HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 08-04-86ACTZON AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING COMI4ISSION
REGULAR MEETING
~ULY 28, 1986
REPORTS
NO. 1
8-4-86
CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIA#CE/I#VOCATION
ROLL CALL: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious,
PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited ~o 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 July 14, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting.
C__m~__tssloner Wetl moved, Baker second to approve the Consent Calendar.
carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. USE PERMIT 86-22
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
Presentation:
Hotion
Mr. Ty Pak
Authorization for off-site beer and wine sales in conjunction
with a proposed flower shop
646 E. 1st Street
Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
C~tsstoner Wetl moved, Baker second to approve Use Permtt 86-22 by the adoption of
Resolution No. 2347 with an addition at II. B. to require 21 year old supervision at
all ttmos. Morton carrted 5-0.
Action Agenda
July 28, 1986
page two
3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12719 AND DESIGN REVIEW 86-12
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
The Bren Company
To subdivide creating 218 single family detached residential
units.
Property bounded by Browning Avenue, E1 Camino Real and
Parkcenter Drive.
Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
¢~mmtssloner Well moved, Pontious second to recommend to Ctty Council approval of
C~mmtssloner Wetl moved, Le Jeune
Tentative Tract Map X2719. Motion carrled $-0.
ond to a rove Dest§n Revtew 86-12 by the adoption of Resolution 2349 with an
~on B.P~. to add plu~tn§ for future solar heating at the pool. Motion carried
5--0.
Pursuant to staff's request the Commission considered the Variance request before the
Tentative Tract Map.
5. VARIANCE 86-4
Applicant:
Request:
Mark Atnslte
Authorization to vary with the lot size requirement in order to
develop eight single family homes
Location: 406, 415 and 425 Sixth Street
Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
C¢~mtssioner getl moved, LeJeune second to continue this item to September 8, 1986.
Motion carried 5-0.
4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12833
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
Presentation:
Mark Ainslie
To subdivide the proposed project into eight (8) separate lots.
406, 415 and 425 Sixth Street
Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
Comtsstoner Wetl moved, LeJeune second to continue this item to September 8, 1986.
Motion carrted. $-0.
Chairman Puckett called for a 5 minute recess at 9:05 p.m. to allow part of the
audience to leave. Reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
Action Agenda
July 28, 1986
page three
CO#T[NU£D PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. VARIANCE NO. 86-5
Applicant: Integrated Sign Associates on behalf of Home Federal Savings &
Loan
Request: Authorization to vary with the Tustin Sign Ordinance as it
pertains to tenant identification and allowable sign area.
Location:
Presentation:
18231 Irvine Blvd.
Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
Pursuant to Rob Balen's suggestion, appltcant wtthdrew the variance request and
subndtted a request for a sign code exception.
C__~mmtsstoner getl moved, LeJeune second to accept the applicant's request to withdraw
Variance 86-5. Motion carried 4-0, Baker abstained.
C~tsstoner Well moved, Ponttous second to accept the new sign as proposed with the
reduced logo which does not exceed the sign code of 64 square feet and deletion of
one of the originally proposed signs on the west side. Motion carried 4-0, Baker
abstained.
OLD BUSIN£SS
None.
NE# BUSIN£SS
None.
STAFF CONCERNS
7. DEPARTMENT STATUS ON AUTO CENTER FREEWAY SIGN
Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
8. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS JULY 21, 1986
COI~IISSIO# CONCERNS
Commissioner LeJeune expressed concern over the elimination of the bike lane on
Walnut Avenue in the industrial area. Well explained the Council eliminated the
lanes to allow the traffic to move more safely.
Commissioner Well expressed concern over the Tustin Garage being used for storage and
a warehouse.
ADdOURI~IENT
Commissioner Le Jeune moved, Well second to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. to the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSIOII
REGULAR MEETING
~)ULY 28, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/XNVOCATION
ROLL CALL:
Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous,
PUBLZC 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 July 14, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. USE PERMIT 86-22
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
Mr. Ty Pak
Authorization for off-site beer and wine
with a proposed flower shop
646 E. 1st Street
sales in conjunction
Presentation:
Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
3. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12719 AND DESIGN REVIEW 86-12
Applicant:
Request:
The Bren Company
To subdivide creating 218 single family detached residential
units.
Location:
Property bounded by Browning Avenue, E1Camino Real and
Parkcenter Drive.
Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
Planning Commission Agenda
July 28, 1986
Page two
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
Presentation:
5. VARIANCE 86-4
Applicant:
Request:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 12833
Mark Atnslte
To subdivide the proposed project into eight (8) separate lots.
40~, 415 and 425 Sixth Street
Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
Mark Ainslie
Authorization to vary with the lot size requirement in order to
develop eight single family homes
Location: 405, 415 and 425 Sixth Street
Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. VARIANCE NO. 86-5
Applicant: Integrated Sign Associates on behalf of Home Federal Savings &
Loan
Request: Authorization to vary with the Tustin Sign Ordinance as it
pertains to tenant identification and allowable sign area.
18231 Irvine Blvd.
Location:
Presentation: Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
None.
STAFF CONCERNS
7. DEPARTMENT STATUS ON AUTO CENTER FREEWAY SIGN
Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
8. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS JULY 21, 1986.
COl~MlSSlOi CONCERNS
ADJOURN)lENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
MTNUTES
TUSTTN PLANNTNG COHHTSSTON
REGULAR IE..ETT NG
JULY ].4, ].986
CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGXANCE/XNYOCATTON
COItll[$SION REORGANIZATION:
Installation of new Planntng Commissioners and electton of Chairman and Chatr Pro Tem
Commissioner Baker moved, LeJeune seconded to nominate Commissioner Puckett as the
Chairman. Motion carried 4-0.
Commissioner LeJeune moved, Baker seconded to nominate Commissioner Nell as Chairman
Pro Tem. Motion carrted 4-0.
ROLL CALL: Present: Wet1, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous,
Absent: Puckett
PUBLZC 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 June 9, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting.
2. Minutes of June 23, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Baker moved, Ponttous seconded to approve the Consent Calendar.
Mr. Ron Oliver on behalf of Mustard's Restaurant
Authorization for on-site beer and wine sales in
with a restaurant use.
13882 Newport Avenue, Units F and G
carried 4-0.
POBLXC HEARINGS
3. USE PERMIT 86-20
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
Presentation:
Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
Motion
conjunction
Commissioner Baker moved, LeJeune seconded to approve Use Permit 86-20 by the
· adoption of Resolution No. 2342. Motion carried 4-0.
Planning commission Minutes
July 14, 1986
Page two
4. AMENDMENT NO. i TO USE PERMIT 86-3
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
P resentati on:
Carver Development
To amend Variance .86-3 thereby allowing two tenant
identification wall signs in excess of the area approved by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2323.
13721 Newport Avenue/Tustin Plaza
Jeffrey S. Davis, Associate Planner
Commission discussion ensued with questions and answers from staff concerning the
formula used to determine sign size and exposed neon tubing.
Chair Pro Tem Wetl opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Klm Josephson, Carver
Development, explained that these two tenants will be the main draw for the center;
with the exclusion of monument signs, over 300' setback from Newport Avenue, and the
120' depth of the stores it creates a hardship.
Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Pro Tem Well closed the public hearing
at 7:58 p.m.
Commissioner Baker moved, Ponttous seconded to approve Amendment #1 to Use Permit
86-3 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2345. Motion carried 4-0.
5. USE PERMIT 86-21
4
Applicant: MTC Management on behalf of Togo's £atePy
Request: Authorization for on-site beer and wine
with a restaurant use.
Location: 556 £. First Street
sales in conjunction
Presentation:
Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner
Commission discussion ensued with questions and answers from staff concerning the ABC
age requirements for serving alcohol.
Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Dean Kotke, MTC
Management, explained that company policy requires 21 year old adult supervision at
all times. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Well closed the hearing at
8:09 p.m.
Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 86-21 by the adoption
of Resolution 2344 with the addition of item II.f., "All persons serving or selling
alcoholic beverages shall be 18 years of age or older and shall be supervised by
someone 21 years of age or over while the restaurant remains open." Motion carried
4-0.
Planning commission Minutes
.July 14, 1986
Page three
e
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
Presentation:
TENTAT[VE PARCEL RAP 86-201
J. P. Kapp & Associates on behalf of Signal Development Co.
Authorization to resubdtvtde one (1) lot into three (3) lots.
14551, 14471 and 2472 Chambers Road
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Chair Pro Tem Well opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Pat Kapp of JP Kapp
requested relief from the requirement to install full width sidewalks on Walnut and
Chambers Drive.
Commission discussion ensued with questions and answers of staff concerning the
amount of pedesteian traffic in the area and the required width of sidewalks.
James Lindsey, owner of Bldg. 2, opposed adding sidewalks.
Commissioner Pontious moved, LeJeune seconded to approve Tentative Parcel Map 86-201
by the adoption of Resolution No. 2346 and Pecommend to the City Council to consider
a narrower sidewalk to perhaps five or six feet. Motion carried 4-0.
7. VARIANCE 86-5
Applicant:
Request:
Location:
Presentation:
Integrated Sign Associates on behalf of Home Federal Savings &
Loan.
Authorization to vary with the Tustin Sign Ordinance as it
pertains to tenant identification and allowable sign area.
182311rviune Blvd.,
Jeff Davis, Associate Planner
Pursuant to applicant's request, CommissiOner Well moved, Baker seconded to continue
this item to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion
carried 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS
8. Ruby's Restaurant, E1 Camino Real: Demolition of existing structure.
Presentation: Edward Knight, Senior Planner
Commissioner Baker moved, Pont~ous seconded to receive and file. Motion carried
4-0.
NEW BUSI#ESS:
~one.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 14, 1986
page four
STAFF CO#CER#S
9. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF JUNE 16, 1986 AND JULY 7, 1986
Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner LeOeune expressed his appreciation to the City Council for his
appointment to the Planning Commission and is pleased to be able to serve the city.
Commissioner Pontious expressed her appreciation to the City Council for her
appointment to the Planning Commission and looks forward to working with a fine group
of people in helping Tustin move forward.
Commissioner Baker questioned when the permanent sign would be installed at the Auto
Center so staff can enforce the removal of the banners.
Commissioner Weil requested a status report and tour of current projects for the new
Commissioners.
Commissioner Weil read a letter request from Parents Who Care for a workshop on
September 29th.
ADJOURII~ENT
Commissioner Baker moved, LeJeune seconded to adjourn to next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
Planning
DATE:
SUB,1ECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENV IROI~qENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
Commission
dULY 28, 1986
USE ~ERMIT 86-22
HR. TY PAK ON BEHALF OF THE FLONER HART
646 E. FIRST STREET, TUSTIN
LARWIN SQUARE LTD.
275 CENTENNIAL WAY, t209
TUSTIN, CA 92680
646 E. FIRST STREET
C-2, CENTRAL COHMERCIAL
CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT CLASS 1 (15301)
OFF-SITE SALES OF BEER AND WINE WITH SPECIAL FLORAL BALLOON
ARRANGEHENTS
RECOIIqENDED ACTION:
That the Planning Commission approve Use Permit No. 86-22 by the adoption of
Resolution No. 2347.
SLII~RY:
The applicant, Mr. Ty Pak, currently owns and operates The Flower Mart which is
located in the Larwin Square Shopping Center. In an effort to expand his
services, Mr. Pak is requesting authorization to sell beer and wine as
supplement to his floral and balloon bouquets.
As with all beer and wine sales licenses, planning staff identifies key issues
which may require special consideration. In this case, certain conditions
should be applied to ensure proper control over liquor sales.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:
This application involves the issuance of a Use Permit for an off-site beer and
wine sales license. Major issues of concern regarding this application involve
maintenance of the integrity of the business and proper supervision of liquor
sales.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Use Permtt 86-22
page two.
In order to avoid conversion of this location to a liquor or mini .mart type of
business, staff contends that the maintenance of the flower shop be required.
This will ensure that the intended use of this license will remain in perpetuity
with a flower shop only.
When selling alcoholic beverages for off-site consumption, the control over who
consumes these beverages is severely limited. In order to properly address this
problem, staff considers the following conditions appropriate.
1. This license is contingent upon the use remaining as a flower shop and the
license shall be rescinded if.the flower shop discontinues business;
2. ' All floral/balloon bouquets containing liquor shall be delivered by a
person eighteen years or older;
3. All sales of floral/balloon bouquets containing liquor shall be sold to
persons who are 21 years of age and older;
e
No individual sale of beer and wine is authorized, all liquor sales shall
be accompanied by a floral/balloon bouquet.
With these conditions, staff considers the use to be appropriate for this
location.
~DWARD-M. K)[IGHI~
SENIOR PLANNER
LP:do
attach:
Resolution No. 2347
Site Plan
Floor Plan
community Development Department
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2347
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE
LICENSE FOR OFF-SITE SALES AT 646 E. FIRST STREET
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning CommiSsion finds and determines as follows:
Ae
That a proper application (Use Permit 86-22) has been filed by
Mr. Ty Pak on behalf of Flower Mart requesting authorization to
obtain an alcoholic beverage license to sell beer and wine,
off-site at 646 E. First Street.
Ce
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application.
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 sale of beer and wine is off-site only, and in
conjunction with a flower shop use.
All persons purchasing liquor shall be 21 years of age or
older and all purchases shall include a floral and/or
balloon bouquet. No individual sale of liquor will be
allowed.
II.
De
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 Tusttn, and should be
granted.
Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development
policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as
administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered
by the Orange County Fire Marshall, and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
Fe
Use Permit 86-22 is categorically exempt f~om the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class I.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No.
86-22 to authorize the issuance of an off-site beer and wine license
at 646 E. First Street subject to the following conditions:
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
28
Resolution No. 2347
page two
Be
Dm
PASSED AND
day
This license is contingent upon the use remaining as a flower
shop and the license shall b~ rescinded if the flower shop
discontinues business.
All floral/balloon bouquets containing liquor shall be delivered
by a person 18 years of age or older.
All sales of floral/balloon bouquets containing liquor shall be
sold to persons who are 21 years of age or older.
No individual sales of beer and wine is authorized, all liquor
sales shall be accompanied by a floral/balloon bouquet.
The applicant shall complete and return an Agreement to
Conditions Imposed form as required by the Director of Community
Development.
ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin on this
of , 1986.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman
DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission
DATE: JULY 28, 1986
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12719 AND DESIGN REVIEW 86-12
This staff report will be delivered under separate cover prior to the Commission
meeting.
JD:do
Community Development Department
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE: JULY 28, 1986
ITEM NO. 3
SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12719/DESIGN REVIEg 86-12 (SHADOgBROOK)
APPLICANT:
BRE# COMPANY
ONE CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100
NEWPORT BEACH, CA92§60
RONDA HEACOCK, PROJECT MANAGER
LOCATION:
PROPERTIES BOUNDED BY BROgNING AVENUE, EL CAMINO REAL, BRYAN AVENUE
AND PARKCENTER DRIVE ARE SHOgN ON APPROVED TRACT NO. 12345 (EAST
TUSTIN RESZDENTIAL PHASE I, AREA 1)
ZONE
DESIGNATION: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 84-3 NAS APPROVED IN COMPLIANCE gIIH
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ANO IN CONJUNCTION gITH
ADOPTION OF OROINANCE NO. 938.
REQUEST:
1) AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE THE SUBJECT AREA PROVIDING FOR THE
DEVELOPf,IENT OF: 218 SINGLE FANILY DETACHED HOUSING UNITS, COMMON
RECREATION AREA, AND PRIVATE STREETS. (PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED)
2) APPROVAL OF DESIGN, SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. (NO PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED)
RECOI~qENDED ACTION:
That the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract
Map 12719 and that the Commission approve Design Review No. 86-12 by the
adoption of Resolutions No. 2348 and 2349.
SLIqMARY:
Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12719 will authorize subdivision of Area 1
within the boundaries of the East Tustin, Phase I project area. As proposed 218
individual single family lots will be created as will lots for common recreation
and landscape areas. Also provisions for private streets will be incorporated
as conditions of the map. Site layout and architectural design plans for units
to be built are also before the Commission for review and approval.
Community Development Deparlment
Planning Commission Report
Shadowbrook
page two
As proposed, the Shadowbrook project meets or exceeds minimum requirements of
regulations governing development within Phase I. Additionally, non-required
features such as a common recreation area are included in the project.
Accordingly, staff recommends that the Commission recommend to City Council
approval of Tentative Tract map No. 12719 and that the Commission approve Design
Review 86-12.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSXO#:
With the adoption of Ordinance No. 938, Planned Community Regulations and
Guidelines for the area known as East Tustin, Phase I, were established. The
project now before the Commission (Tentative Tract Map No. 127'19/Shadowbrook) is
proposed for the portion of Phase I indicated as Area 1 on the attached Exhibit
A.
Development for residential purposes within Area 1 is limited to single family
detached dwellings at a maximum density of eight (8) units per acre. A total of
264 units are permitted in Area 1.
Pursuant to applicable zoning and subdivision regulations and prior to
development of any project, the Planning Commission must conduct a public
hearing and make recommendations to City Council concerning proposed subdivision
maps. In this case, Tentative Tract Map No. 12719. Additionally, as outlined
in Planned Community Regulations 'for Phase I, the Planning Commission must
approve final conceptual development plans prior to submittal of such plans to
the Building Department for permit issuance. Conceptual development plans refer
to sire layout, architectural elevations of buildiong exteriors, common area
landscape plans and recreational facility plans. The design review process does
not require a public hearing.
In reviewing the subject project it should be remembered that the entire Phase I
area was in essence created by Final Tract 12345. This is important to note in
that certain conditions imposed upon Tract 12345 are applicable to and must be
incorporated within subsequent projects in the area.
PROJECT PROPOSAL
The Bren Company has submitted a comprehensive development package for a single
family residential project to be called Shadowbrook. The submittal includes a
site plan, building elevations, landscape and recreation area plans and the
required subdivision map. Specifically, the project consists of a maximum of
218 single family detached units each upon its own individual lot.
There are two separate actions the Commission must take in relation to this
project, so each will be addressed individually.
Community Development Department
mm
Planntng Commission Report
Shadowbrook
- page three
Tentative Tract Map No. 12719
As indicated on the exhibits forwarded to the Commission, Tentative Tract Map
No. 12719 would create 218 individual residential lots, provide an interior
traffic circulation system and establish common recreation and landscape areas.
By subdividing in this fashion, overall project density is just under six units
per acre whereas maximum density allowed is eight units per acre. The 218 unit
count is also less than the maximum unit allowed for Area 1 which is 264. In
terms of issues pertaining specifically to the subdivision map outside of
standard conditions of approval, discussion is fairly limited. However, a few
points must be made. First, resulting from a requirement of Tract 12345 the
area shown as "P" Street (including lots 204 through 218) cannot be developed at
the present time. This area has been reserved to accommodate flood control
devices pending the completion of improvements under construction in the E1
Modena Flood Control Channel. Secondly, as a part of an area wide traffic
circulation plan, there is the potential that Browning Avenue may be extended
over the Santa Aha Freeway. Only upon completion of the flood control channel
and once a determination on whether or not Browning Avenue will be extended has
been made can development of homes in this area proceed.
A second issue relating to Tentative Tract 12719 is the dedication of parkland.
Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 921 a total of 1.84 acres of parkland must be
dedicated as a result of the proposed development. Of this parkland required,
.92 acres must be dedicated to a "community level" park within East Tustin, and
.92 acres must be committed to a "neighborhood level" park.
At the encouragement of staff, The Bren Company has provided a .32 acre
recreation area within Shadowbrook. However, the applicant has in turn
requested that this acreage be credited towards the .92 acre requirement for a
neighborhood park. Since the recreation area is not mandatory per applicable
regulations, and it does meet criteria necessary to receive credit as requested,
staff recommends that such £redtt for land dedication be allowed.
All other issues and recommended conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map
No. 12719 are included in Resolution No. 2348.
DESXG# REVIEW
The design review portion of Shadowbrook encompasses the site plan, building
elevations and common areas. Each of these topics will bye reviewed separately.
Site Plan
The basic site plan proposed is relatively straight forward. However, there are
some aspects that differ from traditional single family subdivisions. The
primary difference revolves around lot size and. a "zero lot line" concept.
Average lot size within the project is in the 3,700 - 3,800 square foot range.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Shadowbrook
page four
As to the zero lot line concept, from the exhibits forwarded to the Commission,
it can been seen that in certain areas, yards designated for the use of one
property owner "overlap" onto an adjacent property. At the same time this
property owner foregoes use of a portion of his/her lot to the lot on the
opposite side.
With this concept, useable yard area for each lot is maximized. For example,
instead of providing two five foot wide areas on each side of a home, a 10 foot
area on one side of the unit can be employed.
A second unique feature to the site plan is the interior circulation system.
Although private .streets are utilized, they will be constructed with curb to
curb widths equivalent to standard street minimums. Also, sidewalks will be
provided at the city standard of five feet in width. The only difference
between a standard public street and this project is that a parkway landscape
area has not been provided. However,'given structural setbacks and the fact the
developer will install all front yard landscaping (to be maintained by a
Ho'meowner's Association), the proposed street plan is very compatible with the
type of housing units proposed.
In addition to vehicular circulation, a pedestrian linkage between portions of
the project separated by "A" Street on Map 12719 has been prepared.
Specifically near the intersection of "A" and "B" Streets a landscaped paseo for
pedestrian access is included on the site plan. Final details of this plan in
co6rdination with previously approved perimeter landscaping must be reviewed by
staff prior to construction and installation.
The last item in terms of the site plan concerns parking. Minimum parking'
requirements in Phase I calls for 2.5 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, two
of which must be garages. The balance of required parking can be on-street
spaces and/or within driveways as outlined in the Planned Community
Regulations. In staff's review of the site plan it was felt that credit should
not be given for all parking spaces shown. It is realized that the areas
indicated will accommodate vehicles, however in terms of what should be
considered for credit, approximately 155 parking spaces, excluding garages have
been identified. This figure places the approved parking ratio for the project
at 2.7 spaces per dwelling unit. However, actual available parking will in
actuality be about 3.0+ spaces per unit.
Elevations
In keeping with the Tustin Ranch theme, Shadowbrook homes have been designed
with the use of traditional building materials. Wood siding and embellishments
along with wood simulated concrete roof tiles lend a rustic yet contemporary
feeling to the project.
As to overall project appearance, integration Of units with differing roof
schemes, intermittent use of single story units and the "jogging" of structural
setbacks from street frontages, the mass of a large project has been broken up
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Shadowbrook
page five
and distributed making the project a quality addition to the area.
Finally, in an effort to display the positive appearance of Shadowbrook to the
community at large, extra architectural treatments have been applied to rear
elevation~B,?f units which abutt Browning, Bryan, E1 Camino Real and the street
shown as Street.
UNIT TRANSFER
Although not a particular concern at this point, the issue of unit transfer does
have implications that should be noted. As stated in this report, the maximum
unit count permitted for Area'l is 264 while only 218 units are proposed.
Pursuant to Section 2.1 of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the 46 units that
could be built in Area 1 can be transferred into the Specific Plan area provided
all conditions of the plan are mat. This transfer process is fully detailed in
the East Tustin plan and from this pbint forward will be closely monitored by
staff.
CONCLUSIONS:.
Subject to conditions of approval continued in Resolution No. 2348 staff has
concluded that the proposed p~oject meets or exceeds minimum requirements of
applicable land use regulations. Further, staff is confident that proposed
building elevations and common recreation/landscape areas satisfy the intent of
Planned Community Regulations for Phase I in that architectural quality
treatments have been included in the package submitted.
Accordingly it is recommended that the Commission recommend to City Council
approval of Tentative Tract Map 12719 and that the Commission approve Design ·
Review 86-12 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2348 and 2349.
JD:do
attach:
Full size site plans, elevations and tract map.
Community Development Department
Plannin Commission
DATE:
SUBdECT:
dULY 28, 1986
TENTATIYE TRACT IqAP NO. 12833
APPLICANT:
*AINSLIE DEYELOPMENT
13641 lqALENA DR[VE
TUSTIN, CA 92680
LOCATION:
ZONING:
405, 415~ 425 gEST SIXTH STREET
SINGLE-F/~ILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONFOPJqANCE ~ITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENV[RONHENTAL QUALITY ACT.
TO CONSOL[DATE AND RE-SUBDIVIDE THREE (3) EXISTING LOTS INTO
EIGHT (8) LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAHILY RESIDENTZAL PURPOSES.
RECO~IENDED ACT[ON:
That Tentative Tract Rap No. 12833 be den~ed.
SUI~IARY:
Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 tf approved would create e~ght (8) parcels for the
purposes of accomodattn9 efght (8) single-family homes at the subject location.
However, four of the eight lots would be ~ncons~stent wtth zoning regulations In
that they front onto other lots rather than a street or roadway. Additionally,
two of the efght lots created would be substandard ~n terms of ~ot s~ze
requirements. S~nce the lots to be created wouqd Immediately be fncons~stent
w~th applicable zontng regulations, ~t ts recommended that Tentative Tract Map
No. [2833 be dented.
BACKGROUNO ANO DISCUSSION:
Presently, lots addressed 405, 415 and 425 Nest 5~xth Street are developed as
single-family resldences. Each lot ~s an average of 59 feet w~de and 333 feet
deep. Zoning and General Plan designations for the area are both S1n§le-Famlly
Residential.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Tentative Tract Map i2833
page two
Ains]1e Development has proposed to consolidate three existing lots and
re-subdivide the area into eight new single-family lots. However, lots to be
created would be substandard. Pursuant to Code, each building site in an R-!
District must be a mtntmum of 7,200 square feet fn slze, and that area must
front onto a "street, road, highway or waterway" (Section 9297). As proposed
lots 4 and 5 are both less than 7,200 square feet and lots 2, 3, 6 and 7 do not
front on a street or road. The private road shown is within the boundaries of
the vartous lots so said lots actually front onto each other rather than a
street or road. ..
ANALYSIS:
Paramount to the revtew of this project fs to keep in mind that both lot stze
and street frontage are conditions which must be present to make a lot
consistent with R-1 Zoning Regulations. For example, while technically lots l,
2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 each have over 7,200 square feet, the interior lots do not
front upon a street. Further while lots 4 and 5 do have a frontage upon a
street (albeit a private drtve) a lot size of 6,314 square feet is substandard.
The net effect of approving the proposed subdfvfsfon would be to increase the
density on the subject property. If the prtvate drive was separated as an
individual lot as the required road, unit to building area ratio would be 1:6363
square feet tn lieu of the 1:7200 square foot standard.
In fairness to the project concept however, Increased denslty Is not the only
reason for proposing the subdivision as submitted. Part of the concept of using
a drive easement across property lines ts to eliminate the need for a
Homeowner's Association. Mafntenance of the common area would be accomplfshed
via deed restrictions upon the property. Certatn checks and balances would be
Incorporated into such deed restrtctlons providing other property owners and the
City of Tustin methods of recourse in the event that easements are not fully
maintained. Whtle staff has some reservation concerning this concept, it is
none the less viable if properly implemented. In fact, if such a concept could
be utilized and 7,200 square feet of actual building area maintafned, the
project would likely recetve a poslttve recommendation.
cONCLUSIONS:
Since the result of approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 12833 would create lots
Inconsistent wtth R-1 District Zoning Regulations, staff does not recommend
approval of said map.
EMK:JSD:em
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
DATE:
SUB~IECT:
dULY 28, 1986
VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 86-4
APPLICANT:
F~RK AINSLIE ON BEHALF OF AINSLIE BEVELOPt~ENT
13641 gALENA DRIVE
TUSTIN, CA 92680
LOCATION:
ZONE DESIGNATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
405, 415 and 425 #EST 6TH STREET-
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-l) DISTRICT
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONFOPJ~NCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
TO DEVELOP EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING UNITS
UPON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, MHICH AS PROPOSED, ARE INCONSISTENT
#ITH R-1 LOT SIZE REQUIREHENTS.
RECOI~ENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that Variance Application No. 86-4 be denied on the basis that
the hardship identified by the applicant does not justify deviation from
required development standards.
SLIMY:
Variance Application No. 86-4 if approved would authorize the development of
etght (8) stngle family homes, each on individual lots. However, .said lots
would be inconsistent with zoning regulations tn that within the single family
residential (R-i) district butldtng sites are to be a minimum of 7,200 square
feet and are required, by definition, to front upon a "street, road, highway or
waterway". As proposed, only lots ! and 8 shown on proposed Tentative Tract Hap
12833 have street frontages. Further, lots 4 and 5 on the proposed map, in
addition t6 not fronting on a street, are substandard since each lot covers only
6372 square feet.
Without the finding of hardship, independent of the overall quality of the
project, variances to the Municipal Code cannot be granted. In this case, staff
does not concur with the applicant's contention of hardship and accordingly
recommends that the project as submitted be denied.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Variance Application No. 86-4
page two
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Development of single family homes within the R-! zoning district requires that
each home be constructed upon a minimum building site of 7,200 square feet. A
building site is defined in the Municipal Code as:
"a lot or parcel of land, in single or joint ownership, and occupied by a
main building and accessory buildings or by a dwelling group and its
accessory buildings, together with such open spaces as are required by the
terms of this Chapter (Zoning Ordinance) and having its frontage on a
street, road, htgl~ay or .aterday." (Section 9297)
As submitted, the proposed eight (8) unit subdivision does not meet the required
standards in that six of the eight lots front upon other lots rather than a
street, and two of the eight lots are less than 7,200 square feet in size.
Accordingly, In order to develop the. subject project, Ainslie Development is
requesting that the Commission grant variances to the code.
Pursuant to provisions mandated by State Planning Law (Government Code Section
65906) and implemented by the Tustin City Code, prior to approving any Variance
certain findings must be made by the Commission. Specifically, these findings
must include the following:
(1) That any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will
assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not 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.
(2)
That because of special circumstances applicable to subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other propePties in the .vicinity and under identical
zone classification.
In a letter submitted as a portion of the variance application. Atnslie
Development contends that resulting from lot configuration and limited access to
the site that variances to the code are justified. Staff however, does not
concur with this contention. Detailed analysis of the project and circumstances
supporting staff's position will be covered on the following section of this
report.
Finally, before this project could be constructed, the Commission would have to:
Authorize development upon substandard parcels (lot size) for lots 4 and
5 proposed Tentative Tract 12833 (Variance); and
Authorize development upon substandard parcels {parcels not fronting on a
street) for lots 2, 3, 6, and 7 of proposed Tentative Tract 12833
(Variance).
Community Development Department
Planntng CommJsslon Report
Vartance Application No. 86-4
page three
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
Site Plan: The subject project site is a 58,941 square foot area which if
approved would consolidate and re-subdivide three existing lots. This action
would create eight individual lots each having a gross area as shown in Table I.
However, to accommodate access to Sixth Street, a private drive has been
incorporated effectively reducing the building area of lots 1 through 6 as
indicated on Table I. This creates one of the substandard conditions requiring
Commission action.
The applicant states that the need for the private drive creates a hardship
justifying a variance. However, this "hardship" is not a result of lot
configuration or other provisions of the code. Instead, the number of units
desired on the property is the determining factor as to site design. In all
other standard single family subdivt'sions within the city, lot size has been
determined by the area upon which a property owner has total use. With this
particular project, the future owner does have total use of his/her property,
but is required to allow access rights to other owners in the project. This
requirement in essence reduces the actual building site to less than the
required 7,200 square feet. Such being the case, staff cannot support the
contention that the applicant is being deprived of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity. Further, lots 4 and 5 while acceptable in terms of
fronting on a street (private drives/streets are considered to meet the intent
of' applicable ~egulations), the lots are nonetheless unacceptable in that they
are each only 6,372 square feet in size. Again, there is not present any
apparent hardship justifying the reduced lot size.
Design Review: All other items aside, the proposed project meets all other
standards of the R-1 District. Front {measured from private street) set backs
are a minimum of 20 feet,; side and rear yard areas are standard; more than
adequate on-site parking has been provided {extra long drive-ways) and
architecturally the units are con~atible with the surrounding area.
A positive factor of the site design is that with a 25 foot driveway and 20 to
25 foot setbacks, a substantial open area between structures has been
providedc. Also, most of the features of traditional single family homes have
been provided.
A drawback to the site layout however is that where street parking is usually
available in standard R-1 subdivisions, parking in the drive aisle must be
prohibited to comply with fire safety regulations.
Alternative to Development Variances:
Given that the project proposed is conceptually.acceptable yet should not be
approved pursuant to existing regulations, an alternative is to amend zoning
regulations for the Sixth Street area. A Planned Community designation or a
specific plan could be adopted for the area allowing for density at ratio less
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Variance Application No. 86-4
page four
than 1 unit: 7,200 square feet. In fact, if the Commission and the Community
have no objections to the project itself, then the most appropriate action would
be for some type of zone change in the area.
By changing the zone, wholesale revisions to allowed uses are not necessarily
required. For example, requirements mandating individual lots, minimum lot
sizes and restrictions that only single family houses be permitted can all be
incorporated into a specific planning process. If the COmmission concurs with
this alternative process, then it is suggested that in a separate action a zone
change be initiated.
CONCLUSION:
As outlined in this report, staff does not support approval of Variance
Application 86-4 as submitted because .mandatory determinations for such approval
do not seem to be present. Conceptually and archi tecutrally the proposed
project be a positive addition to the area. However, the Commission is
cautioned that the merits of a project are not sufficient grounds for approval
of variances. Instead, specific findings must be made justifying such
variances. Since these conditions do not appear to be present, staff concludes
that the project as submitted should be denied.
JD:do
SENIOR PLANNER
Community Development Department
TABLE I
Gross Square Footage
Lot 1 7,434 .
Lot 2 7,434 .
Lot 3 8,230 .
Lot 4 6,372 *
Lot 5 6,372 *
Lot 6 8,230 .
Lot 7 7,434 .
Lot 8 7,434 .
Net Square Footage
.................... 6,384
· 6,384
· 6,314
· 6,372
· 6,372
· 6,314
· 6,384
................... 6,384
* Substandard lot size independent of requirement for street frontage.
Community Development Depariment
Planning
DATE :'
SUBgECT:
APPLICANT:
BUSINESS:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENV IROI~ENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
Commission
gULY 28, 1986
VARIANCE NO. 86-5
INTEGRATED SIGN ASSOCIATES
10845-D NIIEATLANDS
SANTEE, CA 92071
HOME FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN
625 BROADWAY
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
18231 IRVINE BLVD.
PROFESSIOllAL OFFICE (Pr) DISTRICT
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
TO EXCEED MAXIMUM 'SIGN AREA PERMITTED AND TO INSTALL SIGNS
OTHER THAN TENANT IDENTIFICATION CONTRARY TO SECTIONS 9493
AND 9430 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE.
REC0~ENDED ACTION:
That Variance Application No. 86-5 be denied.
SUIIL~RY:
Section 9400 of the Tustln Ctty Code establishes crtterta for type, size and
quanttty of slgntng authorized for various commercial uses. As a retail-type
use, Home Savings & Loan Is permitted one (1) 64 square foot tenant
Identification sign along 1ts [rvtne Blvd. frontage, and one (1) 25 square foot
tenant sign on the west elevation. No other permanent stgnage is permitted.
As submitted, Variance Application No. 86-5 requests authorization to install
two signs that are not for tenant identification one of which exceejs the
maximum square footage all~ed---~-'~code.
The applicant has not demonstrated that any unusual circumstances exist on the
site nor that any undue hardship is present justifying approval of a variance to
the City Code. As such, staff recommends that Variance 86-5 be denied.
i Community Development Depariment
Planning Commission Report
Home Federal
page two
BACKGROUND & DZSCUSSZON:
Variance Application No. 86-5 requests authorization to add the words "Anytime
Teller" to existing Home Federal signs at 182311rvtne Blvd. This addition onto
the southern elevation would cause the sign to exceed maximum area allowed by
approximately 20 square feet. Additionally, particularly along the Irvine
frontage, the words "Anytime Teller" advertise a service rather than simply
identifying the tenant. Pursuant to Sign Ordinance 684, the purpose of
permanent commercial signing is only to identify tenants. An exception to this
regulation in the past has been when automated teller machines (ATM) have been
identified with signs either directly on the device or else wi.thin the immediate
area of the machine. It has been reasoned that such stgnage serves as a
directional type sign which is within the purview of the sign code. In short,
for Home Federal to receive the signs requested, variances from the City Code
must be approved.
Before an analysis of the project submitted is given, it is important to note
that in order for the Commission to approve a Variance, the following conditions
must be found to be present:
That because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject
property, the strict application of the Code is found to deprive subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and
under similar circumstances.
2. That the Variance shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that
the adjustments thereby authorized will not constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and district in which the subject property is located.
ANALYSZ$:
A survey of other financial institutions in the city found 'that only two
locations have ATM signs actually separated from the area in which the machines
are situated. The first location is the Bank of America at 13341 Newport
Avenue. In this instance, Bank of America agreed to forego signage otherwise
allowed on particular elevations and was accordingly granted a Sign Code
exception. The other location, Coast Federal Savings & Loan (in Larwin Square),
obtained a Variance to allow the words "24 Hour Money Center" On a previously
approved monument sign. This Variance was approved in part as a result of
restricted visibility of the bank caused by an O.C.T.D. bus "layover" zone, as
well as, the location of the ATM being obscured by other structures in the
shopping center.
In both of the above referenced cases, special circumstances were found to be
present justifying deviations of the Code. However, as Home Savings & Loan is
located in a highly visible area, the ATM is visible from Irvine Blvd., and no
other peculiar circumstances exist on-site, staff cannot recommend approval of
the signs requested. In addition to lack of hardship, no effort has been made
by Home Federal to reduce signage otherwise allowed as a way to perhaps include
L"Anytime Teller".
Community Development Department
Commission Report
Planntng
Home Federal
page-three
CO#CLUS[O#S:
Since netther of the conditions requtred to approve a Sfgn Variance seem to
exist on the subject site, staff cannot support approval of any sign that
~dvertises servlces rather than slmply tenant Identification. Further, staff ts
even more concerned wtth approval of stgns In excess of maximum square footage
where no apparent hardshtp or special circumstance exist on the site justifying
a Variance. Accordingly, It ts recommended that Vartance Application No. 86-5
be denied.
JD:do
SENIOR PLANNER
Attachment:
Full Sign Elevations
Community Development Department
Status Report
DATE: dULY 28, 1986
TO:
FROg:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE CHAIRHAN AND PLANNING COglqlSSION BF~BERS
COgHIJNITY DEVELOPNENT DEPARTIqE#T
STATUS OF AUTO CENTER FREE#AY SIGN CONSTRUCTION
On July 14, 1986 the Planning Commission had expressed concern regarding excess
temporary slgnage at the Tusttn Auto Center and requested information as to the
status of construction of the freeway stgn. The new retail division
representative, of the Irvtne Company, Mr. Joe Coctta, confirmed that a sign
manufacturer has been contracted to process permits and install the sign.
Although, at the time thfs report was prepared, permtts were not tssued.
However, tt can be expected to see construction commencing within t~o weeks.
The Irvtne Company was tnformed that once this stgn was installed, all temporary
dealer stgnage was to be removed at once.
~IC
ASSiSTANT~pPLI~
LP:do
SENIOR PLANNER
Corn munity Developr~ent Department
Planning Commission
July 28, 1986
SUBJECT: REPORT 011 COUIICIL ACTIONS - July 21, 1986
Oral p~esentatton.
do
Attachments: Ctty Counctl Action Agenda - Ouly 21, 1986
Community Development Department
ACTIO# AI~ENDA OF A R£GULAJ~ MEETING
OF 1}mE llISTIN CITY COUNCIL
JULY 21; 1986
7:00 PM
7:00 I.
A~.L II.
PRESENT
III.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
ACCEPTFU BY 1. DONATION BY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL CENTER OF TUSTIN TO TUSTIN AREA SENIOR CENTER
MARGARETE FUND, iNC.
THOHPSON
IV, PUBLIC HEARING
1. EAST TUSTIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 85-1
N)0PTED
RESOLUTION NO. 86-89 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF I~JSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (EIR) 85-2 AND 84-3,
AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
ADOPTED
RESOLUTION NO. 86-93 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 85-1, ORDERING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE, AND DESIGNATING THE
CITY TREASURER TO COLLECT AND RECEIVE MONEY
Approve execution of Utility Agreements subject to final approval by the City
Attorney's office as they relate to the following utility companies: Southern
California Edison Company; Southern California Gas Company; Pacific Bell;
Community Cable Television; and Irvine Ranch Water District.
APPROVED
V. PUBLIC INPUT
JA)~S KINCANNON, llJS~IN OIAI~)ER OF COMI~ERCE, REQUES'FED POSSIBILII~~ ~ I~T~LI~ WISHI~ ~LL
L~O SI~S AT ~EEWAY ~F-~PS; ~F TO REVI~ ~C~E~ ~0~ R~HILL W/REVIEW OF FORMER
C~. DEV. DIRE~'S CI~ SIG~ ~
VI. CONSENT C~ENDAR
AF~ENDED & 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 7, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
APPROVED JULY 14, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE ANOUNT OF $1,002,559.84
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $135,208.45
APPROVED
REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-27; CLAIMANT: STATE FARM/ROBERTS; DATE OF LOSS:
3/14/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/5/86
Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney.
REJECTED 3.
REJECTED 4. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-31; CLAIMANT: JOE B. COYKENDALL; DATE OF LOSS:
4/7/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/23/86
Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney.
;EJECTED 5. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-32; CLAIMANT: CATHERINE BANKSTON; DATE OF LOSS:
4/22/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/23/86
Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 1 7-21-86
-~EJECTED 6.
REJECTED 7.
REJECTED 8.
APPROVED 9.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED 10.
STAFF
RECOI~ENDATION
APPROVED 11.
~I~ENDED STAFF
~ONI~ENDATION
REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-33; CLAIMANT: MARK BANKSTON; DATE OF LOSS:
DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/23/86
Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney.
4/22/86;
REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-34; CLAIMANT: ABEL CASTILLO; DATE OF LOSS:
3/16/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/24/86
Reject subject claim as recommended by the Cit~ Attorney.
REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-35; CLAIMANT: JOSEPH CAVALLO; DATE OF LOSS:
3/19/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 6/27/86
Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney.
HOLT AVENUE/IRVINE BOULEVARD UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 8
Approve subject agreement with the Southern California Edison Company pur-
suant to Section B of the Utility's Rule No. 20; authorize the Mayor to
execute same; and authorize the payment of funds in the estimated amount of
$35,603 to Southern California Edison Company as recommended by the Public
Works Department/Engineering Division.
PROPOSED DIAMOND HEAD/GARLAND ANNEXATION NO. 137
Authorize staff to advertise a public hearing for August 4, 1986, on the
City Council's intent to adopt a resolution as application for subject
annexation to the City of Tustin as recommended by the Community Develop-
ment Department.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 86-201 LOCATED AT 2472, 14451 AND 14471 CHAMBERS
ROAD
.dAT SIDEWALKS Bi[ Adopt Resolution No. 86-88 as recommended by the Community Development
REQUIRED ON BOTH Department.
ST. FRONTAGES OF KRLNUT & CHAMBERS & WIDTH BE REDUCED TO 5 F-r. EXCEPT kttERE PERMANENT OBJECTS
EXIST
~DOPTED
VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None
VIII. ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES PLACED ON TAX ROLLS - ORDINANCE NO. 974
ORDINANCE NO. 974 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5473 ET SEQ OF THE
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FINALLY APPROVING AND ADOPTING
A REPORT RELATIVE TO PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY RECEIVING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
SERVICES, DETERMINING THAT A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND DETERMIN-
IFil3 THE CHARGES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPEC-
TIVE LOTS OR PARCELS OF LAND AS THEY APPEAR ON THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT ROLL.
IX, OLD BUSINESS
APPROVED 1. TUSTIN AUTO CENTER LOUDSPEAKER CRITERIA
PLANNING COI~ISSION CRITERIA AS ADOPTED IN RES. 2334 WITH A/~ENDMENTS: LOUDSPEAKERS CANNOT BE
USED ON HOLIDAYS (CITY OF 1USTIN OFFICIAL HOLIDAY LIST); DEALER THAT WANTS TO EXPAND HOURS/USE
~QF LOUDSPEAKER SYSllg~S MUST BE BEARD BY PLANNIND COI~IISSION W/NOTIFICATION THROUGH INTEREST
ST ON FILE WITH CITY FOR AUTO CENTER, ADVERTISEMENT IN PAPER 10 DAYS PRIOR TO HEARING & NOTI-
,CATION TO OWNERS/RENTERS WITHIN 300 FT. RADIUS; LOUDSPEAKERS WOULD BE SET AT MAXIMUM COMBINED
COURTYARD SOUND LEVEL OF 72 DBA; & MAI'rER BE BROUGHT BACK TO PLANNING COI~4ISSION FOR REVIEW
AFTER 18 FIOS. W/NOTIFICATION TO DETERMINE IF IT IS A NUISANCE
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 7-7-86
X. NEW BUSINESS
1. MYFORD ROAD/jAMBOREE ROAD EXTENSION BETWEEN EDINGER AVENUE (MOULTON
PARKWAY) AND BARRANCA ROAD FUNDING AGREEMENT
APPROVED STAFF Recommendation: Approve the Road Funding Agreement between the City and
RECO~NDATION the City of Irvine and The Irvine Company for extension of Myford Road/
Jamboree Road through MCAS-Tustin; and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute same.
PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON WEST SIDE OF CENTENNIAL BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
STREETS
APPROVED STAFF Recommendation: Restrict all curb parking on the west side of Centen-
RECO~NDATION nial Way between First and Second Streets. Also, given the findings of
the City Traffic Engineer, parking prohibitions should be directed to
the east side of Centennial Way as well (same limits).
XI. REPORTS
RATIFIED 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - JULY 14, 1986
All actions 'of the Planning Commission become final
the City Council or member of the public.
!CEIVEB &
ILED
2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF JUNE 30, 1986
Recommendation: Receive and file.
8. TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (LEFT-TURN PHASING)
STREET (NORTH)/ENDERLE CENTER WAY
AT 17TH
REFERRED BA~K Recommendation: Receive and file.
TO STAFF FOR ~Y
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
ADOPTED 1.
unless appealed by
STREET & YORBA
RESOLUTION NO. 86-85 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF AN SUPPORT FOR THE
RELOCATION OF SANTA ANA LINCOLN-MERCURY MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP TO THE TUSTIN
AUTO CENTER
APPROVED
2. AUTHORIZED MAYOR TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH FIRM OF LSA, NEWPORT BEACH. FOR
PLANNING SERVICES SUBJECT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S APPROVAL OF THE FORM OF THE
AGREEMENT
EDGAR REQUESTED STAFF STUDY COST OF WIDENING & UNDERGROUNOING UTILITIES ON YORBA BETWEEN FIRST
& IRVINE BLVD. WITH AIIFP FUNDS
COUNCIL CONGRATULATED ED KNIGHT ON APPT. AS COM. DEV. DIRECTOR IN SEAL BEACH & EXPRESSED
REGRETS THAT HE IS LEAVING TUSTIN
HOESTEREY REQUESTED PROCLAMATION FOR TUSTIN HIGH BASEBALL TEAM'S 21(0 PLACE IN CIF CHAMPIONSHIP
TAFF RESONDEO TO HOESTEREY'S CONCERNS RE FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS/LAWSUITS AGAINST CITY
KELLY REQUESTED STAFF REVIEW POSSIBILITY OF INSTALLING I~EOIAN ISLANDS ON MRIN STREET BETWEEN
"B' & MYRTLE; STAFF TO PRESENT OPTIONS
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 7-21-86
KELLY REQUESTED PLACING GREETING ON BACK SIDE OF 4 SIGNS IN' DOWNTOWN AREA ALONG EL CAMINO REAL
& REQUEST1ED EXTENDING MISSION BELL THEME ALONG EL CAMINO REAL '
SALTARELLI REPORTED ON I~ETING WITH NTNAC; MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS REQUESTING ANNEXATION TO
TUSTIN
COUNCILMAN EDGAR APPOINTED TO OCTC ROUTE 55 ADVISORY COP~4II-rEE
8:39 XIII. ADJOURNMENT- To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, August 4, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.
ACTION AGENDA OF k REGULAR MEETING OF
THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
8:39 1. CALL TO ORDER
ALL 2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT
APPROVED
APPROVED
STAFF
RECOMNEN-
JATION
ADOPTED
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 7, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
Recommendation: Approve.
HOLT AVENUE/IRVINE BOULEVARD UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 8
Recommendation: Authorize the Tustin City Council to execute all agreements
with utility companles with respect to the Holt Avenue/Irvine Boulevard Utility'
Underground District No. 8; and authorize expenditure of funds up to the cur-
rent budget amounts ($55,000.00) as required.
DESIGN REVIEW - 13444 NEWPORT AVENUE, RESTAURANT REMODEL - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-8
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-8 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REDESIGN OF A RESTAURANT AT 13444
NEWPORT
ADOPTED &
APPROVED
STAFF
RECOIIqEN-
DATION
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 86-8.
COMPLIANCE WITH AB 265 CONCERNING "SET-ASIDE"
HOUSING - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-9
FUNDS FOR LOW/MODERATE INCOME
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-9 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUN-
CIL AND TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED
STATEMENTS OF EXISTING OBLIGATIONS AND EXISTING PROGRAMS OF THE TOWN CENTER REDE-
VELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC HEARING ON SUCH STATEMENTS
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 86-9; and set a public hearing on
August 18, 1986, to consider proposed Statements of Existing Obligations and Pro-
grams.
NONE 7. OTHER BUSINESS
J:45 8. ADJOURNMENT
To the next Regular Meeting on August 4, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1
7-21-86