Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 01-20-86REPORTS NO. 1 1-20-86 AcTiON AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGUt. AR ~ETING JANUARY I3, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC COMCERNS~ CONSENT CALENDAR: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 9, 1985. 2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 23, 1985. McCarthy moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 80-17 Applicant: Bill Taylor on behalf of Taylor's Restaurant Location: 1542 E1Camino Real Request: To expand an existing game room by 320 square feet. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development White moved, McCarthy seconded to table this item for a period of six months. carried 5-0. Motion carried 5-0. MoLt on Action Agenda January 13, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 84-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Karen Cripps 15411 Red Hill Avenue, Unit D Approval of a 1750 square foot expansion and extension of previously allowed hours of operation for the California Sunshine Gymnastics School Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Puckett moved. Baker seconded to approve Amendment Il to Use Permit 84-7 by the adoptton of Resolution 2292. Hotton carrted 5-0. 5. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: Location: Request: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monlca Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company. An area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use (which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner After extensive Comflssion, staff, consultant and public co,,.ent. White moved. Puckett seconded to continue the public hearing to January 27, 1986. Motion carried ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Business None. New Business None. Action Agenda January 13, 1986 page three STAFF CONCERNS 6. Oral Report on Council actions of January 6, 1986.. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development CO~ISSION CONCERNS None ADJOURNMENT Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. to the next ~egularly scheduled Planning Cmmtsslon meeting. Motion carried 5-0. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR FI~ETI NG JANUARY 13, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Ltmtted to 3 minutes per person for 1rems not on the agenda) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALENDAR: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION,) Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 9, 1985. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 23, 1985. PUBLIC HEARINGS Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 80-17 Bill Taylor on behalf of Taylor's Restaurant 1542 E1Camino Real To expand an existing game room by 320 square feet. Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Agenda January 13, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 84-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Karen Cripps 16411 Red Hill Avenue, Unit D Approval of a 1750 square foot expansion and extension of previously allowed hours of operation for the California Sunshine Gymnastics School Presentatl on: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner 5. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvtne Company. Location: An area bounded by the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line {Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. Request: To amend the General' Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use (which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Presentation: Ed Knight, Senior Planner AOMIMISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Business None. New Business None. Agenda January 13, 1986 page three STAFF CONCERNS 6. 0ral Report on Council actions of January 6, 1986.. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSIOM CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn :0 the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. MINUTES ~$T%N PLANNING CO~ISSION REGULAR I~EETI NG DECEHBER 9, 1985 CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 p.m. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Ed Knight, Jeff Davis, Irvine Company representatives, public Ed Knight made an oral presentation with questions and answers following. session adjournedat 6:20 p.m. 7:30 p..m. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: The study Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Staff: Ed Knight, Jeff Davis, Laura Pickup, Donna Orr, Suzanne Atkins, All Bell and Mark Brodeur from The Planning Center. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting November 25, [985. Puckett moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-6 Applicant: Action: Presentation: Motion carried 5-0. Initiated by the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to the Professional Office and Industrial Districts to allow school and instructional uses subject to conditional use permits. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Puckett moved, White seconded to approve Resolution No. 2283 recommending to the City Council adoption of ZOA 85-6. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner White questioned the parking standards and the allottment for parents visiting the school or dropping off students. Jeff Davis explained that all other similar type schools are parked the same way as recommended. Chair Weil opened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 7:36 p.m. Mi nutes December 9, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.) 3. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-7 Applicant: Action: Presentation: Initiated by the City Council Recommend to the City Council to amend the City of Tustin Code as it relates to office parking standards in all applicable zones. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chair Well opened the hearing at 7:43 p.m. Seeing no one to speak she closed the hearing at 7:43 p.m. Commissioner White requested Jeff Davis summarize Table 1 of his staff report dated December 9, 1985 and what changes were made. Commissioner Baker-questioned the affect on Carver Development. Jeff Davis responded there would be no affect because the Carver project was previously approved. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution No.,-2284 recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 85-7. Motion carriedS-O. 4. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-8 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the Planning Commission Recommend to the City Council to amend the City Code prohibiting the construction and/or operation of toxic waste transfer stations within the city. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak she closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m. Chair Well added her support to this amendment. She commented that Tustin is very small and has homes and schools close to industrial areas. Toxic materials represent too much of a threat to the health, safety and welfare of our community. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to adopt Resolution 2285 recommending to the City Council approval of ZOA 85-8. Motion carried 5-0. 5. USE PERMIT 85-28 Applicant: George Hillyard on behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation Location: 17241 Irvine Blvd. Request: To convert an existing 167 square foot sales area to a mini-market. Presentation: Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Chair Well opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Commission discussion ensued as follows: Minutes December 9, 1985 page three l Commissioner Baker questioned the necessity for a lO' dedication. Laura Pickup responded that the requirement is part of the city's master plan of arterial highways. Commissioner White questioned the outcome of the preservation of development standards for the dedication of arterial highways. Ed Knight responded there has been no decision to date. The following people from the audience spoke: George Hillyard representing Mobil Oil Corporation clarified they are not interested in selling alcoholic beverages. He did request relief from the 10' dedication requirement. He explained they don't own the property and so they don't have the right te dedicate the 10' The outside pump island is 23' from the street; if the 10' were dedicated they would lose the use of that island. Seeing no one further wishing speak, Chair Well closed the hearing at 7:55 p.m. Chair Well asked the applicant how close his business'is to the ~5 freeway. He responded his s~ation is located on the corner of ~he Irvine Blvd. on-ramp. Chair Well clarified the chances of widening'Irvine Blvd. in that area are very slim due to the extensive bridge work that would be involved. Laura Pickup explained the City Council could waive the 10' dedication if they felt it appropriate. Mr. Hillyard could appeal the Planning Commission's decision thereby bringing it before the Council. Commissioner White agreed with Staff's recommendation and felt this was a matter for the City Council to decide. Commissioner McCarthy recommended this go to the City Council. Puckett moved, White seconded to approve UP 85,28 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2287 which includes the 10' dedication requirement. Motion carried 5-0. 6. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 85-9 Applicant: Action: Initiated by the City Attorney Recommend to the City Council to amend the City Code to require a Conditional Use Permit for Fortune Telling businesses. Presentation: Jeff Davis, Assistant Planner Chair Wetl opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Commissioner Puckett commented he did not like the idea of passing an ordinance permitting fortune telling in Tustin. Commissioner White questioned if a Conditional Use Permit would be required. Jeff Davis responded affirmatively. Minutes December 9, 1985 page four Chair Well commented that she contacted the Police Department for their views on this ordinance. The Police Department stated there are many legitimate fortune telling businesses, but they will observe the situation and take appropriate action. Baker moved, McCarthy seconded to adopt Resolution 2286 recommending approval of ZOA 85-9 to the City Council . Motion carried 4-1, Puckett opposed. 7. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN Applicant: Action: Presentation: Initiated by the City Council Recommend to the City Council adoption of the First Street Specific Plan. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner A1 Bell, associate with The Planning Center, highlighted the exhibits presented. The basis of the plan is to preserve what is good, to improve what needs improvement and to stimulate economic growth. 1) The decision to change remains with the property owner; the decision for the quality of the plan is with the city. Quality is .defined by projects that are consistent with the uses specified in the regulations'of the plan; projects that conform with the development standards will be projects that utilize the design guidelines. 2) Physical determinants: parcel size; current use relationship to other parcels; potential for the expansion of the use; access opportunities and limitations; feasibility of achieving adequate parking on the site or adjacent; location preferences; arterial and freeway exposure. Overall conclusion: There is significant interest in the future development and getting the greater use out of the area while preserving friendly atmosphere. The primary uses recommended contain requirements and incentives. Incentives: lot consolidation, mixed use, consolidation for parking; responding to use objectives or eliminating constraints. Mixed use incentives require that the first floor remain commercial where the second floor is office. Design guidelines (requirements): intend to convey the physical character expected in the First Street corridor. The plan attempts to expand the existing quality of the area. The following people from the audience spoke: Patrick Ryan, 17892 Irvine Blvd., questioned if this is leading to formulating a guideline for the improvement of First Street. He further was concerned with a strip center where one suite changed uses; what would happen to the other 3 businesses. H. Victor Eastman, 661W. First, protested parking lot design: Tustin has the worst parking design especially with planters. Suggested no tree wells, walkways without trees and rear parking lots with landscaping. Harry Gates, 450 W. First, believed the new changes more restrictive than originally approved on his project: 15' setback. He expressed concern with the increasing traffic hazards caused by landscaping left turn lanes (Page IV-31). Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Weil closed the hearing at 9:30 p.m. Mi nu res December 9, 1985 page fi Ye Further Commission ensued with questions and answer of staff and the representatives .from the Planning Center. Topics included, parking, primary and secondary uses on parcels, pedestrian area guidelines and restrictions, and impacts on existing uses. Following is a summary of recommended amendments to the First Street Specific Plan: Page III-22, amend #2 Administrative Review as follows: ADD design guidelines. . . Any project having development plans approved by building permit issuance or land use permit prior to the adoption of this specific plan shall remain approved without amendment. Any Primary Use project proposed in the specific plan area shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission as an information item. Page III-11, amend b. on top of page as follows: DELETE 3 story, 38 feet and replace with 2 story, 28 feet. 3. Page III-11, amend d. DELETE reference to 3rd 'story - 32 feet. Page IV-il, Materials Palette, ADD "pale pastel colors" to the 3rd column for walls color. Page IY-19, ADD a design guideline for signs which states, "all buildings using rear parking lots shall clearly identify their businesses with rear wall signage. All structures shall exhibit clear address information on the front facade. {Recommended guideline: Minimum address number size shall be 6" for a 1 story building and 10" for a 2 story building.) For night identification the numbers shall be internally or externally lighted. Otherwise all signing shall comply with the Tustin Sign Code. 6. Page IV-28, on bus stops ADD that clear plexiglass may be added to the walls in order to block winds. 7. Page IV-4 DELETE the right column guideline and replace with the followi, ng: Utilize the front setback area in one of the following manners. The front setback may either be entirely landscaped (in conformance with the landscape guidelines) or made into a pedestrian plaza, utilizing interlocking pavers as a base material, pedestrian level lighting and a minimum of 15% landscaped area. Page III-3, number 2, ADD to the end of the sentence, "this shall not preclude pedestrian arcades or awnings from encroaching into the front yard setback area." Page III-2, ADD triple asterisks after Planning units numbered 2-1, 2-5, 2-6 and add a note at bottom of page which states, "***these properties shall receive design review by Planning Commission regardless of Primary Use or Secondary Use. The area shall exhibit a strong pedestrian emphasis. 11. Page IV-15. ADD a design guideline for parking which states, "the parking area should be designed in a manner which links the building to street sidewalk system as an extension of the pedestrian environment. This can be accomplished by using design features such as walkways with enhanced paving, trellis structures, and/or landscaping treatment. Minutes December 9, 1985, page six 11. Page II-g ADD a number 8 to readas follows: 8. Incentives for Plan Administration Issue: What city assistance can be provided to encourage implementation of this Plan. GOALS: To encourage rapid rehabilitation of non-conforming structures and uses. OBJECTIVES: 8.1 Rehabilitation of facades {including signage) of existing comply with design guidelines of this plan. 8.2 Improve vehicular inter-site circulation. 8.3 Maximization of pedestrian movement and access. POLICY: 1. To make available to property owners, where possible, funding redevelopment agency or other appropriate sources for rehabilitation. expediant structures to from the McCarthy moved, White seconded to recommend to the City Council adoption of the First Street Specific Plan by the adoption of Resolution No. 2288 with the amendments discussed during the course of the public hearing and outlined above. Motion carried 5-0. AD#ItIISTI~ATIVE )tAI~RS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Oral Report on Council actions of December 2, 1985. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Mi nutes December 9, 1985 page 7 COI~qlSSION CONCERNS McCarthy questioned the status of Bryan Avenue striping study to designate four lanes and left turns between Browning and Newport Avenue. Baker requested the status of the culvert on Bryan {East Tustin). Puckett wondered if there are any fortune telling businesses presently in Tustin. AD~IOUR~IENT · McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on December 1985 for a study session on East Tustin Specific Plan. The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will follow. Motion carried 5-0. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER: M. INUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COIOIISSION REGULAR ~E-FI NG DECEMBER 23, 1985 6:30 p.m. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY SESSION Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy Absent: White Don Camm will make an oral presentation with questions and answers following. 7:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy Absent: White PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC CONCERNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. 2. 3. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 9, 1985. Approve Final Parcel Map 85-196 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2249. Approve Final Parcel Map 85-197 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2289. Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of correcting the minutes to reflect attendance at workshop. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. USE PERMIT 85-27 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Commission discussion ensued with questions and answer of staff concerning the alcoholic beverage license status. Mr. Mike Porto on behalf of Independent Development Company 17102 McFadden Avenue To install an 18 foot high pylon sign and to allow for an off-site beer and wine license. Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner · - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INYO~-~TION None. Minutes Planning Commission, December g3, 1985 page two Chair Well opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mike Porto, project applicant, made himself available for questions. Jim Williams, propert"y owner, explained when they move to the new location the beer and wine license will be surrendered. Any new use'on the present location will have to obtain their own license. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Well closed the hearing at 7:50 p.m. McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to approve UP 85-27 and an off-site beer and wine license by the adoption of Resolution 2282. Motion carried 4-0. 5. AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 80-17 Applicant: Locati on: Request: Bill Taylor on behalf of Taylor's Restaurant 1542 E1Camino Real To expand an existing' game room by 320 square feet. Presentati on: Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Well opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the hearing at 7:52 p.m. Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to continue this matter to the next meeting..Motion carried 4-0. ADfllMIS'rRATIV[ )IAI'I'ERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONC£RNS 6. Oral Report on Council actions of December 16, 1985. Presentati on: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS Baker questioned the status of Bryan Avenue and the O.C. Flood Control. Mike Ellis responding on behalf of The Irvine Company explained the work in progress. Well questioned the city's participation in JPA. Don Lamm explained that the city is still participating however, on Friday the Council met and has now adopted an urgency ordinance delaying collection of the corridor fees for 60 days due to concerns over some of our differences of opinion with the city of Irvine over the eventual alignment of the corridor.- Tustin desires to see the corridor intersect 1-5 east of ~jnu~es omm ss on. Oecemb 23, Myford Road and then proceed north up and over the ridge line of Lomas de Santiago foothills. 1trine would prefer to see the corridor head north and then go west to the west side of Agricultural Headquarters and then come back out of East Tustin. The freeway would go right through the neighborhood commercial area. Our Council is opposed to that and as of today the two cities are not agreeing on alignment and we are not happy about participating in the JPA. AD~OURggEgT Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn at 8:02 p.m. to continue the East Tustin s[udy session (completed at 8:50 p.m.); and, then to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. KATHY W£IL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: ONNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONHENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JANUARY 13, 1986 AHENDIqENT TO USE PEP, HIT 80-17 BILL TAYLOR OF TAYLOR'S RESTAURANT EDGAR PANKY 1542 EL CAHINO REAL (FORHERLY LAGUNA ROAD) RETAIL COI~ERCIAL (C-1) CATEGORICALLY EXEHPT FROH THE REQUIREHENTS ERVIRONHENTAL QUALITY ACT (CLASS INCREASE THE ARCADE ROOH BY 320 SQUARE FEET OF THE CALIFORNIA RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Deny the request for the additional square footage for the arcade room and direct staff to prepare a resolution. ANALYSIS: This property was developed in the County and annexed into the City as part of Annexation No. 81B in 1977. In 1980 an application was approved by the Planning Agency for a game room addition of 300 square feet. At that time the staff report did not address the non-conforming status of the building signing, the parking lot or the amount of parking spaces provided. The applicant is now requesting authorization to expand the game room by the addition of 320 square feet. During the preliminary review, Mrs. Taylor was informed that there were inadequate parking spaces available for the expansion. Later the plans were resubmitted showing that the fixed seating in the dining area was reduced to allow for the proposed expansion for the game room. The site plan now shows 30 spaces for the entire building with the breakdown as follows: 1 space per 3 seats with 84 seats = 28 spaces required. 1 space per 200 square feet of arcade at 624 square feet = 4 parking spaces i i Community Development Department Planning Commission Taylor's page two The project as it exists is deficient in the following areas: 1. No landscaping around the front of the building. 2. Parking spaces 29 and 30 take access from an adjacent property. 3. With the arcade addition, the site will be deficient by 2 parking spaces. 4. There is no landscaping along the front of the parking spaces facing E1 Camino Real. 5. The parking space for the handicapped is poorly placed because of the location in front of the trash enclosure. 6. The signing for the restaurant is non-conforming. Other departments have also commented regarding this project as follows: Police Department Attached to this report is a memo from the Police Department. Engineerin9 Department The following concerns were received from the Engineering Department: Records indicated the subject parcel has not paid Orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees. Fees in the amount of $50.00/1,000 sq. ft. of building area or $250.00, whichever is larger, and any Sanitation Distri.ct front footage charge will be required at the time a building permit is issued. Additionally, this parcel may not be connected to a sanitary sewer. In the event it is not connected, connection will be required. There [nay be an East Orange County Water District fee based upon the square footage of proposed addition. If so, the Tustin Water Services must be contacted for fee information. The subject parcel will require annexation to the city of Tustin 1972 Lighting/Landscape District. A legal description and sketch of subject parcel will be required. Street light installation along Laguna Road may be required. Contact must be made with So. Calif. Edison Co. for street light layout. Community Development Department Planning CommissiOn Taylor's page three Two parking spaces (29 and 30) take access from the adjacent property. An access agreement between both affected property owners should be required to ensure permanent use of these spaces by the restaurant parcel. CONCLUSIONS: Staff has recommended denial of this project because of the non-conforming conditions existing on the site. However, the Commission may want to reconsider this request in six months if the owner would agree to: 1. Modify the signing to comply with Sign Code regulations. 2. Modify the building to comply with the Uniform Building Code. 3. Complete the Engineering Department requirements. t~AEY ANN .,J~AMBERLAIN, Associate' Planner MAC: do Community Development Department Inter-Corn TO: MARYANN CHAMBERLAIN, CO~4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: MARTHA HENSON, POLICE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO EXISTING CUP #80-17 Regarding the request by Edgar E. Pankey to increase the arcade room at Taylor's Restaurant, 1S42 Laguna Road, I have reviewed the proposed plans and visited the site. The following are my observations and recommendations. The current arcade room is quite isolated and dark. Although there are windows from the dining area of the restaurant into the arcade, visibility is poor and the lighting is very dim. There are many secluded areas in and among the game machines. There is ample concealment for illegal activity. There are currently t8 machines within this small 332' area. With even a small group of people in the room, the space would be crowded and possibly dangerous in an emergency. There is.only one door to enter or exit the arcade and it is kept closed. It seems that when the door automatically closes some type of vacuum is created within the room. ~hen I tried to exit it was very difficult to open the door and it make a loud suction-type noise. From the plans presented, it appears that the proposal is to simply double the size of the arcade. I believe this will ulti- mately double the problems described above. Instead, it would be better to leave the current arcade the size it is, eliminate 20% of the macnines, provide another emergency exit, and investigate and repair whatever duct system or vacuum environ- ment is causing the door to stick! From the plans it appears that the proposal is to basically add on a second, even more hidden room behind the current arcade. In an emergency situation people in the rear room would have only one door to exit into the original arcade where there is also only one door. Minimally, a second emergency exit should be provided in the addition, and the wall between the two arcade sections should be eliminated to provide adequate visibility throughout the area. Plexiglass from floor to ceiling in place of the wall would suffice. If you have any questions regarding these recommendations feel free to give me a call. i!l / :Ii!H:: / / / / \ ®® Repor lhe Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: JANUARY 13, 1986 /~ENDtiENT NO. I TO USE PERiIZT NO. 84-7 CALZFORNIA SUNSHINE GYMNASTICS - KAREN CRIPPS 15411 REDHILL AVENUE, UNIT D TUSTIN, CA 92680 KOLL COMPANY 1541 PARKWAY LOOP, UNIT C TUSTIN, CA 92680 15411REDHILL AVENUE, UNIT D N - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY FILED. APPROVAL OF A 1750 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION AND EXTENSION OF PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE CALIFORNIA SUNSHINE GYMNASTICS SCHOOL RECOI~ENDED ACTION: That the Planntng Commtssfon approve Amendment No. 1 to Use Permtt No. 84-7 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2292. SUMMARY: On March 12, 1984 the Planning commission approved Use Permit No. 84-7 which authorized the installation of a childrens gymnastics school in the M-Industrial zone. The approval of Use Permit No. 84-7 was subject to the following conditions: The student body was limited to 24 students per class as required by the parking standards of one loading space for every eight students; The student body was limited to children 15 years and younger in order to avoid parking problems; 3. The hours of operation were limited to 9:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in order to avoid problems with children in the parking lot after dark. , Community Development Department Planning Commission Gymnastt cs page two The applicant has requested authorization to expand the school facilities by 1,750 square feet, increase the number of students, and extend the hours of operation to 8:30 p.m. This expansion of square footage would create additional parking spaces and therefore allow for an increase in the number of students per class. ANALYSIS: On November 25, 1985 this application was heard and tabled by the Planning Commission because of a previously approved change in the M-Industrial zone uses. This change made all schools in the M-zone nonconforming uses. This problem created a need to amend the M-zone requirements. Staff has .presented this amendment to the City Council and has recently been approved. Therefore, it is now appropriate to consider the applicant's request. The 1,750 square foot expansion would allow for an additional three parking spaces. Currently, this school uses four permanent instructor spaces and three student loading spaces. Accordingly, the parking standards allow for one loading space per eight students. This expansion would allow for three additional loading spaces which would increase the student body from twenty-four to forty-eight students per class. The applicant has also requested authorization to extend the hours of operation from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. This request is a result of client demand, for most of her students are children of working parents and do attend school during the day. To this date, staff has not received any complaints regarding problems with children in the parking lot or a problem with excess parking as a result of attendance. Should an extension of the applicant's hours be approved and future problems result, the Commission would have the option to review the Use Permit and make any necessary changes. LP:do Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 23 24 ~5 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2292 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT NO. 84-7 AUTHORIZING A 1750 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING GYMNASTICS SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN AT 15411 RED HILL AVENUE, SUITES C, D AND E 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 (Amendment No. 1 to Use Permit No. 84-7) was filed by Karen Cripps requesting authorization to allow a 1750 square foot expansion of an existing gymnastics school for children at 15411 Red Hill Ave., Suites C, D and E. Be That a negative declaration has been previously applied for in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. De 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 as evidenced by the following findings: 1. The use is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and City Code zoning provisions. 2. The size of any one class shall be limited to a maximum of 48 students and 4 instructors. 3. The classes shall be limited to students 15 years of age or younger. That 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. le 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. G. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Director. 1 2 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. 2282 page two II. The Planning Commission h&reby grants a use permit, as applied for, to authorize a 1750 square foot expansion of an existing gymnastics school for children at 15411 Red Hill Avenue, Suites C, D and E subject to the following conditions: 1. That Resolution 2147 is hereby repealed and replaced with Resolution 2292. The maximum number of students permitted to participate in any one session is forty eight (48). All students shall be 15 years of age or under. Six (6) parking spaces directly in front of Suite D and E shall be identified as limited parking for loading and unloading of students. 4. All interior modifications shall comply with the Uniform Building Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal. Tenant signing shall be limited to that already approved for the center. The hours of operation be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. The applicant must sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to Building Permit Issuance. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of , 1986. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Report. to Planning the Commission ITEM NO. 5 DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIROI~ENTAL STATUS: JANUARY 13, 1986 EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COF~UNITY (TUSTIN RANCH) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1A, B, C ZONE CHANGE 86-1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE IR¥INE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA AlIA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UN]NCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LENON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST. (PC) PLANNED COf~UNITY A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMITTED FOR THIS PROJECT. RECO~ENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the following actions: 1. Accept staff report presentation. 2. Accept project manager and consultant presentation. 3. Conduct the public hearing and receive public testimony. 4. Continue the subject applications to the Commission's next meeting on January 27, 1986, thereby allowing staff and project consultants adequate time to research and answer questions raised by the Commission and community. BACKGROUND: The area known as. East Tustin geographically located east of Browning Avenue and north of I-5 was annexed to the city in the late 1970's. The property is owned by The Irvine Company and while annexed under agricultural preserve status was originally planned and zoned to be developed for residential and support commercial, public and service facilities. Community Development Deparlment fPlanni.ng Commission East Tustin page two Since the agricultural preserve status on the majority of property expired in 1984 and January, 1986, the property owner has requested permission to commence development. ResPOnding to The Irvine Company request, it is the city's intention that East Tustin be planned from its inception and not permitted to develop in a piecemeal unplanned fashion. To implement this policy, a public-private partnership was formed by establishment of a Steering Committee to direct preparation of the East Tustin plan. The East Tustin Steering Committee was formed in March 1983 and originally comprised of the following members: Don Saltarelli, Councilman; Richard Edgar, Councilman; Jim Sharp, Planning Commission Chairman; Bill Huston, City Manager; Don Lamm, Director of Community Development; Monica Florian, Vice President, The .Irvtne Company; Rick Cermack, Director, The Irvtne Company; and, Coralee Newman, Manager, The Irvine Company. The Steering Committee retained a consultant team under direction of Larry Webb, J.L. Webb Planning, project manager, and monitored ongoing preparation of the land plan and support documents. The city Community Development staff provided a secondary overview of the consultant team and implemented Steering Committee direction. After 2-1/2 years of preparation, a concept land use plan was brought forth to the public in a "Town Hall Meeting" on March 27, lg85. Responding where possible to community concerns, the land use plan has been modified over that viewed at the Town Hall Meeting. Secondly, the specific plan text has now been prepared along with the necessary draft Environmental Impact Report and its support technical studies. Lastly, a development agreement contractually binding Irvine Company commitments and city approvals, while not submitted at this time, will ultimately be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration. During the month of December, 1985, Planning Commission study sessions were conducted to review the background and substance of the East Tustin plan. The purpose of the Commission's meeting on January 13th is to receive staff, consultant and public testimony and eventually formulate a Pecommended position to the City Council. While draft EIR #85-2 is submitted for Commission consideration, the public review period remains open until January 31, 1986. Therefore, the Commission will not make a final recommendation concerning the EIR but refer it to Council with opinions concerning it's ultimate certification. Any member of the community still wishing to address the adequacy of the environmental document may do so prior to January 31, 1986. PtJ~N ANALYSIS: The processing of the East Tustin Specific Plan is actually composed of several individual procedures. Attached to this staff report is a copy of the public hearing notice outlining General Plan Amendment 86-1 A, B, and C which proposes amendments to the Land Use, Circulation and Seismic Safety Elements. These Community Development Department //"~Plannlng Commission East Tustin page three amendments are necessary to ensure conslstancy between the city's General Plan and ultimate zoning and development of the property. Secondly, Zone Change 86-1 Is proposed Incorporating minor changes to the property zoning from its present designation of (PC) Planned Community ~o Planned Community-Residential, Commercial, Community Facilities and Mixed Use. The Zone Change is simply a refinement of the present Planned Community zoning. Specific Plan No. 8 Is the actual land use regulatory document containing policy statements of the city in Section 2 of said document and zoning development standards in Section 3. [t is this plan that more definitively indicates types and density of residential development and approximate locations of community parks, schools, an 18 hole golf course, support commercial shopping centers and office complexes. Lastly, draft EIR 85-2 provides the envtronmentel analysis for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan applications. Due to the extensive detail presented In the specific plan and environmental documents, a comprehensive presentation will be made at the Commission's meeting on January 13th. $~aff and consultants will be prepared to 'address the Commission's questions at that time.. Hopefully to address as ~any advance questlons as possible, members of the consultant team and Steertng Committee met with community groups that expressed tnterest In the project. Meetings were .conducted wtth the Foothtll Community Association of North Tustln, the North Tusttn Municipal Advisory Council, the Tusttn Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee, the 8elwtck Homeowners Association and additional meetings are planned with other homeowner associations adjoining the East Tustin area. In addition, 340 public hearing notices were mailed in accordance with State law to all property owners within 300 feet adjoining the East Tustin project area. Newspaper articles have been published announcing the meeting on January 13th and the availability of the Specific Plan and environmental documents at the Tusttn Branch Library, City Hall and Police Department. While the plan may be purchased at City Hall, a summary report is available free of charge. CONCLUSZON$: Development of East Tustfn will obviously impact surrounding communities in both Tustin and the County area of north Tusttn. However, the subject area has had an urban designation status since 1973, and the expiration of the agricultural preserve would mean the ultimate conversion of the land to urban uses in accordance with a master plan. Reacting to this fate, the city/Steering Committee has strived to produce a plan with the proper balance of land uses and one whose fiscal impact will not be detrimental to Tustin. The balanced land use plan includes public and private parks whose acreage is nearly double that existing in Tustin. Sites are also being reserved for public Community Development Department Planntng Commission East Tustl n page four schools and commercial shopping centers to provide convenient services to those new residents of our community. The majority of heavier commercial and employment based businesses (research and .development) are located adjoining the 1-5 freeway. This balanced plan, therefore, provides both local employment and a variety of housing opportunities from rental apartments to estate size homes tn the foothills. The East Tustin plan represents countless hours of staff, property owner and consultant time over the past three years. While it cannot address every single concern raised by the community, hopefully it is the best and most practical alternative. Therefore, the East Tusttn Steering Committee recommends adoption of this plan by both the Planning Commission and City Council subject to substantial mitigation measures and contractual obligations between' the city and The Irvine Company. Director of Community Development Senior Planner DOL:do attach: land use map project summary public hearing notice DEIR with appendices ETSP Community Development Department ~T ~T~ .~,::~ , ~ ;.__~ ~'~ 00~ ~ ~~0~ LAND USE PLAN ~ ~ ~ PRO~ECT SUI~IARY The proposed land use plan encompasses approximately 1,740 acres of level and hilly terratn. Over 70 percent of the site is relatively flat (0 to 5 percent slope) or 1,218 acres, with the remaining 522 acres made up of htllside terrain with slopes ranging from $ to over 30 percent slope. Leve] portions are situated in the southern acres, with hil)y terrain in the northern acres. The east and west branch of the Peters Canyon Wash extend from the northern reaches of the area, exiting into the City of Irvlne sphere of influence northerly of Irvine Boulevard. At this time, the area is completely undeveloped, primarily supporting agricultural uses. The statistical summary of the proposed plan includes: Land Use Designation Acreage Resi dentlal Estate (up to 2 du/ac) Low (upto 5 du/ac) Medium Low (up to 10 du/ac) Medium (up to 18 du/ac) Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac) 415 287 50 239 178 Open Space Public Neighborhood Parks* Community Parks Golf Course 14 37 150 Commercial/Business Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Mixed Use 10 31 121 Institutional Elementary Schools* Intermediate Schools High School 58 15 40 Other Uses Roads (arterial and major only**) 101 Certain park and school site acreages have not been established. Such acreage will be taken from residential land use area. ** Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major roads, has been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses. The proposed plan would permit a maximum of 7,950 dwelling units divided among twelve separate sectors. Ten of the sectors permit residential development, and each is divided into land use types with a maximum density allowable for each type. Additionally, each sector is given a total number of dwelling units, although units may be transferred from sector to sector, subject to certain criteria. With the exception of units transferred by Tentative Tract 12345, the maximum number of dwelling units for the specific plan area can not exceed 7,950 units. OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn, California, will conduct a public hearing on January 13, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, to consider the following: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a,b,c An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Montca Florian on behalf of The Irvtne Company, requesting an amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tustin area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south; existing residential development in the city of Tusttn and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west; unincorporated land to the north; and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Rd.) for the city of Irvine to the east encompassing approximately 1,740 acres. a) 86-1a: An amendment to the Land Use Map, to change the current designation of Residential Single Family, Commercial, Public and Institutional, and Planned Community, to Planned Community/Residential, Planned Community/Commercial, Golf Course, and Public and Institutional, which can have a suffix of open space, school, community park, neighborhood park or regional park. The Planned Community designation requires the submission of detailed development regulations. b) 86-1b: An amendment to the circulation element of the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tusttn area, described above. Amendments to the current circulation element include: extension of La Colina from Browning Ave. east to Future Road as a secondary road; inclusion of Myford Road north of the I-5 Freeway to the northern city boundary as a major highway to Portola Parkway, and as a primary highway from that point to the city boundary; extension of Portola Parkway to Future Road as a primary highway; and upgrading the status of E1 Camino Real/Laguna Road to a secondary highway from Red Hill Avenue east to Myford Road. c) 86-1c: An amendment to the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tusttn area, described above. The amendment incorporates language and policies regarding the status of the E1Modena Fault. The subject fault has been identified in EIR 85-2, and may be active, based upon further investigation. General Plan policies in this regard will require these further studies prior to construction. If it is concluded that the fault can be considered active, additional detailed analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact location and extent of the fault. This investigation will serve to define the location and width of a structural setback zone for the fault, in keeping with state law requirements. 2. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company requesting an amendment to the zone designation for the East Tustin area, bounded by the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the January 13, 1986 notice page two unincorporated community of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west; unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line {Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east, encompassing approximately 1,740 acres from elanned Community to Planned Community/Residential, Planned Community/Commercial, Planned- Community/Community Facilities, and Planned Community/Mixed Use. These zone designations require the submission of detailed development regulations, and will be governed by the East Tustin Specific Plan text and land use maps. 3. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN An application filed Jointly by the city of Tustin and Montca Flortan on behalf of The IrVtne Company, requesting the implementation of a specific plan; prepared in accordance with Government Code 65450 et.seq, for the East Tusttn area, bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tusttn and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and untncorpdrated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. The area encompasses approximately 1,740 acres. The specific plan will permit the construction of 7,950 dwelling units over 1,169 acres in density ranges including Estate (2.0 du/ac), Low (5.0 du/ac), Medium Low (10 du/ac), Medium (18 du/ac), Medium High (25 du/ac). Supporting these dwelling units will be a public parks system including 37 acres of community parks and 14 acres of public neighborhood parks, including approximately five elementary school sites, an intermediate school site, and a high school site. The Peters Canyon trail system is included, along with the possibility of a regional park in the northern part of the plan. The plan also includes a 10 acre neighborhood commercial site, a 31 acre general commercial site, and a 121 acre mixed use area, which encompasses retail commercial uses, a hotel/motel, and office/research and development uses. A 150 acre golf course is also 'included within the Planning area. The plan includes the planning and improvements for the areas circulation system, water, sewer, utilities and drainage. Development within the specific plan area will be governed by the East Tustin Specific Plan text and related exhibits. The text includes policies and guidelines, as well as development standards, regulations and administrative procedures. The land use plan and text are on file With the city, and may be reviewed either at the Community Development Oepartment or the Tustin Branch Library, adjoining the civic center. A draft Environmental Impact Report (85-2) has been prepared for the actions noted above, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A copy of this document is on file in both the Community Developn,~nt Department and the Tusttn Branch Library, 345 East Main Street. Information relative to these items is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the above hearings may appear and be heard at the time and place noted above or may call the Community Development Department at (714) 544-8890 ext. 250. ~Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Publish: Tusttn News January 2, lgB6 Report ~o the Planning Commission 3anuary 13, 1986 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - January 6, 1986 Oral presentattofl to be gtven by Donald O. Lane, Otrector of Comuntty Oevelopmnt do Attachaents: Ctty Council Actton Agenda - 3anuary 6, 1986 Community Development Department 7:01 I. ACI'ION AGENOA OF A REGULAR I~EL:TING OF l}lE TUSTIN CIl~f COUNCIL JANUARY 6, 1986 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL III. PROCLAMATION PROCLAMATIO# i. LOUIE'S BARBER' SHOP - TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY YEAR ISSUED TO LOUIE PRINOIPATO IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS APPROVED APPEAL INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 963 1. APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON USE PERMIT NO. 85-28 - MOBIL OIL COMPANY, 17241 IRVI'NE BOULEVARD Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. 2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 85-7 - REVISIONS TO COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS - ORDINANCE NO. 963 5 MINOTE RECESS ORDINANCE NO. 963 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO COMMERCIAL PARKING STANDARDS V. ORAL PRESENTATION PRESENTATION GIVEN 1. BOTTLENECK FEASIBILITY STUDY - SHARON GREENE, ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTA- BY SI~RRON GREEN TION COMMISSION DL:liEY ADN4S VI. PUBLIC INPUT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO FORTUNE ll~LLING ORDII%RNCES VII. CONSENT CALENDAR APPROVED 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 16, 1985, REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1985, SPECIAL MEETING APPROVED 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $938,928.58 APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,875.00 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $128,389.98 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,896.71 APPROVED STAFF 3. RECOI,~ENOATIO# REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 85-48; CLAIMANT: GARY J. BOYKO; DATE OF LOSS: 8/23/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 11/19/85 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. APPROVED STAFF 4. RECOMIWENOATION REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 85-49; CLAIMANT: ARTHUR WILLIAM BAUER; DATE OF LOSS: 8/23/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 12/2/85 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. ADOPTED RESOLUTION 5. NO. 86-2 RESOLUTION NO. 86-2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IlJSTIN, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 85-196 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF VALENCIA AND DEL AMO AVENUES Adopt Resolution No. 86-2 as recommended by the Community Development Department. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 1 1-6-86 ~OPTED RESOLUTION 6. RESOLUTION NO. 86-3 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NO. 86-3 TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP 85-197 LOCATED AT 1361 VALENCIA AVENUE Adopt Resolution No. 86-3 as recommended by the Community Development Department. ADOPTEI) RESOLtFFION 7. NO. 86-4 APPROVED STAFF 8. RECONPENDATION APPROVED STAFF 9. RECONI~ENOATION RESOLUTION NO. 86-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ENCOURAGING THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REVISION TO THE RULE 20A ALLOCATION FORMULA FOR UNDERGROUNDING OF ELECTRICAL POWER LINES Adopt Resolution No. 86-4 as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. RESCO DEVELOPMENT Approve the Developer Participation Agreement between the City and Red Hill Edinger Partnership and authorize its execution by the Mayor and City Clerk as recommended by the Community Development Department. RESCO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Approve the agreement between the City and RESCO Development Company for payment of circulation improvement fees for the Chelsea Cafe at 1481 Edinger Avenue; and authorize its execution by the Mayor as recommended by the Community Development Department. VIII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION None. IX. ADOPTED ORDINANCE 1. NO. 957 CONTINUED 2. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION ZONING ORDINANCE A/4ENDMENT NO. 85-6 - LOCATION OF SCHOOL USES IN PROFESSIONAL/INDUSTRIAL ZONES - ORDINANCE NO, 957 ORDINANCE NO. 957 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 85-6 AUTHORIZING SCHOOL USES, SUB- JECT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, IN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (Pr) AND INDUSTRIAL.(M} DISTRICTS Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 957 have second reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 957 be passed and adopted. (Roll Call Vote) AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE - REGULATIONS OF FORTUNE TELLING BUSINESSES - ORDINANCES NO. 958, NO. 959 AND NO. 960 ORDINANCE NO. 958 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, (ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 85-9) AMENDING SEC- TION 9232b AND SECTION 9233c OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO THE OPERATION OF FORTUNE-TELLING BUSINESSES ORDINANCE NO. 959 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2523 OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE (FOR- TUNE TELLING} ORDINANCE NO. 960 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CAJ. IFORNIA REGARDING THE PRACTICE OF FORTUNE-TELLING CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 2 1-6-86 ~ ~DOPTE]) ORDINANCE O. 961 3. FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 10) - ORDINANCE NO. 961 ORDINANCE NO. 961 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SECTIONS OF THE FIRST STREET SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION APPROVED STAFF RECOI~IENDATION APPROVED STAFF 3. RECOI~ENDATION ADOPTED RESOLUTION 4. NO. 86-5 OLD BUSINESS' None. NEW BUSINESS 1. INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING SIGNS FOR STREET SWEEPING PURPOSES (ROSELEAF AVENUE, PACIFIC STREET & MIMOSA LANE) Recommendation: Authorize the installation of no parking signs for street sweeping purposes from 6:00 a.m. to Noon on Fridays on Roseleaf Avenue between Yorba Street and Mimosa Lane, Pacific Street northerly of Roseleaf Avenue, and Mimosa Lane between Vinewood and northerly of Rose- leaf Avenue. 2. INSTALLATION OF NO PARKING SIGNS FOR STREET SWEEPING PURPOSES (SAN JUAN STREET, MYRTLE AVENUE & MITCHELL AVENUE) Recommendation: Authorize installation of no parking signs for street sweeping purposes as recommended by the Engineering Division as follows: 1) 15962 and 16002 Myrtle Avenue between 6:00 a.m. to Noon on Monday; 2) 1777 Mitchell Avenue between 6:00 a.m. to Noon on Monday; and 3) Northerly side of San Juan Street between Red Hill Avenue and 620 ~ feet' easterly between 6:00 a.m. to Noon on Thursday REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF NO PARKING SIGNS FOR STREET SWEEPING ON BOTH SIDES OF PASADENA AVENUE FROM 15500 PASADENA TO 15657 PASADENA Recommendation: Deny the request for removal of no parking signs for street sweeping purposes on both sides of Pasadena Avenue from 15500 Pasadena to 15657 Pasadena as recommended by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS - POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING EXPAN- SION OF OUTSIDE PROPERTY STORAGE AREA - RESOLUTION NO. 86-5 RESOLUTION NO. 86-5 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BUILDING EXPANSION OF THE PROPERTY STORAGE AREA - POLICE DEPARTMENT FACILITY AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 86-5 as recommended by the Chief of Police. RATIFIED XII. REPORTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - DECEMBER 23, 1985 All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 3 1-6-86 TI'ORNEY XIII. OTHER BUSINESS .EQUESTEO 'PrL~T THE BIO PRE¥IOUSLY AWARDED TO FLEMING ElilaINEERING CO. BE REJECT1ED BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT COMPLY WITH INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND THE BIO BE AWARDED TO SECONO HIGI4EST BIDDER SUlly MILLER CO. IF FLEI4ING IS NOT ABLE TO )lEEl' INSURARCE REQUIREMENTS BY 5 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, JAN. 8TH. CLOSED SESSION REQUESTED REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS IN THE LOPEZ-POTTS COMPLAINT. APPROVED STAFF RECOI~4ENOATION REGARDING BY-LAWS FOR OILANGE COUNTY CITY SELECTION CO)~II1-FEE. AT KENNEDY'S REQUEST, OALE WICK TO SENO LETTER REGAROING PROBLEMS WITH ll~INS. 8:35 P.M. RECESSED TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~EETING. 8:47 P.M. RECONVENED AS CITY COUNCIL INFOPJ~AL PRESENTATION OF I~RKETING POLICY IN llJSTIN BY CORA NEW)LAN AND ROBIN W~IITESIDE OF I'HE IRVINE COMPANY. 9:11 P.M. XIV. ADJOURNED TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR LEGAL MATTERS REGARDING LOPEZ AND POTTS COMPLAINT AND THENCE TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON MONDAY, JANUARY 20, 1986, AT 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 1-6-86 ACTION AGENOA OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT /~ENCY JANUARY 6, 1986 7:00 P.M. 8:35 1. CALL TO ORDER AJ..L PRESENT APPROVED ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OECEMBER 16, 1985, REGULAR MEETING A~PROVEI) 4. RESCO DEVELOPMENT b'TAFF RECO)~4ENDATION Will4 THE CO~LETION OF ONE HALF OF THE JOB. AUDITION THAT THE CITY COULD AUTHORIZE 50% PAYMENT UPON Recommendation: Approve the Development Participation Agreement between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and the Red Hill Edinger Partnership; and authorize its execution by the Agency Chairman and Secretary as recommended by the Community Development Department. (See City Council Agenda, 'Consent Cal- endar Item No. 8 for Agreement.) NONE 5. OTHER BUSINESS 8:39 6. ADJOURNMENT To the next Regular Meeting on Monday, January 20, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page 1 1-6-86