HomeMy WebLinkAboutA A Planning Comm. 6-08-87IUSTIN PL~##I#G C0~I$$I0#
REPORTS
NO. !
6-15-87
REGULAR I~LTING
~)UNE 8, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m., Ct ty Counct 1 Chambers
PLEDGE OF' ALLEGIANCEIXNVOCATION
ROLL CALL: Puckett, get1, Baker, Le 3eune,
Comdssloner Pontlons arrived at 7:32 1,medlatel~ after roll
call.
PUBLTC CONCERNS;: (Ltmtted to 3 mtnutes per person for 1terns not on the agenda)
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL
OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON lttE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
Tusttn Are~ Sports Cou.ctl asked that the Comlsston consider
sports fac111ty needs tn any declston they meke.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. HERE 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 May 26, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
2. -Final Tract Map 12763
Resolution No. 2409-
A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn,
recommending to the Tustin City Council approval of Final
· Tract Map No. 12763.
3. General Plan Consistency/Airport Noise Monitoring Station
,
Chatrmon Puckett asked that Item 2 be removed fromm the consent calendar and testlmmy
be allo~ed on thts 1tern. _~lssloner lie11 moved. Baker seconded to approve the
consent calendar. Plotlon carrled 5-0,.
Mr. Chrts La)rton, president of Tustln Untfted School Dlstrtct spoke on Item 2. He
vas of the optnlow' that the Conditions of Approval have not been met, that the TUSD
had not been properly notlfted of thls Pap, that the mep was not tn conformence with
the tentative tract and that the Ctty dld not allow the Dlstrtct the twenty days to
respond. He noted that they do t ntend to respond wi thtn the twenty 4my pert od.
Commlsslo~r ¥etl moved,' Pontlous seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2402 recomendtng
to Ctty -~ouncll approval of Fln~l Tract Pap"12763. Plotlon carrted 5-0...
Plannlng Commission Action Agenda,
3une 8, :L987
Page
PUBLZC HEAR]~NGS:
4. Vartance 14o. 87-~_
Applicant:
Locatt on:
Shoshana ' s
:~7480 E. Seventeenth Street
Presentation: Laura Cay Ptckup, Associate Planner
Request: Request for a vartance to permtt a tenant Identification stgn of
:Lg square feet wtth less than the requtred setback.
Resolution No. 24070: A resolution of the Planning Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn,
denytng authorization for a Vartance of the setback
requirements to all ow tenant tdenttft carton on a free standtng
monument stgn at 17480 E. Seventeenth Street, Tustln
Resolution No. 2407A: A resolution of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn,
authorizing a Yartance of the setback requirements and the
commercial dtstrtct stgn requirements to allow tenant
Identification on a free standtng monument stgn at 17480 E.
:Z7th Street, Tusttn.
Recommended actton: Pleasure of the Commission.
~lsstoner tie11 moved, Baker seconded to approve Yartance No. 87-2 by the adoptton
of Resolution No. 2407A. iqotlon ca~eted S-O.
5. Draft Environmental ]:mpact Report 87-1 - North/South Road Pro~ect
Presentation: Jeffrey Davts, Sentor Planner
Rob Balen, LSA, gave a brtef summary of the Draft E:[R.
OLD BUS]~NESS:
6. Summary of Results of Rest denttal St9n Code Survey
Presentation: Laura Cay Ptckup, Associate Planner
The Comdsston noted to recetve and ftle the report on the Rest defftt al Stgn Code
Survey.
NE'lt BUSINESS:
7. Large Famtl~ Day Care Homes
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Resolution Ho. 2408: A Resolution of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn
recommending amendment of Sectton 9223a6 of the Tusttn
rauntctpal Code relattng to Large Faintly Day Care Homes.
Commissioner lie11 moved, Baker seconded to dtrect staff to advertise a publlc heartng
as soon as posslble and upon the completion of any necessary environmental revtew for
Zontng Ordinance Amendment No 87-01. Iqotton Carrted 6-O.
Planntng- Commt ssi on Act1 on Agenda
3une 8, 1987
Page three
STAFF CONCERNS:
8. Report on City Counctl Acttons of 3une 1~ 1987 meeting
Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, 01rector of Community Oevelopment
9. Status Report on Southern Orange Counttes Planntng Commission Meettngs
Presentation: Laura Cay Ptckup, Associate Planner
10. Status Report on Summary of l~ork Pro~ects
Presentatt on: Christine Shtngleton, 01rector of Community Development
Cll~iI SS ION CONCERNS:
Comdsstoner Pouttous asked that staff look lnto the stgns at Karl's Hercedes and
Drug Empori urn.
Coturlssloner Baker asked that code enforcement be stepped up regarding cars parked oa
the 1100 block of E1 Cauino Real and helicopter notse.
Coumtsslonor Le deune noted that the tent at Untted Rent-all was not In conformance
and asked further questloas regarding the atrport notse uonltertng devlce. He was
also concerned about trafftc blocktng the street at Intersections such as Red Htll
and Nlsson.
Commissloner'¥e11 asked that-the Commission meet with Ctty Counc11 for clarification
of guidelines for alcoholic beverage control and the stgn code.
Comdsstoner Puckett asked that the graftttt at Browntng and NtsSon be removed.
AOdOURIIqENT:
At 8:45 the meetlng was adjourned to the next regularly scheduled Planntng Comtsslon
ueettng on dune 22, 1987 at 7: 30. ~ ~ '
AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING CO~ISSION
REGULAR MEETZNG
3UNE 8, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
7' 30 p.m. ,- Ct ty Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/TNVOCATTON
ROLL CALL:
Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious
PUBLZC CONCERNS: (Llmtted to 3 minutes per person for 1rems 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.
COMSENT CALENDAR:
(ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTEO 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 May 26, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
2. Final Tract Map 12763
Resolution No. 2409- A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin,
recommending to the Tustin City Council approval of Final
Tract Map No. 12763.
3.
General Plan iConsistenc¥/Airport Noise Monitoring Station
PIJBLTC HEARINGS
4. Variance No. 87-2
Applicant:
Locati on'
Shoshana ' s
17480 E. Seventeenth Street
Presentati on'
Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner
Request: Request for a variance to permit a tenant identification sign of
...... 19 square feet with less than the required setback.
Resolution No. 2407D' A resolution of the Planning Commission of. the City of Tusttn,
denying authorization for a Variance of the setback
requirements to allow tenant identification on a free standing
monument sign at 17480 E. Seventeenth Street, Tustin
Planning Commission Agenda
June 8, lg87
Page two
Resolution No. 2407A: A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn,
authorizing a Variance of the setback requirements and the
commercial district sign · requirements to allow tenant
identiftca.tton on a free standing monument sign at 17480 E.
17th Street, Tusttn.
Recommended action' Pleasure of the Commission.
·
Draft Environmental Impact Report 87-1 .- North/South Road Pro~ect
Presentati on'
Jeffrey Davis, Senior Planner
OLD BUSINESS:
6. Sunera. fy of Results of Residential Sign Code Survey
Presentation' Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner
NEff BUSINESS:
7. Large Family Day Care Homes
Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Resolution No. 2408: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin
recommending amendment of Section g223a6 of the Tustin
Municipal Code relating to Large Family Day Care Homes.
STAFF CONCERNS:
8. Report on City Counctl Actions of June 1, 1987 meeting
Presentatt on: Chrtstt ne Sht ngl eton, Di rector of Communtty Development
9. Status Report on Southern Orange Counties Planning Commission Meetings
Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner
10. Status Report on Summary of Work Projects
Presentation: Christi ne Shi ngleton, Dt rector of Community Development
ADdOURIIqENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 22, 1987.
MINUTES
TUSI'IN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEk-~ING.
MAY 26, 1987
CALL 10 ORDER:
6:00 p.m., City Counctl Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL:
Present: Well, Baker, Le Jeune
ABsent: Puckett, Ponttous
PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Llmlted 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.)
I. Minutes of May 11, 1987 Plannin9 Commission Meeting
Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker ~econded to approve the minutes of the May 11,
5987 Planning Commission meeting with the correction of moving the last paragraph on
page three to the end of Item 4. Motion carried: 3-0.
PlBLIC HEARINGS
USE PERMIT 87-8
Applicant:
Locatl on:
Outdoor Dtmensl ons
Newpot nte Apartments
14901 Newport Avenue
Presentati on:
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Request:
Authorization to install a 64 square foot temporary tract
identification sign.
RESOLUTION NO. 2406: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
APPROVING USE PERMIT 87-8 FOR THE NEWPOINTE APARTMENTS AT 14901
....... NEWPORT AVENUE
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE USE PERMIT 87-8 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2406.
Commission asked questions regarding the maximum period the sign would be allowed,
whether or not the sign would be lighted, if the developer intended to have any other
Plannlng Commission MJnutes
May 26, 1987
Page two
stgnage and whether the sign would be visible from the freeway.
The public hearing section was opened at 6:10 p.m.
Janet Watson, on behalf of Outdoor Dimensions offerred to answer, any questions.
The public hearing section was closed at 6:11 p.m.
Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 87-8 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 2406. Motion carried 3-0.
3. USE PERMIT 87-10
Appl I can t:
Property Owner:
Location:
Mr. Yehta Elhak
16621 Townhouse Drive
Tusttn, Ca. 92680
K. R. Harm
4226 Keystone Avenue
Culver City, Ca. 90230
Fast Stop Market, 17731 E. Mc Fadden Avenue: Unit A
Request:
Authorization to sell general liquor for off-site consumption in
conjunction with a convenience market use.
Presentatt on:
Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner
RESOLUTION NO. 2405: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
DENYING AN APPLICATION OF YEHIA ELHAK OF FAST STOP REQUESTING
AUTHORIZATION FOR OFF-SITE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AT
17311 MC FADDEN AVENUE, UNIT A.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Use Permit 87-10 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2405.
Commissioner Weil read a letter from Ethel Reynolds on behalf of Parents Who Care,
noting sadness at the application of another liquor license for a convenience store.
The public hearing section was opened at 6:15 p.m.
Et.hel. Reynolds representing Parents Who Care concurred with the staff report.
The public hearing section was closed at 6:16 p.m.
The Commission noted that there are solid guidelines to follow. They also questioned
whether there were any other applications pending that would be coming before the
Commission prior to th e Zoning Ordinance Amendment adoption.
Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to deny Use Permit 87-10 by the adoption
of Resolution No. 2405. Motion carried 3-0.
OLD BUSINESS:
None
Planning Commission Mi nu~es
May 2:6, 1987
Page three
'NEll BUSINESS:
None
STAFF CONCERNS:
e
Report on City Council Action, May 18, 1987
Cl~l~t~ttne Shingleton, Director of Community Development
Staff noted that the Council acted upon the following items'
Ze
Annexation public hearings are continued to a special called meeting on
May 26, 1987 at 7:00 p.m.
Approval of County of Orange Contract Services for the Block Grant Program
Approval of Contract for provisions of Senior Citizen's funding
Contract with FORMA was approved for the Conceptual Park Plan of Tract
12345
Staff also noted that the Commission would be receiveing Department Status and
Project Status reports in the future.
·
Development Status Report
Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner
COMNISSIOM CONCERNS:
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that there were children crossing 6th Street in front of
the Boy's Club where there is no crosswalk.
Commissioner Wetl had the following concerns:
·
To thank staff for the extra time to review the North/South Road EIR.
Status of the Orange County Planning Commission meetings.
AD,IOURI~IENT:
At 6:26 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to adjourn to the next regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting on June 8, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried
3-0.
Penni F~ley
Recording Secretary
Kathy Wei 1
Chairman Pro Tem
Planning
Commission
DATE:
SUBdECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
REQUEST:
dUNE 8, 1987 '
FINAL TRACT HAP 1276;3
THE IRVINE COMPANY
SECTORS 10 AND 11 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA
THAT THE COli~ISSION RE--ND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TRACT
RAP 12763
RECOIIIENDED ACTION:
That the Commission recommend to City Counctl approval of Tract 12763 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 2409.
BACKGROUND:
iii
On December 8, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended to Ctty
Council with appropriate conditions, approval of Tentative Tract.Hap 12763.
The subject map created 16 numbered and 28 lettered lots for residential; school
and public uses in Sectors 10 and 11 of the East Tustin Specific Plan.
Provisions for publtc streets and accommodations for publtc utilities were also
established.
On December 15, 1986, *City Counctl approved Tentative Tract 12763 as recommended
by the Commission.
At thts ttme the applicant has submtted a ftnal tract map for consideration in
conformance wtth the Subdivision Map Act.
DISCUSSION:
Staff in conjunction with advice from the City Attorney's office have determined
that conditions contained in Resolution No. 2376 and required prior to
recordation of the final map have been met. In the case of construction of
public improvements yet to commence, appropriate bonds have been* secured.
Comrnunity Development Department
Planntng Commission Report
Final Tract Map 12763
,lune 8, 1987
Page two
Further, the conftgurat.ton, number of lots and roadway alignment shown on the
map are tn substantial compliance with the approved Tentative ~lap.
·
Accordingly, tt ts recommended that the Commission recommend to City Counct]
approva] of Tract 12763 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2409.
Planner
JSD :per
Attachment:
Resolution No. 2409
Final Tract Map 12763
-Chrl st1 ne Sht ngletl~:~/
Dtrector of Communfty Development
Community Development Department
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. 2409
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP NO 12763
The.Planning Co.mmtsston of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows'
A. That Fi.nal Tract Map 12763 was submitted to the Planning
Commission on behalf of The Irvine Company for the purpose of
creating 44 lots (16 numbered and 28 lettered), a subdivision
from a portion of Blocks 43, 44 and 64 of Irvine; subdivision as
shown on a map thereof filed in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous
Maps in the office of the County Recorder of the County of
Orange, State of California.
B. That a public hearing concerning Tentative Tract Map 12763 was
duly called, noticed and held considering said map.
C. That Environmental Impact Report 85-2, as supplemented, has
previously been prepared, considered, approved and certified
which adequately addresses the general environmantal setting of
the project, its significant environmental impacts, and the
alternatives and mitigation measures applied to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed project and no additional
environmental document need be prepared. The Planning
Commission has reviewed and considered the information obtained
in the previous environmental impact report prior to approval of
the project.
D. That Tentative Tract Map 12763 was found by the Planning
Commission and City Council to be in conformance with applicable
zoning and subdivision regulations and the Tustin Area General
Plan by the adoption of Resolutions 2376 and 86-142
respectt rely.
E. That Final Map 12763 as submitted is in substantial compliance
with the approved Tentative Map and is in conformance with
applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and the Tustin
Area General Plan.
II. The Planning Commlsslo hereby recommends to the City Council approval
of Final Tract Map 12763.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Tusttn on the 8th day of June, 1987.
Penni Foley
Recording Secretary
~harles E. Puckett
Chairman
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 3
DATE:
SIJB,]ECT:
LOCATION ·
·
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ZONING
DESIGNATION'
~,ENVIROBIENTAL
~TATUS:
,
REQIJ[ST:
dUNE 8, 1987
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY/,]OHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE HONITORTNG
SYSTEH
17952 BENETA 1JAY (COLIJHBUS TUSTZN SCHOOL.SITE)
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIOMAL
PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
THAT THE PLANNING COlt4ISSION FIND THE USE OF A NOISE HONITORING
SYSTEH AT THE SUlN]ECT LOCATION IS IN CONFORHANCE WITH THE TUSTIN
AREA GENERAL PLAN.
REC(IIIENDED ACTION:
That the Commission determine that locatton of the notse monitoring system as
described below ts tn conformance wtth the General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
For the past 16 years an atrcraft notse monitoring devtce has been located on
the Columbus Tusttn School site at 17952 Beneta Nay. The device consists of a
ndcrophone mounted on a twenty foot pole with a small box of instruments located
at its base.
Authorization for placement of the system has been accomplished via a series of
agreements between the County of Orange and the Tusttn Unified $chool District.
The current agreement wtll exptre on Oune 30, 1987. According to a
representative of the Otstrtct a new 10 year agreement has been approved by the
School Board.
~ectton 65402 of the California Government Code addresses restrictions on
acquisition and dtsposal of real property. Thts sectton ts of relevance here tn
that 65402 (b) reads tn part that:
,, , Community Development Department
·
Planntng Commission Report
Notse Monitoring System
June 8, 1987
Page t~o
"A county shall not ... authorize a public building, or structure, tn another
county or wtthtn the corporate 11mtts of a ctty, tf such ctty or other county
has adopted a general plan ... unttl such publlc butldtng or structure have
been (sic) submitted to and rep(~:l~ed upon the-planning agency having
jurisdiction as to the conformity wtth satd adopted general plan ..."
The Columbus Tustin School site ts wtthln the jurisdictional 11mtts of the City
of Tustin and ts covered by the Tusttn Area General Plan. The general plan
designation for the stte ts publlc and Institutional.
DXSCUSSiO#:
With genera1 plan and zontng land use designations of publlc and Institutional
(P & I) activities at Columbus Tusttn are regulated accordingly. The general
plan deftnes as authorized land uses for thts stte, Institutions of a publlc or
quasi-public character. The P & I zone classification further delineates
allowed uses specifying that properties zoned as such. can also encompass uses
which have tax exempt status and/or miscellaneous characteristics dtsttnct from
standard residential, comercial, or Industrial classifications.
-..
It ts staff's opinton that gtven the nature of the site (a school stte whtch ts
tax exempt), the purpose for which the ~onttortng devtce ts established, and the
passtve nature of the system, that the use requested ts consistent with the
Tusttn Area General Plan. Accordingly, tt ts recommended that the Commission
determine that the notse monitoring devtce as described in the attached letter
from the County of Orange, General Servtces Agency ts tn conformance wtth the
General Plan. Commission action may. be taken by mtnute order.
S P n r ~0~ ~e~[to~eo~li~g~l ~tn~y Oe~el opment
JSD- CS- jm: pef
Attachment: Letter from General Service Agency dated May 15, 1987.
NGE
R. A. SCOTT
I~rector, General Sewk:es Agency
ROBERT G. LOVE
Director of Facilities & Real Property
JOHN Ro SHADDY
Manager, Real Estate Division
G-7800
May 15, 1
GENERAL SERVICES AGENCy
REAL ESTATE DIVISION
14 Civic Center Plaza, Third Fk:xx '
P.O. Box 4106
Santa Aha, California 92702
(714) 567-5003
City of Tust-in
P1 anning Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention: Christine A. Shingleton
Re: John Wayne Airport Noise Monitoring System
The County of Orange, John Wayne' Airport Noise Abatement department operates
a noise monitoring system at 17952 Beneta Way. The current agreement expires
June 30, 1987 and the new agreement will be effective July 1, 1987.
The sy. stems consist of a microphone mounted on a twenty foot pole, and a small
b°x of instruments located at the base.
Please review this proposal in accordance with Government Code Section 65402
to determine if this agreement complies with the City's General Plan.
Please indicate your determination by signing below and returning the attached
copy of this letter.
If you have any questions, please call me at 567-5003. Your early consideration
will be appreciated.
Wi 11 i am A. Rawlings
Real Property Agent
Attachment
CONCUR: This project is in conformance with the City's General Plan..
By Date
COMMENTS-
WAR:cb CR24-28-1 5-15-87
Planning Commission
DATE: dUNE 8, 1987
SUB,TECT:
VARIANCE NO. 87-2
LOCATION '
·
17480 E. 17TH STREET
APPLICAIIT:
SHOSHANA' S
17480 E. 1TTH STREET
TUSTIN, CA 92680
PROPERTY
ONNER:
MR. RON ALLEN
2914 E. KATELLA AVENUE
ORANGE, CA 92667
,'ONING:
PC-PLANNED COPlqUNITY C(XqlqERCIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CATAGORICALLY EXEMPT. CLASS
STATUS '
REQUEST:
REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ~0 PERMIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGN OF
19 SQUARE FEET #ITU LESS TUAN ltlE REQUIRED SETBACK.
RECOI, IqENDATION
Pleasure of the Commission.
BACKGROUND AND SIJI~IARY
Shoshana's is a full service beauty studio in the professional office building
located in Enderle Center at 17th Street and Enderle Center Way. This building
has several tenants, however, Shoshana's occupies a majority of the building and
is considered the major tenant.
At this time, Shoshana's is requesting authorization to 'legally' use the Center
Identification sign for the office building. This sign was originally issued a
permit as a Center Identification sign in August of 1977. Since this time the
-~tgn face has been changed on several occassions and now advertises Shoshana's.
Corn munity Development Department
Planning Commission Report.
3une 8, 1987
Shoshana' s
page two
·
·
Each of the tssues regarding thts vartance (tenant use of Center Identification
sign and variance of set-back requirements) are discussed seperately below·
TEI~NT USE OF CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN
The ortgt'nal permit tssue.d for this stgn specifies the sign as a Center
Identification stgn. As requtred by Sectton 9495 of the Stgn Code, Individual
tenants are not allowed free standtng signs fn the professfonal office
district.
In this case, Shoshana's is considered a retail tenant and is authorized retail
stgnage as specified in Sectton g494 of the Sign Code. Since Shoshana's is not
- ;~--authortzed free standing stgnage under this Section, a variance must be granted
,J:or use of the extsttng Center Identification sign.
As stated in Section 9471, variances of the Sign Code may be granted when the
following conditions are found to apply:
(1) That because of excepttonaT circumstances applicable to the.subject
propePty, the strict application of this Chapter ts found to deprive
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vtctntty and under stmtlar circumstances.
(2)' That the variance shall be' subject to such conditions as will assure
that the adjustments thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property
t s located.
In reference to the subject application, similar requests for sign variances
have been granted in the vicinity. These variances include-
APPLICANT SIGN TYPE DATE GRANTED
Stlver Streak Travel
17480 E. 17th St.
Calvalcade Escrow
17480 E.17th St.
12 sq. ft. tenant
identification sign
6 sq. ft. tenant
identification sign
1-3-78
2-21-78
Planning Commission Report
June 8, 1987
Shoshana's
page three
APPLXCANT
Salty Sam' s (now Hoho' s
Restaurant)
17460 E. 17th St.
Enderle Liquor
17460 E. 17th St.
SIGN TYPE
i ,i
32 sq. ft. tenant
identification sign
lg sq. ft. tenant
identification sign
DATE GRANTED
5-21-87
·
10-5-81
Since other similar signs in the same zone and .vicinity have been granted, it
could be argued that the subject variance request if approved would not be a
grant of special privilege.
VARIANCE OF REQUXRED SETBACKS
Fhe subject sign is approximately eight (8) feet from the property line along
17th Street and is located an equal dtsta, nce from the public right-of-way as
other existing signs on the same property. The required set-back along 17th
Street is fifteen (15) feet.
Substancial improvements of both 17th Street and Enderle' Center Way .have been
completed. The subject sign does not constitute a visual hazard and is not
located in an area proposed for future street widening.
CONCLUSIONS
Should the Commission concur that variances previously mentioned in the analysis
section above constitute a grant of privileges to other properties in the same
zone and vicinity, staff have prepared an appropriate resolution of approval.
The approved resolution includes certain conditions such as:
(1) Should Shoshana's re'locate, the subject sign shall be Used as a Center
Identification sign rather than a tenant identification sign.
(2) No other freestanding signs shall be located on the subject site.
Plannlng Commission Report
~lune 8, 1987
Shoshana' s
page. four
A dental resolution ts aiso presented should the Commission be unable to mal~e
the necessary approval findings. .
L
LCP- CAS: ts
~Ch~st~ne A. Sh~ngleton, ' ~
Dtrector Of Community Oe¢~'lopment
,~'-~Rttacheents: Stte Plan
Elevation of Stgn
Letter Requesting Variance
Resolution 2407-A
Resolution 2407-D
'x
March 19, 1987
City of Tustin
Con~unity Development Department
Attn: Laura Cay Pickup
Re: Explanation to Variance Request for Shoshana's
This request-is not for a new monument sign, but rather a request
to change present monument sign identification from former prime
mortgage to present Shoshana's Salon.
This sign is located on Seventeeth Street and provides the
greatest source of our advertising which is essential for our day.
to day operation. Shoshana's Salon is the largest tenant in the
building and occupies approximately 50% of the property.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Arnt~a,.F~mel~or~ - ~ - ~'~'-~~ ' ~
AK/ m
!
2
5
6
7
8
9
11)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2407-A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A VARIANCE OF THE
~ETBACK R~QUIREM~NT~ AND THE COMMERCIAL
OISTRICT SIGN REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW TENANT
IDENTIFICATION ON A FREE STANDING MONUMENT SIGN
AT 17480 E~ 17TH STREET, TUSTIN.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, Variance No. 87-2, was filed by
Arnte Kimeldorf on behalf of Shoshana's requesting authorization
to vary from the requirements of Planned Community District
set-back requirements and to vary with the Commercial Sign Code
requirements to allow tenant identification on a Center
Identification sign at 17480 E. 17th Street, Tustin.
B. That a pUblic hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application.
C. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, relative to size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning and Sign
Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical
zone classification, as evidenced by the following findings:
1. The sign applied for is in conformance with the Tustin
General Plan.
2. The sign applied for shall be re-established as a Center
Identification sign at the time the applicant should move
from the site.
e
Exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject
property and the strict application of the Sign Code is
found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other properties in the vicinity and under similar
ct rcumstances.
4. That the variance shall be subject to such conditions as
will assure that the adjustments thereby authorized will
not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
and district in which the subject property is located.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2407
Page two
D. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Envlronmental Ouality Act.(Class II)
That the granting of the variance as herein provided will not be
contrary to the intent of the Zoning and Sign Ordinance or the
public safety, health and welfare, and said variance should be
granted.
F. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the. development
policies adopted by the City Council; Un.iform Building Codes as
administered by the Building Official: Fire Codes as
administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal; and street
improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
II. The Planning Commission grants a variance as applied for, to
authorize use of a free standing sign in the set-back area and to use
a Center Identification sign for tenant identification at 17480 E.
17th Street, subject to the following conditions'
A. The sign applied for shall be re-established as a Center
Identification sign at the time Shoshana's relocates.
B. No other free standing signage will be authorized on the subject
property.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular me~ting of the Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198__.
Penny Foley,
Recording Secretary
Charles E. Puckett
Chairman
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. 2407-D
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING AUTHORIZATION FOR A
VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND THE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SIGN REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW
TENANT IDENTIFICATION ON A FREE STANDING
MONUMENT SIGN AT 17480 E. 17TH STREET, TUSTIN.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, Variance No. 87-2, was filed by Arnie
Kimeldorf on behalf of Shoshana's requesting authorization to
vary from the requirements of Planned Community District
set-back requirements and to vary with the Commercial Sign Code
requirements to allow tenant identification on a Center
Identification sign at 17480 E. 17th Street, Tustin.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
appl t cati on.
C®
Special circumstances are not found to be applicable to the
subject property, relative to size, shape, topography, location
or surroundings,, and application of the Zoning and Sign
Ordinances are not found to deprive subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the ~icin.ity and under
identical zone classification, as evidenced by the following
findings:
le
That exceptional circumstances are not applicable to the
subject property, and the strict application of the Sign
Code is not found to deprive subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under
simtlar circumstances.
2. That the variance, if granted, will constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and district in which the
subject property is located.
D. That the granting of a variance as herein provided wi'll
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district
in which the subject property is situated.
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. 2407
Page two
That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act.(Class II)
That the granting of the variance as herein provided will be
contrary to the intent of the Zoning and Sign Ordinances and the
public safety, health and welfare, and said variance should not
be granted.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby denies the variance as applied for,
requesting a variance of the set-back requirements and the Commercial
District Sign Code standards for tenant identification on a Center
Identification sign at 17480 E. 17th Street, Tusttn.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the day of 198
Charles E. Puckett,
Chairman
PENNI FOLEY,
Recording Secretary
ITEM NO. ~ ,,
Planning
Commission
DATE."
JUNE 8, 1987
SUBJECT'
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT REPORT 87-1
NORTH/SOUTH ROAD PROJECT
RECOIIIENDED ACTZON:
It ts recommended that the Commission 1) open the publlc heartng on the subject
EIR and recetve testimony; 2) close the publtc heartng; and 3) dtrect staff to
respond, tn wrttlng, to all wrttten and verbal comments recetved tn regards to
the Draft EIR.
BACKGROUND: ·
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 87-1 has been prepared in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and considers environmental
implications of a proposed arterial highway. As the majority of the project is
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City, Tusttn is acting as the lead
agency in. processing the EIR.
. The proposed North/South Road is an-extension of Old Myford Road at least a
portion of which will be renamed Jamboree Road. The proposed roadway will
extend north of I-5 to existing Chapman Avenue (realigned Santiago Canyon Road)
and will traverse the eastern boundary of the City of Tusttn, and extend into
the City of Orange and unincorporated County area. The roadway will be a six
lane facility to Tusttn Ranch Road and a four lane facility from Tustin Ranch
Road to Chapman Avenue.
Pursuant to CEQA, after review of an initial study questionaire, it was
determined that an environmental impact report was required in conjunction with
the proposed roadway. Accordingly, a Notice of Prepareatton was distributed to
the State Clearinghouse, responsible agencies, and other interested parties.
Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held early on in* an effort to solicit
further public response and input. Finally, in terms of notification of the
availability of the DEIR, *copies of the document were sent to responsible
agencies and interested parties, and were made available at Tustin City Hall as
noted in a press release issued to the Tustin News, Orange. City News and the
Orange County Register.
Presently, the environmental consulting firm, LSA is preparing responses to
written comments received to date.
For Commission information, the formal public review period was from March 27
to April 27, 1987.
..
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission Report
North/South Road Draft EIR
June 8, ].987
Page two
PROa'ECT DESCRZPTTON:
The North/South Road, ex'tends through the Ctty of Tusttn, Orange County and the
Ct ty of Orange. Immediately adjacent to the west stale of the alignment in the
southern portion of the project ts the East Tusttn Spectftc Plan Area. Further
to the north, the alignment borders the Upper Peter's Canyon Reservoir and the
Upper Peter's Canyon Specific Plan tract. The alignment of the North/South Road
ts located easterly of the proposed Peter's Canyon Reservoir Regtonal Park (See
Exhtbtt A).
The 11mits of the project extend from Irvlne Boulevard to s11ghtly north of
extsttng Chapman Avenue. Currently, there ts a separate proposal to realign
Chapman Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road. The northern ltmtts of the project
would be at future realigned Santtago Canyon Road.
The project is intended to provide an additional north/south artertal to better
serve the transportation needs of exlsttng and future planned development tn the
regton, to relteve congestion on other parallel roadways, such as Newport and
Red Htll Avenues, and to provtde reltef to Chapman Avenue west of the project by
providing an alternate route out of the Orange area. Thts project represents
the Implementation of an artertal roadway whtch has been an assumed feature tn
Several approved planntng documents &nd projects. These documents include the
East Tusttn Specific Plan and the Upper Peter's Canyon Spectftc Plan. In
addition, the artertal roadway has been Identified tn the Master Plans of
Artertal Highways for each jurisdiction, as described in the Traffic and
Circulation Sectton of the EIR.
The length of the North/South Road project ts 4.~ mt les, The project, as
analyzed in the EIR, is a stx-lane factltty from Irvtne Boulevard to Tustln
Ranch Road and a four-lane factltty from Tusttn Ranch Road to existing Chapman
Avenue. Based on the requirements of adjacent development and the conclusions
of the traffic report, tntttal Construction wtll include ftve lanes (three
southbound and two northbound) from Irvlne Boulevard to Tusttn Ranch Road, and
four lanes northerly of Tusttn Ranch Road. The need to wtdentng to slx lanes
from Irvtne Bouldvard to Tust~n Ranch Road would be Implemented tn conjunction
wtth future adjacent development and would be ftnanced through appropriate funds
relattng to that development.
Present plans indicate the project, with the exception of the sixth lane between
Irvtne Bouldvard and Tustin Ranch Road, will be constructed in one phase.
Construction is projected to start as &arly as July, 1987, and, with a fifteen
month construction period planned, completion could then occur in October, 1988.
Community DeveloDment De'
Plannlng Commission Report
North/South Road Draft
June 8, 1987
Page three
PRO,]ECT ZMPACTS:
·
Pursuant to CEQA, gener'al environmental areas that may be Potentially impacted
by the North/South Road have been reviewed and addressed in the Draft EIR.
Specifically, earth, water, biological and cultural resourses were considered.
Also, land use, relevant planning programs, traffic and circulation, noise, air
quality, aesthetic/visual resources and public service/utility impacts were
analyzed.. A summary of the potential impacts, mitigation measures and the level
of significance of the tmpacts after mtttgatl, on ts attaached tn- Table 1. Page
numbers .indicated after each heading, indicate where items are discussed in the
Draft EIR.
In addition to the effects listed on Table 1,* concerns have been raised relating
to three other issues. The first of these issues is the potential for a future
northerly link or extension of the North/South Road to State Route 91. The
second issue is the need for consideration of an ultimate six lane section of
the road between Tusttn Ranch Road and Santiago Canyon Road. The third issue is
the impact the road may have on the Irvtne Agricultural Headquarters as an
hi stori cal area.
Each of these areas of concern will be evaluated in the response to comments
document currently being prepared and additional information will be presented
at the public hearing. -
PROCESSTNG
In terms of processing the following, schedule of actions are as follows:
June 8, 1987 - Public hearing before the Planning Commission to receive
public testimony on the Draft EIR. Staff to prepare written responses to
all comments including written comments submitted to date.
June 22, 1987 - Planning Commission to review all comments on Draft EIR
and all responses thereto· Additionally, the Commission shall review and
consider any changes 'to the Draft EIR necessitated by comments or
responses thereto· After such review, the Commission will make a
recommendation to the City Council concerning the adequacy of the Final
EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, a Final EIR is defined as a document containing:.
the Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft; comments and recommendations
received on the Draft EIR; a list of persons, organizations, and public
agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; responses of the Lead Agency to
significant points raised in the review and consultation process; and any
other information added by the Lead Agency.
July 6, 1987 - City Council will receive recommendations of the Commission
and will consider certification of the Final EIR.
Corn ~munitv.,~Devetopment De__oart~_~_~_t. '
Planning Commission Report
North/South Road Draft EIR
June 8, 1987
Page four
·
SWlMRY:
The June 8, 1987 public heartng before the Commission ts held to receive
testimony on the 'subject EIR. Thts transmittal ha~ conveyed background and
procedural steps that are tnvolved tn the environmental review process. On June
8, the consulting firm of LSA w111 present Information on the actual
environmental document and wtll be available to respond to Commission concerns.
Ftnally, at the June 22, 1987 meettng all Information comptled and tnput
recetved as of that date w111 be presented to the Commission as Final EZR 87-1.
JSO:pef .
Director of Communtty'D~'~lopment
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map
Table I - Impacts/Mitigation Measures
Project Location
EX A
Proposed
l;i......!~l~:':':".' City of Tuatin
IFTTI-ll city of Irvine
~ Irvine Sphere
of Influence
City of Orange
County of Orange
Proposed Peters Canyon
Regional Park
N,
8tale In Feet
0 2000 4000
Orange Sphere
of Influence
T/',BLE I
SUMMARY OF %MPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
PO~ITE~IAL ADVERS[ )MpACTS
The lmoject will require cut and fill
a~zt~mtties, including approximately
cubic yards of export material.
Theproject area could be exposed to
p~ial landsliding.
ltte s~te contains come unsuitable soil,
same non-rippable, or difficult to rip
mmd:e~ial~s and some expansive compress-
f~.~l?-~rficial deposits.
MTTIGATION M[ASURES
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTI~R MITIGATION
EARTH RESOURCES (PAGES 10- 16)
Stabilization or buttressing of cut
slopes will be applied primarily
along easterly facing cut slopes,
where adversely oriented bedding
planes of the Vaqueros-Sespe Form-
ation will likely be exposed. West-
erly facing cut slopes and younger
alluvial cut slopes will be buttressed
as necessary. The best approximation
of necessary buttressing will be de-
termined prior to fieldwork and/or
issuance of a grading permit.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
Slope inclination will not exceed a
2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ratio,
except in special cases where geD-
technical data validates the ability
to deviate from a 2:1 slope.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
Removal of colluvium, alluvium, top-
soil, landslide debris and artificial
fill to suitable foundation earth
materials will be required prior to
placement of fill in areas where
these deposits occur.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
Tlte l~roject will encroach on three
pfl)e~fnes in the northerly portion.
Recommendations made by the geotech-
nical consultants (Pacific Soils
Engineering, Inc.) during the final
design phase regarding pipeline con-
straints shall be adhered to.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
~lmlarmject will be subject to ground-
slin~k~ in the event of an earthquake.
The road will be designed in accor-
dance with seismic design provisions
as published by the California
Department of Transportation to pro-
mote safety in the event of an earth-
quake.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
ADVERSE IMPACTS
M)T)GATION MEASURES
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
WATI~R RESOURCES (PAGE ~7 - 2~)
Implementation of the proposed project
result in short-term impacts to
s~rface water quality during grading
construction.
Erosion control measures will be dev-
eloped and incorporated into final
grading plans bythe project pro-
ponent to minimize potential in-
creases in erosion and sediment
transport during construction.
An erosion/siltation control plan
shall then be submitted by the pro-
ject proponent for approval by Tus-
tin, Orange and the County for their
respective jurisdictions prior to
initiation of construction activities.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
project will result in a long-term
c~te~ge in the composition of run-off
diisckarged.
Appropriate pollution control mea-
sures, such as a street sweeping pro-
gram and periodic storm drain clear-
ing will be conducted by the appro-
priate agencies to reduce long-term
water quality impacts.
Long-term erosion and sedimentation
control will be provided as part of
the project with the inclusion of
down-drains and terrace drains in
appropriate areas of cut and fill
within the road design.
BIOI. O61CAI, RESOURCES (PAGES 23- 30)
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
~mstnmction of the project will result in
removal or loss of less than one acre
ripmri, an woodland and riparian thicket.
Prior to issuance of grading permits,
the California Department of Fish and
Game shall be notified and consulted
on the possible necessity of a 1601
permit.
Assuming concurrence by Calif-
ornia Department of Fish and of
Game, mitigated to an accept-
able level.
'AL ADVERSE IHPACTS
HIT)GAT)ON H~ASUR~S
CULTURAL RESOURCES (PAGES 3~ - 34)
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER M)T)GAT)ON
The project may result in the disruption of
an archaeological site which, according to
existing records, could yield subsurface
materials.
A limited test-level investigation
shall be conducted by a qualified
archaeologist to determine precisely
the surface and subsurface boundaries
of CA-Ora-556 along the proposed
route. Such testing would include
a series of 1 x 1 meter excavation
units placed in the area where grading
for the roadway is anticipated. This
investigation would provide the
necessary information in order to
determine the significance of the site.
Mitigated to an acceptable
level.
The proposed project does not directly
impact any structures of historical
significance, but will bisect the elig-
ible historic area and could affect the
continuity of a potential future his-
toric district.
Noise barrier measures such as the Mitigated to an acceptable
wall used to separate Irvine Boule- level.
yard from the eligible property shall
be utilized to ensure compliance with
State standards to minimize noise
impacts on occupied residences with-
in the eligible area and on any historic
district which might be established
in the future.
The materials, colors, design and
landscaping of any fence or wall
separating the North/South Road from
the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters
complex shall be selected and approved
by the City of Tustin with careful
consideration to preserving the rural
character of the property eligible for
future designation as an historic
district..
POI/[NLIIAL AOVERS{ IMPACTS
Alt , no paleontologic resources are
k~ to occur on the project site,
grading could uncover unrecorded fossil
remains during excavation of sensitive
bedrock formations.
MITIGATION M~ASURES
A qualified paleontologist shall be
retained to attend any pregrade meet-
ings and monitor initial grading
operations involving sensitive bedrock
formations. If fossils are discovered,
the paleontologist shall be allowed
to divert or redirect grading in the
vicinity Qf the remains in order to
evaluate and salvage exposed fossils.
~o' i~acts.
LAND USE (PAGES 35 - 41)
,RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAI~$ (PAGES 4~ - 49)
Tbe proposed project will not adversely
impact current planning programs. How-
ever, impacts could occur to the regional
parks located northerly of the North-South
Road terminus a~ the time a northerly
extession is proposed.
Final engineering design of the
project shall not preclude the
potential to later construct, in
addition to the preferred align-
merit, the Easterly Alternative
which could become the northerly
extension to SR-91.
Recommendation
The appropriate approval agencies
shall refer, at the time of a
proposed northerly extension, to
edge treatment, viewshed protection
and oak management mitigation measures
as outlined on pages 61-63 of the
Weir Canyon Park-Road Study (County
of Orange, 1984). In addition,
realignment of the northerly exten-
sion to a more easterly alternative
shall also be considered as a
potentia) mitigation measure by that
future project.
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFT[R MITIGATION
Mitigated to an acceptable
1 evel.
This project will not result in
any significant impacts to
relevant planning programs.
I~ENTIAL ADV~RS~ IMPACT~
· M)TIGATION MEASURI~S
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION (PAGES 50 - 74)
lle adverse impacts have been identified
relating to the proposed project. On
Jamberee Road, south of the actual pro-
jest being addressed in this EIR, the five
)amc section will be adequate until 1991,
I~. lecal intersection improvements will
me~ to be implemented and will be addres-
sed through and as development of the
[mst lustin Specific Plan area occurs.
Since no adverse impacts have been
identified, and since the project
is consistent with the respective
Master Plans of Arterial Highways,
no mitigation is necessary.
No significant impacts.
[emst~ction of the project will repre-
semi a temporary short-term noise impact.
NOISE (PAGES 75 - 88)
Compliance with the Orange County,
Tustin and Orange Noise Ordinances
will mitigate impacts associated with
construction noise. To comply with
the ordinance most construction
activities will be limited to daytime
hours on Monday through Fridays when
occurring near residential areas.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
IIV~'ce level dust emissions will result
f, roject construction activities.
AIR OUALITY (PAGES 89 - 99)
Dust suppression measures, such as
regular watering and early paving of
the road shall be implemented by the
project proponent to reduce emissions
during construction and grading.
Mitigated to a level of non-
significance.
AESTHETICS/VISUAL RESOURCES (PAGE 100 - :1.06)
l~proposed project will be visible
seam limited areas of.existing
residential development.
Hard edges left by cut-and-fill operations
shall be softened where visual impact can
be a concern, as determined during the
plan-check stage of the project, by
Tustin, Orange and the County of Orange
for segments in their respective juris-
dictions.
Due to the absence of natural topo-
graphical features, native tree ~nd shrub
plantings, landscaped barrier berms,
walls and/or combinations of these
screening features shall be provided
along the road at cross sections 4
and 5, to block or reduce visibility
of the project from existing residential
areas. The barrier shall be at a height
sufficient to substantially block views
as determined during the final roadway
design phase. The roadway screening plan
shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Oirector of Community
Oevelopment, City of Tustin, and/or the
appropriate jurisdiction.
Mitigated to a level
significance.
to
po~
.AL ADVERSE )MPACTS
MIT)GATION MEASURES
LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER MITIGATION
No adverse impacts identified.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (PAGES 107 - 114)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of'Tustin Police Department recom-
mends that, during the construction phase
of the project, private security be pro-
vided for the protection of equipment and
materials-during non-working hours. This
recommendation shall be implemented if
deemed necessary by the contractor.
The following transit service features,
supportive of public transit, shall be
considered for the project during the
plan review: bus turnouts, consistent with
the OCTD Design Guidelines for Bus Facil-
ities; paved, lighted and handicapped
accessible pedestrian walkways between dev-
elopment and bus stops; and bus shelters.
This measure is not required
in response to an environ-
mental impact, but rather
should be considered a better-
ment or beneficial feature in-
corporated to improve the
project.
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 6
dUNE 8, 1987
SIRURY OF RESULTS OF RESIDENTIAL SIGN CODE SURVEY
~NDATION ACTION:
i ii
Receive and file.
BACKGROUND
~'he Community Development Department and the Planning Commission have been
=rktng on revisions of the Sign Code since late October of 1986. As part of
this project t~o Surveys were conducted. One was conducted to assess the
opinion of* the business community, the other to assess the opinions of the
residents.
The results of the business survey were presented to the Commission on April 13,
1987 and a copy of the survey results* is attached for comparison (Exhibit A).
The resident survey has been completed and a tabulation of the results are
discussed.
AImLYSIS
The residence survey was sent to 495 homes throughout Tusttn. Five survey areas
were identified as sho~n on the attached Exhibit B. Each respondent was
requested to give an opinion of statements regarding the regulation of signs.
Each opinion had a numerical value and the respondent checked the number which
correctly identified their opinion of the statement. These numerical values
included: (1) Strongly Agree; (2) Agree; (3) No Opinion;. (4) Disagree; (5)
Strongly Disagree. Statements were similar to those used in the business
survey. Slight changes were made for simplification. These statements were as
follows:
1. 'Temporary signs, such as banners, bunting, "A" frames, flags,
cards, and posters displayed on the outside of a building
should not be permitted.
2. Signs painted directly on the surfa.ce of a wall should not be
permttted.
Planning Commission Report
Status of St gn Code Survey
~une 8, !987
page two
3e
A.11 new shoppt.ng centers should have a stgn program whtch
requtres untform colors and/or consistent types of signs for
all stores tn the center. ·
4e
To reduce s~gn clutter at gas/service stations, the Ctty
should adopt standards whtch regulate the sJze and number of
stgns.
.Stgns attached to 'windows should be regulated by thetr stze
and number.
6. The Cfty should adopt regulatfons whlch concern the stze and
colors of slgns with exposed neon tubtng.
~n analysfs of the results of the survey area by study area and an overall
review are attached for revfew.
Otrector of Communfty Oeve~pment
LCP- CAS- ts
Attachments- Business Survey Results (Exhtbtt A)
Exhtbtt B
Survey Results
il
ii i i ii i ii i ·
~,,
· i i i. ~ i -
i i · Ill I
, ,
....
--
I I ~ I I
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
/
/
CITY OF
TUSTIN
Survey Areas
EXHIBIT B
AMALYSZS OF RESZDEllrr SURVEY RESULTS
QUESTION 1:
The overall results of the survey showed that the residents generally
agreed with regulation of temporary signs, (32~ Strongly Agree and 22~
Agree) however this was the statement that had the largest percentage
(25~ Disagree and 14~ Strongly Disagree) of disagreement. This
opinion was common in all five of the study areas.
QUESTION 2:
The survey respondents showed a 70~ agreement with the elimination of
painted wall signs. The respondents recorded a 21~ disagreement tn
this statement.
QUESTION 3:
The respondents recorded a 79[ agreement wtth the Ctty's requfring a
master sign plan for shopptng centers. One respondent noted that
shopptng center tenant signs should be readable from the street,
otherwise they are a trafftc hazard.
QU[STIO# 4:
This question was the statement regarding the reduction of gas station
stgns. The respondents recorded 82~ agreement'in this area.
·
QI~STION 5:
68) of the respondents agreed that window signs should be regulated.
A 100% response of 'No Opinion' was also recorded in this area.
QUESTION 6:
Thts respondent recorded 87Z in favor of regulating neon stgns. Only
6Z recorded dlsagreement wlth thls tssue.
OVERALL RESULTS:
A tally of the overall results of the survey shows that 72~ of the
respondents agree with all six statements in the survey. .,20~ recorded
negative responses and an overall of 8~ of no op~nton was recorded.
l eport to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 7
SUIMECT:
JU#E 8, 1987
LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
RBCOI~ENDATION
I~ Is recommended that the Planntn9 Commission dtrect staff to advertise a
publlc hearing as soon as posstble and upon the completion of any necessary
anvtronmental revtew for Zontng 0rdtnance Amendement No. 87-01.
~RCKGROUND
ET~fecttve January 1, 1984 legislation went tnto effect regulating the p~acement
and'. operation of large faintly day care homes. Thts legislation virtually
pre-empted local control of thts use, however, tt does allow ~ocal ordinances to
pimescrtbe certain standards. On May 21, 1984 the Ctty Counc11 adopted Ordinance
91~_~ (see copy attached) whtch allows large faintly day care homes .tn .the stngle
f~amtly residential districts. Thts ordinance established reasonable standards
flor large faintly day care homes.
A~:tached to thts memo ts correspondence recetved from the Ctty Attorney which
maggests that our present code be amended to better meet the provisions of. State
· 'lJaw. In response to thetr memorandum and other ~ssues ratsed by the Ctty
Counctl tn thetr revtew of recent large faintly day care home applications,
pmoposed Zontng Code Amendments have been prepared.
AIIALYSIS
Tl~,Tusttn Ctty Code states-
"Large Famtly Day Care Home" means a 'family dwelltng untt, non-Institutional
tn character, properly 11censed by the County of Orange, whtch provtdes day
care only, for a maximum of t~elve ([2) chtldren ages etghteen ([8) years or
younger, Including the licensee's own chtldren under the age of twelve (12).
lie Health and Saftey Code Sectton 1597.46 mandates that permtts be granted
tt~e' large famtly day care home compltes wtth local ordinances whtch prescribe
standards or restrictions concerning spactng, concentration, trafftc control,
parktng and notse control.
The Ctty's. current code tncludes regulations regarding notse (to some extent)
.and spactng but does not tnclude any crtterta for trafftc and parktng.
Corn reunify DeveloPment De_pa~.r!men!
Planning Commission Report
Large Famtly Day Care Home
June 8, 1987
Page Two
Proposed code amendments would provide staff with the ability to better evaluate
the location of a proposed large family day care home. These amendments would
also provide additional' protection and mitigation to the neighbors in the
vicinity of day care homes ensuring that approval, o4: large family day care
homes will not create a traffic problem for the neighborhood. Appropriately,
Staff recommends that amendments be made to Section 9223 of the Zoning Code as
follows:
1. Modify Section 9223a6e of the Tusttn Code to read-
No hearing on the application for a permit shall be held by the
Planning Commission unless a hearing is requested by the
applicant or a property owner within 100 feet of the proposed
home.. The permit shall be granted if the large family day care
home complies with the provisions of this code.
2. Modify Section 9223a6d to read-
All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior
boundaries of a proposed large family day care home as shown on
the last equalized County assessment roll shall be north:ted of
the intent to establish such a home.
3. Modify Section 9223a6b to read-
Large family day care homes shall be operated in a manner not
exceeding the noise levels in the Tusttn Noise Ordinances, nor
shall such' day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that
would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. A day
care home shall also by design, location and layout avoid any
potential noise which may constitute a nuisance to neighboring
properties.
4. Add the following additional standards to Section 92~3a6-
a)
Any day care home must comply with the provisions of the State
Uniform Building Code and City of Tusttn building requirements
which apply to single family residences.
Planning Commission Report
Large Faintly Day Care Home
Oune 8, !987
Page Three
b)
c)
Any large.day care home must provide one (:1) off-street parking
space for' each employee who is not a resident of the premises,
and provide drop-off/pick-up factlttte~ on-site or immediately
adjacent to the site as necessary to avoid interference with
traffic and to promote the safety of children.
An applicant for a large day care home shall be licensed or
deemed to be exempt from ltcensure-by the State of California as
a large.family day care home.
Attached for the Commission's review is a draft resolution with the above
recommended amendments. Should the Commission agree with the proposed approach,
~staff would be prepared to schedule the matter for a public hearing.
'~/~+ ~~/~-~'~~J~. ' "C'h~tsttne A. Shtncyl~ton,
~f~ry~ nn Cl~mberlaln, ~
Associate Plamner Director of Community Development
MAC: CAS- ts
Attachments: Ordinance No. 911
Resolution No. 2408
1
2
3
4
RESOLUTION NO. 2408
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF
SECTION 9223a6 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES.
5 The Planning Commission of the C.tty of Tusttn does hereby resolve.
6
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows-
a) That the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 1597.46 mandates that a
permit be granted for large family day care
homes if they comply with local standards and
requirements.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19i
20
21
22
23
b) That to ensure that the integrity of the
Single-Family Residential zone is maintained,
the City may establish applicable standards
for spacing and concentration, traffic
control, parking and noise control.
c) That a Negative Declaration has been prepared
conformtn~ with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II. The Planning Commission hereby re.commends to the City Council
that Section 9223a6 be amended as follows:
'6. Large family day care homes", caring for seven (7) to
twelve (12) children, are subject to the following regulations-
a) Prior to commencement of operation of any
large family day care home, the applicant for
a permit shall complete and submit an
application to the Community Development
Department. Information provided on the
permit shall include: Name of operator:
address of the home; and a list of property
owners within 100 feet of the proposed day
care home.
24
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2408
Page Two
b) Large family day care homes shall be operated
in a manner not exceeding the noise level in
the Tusttn Noise Ordinance, nor shall such
day care homes be allowed to operate in a
manner' that would constitute a nuisance to
neighboring properties. A day care home
shall by design, location and layout avoid
any potential noise which may constitute a
nuisance to neighboring properties.
c) A permit shall not be granted for a large day
care home that would be established within
300 feet of the exterior property boundaries
of any existing licensed large family day
care home.
d) All property owners within a 100 foot radius
of the exterior property boundaries of a
proposed large family day care home, as shown
on the last equalized County assessment roll
shall be notified of the intent to establish
such a home.
e) No hearing on the application for a permit
shall be held by the Planning Commission
unless a hearing is requested by the
applicant or a property owner within 100 feet
of the proposed home. The permit shall be
granted if the large family day care home
complies with the provisions of this code.
f) Any day care home must comply with all
regulations adopted and enforced by the State
Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire
Department.
g) The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by
a minimum six-foot high fence.
h) The Planning Commission shall not grant a
permit for a large family day care home for
any location that has on the property a
swimming pool as defined by Section 102 of
the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, as adopted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Resolution No. 2408
Page Three
Any day care home must comply wi th the
provisions of the State Uniform Building Code
and City of Tusttn Building requirements
which apply to single family residences.
Any large day care home must provide one (1)
off-street parking space for each employee
who is not a resident of the premises, and
provide drop-off and/or pick-up facilities
on-site or immediately adjacent to the site
as necessary to avoid interference with
traffic and to promote the safety of
chi 1 dren.
k) An applicant for a large day care home shall
be licensed or deemed to be exempt from
ltcensure by the State of California as a
large family day care home.
1) Nothing contained in the provisions of this
amendment shall preclude the revocation for
cause of any permit granted for a large
family day care home following proceedings
conducted by the Planning Commission to
determine if said use is operated in a manner
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare
of the community or surrounding properties.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198 .
PENNI FOLEY,
Recording Secretary
Charles E. Puckett,
Chairman
ORDINANCE NO. 911
2
3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
THE TUSTIN CITY CODE ALLOWING LARGE FAMILY DAY
CARE HOMES IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS (ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 84-1)
The City Council of the City of Tustin does' hereby ORDAIN as
4 follows:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I. Section 9221a of the Tustin City Code is hereby amended
by addtng the fol 1 Dwi ng:
6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the standards contained tn
the R-10istrict regulations (Section 9223a.6.)
II.
Section 9222a of the Tusttn City Code is hereby amended
by adding the following:
4. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the standards contained in
the R-1 District Regulations (Section 9223a.6.).
III.
Section 9223a of the Tustt n Ct ty Code ts hereby amended
by adding the fol 1 Dwi ng:
6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the following regulations:
a. Prior to commencement of operation, of any Large
Family Day. Care Home, the applicant for a permit
shall complete and submit an application to the
Gommunity Development Department. Information
provided on the permit shall include: name of
operator; address of the home; and a list of
property owners within 100 feet of the proposed
day care home.
b. Large family day care homes shall be operated in
a manner not exceeding the noise levels in the
Tustin Noise Ordinance, nor shall such day care
homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would
constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties.
c. A permit shall not be granted for a large day care
home that would be established within 300 feet of
any existing licensed large family day care home.
d. All property OWners within 100 feet of a proposed
large family day care home shall be notified of
the intent to establish such a home.
e. If any written protest against permit issuance is
received from any property owner within 100 feet
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
Ordinance No. 91.
Page Z
of the proposed ho~e, a hearing shall be conducted
by the Planning Commission. Based on .testimony
presented during the hearing pertaining to noise,
traffic, parking, concentration .or spacing of such
homes, the Planning Commission shall approve or
deny the request for a large family day care home.
f. Any day cam home must comply with all regulations
adopted and enforced by the State Ftre Marshal and
Orange County Fire Department.
g. The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by a
minimum six-foot (6') high fence.
h. The Planntng Commission shall not grant a permit
for a Large Family Day Care Home for any location
that has on the property-a swimming pool. as
defined by Section 102 of the Uniform Swimming
Pool Code, as adopted.
t. Nothing contained in the provisions of this
amendment shall preclude the revocation for cause
of any pemtt g~anted for a large family day care
home following proceedings conducted by the
Planning 'Commission to determine if said use is
operated in a manner detrimental to the health,
safety or welfare of the community or surrounding
property.
IY.
Section 9224b of the Tusttn City'Code is hereby amended
by adding the following:
12. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the standards contained in
the R-1 District regulations (Section 9223a.6.).
Ye
Section 9228a of the Tusttn City Code ts hereby amended
by adding the following:
6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the standards contained in
the R-1 District regulations (Section g223a.6.).
VI. Section 9244d of the Tusttn City Code is hereby amended
by adding the following:
5. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children shall be allowed as permitted uses in
those areas designated for single-family residential
land.uses, subject to the standards contained in the
R-1 District regulations (Section g223a.6.).
Ordinance No. 9._ :
Page 3
·
·
·
VII. Section 9297 Definitions of the Tusttn City Code ts
hereby amended bY adding the following:
$
5
6
7
8
9
10
"Large Family Day Care Home" means-a family dwelling
unit, non-institutional in character, properly licensed
by the County of Orange, which provides day care only,
for a maximum of twelve (12) children ages 18 years or
younger, including the licensee's own children under the
age of 12.
VIII. A Negative Declaration for Zoning Ordinance Amendment
No. 84-1 is hereby approved in conformance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council held on the 21st day of May , 1984.
11
12
13 ATTEST:
17
18
19
20
21
22
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF TUSTIN )
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the
members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above
and foregoing Ordinance No. gll was duly and regularly introduced and read
at an adjourned regular meetln~ of the City Council held on the 7th day of
May, 1984, and was given its second reading and duly passed and a~ed at a
23 regular meeting held on the 21st day of ~f, 1984, by the following vote:
24 AYES : COUNCILPERSONS: Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli
NOES : COUNCILPERSONS: None
25 ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: Greinke, Kennedy
28
SUI~ARY PUBLISHED IN TUSTIN NEWS:
May 31, 1984
DATE:
APRIL 13, 1986
Inter-Corn
T0: CHRISTINE SHINGLETON, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: CITY ATTORNEY
SU8JECT: CITY REGULATION OF LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES
We have prepared a draft ordinance amendinG Section 9223a(6)
of -the Tustin City Code relating to large family day care homes.
This amendment is designed to more carefully tailor the City's
ordinance to the provisions of State law. As an example, the
City's ordinance currently requires that a hearinG be conducted
if a written protest is received. AccordinG to State law, no
hearing shall be held unless it is specifically requested by the
applicant or other affected person. In addition, the City's
ordinance currently would permit the PlanninG Commission to deny
the request for the permit based upon testimony relating to
noise, traffic, parkinG, concentration or spacinG of such homes.
However, Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46 mandates that the
use permit be granted if the large family day care home complies
with local ordinances that prescribe, standards or restrictions
concerning spacing, concentration, traffic control, parking and
noise control. The Code does not authorize the Planning Commis-
sion to deny a permit based upon generalized comments about
noise, traffic, and parking.
While the City has adopted regulations regarding noise and
spacing (i.e. no' homes within 300 feet of another home), the City
has not adopted any particular regulations regarding traffic or
parking. Before this proposed amendment is presented to the
Planning Commission, you may wish to consider adding specific
regulations for traffic and parking.
In the interim, until the Code is amended, we recommend that
staff reports to the Planning Commission be modified as we have
provided in this mark-up of a prior staff report..
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
Lois Jeffrey. '~t
. City Attorney
LEJ:lw:D:4/10/87(7) /
cc: William Huston
Mar~Ann Chamberlain,
LOIS E. JEF
Deputy City Attorney
Planning
Commission
IMLTE: JUNE 8, 1987
SiJ,IECT: REPORT 011 COUE, TL ACTIONS- June 1, 1987
-~ Oral presentation.
pef
Attachments' Ctty Counctl Actton Agenda - June 1, 1987
Community Development Department
A&'TION AGENDA OF A REGULAR METING
OF ll(E lUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 1, 1987
7:00 P.M.
7=~ I. CALL TO ORDER
ILl. P~ESEIIT
I I. ROLL CALL
III. PROCLAMATIONS
~ m~ PRESENTED ,JULY 6 1. SARAH COLEMAN, DIRECTOR, L. P. REPERTORY
~~TEO ll) MIC~L 2. KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, TUSTIN LODGE NO. 85
~m~m~-~IT:l) ll)~MxmN O. 3. JOHN O. BRADLEY MEMBER OF KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE
m~&~uEY ' ,
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
BEIilERSED PLANNING
CItBI]SSI ON' S OENIAL
(IF tJSE PERMIT NO. 87-6
1. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF USE PERMIT 87-6 - 14082 RED
HILL AVENUE AT NISSON ROAD - RESOLUTION NO. 87-60
On April 20, 1987, Planning Commission denied Use Permit 87-6 for an
off-site beer and wine sales license in conjunction with a gas
station and mini market use based on non-conformance to recently
adopted distance requirements for off-site sales establishments and
overconcentration of outlets in the area (within 1,000 feet of four
other off-site sales establishments).
RESOLUTION NO. 87-60 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING. COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF USE PERMIT
87-6 FOR AN OFF-SITE BEER AND WINE SALES LICENSE AT 14082 RED HILL
AVENUE
~Om~I'ED tRGENCY
OBIII~IC£ NO. 987
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 87-60 as recommended by the
Community Development Department. ·
2. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ORDINANCE - OLD TOWN RESIDENTIAL AREA -
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 987
ORDINANCE NO. 987 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESS-
ING, APPROVAL OR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR SUBDIVISIONS, CHANGES IN
LAND USE OCCUPANCY AND ZONE CHANGES ON PROPERTIES IN THE RESIDENTIAL
AREA OF OLD TOWN TUSTIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 984
Recommendation- M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 987 have first
reading by title only.
M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 987 be introduced.
M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 987 have second reading by title
only.
M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 987 be passed and adopted. (Roll
Call Vote, Four-fifths Required}
CITY COUNC !.L.~A__GENDA P,~.,) 6_~ ~!,_8,7
URGENCY
ORDIN/I~CE NO. 986
.:
:' 3. -EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ORDINANCE - NEWPORT AVENUE - URGENCY ORDI-
NANCE NO. 986 .
ORDINANCE NO. 986 - AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING, ISSUANCE
OF PERMITS OR APPROVALS OF ANY KIND FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF
PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE
BETWEEN SAN JUAN AND MAIN STREET AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF NEWPORT
AVENUE BETWEEN THE I-5 FREEWAY AND MITCHELL AVENUE AS PREVIOUSLY
ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 983
Recommendation: M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 986 have first
reading by 'title only.
M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 986 be introduced.
M.O. - That Urgency Ordinance No. 986 have second reading by title
only.
M.O. - That Urgency Or~linance No. 986 be passed and adopted. (Roll
Call Vote, Fourth-fifths Required)
Ai~PROVED THE COLOR OF 4. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF DEVIATION FROM TUSTIN PLAZA
MASTER SIGN PLAN - BRISTOL SPAS, 13771 NEWPORT AVENUE, #7
ORANGE FOR THE SIGN
BlAT SIGN TO BE BROUGHT
lip TO CODE II~DIAT~Y
Rr~/"~ING ECECTRICAL
i
On May 11, 1987, Planning Commission denied the applicant's request
to deviate from the Master Sign Plan.
Recommendation: Uphold the Planning Cmmission action denying devia-
tion from the Tustin Plaza Master Sign Plan for Bristol Spas as
recommended by the Community Development Department. .
RICHARD VINING V. PUBLIC INPUT
IglB QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PARKING STRUCTURE AND HANDICAPPED RAHPS ON PAIN STREET.
,]OSEPH HERZIG HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT ANNEXATION PROTEST SIGNATURES AND HAYOR EDGAR RESPONDED THAT
THOSE QUESTIOI~ WILL BE ANSWERED AT ll~ JUNE ISTH I~ETING.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
AilPIIOVED
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 18, 1987, REGULAR MEETING
APPROVED
2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $549,064.91
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $157,745.93
Al)OPTED RESOLUTION
~0. 87-59
3. RESOLUTION NO. 87-59 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN DESIGNATING 'THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE CITY FINANCE DIREC-
TOR TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL (For Correction/Cancella-
tion of Special Assessments)
Adopt Resolution No. 87-59 designating the City Engineer and the
Finance Director to correct or cancel special assessments for
weed abatement, street lighting, refuse disposal and landscape
maintenance as recommended by the Finance Department.
APPROVED STAFF
RECOtI~NDATION
4. REJECTION OF CLAIM 'NO. 87-16; CLAIMANT: BURTSCHER, ROBERT F.; DATE
OF LOSS: 2/15/87; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 4/29/87
Reject subject claim for personal injury in the amount of
$5,000,000 as recommended by the City Attorney.
'CITy COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 6-1-87
API'Ii)VEO STAFF
~ClII~qENDATION
.NNIq'ED RESOLUT !011
~0. 8,7-62
STAFF
~NDATION
STAFF
~NDATION
J~lq~fl&l~3} STAFF
III~COI~r. NDAT IOII
Jgq~llOVEi} STAFF
RECOI~[ll}ATION
5. .REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-51; CLAIMANT: GEORGE KOROL, M.D.; DATE OF
LOSS:' 8/1/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 11/7/86
Reject subject claim for property damage in the amount of
$1,112,000 as recommended by the City Attorney.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 87-62 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87-58
(LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT HEARING DATE)
Adopt Resolution No. 87-62 amending Resolution No. 87-58 to set
the hearing date for June 15, 1987, as recommended by the Public
Works Department/Engi neeri ng Di vi si on.
7. SURPLUS MOWING EQUIPMENT
Declare as surplus the following equipment: three 25" Tru-cut
reel n~wers; four 21" snapper rotary mowers; four McLane edgers;
one weed eater; and one backpack blower as recommended by the
Public Works Department/Engineering Division. The equipment
will be sold at the annual auction.
8. EL MOOENA-IRVINE CHANNEL EASEMENTS AND DEEDS
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute E1 Modena-Irvine
Channel documents on behalf of the City as recommended by Lhe
Public Works Department/Engineering Division as follows:
a) Quitclaim Deed (Quitclaims construction easement back to The
Irvine Company which is no longer required by the City);
b) Escrow Instruction Letter (Provides for opening of escrow
account so that all documents can be processed in orderly
manner with respect to stipulated order of execution/
recordati on); and
c) The Irvine Company Easement to City of Tustin (Provides
permanent blanket easement over flood channel facility for
repair/maintenance of City inlets to the E1 Modena-Irvine
Channel facility).
9. RELOCATION OF SCHOOL CROSSWALK ON BRYAN AVENUE
Approve the sketch attached to the staff report showing reloca-
tion of the existing school crosswalk on Bryan Avenue from the
Utt Drive intersection to a new location near Charloma to serve
residents in the senior citizens home at 1262 Bryan Avenue and
school children in the local area as recommended by the Public
Works Department/Engineeri ng Di visi on.
10. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT SERVICES
CENTER (ATSC)
Approve the agreement with ATSC for counseling services of
youthful offenders at a rate of $200 per referral by the City;
and authorize the City Manager to execute same as recommended by
the Pol i ce Department.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 87-61 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR TUSTIN CITY CODE
VIOLATIONS
Adopt Resolution No. 87-61 as recon~nended by the Police Depart-
ment.
VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None
APPROVED STAFF
I~CON~NOATION
APPROV~ STAFF
IIEC(#IENOATIOII
STAFF
I~~ATION
VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None
IX. OLD BUSINESS
1. EVENINGSIDE/RAINBOW ANNEXATION NO. 139
On May 26, 1987, Council received and filed written protests on sub-
ject annexati on.
R.econmmndation: Continue certification of the value of written
protests for subject annexation to June 15, 1987, as recommended by
the City Clerk.
2. LA COLINA/BROWNING ANNEXATION NO. 140
On May 26, 1987, Council received and filed written protests on sub-
ject annexati on.
Recommendation: Continue certification of the value of written
protests for subject annexation to June 15 1987 as recommended hy
the City C1 e rk. ' '
X, NEW BUSINESS
1. ASSEMBLY BILL 2190 (CHACON) MANDATORY DISTRICT ELECTIONS
At its meeting on May 18, 1987, Councilman Hoesterey requested sub-
ject item be agendized for Council consideration.
Recommendation: Direct staff to continue active opposition to
Assembly BilF 2190 as recommended by the Administrative Services
Department.
2. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT CONCRETE REHABILITATION.AND OVERLAY
PROJECT, 1986-87 FISCAL YEAR
Bid opening for subject project was held on May 26, 1987. The low
bid is 3.9% below the engineer's estimate of $222,525.
Recon~ndation: Award the contract to R. J. Noble Company, Orange,
in the amount of $213,941.55 for subject project as recommended by
the Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
3. JAMBOREE ROAD EXTENSION THROUGH MCAS
A joint project with the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company. The
consultant has incurred additional costs on design work which have
been reviewed and found acceptable to all parties by verbal
response. Tustin's share of the change order is $24,014.
Recommendation: Authorize execution of the extra work change order
to Church Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $147,810 to cover ~
extra design work on the Jamboree Road extension plans, subject to
receipt of written concurrence from both the City of Irvine and The
Irvine Company as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engi-
neeri ng Di vi s i on.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA pa~_~..4~ ~-~1~-]~7
4. 1987-88 ADVANCE FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL PROJECT
AREA (Reference Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item No. 4)
·
Completion of various Agency projects in the South Central Project
Area require an additional $600,000 advanced from the General Fund.
Recommendation: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
agreement between the City of Tustin and the . Tustin Community
Redevelopment Agency directing the advance of an additional $600,000
to the South Central Project Area to carry out the programs of the
Redevelopment Agency during the 1987-88 fiscal year as recommended
by the Finance Di rector.
· ·
REPLACEMENT OF FORD TRACTOR MOWER -
Replacement of a mower currently out of service and in need of
$5,000-$7,000 worth of repai rs.
I10. 87-63 .~D STAFF
Recommendation: Waive the formal competitive bid procedure; and
authorize the purchase of a reconditioned Hydro-Power 180 mower from
Bob Hicks Turf and Equipment at a cost of $23,000 to replace the
Ford tractor and Gang Reel mower as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engi neeri ng Di vi si on.
6.. FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - CURBS, GUTTERS & CROSS-
GU1-FERS, "A" STREET FROM MAIN TO SECOND - RESOLUTION'NO. 87-63
RESOLUTION NO. 87-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
· OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION
OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION
RleCon~ndation: Adopt Resolution No. 87-63; and assuming no claims
or Stop payment notices are filed, 30 days after date of recordation
of Notice of Completion, authorize payment of the final 10% reten-
tion amount ($3,902.57 - Bruce Paving Company}as recommended by the
Engineering Di vision.
7. NITRATE REMOVAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Recommendation: Request the Orange County Water District to award
the contract for the Tustin Nitrate Removal Demonstration Project to
Gaco Systems, Inc. in the amount of $1,264,800 and authorize the
preparation of a supplemental agreement to the original January,
1985, agreement to provide for the City's acquisition of the project
from OCWD at the end of the two year demonstration period per the
following: a. Payment of $ 800,000 at end of demonstration
period, b. Annual payments at interest rate of 8% based upon actual
City cost savings of pumped water vs. purchased water until the
balance of $464,000 is paid as recommended by Public Works Dept.
Xl. REPORTS
RATIFIED
1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - MAY 26, 1987
Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of
May 26, 1987.
.~COUNC IL ..ACTI 0[~ ,,AGENDA PacLe
~'~.. Ti) STUDY ENTIRE 2. TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT NEWPORT AVENUE & OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD
m ~ RI~PORT BA~K TO
illmE CITY CI)U#~IL Mayor Edgar requested staff report on t'he possibility of signalizing
subject intersection and provide a cost estimate for same.,
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
IIIl$11)ll XII. OTHER BUSINESS
IIEalI~I~IED THAT 111E PJIRK PLANNI~ gORKSHOP SHOULD BE POSTPONED TO A LATER DATE.
~ TO XIII. CLOSED SESSION
Frei 111ESE II~.ASOIIS: 1) Consider legal matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9;
and
2) Give instructions to the City negotiator regarding a portion of the
property located at the northeast corner of Red Hill Avenue and
Walnut Avenue pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8.
9:01
XIV.. ADJOURNMENT
To the next Regular Meeting on June 15, 1987, at 7:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA oF A REGULAR I~£TING OF
THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPIqENT AGENCY
_ JUNE 1, 1987
7:00 P.M.
9:01 1.
ALL PRESENT 2.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVED 3.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 18, 1987, REGULAR ~EETING
Recommendation: Approve.
APPROVED STAFF 4.
RECOI~NOATIOll
1987-88 ADVANCE FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE SOUTH CENTRAL PROJECT AREA
Completion of various Agency projects in the South Central Project Area
require an additional $600,000 advanced from the General Fund.
Recommendation: Authorize the Chairman and Secretary to execute the
agreement between, the City of TuStin and the Tustin Community Redevelop-
ment'Agency directing the advance of an additional $600,000 to the South
Central Project Area to carry out the programs of the Redevelopment
Agency during the 1987-88 fiscal year as recommended by the Finance
Di rector.
NOllE 5. OTHER BUSINESS
9:02 6.
ADJOURNMENT
To the next Regular Meeting on June 15, 1987, at 7-00 p.m.
.... REDEVELOP~NT ,,AF~F NC Y_JtC.T_._LO~~ Ra.o~e,, 'L - ........ 6.~1 ~87
Departmental
Status Report
ITEM NO. 9
SUIMECT:
~IUNE 8, 1987
MEETING illTH SOUTHERN COUNTY CITIES PLANNING COW4ISSION MEMBERS
RECO~ENOED ACTION:
Recetve and ft le.
$11IIARY:
Contact has been made wtth Mr. Bob Rusby to conftrm the Commission's t nterest in
'participating tn a meettng wtth representatives of the County of Orange Planntng
Comtsston and other Planntng Commissioners from southern Orange County ctttes.
Once a meettng ttme has been set, the County of Orange wtllcontact the Community
Oevelopment Department as to the detatls. As soon as thts Information ts
· available, the Tusttn Commission's appointed revolving representatives wtll be
not1 fte d.
L
LCP: per
Christine Sht ngl-eto~n~~
Otrector of Community Development
Planning
Commission
SUB3ECT:
OUNE 8, 1987
DEPARTIRENT OF COIqlRUNITY DEVELOPIqENT SIJI~IARY OF #ORK PROOECTS.
I)ISCUSSIOII
In addttton to preparing documents and reports for Planning Commission
consideration, the Community Development Department ts responsible for a wide
variety of activities. Attached as an information item for the Commission ts a
copy of the Departments current work projects. These projects are tn addition
day to day operations such a code enforcement, structural plan check and
;sponse to public inquires.
As indicated by the summary, report, the Community Development Department ts
tnvolved wtth Annexation proceedings, Redevelopment Agency activities, revisions
to technt ca1 documents, long range planntng projects, and standard
admt nt stratt ve functt OhS.
The Information provtded wtll give the-Commtsstoh an overview of department, and
to some extent Ct*ty wtde, project status. The Commission will continue to
review these reports on a regular basts.
3SD:CA :ts
Attachments: Department of Community Development
Summary .of Work Projects
...... ',~,,~, ',__~ Develooment De~n3_eBj~
;I
.c~ E .C~ E
o
c: u
C
4~ c:
4-~ 0
'~ 0
o
0
il
'1
c
x
c:
u
CD
0
il
c
c
c
c
c
0
cl.
0
cz
c
!1
c
ici
c
c_
c
c
C
S.
_J
C
c
c
c
!1
;I
c
c
0
c~
X
c
t~
c
0
c c
0 ~
0
cc~
c
c
0
c
I
il
c:::
e-,
e-
e-'
.C:~
00,~
r~ I~o:)cor~. E.
00
!!
o