The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 03-21-88 AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING CONNISSION REGULAR NEETI NG HARCH 14, 1988 REPORTS NO. 1 3-21-88 CALL TO ORDER- 7' 30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present' Puckett, Le Jeune, Pontious Absent' Well, Baker PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR' (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the February 22, 1988 P1 anninO Commission Meeting 2. Final Tract Map.13053 · Request: TO SUBDIVIDE 24.359 ACRES INTO 118 NUMBERED AND THREE (3) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendati on: That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Final Tract Map 13053 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2478 as submitted or revised. 3. Final Tract Map 13080 Request: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.65 ACRES INTO 100 NUMBERED AND EIGHT (8) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendati on' It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend aproval of Final Tract Map No. 13080 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2477 as submitted or revised. Com. tsstoner Le ~eune moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the consent calendar. Notion carried 3-0.' i i Planning Commission Action Agenda March 14, 1988 Page two PUBLIC HEARING · Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION · ZONING · REQUEST' BARBARA C. MARMOL 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92 680 HERMAN ACEVEDO 637 1/2 W. KELSO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 'R-4: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Presentation' Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Co_mmisstoner Puckett moved~ Pontious seconded to approve, by Minute Order, a permit to operate a Large Family Oay Care Center at 195g dan Marie Place. Motion carried 3-0. Variance No. 88-02. APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION · ZON I NG: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES 10845-D WHEATLANDS AVENUE, STE. D SANTEE, CA 92 071 HOME FEDERAL 62 5 BROADWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 18231 IRVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOLT AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PERMIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN. Resolution No. 2472 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 88-2 FOR HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS AT IRVINE BOULEVARD AND HOLT · AVENUE. Recommendation' That the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 88-2 by adoption of Resolution No. 2472. Presentation' Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner Commissioner Pontious moved, Le deune seconded to deny Variance 88-2 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2472. Motion carried 3-0. Commissioner Baker arrived at 8'10 p.m. Planning Commission Action Agenda March 14, 1988 Page three APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Use Permit 87-38 WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER 16S N. MYRTLE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PA. 165 N. MYRTLE P & I PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER ~N THE REAR PARKING AREA OF AN EXISTING HOSPITAL FACILITY Resolution No. 2473 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 87-38 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 504 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER AT 165 N. MYRTLE AVENUE, TUSTIN Recommenda ti on: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 87-38 by the adoption of Resolution 2473 as drafted or revised. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner · Commissioner Le Jeune moved~ .... Puckett seconded to approve Use Permit 87-28 by the adoption of Reso]ution No. 2473. Hotion carried 4-0. ® Use Permit No. 88-5 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 330 W. FIRST STREET TUSTIN FREEWAY COMMERCE CENTER PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMenTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) Resolution No. 2474 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-5 TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AT 330 W. SIXTH STREET Recommenda ti on: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2474 and Negative Declaration hereby attached. /resentation: .Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Commissioner Pontious moved, Puckett seconded to approve Use Permit 88-5 by the adOptiOn of"R&SOlution No. g474. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda March 14, 1988 Page four 8. Use Permit 88-3 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: RANDY WOLFE/RICHARD MAIDEN ON BEHALF OF SOUTH COAST CHRISTIAN CENTER JUNE PERFIT 193 EAST MAIN STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2); EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. CONDUCT CHURCH SERVICES IN THE CENTRAL Resolution No. 2476 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING AN APPLICATION OF RICHARD MAIDEN OF SOUTH COAST COMMUNITY CENTER, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR ESTABLISHING A CHURCH AT 193 EAST Cmmtssloner Puckett moved, Le geune seconded to conttnue Use Pe~nlt 88-3 to the Apr11 11, 1988 Plannlng Commission meetlng. Morton carried 4-0. Use Permit 88-4 APPLICANT: PROGRESSIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 1031 S. 158TH STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF: P.H.P. HEALTHCARE CORPORATION 4900 SEMINARY ROAD ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22311 PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: TUSTIN CORPORATE PARK LIMITED 3300 IRVINE AVENUE; #100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 2492 WALNUT AVENUE ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: PC-C: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS I) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY IN AN EXIS.TING 44,014 GROSS SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE Resolution No. 2475 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE Re comme nda ti on: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Comatsstoner Baker moved, Ponttous seconded to approve Use Permtt 88-4 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2475. Morton carrted 4-0. Planning Commission Action Agenda March 14, 1988 Page fi ve 10. Sign Code Amendment - Update Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Received and filed. 11. Planning Commission Training Session Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Received and filed. Sesston da~e changed to May 9, 1988. Nlq/ BUSINESS 12. LOCATION' ZONING' Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 88-01 165 MYRTLE AVENUE AND 16851 YORBA STREET PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL {P&I) AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) Recommendation: Receive and file. -. Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner Received and filed. 13. Outdoor Dining Areas Recommendation: Planning Commission action as deemed appropriate. Presentation: Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner The Outdoor Dining areas report was continued until the March 28, 1988 meeting. STAFF CONCERNS 14. Report on City Council Actions at March 7, 1988 Meeting. Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMI SSION CONCERNS ADOOURIIqENT At 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to adjourned to the next regularly scheduled meeting on March 28, 1988 at 7::30 p.m. Motion carried 4-0. TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 14, 1988 CALL TO ORDER' 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/XNVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious PUBLIC CONCERNS' (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: . (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO. BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) Minutes of the Februar~ 1988 Planning_ Commission Meeting 2. Final Tract Map 13053~ Request: TO SUBDIVIDE 24.359 ACRES INTO 118 NUMBERED AND THREE (3) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendation' That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Final Tract Map 13053 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2478 as submitted or revised. 3. Final Tract Map 1308--0 Request: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.65 ACRES INTO 100 NUMBERED AND EIGHT (8) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend aproval of Fi nai Tract Map No. 13080 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2477 as submitted or revised. ~'~LIC HEARING Permit to Operate a Lar~ Care Home APPLICANT' BARBARA C. MARMOL 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 Planning Commission Agenda M~ ~ 14, 1988 p two OWN ER' LOCATION' HERMAN ACEVEDO 637 1/2 W. KELSO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 ZONING: R-4' MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REQUEST' AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Presentation' Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 5. Variance No. 88-02 APPLICANT: INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES 10845-D WHEATLANDS AVENUE, STE. D SANTEE, CA 92071 OWNER: HOME FEDERAL 625 BROADWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 18231 IRVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOLT AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) LOCATION: lNG: iRONMENTAL ~.~TUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 REQUEST' TO PERMIT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN. Resolution No. 2472 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 88-2 FOR HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS AT IRVINE BOULEVARD AND HOLT AVENUE. Recommendation' That the Pl'anning Commission deny Variance No. 88-2 by adoption of Resolution No. 2472. Presentation' Joel Slavtt, Assistant Planner 6. Use Permit 87-38 APPLICANT' PROPERTY OWNER' LOCATION: ZONING: r~NV I RONMENTAL tTUS: QUEST: WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER 165 N. MYRTLE TUST. IN, CA. 92680 CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PA. 165 N. MYRTLE P & I PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER IN THE REAR PARKING AREA OF AN EXISTING HOSPITAL FACILITY Planning Commission Agenda Ma~~-" 14, 1988 Pa hree Resolution No. 2473 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 87-38 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 504 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER AT 165 N. MYRTLE AVENUE, TUSTIN Recommendati on' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 87-38 by the adoption of Resolution 2473 as drafted or revised. Presentation' Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner e APPLICANT' LOCATION' ZONING' ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' Use Permit No. 88-5 VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 330 W. FIRST STREET TUSTIN FREEWAY COMMERCE CENTER PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AN APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT '. REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) k ,lution No. 2474 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 'APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-5 TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AT 330 W. SIXTH STREET Recommendation' It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption .of Resolution No. 2474 and Negative Declaration hereby attached. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development e APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: EN~ IRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Use Permit 88-3 RANDY WOLFE/RICHARD MAIDEN ON BEHALF OF SOUTH COAST CHRISTIAN CENTER JUNE PERFIT 193 EAST MAIN STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-2); EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT CHURCH SERVICES COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. IN THE CENTRAL Resolution No. 2476 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING AN APPLICATION OF RICHARD MAIDEN OF SOUTH COAST COMMUNITY CENTER, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR ESTABLISHING A CHURCH AT 193 EAST MAIN STREET. 'Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Use Permit 88-3 by the adoption of Resolu'tion No. 2476. Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Recommendati on' Planning Commission Agenda Mar-~-- 14, 1988 Pat ~ur . Use Permit 88-4 APPLICANT: PROGRESSIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 1031S. 158TH STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF: P.H.P. HEALTHCARE CORPORATION 4900 SEMINARY ROAD ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22311 PROPERTY OWNER' LOCATION' TUSTIN CORPORATE PARK LIMITED 3300 IRVINE AVENUE; #100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 2492 WALNUT AVENUE ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Recommendatt on' PC-C: PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS I) AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY IN AN EXISTING 44,014 GROSS SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE ' 'ution No. 2475 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 10. Sign Code Amendment - UpdatQ Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Steve Rubin, Senior Planner 11. Planntn9 Commission Training Session Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Director of Community Development NEW BUSINESS 12. L~ATION' 'NG' Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 88-01 165 MYRTLE AVENUE AND 14851YORBA STREET PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE {PR) ammendation: Receive and file. 'Presentation: Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner Planning Commission Agenda M--ch 14, 1988 five 13. Outdoor Dining Areas Recommendation' Planning Commission action as deemed appropriate. Presentation' Joel Slavit, Assistant Planner STAFF CONCERNS 14. Report on City Council Actions at March 7, 1988 Meeting. Recommendation: Receive and file. Presentation' Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COMMI SSION CONCERNS AOJOURI~IENT · Adjourn to next regularly scheduled meeting on March 28, 1988 at 7.:30 p.m. MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 22,'1988 CALL TO ORDER: 7-30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious 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 the February..8, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting 2. Final Parcel Map 87-370 Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to approve the consent calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Tentative Parcel Map 87-412 APPLICANT: K.W. LAWLER & ASSOCIATES, INC. ON BEHALF OF CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS AND WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER OWNER: CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P.O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17055 165 N. MYRTLE AND 14581YORBA STREET PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P & I) AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) LOCATION' ZONING' ENVIRONMENTAL STAYUS- CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 15 RESOLUTION NO. 2469 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-412 LOCATED AT 165 N. MYRTLE AND 14851 YORBA STREET. Presentation' Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner Planning Commission 14inutes '~bruary 22, 1988 two Commissioner Well asked for clarification on Exhibit A, 2.3 regarding grading and whether the Commission had discretion on this matter. Staff responded that this was a standard requirement and that the Commission does have discretion in this area. Commissioner Well stated that she felt this was an unnecessary expense to the applicant and asked if it could be waived. She noted that this could be discussed after the public hearing. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if staff knew how much of this land will eventually be taken by the freeway. Staff responded that Caltrans isn't at this time planning to widen the freeway on this side. The public hearing was opened at 7'40 p.m. Anna Beal, representing K. W. Lawler, noted that she was there to answer any ~questions that the Commission might have regarding the project. ~mmissioner Baker asked if the applicant had seen the Conditions of Approval and if ,ley had any problems with item 2.3., in regards to having a paleontologist/archealogist present during rough grading operations. Ms., Beal responded that this was not an unusual condition and would most likely be acceptable. Commissioner Baker noted his concern regarding the cost. He also asked how deep they ,,. were going to dig. Ms. Beal responded the depth would be approximately 25 feet. The Director noted that there will be no work performed prior to the issuance of a final map. This is just alerting the applicant to future requirements. Commissioner Well asked if Western Neuro Care was aware of item 2.3. Ms. Beal stated that to the best of her knowledge they were aware of this condition. The public hearing was closed at 7:44 p.m. Commissioner Puckett agreed with staff's recommendation and since the applicant doesn't seem to have a problem with the condition. Commissioner Baker asked how much time a paleontologist/archealogist would actually '~e required to be available. ,tall noted that the paleontologist/archealogist would be required to be present only during rough grading and that is a standard procedure. She also noted that the parcel map is separate from any development and that approving the map doesn't guarantee that this project will be built. Planning Commi ssi on ~inutes '~ruary 22, 1988 je three Commissioner Puckett moved, Pontious seconded to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 87-412 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2469. Motion carried 5-0. 4. Variance 88-1 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV I RONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CHARLENE AND HARRY GATES 450 W. FIRST STREET FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AUTHORIZATION TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATE 5600 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING WITH A 20 FOOT SECOND STORY FRONT YARD SETBACK AND A 16 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development The public hearing was opened at 7:49 p.m. ,mmissioner Baker moved, Puckett seconded to continue the public hearing until such me as the the project is resubmitted wi th the proper title verifications included. .-,orion carried 5-0. The public"hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. 5. Permit to Operate a Large Family Day Care Home APPLICANT' OWNER' LOCATION' ZONING: REQUEST' BARBARA C. MARMOL 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 HERMAN ACEVEDO 637 1/2 W. KELSO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 R-4: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME Presentation' Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Lois Jeffrey, Deputy City Attorney, noted that the California Health and Safety Code has limited Planning Commission discretion in denial of permits. If the applicant meets City Code requirements the City must issue a permit. If a protest is made there must be a public hearing, but once the applicant meets the requirements we don't have discretion to turn them down. ommissioner Le Jeune asked if the City Code stipulated the hours of operation. The Director responded no, but there are noise requirements. represent a nuisance to deny the permit. The operation must Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1988 Page four Comm)ssioner Baker clarified that the operation must be licensed by the State. The Director noted that the City does not have discretion, that it is a day care faci 1 i ry. The publ.ic hearing was opened at 8:56 p.m. · A. R. Binoaman, 13861 Browning, spoke in opposition to the application. He noted .that he felt it would impede his relaxation in the evening hours. He also noted his ~concern with the liabilities of the children entering his yard over the fence. Commissioner Well noted that the Day Care Center has been operating for a while and asked Mr. Bi ngaman if any children had climbed over the fence? Mr. Bin~aman responded no, and further stated that he did not think that the children were happy. Commissioner Puckett asked how late the children are at the facility and are there children that live there. He also asked if the City is aware of any problems with other Day Care Centers. Mr. Bingaman responded that the they are there until 10:00. The Director noted that staff had checked with the Police Department and that there was one call in the last year and the result w~s that the disturbance was not at that property. Herbert Huber 13882 Dall Lane, owns property adjacent to the applicant. He noted his opposition to the facility. He stated that according to Ordinance 991B this facility constitutes a nuisance to the area and that the City has the right to deny this permit. He also noted his surprise that this property was zoned R-4. He further relayed that Mr. Bingaman did not receive a notice regarding tonights meeting. Commissioner Well asked why Mr. Bingaman was not noticed. ?he Director noted that the notice are sent to a list of property owners within 100 feet of the project as obtained from the latest Assessor's Parcel book. She advised the Commission to continue the public hearing to abide by the intent to give all parties to be renoticed thereby giving them the opportunity to speak at the public hearing. Staff noted that the R-4 zoning was kept R-4, the same as it was in the County before annexation to the Ci ry. Herbert Huber noted that the R~4 must have been an oversight.. Commissioner Le Jeune asked the applicant what the normal working hours are. Mr. Luis Marmol, husband of applicant, noted that all of the children should be picked up by 6:00 p.m., 6:30 p.m. at the latest. They arrive beginning at 7:00 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1988 Page fi ve Commissioner Le Jeune inquired if the children are required to stay within the property 1 i mi ts. Mr. Marmol responded that the children are either kept in the house or, in the case of extremely nice weather, they are supervised in the rear fenced yard. Commissioner Le Jeune asked how long the facility has been operating with six chi 1 dren. Mr. Marmol responded they had been in operation for three years. The public hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Commissioner Baker moved, Le Jeune seconded to continue the public hearing to the March 14, 1988 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide staff sufficient time to renotice all property owners within 100 feet of the project. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner We. il asked Mr. Huber and Mr. Bingaman to look at the list and change it to indicate any other owners that aren't correct. Lois Jeffrey, noted that it would be inappropriate to'mail a list made by Mr. Huber and Mr. Bingaman. The City is required to notice the Assessor's Parcel list. We can send to anyone else within the 100 foot area that owns property. The Director asked that item 7 be heard out of order. 7. Update on Tustin Area Senior Center Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of 'Community Development and Susan Jones, Community Services Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent, g~ve an update report on the Tustin Area Senior Center, noting that the ground breaking ceremony will take place on March 30, 1988 at 4:00 p.m. and everyone is invited and encouraged to attend. Commissioner Le Jeune asked for a more specific location and asked if the baseball diamonds will remain. Mrs. Jones gave a more detailed description of the location. She also noted that the park is not designated as a sports facility. It is designed as a passive park. Commissioner Well asked if the diamond will be relocated and-if the parking questions brQught up at the last Commission meeting have been answered. Mrs. Jones noted that there is no change in the parking situation. There will be a few parking spaces sacrificed in order to maintain the palm trees. Commissioner Baker asked what other locations do we have for ball fields. Mrs. Jones responded that in actuality the City is trading one unlighted, unrefined diamond for two full sized lighted diamonds. Planning Commission Mi nutes February 22, 1988 nage six OLD BUSINESS 6. Continued Discussion on Orange County Council of Government Study Commissioner Well noted that they are looking for a recommendation to stay with SCAG or go out on our own. She is not sure that the Planning Commission has that type of authori ry. Steve Rubin noted that the County wants an indication as to whether the cities agree with the feasibility of further evaluation. Commissioner Le Jeune noted that he felt it was up the the City Council. The Director noted that the Commission should be recommending to the City Council and the City Council will take whatever action they deem necessary. Commissioner Pontious stated that she would like to see the evaluation go ahead. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Baker seconded to direct staff to transmit, by Minute Order, to the City Council, the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Council support the formation of the Evaluation Committee. Motion carried 5-0. NEW 'BUSINESS Be GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS ALONG EL MODENA-IRVINE CHANNEL RESOLUTION NO. 2470 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED FLOOD CONTROL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN. Presentation- Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Commissioner Baker noted that it was a great idea. Commissioner Well stated that she was in favor. The Director noted the following corrections in Resolution No. 2470' In section B the Code section number should be "65402" and it should read ...shall "not" construct. Commissoner Puckett moved, . Pontious seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2470, as revised, finding that the proposed Flood Control Improvement project is in · conformance wiht the Tustin Area General Plan. Motion carried 5-0. Discussion on 7:00 P.M. Starting Times for Planning Commission Meetings Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1988 Page seven Commissioner Weil noted that she would prefer the 7:30 p.m. start time but she would be willing to go along with the majority. Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Puckett seconded to request a Mini Code Amendment to change the meeting time of the Planning Commission from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. 10. Report on Actions taken at February 16, 1988 City Council Meeting Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development The following items were discussed at the meeting: JWA Update' Senior Citizen Center Donation of Water Department Building to the Historical Society Cultural Resources Overlay Commissioner Puckett noted that JabberwoCky was closing down and that the Go Kart proposal would be on the March 7th City Council agenda. Commissioner Le Jeune asked if the Council could make the final decision regarding the Cultural Resources District. The Director responded that City Council can not modify the Ordinance before returning it back to the Planning Commission for review and report. She noted that it might be helpful to schedule a short training session with the Commission on Planning and Zoning Laws. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Baker noted the pavement on Bryan Avenue not being restored into its original condition by the Pipeline crew. The rest of the Commissioners agreed that Bryan Avenue was a hazardous place to travel due to the pipeline construction. Comissioner Le Jeune noted that at 5:15 a.m. about three times a week, there is water flooding Walnut Avenue. Commissioner Well asked for an update report on the Eastern Transportation Corridor. The Director noted that the Joint Powers Agreement hasn't selected the alignment. The cities have reviewed the alternate alignments and have supported one of the alternatives. The City has until March 30th to respond to the County which the Council is already involved in. Staff will agendize Bob Ledendecker to come back to review the alternatives forwarded to JPA with the Commission. Commissioner Weil thanked staff for the two notebooks. She also noted that there is an election in November and suggested if the Commission should agendize reorganization before July. The Director noted that a schedule for the training session will be presented at the March 14th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes bruary 22, 1988 .ge eight Commissioner Le Jeune asked if there were any Sign Committee meetings in the near future. The Director noted that a time schedule would be presented to the Commission at the 14arch 14th meeting. ADJOURIIIENT At 9'00 p.m. the meeting was adjourned the the March 14, 1988 Planning Commission meeting by unanimous informal consent. Kathy Wei 1 Chairman , Penni Foley Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST' MARCH 14, 1988 FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 13053 J.M. PETERS COMPANY LOTS 3, I & J OF TRACT 12763 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. 'NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. TO SUBDIVIDE 24.359 ACRES INTO 118 NUMBERED AND THREE (3) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of' Final Tract I4ap 13053 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2478 as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND & SLI~ARY On November 9, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the approval of Tentative Tract I4ap 13053. The proposed subdivision provides for the construction of 118 two-story single family detached units on lots of approximately 6,200 - 6,500 square feet in size. Units will range i~ size from approximately 3,070 to 3,370 square feet. The overall density of the project is 4.6 dwelling units per acre. The City Council subsequently approved the existing tract map at a meeting on December 7, 1987. The Tentative Tract Map has been revised to incorporate all currently applicable conditions and is ready for recordation with the Orange County Recorders Office. Prior to this recordation, the Final ~4ap must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project site is bounded by existing residential development (Tract 6628) to the west, Irvine Blvd. to the north, proposed Tustin Ranch Road to the east and Tentati ye Tract 13094 (Bramalea Devel opment Company) to the south. Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting Final Tr. act Map No. 13053 Page two CONCLUSION The Tentative Map approved for this project included various conditions of approval which'required adjustments to the map. All of the required revisions are reflected upon the final map and the required conditions of approval have been met. Staff has determined that the Final Map is' in C~onformance with the Tentative Map approval, requirements of the East' Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement, the City's Subdivision Code, the East Tustin EIR and the State Subdivision Map Act. Based upon this conformance, staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Final Map 13053 to the City Council by adoption of Resolution No. 2478. Planner PM'CAS-ts Attachments' Resolution No. 2478 Tentative Tract Map 13053 Final Tract Map 13053 Christine A. Shing-leto~ Director of Community Development Community Development Department 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 RESOLUTION NO. 2478 201' 21 22 2~23 4 28tI A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 13053 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Final Tract Map No. 13053 has been submitted by J.M. Peters Company to subdivide 24,359 acres into 118 numbered and three (3) lettered lots for single family development. B. That the Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1987. At this hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 13053 to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 13053 on December 7, 1987. C. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to the development of single family dwellings. D. 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 Tentative Tract Map 13053 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 reservation of a high school site and elementary site in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map 12763, and imposition of school facilities fees as a condition of approval of Tentative Tract Map 13053. E. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. G. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably in,iure fish or wildlife in their habitat. H. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict wi th easements acquired by the public-at-large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 1 2 3 4 Resolution No. 2478 Page two 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I. That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. J. That the Final Map is in substantial conformance wi th the Tentati ye Map. II. The Planntng Commission hereby recommends to the City Council Final Tract Map No. 13053 subject to conditions stated on approval,,~f ng Commission Resolution's No. 2450 and 2451 Exhibit "of Planni ' PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. Kathy geil, · Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary SHEET I OF 5 SHEETS 118 LOTS AND LOTS A THROUGH C ACREAGE: 25.18 ACRES (ALt. OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1305a} BLOCK; $753 MOOULE~; 20 · 30 TRACT NO. 13053 IN THE CITY OF'TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVEION OF LOTS 3. I AND J OF TRACT NO. 12763, A8 SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 581, PAGES 16 TO 25, INCLUSIVE. OF MIDCELLANEOLLS MAPS, RECORDS MORSE CONSULTING GROUP ACCE~TED AND FILED AT R~QUEST 0F DATE TINE FEE $ INSTRU)4EXT ! E00[ PAGE LEE A. BRANCH COUK~' ~ECORDFJ. ~RY W. DOKIOH. I.8. 4693 DY DEr, JTY OWM[Rg'RP CERTFICATE w~. THE UNI'JJ~RSi~, ~1~ ~L PA~TIE$ HAV~ ANY ~EC~D TlT~E ~TEREST IN ~ LA~ CO~R~ RY ~IS MAP. ~ ~EOY C~NT TO ~ ~EPA~ATI~ A~ REC~DATI~ ~ ~A~ MAP. A5 ~W~ WITHIN ~ ~l~Tf~Tl~ ~R U~. WE ~RERY ~DJCATE TO ~ ~IC F~ STREET ~5: ~REY STREET. T~ WAY. C~TINA. ~lA. MAR~INA. P~R~. CARRERA. ~IA. C~TESSA. A~ ~A. WE ~REBY ~D~ATE TO Tf~ CItY ~ T~TIN: 1. AN RAIMENT OVER LOTS A ANOe AS SHOWN H~REC~ F(-)R LA~SCA~ MAINTENA~E ), AN [A~NT O~R LOt O. A5 5HO~ ~RE~. F(~ ST~ ~ ~S. RIGHTS TO T[~TIN RASH ~OAD, IRVI~ ~EVARD, A~ PA~KCENTER L,~F~ FROM LOTS fl A~) C,' Exit AT ST~T NTER~C~ ~TO C~TNA r~ LOTS 3~.5).~.95~ ~ m ~ 77. Wg ALSO GRANT RY DEDICATION TO TIlE IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT TIIOSE PIPEI.IN£ EASEUCN'FS FOR SEWER AND WATL'R PURPOSES SIIOWN ON TIllS MAP, WHICII EASEMENTS SIIAI,L BE SUB~[CT TO Tile ~AME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS AR~ ~IIOWN [N TItAT C~RTAIN EASEMENT RECORDED FERRUARy 17, 1~76. [N 8OOK I i648, PAGE 1917. OFFICIAL RCC~ DS, COUNTY OF ORANGE, AND AN ADDED CONDITION TUAT NO TREES SHALL BE PLANTED IN SAID PIPELINE EASEMENT W[TIIOUT WRI~EN CONSENT FROM THE iRVlNE RANCH WAT[R D~TRICT. J.M. P~TER$ COMPANY, If~K:.o A HEVAOA CORPORAIlON , VICE PRESK~NT VICE PKE~I[~NT /. .'J ~ ·., , , . . F4E IRVIN~ CO.ANY, A MICHIGAN CO~t)~ATI~, fl~NE_FICIARY ~R A f~[D ~ TRUST ECkErD ~Y 17, I~7 AS I~TRU~NT ~. ~I-~ ~ ~FICI~ REC~S. . ;~, ,- ~ ~. ~ VICE ~SJ~T ~SISTANT SU~ VE YO~q~ C~TIFICAI~ I ~REBY ~RTIFY THAT I AM A C/CE~D L~ TH S MAP C~STI~ ~ F~ ~ET5 A~ T~ TR~ A~ CO~E~ ~Y M~ IN MY DIRECTLY. THAT ~ M~NT5 ARE ~ T~ ~ARAC~R T~ POSTI~ I~ICATED 8Y ~i~l ID MAP A~ T~ LICEN~ EXPIRES 9/~91 CITY EN~ff~F..E~'~ C~ TIFICAT~ I F~RESY CERTIFY THAT I HA~ EXAMI~D THIS MAP A~ HA~ F~ IT TO ~ ~T~TI~LY IN C~MA~E WITH T~ TENTATI~ MAP A5 F~ Wl~. A~D CITY ~A~ COMMISSI~; THAT ALL ~OVlSl~ ~ ~ ~fVfS~ MAP ACT A~ CITY S[~IVISR~ R[CLLATI~ HA~ ~EN CO~I~D WITH A~ T~ MAP I$ TE~Y C~RECT IN ALL RE~CTS ~T ~R~IFI~ TO BY ~ C~TY ~Y~. OAT~ THI~ DAY ~ .1' RECISTR ATt~ EXPIRES . CiTY ~RK~ ~RT~A~ 5TAT~ ~ CA~IF~A,~S CITY ~ TUSTIN ) REBY CERTIFY ~AT THIS MA~ WA~ ~E~N~D F~ A~OVA~ TO ~ CiTY C~ ~ CITY ~ T~TIN ~T ~ qE~ ~Te~' T~R~ PAS~D A~ ENTERED. A~ SAO MAP. A~)/)1~ ACCEPT ~ ~HALF ~ T~ ~lC TF~ ~DICAT~ ~TEeEY ~[~FE?, Tl~Rf~ WAY. C~TINA. ~IA. MAR~L~A. P~R~. C~RERA. ~NTIA. C~TESSA. A~ ~i~A. AS ~ THIS M~. A~ DID AC~ ACCEPT r~ EA~NTS O~R LOTS, A~.C~ A~ DID AL~ ACCEPT T~ ~IC~AR ACCESS RI~T5 ROAD. PARKCENTER LA~. CORTINA, TI~ WAY. ~IA. C~TESSA, ~A. A~ ~REY STREET. AS ~ ~ ~IS MAP. A~ DID AL~ A~ ~CT ~P ~T TO ~ ~OV~ DATED l'HtSDAY OF MARY E. WYNN · CITY CLERK, CITY O~ TUSTIN L BETFy 7. WHEELER SECRETARY OF TIlE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IRVTNE RANCII WATER ~ISTRICT DO UERERY CERTIFY THAT TIlE INTERESTS iN REAL PROPERTY CONVEYED RY DEDICATION AND SHOWN ON THIS TRACT UAP ARE IIEREBY ACCEPTED BY Tile UNDERSIGNED OFFICER ON BI:IJALF OF Tile BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IRVlNE RANCII WATER DISTRICT PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY CONFERRED RY RE~OLUTION NO. 1976-1 l I or THE BOARD or DIRECTORS, A~ED ON NOVEMBER 8. 1976. BEttY I. WH~,, SECR~ARY~ ~E IRVINE RANCII WATER D~TRICT AND OF THE BOARD or DIRECTORS TIIEREOF. PURfAJANT TO THE P~OVIIa~4S BP ~CTl~ T~ IRV~ CM~. & M~AN C~ AT~. ~R ~ EA~MNTS NEC~ AS ~TR~NT ~. 17-~ ~ ~F~I~ REC~ A~ AS RE~R~ ~ ~ MAP ~ TRACT ~. 121&], M.M. ~11~-~S. ~ C~TY ~ ~ ~R ~ AV~TI~ T~ CITY ~ T~T~. ~R ~ (A~NTS ~O~A~ED ~ ~ MM ~ TRACT ~. ~ ~ EAST R[C~O ~ ~ 135Z2. PA~ ~ ~ ~F~I~ ~ ~OMM~CN CTJTFC~TE I. CEk flFY I~AT THIS M~' ~ETARY ~ ~ CITY ~ T~T~ WAS S~ TO T~ ~T~ ~ C~ AT A RE--AR ~ETI~ ~ T~ DAY ~ TO T~ TENTATI~ MAP AS F~. A~O ~ A~O~D BY DA~ THIS OAY ~ . ~[RETARY ~ ~)TIN ~A~ STA~ ~ C~F~A J C~Y ~A~ ~ DATED T~ DAY ~ . ~ R~RT L. CITR~ BY ~ ~EBY ~E~TIFY ~T I HA~ EXAM~ ~ M~ OA~ ~ -- DAY ~ , CA. ~ BY SHEET 2 OF $ SHEETS 118 LOTS AND LOTS A THROUGH C ACREAGE: 25.18 ACRES {ALL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13053) TRACT NO, 13053 IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA BEING A SUBOWE~ION OF LOTS 3, Z AND J OF TRACT NO. 12763, A8 SHOWN ON A MAP FLIED IN BOOK 581, PAGES 16 TO 25, INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS M(XIISE CONSULTING GROUP GARY W. DOKIOH, I-~. 4S93 MY p~INCIPAL ~t. AC.[ Ge nus~ss IS MY COMMISSIQH STATE or CALZFORNIA COUNTY or ORANGE ON THIS .j~DAy OF ~_~ilql~l~JP~,~_ Igor, BEFORE ME MIOlIAEL D. KELLOGG, A NOTARY PUBLIC [NAND fOR SAID STATE PERSONALLY APPEARE[) ~E~Y ]. WflK[LER ~RSONALLY KNOWN TO ME ~OR pROVeD Tr) ME ~N TIlE BASIS Or SATISPACTORY :VIDCNCKi TO BE TIlE SE~RETARY OF TIlE BOARD OF DIR[CTORS OF TIlE IRVlNE RANCU WATER DISTRh:T. A PURl.lc AGENCY. THE PUBLIC AGENCY TIIAT EXECUTED TIlE WITIIIN [NSTRHMENT AND KNOWN TO ME (OR PROVED TO MI ON TIlE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCe) TO BE THE PERSON WlIO EXECUTED THE WlTIIIN INSTRUMENT ON BEtIALF OF SAiD PUBLIC AGENCY ANt} ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME TtIAT SUCH PUBLIC AGENCY [X[CUTED Tile SAM~. WITNESS MY tlAND: NOTA~Y~IlBLI(; IN AND FOR SAI~ATE MICHAEL D. KELLOGG / MY PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINGS IS iN ORANGE COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: SEPTEMBER 25. 198g SHEET 3 OF 5 SHEETS 118 LOTS ANO LOTS A THROUGH D ACREAGE; 25.18 ACRES (ALL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13053} i i TRACT NO. 13053 IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA BEING A SUBOIVI~ION OF LOTS 3, I AND J OF TRACT NO. 12763, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK. 58% PAOES le TO 25, INCLUSIVE, OF MMCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CA--NrA. MORSE CONSULTING GROUp GARY W. DOKICH, /8. 4693 BOUNDARY SURVEY ANO INDEX MAP N 4lI I1' 4l"1 lOll. Il' ~JJL~t[ _ % _IOUL[VAn. . · . , YENT~ CARRIE& i---~ MARIEU#A / / _~/eFO. CONC MAlL I T*4 ROi. Z~IN IN UlU Off ~.IAO 4 T~ K.C.~. ~ MONUMENT NOTES IIAV~m:l A TH~CI(NE~S OP 2' OR .ORE TO Re SET PER INmCATXS L(~(:ATIOH OP s· srlKR ANn WAEIIS~E LC.R. ~g~ IH A~PIlALT PAVING HAYING ~ ~ICKNP~ SET PER TRACT IZ?~J, N.M. Z~}~ IN A~PIIALT PAVING IIAVIN~ A THI('KN;SS OP MORE TO RE SRT PKR TRACT 1~7~), H.M. IN~ICATEn ~' ~PIK~ AND ~A~IIKR ~TAMP;I) L.~ 4~) IN A Z' LP. TAnn;i) L.S. 4~*t IN MlmAN STRIP ~ ~ S~T AT ALL CENTllI. INE INTIlI~CTDHI. l.C,'l IHP ALL C~NTIlI.IHI ~N~ Ol CON~l~l. UNLESS (ITII~IIlI~ MI)TED. · TI IN e0 D~YI APTII ACCIPT~K! OF (1UT;IDK TIlE TRU~ C~INII IN TII~ MIDDLE OP TI~ HOT~I~ WITHIN ~ nAYS ~P ACCFPTAN ff ~p CORNE~I NAflKINO SIPELINU UNLE~ OTIIERWI~8 lAID OFPI~ Ati Al FOLLOWlt A. O~F~T 7.75' ON TtIIL~ON WAY..cMIA TIBU~DN WAY A~ C~TINA) A~ ~T ~,75' ~ STREETS PALER~ A~ . (FROM TI~ WAY TO E~)) A~ MAff~LIN~. i" - lOC:)~ ~D~TED TO T~ CITY ~ T~T~. · [a~t ;c~ SI~wALK P~rO~S o~r LOT ~ ~WN ~Rl ~D~AT~ TO ~ CITY c~ T[~TIN. D AS ~ ~ERE~ ~DICAIED TO T~E CI;Y ~ TUSTIN. AS ~ ~RE~ ~DICA~D tO ~ CITY ~ ~ s' WIDe IASlMC/]T roe WATII AND S~II DCDICAT~D ~ THC IRVINI RA~H IAT~R ~T. · LANOSCAK O~ MA~4TENANCE T~RE~ WITHIN THIS EA.S~MNT I$ BY HOM~OWNE/~S ASSDCIATICJN FCH~ TRACT NO 13053 118 LOTS AN0 LOTS A Ii THROUGH 0 ACREAGE: 25.19 AC, RES IN ~E ~Y ~ TUS~N, COUNTY ~ ~ANGE, STA~ ~ CA~F~NIA (ALL ~ ~NTA~E ~A~T ~G A 8U~V~I~ ~ LO~ 3, ~ A~ J ~ ~A~ ~. 12763, A8 SHOWN ~ A ~P ~. 1305~ ~O ~ ~ 58~ PA~ 16 TO 2~ INCLU~ ~ ~CE~NEOU8 MA~, REC~DS ~ ~A~ C~N~, ~~. MORSE CONSULTING GROUP GARY W. DOKICH, I.~. 4699 ' · · / / DFNOTES V~H~ULAR ACCF~% RIGHTS R~LE&~:D A/*~ RELIN~JISHED [0 THE ~JTY OF TU~TIN. ~ TF~ MAP ~ TR. RAIMENT F~ LAP. APE MAINTENAF~E A~ SIr<WALK ~DICAT[D TO T~ CITY ~ T~T~. D AS ~WN t~RE~ ~DICATED TO Tt~ CITY OF TU~TIN. AS 5~WN ~RE~ ~DICATED TO T~ CITY ~ T~TtN. EXCEPT AT S~ET ~LEA~D DEDICATED TO TII~ ]RVIN[ RANCH WATER ~RJCT. · g SEE SHEET 3 FOR BASIS OF BEARING~ AND MONUMENT NOTES LOT B LnT~ Af~ fl. EXCEPT AT ~TRFET flTr~FCTiON~. A~ AFLrA~EO ~ ~LI~Q~D TO T~ CITY / ~ T~T~ / / / ,/ ALL VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO P&L.£RMO teRO~ LOTS I ANO 94. ARE I~:LEA.e~D &NO ~FI.INQUISH~D TO TH~ CITY OF TUSTI~ SHEET 5 OF 5 SHEETS 118 LOT~ AND LOTS A THROUGH D ACREAGE: 25.18 ACRE~ (ALL OF TENTATIVE TRAGT NO. 130631 TRACT NO. 13053 IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA KINO A SUBOIVI~IOfl OF lOTS 3, ! ANO J OF TI=~CT NO. 12763, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FI.ED IN BOCiK ~1, PA~8 la TO 25, INCLU~VF~ OF MISCELLANEOUS MAF~, RECOflD8 ~ T~ M^P r'~ TR. 1~;'~. M.M. ~ EA~I[MEF,IT OF TIE CITY O~ TU~TIN F~ ~DI~A IEO TO ~ CITY ~ T~T~. ~ .EA~P4T w~ 5~WAt. K ~s o~R LOT C AS 5~WN ~R~ ~DICAr~D TO T~ CITY ~ T~TI~. o AS ~WN F~RE~ ~A~O TO T~ CITY ~ T~TIN. AS S~ I t[R~ ~O~ATED TO T~ CiTY ~ ~AAY W. DQK~J~ ~ 4eS3 CUffivE TABLE i ~.~.~. si.ii, e.m' . · ~ ~'-' u... " . · . . I.~ ~.I* . . ~.~ ~q.~, ~.~ ~ " . . . , ~ -' ~H'~' ~'54' I~ CITY ~ LIT ~.ot' ~.t]' iiJ.~. ,i.ii. I~.~. ,Il.ii' i~.~' si.ii. M.Ii' H.Ir N. II' IS.l' ~.~, a.~, . , ~.~, Il.Il' I~.~* ~.~. ~.~. h~ H.Si' ~.~' 1.~ N.U' . . ~.~, 14.t~ ?.It' ~, ir N.ll, Il.ii' 1.41' !1 .ir si.l~' q.#, si.ii' i1.~' 14,~P ~.m' ~,!~' ~.~. ~.~, it.~" I.~' i~.~' ii.l}. iLii. ~hl~ 69 ¸ER SEE SHEET 3 FOR BASI~ OF BEARINO~ AND MONUMENT NOTES q&NCH ROAD F~ LOT ~TE~[CTION~. ARE L~0 TO T~ ~TY ~ T~T~ Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 3 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: ZO#ING- ENYIRONHENTAL STATUS' HARCH 14, 1988 FINAL TRACT HAP. NO. 13080 BREN OSGOOD COHPANY LOTS 4, L AND K OF TRACT 12763 AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 14.65 ACRES INTO 100 NUHBERED AND EIGHT (8) LETTERED LOTS FOR SINGLE FAHILY DEVELOPHENT HEDIUH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THE PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST 'TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUI~IENTATION IS REQUIRED. RECOI~IENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend aproval of Final Tract Map No. 13080 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2477 as submitted or revised. BACKGROUND AND S~RY On November 9, 1987, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13080 for the subdivision of a 14.65 acre site into 100 numbered and eight (8) lettered lots for the purpose of developing 100 single family detached dwelling units wi th one (1) private community recreation area. Subsequently, the Tentative Map was approved by the City Council on December 7, 1988. This approval included numberous conditions which the applicant has complied with and the final map is ready for recordation with the Orange County Recorders Office. Prior to this recordation, the Final Map must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The project site is bordered by Tusttn Ranch Road on the east, the E1 Modena Flood Control to the south, and Park Center Lane to the northeast. Planned and anticipated development in the vicinity include a proposed church to the east on Community Development Department · rlanning Commission Meeting Final Tract Hap No. 13080 Page two Lot 15 (subject to future approval of a Conditional Use Permit) and two single family detached developments to the northwest and a Community Park and High School site to the northeast. Future multi-family projects are currently under preliminary review for properties to the east of the project area across Tustin Ranch Road. CONCLUSION The Tentative Map approved for this project included various conditions of approval which required adjustments to the map. These adjustments included providing an additional pedestrian paseo at the southeast corner of the project. All of the required revisions are reflected upon the final map and the required conditions of approval have been met. Staff has determined that the Final Map is tn conformance with the Tentative Map approval, requirements of the East Tusttn Specific Plan, Development Agreement, the City's Subdivision Code, the East Tustin EIR and the State Subdivision Map Act. Based upon this :onformance, staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend approval of -'ina1 Map 13080 to the City Council by adoption of resolution No. 2477. Laura Cay Pick~, Associate Planner Christine A. Shingleto~, Di rector of Community~/oevel opment LCP:CAS:ts Attachments: Map Resolution No. 2477 Community Developmen~ Depar~rnen~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1,0 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2477 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 13080 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ows- I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That Final Tract Map No. 13080 has been submitted by Bren 0sgood Company. B. That the Public Hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1987. At this hearing the Planning Commission recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 13080 to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 13080 on December 7, 1987. C. That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to the development of single family dwellings: D. 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 Tentative Tract Map 13080 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 reservation of a high school site and elementary site in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map 12763, and imposition of school facilities fees as a condition of approval of Tentative Tract Map 13080. E. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. F. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. G. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat. H. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict wi th easements acquired by the public-at-large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2477 Page two That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serlous public health problems. J. That the Final Map is in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Final Tract Map No. 13080 subject to the final approval of the City Engineer. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. Kathy Wei l, Chairman penki Poley, Secretary SHEET ~} OF 5 lO0 LOTS AND LOTS 'A* T~U *~* ,,.,,, ~- TRACT No 150~0 ( ALL ~ TENTATIVE TRACT No. 1~80 ] DATE ~ S~vEY= IN THE CITY OF TUST]N, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CA~ ]FORN[A. AUGUST, 1~7 ADA~, STREETER CIVIL ENG]~ERS, ]NC. dAN A. ADAMS R.C.E. OCTOBER. ~ 967 NOTE: SEE SHEET 2 FOR I1ONtJIIENT NOTES, BASIS OF BEARINGS AND BOUNDARY AND INDEX I'tAP. INOICAT[$ £AS(IflENT FOI~ ~UER ANO ~ATER P~P~S DEDICATED TO T~ IRVI~ R~ ~ATE~ DISTRICT, ~ICATES 3' UI~ EA~NT F~ ~ATER P~POSE5 ~DICATED TO T~ IRVI~ RASH ~ATER OISTRICT. [~ICATES 5' ~l~ [A~NT RE~RVED BY T~ IRVI~ ~Y F~ FUT~E UTILITY ~RV]~S. PER TR. Ne. ~2763. R,~. 56t/tS-~. I~ICATE$ E~NT ~DICATED TO T~ CITY ~ TUSTIN F~ SI~K P~P~S, PER TR. Ne, 1~763. ~.~. 581/16'~. TO ~E J~/NE ~H WATER DETAIL *A* ~-. . ~'~.'~.:' ~ L I~':~' / ' / / !: // / / / ® / / - ®. r ® , , I SHE£T 4 OF 5 SHEETS 100 LOTS ANO LOTS 'A' THRU 'L' FRA'CT No 13080 [ ALL OF TENTAT!VE ~, TRACT N=. 13080 ) DATE OF SURVEYz IN THE CITY OF' TUST]N. COUNTY OF' ORANGE. STATE OF' C^L]FORN]^. AUGUST. 1987 ADAHS, STREETER CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC. OCTOBER, 1967 NOTE= SEE SHEET 2 FOR HONUHENT NOTES. BASIS OF BEARINGS AND BOUNDARY AND INDEX I1AP. ,DETAIL 'G" .' @ JAN A. ADAMS R.C.E. 215B7 - DETAIL 'H" ~.nn T-aO.00 A-~0.00 --~.00 -- .... 51.00- - - el ,~ 51 INDICATI"S EASEC'~NT F'OR SEUER A~ WATER PURPOSES DEDICATED ~0 T~ IRVI~ RANCH ~ATER [~ICATES 3' VIDE [ASlaNT FOR UATER P~POSES DEDICATED TO T~ IRVINE RANCH VATER DISTRICT. I~[CAT/S 5' VIDE EASE~NT RESERVED BY THE [RVINE CO, ANY F~ FUTURE UTILITY SERVICES. PER TR. I~ICATES EASE~NT DEDICATED TO T~ CITY OF TUSTIN F~ SI~ALK PURPOSES. PER TR. No. ~ICATE5 15' ~l~ EASE~NT F~ SEVER P~POSES DEDICATED TO T~ IRVI~ RANCH ~ATER DISTRICT. I~]CATES tO' ~1~ EAS/~NT FOR ~ATER PURPOSES DEDICATED TO THE [RVIN[ RANCH ~ATER DISTRICT. INDICATES tS' ~[DE PRIVATE EASEffiEN~ FOR STOR~ DRAIN PURPOSES. I~/DICA~..5 5' WIDE EASEMENT FOR WATER PURPOSES DEDICATED TO THE ADAUS, STREET£R CZVIL ENGINEERS. INC. JAN A. ADA~IS R.C,E. 21687 OCTOBER, ! 987 NOTE: SEE SHEET 2 FOR MONUMENT NOTES. BASIS OF BEARINGS AND BOUNDARY AND INDEX MAP. / / CdR vg OA / "---t' / / / / BRYAN a 4l.~3' INDICATES EASEI'IENT FOR SEVER AND VATER PURPOSES DEDICATED TO THE IRVlNE RANCH VATER DISTRICT. INDICATES ~' VIDE EASEIIENT FOR VATER PURPOSES DEDICATED TO THE tRVINE RANCH VATER DISTRICT, INDICATES 5' VIDE EASErIENT RESERVED BY THE 1RVINE COffifaANY FOR FUTURE UTILITY SERVICES. PER TR. No. t8763. ~.R. INDICATES EASEMENT ~DTCATED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN FOR SIDEWALK PURPOSES, PER TR. No. 1~76~, M.fl. 581/16-~5. I~ICATES 15' VIDE PRIVATE EASE~NT FOR STOR~ DRAIN PURPOSES. [NDICATES EASERENT FOR ST~R DRAIN P~POSES /NDICA~ 5' WIDE E~SE~ ~ W~TER RUR~S~ DEDI~D ~ THE I~/NE E~NCH W~TER DI~RI~ ..... · ,-, ,~.,~. AVENUE Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 4 DATE: MARCH 14, 1988 SUBJECT- APPLICANT: Ok~IER' PEP~qIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOHE BARBARA C. MAPd40L 1952 ,]AN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 HERMAN ACEVEDO 637 1/2 W. KELSO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301 LOCATION: 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 ZONING: R-4: MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL rEQUEST' AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME RECOI~IENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Chairman open the public hearing for public input. After closing the public hearing the Planning Commission shall determine if facts support any protests or public hearing comments on the project and if any of the protests are in violation of the'City Code. If no facts support comments received and if the large family day care home is found to comply with all City requirements, the California Government Code mandates that the permit must be granted. BACKGROUND On February 22, 1988 a public hearing was held for a proposed large family day care home at 1952 Jan Marie Place. At that time an error was found in the noticing for said hearing and on the advise of the City Attorney, the Commission directed staff to renotice'the public hearing to all property owners within 100 feet of the subject property for March 14, 1988. The staff report of February 22, 1988, discussing this proposal, is attached. " ' ~ '~ .' ' / .... '"~; i'L.- ,,r , ,~:/~=. ' '~''" Mary Ann,. Chamberlain ~hristine Shingleto.~ .kssociate Planner Director of Community Development MAC-per Attachments' February 22, 1988 Staff Report Ordinance 991 Map Community Development Department 'Planning Commission DATE' SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OtelER: LOCATION' ZONING · REQUEST' FEBRUARY ZZ, 1988 PEPJqIT TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME BARBARA C. MAR~L 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 HEPJqAN ACEVEDO 637 1/2 W. KELSO INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA 90301 1952 JAN MARIE PLACE TUSTIN, CA 92680 R-4' ~ULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AUltlORIZATION TO OPERATE A LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Chairman open the public hearing for public input. After closing the public hearing the Planning Commission shall determine if facts support any protests or public hearing comments on the project and if any of the protests are in violation of the City Code. If no facts support co,nments received and if the large family day care home is found to comply with all City requirements, the California Government Code mandates that the permit must be granted. · BACKGROUND Barbara Marmol presently operates a Small Family Day Care Home at 1952 Jan Marie Place and is requesting authorization to operate a Large Family Day Care Home. Section 9223a6 of the Tustin Zoning Code establishes the requirements and standards for the operation of Large Family Day Care Homes. These homes ,nay care for-up to 12 children including their own children under the age of 12.. In August of 1987, Ordinance 991 was adopted by the City Council which amended a'nd expanded the criteria for Large Family Day Care Homes. (A copy of that Ordinance is attached.) On February 8, 1988, this item was scheduled as a consent calendar item before the Planning Commission. Because protests were made by property owners who Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting February 22, 1988 Large Family Day Care Home Page two reside within 100 feet of the proposed home, the Planning Commission directed staff to advertise this project as a public hearing. ANALYSIS OF CODE REqUIB ENTS City Planning Staff and the Fire Department have made 3 visits to the site on different days and have made the following observations: 1. The proposed day care home by design, location and layout will not constitute a noise nuisance to neighboring properties. At the February 8, 1988 meeting comments were made pertaining to the noise. Staff has evaluated the situation and found the noise from the construction across Browning was louder' than the play yard noise. The noise from the children does not exceed the city noise ordinance which is 60 dba (decibles measured at (a) frequency level). The day care home is not within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of any existing large family day care home. 3. All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior property boundary were notified of the intent to establish' this home. 4. The proposed day care home has been inspected by the Orange County Fire Department and found to be consistent with all Fire Department regulations. 5. The play yard of the proposed home is enclosed by a six-foot high fence which is setback from the required front yard. 6. The proposed home does not have a swimming pool. neighboring yards have no relevence to this home). (Swimming pools in 7. The proposed home provides adequate off-street parking areas and has adequate drop-off and/or pick-up facilities both on-site and off-site which will avoid interference with traffic and promote the safety of children. Another complaint was noted regarding 15 automobiles parked in the street on Jan Marie Place. Staff recorded licenses of parked vehicles in public right-of-way and traced the ownership of each vehicle. Only one of the 15 autos parked on the street belonged to the'Marmol residence. The other vehicles belonged to owners and residents at 1941 and 1931 Jan ~4arie Place. 8. The applicant has applied for a license with the State of California. Corn rnunity Development Oepanrnent ~ ~lanning Commission Meeting February 22, 1988 Large Family Day Care Home Page three CONCLUSION The California Government Code mandates that permits for these homes must be granted by the City unless valid protests are made by surrounding property owners. These protests must be based on facts that support one or more of the following adverse impacts exist; noise levels, parking and spacing of such homes. All of these impacts have been studied in detail and no negative impacts of any significance were found. ~t~y Ann~chamberlaih, ~l~Tfg~fne A. Shi~gleton~.~-- Associatt~ Planner Director of Communi ty ~f~el opment ~4AC-CAS' ts Attachments' - Ordinance 991 ~.~p Community Development Depar~rnent JAN · MAR E PL .SIE. RRA VISTA EL CAMINO REAL SANTA ANA FWY NISSON RD LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE CENTER I NOT TO SCALE souRc~ CITY OF TUSTIN NORTH 1 2 ORDINANC£ NO. 991 AN ORD[NANC£ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUST[N AMENDING SECT[ON 9223a6 OF THE 'TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LARGE FAMILY OAY CARE HOMES. The City Counctl of the City of Tusttn does hereby ordain: 6 8 9 10 I1 15 14: · 1.5 .16 1 19 2O 21 25 I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: a) That the State of California Heal th and Safety Code Section [597.46 mandates that a permit be granted for large faintly, day care homes if they comply with local standards and requirements. 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 Eeclaration has been prepared conforming wi th the Call forni a [nvironmental Quality Act and is hereby approved. 27 28 II. The City council hereby amends ~Sectton 9223a6 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 permtt shall complete and submtt 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 wtthtn a 100 foot radius of the exterior propertY boundary of the proposed day care home. i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27~ 28 0rdtnance No. Page Two b) Large family day care homes shall be operated in a manner not exceeding the notse level tn Ge Tustin Notse Ordinance, nor shall such day care homes be allowed to operate tn a manner that would constitute a nut sance 1:o 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 Gat would be established within 300 feet o¢ the exterior propert7 boundaries of any existing ltcensed large faintly day c=re home. d) All properS/ owners within a :~00 foot radtus of Ge extartor propert7 boundary of a proposed large family day care home, 'as shown on the last equalized County assessment roll, shall be. nottfted of the ~ntent to es=abllsh such a ho~. e) No heart ng on the application for a permtt shall be held by the Planntng Commission unless' a heartng ts requested by the applicant or a property owner within a :~00 foot radius of Ge exterior boundary of ~e proposed home. ~ no hea~tng ts ~eques=ed, Ge pe~C shall be granted if the large fa~ly day ~re ho~ co~11es ~tCh ~he provisions of ~ts code. Any day care home must comply with all regulations adopted and enforced by the State Ft re Marshal and Orange County Fi re Department. g) The play yard of the home must be enclosed by a minimum six-foot htgh fence setback from the requtred front yard. h) The Plannihg 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 20 21 2~ 2~ 27 28 Ordinance No. 995 Page Three Any day care home must comply- wi th the provisions of the State Uniform Building Code and City of Tustin Building requirements which apply to single family residences. Any large day care home must provide one off-street parking space for each employee who is not a resident of the premises, and provide adequate 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 I dren. k) An applicant for a large family day care home shall be licensed or deemed to be exempt from ltcensure by the State of C~ltfornia as a large family day care home. l) 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 Planntng Commission to detemrlne if said use is operated in a manner detrimental to th'e health, safety or wel fare of the community or surrounding properties. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of t~e Tustin City Council, held on the ~ day of Aun_,,~., 198_7_. )[tchard B. Edg Mayor Mary E. W~nn ~ City Clef~ STATE OF CAkIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANG£ ) § CITY' OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tusl:in, California, does hereby certify thal~ the whole nun~oer of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 991 was duly and regularly introduced and read at a regular meeting of the City Co. il held on the 201:h day of July, 1987, and was given its second reading and duly .passed and adopted at a regul'ar meeting held on the 3rd. day. of- Au~tust, 1987., by the following vote: AYES : COUNCILPERSONS: Edgar', Hoesterey, Kelly, Kennedy, Prescott NOES : COUNCILPERSONS: None ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: None MA ity Cler . City of Tustt~, California Published Ordinance: August 1'3, 1987 Tusti n News Report to the Planning Commission Item No. 5 DATE: SUB~IECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZON I NG: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: . REQUEST: MARCH 14, 1988 VARIANCE 88-2 INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES 10845-D gtlEATLANDS AVENUE, STE. D SANTEE, CA 92071 HOME FEDERAL 625 BROADWAY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 18231 IRVINE BOULEVARD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOLT AVENUE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 11 TO PER~IT A TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGN. RECOMHENDATION That the Planning Commission deny Variance No. 88-2 by adoption of Resolution No. 2472. BACKGROUND Applicant wishes to construct a tenant identification monument sign for Home Federal Savings located at the northwest corner of Irvine Boulevard and Holt Avenue. The tenant, is located in the Professional Office {PR) zone and the building is a multi-tenant professional office center. The Tustin Sign Code states that monument signs are allowed in the Professional Office district for center identification only, no tenant names are to be advertised on a center identification sign. Therefore, the requested sign requires a variance. Community Development Department Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 1988 Variance No. 88-2 Page two According to the Sign Code, a Variance may be granted subject to the following condi ti OhS: · That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property, the strict application of this Chapter is found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under similar circumstances. · 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. ANALYSIS In reviewing the proposed variance request, staff have determined the following: · The proposed variance for the tenant identification monument sign does not meet the required conditions which are required for the granting of a variance. There is currently a mixture of office and commercial uses in the immediate vicinity of Home Federal Savings and the only existing monument signs in the vicinity are for center identification. These signs identify the "Craddock" office complex, and the "Courtyard". · The existing office complexes directly to the west do not have any monument signs. Additionally, other banks and savings and loans in the nearby vicinity do not have tenant identification monument signs. These financial institutions are Home Savings of America and Citicorp Bank, which are located within the same block as Home Federal. Home Federal Savings is, therefore, not deprived of privileges that other properties enjoy in the vicinity under similar circumstances. As such, the granting of this variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on adjacent properties in the area. · Special consideration has already been made to allow Home Federal Savings more sign area than is typically allowed by the Sign Code . In July of 1986, Home Federal Savings was granted a sign code exception which allowed an additional 20 square feet more than the Sign Code allows for a front wall sign. The wall signs located on the front and west side -of the building that Home Federal Savings occupies are clearly visible from both Irvine Blvd. and Holt Avenue. Corn rnunity Developrnen~ Departrnen~ Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 1988 Variance No. 88-2 Page three e The granting of thts vartance could result in some adverse effects tn the tmedtate vtctntty. Staff is concerned with the possible effects which could result from the approval of this variance. If the subject variance is granted, it could establish precedent and a basis for granting future variances of the same type. CONCLUSION Based upon the analysis discussion above the Community Development Department staff recommends that the application for Variance No. 88-2 be denied. J~ssi stant P1 anner Christine A. Shiffgleton/X// Director of Community D~velopment JS:CAS:ts Attachments: Site plan Sign elevation Letter of justifi cation Resolution No. 2472 Corn rnunity DeveloPment DeparTment '®® ® . I ntegrated · EilQN AB,I~IOCIATEEi I "a visual communications company" HOME FEDERAL SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST Home Federal requests the approval of a low-profile monument sign as a business identification sign typically allowed commercial businesses. Home Federal is the major tenant in a building with both commercial and Professional tenants. As a result of the professional tenants located on the second floor,, the building has been designated a "Professional Building." However, the planning department has recognized the special circumstances here and had approved a sign program that allowed Home Federal wall signs under the commercial category with the other tenant signage calculated under the professional category. In keeping with 'the design guidelines of the professional district, Home Federal has scaled down the size of the monument to 6 feet high and 12 square feet as opposed to 32 square feet allowed in the commercial district. We feel this would provide - for Home Federal's identification requirements as a commercial business and maintain the design standards of the building and environment. 10845 WHEATLANOS AVE.. SUITE [3. SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071 (619) 562-4-200 3350 EAST BI?ICH ST., SUITE 200, BREA. CALIFORNIA 92621 (714) 528-5936 .. 1 2 3 4 5 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. 2472 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OV THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 88-2 FOR HOME VEDERAL SAVINGS AT IRVINE BOULEVARD AND HOLT AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ow s: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, (Variance No. 88-2), was filed on behalf of Home Federal Savings requesting authorization to vary from the requirements of the City of Tustin Sign Code for the installation of a 12 square foot tenant identification monument sign. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appl i cati on. 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 Ordinance does not deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The only existing monument signs in the vicinity are for center identification purposes in the professional office zone. D. That the granting of a variance as herein provided will 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. E. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Class 11.) F. That the granting of the variance as herein provided will be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the public safety, health and welfare, and said variance should not be granted. 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 2O 21 :22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolutlon No. 2472 Page two II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Variance No. 88-2. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the _ day of , 1988. K~thY Well, Chairman Penni Foley, Secretary PI, arming Commission DATE: IILRRCH 14, 1988 SUB,]ECT: USE PERMIT 87-38 APPLICANT: NESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER 165 N. MYRTLE TUSTIN, CA. 92680 PROPERTY ONNER: CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PA. LOCATION: 165 N. MYRTLE ZONING: P & I PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1 REQUEST: TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER IN THE REAR PARKING AREA OF AN EXISTING HOSPITAL FACILITY REC~ENDATZON It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 87-38 by the adoption of Resolution 2473 as drafted or revised. BACKGROUND AND SUPeqARY Western Neuro Care Center is proposing to install a 504 square foot temporary trailer for administrative office use on a 2.49 acre site currently zoned Public and Institutional (P&I). The' proposed trailer would be located in the rear parking lot area of the hospital facility on Myrtle Avenue. This trailer is considered temporary in nature since it will not be permanently affixed to the ground and it will be removed when permanent facilities are established. The applicant expects to use the trailer for a period of time which is longer than 30 days. This prolonged use of a temporary facility requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, the hospital is located in the P&I zone which also requires a Use Permit for any alterations to a previously approved development plan. The project is surrounded by professional offices to the north and south, multi Community Development Department ~lanning Corem1 ssion Report March 14, 1988 Western Neuro Care Page two family and single family residences to the east and by the SR-55 (Costa Mesa) freeway to the west. OlSCtlSSIOI( The applicant currently operates a neuro care hospital facility which includes 57 patient beds and support office uses. The hospital has filed plans for an expansion project which is slated for Commission review on April 11, 1988. This expansion will require removal of an existing 3,740 square foot office structure, and will necessitate both on and off-site relocation of the support office uses. Until proper facilities are available, the applicant wishes to use a temporary trailer to house the key administrative operations which can not be · located off-site. Staff has reviewed the code, the previous Use Permit for the hospital,' and considered the aesthetic/visual impact of the trailer. A review of these three considerations is detailed below. Ze Zoning Code Requirements - The P&I zone does not establish any specific development standards, however, it requires approval of a development plan by issuance of a Use Permit. However, the development plan mus~ be determined as compatible with the area. Additionally, the project must not be considered as detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare of the City and surrounding uses and properties. e Conformity with Previously Approved Development Plan - In August of 1983, a Use Permit was approved by the Planning Commi ssi o,, for expansion of the hospital building and conversion of a ~single family dwelling to an office use. This Use Permit established the site layout and parking requirements. A minimum of 47 parking spaces were required to be provided for the hospital and support office buildings. However, the applicant has provided a total of 60 parking spaces. The proposed trailer location would require removal of two (2) of the provided spaces. This would leave 58 spaces available for the existing use, therefore, placement of the trailer will not reduce the number of required parking spaces. Visual Impact, - The proposed location of the trailer is in a parking area to the rear of the hospital facility. The trailer itself is blocked from public right-of-way view by a block wall which faces Yorba Street and the hospital building which faces Myrtle Avenue. Therefore, the trailer will not be visible from the public right-of-way. The architectural design of the trailer includes use of vertical wood siding and wood framed windows. A photo of the proposed trailer will be available to the Commission at the hearing for review of the appearance of the trailer. Corn rnunity Developrnent Department 'lanning Commi si on Report March 14, 1988 Western Neuro Care Page three ii CONCLUSION The proposal meets the use and location requirements of the P&I District~ as well as the previous Use Permit for the hospital. Staff has reviewed the location and design of the trailer and has determined that the use of the trailer is temporary in nature and the visual impact is minimal. Based upon the analysis discussed herein and the conditions of approval included with the attached resolution, staff recommends approval of Use Permit 87-38. :aura. Cay.J~i c~up ~ssoci ate~P1 anner LCP :pef Attachments Si te Plan Resolution No. 2473 C.l~ri sti ne Shi ngl eton /// · Director of Community De~lopment Corn rnun!ty Development DeparTrnen~ 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17~ 21 22 27 :28 RESOLUTION NO. 2473 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 87-38 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A 504 SQUARE FOOT TEMPORARY OFFICE TRAILER AT 165 N. MYRTLE AVENUE, 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, Use Permit No. 87-38 has been filed on behalf of Western Neuro Care Center to request authorization to install a 504 square foot temporary office trailer at 165 N. Myrtle 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, under the circumstances of this c-as.e, be detrimental to the heal th, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following fi nding s: 1. The use applied for is in conformance with the Tustin Zoning Code. 2. The use applied for is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan. 3. The proposed trailer will not be visible from the public right-of-way. 4. The trailer will be removed once on-site accommodations are provided. 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 Fi re Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. F. This project is Categorically Exempt (Class 1,) from the California Environmental Quality Act. Ge Final 'development plans shall require the review and approval of the 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. 2473 Page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 87-38 to authorize installation of a temporary 504 square foot office trailer at 165 N. Myrtle Avenue subject to the following conditions: A. The proposed project shall substantially conform wi th the submitted site plan date stamped March 14, 1988 on file with the Community Development Department. B. Unless other use specified, conditions contained in this resolution shall be complied with prior to issuance of any building permit for placement of the temporary trailer, subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department. C. At plan check, standard plans for installation of the trailer shall be submitted. Requirements of the Uniform Building Code shall be complied with, including seismic safety requirements. D. This Conditional Use Permit approval 87-38 shall become null and void upon completion of any construction of on-site office facilities which may be approved by the Planning Commisson at a future date, but not to exceed 24 months from the date of approval of this resolution. Subsequently, six months extensions for use of the trailer may be granted upon the filing of a request to the Planning Commission. E. Demolition of the office building located at 14851 Yorba Street shall not commence until approval has been granted by the Commission for reconstruction of new facilities. F. No more than two (2) parking spaces may be removed for installation of the proposed trailer. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day in March, 1988. Kathy Wei 1 Chairman Pe'nni Foley Secretary -t '1- t t r .~,i Report to the Planning commission Item No. 7 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: EIIV I RONMENTAL STATUS: ~.q UEST: MARCH 14, 1988 USE PEPaqlT NO. 88-5 VINEYARD CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 330 N. SIXTH STREET TUSTIN FREEWAY COFg~ERCE CENTER pLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (pta.) AN APPLICATION FOR A 'NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED IN ACCOROANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AUTHORIZATION TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) REC~ENDED ACTION __ It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2474 and Negative Declaration hereby attached. BACKGROUND~ At the meeting of February 8, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council the approval of a request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow churches in the Planned Industrial District (PM), subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The City Council held the first reading of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment at their meeting on March 7th with the second reading of the Ordinance anticipated on March 21, 1988. At this time, however, the applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a proposed church in the PM zone subject to final City Council approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. The applicant proposes to occupy an approximate 8,100 square foot portion of an existing industrial building located at the southwest corner of Sixth and "B" Streets in a large industrial complex of approximately 179,301 square feet. Existing zoning and land uses surrounding the site are shown on Attachment I. As shown, single family residential uses in the R-1 zone are located to the immediate north across Sixth Street; multi-family in the R-3 zone to the northeast; and industrial, office and church (B'nai Israel) uses to the east across "B"" Street in the PM and C-2 zoning districts. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report March 14, 1988 Use Permit 88-5 Page two The 8,100 square foot church facility proposes to include approximately 4,980 square feet of classroom, conference,-office and miscellaneous work space and approximately 3,120 square feet of church seating area. Based on information provided by the applicant, office hours for the church would be from 9 a.m. to 5 p~m., Monday through Friday. The total number of employees on the site at any one time will not exceed 15. Other activities that will occur on a regular basis during the week include the following: ° Wednesday night Training Center, to run from 7-9 p.m. The expected number of people to be in attendance will be approximately 75. ° Saturday Seminars to be offered on an as needed basis, and occurring from 9 a.m. - I p.m. The expected number of people to be in' attendance will be approximately 80-100. These seminars are expected to occur approximately every 6 to 8 weeks. · Sunday services will be from ~8-9-30 a.m. There is a possibility of a service from 10-11'30 a.m. and evening services from 4-7 p.m., if needs for church services increase. The expected number of people to be in attendance, would be as follows: SUnday 8-9:30 a.m ...... .... 287 adults Sunday 10-11' 30 a.m ........ 287 adults Sunday 4-7 p.m ............. 200 adults It appears that existing trade schools on the subject site would be closed on · "B Saturdays and Sundays. The synagogue on "Street meets on Fridays at 8 O0 p.m. and Saturdays at 9-30 a.m. and has Monday through Friday office hours between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. · DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 9291 of the Tustin City Code, the Planning Commision in reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application must determine the following' ° Whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use will be detrimental to the heal th, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or; o Whether the use will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City· Staff have also reviewed the subject application for conformance with other provisions of the Tustin City Code and feels that there are several factors that the Commission should consider in their review of the the subject Conditional Use Permit request. Corn munity DeveloPment Department Planning Commission Report March 14, 1988 Use Permit 88-5 Page three 1. The Positive Influence of a Church on the Character of a Community - A church can create positive influences in a small community. Churches are a welcoming body for new residents entering the area. Churches are a type of organization where people can become involved and feel a sense of belonging in a well established community which may be difficult to adjust to. Churches also provide social activities for the very young to the very old which helps promote community well being. 2. Land Use Compatibility - As described above, the proposed use is immediately across the street from single family uses. The residential environment of this area is somewhat quiet and the neighborhood has been historically concerned with the impacts of traffic and parking along Sixth Street. There is the potential for this residential area to suffer from overflow of parking and a relatively continuous level of activity from church activities. In order to mitigate these potential impacts, the Commission may want to consider imposing limitations on the hours of operation of the church use and restrict those attending any church related activities from parking along Sixth or "B" Streets. - 3. Traffic - Per the traffic engineer, a single church of 8,000 square feet to be located in the PM District would generate 120 trips per weekday out of the 1,384 trips generated by the center as a whole. On weekends the church would generate 360 trips while the center would generate an insignificant amount. Therefore, total trips generated by the church will be easily absorbed by the surrounding street system, provided ample parking is available. Per information submitted by the applicant, businesses and th~ schools operating within the industrial complex and adjacent to it, function only during the week. The existing church {Synagogue) services are on Fridays and Saturdays and do not conflict with proposed church services. The occurance of Sunday classes in the Synagogue has not been confirmed at this time. In any case, the Synagogue has sufficient parking to accommodate their demand. In addition, parking within the industrial complex seems to be sufficient to accommodate proposed church activities. 4. Parkin~)/Circulation - As described above, church activities will be concentrated on the weekends, with the exception of the Wednesday night training center and Saturday seminars. Sunday services include worship services in the sanctuary and Sunday classes for the children and toddlers occurring si mul taneously. While there are 359 seats proposed in the sanctuary and 149 seats in classroom areas, the Uniform Building code would permit a maximum occupancy of 433 persons in the sanctuary and 366 persons in classroom areas. Based on-the City's current parking requirements, there would be 145 parking Corn munity DeveloPment Dcpar~mem .lanning Commission Report March 14, 1988 Use Permit 88-5 Page four spaces required for the proposed use (one parking space per three (3) seats in the sanctuary and one parking space per 200 square feet of miscellaneous classroom and office area). This would compare against the ten parking spaces that the existing 8,100 square foot area the church will occupy would normally be allocated (based upon the one parking space per 800 square feet of floor area standard the project was built at). There are a total of 209 parking spaces provided in the entire industrial complex. Per City Zoning Code Sections 9241, the Planning Commission, as a condition of the Use Permit, must provide assurances of parking accommodations adequate for the proposed use. In order to comply with this requirement, staff recommends that a Reciprocal Parking Agreement be signed by the applicant, property owner and the City. Proposed reciprocal parking agreement would allow joint use of parking spaces on weekends for 145 spaces out of the 209 spaces allocated to the industrial complex. Another issue related to parking is the actual awkward and disjointed parking layout on the site which could likely discourage church attendees from parking in the lot. An.y conditions of approval for the project should prohibit street parking for people attending church activities. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration for the proposed Use Permit 88-5 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2474 with conditions, as submitted or revised. Patri zi a Materassi Planner PM' CAS: pef Attachment: Site Plan Floor Plan Resolution No. 2474 Negative Decl arati on Christine Shingleton~/ Director of Community Development Corn rnunity Development Department 1 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2474 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA APPROVING USE PERMIT 88-5 TO ALLOW A CHURCH USE IN THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) AT 330 W. SIXTH STREET California does hereby The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, (i resolve as follows: ? I. The Planning Commission finds and determines that: A. That a proper application (Use Permit 88-5) has been filed on behalf of the Vineyard Christian Fellowship to allow a church to~ be located in the Planned,Industrial District (PM) at 330 W. Sixth Street. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said appl i cati on. C. A mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is hereby certi fi ed for the project according to the Cali forni a Environ~ntal Quality Act. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration and initial study prior to approving the subject project. D. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 191 1. The Planned Industrial District (PM) as amended, lists church uses as a permitted use subject to a Conditional Use Permit. 20, 2. The Conditional Use Permit will provide the ability to mitigate any potential impacts of a church use in the PM District through imposition of the conditions of approval. 3. That a Negative Declaration in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act has been prepared and hereby is approved. II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 88-5 subject to the following conditions' A. The proposed project shall su§sequently comply with submitted plans for the project, stamped and on file with the Community 2T Development Department, as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance wi th these 28 conditions. 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17I' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2474 Page two B. Unless otherwise specified, conditions contained in this resolution shall be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, subject to review and approval by the Orange County Fi re Department and the Community Development Department. C. Proposed tenant space and tenant improvements shall comply with Uniform Building Code, Group "A" requirements. Requirements may include but not be limited to additional fire walls, exits, etc. D. A sprinkler system is required per Uniform Building Code, Sections 3802, (Ordinance No. 995), 508 and Table_ 5C. E. Construction plans for any building alterations and to insure compliance with conditions C and D above shall be submitted for review and approval of the Building Official. F. Applicant and property owner shall prepare and execute a Reciprocal Parking Agreement to allow joint use of 145 parking spaces allocated to the industral complex on weekends and evenings only subject to review and approval by City prior to recordati on. G. The following limitations shall apply to church related activities on the subject property' 1. Sunday services shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 2 p.m.. 2. Training Center activities shall be limited to one night during the week (Monday through FridaY) and shall be restricted to the hours of 7-9 p.m. Attendance shall be restricted to a maximum of 75 persons. 3. Saturday seminars shall not be offered more .frequently than once every six weeks and shall be limited to the hours of 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Attendance shall be restricted to a maximum of 100 persons. H. Total seating capacity for proposed church use shall not exceed 359 seats for the sanctuary area and 149 seats for classrooms. I. This Use Permit shall become null and void if a certificate of occupancy for the proposed church is not obtained within 12 months of the approval date of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 14th day. of March, 1988. Penni Foley Secretary KATHY WEIL, Chairman Map of Proposed Vineyard Church Site PD R- 1 R- 1 17 18 18 R-3 C-2 17 6TH ST · 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. I 2 · .3 4 5 6 ~'~ P&I 'Pinetree Preschool Boys & Girls Club Self Storage Business Printing and Copy Center Associate Printing School 10. Carter Business School Proposed space for ¥ineyard Church Sterilaire/Nova Medical, Inc. Lyons International Security, Inc. Tex Spread (currently vacant) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. (Vacant) Skull Dulgory, Inc. Folding Factory ' Lenders Documents Service B'Nai Israel (Church) Marshalls Multiple Family Single Family ~ Fi le Project Title: Use Permit 88-5 Project Loca.tion'330 West Sixth Street Project Description' Locate Church use in the Plann6d industrial District (PM) Project Proponent:vineyard Christian Fellowship Contact Person: Pat ' ' . Telephone: . Ext. The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the of Tustin's procedures regarding above project in accordance with the City implementation of the. California Envir'onmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby find: That there, is no substantial evidence that the project may have a ~] significant effect on the environment. · That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have ~] been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicantl that would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The initial study which provides the basts for this determination is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration with the public notice of a during the review period, which begins calendar days. Upon review by Negative Declaration and extends for seven the Community .Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW P[RIOO [NDS 4:30 p.m. on . DATED: March 21, 19_88 __ ctor Christine Shingleton CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM ® · Name of Propment Address and Phone Nu~ of Pro~nent )O c<Du I1. Enviranmentcd Irnpcm-ts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers ~re required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Un~table earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering, of the soil? C. d. Chcr~je in topography or ground surface relief fecrtums? The clestrucfion, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? x~ fei Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which, may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?' g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthqud<es, landslides, mucLslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in** a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of' air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in** a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in 'ab. sorptian rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or fl~w of flood waters? d. Chcr~je in the amount of surface water in any' water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Chc~ge in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduCtian in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supp lies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding, or tidal waves? No. /~.. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including h'ees, shrubs, gmss~ crops~ and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of ony unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into on are~, or in a Ex3rrier to the normal~ replenishment of existing species?' d. Reduction in ecreoge of any ~jricultUral crop? 5. Anin~i Life. Will the proposal result in= a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of anirn~ls (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish~ .benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or end~r~jered species, of animals? c. introduction of hew species of animals into an orea~ or result in a b~rier to the migrcrtion or movement of animals? cl. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light (n~d Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? )Lm~d Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantiai alteration of the pres~.'t or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? I0. Risk 6f Upset. Will the proposal involve~ a. 'A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset Conditions? b. Possible interference with an emerg~ r__?xxtse plan or an emerg~ ~ion plan? II. Populatian. Will the proposal alter the location, distrbution, density~.or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. I-kxssing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? ~. Trcreq=m-tc~tian/Circulatian. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional veh icu lar. movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tron or movement of peal~le and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f.- Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? Yes d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- lng sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations t.o the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? - b. Communications systems? c. Water? cl. Sewer Or septic tani~s? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and di~osal? 17. ~ Health. Will the proposal result in: a.. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the aiteratio~ of or the destructim of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Yes X X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? .c. Does the prq>osai have the potential to cause a physical ~e which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? cl. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory.Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, 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? b. 'Does the project' have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term in, pact on the environment is one which occurs iH a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. 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.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? !11. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. 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 coui~l have a significant effe6t on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case i--I because the mitigation measures described on _an attachqd .shee~ have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'WILL BE PREPARED. i find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- --- merit, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. J J Date ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Explanations I find that even though the project could have a significant effect on the environment, proposed mitigation 'measures reduce potential adverse impacts to an insignificant level. "No" impact determinations were based on information submitted by applicant. '"Yes"'& "maybe" determinations are explained/justified bel ow Noise - 6a: Maybe. The proposal may increase existing noise levels mostly on Sundays and evenings. Proposed mitigation measures consist of restricting hours of operation to currently proposed weekday activities and Sunday services tq mornings and afternoons only. Expansion of service activities would be considered a violation of subject approval. Land Use - 8' Maybe. The proposed may alter present land use for the area due to the fact that the Planned Industrial District (PM) is the most restrictive of the Industrial Districts in the area, not allowing for church uses until recently. The PM District is characterized by a variety of uses which are already somewhat incompatible with the residential area to the north. (See attached vicinity map)., The church has potential to alter such circumstances. Restrictions in the hours of operation for the proposed use will reduce potential impacts on residential areas to the north. Transportation/Circulation - 13b' Maybe. The church proposal may affect existing parking facilities since the industrial park was originally parked for industrial office/warehousing type uses and not for assembly uses. The assembly uses requires a much higher parking ratio. Therefore, Sunday church participant's will need to utilize the same parking spaces allocated to the industrial park as a whole. Fortunately, the industrial park has very little or no activity on weekends. Proposed mitigation measures' that a reciprocal parking agreement be signed by the applicant, property owner and the City to allow for joint use. of.parking spaces allocated to the industrial park. Agreement would also prohibit parking on 6th and 'B' Streets. Also, that the total seating capacity will be limited to the currently proposed capacity. o. Planning commission DATE: SUBJECT' APPLICANT: O~INER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL ~--rATUS: QUEST: MARCH 14, 1988 USE PERMIT 88-3 RANDY WOLFE/RICHARD MAIDEN ON BEHALF OF SOUTH COAST CHRISTIAN CENTER JUNE PERFIT 193 EAST PLAIN STREET CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DIsTRIcT (C-2); EL CAMINO REAL SPECIFIC PLAN NEGATIVE DECLARATION AUTHORIZATION TO CONOUCT CHURCH SERVICES IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL OISTRICT. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Use Permit 88-3 by the adopt.~on of Resolution No. 2476. BACKGROUND ~pplicant is requesting approval to establish a church at 193 East ~Main Street. The requested application is being considered at this time in response to a code enforcement complaint on the property. Staff's field investigation revealed that the proposed use was operating without a business license or any zoning approvals. Section 9233(c) of the Tustin code requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a church use in the C-2 districts. The proposed church use would be located on an existing 42,000 sq.ft, lot located along Prospect Avenue between ~qain Street and Second Streets. Applicant, however, only intends to occupy an approximate 16,727 sq.ft, portion of the property more specifically located at the northwest corner of Prospect nd Hain Street. (Exhibit's A and A-l) Community Development Department vlanning Commission Use Permit 88-3 March 14, 1988 Page two The existing metal storage buildings on the same lot to the north, and existing commercial use on the same property to the west are not proposed for any modification. The proporty is currently zoned C-2 and E1 Camino Real Specific Pla.n #1 and is surrounded on the northwest, and south by similarly zoned properties. Property across Prospect to the east is zoned C-2 (Exhibit A). The intended church use would utilize an 5,867 sq.ft, portion of an existing commercial building which previously contained a retail commercial use. In conjunction with the proposed church operation, applicant would intend to utilize space as follows' 2,635 sq.ft, for assembly purposes; 2,356 sq.ft, for office and lobby space and 855.5 sq. ft. for a retail religious book store. Based on information from the applicant, proposed organized church activities are expected to occur as follows: Church services will be held on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. · The bookstore will be open during the week and on Saturdays. 3. The offices will be used as a classroom for small groups to meet in during the evening hours on weekdays and Sunday mornings for Sunday school and nursery. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Section 9291 of 'the Tustin City Code, the Planning Commission in reviewing a Conditional Use Permit application must determine the following' whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use; or whether the use will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Staff have reviewed the subject application for conformance with the Tustin Zoning requirements and the E1 Camino Real Specific Plan No. 1, and feel that there are several factors the Commission should consider in their review of the proposed appl i cati on. 1. The Positive Influence of a Church on the Character of a Community' A church can create positive influences on a small community'] Churches are a welcoming body for new residents entering the area. Churches are a type of organization where people can become involved and feel a sense of belonging in a well established community which may be difficult to adjust to. Churches also provide social activities for the very young to the very old which helps promote community well being.. Corn munity DeveloPment Depar~rnent Planning Commi sston Use Per'mil; 88-3 I~larch ].4, 1988 Page three ii 2. Land Use Compatibility: The downtown area is regulated by the E1 Camino R~al"llspe~tf(c pllan'(l~he Specific Plan) and the Centeral Commercial District zoning regulations (C-2). The E1 Camino Real Specific Plan specifically encourages those uses which will encourage a commercial village atmosphere, such as small shops and restaurants. (See attached Exhibit (B) for Ordinance No. 510). One could argue that the proposed church use does not lend itself to promotion or attraction of additional commercial uses to the Old Town use. On the other hand, the presence of vacant storefronts in a downtown area is also undesirable for any long period of time. 3. Needed Building Alterations- As a result of staff's investigation, the building was found not to be in conformance with the Building Code .for an A2.1 assembly occupancy. Despite continued communication from the City, the church has continued to operate in violation of the City Codes. (Please see attached Exhibit (C) for the specific code violations.) In addition to the proposed church use not being in conformance with the building code, the 'Fire Department has informed staff that additional buildings on the same parcel have the potential for major fire code violations and represent a fire hazard. The existing property owner will not authorize a full site investigation. The property owner has also indicated an unwillingness to commit to any needed building alterations anywhere on the property including for the church use. 3. Storag_e of. parking: The existing portion of the site proposed for the church use currently has 22 parking spaces which are located at the rear of the existing building with only 20 of those spaces currently meeting City requirements (2 perpendicular stalls at the rear of building will interfere with use of 2 westerly stalls). Since the required number of parking spaces for the proposed use would be 46 spaces (Exhibit D), an additional 26 spaces must be obtained in order to meet the City's parking requirements.According to the E1 Camino Real Speci'fic Plan (Ordinance No. 510) on-site parking requirements may be modified consistent with a concept of the village environment if an applicant can meet one of the following provisions: (a) Property or properties that lie in toto (sic) within a Vehicle Parking Assessment District or Business Improvement Area shall be exempt 'from the requirement for on-site parking accommodations, subject to the provisions of the parking or improvement district ordinance. (b) On-site parking requirements may be waived upon the presentation to the City of a long term lease, running with and as a condition of the business license, for private off-site parking accommodations within 300 feet of the business or activity to be served. Corn rnunity DeveloPment Department P1 ann1 ng Commi sslon "Use:: Permit 88-3 March 14, 1988 Page four (c) All or a portion of required number of parking spaces may be satisfied by depositing with the City an amount, to be used for public parking accommodations within the area equal to 4 times the assessed value determined from the latest assessment roll of the County Assessor, of 200 square feet of land within the area, for each required parking space not otherwise provided. The applicant has submitted a number of statements regarding possible available parking that he can provide off-site. However, it appears that only 24 spaces might be possible, still short 2 spaces from what is required for the use. The proposed location of the additional parking would be an existing westerly parking lot located along 303 - 307 E1 Camino Real and a rear parking lot behind Rangel Architects building at 333 E1 Camino Real as shown on Exhibit E. However, statements the Community Development Department have received have only been generally signed by tenants. Staff did communicate that a statement from the property owner would also be needed, although no such statement has been received. In addition to not having owner's authorization for use of all off-site parking spaces proposed, the location of the spaces would make them difficult to find and use. It could seem more likely that overflow parking would want to use Prospect. The Public Works Department has reviewed the application and is concerned about the adequacy of parking and provisions for overflow parking since parking may be eliminated on Prospect Avenue in the future (see attached Exhibit F). CONCLUSION Based on the above findings, the proposed project is found not to be in conformance with the existing zoning and building code and the general goals and objectives of the E1 Camino Real Specific Plan. Staff recommends denial of this request by the adoption of Resolution No. 2476. If the Planning Commission finds the proposed use in accordance with the zoning and building codes and the E1 Camino Specific Plan, the staff requests a continuance in order to present Conditions of Approval for the project. ~- -- -':-Christine A~ Shlngleton~ Cheryl Pengue, · Planning Technician Director of Community Development "P.CAS'ts ~r ttachments: Exhibit's A - F Negati ye Declaration Environmental Initial Study Form Discussion of Environmental EValuation Resolution No. 2476 , Corn rnunity DeveloPment DeparTment - EXHIBIT A ALLEY L. PROSPECT AVE. Z ii,,, EXHIBIT A. 1 1 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ORDINANCE NO. 510 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDI~:ANCE NO. 157, AS .~'4ENDED, ADOPTI~,~G THE EL CAMINO REAL DEVELOPMENT PLA~I (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1) The City Council of the City of Tustin, does ordain as follows: The Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 157, as amended is hereby amended by the addition thereto of Section 4.17. SECTION 4.17 E1 Camino Real - Specific Plan [~o. 1: a) In order to promote the goals'and objectives of the General Plan and to encourage the orderly developmen' and redevelopment of commercial and professional land uses in the Town Center a~ea, there is hereby established by this Ordinance, The E1 Camino Real Commercial Area Specific Plan No. 1. b) Plan Boundaries: .The area encompassed by Specific Plan No. 1, depicted by Figure 1, shall be bounded by a line starting at a point at the center-line of the inter- 'section of "C" Street with Sixth Street; easterly on Sixth Street to a point 400 feet easterly of the centerline of the intersection of Sixth Streqt and E1 Camino Real; thence northerly on an alignment with the easterly boundary of Prospect Avenue to the centerline 6f the intersection of.Prospect Avenue and First Street; thence westerly to the point of beginning. c) Permitted Uses: Subject to the general provisions, exceptions a.nd restrictions a~ herein provided, all uses shall be permitted in the Downtown Commercial Area as are authorized in the Retail Commercial District (C-i) . d) Limitations on Permitted Uses: All uses in the E1 Camino Real Commercial Area shall be subject to the following'limitations: 1) No structure other than motels and hotels shall be permitted mixed residential and commercial- uses . 2) No merchandise shall be dispfayed nor advertised for sale on or over public right-of-way. This section is not to be construed as restricting nor limiting the outside display and sale of merchandise on private property within the district. EXHIBIT B 1 2 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O e) Authorized and Encouraged Uses: The following uses are authorized and encouraged for this area with the interest of creating a Commercial Village Atmosphere: Pipe & Tobacco Shops Wine Tasting Rooms Leather Goods Candle Shops Boutique Coffee Shops Ethnic Restaurants (Spanish, Mexican, French, German) Hobby Shops Delicatessens Lamp Shops Yardage Goods Knit Shops Ice-Cream Parlors Jewelry Shops Wrought Iron Ware Art Galleries General Offices Photographers's studios Gift Shops China and Crystal The above list of potential uses is not all encompassing but typifies the character of uses that illustrate the desired image. f) Site Plan and Elevations Required: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building, structure, or structural alteration, and prior to the improvement or modification of any parking lot, a site plan and/or building elevaticn plan shall be approved by the Development Previe~.~ Commission as set forth by Ordinance No. 439. g) Site Development Standards and Exceptions: In order to provide maximum flexibility in design and development for various lot sizes, consistent with a concept of village environment, the followin~ criteria and exceptions shall become applicable: 1. Front building setbacks may be established at the property line except for corner properties requiring a five foot (5') line of sight clearance. 2. Rear yard setbacks shall be established at fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line, or in the event the development extends to the next intervening street, the rear setback line shall be construed as the frontage on "C" or Prospect Streets. 3. As an exception to the general sections of this chapter and other provisions of the Zoning ordinance, when commercial and professional properties are developed or converted to per- mitted uses under the provisions of this Ordinan~ on-site ~arking requirements may be modified under an~ one or a combination of the follov~ing provisions. 6 ,? 8 9 3.0 3.2 '3.5 16 3.8 "19 2,0 23.. 22, 25 ;85 26 2? 28 29 5O (a) Pro~erty or properties that lie in toro within a'V-=hicle Parking Assessment District or Business Improvement Area shall be exempt from the requirement for on-site parking accommodations, subject Go the provisions of the parking or improvement district ordinance. (b) On-site parking requirements may be waived upon the presentation to the City of a long term lease, running with and as a conditi, on of the business license, for private off- site parking accommodations within 300 feet of the business or activity to be served. (c) All or a portion of required number of parking spaces may be satisfied by depositin~ with the City an amount, to be used for public parking accomm, odations within the area. equal to 4 times the assessed value as determined from the latest assessment roll of' the County Assessor, of 200 s_quare feet of land within the area, for each required parkin~ space not otherwise pro- vided. 4. Architectural styles shall be authorized, by the Develc~:.-.ant Preview Commission upon a finding that -.~rcposed developments are compatible :~ith and complementary to the village motif. Renovatio of existing victorian and western style buildings and construction of others of similar style and compatible Spanish motif are encouraged. 5. Landscaping plans for areas exposed to public view shall be required as an integral of site development plans. 6. Signs shall be of uniform size, color and style limited to twenty (20%) percent of the front wall area of any one single business or office plus one free-standing complex or F. all identification sign not to exceed 200 square feet with permitted identification of the business or professions within the complex of twenty (20) square feet maximum for each such occupant · h) Public Improvements: public improvements contributing to the motif of the area and the intent of this ordinance are to consist of the following: 1) Street furniture for convenience of the pedestrian shopper to consist of benches and trash recep- tacles · 2) Street lightJ, ng with the use of stanchions and fixtures that contribute to the development theme · 3~ Street portals to create an identity of approach to the area for vehicle and pedestrian tra£:ic. 1 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 4) The use of wishing '~¢ells as theme and area identity. 5) Street and traffic patterns that segregate vehicle from pedestrian traffic by providing rear access to parking accommodations, delivery services, and through traffic, with frontage accommodations for pedestrians and short term convenience parking. City Council, held on the --6 th 11 12 ATTEST: 15 .> · .; ...... ~ / ~ '"~. 14 ,~.-':...~...., .~. ( ~ . ' ....._ C,I:f.Y CLERK 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ~0 32 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin, day of j~y , 19 71. /', ~ ./;/~ City of Tustin Community Development Department, Ja.~uary 20, 1988 Reverend Ri chard Maiden 11:31302 Charl oma Thstin, CA 92680 SUB:~IECT' OCCUPANCY CHANGE AT MAIN/PROSPECI U.ea~' Reverend Maiden' At: per a visual inspection of the propcr", at 194 Main (Main/Prospect) on Friday, January 15, 1988 the Deparetment of Commute" uy i~,evelopment has concluded that' A. Tenant/owner submit tO the City a ,~,tt,,;-r of intention of all proposed uses within the' buildings. B. 'No use of any assemblies be held t' ~il properly permitted and authorized by the City's Community Developmen'- ]e.._.artment and Building Division. A Conditional Use Permit a~)plicatic~, n~,-st be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission after a notic~<~ [)u;])!ic hearing. - C. The assembly area will be clas-~,i' ~-d ~er the Uniform Building Code as a Group A2.1 occupancy. D. Plans be submitted to the CommuniT.' C, evelopment Department for plan check on the intended new ~se of the exi~-'in.~ building. A~e. as to be addressed on said plans shall be' 1. Exits will be required on each ~_:'i~e of the assembly room. (Uniform Building Code, Section 3318 (a)). 2. Door widths to accomodate one third of the total occupant load served. (Uniform Building Code, Section 3317 (b)). 3. All exit doors must swing out. (Uniform Building Code, Section 3304 (b); section 4507). 4. Exit doors to have panic hardware. (Uniform Building Code, Section 3317 (d)). 5. Exits in assembly area to have illuminated exit signs. (Uniform Building Code, Section 3314 (e)). EXHIBIT C 300 Centennial Way · Tustin, California 92680 · (714) 544-8890 City of Tustin Community Development Department. January 20, 1988 R'everend Ri chard Maiden 13302 Charl oma Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT' OCCUPANCY CHANGE AT MAIN/PROSPECI Dear Reverend Maiden' As per a visual inspection of the propcr;~' at 194 Main {Main/Prospect) on Friday, January '15, 1988 the Deparetment of Commur~ ~y i~,evelopment has concluded that' A. Tenant/owner submit to the City a' ,?tter of intention of all proposed uses ' within the buildings. B. 'No use of any assemblies be held L~',~.:il properly permitted and authorized by the City's Community Developmen'~ 3e?artment and Building Division. A Conditional Use Permit a~plicatic,~, r,~ust be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission after a notice~~ pu'>lic hearing. C. The assembly area will be classi' ~,?d ~..er' the Uniform Building Code as a Group A2.1 occupancy. D. Plans be submitted to the CommuniT.'..' C, evelopment Department for plan check on the intended new use of the exi.s"in? building. Areas to be addressed on said plans shall be' . 1. Exits will be required on each s'ide of the assembly room. {Uniform Building Code, Section 3318 (a)). 2. Door widths to accomodate one third of the total occupant load served. {Uniform Building Code, Section 3317 (b)). 3. All exit doors must swing out. {Uniform Building Code, Section 3304 {b); Section 4507). 4. Exit doors to have panic hardware. (Uniform Building Code, Section 3317 (d)). 5. Exits in assembly area to have illuminated exit signs. {Uniform Building Code, Section 3314 (e)). EXHIBIT C Main/Prospect January 20, 1988 Page 2 6. Adjoining side room off assembly to be a lobby~only. This lobby must be one hour rated. (Uniform Building Code, Section 3305 (a)). 7. In lieu of one hour construction, an automatic sprinkler system can be installed in the assembly and lobby area. (Uniform Building Code, Section 508). 8. Provide seating arrangements for all intended assemblies. Plan to show aisles, seat spacing; and exits. (Uniform Building Code 3315; 3316). 9. Plans n~jst show two hour separation wall between the A2.1 and B-2 occupancies to separate the two types of construction. (Uniform Building Code, Section T-5-B). - 10. Show and post occupant load per square footage of -~l rooms. (Uniform Building COde, Section 3302; T-33A). 11. Main entrance to have a minimum door width of 36" .~.~. ~e~. state hand.icap requirement. 12. Restrooms to be modified 'to meet state handicap requi) 13. Number of restroom fixtures per Uniform Plumbing Code? "-,~r~dix C. 14. Submit plans, specifi-cations and calculations for any -~t!~,c':' work to be done i.e. -electrical, plumbing, mechanical. Other corrections could follow after, submittal of plans for pl~:'~ check. If you need any further assistance on this matter, please contact ~)~ undersigned Respectful ly, L1 oy d ~i ck Building Official LD-jk PARKING CALCULATIONS R'equired Parking' Church according to 9235(3)b(4). Assembly areas' I parking space for each 3 seats based on total occupancy load of the assembly area. · ff. Office/classroom: I parking space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. ¢.. Retail' I parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area. ~.'moposed project requires a total of 46 parking spaces. Use Square feet Required spaces' Office 1677.5 sq. ft. 6.67 Retail 855.5 sq. ft. 4.27 Lobby 678.5 sq. ft. 3.39 Assembly _area 2655. O0 sq. ft. 32. O0 Total: 46~33 EXHIBIT D _t ! STREET ~.-- i~0 b~.l~' .CO.15 I SOUTH TUS TIIV , · . I '1 , , I I IlI :40.10' ® I. 3~ AC. · EXHIBIT E' ,FEB, LI I-!P, VEST FEL[..nWSHIP INTERN/'TIP!'!~'L HAS PARKING SPACES SUNDAY A,F,, FROM ]0 - OERMISSION TO ]2. USE OUR TENANTS SIGNITURE DATE: NAME OF COMPANY HFDVE.RT., __ .FE[.LO!".e.,I']Ip, I,,:TER~.~/'TTDD. I FL,, ...... HAS DEDD~ISSION TO USE OUD DARKINF- "' SPACES SUNDAY ,~. M S FROM , ,' .. - 6~-~-~ . ,.- :,T/ENANTS SIGNIT, URE ..~ FXCF_C · FEB L, 1c~?P I-t/'D.,VEST FELLP!'~SF!!D IDITER!!FFI.n!!/~L HAS PERMISSION TO USE OUR PARKING SPACES SUNDAY A,M, FROM _IF)-12, NAME OF COMPANY FEB, ZI. ]958 HAVEST FELLPWSHIP ID!TERHFTIn!,I?L HAS PERMISSION TO PARKING SPACES SUNDAY A,M,'S FROM ].,F},_ ]2, USE OUR TENANTS NAME OF COMPANY SIGNITURE DATE: ~ TO: Community Development Department i'~ FROM: Engineering Division ; SUBJI::CT: SITE Pl..d~ REVIEW - 193 E I~IN STREET The subject plan has been reviewed with the following comments and/ or concerns: 1. The dimension of 40.00' on Main Street should be shown to the right-of-way line with a 12.00' parkway and the dimension of 30.00' on Prospect Avenue should be shown to the right-of-way line with a 10.00' parkway. 2. Will the number of parking stalls provided be adequate and what provisions will'be made for any overflow parking? Parking may be eliminated on Prospect Avenue in the future. Also, the two perpendicular parking stalls at the rear of the build-ing will interfere with the use of the two westerly stalls. 3. There does not appear to be any provision for a trash receptacle. 4. There is a potential in the future' of widening Prospect Avenue which would result in at least a. partial take of the existing structure. 5. Removal of the southerly drive apron on Prospect Avenue and construction of new curb and gutter' and sidewalk will be required. A 24" x 36" plan, prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in this State, should be submitted for review and approval. Jerry Otteson Assistant Civil Engineer iiJO:bf EXHIBIT F NEGATIVE DECLARATION_ CITY OF' TUSTiN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN, CA. 92680 Project Title' Conditional Use Permit: File NO. 88-3 Project Location' 193 East Main Street Project Description' Authorization for establishing a Church'in the Central Comanercial District Project Proponent: South Coast Christian C'enter (714) Telephone: 544-8890 ~Xt. 255 Contact Person' Cheryl Pengue Tlie Community Development 0epartment has conducted an initial study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Envir'onmental Quality Act, and. on the basis of that study hereby find' That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a D signiftcan~ effect on the environment. That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have [~ been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mi ti gate the affects to a' point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration. . Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by the Community.Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4'30 p.m. on March 14, 1988 m. DATED' March 3, 198~ Community Development Director CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM South Coast Christian Cneter Name of Proponent Mr Wolfe/Ri'chard Address and Phone Number of Proponent 193 East Main Street Tustin, CA 926B0 Maiden Date of Checklist Submitted F e b r u a r y 2 6, 1 9 8 8 Agency Requil:ing Checklist Community Development Department Name of Prc~osal, if applicable Conditional Use Premit !!, Envir~al Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) · Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes X in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compactian X or overcovering of the soil? Chc~cje in topography ar ground surface. relief features? x ee f® The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deflositian ar 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 any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in.' a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? INates.. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Chonges in 'ab. sorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or fl~w of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or r~te of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through intercef~tion of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available far public water supp lies? Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Y~ .X x x 1 e Plant Life. be Ce Will the proposal result ins Change in the diversity of species, or numbe~ of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, craps, and aquatic plants)? ReductJan of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? Introductian of new species of plants into an are*at or in a barrier to the nOrmal replenishment of existing species? d. Reductian in acreage of my agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in= a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, .benthic orgmisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered specie~ of mimals? · c. Intraductian of ~-w species of mimals into an area, ar result in a barrier to the migratian ar movement of animals? d. Deterioratian to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in*. · a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Gla~-. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Lc~cl Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the prese, t or planned land use of an area? Natural Resaurces. Will the proposal result in= a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Yes x x x x x x X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk 6f Upset. Will the p. ropos~l involve: a. A risk of an expiosian or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset Conditions? b. P~ssible interference with ~ emergency r~ plan or an emergency evacuatian plan? II. Pol~ui~tiom Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,.or growth rate of the human population of on area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Tr~SPortatian/Circul~ti°m Will' the prot~osai result in= a. Ceneration of substantial additional. veh icu lat. movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact UPon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patferns of circula- tion or movement of peol~ie and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f.. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or 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? b. Police protection? c. Sch~ls? X X X X X X X X 15. .d. Parks ar other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? Energy. Will the proposal result in-. use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Substantial increase in demand upan exist- lng sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal-result in a need far new systems, or .substantial alterations to the following utilities: C. Power or natural gas? Communications systems? Water? Sewer or septic tanks? e. Starm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Hurm~ Health. Will the proposal result in-. 18. 19. 20. a. Creatian of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quan'tity of existing recreat ianal oppor?un it les? Cultural Resources. Will the prapasai result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological .site? Yes b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to couse a physical ~e which would affect unique etheic cultural values? cl. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mondat~ Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, ccsJse a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- toining 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? b. Does the project' have the potential to achieve short-term~ to the disadvantage of long-term~ environmental goals? (A short- term irflpact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while lang-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually l'imited, 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.) · d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes x X, X !!1. .Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. IDetermination ' (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial e&aluatiom 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 atthough the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment~ there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- merit, and on ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is recluired. , Date Signature APPENDIX J NOTICE OF ~ARATION FROM-. TO: - (Lead. Agency) (Responsible. Agency) (Address) (Address) SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impaCt report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency os to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIF{ prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study . is, .. is not, attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest passible ,date but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice. at the Please send your response to ~ address shown above. We wi~ a .contact person ~n your agency. Projec~ Titl~ Project ~q~plic~, if anln Signature DATE Title · Telephone · Reference: California Administrative Code, Title !~, Sections 15035.7, 1505~.3, 15066. 122 D[SCUSS[ON OF ENV[RONFI£NTAL EVALUATZON Section 1. Earth The proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. Section 2. Air The proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. Section 3. Water This proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. Section 4. Plant Life The proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. Section 5. Animal Life The proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. :ction 6. Noise a. The proposed project will increase the noise level of the surrounding area. The noise source will primarily be a result of the pedestrian traffic entering and exi ting the bui 1 ding. · The noise complaints may be mitigated if the hours of operation were changed to conform with the hours of operation of the existing surrounding retail/office commercial uses. Noise impacts to or from the facility would also be avoided if the project was denied. The existing facility is now vacant, any type of use which would occupy the building would result in an increase in ambient noise levels in and around the facility. b. The project will have no change in existing site conditions. Section 7. Light and Glare The proposed project will have no change in existing site conditions. Section 8. Land Use According to the E1 Camino Specific Plan, the encouraged planned land use for the area is one of primarily retail/office commercial uses. The Zoning Code, Section 9233, pertaining to commercial properties also encourages retail/office commerical uses, however, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit to proposed church use is permitted. No mitigation measure is needed. ~ ;ussion of Environmental Evaluation page two Section 9. Natural Resources The proposed project will have no change in existing site conditions. S..ection 10. Risk of Upset No change in existing site conditions. Eection 11. Population The proposed project will have no change in existing site conditions. S~ction 12. Housing The proposed project will have no change on existing site conditions. SFection 13. Transportation/Circulation ". a. The project is proposing to establish a church of a potential 100 members. This will increase the vehicular movement on the adjacent streets. b. The proposed pr.oject will have an affect on existing parking facilities. The use requires 46 spaces be provided on-site. There are only 22 spaces at the rear of the site. According to the E1 Camino Real Specific Plan, there are three (3) opt-ions available to meet the parking requirement. The following is the list of options available to mitigate the parking deficiency' (a) Property or properties that lie in toro (sic) within a Vehicle Parking Assessment District or Business Improvement Area shall be exempt from the requirement for on-site parking accommodations, subject to the provisions of the parking or improvement district. ordinance. (b) On-site parking requirements may be waived upon the presentation to the City of a long term lease, running with and as a condition of the business license, for private off-site parking accommodations within 300 feet of the business or activity to be served. (c) All or a portion of required number of parking spaces may be satisfied by depositing with the City an amount', to be used for public parking accommodations within the area equal to 4 times the assessed value as determined from the latest assessment roll of the County Assessor, of 200 square feet of land within the area, for each required parking space not otherwise provided. c. The proposed project will have no change on exising site conditi'ons. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation page three d. The proposed project will create pedestrian circulation alterations. A crosswalk is not located on Main forcing the pedestrians to walk up the block to E1 Camino and Main to cross the street. The proposed project will create pedestrian circulation alterations. In order to alleviate pedestrian traffic through the rear alley and other private properties. The pedestrians will have to be instructed to walk clearly around the block to enter the church facility. e. The proposed project will have no change on existing site conditions. f. The proposed project will have no change on existing site conditions. Section 14. Public Services The proposed project will have no change on'existing site conditions. ~ction 15. Energy The proposed project will have no change on existing site conditions. Section 16. Utilities The proposed project will have no change on existing site. conditions. Section 17. Human Health The proposed project will have no change on existing site conditions. Section 18. Aesthetics The proposed project will have no change on existing site conditions. Section 19. Recreation The proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. Section 20. Cultural Resources The proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. Section 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance~ The proposed project will have no affect on existing site conditions. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~21 23 ~5 ~6 ~7 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2476 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING AN APPLICATION OF RICHARD MAIDEN OF SOUTH COAST COMMUNITY CENTER, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FOR ESTABLISHING A CHURCH AT 193 EAST MAIN STREET. Th~ Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ows' I · The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 88-3) has been filled on behalf of Richard Maiden requesting authorization for establishing a church at 193 East Main Street. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said map. C. That establishment, maintenance and operation of the use will be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, as evidenced by the following findings' 1. The use applied for is not in conformance with the general purpose of the E1 Camino Real Specific Plan No. 1. 2. The building is not in conformance with the building code and by allowing the establishment to operate under the circumstances of this particular case, may be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons meeting in the building and detrimental to the general welfare of the City. 3. The proposed project does not meet the required parking standards for a proposed use. 4. The proposed land use is not compatible with th'e future plans for the downtown area in keeping it a retail/special services area. E. That the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for with the condition of the proposed building will be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 1(;, 171 19~ 21 22 23 2~ 25 2(i 27 28 Resolution No. 2476 Page injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property and to the general goals and objectives of the E1 Camino Real Specific Plan No. I and should not be granted. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1988. Kathy Well, Chairman Pe6ni Foley, Secretary Planning -Commission DATE' SUBJECT: APPLICANT' ,AEC. ].4, 988 USE PERMIT 88-4 PROGRESSIVE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, '[NC. 1031 S. 158TH STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF: P.H.P. HEALTHCARE CORPORATION. 4900 SEMINARY ROAD ALEXANORIA, VIRGINIA 22311 PROPERTY OWNER- TUSTINCORPORATE PARK LIMITED 3300 IRVINE AVENUE; t100 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 LOCATION: ZONING: 2492 WALNUT AVENUE PC-C' PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS I) REQUEST- AUTHORIZATION TO INSTALL A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY IN AN EXISTING 44,014 GROSS SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended'that the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. BACKGROUND In 1986, Auer and Associates developed a five (5) building mixed use project at the southwest corner of Franklin and Walnut Avenues known as the Tustin Corporate Center. Each building occupies its own parcel, but all are tied together with a joint use parking/circulation agreement. P.H.P. Healthcare Corporation is proposing to occupy a 7,500 square foot portion of building No. 4 in the Center. Community Development Department ?lanning Commission Report ~larch 14, 1988 PHP Healthcare Page two Buildings 1, 2 and 5 are 100% occupied with the following uses: Building 1: Data and storage center for Security Pacific and Far Western Banks. Building 2: Retail uses such as restaurants, beau~y shops and copy services. Building 5: Safeguard headquarters has a mix of office and manufacturing with storage areas. Building 3 is vacant and building 4 has one tenant, Coast Surveying, Inc. which occupies 4,806 square feet. The proposed use is a healthcare clinic for military' personnel. The us.e, as applied for, is not a listed use in the Planned Community Commercial zone. According to the regulations, for this area, all uses not specifically listed may be authorized by the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. Uses similar to professional offices, medical offices and retail uses are currently authorized in areas with similar zoning. These areas include Tustin Plaza, the Red Hill Industrial Center and the Walnut Industrial Center where a mix of office and retail and/or commercial uses have been authorized. DISCUSSION The submitted development plans propose the following use of space: exam rooms, laboratory and x-ray rooms along with administrative offices and reception areas. Because there is no known number of expected patients and employees, the greatest item of concern is parking. According to the Tustin Irvine Industrial Complex regulations, no parking standards exist for this use; therefore, staff has calculated the parking requirements using the existing medical office requirements of six spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This would mean a total of 45 spaces would be required for this use {7500 square feet). Since there are 161 spaces on this parcel, 116 parking spaces would be available for the remaining 36,514 square feet of the building area, which would allow for a variety of tenants. According to the Use Permit (UP84-24) which approved this mixed use center, 593 parking spaces were provided for 104,300 feet of research and development uses, 10,000 square feet for retail uses and 39,800 square feet for office uses. The parking spaces provided for this entire center calculate to be approximately four spaces per each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Community Development Department .,lanning Commission Report March 14, 1988 PHP Healthcare Page three Staff has conducted three parking space counts at the site on different days at different times. All three times there were in excess of 300 parking spaces available on the five combined parcels. Staff considers the site layout and parking facilities adequate for the use intended (see attached site plan). Therefore, staff recommends approval, of Use Permit 88-4 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2475. M~ry A,~n Chamberlain Associate P1 anner MAC:per Attachments: Floor Plan Si te Plan Resolution No. 2475 - Christine Shinglet6n ~/~ Director of Community Development Corn munity DeveloPrnem Department .o~ ~I3J. N3~ 31:IVO^VN a3$OdOl=ld I~1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2475 A RESOLUTION OV THE PLANNING COMMISSION OV THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF A MEDICAL CLINIC AND LABORATORY AT 2492 WALNUT AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol lows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows' A. That a proper application {Use Permit No. 88-4) has been filed by Progressive Design Associates, on behalf of.PHP Healthcare Corporation to request authorization to operate a medical clinic at 2492 Walnut Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on March 14, 1988. C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: 1. The use applied for is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. 2. The site is located in the Planned Community Commercial District. 3. The use applied for is an authorized use in commercial districts throughout the City. 4. The use applied for is similar to uses existing in the Planned Community Commercial zone. 5. Parking for the Tustln Corporate Center is provided on a joint use basis. Existing parking facilities will accommodate this use with no negative impacts on neighboring uses. 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 Fi re Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. 1 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 1'6 17 19 ~3 ~4 ~5 ~6 ~7 28 Resolution No. 2475 Page two F· This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Go Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1I. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 88-4 to authorize a medical clinic at 2492 Walnut Avenue subject to the following conditions: A· Final development plans shall comply with the approved plans or as herein modified, date stamped January 28, 1988. All tenant improvement plans shall conform to all applicable Building, Fire, State and Federal Codes and regulations. B · Any expansion of the facilities beyond 7,500 square feet shall require prior approval by the Planning Commission. D. Parking shall be provided as follows' 45 spaces (6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area.) E· All signs shall conform to the Tustin Sign Code· All permits for signage shall be processed and issued prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of March, 1988. Kathy Wei 1 Chai rma n Penni Foley Secretary Report to the' Planning Commission I rem No. 1 0 DATE' SUBJECT: NARCH 14, 1988 SIGN CODE ANENDNENT - UPDATE At the February 22, 1988 meeting, the Planning Commission requested an update on the status of the Sign Code Amendment. At this time, staff has completed five of six parts of a revised Sign Code. The entire document is expected to be completed around the end of March. Following internal review, staff expects to "be able to meet with the Sign Code Sub-committee to review the amended Code around the beginning of May. Steve Rubin, Senior Planner SR-pef Christine-Sh-ingleton/~7 Director of Community~ Development Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE' SUBJECT' MARCH 14, 1988 PLANNING COIqMISSION TRAINING SESSION Staff is planning a training sesston to generally review Planning and Zoning procedures on Monday, April 25, 1988 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Conference Room. This is a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting night. Dinner will be served. The April 11th meeting should be adjourned to this session to eliminate the ~need for public noticing. Christine Shingletofl7 Director of Community Development -pef Community Development Department Planning Commission D~TE' MARCH 14, 1988 SUBdECT: REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-01 APPLICANT: WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER 165 N. MYRTLE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNER: CONTINENTAL MEDICAL SYSTEMS P. O. BOX 715 MECHANICSBERG, PA LOCATION- 165 MYRTLE AVENUE AND 14851 YORBA STREET ~ONING: PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PR) ,(ECOI~4ENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the attached Draft Environmental Impact Report and submit .any written or oral comments by staff by the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 1988. SUMMARY The application is proposing to expand an existing hospital facility b~ 56,000 square feet. The project is located on two lots which are proposed for consolidation into one by Parcel Map 87-412. This map was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on February 22, 1988. Staff review of the proposed expansion project has determined that there are significant environmental impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report {EIR) be prepared whenever significant environmental impacts are associated with a project. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Staff has been working with the applicant to prepare the required environmental analysis for the project. This analysis has identif~ied noise and traffic Community Development Department lannin§ Commission Report March 14, 1988 E[R 88-01 Page two related impacts associated with the proposed expansion. Therefore, staff has prepared a project level, focused EIR. The draft of this EIR is attached to this report for review and comment. CEQA requires a 30 day review of the draft EIR, prior to approval of the document. This review period will end on-April 10, 1988. The project Use Permit and the EIR is scheduled for Commission review on April 11, 1988. CONCLUSION In order to properly prepare for the upcoming public hearings for this project, staff will have to respond to the comments on the EIR for the April 11, 1988 hearing date. At this time staff would like the Commission to review the attached document and refer any comments to staff by March 28, 1988. Associate Planner ~// LCP :pef Attachment: Draft EIR 88-01 ~D~ ~r~ttio~eo~h ~nogmlmeu~n~y D~I opment Corn rnunity Development Department Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT' MARCH 14, 1988 OUTDOOR DZNING AREAS RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUNO The Planning Commission at one of their regular meetings identified the need to examine issues associated with outdoor dining. In response to this request,. staff have identified current code requirements for outdoor dining areas in the City, issues associated with outdoor seating, surveyed standards for outdoor dining found in other cities and identified possible alternative methods for regulating outdoor dining as a means of stimulating further discussions on this matter by the Commission. These materials are attached to the report and staff will 'be available to summarize the information collected to date and to answer any questions. * / Joel si*a~i t, Assistant Planner JS'CAS-ts Attachments Christine A. Sh'ingleto~F~ Director of Community Development Community Development Department · saSeaa,.',aq :31. Loqo:3 Le d1'13 aq3. .4.0 3.dad se UOl. SS!.tutuo3 5U.LUUeLd aq3. .4.0 UOl.:l. ea:3s!.p eq3, 3,¥ SaUl. LaP.tn9 e6e.aaAe8 LoMo3LV ' u !.:l. Sn.L ' utAo.L PLO 03,. :3.t.,.I..4. ea3. Uel. a3.sapad Ul. aseaa:3ul, up seSeano:3ua 3..t '.aA!.'3.:3e.['qo ue se 3.hq 'lSuj. u!.p doop3.no ssaappe XLLe:3.t..4..t:3ads :l. ou SaOQ ( LeaB ou DuJe3 L 3) .[# UeLd :3 !..4. l.:3ads · 'XLUO d[13 3d 'dl'13 e paau s3, ueane:l, se~ UeLd 3 .t..J...t :3 ads '3. S · 6u.tu.tp ,~oop3.no .4.0 UOl.3.uau ou 'd1'i3 e 4'3..LM 3. ueane3.sea 'g-3 03, aeL.ttU.LS ',,s3,uatuqSl. Lqe3,sa SaLeS aoop3.no puc s3,e)laetu aoop3,n0. ,~o.,J. d1'13 'd113 e q3,!.M SUl.-e^l. ap 'pat4OLI. e s3,uedne3,sea 93 'Su!.u.tp aoop3,no uo deaL3 3,ou 'Ul. eS¥ ,,s3,uatuqsl. Lqe3.sa SaLeS alSedeAaq :3!.Loqoo[¥,, pue ,,s3.uatuqs.LLqe3.sa SaLeS aoop3.n0..~o.,J, d113 · Su.tu.tp aoop3,no sapnL:3Ul, s.Lq3, aaq3,aq~ o3, se aeaL:3 3,ou ,,s3.uatuqsl. Lqe3.sa SaLeS aoop3,.no .g s3,.e)laetu .~oop3.n0,, .ao..I. d1'13 E-3 · pa.L.4.~oads 3.ou 5U.LU.Lp ,~oop3,no 'su.t-e^l. ap ou 'pat4OLLe 3. ueaneq, se1::l '[-3 £N3N3UIn03B 3NOZ S~N3N3BIflO3B 3003 £N3BBfl3 I lIBZHX3 · sanss.r 3uada~:~.rp q~,.rt~ s3de3uo3 3uede.~.4.rp XJe^ e.~ 3de3uo3 ~)ul.~,ees aoop~,no 3uedn~3, sed ~ 'sA 5u.r~,~es aoop~,no .~o 3de3uo3 ~,no-e~l~l · sanss~ dn-u~eL3 pu~ qs~al · (SU.LUee.~3s :to )tOeL puo uo~,3eLes e3.LS e~,enbep;u.L o~, anp) seaae 5U.L~,ea aoop~,no .~o uo.r~,~3OL L~n~,~; o~, pe~,~LO,~ $~,~.rL.~UO~ · ssau.Lsnq %~,~,~ · a.~eqdsou~,e al~ L L .LA do U~.La~seped e I~u.~p.LAOad sesn L~.L:)aaUJUJOD ,~O.~ eD~Ld .~o esues ~ a:~eao u~3 9NINIG BOOQ.LIIO HIIN 031VI:)OSS¥ S3~SS! Ii IIBIHX3 · peu.te:~uoo :~LeS aq o~, erie pue peueaLO tuea~,s S~lLet, ep.~s 'saeu.te~,uoo qsea~, e^eq o~, paau seaJe 6u.tuLp doop~,no 'S.LSeq eseo Xq aseo e uo auop t,e.t^ea LeJn~,~e~,.tqoJe o:~ uo.~,.tppe u.~ paJ.tnbad ~,.uuded asn pueq s6u.LJdS rULed edqeH e9 :s~,ueu~aJ.tnbaJ Jaq3o q~,.~ se.t~,~3 epu.~9 eq~o~ aSOL~ ues e3uemeL~ ues qoeeB eun6e9 emLed e9 XaLLeA u~e~uno3 JeH LeQ ssaad~ esa~ e~so3 LatUJe3 ~aed euenB s L ~ LH XLJa^aB m~a4eu¥ ssaooJd X:~ ,LO :s.~seq ese3 Xq ese3 e uo puc dl]3 Jo s.~seq ase3 Xq ese3 e uo ~eD^eJ ueLd e3.~s/u~.tsep :~o 3, aed "e'.t 's3, uetuea.tnbaa 3.t~.tOads ou e^e4 43.t4~ sa.to, DO 'T S19{1S3~! A3ABrlS III .I. IBIHX3 · · su.[Saq 3, uatua3,~oju3 aPO3 pup 3,3a.~ja u.[ sa~upq3 auoz · [.r3uno3 ,~q uo.r3dopp pup l~u.[ppa,~ puo3a$. 886I '1~I aunp 886I '9I ~PW · [.t3uno3 ~q Bu.Lppa.~ 3sa.~J pup Bu~aPaH 3.LLqnd 886I '~ ~PW 'UO.~SS.Ltutu03 BU.LUUPLd ~q Bu.LaPaH 3.rLqnd 886I '~ [.Lady · doqs>laO/~ UO.LSS.LUAUO3 6u~uuPLd 886I 'II L.Ladv · uo .t3 Ph u atun3op LPhUatuuOJ.LAU3 pUP SaU ~ [ep.Ln9 'saBupq3 auoz aapdaad q3apW - 'qaj · aLnpaqos 6U.L~OLLOJ aqh ~LLOJ pLno3 tup.~6oad s.Lql 'UO[hnLOSaa ,(q paAoaddp aap q31. q~ SaU.LLep.LnB US.LSap 6U.~qS.LLqp~,Sa OSLP pup spaa~ 6U.L~,PaS .~oop~,no qh.~ s~,upanPhsa,, ,~oj pea.Lnbaa aq PLnoqs h.Ltu,,ad ash LPUO.L~,.LpUO0 ~ uaq~ puc ~,OU ,*O aaqhaq~ pau[tuaahap S.L ~,.L OS SaUOZ Lp~a~,snpu! pup ~)3 '~-3 'T-:) aq~, Oh ~,uatupuatup up sapnL~U.L qopoaddp s[q.L 'u6[sap pup :~uatua3aojua 6u.s,,pas aoophno ,~oj S.LsPq P.LLOS P saqS.LLqp~,sa ~,.L 'aaAa~oq 'hUamaALOAU.~ L.L~UnO:) pup UO[SS.LtutuO:) 'JJP~,S hSOtu aqh SaALOAU.L aA.L~,puae~,Lp S.LqJ. : ~ aA.t%pu.4a~ LV : g aA.t~pu~a3 LV · suo~%p3.kLddp 3.ttuaad asn LPUO.~%[puo3 pup 6u.~3pas doophno jo ~a.~Aa.4 uPLd a3~s u.t pasn aq oh LPnu~ sa.4npaooad a^~3p.~hs[u.~tupp s,3uatuhdpdap aqh jo h.~pd atuooaq pup do33aa.tQ 3uatudOLa^aQ ~.tuntutuo3 aq3 ~q paAo.4ddp aq pLno~ sau.~Lap[n6 pup sadnpaooad ~4au aq£ 'paa~nba.~ aq PLnoM suo[3op uo.[ss.~tutuo3 6u.~uuPLd ou pup atups aq3 u.tptua.4 PLnOt4 apo3 aq£ 'sau~Lap.kn6 pup sadnpa3oad huatuhapdap ,,asnoq-u.[,, ahpaa3 oh aq PLnO~ qopoaddp 3.t3sLLdtu.ks hsotu :I aA[hpuaahL¥ 'hUamaALOAU[ JJP~S JO SLaAaL 6u.~Kap^ eALOAU.~ qo[qt~ SaA~hpuaa3LP aqh jo 3S~L P s~ 6u[~OLLOJ aqh 'uaap~ aq LL[aS uo.th3p jo asano3 p 6u.~tunss¥ 'tuodj hOaLaS o~ SaA.thpu~ehLP snodatunu adp adaq/ S31flO3H3S 31BISSOd ONV S3AI£¥NB3ZqV .AI IlBIHX3 Planning Commission DATE: NARCH 14, 1988 SUBJECT: REPORT O# COUNCIL ACTIONS - March 7, 1988 Oral presentati on. per Attachments:' City Council Action Agenda - March 7, 1988 Corn munity Development Department ALL. PRESENT ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 7, 1988 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION II. ROLL CALL' III. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONTI)IUED TO 3-21 1. PROPOSED FAIRHAVEN AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 144 TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN CONTINUED TO 3-21 Recommendat i on: ,, i app ropri ate. That the City Council take action as deeme~ 2. PROPOSED PROSPECT AVENUE ANNEXATION NO. 145 TO THE CITY OF TUST[N Recommendati on: app top ri ate. That the City Council take action as deeme, ClJO~iED PUBLIC HEARING 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-4, CULTURAL RESOURCES OISTRICT AN~ DIRECTED PLANNING I CO~ISSION TO REACT TO The purpose of the Cultural Resource District is to provide a frame~' COUNCIL'S COMMENTS AND work for recognizing, preserving and protecting culturally signifi~ ST~.F' TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS cant structures, natural features, sites and neighborhoods within F~- TNVENTORY OF THE .AREA the City of Tustin, but largely the area defined as "Old Town". RESOLUTION NO. 88-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ m OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION A~ ADEQUATE FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-zk INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT m ORDINANCE NO. 1001 -AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY'COUNCIL OF THE CITY m TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-~ AMENDING PART 5 AND 7 OF CHAPTER 2~ ARTICLE q OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE AS IT RELATES TO CULTURAL RESOURCES II. It is recommended that the City Council independently: A. Instruct staff to solicit consultant proposals for prepara tion of a Cultural Resources inventory of the City and t · prepare voluntary Architectural Guidelines for residentia and commercial uses in Old Town as authorized and budgete. in fiscal year 1987-88. B. Instruct staff to advertise for appointments to Cultura Resources Committee. CONTII~UED PUBLIC 4. PROPOSED LA COLINA/BEVERLY GLEN ANNEXATION NO. 142 TO .THE CITY O~ HEARING TO MARCH 21ST AND TUSTIN ~ m ATTORNEY TO FORWARD I PROTESTS TO REGISTRAR Annexation No. 142 was initiated by the Tustin City Council on Marc OF;VOTERS 2, 1987, in response to residents living in the area. The area i -- ~ generally bounded by La Colina on the south, the Tustin Ranch on th~ east, Beverly Glen Drive and lots fronting on Theta Road on th north, and a line drawn parallel with and approximately 500 ft westerly of Browning Avenue on the west. The area is devi~loped wit 140 single family residences, approximately 351 registered voter with an estimated population of 532. ) CIT,Y COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 1 3-7-88 INTRODUCED ORDINANCE 5. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 87-5 TO ALLOW CHURCH USES IN THE PLANNED NO,. ~'~003 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PM) . ORDINANCE NO. 1003 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O~ TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT SECTION 92411 (b.) OF PART 4 OF CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 9, OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TQ ALLOW CHURCHES IN TIlE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (PM) DISTRICT SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.. 88-12 At the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1988, thc. Commission recommended to the City Council the approval of subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment which would allow church uses in the Planned Industrial District (PM) subject to a Conditiona Use Permit. This amendment was prepared in response to request from Vineyard Christian Church to occupy a tenant spac in an existing industrial complex located at the corner of Sixty and "B" Street. 6. ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUILDING PERMIT FEE PROGRAM TO FUND CERTAI~ IMPROVEMENTS TO SERVE THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA The City, in conjunction with the Irvine Company, has considere~ methods available to finance the expansion of the Civic Cente[ facility, a f. ire facility to serve East Tustin and widening I rvine Blvd. and has determined tha.t the most equitable means financing these improvements would be through a fee program, payabl~ upon issuance of building permits. RESOLUTION NO. 88-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI OF TUSTIN ESTABLISHING A FEE PROGRAM TO FUND CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS SERVE THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA Recommendation' Adoption of Resolution No. 88-12, establishing fee program to fund certain improvements in' East Tusti IV. PUBLIC INPUT AEPRO~/EO V® CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 1, 1988, REGULAR MEETING AND FEBRUARY 16, 1988, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING A~P, EO.¥ED AD. OPTED RESOLUTION NO~. 88-21 APPROVED STAFF RF'-- 'MENDATION CiTY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,103,176.24 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $172 ,696.05 3. RESOLUTION No. 88-21- A RESOLUTION OF TilE CITY COUNCIL OF T'4E C I~Y OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 87-370 LOCATED AT 2, 33 AUTO CENTER DRIVE Adopt Resolution No. 88-21 as recommended by the Communi y Development Department. 4. PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR PROVISION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS - 13TH YEAR HOUSING AND COMMUNI Y DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM / Approve subject contract as recommended by the Communi!,y Oevel opment Department. PAGE 2 3- 7-~'8 APPROVED STAFF REt ~.NDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 5. PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR PROVISION OF RHABILI- TATION OF PRIVA%E PROPERTIES - 13TH YEAR HOUSING AND COMHUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Approve subject contrac.t as recommended by the Community Development Department. 6. PLANNING COMMISSION REQUEST FOR 7.00 P.M. MEETING TIME i Direct staff to prepare an Ordinance to modify the regular Planning Commission meeting time from 7'30 p.m. to 7'00 p.m. as recommended by the Community Development Department. APPROVED STAFF ~ECONI~NDATION 7. HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ANAHEIM STADIUM PARKING LOT Approve execution of the proposed Hold Harmless Agreement with the City of Anaheim for use of Anaheim Stadium parking lot in connection with driver training for police motorcycles as recommended by the Police Department. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION AP~'mQ VEO STAFF RJ ~IENDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO.. 88-23 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-24 8. EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ANALYSIS Authorize a supplemental budget appropriation in the amount of $10,150.00 from general fund monies for the completion of the Eastern Transportation Corridor Analysis currently bei n performed by the Cities of Tustin, Irvine and Orange, and I rvi ne Company as recommended by the Pub l i c ~ork Department/Engineering Division. 9. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN OF STORM DRAINS I PROSPECT AVENUE AND IN ED[NGER AVENUE Approve subject professional services agreement with GP Consulting Civil Engineers and authorize execution by Mayor an( City Clerk as recommended by the Public Works Department Engineerihg Division. 10. 'RESOLUTION NO. 88-23 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TH~ CONSTRUCTION OF WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON EDINGER AVENUE, WINOSO~ LANE, CATALINA DRIVE, DEL REY DRIVE, AND LA BELLA DRIVE Adopt Resolution No. 88-23 as recommended by the Public Works I Department/Engineering Division. 11. RESOLUTION NO. 88-2~ '- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUA~ PAVEMENT MARKING PROGRAM AN'3 DIRECT CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS s Adopt Resolution No. 88-24 as recommended by the Public Work Department/Engineering Division. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 12. RESOLUTION NO. 88-25 -A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 88-25 OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA;' APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT REPAIR PROGRAM c Adopt Resolution No. 88-25 as recommended by the Publi Works Department/Engineering Division. I 'ED RESOLUTION 13. RESOLUTION NO. 88-25 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C[FY ~ t8-26 OF TUST[N, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FQR - TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT WALNIJT AVENUE ANO CHERRYWOOO. LANE! Adopt Resolution I~o. 88-26 as recommended by the Public Workls department/Engineering Di vision. · PAGE 3 3-7-88 CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA ADOPTED RESOLUTION NC t-27 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 88-28 1.4. RESOLUTION NO. 88-27 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CIT OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, 1987-8~ FISCAL YEAR) Adopt Resolution No. 88-27 as recommended by the Public Work Department/Engineering Division. 15. RESOLUTION NO. 88-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .THE CIT~' OF TUSTIN ACCEPTIN~ WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZIN~~ RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (ASPHALT CONCRET~ REHABILITATION AND OVERLAY PROJECT, 1987-88 FY) Adopt Resolution No. 88-28 as recommended by the Public Work: Department/Engineering Division. VI. INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 1004 ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1004 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT~ OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, 'AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 999 (SAN DIEGO PIPE~ LINE FRANCHISE) · M. O. - That Ordinance No. 1004 have first reading by titly only. M. O. - That Ordinance No. 1004 be introduced. Ap~TED ORDINANCE O02 VII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION 1. ORDINANCE NO. 1002 -.AN ORDINANCE DF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITIY OF TUSTIN , CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE FRANCHISE FOR A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM GRANTED TO CONTINENTAL CABLEVISION, INC., IA CORPORATION m M. O. - That Ordinance No. 1002 have second reading by titly only. M.O. That Ordinance No. 1002 be passed and adopted. (Roll Cal 1 Vote) VIII. OLD BUSINESS RECEIVED AND FILED RECEIVED AND FILED 1. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT NOISE MONITORING PROGRAM - STATUS REPORT / An ongoing status report on the John Wayne Airport Noiqe Monitoring Program. Recommendation: Receive and file subject report dated March 1988. 2. REQUEST FROM TUSTIN HISTORICAL SOCIETY FOR USE OF VACANT WAT R DEPARTMENT BUILDING AT 245 MAIN STREET The Tustin Historical Societ~y on January 18 requested that the City m explore the feasibility of donating the currently vacant Wat.Qr Department building at 245 Main Street .to permit relocation of t~)e Historical Society's museum. Recommendation: Receive and file. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 4 3-7,~8 ~EADI/.ERTISE FOR A ~UB~TM HEARI rig 3. NEWPORT/McFADDEN AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 10' On january 18, 1988, the Council held a Public Hearing on t'qis item and adopted Resolution No. 88-6 establishing Underground Utility District No. 10. Council raised a concern about the 'property owners in the previous E1 Camino Real Underground Utility District No. 5 being required to fund the cost of the conversions. Recommendation' Pleasure of the City Council. IX. NEW BUSINESS D[P. ECTED STAFF TO WORK 1. PRO-AM GRAND PRIX KART RACING EVENT IN TUSTIN W~TH APPLICANT TO SEE IF : THEY CAN RESOLVE THE City staff was approached in early January by Mr. Cliff Pohlson of PROBLEMS.' IF THEY the Boy's and Girl's Club of Tustin and Mr. James Kinder, President MITIGATE EVERYTHING, THEY of the Championship Kart Racing Association requesting that the City CH AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT host a mini-Grand Prix Kart Race to he held over the 4th of July M~ING weekend on a City street course of approximately 1/2 mile. Staff does not currently feel that it is feasible f~om the City's perspec- tive to hold a Kart Racing event on the 4th of July weekend. Recommendation: Receive and file. AJ~NO VED STAFF REC~ENDATION 2. AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON MYRTLE AVENUE, "C" STREET, KENNETH DRIVE AND KEITH PLACE Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to R.L.T. Construction, Inc. of Santa Ana, California, in the amount of $160,797.50. lk~ECEIVE AND FILED X. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA- FEBRUARY 22, 1988 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of February 22, 1988. 2. JAMBOREE ROAD EXTENSION THROUGH MCAS/RELOCATION OF HELICOPTER HEAVY LIFT OPERATION R~ICEIVED AND FILED RECJEIVED AND FILED Recommenda.tion: Receive and fi 1 e. 3. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 7 (NEWPORT AVENUE). AND NO. ! (HOLT/IRVINE) Recommendaton: Receive and file. 4. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 9, FIRST STREET BETWEEN PROSPEC1 AVENUE AND NEWPORT 'AVENUE Recommendation' Receive and file. I~ECEIVED AND FILED 5. SYCAMORE AVENUE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY Recommendation'I Pleasure of City Council. COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 5 3-7-88 FOR NEXT CEILVEII) AND FILED 6. REPORT ON REQUEST FOR SPECIAL SIGHING AT ALL SIGNALIZED INTERSEC- TIONS WITHOUT PROTECTED LEFT-TURN PHASES Recommendation: Special signal signs with the message "Left Turn Yield on Green Ball" should not be installedI at all signalized intersections within the City. The signs should be installed only at intersections where a Permissi ve/Protected or a Protected/Permissive type of signal phasing exists. Since the City is phasing out its Permissive/Protective type of signals, the special signs would be installed as an interim measure only at the locations where protected left-turn phases are warranted. They would be removed after exclusilve left-turn arrows are installed as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. 7. JAMBOREE ROAD STATUS REPORT UPDATE Recommendation' Receive and file. 'AFF TO~ GET THE ,RGE-StT TREE POSSIBLE 8. CITY HALL TREE REPLACEMENT Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. )~PONED'~ XI. OTHER BUSINESS .OSE'"--"E'SS I ON :NN~ .~EQUESTED PROCLAMATION FOR llJSTIN HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL TEALS. ~ENOI'~. PAY OFF OF WATER BONDS FOR NEXT I~ETING '~END:t.!ZEi SETTING A DATE FOR CAPITAL BUDGET WORKSHOP FOR NEXT I~EETING ~ESCO~ ASKED STAFF TO GET THE AUDIT COI~4ITTEE MOVING XII. CLOSED SESSION · The City Council will recess to Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54945.9(b)(1), and to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. XII[. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, March 2~, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 6 3-7-88 ACTION AGENDA OF AN REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT .AGENCY MARCH 7, 1988 7:00 P.M. 12:52 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT 2. ROLL CALL APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16, 1988, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve. APPROVED STAFF 4. RECOMI~ENDATION CONTINUED 5. NONE 6. 12:53 7. NEWPORT/McFADDEN AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 10 On January 18, 1988, the Council adopted Resolution No. 88-6, estab lishing Underground Utility District No. 10. It is intended to instal twelve additional street lights and the supporting conduit for sai . lights. These street lights/conduit are not eligible for Edison Compan. Rule 20A funding. Staff has recommended that these street lights an conduit be funded by Redevelopment Agency (South-Central Project Area funds in the amount of $12,000.00. Recommendation: Authorize a supplemental 1987-88 budget appropriatio in the amount of $12,000.00 for the South Central Project Area a recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. NEWPORT/MCFADDEN .AVENUE UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 10 At the January 18, 1988, City Council meeting, Council expressed concern regarding the funding of the cost of private property servic conversions and stated that the property owners within a previousl completed Et Camino Real Underground District No. 5 were required t fund their conversion costs and they were concerned the property owner were not being treated equally. Recommendation: Pleasure of the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency. ' OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, March 21, 1988, at 7:00°p.m. ~EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA PAGE 1 MARCH 7, 1988