Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 02-17-87REGULAR ~EETI NG FEBRUARY 9, 1987 REPORTS NO. 1 2-17-87 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Weil, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontlous 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 January 26, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting. Comflssloner Well moved, Ponttous second to approve. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERMIT 87-1 Applicant: Enrico Ristorante de Italia Location: 14430 Newport Avenue Request: Authorization to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant use. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2388: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2388. Commissioner Wetl moved, LeJeune seconded to approve Use Permit 87-1 by the adoption of Resolution 2388 with a change to II.B., "Alcoholic beverages shall be sold during the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and only when food is concurrently sold." Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1987 page two Applicant: Location: Request: USE PERMIT 87-2 Presentation: RESOLUTION NO. 2389: Chantry Ltd on behalf of Fat Freddies Mexican Diner 1S71 E1Camtno Real Authorization to ins~tall a 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign. Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL RECOMMENDATION: PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 87-2 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2389. Motion carried 5-0. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS DEVIATION FROM MASTER SIGN PLAN/TUSTIN PLAZA To permit the installation of two tenant identification signs which do not conform to the basic master sign plan approved for Tustin Plaza. Presentation: ' RECOMMENDATION: Jeff Davis, Senior Planner THE SIGNS PROPOSED BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO BASIC CRITERIA OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR TUSTIN PLAZA. Commissioner LeJeune moved, Baker second to modify the Master Sign Plan for Tusttn Plaza and accepted the signs proposed by Carver on behalf of Bllmpie's and Chin's. Motion carried 5-0. The Commission directed staff to work with Carver Development to develop a new sign plan for the center allowing more variety. PARKING ISSUES Per Council request, staff is awaiting more information from City's Traffic Engineer. Upon receipt staff will report to the Commission. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: RECEIVE AND FILE. STAFF CONCERNS 6. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS FEBRUARY 2, 1987 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1987 page three COl(MISSION CONCERNS Commissioner LeJeune was concerned with the weeds in the lot on E1Camino and 6th Street. He also questioned staff about the signage at Fremont Insurance on Yorba and if it was excessive for the area. Jeff Davis responded the monument sign is authorized and staff is pursuing removal of the awning sign which was installed without permits. The area is considered professional office and a monument sign is allowed. Commissioner Well expressed concern with the thru-traffic in the parking lot at Fat Freddies. Laura Pickup informed the Commission she reminded the applicant to paint the curb and striping to alleviate the problems. They will use a florescent paint that picks up light. Commissioner Baker was concerned with the appearance of the area between Larwin Square and the car wash on the corner of Main. Christine Shingleton informed him the property is a pending enforcement action. However, the property owner has been relatively unresponsive because of a potential pending sale on the property. Commissioner Baker further questioned excessive RV parking on front yards and in driveways. Laura Pickup informed Mr. Baker the City Council passed a new more restrictive ordinance regarding.RV parking on the street, thus people more often are parking their RVs on their property. ADJOURmENT Commissioner LeJeune moved, Baker seconded to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COFIFIISSION REGULAR FLEETING FEBRUARY 9, 1987 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Neil, 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 January 26, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERMIT 87-1 Applicant: Location: Request: Enrico Ristorante de Italia 14430 Newport Avenue Authorization to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant use. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2388: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2388. Planning Commission Agenda February 9, 1987 page two 3. USE PERMIT 87-2 Appli.cant: Location: Request: Presentation: RESOLUTION NO. 2389: RECOMMENDATION: OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 4. Chantry Ltd on behalf of Fat Freddies Mexican Diner 1571 E1Camino Real Authorization to install a 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign. Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. DEVIATION FROM MASTER SIGN PLAN/TUSTIN PLAZA To permit the installation of two tenant identification signs which do not conform to the basic master sign plan approved for Tustin Plaza. Presentation: RECOMMENDATION: 5: Jeff Davis, Senior Planner THE SIGNS PROPOSED BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO BASIC CRITERIA OF THE MASTER SIGN PLAN FOR TUSTIN PLAZA. PARKING ISSUES Per Council request, staff is awaiting more information from City's Traffic Engineer. Upon receipt staff will report to the Commission. Presentation: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF CONCERNS Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner RECEIVE AND FILE. Presentation: C~ISSION ~NCERNS kDdOUR~ENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS FEBRUARY 2, 1987 Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development MINUTE'S TUSTIN ~.A~NTN~ COMI~ISSION REGULAR MEETING &ANUARY 26,'1987 C~L TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC~/I#VOCATIO# ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune Absent: Pontious Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: RESOLUTION NO. 2388: RECOMMENDED ACTION: 2388. Enrico Ristorante de Italia 14430 Newport Avenue Authorization to sell beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with a restaurant use. Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUll~ORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE. APPROVE USE PERMIT NO. 87-1 BY THE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of January 12, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Well moved, LeJeune seconded to approve the Consent Calendar.. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS Laura Pickup informed the Commission that neither public hearing could be considered tonight due to the fact the Tustin News did not publish the requested notices. Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded to continue Use Permit 87-1 and Use Permit 87-2 based upon the fact of improper notice to their next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. 2. USE PERMIT 87-1 Planning Commission Minutes 3anuary 26, 1987 )age two 3. USE PEP. MIT 87-2 Applicant: Location: Request: Chantry Ltd on behalf of Fat Freddies Mexican Diner 1571 E1 Camino Real Authorization toinstall a ~00 square foot freeway identification pole sign. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2389: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL RECOMMENDATION: PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. OLD BUSINESS None. - NEW BUSINESS IMAGES FOR HAIR, 1030 IRVINE BLVD. Appeal of Community Development Deprtment denial of Sign Permit No. 1830. Jeff Davis informed the Commission the issue before them is whether or not the sign that was installed should be allowed to remain. The sign was applied to the building by a sign contractor without proper permits. The tenant was advised a permit was required and was informed in staff's opinion the sign is larger than permitted by Code. Staff's concerns are: 1) sign installed without a permit; 2) the method used to calculate sign area; and 3) installed sign area conflicts with the Sign Code and Design Review requirements. Jeff Davis presented the Co,,,~lssion with slides depicting the existing sign. Chairman Puckett opened the meeting for comment from the audience. Brad Steingraber, Images for Hair & Nails, reviewed his conversations with staff, what he thought were inconsistencies with department's position and reviewed his perception of the nature of the misunderstanding. He emphasized the matter of obtaining a'permit is not the issue because he can remedy that. The real issue in his opinion is the department's lack of written policy or guidelines regarding painted wall signs. Commission discussion ensued concerning interpretation of painted wall signs ~ccording to Code; maintenance of painted wall signs vs. a more structured sign with ~ crisper appearance; need for Contractor to obtain proper permits at the time he painted the sign; and requested clarification on interpretation of method used to calculate sign area. Pl&nntng Commission Hinutes January 26, [987 page ~hree Jeff Davis advised the Code is silent on the explicit authorization or prohibition of painted wall signs. Suzanne Atkins advised the Commission the Code's silence does not mean a painted sign is allowed or prohibited. What is at issue is how to calculate the sign area and compliance with the City's design review procedures and necessary findings. Christine Shingleton noted issues identified by staff relate primarily to sign area and design review. Required findings or guiding principles in our design ordinance require the Director or staff to find that the location, size, architectural features, general appearance of a sign does not impair the orderly and harmonious development of an area. There also has to be attention paid to incorporating the design of the sign including colors and materials into the overall design of the entire development so as to achieve a homogeneous appearance. Chairman Puckett explained that he felt the matter was one that affected uniformity. The particular sign does not appear to be compatible with other signs in the center. Ee upheld staff'sconclusions outlined in the staff report. Christine Shingleton.clarified to the applicant the appeal process. He can appeal the findings made in the design review and can apply for a variance relative to the ~ign size. Commissioner LeJeune moved, Well seconded to uphold staff's recommendation to deny Sign Permit Number 1830 based on the following.findings: 0 The sign is larger than the square footage maximum permitted in that the entire facia is considered the "sign structure". The existing sign is 94.5 square feet while only 33 square feet is allowed. That staff's interpretation that the facia is the sign is supported by Sections 9430 and 9460 of the Sign Code. No attempt has been made by the appealant to install a sign homogeneous with surrounding development. The design of the sign is not compatible with design standards in terms of scale and/or clutter. The sign was applied to the building without proper review 'and required p ermi ts. The appealant by his own admission was aware that a permit was "probably" required yet authorized work without said permits. Therefore any argument that the sign should be permitted to remain because of costs is unfounded. Definitions of an attached sign only identifies potential types of sign and does not authorize any particular type. The authority is given to the staff for design review by the design review section of the Zoning Code Section 9272. Motion carried 4-0. Planning commission Minutes January 26, [987 page four STAFF CO#CER#S REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS JANUARY 19, 1987 Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development COI~IXSSION CONCERNS Commissioner LeJeune queried the two different meeting times for the City Council and Planning Commission. He expressed the downtown residents' appreciation for the recent tree trimming. He further expressed a resident's concern over flooding on Main Street during rains. Commissioner Well was concerned with freeway identification signs 500' from the center line. She wondered if that would only apply to busin~sses near the exit. Christine Shlngleton advised the Commission that this matter would be discussed when the Commission discusses revisions to .the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Baker questioned the status of the school district/developer fee negotiations. Christine Shingleton advised the Commission the District adopted a resolution adopting some fees to go into affect 60 days from the District Board's last meeting; maximum of $1.50 per square foot-in residential projects. Chairman Puckett questioned new dealer ground breaking in the auto center. Christine Shingleton responded that no time frame was available at this point. Chairman Puckett further expressed the Commission's appreciation to Ken Samples on ~ls last night with the City for his "behind the scenes" assistance during Commission meetings. ADdOURI~tEEi' Commissioner LeJeune moved, Well seconded to adjourn at 8:50 p.m. to their next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. CHARLES PUCKETT, Chairman -- dONNA ORR, [ecordtng Secretary DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1987 ITEM NO. 2 Inter- Corn TO: FROM: SU BJ ECT: PLANNING COI~qISSION COHHUNITY DEYELOPHENT,DEPARTHENT USE PERHIT NO. 87-1 The subject 1rem was scheduled for the January 26, 1987 Commission Agenda. Due to on~nisston of the Public Nottce In the local newspaper, this 1rem was continued in order to process proper noticing procedures. Attached is the staff report as proposed by the Community Development Department. LP:do CHRISTINE SHINGLE~ON, Director of Community Development Plannin Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONTNG: ENYTROBIIENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: ~ANUARY 26, 1987 USE PER~IT 87-1 ALBERTO CANDIYI AND DELYINO FOGLI 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE TUSTIN CA. 92680 ZNDEPENDENT DEYELOPHENT CO. 2727 NEWPORT AVENUE: SUITE 200 NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663 14430 NEHPORT AVENUE C-1 RETAIL COI~ERCIAL CATEGORTCALLY EXEgPT CLASS ! AUTHORIZATION FOR AN ON-SITE BEER AND WINE LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT USE. (LICENSE TYPE 41) RECOPFIENDATION: Approve Use Permit No. 87-2 by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2388. SiglARY: An application has been filed by Mr. Fogli and Mr. Candlvi on behalf of Enrico Ristorante de Italia. This restaurant is an independent restaurant serving italian cuisine. The applicant is now requesting authorization for on-site beer and wine sales in conjunction with a restaurant use. The proposed location for this restaurant is at 14430 Newport Avenue. Staff has 'identified certain critical issues related to this application regarding hours of operation and proximity to schools, supervision of employees who sell alcoholic beverages and outdoor seating as discussed below. ANALYSIS AND CONSLUSIONS: In discussion with the applicant the proposed hours of operation for Enrlco's would be similar to other restaurants in the area. These hours will be from 10:00 a~m. to 10:00 p.m: As with all Type 41 Licenses (on-site beer and wine sales in conjunction with a restarunt use), the majority of gross sales must be in food items as opposed to liquor. Community Dcvelopmen~ Department Planning Commission Report January 26, [987 Page two The closest school to Enrtco's is Jeanne Thorman Elementary School. This school is 3200 feet (over half a mile) away,' therefore, school children are not considered to be affected. The floor plan for this restaurant includes an outdoor seating area. This area will be completely surrounded by fencing and is only accessable by entering through the restaurant. This area, as designed, meets all Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements. Staff has prepared the following requirements as conJitions'of approval: All alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on-site. 2. Alcoholic beverages shall be sold during the hours of 10:00 a.m. and [0:00 p.m. and only when food is concurrently sold. 3. The restaurant menu shall consist primarily of foods that are prepared on-site. 4. NO "bar" type se. atin~ .is allowed at this location. Authorization for an on-site beer and wine license is contingent upon the use remaining as a restaurant. At such time' the restaurant use is discontinued, authorization for the beer and.wine license will be null and void. All persons 'selling or serving alcoholic beverages must be at least 18 years of age and the restaurant shall be supervised by someone over 21 years of age or older while the restaurant remains open. With these conditions staff considers this use appropriate for'the area and recommends approval by the adoption of Resolution No. 2388. Christine A~ Director of Community Development LCP:pef Attachments: Resolution No. 2388 Site Plan Floor Plan Community Development Department STATK' OF CAI. IFORHIA '~EPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL FOGLZ ~ Delvino '& C~TDIVIt AZbe~:l:o ].~,30 Newpo:t. Ave., Tust. tn DIAG A I 01:: LICBBEO (CltF) ~he gLa~ below L~ a true a~d c~ d~a~ip~cr~ of ~ entrmnees, exit.~, int~lc~ ~z_~ and ex~m, ic~ bou~=rie~ of DIAGRAM: . Special Ins~c~ons for Applic~ts for Public Premises Trae License~ Your signa~re above acknowl~ges that you are aware that years of age are to be stating "No Person Under 21 Allowed" must be posted n~r each entrance 9pd at a prominent place in the interior of ~e premises. D~PARTM~T use only. My plamned operation of the ~remises can be~t be described as: Cock+~ai! Lovn~e T~vern: ~eer or 8~er Complete Restaurant Deli or Specialty Rest.au~ant Hotel/M~t el Fast Food Cafe/Coffee Shop -- Private Club Bowling Alley - Other (Deecribe): Discotheque G~-n..A~AI description of the neighhor.hood of the premises: Residential - Commercial Industrial - R~ral Other (Describe): Premises is located on: x Major Street (i.e. Blvd., Highway, 'Streeb) -- Other (Describe): Description of the structure.. Sir~le Story f Tw~-$tory - (No Stories) Do y~u Lutend to employ a ~nager? Hours of operation: Sun.-Tnurs. 11 am- l l pm Fri. & Sat..~ Do premises have off-street par~-~ug ~y~%~J{ ~OD SERVICE Secondax~- Street -- (i.e. Residential) Premisas is located in: ~Free-Stan~ Building _xSm, ll ShopDing Center (Less b~h~u 10 businesses) _Large Shopping Center (10. or more ~,~inesses) X No Bar: No _x Yes - No PatrOn C~apa city: 28 ~-b~-~ of Cars: ~0 No Food - ~t.~_tr~l Food (Sandwiches, snack~, ~ Restaurant:,, Italian-f ,pod ~YP.e of meals offore~ (i.e.: seafood ~ Kitchen Equipment: (i.e.: range, eve:m, ste~mers etc. ) ~r~gzer ._re fri~e~a~ion etc. . C~y of menu ~ubmitted Breakfa~.t: N/.A -- Hm~rs of ~a~! Lunch: 11: O0 am S~,.~.O. ~Lnner: 11: O0 ~ Estimate w~t percent~e of ~ tot~ s~es ~ be ~,~oholic be?erag~s:--20 ~." ~-e the p~ses c~ently operat~: .. Y~s - No x_Juke box or recoz~ed munic Pool ta~les/co~ ..... oDerated.~e machinem ' 5~p~ica~t' s Signatua-e 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. 2388 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIl~ OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR ON-SITE SALES AT 14430 NEWPORT AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application (Use Permit 87-1) has been filed by Mr. Candivi and Mr. Fogli requesting authorization for an ABC license {type 41) to sell beer and wine for. on-site consumption at 14430 Newport Avenue. B. 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: The sale of beer and wine is on-site consumption only. That sale of beer and wine is limited to hours of operation between lO:O0 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and only when food concurrently sold. e The closest school is over three-quarters of a mile away, therfore, school children are not affected. 4. The use applied for is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. The use applied for is an allowed use in the C-[ Retail Co,,,,,~rcial Zone. De That the establishment, melntenance and operation of the use applied for will not be. injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, nor 'to the general welfare of the city of Tustin, and should be granted. 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. F. That this project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Class I. 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. 2388 page two II. G. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 87-1 to authorize the issuance of an on-site beer and wine license at 14430 Newport Avenue subject to the following conditions: A. All alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on-site. B. Alcoholic beverages shall be sold during the hours of 10:00 a.m. and lO:O0 p.m. and only when food is concurrently sold. The restaurant menu shall consist primarily of foods that are prepared on-site. D. No "bar" type seating is authorized at this location. Authorization for an on-site beer and wine license is contingent upon the use remaining as a restaurant. At such time that the restaurant use is discontinued, authorization for the beer and wine )icense will be null and void. Gm PASSED AND day All persons selling or serving alcoholic beverages shall be eighteen years of age or older and shall be supervised by someone twenty-one years of age or older while the restaurant remains open. The applicant shall complete and return an "Agreement Conditions Imposed" form as required by the Director of Community Development. to ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin on this of , 1987. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary LOP:per DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1987 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING COI~ISSION CONNUNITY DEVELOPNENT DEPARTI~ENT USE PER~IT NO. 87-2 The subject 1rem was scheduled for the January 26, I987 Commission Agenda. Due to ommlsston of the Public Nottce in the local newspaper, this 1rem was continued tn order to process proper noticing procedures. Attached ts the staff report as proposed by the Community Development Department. ,, J LP:do Director of Community Development Report to the Planning Commission Itam #3 DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATXO#: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OgNER: ZONING: ENYXRONHENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JANUARY 26, 1987 USE PEP, HIT RO. 87-2 1571 EL CAHXNO REAL FIR. BARRY IIERI, tANSON/CHANTRY LTD. 2915 BRXSTOL AVENUE COSTA IESA, CA. 92626 HR. ED#ARD PANKEY. 320 ii. HAIN STREET TUSTXN, CA 92680 C-2: CENTRAL COI~IERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT CLASS 11 AUTflORXZATXON TO XNSTALL A 100 ~QUARE FOOT, 46 FOOT HXGfl FREEWAY XDENTXFXCATXON POLE SXGN RECOi~IENDATZON: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. SUR~ARY: On January 12, 1987 the Planning Commission approved Design Review No. 86-33 authorizing use of exposed neon tubing for Fat Freddie's Restaurant at 1571 E1 Camino Real. The applicant is now proposing to upgrade an existing pole sign to reflect the new tenant and design. All pole signs for commercial uses require a Conditional Use Permit. Staff considers the proliferation of pole signs to be a problem in the vicinity of the proposed sign. Although, other recent applications involving service station pole signs {Mobil Oil, Shell Oil and Exxon) have been previously approved by the Commission. BACKGROUND: Prior to the installation of Fat Freddie's restaurant, this building was occupied by Love's Restaurant. This site was annexed into Tustin in lg80 and the pole sign used by Love's was installed prior to the sites annexation to th~ City of Tustin. Community Development Department Pl'anning Commission Report January 26, 1987 Page two According to Section 9481-f of the Municipal Code. eating, lodging and auto service facilities within 500 feet of a freeway, may install a pole sign if authorized by a Conditional Use Permit. All pertinent issues regarding this application are discussed below. ANALYSIS - SIGN SIZE AND VISUAL IMPACT: The previously existing sign for Love's Restaurant is approximately 55 feet high {base of pole to top of sign can). The applicant is proposing to install a rectangular shaped can six (6) feet high.by sixteen (16) feet eight (8) inches wide. This can, as proposed, is to be mounted on top of a 40 foot high pole creating a sign 46 feet in total height. The sign is designed to match the neon concept proposed for the previously approved building wall signs. The sign pole and can is painted a cream color to match the building. The advertising area includes black can letters with yellow neon and four (4) trim tubes using a turquoise color which matches the building. The Overall sign design would coordinate with the 1950's diner theme which has been approved for the building. ANALYSIS - FREEWAY VISIBILITY: A Freeway Identification sign is directed towards attracting highway travelers. This type of sign is not to be used for attracting dn street traffic. Therefore the applicant has increased the proposed sign height for freeway visibility. The site for Fat Freddie's is located just north of E1Camino Real near Red Hill Avenue. The structure tspartially blocked from freeway view by Taylor's Restaurant on the south, the Sixpence Inn on the east and a Mobil gas station on the west.- Any wall mounted installed on the building may not be visible from the freeway unless a monument sign was placed directly in front of the site. The proposed sign would be high enough to alert traffic in the west bound direction on the 1-5 Freeway while being too tall to be visible from nearby surface streets. The proposed restaurant is new and may be somewhat of an attraction. The applicant, in applying ~or this type of sign feels that the business will greatly benefit from freeway visibility. The Commission must determine whether or not this pole sign is necessary for the use intended. ~- Communi~, DeVelopment Depa~rncnt ~ Planning Commission Report January 26, 1987 Page three CO~CLUSXO#S: Staff has prepared two (2) alternative resolutions for thts application: One forapproval of the sign and the other for denial. Should the Commission wish to approve the sign, staff would consider the proposed sign appropriate only if certain conditions are met. These conditions include a requirement that no other free-standing signs'are to be installed on the property, Specifically, the previously approved wall mounted signs are visible from all surface streets, precluding necessity for a free-standing . ground based sign. Assistant Planner LCP:pef Attachments: Resolution No. 2389 SitePlan Sign Plan Building Elevations Christine A. Director ~f Community Development ~ ComrnuniW Developmen~ Departmen~ / t x .,........'/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 ~7 18 19 20 21 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2389 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL CAMINO REAL The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proposed application, Use Permit 87-2 has been filed on behalf of Mr. Barry Hermanson of Chantry Ltd. to request authorization to install a 46 foot high, 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign at 1571 E1Camino Real. B. 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 site is located in the C-2 Commercial Zone. 2. The use aplied for is in conformance with the Tustin Sign Code [Section 9481 (f)]. ' The sign advertises a use allowed in the C-2 Commercial Zone. 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 Tustin, 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. F. This project is catagorically exempt (Class 11) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9~0 9.1 22 23 ~4 25 9.6 27 28 Resolution No. 2389 Page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 87-2 to authorize a 46 foot high, 100 square foot freeway pole sign at 157! E1 Camino Real subject to the following conditions: The sign shall be constructed and installed pursuant to the submitted plans, or as herein modified, date stamped January 26, 1987. Any modifications to these plans require the approval of the Community Development Director and/or Planning Commission. B. No other, freestanding signs shall be installed on-site. C. All provisions and regulations of the Tustin Sign Code and applicable Building Codes shall be met. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1987. Charles E. Puckett, Chairman Donna Orr, Recording Secretary LCP:pef 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. 2389 (d) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C)TY OF TUSTIN, DENYING A 46 FOOT HIGH, 100 SQUARE FOOT FREEWAY IDENTIFICATION POLE SIGN AT 1571 EL .CAMINO REAL The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proposed application, Use Permit 87-2 has been filed on behalf of Mr. Barry Hermanson of Chantry Ltd. to request authorization to install a 46 foot high, 100 square foot freeway identification pole sign at 1571 E1Camino Real. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. C. This project is catagorically exempt (Class 1t) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied for will, 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 site is located in the C-2 Commercial Zone. There is a proliferation of pole signs in the area creating visual clutter. The applicant may install a freestanding ground based sign on the site with the appropriate permits. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 1987. Charles E. Puckett Chairman Donna Orr Recording Secretary LCP:pef Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 4 DATE: SUB,.1ECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: REQUEST: FEBRUARY 9, 1987 DEVIATION FROM MASTER SIGN PLAN/I'USTIN PLAZA CARVER DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF BLIMPIE SANDWICHES AND CHIN'S CHINESE KITCHEN TUSTIN PLAZA (SUITES 36 & 37) PLAN#KO COI~UNITY CO~ERCIAL TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF TWO TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS WHICH O0 NOT CONFORM TO THE BASIC MASTER SIGN PLAN APPROVED FOR TUSTIN PLAZA. RECDI~ENDEC ACTION: That signs proposed be modified to conform to basic criteria of the Master Sign Plan for Tustin Plaza. Commission action may be accomplished by Minute Order. BACKGROUND: In conjunction with final approval of Tustin Plaza, a project master sign plan was submitted by the developer and approved by the Community Development Department. The complete text of the approved sign plan is attached to this transmittal as Exhibit "A". DISCUSSION: The Master Sign Plan as in place was approved as a very.detailed attempt to comprehensively address issues often considered in the review of sign plans. These issues are size, color, compatibility, scale and design integration. Additionally while still promoting a homogeneous plan, a certain amount of flexibility for major or key tenants was included. For these key tenants units 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 42 were permitted that deviated from the color (turquoise, terra cAtta) and type style (helvetica medium) of the approved plan. For the balance of the center, specifically interior tenants, each unit complies with the sign plan. Community Development Department _f Planning Commission Report Blimpie Sandwiches/Chin's Chinese page two Tustin Plaza is vertually complete with the exception of Building No. 3, and is approximately 80% leased. At this. time Carver Development, on behalf of Blimpies Sandwiches and Chin's Chinese Food, is requesting that these particular tenants be .permitted to install signs other than the turquoise, helvetica medium typical signs required by the Master Sign Plan. Staff has reviewed the request and does not consider deviation from the basic sign plan appropriate for these tenants in the locations requests. Further, staff does not consider amendment to the approved plan to be warranted. A~LYSIS: At issue in this case is whether or not the integrity of the adopted sign plan is to remain intact. While the applicant notes paragraph 10 of the sign plan as justification for the present request, staff's purpose in including this clause was to allow alternative signing for key suites or for tenants occupying large store areas. Paragraph 10 was not included to necessarily accommodate all tenants with individual sign styles. Instead, the intent, was to provide a consistent plan similar to the Tustin Heights Shopping Center (e.g. Builder's 'Emporium and Ralphs versus the balance of the center, and the plan proposed for Plaza Lafayette). Further, with the architecture of the project ih mind, it was staff's specific intent to limit multicolor signage as compared to the Tustin French Quarter project. The architectural style and theme of Tustin Plaza is not conducive to random "splashes" of color as otheh architectural styles might dictate. For example, at the French Quarter attention from sign bands is detracted by architectural elements such as dormers, varying roof lines and awnings. Therefore, justification for multicolor signs is present. '.In sum, staff considers the continued implementation of the sign program as currently employed to be a positive.aspect for the center. It is anticipated that the remainder of signs to be placed in Tustin Plaza, with the exception of "In Season" {The Christmas Guild), will utilize the turquoise, helvetica medium style sign identified as primary signage in the approved master sign plan. Accordingly, staff recommends that signs for Blimpies and Chin's Chinese be .installed pursuant to the color and type palette specifically called out in the Master Sign Plan. D: do .. ~-C)tRISTINE SHINGLET~ Director of CommuNity Development Corn munity D~velopmen! Department Planning Commission DATE: SUBdECT: FEBRUARY 9, 1987 PARKING ISSUES RECOI~E#DATION: Receive and file. BACKGROUND: On January 19, 1987 the City Council reviewed a report from Community Development regarding three separate parking issues: Research and Development (R&D) Parking Standards versus office standards. Mid-size parking stalls versus compact-size parking stalls. Parking Management Strategies. These issues were discussed and referred to the Planning Commission for further action. City Council expressed some concerns about the size of compact spaces and traffic generation for Research and Development {R&D) uses. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission after the City's Traffic Engineer completes a more detailed analysis of trip generation for R&D uses and upon completion of a draft ordinance of proposed code amendments. Associate Planner MAC:do Development Community Development Department REPORTS r Inter- Com DATE: January 19, 1987 TO: FROM: $ U BJ ECT: WILLIAI~ A. HUSTON, CIT~ MANAGER DEPART/4EI/T OF COI~UI/IT~ DEVELOPHEI/T PARKING ISSUES RECOHHENDATION: It Is recommended that the City Council: Instruct staff to initiate amendments to the Municipal Code to define R&D uses and establish parking standards for such uses; Increase the amount of permitted compact parking spaces, the minimum dimensions for such spaces, and decrease the minimum driveway aisle width; provide opportunities for Joint use of parking when approved by the Planning Commission. e Instruct staff to utilize minimum' project size and employee thresholds in requiring parking and transportation system management strategies as a condition of approval on new projects. BACKGROUND: In recent months the City Council has expressed concern about three separate parking issues impacting new development in Tustin. 1. Research and Development (R&D) parking standards versus office parking standards. 2. Mid-size parking stalls versus compact size parking stalls. Parking management strategies such as flex plan to offset traffic increases and parking needs. Each of the above issues with recommendations is discussed separately below. 1. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D) PARKING STANDARDS VERSUS OFFICE STANDARDS: Within the last decade there has been a marked increase in the number of Research and Development firms in Orange County. An' R&D firm has been typically defined as a use which engages in the research, analysis, design, development and/or testing of aerospace, chemical, pharmaceutical, electronics or other very specialized manufacturing products. Examples of R&D firms in Tustin include Nordon Systems, Silicon Systems, Aerojet Ordnance Co. However, as the term R&D has most recently been applied, R&D uses need not specialize or be devoted solely to research or development. Many new speculative industrial buildings are designed and marketed as R&D projects. With the exception of the East Tustln Specific .Plan, the Tustin'Municipal Code does not separately distinguish parking standards for R&D uses. Instead the fo]lowing current parking standards are used: F~) ~t11Iam Huston Parktng [ssues page two Office standards: One (1) space for each 250 gross floor area allocated for office uses. .Z. Manufacturing, research and assembly: One (1) space for every $00 gross floor'area allocated for manufacturing, research and/or assembly uses, but in no event less than two (2) parking spaces for each three (3) employees. If there is more than one (~) shift, the number of employees on the largest shift is used in determining parking requirements. Storage and warehouse: One (1) space for each 1,000 of gross floor area for the first 20,000 square feet of area allocated for storage and/or warehouse use; one (1) space for each 2,000 for'the second 20,000; one (~) space for each 4,000 feet in excess of the initial 40,000 feet, but in no event less than two (2) parking spaces for each (3) employees shall be provided. Although based on the above standards, R&D uses are only required to provide two (2) parking spaces per [,000 square feet of gross floor area or two (2) spaces for each three (3) employees, the majority of new speculative industrial buildings constructed recently in Tustin (i.e. Resco Development, Scantron Corp., Point 4 Data Corp.) have provided between three to four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor .area. This is no surprise particularly since recent transportation and traffic experts have indicated that the :parking needs for R&O types of projects are. very similar in nature to the needs of a general office complex {please see Exhibits A & B). Recognizing the risk of providing too little parking for a labor intensive project, .most lenders are also now requiring new R&D projects to provide four parking 'spaces per 1,000 square feet. However, typically R&D users are only slightly more labor intensive than traditional industrial 'uses as identified in Exhibit B. -Presently, staff spends valuable time checking plans to ensure that a project complies with th& City's current parking requirements .(i.e. industrial vs. office square footage). After a certificate of occupancy is issued for a project, modifications to the interior o~ building can be illegally made and would only be caught if there were routine inspections by the department. Those modifications can include increases in office square footage and direct impacts on traffic. According to the City's Traffic Engineer parking demanded for R&D uses would be the same as general office uses {see Exhibit B). However, general office generates 2 to 3 times as many trips as R&D and industrial uses. The real issue then between R&D uses and office uses is not parking but traffic. The traffic volumes generated by an R&D user would be only slightly higher than a standard industrial use. Therefore from a land use,economic and aesthetic point of view staff would prefer to have new R&D facilities rather than empty industrial warehouses provided that the present policy of not allowing more than 50[ office a is maintained. Cornmuni~ Development Depa~men~ William Huston Parking Issues page three RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff would recommend amendment of Municipal Code to define R&D uses and require four'parking spaces per 1,O00 square feet of floor area for such uses. 2. MID SIZE PARKING STALLS VERSUS COMPACT SIZE PARKING STALLS In the past decade there has been a dramatic shift from the large standard car to the smaller compact car. .Standard cars are now smaller which is a response to foreign car sales and U.S. Government regulations which required that all American auto manufacturers achieve average mileage 'of 27.5 miles per gallon by 1985. Although most persons refer to cars as either "standard" or "compact" the auto industry actually classifies them into nine categories based upon the gross floor area.occupied by the exterior of the car. Because of the complexity of these categories, a smell car (compact) is defined as an automobile which does not exceed 15 feet in length or six feet in width. Although, subject to local variation, current estimates indicate an on-the-road ratio of over 50[ small cars to large cars in Southern California at this time. 'In response to this trend .toward smaller vehicles, most jurisdictions during the last decade have amended their parking requirements to provide for smaller parking spaces or ',compact spaces". Current adopted development standards for parking in Tustin require a g x 20 foot space and a 27 foot parking aisle for standard parking. Accommodation for compact parking is currently up to the discretion of the Director. In the past it has been the poJicy of the Community Development Department to · allow compact size'spaces only in controlled situations such as: Large industrial projects which 'control their emploYee parking - examples: Steelcase, Basic Four, and Pac Bell. Large office buildings which control t~eir employee parking - example: Fireman's Fund. Staff strongly discourages the use of compact size stalls in public parking lot'situations such as shopping centers. The minimum size of compact spaces is 7 1/2' x 19' provided that not more than 20[ of the required parking spaces are designated for compact use. It is also required that i 1/2 compact car spa~es be provided for each required regular parking space. Staff members have viewed the City's current compact parking dimensions as inadequate (too narrow and too long). Many smal.1 car owners also do not wish to park in small car spaces because they don't want thei'r cars damaged by doors being opened in tight spaces. The relatively high cost of many of the more popular imports may account for this attitude. Conversely, people always want to park as close as they can to their given destination, regardless of the size of their car. Cornrnuni~ De~elopmenl Department ~tlltam Huston Parking Issues page four A- survey of Orange County cities revealed no predominate approach (Exhibit Cl. The City of Fountain Valley, however has gone to one standardized parking space size of g'x RECOMMENDED ACTION: Since there are still considerable numbers of intermediate and large cars on the road, staff would not recommend providing for only one, mid-size parking space standard for commercial and industrial uses. However, it would seem .appropriate to modify the City's development standards to increase the total parking spaces in a project which may be reserved for small or compact spaces to a maximum of 40~ of the total required parking in excess of 20' spaces. In addition, it is recommended that the minimum dimensions of a compact space be modified to 9' x 16.5' with no additional overhang credit. This would reduce current problems encountered with the narrowness of the City's current compact space dimensions and provide a minimum of 18" on each side of a 6' wide small car as an allowance for opening and closing doors. It is also recommended that the minimum driveway aisle dimension on 90° parking ~e reduced from 27' to 25' as is the standard in most cities. . 3. PARKING MANAGFJ4ENT STRATEGIES Many communities are 'currently utilizing parking m~nagement and transportation systems management (TSM) strategies to cut down on 'the increase in traffic generated by new development, to concentrate on the demand side of parking rather than the .supply, and for the development community as an effort to minimize the high costs associated with developing parking facilities and especially structured parking. While the Orange County Transportation Commission is currently working on the initial stages of a Traffic Reduction Incentive Program {TRIP), there are a number of parking and transportation management strategies that the City could voluntarily encourage in an effort to offset parking needs of specific projects and to mitigate traffic increases. A. - Flex Employee Schedules The use of a flex employee schedule allows maximization of land use and a reduction in pe~k hour traffi.c demands. The flex. schedule is used when a labor intensive use is proposed fbr a site and works as follows: Employee work schedules are not all the same. The hours for certain · departments or within certain departments are varied so that employees are leaving and arriving at different times during the day. Comrnuni~y Developrneni Depar~rnen~ William Huston Parking Issues page five Land use is maximized in that parking requirements are based upon the largest worklng shift. If a flex plan is used, parking demand increases (the lot is used over 24 hours rather than 8) and the parking area becomes smaller allowing the developer more space for landscaping or building'areao The focus of the flex schedule can be upon decreasing peak hour traffic flo~. If a labor intensive use is proposed or existing, flex schedules can be used so that employees arrive and depart at odd times of the day. Peak hour traffic flo~s have been identified as 7:00 a.m; to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. By using a flex schedule, the impact of a labor intensive use .can be reduced by reducing departure/arrival of employees during these periods. B. 3utney and Transit Use Strategies .A number of strategies are possible by which persons might be enticed out of their single occupancy auto. Where a sufficient nbmber of bus riders can be assured, the developer or employer could negotiate with the transit district to commit a conventional transit.bus to a special route that will serve those riders. Orange County Transit District (OCTO) provides services for impleme.nttng car pools. These are handled directly between OCTD and the employer. Once the car pool study is finished, participation is voluntary unless required by the employer. Ce Private or company provided buses or vans have .become more popular in recent years. This type of service is provided by an employer who. provides a vehicle at their expense or who lets the employees chip in for gasoline and maintenance. The vans or other similar vehicles, are grouped into areas and the employees from the group share the van as transportation to and from work. This type of alternative is mostly used when a large company is involved. The vehicle cost may be too expensive for smaller companies and emp4oyee participation.is usually gathered from a large group. Busing via public transportation is completely voluntary on the part of the participant. However, employees can be encouraged to use buses if access is simplified. Simplifying techniques include: providing bus route schedules and maps for employees, group discounts or free bus passes, and locating bus stops near to the work place. The latter technique may be difficult to obtain but if provisions are made during the design phase of the project, OCTO may be able to accommodate the · employer.' Cornrnunity D~voloprnen~ Depar~men~ William Huston Parking Issues page six Shared or Joint Use Parkin9 Many cities allow consideration in their pa~king requirements for shared or joint use parking. Joint use of parking recognizes that some land uses are complimentary so that parking provided by one use may be available for another use at certain periods over a 2¢ hour period such as evenings and weekends. Mixed use projects containing a good balance of compatible individual uses can offer the opportunity for a substantial lowering of the parking supply. Candidate land uses which may show a potential for joint parking 'usage include: general offices retail shopping movie theatres restaurants recreational facilities and cultural centers. RECOP~I£HDED ACTION: As a step toward implementing parking and transportation systems management strategies, staff would recommend establishment of the followi, ng minimum project size and/or' employee couQt thresholds as a guideline mechanism for imposing conditions on future development projects. Retail - Project~ over 50,000 square feet require analysis and recommendation of transi't use strategies, explore joint use parking opportunites. Office - Projects.50,O00 square feet or over 100 employees require analysis and recommendation on use of flex employee schedules, transit use strategies, .explore joint use parking opportunities. Industrial - Projects over 50,000 om over 100 employees* require analysis and recommendation on use of flex employee schedules, transit use strategies. Hotels/Cinemas - Over 100 rooms, 100 seats or 50,000 square feet require analysis and recommendation on use of transit strategies {such as placement of bus stops) and explore join~ use parking opportunities. Staff would also recommend amendment of the Municipal Code to allow for consideration of a reduction in the number of required spaces for a use where a sharing or joint use of spaces can be shown by independent study and where said joint use is authorized by the Planning Commission.. ~HRISTINE SHING~ETON, Director of Community Development CS:MAC:do Community DeV~loprnent Department EXHIBIT A RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PARKING STANDARDS CITY Irvtne Cypress Buena Park Costa Mesa Anaheim Garden Grove PARKING SPACES 1 2.25 for-lst 20,000 no standard for R&D 3 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.25 (when office is over 30% then 4 for offices) SQUARE FEET 250 500 1,000 1,000 1-3 stories 1,000 4-9 stories 1,000 10+ stories 1,000 Commun~ Development Dcpanmen: EXHIBIT B PARKING DEMAND AND TRIPS GENERATED BY HYPOTHETICAL 100,000 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURES LAND USE: Hypothetical Building area: Parking Required to accommodate use (per 1000 sq.ft.) Total trips generated, by use (per 1000 square feet) Total trips for typical project R&D INDUSTRIAL OFFICE 100,000 sq.ft. 100,000 sq.ft. 100,000 sq.ft. 4 2.5 4 * 6.05 5.46 12.5 605 546 1250 Peak trips (per 1000 sq.ft.) 7:00 - g:O0 a.m. 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. tn*.70 .85 :1.95 out ..19 .15 .37 in .17 .32 .36 out .62 .63 1.84 Source: Jerry Crabill, Consulting Traffic Engineer * Figure for low rise {1-3 story users) oily. Ratio decreases with additional stories. Community DeVe~opmer~t Department EXHIBIT C COMPACT CAR REQUIREMENTS CITY Anahei~ Irvine Cypress Buena Park Costa Mesa Garden Grove SIZE 8' xl5 8 X 16 8 1/2 x 15 7 1/2 x 15 7x15 7 1/2 x 15 PERCENT 25% 50% 40% 3O% 40% 35% Corn rrlur~1tY Development Dcpartmen! Planning Commission DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 1987 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNC]'L ACTIONS - February 2, 1987 Oral presentation. do Attachments: City Counct] Actton Agenda - February 2, 1987 Community Development Department 7:01 I. ALL PRESENT II. III. i~ESENTEO PRESENTED ~DUCED ORDINANCE 980 4) A~Jlrl'ED RESOLUTION 87-17 A~TION AGENDA OF A REGULA~R MEETING OF THE 1USTIN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 2, 1987 7:00 P.~. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. PROCLAMATION - TUSTIN HIGH SCHOOL TILLERS BASEBALL TEAM, 1986 CENTURY LEAGUE CHAMPIONS 2. CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION - BARBARA SHAW, DESIGNER OF TUSTIN TILLER DAYS LOGO IV. PUBLIC HEARING 1. ELECTION CONSOLIDATION City Council adopted Resolution. No. 87-11 on January 19, 1987, setting the matter for public hearing in order to hear from all persons inter- ested in or objecting to the proposed consolidation of elections. Recommendation: 1} Open the public hearing and receive public input; 2) Close the public hearing; 3) M.O. - That Ordinance No. 980 have first reading by title only and introduction as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 980 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUIRING ITS GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION HELD IN NOVEMBER OF EVEN-NUMBERED YEARS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 36503.5 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE M.O. - That Resolution No. 87-17 be adopted as follows: RESOLUTION NO. 87-17 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1988, PUR- SUANT TO SECTION 23302 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE )~c~m~U~D V. PUBLIC INPUT YZ~NG )(AD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PARKING STRUCTURE. SqF/~F RESPONDED THAT THE DRILLING HAS ALL BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT PERMITS HAVE BEEN ISSUED. ~ VINING SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY SHOULD TRY TO BUY SOME OF THE SCHOOL SITES THAT ARE GOING TO I )LD TO PRESERVE THE GREEN AREA FOR THE CITY FOR PARKS ETC. P)~T' AND ~RG~bRET ~JLEY, 715 W. MAIN STREET, REQUESTED lt~T THE SIDEWALKS NEED TO BE COMPLETED THEIR AREA AND PROPER ~'~ORH ORAINS INSTALLED BECAUSE OF FLOODING AT MYRll~E ON THE NORTH SIDE O~F~IN. COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA 'Page I 2-2-87 VI. .NI~PROVED A~'~ROVEI) ' CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1987, REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,302,748.04 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,725.98 ~IRmROVED STAFF 3. Rii)COI~NDATION ~RROVED STAFF 4. RIiI:OMI~NDATION /~q~ROVED STAFF 5. RECOH~NOATION :OVED STAFF 6. ~I~NDATION AI~PROVEO STAFF RECOMMENDATION AI~PROVED STAFF I~:COl&~lE NOATI ON REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 87-1; CLAIMANT: SIGNAL MAINTENANCE, INC.; DATE OF LOSS: 6/27/85~ DATE FILED WITH CITY: 1/2/87 Reject subject claim for partial indemnity on a comparative fault basis, contribution, costs of suit and court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees in an unknown amount as recommended by the City Attorney. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-58; CLAIMANT: JACQUELINE M. ANDERSON; DATE OF LOSS: 9/19/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 12/29/86 Reject subject claim for alleged violation of civil rights and emo- tional distress in the amount of $100,000.00 as recommended by the City Attorney. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 87-2; CLAIMANT: DAVID & DOROTHY FLAUSER; DATE OF LOSS: 11/3/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 1/5/87 Reject subject claim for personal injuries in the amount of $500,000.00 as recommended by the City Attorney. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-55; CLAIMANT: ROBIN M. NEGENDANK; DATE OF LOSS: 10/21/86; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 11/21/86 Reject subject claim for property damage in an unknown amount as recommended by the City Attorney. 7. REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-48; CLAIMANT: ERIC S. GWINUP; DATE OF LOSS: 10/20/86; DATE FILED .WITH CITY: 10/20/86 Reject subject claim for property damage in the amount of $95.00 as recommended by the City Attorney. 8. AGREEMENT FOR PROCESSING OF PARKING CITATIONS Approve subject agreement with Turbo Data Systems, Inc., Tustin, for the processing of Tustin Police Department parking citations; add authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same as recommended by the Police Department. /~OPTED RESOLUTION 9. N~. 87-12 ~/q~PTED 10. ~LUTION 87-15 RESOLUTION NO. 87-12 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS "ANNEXATION NO. 138 - RANCHWOOD/BELLEWICK" ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN Adopt Res61ution No. 87-12 pursuant to a protest hearing conducted by the City Council on January 19, 1987, wherein it was found that protests filed did not exceed 25% of the registered voters, as recommended by the Community Development Department. RESOLUTION NO. 87-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 IMPROVEMENTS, RANCHWOOD STORM DRAIN FACILITY FO7P08 Adopt Resolution No. 87-15; and authorize advertisement for bids for subject project as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 2-2-87 'PTED 3LUTION 87-15 10. APPROVED STAFF 11. RECOI~NDATION A~OPTED 12. RESOLUTION No. 87-13 APPROVED STAFF RECOHHENDATION ADOPTED 14. RESOLUTION No. 87-16 RESOLUTION NO. 87-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 IMPROVEMENTS, RANCHWOOD STORM DRAIN FACILITY FO7P08 Adopt Resolution No. 87-15; and authorize advertisement for bids for subject project as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES FOR PARKING AGREEMENT, 333 EL CAMINO REAL Approve the necessary accounting procedure allowing the City of Tustin to collect Redevelopment fees for a parking agreement as recommended by the Community Development Department. (Reference Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item No. 4.) RESOLUTION NO. 87-13 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS REORGANIZATION NO. 91 ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN Adopt Resolution No. 87-13 as authorized by the Local Agency Forma- tion Commission (LAFCO) on December 3, 1986, as recommended by the Community Development Department. 13. 'EL MOOENA-IRq/INE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 85-1 (PROJECT NO. 10) Approve K.E.C. Company's request for a 30-day time extension to the E1 Modena-Irvine Channel contract for Project 10 of the East Tustin Assessment District No. 85-1, and amend the contract completion date from January 15, 1987, to March 1, 1987, as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 87-16 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN SUPPORTING THE TUSTIN RANCH ROAD INTERCHANGE AT THE I-5 FREEWAY PROJECT AS A LOCALLY FUNDED PROJECT Adopt Resolution No. 87-16; and direct staff to submit subject proj- ect form to the Orange County Transportation Commission as recom- mended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVED STAFF 15. RECOICHENDATION APPROVED STAFF 16. RECOI~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF 17. P'~QMMENOATION "C" STREET PARKING LIMITATIONS Authorize the posting of a parking limitation along the westerly side of "C" Street adjacent to Peppertree Park consisting of two- hour parking, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekends and holidays excepted, as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. DECLARATION OF SURPLUS VEHICLES As recommended by the P'ublic Works Department/Engineering Division, find that the following vehicles are not required for public use and that they be declared as surplus vehicles: 1975 Ecolotec Sweeper (Estimated Value $4,500.0Q), 1978 FMC Sweeper (Estimated Value $1,500.00), and 1982 Cushman Scooter (Estimated Value $750.00). AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE DUMP TRUCK FOR WATER DIVISION Authorize the purchase of a dump truck from Rafferty International, Anaheim, in the amount of $43,370.30 for use in the Water Division as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. CITY'COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 2-2-87 ROVED STAFF ,,~COIM~NDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION 87-18 18. 19. AUTHORIZATION FOR TREE REMOVALS Authorize the removal of a Liquid Amber tree at 1671 Amherst and a Rusty Leaf Fig tree at 15401 Williams as requested by residents due to hazardous sondition caused by tree roots and as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 87-18 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A SUPPLEMENTAL INDEN- TURE OF TRUST; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH REGARD THERETO; ACCEPTING AN OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN RELATED MATTERS Adopt Resolution No. 87-18 in order to render a rating on the Assessment District No. 85-1 Bonds issued August, 1986, Standard & Poors has requested that certain amendments be made to the original indenture. VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None IX. OLD BUSINESS APPROVED STAFF RECOFtIENDATION 1. COMMERCIAL TRUCK PA.RKING Parking of large trucks has become a significant problem in certain areas of the City. The Police Department recommends that a comprehen- sive approach to address this problem throughout the City be initiated. Recommendation: That the City Council: 1) Direct the City Attorney to revise Tustin City Ordinance No. 952, Parking of Commercial Vehicles, to allow tow-away for violation; 2) Authorize an increase in bail for violation of Tustin City Ordinance No. 952, Parking of Commercial Vehicles, from $27.00 to $55.00; and direct the City Attorney to coordinate with the Municipal Court sub- ject increase in bail schedule and others as recommended by the Tustin Police Department; Authorize the posting of signs at each entrance to the City, and in existing problem, areas, advising of the commercial truck parking restrictions; and 4) Authorize a supplemental expenditure of $5,900.00 from unappropri- ated reserve funds. X. NEW BUSINESS ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1. NO. 87-14 RESOLUTION NO. 87-14 - SUPPORTING CREATION OF .AN OCEANIC PARK/NATIONAL PRESERVE Subject resolution was prepared as requested at the January 19, 1987, City Council meeting in response to correspondence from the City of Laguna Beach. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 2-2-87 APPROVED STAFF 2. RECOMIMENDATION Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. If desired, adopt the roi)orang: RESOLUTION NO.' 87-14 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DECLARING ITS SUPPORT FORCREATION OF AN OCEANIC PARK/NATIONAL PRESERVE (THE AREA PERPENDICULAR TO THE NORTHERNMOST AND SOUTHERNMOST POINTS OF SANTA CATALINA ISLAND TO THE COAST OF ORANGE COUNTY) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS As a result of a joint session of the City Council/Planning Commission held on September 29, 1986, at which Parents Who Care made a pre- sentation regarding regulation of alcoholic beverage sales establish- ments, staff was directed to prepare recommendations on same. Based on a detailed analysis and information collected, recommendations have been tailored go meet .the needs within the City. Recommendation: Direct staff to: ~OVE/) STAFF ,t~ENDATION XI. RATIFIED 1) Initiate proposed zoning code amendments regulating alcoholic bever- age sales establishments; and 2) Prepare a proposed resolution establishing policy guidelines for review of alcoholic beverage sales establishments. 3. AWARD OF BID - SEVENTEENTH STREET IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN THE COSTA MESA FREEWAY & PROSPECT AVENUE (NORTH) Street improvements will generally consist of removal/replacement of deteriorated pavement at various locations; removal/replacement of damaged curb and gutter at various locations; installation of raised medians with decorative concrete between existing medians and Prospect Avenue (North); asphaltic concrete overlay on entire street; and traffic signing/striping and removal of on-street parking. Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to the low bidder, Blair Paving, Anaheim, in the amount of $355,308.20; and aOtho- rize a supplemental budget appropriation from gasoline tax revenues in the amount of $59,200.00 as recommended by the Public Works Department/ Engineering Division. REPORTS TO INSTALL 2. STREET LIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - JANUARY 26, 1987 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. Recommendation: Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of January 26, 1987. REQUESTS FOR STREET LIGHTING - "C" STREET City Council requested staff study the feasibility of installing street lighting along "C" Street between Main Street and Third Street. An evaluation and costs estimates have been prepared by staff. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 5 2-2-87 'IVED AND FILED 3. GEN. MILLER ~T 4. WITH SALTARELLI AND KENNEDY AND AGREED THERE WILL BE NO OVERFLIGHTS EXCEPT IN APPROVED CORRIDORS. COUNCIL TO RECEIVE A COPY OF BADHAM' S REPORT kltEN IT IS PRINTED TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING (PEDESTRIAN PHASING) City Council had requested staff investigate the need to modify the pedestrian phase of traffic signal timing at both Newport Avenue at Main Street and Newport Avenue at Bryan Avenue. Recommendation: Receive and file. RESPONSE FROM MARINE CORPS REGARDING THE CH-53E HELICOPTER A response from Brigadier General Miller, Commander of the U. S. Marine Corps Air Bases, Western Area, to the City's request that flights of the CH-53E over populated areas of Tustin be discontinued until its air- worthiness has been evaluated. Recommendation: Receive and file. RECEIVED AND FILED 5. MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW INCORPORATE 6. REPORT FROM COUNCILMAN KELLY - FINANCIAL REPORTING MONTHLY REPORTING OF BUDGET BY DEPARTMENT AND LEAVE THE AFFIDAVITS AND DEMANDS IN THEIR PRESENT FOIU¢ INTED. XlI. OTHER BUSINESS ~ TO BE ON THE AIRPORT COMMISSION COMMITTEE AS COUNCIL LIAISON. HUSTON AND ROURKE TO LOOK INTO THE PROBLEM OF NEED FOR A NAVIGATIONAL DEVICE TO MITIGATE FLIGHTS OVER TUSTIN AND AGENOIZE FOR FUTURE MEETING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. KENNEDY RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FROM J/U~ES BRUSH TO BE THE ALTERNATE ON THE AIRPORT COMMIITEE. TO BE AGENDIZED FOR THE NEXT MEETING. KENNEDY REPORTED THAT ~LNUT AVENUE LOOKS LIKE IT HAS NOT HAD ANY STREET SWEEPING BETWEEN THE ~ PANTRY STORE AND REDHILL. KENNEDY COMNENTED ABOUT THE GOOD PRESS ~ GOT REGARDING POLICE DOGS.' EDGAR ASKED THAT FUTURE GROWTH AND FACILITIES OF COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARK BE AGENDIZED FOR THE NEXT ~ETING. SALTARELLI ASKED IIJSTON TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE OF PROTOCOL. KENNEDY k~)ULO LIKE TO LOOK INTO IT AND SEE HOW MUCH TIME IT WOULD TAKE BEFORE SOMEONE IS APPOINTED. · RECESSED XIII. CLOSED SESSION. TO CLOSED SESSION City Council will recess to a Closed. Session to consider personnel matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. XIV. ADJOURNMENT Recessed to the Redevelopment agency, thence to a Closed Session for Personnel matters, and thence adjourned to the next Adjourned Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 6 2-2-87 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR )[ETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOP~NT AGENCY FEBRUARY 2, 1987 7:00 P.M. This Agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered. Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not appear- ing in the following agenda. 8:45 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 19, 1987, REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve. APPROVED 4. ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES FOR PARKING AGREEMENT, 333 EL CAMINO REAL ~-TAFF RECOI~NDATION The. Agency approved a parking agreement for 333 E1 Camino Real on January 19, 1987. The City Council may agree to accept fees on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency to be held in trust for use by the Agency. (Reference City Council Agenda, Consent Calendar Item No. 11.) Recommendation: Authorize the City Council to approve creation of the neces- sary trust accounts to accept payments for the Agency pursuant to a previously approved parking agreement. NONE 5. OTHER BUSINESS 8:46 6. ADJOURNMENT To the next ~journed Regular Meeting on Tuesday, February 17, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 2-2-87