HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 PC ACT AGENDA 11-03-86 '*~.=~A C T I 0 N AGENDA REPORTS
TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION NO. 1
,_ ~ ~/ REGULAR MEETING 11-3-86
· OCTOBER 27, 1986
CAI. L 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 October 27, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting.
Commissioners Weil and Puckett commended the Recording Secretary on the Minute
content and preparation.
Commissioner #etl moved, Baker second to approve the Consent Calendar. Hotion
carrled 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
USE PERMIT 86-32 AND VARIANCE 86-8
Deborah Crane
333 E1Camino Real
Authorization to vary with the off-street parking requirements
to allow more than 50% of office uses.
Presentation: LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner
Commissioner #etl moved, Baker second to approve the applicant's request for a four
week continuance. ~otton carried 5-0.
3. VARIANCE 86-7
Applicant:
Location:
Request:
Presentation:
San Juan Partners
1421 San Juan Street
Authorization to vary with the lot width requirement in the R-3
multiple family residential district in order to allow three
apartment units.
MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner
Co,mtsstoner Net1 moved, Pontious second to approve staff's request for a bdO week
continuance. Motion carrled 5-0.
P]anning Commission Action Agenda
October 27, 1986
page 1~o
OLD BUS[NESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
4. SIGN CODE REVISIONS/WORKSHOP
Presentation: MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner
After Mary Ann Chamberlain reviewed the staff's suggested Sign Code revisions with
the Commission, Chairman Puckett appointed Commissioners LeJeune and Pontious to a
sub-committee to work with staff on the Sign Code revisions. After review and
recommendations are formulated, the matter should be set for public hearing.
5. SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIEW, DOW AVENUE AT MYFORD ROAD
Presentation: PATRIZIA MATERASSI, Planner
Coamtsstoner LeJeune moved, Wet1 second to approve the following Resolution:
RESOLUTIO# #0. 2368: A RESOLUTIO# OF TIlE PLA##I#G COI~IISSIO# OF THE CITY OF THSTI#,
APPROVING SIl~E PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIG# OF 192,125 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF DON AVENUE AT HYFORD ROAD
Notion carried 5-0.
6. FINAL TRACT MAP, THE BREN COMPANY
Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner
Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to recomflend to Ctty Council approval of the
following Resolution:
RESOLUTION #0. 2370: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CO#HISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN
RECOHlqENDING TO THE TUSTI# CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TRACT HAP #0. 12868.
Notion carried 5-0.
STAFF CONCERNS
7. Report on Council Actions of October 22, 1986.
Presentation: ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant
CO~INISSIOM CONCERNS
Commissioner LeJeune commended the Police Department. They contacted him regarding
the door knob on his office which appeared to have been tampered with and he was
impressed they would take the time to notice it and notify him.
Planning CommJsston Actton Agenda
October 27, [986
page three
Commissioner Wet1 requested staff provide her wtth the Resolution wherein the Council
officially relaxed the criteria on sidewalks tn Industrial areas. She is concerned
with setttng precedents tn approving projects wtth 5' sidewalks rather than 8'
sidewalks.
Commissioner Baker questioned when the strtping would be tn place on Bryan Avenue.
Rob Balen wtll request the Information from Public Works.
Commissioner Ponttous expressed concern with a large sign placed tn front of a real
estate office located at I4145 Redhtll Avenue. Mary Ann Chamberlain responded staff
is aware of the sign and wtll follow up wtth enforcement.
ADdOURI~qE#T
Comaissloner lie11 mved, Baker second to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled
Planntng Co..[Isston .eettng, ~onday #oveaber 10. 1986 at 7:30 p.e. Morton carrted
AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING CO~91ISSION
REGULAR I~ETING
OCTOBER 27, 1986
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m., City Counctl Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL:
Puckett, Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous,
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 l~E 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 October 27, 1986 Planning Co,,,idsston Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. USE PERMIT 86-32 AND VARIANCE 86-8
Applicant:
Locatt on:
Deborah Crane
333 E1Camino Real
Request:
Authorization to vary with the off-street parking requirements
to allow more than 50~ of office uses.
Presentation:
LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner
3. VARIANCE 86-7
Applicant:
Location:
San'Juan Partners
1421 San Juan Street
Request:
Authorization to vary with the lot width requirement in the R-3
multiple family residential district in order to allow three
apartment units.
Presentation: MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner
Planning Commission Agenda
October 27, 1986
page t~o
OD) BUSINESS
None.
NB BUSINESS
4. SIGN CODE REVISIONS/WORKSHOP
Presentation: MARY ANN CHAMBERLAIN, Associate Planner
5. SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIEW, DOW AVENUE AT MYFORD ROAD
Presentation: PATRIZlA MATERASSI, Planner
6. FINAL TRACT MAP, THE BREN COMPANY
Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner
STAFF CONCERNS
7. Report on Council Actions of October 22, 1986.
Presentation: ROB BAL£N, Planning Consultant
CI)MMISSION CONCERNS
ADJOUR~ENT
Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING C~ISSION
REGUL~kR ~ETI NG
OCTOBER 13, 1986
· ~A ~ '- ~,
CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m.,-Ctty Council Chambers
PLEDG£ OF ALLEBIAN~/INVOCATION
ROI~ C&LL: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune
Absent: Ponttous
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of September 22, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting.
Moved by Commissioner Baker, Well seconded to approve the Consent Calendar.
carried 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS -
2. USE PERMIT 86-30
Applicant: Tri State Engineering on behalf of Exxon Co. USA
Location: 14082 Redhill Avenue
Request:
Presentation:
Authorization to demolish an existing service station and
reconstruct a mini market service station.
LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner
Motion
Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Engineering, made himself available for questions.
Ron Baker, Tri State
Commissioner Wetl commented this is one of the most uncontroversial use permits to
come before the Commission, congratulated the applicant on a good project proposal
and saw no problems with approval.
Commissioner LeOeune questioned if detsel fuel would need a separate sign. Ron Baker
responded it isn,t usually advertised, just a small sign on the island depicting
availability.
P1 ann1 ng Corem1 sst on Mi nutes
October 13, 1986
page two
Commissioner Puckett complimented Exxon for not asktng for a liquor license.
Commissioner Baker questioned the condition of the fuel tanks in the ground:
Ron Baker responded they used to use steel tanks with 10 to 20 year life spans. This
location will have new fiberglass tanks with a built in alarm system for leaks.
Seeing no one further wishing to speak Chairmen Puckett closed the hearing at 7:45
p.m.
Commissioner LeJeune expressed concern with the outdoor storage areas at gas stations
and if they will be restricted in the future. Rob Balen explained that according to
our service station guidelines they are already restricted, but it is a difficult
enforcement problem.
Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-30 by the adoption of
Resolution 2366. Motion carried 4-0.
3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 86-1
Applicant:
Location:
City of Tustln
East Tusttn Specific Plan Area
Issue:
.The City of Tusttn Development Agreement with The Irvine Con, any
in relation to development of the East Tustin Specific Plan
area.
Presentati on:
ROBERT W. BALEN, Planning Consultant
4. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Applicant:
Locati on:
Issue:
Presentation:
City of Tustt n
East Tustln Specific Plan Are~
Consideration of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report;
impacts that would result from the proposed Development
· Agreement will be considered
JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner
Robert Balen recommended the Chairman co~tne the public hearings for both the
Development Agreement 86-[ and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.
Mr. Balen informed that the Development Agreement implements the Specific Plan and
the mitigation measures required in the EIR 85-2 and the Supplemental EIR. The
levelopment Agreement is consistent with the East Tusttn Specific Plan and the
General Plan of the City.
Jeff Davis gave the staff presentation on the Supplemental EIR and explained that the
EIR addresses issues related to transportation, circulation, water and hydrology,
public services, andotherctvl¢ needs.
Planning Comndsston Mtnu%~;
October 13, 1986
page three
Tom Smith, Michael Brandman & Assoc,, explained that the Supplemental EIR had a 30
day public review period which concluded September 26th; seven agencies responded {6
governmental and 1 advisory council); there were no environmental questions raised at
the Sept. 22nd Planning Commission workshop. The content of the comments on the
environmental document basically clarifies and corrects the draft. The SEIR will be
forwarded to the City Council for certification on their next agenda.
Montca Flortan, The Irvine Con, ny, concurred with staff's analysis that the
Development Agreement embodies and further clarifies the objectives and commitments
made during the Specific Plan process. She further urged Commission recommendation
of approval to the City Council.
Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing on Development Agreement 86-t and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report at 7:54 p.m.
Michael Caruso, 1841 Bent Twig, was concerned with park planning and that adequate
team sports facilities be provided, specifically baseball.
Jeff Davis responded that East Tustln has several areas designated for parks. In
addition there are plans and negotiations for a regional park which includes multi
purpose facilities.
Chairman Puckett advised Mr. Caruso to make an appointment with Rob Balen to make all
of his concerns known to the staff.
Janine Harmon, Foothills Community Association, acknowledged Klm Luce and Cora Lee
Newman of The Irvine Company for their assistance to FCA during the East Tustin
approval process and the City staff in responding to concerns of the community.
Seeing no one further wishing to speak Chatrmn Puckett closed the hearing at 8:00
p.m.
Commissioner Wetl ~ommented that she received a phone call from Pat Semen, NTMAC,
extending the MAC's concurrence with staff's recommendation on the Development
Agreement and £IR.
Chairman Puckett complimented staff and The Irvine Company for the excellent job on
the Supplemental [IR and the Development Agreement.
Co~mrissloner Baker commented that everybody involved has worked to negotiate to make
this a workable project and expressed his excitement that it has come together with
little or no discussion.
Commissioner Wetl requested correction be made to the Development Agreement page 19
paragraph 3 to add "ndxed use" after and/or .... and to Resolution 2367 I. to add
an "S" before £IR.
Co~mrisstoner Wetl moved, Baker second to recommend to the City Council adoption of an
ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of Tustin and The
Irvine Company for the East Tustin. SPecific Plan. Motion carried 4-0.
Planning Commission Mtnu~=s
October 13, 1986
page four
Commissioner Wetl moved, LeOeune second.to recommend to the City Council, through the
adoption of Resolution 2367, that S£IR be forwarded to the City Council for
certification. Motion carried 4-0.
OLD ~SlNESS
None.
NE]~ BIJSI#ESS
None.
STAFF CONCERNS
5. Report on Council Actions of October 6, 1986.
Presentation:' ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant
6. DOW/MYFORD INDUSTRIAL. PLANS
Rob Balen presented plans for a proposed industrial project located at Dow and Myford
Road for the Commission's preliminary review. He requested initial feedback for the
developer who is on an escrow deadline to understand if there would be any major
problems with the site plans or elevations. Mr. Balen noted that the item would be
on the agenda at the next meeting for a formal site plan review.
Commissioner Baker was concerned with the sidewalk width requirement; 5' or 8'.
Commissioner LeJeune was concerned with the space between, buildings and if the
parking is to code.
Commissioner Wetl ~as concerned with adequacy of landscaping and requested landscape
plans be"clarified.
Mr. Balen responded that these items would be taken care of prior to the October 27th
meeting.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Wei~.'questioned if staff had done any research concerning a specific
plan for the Old Town area. Mr. Balen responded there are other alternatives for
addressing disinvestment in properties. A Specific Plan for Old Town may be.
appropriate at a future date, but, the neighborhood sentiment Is such that staff is
not in a position to initiate any planning or zoning solutions in the Old Town area.
Other remedies can be investigated including use of Redevelopment funds for housing
~rojects or housing rehabilitation to address property conditions and disinvestment
in housing in the area. It. was noted that some properties in the area do not comply
with zoning and/or building codes and should be fixed up. Mr. Balen added that it
was staff's intent to preserve the Old Town and protect the quaint character of the
area and that this could be done through special preservation provisions in a
Specific Plan. Mr.. Balen. further pointed out this was not being recommended at this
time.
Planning Commission Minutes
October 13, 1986
page five
Commissioner LeJeune expressed concern with the water company's equipment betng
vtstble from the street. He suggested screening. Rob Balen will bring It to the
attention of the Director of Public Works.
Commissioner LeJeune further questioned how the freeway widentng would affect the 6th
Street area. Eob Balen explained that properties south.of 6th St. and east of "B"
Street are potentially affected by the freeway widening.
Commissioner Well would like to add more specifics in the minutes of the Planning
Commission and also reflect any corrections made from a previous meeting.
Commissioner Baker asked if any restrictions or formal commitments were made by the
Council concerning the 6th Street area. Rob Balen responded negatively.
ADdOURI~E#T
Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. to the next regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording SecretarF
APPLICANT:
RS. DEBORAH CRANE ON BEHALF OF
EL CAIqINO PARTNERSXTP
5200 ]R¥INE BLVD., t505
IRVIllE, CA 92720
PROPERTY
OIINER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENV TBOIIIENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
HR. RAYMOND SALPII
148 ii. HAIN S'{3tEET
TUSTIN, CA 92680
333 El. CAHINO REAL
C-2 CENTRAl. COI~IERCZAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED Iii CONFORMANCE iii'iH THE
CALIFORNIA ENYIRONI4ENTAL QUALITY ACT.
UP 86-32: TO AUTHORIZE OFFICE USES IN OVER 5OS OF A BUILDING
LOCATED IN THE C-2 CENTRAL COPB~:RCIAL ZONE.
VAR 86-6: TO ALLOM A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED tF, JIqBER OF
PARKING SPACES FROM 14 SPACES TO 11 SPACES.
RECOI~IENDED ACTION:
Approve Use Permit No. 86-32 and Variance No. 86-8 by the adoption of Resolution
No. 2369.
SUI~IARY:
This application involves two separate requests. The first is a Use Permit
that, if granted, would allow the applicant to lease over 50% of the building to
professional office users. The second is a request to vary from the C-2 parking
requirements by a total of three spaces.
On July 11, 1983 a Variance and Use Permit (No. 86-3) was approved for a similar
project in the same building. The Variance was conditioned similar to that
which is being proposed. However, this request is necessary because of updated
Corn rnunity Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Use Permit 86-3Z/Variance 86-8
page two
parking standards for office uses. Seeing that the Planning Commission
previously approved a similar project and that findings were made to support its
approval, staff is recommending that this revised request be approved.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
Staff has identified issues concerning the Variance and Use Permit requests as
discussed below:
Variance No. 86-8
As previously mentioned, a Variance was conditionally approved for the same
request in 1983. The staff report and resolution of approval for that project
are attached for reference and review.
A time limit condition, Section II-B. of the resolution, was imposed w~th the
parking Variance approval. Although lease agreements were discussed with th~
property owner, a formal document was never signed and the building was not
occupied. Both the time limits imposed on the previous Variance and Use Permit
have expired. Therefore, a new Variance and Use Permit must be obtained.
The applicant is proposing to use the building as office or retail use on the
~ground floor, office use on the second floor and to leave the basement for
storage. Under current parking standards, the number of parking spaces required
are as follows:.
5.76 spaces for second floor offices (1440 sq.ft./250)
7.62 spaces for first floor retail area (1523 sq.ft./200)
0 spaces for unused basement
~ Total parking required
Specific Plan No. [ was adopted in 197[ to encourage revitalization of the Old
Town area. Tht~ Specific Plan allows parking Variances if certain conditions
can be met. The applicant has agreed to provide for seven (7) off-site parking
spaces in addition to the four (4) on-site spaces currently available.
Therefore, a Variance for only three (3) spaces is needed.
The Specific Plan for the Old Town area addresses parking requirements. As
stated in Section g-3 of the attached Ordinance No. 510 (Specific Plan No. 1),
parking requirements may be waived or modified if certain measures are taken.
The Specific Plan does not state the proportion of parking that shall be
provided. Therefore, staff has used the previous Variance as guidance.
Previously, five {5) off-site spaces were required. Since the parking
requirement change in [985, staff considers seven (7) spaces to be appropriate.
These seven (7) spaces will be acquired by one of the options provided in the
Specific Plan. These options include leasing spaces from nearby properties or
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Use Permit 86-32
page three
the public parking structure, or paying into the parking district established by
the Specific Plan. Whichever option the applicant chooses, all requirements,
fees and lease agreements will be reviewed and approved by the City.
Staff recommends the following conditions of approval for this Variance:
1. The building shall not be occupied or building permits for
construction/renovation issued until an acceptable parking lease and/or
agreement is approved by the City.
2. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of .seven (7) surplus
off-site parking spaces. An agreement shall be signed by the property
owner to identify and guarantee the availability of all eleven (11)
parking spaces for the life of this Variance and Use Permit.
3. The basement shall remain unoccupied for the life of this Use Permit and
Variance.
Certain changes from the previous project have been made in regards to the
number of total spaces required and their location. This is due to the change
in parking requirements from one per 300 to one per 250 for office users as
adopted in [gBS. The location of the spaces provided may, as previously allowed
by the Commission, be farther than 300 feet from the property so that spaces may
be leased from the public parking structure once it has been repaired.
Use Pern~t No. 86-32
The applicant wishes the opportunity to lease the ground floor to an office
user. Although this area may be leased to a retail user, a certain degree of
flexibility in the leasing of the ground floor is desired by the project
proponent.
Parking for the ground floor has been computed at the retail requirements which
are more restrictive. All future users will be appropriately accommodated.
Should an office user occupy the first floor, the parking requirements for that
use would be less than applied for and the overall parking needs reduced by up
to two (2) spaces. As previously grant~d, the Use Permit allowed office uses in
over 505 of the building when approved in [983. Therefore, no negative impacts
have been identified in consideration of this request.
COMCLUSXOIIS:
Plans submitted with this application indicate renovation of the building and
parking area to meet present codes where possible. Both the interior and
exterior of the building will be remodeled as proposed in the attached plans.
The Specific Plan and the current appearance of. the structure encourage the
proposition of renovation and occupancy of this building.' This project is
k'~ Corn reunify Development Depariment J
Planning Commission Report
Use Permit 86-32
page four
considered to have a positive influence on the downtown in that a building which
has been vacant for over seven (7) years will be upgraded and occupied.
Therefore, achieving the goals and encouraging the success of the Old Town area.
Staff recommends approval of Variance 83-6 and Use Permit 86-32. Should the
Commission concur, findings must be made to justify the granting of a Variance
in accordance with the following (City Code Section 9292):
The Variance granted shall not constitute granting of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity
and district in which the subject property is situated and Specific Plan
No. I provides measures for off-site parking and encourages
rehabilitation of structures in the vicinity.
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 properties in the vicinity and under
identical zone classification and the parking options-provided in
Specific Plan No. 1 apply to all properties within the Plan area.
LP:do
attach:
Resolution 2369
Variance 83-6 Report
Resolution 210!
Specific Plan No. 1
Site plan
Floor plan
Elevations
Community Development Department
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2369
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN AUTHORIZING A VARIANCE OF THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS AND A USE PERMIT ALLOWING OVER 50% OFFICE
IN A BUILDING LOCATED IN THE C-2 ZONE AT 333 EL CAMINO
REAL
The Planning Commission of
follows:
the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application (Variance No. 86-8 and Use Permit
86-32) has been filed on behalf of E1 Camino Partnership
requesting authorization to vary from the C-2 parking
requirements and to allow over 50% office use in a building in
the C-2 zone.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application·
C. That because of special circumstances applicable to the subject
property, relative to size, shape, topography, location or
surroundings, a strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is
found to deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone
classification, evidenced by the following findings:
1. The use is in conformance with the land use element of the
Tustin Area General Plan·
2. This project is located in the C-2 zone Specific Plan Area
No. 1.
3. The use applied for is an allowed use in the C-2 zone and
Specific Plan No. 1.
4. The Variance granted shall not constitute granting of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and district in which the
subject property is situated and Specific Plan No.
provides measures for off-site parking and encourages
rehabilitation of structures in the vicinity.
$. 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 properties in the vicinity and
under identical zone classification and the parking options
provided in Specific Plan No. I apply to all properties
within the Plan area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2369
page two
II.
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 Marshal and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
That the granting of the Variance as herein provided will not be
contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or the public
safety, health and welfare, and said Variance 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 Codes as
administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal; and street
improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
That the granting of a Variance as herein provided will 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.
i. A Negative Declaration has been filed for this project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
J. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of
the Community Development Department.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Variance No. 86-8 and Use
Permit No. 86-32 to allow a Variance of three of the required parking
spaces and installation of over 50~ office use in a building located
in the C-2 zone, subject to the following conditions:
A. The building shall not be occupied or building permits for
construction/renovation issued until an acceptable parking lease
and/or agreement is approved by the City.
B. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of seven (7)
surplus offrsite parking spaces. An agreement shall be signed
by the property owner to identify and guarantee the availability
of all eleven (11) parking spaces for the life of this Variance
and Use Permit. '
C. The basement shall remain unoccupied for the life of this Use
Permit and Variance.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2369
page three
D. The applicant shall complete and return an agreement to
conditions imposed form as required by the Director of Community
Development.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 1986.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
COHTIN! 9 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1
TO:
SUBJECT:
June 27, 1983
Inter-Corn
Honorable Chairman & Planning Commission Members
Community Development Department
Variance 83-6
Architect's Office with Retail Commercial
333 E1Camino Real
APPLICATIO#
This variance application is a request from Mr. Raymond Salmi to vary from
the parking standards of the Zoning Ordinance by allowing re-occupancy of
his vacant non-conforming building which has less off-street parking than
required by code. Specifically, where sixteen (16) parking spaces would be
required for new construction, Mr. Salmi can only provide the four (4)
existing spaces due to the proper~'s~age and configurat!~n. Secondly,
included with this variance is a/~se/p~rmit request to a/iow an office use
in the C-2 (Central-Commercial) z'6ne.'~
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, this project
has been determined categorically exempt from environmental consideration.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Salmi approached department staff approximately four years ago at the
time Gerding Photography Studio vacated the subject building. Since the
property was developed prior to City enactment of the 1961 Zoning Code, the
property became legal non-conforming in that parking provided did not meet
code requirements for either retail or office usage. Therefore, Mr. Salmi
had one year to re-occupy the building to maintain legal non-conformity.
Staff favorably responded to Mr. Salmi's request at that time; however,
four years have now passed while the property still remains vacant. The
property today may not be occupied without a parking variance since the
required number of spaces for either retail commercial or office have not
been provided on site.
Plans submitted with this application indicate renovation of the building
and parking area to meet present codes where possible. Both the interior
and exterior of the building will be remodeled as proposed in the attached
plans. Specifically, the buil dtng's second floor, totaling 1,¢42 squar?
will be used for office space, the first floor, at street grade, totalinb
1,$23 square feet will be used for retail commercial and the basement
totaling ~,170 square feet will also be used for office and storage. Based
upon this usage, sixteen (16) parking spaces are required by present codes.
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
June 27, 1983
Page 2
While staff encourages upgrading of this deteriorating property, we are
concerned about the lack of adequate off-street parking and the potential
lengthy schedule for the property owner to con~lete this restoration
project. The building has remained vacant for the past four years and
become detrimental to the surrounding properties. It is staff's hope the
building will not remain vacant for four more years.
Staff believes that a variance request is justified since it is necessary
for virtually any land use to occupy this building. However, to vary from
the sixteen required spaces to only four as presently available would not
be in the community's best interest. Staff believes the Commission should
require the applicant to lease five (5) usable parking spaces within 300'
of the property or consider totally eliminating usage of the basement
area. Secondly, tile Commission should consider a time limitation for
restoration of the building to ensure conformance with the Commission's
approval.
RECOI~JDATIO#
Staff recommends an amended approval of Variance 83-5 and the included use
permit for office usage in the C-2 (Central Commercial) zone. Should the
Commission concur, findings ~ust be made to justify the granting of a
variance in accordance with the following (City Code Section 9292):
1. The variance granted shall not constitute granting of special priviledge
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 properties in the vicinity and under
identical zone classification.
The following conditions of approval are recommended:
1. Final building elevations, including color scheme and complete signing
details shall be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of any
permits for this property.
2. Reconstruction of the subject building exterior shall be complete as
proposed within one year from issuance of this variance or said variance
will expire unless extended by the Planning Commission.
Honorable Chairman & Commission Members
June 27, 1983
Page 3
3. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of five (5) surplus
off-site parking spaces within 300' of this property or eliminate usage
of the basement area. An agreement shall be signed by the property
owner to identify and guarantee the availability of all nine (9) parking
spaces for the life of this variance and use permit.
DON-A%D O. LAMM
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OOL:jh
Attachments:
Development Review Summary
Plan Reductions
Full-size Plans
RESOLUTION NO. 2101
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AUTHORIZATION
TO VARY WITH THE PARKING R£QUIREMENTS OF THE
CENTRAL CO~I~ERCIAL DISTRICT ON TH£ APPLICATION
OF VARIANCE NO. 83-6 FOR 333 EL CAMINO REAL
24
25
3 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California does
hereby resolve as follows:
4
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
5
a. That a proper app]icatton (Variance No. 83-6) has
been M led by Raymond Salmt to authorize the
redevelopment and operation of an office building
7 at 333 E1Camino Real by granting a variance to the
parking standards of the Central Commercial District.
8
b. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
9 held on said application.
10 c. The Planning Commission hereby makes the following
findtugs of fact: .......
11
1. That establishment, maintenance, and/or operation
12 of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the
heal th, safety, or morals of the persons residing or
13 ~orking in the neighborhood of such proposed use, in
that: a) the proposed activity is in compliance with the
use restrictions and application procedures of City
Code; b) the project is in conformance with the intent
15 of the development standards of the City.
16 2. The establishment, maintenance and/or operation
of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the
17 comfort and general welfare of persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of the proposed use in that
18 the activity is proposed for the correct land use and
zoning classification and shall be developed in a manner
19 prescribed by the City's development and zoning
20 provisions.
3. That the establishment, maintenance and/or
21 operation of the usa applied for will not be injurious
or detrimental to prbperty, improvements in the
22 neighborhood, or general welfare of the City in that the
project will improve and enhance the site and structural
23 features of the development as evidenced by the visual
improvement of the structures and the repair and
upgrading of surrounding features.
I 4. That the project is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
as specified in Section 15101, Title [4 of the State
Administrative Code.
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
24
26
27
28
Resolution ~1o.
July 11, 1983.
Page 2
II.
5. That because of special circumstances applicable to
the subject property, relative to size, shape, topo-
graphy, location or surroundings, a strict application
of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties
in the vicinity and under identical zone classification,
evidenced by the following findings:
[. The use is in conformance with the land use
element of the Tustin Area General Plan.
2. The property was initially subdivided and
developed prior to the enactment of current zoning
code provisions.
6. That the granting of a variance as herein provided
will not constitute a grant of special privilege in-
consistent with the limitations upon other properties
im the-vicinity and df'sthict in which the subject
property is situated due to the constraints placed upon
project by existing facilities and existing property
1 i nes.
7. That the granting of the variance as herein provided
will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance or the public safety, health and welfare,
and said variance should be granted as evidenced by the
existence of the structure and its previous authorized
uses.
8. Proposed development shall be in accordance with the
development policies adopted by the City Council,
Uniform Building Code as administered by the Building
Official, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County
Fire Marshal, and street improvement requirements as
administered by the City Engineer.
9. Final development plans shall require the review and
approval of the Community Development Department.
The Planning Commission grants authorization to vary with the
Central Commercial parking provisions to redevelop and use
the building at 333 E1 Camtno Real, as 'submitted, subject to
the fol 1 owtng condttions:
A. Final building elevations, including color scheme and
complete signing details shall be submitted for staff
approval prior to issuance of any permits for this
property.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No.
July 11, 1983
Page 3
B. Reconstruction of the subject building exterior shall
be complete as proposed within one year from issuance
of this variance or said variance will expire unless
extended by the Planning Commission.
¢. The applicant shall purchase or lease a minimum of
five (5) surplus off-site parking spaces. An
agreement shall be signed by ~he property owner :o
identify and guaran%ee the availabili:y of all nine
(9) parking spaces for t~e life of this variance and
use permit.
O. That the use of the building is authorized ~o have
retail commercia1 on the first floor and office uses
on the second t"1oor and an improved basement level.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular me,ting of the Planning
Commission, held on the // day ~4~ ~_J~Y , 1983.
James B. Sharp, Chairma~
Janet Hester
Recording Secretary
4
?
8
9
10
14
15
18
z0
zl
.%o
ORDINANCE HO. 510
A~i ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIF0.~NIA, ~ENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE, ORDINA~NCE NO. 157, AS A-qENDED,
ADOPTING TI{~ EL CA~IINO REAL DEVELOP?!ENT PLAN
(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 develoomen~
and redevelopment of commercial and profess~onal"
land uses in the Town Center area, there is hereby
establisaed by ~his Ordinance, The E1 Camino Real
Commercial Area Specific Plan No. t.
b) Plan Boundaries:
The area encompassed by Specific Plan No. i,
depicted by Figure 1, shall be bounded by a line
starting at a 90iht at the center-line of the inter-
section of "C" Street wi~h Sixth Street; eas~erty
on Sixth Street to a point 400 feet easterly of the
centerline of the intersection of Sixth Street and
E1 Camino Real; thence northerly on an alignment
with the easterly boundary of Prospect Avenue to
the centerline of ~he intersection of Prospect
Avenue and First Street; thence ~esterly to the
point of beginning.
c) Permitted Uses:
Subject to the. general provisions, exceptions and
restrictions as' herein provided, all uses shall be
permitted in the Dowhtown Comraerciai Area as are
authorized in the Retail Commercial District (C-l) .
d) Limitations on Permitted Uses:
Ail 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 comr, ercial
uses ·
2)
No merchandise shall be displayed nor advertised
for sale on Or Over public right-of-way. This
section is not to be construed as restricting
nor limiting ~he outside display and sale of
merchandise on p=ivate property within the
dis=tic:.
1
9
10
11
14'
15,
17
~.§
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, GezTaan)
Hobby Shops
Delicatessens
Lamp Shops
Yardage Goods
Knit Shops
Ice-Cream Parlors
Jewelry Shops
Wrought Iron Ware
Art Galleries
General Offices
Photogra~hers'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 altera=ion, and
prior to the improvement or modification of any
parking lot, a site plan and/or building elevation
plan shall be approved by the 0evelopment 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 following
criteria and exceptions shall become applicable:
Front building set. backs may be established at
the property line except for corner properties
requiring a five foot (5') line of sight
clearance.
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 Btreets.
As an exception to the general sections of
this chapter and other provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance, when co~ercial and professional
properties are developed or converted to per-
mitred uses under the provisions of this Ordinan¢
on-site parking r~quirements may be modified
under any one or a combination of the following
provisions.
4
?
9
10
11
lZ
14
17
ZO
5O
(a)
Pro,arty or properties that lie in toro
within a V~hicle Parking Assessment District
or Business Improvement Area shall be
exempt from ~he requirement for on-site
parking accom~.odations, subject to the
provisions of the parking or improvement
district ordinance.
(b)
(c)
On-site parking requirements may be waived
upon the presentation to the City of a long
term lease, running ~sith 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.
All or a portion of required n=Tber of
parking spaces may be satisfied by deoositing
wit/-, the City an amount, to be used f~r ·
public parking accor~odations within the
area. equal to 4 tires the assessed value
as determined from t~e latest assessment
roll of the Count~, Assessor, of 200 sruare
fee.t Of land within t_he area, for eac~
required parking space not otherwise urc-
vided. '
~rchitectural styles shall be authorize~ b': the
Devo!c~m~nt ~review Co~ission u~on a fin~ng
~hat "reposed developments are c~m~atible ~ith
and complementary to the villace m~tlf. Renovatio~
of existing victorian and western style buildLngs
and construction of others of eimila~ style and
compatible Spanish motif are encouraged.
Landscaping plans for areas exoosed to public
view shall be required as an i~tegral of site
development plans.
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 r'all
identification sign not to exceed 200 square
feet with permitted identification of the
business or ~rofeesions within the complex of
twenty (20) square feet maximum for each such
occupant.
h) ~ublic Improvements:
Public improvements contributing to the motif of the
area and the intent of this ordinance are to consist
of t.he following:
1) Street furniture for convenience of ~he pedestrian!
shopper to consist of benches and trash recep-
tacles.
2)
Street lighting with the use of stanchions and
fixtures that contribute to the development
theme.
31 Street portals to create an identity of approach
to the area for vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
1
2
§
6
?
8
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4) The use of wishing %cells as theme and area
i de n ti ty.
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.
PASSED A.ND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin,
City Council, held on the 6th day of Julv , 1971.'
ATTEST:
c Ty CLEm
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 3
DATE:
OCTOBER 27, 1986
SUB,]ECT:
VARIANCE 86-7
APPLICANT:
SAN OUAN PARTNERS
LOCATION:
1421 SAN dUAN
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAN dUAN AND GREEN VALLEY
ZONING:
R-3'2700
(NULTIPLE-FARILY RESIDENTIAL)
I UNIT PER 2700 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LAND AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
THIS PROdECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT FROH THE REQUIREHENTS OF
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONNENTAL QUALITY ACT. (CLASS 3(b)).
REQUEST:
AUTHORIZATION TO VARY WITH THE LOT WIDTH REQUIREJqENT IN THE
R-3 I~JLTIPLE FAIqILY, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW APARTHENTS AND THE REHABILITATION OF
AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
RECOI~qENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the public hearing, be continued to the November 10, 1986
meeting due to late changes with the proposed project and a subsequent decision
to revert to the original site plan.
RffSERT N. 8ALEN,
Planning Consultant
MAC:do
........ ~,, Com m~nity Deve!opment Department
Planning Commission
DATE:
SIJB,1ECT:
OCTOBER 27, 1986
~RKSHOP ON PROPOSED SIGN CODE RI[VISIONS
RECOI~ENDED ACTION:
Discuss the proposed changes and direct staff to place the item on a future
agends for further discussion and/or public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinance 684 was adopted in 1976 as the Tustln Stgn Code. Since that time,
only t~o (2) minor changes have been made to the sign code. The section on
political stgns was amended and the section on advertising benches was added.
AgALYSIS:
Attached to thts memo are proposed changes which have been suggested by staff
members who have worked with the code and encountered problems. Most of the
stgn variances that have been approved tn the past few years were either for
larger signs for large tenants in shopptng centers or shopping center
identification signs. We have made an attempt to rectify both these
situations. Please study the changes and suggest your own ideas at the
workshop session. This workshop session is for discussion purposes only and
later a public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to make
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will then hold a public
hearing and adopt any changes by ordinance.
Associate Planner
~BERT W. BALE)F,
Planning Consultant
MAC:do
attach:
Suggested sign code changes
Community Development Department
SUGGESTED SIGN CODE CHANGES
Part i INTRODUCTION
Section 9412 d Appeals
Change City Council to Planning Commission
Section 9412 b Sign Plan Review
Add sentence to this section: The design review criteria shall be adopted by
Resolution. {See Exhibit A for design review criteria)
Part 3 DEFINITIONS
Section 9430
Add the following definitions:
"MASTER SIGN PLAN" means a plan which consists of a text and sign plan to
provide information regarding the entire center: signage types, sizes,
materials, colors, illumination, and tenant options. The master sign plan shall
be approved by the Community Development Director of the Planning Commission
when directed.
"AWNINGS" awning signs are restricted to 7" high letter(s) installed on the
valance of the awning. No signs shall be installed on the body of the awning.
"ADVERTISING SURFACE" strike out rectangle or circle and replace with line
"Advertising Surface" means the total area of the face or faces of the sign
structure designed to carry copy, whether or not there is a copy on all
surfaces. Architectural design embellishments and structural elements are not
construed to be defined as advertising surface. In the case of a sign of
irregular shape, the total area is defined to be that of a line, circumscribing
the advertising surface.
"CENTER IDENTIFICATION SIGN" delete 2nd sentence. Add: Center Sign may include
a tenant.
"Center Identification Sign" means a sign identifying a center or complex.
Center sign may include a tenant.
"IDENTIFICATION SIGN" strike the second sentence ....
"Identification Sign" means any sign referring to the name, service or trade of
a business.
"ROOF SIGN" add to the end of the sentence: or is higher than the eave of the
structure served.
"Roof Sign" means a sign installed wholly upon or above the roof of a building
or structure or is higher than the eave of the structure served.
page two
PART
"SIGNS" add to the end of the second sentence: such as posters, plastics,
cards, menus, decorating trim made of any electrical contrivance.
"Signs" means any structure, device or contrivance and all parts thereof which
are installed or used for advertising purposes upon or within which any poster,
bill, billeting, printing, lettering, painting, device or other advertising of
any kind whatsoever is used, placed, posted, tacked, nailed, pasted or otherwise
fastened or affixed. This definition also includes electric signs and signs
directly applied to a building surface such as posters, plastics, cards, menus,
decorating trim made of any electrical contrivance.
"TEMPORARY SIGN" add to end of the sentence: requires approval of a temporary
use permit.
"Temporary Sign" means any sign, banner, pennant or advertising display
constructed of or applied to any material, with or without frames, or any sign
which does not require a structural sign permit under the terms of this
Ordinance, and for the purposes of this Ordinance, requires approval of a
temporary use permit.
4 UNSAFE, PROHIBITED, UNLAWFUL AND ABANDONED SIGNS
Section 9442 REMOVAL OF ABANDONED SIGNS
Change Building Official to Community Development Director
9442 REMOVAL OF ABANDONED SIGNS
Any conforming sign abandoned, not operational, or not used for a period of ninety
{gO) days, or any sign which was used to advertise that which has been moved or
discontinued, shall be removed along with its supporting sign structure by the owner
within thirty (30) days after having been given notice in writing by the City. If
said sign is not removed within said thirty (30) days, the City may cause said sign
to be removed and the cost thereof shall become a lien against the property on which
the sign was located. Extensions for thirty (30) day periods may be granted by the
Community Development Director.
Section 9443 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
Change Section B Corrections: Building Official to Community Development
Director or his designee.
b Corrections
If after inspection, any advertising sign or any portion thereof is found to violate
any provisions of this Chapter, the corrections required shall be made promptly and
the sign shall be made to conform in all respects and another call for final
inspection shall be made. No person shall continue or proceed with any sign
installation work in violation of this Chapter, or any other code or ordinance of the
Page three
City regulating such signs after receipt of any notice from the Department of
Building Regulation to "STOP WORK". The work must be made to comply with the
provisions of this Chapter and any other codes or ordinances of the City. Orders
given by the Department of Building and Safety to make safe such signs must be
complied with promptly. STOP WORK NOTICES" and "CORRECTION NOTICES" affixed to a
sign by the Community Development Director or his designee while installation work on
a sign is in progress shall be considered as having been delivered to permittee.
d Intensity of Lighting
Change the Intensity of Lighting
No illuminated sign shall have an intensity of light exceeding ....
No illuminated sign shall have an intensity of light exceeding. It shall be the
responsibility of the manufacturer or owner of the sign display or device to have
labeled or lettered thereon that said sign shall not exceed the lighting intensity
equivalent to the above specification:
i Light Bulb Strings and Exposed Tubing
Add to the last sentence - when in conformance with the adopted neon guidelines.
External displays, which consist of unshtelded light bulbs, festoons, strings of open
light bulbs, and open, exposed neon or gaseous light tubing are prohibited. An
exception hereto may be granted by the Community Development Director when the
proposed lighting is an integral part of the design and character of the use and
building structure. (Ord. No. 684, Art. IV Sec. 5) When in conformance with the
adopted Neon Guidelines.
j. Painted Wall Signs
Add section j -
Sign area painted directly upon the surface of any exterior wall of the building
served is prohibited.
Page four
PART 5 CONSTRUCTION
Section 9450 DESIGN
Change U.B.C. to Resolution
All design criteria shall conform to the current Resolution as adopted by the City.
Section 9451 CONSTRUCTION
Change U.B.C. to Uniform Sign Code
All construction shall conform to the current Uniform Sign Code as adopted by the
City.
PART 7 ADMINISTRATION
Section 9470 EXCEPTIONS
a Authorization
The code reads that the City Council may grant these exceptions - discuss if this
should be changed to read the Planning Commission. Also discuss if the % should be
changed from 15% to 25%.
The City Council may grant authorization for signs which are not within the purview
of the standards and criteria established by this Chapter, due to unusual
circumstances related to the development, activity, or locaton of the proposed
signing, subject to any of the following criteria:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Subject property is developed with structural setback more than two times
the minimum front setback requirement of the district.
Subject property frontage is at least 75% of the minimum frontage
requirements for like signing.
Proposed signing does not exceed more than one in number nor more than 15%
in area of the aggregate size of signs authorized by the criteria of the
district.
The proposed signing would be in substantial conformance with the purposes
and intent of this Chapter and would not constitute a health or safety
violation as described in Part 4 of this Chapter.
Section 9471 VARIANCES
When May be Granted
Part 4 should be changed to read Part 9 (Part 9 delineates the sizes of
signs in the various district.
the word "prohibited" should be changed to: that deviate from
Signcode
page five
Applications for variances for signs that deviate from Part 9 of this Chapter may be
made to the Planning Commission when the following conditions are found to apply:
Section 9473 HEARINGS ON VARIANCES AND USE PERMITS
a Hearing Date
delete: filing of the application and add . . . application is deemed complete
in writing to the applicant and ....
Upon receipt of an application for a Variance or Use Permit, the Planning Commission
shall set a date for a public hearing on said application; said hearing shall be held
within forty-five {45) days after the application is deemed complete in writing to
the applicant and ....
PART 8 COMMON REGULATIONS
Section 9481 CONDITIONAL SIGNS
b Public Information Signs
Change to:
Time and temperature signs require a conditional use permit.
c Searchlights ....
Shall we delete section from code or put requirements on the issuance of a
temporary permit, i.e. only issue for grand openings. Also discuss section
as it presently exists.
As a condition of the Use Permit, the applicant shall present evidence of clearance
from the Orange County Airport and the U.S. Marine Corps Helicopter Station.
d Banners, Bunting, etc.
This section should either be deleted or revised to limit the duration of a
permit and only twice a year and delete flags and balloons entirely
Banners, bunting, advertising or decorating or similar contrivances, in addition to a
Temporary Use Permit, shall require a Sign Permit from the Community Development
Department, limited to thirty (30) days duration.
e Portable, Supplemental and/or Temporary Signs
This section should either be deleted (too difficult to enforce) or allowed only
twice a year for a 14 day period, maximum. This also covers A frames which the staff
feels should be deleted.
Signcode
page si x
Section 9442 EXEMPTED SIGNS
a Exemption from Area, Permit and Fee
(6) Temporary Window Signs
This part of the code is a continual enforcement problem. Staff
suggests that only I sign be allowed in an interior window surface
which cannot exceed 25[ of that window area.
and add Section 10
{10) Temporary Construction and Real Estate Signs exempt from fee but shall
follow size requirements as specified in Part 9. This section shall .not be
construed to mean banners, flags or A frames.
PART 9
Section 9494 ALLOWED SIGNS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SHOPPING CENTER)
b. Business Identification . . . Wall Signs . . . maximum Number and Size
This part of the code has been a continual problem for larger-size tenants. For
instance, a business moved into six proposed units and made it one large unit.
If 6 separate tenants had occupied those units, each one could have 30 square
feet of signing for their main identification sign. For six tenants they would
have had 180 square feet of signing. Instead the larger tenant is being
penalized for being a large tenant and thus can have only 75 square feet
regardless of size. Staff proposes that the ratio of 15[ of the front wall area
be retained and allow a maximum size of up to 125 square feet.
Section 9495 Signs in Professional District
a. Building or Center ID
b. Monument sign
delete (1) single face and add double face
exclude c under REMARKS
page seven
Section 9496 Industrial District
c. Tenant Identification
Maximum size - change 5 square feet to 6 sq.ft.
Remarks
delete a. Individual letters shall not exceed six (6) inches in
height
Section 9499 SIGNS ALLOWED FOR SERVICE STATIONS
Business Identification:
1. Monument Sign
2. Wall Sign
Permitted Signs:
1. Window Sign
2. Supplemental Signs
3. Gasoline Pricing Signs
Conditionally Permitted Signs:
1. Freeway Identification
2. Pole Signs
Guidelines:
Monument Sign
1. One double-face sign per site.
2. Maximum 32 sq.ft, per face.
page eight
Pole
1.
2.
3.
3. Maximum height - 6 ft. above grade
4. Must be located in a planter or landscape area equal to or greater than the
area of one face of a sign.
5. The sign shall not be located so as to create a traffic hazard for driveway
or corner cut-off as determined by the City Engineer.
Sign
One double-face sign per side
Maximum height of building.
Pole sign must be located in a planter or landscape area equal to or
greater than the area of one face of a sign, and must have a pole cover.
4. Subject to Conditional Use Permit
5. The sign shall not be located so as to create a traffic hazard for driveway
or corner cut-off as determined by the City Engineer.
Wall Sign
~. One single-face per building frontage. Square footage of the sign shall
not exceed 25~ of the front wall area but in no event larger than 64 sq.ft.
2. One single-face on a side wall facing a street or parking lot. Square
footage shall not exceed $~ of the wall area upon which the sign is located
but in no event larger than 25 sq.ft.
3. Wall signs may be located on parapet, but must be completed below the roof
line.
Window Sign
1. One sign per window
2. May only cover 25) of the glass area of the window on which the sign is
located.
Supplemental Sign
~. Two portable sleeve signs per site.
2. Maximum square footage per sign not to exceed 20 sq.ft.
Gasoline Pricing Signs
1. Any sign on the premises advertising the price of gasoline, diesel,
liquefied petroleum gas or any motor vehicle fuel must include the
following requirements which are consistent with state law:
a. The brand name of the product shall be in letters one-third the size
of the numerals indicating price and each letter to be at least half
as wide as the height.
b. The actual net price, including taxes, at which it is being sold, in
figures of uniform size and color, and at least six inches in height
but no greaterthan eight inches.
c. The words "GASOLINE" or "MOTOR FUEL" in letters one-third the size of
the numerals indicating price, but the height of such letters shall
not be more than twice the dimension of the width.
d. The grade designation must be shown in letters one-sixth the size of
the numerals indicating price. The height of such letters or numerals
used shall not be more than twice the dimension of the width.
page nlne
If gasoline or other motor fuel is sold by the liter and advertised,
the word "liter" shall be displayed on such sign in letters one-third
the size of the numerals designating the price and the height of such
letters shall not be more than twice the dimension of the width.
2. All provisions of the State Law pertaining to price signs must be met.
Freeway Identi fi cart on
1. Subject to conditions of a Use Permit.
2. Must be within 500' of the center line of a freeway.
Section 9500 AUTO CENTER SIGNING
See Tustin Auto Center Planned Community Master Development Plan as adopted by
Ordinance No. g27 by the City of Tustin.
EXHIBIT "B"
Neon Sign Guidelines
All permanent wall, window, or monument neon signs require approval by the
Planning Commission or Community Development Director.
All exterior signs posted lower than 8 feet in height shall be covered by clear
plexiglass to avoid breakage and vandalism.
All neon signs shall be limited to one sign per street frontage (including
permanent window signs)
All neon signs should be limited in the number of colors used and are subject to
all regulations of the Sign Code (should be limited to business name or basic
trade only.)
Shopping Centers
- Maximum size of 10% of store front area.
Single Buildings
- Maximum 15% of storefront area.
- Any neon 'trim' devices shall be calculated as part of the allowed sign areas at
6" x each lineal foot of trim.
EXHIBIT "A"
SIGN DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
A. Signs will be evaluated according to the'following criteria:
Be
1. Sign itself
simplicity
clarity/objectivity of message
colors compatibility {not more than 3 colors; excluding black & white)
quality of materials and structure
proportion of letters/spacing/details
contemporaneity
Sign in relation to the building
(and/or to surrounding structures when applicable)
appropriateness/harmony with building design, scale and setting
style
compatibility of colors and materials
visibility (no clutter)
proportionlity
Signage plans shall be complete, clear, contain all information necessary to
evaluate the criteria listed above and presented in a professional matter.
(Refer to required sign plans in The Sign Application)
Pl nnin Commission
DATE:
SUB,1ECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCAT! ON:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
OCTOBER 27, 1986
SITE PLAN/DESIGN REVIEW
TUSTIN BUSINESS PARK, SOUTHERLY SIDE OF DOW AVENUE AT NYFORD ROAD
(COT 1, TR. NO. 8451)
HIMES, PETERS ARCHITECTS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ON BEHALF OF
BEDFORD PROPERTIES/IRVINE
SOUTHERLY SIDE OF DOM AVENUE AT NYFORD ROAD
PLANNED COPIqUMITY' INDUSTRIAL (PC, H) IRYINE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT )lAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FOR THE
TUSTIN IRVINE INI)USTRIAL r~)MPLEX, EXR 73-1.
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF A
PROPOSED 192,125 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK BUILDING
RECOI~ENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the site plan, landscaping and architectural design of
the proposed project be approved by the adoption of Resolution No. 2368 with all
conditions of approval contained therein.
SUMIURY:
The Community Development Department has completed a review of the site plan,
landscaping and architectural design of the proposed industrial/office
building. However, pursuant to the adopted Planned Community Development Plan
for the area, the final site plan and design is subject to review and approval
of the Planning Commission. With the exception of conditions noted in the draft
resolution of approval, staff considers the submittal to be complete and
recommends that the Commission approve the project as presented.
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
The project's proponent and staff have met on several occasions to revise and
refine the design of the project. Special emphasis was given to:
* screening of parking and service areas by careful and strategic use of
landcaping;
~ Community Development DeparTment
Planning Commission Report
Dow Avenue Deslgn Review
Page two
diminishing the mass/bulk of such large structures which by nature are
ortented towards internal spaces through detatled architectural treatment
of proposed elevations.
facilitating pedestrian circulation by the use of lighted pathways and
special paving;
* upgrade the project in order to be compatible with surrounding development.
SITE PLAN REYIE¥:
Parking is more than adequate to meet development standards. The project would
provide a total of 640 stalls. A total of 548 stalls are required. Out of 'the
total number of stalls provided 384 would serve offices, 138 manufacturing,
research and assembly, and 28 would serve the warehousing uses. A total of 109
{17%) compact stalls are provided. The compact parking is well distributed
around the site and there is no such type parking in the loading/service area.
LANDSCAPING:
Landscaping plans for the proposed parking lot surpass minimum requirements and
function as a screening for service and parking areas. Appropriate plant
materials such as conifers (Pinus Canariensts) would be planted along southerly
property line to screen mechanic equipment on the roof from Myford Road view. A
series of climate resistant and decorative trees are also proposed. Trees
provide a pinkish/wine/lavender blue color theme which enhances the color scheme
of proposed structures.
Proposed pathway with special paving and lighting
purposes) would facilitate pedestrian circulation.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
(security and
aesthetics
After several revisions to the elevations, landscaping, site plan, materials and
colors, the design of proposed project has been upgraded to meet city standards.
A. Description of Surroundings:
Immediately to the north of the site is a one-story tiltup concrete
building occupied by medical manufacturing companies. To the east across a
vacant parcel is Myford Road elevated at approximately 35 feet from site
grade. To the south and west is the Santa Fe railroad tracks. Further to
the west is a painted precast concrete building, beige and brown in color
occupied by "FDR Field Service Co." (computer maintenance) and "Datatron
Inc." (microcomputer electronic manufacturing). These buildings are nicely
landscaped and well maintained.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Dow Avenue DesJgn Review
page three
B. Description of Building
The applicant proposes to erect five rectangular-shaped structures set in
an unusual manner which maximize lease space. The design of structures is
softened by somewhat architecturally-articulated exterior facades and
horizontal moldings and accent colors on the rear elevations. Following
are the architectural features:
*painted precast concrete
* butjoined (no mullions) black gra¥1ite 14" vision glass
* natural sandblast concrete surrounding windows and doors openings
* 1 1/2" recessed horizontal trims, wrapping-up the structures
* light tone accent colors in rear elevations
* graylite 14 spandrel (opaque glass) sign display (black)
* painted roof screen to match building parapet
* signage would consist of light colored plexiglass letters glued on the'
graylite spandrel sign display
Proposed architectural treatment would diminish the mass of the structures
and would provide improved view of rear elevations from adjacent
properties.
CONCLUSIONS:
Staff and the project architect have spent a' considerable amount of time
refining the proposed center. As submitted, the site plan, landscaping and
building design address staff's major concerns and it is recommended that the
Commission approve the project design by the adoption of Resolution No. 2368
with the conditions of approval contained therein.
PATEIZIA MATEEASS I,
Planner
PM:do
attach:
Full size site plan/elevations/landscaping
Resolution No. 2368
ROBERT W. BALEN,
P.lannt ng Consu 1 rant
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. 2368
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN OF A 192,125 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
BUILDING TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY SIDE O?
DOW AVENUE AT MYFORD ROAD
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustln does hereby resolve as
follows:
II.
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application, Design Review No. 86-27 has been
filed on behalf of Bedford Properties/Irvine, to request
approval of a proposed 192,126 square foot industrial R&D
project to be located at the southerly side of Dow Avenue at
Myford Road, within the Tustin Irvine Industrial Complex.
B. An Environmental Impact Report was previously certified for the
Tustin Irvine Industrial Complex (EIR 73-1).
Ce
That the Commission has reviewed the proposed project and
determines that the proposed project will be compatible with the
surrounding area.
Ee
Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development
policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as
administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered
by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
Final development plans shall require the review and approval of
the Community Development Department.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review No. 86-27 to
authorize construction of a 192,125 square foot industrial/Research &
Development building to be located at the southerly side of Dow
Avenue at Myford Road, subject to the following conditions:
Ae
A final grading plan must be submitted for review and approval
and should be based on the Orange County Surveyor's bench mark
datum. The finished pad elevation must be set at a minimum
elevation of 59.00 which is one foot above the base flood
elevation of 58.00.
A separate street improvement plan will be required for all
construction within the public right of way with all
construction items referenced to the applicable city standard
drawing numbers. Said construction items to include but not be
limited to the following:
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18,
19
2O
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2368
page two
Ce
Et
1. Curb and gutter
2. Five foot wide sidewalk
3. Drive aprons
4. Street lights (if required)
5. Domestic water/fire service
6. Sanitary sewer laterals
7. Removal of the curb return and
modified knuckle at Dow and Myford
the construction of a
Payment of the Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer
connection fees at the time a building permit is issued.
Payment of the required fees for the Major Thoroughfare and
Bridge Fee Program at the time a building permit is issued.
Public and on-site fire hydrants will be required prior to
issuance of building permits for combustible construction.
The east driveway at the corner of Myford and Dow may appear to
traffic as being a through street. Revised driveway location
shall be approved by City Traffic Engineer prior to grading
permit be issued.
Continuous 6" concrete curbs shall be provided between landscape
planters, parking spaces and drive aisles.
All roof equipment and vents must be screened from view and be
painted to match the most dominant building color. Where
possible, equipment should be screened by parapet wall.
Separation walls shall be installed on Building A, so that it
won't be over the allowable building area for type V
construction.
All roof scuppers shall be installed with a special lip device
so that overflow drainage would not stain the walls.
Detailed description and dimensions of horizontal trim of rear
elevations shall be submitted to complete the file.
Paint colors of light tones shall be submitted for staff review
and approval at a later date.
Tenant improvements and Master Sign Plan shall be submitted for
zoning and design review and approval prior to issuance of
related building'permits.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
28
Resolution No. 2368
page three
A final landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved prior
to issuance of any building permits. Landscaping plans shall
include:
One 15 gallon tree for each 1,500 square feet of parking
area.
Specification of lighting fixtures and intensity of light
proposed for security and aesthetic purposes.
* Specifications of pedestrian circulation pathway paving.
A complete irrigation plan is required which should indicate the
following:
Points of connection
Backflow prevention device(s)
Location and types of valves
Location and sizes of piping
Sprinklerhead types and location.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 1986.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEH NO. 6
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
OCTOBER 27, 1986
FI#AL TRACT MAP NO. 12868 (SHADOgBROOK)
ADAMS, STREETER CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC.
OR BEHALF OF THE BRE# COMPANY
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROBBING & BRYAN MENUE
(EAST TUSTIN RESIDENTIAL, PHASE
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
ENVIRONMENTAL 'II, PACT REPORT 84-3 gAS APPROVED I# COMPLIANCE
t~ITll THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT FOR THE PROJECT
AREA.
APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP NO. 12868 FOR SINGLE FA~IILY RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSES I# CONFORMANCE NITH PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP RO. 12719.
RECOI~IENDED ACTION:
That the Commission recommend to City Counctl approval of Final' Tract 12868 by
the adoptton of Resolution No. 2370.
BACKGROUND:
On July 28, 1986 the Planntng Commtsstpn approved Tentative Tract Hap 12719.
Said map was deemed to be fn conformance wtth all applicable subdivision
regulations, environmental documents and the £ast Tusttn Phase ! Planned
Community Regulations.
As permitted by the Subdivision Hap ACt, and appropriately noted on Tentative
Tract Hap 127.19, the developer may submtt multiple ftnal maps providing each
such map ts tn compliance wtth the approved Tentative. Final Hap 12868 has
been submitted for a portton of the project approved by Tentative Tract 12719.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
Final 12868
page two
DISCUSSION:
Final Map 12868 would grant final subdivision authorization for development of
the area bounded by Browning Avenue, Bryan Avenue, Parkcenter Lane and Parkvi~w
Way. Said map is in con~liance with the approved tentative and staff
accordingly is recommending that the Commission recommend to Council approval of'
Final Map 12868.
JD:do
attach:
Reso. No. 2370
Tract Map 12868
ROBERT W. BALEN,
Planning Consultant
Community Development Department
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
~3
~5
~6
:27'
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2370
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF TRACT MAP NO. 12868
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:.
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That Tentative Tract Map No. 12719 was submitted to the Planning
Commission on behalf of The Bren Company for consideration.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said
map.
C. That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 84-3) has been
certified in conformance with the requirements of California
Environmental Quality Act for the subject project area.
D. That the Commission recommended to City Council approval of
Tentative Tract Map 12719.
E. That City Council approved Tentative Tract Map No. 12719.
F. That, in conformance with Note 8 of Tentative Tract Map 12719,
Final Map 12868 has been submitted. This Final Map would grant
final subdivision authorization for the area shown on that
attached Exhibit "Tract Map No. 12868".
G. That Tract Map 12868 as submitted is in conformance with
Tentative Tract Map !2719 as approved by Resolutions 234g and
86-95.
H. That the proposed division is in conformance with the Tustin
Area General Plan and adopted Planned Community Regulations
(East Tustin, Phase I) as it pertains to the development of
single family dwellings.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
approval of Tract Map No. 12868 subject to the following conditions:
A. That all applicable conditions of Tract 12345 and Tentative
Tract 12719 shall hereby be imposed by reference onto Final Map
No. 12868.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission
held on the day of , 1986.
CHARLES E. PUCKETT,
Chairman
DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
iii ii
TRACT NO. 12868
m
PORTION'OF 'TT:NT&TI¥~
Plannin Commission
DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1986
SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - October 22, 1986
Oral presentation.
do .
Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - October 22, 1986
~ ~ Community Develooment Deparlment
6:S9 I.
ACTION AGENDA OF AN AD,)OURNED REGULAR ~ETING
OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
OCTOBER 22, 1986
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
AU~ PRESENT II. ROLL CALL
III. PROCLAMATION
PRESENTED TO 1. "RED RIBBON WEEK" - OCTOBER 27 THROUGH NOVEMBER 3, 1986
ETHEL REYNOLDS FROM "PARENTS ~ CARE'
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
INTRODUCED 1.
ORDINANCE NO. 978
')OPTED RESOLUTION 2.
1. 86-126
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN & THE IRVINE
COMPANY RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
AREA - ORDINANCE NO. 978
ORDINANCE NO. 978 - AN ORDINANCE 'OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO), AS
DEFINED BY SECTION 65865.2 OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE IRVINE COMPANY PERTAINING TO DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL EIR TO FINAL EIR 85-2 CONSIDERING ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACTS OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEVELOP-
MENT OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA - RESOLUTION NO.
86-126
RESOLUTION NO. 86-126 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ~OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
85-2 AS SUPPLEMENTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
FREOERICK J. V. PUBLIC INPUT
HELLING ASKED ABOUT THE CREDITS ON HIS TAX BILL FOR TRASH COLLECTION. EDGAR AgO NOESTEREY TO
IqEE'r WITH STAFF AND HAVE A RECOI~qENUATION ON HOW TO SETTLE THIS FOR THE 2NO ~ETING IN
NOV~ER.
MaRY dANE STEPHENS OF 49 VIA ENTNAOA REQUESTED THRT THE SUNUAY ~)AN SESSIONS IN FRONT OF THE
ITALIAN R~RKET BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. STRFF RESPONUEO THAT A USE PERMIT ANO OUTOOOR CONCERT
PERMIT WOULD HAVE TO BE OBTAINED.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
APPROVED
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
APPROVED
2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,322,057.48
RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $148,526.79
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 3.
-'~. 86-127
RESOLUTION NO. 86-127 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR "B" STREET
AND "C" STREET WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
Adopt Resolution No. 86-127 as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE i 10-22-86
APPROVED STAFF 4.
RECOi~IENDATION
APPROVED STAFF 5.
RECOI~ENDATION
ADOPTED RESOLUTION 6.
NO. 86-128
APPROVED STAFF 7.
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVED STAFF 8.
RECOPtiENDATION
APPROVED STAFF 9.
RECOI~ENDATION
ADOPTED 10.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-125
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT - CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION PROJECT
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with John
Bates Associates, Inc., for preparation of working drawings for the
Civic Center Expansion Project as recommended by the City Manager.
YOUTH SPORTS - LIGHT FEE WAIVER
Adopt the proposed criteria as contained in the inter-com dated
October 14, 1986, regarding light fees for youth sports programs as
recommended by the Community Services Department.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-128 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, DETERMINING AND ADOPTING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1986-87 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND SECTION 7910 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
Adopt Resolution No. 86-128 as. recommended by the Finance Depart-
ment.
ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND REDUCTION OF BOND AMOUNTS
IN TRACT NO. 12345
Accept street, storm drain, water, sewer and other public utilities
within Parkview Way, Parkcenter Lane, and related easements within
Tract No. 12345; and authorize reduction of the following bonds:
Performance Bond No. 5241-00-68 {reduced $510,150 [75%]); Labor and
Materials Bond No. 5241-00-68 (reduced $255,075 [75%]); and Monumen-
tation Bond No. 5241-00-69 (reduced ($6,800 [100%]) as recommended
by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE TREES AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Authorize staff to remove trees at following locations: Ficus at
14751 Foxcroft; Ficus at 17532 Medford; Silk Floss at 13331 Coral
Reef; Ficus at 2002 Nantucket; and Ficus at 13432 Cindy Lane as
recommended by Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12833 (Sixth Street)
Accept applicant's request to continue consideration of Tentative
Tract Map No. 12833 and table the item at this time as recommended
by the Community Development Department.
RESOLUTION NO. 86-125 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF USE PER-
MIT 86-26 THEREBY DENYING SAID PROJECT (405, 415 & 425 Sixth Street)
Adopt Resolution No. 86-125 pursuant to Council action on October 6,
1986.
VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None.
VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None.
IX. OLD BUSINESS - None.
' ~PPROVED STAFF
· :COpliI~NOATI O#
NEW BUSINESS
TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT MAIN STREET & PACIFIC STREET, AND AT MAIN
STREET & "B" STREET
Recommendation: Award the bid for traffic signal installation at Main
Street and Pacific Street, and at Main Street and "B" Street to the low
bidder, Steiny and Company, Fullerton, in the amount of $131,000 as
recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA 'Page 2 10-22-86
,,,'PROVED STAFF
RECOI~ENDATION
APPROVED STAFF 3.
RECOI~ENDATION
AND INCLUDE SOUND
AI-rENUATION AND
BEJUJTIFICATION IN THE
LETTER
APPROVED STAFF 4.
RECOI~ENDATION
2. MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC FACILITY MODIFICATIONS
Recommendation: Authorize the modification of miscellaneous public
facilities for handicapped access as detailed in the text of subject
report dated October 15, 1986; and appropriate $10,000 from the unappro-
priated reserves of the Revenue Sharing Fund for their completion.
SANTA ANA FREEWAY WIDENING BETWEEN ROUTE 1-405 AND NEWPORT AVENUE
Recommendation: Authorize staff to send the letter of concurrence
attached to subject report dated October 15, 1986, to CalTrans for the
widening of the Santa Aha Freeway between Route 1-405 and Newport
Avenue.
REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT WARNER AVENUE AND PULLMAN STREET
Recommendation: Program the traffic signal installation at Warner
Avenue and Pullman Street for the 1986-87 fiscal period subject to
recommended funding pariticpation from City of Santa Aha and Steelcase,
Inc.
APPROVED STAFF 5.
RECO~NDATION
AWARD OF BID FOR THE PURCHASE OF A CUSHMAN SCOOTER FOR WATER METER READ-
ING
Recommendation: Authorize the purchase of a Cushman Scooter for water
meter reading from Pacific Irrigation and Equipment, Inc., Industry, in
the amount of $7,018.76.
XI.
RATIFIED
RECEIVED AND FILEO 2.
RECEIVE]} AND FILED 3.
RE~ORTS
1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - OCTOBER 13, 1986
All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by
the City Council or member of the public.
EXPANDED EVALUATION OF WALNUT AVENUE AT CHERRYWOOD
Recommendation: Implement no changes to the signal's operation at sub-
ject intersection.
EL CANINO REAL MISSION BELL THEME
RECEIVED AND FILED 4.
Recommendation: Receive and file.
SEPTEMBER INVESTMENT REPORT
Recommendation: Receive and file.
RECEIVED Alii) FILED 5.
CEIVED AND FILED 6.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
FICUS TREE REMOVAL ON WHEELER DRIVE
Recommendation: Receive and file.
TUSTIN HEIGHTS SHOPPING CENTER DRIVEWAY MODIFICATION AT IRVINE
BOULEVARD/OLD IRVINE BOULEVARD
PAGE 3
10-22-86
STAFF TO ~/U~T A 7. INFLUENTIAL SQUARE STORM DRAIN PROBLEMS
RESPONSE TO FLORENCE t~GALLON AND SEND IT THROUGH THE A'n'ORNEY.
Recommendation: Pleasure of Che City Council.
STAFF TO ~ Will4 8. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES - TAX ROLLS
EDGAR AND HOESTEREY AND HAVE A RECOMHENDATION ON HOW TO SETTLE THIS FOR THE 2ND I~ETING
NOVEMBER.
IN
HUSTON XII. OTHER BUSINESS
REQUESTED A CLOSED SESSION FOR Iq~RSOIINEL I~ITERS.
HOESTEREY REPORTED THAT THE CITY RECEIVED HONORABLE FI~NTIO# AT THE LEAGUE ~ETING FOR THE
POLICE COMHUNITY IHPROVE~ENT PROGRAN. STAFF TO SEND LEll'ER TO EACH OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN,
THIS PROGRAM.
KELLY EXPRESSED HIS THANKS TO THE CITY I~IL~.GER FOR RESOLVING CONPLAINTS THAT HE HAD BROUGHT TO
HIS ATTENTION.
KENNEDY REQUESTED PROCLAMATION FOR THE /LRTIST ~ DESIGNED THE TILLER DAYS LOGO.
STAFF TO SEND LETTER TO HELICOPTER BASE REGARDING FLIGHTS OVER RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA.
8:21
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 3, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page ~ 10-22-86
ACTION J~ENDA OF ~ ADJOURNED REGULAR ~ETING OF
THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OCTOBER 22, 1986
7:00 P.M.
8:21 1. CALL TO ORDER
ALL 2.
PRESENT
APPROVED 3.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 6, 1986, REGULAR MEETING
Recommendation: Approve.
APPROVED 4.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS
Recommendation: Approve demands for the month of September,
amoun: of $121,873.84 as recommended by the Finance Department.
1986, in the
90PTEO 5. DESIGN REVIEW - 1311 VALENCIA INDUSTRIAL BUILDING - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-12
SSOLUTION NO.
.~A 86-12 AND RESOLUTION NO. RDA 86-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STAFF TO CREOC OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DESIGN OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILD-
WIll~ FIRE ING TO BE LOCATED AT2311 VALENCIA
DEPARTMENT TO SEE IF THEY NDULO ALERT US OF ANY PARKING PROBLEMS AT THIS LOCATION WHEN THEY ARE
MAKING INSPECTIONS AS THIS COULO BE AN INGICATION THAT THEY MIGHT BE EXCEEDING THE 50% LIMIT OF
OFFICE USE.
STAFF TO 6. OTHER BUSINESS
PREPARE APPROPRIATE COMMENDATION FOR TILLER DAYS PARADE COIeqlTTEE AND TILLER DAYS COIqqITTEE.
8:21) 7. ADJOURNMENT
To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 3, 1986, at 7:00 p.m.
REDEVELOPMENT A~ENCY ACTION AGENDA Page i 10-22-86