Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 11-04-85, .~ ACTI 0 N AG EN A TUSTIN PLANNING CO~MISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 1985 REPORTS NO. 1 11-4-85 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: 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 from Planning Commission meeting October 14, 1985. Puckett moved, HcCarthy seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. 5-0. Motion carried PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO USE PERMIT 84-24 Applicant: Location: Request: PreSentation: Alber Auer A parcel bounded by Franklin Avenue on the east, Walnut Avenue on the north and future Jamboree on the west. Authorization to deviate with the condition of approval 2-C as listed in Resolution No. 2189 which states that public improvements have to be installed which includes sidewalks. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Weil opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Albert Auer made himself available for questions. Well closed the hearing at 7:40 p.m. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to deny applicant's request to delete condition 2-C of Resolution 2189 and amended the resolution requiring 5' sidewalks instead of 8'. Motion carried 5-0. Action Agenda October 28, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. USE PERMIT 85-26 Applicant: Location: Request: Chelsea Cafe, Inc. Northwesterly corner of Edinger and Redhill Avenues Authorization to operate a restaurant with a beer and wine on-site license. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Well opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 8:00 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to approve Use Permit 85-26 by the adoption of resolution 2278. Motion carried 5-0. 4. USE PERMIT 85-23 Applicant: Location: Request: Orange County Antenna Specialists Interior courtyard of Cedar Glen complex at 15811 Pasadena Avenue. Authorization to install a satellite signal receiving dish Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Chair Well opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. Douglas Hajek, Orange County Antenna, spoke in favor. Well closed the hearing at 8:15 p.m. White moved, McCarthy seconded to approve Use Permit 85-23 by the adoption of Resolution 2276. Ymtion carried 5-0. 5. USE PERMIT 85-24 Applicant: Location: Request: Orange County Antenna Specialists Carport area of Holiday Apartments at 15601Tustin Village Way Authorization to install a satellite signal receiving dish Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Well opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Douglas Hajek spoke in favor. She closed the hearing at 8:25 p.m. White moved, McCarthy seconded to approve Use Permit 85-24 by the adoption of Resolution 2277. ~otion carried 5-0. Action Agenda October 28, 1985 page three ADMINISTRATIVE )9~.TTERS Old Business ~one. New Business 6. Change of Professional District (PR) zone to allow schools. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Puckett ~ved, White seconded to approve staff's recommendation. ~totton carried 5-0. STAFF CONCERNS 7. Oral Report on Council actions of October 21, 1985. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner CO)flISSION CONCERNS White recommended to Council that certain developments that fall within certain use by right categories should require a site plan review and/or conditional use permit by the Commission to ensure that public improvements on projects are constructed. Knight responded that staff could identify those areas where we may have a problem in the city and then try to reach some kind of strategy where those improvements could take place if development occurred. {Whether that is through a use permit or whatever other process.) Staff will report back in 60 days. Baker informed the Commission of the Chamber mixer Tuesday evening at City Hall. Well congratulated staff on their handling of First Street Specific Plan and informed the Commission of the upcoming study sessions. White questioned the status of Specific Plan #7. Mary Ann responded it will be before the Commission very soon. ADJOURNMENT McCarthy moved, White seconded to adjourn at 8:50 p.m.to 6:30 p.m. on November 12, 1985 for a workshop regarding First Street Specific Plan. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will convene at 7:30 p.m. Agenda October 28, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. USE PERMIT 85-26 Applicant: Chelsea Cafe, Inc. Location: Northwesterly corner of Edinger and Redhill Avenues Request: Authorization to operate a restaurant with a beer and wine on-site license. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner 4. USE PERMIT 85-23 Applicant: Orange County Antenna Specialists Location: Interior courtyard of Cedar Glen complex at 15811 Pasadena Avenue. Request: Authorization to install a satellite signal receiving dish Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner 5. USE PERMIT 85-24 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner ADMINISTRATIVE t4AI'rERS Old Business None. New Business 6. Change of Professional District (PR) zone to allow schools. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner STAFF CONCERNS 7. Oral Report on Council actions of October 21, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COHI~ISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Orange County Antenna Specialists Carport area of Holiday Apartments at 15601Tustin Village Way Authorization to install a satellite signal receiving dish MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING CO~I4ISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1985 CALL TO OROER: ROLL CALL: Present: Weil, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Staff Present: Lamm, Ledendecker, Knight, Chamberlain, Orr PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes from Planning Commission meeting September 23, 1985. 2. Final Parcel Map 85-212 White moved, Baker seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS o Motion carried 5-0. AMENDMENT TO CONDITION #19 OF PARCEL MAP 84-1032, TUSTIN AUTO CENTER Applicant: Location: The Irvine Company Irvine-E1Modena Flood Control channel; development area bounded by the I-5 freeway on the south, Browning Avenue on the west, Bryan Avenue on the north and Myford Avenue on the east. Request: That the October 15th construction deadline date for interim channel improvements be waived. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner Commission discussion ensued with questions and answers of staff. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer, answered most of the Commission's concerns explaining that the proposed temporary change in improvements would keep the situation the same; would not worsen it in any way. He further explained there will be ~o channels when the --'emporary earth channel is in place. He explained in detail the path of the final nproved channel and that it will have the capacity to handle the flow caused by a 100 year storm. Planning Commission October 14, 1985 page two nutes Chair ~eil opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Brad Olson, The 1trine Company, explained his application. At the original approval of the tentative map, conditions required berming of the auto site, removal of two bridges along Bryan Avenue and the reconstruction of the box culvert under Bryan. The goals behind those conditions were to flood protect the auto center and at the same time to make sure there were no adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. Those goals have not changed. What has happened to this point in time is that two bridges have been removed which increased the flow to some degree. The reconstruction of the box culvert has not commenced. In the course of preparing the project report for the ultimate improvements for the E1Modena Channel and in looking at the City's and Company's desire to provide for additional retail capacity on the site adjacent to the auto center, the decision was made by the Company that it would be desirable to relocate the E1Modena Channel about ¢70' west of its present location to provide one composite site between that channel and Myford Road for development in the future. When that happened some new things came into play that hadn't been contemplated: 1) a new flood control facility that requires a permit from the County.; 2) the movement of an existing facility in the channel under Bryan Avenue; and 3) the need to construct the by-pass channel to allow for the construction to proceed. Olson requested clarification on the staff report's referral to the interim channel or the by-pass in the weir facility as a condition to allow the City Engineer to reconsider the commencement of grading west of the berm. Bob Ledendecker explained that they felt that at the time the by-pass channel was in place and the overflow weir was in operation, then construction would be commenced on the bridges. At the time the by-pass channel is complete, it will have adequate capacity to proceed with whatever permits are required of TIC. The City Engineer further explained that the channel construction would be complete sometime in February or March. Bryan Avenue will be closed from Nov. 1 to February 1. The first two weeks of November is the scheduled date for Irvine Blvd to open with two additional lanes. Puckett moved, White seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2275. McCarthy opened the discussion. McCarthy commented that when The Irvine Company came before the Commission in January the channel and auto center development would be simultaneous. That was why the Commission voted in favor of the project. He further expressed his concern with the flood conditions that have been created by the development of the auto center and construction of E1 Camino Real curbs and gutters. His concern was that these two construction sites would push the water into neighboring residences and prohibit flowing into the Santa Aha channel along the freeway. Bob Ledendecker explained that until the upstream condition of the E1 14odena/Irvine Channel is improved by the County, water will continue to collect in that area. That improvement is scheduled for next year. Planning Commission ,.,nutes October 14, 1985 page three There were further Commission questions of Mr. Ledendecker concerning the improvement schedule. Mr. Ledendecker explained that the interim improvements will increase the flow within the channel adjacent to Bryan Avenue exactly as stated in the initial £tR. It will not eliminate flooding along Browning Avenue until the upstream conditions are complete. The auto center will not create a dam affect with respect to the properties to the west of Browning Avenue. That is why the grading has been held off between Browning Avenue and the railroad berm. John Avey, 1912 Burnt ~4ill Road, requested an answer to who would be liable if the improvements aren't done. Suzanne Atkins commented that it would be whoever was established as negligent in omitting certain design elements, or creating certain design elements or in allowing certain conditions to exist. It is difficult, hypothetically, to say who would be negligent because it is all in the future. You would have to show that the condition is a negligent condition that caused the flooding and damage resulted. Chair Well re-opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Jackie Haney, 13352 Nixon Circle, questioned what would be developed by next October and thought the flood improvements were supposed to be done in conjunction with the auto center. Don Lamm explained that the city will not allow the development of single family homes and their block walls all the way up to Browning Avenue which would create an artificial barrier causing water'to flood back into the Browning Avenue area, until additional capacity is constructed downstream in the channel {the ~nterim improvements). At no time in the future will the area have a greater flood depth than experienced in the past. There has been flooding in the years past, and there may be flooding again this year. The project will not eliminate the flooding and the flood potential that may occur this season. The Irvine Company is making improvements that, in theory, may reduce the amount of the flooding but will not prohibit flooding from occurring. Jackie Haney further questioned if the improvements in the channel will preceed the development west of the railroad berm. She had anticipated that the flood channel would be improved before the development of the auto center. Lamm explained that it was a misundestanding. In the auto center EIR and the Phase I residential EIR there were only two conditions that related to this project as far as flood control improvements. Those conditions related to the removal of the bridge structures along Bryan Avenue and construction of a new elbow~ the turn from Bryan going southerly underneath Bryan. By constructing those improvements in conjunction with the auto center berming and Phase I berming, they would be protected. In turn, those who live west of Browning north of Bryan would not have any more flood water than in the years past. Haney sought clarification regarding development west of the railroad berm until the new channel is completed. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING CO~qISSION REGULAR )[ETI NG OCTOBER 28, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INYOCATION PRESENTATIONS: 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 from Planning Commission meeting October 14, 1985. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO USE PERMIT 84-24 Applicant: Location: Request: Alber Auer A parcel bounded by Franklin Avenue on the east, Walnut Avenue on the north and future Jamboree on the west. Authorization to deviate with the condition of approval 2-C as listed in Resolution No. 2189 which states that public improvements have to be installed which includes sidewalks. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Planning Commission ~,,,nutes October 1¢, 1985 page four Don responded affirmatively that interim improvements will be constructed and in fact that is the incentive the city is providing to the The Irvine Company. Obviously, we are withholding development in the area between the rail berm and Browning Avenue, it is quite costly. The Irvine ComPany now has land they have approvals on and can't build. It provides a major incentive to install the improvements along the channel. Haney further asked if the channel is not completed and they request to develop that area, would it be a public hearing. Don responded that the channel does not have to be completed but constructed to accept the additional capacity. As soon as the channel trench is excavated and Mr. Ledendecker allows additional overflow water to run down the trench, the created additional capacity would then allow The Irvine Company to grade along Browning Avenue. Jackie expressed her confusion. She thought the channel had to be completed. Don responded the channel will be a functional overflow while it is being worked on. During that time period The Irvine Company takes a risk of losing all its construction work down in the bottom of the channel. It will be an overflow channel to the existing channel which will be the main channel creating a dual system. Until the new channel is excavated across the field, the city will not allow The Irvine Company to build in the single family area. Don answered that Bob Ledendecker will make the determination. Oscar Barnhardt, Karen Way, briefly reminded the Commission of the volume of water in the area in question and was concerned that the construction will act like a dam. Doesn't think the measures are adequate to keep water out of his and his neighbor's homes. C.L. Dalen, Burnt Mill Rd., echoed the concerns of the people in the neighborhood. Thought The Irvine Company is obligated to stand by the original plan submitted and approved by the city and thought the city ought to make them honor it. Carol Taylor, Farmington Rd., didn't think the single family home area west of the rail berm was sufficient incentive for The Irvine Company to improve the flood channel. Brad Olson, The Irvine Company, further commented that it is not the company's intention to delay the channel improvements or build the single family homes. Carol Taylor, further commented that all the other asphalt areas in the city will contribute to the flooding in their area. Chair Well closed the hearing at 8:32 p.m. Commission discussion ensued. McCarthy expressed his concern that the flood improvements were supposed to be done in conjunction with the auto center. The tract map was approved with the implied understanding that the flood improvements would be in place. Planning Commission ~ 3ctober 14, [985 page five ~utes Don responded that from a legal standpoint the condition specifically applied to the map and was the basis upon which the residential area was approved. Condition 30 on the map of Tract 12345 was a condition that said for that area the Planning Commission delegated the City Engineer to require from The Irvine Company a plan to accommodate flood protection. Until that plan was submitted and approved TIC couldn't do anything. TIC submitted a plan that called for a three phase grading. City allowed TIC to grade in the two areas that would not affect homeowners west of Browning. Mr. Ledendecker still has the discretion to withhold the grading forever until he decides there is adequate flood protection provided for the third area. McCarthy reiterated that the housing was approved subsequent to the map being approved for the auto center and the development of the flood control. If the auto center is not approved the housing cannot go in. Lamm responded we are probably six months from any request for building permit in the Phase I area. When we get closer to the time for the permits and if the interim improvements aren't substantially underway, the city will have to question it. The conditions weren't written that way but the intent was there. White commented that The Irvine Company is doing the best they can. We can either move forward or stop the project. Stopping would not cause the channel to be constructed. Well restated the motion moved by Puckett, seconded by White to approve Amendment to Condition #19 of Parcel Map 84-1032 by the adoption of Resolution 2275. Motion carried 4-1, McCarthy opposed. 4. USE PERMIT 85-25 Applicant: Location: Request:. Paragon Group 15901, 15951 and 15991Redhill Avenue Authorization to permit Steven Morrison, Attorney, as a tenant at 15991Redhill Avenue, occupying 752 square feet. The owner is also requesting a blanket authorization for the remaining12,000 square feet for office and commercial tenants. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Chair Well opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 8:42 p.m. McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to approve Use Permit 85-25 by the adoption of Resolution 2273 with the addition of a condition requiring a certificate of occupancy be issued to track information regarding the square footage, actual employee count and parking spaces available. Motion carried 5-0. 5. VARIANCE 85-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Emil Becker 14302 Cherrywood Lane (Laurelwood Patio Homes) Authorization to construct a swimming pool for therapeutic reasons while varying from the 5 foot sideyard setback requirements. Presentation: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Planning Commission October [4, [985 page six nutes Chair Well opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 8:47 p.m. Well requested Mr. Becket be especially mindful of the drainage to avoid water on his property draining onto his neighbor's property. Baker moved, Puckett seconded to approve Variance 85-7 by the adoption of Resolution 2274. Motion carried 5-0. ADMINIS~TI~ATIVE MA1-FERS Old Business None. New Business None STAJrF CONCERNS 6. Oral Report Concernin~ First Street Specific Plan: October 24, 1985 Town Hall Meeting. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development 7. Oral Report on Council actions of September 16, 1985 Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Well requested a legal opinion concerning a Commission member attending a Council meeting to provide background on appeals. Well introduced the letter from Mayor Greinke advising the Commission on procedures if they plan to run in the election for a Council seat. Well congratulated Ed Knight on his AICP exam. She requested staff draft a letter from the Commission. ADJOURNMENT McCarthy moved, Puckett seconded to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: OCTOBER 28, 1985 AFIENDMENT f2 TO USE PEP. qIT 84-24 ALBERT AUER PROdECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY FRANKLIN AVENUE ON THE EAST, 'WALNUT AVENUE N THE NORTH AND FUTURE JAMBOREE ON THE WEST. PLANNED COI~UNtTY (COI~IERCIAL) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 73-1) 'WAS APPROVED FOR THIS INDUSTRIAL CO)IPLEX IN 1973. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED (10-22-84) TO ACCO)~4ODATE THE C~ANGES. AUTHORIZATION TO DELETE THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SIOEWALKS FOR THE TUSTIN CORPORATE PARK Attached to this memo is a staff report prepared by Mr. Bob Ledendecker, City Engineer/Public Works Director. Mr. Ledendecker will be available for questions. MARY AN~/CHAMBERLAIN Associate Planner MAC:em Community Development Department DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1985 Inter- Com TO: FROM: SU BJ ECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BOB LEDENDECKER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TUSTIN CORPORATE PARK - USE PERMIT NO. 84-24 (SECOND AMENDMENT) AND PARCEL MAP NO. 84-1031 RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin Planning Commission deny the request of Tustin Corporate Park to delete the sidewalk construction requirement for the development at Walnut and Franklin Avenues as conditioned by Resolution No. 2189, which approved Use Permit No. 84-24. BACKGROUND: On October 22, 1984, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2189 approving Use Permit No. 84-24 which contained Condition 2c requiring the installation of sidewalks and on November 5, 1984, the City Council passed and adopted Resolution No. 84-87 which approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 84-1031. Condition of Approval IIA4 of Resolution No. 84-87 required the installation of full width sidewalks along both the Walnut Avenue and Franklin Avenue frontages of land within said Parcel Map. DISCUSSION: Staff has received a request (copy attached) from Mr. A1Auer, Tustin Corporate Park, to eliminate the requirement for sidewalk construction adjacent to this development. In a verbal request, prior to the August 13th written request, Mr. Auer indicated the sidewalks were to costly and were impacting the overall project budget. A quantity and cost estimate for the sidewalk submitted by the developer's engineer is as follows: 6,790 Sq. Ft. @ $2.25/Sq. Ft. = $15,278.00 Since the approval and initial construction of the industrial area, a need for sidewalks has surfaced due to the large amount of employees in that area that utilize the public transportation system. Additionally, people working within the area walk to the eating establishment on Walnut Avenue and are forced to walk within the streets and/or on the landscaping. Pedestrians utilizing the traveled roadways for walking pose a liability to the City. Staff has been previously requested by the Planning Commission to investigate the feasibility of constructing sidewalks within this industrial area. It was suggested that an Assessment District be initiated for said installation wherein each property owner would be responsible for their fair share of cost, and/or as remaining properties developed each property would be responsible for construction on their respective properties. OCTOBER 11, 1985 PAGE 2 Sidewalks have been installed with the pedestrian oriented development at Chambers Road and Michelle Drive {Channel 40 development). The connection to other sidewalks adjacent to the Tustin Corporate Park development would be the residential development located westerly along Walnut Avenue. The large mass of concrete, as referred to in Mr. Auer's letter, would be a walk 7'-5" wide along the Walnut Avenue frontage and a varying width walk of 7'-5" to 5'-5" wide along Franklin Avenue. Development regulations require a thirty foot landscaped area along the Walnut Avenue frontage, which is located behind the right-of-way line or back edge of sidewalk. Bob Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer BL:jr August 13, 1985 TUSTIN CORPOI~ATE PARK 3300 Irvine Avenue, Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 (714) 756-0090 ~Y RECEIVED AUG 1 985 Director of Public Works/City Engineer city of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Reference: ~stin Corporate Park - Use Permit Wo. 84-24 Parcel Map No. 84-1031 Since learning of your decision asking us to install eight foot sidewalks in our project at Walnut ar~ Franklin w~ have been giving a lot of thought to the real purpose and nc~ for these sidewalks. Based on the following observations, we believe that the sidewalks would serv~ no useful purpose rDr would they be practical to install at this time. 1) We have driven the entire Tu~tin-Irvine Business Park and were ur~ble to find sidewalks in any other project. 2) Since Lhere are no sidewalks in the other projects, our sid~alks w~uld be superfluous as there is no connection in either direction. 3) The sidewalks thyselves are a large mass of concrete ar~ ~u/d not add to th.e aesthetics or beautification of the project as would the proposed landscape plan which you have received and reviewed. 4) ~t~ile it is true we have 10,000 s~mre feet of retail, this is a very small retail project and since parking is not allc~ed on Walnut Street on Mxich the retail faces, anyone using the retail would park in the rear and would have no use for the sidewalks. We respectfully request t_bat you review this decision ar~ if you still believe the sidewalks are needed, we would then like your permission to appeal tb/s decision to the next authority. S'.z~. erely,/ i General Part. her AJA:sj Planning Comrnission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: OCTOBER 28, 1985 USE PERMIT 85-26 JOHN PENCE ON BEHALF OF CHELSEA CAFE, INC. RESCO OEV£LOPNENT NORI'HW£STERLY CORNER OF REO HILL AVENUE ANO EOINGER A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR TO CONFORM WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT IN Will( A BEER AND WINE LICENSE IN THE IROU~RIAL (M-l) OISTRICT RECO~I4ENOED ACTION: Approve the operation of a restaurant with beer and wine license by the adoption of Resolution No. 2278. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In January of 1985, RESCO Development proposed an R & D project on the Mullin Lumber Company property of 4.7 acres located on the northwesterly corner of Red Hill and Edinger Avenues. Based on ~rket studies, staff encouraged the developer for the project to include a.commercial use, such as a restaurant, for the generation of sales tax revenue. The developer agreed to amend his development plans to build two R & D buildings totaling 62,100 square feet and a restaurant of 5,470 square feet. The applicant is now requesting authorization to operate a restaurant with a beer and wine license in the Industrial (M-l) District. The site plan was previously approved by the Redevelopment Agency on April 5, 1985 to include the restaurant facility and R & D structures. At that time, the elevations were approved for the R & D structures but the restaurant owners had not yet been selected. Community Developmem Deparxment Planning Commission Report Use Permit 85-26 page two The exterior elevations show cultured stone and antique brick with lead glass windows in an Old English style of architecture. The proposed roofing is Old English slate tile. Staff feels that the building as proposed will make a handsome addition to the industrial area while providing a needed service for the expected growth. The applicant is also requesting authorization to serve wine and beer in the restaurant. The proposed location of the restaurant is in the industrial area and therefore the liquor sales would not have any detrimental affect on minors. Because of the location of the restaurant and the clientele it will attract, staff supports the issuance of a beer and wine license for on-site sales. MARY AN4( CHAMBERLAIN Associate Planner MAC:em Attachments: Plans Resolution No. 2278 Comrnunily Developmenl Depar~rnenl 3_-IVO S,¥'qS'I=IHO NOU. onaJ. s.oo gnN~AV Id::lONlO'q (J! ,l$,~Jod Je~ecl Je~eJ ~:1¥0 S,¥:~S-I:IHO Ul ~e~od J~*~ Je~'eJ :J_-.-.-J¥O g,¥gg"lgHO 1 2 3 4 5 The 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. 2278 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING A RESTAURANT WITH AN ON-SITE BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF EDINGER AND REDHILL AVENUE. 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 No. 85-26) has been filed on behalf of Resco Development to authorize a restaurant of 5,470 square feet with an on-site beer and wine license for the northwesterly corner of Redhill and Edinger Avenues. Bo 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, evidenceU by the following findings: 1. The sale of beer and wine is on-site only. Because of the location of the restaurant in the industrial area, the operation should not have any detrimental affect on minors. 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. That a Negative Declaration is hereby approved for the project. G. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2278 page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 85-26 to authorize the operation of a restaurant with on-site beer and wine license subject to the following conditions attached in Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WELL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT 85-26 e e Dedication of street right-of-way will be required along both the Redhill Avenue and Edinger Street frontages of the parcel as follows: a. Ten feet (10') along Redhill Avenue. b. Ten feet (10') along Edinger Street. c. Appropriate corner cut off/radius for 35 foot radius curb return. d. Additional right-of-way as required for bus turn-outs as shown in red on the attached site plan. e. Additional street right-of,way to accommodate radius type driveways as proposed and per city standard drawing number 108E. Restriction of access to and from the site to right turn movements only as shown on the street improvement plans. The site plan layout delineates a two parcel plot. A parcel map will be required to subdivide this parcel into the two parcels/lots. If there is any future intent to sell off the R and D buildings to separate owners, perhaps the developers would desire to further subdivide the larger parcel into two parcels at this time. As presented, reciprocal access and utility easements {dependent upon utility layout) will be required between the parcels. Construction of street improvements to ultimate location. These improvements will include but not be limited to the following: a. Street paving/striping/signing b. Drive aprons c. Curb and gutter d. Sidewalk e. Traffic signal relocation f. Storm drain/catch basin g. Domestic water service to each parcel h. Sanitary sewer service to each parcel i. Marbelite street lights with underground conduit j. Street trees The subject parcel{s) will require annexation to the Orange County Street Lighting and Maintenance District No. 6. All annexation forms should be filed with the Tustin Engineering Division. Payment of Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees in the amount of $50.00/1,000 sq. ft. of floor area will be required at the time building permits are issued. Payment of East Orange County Water District fees will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. Contact Earl Rowenhorst at the Tustin Water Service for fee amounts. Comrnunily Developmenl Deparlmenl Conditions Use Permit 85-26 page two 10. 11. A grading plan with proposed elevations (in relation to mean sea level) will be required for review and approval. Aproval of the Health Department. Sign plans must be submitted for approval prior to permit issuance. Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZON ! NG: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: OCTOBER 28, 1985 USE PERMIT 85-23 ORANGE COUNTY ANTENNA SPECIALISTS SCOTT ASHLEY/CEDAR GLEN APARTMENTS 15811 PASADENA AVENUE R-3; MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15303(e)) TO INSTALL A 10' DIAMETER SATELLITE RECEIVING ANTENNA IN THE COURTYARD OF THE CEDAR GLEN APARTMENT COMPLEX RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of Use Permit 85-23 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2276. SUMMARY: The applicant has proposed to locate a satellite courtyard area of the Cedar Glen Apartment complex. will be: receiving antenna in the If approved, the antenna 1) 10' in diameter 2) installed upon a 13' high pole 3) approximately 18' in height after installation 4) screened from public right-of-way view by existing structures which are approximately 25 feet in height As set forth in Ordinance No. installation of this antenna. apartment 926, a Use Permit is required to authorize the Community Development DeparTment Planning Commission Report Use Permit 85-23 page two ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS: The criteria for satellite dish location, as outlined in Ordinance No. 926, states that satellite antennas in residential zones should: 1) be installed in the rear yard; 2) not exceed 10 feet in height; 3) not be visible from public right-of-way view As shown in Exhibit 'A', the height and location of the dish will not visually impact the surrounding community. The layout of the apartment complex creates an enclosed courtyard area whereby the proposed 18' high antenna will be screened by the existing 25 high apartmen% units. The visual impact will be limited to the residents who will derive benefit from the antenna's installation. LAURA PICKUP Assistan% Planner LP:em Community Development Department EXHIBIT "A" O;er 30 years ot ~ntenna engi- per~enoe ~as pr~uced M/A-COM P~cJe~r~s S0 M reflector. The ?,re oF~n9 an 30 M ~s bu:t to the ::mst p?or mance standards; qua~ es characteristic of M/A- COMs fv~ ~ne of reflectors d~ sgned for home and commercial use. -Cubic Feet 64.4 - ~,~:, ~_-~OIbs - Coot Boise Ter-!~L.~rat jre,,nanca.~:~ O~rational -~.~',~ ,c __(,~,.c ,~ hr:perv :$': :a:t ~,5~t, tar'tS ~d e.~ ..... ~. :, in coastal and ~U~LF :a areas i,.'iEETS OR EXCEEDS ' ~T~ °*0 C --8 individual reflector panels are interchangea~ e ~rnd f,eid replaceable ~ ' L,u~,t~,vrs - Reflector's segmented desion 0339 i,f ::r:;:'~ :':.;" :]; "{.::' "j : ': : L ' ,] - .F,,D-- 0 298..,th a 35 A i! ': i;.,..e5 £,c:&r 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~3 ~5 26 ~7 ~8 RESOLUTION NO. 2276 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT 85-23 GRANTING AUTHORIZATION FOR ORANGE COUNTY ANTENNA SPECIALISTS TO INSTALL A 10' SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA IN THE COURTYARD AREA OF 15811 PASADENA AVE., CEDAR GLEN APARTMENTS The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 85-23) was filed by Orange County Antenna Specialists on behalf of Scott Ashley/Cedar Glen Apartments, requesting authorization to install a 10' diameter satellite dish antenna in the courtyard area of the Cedar Glen Apartments at 15811 Pasadena Avenue in the R-3 Multi-Family Residential zone. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Co 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. That the use is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and Tustin Area General plan. Do 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. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15303e). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2276 page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 85-23 to authorize the installation of a 10' diameter satellite dish antenna at 15811 Pasadena Avenue, subject to the following conditions: A. The antenna shall not be visible from the public right-of-way. B. The appropriate Building Permits must be obtained prior to installation. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary KATHY WEIL, Chairman Planning Commission ITE~ NO. 5 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: OWNER: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: OCTOBER 28, 1985 USE PERMIT APPLICATION 85-24 ORANGE COUNTY ANTENNA SPECIALISTS 6182 GARDEN GROVE BLVD WESTMINSTER, CA 92683 HOLIDAY GARDENS APARITNENTS 15601 NS-FIN VILLAGE WAY RICHARD BROWN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (SECTION 15303(e)) TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF A ROOF-MOUNTED, 10' OIAaMETER, SATELLITE SIGNAL RECEIVING DISH IN THE CARPORT AREA OF THE SUBJECT COMPLEX RECOMMENDEO ACTION: It is recommended that the Use Permit Application 85-24 be approved subject to conditions contained in draft Resolution No. 2277. BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Ordinance No. 926, an application has been filed on behalf of the owner of the Holiday Gardens Apartments requesting authorization to install a satellite dish antenna at 15601Tustin Village Way. The specific request is to allow an antenna, 10 feet in diameter, to be installed on the roof of a carport structure in the rear parking area of the subject address. The fact that the dish will be roof mounted and visible from the.public right-of-way requires that a Conditional Use Permit be obtained prior to installation. ISSUES: In reviewing the subject application, two issues are of some concern: the visibility of the dish from the public right-of-way; and the visual impact to adjacent townhome and apartment projects. Community Development Depariment Planning Commission Report Use Permit Application 85-24 page two Visibility from the Public Right-of-Way: As proposed, the dish would be mounted upon a carport structure in the northwest corner of the property. The carport is approximately 10 feet high, and the proposed dish at its highest point, will be approximately 10 feet above the roof line. The carport/dish will be situated approximately 250 feet from the sidewalk along Tustin Village Way and 275 feet from the sidewalk along Alliance Avenue. The distances from right-of-ways reduce the visual impact of the dish, however, the roof mounting will cause the dish to be seen from these streets. Visual Impact to Adjacent Residential Complexes: The proposed location of the dish is immediately adjacent to (within 15 feet) an apartment complex to the west and a townhouse project to the north. Residents of at least three units will be able to see the dish from window areas directly facing the project area. It is conceivable that residents of other units may be able to view the dish, however, direct line of sight is limited. ANALYSIS: In addressing the visibility issues previously discussed, staff considers that since the proposed dish will be 250 + feet from any street, the visual impact from the public right-of-way will be ~ignificantly reduced. Further, if as the applicant has indicated is possible, a screen-mesh type dish is used {in lieu of the standard fiberglass type) the dish will not be highly visible from any public street. Therefore, it appears that the intent of Ordinance No. 926 of reducing visual impact of the dish could be met. In terms of the visibility to surrounding properties, it is felt that the impact of the antenna can best be reduced by the use of a mesh type dish. Ordinance No. 926 does not address visual impact of a project to private property, but in an effort to maintain some compatibility, an appropriately colored mesh dish is recommended. dSD:em Attachments: Site Plan Resolution )40. 2277 Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2277 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 85-24 AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF A SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA AT 15601TUSTIN VILLAGE WAY 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 No. 85-24) has been filed on behalf of Mr. Richard Brown {Holiday Gardens Apartments) requesting authorization to install a 10 foot diameter, roof-mounted satellite signal receiving dish in the carport area at 15601Tustin Village Way. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Co 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 nei'ghborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following findings: That the proposed dish will be at least 250 feet from any public right of way and visible only from drive-way entrance points. o That the dish will be of a screen-mesh type and will be painted to match the existing carport, thus reducing the visual impact of the structure. 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 he 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. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Section 15303e). G. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2277 page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 85-24 to authorize installation of a 10 foot diameter, roof-mounted satellite signal receiving dish in the carport area of 15601 Tustin Village Way subject to the following conditions: A. That the satellite dish be of a screen-mesh type. That the dish be painted to match the color of the existing carport. Final color sample to be approved by the Community Development Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 28, 1985 LOCATION OF PROFESSIONAL, INSTRUCTIONAL, MOTIVATIONAL AND SEMINAR SCHOOLS IN TIlE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE OISTRICT (PR). RECOI~ENOEO ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission intiate an action to amend the Professional District to allow professional, instructional, motivational and seminar school uses subject to a conditional use permit by a direction that a public hearing be advertised. ISSUE: Dr. Marti Malterre, director of the Professional School of Psychological Studies, has requested that the city zoning code be amended to allow a professional school use in the professional office district. ANALYSIS: Currently professional, instructional, motivational and seminar schools are not allowed in the professional office district. However, business schools which would be a comparable use, are allowed in (C-1) Commercial zones. The location of schools in a commercial zone could present problems such as the loss of space for higher sales tax generation retail uses, or an inadequate number of parking spaces to allow schools in a Commercial Zone. The issue of inadequate parking spaces for schools in a commercial district is currently being reviewed by the planning staff. The major concern with the location .of professional and other schools in any area is the parking demand created by such a use. Currently the parking requirement for professional uses in the PR district is one space per 300 square feet of building space. Although a proposal to increase the requirement to one space per 250 square feet is being considered, the adequacy of this standard for a school use would still be very questionable. In a survey of Orange County cities it was found that only a small percentage allowed a school type use, and then only subject to a conditional use permit. The major reason for the conditional use permit is to assure that adequate parking is provided so parking congestion will not be a problem. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report PR Zone page two CONCLUS~O#: When considering school uses in the professional office district it is important to note that normally schools will be occupied at a higher density than will offices. Because of this, a higher standard of parking requirements would be advantageous. In the survey of other Orange County cities, a variety of parking standards were found. These standards ranged from one space per 35 square feet to one space per 100 square feet. Another city required one space per each five seats but noted problems have resulted because the requirement was not strict enough. If approved, it is also recommended that the following parking requirements be implemented: Off street parking: (a) Professional, Instructional, Motivational and Seminar schools: One (1) space for each two (2) students at maximum enrollment and one (1) space for each instructor, or one (1) space for each 50 square feet which ever will be greater. The logic behind these proposed requirements is tha~ the Uniform Building Code has a maximum occupancy limit for students in a classroom of one {1) person for every 20 square feet. Thus mathematically at the highest allowed density, the proposed parking requirements would be sufficient to accommodate all students. In conclusion, the location of professional schools in the professional office district would not have an adverse impact to the city if the stated requirements for parking are met. Specifically, because of the fact that business schools are allowed only in commercial zones and as earlier stated could be a disadvantage. Because of these reasons approval of professional, instructional, motivational and seminar schools in a professional zone is recommended. oo'D~VIS, ciate Planner JD:CH:do ~ Communily Developmenl Depar~rnen~ ~ Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 7 October 28, 1985 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - October 21, 1985 Oral presentation to be gtven by Donald D. Lam, Director of Community Development do Attachments: City Councl] Actton Agenda - October 21, 1985 Community Developmcn~ Depar;ment ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~ETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 21, 1985 7:00 P.M. 7:01 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PROCLAMATION ACCEPTED BY KAREN THOMSEN IV. 1. ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE PUBLIC AWARENESS MONTH - NOVEMBER, 1985 SPECIAL PRESENTATION PRESENTED BY GENE 1. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CITATION AWARDED BY AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN SHAW CALIFORNIA TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE PROCLAMATIONS FOR TUSTIN TILLER DAYS FAIR AND PARADE. NONE V. PUBLIC INPUT VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 951 ZONE CHANGE 85-7 - ORDINANCE NO. 951 ORDINANCE NO. 951 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, REZONING 305, 315, 325 MAIN STREET FROM R-3 (MULTIPLE FAMILY) DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL'GENERAL (CG) DISTRICT, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A". Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 951 have first reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 951 be introduced. INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 950 2. ZONE CHANGE 85-10 - ORDINANCE NO. 950 ORDINANCE NO. 950 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, REZONING 12931 AND 1201 IRVINE BOULEVARD FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-l) TO PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (P&I), AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT "A". Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 950 have first reading by title only. M'.O. - That Ordinance No. 950 be introduced. CONTINUED TO 11-4-85 e APPEAL OF VARIANCE 85-5 - 205 EL CAMINO REAL Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 949 4. SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 949 ORDINANCE NO. 949 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 1 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING PART 2, SECTIONS 4120, 4121, 4122, 4123, 4124, 4125, 4126, 4127, 4128, AND 4129, RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 1 10-21-85 CONSENT CALENDAR VII. APPROVED APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1985, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $969,569.49 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $126,657.42 APPROVED STAFF 3. RECO~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF 4. RECOI~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF 5. RECOt~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF 6. RECOI~tENDATION APPROVED STAFF 7. RECO~IENDATION APPROVED STAFF 8. RECOI~ENDATION REJECTION OF CLAIM OF ESTER CRUZ GONZALES; DATE OF LOSS: 5/8/85~ DATE FILED WITH CITY: 8/20/85; CLAIM NO. 85-39 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. REJECTION OF CLAIM OF GABRIEL & SANDRA SANTANA; DATE OF LOSS: DATE FILED WITH CITY: 8/2/85; CLAIM NO. 85-36 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. 4/28/85; GRANT OF EASEMENT - COLUMBUS TUSTIN PARKSITE Approve the Grant of Easement at Columbus Tustin Parksite to South- ern California Edison Company to provide the required electrical service to public facilities; and authorize the Mayor to execute the required Grant of Easement Deed as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. COLUMBUS TUSTIN SOFTBALL/MULTI-PLAY AREA LIGHTING PROJECT Authorize an agreement for professional services with Musco Light- ing, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $5,200 for complete design documents and specifications for two baseball fields with multi- purpose field overlays based on performance criteria ready for review, and open public competitive construction bidding procedures as recommended by the Director of Community and Administrative Services. REMOVAL FROM BOARD OF DIRECTORS - TUSTIN PUBLIC INFORMATIQN, INC. Remove Gay Lona Hamblin and Jeffrey Kolin from the Board of Direc- tors, Tustin Public Information, Inc., as recommended by the Direc- tor of Community and Administrative Services. APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TUSTIN PUBLIC INFORMATION, INC. Appoint Susan M. Jones and Larry Schutz to the Board of Directors, Tustin Public Information, Inc., as recommended by the Director of Community and Administrative Services. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 9. NO. 85-104 ADOPTED 10. RESOLUTION NO. 85-105 RESOLUTION NO. 85-104 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 85-212 LOCATED AT NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF RED HILL AVENUE AT BELL AVENUE Adopt Resolution No. 85-104 as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. RESOLUTION NO. 85-105 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, DESIGNATING A CITY CONSULTANT AS THE AUTHORIZED CITY REPRESENTA- TIVE TO EXAMINE SALES AND USE TAX RECORDS Adopt Resolution No. 85-105; and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Municipal Resource Consultants for sales tax services as recommended by the Finance Director. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 10-21-85 ~OPTED 11. RESOLUTION NO. 85-107 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -SOLUTION NO. 8~-107 TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BAIL SCHEDULE FOR TUSTIN CITY CODE VIOLATIONS Adopt Resolution No. 85-107 as recommended by the City Attorney. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION None. IX. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION None. X. OLD BUSINESS AOOPTED RESOLUTION 1. NO. 85-106 AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 19 - PARCEL MAP 84-1032, TUSTIN AUTO CENTER RESOLUTION NO. 85-106 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION NO. 19 OF PARCEL MAP 84-1032 TO A COMPLETION DATE OF MAY 15, 1986, FROM OCTOBER 15, 1985, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS TO CONDITION NO. 19 Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 85-106 as recommended by the Com- munity Development Department. OPTED RESOLUTION ,,0. 85-102 e ADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 948 WITH C~ANGE THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 85-103 XI. NEW APPROVED STAFF RECO~ENDATION MAJOR THOROUGHFARE & BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANS- PORTATION CORRIDORS - RESOLUTION NO. 85-102; ORDINANCE NO. 948; RESOLU- TION NO. 85-103 (Continued from October 10, 1985) RESOLUTION NO. 85-102 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED AREA OF BENEFIT AND MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM ORDINANCE NO. 948 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADDING SECTION 2800 TO THE CITY CODE ADOPTING A MAJOR THOROUGH- FARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM 60 DAYS FROM ADOPTION INSTEAD OF 30 DAYS RESOLUTION NO. 85-103 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ESTABLISHING THE AREA OF BENEFIT AND THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM FOR THE FOOTHILL/EASTERN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS 3. COMMERCIAL OFFICE PARKING STANDARDS Recommendation: Advertise for a zone amendment to the parking standards for professional offices as requested by the Planning Commission. BUSINESS APPROVED STAFF RECO~ENDATION 1. BID AWARD - ANNUAL TREE STRUMP REMOVAL & GRINDING PROGRAM Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to Edney Tree Service, Tustin, in the amount of $7,175 as recommended by the Engineer- ing Division. APPROVED STAFF ~CO~ENDATION 2. BID AWARD - CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ~ecommendation: Award the contract for subject project to Porshia Alexander of America, Inc., Covina, for an annual cost of $26,637.40 as recommended by the Engineering Division. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 10-21-85 ~ROVED STAFF _CO)~qENDATION APPROVED STAFF REC01~qENDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOI~qENDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOI~qENOATION 3. BID AWARD-- FY 1985-86 SLURRY'SEAL PROGRAM Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to Doug Martin Contracting Company, Inc., La Habra, in the amount of $135,828.75 as recommended by the Engineering Division. 4. CONSULTANT SERVICES - MYFORD ROAD DESIGN ENGINEERING Recommendation: 1) Approve the selection of Church Engineering, Inc., to perform engineering design services for the Myford Road extension through MCAS-Tustin in the amount of $217,500; 2) Authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement for said work; and 3) Authorize the use of J. P. Kapp and Associates for plan checking services on an as-needed basis as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. 5. BID AWARD - VANDERLIP AVENUE WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to Shacklett Construction Company, Pomona, in the amount of $104,069.45 as recom- mended by the Engineering Division. 6. BID AWARD - "B" STREET AND MITCHELL AVENUE HCDA STREET IMPROVEMENTS Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to Sully-Miller Contracting Company, Orange, in the amount of $135,227.63 as recommended by the Engineering Division. AUTHORIZED A 7. LAGUNA/EAST TUSTIN BUDGET GENERAL FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION OF $68,0OO FOR COST OF CITY SERVICES TO THIS AREA Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. XlI. REPORTS RATIFIED 1. RECEIVED Ai~D FILED 2. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - OCTOBER 14, 1985 All actions of the Planning Commission are final the City Council or member of the public. unless appealed by INVESTMENT SCHEDULES AS OF SEPTEMBER 30 & AUGUST 31, 1985 Recommendation: Receive and file. WAIVED THE FORI~AL 3. REPORT ON OFFICE FURNITURE CO~IPETITIVE BID PROCEDURE A&(D ASSIGNED A PURCHA~SE ORDER TO HA4.LMA. RK BUSINESS INTERIORS, INC. KENNEDY XIII. OTHER BUSINESS REPORTED THAT THE ESCROW WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT CLOSED THIS DATE FOR SENIOR CENTER SITE. SALTARELLI COMPLAINED ABOUT LARGE TRUCKS PARKING ON SAN JUAN EAST OF RED HILL. CITY MANAGER SAID THE ITEM WOULD BE AGENDIZED FOR 11-4-85. HOESTEREY MENTIONED THAT THE PUBLIC INPUT SECTION OF THE AGENDA SHOULD FOLLOW PUBLIC HEARINGS. 1:45 XIV. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 4, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 10-21-85 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OCTOBER 21, 1985 7:00 P.M. 11:45 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT APPROVED 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 10, 1985, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING APPROVED 4. BID AWARD - EL CAMINO REAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT STAFF RECO~IENDATION Recommendation: Award the contract for subject project to Porshia Alexander of America, Inc., Covina, for an annual cost of $11,502 as recommended by the Engineering Division. APPROVED 5. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS STAFF RECOI~4ENDATION Recommendation: Approve demands in the amount of $130,337.25 for the month of September, 1985, as recommended by the Finance Director. NONE 6. OTHER BUSINESS 11:46 7. ADJOURNMENT TO the next Regular Meeting on Monday, November 4, 1985, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 10-21-85