Specific Plan. B. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said applications on January 11, 1988. C. Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, .architectural features and general appearance of the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future .development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making such findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of buildings. 2. Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors. 4. Type and pitch of roofs. 5. Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. 6. Towers, chimneys, roof structures, flagpoles, radio and television antennae. 7. Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. 8. Location, height and standards of exterior illumination. . Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 10. Location and method of refuse storage. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12i ~3 14 15 16 17 19 ~21 :23 25 27 28 Resolution No. 2464 Page 11. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 12. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 13. Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council. D. Pursuant to Section 9292 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission makes the following findings on the proposed variance for portions of buildings greater than 35 feet within 300 feet of the center line of Bryan Avenue. 1. There are unusual and exceptional circumstances pertaining to the size and location of the subject property which do not pertain to other properties in this Specific Plan district in that the site's size and proximity to the I-5 Freeway have dictated a unique and distinctive design approach, which incorporates these building roof tower elements to minimize placement of signs on building walls and more importantly, provide a focal point for the tenants which will be visible across much of the expansive project area. 2. Said variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right, which right is enjoyed elsewhere on the project site (on other parcels); in that the three (3) subject roof towers will provide the respective tenants with the same st gnage rights as will be enjoyed by other major tenants within the same project (on other parcels). 3. Granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties in that the three (3) 50 foot high subject roof towers are located a minimum of 230 feet from the center line of Bryan Avenue, are separated by a minimum of 240 feet from each other, and will be screened by the landscape screening along Bryan Avenue. 4. That the granting of this variance is not contrary to the provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan; in that these three (3) 50 foot high roof towers are not immediately adjacent to Bryan Avenue, and would maintain architectural continuity, encouraged by said Specific Plan. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 Resolution No. 2464 Page three E. Pursuant to Section 9292 of the Tusttn Municipal. Code, the Commission makes the following findings 'on the proposed variance for the placement of lighting fixtures greater than 35 feet above grade: 1. There are unusual and exceptional circumstances pertaining to the size of the subject property which do not pertain to other commercial properties in this Specific Plan; in that there are no other commercial properties in the Specific Plan which encompass the same amount of acreage as the subject property, whose large size and resulting expansive parking areas would require a "forest" of 35 foot light poles which could result in significant, cumulative glare; whereas eight (8) 90 foot towers with focusable light fixtures will minimize light sources, and shall be turned off within one (1) hour of closing of the last tenant tn the respective section of the project. 2. Said variance Is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right, which right ts enjoyed by other commercial properties tn this Specific Plan; tn that other commercial properties will be encouraged to minimize light sources to reduce potential impacts associated with glare from parking lot light fixtures. 3. The granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties in that the use of eight (8) light towers with focusable light fixtures will further reduce the potential of glare impact (by minimizing. light sources) rather than hundreds of 35 foot light fi xtures. 4. The granting of this variance is not contrary to the East Tusttn Specific Plan in that the use of the light towers will be more compatible with surrounding residential uses due to the minimization of light sources and resulting reduction in potential glare. Pursuant to Section 9291 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds on the Conditional Use Permit for tower structures greater than 50 feet in height, that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the proposed towers will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health,, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the general area nor will it be injurious or detrimental to the property or general welfare of the City of Tustin, as evidenced by the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2464 Page fi ve East Tustin Specific Plan, subject to the conditions contained tn Exhtbtt "C ", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. Kathy Well Chairman Penni" J%ley secretary EXHIBIT A DESIGN REVIEW 87-37 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION NO. 2464 January 11, 1987 1. GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project dated January 11, 1988 on ftle wtth the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modtfted by the Otrector of Community Oevelopment Department In accordance wtth thts exhtbtt. (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in thts exhibit shall be 'complied with prtor to the issuance of any building permit' for the project, subject to revtew and approval *by the Community Development Department. · (1) 1.3 Oestgn revlew approval shall be become null and void unless building permits .** for Phases l, II, and Ill are issued within thirty-six (36) months of the date on this Exhlbtt. (5) 1.4 Uses or activities requiring separate use permits pursuant to the provisions ** of the East Tusttn Specific Plan and the Tusttn Municipal Code (i.e., take out or drive-thru fact]tries, ntghtc]ubs, servtce statlons, etc.) sha]] obtatn such prior .to the tssuance of bui]dt.ng permits or certificates of occupancy for satd uses as appltcabTe. (3) PLAN SUB#II'rAL .. 2.1 At butldfng plan check the applicant shall submtt: A. Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations complying wtth the requirements of the Untform Butldtn9 Codes, State Handtcap and Energy Requlrements as approved by the Butldtn9 Official. (3) (~) (3) (2) (3) B. Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally, a note on plans shall be included stating that no field changes shall be made without correction*s submitted to and approved by the Building Official. 'C. Final grading and specifications consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans and prepared by a registered civil engineer for approval of the Community Development Department. D. A Precise soils engineering report provided by a soils engineer within the previous twelve (12) months. - SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (2) EIR MITIGATION (3) UNIFORN BUILDING CODE/S DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTION (S) SPECIFIC PLAN (6) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (8) PC/CC POLICY Exhtbtt A Resolution No.' 2464 Page two (2) (2) E. Tnformatton, plans and/or specifications to ensure satisfaction of all Publlc Works Department requirements Including but not limited to conditions contained in Resolution No. 2465. F. Information to ensure compliance wlth all requirements of the Orange County Fire Chtef including requtred ftreflow and Installation, where required, of ftre hydrants subject to approval of the Ftre Department, Ctty of Tusttn Public Works Department and [rvtne Ranch Water Olstrlct and compliance wtth all requirements pertaining to construction. Applicant will ' be permitted to obtatn building permtts for Phase I construction prior to approval of Final Map 13274, provided all building code requirements have been met including Public Works, Fire Department and Community Development Department requirements and approvals. Sill[ AND BUILDING CONDITIONS 3.1 The architectural design materials and textures of all buildings for Phases I, II and III shall be in substantial conformance with that design indicated on the plans dated 11-11-87' Guidelines and the "Tustin Market Place Architectural"and all of the provisions contained therein as reviewed by the Planning Commission. All final building designs and details-shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 3.2 Building colors for Phases I, II and III (base and accent) shall adhere to those "hues" displayed on the col or board on file wi th the Community Development Department and displayed at the January 11, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. Final selection of a specific color within the permitted "hues" shall be the responsibility of the applicant; however, the Director of Community Development shall review colors in the field to verify adherence to the approved "hues". Deviation from the approved "hues" shall require prior approval of the Planning Commission. ({]1)) 3.3 A master sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the ((3))) Planning Commission prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for Phase ((~)) I. Said sign program shall address locations, and sizes of: temporary ((~)) signage, permanent project identification signage (including ehtrance ,a, monolithes), tenant identification, building addresses, tenant directory signs and vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian directory signs. Said sign program shall also include a schedule of materials, colors, letter styles, methods of attachment/mounting and methods of illumination. Said sign program shall also be subject to review by the Tustin Police Department, Orange County Fire Department and Community Development Department., 3.4 The proposed painted white aluminum sign panel for tenant signage shall be located behind the drip-line of the buildings. Resolution No. 2464 Exht bi t A Page three (4) (6) 3.5 The stte plan shall be revised to reflect all changes required heretn, by Resolution No. 2465 or by the Planntng Commission; including but not limited to: wtdentng E1 Camtno Real to a 90' right-of-way where applicable, widening the Bryan Avenue landscape strip to 30', widening the Myford Road right-of-way for the overpass where applicable and the dimension of the outer loop drtve shall be corrected to reflect the actual width of 28'. (1) 3.6 Indicate the locatton of all refuse enclosures on the site plan. Such shall (4) con form to the design details contained in the "Tustin Market Place (5) Architectural Guidelines". (4) 3.7 All exposed window frames shall be of a color compatible with the base color of the building subject to review and approval of the Department of Community Development. (1) 3.8 All truck doors and man doors at rear or sides of buildings shall be painted (4)(5) ** to match the base color of the buildings. L) 3.9 All electrical transformers shall be located at the rear of.buildings and 4){5) ** shall be screened with landscaping where necessary. All mechanical and electrical equipment shall be adequately screened. All parapets shall be at least six inches above roof top equipment. (1) 3.10 No exterior components of plumbing, drainage or mechanical systems shall be {4) exposed on any building wall. Overflow pipes that empty above grade are (5) permitted so long as drain pipe is concealed inside building and only the end ~* of the pipe through the wall is visible. (1) 3.11 All roof-mounted equipment shall be screened by the building parapet; no {4) separate "top hat" roof screen enclosures shall be permitted, pursuant to the {5) typical detail contained In the "Tustin Market Place Architectural ** Gui del i nes". (1) 3.12 All merchandise loading or delivery activities shall occur at the rear or (4) sides of buildings, shielded from public view wherever possible. "Front door ** loading" shall be prohibited. ('4) 3.13 All customer pick-up and loading areas shall be located and designed so as to ** avoid conflicting with vehiclular and pedestrian circulation. (1) 3.14 Vehicular directional arrows for all streets and roadways in the project shall (4) be provided pursuant to the standards and requirements of the Public Works (6) ** Department. ~) 3.15 No outdoor storage or open pallet storage shall be permitted on the site. Any * pallet storage areas shall be completely screened by an enclosure. (4) 3.16 No corrugated roll-up doors shall be permitted at any front elevation of a ** building. Resolution No. 2464 £xhibtt A Page four (4) 3.17 Shopping cart storage areas shall be provtded tnside any proposed butlding ** and specific outdoor areas, where appropriate, provided for temporary cart storage. Such outdoor areas shall be readily accessible to major parking areas with actual design and location subject to revtew and approval of the Department of Community Oevelopment. (4). 3.18 Provide pedestrian canopies compatible with building architecture for all ** major tenant storefronts. In the hard goods section, pedestrian canopies for major tenants do not necessarily have to connect with canopies provided for smaller tenants. Plans for said canopies shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of butldtng permits for Phase I. (4) 3.19 Space frame structures or devices which are exposed and/or visible outside of ** the but ldl. ng dri pline shal 1 be prohl bi ted. ([) 3.20 The site plan shall be-submitted to the Orange County Transit District for (2)(4) review and incorporation of any required bus terminus turnouts and subject to (6) ** approval of City Engineer as to need and loca~cion. (1) 3.21 Provide detail for all on-site walls. Show type of wall cap and type of color {4) ** and exterior materials which shall be .consistent with main building materials. LANDSCAPXNG, GROUNDS AND HARDSCAPE ELEHENTS (7) 4.1 Submit at plan check' complete detailed landscaping and irrigation plans for all landscaping areas consistent with adopted Landscaping and Irrigation Submittal Requirements and the submitted concept landcaping plan on file with the Community Development Department and dated January 11, 1988. Provide summary table applying indexing identification to plant materials in their actual location. The plan and table shall list botantical and common names, sizes, spacing, actual location and quantity of the plant materials proposed. Show planting and .berming details, soil preparation, staking, etc. The irrigation plan shall show location and control of backflow prevention devices, pipe size, sprinkler type, spacing and coverage. Details for all equipment shall be provided. Show all property lines on the landscaping and irrigation plan,, public right-of-way areas, sidewalk widths, parkway areas, and wall locations. The Department of Community Development may request minor substitutions of plant materials or request additional sizing .or quantity materials .during plan check. Note on landscaping plan that coverage of landscaping irrigation materials is subject to field inspection at project completion by the Department of Community Development. These plans shall also identify the type and location of all public amenities {refuse containers, benches, fountains, bicycle racks, kiosks, etc.) paving materials and treatments for parking lots, sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. and other mi scel 1 aneous hardscape i rems. Exh't'bt t A Resolution No. 2464 Page, fi ve (:4)) 4.2 The use of decorative paving techinques such as colored surfacing *~ encouraged on roadways and particularly along walkways. (~,!)~, 4.3 Provide detailed surfacing, color and texture information on the Auto Square *~ and address and resolve maintenance concerns subject to review and approval of the Department of Community Development. (.7,~)4.4 The submitted landscaping plans at plan check shall reflect the following requirements. A. Shrubs shall be a mtntmum of 5 gallon stze and shall be spaced a minimum of 8 feet on center when intended as screen planning. 8. Ground cover shall be planted between 8 to [2 inches on center. C. ~lhen ! gallon plant stzes are used the spacing may vary according to matertals used. O. Up along fences and or walls and equipment areas provide landscaping screening with shrubs, and or vines and trees on plan check drawings. The-use of vtne materials such as l~ougatnvlllea used elsewhere in F, ast Tustln shall be encouraged. £. All plant materials shall be installed tn a healthy vigorous condition typical to the spectes and landscaping must be maintained In a neat and healthy condition, this will include but not be limited to trimming, mowtng, weeding, removal of lttter, fertilizing, regular watering, or replacement of disease or dead plants. F. In irrigation areas controller to be enclosed in lockable housing. Oestgn Irrigation systems to provide sufficient coverage of avoiding water overspray on buildings and sidewalks. I~ote of this requirement to be on plan check drawings. (;:[~)~ 4.5 Provide detatls on llghttng scheme for project (includlng pedestrian and securtty l~ghttng). Note ftnal locations 'of all exterior lights and types of (~.)~' fixtures. Lights to be Installed shall have a decorative design. ~1o ltghts shall be permitted to create any glare or have a negative impact on adjoining properties. The location and types of lighting shall be subject to approval of Community Development Director.and of the Tustin Police Department. EXHZBZT B RESOLUTZON NO. 2464 CONDITZONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDZTIONAL USE PERHIT NO. 87-30 Compliance wtth all conditions contained tn Secttons ]. and 2 on Exhtblt A of Resolution No. 2464. A maximum of eight (8), towers not to exceed 90 feet tn height, shall be permitted tn the parktng lots of the hard and soft goods secttons of the project. A maxtmum of ftve (5), towers not to exceed 70 feet tn height shall be permitted In the "Grove" or entertainment vtllage of the project. The locations of all 13 towers shall be substantially the same as shown on the submitted site plan dated November 11, 1987. Minor adjustments may be made subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. The color of said towers shall be an off-white. A blue gas light laser shall be permitted at the top of the four (4) towers located at the corners of the "Grove", and may connect said four {4) towers to "outline" this section of the project. EXHIBIT C RESOLUTION NO. 2464 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR YARZANCE 87-06 GENERAL (~) 2.2 3.2 3.4 Compliance with all conditions contained in Sections I and 2 on Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2464. BUILDING ROOF TOWERS A maximum of three (3) building roof tower elements, as illustrated on the elevations contained in the submitted plans dated January 11, 1988, shall be permitted to a maximum height of 50 feet above grade within 300 feet of the centerline of Bryan Avenue. The location and dimension of said towers shall be substantially the same as shown on the site plan, dated January 11, 1988. Minor. modifications may be permitted subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development.. LIGHT FIXTURES Parking lot light fixtures (f'ocusable sport floods) shall be permitted to be installed at the top of the eight (8), 90 foot high towers located in the parking lot of the hard and soft goods sections of the project. Said lights shall be turned off no later than one (1) hour after closing of the last business in either the hard or soft goods sections of the project. The applicant shall submit a plan to provide security lighting in said parking areas following the shut-off of the tower lighting prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I. Spill lighting shall be controlled by optical cut-off shielding, directional and vertical aiming methods. 2 3 4 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2465 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING A SECTOR CONCEPT PLAN FOR SECTOR 12 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AND RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13274 The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as 6 follows: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13274 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Donahue Schriber representing The Irvine Company for consideration. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map on January 11, 1988. C. That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2 for the East Tusttn Specific Plan, a Program EIR) has been certified in conformance wi th the requirements of the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act for the subject project area. D. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tusti n Area General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, DevelOpment Agreement and Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to the development of Sector 12 (mixed use site). E. That the City has reviewed the status of the School Facilities Agreement between The Irvine Company and the Tustin Unified School District, the East Tustin Specific Plan, EIR 85-2, the impacts of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274 on School District facilities, and reviewed changes in State law, and finds and determines that the impacts on School District facilities by approval of this map are adequately addressed through the imposition of school facilities fees as a condition of approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 13274. F. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. G. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantial'ly and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habi tat. H. That the design of the subdivision and the type of improvements proposed will not conflict wi th- easements acquired by the public-at-large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2465 Page two I® Je K® L® That the design of the subdivision or the types of Improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. That pursuant to the East Tustln Spectftc Plan tn conjunction with a subdivision map creating bulldable parcels for subsequent development projects within the East Tustin Project Area a Sector Development Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planntng Comission; and That tn conjunction with Tentative Tract Map No. 13274 a Sector Development Plan for Sector [2 of the East Tusttn Specific Plan has been submitted for review and approval; and That the subject Sector Concept Plan includes all required i n format1 on. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves a Sector Concept Plan for Sector 12 of the .East Tustin Specific Plan subject to conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A and recommends to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 13274 subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. Kathy Wei l, Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary · EXHZBZT A SECTOR CONCEPT PLAN COIIDZTZOIIS OF APPROVAL SECTOR 12 Any subsequent submittals shall substantially conform wtth the Sector Concept Plan subnfltted and on f11e wtth the Department of Community Development unless herein modtfted or upon application and Planntng Commission approval of a request for modification. Any subsequent development submittals for Parcel i~ shall take tnto consideration the posstble need for a postal facility. Stte Plan and Oestgn Revtew approval shall be requtred prior to development of any parcel sho~n on the Sector Concept Plan. EXHIBIT B VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT PIAP 13274 RESOLUTION NO. 2465 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DONAHUE SCHRIBER January 11, 1988 PUBLIC/pRIVATE, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROYE]4ENTS (!]~)~ i.1 Prior to recordation of final map, the Subdivider shall prepare plans for and construct or post security guaranteeing construction of all public and/or private, infrastructure improvements within the boundary of said tract map in conformance with applicable City standards, including but not limited to the fol 1 owl ng' A. Curb and gutter/cross gutters B. Sidewalks including access facilities for physically handicapped persons C. Drive aprons/approach D. Street paving E. Street signing and striping F. Landscaping/irrigation facilities G. Sanitary sewer service facilities to serve each buildable lot with an i ndi vi dual servi ce H. Domestic water service *facilities to .serve each ~utldable lot with an individual service I. Reclaimed water service facilities J. Utility connections (i.e. gas, electric, telephone, and cable T.V. facilities) .K. Traffic Signal systems and other traffic control devices L. Street lighting M. Storm drains and subdrains N. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines O. Lot monumentati on P. Fire hydrants Q. Bus turnouts and other facilities such.as bus benches in accordance with Orange County Transit Turnout Design Guidelines, subject to approval of City Engineer as to need and location. Approval from the Department of, Community Development shall also be required on the actual architectural ~ design on any installed bus stop improvement. The amount of acceptable security for construction of public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Work Department. The amount and acceptable security for private improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. SOURCE CODES (I)~ STANDARD CONDITION (2)' EIR MITIGATION (3)~ UNIFORM BUILDING CODES (~)i~ DESIGN REVIEW · dh~ EXCEPTION ($) SPECIFIC PLAN · (6) 'RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (7) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (8) PC/CC POLICY (9) OTHER MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENT 'Resolution No. 2465 Exhlbtt B Page (1) 1.2 All construction within a public right-of-way and/or public easement shall b~ (6) shown on a separate 24" X 36" plan with all construction referenced to applicable Ctty, County or Irvine Ranch Nater District standard drawing numbers. (~1) 1.3 All changes In exlsttng curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other public improvements shall be responsibility of subdivider. (11) 1.4 Preparation of plans for and construction of: (2) (6) A. All sanitary sewer facilities shall be submitted as required by the City Engineer and local sewering agency. These facilities shall include a gravity flow system per standards of the Irvine Ranch Water District. B. A domestic water system shall be to the standards of the Irvine Ranch 'Water District/City of Tustin Water Service, whichever is applicable at the time of plan preparation. Improvement plans shall also be reviewed and approved by the Orange County Fire Department for fire protection purposes. The adequacy and reliability of water system design and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated. The water distribution system and appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department. Any required reclaimed water systems shall be to the standards as required by. the Irvine Ranch Water District. (~1) 1.5 Proposed public streets shall be desig, ned to the following specifications: (5) (6) A. All proposed streets shall be designed in substantially the same width and alignment as shown on the approved tentative map unless modified and approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. B. All public streets shall be constructed in accordance with City requirements in terms of type and quality of materials used. *-* C. Placement of all above ground facilities, such as signing, street lights, fire hydrants shall be behind the sidewalk when said sidewalks are constructed adjacent to the curb within the public right-of-way. ** D. All public streets within or bordering this subdivision shall have all on-street parking prohibited. (1) 1.6 Any private streets, storm drain, water & sewer improvement plans shall comply (6) with the "City of Tustin" Minimum Design Standards for on-site Private Street (8) and Storm Drain Improvments. 1.7 Preparation of a hydrology and hydraulic study of the tributary area impacting the proposed development shall be prepared and submitted. Preparation of plans for and construction of all storm drain facilities as required by the City Engineer, Orange County EMA and Caltrans when applicable and pertaining to their facilities shall also be submitted. All such studies and plans shall be reviewed and approved by the appropriate responsible agency prior to Aesotution No. 2465 Exhibit B Page: three approval of the Final Map. 2?.. DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/EASE)lENTS (~)'i 2.1 The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or reservation requirements as (2)i~ applicable, including but not limited to dedication of all required street and (5) flood control right-of-way easements, sewer easements and water easements (6) defined and approved as to specific location by the City Engineer and other (8) responsible agencies. **~ A. All public streets requiring additional roadway dedication shall be so (6)(2) dedicated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These streets may (Si include but not be limited to Tustln Ranch Road, Bryan Avenue, Jamboree Road, E1 Camino Real and Myford Road. All such dedications shall be shown on the final map. **~' B. Reciprocal access (Vehicular, parking and pedestrian) easements between {6). all lots created by Tract 13274 shall be noted on any final map. A separate document establishing such recipr, ocity shall be recorded and provided to the City prior to approval of the Final Map. (1)(6) C. The Browning Corridor Aviation Easement and the Ground Control Approach (2) Easement as outlined in the M. O. U. dated July, 1985 between U. S. M. C., City of Irvine and the City of Tustin, shall be delineated on the Final Tract Map. **'~-~ D. Execute an irrevocable offer of dedication for that portion of Myford (2)(5)(6) .Road between E1 Camino Real and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I and/or approval of the Final Map. (2:) ( 6 ) E. Dedication of all vehicular access rights to Tustln Ranch Road, Bryan Avenue, Jamboree Road, E1 Camino Real and Myford Road except at designated driveway openings as specifically approved by the City Engineer shall be noted on the Final Map. F. The boundaries of lots 12 and 23 shall be adjusted to clear the 40 foot wide storm drain easement prior to issuance of building permits fo~ Phase I, unless building footprints are outside of said easement, in which case these adjustments shall be made prior to approval of the Final Map. G. Verification by Caltrans that lots 25 and 27 provide adequate right-of-way for the planned widening of the Santa Ana Freeway adjacent to those lots is required prior to issuance of building permits for Phase I. Any necessary dedications required by Caltrans shall be shown on the final map. Resolution-No. 2465 Exhtbtt B Page four 3. CONSTRUCTION,,ACTI¥ITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-HAY (1) 3.1 Prior to recordation of the Final map, subdivider shall post with the *(2) Community Development Department a minimum $2,000 cash dePosit or letter of (6) credit to guarantee the sweeping of streets and cleanup of streets affected by construction activities. In the event this depostt ts depleted prior to completlon of development or Ctty appearance of publtc streets, an additional 1ncrementai depostt wtll be required. (1) 3.2 Any damage done to extstlng street Improvements and utilities shall be (6) repatred before acceptance of the tract and/or tssuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development on any parcel wtthin the subdivision. (1) 3.3 Prtor to any work tn the public rlght-of-way, an Excavation Permlt shall be obtained and applicable fees paid to the Publtc Works Department. . · 4. GRADING/~NrRA'L --~ (1) 4.1 Prtor to Issuance of gradtng permtts: (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 law~, regulations and requirements. B. Preparation and submittal of a grading plan subject to approval of the Department of Community Development delineating the following information is required- 1. Methods of drainage in accordance with all applicable City standards. 2. All recommendations submitted .by geotechnical or soil engineer and specifically approved by them. 3. Compliance with conceptual grading shown on tentative tract map. 4. A. drainage plan and necessary support documents such as hydrology calculations to comply with the following requirements: a. Provision of drainage facilities to remove any flood hazard to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rain fall which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100 year storm and dedication of any necessary easements on the final map as required. b. Elimination of any sheet flow and ponding. c. Provision of drainage facilities to protect the lots from any high velocity scouring action. d. Provision for contributory drainage from adjoining properties. 5. All flood hazard areas of record. Resolution No. 2465 Exhtbtt B Page five 6. A note shall be placed on the grading plan requiring Community Development Department approval of rough grading prtor' to final clearance for foundations. The Department will inspect the site for accuracy of elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may require certification of any gradtng related matter. 7. Note on plans that a qualified paleontologlst/archealogist, as appropriate, shall be present durtng rough gradtng operations. If resources are found, work shall stop tn the affected area and all resources shall be excavated or preserved as deemed appropriate or as recommended by the paleontologlst/archealologist subject to revtew and approval by the Department of Publlc Works and Community Development. All "ftnds" shall be reported Immediately to the Oepartment of Community Oevelopment. The paleontologtst/archealogist shall attend the pregrade construction meettng to ensure that thts condition and necessary procedures In the event of a "find" are explained. 8. Ftnal street elevations'at key locations. 9. Ftnal pad or ftntsh floor elevations, as applicable, and key elevations to be a minimum of 1.0 feet above the base flood elevation as deftned by FEMA. [0. All flood hazard areas of record. (2) C. Preparation of a sedimentation and eroston control plan for all construction work related to the subject Tract including a method of control to prevent' dust and windblown earth problems. (1) (6) D. Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. (1) E. Written approval must be obtained from adjacent property owners for rights-of-entry for constuction activity across lot lines. (1) 4.2 All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the City of Tustin (3) Municipal Codes and grading requirements. 5. FXRE DEPARTME#T (1) 5.1 The subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Orange County Fire {6) Marshall, 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) 5.2 Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence -(6) that adequate water supply and operational fire hydrants are available for ~2) fire protection shall be submitted and approved by the Orange County Fire Marshall. The subdivider shall also submit water improvement plans for approval of Fire Marshal. solUtion No. 2465 Exhtbi t B Pag~;: stx NOISE 6.1 All construction operations including engine warm up shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tusttn Noise Ordinance and shall take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. 7~. CCR'S (~1~)'. 7.1 Prior to appro.val of the final map, all organizational documents for the (3)} project including any deed restrictions, covenants, conditions, and (8)~ restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development (9)? Department and City Attorney's Office. Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider. A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the Community Development Department after their recordation. In the event of the sale of any of the lots within Tract 13274, CC&R's shall be prepared and recorded and shall include but not be limited to the following provisions: A. The City shall be included as a party to the CCR's for enforcement purposes. However, the City shall not be obligated to enforce the CCR' s. B. Provision for effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and facilities including landscaping, common areas, walks and fences through a merchant's association or equivalent. · Membership tn satd association shall be inseparable from ownership in individual lots. C. Architectural controls as submitted to the City and titled "Tustin Market Place Archi tectural Gui del t nes". D. Landscaping, including vegetation, irrigation systems, earth mounding and hardscape shall be installed as provided in the Development Plan and shall be permanently maintained in good, first-class condition; heal thy, without deterioration; and free of waste and debris. City shall have the right to remedy any default and enter property and be reimbursed for the cost of such remedy. The Merchant's Association shall be responsible for maintenance of all landscaping with the exception of any Assessment Dlstrict lots. E. Declarant, the Association, and all Owner(s) shall be required to maintain the property in good and first-class condition, and In such a manner as to avoid the reasonable determination of a duly authorized official of the City that a public nuisance has been created by the absence of adequate maintenance such as to be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare, or that R~e~olutton No. 2465 Exhtbtt B seven such a condition of deterioration or disrepair causes harm or is materially detrimental to property or Improvements wtthtn one thousand (1,000) feet of the property. F. Non-&utomotlve vehicles, boats, trailers, or non-automotive storage shall not be allowed in any parktng, driveway or private street area. G. Any construction repatr, modification, or alteration of any buildings, equipment, structures, or tmpro.vements on .the property subject to a butldfng permit shall be subject to the approval of the Merchant's Association and the Ctty of Tusttn Communlty Oevelopment Department prtor to butldtng permtt Issuance. H. All uttltty servtces serving the site shall be Installed and maintained underground. I. The declarant, the Association, and all Owner(s) shall be requtred to ftle the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of each member of .the Association Board and/or the ~lanager for the project before' January lit of each year wtth the Ctty of Tusttn Community Development Oepartment. . J. No amendments to any CC & R's ftled tn conjunction wtth thfs project or development plan as tt affects the 1terns-noted above shall be recorded without the prtor approval of the Cfty of Tusttn Community Oevelopment Oepartment. TENANT/BUYER NOTIFICATION ({11)) 8.1 Subdivider shall notify all potential tenants and lot buyers of the following ((~) Assessment/Mai ntenance Dt strt cts: A. East Tusttn Assessment District 85-1. B. City of Tusttn 1982 Landscaping and Lighting District. C. Any future proposed East Tustin Assessment District impacting the subject subdivision. gL FEES ((1l)) 9.1 Prior to recordation of any Final Map, Subdivider shall pay plan check and (~)~ inspection fees for all public and/or private infrastructure improvements ((~[, withtn Ctty's responsibility excluding those financed by an Assessment (~)i District. 9.2 Prior to issuance of certificates of use or occupancy, the Subdivider shall pay all costs related to the calculation of the revised parcel assessments, the preparation of the revised assessment diagram and other required administrative duties related to any Assessment Districts applicable to the subdi vi si on. .,esolutlon No. 2465 Exhtbtt B Page etght (3) (6) (9) (1) 9.3 Prior to issuance of any butldtng permits for Phase I, II or III, payment shall be made of all required fees (per respective Phase) including: A. Major thoroughfare and brtdge fees pertaining to the Eastern/Foothill Transportation Corridors to Tusttn Publlc Works Oepartment. B.. Santtary sewer connection fee to Orange County Sanitation District. C. Gradtng planchecks and permit fees to the Community Development Oepartment. D. 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 Tustln Unifted School District subject to any agreement reached and executed between the Dlstrtct and the Irvlne Company. G. Payment of all Assessment District No. 85-1 reapportionment costs or any future East Tustin Assessment Districts impacting the subject subdivision (as applicable) prior' to recordation of Final Map will be required. Reapportionment includes recalculation from current acreage assessment to individual lot assessments. J. ~NE~L (1) 10.1 Within twenty-four months from Tentative Tract 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 unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the Tustin Municipal Code. (1) 10.2 Prior to occupancy of ·units for Phase I, the Subdivider shall record a final map in conformance with appropriate tentative map. (1) 10.3 Prior to Final Map approval. A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report. ** 10.4 All on-going landscaping maintenance within the median islands along E1 Camino Real shall be the responsibility of the developer. {1) 10.5 Subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements of the State (9) Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance, in the East Tustin {5) Specifc Plan and Development Agreement and EIR 85-2. {1) 10.0 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. Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 3 _ DATE: SUBJECT-. JANUARY 11, 1988 REVISION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN (RECREATION AREA)/TRACT 12855 APPLICANT: HR. FRANK k'U CAL PAC ASSOCIATES 14151 NE#PORT AVENUE; SUITE 103 TUSTTN, CALIFORNIA LOCATION' 14572-14594 HOLT AVENUE ZONING' SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 6 E NY ! RONHENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION gAS APPROVED IN. CONJUNCTION HI*IH TRACT NAP 12855 TO DELETE A JACUZZ! TYPE SPA FROH THE RECREATION AREA AND ADD A SHADE STRUCTURE/BARBEQUE AREA RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Recetve and file. BACKGROUND ' In August of 1986, the Planning CommissiOn took action on Tentative Tract Map 12855 and Use Permit 86-24 authorizing a 19 unit townhouse development for the properties located at 14572-14594 Holt Avenue. In addition to the required building footprints, elevations and circulation layout, the site plan showed a concept recreation area which included a spa. Upon formal plan check review of the recreation area, the applicant was informed by the Orange County Health Department that a restroom faciltty for both sexes, equipped to accommodate the handicapped and a shower must be constructed with the proposed spa. As a result of additional unexpected costs, the applicant intends to delete the spa and instead construct a passive recreation area consisting of a shade structure and barbeque equipment. DISCUSSION' While a spa in the recreation area was conceptually shown on approved site plans, there are no requirements mandating inclusion of this type of amenity. Spectftc Plan No. 6 does not require a spa nor is a spa required as a condition of approval of either Tentative Tract 12855 or Use Permtt 86-24. However, since the concept plan did show the spa, and it was referenced in project reports, staff wanted to apprise the Commission of finalized recreation area plans. ,, Community Development Department Planning Commission Report January 11, 1988 Revision Tract 12855 Page two Unless the Commission determines that its intent at project approval was to specifically include a spa, staff will approve the final recreation area plans as shown on the exhibit included wi th this transmittal. No Commission action is required. If however, it is determined that the spa is required, the Commission should by minute order direct staff accordingly. lanner Christine Shingleton, ~ev Dtrec~or of Community elopment Attachments' Letter from applicant Resolution No. 2350 UP 86-24 Resolution No. 2353 TTM 12855 l~ecreat±on ~krea )Ial) Community Development Department Frank wU Cai Pac Associates 14151 Newport Ave., Tustin, CA 92680 December 14, 1987 Suite 103 Christine Singleton Director of Corrrnunity Development City of Tustin, CA 92680 Re' 19-unit Holt Avenue Townhouse 14572 - 14594 Holt Ave. Tustin, CA 92680 Tract' 12855 Dear Christine. The proposed plan for a jacuzzi as one of the alternatives in the recreation area originally was approved by the City of Tustin. But, because the distance between the remote units and the jacuzzi exceeds 300 feet, the Health Department requires us to add restroom and shower facilities for both sexes plus satisfy handicap requirements. The addition of these extra facilities tend to overcrowd this area. Besides, we do not have the budget for all this. Therefore, we would like to ask your permission to revise the newly proposed plan with a gazebo and B-B-Q, etc. (Please see the included plan.). Thank you. Sincerely yours, Frank Wu Cal Pac Associates 1 5 6 ? $ 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 R£SO[UTION NO. 225'0 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY-OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF 19 TOWNHOME UNITS IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 6 LOCATED AT 14572-92 HOLT AVENUE. 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. 86-24) has been filed by Mr. Frank Wu on behalf of Cal Pac Devel.opment requesting authorization to construct 19 new townhome units at 14572-92 Holt Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, [:nder 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: . All development requirements contained in Specific Plan No. 6 have been met or exceeded. As required by Specific Plan No. 6, a Use Permit must be authorized prior to development in the Specific Plan Area. e Development of this property as 19 attached townhome units is in conformance to the district zoning of R-3-3000 (Multi-family Residential, one unit for every 3000 square feet of lot area). All conditions as set forth in the attached Exhibit A shall be required-and conformed with. D. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation, of the use applied for will not be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and should be granted.. E. 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 Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. F. Ge A negative declaration has been filed for this project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Final devel.opm.ent Dlans .sha_ll require the review and approval of the Communi:y uevemopmen: uepartment. ' 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. 2350 page two II. The 'Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 86-24 to authorize construction of [9 townhome units in Specific Plan Area No. 6 at [4572-92 Holt Avenue subject to the conditions tn Exhibit A. · PASSED AND AD~PyTED at a re~lar meet~n~ of th~ Tusttn Planning Commission, held on the y/ day of CHARLES PUCKETT Chairman Recording Secretary DO: gt Resolution No. 2350 page three Exhibit A Resolution No. 2350 le All landscaped ' association. common' areas shall be maintained by the homeowner's t All paved 'common' areas and including the recreation area shall be maintained by the association. All garages shall have an interior dimention of 20' x 20' minimum and shall be maintained as permanent parking areas. No excess storage conversion of garages to another use will not be allowed. 1 All landscaped areas shall be planted per city requirements and a final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved r,~ior to issuance of Bull ding Permi ts. A fire hydrant shall be installed on site per requirements of the Orange County Fire Department. 1 A Tentative Tract Map shall be approved and filed prior to submittal of plans to the Building Department and this Use Permit shall be null and void if said Tract Map is not approved. ® The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all app~-opriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said development per the City of Tustin "Minimum Dsign Standards of Public Works" and "Street I~rovement Standards". This work shall consist of, but is not limited to, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, and street pavement. 1 All streets located within the project shall be a minimum 24' in width and shall be marked as fire lanes per the Orange County Fire Department Standards. g® All window and door treatments shall have depth in order to provide authenticity to the paned window requirements of Specific Plan )4o. 6. 10. All standards and requirements of Specific Plan No. 6 shall be met or exceeded. 11. A CC&R document shall be filed with the Tentative Tract Map. 12. An Agreement to Conditions Imposed form shall be signed and returned to the Community Development Department. Resolution No. 2350 page four 13. All garage doors shall be equipped with electrical garage door openers. 14. Basic color scheme of exterior building treatments shall be of earth tones and subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. ~'AT~ OR CALIFORNIA COUNTY OR ORANG~ CITY OF TUSTIN [, DONNA ORR, the undersigned, hereby cer%ify ~h&t [ am the Recording Secret~rY of the Planning Commission Of the City of Tustin, Californi&; th&t ~esol,u~ton T4o. ~'was.duly p~ssed and ado ~ regul ng o ,~e Tusti n~~g Commi ssi on, held on thPe ~~~~,DONNA ORR -~ Recording Secret~ry 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 ~6 28 o , RESOLUTION NO. 2353 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 12855. The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: Ie The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That Tentative Tract Map No. 12855 was submitted to the Plannin§ Commission on behalf of Frank Wu to subdivide (3) three lots into (19) nineteen numbered and (3) three lettered lots for a residential subdivision for townhomes for a portion of.Lot 10 of the Vanderltp and Rowan Tract, in the City of Tusttn, County of Orange, as per map recorded in Book 5, page 160 of miscellaneous records of Los Angeles County, California. Be That a Negative Declaration was previously approved for the pro. ject. C. That the proposed ~bdtvtston is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan a~nd the Tusti_n Zoning Code. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12855 subject to the following conditions: ® A grading plan will be required and should be based on the Orange County Bench Mark Datum. 2. All improvements within the public right of way of Holt Avenue must be shown on a separate street improvement plan. All construction items must be referenced to applicable City Standard Drawing Numbers. Construction items to be shown will include but not be limited to the following: a) Curb and gutter b) Full width sidewalk and treewells c) Street trees d) Street 1 i ght (s) e) Sanitary sewer connections f) Domestic water services g) Fire service/hydrants (if required by the Orange County Fire Marshal ) .' I 2 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 2353 'pa ge two 3. The property owner will be required to annex this parcel to the Tustin 1972 Lighting and Landscape District. The City of Tustin Engineering Division-will require from the property owner a letter stating that he will not protest said annexation. The annexation of .this parcel will take place in July, 1987. The property owner will be required to pay the installation charge for any required street light(s) to the Edison Comapny and pay to the City of Tustin the advanced energy charge to cover the operating/maintenance costs for a period of 12 months. Any excess advanced energy charge collected will be refunded to the property owner"0nce the annexation is finalized. 4. Payment of the Orange County sanitation DiStrict No. 7 sewer connection fees will be required at the time a building permit is issued. 5. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required prior'to the building permit being issued. 6. Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program will be required at the time a building permit is tssued. 7. A permit issued by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency for connection to the E1 Modena-Irvine Channel will be required. . ® Individual sanitary sewer and domestic water service to each dwelling ,unit will be required. ' Submission of C.C. & R.'s to the City Attorney for review and approval. All lettered lots shall be held in common and maintained by the Homeowners Associat. ion. 10. Dedication of all access rights to Holt Avenue except at approved, access point. 11. Construction of a public water system within the private street with all necessary easements dedicated to the City of Tusttn. This water main is to be connected to the existing main at the northerly tract boundary and also to the existing main in Holt Avenue at the southerly tract boundary. 12. 0n~stte fire hydrant on Lot "C", operational prior to combustable cohstruction with a fire'-flow of 1000 GPM @ 20 lbs. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolutt on 23~53 page three 13. Private streets are to be posted "NO PARKING-FIRE LANE" and comply with the regulations of the uniform Fire Code (Section 10.207) and Vehicle Code. 14. The landscape plan shall address the issue of retaining the existing mature specimen trees. 15. Reciprocal easement for joint use of the private street wi,th the townhome project to the north shall be placed on the final map. ADi , PASSED AND ~PTED ata re~l~r meett~Df the Tusttn Planning Commission held on the_~day o f_~, 1986. ~ Recording Secretary CHARLES PUCKETT Chairman CP: gt COUNTY 'OF ORANG~ ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, DONNA ORR, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secret~ry of the Planning Commission Of the City of Tustin, C~lifornia; that Resolution No. ~w~s duly passed and adopted at , r,~ular~,:in~ o~ :he ~u~ annin~ Cotillion, held on :he ~ day of ~, ~~. -'-"ecordi ng Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUB,1ECT: ,1ANUARY 11, 1987 LOCAL AND REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IHPROYElqENTS DISCUSSION: Recently, the Commission requested that they be provided with an update on local and regional transportation improvements. The Commission request has been forwarded to the Public Works Department, and the City Engineer will be preparing a report for presentation on January 25, 1988. This update would ordinarily be more readily available, however, information on a proposed second assessment district in East Tustin will not be complete until mid-January. Upon receipt of this information, a more comprehensive and long range report will be possible. In the meantime, should the Commission have a question about a special project, the City Engineer or the Community Development staff will be available to respond as appropriate. Christine Shingleton J' Director of Community Development Community Development Department Report to the P anning Commission ITEM NO. 5 dANUARY 11, 1988 COI~IISSIO#ER Le~IUE#E COI~IU#IT/ DEVELOPMENT DEPART~IEIJT STATUS OF 265 S. PACIFIC, TUSTIN ~'n December 9th, 1987, ! received a complaint regarding storage of construction - equipment at the subject address. !n addition to the storage of the equipment, m large flat bed truck with a back hoe on top was found parked on the public street. Crn December 11, 1987, Officer Mena of the Police Department, Traffic Division spoke with Mr. Poe and advised him of the City Code prohibiting the parking of commercial vehicles on the public street for*a period longer than 48 hours. ~ccording to the officer, the truck and tractor have been moved. On December 17, 1987, a letter was sent to Mr. Poe regarding the violations of Ordinance :330 regarding home occupationS. Mr. Poe has a current business Ticense for the subject address. The Community Development Department will be conducting weekly follow-up ~nspections to ensure compliance of all City Codes. Cheryl Pengue, Code Enforcement Officer Christine A'. ShinglerS, Director of Communtty~l)evelopment ~P'CAS'ts Community Development Department Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 6 DATE: SUBdECT: ~ANUARY 11, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL #EETING SCHEDULES FOR THE CTTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF IRYINE. DISCUSSION As requested by the Planning Commission, the following is a schedule of Planning Commission, and City Council meetings, for the City of Orange and the City of I rvi ne: City of Orange - Planning Commission Days - first and third Monday Time - 7:30 p.m. City of Orange - City Council Days - second, third & forth Tuesday Time - 1st session, 3:00 p.m. 2nd session, 7:00 p.m. City of Irvtne - Planning Commission Days - first & third Thursday Time - 7:30 p.m. City of Irvine - City Council Days - second & forth Tuesday Time - 6'30 p.m. (During December the Council will meet one time on December 15th.) Cheryl Pengue, Planning Technician Chris'tin~ A. Shing~eton, Director of Community Development CP:CAS:ts · Community- Developm'ent Department Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 7 DATE: SUBJECT- JANUARY 11, 1988 1988 GOALS AND OB,1ECTIVES RECOI~ENDED ACTION' It is recommended that individual Commissioners submit a priority listing of Commission goals and objectives each member would like considered for accompl i shment in 1988. O I SCUSS I ON: At the end of 1987 the Commission expressed a desire to establish a set of goals and objectives to be achieved during 1988. To kick-off the new year and to begtn formalizing these goals, it is suggested that each Commission~ member prepare a "wtsh 11st" to be submitted to the Commission as a whole on Oanuary 25, 1988. From that point, the list can be discussed, refined and prioritized so staff may prepare a 1988 work program based on existing staffing and resources. The Commission may wish to dtscuss other options on how goals and objectives may be set as the method outlined here is simply a suggestion. Christine Shi ngl etog/ Director of Community Development CAS- JSD- per Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: JANUARY 11, 1988 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - December 21, 1987 and January 4, 1988 Oral presentation. pef Attachments: City Council Action Agendas - December 21, 1987 - January 4, 1988 , ,, corn munity Development Department ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 21, 1987 7:00. P.M. 7:00 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PUBLIC HEARING ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 87-138 1. REVISION OF FEES FOR BUILDING DIVISION SERVICES - RESOLUTION NO. 87-138 A request to revise Building Division fees which have not been addressed since 1981. RESOLUTION NO. 87-138 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING BUILDING DIVISION FEES AND SERVICE CHARGES Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 87-138 as recommended by the Community Development Department. ¥. F. DAVENPORT IV. PUBLIC INPUT _ASKED THRT A LETTER REGAROING MAYOR ED&AR'S PRESENTATION TO LAFCO BE DISTRIBUTED. TO THE '~JNCIL V. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7, 1987, REGULAR MEETING APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $758,707.08 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,618.84 APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 87-31; CLAIMANT: PATRICIA DANE; DATE OF LOSS: 6/24/87; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 8/28/87 Reject Claim No. 87-31 for property damage in the amount of $1,276.10 as recommended by the City Attorney. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION · APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 87-25; CLAIMANT: DORIS REESE; DATE OF LOSS: 6/17/87; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 7/30/87 Reject Claim No. 87-25 for personal injuries in the amount of $2,014,765.00 as recommended by the City Attorney. 5. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 87-38; CLAIMANT: ALIClA BARCENAS; DATE OF LOSS: 4/24/87; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 10/20/87 Reject Claim No. 87-38 for personal injuries in the amount of $100,000 as recommended by the City Attorney. APPROVED STAFF EECOMMENDATION 6. ANNUAL REPORT, 1986-87 Receive and file the Annual Report for 1986-87; and direct that a copy of this report be filed with the State Controller as recommended by the Community Development Department. .. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page I 12-21-87 -~q4)PT~ RESOLUTION 87-149 7. RESOLUTION NO. 87-149 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PRO- GRAM EIR FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 13161 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Adopt Resolution No. 87-149 as recommended by the Planning Com- mi ssion and Community Development Department. RI~Fi'EI) RESOLUTIOg 87-150' RESOLUTION NO. 87-150 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 13161 (LDM Development) Adopt Resolution No. 87-150 as recommended by the Planning Com- mission and Community Development Department. ~IB4]F~ED RESOLUTION I~. 87-151 8. RESOLUTION NO. 87-151 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PRO- GRAM EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 13106 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Adopt Resolution No. 87-151 as recommended by the Planning Com- mission and Community Development Department. ilBOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 87-152 RESOLUTION NO. 87-152 - A RESOLUTION '.OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE MAP NO. 13105 (Fieldstone Company) Adopt Resolution No. 87-152 as recommended by the Planning Com- mission and Community Development Department. APPROVED STAFF R~CONEIIOATION 9. L. P. REPERTORY PRODUCTION - 1988 AGREEMENT Approve the agreement with L. P. Repertory for the 1988 play production; and authorize staff to execute same as recommended by the Community Services Department. ~PROVED STAFF IIECONNENDATION 10. CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF WATER' MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECTS NO. 26 AND 27 Approve a consulting services agreement with Caloifornia Civil, Inc., for design of Water Main Replacement Projects No. 26 and 27 for a fixed fee of $8,350.00; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same subject to final approval of the City Attorney as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineer- ing Division. APPROVED STAFF RECONI~NDATION '~RO VED STAFF ~,OHI~ENDATION 11. AGREEMENT WITH BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP. FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES - JAMBOREE ROAD BETWEEN I-5 FREEWAY & IRVINE BOULEVARD Approve the agreement with Boyle Engineering Corporation for subject project (which rescinds the agreement with Boyle Engi- neering approved by Council on November 16, 1987); and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same subject to approval of the .City Attorney, as recommended by the Public Works Depart- ment/Engineering Division. 12. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY FOR AHFP PROJECT NO. 1199, NORTHEAST CORNER OF RED HILL AND WALNUT AVENUES Approve subject agreement in' the amount of $180,000 for the City's share (50%); and authorize the Mayor and City' Clerk to execute same as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 12-21-87 ')OPTED RESOLUTION .,0. 87-154 13. RESOLUTION NO. 87-154 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND WHEELCHAIR RAMPS, 1987 (B-1 Enterprise Corporation) Adopt Resolution No. 87-154; and assuming no claims/stop payment notices are filed, 30 days after date of recordation of Notice of Completion, authorize payment of final 10% retention amount of $3,325.33 as recommended by the Public Works Department/ En§ineerin§ Division. APPROVED STAFF RECOI~V~NDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION 14. CONSULTING SERVICES FOR DESIGN OF WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT NOS. 24, 25 AND 30 Authorize issuance of a purchase order to Ott Water Engineers, Inc., for design of subject project in the amount of $4,600 as recomnended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 15. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 85-1, AGREEMENTS FOR EXTENSION OF UNDER- GROUND ELECTRIC LINES Approve the Southern California Edison Company reimbursement agreements for Tustin Ranch Road northerly of Bryan Avenue ($5,902), and Bryan Avenue between Browning Avenue and Jamboree Road ($17,995), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to exe- cute same as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. -qOPTED RESOLUTION · 87-155 16. RESOLUTION NO. 87-155 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CON- STRUCTION OF WATER MAINS, STORM DRAINS, AND PAVEM_ENT REHABILITATION ON SIERRA VISTA DRIVE, KAREN WAY, JAN MARIE PLACE AND PANKEY WELL SITE AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Adopt Resolution No. 87-155 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineeri ng Di vision. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 87-156 17. RESOLUTION NO. 87-156 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL. HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM THE IMPROVEMENT OF VARIOUS STREETS Adopt Resolution No. 87-156 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engi neeri ng Di vi si on. THIS ITElq WAS REMOVED 18. RESOLUTION NO. 87-153 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OF TUSTIN FINDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 87-2) FOR DISCUSSION. PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SAN DIEGO PIPELINE PROJECT IS ADE- STAFF TO CHECK IF THE CITY QUATE AND COMPLETE AND MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO MITIGATION OF HAS BEEN PAID FOR THEIR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND COSTS FROM THE LAST CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 87-2 CHENICAL SPILL. Adopt Resolution No. 87-153 as recommended by the Community APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION Development Department. APPROVED STAFF 19. REPRESENTATIVE TO ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT ~ECOI~qENDATION AND COlOr, ENDED Reappoint Ursula E. Kennedy as the County representative to the 'S. KENNEDY FOR EXCELLENT Orange CountY Vector Control District for 'a two-year term ending RVICE ON THIS COI~II-[EE December 31, 1989. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 12-21-87 .. -'*'PPROVED STAFF ;-CONFENDATION 20. ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 86-2 - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS Authorize the City Manager to sign agreements with Wi lldan Asso- ciates; Bartle Wells Associates; Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander and Ferdon; and' Rourke and Woodruff to provide professional services to the City in regards to proposed Assessment District 86-2 as recommended by the Finance Department. APPROVEI) STAFF RECOI~'ENOATION 21. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AGREEMENT WITH GREAT WESTERN BANK Approve the agreement with Great Western Bank to act as deposi- tory for the City's Deferred Compensation Program funds as recommended by the City Clerk. VI. ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 999 1. PROPOSED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO SAN DIEGO PIPELINE COMPANY - ORDINANCE NO. 999 An action of the franchise agreement process to grant a non-exclu- sive franchise to San Diego Pipeline Company to install, operate, and maintain two pipelines within certain public roadways within the City of Tustin. ORDINANCE NO. 999 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO SAN- DIEGO PIPELINE COM- PANY TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE PIPELINES WITHIN CERTAIN PUBLIC ROADS, STREETS AND WAYS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 999 have first reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 999 be introduced. VII. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION ADOPTED .ORDINANCE NO. 998 1. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ZONE CHANGE 84-4, GOLDRICH, KEST & ASSOCIATES, 1262 BRYAN AVENUE - ORDINANCE NO. 998 Subject Ordinance had first reading by title only and introduction on December 7, 1987, following a public hearing on the matter. ORDINANCE NO. 998 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. I OF ZONE CHANGE 84-4, FOR THE PROP- ERTY KNOWN AS TUSTIN ROYALE, 1262 BRYAN AVENUE Recommendation:. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 998 have second readjng by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 998 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote) VIII. OLD BUSINESS RECEIVED AND FILED 1. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT - UPDATE *~ BE AGENDIZED FOR THE ',T I~EETING An ongoing status report on the John Wayne Airport Noise Monitoring Program as requested by Councilman Kelly. Recommendation: Receive. and file. ! CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4- 12-21-87 'PROVED STAFF .COMI~ENDATION 2. COLUMBUS TUSTIN TASK FORCE: PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS A report and recommendations from the Columbus Tustin Task Force which met on November 30, 1987. Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the City Council: 1) Include solution of the acoustical and portable staging problems at Clifton C. Miller Community Center in the City Hall remodel; 2) Complete the second stage of Columbus Tustin Park in two phases: a) Phase I - Parking Lot Expansion and Perimeter Landscaping; however, drainage plans must be addressed prior. b) Phase 1I - Gymnasium, located as shown on the new site plan dated November 30, 1987. 3) Reinstate and consult the Task Force as part of design review at such time when Phase 2b working drawings are done (Gymnasium). AI~Et) RESOLUTION 3. AUDIT COMMITTEE - RESOLUTION NO. 87-131 NO;. 8'7'-131 AND THE PAY FOR<THIS COMMI1TEE TO BE THF. Z SAME AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ONE I~MBER ~ THE. COMMITTEE TO BE M!OUTSIOE THE CITY ,ITS' BUT WITHIN THE ~u(EA'~.OF THE TUSTIN WATER Continued from December 7, 1987. In July, 1987, Council considered subject item. Staff has included proposed Audit Committee policies and guidelines and a resolution in the event Council desires to pro- ceed. RESOLUTION NO. 87-131 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CREATING THE CITY OF TUSTIN AUDIT COMMITTEE WORIC~-~ STAFF TO AOVERTISE AND ESTABLISHING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR: ~EMBERS Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. l}llSi ITEM TO BE 4. CITY BROCHURE AGE~I7FD FOR A WORKSHOP CONJUNCTION Will( THE Continued from November 16 and December 7, 1987. PARK.] WORKSHOP TO DETERMINE WHO~:THE' TARGET MARKETS ARE Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. Ak BASIC FIGURES FOR COSTS. REAI~'NDIZE AT THE DISCEETION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 5. EAST TUSTIN CABLE TELEVISION Continued from November 2, November 16, and December 7, 1987, so that representatives from The Irvine Company and American Cablesystems could meet to try to resolve their dispute. A verbal status report will be presented. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. IX. NEW BUSINESS - None X. REPORTS IFIED, PRESCOI'F 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - DECEMBER 14, 1987 ;TAINEO ON ITEM NO. I CITY!'COUNClL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 5 12-21-87 ~GAR. RESPONDED TO dOE 2. SURPLUS SCHOOL DISTRICT SITES .,~RZIG THAT THE REASON FOR. PURCHASING SCHOOL A letter from Tustin Unified School District regarding sale of SITES WAS TO PRESERVE OPEN surplus school sites (Del Norte, Red Hill, and Guin Foss SchOols). SPACE. AEdENDITF FOR THE NEXT Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. AGENDA TO ADDRESS SOI~ LEGAL QUESTIONS. A LETTER BE SENT TO THE SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT FROM THE' IqAYOR kmJICH WOULD REFERENCE OUR ORIGINAL LEI'FER THAT kE ARE INTERESTED IN THE SITES, AND' THE CITY I~GER SEND-LETTER TO THE STAFF THAT kE ARE INTERESTED IN THE SITES. KELLY REQUESTED XI. OTHER BUSINESS TIIAT THE RED CURBING AT EL CAMINO AND SIXTH STREET BY THE AUTO REPAIR SHOP BE REMOVED. TItAYER TO ~ET WITH LEDENOECKER AND REPORT BACK. THE FIRST I~ETING IN PARCH. KENNEDY SUGGESTED A PROCLAMATION FOR BOB COLEMAN OF AMERICAN CABLEVISION REGARDING THE COMPANY' S OUTREACH PROGRAM. gED' CURBING ON PAIN STREET NEXT TO AMERICAN SAVINGS TO BE AGENDIZED FOR THE JANUARY 4, 1988, ~EETING. EDGAR REQUESTED THAT STOP SIGNS AT LORETTA DRIVE AND LEAFWOOD BE AGENDIZED FOR THE JANUARY 4, Ig~B, ~ETING. . 8:57 XlI. ADJOURNMENT To th~ next Regular Meeting on Monday, January 4, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 6 12-21-87 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~EETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 21, 1987 7:00 P.M. 8:57 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT APPROVED e ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 7, 1987, REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEMANDS - OCTOBER & NOVEMBER, 1987 Listings of Redevelopment Agency Demands for the months of October and November, 1987. Recommendation: Approve following Demands as recommended by the Finance Department: October, 1987 - $301,886.51 and November, 1987 - $58,304.82 ADOPTED RESOLUT ION NO. RDA 87-20 Be AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS - PAINTING WITHIN CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 87-20 A request for miscellaneous painting within Civic Center complex in con- junction with other projects previously approved by the Agency. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 87-20 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVEL- OPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MISCELLANEOUS INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PAINTING WITHIN THE. CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 87-20 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED WITH 6. PLANTERS AND STEPPING STONES. THE ARCHITECT HAD SEVERAL QUESTIONS AND WP.S INSTRUCTED TO WORK WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. 87-33 FOR RETAIL CENTER AT 1101 EL CAMINO REAL AT NEW- PORT AVENUE - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 87-19 A proposal to construct a retail commercial center at the northeast corner of Newport Avenue and E1 Camino Real. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 87-19 - A RESOLUTION: OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION OF A 25,281 REGARDING ANY CHANGES. SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER AT 1011 EL CAMINO REAL (DESIGN/SITE ITEM 10 TO BE MODIFIED PLAN REVIEW 87-33) THAT ALL LEGAL REQUIRE- MENTS OF LOT CONSOLI- Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 87-19 as recommended by the DATION BE MET AND Community Development Department. STAFF AND DEVELOPER COULD WORK OUT WHAT THAT ENTAILS. c. SCO'n' THANKED 7. OTHER BUSINESS ' POLICE FOR AN EXCELLENT PARTY. 9:31 8. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, January 4, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page i 12-21-87 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~ETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 4, 1988 7:00 P.M. 7:01 I. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PUBLIC HEARING Al)OPTED ORDINANCE I10. 999 1. PROPOSED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO SAN DIEGO PIPELINE - ORDINANCE NO. 999 An action of the franchise agreement process to grant a non- exclusive franchise to San Diego Pipeline Company to install, operate, and maintain two pipelines within certain public roadways within the City of Tustin. Subject ordinance had first reading by title only and introduction at the December 21, 1987, meeting. ORDINANCE NO. 999 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO SAN DIEGO PIPELINE COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE PIPELINES WITHIN CERTAIN PUBLIC ROADS,'STREETS AND WAYS OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ."~N HENNANT IV. PUBLIC INPUT D QIJESTIONS ABOUT (At this .time members of the public may address the City Council regard- CLEANUP OF ing any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City .Council I)~{OPERTY AT 17592 provided that NO action may be taken on off-age.nda items unless autho- /~4A~SET WAY. STAFF ri zed by 1 aw. ) TO: AGENDI 7.E IN A MONTH. V. CONSENT CALENOAR APPROVED Will{ Am)DITIONS APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 21, 1987, REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE .AMOUNT OF $1,760,889.79 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $159,312.08 APPROVED STAFF IIECOlt~NDATION 3. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 87-35; CLAIMANT: CARL HARRY MARTIN; DATE OF LOSS: 6/17/87; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 9/18/87 Reject Claim No. 87-35 for personal injuries in the amount of $50,000 as recommended by the City Attorney. APPROVED STAFF II~COP'~IENDAT ION 4. LAMBERT SCHOOL LEASE RENEWAL Renew the lease with the Tustin Unified School District for the use of Lambert School for .a peri od of one-year commencing February 1, 1988, and ending January 31, 1989; and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same. VI. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None. vii. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - See Public Hearing No. 1. VIII. OLD BUSINESS .IVED AND FILED 1. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE STUDY - UPDATE An Ongoing status report on the John Wayne Airport Noise Monitoring Program as requested by Councilman Kelly. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 1 1-4-88 INk, HOP SET 2. PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 'HISTORY OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION j~ FEBRUARY 2gTH AT $ P.M. FOR~ PA~tK COI~4ISSION ANO SUbject report was requested by Mayor Edgar. I~0~ OI~MBUS TUSTIN RA~ Recommendation: Pleasure of the Council. IX. NEW BUSINESS - None. X, AND FILED' REPORTS 1. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF DECEMBER 30, ~987 A listing of investments for the City and Redevelopment Agency with maturities 12 months or less and in excess of 12 months. Recommendation: Receive and file. I~¥ XI. OTHER BUSINESS Rr:iQ~D THE ISSUE OF ELECTED OR APPOINTED CITY CLERK BE AGENDIZED FOR THE NEXT MEETING. HO~EY ASKED THAT THE PARKING ON I~IN STREET aDjACENT TO TUSTIN PLAZA BE AGENDIZED FOR THE ~' I~ETING. .. o PRF.:SC~ZIT REQUESTED STAFF TO PROMOTE THE AUDIT COI~II'n'EE RECRUITING. HE SAID THERE ARE A LOT OF RROF, ES$IONAL CPA'S IN TUSTIN. IM~ASKEO THAT THE STOP SIGN ON LORETTA DRIVE BE AGENDIZED FOR THE NEXT MEETING. ~ TO XlI. CLOSED SESSION RE~EV~I, OPMENT AGENCY I~ING:AT 7:4S P.M., The City Council will recess to Closed Session to consider personnel THE+IOE. TO A CLOSED matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. SESSION FOR PERSONNEL MRTTERS AND THENCE ABa.glIiINEO TO THE XIII. ADJOURNMENT NE~T~ ~EETING ON J~Y 18, 1988 To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, January 18, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. ClTY'~COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 1-4-88 : ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR I~EETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JANUARY 4, 1987 7':00 P.M. 7:45 CALL TO ORDER ALL'PRESENT 2. ROLL CALL APPROVED 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES- DECEMBER 21, 1987, REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve. NONE 4. 0THER BUSINESS 46 5. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, January 18, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 1-4-88